Quote
RisingStone
The British rock scene in the late 60s and early 70s was the time for star guitar players — Clapton, Beck, Page, Hendrix, Townshend, Lee, Blackmore et al. By recruiting Mick Taylor, the Stones kind of updated themselves and their image to follow the trend. Whether it was a conscious effort or not, I’m not sure. But it certainly worked and Taylor’s contribution brought the band — especially on live performances — many unforgettable moments. Midnight Rambler Brussels ‘73 is a prime example.
That being said, at the end of the day, Stones music is not about long instrumental jams and virtuoso guitar playing. It is probable Taylor’s leave from the group would have happened sooner or later if not in 1974.

Quote
powerage78
Ronnie's great merit is that he never overshadows Keith, and that's perfect for our pirate.
In that sense, he doesn't miss Taylor.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
powerage78
Ronnie's great merit is that he never overshadows Keith, and that's perfect for our pirate.
In that sense, he doesn't miss Taylor.

Keith is the only indispensable member of the band along with Mick.He obviously is a musical genius and has created the best of rock n roll.He loves the band.But when he says he loves pl with Ron he probably does, but if anytime in the last 50 years Wood had left, he’d be saying how great it is playing with the new guitarist.I doubt he’d be saying it was better with Wood.Taylor quit.Keith had no interest infiring him.We don’t know whether Taylor would still be in the band today if he had not quit.But assuming Taylor stayed, his playing would have evolved or changed with the band.Maybe his playing would have been worse

Quote
Taylor1
There were no long instrumental jams on the 1973 shows.

Quote
Taylor1
On Midnight Rambler and You Can’t Always Want do have extended soloing , but it’s fantastic

Quote
Sighunt
Boy, we're getting a lot of mileage out of this thread. From everything I've read and interviews of I've seen over the years, I would surmise that Ron Wood, given his sort of light-hearted, happy go lucky personality, serves a valuable function by adding to the chemistry of the band, running interference when necessary, and being a sort of intermediary between the two principals. Regarding his skillset, he is an adequate, all around guitarist (certainly not as exceptional a lead player when compared to his predecessor) that meets the every day needs of the band.

Quote
Sighunt
Boy, we're getting a lot of mileage out of this thread. From everything I've read and interviews of I've seen over the years, I would surmise that Ron Wood, given his sort of light-hearted, happy go lucky personality, serves a valuable function by adding to the chemistry of the band, running interference when necessary, and being a sort of intermediary between the two principals. Regarding his skillset, he is an adequate, all around guitarist (certainly not as exceptional a lead player when compared to his predecessor) that meets the every day needs of the band.

Quote
keefriffhards
as Keith put it "as guitarists myself and Ronnie alone are pretty lousy, but together we're better than 10 others ".

Quote
skytrench

Quote
keefriffhards
as Keith put it "as guitarists myself and Ronnie alone are pretty lousy, but together we're better than 10 others ".

I think that sums it up well and explains why they make a such great team. Their dual rhythm/lead attack playing off of each other can be among the best around. The soaring solos don't reach Taylor's level, but their dual weaving is top, can't think of anyone doing it better with Keith. So, yes, Ronnie is terrific.

Quote
liddas
Ron Wood is an invaluable asset for the band because he is a creative artist.

His job is to come up with original sounds, riffs and arrangements that serve and add to the songs the band plays.

His contributions to the Stones are nothing less than wonderful.

It's all there on record!

Then again, we all know what kind of life he lived.

How can it be a surprise that nowadays, at almost 80 years old, he hits the occasional bum note or @#$%& up a solo?

But is that important?

No way. In fact the Stones have hired a whole touring band to provide the consistency and backup when needed.

People don't pay big money to listen to well executed stones songs. There are thousands of great cover bands that offer that service for a fraction of the cost.

People want to see Mick, Keith and Ron perform. Because THEY are the artists. It's what THEY play that makes the difference. It might be only one note per show, but THAT note is what matters. It's unique. It is art.

C

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Testify

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
micha063

Quote
Testify
Isn't it possible that we can't talk about Ronnie without bringing up Taylor every time? Why do we have to discuss this every time and not Ronnie? What a drag!
Aren't you tired? And then why not Brian?
For many, the Stones without Brian were no longer the Stones regardless of Taylor or Ronnie.
With Taylor's entry, the Stones became a "normal" guitar band like many in those years. Taylor is very good but he distorted the sound of the band, his guitar sounded the same on every song (with some exceptions), it didn't happen with Brian and it doesn't happen with Wood.
Wood is more like Brian than Taylor.
But let's go further...


I agree completely.

