Quote
Doxa

Quote
Powerage
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?

Well, what I like about this thread is that Ron Wood is talked in this forum (and not about his personal life, etc.). Basically it is that there is about 15 thread about Taylor against one of Wood...

But, of course, talking about "greatest Ron Wood solos", this thread would never had reached 16 pages without 'Taylorite invasion'. There is a lot of 'Wood apologism' involved.... Just from the beginining.

Actually, this thread is almost one year old, and I do recall when this appeared.. it was in the middle of biggest Taylor hysteria that took place during 50 AND COUNTING TOUR ("More Taylor Please", etc.)... actually, now when I checked it, it was about a week after Staples concert when Taylor simply exploded Rolling Stones fan universe ("Sway", "Knocking"), and a day after Toronto concert, when people were crying out their disappointment of Taylor's role had been reduced. Of course, that was a 'right' time to discuss Wood's best solos... Provacation, no....

Just saying...

- Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
71Tele
I think every time DP posts a Ron Wood solo from a song like Angie or YCAGWYW (or any other song where Taylor did it before him) he actually weakens his case, because the comparison is never favorable to Wood. Some of these solos are good, I don't think any are "great". Maybe my standard of "great" is different.

This is surely the point - the arguments in this thread are all at cross purposes. Do any of these solos exhibit a Taylor-esque level of virtuosity? No, not at all. Do some of them sound really good regardless? Yes, they do. I enjoyed the Knebworth Hot Stuff above, for instance, and all those mid-70s versions of Brown Sugar have nice licks and awesome Strat tone. Inevitability aside, I think it's perfectly legitimate to lament Taylor's departure and to compare his playing with Ronnie's (Brian, after all, never left the Stones with a significant body of idiosyncratic guitar playing; Taylor did, and so Ronnie was obliged to follow Taylor's lead to a point, a problem the latter himself never had). I also think it's quite legitimate to enjoy Ronnie's playing regardless - when his playing's good enough. And this is surely the point: posting these solos may invite a comparison with Taylor, but it invites just as pointed a comparison with the player Ronnie has since become. I can't help noticing a distinct lack of solos from recent tours in this thread. Let's not forget that a lot of fans want Taylor back in the band full time on account of Ronnie repeatedly playing like crap as much as Taylor's own brilliance: indeed, the possibility was raised many times on this board before the release of Plundered My Soul was even a twinkle in Mick Jagger's eye.

Quote
71Tele
I like them too. I just don't think they are "great", using the standards of greatness set by the Stones themselves. I know certain people just want to keep this about great Ron Wood solos. However, this is a band with a history we are talking about and solos don't exist in a vacuum. Every time a solo from a song Taylor played previously is posted, it cannot help but invite comparison. Now, whether or not you think the comparison is favorable is another issue, and as I have said, reasonable people can disagree.

Quote
71Tele
I think every time DP posts a Ron Wood solo from a song like Angie or YCAGWYW (or any other song where Taylor did it before him) he actually weakens his case, because the comparison is never favorable to Wood. Some of these solos are good, I don't think any are "great". Maybe my standard of "great" is different.

Quote
DoomandGloom
If you watch Wood's CYHMK it says it all, 10 thousand dollar strat, greatest drummer for any guitar solo, Keith, Bobby, custom Fender amps, simply can't navigate through his instrument.

Quote
TonyMo

Quote
DoomandGloom
If you watch Wood's CYHMK it says it all, 10 thousand dollar strat, greatest drummer for any guitar solo, Keith, Bobby, custom Fender amps, simply can't navigate through his instrument.

Oh how right! How absolutely RIGHT.
Compare that tripe to this stunning magnificence.





As for favorite solo's from Ron Wood. I'm somewhat perplexed that Ron Wood ever got the chance to solo. After all, there were scores of people who could've done a better job at replacing the irreplaceable Mick Taylor. And that's what happened...nobody wanted to try and fill those shoes. Mick and Keith couldn't find anybody else but Woody... probably because no one dared think they could replicate the sheer genius of a Mick Taylor solo. I think they finally asked Ron Wood and Woody (being sub-par) was so sub-par he couldn't recognize what he was getting himself into. Did Ron Wood really think that writing a few iconic songs, playing a few iconic solo's and being the only guitar player in a somewhat ordinary band bereft of talent was going to make him anything other than a dull soloist in the world's greatest rock n roll band?

I understand that Mick Taylor is an entirely different boat than Ron Wood or Keith Richards. A visionary virtuoso, Taylor combined the use of a major second to minor third triplet (for example D-C-A in the key of A or C for those of you who lack musical knowledge-I play violin and can read music)and angelic trilling with a stunning emphasis of the downbeat to craft a style unparalleled by any other guitarist in a world famous band. It is very epitome of challenge to float the entirety of nearly all his epic solo's on the 72 and 73 tours on the back of the aforementioned inventions, but Taylor's genius allowed him to manage it somehow.

