Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Witness
To honour Charlie Watts for this most marvellous quote, be fair to Charlie and do not strip his outlook for its vital nuances. About Ronnie: "Musically, he didn't bring anything, ......." has, nonetheless, an important continuation, "....., but he has this facility to add to things".

If we want to, we may try to interprete that point of view. But towards the complete sentence, I think.

Well it can either be taken as somewhat contradictory or perhaps the things he adds that Charlie is referring to are not musical. Like he adds to the camaraderie of the band, which of course is well documented.

I take it more that he didn't bring any songs, heightened musicianship or guitar styles to the band but is able to add things like pedal steel, guitar solos and second guitar parts.

Interesting to see the results of your reflections, Naturalust, as it much often is.

Myself, I was and am a little puzzled by that sentence.

When I think about Ronnie's two predecessors, both Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, what appears for me, too, as a common trait, obviously is their musical deep roots in blues, even when they play rock music, broadly speaking. Other musical styles are later involved in their approach, but seem more secondary. That is, Mick Taylor has in addition got, as discussed by yourself and other posters earlier in this thread, that more or less jazz musician's approach to a given way of contributing to a song. Maybe, this last mentionned point constitutes one extra asset to Charlie. Whereas Brian Jones had that wellknown ability to pick up so many instruments. For Wood I have not been aware of similiar deep musical roots, as blues for Jones or Taylor, but, to be respected, more of a much able adaptability to various styles as his base as well as to earlier ways of recreating musical arrangements in the band.

However, I stand to be corrected by anybody on that assessment and will gladly receive new impressions.

Just hope Mick taylor will be writing new songs, and will plan some shows.
Hope he is not bitter about not being included in the last gigs.

Come on Mick, you are a great guy, and a great guitar player. get on with your life.
Jeroen

Quote
Witness

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Witness
To honour Charlie Watts for this most marvellous quote, be fair to Charlie and do not strip his outlook for its vital nuances. About Ronnie: "Musically, he didn't bring anything, ......." has, nonetheless, an important continuation, "....., but he has this facility to add to things".

If we want to, we may try to interprete that point of view. But towards the complete sentence, I think.

Well it can either be taken as somewhat contradictory or perhaps the things he adds that Charlie is referring to are not musical. Like he adds to the camaraderie of the band, which of course is well documented.

I take it more that he didn't bring any songs, heightened musicianship or guitar styles to the band but is able to add things like pedal steel, guitar solos and second guitar parts.

Interesting to see the results of your reflections, Naturalust, as it much often is.

Myself, I was and am a little puzzled by that sentence.

When I think about Ronnie's two predecessors, both Brian Jones and Mick Taylor, what appears for me, too, as a common trait, obviously is their musical deep roots in blues, even when they play rock music, broadly speaking. Other musical styles are later involved in their approach, but seem more secondary. That is, Mick Taylor has in addition got, as discussed by yourself and other posters earlier in this thread, that more or less jazz musician's approach to a given way of contributing to a song. Maybe, this last mentionned point constitutes one extra asset to Charlie. Whereas Brian Jones had that wellknown ability to pick up so many instruments. For Wood I have not been aware of similiar deep musical roots, as blues for Jones or Taylor, but, to be respected, more of a much able adaptability to various styles as his base as well as to earlier ways of recreating musical arrangements in the band.

However, I stand to be corrected by anybody on that assessment and will gladly receive new impressions.

I believe Watts is referring to Wood's contribution, or lack thereof, in the studio.

Wood does bring a great deal and is able to 'add to' the band's live performances: he does bring 'heightened musicianship' and 'guitar styles': an irrepressible energy and enthusiasm for both band and audience members; timing, consistency and sympathy in his playing; an ability to interpret songs from the band's catalogue in a way that suits them as they currently are.

Adaptability, as highlighted by Witness, may be the key to his contribution, and this is potentially easily overlooked.

Unlike his two predecessors, who proved to be transient, I cannot imagine the Stones performing without Wood: he is as close to being the perfect guitarist for the Stones as it is possible to get.

.....

Olly.

Apart from Keith having met Mick at Dartfort station, Ron Wood is the best thing that ever happened to the Stones.

At his best with the Stones, Mick Taylor played some of the most brilliant
guitar ever played. And brought out amazing performances from Mick Jagger.

