Quote
71Tele
For the people who continually complain about Taylor being brought up at all: There was an "original sin" in this thread. Far from making it just a positive thread about Ronnie's solos, Mathijs couldn't help take yet another opportunity to pursue his bizarre "Taylor can't play rhythm" theory. That's bound to raise the ire of us Taylorites every time.

Precisely. As Doxa pointed out, the thread was started mid-tour last year with the obvious aim of just trolling the Taylorites on the board, and Dandie picked up where Mathijs left off. Anyway, this thread performs a service to IORR since the Taylor-Wood debate is our common lifeblood.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 00:36 by Stoneburst.

You can make up any reason you want, you can't help it anyway

Quote
Thrylan
One.....Hey Negrita, studio. Faster than Keith, sloppier than MT, PERFECT for Negrita. Ronnie brought in black music that wasn't blues.

Spot on

Another reggae-flavoured rocker from Ronnie the year after:

Exactly 8 notes, and a brilliant solo. Listen and learn how simple and effective it can be done.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 12:53 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
71Tele
Mathijs couldn't help take yet another opportunity to pursue his bizarre "Taylor can't play rhythm" theory.

Correct. I was listening to some Tumbling Dice versions the other night. I just can't stand that sloppy rythm guitar that Taylor plays on the live versions. He first plays it on the Montreux Rehearsals: a very sloppy and mis-timed A / E / B pattern on the 8th fret, that really takes all the energy and drive away from the song. His solo on the song normally is great, but he always tends to introduce some jazzy runs, that seem to stem from his boredom with the song.

Then on the 1978: there's this great version where Jagger's microphone malfunctions at times. Throughout the entire song Wood is showcasing, in my opinion, what a great counter-rhtyhm part should be. He really weaves his rhythm work into Richards rhtyhm work, playing against it, adding little licks and riffs and the odd solo here and there. Wood's work is so instant grooving and driving, I find that fantastic. And from a guitar players point of view, I find it much more interesting than the simple chordal work by Taylor, no matter how great his solos can be.

Mathijs

<where Jagger's microphone malfunctions at times.>

This one? It's indeed a showcase of brilliant weaving, imo.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 13:43 by DandelionPowderman.

Ronnie's best guitaring was with the Faces and his early solo stuff.
listen to any of the Faces boots from 70-71 , he nails songs like:
Around The Plynth
Love in vain
It's All Over Now
I’m Losing You

and solo:
I Can Feel The Fire
Take A Look At The Guy
Now Look

give me Ronnie on a guitar anyday

Faces:





Stones:

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<where Jagger's microphone malfunctions at times.>

This one? It's indeed a showcase of brilliant weaving, imo.

You listened to the solo? He does some normal licks during the verses. Nothing outstanding. And then he tries to solo and fails.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Powerage: You don´t think Ronnie can play that SMU-solo again today, when he could do this 16 years later?

It's a rapid Berry lick/solo.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Mathijs couldn't help take yet another opportunity to pursue his bizarre "Taylor can't play rhythm" theory.

Correct. I was listening to some Tumbling Dice versions the other night. I just can't stand that sloppy rythm guitar that Taylor plays on the live versions. He first plays it on the Montreux Rehearsals: a very sloppy and mis-timed A / E / B pattern on the 8th fret, that really takes all the energy and drive away from the song. His solo on the song normally is great, but he always tends to introduce some jazzy runs, that seem to stem from his boredom with the song.

Then on the 1978: there's this great version where Jagger's microphone malfunctions at times. Throughout the entire song Wood is showcasing, in my opinion, what a great counter-rhtyhm part should be. He really weaves his rhythm work into Richards rhtyhm work, playing against it, adding little licks and riffs and the odd solo here and there. Wood's work is so instant grooving and driving, I find that fantastic. And from a guitar players point of view, I find it much more interesting than the simple chordal work by Taylor, no matter how great his solos can be.

