For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
GJV
I'm reading here for weeks now how great this book is, but didn't dare to buy it yet. I have a question:
if one -like me- is not a musician and not realy interested into instruments info and stuff, is it than worth it to buy this one?
Is it only about their intruments and what/where they used it?
For me that sounds like a very boring read, but I could be wrong ofcourse.
Quote
Happy24
It is actually very refreshing to "study" the band from different point of view.
Quote
GJV
Ok thanx you both for clarifying this. Reading all this I don't think this book is for me, but for everyone who's interested in this kind of stuff, have fun!
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Happy24
It is actually very refreshing to "study" the band from different point of view.
It's an addiction.
Quote
Happy24
Exactly. Since I started reading it...
Quote
Happy24
Sure, but to get addicted you have to get the first shot first, right? That is the book for me
Quote
with sssoul
One odd thing about the book is that there are moments when it's clearly drawn on our Ratbag Boogie threads -
which is fine of course, since they're very learned threads! But it would've been cooler to acknowledge the source.
Anyone else notice that? There were even a few near-exact quotes of quite quirky observations.
Quote
Mathijs
I tried to open a discussion with the authors, but all I got back was 'sorry, we researched it extensively, and there are no mistakes'.
Mathijs
Quote
MathijsQuote
with sssoul
One odd thing about the book is that there are moments when it's clearly drawn on our Ratbag Boogie threads -
which is fine of course, since they're very learned threads! But it would've been cooler to acknowledge the source.
Anyone else notice that? There were even a few near-exact quotes of quite quirky observations.
Well, there's two reasons why I find it very hard to browse through the book....
1) it clearly, clearly has a lot of material based on what has been discussed here on IORR. I read a lot of '60's stuff that I keep thinking 'well, that's what His Majesty wrote here a while ago, in quite the same wording' and there's actually loads of stuff from the '70's that I think 'well, I think I read this in the Ratbag Boogie thread some years ago'. And without patting myself on my back, but there's a dozen of 'facts' they state which really are taken from statements I wrote over the years on IORR'....
2) It is full of mistakes. Really, really full of mistakes. I can't say too much about the '60's as that's not my expertise, but from 1969 until 1986 there's just too many mistakes. On every page there's half a dozen statements where I think 'no, that's wrong, that’s not correct’.
What I find disappointing further is that they simply didn't have access to 'the vaults'. Pierre absolutely was a big help, granting access to the current lineup and being interviewed in great detail, but they didn't have any access to any guitar or amp collection. All the stuff that's been used in the 60's and 70's and that is still around simply is missing in this book, except for a one or 2 guitars that bear no real importance in Stones history.
An example: the Ampeg London bass Wyman used is discussed. They first give wrong information (that the first London bass Wyman used was a demo, which it never was, it was a regular production model), and then Wyman states: I have three of them, which I still have in my country house'. So, what would be better for this book then to go to Wyman's country house and photograph those three basses?
I tried to open a discussion with the authors, but all I got back was 'sorry, we researched it extensively, and there are no mistakes'.
Mathijs
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Well then that is disouraging; and not at all like the answer I got back.
Quote
LieB
Forums like IORR are quite superior when it comes to fact checking. Yes, a lot of people post speculative guesses or myths, but if a forum is crowded enough (like IORR) things often get discussed to the point where the truth, or at least something very reasonable, can be discerned from all the talk and links. ...
But it takes a lot of effort from the authors for the book to be able to compete with a place like this, and any book is bound to be criticized, fact-checked and discussed here. One of the great things about the internet, after all.
Quote
Happy24
The inaccuracies don't bother me that much, since eventhough I am really interested in this stuff, I am no expert.
Quote
MathijsQuote
Happy24
The inaccuracies don't bother me that much, since eventhough I am really interested in this stuff, I am no expert.
But some mistakes are actually quite important (if you're interested that is), and could easily have been avoided.
Quote
Mathijs
An example: the Ampeg London bass Wyman used is discussed. They first give wrong information (that the first London bass Wyman used was a demo, which it never was, it was a regular production model), and then Wyman states: I have three of them, which I still have in my country house'. So, what would be better for this book then to go to Wyman's country house and photograph those three basses?
Quote
AussieMark
I'm not sure what you're referring to here? Ampeg never produced a bass named the "London". Burns sold a bass named the London though. The only Ampeg basses Bill played were the lucite-bodied Dan Armstrong models.
Quote
AussieMarkQuote
Mathijs
An example: the Ampeg London bass Wyman used is discussed. They first give wrong information (that the first London bass Wyman used was a demo, which it never was, it was a regular production model), and then Wyman states: I have three of them, which I still have in my country house'. So, what would be better for this book then to go to Wyman's country house and photograph those three basses?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here? Ampeg never produced a bass named the "London". Burns sold a bass named the London though. The only Ampeg basses Bill played were the lucite-bodied Dan Armstrong models.