Seems to me that the best live sound is with two guitarists. Go see U2, The Police, etc. and it just doesn't work as well, even though in the case of the latter Andy Summers is a great player.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-20 21:01 by Send It To me.

Two guitars, bass and drums is optimal IMHO. That's four pieces.

Quote
HouseBoyKnows
Two guitars, bass and drums is optimal IMHO. That's four pieces.

The singer isn't a "piece"?

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
HouseBoyKnows
Two guitars, bass and drums is optimal IMHO. That's four pieces.

The singer isn't a "piece"?

The rhythm guitarist or bassist can sing lead vocals - see Metallica.

Quote
Send It To me
Seems to me that the best live sound is with two guitarists. Go see U2, The Police, etc. and it just doesn't work as well, even though in the case of the latter Andy Summers is a great player.

You gave two bad examples because U2 has never had a standard "rhythm/lead" sound, nor has the Police really...plus they fill in their live sound with sequencers to a degree.

I think three-piece bands are where the sound can really get thin without some meaty rhythm guitar to thicken up the sound under a solo. Not always, but sometimes. Takes a special bass player with a fat sound to keep it interesting.

[www.youtube.com]

Gtr, Bass, Drums - great playing

Depends on the musicians.

Cream was great as a three-piece, each filling out the space and blending interplay perfectly.

The Doors only had three musicians onstage, and this too worked perfectly.

The Who, same thing. However, with two of the originals now gone they seem to work best live these days as a nine- or ten-piece outfit.

The Stones used to be a five-piece band live -- when Jagger was playing harmonica -- but aren't they now a twelve- or fifteen-piece outfit? It's hard to keep count since 1989 or so.

ZZ Top is still great live.


To paraphrase Billy Gibbons: "We're the same three members playing the same three chords since 1969"



_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
ZZ Top is still great live.


To paraphrase Billy Gibbons: "We're the same three members playing the same three chords since 1969"

Indeed, although I have to admit are a few instances where the sound gets a little thin without the rhythm behind Billy's playing, although Dusty is awesome.

The who and the original van halen are two of the best live bands ever.

Quote
HouseBoyKnows
Two guitars, bass and drums is optimal IMHO. That's four pieces.

More optimal is that one of the guitarists is good on keyboards. But trios like The Police, Led Zepplin, U2 are ridiculous in concert. The sound is too thin and not representative enough of the what went on in the studio which was scads of multi-tracking.

And U2 does fill in it's live sound these days (and for the last 10-15 years) with a touring keyboardist who infamously dwells beneath the stage.

Led Zeppelin

Quote
triceratops

Quote
HouseBoyKnows
Two guitars, bass and drums is optimal IMHO. That's four pieces.

More optimal is that one of the guitarists is good on keyboards. But trios like The Police, Led Zepplin, U2 are ridiculous in concert. The sound is too thin and not representative enough of the what went on in the studio which was scads of multi-tracking.

And U2 does fill in it's live sound these days (and for the last 10-15 years) with a touring keyboardist who infamously dwells beneath the stage.

Rush does an amazing job of replicating their sound live, although they use tons of synths and sequencers.

However, one thing that Rush prides themselves on is that all three members operate all of the effects onstage through the use of pedals, keyboards and electronic drum heads. They don't have anyone offstage doing it for them.

What about 2 piece bands?

** Local H - Bound for the Floor **

** The Inbreds - Any Sense of Time **

Quote
LeonidP
What about 2 piece bands?

** Local H - Bound for the Floor **

** The Inbreds - Any Sense of Time **

White Stripes?

Quote
Send It To me
Seems to me that the best live sound is with two guitarists.

How so?

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
LeonidP
What about 2 piece bands?

** Local H - Bound for the Floor **

** The Inbreds - Any Sense of Time **

White Stripes?

Ha, even better! Didn't even think of them

It all depends who's involved. In their heyday, The Who were fantastic with only one guitar. Same with Zep. The Stones, however absolutely would have suffered without a two guitar attack.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
It all depends who's involved. In their heyday, The Who were fantastic with only one guitar. Same with Zep. The Stones, however absolutely would have suffered without a two guitar attack.

Imagine how they'd sound nowadays with only Keith?

Quote
stonehearted
Depends on the musicians.

Cream was great as a three-piece, each filling out the space and blending interplay perfectly.

The Doors only had three musicians onstage, and this too worked perfectly.

The Who, same thing. However, with two of the originals now gone they seem to work best live these days as a nine- or ten-piece outfit.

The Stones used to be a five-piece band live -- when Jagger was playing harmonica -- but aren't they now a twelve- or fifteen-piece outfit? It's hard to keep count since 1989 or so.

11, unless I forgot someone?

Hendrix only used a rhythm guitarist at Woodstock. He simply didn't need one. Both his trios, the JHE and especially Band of Gypsys were fat as you want to be.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
The Stones used to be a five-piece band live -- when Jagger was playing harmonica -- but aren't they now a twelve- or fifteen-piece outfit? It's hard to keep count since 1989 or so.

