Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 4 of 5
Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 9, 2017 13:28

Purely right.

Quote
keefriff99
Quote
TheGreek
Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
You know what is funny to me about Chuck with the Allmans ? I do not remember and plinky plunky plunk playing on the piano back then as in he actually played the heck out of the Ivories and he certainly can play with the best of them when he is allowed .
I've never been on board with the Chuck bashing, because he plays EXACTLY how a certain person in the Stones wants him to play.

He's not out there on his own over-playing for his own amusement...he plays the way he does to fill out the sound and cover for the guitars.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: August 9, 2017 14:16

Quote
TheGreek
Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
You know what is funny to me about Chuck with the Allmans ? I do not remember and plinky plunky plunk playing on the piano back then as in he actually played the heck out of the Ivories and he certainly can play with the best of them when he is allowed .

My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

Mathijs

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 9, 2017 14:53

Some japanese digital stuff to fill out the sound on stage.
A major and inevitable evolution.
What a real piano can't do...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-09 15:28 by powerage78.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mtaylor ()
Date: August 9, 2017 21:13

Quote
powerage78
Some japanese digital stuff to fill out the sound on stage.
A major and inevitable evolution.
What a real piano can't do...



This can do

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: August 9, 2017 22:25

Quote
Mathijs
Quote
TheGreek
Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
You know what is funny to me about Chuck with the Allmans ? I do not remember and plinky plunky plunk playing on the piano back then as in he actually played the heck out of the Ivories and he certainly can play with the best of them when he is allowed .

My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

Mathijs

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mosthigh ()
Date: August 10, 2017 03:39

Quote
Captain Teague
Quote
Send It To me

5. "Can you hit me one time" Satisfaction breakdown

A complete low point for me. Starting point for the Vegas era.

1989/90 - Far too much Matt Clifford and not enough guitars (although the Dallas '89 soundboard is an exception). Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the 1990 shows that I saw - the setlists were great.

Yes, Clifford played synth on many songs, but was kinda drowned in the mix, mercifully; however, there are some '89-'90 Video/SBD boots (I forget which) where he's turned way up (probably not in the actual PA at the show), and it's just horrible, horrible....ouch!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 10, 2017 04:02

Stones music has never been cut out for synth. (Unless it's a synth played by Jagger because he will have written the song on it, and it will make sense; there are several examples)
But otherwise they sound awful. Even worse than Clifford and Leavell was Billy Preston in '75/76 when he used those early monophonic sawtooth sounds to try and ramble on Brown Sugar or Street Fightin Man.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: August 10, 2017 04:44

The Version Of Almost Hear You Sigh I posted a couple pages back has a nice keyboard part IMO. I don't know if you can call it synth, but its not piano.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: August 10, 2017 05:24

Quote
ryanpow
Quote
Mathijs
My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

The thing with having a piano on tour is that it has to be tuned. That takes an hour to 90 minutes on average. On the South American tour, for instance, this would have meant an almost daily task.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Shade ()
Date: August 10, 2017 05:33

Some people call the SW/UJ tour the start of the "Vegas Era". I call it the start of the sound era. In my opinion, this time period is when most major bands began sounding great live. I think it coincides with advances in computer and audio technologies. Perhaps I'm wrong but it sure seemed to me like everyone got louder and clearer in concert.

As for the Stones, their sound in concert began sounding richer, fuller, and with supporting players contributing ....all good in my opinion. Not knocking earlier tours, just saying that the band's sound got thicker, which to me is a good thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-10 05:38 by Shade.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mtaylor ()
Date: August 10, 2017 21:36

Quote
stonehearted
Quote
ryanpow
Quote
Mathijs
My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

The thing with having a piano on tour is that it has to be tuned. That takes an hour to 90 minutes on average. On the South American tour, for instance, this would have meant an almost daily task.

If it was possible with a grand piano in the 70'ies / 80'ies - it should also be possible from then on!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mr_dja ()
Date: August 10, 2017 22:34

Quote
mtaylor
Quote
stonehearted
Quote
ryanpow
Quote
Mathijs
My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

The thing with having a piano on tour is that it has to be tuned. That takes an hour to 90 minutes on average. On the South American tour, for instance, this would have meant an almost daily task.

If it was possible with a grand piano in the 70'ies / 80'ies - it should also be possible from then on!

