If Keith and Woody are such poor players these days then how come the popular guitar band The Rolling Stones are still the greatest show on earth? Some of the comments i've read on this thread are quite disrespectful. Without Ron Wood it's highly likely there would be no Rolling Stones today so please show some grace and be thankful. He's a beautiful guitar player, solos aren't his or Keiths thing it's not like they're Queen or something.

Off the top of my head, some of my favorite Woody solos:
-Sympathy for the Devil, LA Friday version
-Shattered, studio version
-Summer Romance
-When the Whip Comes Down, Sucking in the 70's version
-Black Limousine, Hampton '81
-When the Whip Comes Down, Leeds '82
-Just My Imagination, Leeds '82 (probably my favorite on this list)
-Beast of Burden, Leeds '82
-Too Tough
-Start Me Up, Flashpoint version

Hot Stuff from Love You Live deserves a mention here, imo.

Quote
geordiestone
He's a beautiful guitar player, solos aren't his or Keiths thing it's not like they're Queen or something.

Right. And did you ever listen to B.May or EVH trying to play the blues or Chuck Berry style? Horrible!! So every musician has his own style.

Tom

Quote
geordiestone
He's a beautiful guitar player, solos aren't his or Keiths thing it's not like they're Queen or something.

But if solos aren't his thing, I guess this thread altogether is a bit wrong-oriented... But humor aside, I agree with that statement, Ronnie's forte is not a guitar solo department, but that doesn't mean he is not able to come up with some great solos here and there... Now to think of that, and thinking what exactly is Wood's forte, I can only think of him being a great guitar player over-all, like being a best all-around man in guitar department teh band ever have had, being able to do any thing needed and well, but probably not particularly shining in any. Keith, by contrast, is more a rhythmn & riff oriented, if we think of his excellence. Wood's great there as well, better than, say, Taylor, but you know, he is no Keith Richards who is a maestro in that department... But then, Wood is a better man to take care of traditional guitar solos than Keef, but, of course, he is not Taylor...

I guess one reason why Ronnie is belittled and even 'mocked' sometimes is the unfair comparison to these two strong guitar personas in the band who both are world-class players in their own forte. The first has created a generally recognized signature sound and is a pioneer in rhythmn/riff guitar art, and probably is the most important contributor ever to make that department such a defining and cool part in rock music. The second is a distinguished voice from a classical British blues solo guitar generation, with a tone that is both unique and not one inch lesser than is of his top class famous contemporaries. Wood's signature playing is not easily to be recognized, or if it is - yes, he has a beautiful 'funky' touch of his own - but not so easily to be isolated to the great universe of distinguished guitar playing, and to be admired there.

But personally I think that Ronnie's biggest contribution to the Stones is to make that 'ancient art of weaving' possible, but - like being a micro-cosmos of organic Stones team-play sound altogether - it doesn't offer clear room for individual players to shine. I think that is a huge contribution, even though it hasn't gotten such a big recognition as it deserves.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-20 12:37 by Doxa.

IMO, solos WAS Ronnie's thing in 75/76. He changed style in 77/78 when he and Keith started with the weaving-thing.

Funnily, Keith was the one who broke out of that, but Ronnie remained a teamplayer guitar-wise.

When Ronnie plays blues with Mick Taylor, his extended solos are back, and he plays beautifully, imo.

He never was more than a blues/funk player, though, while Mick Taylor had much more styles in him, including the classic rock guitar god approach.

Wo - There's so many. Like others have said, "Guitar God" solos ala Eddie Van Halen, or so many other "technical virtuosos" have never been Ron's (or Keith's) thing. He plays in a simple bluesy style that - at it's best- makes the listener FEEL something. That emotional connection is what any art form is about for me. It would be hard to compile a full list of Woody solos that have touched me but I'll try:

Out of Tears
Beast of Burden (live 1981 on Rarities)
YCAGWYW - Hyde Park Live
Black Limousine (LSTNT movie)
Love in Vain - live Memphis 1978
oh God....I could go on forever......

Quote
geordiestone
If Keith and Woody are such poor players these days then how come the popular guitar band The Rolling Stones are still the greatest show on earth?

Have you ever heard the term 'circular argument'?

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
GRNRBITW
sigh. maybe we could compromise and come up with a list of the "most not horrible ron wood solos." i think everyone can rally at this....

How about, Ronnies greatest rhythmic fills

how about Ronnie's least suckiest rhythmic fills, so no one is offended?

Quote
Doxa
being able to do any thing needed and well, but probably not particularly shining in any.

- Doxa

Hi praise indeed.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
geordiestone
If Keith and Woody are such poor players these days then how come the popular guitar band The Rolling Stones are still the greatest show on earth?