Mathijs

You are really good at finding needles in haystacks, but no one is buying what you are selling. Taylor didn't just do "simple chordal work", as you well know, and there are dozens of examples one can site from 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. Let's start with the fantastic counterpoints he and Richards had in the Gimme Shelter film version of Satisfaction, for just one example. I am a guitar player too, and I am well aware of the Montreux Tumbling Dice version you claim is "mis-timed". I think it's a lovely counter-rhythm, and anything but "sloppy". But let's let people judge for themselves, shall we?




Once again, you are almost laughable in your attempts to explain your preference for Wood (and your dislike of Taylor) in terms of some kind of ineptness on Taylor's part, which is easily disproved by merely listening. It's not good enough for you to simply say you prefer Wood on stylistic grounds. If one were to use your criteria of finding musical errors and mistakes, it would be quite simple to post performances by Wood which are technically lacking. My guess is the ratio would be about 10 to one in the same time period of Wood errors to Taylor ones. Every time you post your strange theory that Taylor couldn't play anything but solos, you merely reinforce the idea that you have some agenda and bias. Your examples really are a stretch, and I say that as a musician who has lisetend to this music for 45 years.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 14:57 by 71Tele.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Powerage: You don´t think Ronnie can play that SMU-solo again today, when he could do this 16 years later?

It's a rapid Berry lick/solo.

No it isn't.

And if it was a Berry-lick, we all love them, right?

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<where Jagger's microphone malfunctions at times.>

This one? It's indeed a showcase of brilliant weaving, imo.

You listened to the solo? He does some normal licks during the verses. Nothing outstanding. And then he tries to solo and fails.

He doesn't fail, he does it differently. I like it

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Mathijs couldn't help take yet another opportunity to pursue his bizarre "Taylor can't play rhythm" theory.

Correct. I was listening to some Tumbling Dice versions the other night. I just can't stand that sloppy rythm guitar that Taylor plays on the live versions. He first plays it on the Montreux Rehearsals: a very sloppy and mis-timed A / E / B pattern on the 8th fret, that really takes all the energy and drive away from the song. His solo on the song normally is great, but he always tends to introduce some jazzy runs, that seem to stem from his boredom with the song.

Then on the 1978: there's this great version where Jagger's microphone malfunctions at times. Throughout the entire song Wood is showcasing, in my opinion, what a great counter-rhtyhm part should be. He really weaves his rhythm work into Richards rhtyhm work, playing against it, adding little licks and riffs and the odd solo here and there. Wood's work is so instant grooving and driving, I find that fantastic. And from a guitar players point of view, I find it much more interesting than the simple chordal work by Taylor, no matter how great his solos can be.

Mathijs

You are really good at finding needles in haystacks, but no one is buying what you are selling. Taylor didn't just do "simple chordal work", as you well know, and there are dozens of examples one can site from 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. Let's start with the fantastic counterpoints he and Richards had in the Gimme Shelter film version of Satisfaction, for just one example. I am a guitar player too, and I am well aware of the Montreux Tumbling Dice version you claim is "mis-timed". I think it's a lovely counter-rhythm, and anything but "sloppy". But let's let people judge for themselves, shall we?

All of this is about taste. There isn't a manual that tells us what is good rhythm playing or not - we're guided by what we like to listen to.

The Satisfaction-versions you love, I can't listen to - for instance. For me, the counter-rhythm (it isn't really that, it's plain soloing) there is disturbing and takes away the groove.

The static chord-adding (which imo clashes with Keith's guitar) to the rhythm on TD and HTW from 1973 doesn't work for me, either.

But if you find those additions to improve the songs, compared to the original studio verions - or even the Brian-era renditions, more power to you!

I DO like his rhythm playing on Bitch (more like a Keith-ish lead guitar, though), I Got The Blues, Hip Shake, Dead Flowers and CYHMK.

