Stop Breaking Down?

Back Of My Hand?

I think his delivery on the rhythm guit on "Sway" is outstanding.

The best I ever saw of him as a guitarist however was some footage of him back stage at the Garden in '69 with Tina and Ike. He's twanging about on a G tuned Strat from memory? Anyway it was very impressive.

Moonlight Mile and Winter (and especially Winter, those opening chords are heavenly) stand out above all others.

Moonlight Mile and Sway for sure! Seems he plays better when Keith isn't around. peace

Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
I think his delivery on the rhythm guit on "Sway" is outstanding.

The best I ever saw of him as a guitarist however was some footage of him back stage at the Garden in '69 with Tina and Ike. He's twanging about on a G tuned Strat from memory? Anyway it was very impressive.

Telecaster. It's on the Brian-open G thread now...

Quote
Naturalust
Moonlight Mile and Sway for sure! Seems he plays better when Keith isn't around. peace

I agree. Sometimes he out-Keiths Keith!

I Can't Be Satisfied!

Quote
71Tele
Stop Breaking Down?

I remember when I first learned that this was Mick on guitar. Wow. I thought for sure it was Keith. Love this one. Yeah, it's simple, but it just grabs you. MJ has feel for the guitar. In response to your thread query, this song was my first thought as well.

Sounds like he is at his best on 'Sticky fingers'...

2 1 2 0

Fingerprint File or Moonlight Mile.

"Sway", "Winter", and especially "Stop Breaking Down" are among the best recorded guitar stuff the Stones, or anyone, ever has come up with. But the best? This! Incredible stuff - it is for St. Peter's sake more powerfull stuff than some so called 'real' guitarists. a'la Ron Wood, is ever contributed to the Rolling Stones.





- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-06 09:40 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
"Sway", "Winter", and especially "Stop Breaking Down" are among the best recorded guitar stuff the Stones, or anyone, ever has come up with. But the best? This! Incredible stuff - it is for St. Peter's sake more powerfull stuff than some so called 'real' guitarists. a'la Ron Wood, is ever contributed to the Rolling Stones.





- Doxa

That's silly. Don't get me wrong, I love it - in all its naiveness, but let's not get carried away here

PS: Listening to it on the lovely R.S.V.P.-release as we speak...

Silly? I tell you what is silly in my book. Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it. And the Stones themselves would be the first to admit that. Their forte is the idiosyncrary, the feel, the innovation, the ability go to the essential - none of them anything to do with technical excellence. The fact that many people like their signature style, or something like that, does not make them any technical virtuoses or even great players (in any technical sense of the word). So what Jagger is doing there is in microcosmos what the 'real' Rolling Stones guitarists do in the macrocosmos. What makes him sound great is the similar thing what makes Keith sound great. You don't need much technical ability to do that.

The stuff Jagger does there moves me. Probably more than, for example, Ron Wood has ever done. And that's all what it takes. To use a term like "naive' to describe that is silly. If we the the criterion is taken a bit higher - to the level in where actual technical ability matters (and it is not a big jump) - anything the Stones do is "naive". And terribly misses the point.

- Doxa

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
RomanCandle
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeezee...One of my favorite Punk-bands...

Quote
Come On

Quote
RomanCandle
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeezee...One of my favorite Punk-bands...

Same! I wasn't into punk rock until I heard CROSSING THE RED SEA WITH THE ADVERTS.
What a brilliant album.

...and Some Girls and Rain Fall Down and...

Quote
Doxa
Silly? I tell you what is silly in my book. Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it. And the Stones themselves would be the first to admit that. Their forte is the idiosyncrary, the feel, the innovation, the ability go to the essential - none of them anything to do with technical excellence. The fact that many people like their signature style, or something like that, does not make them any technical virtuoses or even great players (in any technical sense of the word). So what Jagger is doing there is in microcosmos what the 'real' Rolling Stones guitarists do in the macrocosmos. What makes him sound great is the similar thing what makes Keith sound great. You don't need much technical ability to do that.

The stuff Jagger does there moves me. Probably more than, for example, Ron Wood has ever done. And that's all what it takes. To use a term like "naive' to describe that is silly. If we the the criterion is taken a bit higher - to the level in where actual technical ability matters (and it is not a big jump) - anything the Stones do is "naive". And terribly misses the point.

- Doxa

Hey man, chill down. I agree with everything you say here, except for the stuff about Ronnie. What he did when the 1976 tour was over was exactly what you're saying you enjoy. He tossed the flash on the campfire, and focused on the pure energy and more naive approach that made the Stones what they are instead. IMO, that was partly the key to their comeback.

Like I said, I love Highway Child, but let's get real - it is an unfinished outtake, where Mick tries to sound like Keith. But I agree, along the way in this track he is instead finding himself as a guitar player - and I can enjoy that very much myself - to an extent.