Have you ever heard the term 'circular argument'?

Mick Taylor's legacy from the golden period is as powerful as Duane Allman's. The Allmans and to some extent even Eric Clapton have ridden on Duane's wings for 40 years, the same is true for The Stones and Taylor. Every time a signature song is played the classic Taylor is on the stage, even when he's banished to the green room. We as fans and those on stage fill in the "blanks" but his contributions still fuel this band.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-20 18:15 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
GRNRBITW
sigh. maybe we could compromise and come up with a list of the "most not horrible ron wood solos." i think everyone can rally at this....

How about, Ronnies greatest rhythmic fills

how about Ronnie's least suckiest rhythmic fills, so no one is offended?

Try the 5 minutes rhytmic fill from MSG 75 (YCAGWYW)..

1975 again, almost 40 years ago man... Prehistory

Quote
Powerage
1975 again, almost 40 years ago man... Prehistory

It's 37 years since Keith took over as the lead player, hence we have to point at the extended solos Ronnie was allowed to do.

Not hard to understand, man?

The last time I listened to LA Friday, Rip This Joint really stood out for me. I think I actually prefer this song with Woody in it. Its kind of a punk sounding song and his playing fits perfectly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-20 21:49 by ryanpow.

I see Ron's guitar solos as his paintings: those paintings are nice but pretty average. Anyone with a bit of painting talent could make them. They are no Van Goghs or Rembrandts, for crying out loud.

Quote
kleermaker
I see Ron's guitar solos as his paintings: those paintings are nice but pretty average. Anyone with a bit of painting talent could make them. They are no Van Goghs or Rembrandts, for crying out loud.

You don't know much about painting, kleerie

Quote
ryanpow
The last time I listened to LA Friday, Rip This Joint really stood out for me. I think I actually prefer this song with Woody in it. Its kind of a punk sounding song and his playing fits perfectly.

+ 1. That version really rocked.

I think Ronnies best and most memorable solo's were BEFORE he joined the Stones- his guitar work with Rod Stewart and with the Faces was great (Mandolin Wind, Stay with Me, Miss Judy, Around the Pynth, That's All You Need, etc) and then the guitar work on his first 3 solo albums were really enjoyable.
His work within the Stones was and will always be secondary to Keith.

Quote
bob r
I think Ronnies best and most memorable solo's were BEFORE he joined the Stones- his guitar work with Rod Stewart and with the Faces was great (Mandolin Wind, Stay with Me, Miss Judy, Around the Pynth, That's All You Need, etc) and then the guitar work on his first 3 solo albums were really enjoyable.
His work within the Stones was and will always be secondary to Keith.

The best songs, and the coolest playing, perhaps, but his extended solos were best in 1975, imo.

Debris and Sweet Lady Mary should be on your list as well

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
bob r
I think Ronnies best and most memorable solo's were BEFORE he joined the Stones- his guitar work with Rod Stewart and with the Faces was great (Mandolin Wind, Stay with Me, Miss Judy, Around the Pynth, That's All You Need, etc) and then the guitar work on his first 3 solo albums were really enjoyable.
His work within the Stones was and will always be secondary to Keith.

The best songs, and the coolest playing, perhaps, but his extended solos were best in 1975, imo.

You hate extended solos, you always say they don't serve the song ...

When the Whip Comes Down, Memphis 1978

His work on Clapton at the Rainbow is excellent as well.

after steel wheels and the steel wheels tour, i really checked out on the remainder of the stones career, and stuck to enjoying their music from the 60s and 70s.

so i stayed a huge fan, but completely ignorant of their post-SW albums and tours.

i heard that they were going to be playing the Super Bowl, though, and was very excited to see them. but also of course worried that they would completely screw it up, knowing how they can be.

i particularly remember feeling nervous before ronnie's start me up solo, since i'd known him to be (even in the 80s) so inclined to phone it in.

i thought he nailed the solo and although it wasn't his best, it's the one that stuck in my head. he made it through the solo and it was pretty good.

my other reactions to the super bowl performance was that mick of course was outstanding for his age, and that keith played as well as i expected although i was shocked to see his age so visibly showing (which is silly since of course it's going to show in your mid-60s, but i'd just been not following their live performances for so long, i was really comparing him to 1989 keith.)

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
bob r
I think Ronnies best and most memorable solo's were BEFORE he joined the Stones- his guitar work with Rod Stewart and with the Faces was great (Mandolin Wind, Stay with Me, Miss Judy, Around the Pynth, That's All You Need, etc) and then the guitar work on his first 3 solo albums were really enjoyable.
His work within the Stones was and will always be secondary to Keith.

