people people can we all love each other - peace enjoy the 2005 shows

now THAT we can agree on ;-)

OpenG I love a certain period of the Stones.
It's called from 1962 to 2005.

I admit there are weaker periods.
Therefore I must also acknowledge there are strongers ones as well.

Part of the Taylor era ie 71-73 for me are the greatest live.

68-72 is the greatest disc wise for me.

The last two albums Taylor was involved in were good but hardly great for my ears.

Also as much as I love the 69 tour, I prefer the 75.
69 was a little slow for me and I am more pumped and driven by hearing/watching 75/76 shows.
The energy level is better, Mick's vox were being barked to a point but I still loved the edgeyness of his singing.
And Ronnie's playing brought a new and diverse style to the band's playing.
And by that I mean a good 'new' and 'diverse' style.

Taylor by the 73 Euro tour for mine was just playing long, winding leads to songs that were technically correct and superbly played.
However they rarely had much to do with the song.

Just soloing for soloing sake.

He was in the end just a person standing on stage next to a four member band - that were playing a song and not off in their own world playing scales to some of the greatest songs of all time.

My gripe with your post/s is they concern usually one of two points - Taylor's great and/or Wood is crap.

You start a thread about a concert from 1997, seemingly just to rag Wood, yet again, which of course will inevitably lead to bringing into the discussion (yet again, and again, and again) the glorification of a member that left the group 33 years prior to this concert ever being played.

Yes he is a brilliant guitarist and was part of the Stones in their heyday.
But are you ever going to shift your mindset and consider chatting about the Stones on this forum where Mick Taylor can be left out of the discussion?

Your description of his playing etc is spot on.
I'm yet to read anyone here disagree with your comments re this.

I just feel you bring nothing new to the board and have not done so for sometime.
All that happens is a few Taylorette heads come on borad and agree with you, yet again and again...
And a large proportion of the rest are just left to wonder why you bother.

That all said, I do apologise for being rude toward you.

Just wish you'd jump into to discussions that cover a broader range of topics concerning the Stones.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

geez, talk about a thread gone wrong...!

...now where's that vibrato..?

I respect women who can suck golf balls through a garden hose....

Monkey Man,

I was just watching the video it supported there last record 8 years ago
and its sad to watch a guitar player just stand there and do nothing to
support the band.Even Keith if you noticed KEPT is DISTANCE throughout
the show.

Monkey Man I have all the stones records and the period with Wood does not
really interest me after Some Girls.There CREATIVE 20 year run was over IMO.

Kyle, nice post. You could not have put it better.

For me Ron Wood has done nothing substantial live (with the stones) since the 1981/82 tour. Whether you like him or not you can't really argue against that.. Yes, he has had his limited moments live with the stones after the 1989/90 tours but lets be fair its not enough. Thats why people go on about the MT era so much. I'm not against RW because for me the 1975 tour was the stones best. However, his recent contributions are rather weak..

WHO CARES! WHO CARES! WHO CARES! WHO CARES! WHO CARES! WHO CARES! WHO CARES! The RW MT 'debate' is like piles....difficult to get rid of and a pain in the arse....think of something else! it's been 30 bloomin years!

Its human nature to go back and discuss there best live and studio work and
that was with Taylor in the band so we are ever linked to Taylor if you discuss
the golden era and the stones in their prime

Yes it is natural to talk about their best period but that period was not created by Taylor writing great songs. Half of that great period Taylor was not even in the band, referring to the making of the Beggars Babquet and Let It Bleed albums. And you don't seem to talk about Mick or Keith's song writing or anything unless it relates to Taylor. I think that is the point everyone is getting at.

Wow, I would say that the IORR Nobel prize for peace goes to Australia this year... gentlemen, you turned the heated discussion back to right track nicely..

"I'm very diplomatic" - Mick Jagger 1964

- Doxa

P.S. I wonder why Kyle M rates 1971 tour so high...72-73 yes, but 71?

yeah the glimmers wrote the great songs and arrangements but taylor put his
stamp on them live something woody could not do to the extent Taylor did.

Thats the whole point listening to the 69/72/73 boots one quickly discovers
like me who grew up in the woody era the shocking difference in the level
of musicianship.

hound dog and monkey man made the point
more over

most songs on sf and eoms came from late 60's sessions...

and what about GHS and IORR that are the only two whole records of the Taylor era?

i personally like very much IORR and think that GHS is one of their weaker albums ever. It is certainly their weaker of the seventies

well it is also the only record that can be said to be the stones with taylor record because on iorr he was already going out and ron was coming in. so mt was just soloing on time waits for no one that someone sure may like but that hardly can be said to be "top stones sound"

so GHS is strictly speaking the one and only stones album of the "taylor era"...

then i dont think that the way taylor play the lead in GHS and IORR is the stones sound as we know it and like it (at least not MY stones sound)

the same thing can be said for live performances of the era that are usually praised for being the best ever...and they sure can be considered so, but i think (at least for me) more because of mick's being at his peak, charlie and bill delivering the power engine as they never done before or after, and keith giving a new meaning to the expression "rhythm guitar". To me, take the great brussels xe, taylor's playing is great but sometimes i got bored with his arabesqueing, and it does make strange to me to perceive the lead AND the rhythm so split.

then Open G, why not being nostalgic with the BJ era...
i think that mother's little helper and Dontcha bother me are zillions ahead of winter or 100 years ago...

