Isn't it funny: already 14 pages about 'Great Solos' that even don't exist.

Quote
kleermaker
Isn't it funny: already 14 pages about 'Great Solos' that even don't exist.

They exist if you listen...

I posted a 5 minute solo of YCAGWYW, and you didn't bother listening or saying anything. Why post, then?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker
Isn't it funny: already 14 pages about 'Great Solos' that even don't exist.

They exist if you listen...

I posted a 5 minute solo of YCAGWYW, and you didn't bother listening or saying anything. Why post, then?

Didn't you say yourself literally (quote):

"It depends on the song, and the solo, but yeah, several minutes solos on YCAGWYW are pointless, whether they are played by Taylor or Wood."

And now you come up with a 5 minute long solo on the same song and expect me to listen to something ultra pointless! Five whole damn minutes, much much longer than any Taylor solo with the Stones! Well, you got guts!

Nevertheless I searched for Love You Live some days ago and listened to the YCAGWYW-solo on it and I commented that his solos are pointless and don't bring any feel or emotion.

Do you really think I judge his solos without having listened to them? Come on. But I admit I don't listen to ALL of them. It would drive me insane.

I always thought that Ron's solo in this version of TD (1994) is majestic:

You searched up a solo from a Rolling Stone live album??

That says it all...

I still think 5 minutes solos are pointless, even though I've fallen in that trap myself countless times.

Yes, I suspect you're not listening - by your reactions. It's stupid to say that none of the stuff posted in this thread is great - at least without explaining why.

Do you think top blokes and fine musicians like Palace Revolution, Mathijs and liddas are fools when they say that Ronnie's playing moves them?

Being opinionated is good, but when it comes to music it usually helps to wipe away prejudice and listen - come to think of it, it's a good life rule in general

Quote
Bärs
I always thought that Ron's solo in this version of TD (1994) is majestic:

The best thing about these threads is all the links to great versions. Great link, and indeed Ronnie Wood does these sort of solos very well.

Another great one:

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You searched up a solo from a Rolling Stone live album??

That says it all...

I still think 5 minutes solos are pointless, even though I've fallen in that trap myself countless times.

Yes, I suspect you're not listening - by your reactions. It's stupid to say that none of the stuff posted in this thread is great - at least without explaining why.

Do you think top blokes and fine musicians like Palace Revolution, Mathijs and liddas are fools when they say that Ronnie's playing moves them?

Being opinionated is good, but when it comes to music it usually helps to wipe away prejudice and listen - come to think of it, it's a good life rule in general

You also have to see Ron when he's playing, that's 50 % of his game: the R&R image thing. Ron's presence is adequate within the Stones PR-machine. I am not interested in that though.There were better guitarists available to replace Taylor in 1975.

A missed opportunity from a musical point of view. Wood was a very good choice when it comes to 'showtime' though.

Quote
liddas
What I call the "two-fingers-technique" is Ronnie's way of playing with his middle finger



notes that normally are played with the ring finger. He does it all the time.

It inevitably results in a slight bend of the note/bi-chord played with the index.

Indeed the result can be stuttering at times, but greatly effective.

As for the Slavic touches, if you listen to melodies in Balkan folk music, or what is generally labelled as "gypsy" influenced music (in jazz and other genres) you know what I mean.

C

great, thanks, and DPMan too -- I'll look for this. I don't mean the "stuttering" as an insult; it's just how I describe one of the characteristics of his style. I mean, he does seem less capable of sustaining a melodic line than he certainly was at earlier points (as is keith), but I mean the stuttering as more of a rhythmic trademark throughout his playing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 17:34 by cc.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you think top blokes and fine musicians like Palace Revolution, Mathijs and liddas are fools when they say that Ronnie's playing moves them?

