|
|
| jb |
I have to laugh when I read this as just a few years ago virtually everyone was fed up with Woody and his playing(or more accurately, lack thereof). Of course I understand that he has had a much more prolific career than Taylor, but does that 1) take away how brilliant Taylor was and 2) excuse Ronnie for the past 20 or so years?. Ronnie has indeed been a great bandmate to Keith, and certainly is the better fit as far as being a "true stone". However, Taylor elevated the musicianship to heights never seen before his tenure and after. Yes, I prefer the Stones when the lead guitar stood out from the rhythm section. I do not think Taylor's playing overshadowed Keith's, but instead, enhanced it. I liked the faster tempo of the songs and the fact that Taylor could take songs like GS, ADTL, LIV, and many others to new levels during the live performances. I just don't see how anyone can prefer the non distinct guitar sound more or less since 89, to the amazing guitar playing during the MY years.
[Edited by jb] |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
>However, Taylor elevated the musicianship to heights never seen before his tenure and after. Yes, I prefer the Stones when the lead guitar stood out from the rhythm section. I do not think Taylor's playing overshadowed Keith's, but instead, enhanced it. I liked the faster tempo of the songs and the fact that Taylor could take songs like GS, ADTL, LIV, and many others to new levels during the live performances. I just don't see how anyone can prefer the non distinct guitar sound more or less since 89, to the amazing guitar playing during the MY years.<
Well said. I don't think it's necessarily Woodys fault though. He kind of sold his soul to the devil to be in the band. Keith doesn't like to be upstaged. So Woody does what he's told. Neither Brian or Taylor would be put into a box, creatively speaking. Woody doesn't seem to mind it.
|
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
>However, Taylor elevated the musicianship to heights never seen before his tenure and after. Yes, I prefer the Stones when the lead guitar stood out from the rhythm section. I do not think Taylor's playing overshadowed Keith's, but instead, enhanced it. I liked the faster tempo of the songs and the fact that Taylor could take songs like GS, ADTL, LIV, and many others to new levels during the live performances. I just don't see how anyone can prefer the non distinct guitar sound more or less since 89, to the amazing guitar playing during the MY years.<
Well said. I don't think it's necessarily Woodys fault though. He kind of sold his soul to the devil to be in the band. Keith doesn't like to be upstaged. So Woody does what he's told. Neither Brian or Taylor would be put into a box, creatively speaking. Woody doesn't seem to mind it.
Good point...RW definitely held his ego in check ,a small price to pay for being in the worlds greatest band. Even today, some 32 yrs after his admission, RW more often than not, has to suck it up and take it from either Mick or Keith...I guess he is like a younger brother to both of them in some way. I credit Ronnie for being a team player and certainly his contribution on "Some Girls", which jump started the Stones career in the late 70's cannot be overlooked. Nonetheless, if you simply base things upon the music, not even the staunchest Woody fan can deny the Stones were a much tighter band during the Taylor era...at least musically. It's all ancient history anyway, and Woody's place in history, as pointed out, will be much more significant than MT's....however, I wonder how much further they could have gone if MT had the temperment to have stuck it out...maybe we would not have goitten "Some Girls", but one can only imagine that we may have gotten another SF's or Exile....Looking back, many now realize that while not as widely praised as the foregoing, GHS and IORR were really good albums...much better than anything they have released other than SG's and arguably TY... |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Yes, I prefer the Stones when the lead guitar stood out from the rhythm section. I do not think Taylor's playing overshadowed Keith's, but instead, enhanced it. I liked the faster tempo of the songs and the fact that Taylor could take songs like GS, ADTL, LIV, and many others to new levels during the live performances. I just don't see how anyone can prefer the non distinct guitar sound more or less since 89, to the amazing guitar playing during the MY years.
call me misguided and over-simplistic but I simply 'prefer' good songs to bad ones, and theyre defined more by good songwriting than by how fast the solos happen to be. This is the Rolling Stones. Not Santana.
