Quote
OpenG
Musically the stones live during 1969 thru 1973 with Taylor in the band was the best lineup how can one argue with that is beyond me...

To many, youthful naivety and exuberance and the rush and feelings that comes from it can be more appealing than a more mature and considered approach.

1963 - 1967(8) is a group of near amateur level musicians creating a glorious ball of sound, energy and freedom.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-17 22:49 by His Majesty.

Quote
HMS

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
HMS

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
There's no use in writing tons of post about a musician you don't think much of.

it is my undisputed duty to right a wrong

Thank You, HMS, Thank You!.

One of the very best examples for a song that does not need the MT treatment. He destroys the original mood of the song.

If You feel that Taylor destroys the original mood of the song on this track then listen to Keith's Channel here.. They're both part of the same 'crime'.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
HMS

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
There's no use in writing tons of post about a musician you don't think much of.

it is my undisputed duty to right a wrong

Thank You, HMS, Thank You!.

In places this, as is too often the case, sounds like someone practising pre worked out solos over a recording, but his verse lick/motif is cool as fuckk.

Got more exteme in 73. Who knows what over thought soloing he'd be playing by 1975 had he stayed.

His playing is bordering the OTT territories that would plague stadium rock and metal in the coming years... Extravagant soloing just for the sake of it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-17 23:18 by His Majesty.

by trying to improve something that is already perfect they ruin it.

Quote
HMS
by trying to improve something that is already perfect they ruin it.

Charlie's drumming kills the flow of it. Too jumpy and stop-start.

Peak period supposedly.

This! This is so @#$%& heavy, raw and glorious!

Gimme Shelter at Altamont.

[youtu.be]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-17 23:27 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

His playing is bordering the OTT territories that would plague stadium rock and metal in the coming years... Extravagant soloing just for the sake of it.

Mhwah, it's a matter of taste.

Quote
HMS


Humbug
At least in terms of money the golden years started in 1989!

Musically the Wood-era has no less highlights to offer than the Taylor-years. I could give you a detailed list anytime. Once again, the Taylor years showed the (temporary) decline of the band: IORR worse than GHS, GHS worse than EOMS, EOMS worse than SF. So what´s so golden about it after all. Two superb albums - LIB & SF (on one of them almost NO Taylor), one album that could have been a masterpiece it they had shortened it (EOMS) plus two mediocre tired-sounding and overall rather boring albums (GHS/IORR).

Musically, the golden years are the period when they released their incredible string of iconic singles. More golden than any other period (sorry all you Taylorites, but there can´t be any doubt about it).

Taylor was lucky to be around when the Glimmers wrote some of their best songs (EOMS, especially SF) and Wood is not responsible for seemingly weak albums like SW, VL, B2B, ABB. It´s not unusual that the latter day-output of an artist/a band is not as strong as the output of earlier years.

To understand stuff like this one needs to be more a psychologist than knowing anything of music. What HMS says is extreme and troll-like, but it still reflects not so uncommon agenda here. I find it odd, honestly. I guess the angst against Taylor, a guitarist they used to have when they were still creating their legacy big time, stems from some sort of him being recognized too good, an incredible lead guitarist and a musician by any means, and that is not done just by some 'Taylorities' but by a major rock history literature. That recognition, if not even a common truth, hurts some sensitive souls. A bit similar like the common notion that 'Brian Jones was the best of musician of all of them', which seems to make some Stones fans discomfortable. 'What about Keef, ugh?' (no one actually care about Ronnie per se, his apologism stems purely from Keefism) .

So there are people who do their their best to downplay and belittle anything Taylor (or Jones) have contributed to the Stones. Be that trying to show that no way those guys had any contribution is shaping the songs, they didn't play in 'that and that' tune, 'Stones in not about solos', etc. etc. It's almost gestapo-like how certain members here are acting here in details like that - to show how little use of those guys had in some bloody particular tracks or something. If they weren't there (best scenario), they at least did something anyone could have done in a template like that (so, no reason to get excited), or, typical especially with Taylor, destroyed it by their 'Non-Stonesy' means (what a bastard). And in reality - these views are missing the big picture big time.

Sometimes I cannot but feel ashamed for belonging to this so called Ronnie Wood era fan generation, hooked once by that bloody "Start Me Up". The most idiotic and musically one-sided of any Stones fan generations. I was born way tool late to understand anything really.