But to state firmly that the guitar playing on HC is more moving than anything Ronnie has done with the Stones sounds silly to me, although I respect your opinion.

The gentleness of Beast Of Burden, the break-neck energy of Whip from Detroit 78 - captured on Sucking In The 70s, the funkiness of Dance/Everything's Turning To Gold/Crackin' Up or the crazy slide playing on Hey Negrita don't qualify for you? All of these examples are proof of the very same anti-technical excellence you're referring to.

"Naive" is not a bad word here, just to make that clear

But, hey, let's agree to disagree on this.

I chose Fingerprint File as my Mick-favourite, mainly because it's the first electric track where he takes the step and totally moves away from the standard rock/blues-rhythm (on the beat), and get's funky.

"Time Waits For No One", "Heartbreaker", "Moonlight Mile", "Can You Hear Me Knocking... and many more.

Quote
tomekdp
"Time Waits For No One", "Heartbreaker", "Moonlight Mile", "Can You Hear Me Knocking... and many more.

Er, he only plays on Moonlight Mile.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tomekdp
"Time Waits For No One", "Heartbreaker", "Moonlight Mile", "Can You Hear Me Knocking... and many more.

Er, he only plays on Moonlight Mile.

he thought you were talking about Mick Taylor!

"Mick" in The Rolling Stones will always be Mick Jagger

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
Silly? I tell you what is silly in my book. Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it. And the Stones themselves would be the first to admit that. Their forte is the idiosyncrary, the feel, the innovation, the ability go to the essential - none of them anything to do with technical excellence. The fact that many people like their signature style, or something like that, does not make them any technical virtuoses or even great players (in any technical sense of the word). So what Jagger is doing there is in microcosmos what the 'real' Rolling Stones guitarists do in the macrocosmos. What makes him sound great is the similar thing what makes Keith sound great. You don't need much technical ability to do that.

The stuff Jagger does there moves me. Probably more than, for example, Ron Wood has ever done. And that's all what it takes. To use a term like "naive' to describe that is silly. If we the the criterion is taken a bit higher - to the level in where actual technical ability matters (and it is not a big jump) - anything the Stones do is "naive". And terribly misses the point.

- Doxa

Hey man, chill down. I agree with everything you say here, except for the stuff about Ronnie. What he did when the 1976 tour was over was exactly what you're saying you enjoy. He tossed the flash on the campfire, and focused on the pure energy and more naive approach that made the Stones what they are instead. IMO, that was partly the key to their comeback.

Like I said, I love Highway Child, but let's get real - it is an unfinished outtake, where Mick tries to sound like Keith. But I agree, along the way in this track he is instead finding himself as a guitar player - and I can enjoy that very much myself - to an extent.

But to state firmly that the guitar playing on HC is more moving than anything Ronnie has done with the Stones sounds silly to me, although I respect your opinion.

The gentleness of Beast Of Burden, the break-neck energy of Whip from Detroit 78 - captured on Sucking In The 70s, the funkiness of Dance/Everything's Turning To Gold/Crackin' Up or the crazy slide playing on Hey Negrita don't qualify for you? All of these examples are proof of the very same anti-technical excellence you're referring to.

"Naive" is not a bad word here, just to make that clear

But, hey, let's agree to disagree on this.

I chose Fingerprint File as my Mick-favourite, mainly because it's the first electric track where he takes the step and totally moves away from the standard rock/blues-rhythm (on the beat), and get's funky.

Chill, chill...

Ron Wood is a good guitarist for the Rolling Stones, and what he does there, is something I would not probably call probably "memorable" or "striking", but "fitting". The examples you mentioned are beautiful ones, and catching Ronnie at his best. He is a team player, and a very good one. Any task needed, Ronnie does that, and usually okay.

But I need to say that I haven't ever rated mr. Wood very high as a guitar player. Or to say it in other words: he has never really sounded very strong guitar player having his own determination and call - there is something missing in his touch or sound that would capture my attention. Some kind of lack of personality (playing charmingly sloppy is not enough). This is strikingly true when contrasted to his guitar partner in the Stones. Keith, with his minimal technical ability, has so strong presence, an ability to capture the moment - he determines the space and time - actually he makes the time and space to go according his intuition. But Ronnie, even though being technically one level better, sounds so insecure with his doings. Like he is a bit lost all the time, and not content what to do next. This is my over-all impression.

This is probably the reason I don't see Ronnie as distinctive player as the others, even though he plays as 'basically' as the rest. Keith, Charlie, Bill - and also Brian at his time - all are so determinated as players - having that 'no excuses, no hostages' attitude and almost blind trust on their own signature sound and style. Ronnie's style fits to the Stones, but it more like coping with the others and filling the gaps than having an actual say and own vision or signature or intuition. Taylor probably had too much that. The question is not what kind of role one has, but more that of what kind of player one is.

