Tell Me :
Talk
DP, I'm happy - and open. Sorry for any misunderstandings. I always think your posts are well-argued, even if I don't always agree with them. Same with Mahijs' posts.
No they are not. He had his moments, different ones and some solos are great (Shattered is a good example). But he cant be trusted as a solo guitarist like Taylor. Noone in the Stones pretends Ronnie replaced Taylor. They became a different band and that was also thanks to Preston/Brown and Mac Lagan.
Well, as a matter of fact Wood did replace Taylor as second guitar in the band. Of course, since Taylor and Wood are different musicians, with different sensibilities and views, the band changed its sound as a consequence of the replacement.
But with regard to solos, for every good Taylor solo, there is an equally good Wood solo. Which one you perfer is a matter of tastes.
C
You mean "Nicky's" booguie-woogie piano?
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
I dont think there is. Ronnie has had more time and more space probably, Taylor was Jaggers boy not Keiths. One reason he left me thinks. When Jagger made promises about co credits and Taylor found out the hard way who the bosses are.
Taylor was a guitar ace. Ronnie isnt and never was. Ronnie had his embarrassing moments from start. When Taylor left Ronnie stepped into a golden dust cloud. I love some of Ronnies playing and style, I think some of it is perfect for the band. All of ER, lots of what he did live in 1978 and 1981, his songs (Hey Negrita I love), licks and riffs and solos even in 1975 (he was both great and insecure in 1975). I can repeat Ronnies playing but I cant repeat Taylor right away because he has his own style and perfect timing and sensibility, knew what and when to play and when not to play. He did not play too many notes, that is just BS. Woods style with Keith being great worked in 1975-1981 though. I agree on that.
do you need to have a favorite version of other songs, or are you just a moody guy in general?
In general, the myth that "Taylor was a guitar ace" and "Ronnie isnt and never was" is completely untrue. A part from the fact that being a guitar ace is not a value per se (from that point of view there are thousands of better guitarists than Taylor, Wood and god knows who else) - fact is that Taylor developed his "guitarism" in a precise direction, while Wood is more eclectic.
Taylor worked perfectly in the music of the band when he was in the band, and so did Wood when it was his turn.
To remain on topic, sure they interpreted Let it Rock differently, sure one can "prefer" one over the other (or love them both, as is my case), but you can't say one is "better" - meaning more worthy from a musical point of view, or better performed - than the other. That is simply not possible.
C
that's true of anything subjective like music. no such thing as a better or best...only favorites. and yet folks continue to try to "prove" the unprovable...
And I do agree on that when it somes to everything they recorded between 1975 and 1982. Live, yes, the Mocambo is a fantastic proof of how amazingly well Ronnie fit in the band in 1977. Live in 1975 and 1976 is another thing, sometimes he shines but I also hear the first versions of JJF, YCAGWYW and a few more numbers that I dont really care for if it aint Taylor-era. If you cant rock me sounds better live with Ronnie than studio with Taylor. But when its time for a more typical solo he's just not up for it, sometimes yes, but mostly no. Maybe he's goofing around too much but I think its the simple fact that he's not as gifted as Taylor.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-14 19:29 by Redhotcarpet.
I stand corrected. No matter, the '71 version still kills over '78.
If you say so. Interesting that Wood's "eclectic" playing was deliberateley buried in the live mix for years during the 1990s.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-14 21:10 by 71Tele.
I think I made it clear I don't prefer Wood. I like both. In any case who cares what I like or not.
Might be a ridicolous idea, but yes, I do believe that Taylor and Wood are both great musicians. Yet, I'm here to learn, so go on and let me understand why and how the Stones were better with Taylor.
As for Taylor being less eclectic than Wood, well I think that the variety of styles, ideas, grooves, instruments that old Ronnie tried in his career are quite well documented on record.
C
Are you sure both your speakers work? Loud and clear during the UJ, VL and NS tours. That said, we all know the man had some severe problems. Do we want to blame him for that?
C
I was at many shows where he was very low in the live mix - obviously deliberately. You would have to ask the band why that was, I am merely stating the fact that it happened. And yes, I do feel adult people are responsible for their own "problems" - at least the type of problems I think you are referring to.
Regardless, I enjoy some of his contributions very much, but he peaked on Some Girls. That was a very long time ago.