- Doxa




'.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 00:11 by Doxa.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
His Majesty

His playing is bordering the OTT territories that would plague stadium rock and metal in the coming years... Extravagant soloing just for the sake of it.

Mhwah, it's a matter of taste.

Maybe.

Having the previously main guitarist reduced to mostly strumming chords for the majority of a concert is also something to consider.

Perhaps it would be interesting to see how many songs suffered from the Wood treatment, rather than from the Taylor treatment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-17 23:45 by SomeGuy.

[youtu.be]





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-17 23:57 by His Majesty.

Is there a Taylor version of this song? , so we can compare.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 00:01 by SomeGuy.

Quote
SomeGuy
Is there a Taylor version of this song? , so we can compare.

Hopefully not as we all know what he would do to it.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
SomeGuy
Is there a Taylor version of this song? , so we can compare.

Hopefully not as we all know what he would do to it.

Let's agree that this is a very cool, what is it, Rod Stewart or Faces (?) song with an absolutely brilliant guitar part by Wood. As long as I don't have to listen to it I'm fine with that. What a pity he didn't stay with that band, ha ha.

What I meant was, what Wood did to the Stones songs. To be exact: how many songs pre 1970 played by Wood are actually better played than those songs played by Taylor. As in: is Midnight Rambler played by Wood better than played by Taylor? Same with JJF, SFM, SFTD etc.

Dunno, comparing Taylor and Wood is kinda silly.

Danny Kirwin is of a similar ilk to Taylor, but more raw, electric and exciting. Great at the melodic approach too. Fabulous vibrato.

Kirwin smokes Taylor.

[youtu.be]


[youtu.be]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 00:37 by His Majesty.

Well, someone started this discussion, arguing that Taylor's versions were bad, thus implying that Wood's versions were better. As there are by now many songs played by both Taylor AND Wood, throughout the years, it wouldn't be strange to have a preference. So I figured, let's turn the question around as it were.

Quote
SomeGuy

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
SomeGuy
Is there a Taylor version of this song? , so we can compare.

Hopefully not as we all know what he would do to it.

Let's agree that this is a very cool, what is it, Rod Stewart or Faces (?) song with an absolutely brilliant guitar part by Wood. As long as I don't have to listen to it I'm fine with that. What a pity he didn't stay with that band, ha ha.

What I meant was, what Wood did to the Stones songs. To be exact: how many songs pre 1970 played by Wood are actually better played than those songs played by Taylor. As in: is Midnight Rambler played by Wood better than played by Taylor? Same with JJF, SFM, SFTD etc.

Answer: NONE



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 01:36 by TornAndFried.

I hated when RW tried to copy Taylor licks - All Down The Line from Texas 1972 has to be the best band performance whole band on fire Its raw and powerful When RW plays the slide it’s okay but comes up way short to Taylor

Quote
His Majesty
Dunno, comparing Taylor and Wood is kinda silly.

Danny Kirwin is of a similar ilk to Taylor, but more raw, electric and exciting. Great at the melodic approach too. Fabulous vibrato.

Kirwin smokes Taylor.

[youtu.be]


[youtu.be]

:

-

Let me get the @#$%& out of this Kindergarten.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 01:08 by TheflyingDutchman.

Some of this Taylor backlash is a result of the Stones becoming a greatest hits show, playing the same rock and roll hits every tour. It's a result of them selling themselves as simply as possible to the broadest possible fan base -- so it's Keith, the riffmaster, and Mick, 'look at him dancing around.'
Any kind of musicianship or subtlety is lost on that audience. Keith gets his slow song, and that's it.
So most fans at these shows may not realize that rock and roll was maybe a quarter of what they did. The rest was some mix of American music -- folk, blues, country, jazz, even showtunes.
The band that gave us Satisfaction also gave us Lady Jane. Keith wrote Gimme Shelter but also Ruby Tuesday and Angie.
So when these fans comes across TWFNO or Moonlight Mile, it just doesn't compute.
They don't even like the elegant solos that MT gave us (in addition to the other riffs and hooks he came up with, he wasn't just some hired gun who played his lead part and then went home). I think some people much prefer Keith or Ron to butcher a solo, because that's more 'Stonesy!' and authentic.
Fwiw, I think all the various permutions of the bands had their moments of brilliance and moments of indifference. RW suffers in this because the band was past its creative peak when he arrived (and then almost broke up.) But to my mind the late 70s Texas show was one of their best, so hats off to Ronnie for that.
I'd just suggest to some of the younger fans/Taylor detractors to open your mind that the Stones were a more nuanced, deeper richer band than you might believe.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
His Majesty
Dunno, comparing Taylor and Wood is kinda silly.

