just an audio observation....65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72!, 73, 75, 76, 78 crunch!!!...than clean cleaner cleanest.....is it a natural musical aging process?....what happened to that wonderful "dirty" geetar sound?....anybody care to opine?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-01 00:49 by Leonard Keringer.

opinion: you are unhappy about yourself for making such a "crappy" post.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> opinion: you are unhappy about yourself for
> making such a "crappy" post.


yur write T & A.....i am now going to off myself

it is not a crappy post, it is very observatory remark and has my full understanding. when i play lead guitar. i find it better to have the sound dirty, broad, fuzzy. it fills up, and actually covers mistakes !

i feel it does not fit with the horn section , backupsingers amd keyboard,
therefore it is not used now.

Seems like cirrhosis discovered the "theory of everything"...!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-11-30 23:19 by retired_dog.

and do you agree with this theroy.. rd ?

It must be aging, BB King doesn't use 'crunch' also nowadays, like he did in his early days!

i don't crunch as much as I used to either and I don't even play guitar!

yeah, well Nestle's still has crunch....and they're as old as the Stonesniks

Well, according to cirrhosis' "theory of everything" the crunch is still there. And if you can't hear it, it tells a lot about yourself and your concept of crunching. And your unhappy state of mind, of course. You see, cirrhosis' theory of everything explains everything. In fact, the crunch in the Stones guitar sound is still there. If I understand cirrhosis right, you just have to change your state of mind and your concept of how a crunchy guitar should sound and...BIG BANG...BIGGER BANG: You'll hear the crunch again!

No this is true and it is a problem Keith got mid age crisis and they had to follow popular 50s ala 80s sound in 1981-1982, heavy metal thin distortion in 85 plastic shiter in 89 etc. They began to follow trends.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, according to cirrhosis' "theory of
> everything" the crunch is still there. And if you
> can't hear it, it tells a lot about yourself and
> your concept of crunching. And your unhappy state
> of mind, of course. You see, cirrhosis' theory of
> everything explains everything. In fact, the
> crunch in the Stones guitar sound is still there.
> If I understand cirrhosis right, you just have to
> change your state of mind and your concept of how
> a crunchy guitar should sound and...BIG
> BANG...BIGGER BANG: You'll hear the crunch again!


quite the philosopher that cirrhosis..."nothing is what it appears to be"....but it does sound crunchier after a few bong hits/bottles of wine....just like the girls at the bar who look better after 3 or 10 beers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-01 00:52 by Leonard Keringer.

cirrhosis' theories, girls in bars and beers aside, I agree with you, Leonard. The crunch is gone. It's a pity. Guitars sound pretty tame by now. Seems to me that the more backing musicians they added, the more the crunch suffered. After all, the Stones used to be a guitar band...

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cirrhosis' theories, girls in bars and beers
> aside, I agree with you, Leonard. The crunch is
> gone. It's a pity. Guitars sound pretty tame by
> now. Seems to me that the more backing musicians
> they added, the more the crunch suffered. After
> all, the Stones used to be a guitar band...


Retired Dog...........bullseye!!! right on target

They're crunchier now than in '89 and louder than in '02. Not nearly as crunchy as '81-82, though. I think you guys are right, it is all the freakin' sidemen on stage. Get rid of the backup singers and the horns, except for Bobby. Get rid of Darryl and Chuck and get a bassist and keyboard player who can swing. Ian McLagan comes to mind on keyboards ...

did they ever sound crunchier than at the Press Conf in NYC this year? maybe the "no sideman theory" has merit....

"i feel it does not fit with the horn section , backupsingers amd keyboard,
therefore it is not used now. "

this I said in the fourth post of this topic and am proud to emphazise that you experienced and sophisticated fellow posters seem to agree widh my theory. this increases my confidence in my Stones science knowledge and i feel that i am rubbing shoulders with you big uns.

Yeah the sidemen pull it back a bit but hey there's plenty of crunchin' and filthy noise on the live versions of Back Of My Hand...



ROCKMAN

maybe you guys haven't seen this tour yet; the crunch is back, strongest since 1981. it's not a question of how they play it, it's what the guitar signal goes thru. i don't know if this is evident on any of the boots for this tour, as i haven't heard any, but the 2 shows i got to see were definitely the crunchiest since 1981.

and i feel also that the guitar techs and mixers (unless they were over-ruled by the Keef himself) did a pretty pisspoor job '89-'03; -plink, plink, and sterilization and sanitizing the wonderful overdriven sound we all love. case in point: if they dragged out CYHMK on this tour, those first few bars would put most of the Licks tour's versions to shame. the only 2 versions that were cool i thought were boston's Orpheum theater and Philly arena.

the crunch is back on the tour and on ABB; it's heartbreaking that the last 5 tours noone saw fit to correct it earlier....

good name for next year's live album: "The Crunch is Back."

winter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe you guys haven't seen this tour yet; the
> crunch is back, strongest since 1981. it's not a
> question of how they play it, it's what the guitar
> signal goes thru. i don't know if this is evident
> on any of the boots for this tour, as i haven't
> heard any, but the 2 shows i got to see were
> definitely the crunchiest since 1981.
>
> and i feel also that the guitar techs and mixers
> (unless they were over-ruled by the Keef himself)
> did a pretty pisspoor job '89-'03; -plink, plink,
> and sterilization and sanitizing the wonderful
> overdriven sound we all love. case in point: if
> they dragged out CYHMK on this tour, those first
> few bars would put most of the Licks tour's
> versions to shame. the only 2 versions that were
> cool i thought were boston's Orpheum theater and
> Philly arena.
>
> the crunch is back on the tour and on ABB; it's
> heartbreaking that the last 5 tours noone saw fit
> to correct it earlier....

You're right, it's back and it sounds good, but 81-82 still puts it to shame. Then again, that tour puts most any tour by most any band to shame, so I suppose I should quit bitching so much and enjoy the generally excellent shows we've been getting. But nah, can't do that, bitching is too much fun!

t&a wrote:

>good name for next year's live album: "The Crunch is Back."


or crunchy munchy big and bunchy

too "Who-ish", JJF....

sorry

I concur with this observation 100%. Where's the guitar in the mix? Who cares about horns, keys and the legion of backing vocalists. Crunch it up to 10! Maybe it comes form Keith being the balladier lately. I don't know. I do know the guitars have been too low and clean since '89.

Listen to the "Rambler" from Hershey Park, and just about everything in between..the soundboards are WAY to clean, but the audience recordings capture it perfectly....

JMHO,
'
JR

haha. or maybe (for the live set) "a bigger crunch". underwritten by Nestles...

i'm just glad that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE saw fit for this issue to be addressed on this tour; they're (and we too) not gettin' any younger. except maybe mick. that person should get a medal of honour for their work on this tour. MVP for the tour as voted by the bitching, fanatic, guitar-distortion-loving fans! thank you whoever you are. you f*%king ROCK.

T & A wrote:

good name for next year's live album: "The Crunch is Back."


How about "Live in Paris: The Crunchback of Notre Dame"!

ohnonotyouagain wrote "They are crunchier now than in '89 and louder than in '02"

Correct!

"How the Crunch Stole Christmas"