No doubt Taylor added a lot to the band, but the greatness was already there, contrary to the belief of some that the Stones didnt exist until he joined. His near invisibility since he chose to leave and lacklustre work ethic suggests that he may not have been such a vital cog for much longer had he stayed.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>maybe we would not have goitten "Some Girls", but one can only imagine that we may have gotten another SF's or Exile....Looking back, many now realize that while not as widely praised as the foregoing, GHS and IORR were really good albums...much better than anything they have released other than SG's and arguably TY...
why? How many songs on those albums did Taylor write?
The Stones declined because Mick and Keith passed their peak as songwriters for various reasons (their relationship also changed, living further apart and writing together less) - not because they changed lead guitarist. |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>Yes, I prefer the Stones when the lead guitar stood out from the rhythm section. I do not think Taylor's playing overshadowed Keith's, but instead, enhanced it. I liked the faster tempo of the songs and the fact that Taylor could take songs like GS, ADTL, LIV, and many others to new levels during the live performances. I just don't see how anyone can prefer the non distinct guitar sound more or less since 89, to the amazing guitar playing during the MY years.
call me misguided and over-simplistic but I simply 'prefer' good songs to bad ones, and theyre defined more by good songwriting than by how fast the solos happen to be. This is the Rolling Stones. Not Santana.
No doubt Taylor added a lot to the band, but the greatness was already there, contrary to the belief of some that the Stones didnt exist until he joined. His near invisibility since he chose to leave and lacklustre work ethic suggests that he may not have been such a vital cog for much longer had he stayed.
[Edited by Gazza]
I can't argue with the facts. Taylor's post Stones career has been incredibly uneventful. I don't think any of us who followed the band ever could have imagined how insignificant Taylor became after his departure. Thus, the question of whether he made the band greater, or was simply there at the right time, is certainly valid. I do think, however, that Taylor felt he was entitled to more credit than he received, and it slowly disintergrated him, hence, his untimely departure. I wonder if there was ever a period, say b/t 75 and 81, where he ever had an opportunity to get back in the band, or if the door had already been permanently shut. I imagine the success of Some Girls made Woody a keeper, although we hear rumors that by 81, he way in some jeopardy. |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>maybe we would not have goitten "Some Girls", but one can only imagine that we may have gotten another SF's or Exile....Looking back, many now realize that while not as widely praised as the foregoing, GHS and IORR were really good albums...much better than anything they have released other than SG's and arguably TY...
why? How many songs on those albums did Taylor write?
The Stones declined because Mick and Keith passed their peak as songwriters for various reasons (their relationship also changed, living further apart and writing together less) - not because they changed lead guitarist.
Good points as well....Also, wasn't TY mostly outtakes from the early to mid 70's? I wonder if Taylor had stuckit out, if he would have, similar to RW, a little more influence in the recording process. |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
>I can't argue with the facts<
Sure you can. Most facts aren't facts at all (See GWB). Some people think it makes them bigger Stones fans by minimizing the contributions of Brian, Stu, Mick Taylor and Wyman. We'll never know if they could have written great songs at all because they were frozen out of the process.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
That's true....Mick and Keith certainly are not ones to allow others to share in the creative process. They also have a very uncomplimentary way of not supporting anything other members in the band are doing....I am really surprised how Woody was able to stake out a claim as such a prolific artist...perhaps b/c most of his portraits are of Mick and Keith!!! |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
jb wrote:
Good points as well....Also, wasn't TY mostly outtakes from the early to mid 70's? I wonder if Taylor had stuckit out, if he would have, similar to RW, a little more influence in the recording process.
Tops and Waiting On A Friend were cut for GHS, and although overdubbed later, the versions on Tattoo You feature Taylor's playing from those sessions.
The basic tracks for Slave and Worried About You were recorded in early 1975. Everything else is from Some Girls on, mostly ER leftovers plus a couple of new songs (Neighbours and Heaven). Most of the songs that had been cut prior to ER had overdubs added at some point between 1979 and spring 1981.
Its hard to say what could have happened if Taylor had stuck it out. My own opinion is that the band would not have survived for much longer and that he would have ended up as a drug casualty, as he was already on that spiral when he quit. For that reason, I doubt his contributions would have increased.
