It seems throughout the stones career they were always helped by great studio
muscians(was this a Jimmy Miller thing),all those guest players from 1981 to
now(why was jagger worried about the live performance with the current lineup),
why all the backup singers,to give jagger a break.

What other band had ALL this HELP

uh..check out the credits on Exile.....theres more 'guests' on THAT album than on pretty much any other Stones album, with the exception of Dirty Work, where they basically filled in because the band were hardly ever in the studio at the same time together

Didn't Slash try and but in during VL and was told to piss off.....

Yeah Slash wanted to play a solo on one song (forgot wich one) and according to Don Was he told him something like "i like ya kid, but stay the @#$%& away from my song".


Cheers,
Wuudy

Pink Floyd also used lots of backing musicians, or at least they did when they were still touring. Eric Clapton's solo tours also had all kinds of back-ups.

Ron Wood and Keith Richards haven't been in any condition to carry a band for 30 years. That's why there have been extra musicians going back to '78 when Ian Stewart plotted the course for Keith to follow and Ian McLagen did likewise for Ronnie. Ever notice you nearly NEVER hear them in the mix from that tour, yet they were right there on stage. It's only grown more elaborate since. The printed set list includes the beats per minute of each song so the lighting guys don't miss their cues.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ron Wood and Keith Richards haven't been in any
> condition to carry a band for 30 years.

---

Yeah, right. He was very bossy in the mid-70´s, sure. - Pleeease, come on.

And directing Chuck Berry in "Hail! Hail! Rock'n'Roll" was a piece of cake... Right?

Even though Gazza above (Gazza, note that, n o t the latest poster above here)
has a point about many musicians in 1972 the music on Exile is much boiled mainly in the very core of "Nanker-Phelge"-team.

I think the decisions on how many musicians on stage etc is far above Keith´s (even if I see him as the musical engine now & forever) as well as above Mick´s head... It´s a rock´n´roll circus & they gotta follow certain norms - & "prejudgements... And we here in the board mainly flow with the stream like will-less cretins.

They need a piano man & a saxophone player is nice... Organ (Hammond B3, of vourse for Shine A Light & maybe a couple of more song (e.g. a blues & soul-pary at a B-stage or slt.).
Don´t care what any of you "Have-been-fan-since-Altamont-and-Durty Wurks-iz-ze-best-album-and Chuckie´s-a-dezent-man"-fans say: Chuck Leavell SURE aint no Stone and will n e v e r , n e v e r be. You might possibly say the same thing on Ron & Definetely on Darryl. There are three Stones in RS & then we have Bill. A former Stone (always a Stone?). Stu & Brian are gone, the two others. James Phelge may be a half Stone though no musician in the common meaning.
WAKE UP! Stop worshipping Leavell, Chaplin & all the other session musicians.
Leavellers; Ya start another board... ! This is a Stones board.

The song was Keith's Thru and Thru

R,

Thats interesting the set lists canned write down to the minutes never knew
that before.Since 81 I have always thought there live shows were canned
arrangements with no real improvisation.

Interesting has Keith and Ronnie proved and earned their rock god status
that they could CARRY the band since the Steel Wheels tour 1989 up to the present.I guess they proved they could do it in 1981.But after that with all the horns and brass and piano to give them a break to clown and pose.

"Yeah, right. He was very bossy in the mid-70´s, sure. - Pleeease, come on.

And directing Chuck Berry in "Hail! Hail! Rock'n'Roll" was a piece of cake... Right?"

If Keith can run a band why did he choose Steve Jordan to run the Winos for him? Why does Ron Wood say (on pg 234 as I recall) in 'According To The Rolling Stones' that Chuck is the musical director of the onstage modern day Stones, counting in most songs (which indeed he does) and having Mick defer to him (Chuck) for cues and so on.

"Thats interesting the set lists canned write down to the minutes never knew
that before."

There's a web-site where you can download copies of the computor printout set lists the Stones and the lighting and sound crews use. They show the beats-per-minute, the key of the song, what ancillary players are supposed to be on-stage and so on. Keeping a stadium spectacular together would require it obviously.

