Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Laughingsam

Quote
msw2525
Quote
Laughingsam
Mick Taylor isn't overrated. But let's shift the conversation here -- Keith Richards is overrated. Ask any non-stones fan who Mick Taylor is and you draw a blank stare. Yet Keith turns up on all those obnoxious "Greatest Guitarists" lists and often in the top 10. It's a joke. He's a fantastic song writer and a competent guitarist (in his prime), his persona probably has more to do with his high ranking than his guitar playing prowess.

Carlos Santana is overrated. Jimmy Page is overrated. Mick Taylor? He sits alongside people like Roy Buchanan as someone who (despite loads of talent) slips through the cracks when it comes to discussing the "all-time greats"


There is a reason why everyone knows keith and not mick taylor aside from real stones fans and its very very simple, keith richards is the driving force behind the stones music. This is exactly why he is in all those top guitarist list. Not even close to the most technically skilled players but creativity, and originality go an awful long way. The rhythm playing and riffs from him is what sets him apart and gives him a place amongst all those other great players, and more importantly is what people instantly recognize about the stones, not the solo from time waits for no one.

Fair enough. I did say he was a superb song writer. As far as riffs go, he's brilliant but I still consider him overrated. Heck a lot of non-Stones fans think he played the solo in "Time Waits..."

I really don't know what overratted means. Rated by whhom? These useless top 10 lists in guitar magazines with fantastic technical players whom you actually can't listen too?

Keiths playing on LA 75 is quite a revelation to me. He plays far better than I had anticipated. Take Gimme Shelter -a song with only 3 chords, yet Richards throws in something new every 5 seconds. Same with IORR, which is basically two chords in open G, but still he manages to completely rewrite the book on open G riffing.

Sure, Richards is not a Joe Satriani. BUt listen to Satriani playing Stones songs with Jagger in '88....now that's pretty awful.

Mathijs

Did he play IORR in open G in '75? Never heard that before.

[www.reverbnation.com]

Quote
audun-eg

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Laughingsam

Quote
msw2525
Quote
Laughingsam
Mick Taylor isn't overrated. But let's shift the conversation here -- Keith Richards is overrated. Ask any non-stones fan who Mick Taylor is and you draw a blank stare. Yet Keith turns up on all those obnoxious "Greatest Guitarists" lists and often in the top 10. It's a joke. He's a fantastic song writer and a competent guitarist (in his prime), his persona probably has more to do with his high ranking than his guitar playing prowess.

Carlos Santana is overrated. Jimmy Page is overrated. Mick Taylor? He sits alongside people like Roy Buchanan as someone who (despite loads of talent) slips through the cracks when it comes to discussing the "all-time greats"


There is a reason why everyone knows keith and not mick taylor aside from real stones fans and its very very simple, keith richards is the driving force behind the stones music. This is exactly why he is in all those top guitarist list. Not even close to the most technically skilled players but creativity, and originality go an awful long way. The rhythm playing and riffs from him is what sets him apart and gives him a place amongst all those other great players, and more importantly is what people instantly recognize about the stones, not the solo from time waits for no one.

Fair enough. I did say he was a superb song writer. As far as riffs go, he's brilliant but I still consider him overrated. Heck a lot of non-Stones fans think he played the solo in "Time Waits..."

I really don't know what overratted means. Rated by whhom? These useless top 10 lists in guitar magazines with fantastic technical players whom you actually can't listen too?

Keiths playing on LA 75 is quite a revelation to me. He plays far better than I had anticipated. Take Gimme Shelter -a song with only 3 chords, yet Richards throws in something new every 5 seconds. Same with IORR, which is basically two chords in open G, but still he manages to completely rewrite the book on open G riffing.

Sure, Richards is not a Joe Satriani. BUt listen to Satriani playing Stones songs with Jagger in '88....now that's pretty awful.

Mathijs

Did he play IORR in open G in '75? Never heard that before.

Yep, they did, and the version on LYL is from 75 (and in open G).

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
audun-eg

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Laughingsam

Quote
msw2525
Quote
Laughingsam
Mick Taylor isn't overrated. But let's shift the conversation here -- Keith Richards is overrated. Ask any non-stones fan who Mick Taylor is and you draw a blank stare. Yet Keith turns up on all those obnoxious "Greatest Guitarists" lists and often in the top 10. It's a joke. He's a fantastic song writer and a competent guitarist (in his prime), his persona probably has more to do with his high ranking than his guitar playing prowess.

