Mick Taylor vs. Ronnie Wood

If you look at their set lists, the majority of the songs usually come from the Jones and Taylor years.

 

Accept no substitutes.

 

And, anyone in his right mind would leave a band after that. No matter how well it paid. A mans dignity has a value.

 

No. Mick Taylor is NOT the Stones. He was a hired gun in the band for a short period of time.
If you want to use your logic that the Stones is one guy, then it would be the true genius behind inventing the Stones and giving them a sound, Brian Jones. He formed the band, he named it, and it is his musicianship that got them off the ground.

 

That's just what he did. So we agree on at least one thing regarding Mick Taylor. Phew.

Loosen up, that's called hyperbole. You should have seen that in the context of how it was written. hello

But nothing more than a hired gun? Yea right. 24 karat gold plated then, with nothing but platinum to show.

Brian Jones was good too. No worries there. It's Mick & Keith we're picking most our bones with.

 

Not everyone who has played in bands gets what you're saying. Jumping around on stage is not going to make the band sound better. You say it will raise the level of excitement. It's just as likely to raise the level of annoyance from bandmates. Especially if chords are missed, notes are fluffed. Some of us, who have played in bands, are only interested in how the music sounds. How it looks is mostly irrelevant. Mr. Fell's sage example of The Allman Brothers glorious At Fillmore East album is a perfect example. There's no posing going on there, just a great band playing their collective butts off!

So, plenty of us who have played in bands, do view things in terms of notes played and chords played and how the whole thing sounds. That's the whole point, surely, to get to a level where the music both sounds and feels great. If it also looks good...well that's great too...but it's not what really matters.

Substance and quality every time.

Taylor over Wood every time.

 

I agree with what you're saying, I've been in bands with guys who jump around and its generally a big pain in the ass, they knock stuff over, cause equipment problems, all sorts of insanity... when really, they would better serve the band by playing as best they can, and not disrupt the rest of us.

However. I know Taylor is hands down the better guitar player than Wood, there really isnt much question about that. BUT. Wood plays pedal steel.

And I'd much rather have a guy in my band who could play good lead AND pedal steel, than just great lead.

Just my opinion.

 

Ronnie's pedal steel playing is excellent, but how many songs will it be used on? Unless you're a country band, it's probably only used a couple of times. I'd rather have Mick's superior lead and slide playing over Ronnie's lead and pedal steel. I know that Ronnie plays slide too, but he doesn't play it at the level that Mick does. Or Brian, for that matter.

 

It is sometimes useful to put debates into context.

Part of the background context to this debate is that we are talking about musical ability and performance in relation to the Rolling Stones. On a purely musical basis the Stones have arguably never been particularily good musicians. Their allure, skill and success largely derives from the blues, rock and roll, pop songwriting and as entertainers.

Tonight I'm going to see a classical music concert and will see superb technical musicianship. How would Mick Taylor rate as a musician against those people? Possibly not that well. But of course that is not and should not be the point. It is as irrelevant as much of the content in this thread.

 

I play in a hard rock band, and I play straight up lead guitar in half the songs, and the other half, I play steel, sometimes with a hard rock sound right from my Marshall, and let the other guitar player do the bulk of the guitar playing. You're limiting pedal steel to just one sound, and, it doesnt have to work that way.

I'm not gonna argue this anymore. I gave my opinion, we both play in bands, and we're not going to agree, so, there it is.

 

I'm certainly not the first person to express this opinion, but I think it bears repeating - it seems to me that Jagger especially, and possibly to a lesser extent Richards, were badly affected by being so royally screwed over by Allen Klein, and probably by many others in a less well-publicised way.

It seems likely to me that they just decided to shut up shop and adopt a siege mentality - everybody wants a piece of us and we're not going to stand for it any more. While this doesn't excuse their treatment of Mick Taylor, it might go some way towards explaining it.

 

Ronnie was originally a hired gun as well so they could tour in 1975 and he was still in the Faces. He was not made official partner until Bill left.

 

Mick Taylor the great.

How do you replace the multi-talented, irreplaceable Brian Jones? Bring in one of the best guitar players of the era in Mick Taylor! Ron Wood isn't even in the conversation, IMO.

 

That's cool. I suppose what I was really saying was that I prefer Mick and his slide (and lead) over Ronnie and his steel (and lead/slide). I shouldn't have pigeonholed steel into country music only.

I need a coffee.

 

How would the other Stones rate against those people? Probably even less than Taylor!

 

Jimi Hendrix is one of a handful to pull of stage charisma at it's highest level. But even Jimi became detested to it! Look at Jimi Hendrix in Band of Gypsis Jimi just stands and plays his butt off.

 

and then theres the famous Al Kooper story; he gets twenty bucks from Jagger for playing keyboards on some famous Stones song. That might go some way towards suggesting Jagger is a tight-fisted cheapskate.

But I might be wrong.

I often am.

 

And the one where Jagger pockets the tip he was supposed to leave in a fancy restaurant!

 

I don't care about the interplay, the "weaving" thing, etc. I'll leave those concerns to Keith Richards.

I prefer Mick Taylor. A superb player. The Stones peaked with him on lead.

 

I still say, great guitar player or not, Taylor had the good fortune of joining the Stones at their songwriting peak. He was a worthy contributor to a stellar body of work. If it were Wood who had joined after Jones, it probably would have elevated his playing as well.

 

Ronnie was a great bass player as displayed on Truth (Jeff Beck Group), but comparing him to Mick Taylor on guitar is like saying Wayne Newton is as good as Sinatra.

For what it's worth, I do like I've Got My Own Album To Do quite a lot.

 

Are you sure that it was as much as twenty bucks?

I think it was "You Can't Always Get What You Want", wasn't it? It was, by all accounts, Brian Jones who convinced Al to come to the session. And then, sadly, Brian stared off into space while the song was recorded around him.

 

Precisely, thus highlighting the issue.

Would we really suggest that it should be Taylor and another rather than Richards in the Stones on the basis of better musicianship.

 

Yeah the story I heard it was ten bucks. And then Kooper was required to flip the bill for lunch.

 

I think Richards is an excellent guitar player... or rather, was. His poor old arthritic fingers look like burnt old sausages with gigantic pine knots growing in the middle. I dont see how the guy can play at all.