I do too, I just enjoy them differently.
That just isn't true. The Marquee gig is by any means just a really bad show. Doesn't matter which period of the Stones you prefer, this gig really is one of the worst the Stones ever have given.
Mathijs
Worth it for "I Got The Blues" alone.
Well, '71 vs. '78 usually ends up there.
True, but I find this is more a song that showcases the band as a whole, especially Watts and Wyman, as opposed to the lead guitarist like say Love in Vain
And my comments about comparing the two versions were about the band as opposed to the lead guitarist. So really not Taylor vs. Wood so much as 1971 vs. 1978, with a Taylor vs. Wood detour.
No, by mood, I described what I meant, we all have different moods that inspire us. I don't need a favorite song, and enjoy letting the mood of the moment dictate what i wanna get emerged in. You know what I mean.
It isnt true that I don't have fun watching it? Bummer.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-15 03:46 by ryanpow.
and let it rock, and dead flowers... Hell, that's almost half the set list already.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-15 04:26 by ryanpow.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 13, 2012 23:28
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
71Tele
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Weaving (yeah, I know!) is in a way similar to the old free jazz-approach of playing music. At its best it's almost like telepathy. The downside is, however, that a song may be torn apart within seconds - when the communication between the musicians is breaking down.
The Stones at their peak (imo, that was in 1978-1981) mastered this form of playing, and got out the potential of it in a brilliant way.
I can understand the criticism, mainly by people who prefer a more separated approach - where the distinction between rhythm and lead guitars is clear and defined, like a freight train engine and the whistle.
I see what they are talking about when they describe the era of weaving as "sloppy", "incompetent", "less fluent", "no extended solos", "coked-up" etc.
Why? Simply because the classic rock-sound the fans loved disappeared. In the early 70s, The Stones on stage mainly played classic rock, with long guitar solos, hard riff-based, simple songs and a heavy sound.
All of a sudden the guitar solos went down the drain, and you never knew where the licks were coming from. No structure whatsoever. The band we all loved became incompetent fools. The musical brain of the band, Taylor, left after penning many masterpieces.
Jagger's melodic wonderment had also gone. Instead he started barking and could hardly remember the words. Bill and Charlie started to play swing instead of rock. The guitar players even changed their amps!
Keith, who enjoyed he's new freedom as a co-lead guitarist suddenly became a bad guitar player. In the early 70s, every tone he played mattered on the Berry-numbers. Now, he played generic, even polished, according to some Taylorite.
Ronnie Wood couldn't polish his own shoes, let alone tie them...
DP, it is very frustrating to those of us who passionately prefer the Taylor-era of the band to constantly be accusing of liking classic rock and extended solos. Personally I tend to dislike both. In fact I can't stand "rock" music. And there is a difference between preferring a guitarist because he played more (or extended) solos to preferring him in a certain group because he was simply a better musician and because the band played better with him in it. Taylor was simply a superior class of musician than Wood ever was, pure and simple, and THAT is the reason I prefer him as a member of the Stones and why I think the records and live shows are better with him than Wood.
I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended". It's just that they were for the most part forgettable. So it seems to me that the Woodites use the fact that Taylor was a great soloist against Taylor, while not having any particular defense for Wood's often meaningless, meandering, or simply botched solos that we endured for so many years. Very odd logic, imo.
Tele71, I think you should read this post again - this time with an open mind and a happier attitude. I´m taking the piss at myself here, as well as at Amsterdamned, you, Doxa and a few others.
It was a joke. I´m sorry if it came across as accusations or criticism.
Well, now it´s the awful truth. I´m not a good stand up-comedian
PS: There are more chords in When The Whip Comes Down than in All Down The Line
DP, I'm happy - and open. Sorry for any misunderstandings. I always think your posts are well-argued, even if I don't always agree with them. Same with Mahijs' posts.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
Slick
()
Date: June 14, 2012 01:14
both great versions, but i give the edge to 78, thanks to the attitude and the swagger. awesome on the texas blu-ray.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: June 14, 2012 02:14
Quote
liddas
Quote
71Tele
I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended"
For what matters, I love Ronnie's solos (extended or not). Always did. I don't find them "meaningless, meandering, or simply botched". As a matter of fact his solos are just as great as Mick's.