There are also statements of Keith not good against Taylor, so I would not give importance to the statements.
Wood when he entered in the Stones was already a guitar player important, hardly needs to be defended, is talking his career, he has done so well outside of the Stones, unlike Taylor that has done little or nothing is now begs to be he called the Stones.

Quote
HMS
Apart from Keith having met Mick at Dartfort station, Ron Wood is the best thing that ever happened to the Stones.

Why are you bringing up Wood in a Taylor thread? Some people prefer a different line-up, move along.

Quote
HMS
Apart from Keith having met Mick at Dartfort station, Ron Wood is the best thing that ever happened to the Stones.

Apart from Some Girls, to help them for their longevity and the brand as it is known today, I suppose I might agree....

But that is overlooking a little period of time from 1963-1974 - which is close to being the whole ball of wax.... which Ronnie had absolutely nothing to do with. Brian Jones and Mick Taylor stand tall for their contributions when it mattered.

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HMS
Apart from Keith having met Mick at Dartfort station, Ron Wood is the best thing that ever happened to the Stones.

Why are you bringing up Wood in a Taylor thread? Some people prefer a different line-up, move along.

Read the contents of this page.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Testify
There are also statements of Keith not good against Taylor, so I would not give importance to the statements.
Wood when he entered in the Stones was already a guitar player important, hardly needs to be defended, is talking his career, he has done so well outside of the Stones, unlike Taylor that has done little or nothing is now begs to be he called the Stones.

Mick Taylor's solo career was, I imagine, surely a disappointment in some respects by his own lights, but he did not do nothing. Take away relatively youthful ambitions or long ago fan expectations of celebrity and commercial success, and you are left with a few things still that might make a normal mortal musician proud. When not measured, as often happens here, with say, Eric Clapton's career.

And both Taylor and Wood had a career prior to the Stones as we know.

As for Ronnie Wood doing well, yes in the end he has done well. I am big fan of several of his solo albums, and he has much to be proud of, but so does Bill Wyman. It is easy to overestimate Wood's solo accomplishments outside the Stones in a haze of the Where's Waldo/Forrest Gump of the Rock Star world aura he has created. At the end of the day, One Direction would rather have Ronnie Wood, the quintessential "rock star" guesting with them on a TV show, rather than Mick Taylor...that is really what it has come down to, from a commercial point of view, and nearly an artistic one as well. More power to Ronnie. It is in its own way, an extension of the Rolling Stones juggernaut and more power to Ronnie. But to me its largely irrelevant to the might have beens of Taylor's talent, and does not in any way diminish his modest but respectable accomplishments post-Stones.

Quote
Olly

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HMS
Apart from Keith having met Mick at Dartfort station, Ron Wood is the best thing that ever happened to the Stones.

Why are you bringing up Wood in a Taylor thread? Some people prefer a different line-up, move along.

Read the contents of this page.

Wood and Brian both inevitably come up in Taylor discussions from time to time, unavoidably so since they were the "other" guitarists in the band and I think Charlie may be somewhat responsible in this case, bless his heart. But we have to be careful since the moderator has warned us that Wood vs Taylor discussions are not allowed when he re-opened this thread. Or at least I think he did.

The point is that Taylor´s virtuoso-style playing is not really suitable for a "sleazy" and "dirty" Band like The Rolling Stones. The longer Taylor stayed with the Stones the more Keith became aware of it.

From my own point of view, when it comes to guitar playing, true artistry is what catches my attention and respect. Duane Allman, Eric Clapton at his peak,
Jimi Hendrix...and Mick Taylor, when he's in the mood...to name a few.

Ronnie and Keith are not artists in the above sense but the average fan admires their individual personalities and stage persona.

Quote
stonesrule
From my own point of view, when it comes to guitar playing, true artistry is what catches my attention and respect. Duane Allman, Eric Clapton at his peak,
Jimi Hendrix...and Mick Taylor, when he's in the mood...to name a few.

Ronnie and Keith are not artists in the above sense but the average fan admires their individual personalities and stage persona.

Only LEAD guitarists are in your true artistry category...hmmm

Quote
stonesrule
From my own point of view, when it comes to guitar playing, true artistry is what catches my attention and respect. Duane Allman, Eric Clapton at his peak,
Jimi Hendrix...and Mick Taylor, when he's in the mood...to name a few.