Carlos Santana is overrated. Jimmy Page is overrated. Mick Taylor? He sits alongside people like Roy Buchanan as someone who (despite loads of talent) slips through the cracks when it comes to discussing the "all-time greats"


There is a reason why everyone knows keith and not mick taylor aside from real stones fans and its very very simple, keith richards is the driving force behind the stones music. This is exactly why he is in all those top guitarist list. Not even close to the most technically skilled players but creativity, and originality go an awful long way. The rhythm playing and riffs from him is what sets him apart and gives him a place amongst all those other great players, and more importantly is what people instantly recognize about the stones, not the solo from time waits for no one.

Fair enough. I did say he was a superb song writer. As far as riffs go, he's brilliant but I still consider him overrated. Heck a lot of non-Stones fans think he played the solo in "Time Waits..."

I really don't know what overratted means. Rated by whhom? These useless top 10 lists in guitar magazines with fantastic technical players whom you actually can't listen too?

Keiths playing on LA 75 is quite a revelation to me. He plays far better than I had anticipated. Take Gimme Shelter -a song with only 3 chords, yet Richards throws in something new every 5 seconds. Same with IORR, which is basically two chords in open G, but still he manages to completely rewrite the book on open G riffing.

Sure, Richards is not a Joe Satriani. BUt listen to Satriani playing Stones songs with Jagger in '88....now that's pretty awful.

Mathijs

Did he play IORR in open G in '75? Never heard that before.

Yep, they did, and the version on LYL is from 75 (and in open G).

Open G, key of B. In '76 open G, key of G. Since 89: standard tuning, key of B.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
audun-eg

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Laughingsam

Quote
msw2525
Quote
Laughingsam
Mick Taylor isn't overrated. But let's shift the conversation here -- Keith Richards is overrated. Ask any non-stones fan who Mick Taylor is and you draw a blank stare. Yet Keith turns up on all those obnoxious "Greatest Guitarists" lists and often in the top 10. It's a joke. He's a fantastic song writer and a competent guitarist (in his prime), his persona probably has more to do with his high ranking than his guitar playing prowess.

Carlos Santana is overrated. Jimmy Page is overrated. Mick Taylor? He sits alongside people like Roy Buchanan as someone who (despite loads of talent) slips through the cracks when it comes to discussing the "all-time greats"


There is a reason why everyone knows keith and not mick taylor aside from real stones fans and its very very simple, keith richards is the driving force behind the stones music. This is exactly why he is in all those top guitarist list. Not even close to the most technically skilled players but creativity, and originality go an awful long way. The rhythm playing and riffs from him is what sets him apart and gives him a place amongst all those other great players, and more importantly is what people instantly recognize about the stones, not the solo from time waits for no one.

Fair enough. I did say he was a superb song writer. As far as riffs go, he's brilliant but I still consider him overrated. Heck a lot of non-Stones fans think he played the solo in "Time Waits..."

I really don't know what overratted means. Rated by whhom? These useless top 10 lists in guitar magazines with fantastic technical players whom you actually can't listen too?

Keiths playing on LA 75 is quite a revelation to me. He plays far better than I had anticipated. Take Gimme Shelter -a song with only 3 chords, yet Richards throws in something new every 5 seconds. Same with IORR, which is basically two chords in open G, but still he manages to completely rewrite the book on open G riffing.

Sure, Richards is not a Joe Satriani. BUt listen to Satriani playing Stones songs with Jagger in '88....now that's pretty awful.

Mathijs

Did he play IORR in open G in '75? Never heard that before.

Yep, they did, and the version on LYL is from 75 (and in open G).

Open G, key of B. In '76 open G, key of G. Since 89: standard tuning, key of B.

Mathijs

Thanks for the info.

[www.reverbnation.com]

Quote
Mathijs
Wood's solo is ryhtmically more challinging, and tries to explore outside the realm of blues solo's. The same with rhythm guitar playing -I prefer Wood's counter rhyhm guitar in Rambler over Taylor's lead noodling, which I find much less powerful.

I would not say one is better than the other, it is different.