C
No they are not. He had his moments, different ones and some solos are great (Shattered is a good example). But he cant be trusted as a solo guitarist like Taylor. Noone in the Stones pretends Ronnie replaced Taylor. They became a different band and that was also thanks to Preston/Brown and Mac Lagan.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: June 14, 2012 13:38
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Quote
liddas
For what matters, I love Ronnie's solos (extended or not). Always did. I don't find them "meaningless, meandering, or simply botched". As a matter of fact his solos are just as great as Mick's.
C
No they are not. He had his moments, different ones and some solos are great (Shattered is a good example). But he cant be trusted as a solo guitarist like Taylor. Noone in the Stones pretends Ronnie replaced Taylor. They became a different band and that was also thanks to Preston/Brown and Mac Lagan.
Well, as a matter of fact Wood did replace Taylor as second guitar in the band. Of course, since Taylor and Wood are different musicians, with different sensibilities and views, the band changed its sound as a consequence of the replacement.
But with regard to solos, for every good Taylor solo, there is an equally good Wood solo. Which one you perfer is a matter of tastes.
C
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
dandelion1967
()
Date: June 14, 2012 15:04
Quote
71Tele
As good as it is, it doesn't hold a candle to the Leeds version on the B-side of Brown Sugar, particularly the guitars, the intro, and Stu's boogie-woogie piano.
You mean "Nicky's" booguie-woogie piano?
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
GOO
()
Date: June 14, 2012 15:22
I was just gonna say Nicky Hopkins was on piano at Leeds 71
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: June 14, 2012 15:42
Its funny, I guess I am one of those strange fans who doesn't need to have a favorite version of this song. I let my mood take me to the version that is needed at that moment. Sometimes I wanna just get the raunch out and play one of the many '78 versions. Other times I wanna get the laid back Berry rock feel going and I slap the 71 version on. Each version has its merits for the mood I am in. And I would say that would be The Stones in general when looking for the era I want to get lost in...
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: June 14, 2012 17:29
Quote
liddas
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Quote
liddas
For what matters, I love Ronnie's solos (extended or not). Always did. I don't find them "meaningless, meandering, or simply botched". As a matter of fact his solos are just as great as Mick's.
C
No they are not. He had his moments, different ones and some solos are great (Shattered is a good example). But he cant be trusted as a solo guitarist like Taylor. Noone in the Stones pretends Ronnie replaced Taylor. They became a different band and that was also thanks to Preston/Brown and Mac Lagan.
Well, as a matter of fact Wood did replace Taylor as second guitar in the band. Of course, since Taylor and Wood are different musicians, with different sensibilities and views, the band changed its sound as a consequence of the replacement.
But with regard to solos, for every good Taylor solo, there is an equally good Wood solo. Which one you perfer is a matter of tastes.
C
I dont think there is. Ronnie has had more time and more space probably, Taylor was Jaggers boy not Keiths. One reason he left me thinks. When Jagger made promises about co credits and Taylor found out the hard way who the bosses are.
Taylor was a guitar ace. Ronnie isnt and never was. Ronnie had his embarrassing moments from start. When Taylor left Ronnie stepped into a golden dust cloud. I love some of Ronnies playing and style, I think some of it is perfect for the band. All of ER, lots of what he did live in 1978 and 1981, his songs (Hey Negrita I love), licks and riffs and solos even in 1975 (he was both great and insecure in 1975). I can repeat Ronnies playing but I cant repeat Taylor right away because he has his own style and perfect timing and sensibility, knew what and when to play and when not to play. He did not play too many notes, that is just BS. Woods style with Keith being great worked in 1975-1981 though. I agree on that.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 14, 2012 17:33
Quote
whitem8
Its funny, I guess I am one of those strange fans who doesn't need to have a favorite version of this song.
do you need to have a favorite version of other songs, or are you just a moody guy in general?
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: June 14, 2012 18:07
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Taylor was a guitar ace. Ronnie isnt and never was. Ronnie had his embarrassing moments from start. When Taylor left Ronnie stepped into a golden dust cloud. I love some of Ronnies playing and style, I think some of it is perfect for the band. All of ER, lots of what he did live in 1978 and 1981, his songs (Hey Negrita I love), licks and riffs and solos even in 1975 (he was both great and insecure in 1975). I can repeat Ronnies playing but I cant repeat Taylor right away because he has his own style and perfect timing and sensibility, knew what and when to play and when not to play. He did not play too many notes, that is just BS. Woods style with Keith being great worked in 1975-1981 though. I agree on that.
