ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board


Tokyo Dome March 16, 2003
By Anthony Mathilde -RS.COM Join the RSFC!!

WEBRADIO CHANNELS:
[Ch1: Bill German's Stones Zone] [Ch2: British Invasion] [Ch3: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch4: Random Sike-ay-delia]


[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [IORR TOUR SCHEDULE 2003] [LICKS TOUR EN ESPA�OL] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: RW vs. MT - a thesis Return to archive
03-14-03 06:47 PM
T&A The sparks always seem to fly during any post or discussion that draws comparisons between Ronnie and Mick Taylor. On the surface it seems perfectly reasonable to compare them � after all they have both held the same post in the same band; they both play blues-based electric guitar. There are certainly many compelling reasons to elicit comparisons.

However, I�m going to argue that these two guitarists actually shouldn�t be compared. Why? Because of the two, there is only one who qualifies as a lead guitarist � Mick Taylor. What the hell? That�s right. I�m going to argue that by a definition that I will provide and one to which many others subscribe � Ronnie Wood isn�t really a lead guitarist in the first place. And, I believe the arguments that ensue regarding comparisons of the two players are really irrelevant if you accept the premise that Ronnie isn�t a lead guitarist. It ends up being a comparison between apples and oranges. More similarly, it winds up being a comparison no more valid than comparing Keith Richards and Mick Taylor � which I have rarely if ever seen anyone trying to push, and rightly so.

So � let me start by suggesting that, by definition, a lead guitarist is one who plays solos. Okay so far? Understand that the tradition of playing solos is deeply rooted in many genres of music. I happen to be a big fan of many jazz styles � primarily trad jazz and be-bop. Within that genre the concept of a solo is one in which the soloist �tells a story.� To do that � as within the written, prose tradition � requires a �plot� � a beginning, a middle and an end. It�s logical. It flows � once again, it �tells a story.� Another dimension to a solo is that it is not pre-determined. It is told �in real time.� It is constructed or crafted at a moment in time. It typically fits within the boundaries and limitations of chords, scales, time signatures and duration (12 bars, for instance), but it is not bounded by pre-determinate notes. Guitar soloing within the rock�n�roll genre has basically been inherited from the jazz idiom (my opinion) and subscribes to the same �rules� and practices.

From that definition then, let�s examine the two guitarists in question. Clearly, Taylor fits the definition of a soloist. Listen, for instance, to any live version of YCAGWYW from 1972 as a prime case in point. The solos are clearly crafted �in real time.� Although they are bounded by the constraints I mentioned earlier, they are unique in their realtime presentation. They are logically constructed (tell a story).

In the instance of Ronnie Wood, I cannot think of a single �solo� he has played with the Stones, Faces or as a solo act that would satisfy the criteria stated above. He plays single notes, yes. He plays within a framework of time, time signature and chords. But, what is lacking is the logic. What Ronnie (and Keith, for that matter) plays when he plays a �lead� is not a solo, but a series of figures, fills and runs that have been pre-meditated. Ronnie is playing lead on the CYHMK this tour. Is it a solo (by the above definition)? No, it is not. Ronnie has learned several of the figures associated with MT�s original solo and organizes them into his lead. Herein lies Ronnie�s true gift, by the way � to pluck and pull classic fills and figures and create the �illusion� of a solo. But there is no logic being displayed here.

Within the jazz genre � there are others who would similarly be characterized as �non-soloists.� Duke Ellington � a master of figures, but no real creative ability to construct a logical solo. Hank Crawford � a wonderful post-bop alto saxist (once was Ray Charles� bandleader) � is not a soloist by this definition. Thelonius Monk would also probably fit the definition of a non-soloist.

As I mentioned earlier, Ronnie and Keith come from the same cut of cloth in this respect. They both have an arsenal of �licks� they play when playing lead. Many of them are drawn from the Chuck Berry school of rock�n�roll. Chuck himself was no soloist (by my definition), by the way. It�s quite fun and interesting to compare and contrast Ronnie and Keith � because they are so similar in their lead styles. It becomes frustrating and ultimately pointless, however, to compare MT and RW, much as it would be to compare KR and MT. And, I believe the reason is that only MT adequately fits the definition of a soloist, and, by extenstion, a lead guitarist.

This is, by no means, to diss Ronnie. I LOVE RONNIE WOOD. I love what he brought to the band. This is meant to help puts some definition around the subject. If you accept the premise that Ronnie is not a lead guitar player and Mick Taylor is, then there really is little point in comparing them. You may as well be comparing rocks to candy.