11, unless I forgot someone?

Wow, okay -- actually I was just making an exaggerated guess.

That's still quite a lot of cooks in the kitchen -- and this is the toned down version since 2012.

The likes of Eddie Van Halen and Jimmie Hendrix are incredibly rare, and therefore exceptional in this regard.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
The Stones used to be a five-piece band live -- when Jagger was playing harmonica -- but aren't they now a twelve- or fifteen-piece outfit? It's hard to keep count since 1989 or so.

11, unless I forgot someone?

Wow, okay -- actually I was just making an exaggerated guess.

That's still quite a lot of cooks in the kitchen -- and this is the toned down version since 2012.

Hmm...I lost count too...4 Stones, 1 bass, 2 keyboards, 2 horns, and 2 singers..did I forget anyone? Yep, 11 lately! I miss when they played as just the Stones and Stu!..and in 1981 Mac! The peak had to be 1989 with a large horn section and 3 back up singers.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
The Stones used to be a five-piece band live -- when Jagger was playing harmonica -- but aren't they now a twelve- or fifteen-piece outfit? It's hard to keep count since 1989 or so.

11, unless I forgot someone?

Wow, okay -- actually I was just making an exaggerated guess.

That's still quite a lot of cooks in the kitchen -- and this is the toned down version since 2012.

Hmm...I lost count too...4 Stones, 1 bass, 2 keyboards, 2 horns, and 2 singers..did I forget anyone? Yep, 11 lately! I miss when they played as just the Stones and Stu!..and in 1981 Mac! The peak had to be 1989 with a large horn section and 3 back up singers.

I definitely think the peak number was 1989 (3 singers and 2 keyboardists, plus the horn section).

1997-2007 was a close second, with 3 singers but only 1 keyboardist. Now there are 2 singers and 2 keyboardists, but a stripped down horn section.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-20 23:43 by keefriff99.

I like the concept the Stones have now. Other than the backup singers there's not much difference to the 82 tour (two keyboardists and two saxophones). Though I wish Clifford would stick to percussion

I do think though that Chuck, Darryl, Keith and Ron could still handle the background vocals well (other than Gimme Shelter of course). But that is too risky for Mick because Bernard is a big help for him.

I do know I often listen to Stones material that is just them, or adding Jack, Stu or Nicky. I really like that live '64 stuff whereven and whenever I can get it. I like the tight combo.

It does depend on that guitarist though. Cream Live saying goodbye with Crossroads live did not need a piano player or rhythm guitarist. I don't think Hendrix Experience needed more. I saw him when he lost them and went on to Band of Gypsies and it was still three guys...so the guitarist is key...

but mostly i like the old fashioned four piece or four piece with a singer;
or 6 w a singer and a pianist.
so as a six piece, i'd say the original Rolling Stones had it down pat. Had it all covered and then some...that's about best I think...but people have done a lot with less folks. Especially if I a really key guitarist or instrumentalist sings; like in Lovin' Spoonful, or The Stones when Mick plays acoustic but he does not take it too seriously, but he's good.....you know...a lot of four piece bands with a good singer can really do it. Two singers and they are powerful. I do like piano though. I'm never sorry to see a piano player boogie woogie on top of everything.

(the exception would be Ike Turner's bands or James Brown, they sort of had every instrument play the drums. haha or some direct rhythm hit....so if James wanted six horn guys to just punch that HIT here and there, that was way ok by me )

The Doors may have been better with a live bass player on most of their material; the right person could have hung loose and weird w them when they wanted to go there musically.....
that was pretty incredible tho with Ray's keyboard bass and bass pedals....that was three guys sounding like four guys plus a singer; but it was just 3 and Jim.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-21 00:30 by hopkins.

How many did the Stones have on stage in the mid-70s?
The five of them, two horn players, Ollie Brown, Billy Preston ... other keyboards? more horns?

Quote
wonderboy
How many did the Stones have on stage in the mid-70s?
The five of them, two horn players, Ollie Brown, Billy Preston ... other keyboards? more horns?

I think 1972 was usually the Stones plus Hopkins, Keys and Price. Wasn't it the same in Europe 1973 except Keys got replaced?
1975-76 the extras were Preston and Brown with Stu once in awhile and on some gigs like in LA Friday a guest on sax. 1978 might have been the most stripped down since 1969, with two ivory ticklers (Mac & Stu) and no extra percussion and horns. Now...who can tell exactly how many people are onstage since 2012 when the choir is onstage for Can't Always Get? That's a lot of people!
So, is it safe to say 1969 was the last time they played as just the band plus piano?

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

AC/DC - 5 members and a great live band.

Queen - 4 members and a great live band.

The number of musicians is not any indicator of good or bad.

My personal opinion is Stones became a worse touring band increasing the number of musicians - specially 1989 and further. Including back-up singers, brass players swinging their hips and clapping hands adds nothing, rather opposite.