Here's my bottom line take on biggest problem with Ronnie in Stones from a musical standpoint:

he's a redundent component. He and Keith are too similar...and the reality is each should be leading a band with their considerable talents.

Like them or not, I believe Brian Jones and Mick Taylor enhanced the Stones because they added new and different talents to the band that led to new and different sounds.

I don't think Ronnie's playing itself brings that because he and Keith cover too much of the same ground (except when it comes to slide/pedal steel playing). There's no contrast, and less tension.

Quote
russr
Here's my bottom line take on biggest problem with Ronnie in Stones from a musical standpoint:

he's a redundent component. He and Keith are too similar...and the reality is each should be leading a band with their considerable talents.

Like them or not, I believe Brian Jones and Mick Taylor enhanced the Stones because they added new and different talents to the band that led to new and different sounds.

I don't think Ronnie's playing itself brings that because he and Keith cover too much of the same ground (except when it comes to slide/pedal steel playing). There's no contrast, and less tension.

I'm afraid I don't agree here. Keith and Ronnie are two COMPLETELY different musicians. To be frank, Ronnie is a far more versatile and fluid guitar player than Keith. Keith can lay down some nasty rhythms and Chuck Berry fills...but Ronnie can play ANYTHING. He can whip out great blues licks, some nice jazz riffs and licks that drip of country. His fingers are looser and more limber than Keith's.

The main problem is that Ronnie, in my eyes, gives Keith too much room. He doesn't want to step on Keith's toes and take more solos and etc so he just sits back and comes in every once in a while. The reason why you say Mick Taylor enhanced the Stones (although I thought you were promising at the beginning of your thread that this would not be a Taylor vs Wood subject), is because frankly, Taylor had the balls to play passed Keith. He didn't care if he overshadowed or took the spotlight from Keith--he just did it. You're gonna hear my guitar, dammit.---Is what I hear, when I hear Mick Taylor play.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 23:32 by Justin.

And true to my word, this is not Ronnie versus Taylor.

I said I feel both Brian Jones and Taylor embellished and enhanced songs in dramatic ways that Ronnie hasn't. You really notice their presence and contribution.

Particularly Jones, a master at embellishment.

If Ronnie has the skills but not the balls (your word) Taylor had to play aggressively next to Keith, the end result is the same: his impact on the band's sound is relatively (and that is the key word) minimal.

RUSSR wrote:

"Here's my bottom line take on biggest problem with Ronnie in Stones from a musical standpoint:

he's a redundent component. He and Keith are too similar...and the reality is each should be leading a band with their considerable talents.

Like them or not, I believe Brian Jones and Mick Taylor enhanced the Stones because they added new and different talents to the band that led to new and different sounds.

I don't think Ronnie's playing itself brings that because he and Keith cover too much of the same ground (except when it comes to slide/pedal steel playing). There's no contrast, and less tension."

I totally disagree with "redundant component" - much too unfair.

But other than that your analysis is spot on. His style was/is largely too similar to Keith, aaprt from his flambouyant, bouncy stuff. I loved Ronnie and the Faces before he joined the Stones. But when I heard he was a confirmed member of the band (circa '76), (not legally - but to all practical purposes), I was not too optimistic - BECAUSE he was too similar to Keith.

Love You Live confirms that. His rhythm work is scratchy and sloppy in comparison to Keith's. And his leads aren't much special compared to his predecessor. His daft and directionless twangings on Rooster and You've Got To Move for example. I do think he came into his own on SG tour and album and during '81-82.

Where Jones wasn't as strong as Keith on guitar, he could make up for it in other areas. No conflict. Of course they were equally strong and committed to guitars until '66.

Keith and Taylor - guitar giants - both with their own 'space' - but welded. Hand and Glove.

Ronnie and Keith. Moments when it works, but usually too much indistinct overlap and clutter. There are some good examples of the 'weave' - but they are far outnumbered by the examples of shoddy and messy playing. Often by both. '81-'82 was when they ahd it worked-out best live.

Ronnie was a Giant in the Faces. And on some of his own albums which he has to do.

People, get a life

Buy a guitar and start your own rock&roll band

Quote
keeffriffhard
People, get a life

Buy a guitar and start your own rock&roll band

I have and I've learnt much from and admired the bond between Keith and Ron Especially how they interact with eachother in their playing. Two similar, but yet different styles blending together.

[www.reverbnation.com]

Quote
Four Stone Walls
When I heard he was a confirmed member of the band (circa '76), (not legally - but to all practical purposes), I was not too optimistic - BECAUSE he was too similar to Keith.

Love You Live confirms that. His rhythm work is scratchy and sloppy in comparison to Keith's. And his leads aren't much special compared to his predecessor. His daft and directionless twangings on Rooster and You've Got To Move for example. I do think he came into his own on SG tour and album and during '81-82.

Where Jones wasn't as strong as Keith on guitar, he could make up for it in other areas. No conflict. Of course they were equally strong and committed to guitars until '66.

Keith and Taylor - guitar giants - both with their own 'space' - but welded. Hand and Glove.

Ronnie and Keith. Moments when it works, but usually too much indistinct overlap and clutter. There are some good examples of the 'weave' - but they are far outnumbered by the examples of shoddy and messy playing. Often by both. '81-'82 was when they ahd it worked-out best live.

Ronnie was a Giant in the Faces. And on some of his own albums which he has to do.

Agreed! Spot on, totally, in my opinion!

Hell, I don't know what to add. Ronnie definitely could do more than he does in the Stones. But the same is true for Keith. And Mick T outside the Stones. And Eric Clapton. And Jimmy Page. And Slash. And Jimi... ah, nevermind.

I think the Stones should replace Ronnie with...one of those stupid mercury filled 'green' curly low wattage light bulbs.

Green my ass. Nasty things.

I've always felt that Ronnies often adds that special ingredient so a song that makes it really unique in same way that charlie does and bill did.
Some of the things he adds to the arrangements are what really makes me love them. He may not be the most accomplished guitar player the stones ever had but he always plays for the song.

A couple of examples would be:

Some Girls: In between every verse you get a little instrumental break.
On one part ronnie plays those beautiful pedal steel licks that sound so dreamy that they really shouldn't fit but it does do perfectly.

She Saw Me Coming: Listen to Ronnies out-of-phase strat licks that compliment Keiths main riff. It gives the song that extra bounce that the song needs.

Undercover: The solo adds so much drama to the song like a musical car chase or shoot out. (don't laugh)

As for his live performances, he can be truly amazing or somewhat dissapointing but I can say the same thing for most of my guitar heroes, including all of the stones axemen. I will say that on the last tour he truly blew my mind at how cosistently great he was.

I could go on, but I'm already starting to sound like a tit! However, I stand by my comments! Ronnie is a true Rolling Stone!!!!

You're not sounding like a tit at all.

Tits are great. (Ask any baby).

Here´s a real curse. Jimi Hendrix to the crowd in 1967:
I´m gonna put a curse on you and your children will be born completely naked.