Quote
greenriver
As a french, le "Camembert" is also rock'n'roll.

I love language lessons

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

The stripped combo that played at Trabendo, Mogador and mini-Trabendo was really unexpected and enjoyable. Normally Lisa would have been there at the same time as Bernard (the day after the Trabendo) but apparently she had other commitments at that time.

'He' was 'downsized'?He's quite the small guy already, no?

Chuck didn't like him. Or possibly he wasn't cutting it on guitar, which would have required yet another guitar to cover for him.

I'm seeing him tonight. Looking forward to "Sail On Sailor".

<Chuck didn't like him.>

><

Why not? The best line-up would be the four + BW + MT + Ian McLagan. No plink plonk piano, no sax noise ... only guitars, guitars, guitars ...

Quote
RobertJohnson
Why not? The best line-up would be the four + BW + MT + Ian McLagan. No plink plonk piano, no sax noise ... only guitars, guitars, guitars ...

Plink Plonk Piano !!!!!!!!!!Hahahaha Great... Love it !!!
Jeroen

<no sax noise>

Last time I checked The Rolling Stones were Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Ronnie Wood and some hired gun on bass. I always wondered who are all these other people on stage with them. Did they win or bought an extended Meet & Greet or something? I mean, I want to see The Stones, not The Stones with a backing band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-15 16:10 by Glammy.

Quote
Glammy
Last time I checked The Rolling Stones were Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Ronnie Wood and some hired gun on bass. I always wondered who are all these other people on stage with them. Did they win or bought an extended Meet & Greet or something? I mean, I want to see The Stones, not The Stones with a backing band.

Been that way since 1969. This is the closest we've been since. Wanna go that route?

Wouldn't mind it myself. The guitar sound here is unbelievable!







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-15 16:34 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
RobertJohnson
Why not? The best line-up would be the four + BW + MT + Ian McLagan. No plink plonk piano, no sax noise ... only guitars, guitars, guitars ...

No Chuck? What is this band becoming

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Glammy
Last time I checked The Rolling Stones were Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Ronnie Wood and some hired gun on bass. I always wondered who are all these other people on stage with them. Did they win or bought an extended Meet & Greet or something? I mean, I want to see The Stones, not The Stones with a backing band.

Been that way since 1969. This is the closest we've been since. Wanna go that route?

Wouldn't mind it myself. The guitar sound here is unbelievable!

Wow. 2013 is such a drop off from even 2005. I guess we'll have always have to refer to Keith as pre-head-injury and post-head-injury.

Quote
bleedingman
Chuck didn't like him. Or possibly he wasn't cutting it on guitar, which would have required yet another guitar to cover for him.

I'm seeing him tonight. Looking forward to "Sail On Sailor".

Saw Jeff Beck and Brian Wilson with Blondie in Philly Sunday night. Excellent show you should have a blast. Sail on Sailor was one of the of many highlights of the show. I was a little concerned that it would be a Beach Boy crowd with no interest in Jeff Beck boy was I wrong the crowd loved Jeff Beck! It might seem like an odd pairing going into the show but you will not leave with that thought. I would go see this show in a heartbeat again. If anyone is on the fence about going get down and go it is worth every penny!

Less is more with the Stones. They work best with 2 guitars, bass, drums, keys and vocals. Nothing else needed

If Bobby trots out once in a while and adds sax to a song...it would be all I'd add.

Maybe the backup singers, extra horns, etc cover up for the sloppiness of certain parts of shows, but I'd rather the rough edges than Vegas.

Elvis and Buddy Holly were at their best with basic bands. Same thing with Springsteen. The Who with all the add-ons for their late 80s Tommy? Horrid. Even the Black Keys are at their best on stage when it is just the 2 of them.

I was not a Blondie fan. But even though Lisa and Bernard and Tim Ries and others ground out tours and albums with the band, and may be nice people, I'd rather none of them were there.

Dude's played with the Beach Boys, Stones, and the Band! Granted not in their peak years (though with the Beach Boys indeed their live peak and still artistically relevant) but still -- that's a helluva resume.

I'm going to the Beacon tonight and am particularly anticipating the Blondie songs -- hopefully including "Wild Honey!"

Quote
Wry Cooter
I'm going to the Beacon tonight

And I wish you a great time

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Been that way since 1969.

A one off guest percussion enhancement is a bit different to what started happening from 1970 onwards.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
mtaylor
He had a bad influence on Keith. Mick didn't like him.

