Quote
kahoosier
Well after all my years on this board I would never have dreamed that one day I would agree with or come to the defense of Mathijs, but I will. I don't think he is anti-Taylor at all. He is just trying to de-mythologize him. In the late 60s and early 70s when many of the BIG BRIT stars wanted to turn the blues into their own rapid fire volume drenched solo driven music , Taylor was the man the Stones needed. But that scene imploded, as the Stones nearly did, and Ronnie has been the man needed ever since. In that era at one point it was declared Clapton was GOD, and since then he has had enough sense for his career ( and suffer the barbs of those who can't let go of 5 minute long screaming solos) to pull the plug and concentrate on crafting songs over pushing solos. Who plays the better guitar depends on the ear of the listener, Ron certainly seems willing to play a larger variety of instruments. While no platinum seller, Ron does have more solo success, indeed more success with other groups in history then Mick Taylor. Does that mean he is better? I can't tell you that but he is obviously more commercial. Anyhow, neither this thread, nor Mathijs in it, started out as another of the endless , as well as redundant and pointless Wood VS Taylor battles. All it was was an appreciation of Ronnie, a positive affirmation of what people enjoy about him. Why couldn't people just leave it there? If you don't like what you hear with Ron, don't post or go post to the zillion other threads you could be negative and continue this ridiculous " I'm right, no...I'm right" prattle. Christ there are people on this board who have still not accepted Taylor over Brian Jones, at least they have not jumped on board. I don't have a problem with people that want to proselytize their musical taste and tell the rest of us we are wrong , after all I live next door to people that listen only to classical music and bitch about my Stones all the time, but it does get tiring to listen to all the time. How about this, THIS THREAD ID TO TALK ABOUT THE SOLOS OF RONNIE WOOD THAT WE APPRECIATE, IF THERE ARE NONE THAT YOU APPRECIATE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Deluxtone
Just all-round tighter and more forceful.
Keith at his all-time peak.

JJ Flash - dual rhythm.

Queenie.

Carol.

stray cat

Rambler

Sympathy - when not soloing

Whole approach is generally dual rhythm.

Tha Live With Me has never been bettered. Fierce Taylor rhythm to counterpoint Keith's lead riff motif.

Yeah, but in the Faces Ronnie did both Keith's and Taylor's duties.
wasn't he wonderful then?!

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

Quote
nomis
hey, there's a solo on Saint of Me. I assume it's Ronnie. Or maybe it's a little of both Keith and Ronnie, I'm not sure. Then there's the solo on Let Me Go from the Emotional Rescue LP... this sounds like Ronnie. I nomimate these two as his best.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MadMax
I never understood the ‘Taylor’ vs. Wood debate. Of course Taylor is a much better lead guitarist –on his peak in 1972 and 1973 Taylor was incredible, with fantastic melodic solo’s executed mesmerizing precisely. I do not recall one solo by Wood that has the same kind of emotion, melodic sense en technical prowess that can match any Taylor solo.

That said: I guitar solo is just that, a guitar solo. It’s 12 bars or 20 seconds in a piece of music of 5 minutes. And a great solo doesn’t make a mediocre piece of music any better. And that’s why I prefer the 1975 to 1982 period over the 1969 to 1973 period: I find the BAND much better in those latter, Ron Wood years. Yes I love the energy and shear excitement of 1972, yes I like the raw approach of that tour, but I find Charlie to be a much better drummer in 1975 and 1978, and Bill was at his absolute best in 1981. Richards was quite a boring rhythm player in 1973, and a fantastic lead and riff player in 1975 and 1978, and at his peak in 1981.

I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richard s much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards, Years ago when I was in a Stones band, we found out that copying the Taylor years was much more easy than copying the Wood years. With the Taylor years it was easy to split the guitar parts and copy it precisely. With the Wood years that is much harder, and laying a good When the Whip Comes Down or Imagination turned out much more difficult than laying a 1973 version of Tumbling Dice down.


You took the Words from my mouth! Spot on! Thank God you are around Mathijs, I agree 110%. The Stones is a band, Taylor is a Beautiful legato-style solo player but we are all so lucky we've had so much fun outta both Brian, Taylor and Ronnie.

