For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
kleermaker
Isn't it funny: already 14 pages about 'Great Solos' that even don't exist.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
Bärs
I always thought that Ron's solo in this version of TD (1994) is majestic:
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
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
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?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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.
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.Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, this track captures a lot of what you're describing, Tony
Quote
StoneburstQuote
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.)
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?"
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
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.)
Quote
StoneburstQuote
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.)
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
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.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
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.)
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
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
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.
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?
Quote
StoneburstQuote
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
DeluxtoneQuote
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.