I agree with what is said above. The dividing of the rhythm and lead guitar was not really what the Stones ever set out to do. While I love Taylor's playing during those years I also like hearing the guitars sort of intertwine with each rather than dividing the roles. Yes Taylor is a great guitar player but other guitarists who could have filled Brian's spot in the band (Page, Clapton, Beck) could have also played some great solos on those Jagger/Richards songs and taken it to another level as well.

Open G you have broken my heart...you told us that you were gonna GIVE UP!

If we can't trust you on that how can we trust anything you have to say !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-04-08 22:01 by kahoosier.

hey it wasnt woodys fault on the b2b tour
that was keith and mick holding him back
once again that is

Well I reckon Ronnie played EXTREMELY well at his own concert at Drury Lane, recently....

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

Did you ever watch the Stones in 1975/76? How bad was Keith's condition sometimes ... how bad looked Ronnie in 1982 ... how bad was Mick's voice during some 1981 tour shows? And? Who cares! It's the Rolling Stones!!!!!

Mother's Little Helper and Doncha Bother Me are just kids' pop-stuff compared to Winter and 100 Years ago. DBM especially is banal crap. Stones trying to write pop.

The Soup tracks you mentioned, and others, are far more melodious and musically adventurous. Not to your taste obviously - but far more breadth to them.

I don't agree with your postulation that GHS was the only main Taylor album. It's like saying that Some Girls is the only Wood album. SG is Ronnie's finest hour with Stones and GHS Taylor's finest hour. But both did great stuff on other albums. Can't believe I'm bothering with a Taylor/Wood theme (!) - but it was more because of your comparison of Aftermath tracks and GHS.

Taylor's main contribution was melody and 'fluidity' and (non-technically!) all his circular stuff. He really put them in a different class. I could mention many tracks off Exile and SF too. Before him, especially live, it would be fair to say they were a hard-hitting R&B band. It opened up new avenues and it's the Marriage of his tonal blues with their harder, earthier edge that was so irresistible.......and really made them a class apart. Greatest R&R Band etc.

Wood is more of a rhythmic player - not to say he doesn't have some frills - but his strength is his jerky, raunchy sound. You add this to an already rhythmically biased band......and you get......more of the same. Fine in '78. Wearing a bit thin by '82. I loved him before he joined them but alaways thought he was too close in style to Keith. (Note - when Keith and Brian played together -the guitars were were fairly separate - different rolls - so that was nothing new with Taylor). And also btw - if Taylor had not done some of his soloing in '72-73 - many in the audience might have felt cheated! Taylor was the Icing, (and the creamy bit in the middle too). What a cake.

Wood was in his element with them when things were looser with them. Lots of the performances were hit and miss but undeniably a sense of fun. But it could too easily become too untight to the point of being ragged and sloppy. 'Excuse' for poor playing really. Certainly not a Greatest R&R band. (Apart from anything else Jagger's voice was fairly shot from '75-'82).

Since '89 things were taken back to tight arrangements and Wood no longer stood out - except perhaps in a solo spot. The thing is held together by CL mainly. Keith is main man on Guitar. Their twin guitars can work well on GS, Rambler and some looser blues work-outs, when there's more freedom of expression, eg on B-stage. But generally you don't hear much of RW in the general mix.

Hence topic of post.

Keith and Mick like him in the band or he wouldn't be in the band. Let's leave who they choose to work with up to them and just enjoy the music.

Greg

Open G is always right about Taylor's playing - it's hard for me to drum up the same enthusiasm for the post 73 live performances. Ronnie was o.k at his best with the Stones but nothing more. Goats Head Soup is a great album - just compare the beauty of that album with the simplicity of Some Girls. Some Girls works fine on a first, second or third listen but after that i really do struggle against boredom. Goats Head Soup has much greater breadth and range and beauty not in small part due to Taylor.
Open G does have a fixation with Taylor, thats for sure, but i find many of his posts interesting and at times informative. This site would be far less interesting without Open G.

My prefered STONES Years were 63-68. So without MT ar RW.---but anather good-one. The name is Brian Jones!!!

What did you guys think about Ronnie's last solo effort? It sure ain't for beginners, but I love it!!! Ronnie has always been a creative guitar player with a lot of heart. He wasn't always there live, but he delivered some great guitar work while he was. Just take a listen tot Let it Bleed from FF. I don't care if it ain't perfect technically... because it's Ronnie and it's Rock 'n' Roll.

Rank,

couldn't agree more!

C

Deidre (back to his best) hits the nail very firmly on the head.

Regarding the actual subject matter of the post, while I can understand how OpenG gets up the nose of quite a few people on this board, on this occasion he does make a fairly vaild point about Ron's guitar work on the B2B DVD.

Indeed, I am forced to ask the question myself. Where exactly is it?