I agree that it should and could have been done until this very day. I wonder if the main reason it's not done these days has as much to do with the fact that Stu isn't around to demand it as with anything else. Sure, an acoustic piano is an expensive, labor intensive instrument to transport and use on tour. But, realistically, the tours that HAD a real piano made far less money than the tours that haven't had a real piano so saying money is the issue is most likely not an accurate assessment. Looking back, all of the tours that HAD a piano, also had Stu. The tours without a piano, didn't have Stu.

Kinda makes me happy to think that, although "the decision makers" don't seem to think an acoustic piano is necessary for a Stones show, they were willing to provide one for their (former) bandmate while he was on the road with them. Possibly, at the time, the thought was along the lines of, 'Stu plays piano. We have to have a piano.' Or to paraphrase a song lyric, Stu got what he wanted, Chuck gets what he needs.

BTW -> I'm not 100% sure that all the tours with Stu also had an acoustic piano... I'm trusting that the department of historical accuracy will either verify or confirm that. I do know that all of the tours SINCE Stu's passing have been lacking a piano and thus triggered my thought process.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: bobo ()
Date: August 10, 2017 22:45

Quote
stonehearted
Quote
ryanpow
Quote
Mathijs
My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

The thing with having a piano on tour is that it has to be tuned. That takes an hour to 90 minutes on average. On the South American tour, for instance, this would have meant an almost daily task.

No problem for Springsteens camp,it seems.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mtaylor ()
Date: August 11, 2017 18:42

Quote
bobo
Quote
stonehearted
Quote
ryanpow
Quote
Mathijs
My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

The thing with having a piano on tour is that it has to be tuned. That takes an hour to 90 minutes on average. On the South American tour, for instance, this would have meant an almost daily task.

No problem for Springsteens camp,it seems.

Neither Beach Boys anno 2016


Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: wonderboy ()
Date: August 11, 2017 19:04

Seems that tuning a piano would be no problem for one of the many techs that Stones employ.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: August 11, 2017 21:33

Quote
mtaylor
Quote
bobo
Quote
stonehearted
Quote
ryanpow
Quote
Mathijs
My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

The thing with having a piano on tour is that it has to be tuned. That takes an hour to 90 minutes on average. On the South American tour, for instance, this would have meant an almost daily task.

No problem for Springsteens camp,it seems.

Neither Beach Boys anno 2016

Not quite the Beach Boys as this was the Brian Wilson with Al Jardine .

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mtaylor ()
Date: August 11, 2017 22:19

Quote
TheGreek
Quote
mtaylor
Quote
bobo
Quote
stonehearted
Quote
ryanpow
Quote
Mathijs
My main gripe with Chuck is the fact that his piano sound is just awful. It's fake plinky plunky sound. With the Allmans and with the Stones in 1982 he still used real piano's, and not some Japanese digital stuff.

That's always been my main contention. While a keyboard synth sound can sometimes fit on a song, a digitalized piano sound is just cheesy.

The thing with having a piano on tour is that it has to be tuned. That takes an hour to 90 minutes on average. On the South American tour, for instance, this would have meant an almost daily task.

No problem for Springsteens camp,it seems.

Neither Beach Boys anno 2016

Not quite the Beach Boys as this was the Brian Wilson with Al Jardine .

Seems like Chuck understands the things - why doesn't he use it with Stones!!

[youtu.be]

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 12, 2017 00:40

Because he has to fill out the sound.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: MadMax ()
Date: August 13, 2017 13:42

I'll put my two cents in for this. Am I the only person in the universe who reacts when I hear stuff like Miss You from Havanna when listening to the CD? Mr Clifford is WAY up there in the mix with some sort of keyboard strings. It sounds HORRIBLE. There should only be some wurlitzer from Chuck when playing MY. I hope they remove the strings sound when doin' Europé in about a month. Anyone else reacted to this??

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: MonkeyMan2000 ()
Date: August 13, 2017 13:55

Strings and a HARMONICA. Matt didn't play keyboards the whole show up until the Zip Code Tour. From last year on, he's on stage almost the entire time (save JJF, MR, any more?), doing sounds such as fake harmonica and strings on MY, fake hand clapping on SMU (he and the background singers were born with two hands and could use them for this, for god's sake) and strings on PIB and Gimme Shelter. Fortunately, at the show you don't really notice him, but on the recent DVDs he's way up in the mix.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 13, 2017 14:41

Quote
powerage78
Because he has to fill out the sound.

