Tell Me :
Talk
And it's ok that you like them....None of them have made a dent in the larger culture, which is usually what "great albums" do. But there you go...You like them. That's fine. I am not telling you not to.
Same here, but on this Stones forum most fans seem to really like those albums. One could get the impression that it was the other way around by your posts
I'd say that both Mick and Keith's albums do that, too.
If Ronnie's are different, it would be that they are more soul and funk-flavoured, imo.
Although Mick dresses his songs in other clothes (arrangements, different instruments etc) they still sound Stonesy to me - even Let's Work
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 09:44 by DandelionPowderman.
Yeah, they sure do, too. The Stonesian roots are in their DNA, and dictate most of their musical intuitions, even Mick's no matter how hard he tries to escape them... Simply the way he sings alone is 'Stonesian' by nature, breathing all those blues-marinated nuances. But still funny thing, me thinks, is that both of them, when doing individual projects, seem to lack the special Stonesian feature the other possesses. It is them together when the 'complete' or 'ideal' Stones sound happens. Seperate projects seem to give us interesting angles to their individual strenghts. But like many have mentioned along the years, when one listens Mick's stuff, one misses Keith, and vice versa...
But related to Ronnie... I think Ronnie is able to give that 'complete' Stonesian effect alone better than neither of them alone, or, let's say, he is nearer that ideal. Keith's stuff basically is a bit too extreme or deep in relying on his uncompromised, strong intuitions. The Winos is rather odd-sounding 'no hostages taken' attitude band. Ronnie's stuff is lighter, having more 'pop' in it, and using more traditional, easy recognizable rock and roll elements in its delivery. Mick's stuff is just too light-hearted, too poppish, and in its urge to be contemporary, it tries a bit too hard to escape basically anything related to traditional rock and roll 'clothings', which seem to horrify many Stones fans. From the upfront, Ronnie's stuff is easiest to reach by traditional rock and roll ears.
But if we go back to polls, my picture still is that it is either WANDERING SPIRIT or TALK IS CHEAP, which seem be the strongest candidate for the best Stones solo album (even though I don't think I'VE GOT MY OWN ALBUM TO DO is far behind). Probably in the end it is the Glimmerian magic, which 'moves' - to use yours and kleerie's word
- people most...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 12:40 by Doxa.
And you think you have the right to bring in the solo albums which has really nothing to do with the topic at all. But well, you seem to have lost your temper for the moment.
It's a sidetrack back into the thread again, after the pointless rubbish posted by those who don't like Wood's solos
While I'm at it, I really like the solo-theme on I Got Lost When I Found You. Classic Ron Wood
He probably has the best songwriting-chops of them all. Stones fan or not.
PS: There are only subjective criterias when judging albums. I'm a great fan, but I have problems hearing through Bill's and Taylor's albums. I won't regard them higher in any way just because they were in the Stones. It's the other way around with Wood's albums - for me. Many of them have lots of good songs and interesting playing, always by top musicians.
So, it's just come down to what you or I subjectively like. I actually think the strongest stuff he ever did was with Rod. It's timeless and brilliant, and I don't think anything he did after he joined the Stones is, except possibly the first solo record (which come to think of it, was also before he joined the Stones).
Nothing. I think those are good examples of his playing.
This is an excellent post. I don't share the view that B&B is a better album than IORR, but otherwise I agree with everything here. And kudos to you for saying you like Monkey Grip!
can you expand on Wood's "two finger" technique? Where can we hear it? Is that how he does those "stuttering" rhythm lines?
and examples of Slavic touches?
- thanks
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: April 28, 2014 03:53
April 2014 and folks still arguing about the ridiculous. Taylor was great in his era and Wood was equally great in his...arguing between the two is point of view....what nonsense.....the Glimmers asked each of them to play on very different records...
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 28, 2014 04:34
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
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.
And it's ok that you like them....None of them have made a dent in the larger culture, which is usually what "great albums" do. But there you go...You like them. That's fine. I am not telling you not to.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 28, 2014 09:17
Quote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
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.
And it's ok that you like them....None of them have made a dent in the larger culture, which is usually what "great albums" do. But there you go...You like them. That's fine. I am not telling you not to.
