For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread both pro and con. But after all is said and done, perhaps those of us on the con side shouldn't be so hard on Chuck. As has been pointed out, Chuck is merely dong the bidding of Mick Jagger who, back in 1989 chose to sacrifice much of the Stones soul for ticket-selling professionalism. Understandable. Money talks, but as much as I love the Stones and hope to see them again, I'm somewhat disappointed with the slick approach they've taken since 1989.
Quote
Hairball
HMS probably considers the late John Entwistle just another bass player...
Quote
HMSQuote
Hairball
HMS probably considers the late John Entwistle just another bass player...
Not at all. John is dearly missed. He´s one of the most audible bass players ever. Compared to John I hardly notice Wyman or Darryl Jones.
I admire the ability of hearing differences in the ways Darryl, Bill, Ron, Keith, Mick are playing bass. Without the liner notes I could never tell them apart. I always thought it was Bill on Emotional Rescue until I took a look at the liner notes. Without the liner notes I would think it´s Darryl where it´s actually Mick.
Quote
TheGreek
To clearly understand the Rolling Stones DNA is to appreciate the IMPORTANCE of Bill Wymans bottom end thunder on the bass .Ask anybody worth there salt the importance in Bill Wymans bass making the Stones SWING and Rock .Just listen to any studio album right up thru Steel Wheels and LISTEN as to how promenate his bass is in the music .The Stones from the very start always featured a very heavy bass sound as the core and foundation along with Charlie's drumming.Post Voodoo Lounge to present day Daryl's bass is lower in the mix live because he is not a orginal member (i know some will scoff at this ).Wyman is so critical along with the guitars weaving together (you can't have one without the other).Listen to Rocks Off,Rip This Joint ,Shake Your Hips, Casino Boogie, and Tumbling Dice and i dare you to tell Mr. Wymans bass does not matter at all . When i play Exile at home on my stereo thru the big speakers his bass is bigger than life .The Who are nothing without John Entwistles bass , ditto for Pink Floyd without Roger Waters ,the Grateful Dead without Phil Lesh .I could go on and on but the point is that the above mentioned groups would not be worth a damn without the booming signature larger than life BASS, and a virtuoso bassist period !
Quote
TheGreek
To clearly understand the Rolling Stones DNA is to appreciate the IMPORTANCE of Bill Wymans bottom end thunder on the bass .Ask anybody worth there salt the importance in Bill Wymans bass making the Stones SWING and Rock .Just listen to any studio album right up thru Steel Wheels and LISTEN as to how promenate his bass is in the music .The Stones from the very start always featured a very heavy bass sound as the core and foundation along with Charlie's drumming.Post Voodoo Lounge to present day Daryl's bass is lower in the mix live because he is not a orginal member (i know some will scoff at this ).Wyman is so critical along with the guitars weaving together (you can't have one without the other).Listen to Rocks Off,Rip This Joint ,Shake Your Hips, Casino Boogie, and Tumbling Dice and i dare you to tell Mr. Wymans bass does not matter at all . When i play Exile at home on my stereo thru the big speakers his bass is bigger than life .The Who are nothing without John Entwistles bass , ditto for Pink Floyd without Roger Waters ,the Grateful Dead without Phil Lesh .I could go on and on but the point is that the above mentioned groups would not be worth a damn without the booming signature larger than life BASS, and a virtuoso bassist period !
Quote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...
Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.
As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.
Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
I think we must have different meanings of what is pretty. Taylor's aggressive riff in the verses of the '73 versions of Gimme Shelter is not pretty to me. Also some of his counterpoint riffs, Satisfaction 1969 and various incarnations of Jack Flash come to mind, were surely not either. I'd say bold, filled with blues rock machismo.
Quote
lem motlow
The live Stones from the past followed Keiths guitar rather than the bass drum to lay down the beat.
There was a slight off kilter sound to it,where a normal band would follow the drummer for the beat the Rolling Stones were following a guitar.this created a sound that,even though it seemed like normal rock and roll it was in fact of very signature sound.
