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

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

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


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

Well, instead of chastisising the man, let's hear some good Woody-stuff. Others may close their ears

Worried About You from Canada in 2013:





GS from LA in 1975:





Whip from 1978:





Undercover from Atlantic City 1989:





All Down The Line from Boston 2013:





Out Of Control from O2 1: (same harp/guitar trick as Mick and Taylor do)







Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-23 11:58 by DandelionPowderman.

<Posted by: DandelionPowderman ()

Date: April 23, 2014 11:45


Well, instead of chastisising the man, let's hear some good Woody-stuff. Others may close their ears smiling smiley>

Thanks for posting! Good stuff!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think you're spot on here, Doxa.

I also think that kleerie is confusing his own personal favourites (which have minimal of Keith-participation) with being all the great Taylor-songs.

Taylor did shine on All Down The Line, If You Can't Rock Me, Dance Little Sister, Ventilator Blues and other typical Keith-songs as well - where there was plenty of room given for him to express himself

Yeah, it is that type of songs I had in my mind. I was actually thinking put "If You Can't Rock Me" or "Dance Little Sister" as examples, but I thought "All Down The Line" being a better example, because... well... it is such a striking piece, and a great showcase of both Richards and Taylor at their best, a kind peak of the collaboration of those two. I think "Jiving Sister Fanny" is one of the earliest examples how Taylor's presence might affect on the constitution of a song. I think that song is like a experiment of trying a typical rhythm/lead guitar seperation, fashionable at the time, but seemingly they weren't too satisfied with the results. Namely, they didn't follow that route. It is difficult to find any other recorded song in Stones output to have such a distinguished and separated and productionwise emphasized guitar roles.

I can now hear a possible Taylorite counter-criticism, that Taylor does not have such a recognized role, or "enough room to express himself" in many recordings during his era, especially in EXILE, so Keith didn't particularly couldn't have much him in his mind, but I don't think that's hold court. For example, take "Rocks Off", a typical Keith riff/rhythm track rocker. We have the Hopkins tape having a more dominant Taylor lead guitar. I take that a sign that Taylor was present in the original Nellcote sessions, and Keith had acknowledged his role there, but for a reason or other, when they did the final mixes in LA, they decided that the track doesn't need that kind of contribution - the strong rhythm-guitar based backing track is enough to carry the song. That doesn't mean that Taylor and his presence didn't have something to do in shaping the song, or how the song was initially created by Keith.

Like you said, Kleerie's examples are mostly songs that have a minimal Keith contribution, so they are a bit out of place here. They belong more to Jagger's corner. True that many of those songs have such a strong Taylor presence that he might have even a hand in writing, like is argued, but that that is not discussed here, or what Keith was talking about. And jeez christ, let us not go there either, enough OT already!

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-23 12:31 by Doxa.

Well it's not forbidden to believe charming Keith when he is talking bullshit.
But the examples both you (Para)Doxa and Woody-Dandie give are not convincing at all. The hypothesis that Keith wrote songs with particularly Taylor in mind by stating that Taylor did some little solos or lead guitar playing in the few songs you both mentioned (Ventilator Blues, on which Taylor did the outro, for goodness sake, why didn't you mention Casino Boogie as well??) is just ridiculous. Well, Taylor played some guitar on those songs. Not so strange if you are a guitarist and a member of the band, he? But Keith's statement is way too stretched. And you know it!

Well, back to the great Wood (solos).

<Well, back to the great Wood (solos).>

Yep, you find them 4 posts up in this thread - but you've probably listened to them already

I like very much the solo on "Too Tough" from the record "Undercover".

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Well, back to the great Wood (solos).>

Yep, you find them 4 posts up in this thread - but you've probably listened to them already

I keep my mouth shut this time.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Well, back to the great Wood (solos).>

Yep, you find them 4 posts up in this thread - but you've probably listened to them already

I keep my mouth shut this time.

You didn't

It's your loss that you can't enjoy the WAY-solo...

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

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

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


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

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

Quote
71Tele
Sigh. The only thing here that's true is that you don't understand the Taylor-Wood debate. The preference for Taylor is NOT just about solos. It is about musicality, as well as how his playing made Keith and the others play better (or differently), whereas with Wood it was more of a boys club, have a good time feel (which is fine, sometimes). To only focus on solos is missing the point, in my opinion.

Double Sigh. If you don't understand Wood's genius to this point, you can only go back to the A, B, C of rock and roll music and double your efforts. Or eventually give up altogether and live happy! To this day I am not embarrassed to admit that there is a plethora of great artists I just don't get ...

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele
Sigh. The only thing here that's true is that you don't understand the Taylor-Wood debate. The preference for Taylor is NOT just about solos. It is about musicality, as well as how his playing made Keith and the others play better (or differently), whereas with Wood it was more of a boys club, have a good time feel (which is fine, sometimes). To only focus on solos is missing the point, in my opinion.

Double Sigh. If you don't understand Wood's genius to this point, you can only go back to the A, B, C of rock and roll music and double your efforts. Or eventually give up altogether and live happy! To this day I am not embarrassed to admit that there is a plethora of great artists I just don't get ...

