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

But back to Woodies solos..

- Doxa

But, but, you are in the minority and we oldies are really mean!

Eh, which solos?

Quote
jpasc95
to me, Ronnie's solos are better than Mick Taylor's ones when it comes to bottleneck's solos, especially on Happy.

I get that it's a matter of individual taste, but seriously? Ronnie was a good slide player in his early days, no doubt (although I wouldn't consider him in the same league as Taylor technically or emotionally) but more recently, you get this sort of thing:









I know sloppy isn't a bad thing and has its place, but come on - this is dreadful, dreadful musicianship.

Sway is purely a shame and a disaster...

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

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

If you are not anti-Taylor, why continue to post ridiculous claims about his playing and simply state (as you did here) that you prefer the band from a certain period? The fact is, you have said some things about Taylor that are highly speculative if not easily debunked, and it does lead a reasonable person to question whether you might have some sort of agenda. I don't want to go through all the claims again, but they have been repeated over and over by you for years. You prefer Wood? Fine. But you think Taylor's a lousy rhythm player? There are plenty of tracks that easily counter that assertion. But you have your opinion, which won't be swayed by any amount of evidence.

+1

Saying Taylor's is a lousy rhythm player, well... Ridiculous IMO.

In any case, Taylor plays and has always done on stage, focus on his guitar playing, without lifting the arms continuously... To keep the ryhmtm and give a true density to a Stones song, you have to PLAY... Ronne has so often forgot this evidence...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 19:56 by Powerage.

Quote
Mathijs

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

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

Van Gogh and Taylor compared in a single post, what an honor for both. Excellent judgement! One ear does the trick.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Mathijs

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

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

Van Gogh and Taylor compared in a single post, what an honor for both. Excellent judgement! One ear does the trick.

Have to admit Mathijs is consistently pedestrian.

You Can't Always Get What You Want - Live in Buenos Aires on February 21st,2006. [www.iorr.org] .


Also,the same song three days earlier in Rio.

Wood was on fire.

You Gotta Move from Love You Live. Ron gave it some chops.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Mathijs

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

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

Van Gogh and Taylor compared in a single post, what an honor for both. Excellent judgement! One ear does the trick.

Have to admit Mathijs is consistently pedestrian.

The problem with Matthijs is that he makes a major logical fault by suggesting that what he doesn't like isn't good. Otherwise his Van Gogh remark would be totally superfluous and pointless.

He seems to reason like this: I don't like Taylor's rhythm playing, so it is bad; I despise Van Gogh, so his paintings are no good. But Matthijs should say, if he wanted to serve reason, the following: Taylor is obviously a great rhythm guitarist, but personally I don't like his rhythm playing, just like I know very well that Van Gogh is a world class painter though I hate his paintings. That would be correct and conform reason.

Btw: I'm not fond of Bach overall, but I do recognize that he is a genius as a composer.

You're saying that you will say that Ronnie obviously is a great guitar player, now?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You're saying that you will say that Ronnie obviously is a great guitar player, now?

Not at all. In Ronnie's case the following is true: Ronnie isn't a great guitarist but a mediocre at best. Even those who love his playing (should) recognize that. Nevertheless some people like or even love his playing, though it's clear he's second or third rate. Of course I belong to the people who are not impressed by his playing at all.

You make the classical reasoning fault, forgetting this golden logical rule: all cows are animals, but that doesn't mean that all animals are cows.

Then what (you believed) Mathijs was saying is correct, confirmed by yourself



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-27 17:18 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Then what (you believed) Mathijs was saying is correct, confirmed by yourself

Absolutely not. Unless you say that it's true that Van Gogh is a bad painter. But I don't think you're a fool.

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

No one has heard every single solo by Wood. I don't know why this guy even put anything down. Besides he's caught in a time warp.

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.

Interesting debates of logic going on here... Makes me wonder if Ronnie Wood's paintings will to be found on Mathijs' walls, will that make Wood better paintor than Van Gogh...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Interesting debates of logic going on here... Makes me wonder if Ronnie Wood's paintings will to be found on Mathijs' walls, will that make Wood better paintor than Van Gogh...

- Doxa

Well, perhaps it would mean that Wood is a better guitarist than Van Gogh ever was.

Seems to me that playing guitar in a rock 'n' roll band is not all about technique and virtuosity, nor should it be. I don't necessarily prefer guitarists (like Jeff Beck or Clapton) who are known as the most technically adept, because I prefer songs and group dynamics over solo technical playing. That said, I still think Taylor brought a level of musicianship to the Stones within the context of a blues-based pop-rock group and made them even more special than they were.

It has also been mentioned here more than once that Wood has had the most prolific solo career within the Stones. I think his solo career is a bit like his art - rather pedestrian - and I think a few people are mistaking quantity for quality. Just because there is a lot of something doesn't necessarily make it good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-27 18:40 by 71Tele.

Are there other Stones with four great solo albums out?

Clapton is not a technical player, btw, and he is not very well known for his rhythm skills. So that example might not have been the best one. Beck is... well, different. Both are great of course.

kleerie, you're out there now

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Are there other Stones with four great solo albums out?

Clapton is not a technical player, btw, and he is not very well known for his rhythm skills. So that example might not have been the best one. Beck is... well, different. Both are great of course.

kleerie, you're out there now

I don't think Ron Wood has four great solo albums. I think he has one great one and some that are completely dispensable if you're not already a fan.