Same here, but on this Stones forum most fans seem to really like those albums. One could get the impression that it was the other way around by your posts
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 28, 2014 09:43
Quote
DoxaQuote
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
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
I'd say that both Mick and Keith's albums do that, too.
If Ronnie's are different, it would be that they are more soul and funk-flavoured, imo.
Although Mick dresses his songs in other clothes (arrangements, different instruments etc) they still sound Stonesy to me - even Let's Work
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 09:44 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 28, 2014 11:05
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'd say that both Mick and Keith's albums do that, too.
If Ronnie's are different, it would be that they are more soul and funk-flavoured, imo.
Although Mick dresses his songs in other clothes (arrangements, different instruments etc) they still sound Stonesy to me - even Let's Work
Yeah, they sure do, too. The Stonesian roots are in their DNA, and dictate most of their musical intuitions, even Mick's no matter how hard he tries to escape them... Simply the way he sings alone is 'Stonesian' by nature, breathing all those blues-marinated nuances. But still funny thing, me thinks, is that both of them, when doing individual projects, seem to lack the special Stonesian feature the other possesses. It is them together when the 'complete' or 'ideal' Stones sound happens. Seperate projects seem to give us interesting angles to their individual strenghts. But like many have mentioned along the years, when one listens Mick's stuff, one misses Keith, and vice versa...
But related to Ronnie... I think Ronnie is able to give that 'complete' Stonesian effect alone better than neither of them alone, or, let's say, he is nearer that ideal. Keith's stuff basically is a bit too extreme or deep in relying on his uncompromised, strong intuitions. The Winos is rather odd-sounding 'no hostages taken' attitude band. Ronnie's stuff is lighter, having more 'pop' in it, and using more traditional, easy recognizable rock and roll elements in its delivery. Mick's stuff is just too light-hearted, too poppish, and in its urge to be contemporary, it tries a bit too hard to escape basically anything related to traditional rock and roll 'clothings', which seem to horrify many Stones fans. From the upfront, Ronnie's stuff is easiest to reach by traditional rock and roll ears.
But if we go back to polls, my picture still is that it is either WANDERING SPIRIT or TALK IS CHEAP, which seem be the strongest candidate for the best Stones solo album (even though I don't think I'VE GOT MY OWN ALBUM TO DO is far behind). Probably in the end it is the Glimmerian magic, which 'moves' - to use yours and kleerie's word
- people most...- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 12:40 by Doxa.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 28, 2014 12:21
Spot on, Doxa!
But it is indeed interesting that so many, if not the majority of posters here, are regarding some of Ronnie's solo albums as the best ones.
I bet many of those fans like good guitar playing as well
You know me, Doxa, and the two albums you mention are indeed on the top of my list as well - although Ronnie probably have three albums in the top 5.
But it is indeed interesting that so many, if not the majority of posters here, are regarding some of Ronnie's solo albums as the best ones.
I bet many of those fans like good guitar playing as well
You know me, Doxa, and the two albums you mention are indeed on the top of my list as well - although Ronnie probably have three albums in the top 5.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 28, 2014 13:50
Well, good guitar playing, in the end, is the foundation of Ronnie's solo albums. If I ever had seen any problems in Ronnie's works, that never been that of musicianship. My favourite term to describe Ronnie's guitar playing is that of "fitting". Some might think that is a belittlening one, but it is not. It involves both skills and taste. It is the song, and its needs, which lead his guitar playing. He does that very well in Stones context, but, of course, within his solo projects, as with the Faces, he has more room to shine. But still even there he seems to control the wholeness damn well. The guitar playing very rarely is an aim of its own, but just a means to serve the song. I think this trait of his, is one reason why his albums are 'Rolling Stones fan-friendly'.
