Said it before and agree with HonkyTonkFlash, glad he gets the idea, can we get back on track? Stop the bickering with Mathijs, if you disagree with him use one up manship, just don't respond here. Leave Taylor out of the thread all together. he certainly wasn't mentioned in the opening post or title of the thread. If you want to discuss faults or comparisons of the two guitarists there are countless other threads where this is done. This thread is about Ronnie Wood Solos some of us like. If you don't have any, the thread shouldn't concern you enough to post, least of all to tell those of us that have a RW solo we like how we don't know what we are talking about. LETS BE POSITIVE!

I had forgotten that live solo with the CORRS, absolutely stunning

What took some people to slag Tayor off was that some started to slag Ronnie off first, saying rubbish like "there are no great Ronnie solos" etc etc.

They're both great and thank God they are different.

Hot Stuff is indeed excellent there. Mot cooking track on the album.

Hey Negrita live and on B&B too. Now THAT is good Ronnie lead.
But I'm worried about being on thread here ..... ergo ....

Taylor's rhythm on Neighbourhood Bully (Infidels - Bob Dylan).

Taylor's tour in '84 with Dylan. Highway 61 - ROCK ON MICKY!

So most stones fans who consider T a lead 'noodler' just don't know their Taylor cannon.

Ok, great Ronnie solos - nah - I still prefer his fresh approach of jingly lead riffing in the Faces - You Can Make Me Dance, Sing or Any Old Thing.
To be resumed on his solo work - I Can feel the Fire.
His first two solo albums are about the best of the Stones solo work - leading straight into Black and Blue work - Fool To Cry being the first fruit of Keith/Ronnie dual lead in stones context. magic.
Mre of his quirky Faces-style jittery circular riffing stuff - Cracking Up - Everything is Turning - Some Girls track . But they are not solos - but those are where is character and special contribution lies in the Stones.

Do we have to get hung up on solos?
Taylor has solo albums too - and you know what? He plays rhythm on them.

Taylor, Wood, Richards - good all-round guitarists. Period.

And of the three Wood is the most prolific and I think accomplished solo songwriter.

Back on thread - I love his solo on Terrifying - very contextual - working so well with the percussive and mesmeric xylophone groove.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 02:02 by Deluxtone.

Quote
Deluxtone
Actually I think that Mick Jagger is a better rhythm player in the Stones than Ronnie but he's never given the chance on stage!

(Stop Breaking Down, Sway, Crazy Mama, Sad Sad Sad to mention a few).

Mick J on lead - now that Wood be interesting though!

I know, I know, separate thread. 'Sorry'.

I think that if Mathijs had been younger and become fan of the Stones in the Taylor years and seen them live then first - ie his seminal Stones live moment - then that would have stuck with him so strongly that he wold not have difficulty accepting Taylor as a genuine Stones band guitarist.

For those who first saw the band with Ronnie in 75-76, '78, '81-82 and so on - they'll always accept Ronnie as the main 2nd man - it's such a personal thing your first Stones live show. And so to then retrospectively accept Taylor who was before your first 'conversion' experience is very difficult. Rather like having to change faith in a way. Hmmm..... a bit heavy, but you get my drift.

But taylor can play Rhythm! Broken Hands anyone?!

Totally agree about Mick J. I prefer his rhythm style to Ronnie's any day. It has bite and edge.

Quote
MadMax
What took some people to slag Tayor off was that some started to slag Ronnie off first, saying rubbish like "there are no great Ronnie solos" etc etc.

They're both great and thank God they are different.

Not on this thread. We had to endure the "Taylor can't play rhythm and was erased from Ya Yas" song and dance again, so some of us responded. It's called debate and discussion. You put up a point of view that's controversial, expect others to disagree. But actually, I don't think there are any "great" Ronnie solos. Not because anything is wrong with Ronnie, it's just that with the Stones he hasn't really been much of a soloist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 00:55 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MadMax
What took some people to slag Tayor off was that some started to slag Ronnie off first, saying rubbish like "there are no great Ronnie solos" etc etc.

They're both great and thank God they are different.

Not on this thread. We had to endure the "Taylor can't play rhythm and was erased from Ya Yas" song and dance again, so some of us responded. It's called debate and discussion. You put up a point of view that's controversial, expect others to disagree. But actually, I don't think there are any "great" Ronnie solos. Not because anything is wrong with Ronnie, it's just that with the Stones he hasn't really been much of a soloist.