I don´t think Blondie had a bad influence on anyone. What do you mean?

I met him many times at Four Seasons bars. He was always drunk

I thought that Julliard performance was quite sloppy.
I certainly don't think it's better than some of the 2013 performances.

Quote
buffalo7478
Less is more with the Stones. They work best with 2 guitars, bass, drums, keys and vocals. Nothing else needed

If Bobby trots out once in a while and adds sax to a song...it would be all I'd add.

Maybe the backup singers, extra horns, etc cover up for the sloppiness of certain parts of shows, but I'd rather the rough edges than Vegas.

I wasn't fortunate enough to see the band play in earlier years, and I haven't gone to any shows the last few times around, so my perspective is a bit limited. No classic period and no Vegas years.

Just the same, I saw them on the tours for Some Girls and Tattoo You, and I didn't feel like there was energy or edginess or rawness or any of that good stuff. They were just @#$%& sloppy. I much preferred the Urban Jungle show I saw.

Given that there was no way for me to see the real thing, which in my opinion would be the band as it was from, say, 1968 through 73, from my point of view the presence of backup singers and musicians and so forth at least ensured that I got to see a solid performance of a lot of great songs by my favorite band.

My feelings of Blondie being on stage with this band: useless as tits on a bull.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Glammy
Last time I checked The Rolling Stones were Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Ronnie Wood and some hired gun on bass. I always wondered who are all these other people on stage with them. Did they win or bought an extended Meet & Greet or something? I mean, I want to see The Stones, not The Stones with a backing band.

Been that way since 1969. This is the closest we've been since. Wanna go that route?

Wouldn't mind it myself. The guitar sound here is unbelievable!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ boring as hell

Quote
blivet

Quote
buffalo7478
Less is more with the Stones. They work best with 2 guitars, bass, drums, keys and vocals. Nothing else needed

If Bobby trots out once in a while and adds sax to a song...it would be all I'd add.

Maybe the backup singers, extra horns, etc cover up for the sloppiness of certain parts of shows, but I'd rather the rough edges than Vegas.

I wasn't fortunate enough to see the band play in earlier years, and I haven't gone to any shows the last few times around, so my perspective is a bit limited. No classic period and no Vegas years.

Just the same, I saw them on the tours for Some Girls and Tattoo You, and I didn't feel like there was energy or edginess or rawness or any of that good stuff. They were just @#$%& sloppy. I much preferred the Urban Jungle show I saw.

Given that there was no way for me to see the real thing, which in my opinion would be the band as it was from, say, 1968 through 73, from my point of view the presence of backup singers and musicians and so forth at least ensured that I got to see a solid performance of a lot of great songs by my favorite band.

Must not have seen the same Some Girls and 1981 Tour stops as you. The ones I saw were great. It was never the same, or as good afterward. I prefer them sounding more raw.

Blondie played with the Beach Boys when they were washed up, the Band when they were no longer the Band and The Stones in Vegas. Not sure why people care much for him, other than he seems like a nice guy. Kind of funny that Chuck gets all sorts of hate on here, but he played with ABB when they were relevant, Sea Level was good, and he helped produce the Black Crowes possibly 2 best records. At least he has a more legitimate pedigree than Blondie. (I prefer Mac, and Stew and Billy and all the predecessor keyboardists to Chuck, but at least adds something at times)

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
blivet

Quote
buffalo7478
Less is more with the Stones. They work best with 2 guitars, bass, drums, keys and vocals. Nothing else needed

If Bobby trots out once in a while and adds sax to a song...it would be all I'd add.

Maybe the backup singers, extra horns, etc cover up for the sloppiness of certain parts of shows, but I'd rather the rough edges than Vegas.

I wasn't fortunate enough to see the band play in earlier years, and I haven't gone to any shows the last few times around, so my perspective is a bit limited. No classic period and no Vegas years.

Just the same, I saw them on the tours for Some Girls and Tattoo You, and I didn't feel like there was energy or edginess or rawness or any of that good stuff. They were just @#$%& sloppy. I much preferred the Urban Jungle show I saw.

Given that there was no way for me to see the real thing, which in my opinion would be the band as it was from, say, 1968 through 73, from my point of view the presence of backup singers and musicians and so forth at least ensured that I got to see a solid performance of a lot of great songs by my favorite band.

Must not have seen the same Some Girls and 1981 Tour stops as you. The ones I saw were great. It was never the same, or as good afterward. I prefer them sounding more raw.