If we make the obligatory comparison to one ex-Rolling Stone, I think Ron Wood is a more complete solo artist - or a band leader - than Mick Taylor is. Taylor's solo works, no matter how stunning his guitar playing is and how good some songs are, are not so coherent and full packages as Wood's are. Taylor's best, me thinks, when there is someone giving him orders or a template to shine (we know who does that best), but Wood does need that; he can handle it by his own (I sometimes wonder does this ability of Wood's to handle bigger pictures derive from his artistic talent as a paintor - painting, if anything, asks talent to see the distinguished role of parts in the whole, and vice versa). This is not a comparison of quality, but only that of difference. I think the classical Taylor/Wood-debate derives partly from stressing these different qualities of them (which also can be heard in the way they play their Instruments). But, of course, saying who is a 'better' Rolling Stone, that is, makes the band better, cannot be answered from solely - or at all - looking at their solo works. I just tried to give one angle to the debate, now by trying to explicate Woody's talents.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 13:53 by Doxa.
If we make the obligatory comparison to one ex-Rolling Stone, I think Ron Wood is a more complete solo artist - or a band leader - than Mick Taylor is. Taylor's solo works, no matter how stunning his guitar playing is and how good some songs are, are not so coherent and full packages as Wood's are. Taylor's best, me thinks, when there is someone giving him orders or a template to shine (we know who does that best
), but Wood does need that; he can handle it by his own (I sometimes wonder does this ability of Wood's to handle bigger pictures derive from his artistic talent as a paintor - painting, if anything, asks talent to see the distinguished role of parts in the whole, and vice versa). This is not a comparison of quality, but only that of difference. I think the classical Taylor/Wood-debate derives partly from stressing these different qualities of them (which also can be heard in the way they play their Instruments). But, of course, saying who is a 'better' Rolling Stone, that is, makes the band better, cannot be answered from solely - or at all - looking at their solo works. I just tried to give one angle to the debate, now by trying to explicate Woody's talents.- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 13:53 by Doxa.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: April 28, 2014 15:25
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
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...
And you think you have the right to bring in the solo albums which has really nothing to do with the topic at all. But well, you seem to have lost your temper for the moment.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 28, 2014 16:25
No temper, just facepalming disbelief..
The solo albums all have lots of good Woody-solos...
Here's a couple of them:
The solo albums all have lots of good Woody-solos...
Here's a couple of them:
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 28, 2014 18:17
There are two standards to judge solo albums. By the standard as a Rolling Stones fan, I enjoy even Bill's Monkey Grip. On an objective standard which I judge any other music I would say only Ronnie's first album is really good, and so are Taylor's and Keith's first ones. Ronnie just doesn't have the songwriting chops or the voice to sustain my interest for an entire album.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: April 28, 2014 19:15
Shouldn't this be a different thread ??
It has gone from the topic of "The Greatest Ron Wood Solos" to something completely different >> which is a debate about solo albums.
Now,people looking for tips as to which concert recordings to try to acquire (for an example) will have to dig through all of this debate over solo albums to find the relevant information.
It's not my call,obviously. It is just a suggestion to keep things better organized.
It has gone from the topic of "The Greatest Ron Wood Solos" to something completely different >> which is a debate about solo albums.
Now,people looking for tips as to which concert recordings to try to acquire (for an example) will have to dig through all of this debate over solo albums to find the relevant information.
It's not my call,obviously. It is just a suggestion to keep things better organized.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 28, 2014 19:58
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Shouldn't this be a different thread ??
It has gone from the topic of "The Greatest Ron Wood Solos" to something completely different >> which is a debate about solo albums.
Now,people looking for tips as to which concert recordings to try to acquire (for an example) will have to dig through all of this debate over solo albums to find the relevant information.
It's not my call,obviously. It is just a suggestion to keep things better organized.
It's a sidetrack back into the thread again, after the pointless rubbish posted by those who don't like Wood's solos
While I'm at it, I really like the solo-theme on I Got Lost When I Found You. Classic Ron Wood
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 28, 2014 20:06
Quote
71Tele
There are two standards to judge solo albums. By the standard as a Rolling Stones fan, I enjoy even Bill's Monkey Grip. On an objective standard which I judge any other music I would say only Ronnie's first album is really good, and so are Taylor's and Keith's first ones. Ronnie just doesn't have the songwriting chops or the voice to sustain my interest for an entire album.
He probably has the best songwriting-chops of them all. Stones fan or not.