He has been a lot of a soloist in the Stones. Our opinions differ on how good or great. That's the problem with opinions! I am of the opinion that he has done some very good, enjoyable solos - lots on Start Me Up for example. They can lift the song and make it special, without being jaw-dropping entities in their own right.

My opinion is that his solo on Wild Horses at Knebworth was pretty bloody good!

I used to think that his solo on YCAGWYW on LYL was Amazing and great - but really that was a product of it's time (like the solo on Hotel California) and is really very self indulgent. But there you go. Times change. Tastes change.

Timeless Stones solos? Taylor's really - they have a classical beauty and a seemless fluidity. Not just the obvious ones like on Shine A Light or TWFNO, Sway ......... but the poignat simple and short ones like on Heartbreaker and the one on Through The Lonely Nights.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 01:55 by Deluxtone.

"Not on this thread. We had to endure the "Taylor can't play rhythm and was erased from Ya Yas" song and dance again, so some of us responded. It's called debate and discussion. You put up a point of view that's controversial, expect others to disagree. But actually, I don't think there are any "great" Ronnie solos. Not because anything is wrong with Ronnie, it's just that with the Stones he hasn't really been much of a soloist."

Read the 1st page again: All is fine until someone is start slagging Ronnie off. Yes Taylor is the superior guitarist in creating Beautiful legato, fluid, etc etc decorations but we have other threads for his skills. Mathijs wanted to know your favourite Ronnie (moments) solos, decorations or whatever ya wanna call 'em.

I thought for instance I would get some responses regarding the SOL outro that Ronnie played, first a pentatonic style with 9th note during 1st part of Europe 06 until he changed it for the american part in the autumn the same year where he played a slightly more safe and boring version, for instance the Austin show.

This thread needs more Trainspotting IMHO.

Quote
MadMax


"Not on this thread. We had to endure the "Taylor can't play rhythm and was erased from Ya Yas" song and dance again, so some of us responded. It's called debate and discussion. You put up a point of view that's controversial, expect others to disagree. But actually, I don't think there are any "great" Ronnie solos. Not because anything is wrong with Ronnie, it's just that with the Stones he hasn't really been much of a soloist."

Read the 1st page again: All is fine until someone is start slagging Ronnie off. Yes Taylor is the superior guitarist in creating Beautiful legato, fluid, etc etc decorations but we have other threads for his skills. Mathijs wanted to know your favourite Ronnie (moments) solos, decorations or whatever ya wanna call 'em.

I thought for instance I would get some responses regarding the SOL outro that Ronnie played, first a pentatonic style with 9th note during 1st part of Europe 06 until he changed it for the american part in the autumn the same year where he played a slightly more safe and boring version, for instance the Austin show.

This thread needs more Trainspotting IMHO.

Threads go where they go. Maybe the lack of deep analysis of Ron Wood's solo has something to do with the quality of solos he has played over the years. That's just my guess.

To me it seems his solos rank right with his level of confidence. In the Faces, and the first few years with Stones he was brilliant. Now he has been whittled down to a hired gun, who gets 4 bars here & there. And he is just not that kind of musician. That takes away exactly the esssence of what he is about. Looseness, and kind of a shambles of bizarre timning. That solo in "Debris" is beautiful. Shows his timing where he sort of oversteps the beat, then reaches back and scoops it up from behind, toys with it, and tosses it back out.
His solo albums are a study in that.

Debris is indeed a good one!

Quote
MadMax


"Not on this thread. We had to endure the "Taylor can't play rhythm and was erased from Ya Yas" song and dance again, so some of us responded. It's called debate and discussion. You put up a point of view that's controversial, expect others to disagree. But actually, I don't think there are any "great" Ronnie solos. Not because anything is wrong with Ronnie, it's just that with the Stones he hasn't really been much of a soloist."

Read the 1st page again: All is fine until someone is start slagging Ronnie off. Yes Taylor is the superior guitarist in creating Beautiful legato, fluid, etc etc decorations but we have other threads for his skills. Mathijs wanted to know your favourite Ronnie (moments) solos, decorations or whatever ya wanna call 'em.

I thought for instance I would get some responses regarding the SOL outro that Ronnie played, first a pentatonic style with 9th note during 1st part of Europe 06 until he changed it for the american part in the autumn the same year where he played a slightly more safe and boring version, for instance the Austin show.