Blondie played with the Beach Boys when they were washed up, the Band when they were no longer the Band and The Stones in Vegas. Not sure why people care much for him, other than he seems like a nice guy. Kind of funny that Chuck gets all sorts of hate on here, but he played with ABB when they were relevant, Sea Level was good, and he helped produce the Black Crowes possibly 2 best records. At least he has a more legitimate pedigree than Blondie. (I prefer Mac, and Stew and Billy and all the predecessor keyboardists to Chuck, but at least adds something at times)

I have to say also that 78 and 81 were some of the worst shows I ever saw. Wasted, f up on stage. Coked up to the point were the tempos were out of hand. Bottom of the barrel set list too.

The Beach Boys were hardly washed up when Blondie was with them in the early/mid 70s. They were the greatest live arena band I ever saw -- including the Stones -- and Blondie was a big part of that. And their albums from that period are much loved by hard core fans. I understand a lot you guys despise the Stones sidemen just for being there, but I don't understand the need to denigrate.

BTW, he was great tonight -- "Sail on Sailor" and "Wild Honey" were highlights. Later he came out for the "hits" section and did a "Keith"; facing the drummer and locking in. He also vocalized on "Rollin' and Tumblin' " with Jeff Beck -- very cool.

Anyway, love the Stones!

Blondie tore it up at the Beacon tonight. Had no idea he could handle front man duties so well. Very talented dude.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
blivet

Quote
buffalo7478
Less is more with the Stones. They work best with 2 guitars, bass, drums, keys and vocals. Nothing else needed

If Bobby trots out once in a while and adds sax to a song...it would be all I'd add.

Maybe the backup singers, extra horns, etc cover up for the sloppiness of certain parts of shows, but I'd rather the rough edges than Vegas.

I wasn't fortunate enough to see the band play in earlier years, and I haven't gone to any shows the last few times around, so my perspective is a bit limited. No classic period and no Vegas years.

Just the same, I saw them on the tours for Some Girls and Tattoo You, and I didn't feel like there was energy or edginess or rawness or any of that good stuff. They were just @#$%& sloppy. I much preferred the Urban Jungle show I saw.

Given that there was no way for me to see the real thing, which in my opinion would be the band as it was from, say, 1968 through 73, from my point of view the presence of backup singers and musicians and so forth at least ensured that I got to see a solid performance of a lot of great songs by my favorite band.

Must not have seen the same Some Girls and 1981 Tour stops as you. The ones I saw were great. It was never the same, or as good afterward. I prefer them sounding more raw.

Blondie played with the Beach Boys when they were washed up, the Band when they were no longer the Band and The Stones in Vegas. Not sure why people care much for him, other than he seems like a nice guy. Kind of funny that Chuck gets all sorts of hate on here, but he played with ABB when they were relevant, Sea Level was good, and he helped produce the Black Crowes possibly 2 best records. At least he has a more legitimate pedigree than Blondie. (I prefer Mac, and Stew and Billy and all the predecessor keyboardists to Chuck, but at least adds something at times)

I have to say also that 78 and 81 were some of the worst shows I ever saw. Wasted, f up on stage. Coked up to the point were the tempos were out of hand. Bottom of the barrel set list too.

If you are a Stones fan you have to live with the fact that every concert could be the one totally messed up gig of the tour, bad luck that it is the one you attended. That belongs to the "special characteristics"of our band ...

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Glammy
Last time I checked The Rolling Stones were Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Ronnie Wood and some hired gun on bass. I always wondered who are all these other people on stage with them. Did they win or bought an extended Meet & Greet or something? I mean, I want to see The Stones, not The Stones with a backing band.

Been that way since 1969. This is the closest we've been since. Wanna go that route?

Wouldn't mind it myself. The guitar sound here is unbelievable!

Wow. 2013 is such a drop off from even 2005. I guess we'll have always have to refer to Keith as pre-head-injury and post-head-injury.

Most definitely! Just check out the pre-injury gigs! He was very good!

He was indeed, but he is lost on ONNYA here

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He was indeed, but he is lost on ONNYA here

I was at this event and, as always, the youtube doesn't begin to capture the true sound. Mick did comment after ONNYA something to the effect that "That wasn't very good. Julliard deserves better." Paraphrasing. I was struck by the stark, no frills sound, especially the drums in BS which were fairly true to the original recording.

My favorite part of the afternoon was during the press conference when Keith faux-indignantly threw his leather jacket on the floor and said "YOU can keep the money, PAL!".