I hope this post helps a little to deflect future attempts at comparison � as those typically degenerate into personal flaming or the like.

I'm certainly interested in folks' reaction to this thesis.
03-14-03 07:26 PM
Dr. Filth T & A - that's a very interesting and coherently written thesis, and to a very real extent it manages to explain the differences between Ronnie and Mick. Of course, the problem with it is -- what we are talking about is rock 'n' roll guitar solos, and this is very different than the criteria and standards you place on jazz solos. I read you loud and clear on Taylor - his solos are often flabbergasting little on the spot compositions that work within an imposed melodic framework but seem to have little lives of their own - it makes very coherent sense that he gets from point "a" in a Gimme Shelter solo from the 70s to point "b" therein. But the idea of the rock and roll solo is ultimately to build up excitement within the song, since building up excitement is what rock and roll is all about. Those stock modules you talk about Keith Richards and Ron Wood playing are the very basis for rock and roll soloing as defined by Chuck Berry, who knew how to extend his soloing into a noisemaking racket that would get them standing on the tables and screaming for more. Not necessarily musical in a, say Wes Montgomerian sense but I wouldn't want to hear Wes play a solo on Carol anyway, because he wouldn't know how to drive that brand new airmobile. There is a definite reason why Mick Taylor plays lead on the more melodically structured Stones tracks, for sure, but there is also a reason why Keith plays lead on, say, Little Queenie and Carol from '69, or on Bitch from '72 or '73, because those songs neither require nor benefit from nor sound right with a lead guitar as you have defined it in your post. Which is why Eric Clapton, say, can't really play Chuck Berry for shit. But those songs certainly need solos. Think about stories you hear at parties - sometimes it's enthralling to listen to a well organized, logical tale from a master storyteller, but it's also fun as hell to listen to the vaguely incoherent ramblings of an extremely witty drunk. And when you're hell bent on getting out of your head, one liners that you know have been spouted many times before suit the purpose much better, especially if they're given a new and brilliant penache. And drunks have plans, too. Keith's solos from Sympathy for the Devil circa Beggar's or Ya-Ya's definitely have a distinct plot to them - they build and build and go somewhere and tell horrible, horrible tales along the way, about dogs biting the heads off rabbits and choking to death on them, about hideous, unseen rituii going on out there in the darkened woods at night, and about what it feels like to stick a needle in your arm. The same thing goes for, say, the solo from Bitch in Perth '73 - that sucker has a completely murderous plot. Keith sometimes loses the plot, but when he is on top of it, it's like a drunk's incoherent storytelling suddenly coalescing into a point about life no sober person coud make. I do agree with you that Keith doesn't really bother to tell a story any more and tends to say the same things on stage night after night, with and without his guitar. But half the excitement about rock and roll is that it's completely spontaneous and what better way to prove it than to realize the "soloist" in question, who is at the moment "driving" the song has absolutely no idea whether or not we're going to make that curve or go off in the ditch.

Chaos is what drove the Stones during the Brian Jones era, and it's what drove the Stones during the classic Ronnie era of '75-'81 (commerce drives the machine now, but that's an entirely different story). Mick Taylor's lovely well ordered melodies are the exception rather than the rule. I agree that it's pointless to compare Ronnie to Mick to Brian to Keith, but as far as "lead" guitars in rock and roll goes it's ultimately the sucker up front yelling "look at me!" the loudest who is "lead"ing.


03-14-03 11:02 PM
J.J.Flash T&A, I really appreciate it. Good and clear point of view. I play guitar, oops I mean, try to play this for 5 years and in your thesis, you show your knowledge on this issue. Your explanation is very clear and based in facts about play guitar and music in general.
You are very good with the words. To me, is very difficult and controversial to compare and define the unique features in each guy.
To me, Keith is a Rock'n'Roll valve, his way of life, his appearance and of course his factory of RIFFS are all integrated with his heart and this topics made of him the really Rock'n'Roller! Keith the real motherfucker!
I love this explanation. Thank you!
03-14-03 11:04 PM
Maxlugar Here's my Ron Wood vs Mick Taylor thesis:

Ron Wood: Great in '75!

Mick Taylor: Always great.

