Quote
Loudei
We all know who is the best rhythm player in the band

Yeah, Mick Jagger.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
stonehearted
Brian Jones.

Nope, Keith Richards.

Not in the early days.

Quote
Koen

Quote
Loudei
We all know who is the best rhythm player in the band

Yeah, Mick Jagger.

And the best singer, Keith.
Come to think of it one wonders why they didn't switch places years ago...

I loved Brian's voice.

Si si. Je suis un Rock Star.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
stonehearted
Brian Jones.

Nope, Keith Richards.

Nope, it's Brian.

Quote
Nikkei
Si si. Je suis un Rock Star.

it's really a crime the stones didn't start having a "bill section" of their shows (like the keith section) where mick and keith both left the stage and bill sang "si si je suis un rock star". 81 tour would have been so much better.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust
For me rhythm and lead work are so intertwined that the question can be worded as who is a better guitarist. IMO, Mick Taylor by a long shot. Mostly because of the many times Taylor has made me sit up and take notice and go WOW, that was sweet!

Ronnie is probably a better band mate, but rarely have I heard his playing and been inspired to the point of picking up my guitar and trying to play along. No doubt he is well rounded and can play the parts well but he hasn't really developed that thing that all great guitarists like Taylor, Keith, and so many other have....his own sound and style. Some may disagree with me but I would encourage them to post something from the last 30 years which is "signature" Ronnie. Sure he added something to Some Girls all those years ago but where has he hasn't developed or grown that sound and style much.

peace

You say that Ronnie is a good band mate, and hasn't done anything innovative since "Some Girls". Neither have any of the Rolling Stones. What kind of band mate would Ronnie be if he showed up his band members by developing or growing after Some Girls?!?

Hmmm, perhaps you are right Turner, but Keith already had a sound and style, has stuck to it and it's pretty easily identifiable, Mick obviously has too and his performances are solid and pure Mick.

I'm not suggesting Ronnie should show up his band members but perhaps you are on to something and the real reason we haven't seen Ronnie develop much is because of the role Mick and Keith have defined for him. I do somewhat believe that the Stones were probably not Ronnie's best choice for personal development as an artist. Is there room for the second Stones guitarist to develop his own style within the tight framework of the Jagger/Richards songwriting monopoly? I have to think so, Taylor did it, but of course he got bored and frustrated, so it certainly must come at a cost. Perhaps being the perfect Stones band mate at the expense of personal development was one Ronnie was willing to pay.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust
For me rhythm and lead work are so intertwined that the question can be worded as who is a better guitarist. IMO, Mick Taylor by a long shot. Mostly because of the many times Taylor has made me sit up and take notice and go WOW, that was sweet!

Ronnie is probably a better band mate, but rarely have I heard his playing and been inspired to the point of picking up my guitar and trying to play along. No doubt he is well rounded and can play the parts well but he hasn't really developed that thing that all great guitarists like Taylor, Keith, and so many other have....his own sound and style. Some may disagree with me but I would encourage them to post something from the last 30 years which is "signature" Ronnie. Sure he added something to Some Girls all those years ago but where has he hasn't developed or grown that sound and style much.

peace

You say that Ronnie is a good band mate, and hasn't done anything innovative since "Some Girls". Neither have any of the Rolling Stones. What kind of band mate would Ronnie be if he showed up his band members by developing or growing after Some Girls?!?

Hmmm, perhaps you are right Turner, but Keith already had a sound and style, has stuck to it and it's pretty easily identifiable, Mick obviously has too and his performances are solid and pure Mick.

I'm not suggesting Ronnie should show up his band members but perhaps you are on to something and the real reason we haven't seen Ronnie develop much is because of the role Mick and Keith have defined for him. I do somewhat believe that the Stones were probably not Ronnie's best choice for personal development as an artist. Is there room for the second Stones guitarist to develop his own style within the tight framework of the Jagger/Richards songwriting monopoly? I have to think so, Taylor did it, but of course he got bored and frustrated, so it certainly must come at a cost. Perhaps being the perfect Stones band mate at the expense of personal development was one Ronnie was willing to pay.

peace

my thoughts exactly. i don't have references but i feel quite sure that the 3 of them (mick, keith, ron) have all said at one point that the most important part of ron's job is getting along with the rest of the crew.

