Quote
Loudei
I wonder what he used on some of the Black n Blue songs ... I think Keith's sound on that album was awesome..regardless it was (some consider ) a sub par album. Maybe all those guitarists auditioning had something to do with it, but his tone was great on songs like Hot Stuff, Hand Of Fate, Cherry Oh Baby, Crazy Mama...

Small Fender's and Ampeg's, and a prototype Boogie. I think this Boogie is what you hear on Slave.

Mathijs

It's a totally different sound from "It's only Rock n Roll"... I think on Black n Blue we hear the beginning of the sound we heard there after - studio wise that is... He sounds totally different on 78' than on the 75, 76 tours however ... but very similar to the El Mo show.... So there is no doubt that Boogiemania played a part on the Stones during the great Paris sessions that produced so much material.

Mathijs, what did he used on the Sticky and Exile? Probably a bunch of shit, but you probably know. I saw that picture of him playing a Les Paul through a Roland amp, with Jagger staring in the background. Pity he lost all his guitars during this period.

Quote
Munichhilton
Anybody try the Voodoo Lab Sparkle?

I own it. I think it is a great pedal. Sort of a TS 808 ish sound, or TS9 but it also has the clean blend which, to me, is awesome. You can approximate what Keith does pretty well.

Wayne

Quote
From4tilLate
Keith doesn't use two Twins in the studio. He favors much smaller amps.

I was told for a period of time he was using a Fender 3 x 10 Bandmaster for a good amount of the studio work. An excellent AMP of 50's vintage.

That Amp is simply the holy grail of low watt tone.

CBII

INTERESTING INTERVIEW, WITH SOME INFO ON THE SUBJECT.