This thread has become utterly pointless and has gone on way too long, but for what it's worth: no-one is saying that anyone is wrong or that anyone in this thread is a fool. If you like a certain style of guitar playing above all others it can also limit your ability to appreciate other styles. I like listening to Ronnie Wood as a solo artist or with the Faces, mainly because he plays - in my view - very much better in those musical contexts. I do not like listening to him with the Stones, in part because I think they use him badly and his playing with them is generally poor per se, but also because I am such a fan of the Taylor-era Stones that it is actually very hard for me to listen to the band with Wood. They sounded incredible, to my ears, with Taylor; with Wood, I find them comparatively unpleasant to listen to. If other people dig it, good for them. Evidently lots of people do. The point I am trying to make is that I am not anti-Ronnie Wood period; on the contrary, I like him. Just not with the Rolling Stones.

I don't think the fact that Kleerie isn't a musician is relevant here: you don't need to be able to play guitar in order to be moved by the sound of the instrument, or vice versa. (I am a guitarist, by the way, and I mostly agree with what he says.) By the same token, I don't think the fact that the guys you mention are musicians lends their views on Ronnie Wood a great deal more weight. Mathijs, for instance, may very well be a fine guitarist, but his appreciation of the late 70s-early 80s Stones seems to be little more than an extension of his dislike of Mick Taylor's playing (which - as Tele correctly pointed out - is ludicrous, self-contradictory and a fairly obvious smokescreen for some weird personal vendetta he has against the guy.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 17:43 by Stoneburst.

We would need 150 pages for Mick Taylor ones...><

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker
Isn't it funny: already 14 pages about 'Great Solos' that even don't exist.

They exist if you listen...

I posted a 5 minute solo of YCAGWYW, and you didn't bother listening or saying anything. Why post, then?

Quote
Stoneburst


This thread has become utterly pointless and has gone on way too long, but for what it's worth: no-one is saying that anyone is wrong or that anyone in this thread is a fool. If you like a certain style of guitar playing above all others it can also limit your ability to appreciate other styles. I like listening to Ronnie Wood as a solo artist or with the Faces, mainly because he plays - in my view - very much better in those musical contexts. I do not like listening to him with the Stones, in part because I think they use him badly and his playing with them is generally poor per se, but also because I am such a fan of the Taylor-era Stones that it is actually very hard for me to listen to the band with Wood. They sounded incredible with Taylor; with Wood, I find them comparatively unpleasant to listen to. If other people dig it, good for them. Evidently lots of people do. The point I am trying to make is that I am not anti-Ronnie Wood period; on the contrary, I like him. Just not with the Rolling Stones.

I don't think the fact that Kleerie isn't a musician is relevant here: you don't need to be able to play guitar in order to be moved by the sound of the instrument, or vice versa. (I am a guitarist, by the way, and I mostly agree with what he says.) By the same token, I don't think the fact that the guys you mention are musicians lends their views on Ronnie Wood a great deal more weight.

Thanks for helping me out.

About the middle finger bending thing, I also think 'stuttering' is a good description. Jimmy Page uses a quite similar technique, and it definitely adds a distinctive vocal quality to his blues playing - for instance, the lead into his solo at 6.38 here and the first couple of bars thereafter:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 18:02 by Stoneburst.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, this track captures a lot of what you're describing, Tony

Hey Bard; that is one of Ronnie's better tracks; a souldful number. I have wondered how Ronnie managed to hook up with Jim Ford of all people. It seems like Ronnie has a knack for enlisting other noteworthy names in his albums.
I love the story that RW tells how he got the lyrics for "Why d'you Go & Do A Thing Like That For?"

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you think top blokes and fine musicians like Palace Revolution, Mathijs and liddas are fools when they say that Ronnie's playing moves them?

This thread has become utterly pointless and has gone on way too long, but for what it's worth: no-one is saying that anyone is wrong or that anyone in this thread is a fool. If you like a certain style of guitar playing above all others it can also limit your ability to appreciate other styles. I like listening to Ronnie Wood as a solo artist or with the Faces, mainly because he plays - in my view - very much better in those musical contexts. I do not like listening to him with the Stones, in part because I think they use him badly and his playing with them is generally poor per se, but also because I am such a fan of the Taylor-era Stones that it is actually very hard for me to listen to the band with Wood. They sounded incredible, to my ears, with Taylor; with Wood, I find them comparatively unpleasant to listen to. If other people dig it, good for them. Evidently lots of people do. The point I am trying to make is that I am not anti-Ronnie Wood period; on the contrary, I like him. Just not with the Rolling Stones.

