|
|
| Navin |
It's not my intention to start another Ron Wood related debate here but only put forth some points...
What could be worse than David Lee Roth leaving Van Halen - Sammy joining the band!!
Now what could be worse than Ron Wood leaving the Stones.....!!!
We got to stop with this wish-fulfillment thing about our dear Ron leaving the band, just like 'the last tour' thing - its not an issue at all, just another creation of paranoid fans and 'rock journalists' with too much time on their hands. Just like the other question...this was first asked in 1975 right from when he joined!! Let's give the poor devil his due, how many will put with what Ronnie has, a stereotype of the youngest child if there ever was one, and yes, like the youngest child he does play the role sometimes both on stage and in his habits, but come on, this is THE ROLLING STONES!!!
No one, or not many ever talk about the minimal footage shown of his interviews and history in the documentaries, 25 x 5 in particular and also the upmost lack of mention, leave alone praise in comparison to the others.
And, should the impossible happen, will the glimmer boys ever accept his 'resignation' any more than the army of fans???
|
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
Navin-
Most of the Ronnie-bashers on this board do it to get a rise outta people. Some do raise valid points - he's had quite a few bad nights this leg, including one at a club show, which would've been suicide for the band if Keith hadn't stepped up to the plate, so to speak. (American slang - do all you international folk use that expression too? Or is it "stepped up to the bat" 'cause of cricket?)
When this tour started up, Keith could do no wrong. Every night something went wrong, the blame went squarely on Ronnie or even Mick. Anyone who gave Keith anything less than a glowing review was almost unanimously beat down. But Keith had a less-than-stellar first leg. Some nights he was tremendous, other nights he was too busy pretending to be Frank Sinatra or Pirate Elvis, smiling and waving and kneeling without actually strumming all that much. The club shows he did wake up, but most of the solos taken were really Ronnie's to own.
They got into fights on stage. Keith at one point told Ronnie not to play on "Sympathy" when he started getting wild, and as a result Ronnie just stopped, glared at him, and stood stock-still for the rest of the number, strumming once in awhile for good measure. On the second leg, maybe as a result, Keith really kicked into high gear, and as a result we got the best Stones since '75, even though there were no club shows for them to test their mettle.
Now it seems the pair of them're both having good and bad nights. Keith rules the stadiums and Ronnie tends to do better in the arenas. But there've been far less stadiums than arenas this leg, and Ronnie looks like he can't even keep up with Keith on the marahoochie anymore. Which isn't anything to be ashamed of - I don't think I could keep up with Keith on the chiba - but I don't think he quite gets it. It took him ten years to realize he couldn't keep up with Keith on the hard drugs, twenty to realize he couldn't keep up on the booze, I don't think he's got a whole lotta time left to come to any conclusions about the dope or the ciggies.
He's got some issues that need working out. But should he be replaced? My guess, honestly, is that if they go out again, they might do it without him. There was a very long streak of shows where he was just missing. Keith and Mick have both said that Ronnie is the only non-essential member of the group, which can't do much for his confidence. He has tried to keep away from Keith after the shows, if only just because Keith drinks *all the time*. He's obviously unhappy with that, but I think it's a great indicator that he's more concerned with the band than, apparently, Keith. But a Glimmer reaction to him resigning? It would probably be along the lines of "Oh. Well. Hope you enjoyed yourself."
We still have the London shows to get through. I think that if Ronnie lights up the Astoria, and Dublin, and Wembley, the boys won't get rid of him. He does do better in those medium-to-small venues, so I think if he conquers on home ground (Dublin especially - it looks right up his alley) they're gonna have good memories of him rather than bad.
I agree with you on one big point. The guy doesn't get as much attention as Mick'n'Keith, which is obvious, or even Charlie, when it's apparent that he's got that youngest-child syndrome where he really thrives off the attention. The garish outfits he used to wear? His crazy behavior which later led to the detriment of his actual playing? He loves it, no matter if it's good or bad. By contrast, Mick Taylor was such a vanilla guy that people tended to walk by him without even noticing he was there. Stanley Booth, the Maysles Brothers, you name 'em, they missed him. But I don't think he needs media attention, per se, as in, I don't think it's that important. All that matters at the end of the day is if he's playing well.
And we all know he's capable of really ruling the show nowadays. Which begs the question - when is he gonna buckle down and actually do it?
-tSYX --- I close my eyes and ignore all the signs... |
|
|
| marko |
i think personally that keith is losing it,and thats why
they canīt tour anymore.If guy plays his own songs in wrong
keys,somethings wrong. |
|
|
| Nellcote |
No Ronnie?
No Stones, period.
No "Great Guitarist Hunt" circa '75 to replace him.
No Mick Taylor return.
End of Stones.
Don't kid yourself about anything else happening.
Enjoy the Box Sets of outtakes that will be released. |
|
|
| Navin |
I say this with the possiblity of alienating the entire Stones community, but Yas-Yas does not leave me as amazed or hooked as Hampton '81, Love you live, and Handsome Girls among others....why even 'Exile' is vastly overrated (this statement alone should bring in a ton of hate mail!!), of course apart from much of it, its a good album, but going on to praise it to the skies...even 'Some Girls' is not that awe-inspiring apart from the fact that it is a masterpiece in comparison to the last few albums: Whip, Lies, Respectable, Beast, Make me run, & Shattered, great...but then so are ALL the albums in one way or another and in varying ratios, Exile being one of them: Rocks, Rip, Dice, T&F'd, Happy, Turd, down the line, & Survivor..not bad at all for a double but still not a masterpiece!! And can we leave out 'Hand of fate' just because it suffers being in a 'bad ratio album' Voodoo Lounge definitely qualifies a comparison...Let it bleed before that...not sure about Satanic though!!!!
Its not a question about Ron or Taylor or Brian or whoever.....its that period 1969 to 1974, for whatever reasons people crave for that 'Classic era of rock' not just with the Stones but with every other band or artist: Alice Cooper, Bowie, Iggy....to name a few. No matter what that period is not going to come back.....the best is yet to come...maybe!!
In the words of the singer himself: "think about your future, babe, forget 'bout what you used to be...."
[Edited by Navin]
[Edited by Navin] |
|
|
| McQueen |
I enjoyed reading this discussion a great deal. Thank you.
Both intelligent and succinct.
As to the observation of many wanting to relive the "classic" era of 68-74, you are spot on mate. Time to get on with gettin' on, no?
Perhaps a bit more gratitude is due to the fact we have the opportunity to still discuss the lads in present time, as they continue to roll on, albeit not to the satisfaction of all, with at times, a flash of old brilliance.(Or is it in fact, new?)
The boys continue to redefine the concept of definition. They make the idea of relevance irrelevant. Wonderful fuckin' lads, very much including Mr. Wood!
Oh-and a box set? Yes, that would be most appreciated.
But, along with the box, a whole new ride is being delivered too! So enjoy that ride, and THE ride, because far fewer days lie ahead than behind them now, making each we are given that much more special. |
|
|
| Egbert |
It stands to reason that the music produced during the "classic" era of rock (which I would generally define as 1965-71) was heavily influenced by environmental factors: rock music was still relatively fresh; a massive post-war youth culture challenging the older establishment; widespread drug abuse; a very real fear of global nuclear devastation; etc etc. I don't see a comparable scene developing anytime soon in today's stifling PC society. As for Ron Wood issue, being around long enough to have 3 different lead (or co-lead, giving a nod to Keef) guitarists has been beneficial for the Stones over the 40 years - good to have a bit of variety. But at this late stage in the game I don't see the point of going on without Ronnie. |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]