Ron Asheton and James Williamson

If you notice my avatar, you'll know what I think about Williamsons playing. That being said Fun House is a stunningly great record and Ron played his ass off on that. I personally like all era's of the Stooges

mg9011 wrote:

also let me repeat I AM NOT SAYING WILLIAMSON IS BETTER BASED SOLEY ON TECHNIQUE. guys like satriani or vai are 10 times more technicaly accomplished than williamson but i dont personaly feel they are "better' guitar players. williamon is the perfect combination of technique and feel of "artistry" or whatever you want to call it. ashetons playing doesnt have 1/10th of williamsons energy, passion, feel and artistry

studioguy wrote:

If you notice my avatar, you'll know what I think about Williamsons playing. That being said Fun House is a stunningly great record and Ron played his ass off on that. I personally like all era's of the Stooges

mg9011 wrote:

also let me repeat I AM NOT SAYING WILLIAMSON IS BETTER BASED SOLEY ON TECHNIQUE. guys like satriani or vai are 10 times more technicaly accomplished than williamson but i dont personaly feel they are "better' guitar players. williamon is the perfect combination of technique and feel of "artistry" or whatever you want to call it. ashetons playing doesnt have 1/10th of williamsons energy, passion, feel and artistry

i've grown to enjoy the first two albums but when i first heard them i found them boring and pretty much forgot about the stooges. then i heard raw power and it blew my fucking mind ive never connected with a peice of music like i have with that album before or since. james williamson is incredible and i think its really a terrible insult that everybody kisses ron ashetons ass, as good as he was, and act like williamson was in any way shape of form inferior to ashton. just not true.

Dude, no one is telling you that you can't have your own opinion and preferences.

But you can't come on here and suggest that your attitude is the correct one. It's not, no more than mine is, or anyone else's.

Try to persuade us with reasoned debate by all means, if you have the time and the inclination... that would be interesting, but don't simply state your subjective judgements as absolute truths. They're not.

So you're a James Williamson fan? Good for you. Some other people prefer the music of Ron Asheton? So be it. It shouldn't be a problem for you.

If you want to insist that one man's technique is superior you'll have to define what you mean by technique, and why you think that's important. If you want to insist that one man was more ARTISTIC than the other, you'll get a whole lot of different opinions, and every single one will be just as valid as yours.

Art cannot be measured at all, except eventually in terms of public opinion, but that only tells us who's the most popular, not who's the best. Certainly not who is the most artistic. It's fun to debate the merits of art and artists, but there's no right and wrong about it.

You seem to have a big hang-up about this. Chill out. Be aware that as you grow older your attitude will probably change anyway. In fact it should do.

woody wrote:

Dude, no one is telling you that you can't have your own opinion and preferences.

But you can't come on here and suggest that your attitude is the correct one. It's not, no more than mine is, or anyone else's.

Try to persuade us with reasoned debate by all means, if you have the time and the inclination... that would be interesting, but don't simply state your subjective judgements as absolute truths. They're not.

So you're a James Williamson fan? Good for you. Some other people prefer the music of Ron Asheton? So be it. It shouldn't be a problem for you.

If you want to insist that one man's technique is superior you'll have to define what you mean by technique, and why you think that's important. If you want to insist that one man was more ARTISTIC than the other, you'll get a whole lot of different opinions, and every single one will be just as valid as yours.

Art cannot be measured at all, except eventually in terms of public opinion, but that only tells us who's the most popular, not who's the best. Certainly not who is the most artistic. It's fun to debate the merits of art and artists, but there's no right and wrong about it.

You seem to have a big hang-up about this. Chill out. Be aware that as you grow older your attitude will probably change anyway. In fact it should do.

i think people have a big hang-up about ron asheton. i guess im used to being attacked for being a james williamson fan so i sort of come out swinging on the subject. the bias against williamson is such bullshit.

All bias is bullshit, including your own. You seem to have loads of it.

You do realize that the last post before yours in this tread was Jan 2009 and since James's remergence there has been very little negativity against james.
He was a bit a a ghost and a myth before the middle of 2009

mg9011 wrote:

woody wrote:

Dude, no one is telling you that you can't have your own opinion and preferences.

But you can't come on here and suggest that your attitude is the correct one. It's not, no more than mine is, or anyone else's.

Try to persuade us with reasoned debate by all means, if you have the time and the inclination... that would be interesting, but don't simply state your subjective judgements as absolute truths. They're not.

So you're a James Williamson fan? Good for you. Some other people prefer the music of Ron Asheton? So be it. It shouldn't be a problem for you.

If you want to insist that one man's technique is superior you'll have to define what you mean by technique, and why you think that's important. If you want to insist that one man was more ARTISTIC than the other, you'll get a whole lot of different opinions, and every single one will be just as valid as yours.

Art cannot be measured at all, except eventually in terms of public opinion, but that only tells us who's the most popular, not who's the best. Certainly not who is the most artistic. It's fun to debate the merits of art and artists, but there's no right and wrong about it.

You seem to have a big hang-up about this. Chill out. Be aware that as you grow older your attitude will probably change anyway. In fact it should do.

i think people have a big hang-up about ron asheton. i guess im used to being attacked for being a james williamson fan so i sort of come out swinging on the subject. the bias against williamson is such bullshit.

I think that's important. His recent touring and especially the writing and production on the new album will be making a big difference to his status in the history of the band.

It's also true that an untimely passing can benefit an artist's reputation and the esteem in which they're held, as obituaries are written and we consider their span of life and the entirety of their work.

James might achieve a lot with the new album, and Ron's achievements might be better appreciated now than ever before.

In a perfect world they would have played together one last time.

woody wrote:

In a perfect world they would have played together one last time.