END TRANSMISSION.
03-14-03 11:43 PM
Stonesthrow TA & Dr.-- Interesting points of view and presented in an unusually coherent manner. Nicely done. Brass tacks time--give me Mick T. any time. If we wanted the type of sound Ronnie can supply, Keith is amply able to provide it. Mick gives a wider variety of possible sounds than Ronnie. Of course, it's a moot point since Ronnie is there, and Mick T. is not. However, it is an interesting academic exercise.

03-14-03 11:44 PM
woodywoodpecker T&A you seem like a nice guy. But posting this topic always leaves the thread starter with some bruises.
You are right in some respects that Taylor just played solo's. But dont go on saying Woody doesnt play solo's!

YCAGWYW -75/76 crap all over Taylor solo's of the same song!

Woody is a friggin master! Of blues and Rock n roll When Woody's on man forget it.

Ive played for 18 years and woody was one of the most inspiring guitar players Ive ever had the privlege of learning licks off.

Woody as far as Im concerned has had alot of restrictions put on him after 81, on studio albums. Long solo's may excite some fans but it wont sell them records.

People who say Taylor is so great should understand and realise how to play guitar before making judgments. His solo's on Sway/Time waits are not difficult at all infact very easy to play. Fact is he never suited the Stones in the first place. Woody did.

03-14-03 11:49 PM
woodywoodpecker [quote]Stonesthrow wrote:
--give me Mick T. any time. If we wanted the type of sound Ronnie can supply, Keith is amply able to provide it.

What a joke, I bet you hold ya Brussels Affair close to ya heart too!

F$#K Taylor!
03-14-03 11:51 PM
Bluzian Ok.. a rebuttal is needed:

As a devoted fan of M.T. myself, and I melt or go weak or
get a sensation thru-out my body when I hear even a second
of a M.T. solo in any solo of any concert from 69 - 73. I
inequivocally am at borderline orgasm level. Just incredible.

But I have to challege what you said about YCAGWYW circa '72.
As well, I share your acclaimation of that song/solo, esp.
in '73 when Keith does this staccato off-timed chord progression
that to me is out of this world, but, I think that teh solo
R.W. does on the 75/76 tour for YCAGWYW (particularly on
LoveULive) That solo is INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As was his YCAGWYW solo on the '81 tour. He was beyond
time signatures... it was not configured to the prescription
of what is and should never be in those measures.. R.W.
pulls out all the stops in that song during those two example
tours and it equates M.T.'s .

However, this, and only this is the only time I have ever
noticed a R.W. solo and paid that much attention to. Ok,
there may have been another occasion during the SteelWheels
and he had this good solo for Tumblin' Dice.. but not as
good as in '75.

I believe that RonWood is a rhythm guitar player as well..
and if you listen to "Stay With Me" and "Around the Plynth"
"Three Button Hand Me Down" and "I Can Feel The FIre" you'll
totally know what I'm talking about. Keep in mind lovey, that
RW is a BASS player by trait. (jeff beck group) and moved
into rhythm/lead for the Faces.. and ultimatley, LEAD for
the Stones. He'll never be a Mick Taylor, nor does he try
to be or want to be or was asked to be. Besides, I don't think
Keith Richards even liked playin' with Taylor!! There was
no cohesion, or "ancient form of weaving" as he frequently
refers to it as.

I thoroughly enjoyed R.W.'s playing.. but like you said, its
apples and oranges. If I had my way, they'd ask Daryl JOnes
to exit the stage (even though he's a great player), and
put RW on bass, and ask M.T. to step up to the lead. M.T.
STILL has the chops, for I have seen him recently in concert
(wth JohnMayall) and he did the most amazing slide wah-wah
solo for "You Gotta Move" That I've ever heard in my life.
He didnt' do CYHMK, but, that one solo for YouGottaMove, was
well worth the admission price alone. Holy Sweet mother of
Jesus!!! So I know fora fact first hand, that M.T. is capable
of the job. but it won't ever happen. The only time it
remotely came close was during KansasCity, in 1981. But we
won't go there. (as well, M.T. is NOT a true rhythm player.
He was meant to lead. give him some blow and a slide/wahwah
pedal and he's all yours for the night) like electric bolts
of lightening shooting out from the amps. WICKED!!!!!!!!

Anyways... I loved your argument, and it was a thoroughly
enjoying to read. Good structure. Good argument. Good points
except for that minor glitch of YCAGWYW. Cheers.

