Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
he never really SAYS anything; musically, in words, in his paintings.

Wow, this commment is more deadly than everything I ever wrote in this thread.

Quote
liddas
But Ronnie's roots are way into American black music, there is no doubt about it. Whenever he is in an authentic blues environment he is at home like a fish in the water. Just like Keith is. Think of the Checkerboard with Muddy - an I mean not the notes, but the timing, the intention! Think of his guitar work on the recent you got the Silver or worried life blues in boogie for stu. There is an authenticity and knowledge in his interpretation that goes far more deep than that of most of the well recognized blues gods.

I forget whether it was earlier in this thread or elsewhere entirely, but someone pointed out that Ronnie, in his early days with the Stones, bought in black music that wasn't blues, and I thought that was bang on. It worked well for a little while, Hey Negrita being my favourite example.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What happened with appreciating the sound and feel an instrument makes?

Ronnie Wood happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-03 14:50 by Stoneburst.

Don't forget the fact that most people enjoy his playing

Luckily, there only a few classic rock-oriented people around who moan about a thin tone without enough distortion etc.

Personally, I enjoy John Lee Hooker's and Muddy's sound better



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-03 15:03 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget the fact that most people enjoy his playing

And everyone enjoy Mick Taylor playing (highlights since 2013, crowd ovations...)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-03 15:18 by Powerage.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget the fact that most people enjoy his playing

Luckily, there only a few classic rock-oriented people around who moan about a thin tone without enough distortion etc.

Personally, I enjoy John Lee Hooker's and Muddy's sound better

I don't think I've ever heard anyone on this board complain about that. Who do you mean? Kleerie? Tele? Myself? I don't think there are many 'classic-rock oriented' people on here. This is a Stones board, not an Aerosmith or AC/DC fan page.

P.S. I love John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters just as much as the next guy. To seriously compare Wood to either one of them is preposterous.

Listen to the Jimmy Reed-shows and say that again. His playing is just as eclectically beautiful.

Yes, there have been lots of complaining during the last 16/17 years here about Ronnie not having the same fuzzy classic rock solo sound, like Taylor or Page had.

I thought you were an old poster with a new name, and took that you knew that for granted, sorry.

PS: Tele hates classic rock, but he loves that sound.

Quote
Powerage

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget the fact that most people enjoy his playing

And everyone enjoy Mick Taylor playing (highlits since 2013, crowd ovations...)

Yep, go back to the threads when he re-joined. Some did, some didn't. It will always be like that...

But back on topic! Crackin' Up is another beautiful solo that nobody else would have played the same way, imo.

So many posts / pages to justify- explain- clear- show- clear up- prove - demonstrate Ronnie solos playing is quite revealing.

In a same post about Mick Taylor, we would see some great videos and so few comments...

Quote
Powerage
So many posts / pages to justify- explain- clear- show- clear up- prove - demonstrate Ronnie solos playing is quite revealing.

In a same post about Mick Taylor, we would see some great videos and so few comments...

Even Taylorites disagree about the level of his playing today. His thread had 35 pages the last time I checked...

Perhaps, but never when he was an official Stones member... (this debate is reserved for Ronnie since 1975... )

And his solos are far better today than any Ronnie ones on MR, Sway and of course CYHMK...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-03 15:30 by Powerage.

You have heard them all, right?

And this thread is not about comparing, for the umpteenth time

OK but well... Sorry, you have to compare, and with Taylor, there is no need to sort... That's the main difference : Stones history...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to the Jimmy Reed-shows and say that again. His playing is just as eclectically beautiful.

Yes, there have been lots of complaining during the last 16/17 years here about Ronnie not having the same fuzzy classic rock solo sound, like Taylor or Page had.

I thought you were an old poster with a new name, and took that you knew that for granted, sorry.

PS: Tele hates classic rock, but he loves that sound.

No, I'm a long-ish term lurker (been reading IORR for a few years) and finally made an account a few months ago. It's a bit odd because I never thought of Taylor as having a classic rock tone. It's very thick and mid-rangey, but no way is it in that Jimmy Page, Angus Young, Joe Perry-ish ballpark. To my ears, anyway. Others probably disagree.

