Are the Faces not the second greatest RN'R band?The way this band played was great.I love the box set,they seem like they had so much fun.Which is really what its all about.

Everything about the Face's was perfect: Rods voice,Macs keyboards,Ronnie Lanes bass,Kenney Jones doesn't get the credit he deserves on drums,and of course,the the great Ronnie Wood on guitar.

The Faces had the vibe and attitude that needs to be there in a rock band,plus,they had a bar on the stage.You can't anymore rock and roll than that,people.

Also,more than one singer makes for a diverse sound.

My fave is Ohh La La....duh.

I also love their version of Maggie May and Jealous Guy.Pool Hall Richard is a great car song.

I can't say enough how much I love this band.

Pleased to meet you......

Since getting in to the stones and shortly after the faces, I've always wished Ronnie had joined the stones in 1969 instead of MT!


hahaha!!!

OpenG's gonna kick yer butt for that......I've thought the same thing too!

Pleased to meet you......

yap yap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OpenG's gonna kick yer butt for that......I've
> thought the same thing too!

Seriously, it's so obvious that Ronnie was destined to be in the stones!

But also, his whole feel and approach during his peak years with the faces would have been perfect for how the stones were at that time as well.

Damn, fate and reality sucks! :-()

Ronnie on Bleed, Fingers, Exile, GHS........never. IORR, sure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-02 17:32 by potted lobster.

Perfect line up, perfect time, perfect fashion, perfect music of the day; it is difficult to explain to people the impact the Faces had on London, particularly in the Fall of 1971 along and in the shops of Kings Road. What Rod has become starting with Britt Ekland on (long time now), has soured a great, great legacy and a glorious atom-heart time to be in England.

Ronnie is on IORR.

Pleased to meet you......

Carnaby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perfect line up, perfect time, perfect fashion,
> perfect music of the day; it is difficult to
> explain to people the impact the Faces had on
> London, particularly in the Fall of 1971 along and
> in the shops of Kings Road. What Rod has become
> starting with Britt Ekland on (long time now), has
> soured a great, great legacy and a glorious
> atom-heart time to be in England.

They had a very strange set up huh!? Being both a fully fledged band, but also a backing band to Rod's solo stuff both at the same time!

What was the public's perception of that at the time?

yap yap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everything about the Face's was perfect: Rods
> voice,Macs keyboards,Ronnie Lanes bass,Kenney
> Jones doesn't get the credit he deserves on
> drums,and of course,the the great Ronnie Wood on
> guitar.


Everything but the quality of the songwriting. Don't get me wrong, they certainly were a great band, and lots of great songs......but what separates from the Stones are the quantity of great material. Excellent point about what a nice contrast Ronnie Lane's vocals made. "Richmond" is one of my fav Faces' tunes.

Rod's first four solo albums (which were almost Faces' albums) are fantastic. Still can't believe how low he sank after that. Guess you could call Britt the Faces' Yoko :-)

>> What was the public's perception of that at the time? <<

i had no idea why some of them were called Faces albums and others were called Rod Stewart albums -
didn't care either, i just bought 'em. i'd had an ear on Ronnie & Rod since the Jeff Beck Group,
and far as i can tell there's really no way not to like the Faces.

(i agree with KSIE about the songwriting - the Faces sound so great and they're so freakin appealing,
but not much of their stuff is the calibre of Great Work that blows the roof off the genre it's written in -
which is fine, since that never seemed like their aim.) (hail hail Rolling Stones)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-03 01:54 by with sssoul.

I'm from New York and it always amazed me how you would read other musicians articles and they would always mention the influence of the Faces...yet for as long as I was buying records...there records were NEVER available and were out of print for the longest time...

I always wondered if Rod Stewart and/or his mgt had something to do with keeping the Faces out of people's "Faces" in the States.

PECMAN

Please get them reunited, Rod and Ronni and let them do their wonderful stuff together and keep them away from the stones far away....far far awy!

"Overture for Beginners" is one of my favourite live albums ever...by anybody.
[I don't care how live it actually is..I just love Ronnie's playing on that album.]

I have said this here a few times: it is impossible to name your favorite song ever, but if I had to I think it would be "Ooh La La". I love that song to deah.
The Faces are the most likeable group ever.
About the songwriting: I am convinced had they stayed together longer it would have fallen into place. They got better and better.
And Ronnie Lane is a gem. A gem I tell you. Just recently discovered him for real. Not as the guy who sang when Rod couldn't or the Bass player but as the leader of his own carnival troop.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Slim Chance?... lovely!!!