Quote
Naturalust
Perhaps being the perfect Stones band mate at the expense of personal development was one Ronnie was willing to pay.

peace

Maybe Ronnie went into painting not only because he needed money, but also a direction in which he could grow artistically.

Quote
onlystones

Quote
1962
So boooring

Especially when you know this is going to turn out.

MT is a god.

RW blows. And so does your mother.

BV please delete this thread!

I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust
For me rhythm and lead work are so intertwined that the question can be worded as who is a better guitarist. IMO, Mick Taylor by a long shot. Mostly because of the many times Taylor has made me sit up and take notice and go WOW, that was sweet!

Ronnie is probably a better band mate, but rarely have I heard his playing and been inspired to the point of picking up my guitar and trying to play along. No doubt he is well rounded and can play the parts well but he hasn't really developed that thing that all great guitarists like Taylor, Keith, and so many other have....his own sound and style. Some may disagree with me but I would encourage them to post something from the last 30 years which is "signature" Ronnie. Sure he added something to Some Girls all those years ago but where has he hasn't developed or grown that sound and style much.

peace

You say that Ronnie is a good band mate, and hasn't done anything innovative since "Some Girls". Neither have any of the Rolling Stones. What kind of band mate would Ronnie be if he showed up his band members by developing or growing after Some Girls?!?

Hmmm, perhaps you are right Turner, but Keith already had a sound and style, has stuck to it and it's pretty easily identifiable, Mick obviously has too and his performances are solid and pure Mick.

I'm not suggesting Ronnie should show up his band members but perhaps you are on to something and the real reason we haven't seen Ronnie develop much is because of the role Mick and Keith have defined for him. I do somewhat believe that the Stones were probably not Ronnie's best choice for personal development as an artist. Is there room for the second Stones guitarist to develop his own style within the tight framework of the Jagger/Richards songwriting monopoly? I have to think so, Taylor did it, but of course he got bored and frustrated, so it certainly must come at a cost. Perhaps being the perfect Stones band mate at the expense of personal development was one Ronnie was willing to pay.

peace

Okay, but this is just the studio songs part. Taylor had much more freedom on stage and he could develop his playing from 1969 on until his last show in 1973. But how about Ronnie's playing? To my ears he never really fit in the Stones music, especially not on stage. Sometimes I wonder if he ever has had any feel for that music at all. Anyway, his live playing has never pleased me, while I have nothing against the man himself.

Quote
71Tele
I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Really? To be honest I don't like his playing on Sway and Winter that much. It's some strange kind of strumming he does. Not really playing rhythm imo.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele
I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Really? To be honest I don't like his playing on Sway and Winter that much. It's some strange kind of strumming he does. Not really playing rhythm imo.

I haven't heard enough of his rhythm playing to say for sure (never gone to the trouble of listening closely enough to his parts when he plays live), but it would make sense that he would be good - one of the best aspects of his singing is his sense of timing.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele
I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Really? To be honest I don't like his playing on Sway and Winter that much. It's some strange kind of strumming he does. Not really playing rhythm imo.

Really ? I took me 30 years to realize it was Jagger instead of Keith playing Sway.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Naturalust
Perhaps being the perfect Stones band mate at the expense of personal development was one Ronnie was willing to pay.

peace

Maybe Ronnie went into painting not only because he needed money, but also a direction in which he could grow artistically.

Yes, I've often thought the same thing. In most interviews these days I hear Ronnie talking about his painting, rarely, as of late, do we hear him talking about writing songs or working on his guitar playing. I think his highest aspiration as a guitarist was to be a Rolling Stones one.

peace

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele
I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Really? To be honest I don't like his playing on Sway and Winter that much. It's some strange kind of strumming he does. Not really playing rhythm imo.

Really ? I took me 30 years to realize it was Jagger instead of Keith playing Sway.

me too.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele
I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Really? To be honest I don't like his playing on Sway and Winter that much. It's some strange kind of strumming he does. Not really playing rhythm imo.

Really ? I took me 30 years to realize it was Jagger instead of Keith playing Sway.

me too.

It took me one listen to hear the difference, but I didn't know who played it. Though it sure didn't sound Keithish nor Taylorish, thus it should be Jagger I thought.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele
I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Really? To be honest I don't like his playing on Sway and Winter that much. It's some strange kind of strumming he does. Not really playing rhythm imo.