Mathijs

That is exactly what I think Taylor did as well. I would say that Wood is more simplistic and more ragged, more punky. Taylor's lead guitar is smoother, more fluid and has more interesting notes from a perhaps jazzy standpoint.

I also think Taylor did some really cool rhythm work, believe it or not. On Midnight Rambler, that's what I would call a counter riff he's doing on top of Keith's main riff, IMHO. (That two-string lick he started with in '72, which is similar to his playing on the verses on Bye Bye Johnny.)

He also did some cool stuff during the jam part of Bitch and I love his sligthly bent low notes and riffing on Live With Me (maybe his best rhythm guitar ever) and Satisfaction in '69.

But yeah, I agree with your general assessment over Wood vs Taylor. I love both, but I just happen to prefer Taylor more. (Actually, I like Wood's playing even more on his '70s solo albums.)

-


47 shows...and counting...Hyde Park - July 6 & 13



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-04 14:22 by TooTough.

This thread must validate Micks pushing these into the market



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-20 05:32 by chelskeith.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
But musically Brussels beats LA Friday easily.

Is it? One can have its preference, but to state Brussels is musically better?

It's difficult to describe what 'musically better' is. In '75 I think most where better players than in '73 -Charlie, Bill and Richards were better players in '75. Jagger sang better in '73. When it comes to Taylor/Wood, it all comes down to preference. I prefer Wood's approach to the lead in YCAGWY over Taylor's. Wood has a different background, and is more a R&B/soul player than Taylor, who really has a blues background. So, Taylor solo is a blistering but quite standard pentatonic blues solo, which sometimes is brilliant (Fort Worth '72 anyone), but can also be quite stale at times. Wood's solo is ryhtmically more challinging, and tries to explore outside the realm of blues solo's. The same with rhythm guitar playing -I prefer Wood's counter rhyhm guitar in Rambler over Taylor's lead noodling, which I find much less powerful.

I would not say one is better than the other, it is different.

Mathijs

yep i agree with this...it is different.
Finally we see the real Ron Wood. The guitar player who played so brilliantly during The Faces, who we continually hear play bum note after bum note.
LA Friday gives you an idea how good a player Ronnie actually was...and how sad a player he became during the late '70's onwards.
One can understand the 1975 Tour was like Ronnie was in an interview and HAD to play and concentrate. Then once he got comfortable and stable he deteriorated as a guitar player.

to compare Ron & MT is ridiculous...completely different players.

LA Friday has a great mix, is very guitar driven (thanks to Keith) but it is still (in some places) quite ragged...and if you compare it to the perfection of Brussels (both shows) it will never win.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Brussels has a different kind of emotion. The final SFM is insane in 73.
But I think LA 75 is the best so far. The guitars are SO HOT!

And the Hi Hat. Check out on "That's Life" when Ollie drums. he whacks that Hi Hat so hard.

yes correct about emotion.

the debat is around the sound ? or the performance ?
Sound is better on LA and the show is excellent. But Brussels is a highlight.

You know a few years ago I found a tape in one of my boxes not knowing what show it was as the tape was unmarked. I played it. I listened to the guitar and waouh I found it brilliant. At the moment on this particular song I had a doubt : was it Wood or Taylor playing ? quickly I knew it was RW but I was not disappointed at all. What a great play.
I think it is useless to oppose each time MT/RW. Like Keith says the interaction is perfect with KR/RW and with KR/MT, Keith could concentrate on the riff.

"we know it's a bit late but we hope you don't mind if we stay"

Without any doubt the mix is far better than Brussels. Although - maybe the master tapes are better. But this is equal. We 've got a great testimonial of riff-driven guitar work. Keith and Ronnie and the complete band are playing on top level. I like the high degree of power and energy. The hindrance for LA to be a timeless highlight of Rock'n Roll is MJ. His coke-chopped vocals are sometimes intolerable, he is barking, growling, howling, out of tune, out of rhythm and ruins unfortunately one and another track. I'm no native speaker, but his pronunciation seems to me strange (e.g. MR) often and different to other tours. So we have great moments and lousy moments ...

The whole sound is different in 1975, the rhythm section is something else - I love it - the song selection is new with rhythm based gems like If you cant rock me, Keiths solo number You gotta move and Sympathy which never sounded better. Jagger is more loose, genderbending and afro than ever - which I love and so on. It's not Ronnie who steals the show in 1975, it's the rhythm section. Listen to Mick on If you cant rock me from Hot as hell, it's one of his best vocal numbers ever. And let me repeat this, Taylor was just perfect but of course Ronnie was an integral part of albums like ER, Some Girls and Undercover. Songs like Shattered and She's so cold.