The best songs, and the coolest playing, perhaps, but his extended solos were best in 1975, imo.

You hate extended solos, you always say they don't serve the song ...

It depends on the song, and the solo, but yeah, several minutes solos on YCAGWYW are pointless, whether they are played by Taylor or Wood. They can be enjoyable if they are good, though.

Worried About You Buenos Aires 2006. Brilliant!

Streets Of Love 2nd, "outro decoration", Paris 2006. Plays EXACTLY the notes I want to hear. Did it ONLY this show. Compare with later shows or earlier he does not use the 9th to enhance the solo, the Austin show later in the autumn is a good example.

Blinded By Rainbows.

Beast Of Burden Miami '94. Best version ever.

Hand Of Fate, Cirkus Stockholm 2003. Like heaven. Just Beautiful.

Taylor is great but to slag Ronnie?? Enjoy them both. I thank God Ronnie is in the band. Hadn't it been for him the boys would NEVER have been together as long as they have been. God bless Ronnie.

+1 on Rainbow Concert. His playing on that album is superb - the slide solos on Layla and Key To The Highway especially. I remember getting that album and being amazed to learn that it was Ronnie playing those parts, being accustomed as I was to the tuneless crap he usually plays with the Stones (I hadn't heard his Faces stuff at the time).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, solos WAS Ronnie's thing in 75/76. He changed style in 77/78 when he and Keith started with the weaving-thing.

Funnily, Keith was the one who broke out of that, but Ronnie remained a teamplayer guitar-wise.

When Ronnie plays blues with Mick Taylor, his extended solos are back, and he plays beautifully, imo.

He never was more than a blues/funk player, though, while Mick Taylor had much more styles in him, including the classic rock guitar god approach.

Well, I think the stuff Woody did in 75/76 was a part of his job description; he was basically just filling Taylor's shoes - he continued there from where Taylor had left them - and as a great all-around guitar player he was capable to do that easily. I think that is Ronnie's forte: he can do any task needed, and he is the best man they ever got in that sense. I guess that talent of his made the 'ancient art of weaving' possible, since he was able also take care of Keith's duties. But I still wouldn't call playing extended solos as "his thing" in the same sense as Taylor having extraordinary talent in that. If some think that Wood is as great or even better than Taylor in that department, one needs to be a helluva Woodist with a particular idiosyncratic taste, and nothing wrong with that.

The way I see those Taylor years, and the classical rhythm/solo guitar split coming more and more visible as the years and tours go by, is that of natural evolution. Both guitarists stuck into what they did best. It was natural that having a player like Taylor in the band to use his best qualities. And at the same time Richards mastered the rhythm/riff art. If Woody later would offer Keith a template to 'free' more of his playing, Taylor in his years 'forced' Keith to really master his trademark 'riffmaster' stuff. In a way I also see the 'ancient art of weaving' being a result of a natural evolution, being pretty much based on Woody's personal qualities as a player.

- Doxa


P.S. I don't quite grasp what you mean by "classic guitar god approach" in the sense it being something different than blues. All that British-based guitar god stuff is based on blues. Clapton, Hendrix, Beck, Page, Lee, Green, Taylor.... The 80's stuff, all those vanhalens, malmsteens, etc. is, of course, a different thing.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa
being able to do any thing needed and well, but probably not particularly shining in any.

- Doxa

Hi praise indeed.

C'mon Treacle.... do we really need to claim that Woody is as phenomenal riffmaster as Keith is or as outstanding lead guitarist as Taylor is? Is that really necessary to assert in order to admire the man and not offend his fans?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, solos WAS Ronnie's thing in 75/76. He changed style in 77/78 when he and Keith started with the weaving-thing.

Funnily, Keith was the one who broke out of that, but Ronnie remained a teamplayer guitar-wise.

When Ronnie plays blues with Mick Taylor, his extended solos are back, and he plays beautifully, imo.

He never was more than a blues/funk player, though, while Mick Taylor had much more styles in him, including the classic rock guitar god approach.

Well, I think the stuff Woody did in 75/76 was a part of his job description; he was basically just filling Taylor's shoes - he continued there from where Taylor had left them - and as a great all-around guitar player he was capable to do that easily. I think that is Ronnie's forte: he can do any task needed, and he is the best man they ever got in that sense. I guess that talent of his made the 'ancient art of weaving' possible, since he was able also take care of Keith's duties. But I still wouldn't call playing extended solos as "his thing" in the same sense as Taylor having extraordinary talent in that. If some think that Wood is as great or even better than Taylor in that department, one needs to be a helluva Woodist with a particular idiosyncratic taste, and nothing wrong with that.