I don't think the fact that Kleerie isn't a musician is relevant here: you don't need to be able to play guitar in order to be moved by the sound of the instrument, or vice versa. (I am a guitarist, by the way, and I mostly agree with what he says.) By the same token, I don't think the fact that the guys you mention are musicians lends their views on Ronnie Wood a great deal more weight. Mathijs, for instance, may very well be a fine guitarist, but his appreciation of the late 70s-early 80s Stones seems to be little more than an extension of his dislike of Mick Taylor's playing (which - as Tele correctly pointed out - is ludicrous, self-contradictory and a fairly obvious smokescreen for some weird personal vendetta he has against the guy.)

excellent post.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

I love the story that RW tells how he got the lyrics for "Why d'you Go & Do A Thing Like That For?"

I missed it. Where can I find it? Love that song (and a great Slash solo).

C

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You searched up a solo from a Rolling Stone live album??

That says it all...

I still think 5 minutes solos are pointless, even though I've fallen in that trap myself countless times.

Yes, I suspect you're not listening - by your reactions. It's stupid to say that none of the stuff posted in this thread is great - at least without explaining why.

Do you think top blokes and fine musicians like Palace Revolution, Mathijs and liddas are fools when they say that Ronnie's playing moves them?

Being opinionated is good, but when it comes to music it usually helps to wipe away prejudice and listen - come to think of it, it's a good life rule in general

Calling up witnesses doesn't make a strong impression. Indeed I have Love You Live on vinyl since decades, but not on my pc, so I had to search for it on YT. Not so strange because I don't like the album.

So you think 5 minutes of solo is pointless, but when Ron Wood does it then it's great (when Taylor would have done it - but he never did - it was of course overplaying of the worst kind).

I didn't say that none of the stuff posted here is great, because I didn't listen to all of it, but I have listened to the Wood-era Stones more than enough to be able to say that Wood in the Stones isn't great but sub par.

Quote
Stoneburst
I do not like listening to him [Wood} with the Stones, in part because I think they use him badly and his playing with them is generally poor per se, but also because I am such a fan of the Taylor-era Stones that it is actually very hard for me to listen to the band with Wood. They sounded incredible, to my ears, with Taylor; with Wood, I find them comparatively unpleasant to listen to. If other people dig it, good for them. Evidently lots of people do. The point I am trying to make is that I am not anti-Ronnie Wood period; on the contrary, I like him. Just not with the Rolling Stones.

I don't think the fact that Kleerie isn't a musician is relevant here: you don't need to be able to play guitar in order to be moved by the sound of the instrument, or vice versa. (I am a guitarist, by the way, and I mostly agree with what he says.) By the same token, I don't think the fact that the guys you mention are musicians lends their views on Ronnie Wood a great deal more weight. Mathijs, for instance, may very well be a fine guitarist, but his appreciation of the late 70s-early 80s Stones seems to be little more than an extension of his dislike of Mick Taylor's playing (which - as Tele correctly pointed out - is ludicrous, self-contradictory and a fairly obvious smokescreen for some weird personal vendetta he has against the guy.)

Agreed, and you also don't have to be able to read (music) notes (which I can btw, because I have played the violin).

IMO, Ronnie is a correct solist until 1989, without ever reaching Mick Taylor level and talent... After, it's another story



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 21:22 by Powerage.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you think top blokes and fine musicians like Palace Revolution, Mathijs and liddas are fools when they say that Ronnie's playing moves them?