Quote
marko

Quote
Mathijs
I think each and every track is better from LA, and the vibe is so much better as well. And the sound -really the guitars have never sounded any better than on this tour!

Mathijs

Big thanks to Ambeg amps!

Exactly and guitars. I prefer Keiths sound on 1972 to his sound in 1973 on numbers like Rambler. In 1975 he sounds better again. But that doesnt mean he played bad in 1973, he was sharper then. I see this 1975 tour as a completely new tour, new format, new image that has nothing in common with 1973 or 1972 - also different tours. Same with 1976.

a couple things that Make MR from LA not as good as Brussels to me are the super fast drumming style that starts about half way through and Billy Preston's synth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-04 22:20 by ryanpow.

No way.

Nope. Not to these ears. Which is not to say that I don't dig LA '75.

What a difference 2 years makes! The band is much more serious in '73 than '75 and, as good as Ronnie is on LA '75 (why in the hell can't he play even close to that good these days?), MT is brilliant on Brussels. (insert IMHO disclaimer!)

Ross

Ye[, Billy Preston makes a mess of a few songs on LA. When I first listened it didn't really bother me, but on subsequent listens it really starts to annoy. He simply does not fit in ith the Stones sound. It's probably a good job Keith was smacked off his tits otherwise I'm sure he would have smashed his guitar over him. Otherwise, I'm having aball listening to it and Ronnie is just sublime throughout but especially on JJF and SFTD...



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
audun-eg

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Laughingsam

Quote
msw2525
Quote
Laughingsam
Mick Taylor isn't overrated. But let's shift the conversation here -- Keith Richards is overrated. Ask any non-stones fan who Mick Taylor is and you draw a blank stare. Yet Keith turns up on all those obnoxious "Greatest Guitarists" lists and often in the top 10. It's a joke. He's a fantastic song writer and a competent guitarist (in his prime), his persona probably has more to do with his high ranking than his guitar playing prowess.

Carlos Santana is overrated. Jimmy Page is overrated. Mick Taylor? He sits alongside people like Roy Buchanan as someone who (despite loads of talent) slips through the cracks when it comes to discussing the "all-time greats"


There is a reason why everyone knows keith and not mick taylor aside from real stones fans and its very very simple, keith richards is the driving force behind the stones music. This is exactly why he is in all those top guitarist list. Not even close to the most technically skilled players but creativity, and originality go an awful long way. The rhythm playing and riffs from him is what sets him apart and gives him a place amongst all those other great players, and more importantly is what people instantly recognize about the stones, not the solo from time waits for no one.

Fair enough. I did say he was a superb song writer. As far as riffs go, he's brilliant but I still consider him overrated. Heck a lot of non-Stones fans think he played the solo in "Time Waits..."

I really don't know what overratted means. Rated by whhom? These useless top 10 lists in guitar magazines with fantastic technical players whom you actually can't listen too?

Keiths playing on LA 75 is quite a revelation to me. He plays far better than I had anticipated. Take Gimme Shelter -a song with only 3 chords, yet Richards throws in something new every 5 seconds. Same with IORR, which is basically two chords in open G, but still he manages to completely rewrite the book on open G riffing.

Sure, Richards is not a Joe Satriani. BUt listen to Satriani playing Stones songs with Jagger in '88....now that's pretty awful.

Mathijs

Did he play IORR in open G in '75? Never heard that before.

Yep, they did, and the version on LYL is from 75 (and in open G).

Open G, key of B. In '76 open G, key of G. Since 89: standard tuning, key of B.

Mathijs

Thanks Mathijs for gettin it right with the terminology and content. peace

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-05 11:03 by GeorgV.

Way better than Brussels for me, can't stand Taylor's noodling around. Ronnie shines on this one, he is really marvelous. Actually, he has been playing great again as of lately (and many youtube videos prove it).

I find Preston's organ and piano fantastic, but his synth is very, well, 70's. And loud. Very loud.

Mathijs

No comparing needful here, I think.
In those days, every tour had a new character.
Music and presentation permanently changed.
And that was great!