Woody basically got his foot in the door as a songwriter in the 80's by default. Mick and Keith had long stopped writing together to any great degree and Mick brought almost nothing to the table for Dirty Work - most of the songs on the album ended up being written by Woody and Keith. Its no coincidence that since Mick and Keith kissed and made up in 1988-89, Woody hasnt (as far as I'm aware) got a writing credit on any Stones song released from that time onwards. |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Tops and Waiting On A Friend were cut for GHS, and although overdubbed later, the versions on Tattoo You feature Taylor's playing from those sessions.
The basic tracks for Slave and Worried About You were recorded in early 1975. Everything else is from Some Girls on, mostly ER leftovers plus a couple of new songs (Neighbours and Heaven). Most of the songs that had been cut prior to ER had overdubs added at some point between 1979 and spring 1981.
Its hard to say what could have happened if Taylor had stuck it out. My own opinion is that the band would not have survived for much longer and that he would have ended up as a drug casualty, as he was already on that spiral when he quit. For that reason, I doubt his contributions would have increased.
Woody basically got his foot in the door as a songwriter in the 80's by default. Mick and Keith had long stopped writing together to any great degree and Mick brought almost nothing to the table for Dirty Work - most of the songs on the album ended up being written by Woody and Keith. Its no coincidence that since Mick and Keith kissed and made up in 1988-89, Woody hasnt (as far as I'm aware) got a writing credit on any Stones song released from that time onwards.
The astonishing part is that with the great hatred between Mick and Keith, one of them hasnt given Ronnie a writing credit purely to spite the other one in the last 20 years. |
|
|
| jb |
Something obviously happened to Taylor during his tenure as a Stone that left him a shell of a man....I don't know whether it was the drugs, the pressure, or a combination of both, be he seemingly has never recovered from his stint as a Stone. It is a shame that the Stones, at least since the mid 80's, have been unwilling to at least attempt to write an album together from start to finish....they also really needed a strong minded producer, as opposed to a "yes" man, to challenge their creativity. I though that was happening in VL, but maybe I give it too much credit... |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
>I can't argue with the facts<
Sure you can. Most facts aren't facts at all (See GWB). Some people think it makes them bigger Stones fans by minimizing the contributions of Brian, Stu, Mick Taylor and Wyman. We'll never know if they could have written great songs at all because they were frozen out of the process.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels]
no one's minimizing them - if anything its evident that other band members are being elevated to an exaggerated level of importance based solely on their technical ability on an instrument.
Taylor and Wyman's solo work is evidence enough that Andrew Oldham's decision to have Jagger and Richards as the band's principal songwriters was the correct one. I asked him personally why he chose them instead of Brian - who was effectively the band's leader at the time as well as being their most gifted musician - and he said that the three of them all tried their hand at writing to begin with and it was quite evident to everyone present that despite Brian's other gifts, songwriting was a talent that he clearly didnt possess.
|
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
jb wrote:
Something obviously happened to Taylor during his tenure as a Stone that left him a shell of a man....I don't know whether it was the drugs, the pressure, or a combination of both, be he seemingly has never recovered from his stint as a Stone. It is a shame that the Stones, at least since the mid 80's, have been unwilling to at least attempt to write an album together from start to finish....they also really needed a strong minded producer, as opposed to a "yes" man, to challenge their creativity. I though that was happening in VL, but maybe I give it too much credit...
agree with all of that, although I think theres been more writing together since the late 80s (well, on SW and VL anyway - less so on ABB and hardly any on BTB) than there was since the days up to the early 70's when they were living in the same city or country (or even in the same street as was the case in the late 60s) |
|
|
| jb |
http://www.andrewloogoldham.com/reviews/independentint.htm |
|
|
| SweetVirginia |
quote:
Poplar wrote:
I'd be the first to admit Ronnie's shortcomings. I'd also be the first to say MT was the "best" technical guitarist the band ever had.
that said - Ronnie is just as good a stone.
You summed it up perfectly Poplar.
|
|
|
| jb |
quote:
SweetVirginia wrote:
You summed it up perfectly Poplar.
Totally disagree......... |
|
|
| Joey |
" Totally disagree......... "
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
no one's minimizing them - if anything its evident that other band members are being elevated to an exaggerated level of importance based solely on their technical ability on an instrument.