This type of answer from you, R, is exactly a main reason why I will leavt this board. This is argumentation in circles:

1. "Leavell is a leader, cause he is needed."
2. "He is needed, beacuse he is a leader."

To this is often added:

"Jagger and in particular Keith is has-beens, and cant do anything by themselves.
They hardly can walk and talk at the same time (Ron´s role is more questionable here)".

If you can direct Chuck Berry, you can direct Satan himself & his followers, as well as the Stones.

Have a nice board!

<Why does Ron Wood say (on pg 234 as I recall) in 'According To The Rolling Stones' that Chuck is the musical director of the onstage modern day Stones, counting in most songs (which indeed he does) and having Mick defer to him (Chuck) for cues and so on.>

This is a big band now; Huge stages, many people on stage, arrangements...

I guess Mick and Keith must concentrate on their part of the show because it's so big. This gig is not a jam anymore.

The gig was never a jam live even with taylor.Taylor's guitar enriched the
material and added alot to the jagger/richards compositions.

Even with Taylor they had the horns and brass and nicky hopkins.

jam band are Gov,t Mule,Phish etc

A few words before I go (I intend to leave this board to get a life
- I will make soon a formal departure to all my new friends from all over the world here)...

Suddenly I realize OpenG are right on some things...
Picture if this Taylor-concept could be revived!
Taylor himself wouldnt likely come back permanently -
but the smaller scale with the BIGGER sound...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-03 16:04 by Baboon Bro.

The only Stones live jam in their 40+ year career is the Imagination jam from Hampton - and it's epic. Their won't be another one in the future, is my save guess.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

Thought I would add to this that I recently saw one of the top 100 lists and it had best jam songs and Midnight Rambler was in the top 5. I think they still and always jam out on that song. Sympathy For the Devel and Can't You Hear Me Knocking were also on it. Slave was not on the list but that is another one.

check out how bad they sound on the blues jam from the swiss rehersals from 72.
even with taylor in the band.

jeff beck walked out of the Black and Blue seesions in munich and said i have
enough this band cant jam.

The tours between 1972 and 1982 were strongly jam-based. The arrangements could vary a lot from show to show. Listen to the boots. The 81/82 tours often were pure jams.

Agree with you in a way DP, the '81 tour probably being their most spontaneous. I think it's what you understand with jam. For me it's something that just takes off and you don't know where it will end. Even the MR versions of '72 had a formal pattern (strictly tripartite, division of guitar parts, etc.). Imagination from Hampton reaching the 10 min. mark... that one just escalates.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

" This type of answer from you, R, is exactly a main reason why I will leavt this board. This is argumentation in circles:

1. "Leavell is a leader, cause he is needed."
2. "He is needed, beacuse he is a leader." '

Whatever floats your boat there Baboon Boy. I certainly prefer the more spontaneous Stones of the '60s thru early '80s myself but those days are gone. Chuck and Lisa and Blondie and the cast of the Rolling Stones "playing themselves" rather than playing music are here to stay. I'm sorry reality doesn't suit you.

keith rode on taylor's shoulders and give keith credit he gave taylor the freedom
and space to enrich the material.do you think ronnie's small role all these years
was because of keith's big ego.keith was jealous of taylor at the end of the taylor's run with the band.ronnie not a great player could of done alot more
most likely if given the okay by keith

Look throughout the bands history.......they always had guests in the studio from the start, Gene Pitney, Phil Spector, Jack Nitzche, etc. This was never played down.....it was always acknowledged. The band always said that Jimmy Miller showed up at the right time and gave them a better sound in that he was their first REAL producer. They have always acknowledged, and sometimes gave the spotlight to their backing players (Billy Preston in 75, Lisa Fischer 89 to present) onstage, not to mention guest players on stage over the years.

Nicky Hopkins, Glyn Johns, Ollie Brown, Ian, Ian Stewart, Sony Rollins, Bobby Keys, The Uptown Horns, even a street dude like Sugar Blue was prominently displayed by the band and all the people involved in Dirty Work. I wish that they had an accurate and complete list of all the singers that participated on Exile once they got to California for final mixing. I have heard rumors that whoever showed up got to sing on whatever track(s) they were working on.....from the uncredited singer to supposedly David Crosby. I think they were all so whacked out they could not remember.