This is why when you hear bands trying to play like the Stones they never quite get there.they are playing all the notes but the sound never cuts it-good maybe, but they're just not the Stones and that's why.
Bill Wyman was a huge part of this,him and Charlie locked into that rhythm with Keith and away we go.If they were off for whatever reason it fell apart into a mess-if they were on it was like no other rock and roll you'd ever heard,hence the highs and lows of the old days.and they were on way,way more than they weren't.
you can't just plug in a player and re-create that,it never works because it evolved from years of jamming together ,working in the studio and playing gigs.once Bill was gone it never came back.
anyone else you put in there would be totally lost no matter how good of a player they were.the band were forced to go back to a tradtional way of playing.most people never notice the difference and that's understandable but Bill Wyman was a gigantic part of the Rolling Stones sound.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...
Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.
As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.
Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
I think we must have different meanings of what is pretty. Taylor's aggressive riff in the verses of the '73 versions of Gimme Shelter is not pretty to me. Also some of his counterpoint riffs, Satisfaction 1969 and various incarnations of Jack Flash come to mind, were surely not either. I'd say bold, filled with blues rock machismo.
Dandy, your thoughts?
Quote
wonderboy
Re: Bill Perks. ... It's a guitar band, and I believe it's called the bass guitar.
The Stones sound worked because of something Bill explained once -- Keith's guitar, Bill's bass and Charlie all played around the beat, creating that swing, creating a living, breathing, human sound.
The timing had to be spot on, because when it went bad it was a mess, but when Keith was doing his thing and Bill and Charlie were in the right spots it's a glorious noise.
Quote
bleedingman
They replaced a rock and roll genius bass player with a jazz man. Charlie refers to himself as a "jazz drummer" and he called the shots regarding Bill's replacement and so we have Miles Davis' bass player. Yes, there was no "Bill Wyman Clone" out there that I know of but in my humble, it would have been a different animal if they went with a rock bassist. All due respects to Darryl.
Quote
bleedingman
They replaced a rock and roll genius bass player with a jazz man. Charlie refers to himself as a "jazz drummer" and he called the shots regarding Bill's replacement and so we have Miles Davis' bass player. Yes, there was no "Bill Wyman Clone" out there that I know of but in my humble, it would have been a different animal if they went with a rock bassist. All due respects to Darryl.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMSQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
The songs where you can compare Darryl's bass playing with the swinging stuff Bill Wyman used to play makes me sad. The example I always think of is Neighbours. On Live Licks it just plods along, flat and lifeless. In 1981-82 it both rocked and swung, and Wyman had much to do with that.
I´ve always enjoyed the Live-Licks-version very much. I like it much better than any 1981/82-version I know.
Everyone knows you like flat and lifeless music. You've made that very clear.Quote
HMS
Imo, the Stones did some of their best tours after Wyman´s departure. With Wyman still in the band Licks, No Security, Voodoo-Lounge-tours couldn´t have been better. Personally I don´t care who´s playing bass with the Stones, be it Darryl, be it Bill - it´s all right with me. It´s all just bass.
Your opinion is wrong. But then you say that it doesn't matter who's playing bass because "it's all just bass". So your opinion is not only wrong, it's completely irrelevant: you don't notice things, which says those tours would've been better with Wyman - which everyone but you knows.
Quote
HMSQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
The songs where you can compare Darryl's bass playing with the swinging stuff Bill Wyman used to play makes me sad. The example I always think of is Neighbours. On Live Licks it just plods along, flat and lifeless. In 1981-82 it both rocked and swung, and Wyman had much to do with that.
I´ve always enjoyed the Live-Licks-version very much. I like it much better than any 1981/82-version I know.
Imo, the Stones did some of their best tours after Wyman´s departure. With Wyman still in the band Licks, No Security, Voodoo-Lounge-tours couldn´t have been better. Personally I don´t care who´s playing bass with the Stones, be it Darryl, be it Bill - it´s all right with me. It´s all just bass.