Danny Kirwin is of a similar ilk to Taylor, but more raw, electric and exciting. Great at the melodic approach too. Fabulous vibrato.

Kirwin smokes Taylor.

[youtu.be]


[youtu.be]

:

Yeh, smokin' Joe Frazier, you cannot compare him to Ali though . .

Ali is Hendrix you silly billy.

Quote
His Majesty
Dunno, comparing Taylor and Wood is kinda silly.

Danny Kirwin is of a similar ilk to Taylor, but more raw, electric and exciting. Great at the melodic approach too. Fabulous vibrato.

Kirwin smokes Taylor.

[youtu.be]


[youtu.be]

I love me some Danny Kirwan, but I wouldn’t say those two are similar at all. Both have very distinct tones and phrasing. I prefer Kirwan’s more orchestrated numbers like Dust and the Second Chapter album to his blues. He was becoming a master of layering guitars.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 13:00 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
wonderboy
Some of this Taylor backlash is a result of the Stones becoming a greatest hits show, playing the same rock and roll hits every tour. It's a result of them selling themselves as simply as possible to the broadest possible fan base -- so it's Keith, the riffmaster, and Mick, 'look at him dancing around.'
Any kind of musicianship or subtlety is lost on that audience. Keith gets his slow song, and that's it.
So most fans at these shows may not realize that rock and roll was maybe a quarter of what they did. The rest was some mix of American music -- folk, blues, country, jazz, even showtunes.
The band that gave us Satisfaction also gave us Lady Jane. Keith wrote Gimme Shelter but also Ruby Tuesday and Angie.
So when these fans comes across TWFNO or Moonlight Mile, it just doesn't compute.
They don't even like the elegant solos that MT gave us (in addition to the other riffs and hooks he came up with, he wasn't just some hired gun who played his lead part and then went home). I think some people much prefer Keith or Ron to butcher a solo, because that's more 'Stonesy!' and authentic.
Fwiw, I think all the various permutions of the bands had their moments of brilliance and moments of indifference. RW suffers in this because the band was past its creative peak when he arrived (and then almost broke up.) But to my mind the late 70s Texas show was one of their best, so hats off to Ronnie for that.
I'd just suggest to some of the younger fans/Taylor detractors to open your mind that the Stones were a more nuanced, deeper richer band than you might believe.

Keith playing anything is by default more 'stonsey' because he is a founding and defining member of The Rolling Stones.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
wonderboy
Some of this Taylor backlash is a result of the Stones becoming a greatest hits show, playing the same rock and roll hits every tour. It's a result of them selling themselves as simply as possible to the broadest possible fan base -- so it's Keith, the riffmaster, and Mick, 'look at him dancing around.'
Any kind of musicianship or subtlety is lost on that audience. Keith gets his slow song, and that's it.
So most fans at these shows may not realize that rock and roll was maybe a quarter of what they did. The rest was some mix of American music -- folk, blues, country, jazz, even showtunes.
The band that gave us Satisfaction also gave us Lady Jane. Keith wrote Gimme Shelter but also Ruby Tuesday and Angie.
So when these fans comes across TWFNO or Moonlight Mile, it just doesn't compute.
They don't even like the elegant solos that MT gave us (in addition to the other riffs and hooks he came up with, he wasn't just some hired gun who played his lead part and then went home). I think some people much prefer Keith or Ron to butcher a solo, because that's more 'Stonesy!' and authentic.
Fwiw, I think all the various permutions of the bands had their moments of brilliance and moments of indifference. RW suffers in this because the band was past its creative peak when he arrived (and then almost broke up.) But to my mind the late 70s Texas show was one of their best, so hats off to Ronnie for that.
I'd just suggest to some of the younger fans/Taylor detractors to open your mind that the Stones were a more nuanced, deeper richer band than you might believe.

Keith playing anything is by default more 'stonsey' because he is a founding and defining member of The Rolling Stones.