Taylor and Wyman's solo work is evidence enough that Andrew Oldham's decision to have Jagger and Richards as the band's principal songwriters was the correct one. I asked him personally why he chose them instead of Brian - who was effectively the band's leader at the time as well as being their most gifted musician - and he said that the three of them all tried their hand at writing to begin with and it was quite evident to everyone present that despite Brian's other gifts, songwriting was a talent that he clearly didnt possess.
Well that's a mouthful. While we're at it why don't we try to solve the Riddle of the Syphynx? The making of a song doesn't end with the "writers". A song is the sum total of its parts. As far as Stones songs go most of the lyrics are Mick's. Keith didn't actually "write" ....but he's creditted as a songwriter. I have no problem with that in the context of a Stones song. But one can't "write" chords on guitar. There's only three or four of them anyway. they'e already "there".
|
|
|
| jb |
Very well said TTM....we can agree to disagree about the relative contributions of taylor versus Woods, but no one can disagree that Taylor 's playing was simply superb. |
|
|
| deuce |
Taylor is a great guitarist but the only thing he did was enhance the songs that Mick and Keith had already written and if they hadn't written the songs, there'd be nothing to enhance. What did Taylor really add to Exile? The solo's in Stop Breaking Down, Shine a Light, and All Down The Line? The riff to Ventilator Blues? The album would have been just as good without him. If Ron had joined the band when Brian died, Exile on main street would have been just as good. Besides, Ron is a better slide guitarist than Taylor anyway |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
deuce wrote:
Taylor is a great guitarist but the only thing he did was enhance the songs that Mick and Keith had already written and if they hadn't written the songs, there'd be nothing to enhance. What did Taylor really add to Exile? The solo's in Stop Breaking Down, Shine a Light, and All Down The Line? The riff to Ventilator Blues? The album would have been just as good without him. If Ron had joined the band when Brian died, Exile on main street would have been just as good. Besides, Ron is a better slide guitarist than Taylor anyway
Mick Taylor was a hell of a slide guitar player.... |
|
|
| SweetVirginia |
...but he couldn't be a Rolling Stone.
Technically perfect, yet never comfortable.
|
|
|
| jb |
he was Stonsey enough to play on their greatest albums, unlike the poseur who can't eat a banana and play a guitar at the same time... |
|
|
| deuce |
Jumping Jack Flash
Sympathy For The Devil
Street Fighting Man
Stray Cat Blues
Gimmie Shelter
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Midnight Rambler
Love In Vain
These are all songs that Taylor would go on to play live with the band, but he had nothing to do with the recordings. Whose responsible? Jagger/Richards (and maybe a little Robert Johnson for the last track). |
|
|
| SweetVirginia |
quote:
jb wrote:
he was Stonsey enough to play on their greatest albums, unlike the poseur who can't eat a banana and play a guitar at the same time...
|
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
SweetVirginia wrote:
solid gold right there folks |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Woody's MO from the start, even before The Stones, has always been to fit in...not to stand out. It's just a different philosophy from what Mick Taylor's was.
That being said...I never saw the Stones before 1989. Since 1989 I've seen the band 17 times. In those 17 times I have seen/heard Woody rip some outstanding solos. His take on Taylor's vaunted "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'" solo was fine. Some nights it was outstanding. No, it wasn't Mick Taylor...but it wasn't bad either. His pedal steel has been a nice addition to the mix as well.
Mick Taylor does one thing well. And he does it REALLY well....as well as anyone has ever done it, IMO. Woody does a whole bunch of different things, and he does them pretty good. I'd say the only thing he's really great at is slide. He has a very deft touch with the slide. But Woody brings variety to the table. He can do a lot of different thing pretty well. It allowed the Stones to expand their horizons, do things like Hey Nagrita and Miss yYu and Dance Pt 1 and funky things like that. Those songs would not have been viable with Taylor in the band.