This thread has become utterly pointless and has gone on way too long, but for what it's worth: no-one is saying that anyone is wrong or that anyone in this thread is a fool. If you like a certain style of guitar playing above all others it can also limit your ability to appreciate other styles. I like listening to Ronnie Wood as a solo artist or with the Faces, mainly because he plays - in my view - very much better in those musical contexts. I do not like listening to him with the Stones, in part because I think they use him badly and his playing with them is generally poor per se, but also because I am such a fan of the Taylor-era Stones that it is actually very hard for me to listen to the band with Wood. They sounded incredible, to my ears, with Taylor; with Wood, I find them comparatively unpleasant to listen to. If other people dig it, good for them. Evidently lots of people do. The point I am trying to make is that I am not anti-Ronnie Wood period; on the contrary, I like him. Just not with the Rolling Stones.

I don't think the fact that Kleerie isn't a musician is relevant here: you don't need to be able to play guitar in order to be moved by the sound of the instrument, or vice versa. (I am a guitarist, by the way, and I mostly agree with what he says.) By the same token, I don't think the fact that the guys you mention are musicians lends their views on Ronnie Wood a great deal more weight. Mathijs, for instance, may very well be a fine guitarist, but his appreciation of the late 70s-early 80s Stones seems to be little more than an extension of his dislike of Mick Taylor's playing (which - as Tele correctly pointed out - is ludicrous, self-contradictory and a fairly obvious smokescreen for some weird personal vendetta he has against the guy.)

But, I love their late 70s as well. of course it's a different band and they never reached that heavenly, glorious level with Ronnie. That said, there are songs like Beast of Burden, Shattered (based on a riff by Ronnie, probably), Hey Negrita (Ronnies riff) She's so cold (great licks by Ronnie). etcetc. But no, he's not a great guitarist. Not even close.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're making the classical mistake by saying what you don't like can't be good - and you're doing that without any kind of education, and completely without having any experience on the subject guitar playing.

That's wonder child-like

You're totally wrong and obviously didn't understand my logical reasoning at all. It was Matthijs that made that classical mistake and I revealed that. And now you're saying that I made that mistake. You're mixing me up with Matthijs, which is the most illogical thing possible!

But if it is common acceptance that mr. Wood belongs to the greatest guitarists ever, in the category of Jimi H., M. Taylor, Peter G., David G. and the likes, then you're right. But we know both that he doesn't belong to that category and that he isn't the Van Gogh amongst the guitarists. Or the Bach if you prefer that.

You're easily in the minority, kleerie, with your attitude toward Ronnie. If you ask professional musicians, the answer would be different - and with respect, lots of respect.

Eh, no.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you think top blokes and fine musicians like Palace Revolution, Mathijs and liddas are fools when they say that Ronnie's playing moves them?

This thread has become utterly pointless and has gone on way too long, but for what it's worth: no-one is saying that anyone is wrong or that anyone in this thread is a fool. If you like a certain style of guitar playing above all others it can also limit your ability to appreciate other styles. I like listening to Ronnie Wood as a solo artist or with the Faces, mainly because he plays - in my view - very much better in those musical contexts. I do not like listening to him with the Stones, in part because I think they use him badly and his playing with them is generally poor per se, but also because I am such a fan of the Taylor-era Stones that it is actually very hard for me to listen to the band with Wood. They sounded incredible, to my ears, with Taylor; with Wood, I find them comparatively unpleasant to listen to. If other people dig it, good for them. Evidently lots of people do. The point I am trying to make is that I am not anti-Ronnie Wood period; on the contrary, I like him. Just not with the Rolling Stones.

I don't think the fact that Kleerie isn't a musician is relevant here: you don't need to be able to play guitar in order to be moved by the sound of the instrument, or vice versa. (I am a guitarist, by the way, and I mostly agree with what he says.) By the same token, I don't think the fact that the guys you mention are musicians lends their views on Ronnie Wood a great deal more weight. Mathijs, for instance, may very well be a fine guitarist, but his appreciation of the late 70s-early 80s Stones seems to be little more than an extension of his dislike of Mick Taylor's playing (which - as Tele correctly pointed out - is ludicrous, self-contradictory and a fairly obvious smokescreen for some weird personal vendetta he has against the guy.)

You agree with kleerie? He said there were NO great Ronnie-solos with or WITHOUT the Stones.

