For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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...
Quote
HMSQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
HMSQuote
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.
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
HMSQuote
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!.
Quote
HMS
by trying to improve something that is already perfect they ruin it.
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.
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.
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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
SomeGuy
Is there a Taylor version of this song? , so we can compare.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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
SomeGuyQuote
His MajestyQuote
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.
:
Quote
TheflyingDutchman:
Yeh, smokin' Joe Frazier, you cannot compare him to Ali though . .
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.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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
TravelinMan
I love me some Danny Kirwan, but I wouldn’t say those two are similar at all.
Quote
SomeGuy
This is where the phrase 'parody of themselves' that was coined around the '75 tour, comes in, I guess.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
SomeGuy
This is where the phrase 'parody of themselves' that was coined around the '75 tour, comes in, I guess.
1973.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
SomeGuy
This is where the phrase 'parody of themselves' that was coined around the '75 tour, comes in, I guess.
1973.