On recent tours you've taken occasional breaks from the outdoor arenas, getting into clubs. Do you miss the smaller venues?
Yeah, always. You hate to do the same thing all the time. I love playing the ballparks and the domes, you know. For the satisfaction of the band it gives you a terrific buzz--so many people. But by doing just one thing all the time you forget how to do anything else. You just become good at playing the domes and never learn anything else again. And I've always found that if you put in a few 3,000-seaters on the tour, and even 300, it gives the band itself a confidence quite apart from anything else. Then you can deal with 300 people or 90,000 and know how to play it. And probably the band feels that working in one of the nice old places like the Fox Theater in Atlanta is kind of more satisfying most of the time.
Because of the immediacy?
Yeah. The sound isn't dissipated totally, and you don't have to worry about the wind factor and things like that. It's much simpler and easier to get--it's just [snaps fingers] turn it up, get to it.
Didn't you change to Mesa/Boogie amplifiers on this last tour?
The '81 tour of the States was the first time we used the big Mesa/Boogie amp and speaker setups on the road, but we've been using Boogie amps in the studio since about '77, and on the stage since the '78 tour, slaving small Boogies through Ampeg cabinets.
Do you pay much attention to speakers?
No. I only think about them when I don't like 'em. If I plug in and to me it sounds like crap, then I ask a question, but otherwise, I leave it, because there are guys far more versed. I don't know what speakers are coming out every year. I find something and I stick with it for five or six years. It's like some of the gadgets I use. Guys who work with us and are close to us, like the crew, will say, "You should try this: I think this is going to add to what you're doing." I might try it, although I don't go around looking at specifications and all that.
Were you using any effects onstage in '81?
An MXR analog delay on a few numbers, and a phaser on "Beast Of Burden" and on or two others.
How about the very unusual sound on "Shattered"?
That was the MXR phaser--the 100 model--and I damped the guitar. That's what gives it that sound on the studio version as well.
What kind of wireless systems were you and Ron using on the last tour? Can you get the right tones as easily?
We've been using Nady wireless things since '78, and the tone is a lot better, because cords get stepped on and knotted up and they start rattling a little bit, and you lose tone.
In the last few years there's been a new aspect of your tone--more distinct, with a slight click, almost like a slap bass in rockabilly. "Hang Fire" and "She's So Cold" are examples, and especially the last section of "Little T&A."
It's our equivalent of that rockabilly thing. I think you'll find that comes from using a lot of analog delay on Ron's guitar or my guitar or both of them, and I dampen it. That'll give you that ticka-tacka-ticka. I always use that green MXR analog delay. I'm told it's quite out of date now and old-fashioned, but I got it free and I forgot that time marches on and they make better ones or so they say. I don't know. I've worked very well with those MXR things, and they've been very reliable.
Which guitar are you playing for that sort of stripped-down rockabilly sound on "Little T&A"?
A Telecaster, a '57 set up in 5-string tuning. It's open G 5-string, without the heavy string. Right there from the bottom up it's: G, D, G, B, D. The whole idea of getting rid of the sixth string in the open tuning was having the root on the bottom.
The suspended chords in the verses of that song are typical of your riffing style.
That's just one of the things you can do with open tuning. You can get a drone going so you have the effect of two chords playing against each other. One hangs on because you've just got to move one finger--or two at the most--to change the chord, so you've still got the other strings ringing. It's a big sound.
Mick was using an Ovation Adamas steel-string on the tour. Were you satisfied with the instrument's performance?
I think they're very nice-sounding guitars. A nice neck. But I can never get used to that shape, that... dish. They're probably the best way of amplifying an acoustic guitar and having it still sound like an acoustic. There's no doubt. Probably a million readers will write in and say the Stones don't use acoustic guitar that much onstage, so we don't know shit, but for what we need, for a couple of numbers, it's adequate.
How did you come about acquiring your new guitars?
Friends of mine introduced me to Doug Young, who built them. After seeing some of his things, I knew he was capable of exceptionally fine work, so I more or less commissioned him to build me a guitar. He ended up making me two--the red one is a gift for my girlfriend, actually. Basically, that's the lowdown.
Did you specify exactly what you wanted?
Not really. We didn't have to say very much about it. I was very impressed by the things I saw, and I wanted a similar guitar for myself. But it's also this patronage that players and builders can get involved with--Renaissance man, and all that, the old system of someone like me encouraging guys like Doug. His guitars are too good not to be given help.
So you didn't request a certain wood for the fingerboard, a certain pickup design?
Not too much, no. I said, "Make me a guitar." I figure that's the difference between working with an artist as opposed to just anyone. I mean, if you want a suit made, you don't want to have to tell the tailor how to do everything. You want to find someone who doesn't need all that, you see? It's more, "I want to see what you can build for me." There are very few people like that. Most people, you have to sit on their ass and watch them: with Doug I just left him to it. I was in Paris for months, recording. I'd almost forgotten it was going on until I saw what he'd done.
Have you had a chance to play them in the studio yet?
Not in the studio, but I went out and banged on them a bit. I'll be back in the studio soon, and then we'll beat them into shape [laughs].
After playing hundreds of guitars, what quality in these instruments made you take notice?
It's a recognition you develop. I think, and I'm sort of instinctive about these things--sit down and play it, feel it. I knew that Doug was thinking along the same lines as myself, but far ahead, because I'm not technical. Only after the event of building it when I've got it in my hands, can I know what's right. I can't say, "Well, it was the magnificent electronics," or "the wonderful bonding of the woods," and each specific thing. It was simply a fine instrument. Lovely wood!
Can you judge the sound of an electric before you plug it in?
Maybe to a certain extent. If the neck and the action feel right, you're more than halfway home, even before hearing the electronics. Things like weight and the density of the wood indicate certain things, but you simply need to play it to really tell. And it doesn't take long.
On record you've used several very different types of guitars--Gibson Les Pauls and ES-335s, Fender Telecasters, and others. And yet a listener can tell right away that it's you, from stylistic clues, but also from the sound alone.