In general, the myth that "Taylor was a guitar ace" and "Ronnie isnt and never was" is completely untrue. A part from the fact that being a guitar ace is not a value per se (from that point of view there are thousands of better guitarists than Taylor, Wood and god knows who else) - fact is that Taylor developed his "guitarism" in a precise direction, while Wood is more eclectic.
Taylor worked perfectly in the music of the band when he was in the band, and so did Wood when it was his turn.
To remain on topic, sure they interpreted Let it Rock differently, sure one can "prefer" one over the other (or love them both, as is my case), but you can't say one is "better" - meaning more worthy from a musical point of view, or better performed - than the other. That is simply not possible.
C
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 14, 2012 18:18
Quote
liddas
To remain on topic, sure they interpreted Let it Rock differently, sure one can "prefer" one over the other (or love them both, as is my case), but you can't say one is "better" - meaning more worthy from a musical point of view, or better performed - than the other. That is simply not possible.
that's true of anything subjective like music. no such thing as a better or best...only favorites. and yet folks continue to try to "prove" the unprovable...
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: June 14, 2012 19:26
Quote
liddas
Taylor worked perfectly in the music of the band when he was in the band, and so did Wood when it was his turn.
C
And I do agree on that when it somes to everything they recorded between 1975 and 1982. Live, yes, the Mocambo is a fantastic proof of how amazingly well Ronnie fit in the band in 1977. Live in 1975 and 1976 is another thing, sometimes he shines but I also hear the first versions of JJF, YCAGWYW and a few more numbers that I dont really care for if it aint Taylor-era. If you cant rock me sounds better live with Ronnie than studio with Taylor. But when its time for a more typical solo he's just not up for it, sometimes yes, but mostly no. Maybe he's goofing around too much but I think its the simple fact that he's not as gifted as Taylor.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-14 19:29 by Redhotcarpet.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 14, 2012 20:20
Quote
GOO
I was just gonna say Nicky Hopkins was on piano at Leeds 71
I stand corrected. No matter, the '71 version still kills over '78.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 14, 2012 20:24
Quote
liddas
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Taylor was a guitar ace. Ronnie isnt and never was. Ronnie had his embarrassing moments from start. When Taylor left Ronnie stepped into a golden dust cloud. I love some of Ronnies playing and style, I think some of it is perfect for the band. All of ER, lots of what he did live in 1978 and 1981, his songs (Hey Negrita I love), licks and riffs and solos even in 1975 (he was both great and insecure in 1975). I can repeat Ronnies playing but I cant repeat Taylor right away because he has his own style and perfect timing and sensibility, knew what and when to play and when not to play. He did not play too many notes, that is just BS. Woods style with Keith being great worked in 1975-1981 though. I agree on that.
In general, the myth that "Taylor was a guitar ace" and "Ronnie isnt and never was" is completely untrue. A part from the fact that being a guitar ace is not a value per se (from that point of view there are thousands of better guitarists than Taylor, Wood and god knows who else) - fact is that Taylor developed his "guitarism" in a precise direction, while Wood is more eclectic.
Taylor worked perfectly in the music of the band when he was in the band, and so did Wood when it was his turn.
To remain on topic, sure they interpreted Let it Rock differently, sure one can "prefer" one over the other (or love them both, as is my case), but you can't say one is "better" - meaning more worthy from a musical point of view, or better performed - than the other. That is simply not possible.
C
If you say so. Interesting that Wood's "eclectic" playing was deliberateley buried in the live mix for years during the 1990s.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-14 21:10 by 71Tele.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: June 14, 2012 21:21
Quote
71Tele
I completely reject the argument that Wood was more "eclectic" than Taylor. Taylor was just a better musician overall, he had more creative ideas in the studio, he brought the band to a higher level musically. If you don't agree with this ask the band. You can prefer Wood all you want, but the idea that these two were somehow equal in their abilities and contributions is ridiculous.
I think I made it clear I don't prefer Wood. I like both. In any case who cares what I like or not.
Might be a ridicolous idea, but yes, I do believe that Taylor and Wood are both great musicians. Yet, I'm here to learn, so go on and let me understand why and how the Stones were better with Taylor.