Sigh. The only thing here that's true is that you don't understand the Taylor-Wood debate. The preference for Taylor is NOT just about solos. It is about musicality, as well as how his playing made Keith and the others play better (or differently), whereas with Wood it was more of a boys club, have a good time feel (which is fine, sometimes). To only focus on solos is missing the point, in my opinion.

Please, Tele, you know better than stating that Keith became a better player by sticking to strumming out open G-chords...

But I didn't state that, DP. You should know better than to put words in my mouth.

Hm... "made Keith and the others play better (or differently)..."

At least, you're dancing on a very thin line here

I think you brought up an interesting point - Keith deciding to focus on open-G rhythm - but it wasn't the point I was making. But since you mentioned it: The Taylor-bashers often point to 1973 as an example of what they don't like: too much soloing and rhythm-lead split. This was, and always has been, Keith's band. If Keith decided to focus on opne-G, what exactly was Taylor supposed to do except play more lead? This was, in fact, driven by Keith, which is why so much of what he said later in regard to his preference for a one-guitar sound, "weaving", etc. is crap. It was Keith who brought the guitars into more separate roles, not Taylor. Just compare Ya Yas with Brussells.

Quote
nomis
hey, there's a solo on Saint of Me. I assume it's Ronnie. Or maybe it's a little of both Keith and Ronnie, I'm not sure. Then there's the solo on Let Me Go from the Emotional Rescue LP... this sounds like Ronnie. I nomimate these two as his best.

Quote
Deluxtone
DP,

I hope you don't include me as a Ronnie basher.
It is his lead style that distinguishes him in the Stones.
His rhythm approach distinguished him in the Faces.

Mathjis apparently made this a Ronnie Stones solo but still couldn't resist putting him down as a band player and also putting him down as a rhythm player.

It is Mathjis thesis and the Stones certainly did not become a better band when Ronnie joined after Taylor had left. their live revolution - taking it to a new level began in 1969 - after a shakey start apparently. They were at their peak. As someone said - Taylor can hardly be blamed for his promotion to mainly lead work by '73. The upside was that we got some of Keith's best Rhythm ever.

We can praise and enjoy both aspects of both players without having to put the other down. It's pretty obvious that Ron's best rhythm work was with the Faces. That's not a put-down.

POTENTIALLY - Keith and Ronnie's styles meshing can sound great - when it happens it's great. There are instances on record and live. The Kilburn shows showed that potential. But live in the Stones it is rarely achieved - and both guitarists have been out of sync on most major recent tours - except this one eg the O" shows - but still with Jagger and Levell at the helm most of the warhorse numbers don't give any opportunity for free interplay. It's mostly scripted. Keith has more licence it seems - and eg on JJFlash Ronnie just plays the same chiming, record-style role he has played since '89. On Sympathy he's a non-entity. A far cry from '69 or from '81 for that matter. It' not a put-down of Ronnie. It's how they have elected to present certain numbers - playing it safe. He is called to do a lead on YCAGWYW. Often very good. Very, very good infact.
But Ronnie as an all-round guitar palyer cannot fully express himself in Stones context any longer. No reason to cry. It's a marvel that they are still at it.

Quote
Deluxtone

By the way - the weakness of Love You Live is Ronnie's weak and sloppy rhythm guitar playing, a la Faces. In 75-76 you have Keith wanting to get back to some lead playing but his rhythmic support from Ronnie is often weak and pitiful.

Infact, in the Stones, I'd be hard pushed to think of any strong and convincing rhythm playing by Ronnie, e.g. of the calibre that Taylor showed on Bitch.

The strength of the Keith\Ronnie dual approach is their interlocking lead guits, not rhythm. eg Down in the Hole and things like Imagination from the 81-82 tour.

But from 89 onwards, with exception of some tracks like Gimme Shelter and Momkeyman, they both assume a lead and rhythm approach. Start Me Up, Satisfaction - really just about everything - and it is Ronnie's lead that's his strength and not his rhythm - for the very large part.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
This whole thread could be replaced by some simple statement like, "Some people prefer the Stones with Mick Taylor; some prefer them with Ron Wood; same applies to each guy's guitar solos." Why do people have to fight back and forth? Taste is subjective. Nobody has to be "right."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
This whole thread could be replaced by some simple statement like, "Some people prefer the Stones with Mick Taylor; some prefer them with Ron Wood; same applies to each guy's guitar solos." Why do people have to fight back and forth? Taste is subjective. Nobody has to be "right."