Ian
03-15-03 12:06 AM
woodywoodpecker [quote]Bluzian wrote:

I believe that RonWood is a rhythm guitar player as well..
and if you listen to "Stay With Me" and "Around the Plynth"
"Three Button Hand Me Down" and "I Can Feel The FIre" you'll
totally know what I'm talking about. Keep in mind lovey, that
RW is a BASS player by trait. (jeff beck group) and moved
into rhythm/lead for the Faces.. and ultimatley, LEAD for
the Stones. He'll never be a Mick Taylor, nor does he try
to be or want to be or was asked to be.

Arhhh Where's the Woody Army!
Ian Ron Wood was always a guitar player, (NOT BASS) Jeff Beck didnt want two guitars so Woody played Bass.
As For the Faces tracks you mentioned-Around the plynth is slide guitar and slide guitar is lead guitar.

He'll never be Mick Taylor- of course why would he want to be? He's better!

Solo's from Woody id pick over anything Taylor has done are

1.Black Limo- Studio & Live
2.All Down The Line- Live anytime anywhere!
3.Brown Sugar- Love You Live
4.CAGWYW-Anytime anywhere.
5.Love in Vain-anytime anywhere.
03-15-03 12:52 AM
TheSavageYoungXyzzy Taylor was a great guitarist.
So was Ronnie.
Ronnie worked better in the band for the longer period of time ('75 - '82 versus '69 - '73).

And, in conclusion, I'd like to put on my MP3 of "All Down The Line" from LA Friday, and then the same song from Boston 1/12/03.

At this point, try to envision the listener throwing himself back against his chair and yelling along to the words while playing air guitar.

Both of them were great guys, and I don't want to get into the debate again, but I think Ronnie has a lot more fun up there and as a result the Stones sound more like the Stones and less like a murky late-night club band that Taylor's style of playing ran the risk of turning them into.

I like both of 'em, a hell of a lot, but I do think Ronnie plays leads. It is "whatever guitar is playing the loudest", and as for Ronnie selecting a few tidbits from Taylor's solo - that was certainly true earlier on, but he's been expanding ever since then, adding feedback, adding a rougher sound, and experimenting with the false starts and stops that Taylor did in the studio while adding his own sections and applying his style to the sections he lifted from Taylor.

Again, see "All Down The Line" in both '75 and '03. Tell me that ain't a solo - don't matter how you define it, someone's wrecking their guitar on stage, and damn it, that's a solo!

But cool thesis, and I agree with lots of it.

Taylor = great guitarist!
Ronnie = great guitarist!

Personal preference?
Ronnie!

END TRANSMISSION.
(Theft of Lugarism brought to you by He From Nebraskie)

-tSYX --- Woncha be my little baby for awhile?
[Edited by TheSavageYoungXyzzy]
03-15-03 03:03 AM
fmk438j
quote:
woodywoodpecker wrote:

Solo's from Woody id pick over anything Taylor has done are

5.Love in Vain-anytime anywhere.



I can't agree with this, no way.

What specific Love in Vain do you have in mind that could topple, say MSG 26th July 1972?
03-15-03 03:55 AM
woodywoodpecker stripped and handsome girls 78
03-15-03 08:07 AM
justforyou I gotta differ about some MT opinions here, I feel he plays great rhythm guitar too, like on Honky Tonk Women and Jumping Jack Flash ('69), nice weaves with Keith on those.

For me their difference is: MT played classic epic stuff, RW plays impish and around the rhythms. Both are worth a good listen!
03-15-03 09:59 AM
Honky Tonk Man YAWN!!!
03-15-03 10:57 AM
stewed & Keefed Little Red Rooster
No Expectations
I Can't Be Satisfied
Brian was the man
[Edited by stewed & Keefed]
03-15-03 11:52 AM
T&A Woody:

To a couple of your points:

1) You mention the difficulty factor by saying that MT's solos aren't difficult to play. Not being a guitar player I shouldn't comment on that (but, if they ain't so difficult, how come nobody else I've ever heard can touch 'em?). Regardless, the point has nothing to do with my thesis. Nowhere do I indicate "difficulty" as a criterion.

2) You say you think RW's leads on YCAGWYW crap all over MT's from '72. Fine. That's a personal preference and one I don't happen to share. But, again, it is beside the point. It's not a matter of whether you "like" a particular lead more than another. The thesis has nothing to do with personal preference. I happen to like a lot of Ronnie's figures, fills and riffs alot myself. I just don't regard them as "solos" by the definition I articulated.

And - oh, by the way, others tell me I'm a pretty nice guy - but, again that's got nothing to do with this either! But, thanks for noticing (very perceptive of you - don't know how you got that by reading my thesis!).