This is where the phrase 'parody of themselves' that was coined around the '75 tour, comes in, I guess.

Quote
TravelinMan

I love me some Danny Kirwan, but I wouldn’t say those two are similar at all.

They rather obvioudly are. Both have been Beano'd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 01:26 by His Majesty.

Quote
SomeGuy

This is where the phrase 'parody of themselves' that was coined around the '75 tour, comes in, I guess.

1973.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
SomeGuy

This is where the phrase 'parody of themselves' that was coined around the '75 tour, comes in, I guess.

1973.

I thought it was '75, to describe the Tour Of The Americas, inflatable thingies and all. '73 was when they were called glam.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
SomeGuy

This is where the phrase 'parody of themselves' that was coined around the '75 tour, comes in, I guess.

1973.

!963.Dressed Up Copy Cats. They never really grew up, that's the good news.

Now when I more think of it, I more and more understand Charlie's point of Ronnie "adding nothing" as far as song-writing is concerned. Yeah, Ronnie can write, as his stuff already from The Faces, and from his hundreds of solo albums, show... but c'mon, The Faces, no matter how funny and cool rock band they are, is not any Rolling Stones. It is seriously underestimating the greatness and quality of the Stones to even compare them to the Faces. If the song-writing means anything, compare them to the Beatles or Dylan - that's their league - and that's due to the one of the greatest writers rock music ever seen, Jagger-Richards. I guess, had Lennon or Dylan replaced Taylor in 1975, I am sure Charlie would have seen some 'addition' in song-writing department (although the guitar department might have suffered...). Those guys surely had added some distinction into what Jagger/Richards can do. Ronnie is not that caliber (not to mock Ronnie here; we are here talking about the true giants).

Anyway, my picture has been for some times that the reason why Ronnie was chosen was that of emphasizing the Richards component in the band, since the master himself had shown some serious problems in his task. Not only that Woodie was a similar type of guitar player, but he was also able to come up with riff and song sketches Jagger could easily finish up as songs, if the riffmaster himself wasn't so productive (as was the case many times during the 70's). I guess "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" was a kind of proof for Mick that Ron can do "Keef" for him. Anyway, as it turned out to be, Ron's ideas reduced to be mostly filler stuff for albums, and B-sides, one here and another there. Nothing wrong with all those heynegritas, everythingturningtogolds, blacklimousines and prettybeatsups, but pretty low profile and forgettable stuff in Stones catalogue (that of Mick or Keith songs not being much better at the time, just tells how weakly Mick and Keith were creatively doing, not how great Ronnie's songs were). In the big picture belonging about to the same rank as "In Another Land" or "Downtown Suzie". At some point Mick seemingly fed up even with that, since he hasn't been interest in Ronnie's stuff for ages. I wouldn't be surprised him thinking that him and Keith and can even at their lowest come up with at least as good 'Stones-by-numbers' material (just check any latter-day Ron Wood solo album).

I think Ronnie's strongest and most significiant musical contribution in recorded Stones music can be heard in an album in which he wasn't credited in any song: SOME GIRLS. I think that is rather similar what Mick Taylor once had with Jagger: sparring and inspiring him. Was that only teaching Mick playing some fast electric guitar, and backing him up there, when the guy really get going, or what, I don't know. Mick's been grateful for Ronnie for that, and Ronnie's been proud (and vocal) of it, but the result is that Ronnie had a hand in realizing Jagger's 'punkish' aspirations, as Taylor once helped Mick to accomplish something completely different in musical terms (the moody, reflective pieces like "Sway", "Moonlight Mile", "Winter", "Time Waits For No One"...). But I guess Jagger pretty well knows that he can come up with some new "Respectable" much more easier and strum it on his own than another "Moonlight Mile" for which he most likely needs some serious helping hand...

My point: just trying to explicate why I see that Charlie's right when saying that Ronnie added nothing, even if song-writing is concerned. That of offering a couple of second-rate songs (by the Stones scale) means nothing. Ronnie's greatness and significance lies in somewhere else and I think it is hopeless even try to explain his contribution to evolution of their music by the manner of the contribution of Brian and Taylor (I am sure Ronnie himself would be the first to admit that). By the time Ronnie came along, they were too old and established to really learning new tricks or being musically challenged by some new voice.

- Doxa



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2019-06-18 02:23 by Doxa.