C

I don't think there is any particular "Wood genius". To the extent his sound has been used well by the Stones, I think it is much more impressive on the Some Girls album (and bits of the next two or three) than in anything he has done with them live, where he is often in the role of badly imitating Mick Taylor parts. I have stated the stuff he has done that I enjoy, and the opinion that his versions of what Taylor did always pale in comparison. The only difference is the degree. I also think that Taylor made the band better, an opinion pretty much expressed at different times by each band member. I think Wood was great with The Faces, and had to adopt to a far lesser role in the Stones. This has all been discussed here ad infinitum. To the thread topic: There aren't too many great Wood solos, partly because he has never been primarily about solos. I have had about 40 years to revise my opinion, after first seeing them with Wood in 1975, and nothing he has done onstage since then has caused me to change it. With respect, I do not think my personal understanding of rock 'n' roll fundamentals is the problem....(edited for spelling).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-23 18:47 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

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

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

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


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

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

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

There might be reason why Ronnie is the one making the best and most consistent, guitarbased solo albums as well. Just saying...

"I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richards much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards"

Me too.

Quote
MartinB
"I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richards much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards"

"Me too."

Me three. It's just a matter of personal taste in how one likes their rock and roll served up. I just happen to prefer my rock and roll rough, "ragged but right," down and dirty ala Keef and Woody at their best, no disrespect for the very talented Mick Taylor.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
MartinB
"I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richards much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards"

"Me too."

Me three. It's just a matter of personal taste in how one likes their rock and roll served up. I just happen to prefer my rock and roll rough, "ragged but right," down and dirty ala Keef and Woody at their best, no disrespect for the very talented Mick Taylor.

+1

The best solution to close this thread is: a three guitar band consisting of Keith, Ronnie and Mick Taylor ... my favorite guitar-line-up for the next and likely last years of the band.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Quote
MartinB
"I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richards much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards"

Me too.

But I would say that it's a bit of a myth (or at least an oversimplification) to describe them that way. Ya Yas was much more "weaving", for example, than much of the live guitars in the 90s when Richards basically just rode roughshod over Wood. People tend to focus on '72-'73 as being the only Richards-Taylor sound. Not true.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
MartinB
"I just like the twin guitar attack of Wood and Richards much better than the individual approach of Taylor and Richards"

Me too.

But I would say that it's a bit of a myth (or at least an oversimplification) to describe them that way. Ya Yas was much more "weaving", for example, than much of the live guitars in the 90s when Richards basically just rode roughshod over Wood. People tend to focus on '72-'73 as being the only Richards-Taylor sound. Not true.

Taylor / Richards.. The greatest guitar pair in the history of classic rock. Seeing Taylor's return as some have described here is the rock guitar event of the century, my lifetime. Some may disregard this opinion but there are many fans that had their greatest wish fulfilled. For me it was beyond seeing Zeppelin at Live Aide, Arms with Clapton, Beck, Page & Wood and Cream at MSG. Taylor sits with all the greats, Jimi, Duane, Rory, Bloomfield, Green et et. He is there. Do the Stones or younger fans recognize this magnitude? The historical significance of a player who took a great band and stood them on their heads with improvisation, vision with the bravest bravado in British rock? I sometimes think if Jimi Hendrix somehow was returned to us many people would not care as the true spirit of improvisation has been silenced by ears trained by tribute bands and a desire to hear records duplicated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-23 23:13 by DoomandGloom.

Unless someone else has already mentioned it -

Maybe I'm Amazed (Live)from the Faces' Long Player album.

He was a better lead and rhythm player in that band.

By the way it was only by 72 and especially 73 that there was such a clear rhythm/lead split in the Stones. It was flavour of the times.

1969 to 1971 things were pretty even and interactive - with FAR better playing by Keith. Ya Yas the prime testimony - 1975-6, 1978 nor 1981-2 never bettered that.

And in that period Wood was doing his best lead and rhythm work.

Oh to be a fan of both bands from 1969 to 1972. Seriously.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Deluxtone
Unless someone else has already mentioned it -

Maybe I'm Amazed (Live)from the Faces' Long Player album.

He was a better lead and rhythm player in that band.

By the way it was only by 72 and especially 73 that there was such a clear rhythm/lead split in the Stones. It was flavour of the times.

1969 to 1971 things were pretty even and interactive - with FAR better playing by Keith. Ya Yas the prime testimony - 1975-6, 1978 nor 1981-2 never bettered that.

And in that period Wood was doing his best lead and rhythm work.

Oh to be a fan of both bands from 1969 to 1972. Seriously.

About 69-71: yes and no, imo.

That kind of interplay was different, and far more individual (i.e. SFTD on Ya Yas), because they took turns when they played lead. A more predictable approach, imo. Not poorer in any way, just different.

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

JJ Flash - dual rhythm.

Queenie.

Carol.

stray cat

Rambler

Sympathy - when not soloing

Whole approach is generally dual rhythm.

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

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

He was indeed. But I disagree strongly about Keith peaking in 69, though.

For me there is no debate at all, and that's a very very good summary ! ><

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

Quote
Mathijs

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

Mathijs

Agreed.

Quote
71Tele

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

To me, Taylor is just about soloing, as I find him mediocre at best at rythm playing. I think he did fantastic solo's, great slide, but that's it. He's just not very much a rhythm player. And to me, the secret of a great band is a great drummer, a fantastic bassist, and two interlocking guitarists, trading rythm, riffs and leads.

Mathijs