For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
keefriff99I've never been on board with the Chuck bashing, because he plays EXACTLY how a certain person in the Stones wants him to play.Quote
TheGreekYou 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 .Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
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.
Quote
TheGreekYou 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 .Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
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...
Quote
MathijsQuote
TheGreekYou 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 .Quote
powerage78
Yours certainly...
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
Quote
Captain TeagueQuote
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.
Quote
ryanpowQuote
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.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
ryanpowQuote
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.
Quote
mtaylorQuote
stoneheartedQuote
ryanpowQuote
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!
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
ryanpowQuote
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.
Quote
boboQuote
stoneheartedQuote
ryanpowQuote
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.
Not quite the Beach Boys as this was the Brian Wilson with Al Jardine .Quote
mtaylorQuote
boboQuote
stoneheartedQuote
ryanpowQuote
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
Quote
TheGreekNot quite the Beach Boys as this was the Brian Wilson with Al Jardine .Quote
mtaylorQuote
boboQuote
stoneheartedQuote
ryanpowQuote
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
Quote
powerage78
Because he has to fill out the sound.
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
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.
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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).
Quote
MonkeyMan2000Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
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.
Quote
powerage78
Chuck role is quite different for years.
He fills the voids and the lack of guitars.