Quote
24FPSQuote
bleedingman
They replaced a rock and roll genius bass player with a jazz man. Charlie refers to himself as a "jazz drummer" and he called the shots regarding Bill's replacement and so we have Miles Davis' bass player. Yes, there was no "Bill Wyman Clone" out there that I know of but in my humble, it would have been a different animal if they went with a rock bassist. All due respects to Darryl.
And there's the insecurity of rock versus jazz. People assume because a guy can noodle a jazz run all night and day that he can play effective rock and roll. That's b.s. Bill was an expert in fifties rock and roll. There were times when he could make his electric bass sound like a 50s standup. I thought Bill did a credible job playing jazz bass on Terrifying. Rock was a part time hobby to Darryl, and it sounds like it. Quit giving music like rock, and reggae, and the blues short shrift. It takes time and talent to play them right. And I don't buy that Charlie is a jazz drummer. He's still best at rock.
I really feel sorry for you because you just dont get it as far as the magic of the Rolling Stones .From Let It Bleed to Get Yer Ya Ya's Out to Sticky Fingers to Exile On Main Street to Goats Head Soup thru to It's Only Rock And Roll behind all the clever and out of this world genius songwriting by the Glimmer twins (Jagger/Richard) lies Mick Taylors soaring to the heavens LEAD guitar .To slag off Mick Taylor means that you think so little of Midnight Rambler, Cant You Hear Me Knocking , Sway, All Down The Line,Hearbreaker and on and on .Mick Taylor left his DNA all over the most Fertile and Prolific Golden Era of the Stones when they got the tag of Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World .I am sure you are having a good hearty laugh at our expense but if ths is not for you than you are truly wasting your time trying to make a argument about a point which you will never win .I wish you the best .Quote
HMS
Thank God Taylor is no longer with them. They don´t need a guitarist playing "beautiful, artistic stuff". They need mean and dirty playing, a player who can "sting". Their guitar sound in the 60s was marvelous and much of the Ron-Wood-stuff is great too. Sometimes I wonder how Some Girls would sound if Taylor hadn´t left the band. Maybe without Ron Wood Some Girls wouldn´t even exist. I´m not a great fan of Some Girls but they never sounded that fresh since the 60s.
Quote
HMS
I like the songs you mentioned above. Unfortunately I don´t like most of the ballads on GHS & IORR and those are exactly the songs that feature MT most prominently. I think the Stones-albums became "softer" during the Taylor-years. So I can hardly imagine harder rocking albums like SG, ER, U, DW with Taylor. I cannot even imagine him playing on "Hot Stuff". Ron Wood brought back some of the dirtiness they imo were beginning to loose in the last two years with Taylor. In my opinion MT is too mellow for the Stones, too mellow as a player, too mellow as a person. Basically he is the opposite of a "real Rolling Stone". Listen to his first solo-album - it´s mellow. His singing is soft and mellow. He is a virtuoso but there isn´t much "dirt" in his playing. Ron Wood´s technique compared to Taylor´s may be lousy, but he´s got the "dirt" a band like the Rolling Stones needs. So from that point of view the Stones were the wrong band for Taylor.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TravelinManQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...
Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.
As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.
Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
I think we must have different meanings of what is pretty. Taylor's aggressive riff in the verses of the '73 versions of Gimme Shelter is not pretty to me. Also some of his counterpoint riffs, Satisfaction 1969 and various incarnations of Jack Flash come to mind, were surely not either. I'd say bold, filled with blues rock machismo.
Dandy, your thoughts?
To me, those lines are musical, precise, pretty, playful, as well as imaginative.
Great stuff indeed, but pretty just the same. It's the same with Broken Hands. Not dirty, but beautiful. Mick Taylor played beautiful, artistic stuff.
Quote
HMS
Thank God Taylor is no longer with them. They don´t need a guitarist playing "beautiful, artistic stuff". They need mean and dirty playing, a player who can "sting". Their guitar sound in the 60s was marvelous and much of the Ron-Wood-stuff is great too. Sometimes I wonder how Some Girls would sound if Taylor hadn´t left the band. Maybe without Ron Wood Some Girls wouldn´t even exist. I´m not a great fan of Some Girls but they never sounded that fresh since the 60s.