PS: There are only subjective criterias when judging albums. I'm a great fan, but I have problems hearing through Bill's and Taylor's albums. I won't regard them higher in any way just because they were in the Stones. It's the other way around with Wood's albums - for me. Many of them have lots of good songs and interesting playing, always by top musicians.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 28, 2014 21:37
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71Tele
There are two standards to judge solo albums. By the standard as a Rolling Stones fan, I enjoy even Bill's Monkey Grip. On an objective standard which I judge any other music I would say only Ronnie's first album is really good, and so are Taylor's and Keith's first ones. Ronnie just doesn't have the songwriting chops or the voice to sustain my interest for an entire album.
He probably has the best songwriting-chops of them all. Stones fan or not.
PS: There are only subjective criterias when judging albums. I'm a great fan, but I have problems hearing through Bill's and Taylor's albums. I won't regard them higher in any way just because they were in the Stones. It's the other way around with Wood's albums - for me. Many of them have lots of good songs and interesting playing, always by top musicians.
So, it's just come down to what you or I subjectively like. I actually think the strongest stuff he ever did was with Rod. It's timeless and brilliant, and I don't think anything he did after he joined the Stones is, except possibly the first solo record (which come to think of it, was also before he joined the Stones).
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 28, 2014 23:07
Fair enough, Tele. And none of those views are surprising, nor any news for other posters, I reckon
Agree about some his best work was done with Rod and Ronnie L.
He played his Faces meddley even better in the video I posted in this thread, though. And Little Wing with the Corrs was beyond that level again, imo.
What is it that you find not so good about his playing on Undercover (live) and Worried About You (live) that isn't up to par with his best Faces work? That baffles me a little, since you are a guitar player..
Agree about some his best work was done with Rod and Ronnie L.
He played his Faces meddley even better in the video I posted in this thread, though. And Little Wing with the Corrs was beyond that level again, imo.
What is it that you find not so good about his playing on Undercover (live) and Worried About You (live) that isn't up to par with his best Faces work? That baffles me a little, since you are a guitar player..
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: April 29, 2014 00:06
With Brian and/or with Taylor the Stones were always a tight band. That was their aim and strength.
What was refreshing about the Faces was, in an era of 'serious', musical prog rock - here was a ramshackled loose band. Emphasis on open, devil may care, drunken fun. Laddish larks.
So when Ronnie joins the Stones loose joins what had been tight. There is now a haphazard nature to the Stones which they did not have before - neither with Jones nor with Taylor. Added to that is that Keith is becoming more out of it - less Mr reliable on rhythm. So the nature of the Stones live changed radically from '75 to '82. Hit and miss, rather random. They DID NOT return to being a more Jones type band with the addition of Ronnie. They became more of a Faces type band. Some prefer that, others don't.
Personally I prefer a tight band and thought that '89 to '90 was a return to focus with force. Rommie got his discipline back. Others regret the loss of free-form open-structeured stuff from '81-82. Mathijs will be one of those, I assume.
When Taylor lost interest he left. No problem I rate Black and Blue much higher than IORR. New ideas, approach and sound. Ditto SG.
The problem with Ronnie is that when he is not focused and on his game - it can be a complete shambles. New barbarians fuelled up on coke and booze - yeah alright - but not the Stones please. Even in wildest '72-'73 days they had still maintained a professionalism.
The upside is that with Ronnie we've had 40 more years since Taylor left - and on the whole a good ride. If we'd had Wayne Perkins (and he so good on Black and Blue) then I doubt whether this would have been the case.
But we can all agree that it's not about being a great guitarist or a great soloist. Brian was neither. No-one argues that he wasn't right for the Stones!
Oh and another thing - you've got it all wrong - Bill's Monkey Grip is the the original and best solo Stones album. His guitar work is not stunning - he does not even play a single solo - but that's not the point, is it?
What was refreshing about the Faces was, in an era of 'serious', musical prog rock - here was a ramshackled loose band. Emphasis on open, devil may care, drunken fun. Laddish larks.
So when Ronnie joins the Stones loose joins what had been tight. There is now a haphazard nature to the Stones which they did not have before - neither with Jones nor with Taylor. Added to that is that Keith is becoming more out of it - less Mr reliable on rhythm. So the nature of the Stones live changed radically from '75 to '82. Hit and miss, rather random. They DID NOT return to being a more Jones type band with the addition of Ronnie. They became more of a Faces type band. Some prefer that, others don't.