I don't think one has be a musician to enjoy, judge or explain music. Not at all. But I do think it's pretty arrogant dissing the fans who enjoy the solos we're posting in this thread, saying that everybody needs to understand that this is average to poor.

Statements like that call for explaining, something kleerie and others can improve drastically - or move to another thread.

Posters like Tele and LuxuryStones at least have the decency to explain and tell what they like and don't like - and why.

As long as there are great Ronnie-solos to post, this thread still has its purpose, imo. Why should Taylorites or others who don't like Wood have the right to close it down?

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're making the classical mistake by saying what you don't like can't be good - and you're doing that without any kind of education, and completely without having any experience on the subject guitar playing.

That's wonder child-like

You're totally wrong and obviously didn't understand my logical reasoning at all. It was Matthijs that made that classical mistake and I revealed that. And now you're saying that I made that mistake. You're mixing me up with Matthijs, which is the most illogical thing possible!

But if it is common acceptance that mr. Wood belongs to the greatest guitarists ever, in the category of Jimi H., M. Taylor, Peter G., David G. and the likes, then you're right. But we know both that he doesn't belong to that category and that he isn't the Van Gogh amongst the guitarists. Or the Bach if you prefer that.

You're easily in the minority, kleerie, with your attitude toward Ronnie. If you ask professional musicians, the answer would be different - and with respect, lots of respect.

Eh, no.

YOU have asked?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think the Stones with Brian was a "tight" band. With Taylor they defined roles, like the other rock/classic rock acts that lead to a more common sound, imo.

With Ronnie, they got more back to the Brian days (from 1978), but it is a mistake to judge that sound solely as "loose". IMO, there is nothing tighter than a group of musicians that trade licks, with a swinging bassist and a rock solid drummer to keep the rhythm down - like the Stones on Whip and Imagination in 1981.

Yes, the template is loose per se, but the results could be invinsible rhythm and blues.

PS: When Ronnie joined, they still had the defined roles, although they loosened up a bit on the Euro leg, and started the infamous weaving.

Dear Dandy,

With Keith and Brian the roles were defined - Keith lead, brian Rhythm - except when Brian played slide.

With Keith/Taylor it was only by '73 that Keith was mainly Rhythm and Taylor mainly lead. But '69 (especially) through to '72 (less especially) it was dual guitar approach.

With Ronnie they did not get back closer to Brian days. '78 is nothing like '67. That's my point. They opened a new chapter. The really good numbers from the '76 tour and the '78 tour are the Black and Blue numbers and the SG numbers.

If you compare, for example, Let It Rock from '71 with same number from '78 (eg Texas) then not only is Keith's lead and Berry riffs better in '71 but the whole band is tighter in '71 and Ronnie's solo slot in the '78 version is just some pointless Faces-style thrashing in comparison to Keith's approach. Just stick defined roles on that one.

They had some good new material in '78 - but still had one foot in the past.

'Whip' can be tight. Imaginatio in '81-82 was not so - nor intended to be so.

A group of musicians trading licks with a swinging bass is not necessarily, ipso facto, 'tight'. It can be. Or it can be a mess. Or something inbetween, Or nothing inparticular.

There is a relaxed and easy power to the Sympathy on Ya Yas. It is beguiling. It kicks off with Taylor's buoyant rhythm and then Charlie and Bill kick in, followed by Keith. They are in total sync. and they mean business. It just bulids and builds and builds. Such easy competence and focused, interconnected playing. When taylor is on rhythm his style is in perfect counterpoint to Keith's angular lead. Keith's more raucous rhythm complements Taylor's fluid exploratory weaving melodic journey. Bill and Charkie are relaxed and in sync 'knowing' (feeling) that the guitarists are on their game.

In '81-82 Bill is swinging well, Charlie is indeed solid - but are they in such close sync together? And though they are playing well it is often in spite of what the guitar department are doing, not because of it. I don't feel all four musicians are so bonded as a unit on many, many numbers.

