For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Wroclaw
I find it hard believing that anyone following the stones hasn't realized yet:
Ronnie loves his job at the RS
He loves being Keith's co-pilot
He loves giving fillings
He loves being "Ronnie Wood of the Stones" just the way he is.
No all performers own a huge ego (problem). Ronnie is clearly one of them. I think he enjoys his current position much more than he would enjoy being the 2nd piss break, after Keith's numbers.
Quote
MKjan
The Stones have never really been about extended solo's.
There are already lead breaks within some of their songs that work very well.
Keith said once, the Stones make and build songs….extended solo's take away from
the "band" identity, and they scream "noodling" imo.
MR and CYHMK excepted….they were built this way from day one.
From one of the LA gigs. I've got the boot 'Whores, Cocaine and a Bottle of Jack' which is all of the Mike Millard recorded shows from the forum in '75. Each version of YCAGWYW is over 10 minutes long and features pretty good solos from Ronnie. There were days when the Stones did indulge in extended solos.Quote
RobertJohnsonQuote
MKjan
The Stones have never really been about extended solo's.
There are already lead breaks within some of their songs that work very well.
Keith said once, the Stones make and build songs….extended solo's take away from
the "band" identity, and they scream "noodling" imo.
MR and CYHMK excepted….they were built this way from day one.
Remember the extended Ronnie solo on YCAGWYW in the seventies. There is some version on Youtube that counts 15 minutes ...
Quote
Doxa
The unwarranted idealism is not only a feature of die-hard Taylorites, it seems...
But we need to remember that hoping the Stones to change their setlist is an indirect criticism of their current activities,and I'm not down for that because the Stones shit diamonds and are perfect in every way.
Yep, feeling a bit bitchy now, since BV edited my post in regards to Jagger's todger, in which I tried to show my biggest empathy towards the tiny thing...
- Doxa
Quote
rtr
In Chicago I was disappointed to sit through several minutes of hearing an overrated guest (MT) solo for much longer than Keith and Ronnie combined. I much prefer Ronnie's style and attitude, which has added so much to the band all of these years, (I can't imagine 'Some Girls' working, or even happening with MT in the band). A high point in 2002-2003 was hearing Ronnie soloing on 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking'. IMHO MT sounded like a hired soloist when he joined the group, while Ronnie sounds like and is a Rolling Stone. After almost 40 years with the band Ronnie has earned the spotlight that is being given to MT.
Quote
andrewtQuote
Doxa
The unwarranted idealism is not only a feature of die-hard Taylorites, it seems...
But we need to remember that hoping the Stones to change their setlist is an indirect criticism of their current activities,and I'm not down for that because the Stones shit diamonds and are perfect in every way.
Yep, feeling a bit bitchy now, since BV edited my post in regards to Jagger's todger, in which I tried to show my biggest empathy towards the tiny thing...
- Doxa
Good to see you're coming around, Doxy
Quote
MKjan
The Stones have never really been about extended solo's.
There are already lead breaks within some of their songs that work very well.
Keith said once, the Stones make and build songs….extended solo's take away from
the "band" identity, and they scream "noodling" imo.
MR and CYHMK excepted….they were built this way from day one.
jeez maybe he plays what he is told to by the glimmers who are his boss ?Quote
Stoneburst
To be honest, I'd cut Ronnie a hell of a lot more slack if his guitar work with the Stones resembled his solo work more. On his own he's a balls-to-the-wall rock guitarist with great tone, great feel and some pretty good songs (albeit with an admittedly basic technique and sense of harmony). With the Stones, he phones it in, or just flat-out sucks.
Quote
rob51
Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.
Quote
TheGreekjeez maybe he plays what he is told to by the glimmers who are his boss ?Quote
Stoneburst
To be honest, I'd cut Ronnie a hell of a lot more slack if his guitar work with the Stones resembled his solo work more. On his own he's a balls-to-the-wall rock guitarist with great tone, great feel and some pretty good songs (albeit with an admittedly basic technique and sense of harmony). With the Stones, he phones it in, or just flat-out sucks.
Quote
StoneburstQuote
rob51
Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.
Yeah, but they are, that's precisely the problem. Well, Jagger is, anyway, not sure about Keith (if Keno's explanation of MT's marginalisation from the other week is to be believed, and it sounds about right to me).