This thread needs more Trainspotting IMHO.

ok. Interesting points. Will have a look back at your post.
Most people think that SOL is such crap song that maybe that's why they didn't respond. But it was oddly the highlight of the 2006 shows.

Regarding your preliminary response to Tele71, it was infact the author of this thread who felt it necessary to mention Taylor in the leading post and by comparison praise Ronnie as the all-round band man. That's his premise. It should not be necessary to introduce that on a thread which is ostensibly about Ronnie Wood solos. So Mathijs got the responses he got.

But I, like many others, am an admirer of Mathijs' deep knowledge and passion for guitars and who played what where. He has much to offer.
And I remember well how he rubbished Ronnie's live playing at a particular French Licks date - Ronnie being completely pissed (= drunk)and playing air guitar. So mathijs cares about the band and expects high standards from Ronnie too.

Ronnie has to be greatly admired for pulling himself together, raising his standard, keeping things live and kicking when Stones aren't active and very, very much for facilitating the Taylor come-back. So good old Woody. He feels like playing. They rehearse hard, they work out what they want to play and how to arrange the songs. I think his best work was with the Faces - but so what - we are so bloody lucky that they are still at it - in any form.

And yes, he's done some good solos in the Stones. I hope now to stop typing and listen to some that DP and others have posted here.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 10:38 by Deluxtone.

Ron is not a very good solist, that's all IMO. Mick Taylor was. Inspired, melodic, in all styles (blues, rock'n roll, even mind-blowing (TWFNO).

1997
Keith Richards"His touch, his tone, and his melodic ideas wowed me. I never understood why he left..."

After 12 pages of debating, it is very simple. I am not anti-Taylor, I don't have a secret agenda, I don't have aything against him. I just find him a lousy rhythm player, I don't like his solo's in 1970 and 1971 all that much (it doesn't fit the Stones in my opinion) and I think the band was a better band from 1975 to 1982.

Mathijs
Ps I don't like Van Gogh. I fail to see what's so special about him, and I wouldn't want to hang anything by Van Gogh in my house.

No problem Mathijs... I love Ron playing in the Faces. "Miss Judy's Farm" !!!!

About the Stones, Charlie opinion is mine...

Charlie Watts says the Rolling Stones peaked when Mick Taylor was in the band

[www.examiner.com]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 11:53 by Powerage.

Quote
RobertJohnson
The best solution to close this thread is: a three guitar band consisting of Keith, Ronnie and Mick Taylor ...

Yeah and they could cover "Don't Fear The Reaper" and "OD on Life" ><

Quote
Mathijs

On Ya-Ya's there's not one rythm part of Taylor that is memorable. They even overdubbed Taylor's rhythm parts on Carol and Queenie.

Mathijs

That's must have been a big blow to the ego for the man. From being the whiz kid in Mayall's band* to the guy who gets his rythmn parts erased and redone late 69...

(* = listen to the Zurich'69 aud tape posted here MT is free to do whatever he wants like looong extended solos on about every track. He's the star of the show)

Quote
dcba

Quote
Mathijs

On Ya-Ya's there's not one rythm part of Taylor that is memorable. They even overdubbed Taylor's rhythm parts on Carol and Queenie.

Mathijs

That's must have been a big blow to the ego for the man. From being the whiz kid in Mayall's band* to the guy who gets his rythmn parts erased and redone late 69...

(* = listen to the Zurich'69 aud tape posted here MT is free to do whatever he wants like looong extended solos on about every track. He's the star of the show)

We don't know the reasons for that, though. Could have been an amp mic that fell down, or something.

I'm pretty sure Taylor never gave that a thought...

He was good... but not as good as Taylor on Love in Vain... even in 1971











Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 13:15 by Powerage.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Mathijs

On Ya-Ya's there's not one rythm part of Taylor that is memorable. They even overdubbed Taylor's rhythm parts on Carol and Queenie.

Mathijs

That's must have been a big blow to the ego for the man. From being the whiz kid in Mayall's band* to the guy who gets his rythmn parts erased and redone late 69...

(* = listen to the Zurich'69 aud tape posted here MT is free to do whatever he wants like looong extended solos on about every track. He's the star of the show)

Frank Zappa left the rythmn parts to other guitarists as well.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Smoking Stones are posters on this board, kleerie

They're a good band, too.