Taylor was brought up in this post because if you take the time to read it, the original poster and others like you said Wood was perfect and Taylor was not.You just brought Taylor up again and ripped him for distorting the sound of the band.Everyone is entitled to their opinion , but 99 percent of people don’t think he distorted the sound .They think he contributed to3 of their 4 best albums.They think the Stones as a live band with Taylor reached a peak they never topped,( maybe matched),in1972-1973.Try listening to the 1972 live shows and Brussels

So do you think this would have diminished the others? It really doesn't make any sense! First of all, being perfect for a band doesn't mean being better at the guitar, but it's just a personal evaluation on the choice of that period to hire Wood, rather than others who almost certainly wouldn't have lasted long.
Yes, for many reasons it was a perfect choice and it's not me who says it but the history of the Stones.
Saying that Wood is perfect for the Stones doesn't take anything away from the skill of Taylor and Brian and what they did in their respective periods, but if they're no longer there it's because they weren't perfect for the Stones, it seems clear to me!

Wood was no more perfect than Taylor.Taylor unlike Wood didn’t realize that he was a great guitar player and that was it.Had he not quit he wasn’t going to be fired like Brian was.All the band members including Mick and Keith still speak glowingly about Taylor.Keith has often sa he didn’t want him to go.Bill said no band was better than the Stones in the Taylor era.But I guess Bill wasn’t perfect either because he quit 30 years ago.Darryl might be close to perfect because he has been in the band longer than Bill, like31years?

If my mother had had wheels she would have been a wheelbarrow, with ifs and buts you won't go anywhere.
Bill, in addition to being one of the founders of the band, has been there for almost 30 years, Taylor only 5 years, it's possible that he doesn't notice the difference.

Quote
Testify

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Testify

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
micha063

Quote
Testify
Isn't it possible that we can't talk about Ronnie without bringing up Taylor every time? Why do we have to discuss this every time and not Ronnie? What a drag!
Aren't you tired? And then why not Brian?
For many, the Stones without Brian were no longer the Stones regardless of Taylor or Ronnie.
With Taylor's entry, the Stones became a "normal" guitar band like many in those years. Taylor is very good but he distorted the sound of the band, his guitar sounded the same on every song (with some exceptions), it didn't happen with Brian and it doesn't happen with Wood.
Wood is more like Brian than Taylor.
But let's go further...


I agree completely.

Taylor was brought up in this post because if you take the time to read it, the original poster and others like you said Wood was perfect and Taylor was not.You just brought Taylor up again and ripped him for distorting the sound of the band.Everyone is entitled to their opinion , but 99 percent of people don’t think he distorted the sound .They think he contributed to3 of their 4 best albums.They think the Stones as a live band with Taylor reached a peak they never topped,( maybe matched),in1972-1973.Try listening to the 1972 live shows and Brussels

So do you think this would have diminished the others? It really doesn't make any sense! First of all, being perfect for a band doesn't mean being better at the guitar, but it's just a personal evaluation on the choice of that period to hire Wood, rather than others who almost certainly wouldn't have lasted long.
Yes, for many reasons it was a perfect choice and it's not me who says it but the history of the Stones.
Saying that Wood is perfect for the Stones doesn't take anything away from the skill of Taylor and Brian and what they did in their respective periods, but if they're no longer there it's because they weren't perfect for the Stones, it seems clear to me!

Wood was no more perfect than Taylor.Taylor unlike Wood didn’t realize that he was a great guitar player and that was it.Had he not quit he wasn’t going to be fired like Brian was.All the band members including Mick and Keith still speak glowingly about Taylor.Keith has often sa he didn’t want him to go.Bill said no band was better than the Stones in the Taylor era.But I guess Bill wasn’t perfect either because he quit 30 years ago.Darryl might be close to perfect because he has been in the band longer than Bill, like31years?

If my mother had had wheels she would have been a wheelbarrow, with ifs and buts you won't go anywhere.
Bill, in addition to being one of the founders of the band, has been there for almost 30 years, Taylor only 5 years, it's possible that he doesn't notice the difference.

Your logic is longevity equals perfection.So I guess Chuck is more perfect than Nicky Hopkins.And your longevity test fails to mention that only 4 albums with new material have been released in the last 34 years.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Testify

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Testify

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
micha063

Quote
Testify
Isn't it possible that we can't talk about Ronnie without bringing up Taylor every time? Why do we have to discuss this every time and not Ronnie? What a drag!
Aren't you tired? And then why not Brian?
For many, the Stones without Brian were no longer the Stones regardless of Taylor or Ronnie.
With Taylor's entry, the Stones became a "normal" guitar band like many in those years. Taylor is very good but he distorted the sound of the band, his guitar sounded the same on every song (with some exceptions), it didn't happen with Brian and it doesn't happen with Wood.
Wood is more like Brian than Taylor.
But let's go further...