As for Taylor being less eclectic than Wood, well I think that the variety of styles, ideas, grooves, instruments that old Ronnie tried in his career are quite well documented on record.
C
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: June 14, 2012 21:27
Quote
71Tele
Quote
liddas
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Taylor was a guitar ace. Ronnie isnt and never was. Ronnie had his embarrassing moments from start. When Taylor left Ronnie stepped into a golden dust cloud. I love some of Ronnies playing and style, I think some of it is perfect for the band. All of ER, lots of what he did live in 1978 and 1981, his songs (Hey Negrita I love), licks and riffs and solos even in 1975 (he was both great and insecure in 1975). I can repeat Ronnies playing but I cant repeat Taylor right away because he has his own style and perfect timing and sensibility, knew what and when to play and when not to play. He did not play too many notes, that is just BS. Woods style with Keith being great worked in 1975-1981 though. I agree on that.
In general, the myth that "Taylor was a guitar ace" and "Ronnie isnt and never was" is completely untrue. A part from the fact that being a guitar ace is not a value per se (from that point of view there are thousands of better guitarists than Taylor, Wood and god knows who else) - fact is that Taylor developed his "guitarism" in a precise direction, while Wood is more eclectic.
Taylor worked perfectly in the music of the band when he was in the band, and so did Wood when it was his turn.
To remain on topic, sure they interpreted Let it Rock differently, sure one can "prefer" one over the other (or love them both, as is my case), but you can't say one is "better" - meaning more worthy from a musical point of view, or better performed - than the other. That is simply not possible.
C
If you say so. Interesting that Wood's "eclectic" playing was deliberateley buried in the live mix for years during the 1990s.
Are you sure both your speakers work? Loud and clear during the UJ, VL and NS tours. That said, we all know the man had some severe problems. Do we want to blame him for that?
C
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 14, 2012 22:02
Quote
liddas
Quote
71Tele
Quote
liddas
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Taylor was a guitar ace. Ronnie isnt and never was. Ronnie had his embarrassing moments from start. When Taylor left Ronnie stepped into a golden dust cloud. I love some of Ronnies playing and style, I think some of it is perfect for the band. All of ER, lots of what he did live in 1978 and 1981, his songs (Hey Negrita I love), licks and riffs and solos even in 1975 (he was both great and insecure in 1975). I can repeat Ronnies playing but I cant repeat Taylor right away because he has his own style and perfect timing and sensibility, knew what and when to play and when not to play. He did not play too many notes, that is just BS. Woods style with Keith being great worked in 1975-1981 though. I agree on that.
In general, the myth that "Taylor was a guitar ace" and "Ronnie isnt and never was" is completely untrue. A part from the fact that being a guitar ace is not a value per se (from that point of view there are thousands of better guitarists than Taylor, Wood and god knows who else) - fact is that Taylor developed his "guitarism" in a precise direction, while Wood is more eclectic.
Taylor worked perfectly in the music of the band when he was in the band, and so did Wood when it was his turn.
To remain on topic, sure they interpreted Let it Rock differently, sure one can "prefer" one over the other (or love them both, as is my case), but you can't say one is "better" - meaning more worthy from a musical point of view, or better performed - than the other. That is simply not possible.
C
If you say so. Interesting that Wood's "eclectic" playing was deliberateley buried in the live mix for years during the 1990s.
Are you sure both your speakers work? Loud and clear during the UJ, VL and NS tours. That said, we all know the man had some severe problems. Do we want to blame him for that?
C
I was at many shows where he was very low in the live mix - obviously deliberately. You would have to ask the band why that was, I am merely stating the fact that it happened. And yes, I do feel adult people are responsible for their own "problems" - at least the type of problems I think you are referring to.
Regardless, I enjoy some of his contributions very much, but he peaked on Some Girls. That was a very long time ago.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: June 14, 2012 22:19
Ive found myself watching the Marquee Club show a lot lateley, Its a gas. Live in Texas of course is great as well. I enjoy both incarnations of the band.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 14, 2012 22:52
Quote
ryanpow
Ive found myself watching the Marquee Club show a lot lateley, Its a gas. Live in Texas of course is great as well. I enjoy both incarnations of the band.