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
StoneburstQuote
rob51
Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.
Yeah, but they are, that's precisely the problem. Well, Jagger is, anyway, not sure about Keith (if Keno's explanation of MT's marginalisation from the other week is to be believed, and it sounds about right to me).
Are you two kidding? That's precisely the problem?!
With deference to Ronnie and Charlie, most of the crowd is there to see Mick and Keith, and if we're being honest, most to see Mick.
What do you want, Mick to front 1/2 the show, Ronnie for 1/4 and keith for a 1/4?
To quote John McEnroe..."you can't be serious!!"
Quote
kleermakerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
StoneburstQuote
rob51
Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.
Yeah, but they are, that's precisely the problem. Well, Jagger is, anyway, not sure about Keith (if Keno's explanation of MT's marginalisation from the other week is to be believed, and it sounds about right to me).
Are you two kidding? That's precisely the problem?!
With deference to Ronnie and Charlie, most of the crowd is there to see Mick and Keith, and if we're being honest, most to see Mick.
What do you want, Mick to front 1/2 the show, Ronnie for 1/4 and keith for a 1/4?
To quote John McEnroe..."you can't be serious!!"
As long as Taylor is to front 1/1 the show there's no problem at all.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
kleermakerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
StoneburstQuote
rob51
Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.
Yeah, but they are, that's precisely the problem. Well, Jagger is, anyway, not sure about Keith (if Keno's explanation of MT's marginalisation from the other week is to be believed, and it sounds about right to me).
Are you two kidding? That's precisely the problem?!
With deference to Ronnie and Charlie, most of the crowd is there to see Mick and Keith, and if we're being honest, most to see Mick.
What do you want, Mick to front 1/2 the show, Ronnie for 1/4 and keith for a 1/4?
To quote John McEnroe..."you can't be serious!!"
As long as Taylor is to front 1/1 the show there's no problem at all.
I take it to mean that Taylor be 'onstage' 1/1 of the time, rather than 'fronting'...in that we can have no disagreement.
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
kleermakerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
kleermakerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
StoneburstQuote
rob51
Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.
Yeah, but they are, that's precisely the problem. Well, Jagger is, anyway, not sure about Keith (if Keno's explanation of MT's marginalisation from the other week is to be believed, and it sounds about right to me).
Are you two kidding? That's precisely the problem?!
With deference to Ronnie and Charlie, most of the crowd is there to see Mick and Keith, and if we're being honest, most to see Mick.
What do you want, Mick to front 1/2 the show, Ronnie for 1/4 and keith for a 1/4?
To quote John McEnroe..."you can't be serious!!"
As long as Taylor is to front 1/1 the show there's no problem at all.
I take it to mean that Taylor be 'onstage' 1/1 of the time, rather than 'fronting'...in that we can have no disagreement.
Physically on stage, musically fronting.
Are you planning on going to an upcoming live Stones show kleermaker? When did you see them last, 40 years ago?
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
kleermakerQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
kleermakerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
kleermakerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
StoneburstQuote
rob51
Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.
Yeah, but they are, that's precisely the problem. Well, Jagger is, anyway, not sure about Keith (if Keno's explanation of MT's marginalisation from the other week is to be believed, and it sounds about right to me).
Are you two kidding? That's precisely the problem?!
With deference to Ronnie and Charlie, most of the crowd is there to see Mick and Keith, and if we're being honest, most to see Mick.
What do you want, Mick to front 1/2 the show, Ronnie for 1/4 and keith for a 1/4?
To quote John McEnroe..."you can't be serious!!"
As long as Taylor is to front 1/1 the show there's no problem at all.
I take it to mean that Taylor be 'onstage' 1/1 of the time, rather than 'fronting'...in that we can have no disagreement.
Physically on stage, musically fronting.
Are you planning on going to an upcoming live Stones show kleermaker? When did you see them last, 40 years ago?
40 years ago for the first and best time, 31 years ago for the last time.
When Taylor will be on for the whole show or at least a big part of it and will be allowed to play substantially, I'll be back.
You are not going to see the upcoming shows being played so close to your home? So you are really mostly just a Mick Taylor fan, not really a Rolling Stones fan?