Personally I prefer a tight band and thought that '89 to '90 was a return to focus with force. Rommie got his discipline back. Others regret the loss of free-form open-structeured stuff from '81-82. Mathijs will be one of those, I assume.
When Taylor lost interest he left. No problem I rate Black and Blue much higher than IORR. New ideas, approach and sound. Ditto SG.
The problem with Ronnie is that when he is not focused and on his game - it can be a complete shambles. New barbarians fuelled up on coke and booze - yeah alright - but not the Stones please. Even in wildest '72-'73 days they had still maintained a professionalism.
The upside is that with Ronnie we've had 40 more years since Taylor left - and on the whole a good ride. If we'd had Wayne Perkins (and he so good on Black and Blue) then I doubt whether this would have been the case.
But we can all agree that it's not about being a great guitarist or a great soloist. Brian was neither. No-one argues that he wasn't right for the Stones!
Oh and another thing - you've got it all wrong - Bill's Monkey Grip is the the original and best solo Stones album. His guitar work is not stunning - he does not even play a single solo - but that's not the point, is it?
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 29, 2014 00:19
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.
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.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
sdstonesguy
()
Date: April 29, 2014 00:23
They replaced Brian with Mick. When he left, they did not go to replace Brian again, instead they replaced Mick. This creates the big change in my estimation.
Love Ronnie and love his solo records. I love that he stays busy, he seems to really be into being a musician while Mick & Keef seem to have let that part of their lives pass. They now play with the Rolling Stones, but are pretty darn quiet when the band is packed away. Ronnie just can't sit still...good for him.
Love Ronnie and love his solo records. I love that he stays busy, he seems to really be into being a musician while Mick & Keef seem to have let that part of their lives pass. They now play with the Rolling Stones, but are pretty darn quiet when the band is packed away. Ronnie just can't sit still...good for him.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 29, 2014 02:36
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Fair enough, Tele. And none of those views are surprising, nor any news for other posters, I reckon
Agree about some his best work was done with Rod and Ronnie L.
He played his Faces meddley even better in the video I posted in this thread, though. And Little Wing with the Corrs was beyond that level again, imo.
What is it that you find not so good about his playing on Undercover (live) and Worried About You (live) that isn't up to par with his best Faces work? That baffles me a little, since you are a guitar player..
Nothing. I think those are good examples of his playing.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: April 29, 2014 02:41
Quote
Deluxtone
With Brian and/or with Taylor the Stones were always a tight band. That was their aim and strength.
What was refreshing about the Faces was, in an era of 'serious', musical prog rock - here was a ramshackled loose band. Emphasis on open, devil may care, drunken fun. Laddish larks.
So when Ronnie joins the Stones loose joins what had been tight. There is now a haphazard nature to the Stones which they did not have before - neither with Jones nor with Taylor. Added to that is that Keith is becoming more out of it - less Mr reliable on rhythm. So the nature of the Stones live changed radically from '75 to '82. Hit and miss, rather random. They DID NOT return to being a more Jones type band with the addition of Ronnie. They became more of a Faces type band. Some prefer that, others don't.
Personally I prefer a tight band and thought that '89 to '90 was a return to focus with force. Rommie got his discipline back. Others regret the loss of free-form open-structeured stuff from '81-82. Mathijs will be one of those, I assume.
When Taylor lost interest he left. No problem I rate Black and Blue much higher than IORR. New ideas, approach and sound. Ditto SG.
The problem with Ronnie is that when he is not focused and on his game - it can be a complete shambles. New barbarians fuelled up on coke and booze - yeah alright - but not the Stones please. Even in wildest '72-'73 days they had still maintained a professionalism.
The upside is that with Ronnie we've had 40 more years since Taylor left - and on the whole a good ride. If we'd had Wayne Perkins (and he so good on Black and Blue) then I doubt whether this would have been the case.
But we can all agree that it's not about being a great guitarist or a great soloist. Brian was neither. No-one argues that he wasn't right for the Stones!