Are they really posters here? Yeah, a good cover band. Saw them in Barcelona ten years ago.

But back to topic. The "Luxury" clips you Dandie put in some other thread had nice solos with a bite.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 14:00 by Doxa.

Quote
Deluxtone

I think that if Mathijs had been younger and become fan of the Stones in the Taylor years and seen them live then first - ie his seminal Stones live moment - then that would have stuck with him so strongly that he wold not have difficulty accepting Taylor as a genuine Stones band guitarist.

For those who first saw the band with Ronnie in 75-76, '78, '81-82 and so on - they'll always accept Ronnie as the main 2nd man - it's such a personal thing your first Stones live show. And so to then retrospectively accept Taylor who was before your first 'conversion' experience is very difficult. Rather like having to change faith in a way. Hmmm..... a bit heavy, but you get my drift.

There is a lot of wisdom here. Since the stuff the Stones did in 1978-83 was basically the thing that got me hooked, it's pretty hard to be critical towards it. But had I've been raised earlier, say 1969-73, and that incarnation defining my love for the band, it could easily been that I might have had a more critical attitude towards Wood years. Who knows. And probably if I had been get to know the band from 1989 on, pretty much based on the mega live shows they have since then done, I probably would not be so critical towards that reincarnation as I tend to be. I can't help that wild, lively guitar-driven sounds from 1978-82 still somehow lead my thinking of how the Stones could or even should sound... The band just didn't in the long run develop to direction I would like them to do.

Anyway, before I joined IORR I didn't even know that there is a Taylor-Wood debate, and actually so many people 'missing' the Taylor years... Far more than those of having that feel for Jones years. But the people having different perspectives and "conversion experiences" makes this place so lively and interesting.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 14:34 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Deluxtone

I think that if Mathijs had been younger and become fan of the Stones in the Taylor years and seen them live then first - ie his seminal Stones live moment - then that would have stuck with him so strongly that he wold not have difficulty accepting Taylor as a genuine Stones band guitarist.

For those who first saw the band with Ronnie in 75-76, '78, '81-82 and so on - they'll always accept Ronnie as the main 2nd man - it's such a personal thing your first Stones live show. And so to then retrospectively accept Taylor who was before your first 'conversion' experience is very difficult. Rather like having to change faith in a way. Hmmm..... a bit heavy, but you get my drift.

There is a lot of wisdom here. Since the stuff the Stones did in 1978-83 was basically the thing that got me hooked, it's pretty hard to be critical towards it. But had I've been raised earlier, say 1969-73, and that incarnation defining my love for the band, it could easily been that I might have had a more critical attitude towards Wood years. Who knows. And probably if I had been get to know the band from 1989 on, pretty much based on the mega live shows they have since then done, I probably would not be so critical towards that reincarnation as I tend to be. I can't help that wild, lively guitar-driven sounds from 1978-82 still somehow lead my thinking of how the Stones could or even should sound... The band just didn't in the long run develop to direction I would like them to do.

Anyway, before I joined IORR I didn't even know that there is a Taylor-Wood debate, and actually so many people 'missing' the Taylor years... Far more than those of having that feel for Jones years. But the people having different perspectives and "conversion experiences" makes this place so lively and interesting.

- Doxa

I'm sure if you got hooked during the Jones or Taylor years, you would detest the period after 1974.

As for people missing Taylor in the band: look at the broader world outside Iorr, YouTube for instance. Most of those people are no hard cores, but they tell the truth.

Quote
kleermaker


As for people missing Taylor in the band: look at the broader world outside Iorr, YouTube for instance. Most of those people are no hard cores, but they tell the truth.

Don't know about the truth, but that's impression I have also had. For example, EXILE reissue and LADIES AND GENTLEMEN did much better than SOME GIRLS/TEXAS LIVE easily. Even though especially LIVE IN TEXAS was probably the biggest thing among hardcore fans as far as open the vaults go, it made a rather little impact outside the devoted Stones circles.

My theory simply is, like I argued above, that the Taylor years - including that 'unholy' lead/rhythm guitar split - speaks more international language than the more idiosyncratic 'weaving' years, which seem to need a specifically Stones-trained ears. Those not having those, might don't know that a guitar solo spoils rock music....