Most of those songs have riffs or licks with single strings, though.

You posted Broken Hands here the other day, to prove that Taylor was a good rhythm player. That is not a good example, imo. That rhythm guitar is the all time low for me. No playing around the beat, not swinging and with static chords.
Sadly, it sounds like a Keith Richards-riff without power.

But, hey! let's get back on topic:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 14:53 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
71Tele
It is not only not silly to compare them when they played on many of the same songs live, but continual posting of solos from those songs almost automatically invites comparison. And for Mr. Wood, the comparison on those songs doesn't come out well. I speak of Tumbling Dice, YGAGWYW, Angie, Gimme Shelter, and others posted here as supposedly "great" Ron Wood solos. You want great Ron Wood solos? Stick to Beast Of Burden, Start Me Up, and some of the other things he recorded with the Stones. I will agree that they are very nice.

As will I. The Taylor-Wood comparison is not only relevant but precisely the point here. Most of the critical posters in this thread (save possibly Kleerie) would happily agree that we like Ronnie lots with the Faces, in his early days with the Stones, and when he plays solo or with Mick Taylor nowadays. We just don't like his attempts at Stones solos that Taylor did previously, because Taylor's solos were, by consensus, better. Taylor is just a better guitarist in every respect, and there is no argument to be had about that.

Dandie, by the way, has directly compared Taylor and Wood just as much as, if not more than, anyone else in this thread by repeatedly saying that he likes Wood's takes on these solos more than Taylor's.

To be very honest: I don't care about the Stones on stage since Taylor left. 1976 was rather okay, but not exciting at all, 1982 was a bore and very disappointing. I've seen the live Stones since 1975 on DVD and listened to the 'famous' live boots and of course to all the official live stuff, but it doesn't move me at all.

Now we had and still have those 50 years celebration shows since November 2012. I've listened to quite some, but only some stuff with Taylor is interesting to me: some Ramblers, all Knockings and the Sways (however badly 'formatted) and a few Satisfactions. During those songs with Taylor something emotional happened that got my lasting attention. The rest of the shows don't do anything to me. If they won't continue with Taylor in Europe and later this year in Australia I even won't listen to those shows. It would be a waste of my time.

As for their studio stuff: on Iorr we have some great songs, after that very seldom. But those studio albums are more listenable and enjoyable (what a horrible qualification for music!) than the live stuff, even though none of them can stand in the shadow of the big albums made during the first ten magical years.

<none of them can stand in the shadow of the big albums made during the first ten magical years.>

Good to see that you finally came to your senses and removed GHS and IORR from your big album-list

<To be very honest: I don't care about the Stones on stage since Taylor left.>

That one came out of left field! >< >< ><

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This one? It's indeed a showcase of brilliant weaving, imo.

Keith definitely turns to Ronnie and mouths 'stop @#$%& soloing' at 3.40 or thereabouts. There is more genuine weaving on either of the Montreux versions, on L&G, on Brussels and on a dozen other versions from the Taylor era than on this. Mathijs's comments about Taylor on the Montreux rehearsals are such utter bullshit. Whether you think his chord voicings, double stops and countryish bending mesh with Keith or not - and I think they serve the song superbly - his playing is neither sloppy nor out of time. End of.

An observation. People who enjoy the Taylor era and discuss Taylor's playing here are usually able to deconstruct what he does, where in the song it happens, and why it works. You'll get a timestamp, some precise technical discussion of what he's actually playing, and a musical analysis of why it sounds so good in context. Wood's contributions are always discussed in the vaguest possible terms. His playing 'fits like a glove', he 'adds a lick here and there', etc etc. I find that interesting.