Oh and another thing - you've got it all wrong - Bill's Monkey Grip is the the original and best solo Stones album. His guitar work is not stunning - he does not even play a single solo - but that's not the point, is it?
This is an excellent post. I don't share the view that B&B is a better album than IORR, but otherwise I agree with everything here. And kudos to you for saying you like Monkey Grip!
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: April 29, 2014 05:54
Quote
liddas
His "two finger" technique always creates unique voicings.
He is able to add intensity and depth to the music (more than often with European/Slavic touches, rather than the overused "blue note" based cliches) only to kick the band in the but a sec later.
can you expand on Wood's "two finger" technique? Where can we hear it? Is that how he does those "stuttering" rhythm lines?
and examples of Slavic touches?
- thanks
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: April 29, 2014 08:51
Quote
ccQuote
liddas
His "two finger" technique always creates unique voicings.
He is able to add intensity and depth to the music (more than often with European/Slavic touches, rather than the overused "blue note" based cliches) only to kick the band in the but a sec later.
can you expand on Wood's "two finger" technique? Where can we hear it? Is that how he does those "stuttering" rhythm lines?
and examples of Slavic touches?
- thanks
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 29, 2014 10:56
Another good one:
The two-finger technique, I presume is octaves, like here (2:29 and on)?
The two-finger technique, I presume is octaves, like here (2:29 and on)?
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: April 29, 2014 12:58
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 12:59 by liddas.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 12:59 by liddas.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 29, 2014 13:20
That's what I though at first, liddas. Then, the Hot Stuff-clip is a good showcase for that technique
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 29, 2014 13:37
liddas, good points. It is nice to hear substantive descriptions of Woodie's style, and I think you came up with good insights. Never thought about that Slavish/Balkan folk/gypsy thing, but I now recognize what you mean, and cannot but agree.
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 29, 2014 13:47
More classic Ronnie:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 14:00 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 14:00 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 29, 2014 14:20
This one is lovely.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: April 29, 2014 14:26
I agree about the (almost) 2 finger solo style of RW; although he does use his ring finger a good bit.But that stutter effect is a good description. I think the main point is that he does not use his pinky. Like shredders and HM do; so that right away puts him in the category of R&B players. IMO the only way, LOL
But I dont hear any of these Slavish touches; thats a bit over the top, I think.
Ronnie is a very true artist. And actually it is he himself who has contributed to the misconception of his dedication. His image, his interview style, his drinking - all detract from the fruits of his labors. His painting alone shows devotion. I myself am not a fan of his paintings, but I love his devotion.
I think his songwriting is right. for what he does these are good song. I dont think he professes to be a composer. Nor do I think that a great album needs to impact culture; like someone else has said here.
"Not For Beginners" is an album of sketches; often of intoxicated ramblings; as is "1234".I can see how many people do not dig them much; but they really speak to me. I can go where they are.
I always respect kleermakers posts, but din't he contracdict himself? By making the point that great guitar playing is about emotion, and moving you, not technique. that is very much what RW is about.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 18:16 by Palace Revolution 2000.
But I dont hear any of these Slavish touches; thats a bit over the top, I think.
Ronnie is a very true artist. And actually it is he himself who has contributed to the misconception of his dedication. His image, his interview style, his drinking - all detract from the fruits of his labors. His painting alone shows devotion. I myself am not a fan of his paintings, but I love his devotion.
I think his songwriting is right. for what he does these are good song. I dont think he professes to be a composer. Nor do I think that a great album needs to impact culture; like someone else has said here.
"Not For Beginners" is an album of sketches; often of intoxicated ramblings; as is "1234".I can see how many people do not dig them much; but they really speak to me. I can go where they are.
I always respect kleermakers posts, but din't he contracdict himself? By making the point that great guitar playing is about emotion, and moving you, not technique. that is very much what RW is about.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-29 18:16 by Palace Revolution 2000.
Re: The Greatest Ron Wood Solos
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 29, 2014 14:33
IMO, this track captures a lot of what you're describing, Tony
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
artedm , Broesel2404 , franzk , Handova , jstones , LeonidP , letitloose6 , makemeburnthecandle , MisterO , Nankstone , spidey39 , UGK56 , WembleyWhammer
Guests:
1465
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10