I use a whole load of different guitars, that's true, but they're not all that dissimilar in type. I mean, ninety percent are probably Telecasters, old ones, but more than that, you can't really separate style and sound, you see. People do separate them when they're talking about music, but all of that often misses the whole point.
You're suggesting that the style is the sound?
Yes, part of it, more than any particular tone setting or pickup or anything like that. I'll just adjust to the sound of the track as we go--the sound of the bass drum and especially Ronnie's guitar. The style is adjusting along with the sound. There's never a conscious effort to get that "Honky Tonk Woman" tone or a thing like that. You may get it or you may not. But that's not what you're thinking about. You're thinking about the track.
Some people were amazed to read in your first Guitar Player cover story that on "Street Fighting Man" there are no electric guitars.
Two acoustics, one of them put through the first Philips cassette player they made. It was overloaded, recorded on that, and then hooked up through a little extension speaker, and then onto the studio tape through a microphone.
You've paid quite a bit of attention to acoustic guitars in rock music.
Well, I started on acoustic guitar, and you have to recognize what it's got to offer. But also you can't say it's an acoustic guitar sound, actually, because with the cassette player and then a microphone and then the tape, really it's just a different process of electrifying it. You see, I couldn't have done that song or that record in that way with a straight electric, or the sustain would have been too much. It would have flooded too much. The reason I did that one like that was because I already had the sound right there on the guitar before we recorded. I just loved it, and when I wrote the thing I thought, "I'm not going to get a better sound than this." And "Jumpin' Jack Flash" is the same, too. That's acoustic guitar.
Early Everly Brothers records have huge acoustic guitar sounds. Were any of them influential?
Yeah, all of their records, and also there's the fact that the first major tour we ever did was supporting the Everly Brothers, Little Richard, and Bo Diddley. Plenty to learn [laughs] in a real short time, following those guys around. The Everlys came on with just their trio and themselves, and it was great. On their recordings there is a certain power in the steel-string. It's a different instrument from electric--not that different in the way you play it, but in terms of the sound. There are times when an acoustic guitar will make a track. You'll be despairing, nothing working, hashing away, Take 43 on electric guitar, and somebody will say, "Why don't you try it on acoustic?" And you try it one time and you've got it.
What kind of acoustics do you like to use?
Old Martins--several types of them--and certain Gibsons, particularly old Hummingbirds.
Do you have a certain kind of room that you like to record in?
Yes, but it's hard to tell whether it'll work until we get in there. And when we find a room I hate to lose it. Over the years we've been through four or five or maybe more of these ace rooms. Sometimes you walk in and it just happens, but whether it takes a long time or not to produce the sound you want, you don't want to lose it. We're still working in the same place now that we've been in since Some Girls, a good big room. Pathe Marconi is the name--it's EMI's studio in Paris. The room we use is what they consider their sort of storeroom for the orchestra, or a rehearsal place. It's not Studio A, B, or C. It doesn't even have a number.
How important is the sound of the room itself?
The room is as important as the band and the producer and the song and the engineer. The room is at least as important as all that to the total sound. You can't separate rock and roll music instrument by instrument. You destroy the whole structure of it. Rock and roll music can only be recorded by jamming the sound all together.
One you've got something to work right in the studio, do you try to use all the same equipment onstage?
Yeah, pretty much, just a larger version. I've never found the Stones or anybody else made great records by using huge stacks in the studio and blasting away. You can get very powerful sounding records playing very quietly, and with relatively small amps. Small amps turned way up have the tension you're trying to get anyway, and it sounds big. It also gets back to that recognition of the acoustic guitar and what it can do, and what you can get if you're thinking of the mix right from the beginning and all the way through the recording.
Years ago the mixing technique on many of your records broke quite a few rules. Did you realize from the outset of your career that a new way of mixing would be necessary?
We knew we wanted it without knowing the way to get it. It was just what sounded right to us, and also because we were brought up in the era when a four-track was a rarity. We started recording at a point when the best sound you got was all air and all the room sound and everything was leakage and jammed together, and the vocal fought its battle with the rest of the instruments. We tried it the usual way, but whenever we brought the vocals up we'd never like the mix as much. What always amazed me was that if the record was popular, most people would know the words--at least the key ones--within a few weeks, no matter how much the voice was buried. Years back, in the studio, I always thought about those other records where the voice was too far forward, so you never really got a sound. You just got a vocalist with some accompaniment.
Which wasn't what you were after?
Not for us, but you see, you've got to treat each type of music in the appropriate fashion. I mean, if you're mixing the Everly Brothers, then you've got those fantastic goddamn voices and you put them out front as much as you can! But even those guys never sacrificed the sound of the record for the sound of their voices. They had it all there, quite a light sound, but always very powerful as well, never wimpy.
Did record companies ever tell you or your producers and engineers that you should be mixing Mick Jagger like the Everly Brothers?
They'd try, but we set it up so there was no way they had anything to say about it. They'd complain, and we'd tell them to @#$%& off.
Do you ever splice takes, either rhythm tracks or solos?
Sometimes. Not so much on solos. We tend to record them real long--go on and on, but as long as I know that somewhere in that seven or eight or eleven minutes there is that two-and-a-half minutes that says it all, then I don't mind going on, because I'll ferret it out and find it.
Is it too soon to start talking about what's on the next album?
I can only report that it's going magnificently for us, so much stuff coming out and starting to sound real good. We've only been in the studio a little over two weeks, which is only like a warm-up, and we've cut about a dozen cassettes of tape already. Everybody's happy about it. When we're done, we'll start thinking about the next tour.