Ronnie and Keith are not artists in the above sense but the average fan admires their individual personalities and stage persona.

You don't think Wood and Richards have talent; skill; ability?

.....

Olly.

Quote
HMS
The point is that Taylor´s virtuoso-style playing is not really suitable for a "sleazy" and "dirty" Band like The Rolling Stones. The longer Taylor stayed with the Stones the more Keith became aware of it.

Keith was increasingly aware of less and less by the time Taylor left the band, probably one of the reasons he left. I think if Keith would have been more aware he would have found a way to utilize Taylor's skills even more.

Sleazy and dirty Stones? Lol, you've bought into ALO's story it sounds like. Besides I hardly think those descriptions have fit the Stones for a very long time now. England doesn't knight sleazy and dirty rock stars and the Stones are pure family entertainment these days.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HMS
The point is that Taylor´s virtuoso-style playing is not really suitable for a "sleazy" and "dirty" Band like The Rolling Stones. The longer Taylor stayed with the Stones the more Keith became aware of it.

Keith was increasingly aware of less and less by the time Taylor left the band, probably one of the reasons he left. I think if Keith would have been more aware he would have found a way to utilize Taylor's skills even more.

Sleazy and dirty Stones? Lol, you've bought into ALO's story it sounds like. Besides I hardly think those descriptions have fit the Stones for a very long time now. England doesn't knight sleazy and dirty rock stars and the Stones are pure family entertainment these days.

They became real sleazy and dirty after Mick J appointed Chuck and Matt as musical directors ;-)

Quote
HMS
The point is that Taylor´s virtuoso-style playing is not really suitable for a "sleazy" and "dirty" Band like The Rolling Stones. The longer Taylor stayed with the Stones the more Keith became aware of it.

Disagree. Ventilator Blues, Dancing w/ Mr. D, Hide Your Love, Stop Breaking Down, Sway etc are all sleazy and Taylor adds to them.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HMS
The point is that Taylor´s virtuoso-style playing is not really suitable for a "sleazy" and "dirty" Band like The Rolling Stones. The longer Taylor stayed with the Stones the more Keith became aware of it.

Keith was increasingly aware of less and less by the time Taylor left the band, probably one of the reasons he left. I think if Keith would have been more aware he would have found a way to utilize Taylor's skills even more.

Sleazy and dirty Stones? Lol, you've bought into ALO's story it sounds like. Besides I hardly think those descriptions have fit the Stones for a very long time now. England doesn't knight sleazy and dirty rock stars and the Stones are pure family entertainment these days.

They became real sleazy and dirty after Mick J appointed Chuck and Matt as musical directors ;-)

LOL. We all know the true sleaziness left the Stones when Bill threw in the towel.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HMS
The point is that Taylor´s virtuoso-style playing is not really suitable for a "sleazy" and "dirty" Band like The Rolling Stones. The longer Taylor stayed with the Stones the more Keith became aware of it.

Keith was increasingly aware of less and less by the time Taylor left the band, probably one of the reasons he left. I think if Keith would have been more aware he would have found a way to utilize Taylor's skills even more.

Sleazy and dirty Stones? Lol, you've bought into ALO's story it sounds like. Besides I hardly think those descriptions have fit the Stones for a very long time now. England doesn't knight sleazy and dirty rock stars and the Stones are pure family entertainment these days.

They became real sleazy and dirty after Mick J appointed Chuck and Matt as musical directors ;-)

LOL. We all know the true sleaziness left the Stones when Bill threw in the towel.

That was the illegally sleazy stuff...Keith brought the no bath in days may have accidentally shat himself in a heroin bender sleaze

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HMS
Yes I did. From 1990 on every tour at least one concert and I had a good time at every concert, even without Taylor onstage.

I guess you missed the tour(s) before this one when Taylor actually was on stage with the Stones again? I assure you it was a highlight of those shows.

Quote
Witness
To honour Charlie Watts for this most marvellous quote, be fair to Charlie and do not strip his outlook for its vital nuances. About Ronnie: "Musically, he didn't bring anything, ......." has, nonetheless, an important continuation, "....., but he has this facility to add to things".

If we want to, we may try to interprete that point of view. But towards the complete sentence, I think.

Well it can either be taken as somewhat contradictory or perhaps the things he adds that Charlie is referring to are not musical. Like he adds to the camaraderie of the band, which of course is well documented.