Quote
71Tele
Mathijs has been peddling this rather bizarre hypothesis for years now: Taylor can't play rhythm, Taylor "hardly played" on Exile, any guitarist could have done what Taylor did in the Stones, etc. It's not just that he prefers Wood, it's that he has some sort of anti-Taylor agenda, trying to minimize accomplishments that are obvious to anyone with the LPs and a set of ears.

Fortunately we all have Ya Yas, Brussells, Exile, GHS, and all the other evidence that easily refutes these contentions. Mathijs should just come clean and tell us all what his real problem with Taylor is. Did Taylor refuse an autograph at some point, or what? It's really strange.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
This whole thread could be replaced by some simple statement like, "Some people prefer the Stones with Mick Taylor; some prefer them with Ron Wood; same applies to each guy's guitar solos." Why do people have to fight back and forth? Taste is subjective. Nobody has to be "right."

Now, where's the fun in that?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Personally I've never known or seen a great lead player that wasn't a great rhythm one as well.>

This will make BB King very happy...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MadMax
I never understood the ‘Taylor’ vs. Wood debate. Of course Taylor is a much better lead guitarist –on his peak in 1972 and 1973 Taylor was incredible, with fantastic melodic solo’s executed mesmerizing precisely. I do not recall one solo by Wood that has the same kind of emotion, melodic sense en technical prowess that can match any Taylor solo.

That said: I guitar solo is just that, a guitar solo. It’s 12 bars or 20 seconds in a piece of music of 5 minutes. And a great solo doesn’t make a mediocre piece of music any better. And that’s why I prefer the 1975 to 1982 period over the 1969 to 1973 period: I find the BAND much better in those latter, Ron Wood years. Yes I love the energy and shear excitement of 1972, yes I like the raw approach of that tour, but I find Charlie to be a much better drummer in 1975 and 1978, and Bill was at his absolute best in 1981. Richards was quite a boring rhythm player in 1973, and a fantastic lead and riff player in 1975 and 1978, and at his peak in 1981.

I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richard s much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards, Years ago when I was in a Stones band, we found out that copying the Taylor years was much more easy than copying the Wood years. With the Taylor years it was easy to split the guitar parts and copy it precisely. With the Wood years that is much harder, and laying a good When the Whip Comes Down or Imagination turned out much more difficult than laying a 1973 version of Tumbling Dice down.


You took the Words from my mouth! Spot on! Thank God you are around Mathijs, I agree 110%. The Stones is a band, Taylor is a Beautiful legato-style solo player but we are all so lucky we've had so much fun outta both Brian, Taylor and Ronnie.

Sigh. The only thing here that's true is that you don't understand the Taylor-Wood debate. The preference for Taylor is NOT just about solos. It is about musicality, as well as how his playing made Keith and the others play better (or differently), whereas with Wood it was more of a boys club, have a good time feel (which is fine, sometimes). To only focus on solos is missing the point, in my opinion.

Please, Tele, you know better than stating that Keith became a better player by sticking to strumming out open G-chords...

But I didn't state that, DP. You should know better than to put words in my mouth.

Hm... "made Keith and the others play better (or differently)..."

At least, you're dancing on a very thin line here

I think you brought up an interesting point - Keith deciding to focus on open-G rhythm - but it wasn't the point I was making. But since you mentioned it: The Taylor-bashers often point to 1973 as an example of what they don't like: too much soloing and rhythm-lead split. This was, and always has been, Keith's band. If Keith decided to focus on opne-G, what exactly was Taylor supposed to do except play more lead? This was, in fact, driven by Keith, which is why so much of what he said later in regard to his preference for a one-guitar sound, "weaving", etc. is crap. It was Keith who brought the guitars into more separate roles, not Taylor. Just compare Ya Yas with Brussells.

I don't think anyone is criticising Taylor for deciding to overplay. Everybody knows that Mick and Keith call the shots.

