HMS probably considers the late John Entwistle just another bass player...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

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.

Agree 100%

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
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.

Love Chuck!

Quote
HMS

Quote
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.

There were times when others played bass and emulated Bill, like Tumbling Dice and Happy. Isn't it shocking to know Keith doesn't play guitar on Sway?

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 !

I agree with you, but Bill is not credited on Tumbling Dice or Casino Boogie. (Though Tumbling Dice sounds just like a Wyman part). I've dug deep into Darryl's bass playing and there's just nothing interesting being played there after Voodoo Lounge. Bill played with emotion, and yes he swung. (See studio Under My Thumb). It's frustrating that the post-Wyman Stones put so little into the bass playing on their studio records. It's one of the frustrating reasons most of it is dismissable.

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 !

Very good points but we must note that Keith played bass on Casino Boogie, and I think Mick Taylor played bass on Tumbling Dice. Still, they were great vital bass parts that D. Jones doesn't come close to. But still, you nailed it with a great description of Wyman's importance to the classic Stones sound. True, others often filled in on some studio tracks but the stage is where Wyman's importance can truly be heard. Got enough live albums and boots to prove that.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
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 be fair to Daryl Jones , he can play a mighty bass , just check his work with the late great Miles Davis.So he can play a mighty mean bass , but he plays as he is told to play by his boss Mick Jagger .The first year 1994 when he toured with the Stones i for one was very worried that he would have the time of his life trying to fill the mighty Bill Wymans bass but he proved more than capable and had some very nice groovy jazzy bass which was quite pleasing to my ears .By the time for B2B tour he was much different and more subtle .

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
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.

Nailed it!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
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.

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.

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
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.

Beautiful description of what's missing in the modern era. Keith no longer leads the band and everyone follows the drummer in more precise time. Gone is that push / pull swing you got when Keith lead the way and Bill and Charlie were alternately either just a hair ahead of or behind the beat. Bill Wyman gave a great description of how this machine worked in a magazine back in the late seventies or early eighties. Wish I could find it again.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-15 02:29 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-15 02:57 by bleedingman.

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.

Darryl is very talented, no doubt...and I respect Charlie's reasons for wanting him. Even still, Bill Wyman was so perfect for the Stones, maybe the Stones knew they would never find another rock bassist who played like him. To be honest, I think Bill was as unique in what he did with the Stones as Entwistle was with The Who - although The Ox was much flashier. The Who also didn't try to find another Entwistle; they went with a dependable pro who could fill in the bottom end. God, I miss the original bassists in both bands.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

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.

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.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS

Quote
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.

I guess the tone of some comments in this threads gets too aggressive.
And unfortunately, not for the first time.
Or as Ray Davies once said: Everybody got the right to say their mind. So don´t shoot me for saying mine.
Maybe I´m just a simple guy, but I like most of the Rolling Stones music, no matter who´s been playing bass or keyboards, or even guitar, because somehow most of the time everything fits together nicely.
Or as Keith once said: "A lick on a record, it doesn´t matter who played it."
The band and their playing and sound changed a lot during the last 50 years and that´s one reason why I still listen to them a lot, becaus I can choose music from different periods.

Probably Charlie's only mis-step; but its a big one, was Daryl Jones. yes - Charlie comes from Jazz. In his own mind he probably is a Jazz drummer, and that's fine. He brings a totally unique approach to the rock-swing-country sound of the Stones. But, just because your drummer is Jazz, doesn't mean your Bass should also be Jazz. That is where they went wrong.

Quote
HMS

Quote
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.

It can be interesting to hear completely different and controversial opinions, even when they go as far as saying DW is a great album or Exile has fillers. That's all fine even though I don't agree at all and you might want to learn how to explain it in a less (seeming deliberately) provocative way. However, it's something else to say something that basically takes away the fundament of any opinion you might have. Saying "it's just bass" about a blues/rock/soul based band, is like saying "it's just colour" in order to "prove" Rembrand wasn't a great painter or "it's just words" to claim Shakespeare couldn't write.

Another thing might be that you're not always conscious of the presence of the bass. With the Stones, the bass is often quite low in the mix (although with the 1981 live recordings I have heard, it's quite easy to detect). That doesn't mean, however, that it's not important. Take it away and you would notice something missing right away. So, instead of just saying "I don't care about the bass" (in which case you shouldn't have an opinion about Wyman versus Jones since you don't hear the difference anyway), you might wanna try to listen to the music again and try to focus on the bass and see whether you might discover something new. I still re-discover new stuff with some of the best Stones songs, even though I've heard it for decades (for instance, the rhythm guitar in "Turd On The Run" ), and I can tell you: it's really a rewarding experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-15 11:33 by matxil.

Quote
24FPS

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.

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.

And there are pretty huge differences between a jazz bassist and jazz/fusion/80s-style bassist.

That said, I love the stuff Darryl did with Miles Davis.

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.

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 .

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
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.

I agree with many of your points and I am one who prefers the Stones with Ron Wood, especially live. However, there's no denying that Taylor is the technically better guitarist and many beloved songs may never have made it on albums without his contributions. We may have never had Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sway, etc. It is true that the Stones started going in another direction and that Ron Wood was the perfect fit as they morphed into the Some Girls era. Taylor may not have fit in well with that era, but for the time he was there he was perfect. For the time that followed, so was Wood.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

chuck is terrific

Do you think that maybe the Rolling Stones crafted there songs to fit the strengths of the band at any given moment versus Taylor would not have fit in for SG or ER and U album ? The times they are a changing everyday !

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
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.

Fair enough, we have different interpretations of the word. I think of Time Waits For No One as pretty. I even think elements of his solo in Gimme Shelter are pretty, but when he first comes in with the blues line, that's straight badass!

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.

Did you just call Taylor "God"?

I'm convinced you have selective hearing. Some Girls was fresh (a lot of disco influence), but I don't recall any of the songs having Wood behind the name. Who knows how many parts were not included by Jagger and Richards? That's why I don't believe the 2nd guitarist would have mattered much to the overall sound. I would have loved to hear Taylor take a solo on Beast of Burden, although I think Wood's was very pretty and artistic itself, and my favorite he's done.