I take it more that he didn't bring any songs, heightened musicianship or guitar styles to the band but is able to add things like pedal steel, guitar solos and second guitar parts.

But we know that he at the very least brought songs.....and some good ones I might add.

I've seen, heard some 3,000 musical performances since the Sixties.

More than one hundred of them have been by the Rolling Stones --my favorite rock band. HMS, you refer to them as "sleazy and dirty"...NOT ME. Mick and Keith have written an amazing range of songs.

I've seen and heard Muddy Waters, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles and enjoyed the
their special artistry on truly magical evenings. I remember a Paris afternoon
in 1971 when Mick Jagger and I were having a private conversation and he suddenly told me: "Listen, we're gonna tour America in 1972 and 3. WHO
shall we get as the opening act?"

Without hesitating, I said, "Stevie Wonder, of course!" He lit up. "OH!
Do you think he would?"

"Of course," I said, "Now that he's grown up, Motown wants to stick him in a
tuxedo and have him play nightclubs..I'll call him when I get back to LA."

That tour was amazing...

HMS,I hope you get over your ongoing desire to make flat statements and God
help anyone who disagrees.

The point is that Wood has its own style, Taylor has its own style, continue to place them in opposition it makes no sense. Yet here he keeps saying Taylor's the best etc., Instead of me like apprezarli both, in the Stones have played in very different periods. Today, however, the guitarist of the Stones is Wood , you should be happy Taylor to have been invited on the last tour, but here you only hear criticism, as if Wood should leave the place. This is absurd.

Edited introduction: I was well aware of a little of stonesrule's connections from earlier days. At the time I thought about the following response for some minutes, it was addressed to that earlier post of his as written by him as a poster like any other posters, some of which are substantial.

Had I known that he in meantime was to make explicit reference to such contact in those old days right here, I would have abstained from commenting on his former post in this thread, after a post with such reference. Now my answer follows a little stupidly in the light of that.

Quote
stonesrule
From my own point of view, when it comes to guitar playing, true artistry is what catches my attention and respect. Duane Allman, Eric Clapton at his peak,
Jimi Hendrix...and Mick Taylor, when he's in the mood...to name a few.

Ronnie and Keith are not artists in the above sense but the average fan admires their individual personalities and stage persona.

However, personalities and stage persona kept aside, if one substituted "creativity" for "artistry" as measure, I think that Keith Richards ought to be a strong candidate for similiar attention and respect.

Besides, it was Jagger / Richards song and riff making that provided the musical substance through which Mick Taylor was able to shine. With some claim for artistic achievement for what the two of them have supplied. Not to mention what the band as unit has delivered?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-26 21:53 by Witness.

Quote
stonesrule
I've seen, heard some 3,000 musical performances since the Sixties.

More than one hundred of them have been by the Rolling Stones --my favorite rock band. HMS, you refer to them as "sleazy and dirty"...NOT ME. Mick and Keith have written an amazing range of songs.

I've seen and heard Muddy Waters, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles and enjoyed the
their special artistry on truly magical evenings. I remember a Paris afternoon
in 1971 when Mick Jagger and I were having a private conversation and he suddenly told me: "Listen, we're gonna tour America in 1972 and 3. WHO
shall we get as the opening act?"

Without hesitating, I said, "Stevie Wonder, of course!" He lit up. "OH!
Do you think he would?"

"Of course," I said, "Now that he's grown up, Motown wants to stick him in a
tuxedo and have him play nightclubs..I'll call him when I get back to LA."

That tour was amazing...

HMS,I hope you get over your ongoing desire to make flat statements and God
help anyone who disagrees.

My God stonesrule, you had some mighty fine advice and vision! Thank you for that. No doubt The Stones influenced Stevie in a positive way!

I am a HUGE fan of Talking Book (1972), Innervisions (1973) and Songs In The Key Of Life (1976) and besides Jimi Hendrix he is probably my biggest musical influence. I also adore early Elton John and he was also a big influence.

The fact that you were involved with ALL of those artists makes me extremely honored to call you friend and I am forever grateful. You rock!

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HMS
The point is that Taylor´s virtuoso-style playing is not really suitable for a "sleazy" and "dirty" Band like The Rolling Stones. The longer Taylor stayed with the Stones the more Keith became aware of it.