In the choruses of "Honky Tonk Woman" and "Start Me Up," the bass leaves huge holes for the guitars to fill. Does Bill Wyman get a lot of direction from you in that regard, or is that something he's always done on his own?
I would say in the late '60s, early '70s, Bill would be given more direction--not always the right direction [laughs]--but Mick and I would be more inclined to say, "Do this and that." Sometimes he comes and asks, but less and less. You know, relationships change. But Bill, he's kind of like Charlie. He just keeps [long pause] amazing me. He just keeps getting better. He's not always what I'm expecting. I know he's good, and he's always there. But I kind of take his playing for granted. And then when I listen to what he's doing, I realize he's not always playing the same thing. He's much better than we think. You see, we're the worlds worst Rolling Stones critics [laughs]. We tear the shit apart before anybody gets a chance to hear it.
Do you practice very much aside from band rehearsals for tours or recording sessions?
In a way I do, because the guitar is always there, and I always play it or the piano. I do it in bursts. You kind of wait for it. You can't force it and sit down and say, "Now I'm going to write a hit song."
You've recorded a lot of material on your own--just vocals with piano or guitar. Do you plan to ever release any of it?
No, not releasing it as such. I just do it because I like to play a lot of great songs for myself, and it helps me to write. The way I write songs is to sit down and play 25 great songs by other people and hope that one of mine drips off the end.
Have many of the songs that you've written for the Stones been composed on the piano?
Sometimes, yeah. I'm such an amateur on piano, and that can help. You play guitar every night and get to know it so well, and a lot of great songs are really accidents. On the piano I may come across something I wouldn't have done on guitar.
You've sung lead on some of the band's hits, and sang "Little T&A" on the last tour, but none of your lead vocals are included on the album.
Well, if I sing the lead vocals, then what's he going to do [laughs]? There's quite a bit for each of us to think about already. And I do sing lots of parts with Mick, always.
For years Mick has been reported to be a proficient guitar player, and yet he only started to play a lot onstage during the Still Life tour. Why now?
I think he feels a little more confident about it. He's a fine drummer, too. And he's not bad on keyboards, in his own way--in the same way that I am, fiddling about to write and to get some interesting ideas. One thing that's held Mick back with guitar onstage is that playing is one thing; knowing how to get an instantly good sound off the amp is another. That is something he's still got to work on. It keeps him back from doing so much, because if it doesn't sound good to him in the first six bars, he doesn't have the experience and the knowledge of dealing with the amplifier. He might be playing great, but he's got a shitty sound on the amp--and then he's got his singing to think about.
Are you playing much National or Dobro these days?
Not doing as much of that as I'd like--that goes with not living anywhere in particular. You need to sort of sit down every day and do that. I hate to travel with instruments like that. I think you just need a certain environment when you're playing like that, and since that's not the way we are able to live, and probably wouldn't anyway, I don't get as much of a chance. You know, some things you don't get as much of a chance to do as you wish you had.
For young guitarists who are into Chuck Berry or the Rolling Stones today, what do they face, trying to make records now? Compared to when you started, what's different?
24-track machines. Otherwise, not that much has changes from what we faced. There's all this stuff about new equipment and changing styles and all that, but the point is, you still face a lot of rip-off artists, and you face a lot of work.
You and Pete Townshend seem to have much in common, at least on the surface--the components of your styles, your use of the guitar, the way your bands are compared in the press. Do you feel any particular kinship with him?
You mean Trousers? Now let me see--one reason for that is probably that we started playing the same clubs almost at the same time. I never took credit for this, but apparently he said that he lifted that arm swing he does from seeing me. I don't recall doing it, but I guess if he says so, he did. It's something I've never been aware of. In certain respects, yeah, we're both coming out in the same place at the same time, more than anything else.
He was quoted as saying that there comes a time for a band to retire, to pass on the torch, so to speak, to younger bands.
I love Peter, but the time to stop is when you can't do it anymore, or when you're fed up. There's no passing on of the goddamn torches. Other people will pick them up anyway, and besides, that's not the point. I don't know if he was accurately quoted, but other people have said it anyway when they can't think of anything else to say. You see, if rock and roll is what you do, then that's what you do, and that's all. You don't sort of say, " Oh, now I give up and I'll hand it on to this band who I think is quite good." You don't hand it on that way. Pete already handed it on, the same as we did, to some young guys that are playing now, the way we played Chuck Berry. It's not, "here, I've got to hand you a document." It's the records that you've done that the younger players have listened to and grown up with and sat around learning.
What would you like to be doing a year from now?
Accepting a platinum record, for one thing [laughs]. I'd like nothing to change too much, just to do what we do, but be able to do it better.
After one of your court trials you commented on systems of justice and juries of your peers, and how that all related to being a musician.
Yeah, I was trying to make the point that when I am thrown in a court, or anybody like myself is thrown in court, the jury has got absolutely no experience in the musician's way of life, so they're not your peers. I know justice is often rough and so on, but they don't know what it's like to be on the road for 20 years, and I can't explain it to them now. So I was saying, give me a jury of my peers, with Chuck Berry, with Muddy Waters. And put Ron in there, too [laughs]--I mean, I can drop him a few bucks.
People keep calling you the world's greatest rock and roll band, and they have been for a long time.
It's embarrassing.
Are there any drawbacks to their saying that?
Yeah, you've gotta keep being it [laughs]! I've decided that every night there's another world's greatest rock and roll band, because one night somebody has an off gig, and some other shit band has a great gig. That's one of the great things about rock and roll--every night there's a different world's greatest band. We've been maybe a little more consistent, for whatever reason, mainly when we're going together on a tour and also because we've managed to stick together. The chemistry--that's got nothing to do with musicianship. It's got to do with personality and characters and being able to live with each other for 20 years.
People have been predicting the end of the Stones...
...from the beginning [laughs]!

