Tell Me :
Talk
I will pretty much second what His Majesty said. It is a lovely book and the information about instruments is priceless and provided in a very readable form. Tons of great pictures of the instruments and of the band also. Plus, which I didn't expect, the whole history of the band is there. BUT the main focus really is on the instruments and if you are not into it, then you would probably be bothered having to read about what exact kind of tube was in which amp, what tuning machines had which guitar and what kind of tom had which Charlie's set, which I can imagine would be extremely boring and would not tell anything to a person who is not interested in this kind of stuff.
Anyway, I just finnished the year 1969. Charlie used his 2 black Getsch kits and it is writen in the book, that he used them with his blue Ludwig tom, which is obvious from photos. I have re-watched the R'n'R Circus 1968 and Hydepark 1969 and on both it is clearly visible that besides the tom, he also had the blue Ludwig snare, which I don't remember reading in the book :-) So yes, one can probably find tons of little mistakes like that, but it is also true, that the book made me watch those DVDs with attention to such details, which is great. It is actually very refreshing to "study" the band from different point of view.
It's an addiction.
I guess (still don't have the book yet myself ) the book gives answers to Anorak questions.
before you ask 'why Anorak? ' ... look here: [www.iorr.org]
Exactly. Since I started reading it, I wake up earlier every morning to have a quiet half an hour or an hour with the book before the rest of the family wakes up. In the evening I am the last one who goes to bed after reading a couple of pages :-)
Another little inaccuracies I discovered yesterday: Plundered My Soul is repeatedly mentioned as Plundering My Soul. And it says that WEM column speakers were used during the 1970 tour on sides of the stage with one laid horizontaly, which was the first use of monitors. The WEM columns are present in the Hydepark 1969 already, which the book doesn't say. But I didn't see the horizontal one there, that one was probably really used in 1970 for the first time. There are so many thing to learn and to discover!
I mean't studying the stones from a gear angle is an addiction, not the book.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-11 09:59 by Mathijs.
Haha - that is just so very arrogant of them!
Well then that is disouraging; and not at all like the answer I got back.
What answer did you get back, PR2000? to what, from whom? Please elucidate!
But all that free fact-checking is exactly what makes this site a great resource for authors. They're not competing, they're collaborating. I'm just sorry there isn't any acknowledgement of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-12 10:20 by with sssoul.
But some mistakes are actually quite important (if you're interested that is), and could easily have been avoided. For example, they have the number of Les Pauls Taylor used wrong -they state 3 before the Winter Tour (it's 2) and 1 after 1972 (it's 2). There's no information about the very first Newman Jones guitar Keith used in 1973, other than that they state there where 2 different guitars (there was one), and that 1) Keith gave it away, 2) it's at the Hard Rock Cafe vault and 3) Pierre states Keith still has it. Why no more detailed information, and why do they state 3 things as fact? Then there's plenty of mistakes about which guitars they used on the '70 tours, and lot's of mistakes about the effects. They state they used the EMS Hi Fli for Leslie effects on the 1975 tour, but they never did. Wood used a real Leslie, and Richards the MXR Phase 100.
And it goes on and one...
Mathijs
I am absolutely with you, I didn't mean to undermine your reasons, I actually enjoy your gear related posts a lot. Just saying, that for people like me, who don't know that much as you do, it is more joyful reading. But of course I would be happy if there were no mistakes. I am sure there will be more than one revisited edition and in 10 or 15 years, I might buy the book again, hoping for more accuracy and as I wrote above, more detailed look at the last 30 years.
Now I have The Beatles Gear book on my table, waiting for me to start. That one is a fourth edition, if I am not mistaken :-)
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.
[www.danarmstrong.org]
Yes, they did.
EDIT: Sorry, mistook it for the Ampeg Dan Armstrong plexi bass
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-12 12:19 by DandelionPowderman.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 25, 2014 21:32
I see no point in buying it if you aren't interested in the instruments. The story of the band is oncluded, but in a very light way, the story is told much better in loads of other books.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: May 25, 2014 22:10
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.
I will pretty much second what His Majesty said. It is a lovely book and the information about instruments is priceless and provided in a very readable form. Tons of great pictures of the instruments and of the band also. Plus, which I didn't expect, the whole history of the band is there. BUT the main focus really is on the instruments and if you are not into it, then you would probably be bothered having to read about what exact kind of tube was in which amp, what tuning machines had which guitar and what kind of tom had which Charlie's set, which I can imagine would be extremely boring and would not tell anything to a person who is not interested in this kind of stuff.