But "Fingerprint File" is a good choice, but I don't buy that argument for it (what's wrong with standard rock/blues rhythm?)..

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-06 13:45 by Doxa.

Nothing wrong with "standard rock/blues", but it felt fresh when Mick went for something new, after many similar performances on records with the Stones.

I assume you're talking about Ronnie as a guitar player in the Stones here?

Because I don't think he was invited to this show for friendship alone, let alone taking on the role he has here

Quote
Doxa
Silly? I tell you what is silly in my book. Silliness is the hypocracy of some Rolling Stones fans to rate anything associated with teh Rolling Stones in terms of technical ability. Every damn musician in this world - expect some diehard Rolling stones fan boy guitar nerds - knows that all of them (expect one guitar player a long time ago) are rather mediocre players, and their greatness has nothing to do with it. And the Stones themselves would be the first to admit that. Their forte is the idiosyncrary, the feel, the innovation, the ability go to the essential - none of them anything to do with technical excellence. The fact that many people like their signature style, or something like that, does not make them any technical virtuoses or even great players (in any technical sense of the word). So what Jagger is doing there is in microcosmos what the 'real' Rolling Stones guitarists do in the macrocosmos. What makes him sound great is the similar thing what makes Keith sound great. You don't need much technical ability to do that.

The stuff Jagger does there moves me. Probably more than, for example, Ron Wood has ever done. And that's all what it takes. To use a term like "naive' to describe that is silly. If we the the criterion is taken a bit higher - to the level in where actual technical ability matters (and it is not a big jump) - anything the Stones do is "naive". And terribly misses the point.

- Doxa

That's interesting that you say that. I can't recall where or when but I believe it's a clip of Jagger with an acoustic playing a Robert Johnson song... Come On In My Kitchen maybe, on the Performance set? And what got me was one thing and one thing only - his rhythm. In direct correlation with his timing.

Jagger is not a technical great guitar player by any means - and so many people aren't (bizarrely I think Keith's best acoustic playing is on Angie and The Worst - because he doesn't do all that plonking and bending within some goofy rhythms that he does on so much other stuff). But Jagger's got this bizarre sense of time that just on acoustic the song has a lurch to it, a kind of heave, that I've only ever heard from him. There's something somewhere else that shows him playing something and it has the same feel to it. It's something I've never heard from Keith or anyone else. It's fantastically bizarre. And brilliant.

Any quips from Keith about Jagger's playing ability is simply jealousy and silly chest thumping... the fact that Jagger came up with the riffs to Brown Sugar doesn't change the fact that it's a great song on record. Keith needs to get over himself. The fact that Keith isn't on I Ain't Signifying or Stop Breaking Down and those songs are just incredible... doesn't change the fact that those songs are incredible.

Keith needs to accept that his playing was not 100% necessary in the Stones. Why he chose to not be on those songs as well as others and even as recently as Saint Of Me is on him, no one else.

Quote
Doxa

But I need to say that I haven't ever rated mr. Wood very high as a guitar player. Or to say it in other words: he has never really sounded very strong guitar player having his own determination and call - there is something missing in his touch or sound that would capture my attention. Some kind of lack of personality (playing charmingly sloppy is not enough). This is strikingly true when contrasted to his guitar partner in the Stones. Keith, with his minimal technical ability, has so strong presence, an ability to capture the moment - he determines the space and time - actually he makes the time and space to go according his intuition. But Ronnie, even though being technically one level better, sounds so insecure with his doings. Like he is a bit lost all the time, and not content what to do next. This is my over-all impression.

To me, Ronnie has more personality in his playing than any other stones guitarist (Keith is a close second). I think where he runs into trouble is when he over-thinks it. But when he just plays, he's the best I've heard. If his playing were so "lacking in personality", then someone should have been able to sound like he does. I've heard people play the notes. I've never heard anyone play it with the right feel. Ronnie has the feeling.

I will say, Ronnie is the only Stone who has ever made me literally jump out of my seat. Keith I react to, but more in an "ooh that's nice" sort of way. I rarely if ever have any reaction to Brian, and Taylor always lands somewhere in between "pleasant but unexciting" and irritating.

Back to Mick Jagger, I forgot to mention Doom and Gloom in my earlier post. I don't think the song is exceptional (good but not great), but I do think Mick does an excellent job carrying the rhythm guitar section.

My vote goes to Moonlight Mile and Heaven. I also have a very soft spot for his slide work on this place is empty.

Strange that on Mick's solo records there is not one guitar part of his that comes close to his work with the stones.

C

I would add Some Girls

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust
Moonlight Mile and Sway for sure! Seems he plays better when Keith isn't around. peace

I agree. Sometimes he out-Keiths Keith!

Interesting that these are two of his best vocals too. peace