Savage: Ronnie does and can reek havoc with his guitar. That doesn't necessarily mean he plays leads (by the definition I propose). Again, sounds like you reject the hypothesis, which is fine. You have a different definition of what a solo is...that's all.

One last point that I probably should have mentioned in my original post. I think the never-ending debate over Ronnie's relative place in the Stones would never have ensued had MT never been there. Had Ronnie merely picked up from where BJ left off, we would have missed 5 years of a band where there was a true lead, soloist. However, the Stones were a band that was bounded in the tradition of two guitars, without a lead player. MT upset all that and transformed the act into one with a rhythm guitarist and a soloist. RW (closer in kin to BJ) comes along, and, by necessary extension attempts to fill MT's prodigious shoes, which was really an awkward and illogical thing. Had he merely followed BJ, nobody would have ever noticed much in the transition, I would argue. MT left a long shadow.

It's NOT a bad thing to not be able to construct a logical solo. I'll give you a great example of someone who, himself, has said he can't do it: Eric Clapton. He has many times cited his envy of folks like Stevie Ray Vaughan who can do what I argue a "soloist" can do. EC says he can't and has basically indicated he does what I suggest RW does: create the illusion of a solo by pulling together multiple figures and fills from his "personal inventory." EC and RW do it so well that they confuse the listener into thinking they are actually soloing - which itself is an art, in my opinion. Just a different art.
[Edited by T&A]
[Edited by T&A]
[Edited by T&A]
03-15-03 10:17 PM
littleredrooster Rooster has a new hero....
Let me introduce you to my NEW,BEST FRIEND.........T & A !!!!!!!!!!

The solos on YCAGWYW '73,'73 STILL raise the the feathers on my comb everytime that I hear them!

I'm VERY fortunate to have heard them LIVE in MSG 4 times in 3 days in July of '72!

I love every era but Mick Taylor's solos were tremendous!
I only hope that he'll show up at Vredenburg this August and bring down the house!
03-15-03 11:38 PM
Stonesthrow WWPecker said:

>>What a joke, I bet you hold ya Brussels Affair close to ya heart too! F$#K Taylor!<<

As far as their boots go, it's right up there. Personally, with the exception of Sticky Fingers, I prefer the Brian era stuff. It's ok to hate Mick for being a quitter if you want. But you can't honestly think Ronnie is superior as a lead guitarist.

I'll also pass on your generous invitation to F$#K Taylor. He's not my cup of MT.




03-16-03 03:49 AM
Bluzian Uh... yeah, I know this gets tiring RW versus MT (or vice versa)
but.. yeah, that fucking solo on Love In Vain, July '72 MSG,
is if not the MOST ULTIMATE solo I have ever heard in my life.
That (to me) is better than sex!!! That is better than RW!!
That is @#%*&@#)%@#)%(@#)%@#_%@ # OMG!!!!!! If you haven't
heard it, then you don't even deserve to contribute hear.
THose "bolts of electricity" I mention are form taht MSG
show during Love In Vain!!! That solo is worth murder!!! I
swear that that is probably my ALL-TIME favorite blues/rock
solo ever!!! Unequivocally! Hands down.

I'm not disputing the fact that RW has (had) amazing solos!!
They have been incredible. I have rewound and replayed so
many RW solos it would make you sick... but the times I have
heard MT solos are even sickening. His phrasing and melody
and use of slide and Wah-Wah are..@?@(#$%)@#%&)(@#%@#)%????
I can't even begin to think of putting it into words. IT
just sends me.

When I hear Stones cicra 69 - 73 I long for the Taylor solo and
impatiently anticipate the bridge after the second verse for
the Mick Taylor solo!!!! It's like climax!! Listen to
those tracks of YCAGWYW and ANGIE and 'Rambler in those
early seventies!!!! It should be illegal how he plays. It;s
beyond human.

I dont even think Mick Taylor realizes how fucking amazing he
really was/is!!!

Long live RonWood AND Mick Taylor (respectively)!!!

Ian
03-16-03 08:35 AM
J.J.Flash
quote:
woodywoodpecker wrote:
1.Black Limo- Studio & Live
2.All Down The Line- Live anytime anywhere!
3.Brown Sugar- Love You Live
4.CAGWYW-Anytime anywhere.
5.Love in Vain-anytime anywhere.



You forgot to mention Saint of Me. Killer!

Visits since January 9, 2003 - 10:46 PM EST