Quote
mr_dja
Be nice DP! I had a similar thought but realized that I really didn't want to try to fathom the explanation. I just decided it would be safer to conclude that I must not have paid as much attention in my music theory classes as I thought I did.

Peace,
Mr DJA

On a side note: Have you seen the thread regarding the picture of the tuners on Keith's Tele? Any thoughts?

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.

Quote
MadMax
HOW CAN SOME OF YA THINK THE '71 VERSION OF LET IT ROCK IS BETTER THAN THE '78 ONE??????

THE '78 ONE IS 100000 TIMES BETTER, ESPECIALLY CHARLIE AND WYMAN IS BRINGING SO MUCH MORE TO THE LATER ONE.

IT AIN'T SLOPPY, IT'S SLEEAAAZZY, ROLLIN', FU***IN STONES!!!!

PLEASE LISTEN AND COMPARE AGAIN.

Quote
MadMax
HOW CAN SOME OF YA THINK THE '71 VERSION OF LET IT ROCK IS BETTER THAN THE '78 ONE??????

THE '78 ONE IS 100000 TIMES BETTER, ESPECIALLY CHARLIE AND WYMAN IS BRINGING SO MUCH MORE TO THE LATER ONE.

IT AIN'T SLOPPY, IT'S SLEEAAAZZY, ROLLIN', FU***IN STONES!!!!

PLEASE LISTEN AND COMPARE AGAIN.

Quote
MadMax
HOW CAN SOME OF YA THINK THE '71 VERSION OF LET IT ROCK IS BETTER THAN THE '78 ONE??????

THE '78 ONE IS 100000 TIMES BETTER, ESPECIALLY CHARLIE AND WYMAN IS BRINGING SO MUCH MORE TO THE LATER ONE.

IT AIN'T SLOPPY, IT'S SLEEAAAZZY, ROLLIN', FU***IN STONES!!!!

PLEASE LISTEN AND COMPARE AGAIN.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

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.

Who ARE you ? Great post.

One little mention in your post I just want to underline. "Sympathy" on Yay-Ya's swings so well. As does "Rambler". I mention this because I do not think Taylor is a weak rhythm player. How come the band sounds so incredibly swinging and tight when he was there? especially in those early SG days. H eplayed exavctly what was needed to fit in betweem Charlie's snare and hi-hat, Keith's slashing and Bill's rumbling downstairs.While I love Ronnie's style too, it is Taylor's dashes that swing.

Quote
MadMax
QUOTE: "As for favorite solo's from Ron Wood. I'm somewhat perplexed that Ron Wood ever got the chance to solo. After all, there were scores of people who could've done a better job at replacing the irreplaceable Mick Taylor. And that's what happened...nobody wanted to try and fill those shoes. Mick and Keith couldn't find anybody else but Woody... probably because no one dared think they could replicate the sheer genius of a Mick Taylor solo. I think they finally asked Ron Wood and Woody (being sub-par) was so sub-par he couldn't recognize what he was getting himself into. Did Ron Wood really think that writing a few iconic songs, playing a few iconic solo's and being the only guitar player in a somewhat ordinary band bereft of talent was going to make him anything other than a dull soloist in the world's greatest rock n roll band?"

What a bunch of BS. Thousands of people wanted to be Ronnie joining the Stones. He fit's the bill, musically and stylishly.

Would you have gotten some kno*head that looked like Bill Gates or Van Morrison just because they could read notes and play like virtuoses?
It's Rock n Roll for f***'s sake. Yes, Taylor is a better guitarist and thank God he was in the band between 69-74, but Ronnie does not deserve to be slagged off by a bunch of people who doesn't understand what Rock n Roll is about. He deserves to have a thread about his best instrumental moments in his years as a Rolling Stone without rubbish like "he can't play" I still wait for peole to discuss what DP and me and others have contributed.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

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.

Who ARE you ? Great post.

One little mention in your post I just want to underline. "Sympathy" on Yay-Ya's swings so well. As does "Rambler". I mention this because I do not think Taylor is a weak rhythm player. How come the band sounds so incredibly swinging and tight when he was there? especially in those early SG days. H eplayed exavctly what was needed to fit in betweem Charlie's snare and hi-hat, Keith's slashing and Bill's rumbling downstairs.While I love Ronnie's style too, it is Taylor's dashes that swing.

Quote
71Tele
This was, is, and always will be the greatest Ron Wood solo. Not necessarily this particualr performance but the solo on this song. This was Ronnie Lane's last gig with the Faces, by the way.

[www.youtube.com]