I do too, I just enjoy them differently.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: June 14, 2012 23:09
Quote
ryanpow
Ive found myself watching the Marquee Club show a lot lateley, Its a gas.
That just isn't true. The Marquee gig is by any means just a really bad show. Doesn't matter which period of the Stones you prefer, this gig really is one of the worst the Stones ever have given.
Mathijs
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 15, 2012 00:19
Quote
Mathijs
Quote
ryanpow
Ive found myself watching the Marquee Club show a lot lateley, Its a gas.
That just isn't true. The Marquee gig is by any means just a really bad show. Doesn't matter which period of the Stones you prefer, this gig really is one of the worst the Stones ever have given.
Mathijs
Worth it for "I Got The Blues" alone.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
ultimaterocker
()
Date: June 15, 2012 00:32
unfortunate this had to turn into Taylor vs. Wood 
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 15, 2012 01:55
Quote
ultimaterocker
unfortunate this had to turn into Taylor vs. Wood
Well, '71 vs. '78 usually ends up there.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
ultimaterocker
()
Date: June 15, 2012 02:06
Quote
71Tele
Quote
ultimaterocker
unfortunate this had to turn into Taylor vs. Wood
Well, '71 vs. '78 usually ends up there.
True, but I find this is more a song that showcases the band as a whole, especially Watts and Wyman, as opposed to the lead guitarist like say Love in Vain
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: June 15, 2012 02:40
Quote
ultimaterocker
Quote
71Tele
Quote
ultimaterocker
unfortunate this had to turn into Taylor vs. Wood
Well, '71 vs. '78 usually ends up there.
True, but I find this is more a song that showcases the band as a whole, especially Watts and Wyman, as opposed to the lead guitarist like say Love in Vain
And my comments about comparing the two versions were about the band as opposed to the lead guitarist. So really not Taylor vs. Wood so much as 1971 vs. 1978, with a Taylor vs. Wood detour.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: June 15, 2012 02:45
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
whitem8
Its funny, I guess I am one of those strange fans who doesn't need to have a favorite version of this song.
do you need to have a favorite version of other songs, or are you just a moody guy in general?
No, by mood, I described what I meant, we all have different moods that inspire us. I don't need a favorite song, and enjoy letting the mood of the moment dictate what i wanna get emerged in. You know what I mean.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: June 15, 2012 03:45
Quote
Mathijs
Quote
ryanpow
Ive found myself watching the Marquee Club show a lot lateley, Its a gas.
That just isn't true. The Marquee gig is by any means just a really bad show. Doesn't matter which period of the Stones you prefer, this gig really is one of the worst the Stones ever have given.
Mathijs
It isnt true that I don't have fun watching it? Bummer.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-15 03:46 by ryanpow.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: June 15, 2012 03:51
Quote
71Tele
Worth it for "I Got The Blues" alone.
and let it rock, and dead flowers... Hell, that's almost half the set list already.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-15 04:26 by ryanpow.
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
GOO
()
Date: June 15, 2012 04:12
Too bad there is no Brian jones recording of let it rock,
Re: 1978 Let it Rock
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: June 15, 2012 04:53
First of all, 1978 it was an opening song (In 1971, was it an encore or just stuck in the middle? I don't remember). If you've ever played in a band, you know what openers can be like. Second, Charlie plays a different beat. In '78, he's playing a four-on-the floor bass drum which gives it a totally different swing. He did the same on She Was Hot from SAL. I don't have a problem with '71 version at all, I just prefer '78 by a country mile. I've never heard a bad version of LIR from the Stones. I think it's the best opening tune they've ever done.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
48yearsaRSfan , austrianstones , batcave , BowieStone , caschimann , cooheid , detroitken , django , DoomandGloom , Doxa , elmod , GravityBoy , guyrachel , His Majesty , hooked , JamesPhelge00 , JumpinJeppeFlash , letitloose , LieB , MadMax , mgshorr , MickyG , mr_dja , MrsEdithGrove , Munichhilton , NICOS , pmk251 , Powerage5 , rebelrebel , SimonN , sims , Sjouke , sksw9kqrt , stoggin , stoned52 , swiss , TheBlockbuster , VoodooAllie , watts fan
Guests:
205
Record Number of Users:
66
on May 23, 2013 22:26
Record Number of Guests:
238
on May 23, 2013 22:57
