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: Previous12345
Current Page: 5 of 5
Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: August 13, 2017 18:57

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.


He plinked on Under my thumb back in 82. Sounded stiff and plastic. I think his style is very "white" (at least when he plays with the Stones) and very different from those before him. Mick wanted a straight 80s all american (nothing wrong in that) bearded dependeble easy going employee and partner after collaborating with Keith,Cooder,Taylor,Nicky,Billy and Ronnie. He works with Matt (studio) and Chuck (live). Keith is of zero importance to Mick other than as a living reminder of where Mick comes from.


Keith Richards: I took Ry Cooder for everything I could get.
Redhotcarpet: I took Keith Richards for everything I could get.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 13, 2017 19:11

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Keith is of zero importance to Mick other than as a living reminder of where Mick comes from.

Do you blame Jagger for that ?

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: August 13, 2017 19:16

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
Redhotcarpet

Keith is of zero importance to Mick other than as a living reminder of where Mick comes from.

Do you blame Jagger for that ?

No not at all. He has to collaborate with someone and Keith is not the one.


Keith Richards: I took Ry Cooder for everything I could get.
Redhotcarpet: I took Keith Richards for everything I could get.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 13, 2017 23:26

Quote
Redhotcarpet
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.


He plinked on Under my thumb back in 82. Sounded stiff and plastic. I think his style is very "white" (at least when he plays with the Stones) and very different from those before him. Mick wanted a straight 80s all american (nothing wrong in that) bearded dependeble easy going employee and partner after collaborating with Keith,Cooder,Taylor,Nicky,Billy and Ronnie. He works with Matt (studio) and Chuck (live). Keith is of zero importance to Mick other than as a living reminder of where Mick comes from.

If memory serves he played exactly what Mac played on UMT on the 81 US tour?

What do you mean with "collaborated with Cooder"? There are dozens of more sidemen he collaborated closer with. He doesn't belong on that list, imo, with three songs and that subpar jam/rehearsal-record.

Generally, I agree about Chuck's playing style, though - also with the Allmans.

Mick works with lots of musicians, and that has been very important for him to be able to develop into becoming a natural musician.

But in Chuck's case it was Stu who recommended him to Mick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-13 23:54 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 14, 2017 09:59

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Redhotcarpet
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.


He plinked on Under my thumb back in 82. Sounded stiff and plastic. I think his style is very "white" (at least when he plays with the Stones) and very different from those before him. Mick wanted a straight 80s all american (nothing wrong in that) bearded dependeble easy going employee and partner after collaborating with Keith,Cooder,Taylor,Nicky,Billy and Ronnie. He works with Matt (studio) and Chuck (live). Keith is of zero importance to Mick other than as a living reminder of where Mick comes from.

If memory serves he played exactly what Mac played on UMT on the 81 US tour?

What do you mean with "collaborated with Cooder"? There are dozens of more sidemen he collaborated closer with. He doesn't belong on that list, imo, with three songs and that subpar jam/rehearsal-record.

Generally, I agree about Chuck's playing style, though - also with the Allmans.

Mick works with lots of musicians, and that has been very important for him to be able to develop into becoming a natural musician.

But in Chuck's case it was Stu who recommended him to Mick.
Don't quite agree re. Cooder. I'd put him on a short list of important collaborators to the Stones. IMO his influence goes deep; but left different im[print on Jagger and Keith. Maybe that is the first time the twins' paths separate.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 14, 2017 10:57

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-14 11:09 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: August 14, 2017 23:11

Maybe Keith will release those tapes he made of Cooder before storming out. I used to think Jamming with Edwards was crap but now I hear the origins of Rambler and a lot of what Keith liked about Cooder. And that's just some short snippets from those sessions. Mick seems to have upset Keith a great deal by working with Cooder and that drama seems to be repeated later on with Taylor, possibly Hopkins, Billy and others who Mick collaborated with. I dont think Keith ever was an easygoing laid back guy that was just the shy introvert young guy and from 1968, the heroin.

The difference between Ian Mac Lagan and Chuck could originate from his youth in the 60s when he probably absorbed "black music" - exclusively -just like his fellow countrymen, while Chuck grew up with country, honky tonk AND learned how to play the blues. I dont know, Im just speculating. Miss you, the studio version, doesnt sound "white".