Really ? I took me 30 years to realize it was Jagger instead of Keith playing Sway.

me too.

It took me one listen to hear the difference, but I didn't know who played it. Though it sure didn't sound Keithish nor Taylorish, thus it should be Jagger I thought.

Can you prove that?

I agree with kleerie. Mick is always on the one, like classic rock or hard rock players. A considerable difference, imo.

<<it's really a crime the stones didn't start having a "bill section" of their shows (like the keith section)>>

It's an even bigger crime that there is no thread on IORR with the title "Bill Wyman talk - what's on your mind right now"; a slightly larger crime that people are not upset that they play all those Wyman-era gems without the bassist who played on the original recordings; and an outright felony that there is no thread here with the title "Who was or is a better bass guitarist? Darryl Jones or Bill Wyman."

Not aware Mick T played much rhythm. So I'd say Ronnie.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele
I prefer Mick Jagger's rhythm playing to either of them. He brings a certain style that's all his. I would say the other two see rhythm more as a functional thing and are not terribly distinctive.

Really? To be honest I don't like his playing on Sway and Winter that much. It's some strange kind of strumming he does. Not really playing rhythm imo.

Really ? I took me 30 years to realize it was Jagger instead of Keith playing Sway.

me too.

It took me one listen to hear the difference, but I didn't know who played it. Though it sure didn't sound Keithish nor Taylorish, thus it should be Jagger I thought.

Can you prove that?

Simply a matter of deduction, Luxury.

Quote
stonehearted
<<it's really a crime the stones didn't start having a "bill section" of their shows (like the keith section)>>

It's an even bigger crime that there is no thread on IORR with the title "Bill Wyman talk - what's on your mind right now"; a slightly larger crime that people are not upset that they play all those Wyman-era gems without the bassist who played on the original recordings; and an outright felony that there is no thread here with the title "Who was or is a better bass guitarist? Darryl Jones or Bill Wyman."

I think most older Stones fans prefer Bill's playing. I just listened to the Tokyo rehearsals on YT, on which Jagger, Chuck (one, two, three, four) and Darryl were all three very well audible. Then I realized that Bill was surely better apt for the Stones' music. So I don't think that question will produce much discussion.

As for him not playing with them now: contrary to M.T. he's not available, but if he were ...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree with kleerie. Mick is always on the one, like classic rock or hard rock players. A considerable difference, imo.

AND James Brown too!






C

<<contrary to M.T. he's not available>>

But as with special guest star MT, Bill, if he'd stayed on from 2012, would have been given the heave-ho for the current tour.

Perhaps it was just a case of leave before they let him go. He wanted to be the one to walk. Having them give him a "Your services are no longer required" note would have defeated the whole purpose of his having left in the first place.

MT left for his own reasons, which to this day remain a bit vague.

Bill left for definite reasons, to give his life new meaning and direction. It would make sense that he wouldn't want to be dragged around the world as just a celebratory figure with a limited cameo, because, unlike MT, he has a life, a career, interests of his own that keep him occupied. Even with just one writing credit as a Rolling Stone to his name, he can afford to not accept a patronizing handout followed by walking papers.

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree with kleerie. Mick is always on the one, like classic rock or hard rock players. A considerable difference, imo.

AND James Brown too!






C

But when playing rock the result often becomes... less funky...

One of the great things about the Stones is that there is no formal distinction between who plays rhythm and lead guitar. Classifying one of them as better on either lead or rhythm is therefore a moot point.

The real question is of course who is the more suitable player in the Stones, and we all know the answer to that

Quote
stonehearted
<<it's really a crime the stones didn't start having a "bill section" of their shows (like the keith section)>>

It's an even bigger crime that there is no thread on IORR with the title "Bill Wyman talk - what's on your mind right now"; a slightly larger crime that people are not upset that they play all those Wyman-era gems without the bassist who played on the original recordings; and an outright felony that there is no thread here with the title "Who was or is a better bass guitarist? Darryl Jones or Bill Wyman."

i agree. i was going to say something about that but figured it was long discussed and put to bed already and that there was no reason to wake up sleeping dogs. but anything said about mick taylor can be said in triplicate about Bill W. main difference seems to be that Bill W and his fans are at peace.