I agree completely.

Taylor was brought up in this post because if you take the time to read it, the original poster and others like you said Wood was perfect and Taylor was not.You just brought Taylor up again and ripped him for distorting the sound of the band.Everyone is entitled to their opinion , but 99 percent of people don’t think he distorted the sound .They think he contributed to3 of their 4 best albums.They think the Stones as a live band with Taylor reached a peak they never topped,( maybe matched),in1972-1973.Try listening to the 1972 live shows and Brussels

So do you think this would have diminished the others? It really doesn't make any sense! First of all, being perfect for a band doesn't mean being better at the guitar, but it's just a personal evaluation on the choice of that period to hire Wood, rather than others who almost certainly wouldn't have lasted long.
Yes, for many reasons it was a perfect choice and it's not me who says it but the history of the Stones.
Saying that Wood is perfect for the Stones doesn't take anything away from the skill of Taylor and Brian and what they did in their respective periods, but if they're no longer there it's because they weren't perfect for the Stones, it seems clear to me!

Wood was no more perfect than Taylor.Taylor unlike Wood didn’t realize that he was a great guitar player and that was it.Had he not quit he wasn’t going to be fired like Brian was.All the band members including Mick and Keith still speak glowingly about Taylor.Keith has often sa he didn’t want him to go.Bill said no band was better than the Stones in the Taylor era.But I guess Bill wasn’t perfect either because he quit 30 years ago.Darryl might be close to perfect because he has been in the band longer than Bill, like31years?

If my mother had had wheels she would have been a wheelbarrow, with ifs and buts you won't go anywhere.
Bill, in addition to being one of the founders of the band, has been there for almost 30 years, Taylor only 5 years, it's possible that he doesn't notice the difference.

Your logic is longevity equals perfection.So I guess Chuck is more perfect than Nicky Hopkins.And your longevity test fails to mention that only 4 albums with new material have been released in the last 34 years.

Once again... being perfect for a band means having character, musical and style characteristics that go well together, it doesn't mean being the best at playing. There are musicians who can't stay in a band for long.
Yes, generally a perfect musician for a band doesn't leave after 5 years, but lasts at least until old age, but then what are we talking about, Taylor at the end of his period was bored playing with the Stones, he says so himself.
After that, from a strictly musical point of view it's another matter... but I wasn't referring to that.

Quote
MKjan
I have always agreed with whoever said "Mick Taylor is the better guitarist
but Ronnie wood is the better Rolling Stone."


Ronnie Wood is terrific, and that includes his musical ups and downs.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
MKjan
I have always agreed with whoever said "Mick Taylor is the better guitarist
but Ronnie wood is the better Rolling Stone."


Ronnie Wood is terrific, and that includes his musical ups and downs.

Yep.

Taylor did magic on SF, EOMS, GHS and IORR.

Ronnie did magic on SG, ER, TY and U and occasionally here and there, like his slide solo in Out Of Tears, his rolling lead riffage in Don't Stop, his slide in Rough Justice.

Live there's no way to compare the two. It's apples and an umbrella. Listen to GYYYO, whatever from GIMME SHELTER, and then listen to LADIES AND GENTLEMAN and BRUSSELS and the difference in Taylor's playing is disturbing - what happened to him? I find those last two difficult to listen to at times. His playing was incendiary - great, and just as pronounced, too much (fast multi-noted) noodling.

Ronnie, well, he had some good stuff, at times, 1976-76, but he was still learning. He was much better in 1978 and 1981, and his best performance was 1989-90. Since then it's been all over the place, but mostly MIA, and that's THIRTY YEARS!!!! Perhaps his last brilliant playing was 1995 for the club shows. Black Limo is fantastic on the B-side (the live album version, exact same performance, if that's the true live version, then they did a ton of editing for the B-side because it's 80% different).

Over the years he's generally done an excellent solo with Tumbling Dice.

His pedal steel - always fantastic. What little sax he played, it's a nice touch, but nothing more (like Keith's piano here and there). His drumming, eh, for that moment it fit because they were a mess. Fortunately he sticks to stringed instruments.

Through all of his drink and drug troubles... amazingly he's still a Rolling Stone. He's been given "a lot of rope" and a lot of help.

Taylor couldn't handle the down time, got into drugs, was eternally bored, got mad, quit and then basically disappeared.

Ronnie paints and does radio/podcasts. Next year will be Ronnie's 50th year as a Rolling Stone. Taylor was 5 years. Woody is the fourth longest tenured Rolling Stone - and will remain that way no matter what. I don't think they'll go long enough for him to equal Charlie's 58 years.

That would make Mick 89... hopefully they really won't become The Rolling Bones.