Keith Richards: I took Ry Cooder for everything I could get.
Redhotcarpet: I took Keith Richards for everything I could get.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 16, 2017 11:09

I got to say this about Mac - he was in one of my favorite bands; collaborated with all my top guys; seemed like he was an incredible nice guy, just a great all round guy, but he was a terrible keyboard player, LOL

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 16, 2017 11:15

Define «terrible» grinning smiley From 1:50 and on.





[www.youtube.com]

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: MadMax ()
Date: August 16, 2017 12:50

All The Rage, Mac got to play with Sonny Bow Williamson II, Chester Burnett and McKinley M in about 3-4 years time. What a Dream!!!!!!! Mac was a great fella with the keys....

smileys with beer

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: August 16, 2017 12:57

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Define «terrible» grinning smiley From 1:50 and on.





[www.youtube.com]
Thank you DP (such a nice way for me to start my day ) Who is the master of the Steinway? Ian Mac McLagen winking smiley

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 16, 2017 15:45

Stu on Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out is just fantastic.

Inspired, so boogie and rock'n roll. Basic. Pure. Incandescent.
And at this time the band a bulldozer (SFM) and pure magic (unmatched Love in vain version).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-16 15:55 by powerage78.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 16, 2017 16:06

Quote
powerage78
Stu on Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out is just fantastic.

Inspired, so boogie and rock'n roll. Basic. Pure. Incandescent.
And at this time the band a bulldozer (SFM) and pure magic (unmatched Love in vain version).

He's excellent, but way too low in the mix, imo.

I don't know where SFM comes into this, though? For great piano playing on SFM, check out the original or the live versions with Nicky Hopkins..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-16 16:11 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 16, 2017 16:07

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Maybe Keith will release those tapes he made of Cooder before storming out.

ABKCO did that: Metamorphosis.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 16, 2017 16:15

You right but don't speak piano about SFM.
Chuck should listen to this old tapes...^^

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
powerage78
Stu on Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out is just fantastic.

Inspired, so boogie and rock'n roll. Basic. Pure. Incandescent.
And at this time the band a bulldozer (SFM) and pure magic (unmatched Love in vain version).

He's excellent, but way too low in the mix, imo.

I don't know where SFM comes into this, though? For great piano playing on SFM, check out the original or the live versions with Nicky Hopkins..

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: August 16, 2017 20:02

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Maybe Keith will release those tapes he made of Cooder before storming out.

ABKCO did that: Metamorphosis.

Im talking about the sponge job, they recorded everything more or less. Downtown Suzie is a good example of acoustic open g and along with Memo a blueprint for HTW.


Keith Richards: I took Ry Cooder for everything I could get.
Redhotcarpet: I took Keith Richards for everything I could get.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 17, 2017 02:04

Quote
TheGreek
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Define «terrible» grinning smiley From 1:50 and on.





[www.youtube.com]
Thank you DP (such a nice way for me to start my day ) Who is the master of the Steinway? Ian Mac McLagen winking smiley
Now THAT is proper rock'n'roll piano!

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 17, 2017 04:48

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Define «terrible» grinning smiley From 1:50 and on.





[www.youtube.com]
Of course he had chops; he played with ALL the greats. All his life. And I am saying this in a friendly way towards him, but he was not the best keyboard man. Very wooden.
Just listen to 'Ooh Lala".

On that point: they talk about the Stones engine; always on the brink of falling apart - what about the Faces? How did they ever manage to glue a song together?
The official release of "Stay with me"...nobody else in the world could reproduce that.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: August 17, 2017 05:40

In terms of tightness, the Faces make the Stones sound like Rush.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 17, 2017 08:44

It is the roll in "rock'n'roll" You're talking about smiling smiley

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: tomk ()
Date: August 17, 2017 09:11

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I got to say this about Mac - he was in one of my favorite bands; collaborated with all my top guys; seemed like he was an incredible nice guy, just a great all round guy, but he was a terrible keyboard player, LOL

Mac was a terrible keyboard player?
To each his own, as they say, but here's an answer to that.