No, it isn't just about taste when Mathijs repeatedly claims Taylor can't play, his playing his mis-timed, he can only do "simple chordal work", etc. As for Satisfaction in 1969, you may be not able to listen to it (too bad for you) but you are just wrong. It isn't just soloing, it's Keith and Taylor doing interlocking parts> Listen especially from 2:55. Compare this to any recent live version. There is nothing like the tension and excitement in the two guitars that exist in this version. Simple chordal work, my ass.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<none of them can stand in the shadow of the big albums made during the first ten magical years.>

Good to see that you finally came to your senses and removed GHS and IORR from your big album-list

<To be very honest: I don't care about the Stones on stage since Taylor left.>

That one came out of left field! >< >< ><

Well, including GHS as an album of course and some songs from Iorr (Fingerprint, Dance LS, Time WFNO come to mind first)

<but you are just wrong.>

No, I'm not. Taylor plays on top of Keith's solo lick at 2:55.

Stonesburst asked a more specific explanation, and this is a good example.

Taylor has a tendency to trailblaze (like here), while Ronnie listens (to what Keith is playing) and makes room, while playing rhythm guitar.

The result in Satisfaction from 69 isn't weaving, it becomes more like a breaking through a sound wall-contest, imo.

But we really should devote another thread to this, and not waste a Ronnie solo-thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 15:06 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This one? It's indeed a showcase of brilliant weaving, imo.

Keith definitely turns to Ronnie and mouths 'stop @#$%& soloing' at 3.40 or thereabouts. There is more genuine weaving on either of the Montreux versions, on L&G, on Brussels and on a dozen other versions from the Taylor era than on this. Mathijs's comments about Taylor on the Montreux rehearsals are such utter bullshit. Whether you think his chord voicings, double stops and countryish bending mesh with Keith or not - and I think they serve the song superbly - his playing is neither sloppy nor out of time. End of.

An observation. People who enjoy the Taylor era and discuss Taylor's playing here are usually able to deconstruct what he does, where in the song it happens, and why it works. You'll get a timestamp, some precise technical discussion of what he's actually playing, and a musical analysis of why it sounds so good in context. Wood's contributions are always discussed in the vaguest possible terms. His playing 'fits like a glove', he 'adds a lick here and there', etc etc. I find that interesting.

You were in Lexington, what do you mean? Or do you THINK he might have done it 36 years ago?

Everything Ronnie does here, is in perfect sync with Keith. Lovely!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
No, I'm not. Taylor plays on top of Keith's solo lick at 2:55. Stonesburst asked a more specific explanation, and this is a good example.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
DandelionPowderman
No, I'm not. Taylor plays on top of Keith's solo lick at 2:55. Stonesburst asked a more specific explanation, and this is a good example.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you call this weaving I recommend a Thin Lizzy-board

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<but you are just wrong.>

No, I'm not. Taylor plays on top of Keith's solo lick at 2:55.

Stonesburst asked a more specific explanation, and this is a good example.

Taylor has a tendency to trailblaze (like here), while Ronnie listens (to what Keith is playing) and makes room, while playing rhythm guitar.

The result isn't weaving, it becomes more like a breaking through a sound wall-contest, imo.

But we really should devote another thread to this, and not waste a Ronnie solo-thread.

OK. He plays on top of one lick? Great. The point is still what the two guitars do against each other, which in my view was far more dynamic than 90% of the alleged "weaving" all those years with Wood and Richards. I find it ironic that Taylor is criticized for too-simple rhythm playing when for years that's basically all Wood did, apart from a lot of random soloing very high up the neck (seemingly his "trademark" for a long time).For years, Keith and Ronnie's supposed weaving was really just a jumble - an absolute mess. I am not here to bash Wood, but the specific criticisms of what you and Mathijs don't like technically about Taylor's playing can be made tenfold about Wood's playing. As for the Ronnie solo thread: My response to most of what you have put up is "big deal". None of it has moved me.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<none of them can stand in the shadow of the big albums made during the first ten magical years.>

Good to see that you finally came to your senses and removed GHS and IORR from your big album-list

<To be very honest: I don't care about the Stones on stage since Taylor left.>

That one came out of left field! >< >< ><

Well, including GHS as an album of course and some songs from Iorr (Fingerprint, Dance LS, Time WFNO come to mind first)

The first twelve magical years, then?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<but you are just wrong.>

No, I'm not. Taylor plays on top of Keith's solo lick at 2:55.