One of Woody's greatest qualities as a Rolling Stone is his honoring of Jones' and Taylor's guitar parts. Of course even he knows he can't perform how Taylor did, for the greatest example ever, with Can't You Hear Me Knocking. But he gives it a go. And just like Keith's bum notes and his amazing clam intros with Start Me Up, the show goes on like nothing happened.

He did fantastic with Dead Flowers... in 1995.

Ronnie can't even play his own solos anymore. At this point? Whatever.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
MKjan
I have always agreed with whoever said "Mick Taylor is the better guitarist
but Ronnie wood is the better Rolling Stone."


Ronnie Wood is terrific, and that includes his musical ups and downs.

Yep.

Taylor did magic on SF, EOMS, GHS and IORR.

Ronnie did magic on SG, ER, TY and U and occasionally here and there, like his slide solo in Out Of Tears, his rolling lead riffage in Don't Stop, his slide in Rough Justice.

Live there's no way to compare the two. It's apples and an umbrella. Listen to GYYYO, whatever from GIMME SHELTER, and then listen to LADIES AND GENTLEMAN and BRUSSELS and the difference in Taylor's playing is disturbing - what happened to him? I find those last two difficult to listen to at times. His playing was incendiary - great, and just as pronounced, too much (fast multi-noted) noodling.

Ronnie, well, he had some good stuff, at times, 1976-76, but he was still learning. He was much better in 1978 and 1981, and his best performance was 1989-90. Since then it's been all over the place, but mostly MIA, and that's THIRTY YEARS!!!! Perhaps his last brilliant playing was 1995 for the club shows. Black Limo is fantastic on the B-side (the live album version, exact same performance, if that's the true live version, then they did a ton of editing for the B-side because it's 80% different).

Over the years he's generally done an excellent solo with Tumbling Dice.

His pedal steel - always fantastic. What little sax he played, it's a nice touch, but nothing more (like Keith's piano here and there). His drumming, eh, for that moment it fit because they were a mess. Fortunately he sticks to stringed instruments.

Through all of his drink and drug troubles... amazingly he's still a Rolling Stone. He's been given "a lot of rope" and a lot of help.

Taylor couldn't handle the down time, got into drugs, was eternally bored, got mad, quit and then basically disappeared.

Ronnie paints and does radio/podcasts. Next year will be Ronnie's 50th year as a Rolling Stone. Taylor was 5 years. Woody is the fourth longest tenured Rolling Stone - and will remain that way no matter what. I don't think they'll go long enough for him to equal Charlie's 58 years.

That would make Mick 89... hopefully they really won't become The Rolling Bones.

One of Woody's greatest qualities as a Rolling Stone is his honoring of Jones' and Taylor's guitar parts. Of course even he knows he can't perform how Taylor did, for the greatest example ever, with Can't You Hear Me Knocking. But he gives it a go. And just like Keith's bum notes and his amazing clam intros with Start Me Up, the show goes on like nothing happened.

He did fantastic with Dead Flowers... in 1995.

Ronnie can't even play his own solos anymore. At this point? Whatever.

Really? You sure about that? Because The Rolling Stones reached their peak as a live band in 1972- 1973.And Taylor was fantastic.As Bill Wyman said, they were the greatest band in the world in 1972.Bill Wyman said “no one could touch us on stage “.

Quote
GasLightStreet

... just [saying] that Taylor went off a bit.

Bitch is awesome. Dancing With Mr D awesome. Angie was insane. Tumbling Dice is raunchy. Sweet Virginia is perfectly dumpy with that double thump of Charlie. Etc.

But for some reason Gimme Shelter, JJF and SFM were crazy fast, that stupid racing pace, Taylor noodling insanely and Mick grunting/slinging - a glimpse of the near future. The swagger was gone.

JJF and SFM are unlistenable (similar with Brown Sugar and JJF on LOVE YOU LIVE - horrendous).

Quote
Spud

Quote
GasLightStreet

... just [saying] that Taylor went off a bit.

Bitch is awesome. Dancing With Mr D awesome. Angie was insane. Tumbling Dice is raunchy. Sweet Virginia is perfectly dumpy with that double thump of Charlie. Etc.

But for some reason Gimme Shelter, JJF and SFM were crazy fast, that stupid racing pace, Taylor noodling insanely and Mick grunting/slinging - a glimpse of the near future. The swagger was gone.

JJF and SFM are unlistenable (similar with Brown Sugar and JJF on LOVE YOU LIVE - horrendous).

Yep , for me, MT's best and often wonderful work was in the studio.
His contributions were measured, controlled and always serving the song.

On stage, at times, it was like somebody thinking they could improve the Mona Lisa with a spray can.