I Love the Faces.

The great thing about them is their fun approach; off the cuff and rather ragged.

That is why Ron Wood WOULD NOT have been at all suited the Stones from '69 to '73. The Stones were a REAL R&R band - not a raunchy pub band (nothing wrong with that). But the Stones had class - and that's where Taylor fitted the bill perfectly. Not only did he fulfill all their requirements - he extended and stretched the boundaries. Hence their best live period and some fantastic studio work with jagger, which just wouldn't have happenned with Wood.

I Like Wood and his style- but it's much more limited than Taylor's. Hence, Stones's live sound and studio sound is more limited than it was with Taylor.
Wood is NOT a blues player. Stones are (or were) a Rhythm and BLUES band.

'75-'76 was their worst live period (of the Wyman years). Wood fitted in very well after the punk years when a a 'garage-band' approach became acceptable. Really the Stones, in effect, became more of a Faces type band, live. More loose - but never to really have the same force, focus and tight power again.

'69 -'73Stones were the Real Mac Coy and the Faces didn't pretend to be anything close. That's their charm and that's why we love them. (Rod Stewart wanted to "progress" however, so the faces weren't destined to last).

Zzzz...

Four Stone Walls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> '75-'76 was their worst live period (of the Wyman
> years).

Disagree on this, 75 was one of the absolute best tours, it's alongside with the golden 69-73 concerts for some of us, energy like never before on that one

Four Stone Walls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I Love the Faces.
>
> The great thing about them is their fun approach;
> off the cuff and rather ragged.
>
> That is why Ron Wood WOULD NOT have been at all
> suited the Stones from '69 to '73. The Stones were
> a REAL R&R band - not a raunchy pub band (nothing
> wrong with that). But the Stones had class - and
> that's where Taylor fitted the bill perfectly. Not
> only did he fulfill all their requirements - he
> extended and stretched the boundaries. Hence their
> best live period and some fantastic studio work
> with jagger, which just wouldn't have happenned
> with Wood.
>
> I Like Wood and his style- but it's much more
> limited than Taylor's. Hence, Stones's live sound
> and studio sound is more limited than it was with
> Taylor.
> Wood is NOT a blues player. Stones are (or were) a
> Rhythm and BLUES band.
>
> '75-'76 was their worst live period (of the Wyman
> years). Wood fitted in very well after the punk
> years when a a 'garage-band' approach became
> acceptable. Really the Stones, in effect, became
> more of a Faces type band, live. More loose - but
> never to really have the same force, focus and
> tight power again.
>
> '69 -'73Stones were the Real Mac Coy and the Faces
> didn't pretend to be anything close. That's their
> charm and that's why we love them. (Rod Stewart
> wanted to "progress" however, so the faces weren't
> destined to last).

75-76 was there worst live period. That's pretty funny that's the year Keith Richard's was voted Guitar player of the year on a place we call earth.

Votes mean very little.

Keith was Junky of the year. His guitar playing in '75 compared to '73 .....well there really is no comparison.

I find it painful to listen to even the most championed '75 boot after Brussell's.

I was at two '76 gigs and they were crap (and I saw them in '73 too when they really could shatter this place called earth). I have ears. Magazines enjoy the Image of Mr Rock'n'Roll. But they were out of time by '75. Some his leads were good in 75-76 but he lacked a good rhythm partner (RW too scratchy and shallow).

But the Stones were bad live in '75-76 for other reasons - notably Jagger's atrocious vocals and lazy, complacent self-satisfied manner and also the dreadful clumsy/messy Ollie Brown/Charlie Watts stuff.

Stones were no longer lean and hungry. Daft costumes and stage props to compensate for the Real Deal.

[www.the-faces.com]

Well, 76 is very very different from 75.
It sounds like you are talking about 76 only, while I was referring to 75 as a terrific live year for Stones.
But I don't understand what you mean with "Votes mean very little", and then conclude with "they were very bad in 75". Isn't that your vote ?
If you are talking about guitar playing only, perhaps you are right, Keith was a bit out of it in 75/76, but a Stones show is more than just that,
it's the whole atmosphere, Jagger making the arena dance, the sleezy cool riffs...which can be awesome even if they are not topped by hard-to-play solos.
I love the Taylor era too, BTW, who doesn't?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-02 20:52 by Erik_Snow.

4 Stone - You hit the nail right on the head!!!

Agree with you totally!!!! I saw them in 1975 too, after seeing them in 69,72 & 73.