I don't think I have ever seen Keith with a Marshall stack. I recall him using a Marshall for the Sad Sad Sad solo in 89/90.

Tube Screamer - Billy Duffy uses one as well. He goes through his Marshalls in general, uses a Mesa (I forget which one but it's the most expensive one I've seen at the stores) for some low end reinforcement and a Matchless for leads and the Tube Screamer for certain parts in leads.

And some Roland for She Sells Sanctuary.

I guess Keith is the only one I've ever heard get a good sound out of a Twin because I think they are horrible!

Quote
skipstone


I guess Keith is the only one I've ever heard get a good sound out of a Twin because I think they are horrible!

I saw both D Gilmoure and M Taylor on a Twin..their sound was very impressive
to say the least.
Keith is not the only point of reference as far as guitarsound is involved

I'm not an expert, just another frustrated musician who plays (daily) his Tele at home. Recently got my brand new fulldrive 2 mosfet, and along with my Fender Champ I achieve the kind of sound that i was looking for. To my ears, it sounds close to the overdrive that fits many Stone/Black Crowes/etc songs. The pedal adds some versatility to the Fender Champ that is so basic, but i love anyway.
I hope it helps.

My Champ nods out when I crank my pedal through it. But it nodded out when it's all on ten. I've had it checked out and nothing was found wrong with it.

So I don't use it anymore. It's just collecting dust.

Did I read correctly that Keith says he used a telecaster in Open-G for "Litlle T&A"? And, if so, I always thought he played that one in standard tuning.

Quote
theimposter
Did I read correctly that Keith says he used a telecaster in Open-G for "Litlle T&A"? And, if so, I always thought he played that one in standard tuning.

Just tried it, and it sounds OK.
I have to imagine it was standard on the LP though.

I've been playing She's So Cold in open G and it is very authentic. This is definitely how KR plays it on the 1981 tour. But the two songs are so alike in the studio they are probably same guitar, same setup, and same session. Possibly one guitar in standard and one in open G.

Thanks, Munichhilton.

I have also tried Little T&A on open-G in the past, thinking it sounded fine except I could never find the intro in that tuning, only the verse/chorus chords. Did you manage that part?

Also, I always thought it looked as if he was playing it in open-G on Let's Spend the Night Together, but most certainly in standard in Shine A light (that is, when he actually played the guitar).

Oh, and just to stay a little more on-topic, I don't know what kind of overdrive Keith uses, but I play a Tele thru a Fender Blues Deluxe, treble mostly down, bass mostly up, and that gives me something comparable to his current sound - bright, deep, and with a little dirt : )

I have also tried Little T&A on open-G in the past, thinking it sounded fine except I could never find the intro in that tuning, only the verse/chorus chords.

Try again - it's easy
G, A, C, D
0, 2, 5, 7

by the way, do still have the stock Fender designed Eminence speaker in your Blues Deluxe?
I swapped mine out for an old 100 Watt Celestion G12 - now that's Keith terretory!

