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.

As many already stated, Ronnie hasn't done lead vocals on a Stones song and there is no place for solowork during Stones concerts (except Sure the one you need mentioned by ab and funnily enough the 2 song Billy Preston set during the 75/76 tours). Howevery what about a Ronnie cowritten/inspired song as part of the setlist (Hey Negrita comes to mind, obviously there are others). And why not introduce this during the June 1 Zurich concert (Ronnie's 67th bday)

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.

Is he a dentist too? That explains Keith's nice new choppers.

He gets plenty of solo spots during Stones shows--they're called guitar solos, which is what he was hired for.

Nevermind the price of the ticket, but if you're going to a Stones show and are going to get 19 or 20 songs, you want to make sure they are all Stones songs.

Woodie is always busy putting in live appearances and gigs elsewhere, and that's the place for a Ronnie solo spot--in front of a crowd who wants to hear his solo stuff enough to actually purchase a ticket exclusively for that privilege.

Speaking of solo spots, while waiting for the crowd to return to their seats that have been driven away by Ronnie's "solo spot", maybe Charlie can do a jazz drum solo as well--and maybe bring on some guest musicians to make a jazz quartet out of it, for a two song set.

Come to think of it, maybe the whole Stones show should consist of them playing one another's solo stuff--because why should just Ronnie be rewarded with a "solo spot"?

I think that's worth $500, don't you?

Jeez, no need for all of the smartass remarks, I was just thinking aloud that it would be pretty cool to hear Ronnie do some vocals on one or two tracks during a show, I know it isnt really a realistic possibility but it would be cool to see in an alternate reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-26 07:05 by erad.

Thought about this for a bit and came to the conclusion that yeah why not? If you've got good musicians in your band why not showcase them a little? A couple of Ronnie tunes sure wouldn't hurt the show and I think it'd be interesting seeing something new at a Stones show these day's. Also show us the two "leaders of the band" aren't really quite as greedy as they seem where it comes to the spotlight.

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, which by the logic of IORR, is a form of 'whining' or 'complaining', and we have a separate thread for that...

Yep, feeling a bit bitchy now, since BV edited my post in regards to Jagger's girlfriend's funeral, in which I tried to show my biggest empathy towards the event...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-26 10:13 by Doxa.

It's Easy let the New Barbarians open for the Stones - Simple
and open with "Sweet Little Rock 'n' Roller"

...Ronnie'd look cute with a beauty-spot ....



ROCKMAN

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.

Remember the extended Ronnie solo on YCAGWYW in the seventies. There is some version on Youtube that counts 15 minutes ...

Quote
RobertJohnson

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.

Remember the extended Ronnie solo on YCAGWYW in the seventies. There is some version on Youtube that counts 15 minutes ...

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
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

I was recently watching a video of the New Barbarians - including the Capital Center gig in Largo which I attended-and couldn't believe how awful Ron Woods singing was (Try watching/listening to Jumping Jack Flash from that show)- after 30 seconds of stunned silence, we ended up laughing our asses off. OK singer in the studio but live it was cringe-worthy. Fun show though!

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
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.

but hey, you got Emotional Rescue so it all evens out.

Love Ronnie... HATE the idea.
Keith sings ROLLING STONES songs.

If Ronnie wanted to "open" for the Stones, as a solo act.. then fine.
Not realistic, but that would be the only appropriate Ronnie "solo" (besides his guitar solos) that is feasible.

Quote
andrewt

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

Good to see you're coming around, Doxy

><

- Doxa

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.

And wasn't CYHMK an accident? Still jamming and the tape was kept rolling I mean. If I wanted 20 minute drum breaks and 15 minute guitar solos I for one wouldn't be a Stones fan, I'd be listening so some crap by some god awful progressive band.

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.

jeez maybe he plays what he is told to by the glimmers who are his boss ?

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.

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
TheGreek

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.

jeez maybe he plays what he is told to by the glimmers who are his boss ?

They're telling him to play out of tune slide solos on purpose? Man, I knew Jagger was a control freak, but this...

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-28 23:33 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-28 23:31 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneburst

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.

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?

That's a wrong and illogical conclusion.
For example, I'm quite sure His Majesty hasn't visited one of the Stones gigs in the UK last year. But I wouldn't conclude from that that he's not a Rolling Stones fan, but really mostly just a Brian Jones fan, and I'm 100% sure he will agree with me.

Nah Jagger should do them all imo. Keith's spots have never been popular and it leaves me wondering why he's persisted with them. Particularly since and including 1981. "Little T&A" was awful.

I think his 72/73 spots with "Happy" were wonderful but that's it.

Ronnie would sing songs nobody knows and sound pretty bad as his voice way back even was never much chop.

"To begin with, he sings like a chain-smoking, asthmatic chicken" haha love your work ab.