I think that it is generally acknowledged that by the end of '81-82 Mick was pretty fed up with a guitar department often living in its own world. A lot to do with personal dynamics probably - with Keith and Ronnie having got a taste for doing their own thing in '79.

In '88 Mick got do the Stones his way - but it wasn't the Stones ofcourse.
However in '89-90 it was and I think we had Keith back on fine rhythm form and lead - just exalting in his excellence. Ronnie's role became more defined - but he excelled too. The band was a fully engaged unit again.

Ofcourse many think it became too scripted and controlled. The bigger shows with light sytems and video screen stuff just REQUIRE a lot of co-ordination and I'd rather that Mr Levell HAD NOT (edit) gradually become musical director instead of Keith and Mick together. But that's another story/thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-30 01:37 by Deluxtone.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You agree with kleerie? He said there were NO great Ronnie-solos with or WITHOUT the Stones.

I don't think one has be a musician to enjoy, judge or explain music. Not at all. But I do think it's pretty arrogant dissing the fans who enjoy the solos we're posting in this thread, saying that everybody needs to understand that this is average to poor.

Statements like that call for explaining, something kleerie and others can improve drastically - or move to another thread.

Posters like Tele and LuxuryStones at least have the decency to explain and tell what they like and don't like - and why.

As long as there are great Ronnie-solos to post, this thread still has its purpose, imo. Why should Taylorites or others who don't like Wood have the right to close it down?

No-one is talking about closing the thread down - not even Kleerie, so far as I know. (The last time I checked, BV was not much of a Taylorite, so I wouldn't worry about that.) Also, I said I mostly agreed with Kleerie. I'm not as extreme as him in that I am capable of enjoying Ronnie's work outside the Stones now and again: I really liked his last solo album, for instance. But I think the discussion here is taking place at cross purposes. Kleerie's view is that Ronnie is an average guitarist at best, whereas Taylor is an all-time great and a virtuoso with or without the Stones. Your argument - correct me if I'm wrong - is that virtuosity is easily overstated and that one does not have to be a virtuoso such as Taylor in order to play beautiful, moving guitar. I agree with you both wholeheartedly.

Still, this is a Stones board, where we overwhelmingly discuss the Rolling Stones, and not Ronnie Wood's solo career, the Faces or the Jeff Beck Group. As I said earlier, I do not like Ronnie's work with the Stones precisely because Mick Taylor used to be in the band. There are exceptions - Hey Negrita, Beast of Burden - but mostly when I listen to the band from 1975 onwards I just think of how much they lost when Taylor quit. And I think that's mostly Kleerie's position too, no?

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You agree with kleerie? He said there were NO great Ronnie-solos with or WITHOUT the Stones.

I don't think one has be a musician to enjoy, judge or explain music. Not at all. But I do think it's pretty arrogant dissing the fans who enjoy the solos we're posting in this thread, saying that everybody needs to understand that this is average to poor.

Statements like that call for explaining, something kleerie and others can improve drastically - or move to another thread.

Posters like Tele and LuxuryStones at least have the decency to explain and tell what they like and don't like - and why.

As long as there are great Ronnie-solos to post, this thread still has its purpose, imo. Why should Taylorites or others who don't like Wood have the right to close it down?

No-one is talking about closing the thread down - not even Kleerie, so far as I know. (The last time I checked, BV was not much of a Taylorite, so I wouldn't worry about that.) Also, I said I mostly agreed with Kleerie. I'm not as extreme as him in that I am capable of enjoying Ronnie's work outside the Stones now and again: I really liked his last solo album, for instance. But I think the discussion here is taking place at cross purposes. Kleerie's view is that Ronnie is an average guitarist at best, whereas Taylor is an all-time great and a virtuoso with or without the Stones. Your argument - correct me if I'm wrong - is that virtuosity is easily overstated and that one does not have to be a virtuoso such as Taylor in order to play beautiful, moving guitar. I agree with you both wholeheartedly.