The Jimmy Reed shows (edit: and Boogie for Stu, and the 100 Club show) are interesting and highly relevant to this bit of the discussion. Ronnie played very well on them, far better than he's played with the Stones since '89. I think this was due to a couple of things. Firstly, the Stones haven't played an entire set of 12-bar shuffles like that since their 60s club days; Ronnie doesn't normally get to work with that degree of stylistic consistency. Secondly, he was the band leader and had to step up. Thirdly, it was all Jimmy Reed stuff, a style (as you say) that he's very comfortable with. Fourthly, and I think most importantly, he had Mick Taylor with him - a fantastic blues player who doesn't typically play that sort of blues. Wood and Taylor got the best out of one another on those shows because they were playing from the same roots but taking different directions, as it were. Taylor's more lyrical approach framed Wood's percussive, choppy playing perfectly, and vice versa.

It's ironic that despite this whole discussion, Taylor arguably did more for Wood's playing in those than the Stones ever have.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-03 15:52 by Stoneburst.

I have always preferred Ronnie's solos on TD, Happy and Brown Sugar.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But back on topic! Crackin' Up is another beautiful solo that nobody else would have played the same way, imo.

But I think his Crackin Up solo needs Keith comping. See I myself prefer this type of guitar sound: of two guitars; of a "guitar solo" not being so solo, but riding on another guitar e.g.
It might be mainly a TYPE of guitar solo that is the difference of opinion in this thread.
you have Taylor who can stand on his own. Take "Time waits for no One" - a beautiful solo, and it flies on it's own.
I think that is a really valid point you make Bard, about 75/76 being a transition to bridge the gap. I never looked at it like that.
The bottom line for me is that IMO in the Faces he was so strong, and then with the Stones...maybe he wanted it too much, maybe he idolizes Keith too much, but he has allowed the Stones to sap a lot of his power.

I agree, Tony, but sometimes - quite a few, actually - that sapping made the Stones even better, imo.

I am very surprised, though, that many can't see that people like different kinds of soloing..

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was there (on this show), and Ronnie's solo sounds just as great today!

Er, really? The first couple of notes are okay (being the same as the studio version), then he just heads back to the pentatonic root position and starts blasting out the same Chuck Berry licks he always plays until Jagger cuts him off. It's not exactly a bad solo, but there's no real phrasing nor any attempt at melodic invention. It doesn't have much to do with the song. And Dandie: you can talk all you like about Taylorite snobbishness, but we are now on the twentieth page of you posting mediocre Ronnie Wood solos and criticising other posters for not being able to appreciate them.

Yes, I think this is the crux of it. Every single time a Ronnie solo is posted of a song previously performed by Taylor, the verdict is the same: "Not as good as Taylor". The Taylor solo on YCAGWYW is poetry. It tells a story, it sails. Wood plays like a child with attention-deficit disorder: A nice run here, a potentially good idea there, but ne almost never puts it all together in a cohesive way.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's funny that people call Ronnie "average". I have never heard anyone who plays like him, and call tell it's Ronnie in an instant when I hear him.

It would have been interesting to see those who think he is average name 10 other guitar players with the same signature sound/style/abilities. It shouldn't be hard, since he's average after all...

It is possible to be distinctive without being exceptional.

Quote
bbkink
How about Ronnie on "Sweet Little Rock 'N' Roller" on Rod's Smiler lp?

I do love that one.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget the fact that most people enjoy his playing

Luckily, there only a few classic rock-oriented people around who moan about a thin tone without enough distortion etc.

Personally, I enjoy John Lee Hooker's and Muddy's sound better

I don't think I've ever heard anyone on this board complain about that. Who do you mean? Kleerie? Tele? Myself? I don't think there are many 'classic-rock oriented' people on here. This is a Stones board, not an Aerosmith or AC/DC fan page.

P.S. I love John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters just as much as the next guy. To seriously compare Wood to either one of them is preposterous.

I wish to confirm that I am most definitely not classic rock oriented. But now that DP mentioned his tone, I do think it is often thin and weak, but not because I like classic rock, just because I think it's a lousy tone. In fact, I don't know of anyone who got less out of a Stratocaster.

