uncleson wrote on Feb 10
th, 2011 at 8:29pm:
StickyStones wrote on Feb 9
th, 2011 at 3:43pm:
Mel Belli wrote on Feb 9
th, 2011 at 12:30pm:
As much as I'm a Taylorite, I think Ronnie brought a lot to the table. He's not a virtuoso, but, at his best, he was a great accompanist. He played like a songwriter -- and wrote some good tunes himself! After the Voodoo Lounge tour, though, it's pretty much been all downhill.
What did he write?
See, I just feel like he's never brought anything spectacular to the table. Brian brought all those exotic instruments and that wild Psychedelic style into the Stones--They've never been as experimental as they were with Brian. Taylor worked amazingly with Keith and brought great solos to the fold. Nothing Ron's ever done has like ''shouted out'' at me.
Well said. Brian and Mick each brought something real special to the Stones,
Exactly. Ronnie's just...there.
And I think that's why they chose him. Keith's a nice guy, sure, but he also has an ego, and I think he was kind of jealous of MT. And he didn't want a repeat of that--a better guitarist upstaging him in his own band? And Brian was a more talented musician period AND just as big a personality as Keith--A unique soul in his own right.
So they went for the journeymen, "just ok" player with no out of the box talent or loud personality. And the band's musical quality has suffered for it. I kind of look at the Stones as functionally a one guitarist band, Keith dominates the Stones' sound. Like I said--Ronnie's never really contributed anything that special. Brian and Mick left their marks, practically defining the Stones' sound in their respective eras. Brian WAS in many ways the Stones in mid-late '60s, he led them in those experimental and wild efforts; Mick T crafted masterpieces with the band and turned the live show into an epic special.
Ronnie's....just there.
The only thing that saved their late 70s and 80s efforts was Mick taking the band in his own experimental direction. To be honest, I've found their albums since Undercover to be subpar, especially the stuff with Don Was as producer: Ever since he's got on board, they've tried to emulate their early-mid 70s sound to little success. Sure, there's some good songs here and there, but nothing like before.
And live...Meh. Since 1989 it's been too glitzy, too Vegas-y. It's lacked a certain urgent intensity. I preferred their stripped down, raw 1981-1982 shows a lot more to the 1989-present Vegas act.