Still, this is a Stones board, where we overwhelmingly discuss the Rolling Stones, and not Ronnie Wood's solo career, the Faces or the Jeff Beck Group. As I said earlier, I do not like Ronnie's work with the Stones precisely because Mick Taylor used to be in the band. There are exceptions - Hey Negrita, Beast of Burden - but mostly when I listen to the band from 1975 onwards I just think of how much they lost when Taylor quit. And I think that's mostly Kleerie's position too, no?

Stonesburst,

'72-73 was great.

Taylor left. He didn't want to go on with them into '75-76.

Keith enjoyed playing with Ronnie - so did Mick. It was a natural development.
Keith got renewed interest and he is much more involved in Black and Blue than in IORR. Those were strong sessions - so much so that much was re-used to make tatoo You.

Stones got a new lease of life.

And now Taylor is back. Like kleerie, i've rather missed his magic all these years. At the 2nd O2 show it was like a dream come true. But after his one number - well Ronnie may not have been excelling on solos - but the band was whole and good - as it was before Taylor appeared. They were very good without him. Very, very good infact.

I was more disappointed that Wyamn left the stage after only 2 numbers!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-30 02:21 by Deluxtone.

I think an element not discussed much in the context of Ronnie (or Taylor vs. Ronnie) is that Ronnie's stint in the band roughly coincided with the decline in quality of the material Mick and Keith were writing. Putting '75-'76 aside when Ronnie was a quickly-hired live replacement for Taylor, they started on a very high note with the Some Girls album. So, they were successful, briefly, in turning yet another new page, with a whole new sound, and a new guitarist, just the way they did when Taylor joined and they had a renaissance in their live sound in 1969 and onwards. The problem is, they didn't (in my opinion) sustain it. So Ronnie is associated with the period when the band was no longer churning out the hits and no longer in top form. I would say that this really was true from after Tattoo You at least.

The problem for many of us is not Some Girls or the Ronnie-era material, but the fact that Ronnie's playing of classic pre-Ronnie era Stones material just doesn't stack up against the majesty of what the band created during the Taylor era. The comparison of the 1978 Let It Rock and the 1971 live version mentioned above is a perfect example. The band was smoking hot on the 1971 Leeds version, the guitars and rhythm section so tight you could bounce a dime off it. 1978 had its charms, but it was the "ragged but right" Stones (which sometimes were merely ragged). Sometimes "fun" and "loose" are really just euphemisms for sloppy. The Taylor-Wood comparison comes up so much precisely because there were just so many opportunities over the years for Ronnie to do something with the Taylor-era material (other than kind of mimic what came before), and he never rose to the ocassion (except minor things like lap steel on Happy, to give credit where due). I never once saw a show from 1975 on where they played Dice, Brown Sugar, ADTL, Gimme Shelter, or YCAGWYW where I said "wow. Made me forget all about Mick Taylor." Not...one...time. This has nothing to do with any bias against Ronnie. I just think he doesn't excel on that material and for 40 years we have had to settle for what some of us feel is basically an imposter on those tunes, or at least a "lesser" line up. Not necessarily bad. Often adequate. Usually enjoyable. But never better. I also think the erosion of Ronnie's confidence from whatever interpersonal dynamics within the band that were happening at various times, along with the substance issues, affected his playing. (Which is why it was such a joy to see him in excellent shape the last couple of times I saw the band).

Contrast with what Taylor did on the Brian-era tunes. He didn't worry about what Brian had played on I'm Free, or Satisfaction (for example). He found ways to make those songs his own and make people forget about the album versions (Love In Vain and Stray Cat Blues from Ya Yas are excellent examples). When I think of Midnight Rambler or Love In Vain I don't think of the rather dry versions on Let It Bleed (good as they are), I think of the Ya Yas versions as the "definitive" ones. That's what I mean by saying Taylor made the band better. (Likewise it's fair to say the Stones made Taylor better. Without them, he is just another competent, but rather bland instrumentalist). I think Ronnie made it easier for a certain kind of comeraderie and stage presence, and ok, rock & roll "attitude" (since that seems so important to some people here). But musically? No.