Anyway.....Why so many studio, guest, backups? As the Stones went thru their different era's in the studio different players can bring something new or fresh that makes the BAND play better. On stage over the years starting with 71 they always had a horn player or two. Like one of the posts above......the shows are so massive and technically involved now it would be impossible for one guy to run everything. You have to admit the experience of going to a Stones concert these days is 100 years ahead of even the 89 shows, forget about 81 and further back.....they were dots on the horizon, unless you were on the floor the sound was horrible and if you were in the rafters (like I was in Philly in 89) you could not see anything and the sound was not that great....not to mention the giant light tower that blocked the center of the stage...remember?

All of this has led many people to say Keith can't lead the band on stage anymore in terms of cues. You are right. When a song is "programmed" thru lights, cameras, props etc, how could Keith or Mick do that and perform at the same time. Shows are big time productions now, it would not surprise me one bit if Chuck has an earpiece connected to a producer who coordinates all the elements and then gives Chuck the cue to cue the band. Think about it.

Please stop saying KR & RW cannnot play anymore......it's so obvious they can, listen to them. I heard them at MSG, Four Flicks Show.......they can still play, the other players enhance what the band does. One other note...without the support players they could not do songs such as Dance, some of the soul cover songs, etc. I agree that Chuck plinks a little too much but overall the sound that comes off the stage now sounds great.

Milo, NYC
It ain't no capital crime (to have support players)

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> keith rode on taylor's shoulders and give keith
> credit he gave taylor the freedom
> and space to enrich the material.do you think
> ronnie's small role all these years
> was because of keith's big ego.keith was jealous
> of taylor at the end of the taylor's run with the
> band.ronnie not a great player could of done alot
> more
> most likely if given the okay by keith

OpenG, I didn't understand much of what you said.

Could natural-english speakers use points and commas so we not-natural-english writers and readers understand??



[There'll be no wedding today...]

Bruno, are you sure you don't where he was aiming at?
;-)

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bruno, are you sure you don't where he was aiming
> at?
> ;-)

I know, but it's easier for me to keep a discussion if I don't have to read a post so carefully as it was an ancient egyptian hyeroglific (sp?)... (just joking, OpenG mate)

Apart from praising Taylor's abilities, I think OpenG tried to say that if Keith would let him, Ronnie would have a much more prominent role in the band. I think it's true.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Well Milo, that`s one off the finest comments i read on this tread. I totaly agree with you, you can`t compared the shows nowadays with the one from the 60`s, 70`s and the 81/82 concerts. There are to many things involved.

To R (& others):
All my gun powder aint gone yet.

Reality suits me. But its not the 80´s now: Music doesnt necessarily have to be built from an industrial complex nor little pace-meters etc etc.
I figure my reality is closer to Keiths (and maybe Ronnies) in that my heart is filled with ROCK'N'ROLL and SOUL as well as BLUES but surely not a Huge Machine which is adapted for "Dance" or a rock opera feature performance of Gimme Shelter.

Back to the roots... We dont have to defend elements in the Stones tour garbage gear that not even some themselves may not want there.

I want to see the Rock band the Rolling Stones.
I figure I have the right to state that.

On top of this, I think much of my wishes will come true during the tour, as it did at B-stages and on Circus in Stockholm & other smaller gigs.
I hope they will keep on playing for many years & lower the scale of the logistics and stage gear, so my preferences will be more the reality.

The world is full of realists, cynics & hyper-rationalists; I´d welcome more visionairies, dreamers & naîvists - and you are all free to put these names on me if you like.

" Back to the roots... We dont have to defend elements in the Stones tour garbage gear that not even some themselves may not want there. "

This is the same Rolling Stones we're talking about? If Keith Richards didn't want (or need) the "tour garbage gear" on stage with him I think you could rest assured it would not be there.

R, you never stop to surprise me.
"Keith [& RON: whenever he lead the Stones?] is
no longer in a condition to lead a band... "
Recognize these words?You wrote that not so long ago.
And now he could change the whole stage setting
(with only a few words maybe... ?)