The way I see those Taylor years, and the classical rhythm/solo guitar split coming more and more visible as the years and tours go by, is that of natural evolution. Both guitarists stuck into what they did best. It was natural that having a player like Taylor in the band to use his best qualities. And at the same time Richards mastered the rhythm/riff art. If Woody later would offer Keith a template to 'free' more of his playing, Taylor in his years 'forced' Keith to really master his trademark 'riffmaster' stuff. In a way I also see the 'ancient art of weaving' being a result of a natural evolution, being pretty much based on Woody's personal qualities as a player.

- Doxa

As I said before I heard Ronnie play in 1976, but it wasn't a shadow of Taylor's playing in 1973. It was mediocre at best and I know a well known poster here who attended the same show and left after a short time and I can understand that. The Stones had lost their magic.

I'm really amazed by the strange theory that an average player made the Stones better. Of course it's a false theory.

Let's face it: Ronnie's solos with the Stones don't tell any story, don't have a soul or any feel in them. They're bad Taylor copies or, if they are 'new', are pointless. Yes Ronnie was there to let Richards take over, but that wasn't an improvement, because Keith is a riffmaster and a great rhythm guitarist but just a mediocre soloist. One sometimes feels embarrassed when hearing him play a solo. People often underestimate the special talent one must have to craft a creative solo. Taylor was more than able to do so, Ronnie wasn't and isn't. A bad and wrong choice after all. The theory that he kept the Stones together is just ridiculous. Without the Stones Jagger and Richards are nobodies as solo musicians and not interesting for that matter to the masses at all and they know it. Even now during those 2013/2014 tours it's obvious that both Jagger and Richards realize what the band lost when Taylor left: quality music on stage.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, solos WAS Ronnie's thing in 75/76. He changed style in 77/78 when he and Keith started with the weaving-thing.

Funnily, Keith was the one who broke out of that, but Ronnie remained a teamplayer guitar-wise.

When Ronnie plays blues with Mick Taylor, his extended solos are back, and he plays beautifully, imo.

He never was more than a blues/funk player, though, while Mick Taylor had much more styles in him, including the classic rock guitar god approach.

Well, I think the stuff Woody did in 75/76 was a part of his job description; he was basically just filling Taylor's shoes - he continued there from where Taylor had left them - and as a great all-around guitar player he was capable to do that easily. I think that is Ronnie's forte: he can do any task needed, and he is the best man they ever got in that sense. I guess that talent of his made the 'ancient art of weaving' possible, since he was able also take care of Keith's duties. But I still wouldn't call playing extended solos as "his thing" in the same sense as Taylor having extraordinary talent in that. If some think that Wood is as great or even better than Taylor in that department, one needs to be a helluva Woodist with a particular idiosyncratic taste, and nothing wrong with that.

The way I see those Taylor years, and the classical rhythm/solo guitar split coming more and more visible as the years and tours go by, is that of natural evolution. Both guitarists stuck into what they did best. It was natural that having a player like Taylor in the band to use his best qualities. And at the same time Richards mastered the rhythm/riff art. If Woody later would offer Keith a template to 'free' more of his playing, Taylor in his years 'forced' Keith to really master his trademark 'riffmaster' stuff. In a way I also see the 'ancient art of weaving' being a result of a natural evolution, being pretty much based on Woody's personal qualities as a player.

- Doxa

As I said before I heard Ronnie play in 1976, but it wasn't a shadow of Taylor's playing in 1973. It was mediocre at best and I know a well known poster here who attended the same show and left after a short time and I can understand that. The Stones had lost their magic.

I'm really amazed by the strange theory that an average player made the Stones better. Of course it's a false theory.

Let's face it: Ronnie's solos with the Stones don't tell any story, don't have a soul or any feel in them. They're bad Taylor copies or, if they are 'new', are pointless. Yes Ronnie was there to let Richards take over, but that wasn't an improvement, because Keith is a riffmaster and a great rhythm guitarist but just a mediocre soloist. One sometimes feels embarrassed when hearing him play a solo. People often underestimate the special talent one must have to craft a creative solo. Taylor was more than able to do so, Ronnie wasn't and isn't. A bad and wrong choice after all. The theory that he kept the Stones together is just ridiculous. Without the Stones Jagger and Richards are nobodies as solo musicians and not interesting for that matter to the masses at all and they know it. Even now during those 2013/2014 tours it's obvious that both Jagger and Richards realize what the band lost when Taylor left: quality music on stage.

...and they can't bring themselves to have him onstage for a few more songs?