Since 1989 that was over.
Every tour sounded similar.
Stage setting, music and presentation character didn't change anymore!
Only exception: the club shows in 2002/2003!

So, nothing to complain in 1973-75 for me!
Brilliant as it is!

Quote
Justin
I'm digging that I now have two fantastic choices to go to if I want some hardcore rocking Stones. If I'm in a Taylor mood...grab Brussels. If I want some great Ronnie work...grab LA. This is absoloutely cream of the crop good stuff here. You really can't top gold with gold. It's all good to me. Sorry to say but they have their work cut out for them for the next 3 releases. Not sure how to better these first three already.

Well you raise a really good point about the next three releases. The trick would be to get out of the 70s/early 80s and go for a different sound altogether.

Remember, virtually HALF of the Stones' career has been post 1988 - when they became the efficient, corporate virtual touring machine that worked pretty much non-stop until the mid-200s. This is not really meant as a "slag;" they made a conscious decision to sacrifice some spontaneity and energy for a well-paced, almost Las Vegas style that was conducive to their age and their desire to tour on an almost non-stop basis. So while the music may have suffered some, they did avoid burn-out and we did get years and years of Stones concerts, many of which were, at least in my opinion, a most excellent way to spend my entertainment dollars.

And, in the course of doing so, there are a few titles that would be worth a proper release. Atlantic City '89 has been mentioned, as has Voodoo on Halloween; Glasgow (approx) 2006 was an excellent radio broadcast; there are any number of great show in-between, even if they're "not like the old days." I would like to see some of these brought out and shared. I love the stuff from the 70s as much as anyone; you can't really be a Stones fan if you don't, I suppose. My only point is, let's take a look at the second half of their career as well.

And as someone noted, there's still all those pesky Brian Jones years out there...either would represent a different direction and keep the band from repeating itself with these bootleg releases.

really, though, the possibilities are endless.

MM

yeah. I hope the next release is, as you note and I forget to in my prior post, one of the club dates. Lot of good stuff there.

Quote
Lorenz
Way better than Brussels for me, can't stand Taylor's noodling around. Ronnie shines on this one, he is really marvelous. Actually, he has been playing great again as of lately (and many youtube videos prove it).

I can't stand Ronnie's noodling around.

Quote
crumbling_mice
Ye[, Billy Preston makes a mess of a few songs on LA. When I first listened it didn't really bother me, but on subsequent listens it really starts to annoy. He simply does not fit in ith the Stones sound. It's probably a good job Keith was smacked off his tits otherwise I'm sure he would have smashed his guitar over him. Otherwise, I'm having aball listening to it and Ronnie is just sublime throughout but especially on JJF and SFTD...

I don't think Billy makes mess of anything. He's outstanding on this. I don't mind the synths, I really don't. The piano on Cloud and Hammond on Angie are just fantastic.
But the true star on this is Ron Wood. If he wanted to, Wood can still play like that. He really can. Keith can't play like that anymore, but I think Wood certainly could.

I like LA 1975 - (I was there!) - but there are certain things about it when compared to Brussels that I find irritating at times:

- Too much Billy
- The dirge-like pace of "Wild Horse".
- Mick's ragged singing, which compared with 1973 is a real step down.

That said, it's a good version of the band. Heavier, funkier than at any time before or since. But I still think the band gelled as a unit in '73 like never before or after.

Quote
GrandToad
I wish I'd gotten a ticket for one of those Forum shows. A friend was at the Sunday show and talked about it for weeks. Now I hear what he was talking about. I prefer live recordings and this one is fantastic.

Hey Toad - I was there - and saw them in 1972 also.

Was entertained by the 1975 show - but was blown away by the 1972 set!!

Like driven a Ford Mustang or a Ferrari - your choice...

my choice - Ferrari = Taylor!!

MLC

Many to cite, but the first solo in Wild Horses (3:25 - 3:35) is classic Ron Wood.

I really like how he finally finds the key as the solo ends. Just leaves you wanting more . . . which he delivers.

they are both spectacularly great, cant say one is MUCH better than the other.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Lorenz
Way better than Brussels for me, can't stand Taylor's noodling around. Ronnie shines on this one, he is really marvelous. Actually, he has been playing great again as of lately (and many youtube videos prove it).

I can't stand Ronnie's noodling around.

To each his own, I guess