Anyway, I just finnished the year 1969. Charlie used his 2 black Getsch kits and it is writen in the book, that he used them with his blue Ludwig tom, which is obvious from photos. I have re-watched the R'n'R Circus 1968 and Hydepark 1969 and on both it is clearly visible that besides the tom, he also had the blue Ludwig snare, which I don't remember reading in the book :-) So yes, one can probably find tons of little mistakes like that, but it is also true, that the book made me watch those DVDs with attention to such details, which is great. It is actually very refreshing to "study" the band from different point of view.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 25, 2014 23:48
Quote
Happy24
It is actually very refreshing to "study" the band from different point of view.
It's an addiction.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
GJV
()
Date: May 26, 2014 01:18
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!
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
open-g
()
Date: May 26, 2014 02:15
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!
I guess (still don't have the book yet myself ) the book gives answers to Anorak questions.
before you ask 'why Anorak? ' ... look here: [www.iorr.org]
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: May 26, 2014 10:43
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Happy24
It is actually very refreshing to "study" the band from different point of view.
It's an addiction.
Exactly. Since I started reading it, I wake up earlier every morning to have a quiet half an hour or an hour with the book before the rest of the family wakes up. In the evening I am the last one who goes to bed after reading a couple of pages :-)
Another little inaccuracies I discovered yesterday: Plundered My Soul is repeatedly mentioned as Plundering My Soul. And it says that WEM column speakers were used during the 1970 tour on sides of the stage with one laid horizontaly, which was the first use of monitors. The WEM columns are present in the Hydepark 1969 already, which the book doesn't say. But I didn't see the horizontal one there, that one was probably really used in 1970 for the first time. There are so many thing to learn and to discover!
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 26, 2014 14:13
Quote
Happy24
Exactly. Since I started reading it...
I mean't studying the stones from a gear angle is an addiction, not the book.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: May 26, 2014 14:23
Sure, but to get addicted you have to get the first shot first, right? That is the book for me
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-26 14:24 by Happy24.
That is the book for meEdited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-26 14:24 by Happy24.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 26, 2014 14:31
Quote
Happy24
Sure, but to get addicted you have to get the first shot first, right?
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: May 26, 2014 14:47
I have almost read it all and confirm my (very personal) first impression.
The book is great, well done, nicely edited etc. etc. but ... after years of reading this forum and every possible article and interview on guitar and audio mags (also thanks to this forum), the info is nothing really new or exciting.
But then again, it might be because I am not particularly interested in a catalog of the actual gear, or to know if a certain strat was a 55 or a 56. I am more interested in the practical side of things: how this gear was used, how was a certain sound achieved.
C
The book is great, well done, nicely edited etc. etc. but ... after years of reading this forum and every possible article and interview on guitar and audio mags (also thanks to this forum), the info is nothing really new or exciting.
But then again, it might be because I am not particularly interested in a catalog of the actual gear, or to know if a certain strat was a 55 or a 56. I am more interested in the practical side of things: how this gear was used, how was a certain sound achieved.
C
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 26, 2014 22:40
A few omissions I noticed are Keith's use of a Futurama Corvette during Between The Buttons sessions at Olympic Studios and the same amp on Eammonn Andrews Show in 1967.
You can see the small Futurama Corvette in this photo from EAS.
[www.mirrorpix.com]
Also, I didn't notice any mention of Keith's use of a WEM Custom 15 or Westminster MKII during spring 1969 Let It bleed sessions.
You can see the WEM Custom 15 or Westminster MKII in this photo By Eric Hayes.
[img864.imageshack.us]
Maybe I need reading glasses though and those are mentioned.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-26 23:26 by His Majesty.
You can see the small Futurama Corvette in this photo from EAS.
[www.mirrorpix.com]
Also, I didn't notice any mention of Keith's use of a WEM Custom 15 or Westminster MKII during spring 1969 Let It bleed sessions.
You can see the WEM Custom 15 or Westminster MKII in this photo By Eric Hayes.
[img864.imageshack.us]
Maybe I need reading glasses though and those are mentioned.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-26 23:26 by His Majesty.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: June 24, 2014 17:18
9 Guitars Keith Richards Played That Definitely WEREN'T Telecasters
We take a look at some of the Rolling Stones legends lesser-known guitars 24-Jun-14
Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards is best known for playing Telecasters, but it wasn't until long into the band's career that Keith owned, performed and recorded with a Telecaster.