Now I know DP will disagree with this, and he is the most eloquent proponent of the Wood era. I give him his due for his passion, and acknowledge that in any art form, reasonable people can disagree, and individual taste is a huge part of the story, as it should be. This is simply my own attempt to explain my particular take on the Great Debate (which I acknowledge will never be settled).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-30 06:48 by 71Tele.

can't remember who made this insight upthread, but it bears repeating, as I'd never heard it before in all the years of this endless and at times absurd "debate": that when the Stones brought on taylor, it was to replace brian, but that when they brought on wood, it was to replace taylor ... not brian. Fascinating to consider what might have been at that point, if they had sought to recover what brian brought to the original group rather than taylor. It doesn't seem to me that they had the imagination to do that. But maybe no one would have.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-30 07:36 by cc.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-30 07:35 by cc.

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think the Stones with Brian was a "tight" band. With Taylor they defined roles, like the other rock/classic rock acts that lead to a more common sound, imo.

With Ronnie, they got more back to the Brian days (from 1978), but it is a mistake to judge that sound solely as "loose". IMO, there is nothing tighter than a group of musicians that trade licks, with a swinging bassist and a rock solid drummer to keep the rhythm down - like the Stones on Whip and Imagination in 1981.

Yes, the template is loose per se, but the results could be invinsible rhythm and blues.

PS: When Ronnie joined, they still had the defined roles, although they loosened up a bit on the Euro leg, and started the infamous weaving.

Dear Dandy,

With Keith and Brian the roles were defined - Keith lead, brian Rhythm - except when Brian played slide.

With Keith/Taylor it was only by '73 that Keith was mainly Rhythm and Taylor mainly lead. But '69 (especially) through to '72 (less especially) it was dual guitar approach.

With Ronnie they did not get back closer to Brian days. '78 is nothing like '67. That's my point. They opened a new chapter. The really good numbers from the '76 tour and the '78 tour are the Black and Blue numbers and the SG numbers.

If you compare, for example, Let It Rock from '71 with same number from '78 (eg Texas) then not only is Keith's lead and Berry riffs better in '71 but the whole band is tighter in '71 and Ronnie's solo slot in the '78 version is just some pointless Faces-style thrashing in comparison to Keith's approach. Just stick defined roles on that one.

They had some good new material in '78 - but still had one foot in the past.

'Whip' can be tight. Imaginatio in '81-82 was not so - nor intended to be so.

A group of musicians trading licks with a swinging bass is not necessarily, ipso facto, 'tight'. It can be. Or it can be a mess. Or something inbetween, Or nothing inparticular.

There is a relaxed and easy power to the Sympathy on Ya Yas. It is beguiling. It kicks off with Taylor's buoyant rhythm and then Charlie and Bill kick in, followed by Keith. They are in total sync. and they mean business. It just bulids and builds and builds. Such easy competence and focused, interconnected playing. When taylor is on rhythm his style is in perfect counterpoint to Keith's angular lead. Keith's more raucous rhythm complements Taylor's fluid exploratory weaving melodic journey. Bill and Charkie are relaxed and in sync 'knowing' (feeling) that the guitarists are on their game.

In '81-82 Bill is swinging well, Charlie is indeed solid - but are they in such close sync together? And though they are playing well it is often in spite of what the guitar department are doing, not because of it. I don't feel all four musicians are so bonded as a unit on many, many numbers.

I think that it is generally acknowledged that by the end of '81-82 Mick was pretty fed up with a guitar department often living in its own world. A lot to do with personal dynamics probably - with Keith and Ronnie having got a taste for doing their own thing in '79.

In '88 Mick got do the Stones his way - but it wasn't the Stones ofcourse.
However in '89-90 it was and I think we had Keith back on fine rhythm form and lead - just exalting in his excellence. Ronnie's role became more defined - but he excelled too. The band was a fully engaged unit again.

Ofcourse many think it became too scripted and controlled. The bigger shows with light sytems and video screen stuff just REQUIRE a lot of co-ordination and I'd rather that Mr Levell HAD NOT (edit) gradually become musical director instead of Keith and Mick together. But that's another story/thread.

This is on point