Stonesburst asked a more specific explanation, and this is a good example.

Taylor has a tendency to trailblaze (like here), while Ronnie listens (to what Keith is playing) and makes room, while playing rhythm guitar.

The result isn't weaving, it becomes more like a breaking through a sound wall-contest, imo.

But we really should devote another thread to this, and not waste a Ronnie solo-thread.

OK. He plays on top of one lick? Great. The point is still what the two guitars do against each other, which in my view was far more dynamic than 90% of the alleged "weaving" all those years with Wood and Richards. I find it ironic that Taylor is criticized for too-simple rhythm playing when for years that's basically all Wood did, apart from a lot of random soloing very high up the neck (seemingly his "trademark" for a long time).For years, Keith and Ronnie's supposed weaving was really just a jumble - an absolute mess. I am not here to bash Wood, but the specific criticisms of what you and Mathijs don't like technically about Taylor's playing can be made tenfold about Wood's playing. As for the Ronnie solo thread: My response to most of what you have put up is "big deal". None of it has moved me.

That's where we differ. Playing similar stuff on top of eachother is too deep into the classic rock/Thin Lizzy-school for me...

The point of the weaving is the exact opposite: To complement each other.

<I am not here to bash Wood>

Yet you're doing it - again and again...

You might misunderstand the word simple in this context, though. No one is saying that Taylor isn't able to play differently, nor that what others play is too complex for him.

Is it really that a big deal for you that I find his rhythm playing less interesting than other guitarists in the Stones?

I think it's perfectly ok that the Ronnie-solos don't move you, as long as you're not trying to establish it as some kind of fact - just because you don't like the solos.

Many people like Ronnie's solos, and I will keep posting them as long as there are good solos to post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-05 15:24 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<but you are just wrong.>

No, I'm not. Taylor plays on top of Keith's solo lick at 2:55.

Stonesburst asked a more specific explanation, and this is a good example.

Taylor has a tendency to trailblaze (like here), while Ronnie listens (to what Keith is playing) and makes room, while playing rhythm guitar.

The result isn't weaving, it becomes more like a breaking through a sound wall-contest, imo.

But we really should devote another thread to this, and not waste a Ronnie solo-thread.

OK. He plays on top of one lick? Great. The point is still what the two guitars do against each other, which in my view was far more dynamic than 90% of the alleged "weaving" all those years with Wood and Richards. I find it ironic that Taylor is criticized for too-simple rhythm playing when for years that's basically all Wood did, apart from a lot of random soloing very high up the neck (seemingly his "trademark" for a long time).For years, Keith and Ronnie's supposed weaving was really just a jumble - an absolute mess. I am not here to bash Wood, but the specific criticisms of what you and Mathijs don't like technically about Taylor's playing can be made tenfold about Wood's playing. As for the Ronnie solo thread: My response to most of what you have put up is "big deal". None of it has moved me.

That's where we differ. Playing similar stuff on top of eachother is too deep into the classic rock/Thin Lizzy-school for me...

The point of the weaving is the exact opposite: To complement each other.

<I am not here to bash Wood>

Yet you're doing it - again and again...

I cannot imagine anything less like Thin Lizzy than the Richards-Taylor guitar combination, and I find it a rather bizarre comparison. As I have said before, when someone prefers Wood, fine. However, when their preference is stated on technical grounds or grounds of ability, it leaves the door open for all sorts of unfavorable examples of Wood's playing through the years. I find it quite strange that the same people criticizing Taylor technically manage to give a pass to so much of the random and erratic (and just plain inept, let's face it) Wood playing through the years.