Keith was increasingly aware of less and less by the time Taylor left the band, probably one of the reasons he left. I think if Keith would have been more aware he would have found a way to utilize Taylor's skills even more.

Sleazy and dirty Stones? Lol, you've bought into ALO's story it sounds like. Besides I hardly think those descriptions have fit the Stones for a very long time now. England doesn't knight sleazy and dirty rock stars and the Stones are pure family entertainment these days.

They became real sleazy and dirty after Mick J appointed Chuck and Matt as musical directors ;-)

LOL. We all know the true sleaziness left the Stones when Bill threw in the towel.

That was the illegally sleazy stuff...Keith brought the no bath in days may have accidentally shat himself in a heroin bender sleaze

you got to pay your dues if you want to sing the blues...

Quote
stonesrule
I've seen, heard some 3,000 musical performances since the Sixties.

More than one hundred of them have been by the Rolling Stones --my favorite rock band. HMS, you refer to them as "sleazy and dirty"...NOT ME. Mick and Keith have written an amazing range of songs.

I've seen and heard Muddy Waters, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles and enjoyed the
their special artistry on truly magical evenings. I remember a Paris afternoon
in 1971 when Mick Jagger and I were having a private conversation and he suddenly told me: "Listen, we're gonna tour America in 1972 and 3. WHO
shall we get as the opening act?"

Without hesitating, I said, "Stevie Wonder, of course!" He lit up. "OH!
Do you think he would?"

"Of course," I said, "Now that he's grown up, Motown wants to stick him in a
tuxedo and have him play nightclubs..I'll call him when I get back to LA."

That tour was amazing...

HMS,I hope you get over your ongoing desire to make flat statements and God
help anyone who disagrees.

That's a great story.
Did he mention anything about being asked to join Deep Purple as lead singer?

I've been following the IORR board for a number of years and always fascinated by the Wood - Taylor discussions. Been there from the beginning 50 years ago, have just about every RS release (studio and bootleg), and seen them in concert numerous times over the years.

With that pre-amble, here goes............ My benchmark when looking at each guitarists impact and in light of the vast catalog of Stones music in my library is what do I consistently listen to when I go to my ipod/stereo. Not even close by a factor of 50 to one - the band w/ Taylor. That said, I'll make 2 exceptions to the Taylor rule on occasion - the Handsome Girls stuff, plus in most (not all) instances, I much prefer Woods solo material to that of Taylor's. The second exception I find interesting considering my obvious Taylor leanings. I think my favoring him w/ the RS speaks, in part, to the band being at the peak overall during Taylor's tenure, and Wood "suffers" the post Some Girls/TY gradual decline from the aforesaid MJ, JR, etc., creative peak.

Nevertheless, while certainly timing is a key factor - Taylor joined at the right time - I believe his style lends itself more to moving you as a listener, and as such, has the unique ability to want to see what he brings to a each song, especially live.

Put another way, I've listened to the Sticky Fingers Deluxe time and time again. I've listed to the SF Live from the Fonda twice although I found many of the version well done - MM, SM, YGM - just not enough to return to again any time soon.

I've been keen since hearing mick taylor on the recent tour to hear what wood/taylor could both do together.

the covers gig was good but was more or a taylor backing wood approach (albeit really good), id be very very interested to hear what they do on an equal footing. great contrasting styles that both benefit from each other.

doubt itd happen but man it'd be great hearing them both cut loose.

mid/late 70s there are whispers of taylor being asked to tour if richards bail/jail didnt work out. wow that wouldv been some gig. exciting, unexpected, power, finese, raunch, tenderness

Quote
Captainchaos
I've been keen since hearing mick taylor on the recent tour to hear what wood/taylor could both do together.

the covers gig was good but was more or a taylor backing wood approach (albeit really good), id be very very interested to hear what they do on an equal footing. great contrasting styles that both benefit from each other.

doubt itd happen but man it'd be great hearing them both cut loose.

mid/late 70s there are whispers of taylor being asked to tour if richards bail/jail didnt work out. wow that wouldv been some gig. exciting, unexpected, power, finese, raunch, tenderness

Yes, the 'what ifs' surrounding Richards and the law are endlessly fascinating, but I feel most of the traits mentioned would have been diminished had the unthinkable happened and Richards not featured on stage.

.....

Olly.