They were a much better band in 1978....

Also saw the faces in 71 or 72?? they were giving away free champane upstairs
at the Hollywood Pallidum.. Girls were dancing on tables, Rod was handing out beers from the stage, a very excellent bar band..

The Stones on the other hand with Taylor on Lead were the REAL DEAL!!!

MLC

Very much wish I'd seen the Faces.

Wood's best period. He's done some great stuff with Stones too but only one 'great' album with them. The sum of Wood and Richards is so much less than the parts.

ie I think they generally shone in the 'home' bands much more than as a combination.

My vote for Guitarist of the Year '75 - probably Jimmy Page. But so many others rather than Keith. Can't remember the names of the Skynyrd boys. Neil Young?

potted lobster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronnie on Bleed, Fingers, Exile, GHS........never.
> IORR, sure.


I second that. Fewer spices? Not as GOOOOD!

*********************************
And the queen is bravely shouting,
"What the hell is going on?"

Faces were a supergroup...in reverse.

They were more human--more approachable than the Stones. They didn't take themselves too seriously. That was their beauty, and their downfall.

They operated in the Stones long shadow--the were kind of like "the Rolling Stones, Jr." in a way--touring more frequently and filling a need for concert audiences during those long 3-year gaps.

Their shows rocked, but unlike the Stones, there was an overwhelming feeling of FUN in the air. It was the Stones meets the Marx Bros.

That Woody would want to BE in the Stones seems obvious. But it turned him into a sideman just as he was establishing himself (with "I've Got My Own Album To Do") as Rod's equal within Faces. When Wood became a Stone all his talent seemed to just...sink.

I wouldn't call them the second greatest anything. They were one of a kind.

arbitrary ratings with numbers is always impossible for me...
i'm gonna forget about recordings of any kind and just take this one, for fun, from actual live appearances.

"no doubt" are pretty bitchin' and the chick is hot but they're not really rock and roll...

during that particular era of rock and roll, i saw faces, who, zep, most of the
'biggies' many times. tho i missed some really essential ones live like hendrix experience, (saw him later with buddy miles) and also missed cream and a lot of other heavies i loved...

i'd rate the faces show i saw fillmore east was uniquely, profoundly rocking and powerful...and memorable...in every way...they were totally brilliant...it was a life changing experience...

of all the shows i've ever seen personally, which is just a fraction of all the good bands out there, but i'd personally rate it as one of the best most thrilling shows and nights of my life...distinctly rooted true rock and roll..totally fabulous. for me, right up there with msg '72 stoneage, seeing zep on first american tour (warm up for The Who) who were incredibly mighty themselves...just incredible...'hello mary lou goodbye heart' tore me completely down...
but as for down home dirty rock and roll, with the ROLL...they couldn't compare with the faces.

but yeh, totally incredible. right up there in my personal experience...wow.
just sublime...beyond inspiring...

my very privatest most rockin' nights at shows in all my life, and i'm still going to shows...was probably faces at fillmore east circa long player and a nod...
and the boyz at msg garden '72; (thinking of '72, stevie at rfk stadium was a life changing hot show...i know it's not rock 'n roll per se; but, in spirit and actual force and brilliance it was hugely great and rocked every body's ass off.)

i can't deal in absolutes or 'ratings' per se...
cause there's also "no doubt" that rock and roll, at any given minute, resides in whatever shoes that little richard happens to be wearing today.

faces rock.. i absolutely love these guys.....not just their songs and sound..but their ATTITUDE! party rockn'roll!!!!!!!!!!

the all music guide steve thomas erlewine, their main writer, says that the faces box set is the best box set ever..talk about high praise!

i'd love to see ian mclagan live.. hopefully he'll come to the east coast sometime..

the only problem is: what happened after faces? why did ron wood and rod stewart both just crash... particularly ron wood.. its hard to comprehend how the guy who was the only guitarist in faces, who provided such a great sound,..wrote so many great guitar riffs. and talk about great guitar tone/sound... went on to become such a has been with the stones....also he helped write so many great songs (CLASSICS) with rod stewart but since he left faces whats he written with the stones? maybe its the alcohol caught up with him or something....i don't think his guitar sound/tone was the same with the stones from the get go....don't understand why..

and, shortly before that, babyface wood with the jeff beck group


apparently rod wasn't to grow the rest of his nose until he hit his faces period.

Faces = great, fun rock and roll with a heartfelt side. Just good stuff! Long live The Faces!