With Taylor in the band, the Stones were going to be a fairly one dimensional band...blues based rock. Now, that sounds like it would be fine. But look at what happened. The first two albums with Taylor were stellar, the next two not so stellar...follow the trend and guess what the next two albums with Taylor would have been like. Blues based rock is not a very wide form. Not much wiggle room when it comes to creativity. You can squeeze out a couple of great 10 song albums...and then you've pretty much done everything there was to be done. You covered it. So what do you do for the 3rd and 4th albums? You repeat yourself, or you start doing things that are outside your scope of expertise. The result of doing that is making inferior albums. Why do you think most blues based rock bands implode after a few records? It's because they hit the wall, and since they are one dimensional, they break themselves trying to get past the wall. Have you heard Taylor's solo records? They all sound the same.
Woody can play many different styles. This allows the songwriters to explore different paths, and do it with the confidence that the guitar player can pull it off.
This is why I consider Woody to be a great guitar player. He may not be as technically precise as a lot of guys, including Taylor. But Woody can go places that those guys either can't or won't go. And that is why Woody has had the longest tenure in the band.
Now, that being said, I in no way want to sound like I'm disrespecting or slighting what Mick Taylor brought to the game. He was fuckin' great. But so is Woody...just in different ways. I mean, we all dig what we dig. Personal preference is great. But we shouldn't slag on one guy to try and get the other over, you know? I love what all three lead guys brought to the table, and they were all great in their own unique ways.
I should also mention that I'm refering to both these guys when they were in their prime. Today, both guys are a shell of what they used to be. Can't fight age, man. It slows you down. No one is immune from that. Except Mick Jagger and Iggy pop. |
|
|
| deuce |
Anyone who slags Ronnie's playing should pick up The Faces box set to hear what he could do in his prime |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Woody's MO from the start, even before The Stones, has always been to fit in...not to stand out. It's just a different philosophy from what Mick Taylor's was.
That being said...I never saw the Stones before 1989. Since 1989 I've seen the band 17 times. In those 17 times I have seen/heard Woody rip some outstanding solos. His take on Taylor's vaunted "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'" solo was fine. Some nights it was outstanding. No, it wasn't Mick Taylor...but it wasn't bad either. His pedal steel has been a nice addition to the mix as well.
Mick Taylor does one thing well. And he does it REALLY well....as well as anyone has ever done it, IMO. Woody does a whole bunch of different things, and he does them pretty good. I'd say the only thing he's really great at is slide. He has a very deft touch with the slide. But Woody brings variety to the table. He can do a lot of different thing pretty well. It allowed the Stones to expand their horizons, do things like Hey Nagrita and Miss yYu and Dance Pt 1 and funky things like that. Those songs would not have been viable with Taylor in the band.
With Taylor in the band, the Stones were going to be a fairly one dimensional band...blues based rock. Now, that sounds like it would be fine. But look at what happened. The first two albums with Taylor were stellar, the next two not so stellar...follow the trend and guess what the next two albums with Taylor would have been like. Blues based rock is not a very wide form. Not much wiggle room when it comes to creativity. You can squeeze out a couple of great 10 song albums...and then you've pretty much done everything there was to be done. You covered it. So what do you do for the 3rd and 4th albums? You repeat yourself, or you start doing things that are outside your scope of expertise. The result of doing that is making inferior albums. Why do you think most blues based rock bands implode after a few records? It's because they hit the wall, and since they are one dimensional, they break themselves trying to get past the wall. Have you heard Taylor's solo records? They all sound the same.
Woody can play many different styles. This allows the songwriters to explore different paths, and do it with the confidence that the guitar player can pull it off.
This is why I consider Woody to be a great guitar player. He may not be as technically precise as a lot of guys, including Taylor. But Woody can go places that those guys either can't or won't go. And that is why Woody has had the longest tenure in the band.
Now, that being said, I in no way want to sound like I'm disrespecting or slighting what Mick Taylor brought to the game. He was fuckin' great. But so is Woody...just in different ways. I mean, we all dig what we dig. Personal preference is great. But we shouldn't slag on one guy to try and get the other over, you know? I love what all three lead guys brought to the table, and they were all great in their own unique ways.
I should also mention that I'm refering to both these guys when they were in their prime. Today, both guys are a shell of what they used to be. Can't fight age, man. It slows you down. No one is immune from that. Except Mick Jagger and Iggy pop.
Great post, but please explain how we got ABB? WTF??? |
|