In this period, though, Keith was mostly wasted - resulting in him taking the easy route with open G, capos and sticking to rhythm.

Thinking he became a better guitarist by that doesn't make sense for me, that's all. And it effected the band's sound greatly. It became too predictable for some fans. If people like that distinction between lead and rhythm (I'm not just talking about solos here) the most - more power to them. But I'm pretty sure it didn't make Keith better.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MadMax
I never understood the ‘Taylor’ vs. Wood debate. Of course Taylor is a much better lead guitarist –on his peak in 1972 and 1973 Taylor was incredible, with fantastic melodic solo’s executed mesmerizing precisely. I do not recall one solo by Wood that has the same kind of emotion, melodic sense en technical prowess that can match any Taylor solo.

That said: I guitar solo is just that, a guitar solo. It’s 12 bars or 20 seconds in a piece of music of 5 minutes. And a great solo doesn’t make a mediocre piece of music any better. And that’s why I prefer the 1975 to 1982 period over the 1969 to 1973 period: I find the BAND much better in those latter, Ron Wood years. Yes I love the energy and shear excitement of 1972, yes I like the raw approach of that tour, but I find Charlie to be a much better drummer in 1975 and 1978, and Bill was at his absolute best in 1981. Richards was quite a boring rhythm player in 1973, and a fantastic lead and riff player in 1975 and 1978, and at his peak in 1981.

I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richard s much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards, Years ago when I was in a Stones band, we found out that copying the Taylor years was much more easy than copying the Wood years. With the Taylor years it was easy to split the guitar parts and copy it precisely. With the Wood years that is much harder, and laying a good When the Whip Comes Down or Imagination turned out much more difficult than laying a 1973 version of Tumbling Dice down.


You took the Words from my mouth! Spot on! Thank God you are around Mathijs, I agree 110%. The Stones is a band, Taylor is a Beautiful legato-style solo player but we are all so lucky we've had so much fun outta both Brian, Taylor and Ronnie.

Sigh. The only thing here that's true is that you don't understand the Taylor-Wood debate. The preference for Taylor is NOT just about solos. It is about musicality, as well as how his playing made Keith and the others play better (or differently), whereas with Wood it was more of a boys club, have a good time feel (which is fine, sometimes). To only focus on solos is missing the point, in my opinion.

Please, Tele, you know better than stating that Keith became a better player by sticking to strumming out open G-chords...

But I didn't state that, DP. You should know better than to put words in my mouth.

Hm... "made Keith and the others play better (or differently)..."

At least, you're dancing on a very thin line here

I think you brought up an interesting point - Keith deciding to focus on open-G rhythm - but it wasn't the point I was making. But since you mentioned it: The Taylor-bashers often point to 1973 as an example of what they don't like: too much soloing and rhythm-lead split. This was, and always has been, Keith's band. If Keith decided to focus on opne-G, what exactly was Taylor supposed to do except play more lead? This was, in fact, driven by Keith, which is why so much of what he said later in regard to his preference for a one-guitar sound, "weaving", etc. is crap. It was Keith who brought the guitars into more separate roles, not Taylor. Just compare Ya Yas with Brussells.

I don't think anyone is criticising Taylor for deciding to overplay. Everybody knows that Mick and Keith call the shots.

In this period, though, Keith was mostly wasted - resulting in him taking the easy route with open G, capos and sticking to rhythm.

Thinking he became a better guitarist by that doesn't make sense for me, that's all. And it effected the band's sound greatly. It became too predictable for some fans. If people like that distinction between lead and rhythm (I'm not just talking about solos here) the most - more power to them. But I'm pretty sure it didn't make Keith better.

1. To the contrary, people have contsantly criticized Taylor for overplaying, or have assumed the split to more strict lead/rhythm roles was somehow Taylor's doing.

2. Again, I said he made the Stones a better band. He still does, every time he steps onstage. Wyman has said it, Charlie has said it, even Keith has said it in more lucid moments. Mick has tacitly agreed by saying he can't say it!