Keef has played a staggering number of guitars through the 50 years of the Rolling Stones' existence as a band, and, particularly early on, played a number of obscure guitars stocked by the London music stores at the time.
After the release of the incredible new book 'Rolling Stones Gear', by Andy Babiuk and Greg Prevost, which details every single instrument, effect and amplifier used by Keith, we can now take a look back at some of those guitars.
From archtops to Flying Vs, Keith really did experiment with guitars, particularly during the Brian Jones era of the Rolling Stones.
So let's take a look at what he played in the Stones' early days.
Keith picked up his first Gibson Les Paul Standard in 1964, and only kept hold of it for three years.
The guitar, which retailed for $260, had been fitted with Bigsby vibrato unit by the previous owner. In one of those brilliant rock and roll stories, Keith sold the guitar to Mick Taylor in 1967, who was then playing for John Mayall's Bluesbreakers.
Mick's Les Paul, which had been sold to him by sales assistant Paul Kossoff (who would later go on to become one of the most famous Les Paul players of all time), had been stolen.
So he bought Keith's guitar in 1967, just two years before he joined the Rolling Stones, reuniting the band with the guitar.
See it in action in the amazing piece of footage above.
Click here: Next page
[www.sonicstate.com]
We take a look at some of the Rolling Stones legends lesser-known guitars 24-Jun-14
Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards is best known for playing Telecasters, but it wasn't until long into the band's career that Keith owned, performed and recorded with a Telecaster.
Keef has played a staggering number of guitars through the 50 years of the Rolling Stones' existence as a band, and, particularly early on, played a number of obscure guitars stocked by the London music stores at the time.
After the release of the incredible new book 'Rolling Stones Gear', by Andy Babiuk and Greg Prevost, which details every single instrument, effect and amplifier used by Keith, we can now take a look back at some of those guitars.
From archtops to Flying Vs, Keith really did experiment with guitars, particularly during the Brian Jones era of the Rolling Stones.
So let's take a look at what he played in the Stones' early days.
Keith picked up his first Gibson Les Paul Standard in 1964, and only kept hold of it for three years.
The guitar, which retailed for $260, had been fitted with Bigsby vibrato unit by the previous owner. In one of those brilliant rock and roll stories, Keith sold the guitar to Mick Taylor in 1967, who was then playing for John Mayall's Bluesbreakers.
Mick's Les Paul, which had been sold to him by sales assistant Paul Kossoff (who would later go on to become one of the most famous Les Paul players of all time), had been stolen.
So he bought Keith's guitar in 1967, just two years before he joined the Rolling Stones, reuniting the band with the guitar.
See it in action in the amazing piece of footage above.
Click here: Next page
[www.sonicstate.com]
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Gooo
()
Date: June 24, 2014 20:28
Just got this book..... Love it...great photos
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 10, 2014 12:55
Great book. yes sure there are mistakes - who wouldn't make some with so much history and details. especially considering the topic: this is a rockn roll band where no one cared about recording facts. And sh*t happened fast.
I do think that people in the know, could use this knowledge and confer with Andy himself, and help in making these edits happen; instead of posting just how inaccurate this work is.
The dedication alone, to make this book happen is awesome IMO. Same with Martin Elliott. There are many mistakes and assumptions in his book. But I support him 100% regardless.
I didnt even come here to write all that. I was asking about this first guitar that ted newman Jones brought into the fold: the rebuilt Rickenbacker; that got stolen in the Exile heist. Has anyone seen pics of it?
I do think that people in the know, could use this knowledge and confer with Andy himself, and help in making these edits happen; instead of posting just how inaccurate this work is.
The dedication alone, to make this book happen is awesome IMO. Same with Martin Elliott. There are many mistakes and assumptions in his book. But I support him 100% regardless.
I didnt even come here to write all that. I was asking about this first guitar that ted newman Jones brought into the fold: the rebuilt Rickenbacker; that got stolen in the Exile heist. Has anyone seen pics of it?
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: August 10, 2014 20:50
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.
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.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: August 10, 2014 21:58
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.
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-11 09:59 by Mathijs.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
RobberBride
()
Date: August 11, 2014 12:19
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
Haha - that is just so very arrogant of them!
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 11, 2014 12:23
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
Well then that is disouraging; and not at all like the answer I got back.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
detroitken
()
Date: August 11, 2014 15:13
hmmm...I'm waiting for this(ordered a few days ago from amazon for about $10),disapointing to hear about all the errors...