Quote
71Tele
It is possible to be distinctive without being exceptional.

Touché. Indeed, one can be distinctive by being rubbish. The Sway solo posted earlier in this thread is a good case in point: I know it's Ronnie Wood immediately because of how crap it is.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But back on topic! Crackin' Up is another beautiful solo that nobody else would have played the same way, imo.

I will concede you the entire side 3 of LYL. I think it's magical. I absolutely hate the other three sides though, and many versions of songs they were doing just a couple of years earlier with Taylor are an adomination on LYL.

But let's keep this positive, shall we? From Boogie for Stu, here's Wood and Taylor killing it together on Worried Life Blues:





And, just as with the Jimmy Reed shows, the crucial point is that there is no pressure on Ronnie to emulate Taylor here; with Taylor onstage next to him, Ronnie has time and space to be himself, and - far from any negative comparisons - the stylistic contrast between them is a delight to behold. (This video, by the way, should be anathema to anyone and everyone who's ever claimed that Mick Taylor cannot 'weave'.)

Stoneburst :

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree, Tony, but sometimes - quite a few, actually - that sapping made the Stones even better, imo.

I am very surprised, though, that many can't see that people like different kinds of soloing..

So sapping another player makes the band better ...

As for you being surprised - I on my turn am surprised that you're surprised about the fact that people are not enthusiastic about average at best but mostly sub par soloing in the Stones. It has nothing to do with different kinds of soloing but with good or bad soloing or something in between. But your rhetoric is still strong.

Quote
Stoneburst
But let's keep this positive, shall we? From Boogie for Stu, here's Wood and Taylor killing it together on Worried Life Blues:





And, just as with the Jimmy Reed shows, the crucial point is that there is no pressure on Ronnie to emulate Taylor here; with Taylor onstage next to him, Ronnie has time and space to be himself, and - far from any negative comparisons - the stylistic contrast between them is a delight to behold. (This video, by the way, should be anathema to anyone and everyone who's ever claimed that Mick Taylor cannot 'weave'.)

The Taylor/Wood show....... Wonderful.

It has been pointed out on here more than a few times how well they play together free from the Jagger/Richards restraints.

It makes the endless, who's better, Taylor or Wood debates, pointless when you see them play together like this

It makes it even more of a shame that they dont/cant play together like this with the Stones......... For a full show!

What a drag it is gettin' old

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bbkink
How about Ronnie on "Sweet Little Rock 'N' Roller" on Rod's Smiler lp?

I do love that one.

Yet you hate three sides of LYL

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree, Tony, but sometimes - quite a few, actually - that sapping made the Stones even better, imo.

I am very surprised, though, that many can't see that people like different kinds of soloing..

So sapping another player makes the band better ...

As for you being surprised - I on my turn am surprised that you're surprised about the fact that people are not enthusiastic about average at best but mostly sub par soloing in the Stones. It has nothing to do with different kinds of soloing but with good or bad soloing or something in between. But your rhetoric is still strong.

They simplest way of playing rock is making a total distinction between lead and strumming. Just saying...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't forget the fact that most people enjoy his playing

Luckily, there only a few classic rock-oriented people around who moan about a thin tone without enough distortion etc.

Personally, I enjoy John Lee Hooker's and Muddy's sound better

I don't think I've ever heard anyone on this board complain about that. Who do you mean? Kleerie? Tele? Myself? I don't think there are many 'classic-rock oriented' people on here. This is a Stones board, not an Aerosmith or AC/DC fan page.

P.S. I love John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters just as much as the next guy. To seriously compare Wood to either one of them is preposterous.

I wish to confirm that I am most definitely not classic rock oriented. But now that DP mentioned his tone, I do think it is often thin and weak, but not because I like classic rock, just because I think it's a lousy tone. In fact, I don't know of anyone who got less out of a Stratocaster.

Compared to what? Muddy? Jimmy Reed? Jesse Ed? Freddie King?

None of them had a mid-switched distorted LP-sound. Jesse Ed Davis may have had the thinnest tone in the business, but he still played magical, something I know we agree about. AND he knew when to play and not to play...