That would have been brilliant. Imagine if they'd got together and played some of those killer 1971 tracks...
Cheers,
Richard

My biggest dream when The Stooges reunited in 2003 was to see a five piece line up with James and Ron on guitars... At least for a few gigs...

I've always been a big fan of Williamson. Raw Power is by far my favorite record. I was so excited to know he was going to rejoin the band in 2009!

But, in a paradoxical way, the return of James has kind of destroyed the myth. Before Ron's death, James was a legend, THE guitariste of one of the most powerful record ever, a guy who just recorded one LP and vanished. I don't want to be misunderstood, am I clear?

"Let those boys like Beck and Clapton fight it out with each other. Let me watch and laugh."

- Nigel Tufnel (Spinal Tap)

951Sib wrote:

Before Ron's death, James was a legend, THE guitariste of one of the most powerful record ever, a guy who just recorded one LP and vanished. I don't want to be misunderstood, am I clear?

But I think the fact that he only recorded ONE album whereas Ron recorded TWO is what has hurt him in terms of standing.
When the *judges* consider a body of work, they usually only look at official releases. But when you consider previously unreleased material that was posthumously released, James has actually played guitar on more songs than Ron. I'm not saying he was a better guitarist, I love them equally, but I think the majority of his work with The Stooges is unfortunately
overlooked.

sizeable bulge wrote:

But I think the fact that he only recorded ONE album whereas Ron recorded TWO is what has hurt him in terms of standing.

Three actually. You're forgetting The Weirdness. Most people do... and quite probably that's not a bad idea...

And also Iggy and James did Kill City

adams66 wrote:

sizeable bulge wrote:

But I think the fact that he only recorded ONE album whereas Ron recorded TWO is what has hurt him in terms of standing.

Three actually. You're forgetting The Weirdness. Most people do... and quite probably that's not a bad idea...

Good one buddy. I remember the day I got The Weirdness delivered in the mail, thinking I was holding gold, thinking that The Stooges could do no wrong. It took me about a minute after putting it on the stereo to realize that I was basically listening to an Iggy Pop solo album with the Asheton brothers as session men. The new record has to be better, but by how much?

sizeable bulge wrote:

The new record has to be better, but by how much?

It can't be worse. And it will probably be the last Stooges record...

James Williamson: He was more influential on punk rock,but his style, the sound is not as original as Ron Asheton. JW style I would describe as more raw, aggressive rolling stones.

Ron Asheton: Although not as influential on the punk rock so write more familiar riffs as No fun, dog, loose.

I like more JW style because is more punk and I also like his solos,compared asheton where his solo are a bit boring (especially the first album)

my opinion

I feel that the album that's truest to WHAT I FEEL is the stooges and what they represent for music is FUNHOUSE... It's a really unique album and that's largely thanks to Ron's guitar playing. His style is so unique because he wasn't as technically good as JW, but he had an instict for playing that suited the unpredictable behavoir of Iggy perfectly... His solos are weird and noisy and full of anger and give sense of rush and chaos... "Chaos" is something that the stooges MUSIC lost a bit with ron's departure from guitar. They got sexier, and blusier, that's for sure.

And speaking of influence, I think there's nothing more punk than "no fun" or "1970", just sayin'... And I'm pretty sure all of the noise rock scene have funhouse in their top 3.

I agree with you RF. Ron was much more of an innovator, a radical. Ron was more punk for sure, since punk must always be inexpert (by definition!), and some chaos helps too.

We know Ron was influenced by Hendrix, Coltrane and Pharoah Sanders, but has James ever explained his original influences? I can imagine they were more pop/rock (British Invasion?) and less jazz.

Super early James was playing country (only guitar teacher he could get in Okla) then the Kinks, Stones and Jeff Beck.

Ron was also Stones/British invasion influenced as he and Dave Alexander went to England one summer pre Stooges to check out the scene

woody wrote:

I agree with you RF. Ron was much more of an innovator, a radical. Ron was more punk for sure, since punk must always be inexpert (by definition!), and some chaos helps too.

We know Ron was influenced by Hendrix, Coltrane and Pharoah Sanders, but has James ever explained his original influences? I can imagine they were more pop/rock (British Invasion?) and less jazz.

you want chaos? listen to the ending of your pretty face is going to hell it sounds like iggy is tumbling through hell and hell is filled with nothing but guitar players. and as somebody else pointed out in this thread i believe james was defientely an innovator its just so many people have coped his style over the years that it sounds so familiar. can you name annnnyyyybody that was playing like him in 1972-1973? as far as intensity goes it puts all the "heavy metal" of the era to shame

studioguy wrote:

Super early James was playing country (only guitar teacher he could get in Okla) then the Kinks, Stones and Jeff Beck.

Ron was also Stones/British invasion influenced as he and Dave Alexander went to England one summer pre Stooges to check out the scene

oh man james williamson that lying bastard lol. every interview with him that ive seen he says that he never took guitar lessons can you tell me a little bit more about these lessons he supposdly took and how you know about it?

I think it was from the Fretboard Journal article from 2009 (1st interview since he started playing guitar again pre-Stooges)

mg9011 wrote:

studioguy wrote:

Super early James was playing country (only guitar teacher he could get in Okla) then the Kinks, Stones and Jeff Beck.

Ron was also Stones/British invasion influenced as he and Dave Alexander went to England one summer pre Stooges to check out the scene

oh man james williamson that lying bastard lol. every interview with him that ive seen he says that he never took guitar lessons can you tell me a little bit more about these lessons he supposdly took and how you know about it?

mg9011 wrote:

... and hell is filled with nothing but guitar players.

Of course!