But of course, in a bigger picture, it is those transformative first ten years or so, which naturally make the biggest impact on 'general audience'; the most praised albums and best-know songs derive from there, and there is still so much 'mysticism' and 'novelty' involved in Stones doings, the band, without any further excuse or explanation, was relevant, genre-defining and dominant by nature, and having all that Beatle-like timeless defining the era glamour in them. And they were young and beautiful... for example, The Jagger who "Moves Like Jagger" was that of 1972, not that one with "Destroy" shirt or the one with American football trousers... I don't know how it might be in future when all is said and done, how 'my beloved' 1978-82 weaving era might look, but at the moment it does not do very well outside the devoted circles, I have sadly noticed. I think rather many would actually prefer their post-89 live doings to 78/82 one. They tend to prsent a 'better' setlist, that is, having more well-known songs, and usually performed in a familiar way, etc. And people have had 25 years to get to know how the Stones sound live.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 16:10 by Doxa.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Deluxtone

I think that if Mathijs had been younger and become fan of the Stones in the Taylor years and seen them live then first - ie his seminal Stones live moment - then that would have stuck with him so strongly that he wold not have difficulty accepting Taylor as a genuine Stones band guitarist.

For those who first saw the band with Ronnie in 75-76, '78, '81-82 and so on - they'll always accept Ronnie as the main 2nd man - it's such a personal thing your first Stones live show. And so to then retrospectively accept Taylor who was before your first 'conversion' experience is very difficult. Rather like having to change faith in a way. Hmmm..... a bit heavy, but you get my drift.

There is a lot of wisdom here. Since the stuff the Stones did in 1978-83 was basically the thing that got me hooked, it's pretty hard to be critical towards it. But had I've been raised earlier, say 1969-73, and that incarnation defining my love for the band, it could easily been that I might have had a more critical attitude towards Wood years. Who knows. And probably if I had been get to know the band from 1989 on, pretty much based on the mega live shows they have since then done, I probably would not be so critical towards that reincarnation as I tend to be. I can't help that wild, lively guitar-driven sounds from 1978-82 still somehow lead my thinking of how the Stones could or even should sound... The band just didn't in the long run develop to direction I would like them to do.

Anyway, before I joined IORR I didn't even know that there is a Taylor-Wood debate, and actually so many people 'missing' the Taylor years... Far more than those of having that feel for Jones years. But the people having different perspectives and "conversion experiences" makes this place so lively and interesting.

- Doxa

I'm sure if you got hooked during the Jones or Taylor years, you would detest the period after 1974.

As for people missing Taylor in the band: look at the broader world outside Iorr, YouTube for instance. Most of those people are no hard cores, but they tell the truth.

I got hooked during the Wood years and I enjoy the first Wood era a lot but of course I cannot play any of it to someone who isn't a fan, without explaining what's good about it. Like Doxa pointed out. Exceptions are Beast of Burden, Worried about you, Start me Up and Miss you. Taylor or Jones years? I just play a song no excuses needed. Most of those songs - live or studio - are great and if not, it's the song, not the musicianship.

Quote
71Tele

Threads go where they go. Maybe the lack of deep analysis of Ron Wood's solo has something to do with the quality of solos he has played over the years. That's just my guess.

><

But, kleerie, those are just general observations about 'casual' fans. The point is that if the issue between Taylor (1969-73) and Wood (1975-83) eras would be settled among the hardcore fans by the way the real men do, that is, by Roman-Greco Wrestling, we Woodities would kick the asses of you Taylorites! Not that there is more of us, we tend to be little younger...><

But back to Woodies solos..

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 16:36 by Doxa.

I enjoy the moonshine of 1975-1982 but if I want to make an impression I open up a 1969 Let it Bleed, a GHS, a glass of Exile, Moonlight Mile and the Unreleased live 1972.

to me, Ronnie's solos are better than Mick Taylor's ones when it comes to bottleneck's solos, especially on Happy.
For traditionnal solos, Mick Taylor is probably better than Ronnie...I think of Gimme Shelter, Street Fighting Man (remember in Brussels....)
I think of a special number like You Can't Always Get...., I prefer Ronnie's solo in L.A 1975 and Paris 1976 than Mick Taylor's ones in 72 or 73.


All in all, I think that we're lucky to have these two guys that made the band shine.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
I enjoy the moonshine of 1975-1982 but if I want to make an impression I open up a 1969 Let it Bleed, a GHS, a glass of Exile, Moonlight Mile and the Unreleased live 1972.

But the point, in the end, is to get drunk - or even stoned - big time...

- Doxa