3. As to making Keith better. I maintain that Keith had to retain a sharper focus with Taylor in the band then, um, later. I don't know what kind of shape he was in in 1973, but his rhythm playing is as sharp as a tack. With Wood in the band they became the boys club, often running around grinning and lighting cigarettes (at their worst) and the musicality suffered. Now, some people seem to prefer that. OK for them.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MadMax
I never understood the ‘Taylor’ vs. Wood debate. Of course Taylor is a much better lead guitarist –on his peak in 1972 and 1973 Taylor was incredible, with fantastic melodic solo’s executed mesmerizing precisely. I do not recall one solo by Wood that has the same kind of emotion, melodic sense en technical prowess that can match any Taylor solo.

That said: I guitar solo is just that, a guitar solo. It’s 12 bars or 20 seconds in a piece of music of 5 minutes. And a great solo doesn’t make a mediocre piece of music any better. And that’s why I prefer the 1975 to 1982 period over the 1969 to 1973 period: I find the BAND much better in those latter, Ron Wood years. Yes I love the energy and shear excitement of 1972, yes I like the raw approach of that tour, but I find Charlie to be a much better drummer in 1975 and 1978, and Bill was at his absolute best in 1981. Richards was quite a boring rhythm player in 1973, and a fantastic lead and riff player in 1975 and 1978, and at his peak in 1981.

I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richard s much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards, Years ago when I was in a Stones band, we found out that copying the Taylor years was much more easy than copying the Wood years. With the Taylor years it was easy to split the guitar parts and copy it precisely. With the Wood years that is much harder, and laying a good When the Whip Comes Down or Imagination turned out much more difficult than laying a 1973 version of Tumbling Dice down.


You took the Words from my mouth! Spot on! Thank God you are around Mathijs, I agree 110%. The Stones is a band, Taylor is a Beautiful legato-style solo player but we are all so lucky we've had so much fun outta both Brian, Taylor and Ronnie.

Sigh. The only thing here that's true is that you don't understand the Taylor-Wood debate. The preference for Taylor is NOT just about solos. It is about musicality, as well as how his playing made Keith and the others play better (or differently), whereas with Wood it was more of a boys club, have a good time feel (which is fine, sometimes). To only focus on solos is missing the point, in my opinion.

Please, Tele, you know better than stating that Keith became a better player by sticking to strumming out open G-chords...

But I didn't state that, DP. You should know better than to put words in my mouth.

Hm... "made Keith and the others play better (or differently)..."

At least, you're dancing on a very thin line here

I think you brought up an interesting point - Keith deciding to focus on open-G rhythm - but it wasn't the point I was making. But since you mentioned it: The Taylor-bashers often point to 1973 as an example of what they don't like: too much soloing and rhythm-lead split. This was, and always has been, Keith's band. If Keith decided to focus on opne-G, what exactly was Taylor supposed to do except play more lead? This was, in fact, driven by Keith, which is why so much of what he said later in regard to his preference for a one-guitar sound, "weaving", etc. is crap. It was Keith who brought the guitars into more separate roles, not Taylor. Just compare Ya Yas with Brussells.

I don't think anyone is criticising Taylor for deciding to overplay. Everybody knows that Mick and Keith call the shots.

In this period, though, Keith was mostly wasted - resulting in him taking the easy route with open G, capos and sticking to rhythm.

Thinking he became a better guitarist by that doesn't make sense for me, that's all. And it effected the band's sound greatly. It became too predictable for some fans. If people like that distinction between lead and rhythm (I'm not just talking about solos here) the most - more power to them. But I'm pretty sure it didn't make Keith better.

1. To the contrary, people have contsantly criticized Taylor for overplaying, or have assumed the split to more strict lead/rhythm roles was somehow Taylor's doing.

2. Again, I said he made the Stones a better band. He still does, every time he steps onstage. Wyman has said it, Charlie has said it, even Keith has said it in more lucid moments. Mick has tacitly agreed by saying he can't say it!

3. As to making Keith better. I maintain that Keith had to retain a sharper focus with Taylor in the band then, um, later. I don't know what kind of shape he was in in 1973, but his rhythm playing is as sharp as a tack. With Wood in the band they became the boys club, often running around grinning and lighting cigarettes (at their worst) and the musicality suffered. Now, some people seem to prefer that. OK for them.

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

They're a good band, too.

Quote
kleermaker

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

They're a good band, too.

Wha, conform the format of the Woody Stones I suppose.