This is a good point, and kind of depressing. A straight piano, in a rock band, doesn't add that much. You need some kind of synth pad.
The big 4 piece bands now usually have a couple of guys behind the amp line playing along, filling out the sound. Other big acts use the type of effects that carry the band. Or an act will write the type of material that can/ and should be delivered in a minimalistic band.
The Stones have two guitarists, sometimes three. And neither one of them seem to do much playing anymore.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 13, 2017 14:44

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
powerage78
Because he has to fill out the sound.

This is a good point, and kind of depressing. A straight piano, in a rock band, doesn't add that much. You need some kind of synth pad.
The big 4 piece bands now usually have a couple of guys behind the amp line playing along, filling out the sound. Other big acts use the type of effects that carry the band. Or an act will write the type of material that can/ and should be delivered in a minimalistic band.
The Stones have two guitarists, sometimes three. And neither one of them seem to do much playing anymore.

But didn't Chuck play keyboards/electric piano in 1982 as well? Stu played the real piano. No plinky plonk-sounds back then, and he filled in just the same.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: MonkeyMan2000 ()
Date: August 13, 2017 14:53

I think playing more rudimentary piano, more chord based stuff on the lower keys would help much more filling in than Chuck's endless plink plonk soloing.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 13, 2017 14:58

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
I think playing more rudimentary piano, more chord based stuff on the lower keys would help much more filling in than Chuck's endless plink plonk soloing.

True. But when Chuck switches to Rhodes or wurlie he does just that (SMU, JJF).

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: MonkeyMan2000 ()
Date: August 13, 2017 15:39

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
MonkeyMan2000
I think playing more rudimentary piano, more chord based stuff on the lower keys would help much more filling in than Chuck's endless plink plonk soloing.

True. But when Chuck switches to Rhodes or wurlie he does just that (SMU, JJF).

Yes, I think when playing JJF he switches to organ mid song and that really helps to give even more power to the song.

But I am talking songs like Rocks Off, Loving Cup etc. There it would really help to focus more on chord based playing. That's why I think it's not a good idea for them to play We Love You. Chuck would probably do some boogie woogie soloing on top of the intro grinning smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-13 15:43 by MonkeyMan2000.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 13, 2017 15:44

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
MonkeyMan2000
I think playing more rudimentary piano, more chord based stuff on the lower keys would help much more filling in than Chuck's endless plink plonk soloing.

True. But when Chuck switches to Rhodes or wurlie he does just that (SMU, JJF).

Yes, I think when playing JJF he switches to organ mid song and that really helps to give even more power to the song.

But I am talking songs like Rocks Off, Loving Cup etc. There it would really help to focus more on chord based playing. That's why I think it's not a good idea for them to play We Love You. Chuck would probably do some boogie woogie soloing on top of the intro grinning smiley

He he, yes, but he did a nice She's A Rainbow in South America, though smiling smiley

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: MonkeyMan2000 ()
Date: August 13, 2017 16:01

Yes, he stayed quite true to Nicky's original on that one.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 13, 2017 16:24

Chuck role is quite different for years.

He fills the voids and the lack of guitars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-13 16:36 by powerage78.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: August 13, 2017 16:39

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
powerage78
Because he has to fill out the sound.

This is a good point, and kind of depressing. A straight piano, in a rock band, doesn't add that much. You need some kind of synth pad.
The big 4 piece bands now usually have a couple of guys behind the amp line playing along, filling out the sound. Other big acts use the type of effects that carry the band. Or an act will write the type of material that can/ and should be delivered in a minimalistic band.
The Stones have two guitarists, sometimes three. And neither one of them seem to do much playing anymore.

But didn't Chuck play keyboards/electric piano in 1982 as well? Stu played the real piano. No plinky plonk-sounds back then, and he filled in just the same.

I"m pretty sure he just played Electric Piano which has its own sound and is cool and funky. More Subtle, IMO, than a digitalized "real" piano sound.


I guess one advantage to their set up now is that they don't need two keyboard players like they did in 78-82 when they had Stu on Piano and Mac on Organ/Electric Piano and then Chuck in 82. Now he can just do either one depending on the song using the same equipment. Doesn't explain the 89 set up though...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-13 16:58 by ryanpow.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: mtaylor ()
Date: August 13, 2017 16:51

Quote
powerage78
Chuck role is quite different for years.

He fills the voids and the lack of guitars.

His plink, plink on "Under my thumb" recently was horrendous.

I just thought "Is this somehow a Karaoke show"?

That killed it for many die-hard / loyal fans!!

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 4 of 5


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 328
Record Number of Users: 135 on May 20, 2015 22:23
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home