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: August 11, 2014 15:18
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Well then that is disouraging; and not at all like the answer I got back.
What answer did you get back, PR2000? to what, from whom? Please elucidate!
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: August 11, 2014 16:20
The inaccuracies don't bother me that much, since eventhough I am really interested in this stuff, I am no expert. So since I am not able to see most of those inaccuracies (but I also found some), I take them as facts and live quite happily :-). What bothered me a bit was, that as I proceeded with the book, it got more and more telegraphic. The sixties were told in great detail, the seventies too (a bit less, but still...), but from eighties on it was somehow more and more in a hurry. I can understand that both Keith and Ronnie have tons and tons of guitars that lie somewhere in a warehouse and the book would get confusing if the authors were trying to inform us about all of them, but I feel that especially from 1990 on the chapters should be revisited and treated with similar carefulness as those about the sixties.
All that being said, I think the book is really great and to say that I enjoyed reading it would be a huge understatement. In fact I don't recall when was it the last time that I was waking up early in the morning just to be able to read a few pages before the kids got up, as I did with this book.
All that being said, I think the book is really great and to say that I enjoyed reading it would be a huge understatement. In fact I don't recall when was it the last time that I was waking up early in the morning just to be able to read a few pages before the kids got up, as I did with this book.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: August 11, 2014 16:32
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.
(Example: CYHMK was played in 1971. Or not. One book says one thing, an article says another. Eventually, almost everyone credible who has spoken on the subject will be quoted here and some kind of picture will emerge. Result: They probably played it early on tour but dropped it. And so on.)
Everything is very scattered and can be time consuming to search for and read about, so everybody loves a good well-illustrated book on the subject. 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.
(Example: CYHMK was played in 1971. Or not. One book says one thing, an article says another. Eventually, almost everyone credible who has spoken on the subject will be quoted here and some kind of picture will emerge. Result: They probably played it early on tour but dropped it. And so on.)
Everything is very scattered and can be time consuming to search for and read about, so everybody loves a good well-illustrated book on the subject. 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.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: August 11, 2014 16:58
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.
But all that free fact-checking is exactly what makes this site a great resource for authors. They're not competing, they're collaborating. I'm just sorry there isn't any acknowledgement of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-12 10:20 by with sssoul.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: August 11, 2014 17:19
Quote
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. For example, they have the number of Les Pauls Taylor used wrong -they state 3 before the Winter Tour (it's 2) and 1 after 1972 (it's 2). There's no information about the very first Newman Jones guitar Keith used in 1973, other than that they state there where 2 different guitars (there was one), and that 1) Keith gave it away, 2) it's at the Hard Rock Cafe vault and 3) Pierre states Keith still has it. Why no more detailed information, and why do they state 3 things as fact? Then there's plenty of mistakes about which guitars they used on the '70 tours, and lot's of mistakes about the effects. They state they used the EMS Hi Fli for Leslie effects on the 1975 tour, but they never did. Wood used a real Leslie, and Richards the MXR Phase 100.
And it goes on and one...
Mathijs
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 11, 2014 18:50
Has anyone ever seen this piece of gear Keith's playing? I saw that tour and never saw this. He must've only done it for that show.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 11, 2014 19:10
That's from the infamous "Snail Me Up"-show!
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: August 11, 2014 20:19
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.
I am absolutely with you, I didn't mean to undermine your reasons, I actually enjoy your gear related posts a lot. Just saying, that for people like me, who don't know that much as you do, it is more joyful reading. But of course I would be happy if there were no mistakes. I am sure there will be more than one revisited edition and in 10 or 15 years, I might buy the book again, hoping for more accuracy and as I wrote above, more detailed look at the last 30 years.
Now I have The Beatles Gear book on my table, waiting for me to start. That one is a fourth edition, if I am not mistaken :-)
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
AussieMark
()
Date: August 12, 2014 04:50
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?
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.
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
Gemini
()
Date: August 12, 2014 10:26
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.
[www.danarmstrong.org]
Re: Rolling Stones Gear Book
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 12, 2014 11:04
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.
Yes, they did.
EDIT: Sorry, mistook it for the Ampeg Dan Armstrong plexi bass
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-12 12:19 by DandelionPowderman.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
chrisvw , dishevelmentblues , makemeburnthecandle , padre69 , philrock90 , steffialicia , Testify , TW2019
Guests:
2356
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10