[www.youtube.com]

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 17, 2017 12:05

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is the roll in "rock'n'roll" You're talking about smiling smiley
Oh no. not in this context.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 17, 2017 12:07

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is the roll in "rock'n'roll" You're talking about smiling smiley
Oh no. not in this context.

Or as they call it these days: disruption winking smiley

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 17, 2017 12:16

Quote
tomk
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I got to say this about Mac - he was in one of my favorite bands; collaborated with all my top guys; seemed like he was an incredible nice guy, just a great all round guy, but he was a terrible keyboard player, LOL

Mac was a terrible keyboard player?
To each his own, as they say, but here's an answer to that.

[www.youtube.com]
I knew I was opening myself up to a backlash when I posted earlier; but I think I being taken a little too serious, and literal here.
Yes like most here, I met Mac too; drinking, talk music, he's the nicest guy in the world; loved his book and all his solo albums. Matter of fact: I think if I could assemble an imaginary studio band today, I might even want to include Mac.
But he still messed 'Ooh La La' up.drinking smiley
Takes all the fun out of it, when you have to explain yourself; but there are mutual friends still, and I want to be clear.
And I also have respect for tomk, and don't want him to think I am a Rush fan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-17 12:19 by Palace Revolution 2000.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Date: August 17, 2017 13:15

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
tomk
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I got to say this about Mac - he was in one of my favorite bands; collaborated with all my top guys; seemed like he was an incredible nice guy, just a great all round guy, but he was a terrible keyboard player, LOL

Mac was a terrible keyboard player?
To each his own, as they say, but here's an answer to that.

[www.youtube.com]
I knew I was opening myself up to a backlash when I posted earlier; but I think I being taken a little too serious, and literal here.
Yes like most here, I met Mac too; drinking, talk music, he's the nicest guy in the world; loved his book and all his solo albums. Matter of fact: I think if I could assemble an imaginary studio band today, I might even want to include Mac.
But he still messed 'Ooh La La' up.drinking smiley
Takes all the fun out of it, when you have to explain yourself; but there are mutual friends still, and I want to be clear.
And I also have respect for tomk, and don't want him to think I am a Rush fan.

Charlie also messed up I'm Free, but I wouldn't wanna replace him with anyone smiling smiley

I know what you mean, Tony, I'm just pulling your leg. Mac was perfect in the Faces, with their wonky playing style. He also jelled in nicely in the Stones 1977-1981.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-17 13:16 by DandelionPowderman.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: August 17, 2017 18:14

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Quote
tomk
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I got to say this about Mac - he was in one of my favorite bands; collaborated with all my top guys; seemed like he was an incredible nice guy, just a great all round guy, but he was a terrible keyboard player, LOL

Mac was a terrible keyboard player?
To each his own, as they say, but here's an answer to that.

[www.youtube.com]
I knew I was opening myself up to a backlash when I posted earlier; but I think I being taken a little too serious, and literal here.
Yes like most here, I met Mac too; drinking, talk music, he's the nicest guy in the world; loved his book and all his solo albums. Matter of fact: I think if I could assemble an imaginary studio band today, I might even want to include Mac.
But he still messed 'Ooh La La' up.drinking smiley
Takes all the fun out of it, when you have to explain yourself; but there are mutual friends still, and I want to be clear.
And I also have respect for tomk, and don't want him to think I am a Rush fan.

Charlie also messed up I'm Free, but I wouldn't wanna replace him with anyone smiling smiley He should have got the job because of his heritage

I know what you mean, Tony, I'm just pulling your leg. Mac was perfect in the Faces, with their wonky playing style. He also jelled in nicely in the Stones 1977-1981.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: August 17, 2017 18:23

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Define «terrible» grinning smiley From 1:50 and on.





[www.youtube.com]

That is outstanding. And it reveals why Ronnie was able to fit in perfectly with the Stones, especially with the Chuck Berry on acid SOME GIRLS album and era.

Re: Why '89-'90 arrangements were great
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: August 17, 2017 23:34

Yes Ronnie was so good at this time with the Faces.

Goto Page: Previous12345
Current Page: 5 of 5


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 470
Record Number of Users: 161 on September 12, 2017 22:55
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home