Perhaps Clapton wasn't the best example, but I was referring to prefering bands/songs to technical guitar virtuosos or soloists, amd I think my point was understood.

EC can leave his comfort zone with ease. Witnessed here, and on "Do What You Like" and his amazing work with Roger Waters on "Hitchhiking Tour".

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Are there other Stones with four great solo albums out?

Clapton is not a technical player, btw, and he is not very well known for his rhythm skills. So that example might not have been the best one. Beck is... well, different. Both are great of course.

kleerie, you're out there now

Mick Taylor has a great solo album, but we were talking about guitar playing, remember? I don't like the solo albums, but that doesn't matter. Nor are we talking about guitar technics. Remember I said that Van Gogh was technically rather poor? But the emotion brother, the lyric, the soul, that's what matters. Real artists are able to move you. Well, I know many people are moved by musicals, but most of those people never heard one of the great operas. As for sticking at the illusion of Wood being a great guitarist, I think loyalty is the key factor here, loyalty to underdog Ronnie Wood of course. Anyway, those who claim that Wood belongs to the really great guitarists, like Taylor, have to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves: what's the matter with this boy?

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.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Are there other Stones with four great solo albums out?

Clapton is not a technical player, btw, and he is not very well known for his rhythm skills. So that example might not have been the best one. Beck is... well, different. Both are great of course.

kleerie, you're out there now

I don't think Ron Wood has four great solo albums. I think he has one great one and some that are completely dispensable if you're not already a fan.

Perhaps Clapton wasn't the best example, but I was referring to prefering bands/songs to technical guitar virtuosos or soloists, amd I think my point was understood.

It's ok that you don't like four of Ronnie's albums, but that doesn't alter the fact that every time we have a poll of solo albums, lots of fans vote for Slide on this, IGMOATD, Now Look and 1234 (the latter is not my personal favourite, though). Many like GSN and IFLP a lot as well.

Add five brilliant live albums to that list: First Barbarians, Buried Alive, Slide On This Live, Live And Eclectic and Live At The Ambassadors.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
Interesting debates of logic going on here... Makes me wonder if Ronnie Wood's paintings will to be found on Mathijs' walls, will that make Wood better paintor than Van Gogh...

- Doxa

Well, perhaps it would mean that Wood is a better guitarist than Van Gogh ever was.

Anyone?

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Are there other Stones with four great solo albums out?

Clapton is not a technical player, btw, and he is not very well known for his rhythm skills. So that example might not have been the best one. Beck is... well, different. Both are great of course.

kleerie, you're out there now

Mick Taylor has a great solo album, but we were talking about guitar playing, remember? I don't like the solo albums, but that doesn't matter. Nor are we talking about guitar technics. Remember I said that Van Gogh was technically rather poor? But the emotion brother, the lyric, the soul, that's what matters. Real artists are able to move you. Well, I know many people are moved by musicals, but most of those people never heard one of the great operas. As for sticking at the illusion of Wood being a great guitarist, I think loyalty is the key factor here, loyalty to underdog Ronnie Wood of course. Anyway, those who claim that Wood belongs to the really great guitarists, like Taylor, have to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves: what's the matter with this boy?

And on which grounds are YOU judging this by?

You have no right, nor the proper knowledge to say anything about what moves me, why or to mix in musicals, the opera or van Gogh with rock guitarists' abilities.

Taylor's first album doesn't move all the Stones fans the same way it supposedly moves you. Just saying...

This thread is depressing news to me!

Been playing guitar for 25 years and never noticed before that Ron Wood is just an average guitarist and that his solos are amateurish at best!

Lucky him that at least he can paint better than Van Gogh ...

C

Quote
DandelionPowderman


It's ok that you don't like four of Ronnie's albums, but that doesn't alter the fact that every time we have a poll of solo albums, lots of fans vote for Slide on this, IGMOATD, Now Look and 1234 (the latter is not my personal favourite, though). Many like GSN and IFLP a lot as well.

True that Ronnie's albums do rather well in those kind of IORR polls. I take the reason simply being that they are rather 'Stonesian' by nature, relying stylistically on the same roots components The Stones have traditionally based their music. That is, they are easy accessable to Stones-trained ears. Good old-time, roots-conscious rock and roll, played with 'right' instruments and arrangements, having that joyful, positive vibe in them.

Jagger's albums famously are rather far from that, unless he comes up with something like WANDERING SPIRIT. Taylor's album is probably too 'musician's music' or 'serious', that is, too much need to show one's musicianship over the songs. Charlie's stuff is too odd (jazz), Bill's just too boring and bad.... Even Keith's stuff is so idiosyncratic and pure by its naked authenticity, that even that doesn't compare to Ronnie's stuff in immediate ear-pleasing (I mean, an album like MAIN OFFENDER starts to be too 'heavy' in its raw Keithness that it starts to be too much for many Stones fans).

Ronnie's music is like his out-look: he has a good sense what rock and roll sounds and looks like. Keith and Mick might have defined much of that (by doing and by accident), but they don't grasp the 'ideal' as good as Woody does. To put the point simply: whatever Keith does, is rock and roll, because it is Keith Richards doing that; whatever Ronnie does, is rock and roll, because it goes according to our already existing ideal what rock and roll ought to look, sound and be like.

Of course, Ronnie's music has not much interest outside devoted Stones circles, but in that he doesn't differ from any of them...

Just observing, and trying to make sense of what I see, no need to take too seriously!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 01:57 by Doxa.