Thanks to you also, open-g!

Still got the old stock 12" speaker, but it sounds great. A little LOUD for my apartment though. Sorry, neighbors.

keith's amp setting booosts the mid around 10, treble around 8, and bass only at 4.

Quote
wetland10
keith's amp setting booosts the mid around 10, treble around 8, and bass only at 4.

Yes, indeed and here's a pic to back it up.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-30 15:01 by open-g.

Quote
open-g

Quote
wetland10
keith's amp setting booosts the mid around 10, treble around 8, and bass only at 4.

Yes, indeed and here's a pic to back it up.

[i20.photobucket.com]

Tried that just now on a '66 Super Reverb.
Its not comfortable at low volumes.
It sounds terrific at high volumes though.
Thanks for that shot!
It is a fun pursuit

I've played fairly close to those setting for several years before I even knew that he was doing it. It's a unique tone, boosting mids. With the Presence up that high it adds a nice sparkle as well.

Wayne

Boosting the mids is where I got a great sound from my amp aswell - only after changing the speaker though.
but - a mid boost isn't what I expected it would be, after fiddling around with this Tone Stack Calculator.
[www.duncanamps.com]


you have to enter the correct values for each amp's tone stack, mind you.
got mine from this Blues Deluxe schematic


the tone settings on the panel look very drastic to archive a fairly flat response curve.

Quote
open-g
Boosting the mids is where I got a great sound from my amp aswell - only after changing the speaker though.
but - a mid boost isn't what I expected it would be, after fiddling around with this Tone Stack Calculator.
[www.duncanamps.com]


you have to enter the correct values for each amp's tone stack, mind you.
got mine from this Blues Deluxe schematic


the tone settings on the panel look very drastic to archive a fairly flat response curve.

Whoa!
I no longer know what were talking about but I wish I did!!!!

Geeks!

Quote
open-g

I have also tried Little T&A on open-G in the past, thinking it sounded fine except I could never find the intro in that tuning, only the verse/chorus chords.

Try again - it's easy
G, A, C, D
0, 2, 5, 7

off-topic, but isn't the first note F, not G?

off-topic, but isn't the first note F, not G?

you got me to double check, but nope, it's G alright. Intro that is.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-31 12:41 by open-g.

Quote
open-g
off-topic, but isn't the first note F, not G?

you got me to double check, but nope, it's G alright. Intro that is.

No, the intro is: the first does F - A - C -> D (slide C to D), while sometimes Wood or Keith and Wood both add a G: F - G -> A - C -> D (slide G to A and C to D). The F is played as a not on the E string, A is a single note, C and D are power chords.

As far as I trust my ears there is no open G guitar on T&A.

Mathijs

yes, Mathijs you are right, i agree with you. Standard tuning

From the monolithic article above:

>>Which guitar are you playing for that sort of stripped-down rockabilly sound on "Little T&A"?
A Telecaster, a '57 set up in 5-string tuning. It's open G 5-string, without the heavy string.
Right there from the bottom up it's: G, D, G, B, D. The whole idea of getting rid of the sixth string in the open tuning was having the root on the bottom.
The suspended chords in the verses of that song are typical of your riffing style.
That's just one of the things you can do with open tuning.
You can get a drone going so you have the effect of two chords playing against each other.
One hangs on because you've just got to move one finger--or two at the most--to change the chord, so you've still got the other strings ringing.
It's a big sound.<<

Listen to the original recording. yeah, Live it seems to be standard tuning.
but as it was requested how to play the intro in open G - those were my two cents.





embedding is disabled, so paste the link and just add an h to *ttp://

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToAyxx-sIfY



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-31 19:48 by open-g.

It is a cliche actually, but sound is in your finger. And it is especially true for Keith Richards. 'Give me a guitar and give me 10 minutes and I figure out the original Keef sound.'- did he say that?

Okay, my last comment on LT&A I hope, but after trying it I have to agree with Mathijs' assessment the song is in standard tuning. Just tried it out and it sounds great, though I feel pretty shabby that in all these years I have never gotten it to sound this right on my own.

Back on topic, I am surprised the amp settings that I use which I thought sounded so close to Keith's are a bit backwards. I have the bass and treble mixed up from his levels, though I still think it sounds great as it is.

I think the first chord after the intro is actually a D minor, which makes sense with the Bb and F in the second part of the riff, and beginning the intro on an F. So standard tuning is best, I think.