I was watching the Rio gig again noticed two things. The first thing I noticed is that Blondie is sitting behind the stage for the first few songs and plays acoustic guitar. Ok, we knew that already, but I think that it really gives the wrong picture if you can see him in the video, it is obvious that they are hiding him. I can see a lot of stupid rumours coming up (he plays instead of Ronnie, etc).

The second thing that I noticed is that I can actually hear his acoustic guitar. And it's completely and utterly ridiculous to have him play on IORR or JJF. Listen to what he plays- he ads NOTHING, the acoustic sounds horrible there, they don't need that. They really don't, the guitars sound great! I understand if he plays on Keiths songs or the ballads, or just sings back-up vocals, for example - but hiding behind the stage and playing to IORR and JJF - it's beyond me why they do that...

I don't have anything against Blondie - just think that's really a stupid decision.


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-23 18:00 by Lorenz.

I've been thinking the same thing Lorenz. It kind of takes away from the gritty, raunchy, raw, fly by the seat of your pants appeal that some of us have come to appreciate of the Rolling Stones. Hell, they're the Rolling F***ing Stones. Why mess with it?

We could argue that it belongs to Keith's theory that in every song you must add a track of acoustic guitar to fill up the musical gaps.
Just my 2 cents!!!
I've noticed it myself during the Live telecast and I 've thought it was weird!

it sounds just right....both jjf and iorr have a acoustic guitar on the studio versions...gives it a tighter sound live!

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it sounds just right....both jjf and iorr have a
> acoustic guitar on the studio versions...gives it
> a tighter sound live!

Would be nice if it did - I get the idea of the acoustic guitar to give it a fuller sound...
But obviously this idea doesn't work - it doesn't sound right.
Just my opinion, of course.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-23 18:16 by Lorenz.

still it doesn't hurt the over all sound... its part of keith's wall of sound thing..it comes over very good on the studio track..plus when you're seeing it live it doesn't hit you...not really in your face...your right i think it is just a filler between keith and ronnie...so the boys are putting blondie to work...nice of jagger....ha!

i like it. no complaint here.

When Blondie first started playing on Licks, I thought it was sacrelige. Now, I don't mind as much - maybe I'm just used to it. An acoustic can almost be like a percussion instrument at times - the sound of the pick on the strings is often louder than the sounds coming out of the guitar itself. So in that sense, it's kind of like a tambourine or maracas or, actually, a washboard.

That said, the sight of someone outside of the core band playing a guitar is just fundamentally wrong. But what can you do? Having Ollie Brown fleshing out Charlie 30 years ago was just as bad, if you ask me. Not knockin' Ollie, but this is Charlie @#$%& Watts we're talking about.

But if Blondie playing acoustic means Chuck turns down, then it's a good thing. Plus, Blondie is at least a real musician with a solid resume - he's not some faceless session guy or, like, a Matt Clifford.

I think it's embarrassing that they feel they need a "ghost player" when Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood are up there on stage.

I'm sorry - please no mention of Clifford whilst I try to finish my breakfast....

Do you think Clifford is the pitcher or the catcher?

I think they would sound better w/ just a core band--the four + Daryl, Chuck and maybe one horn player.

I have no comlaints about Blondie's playing.

I just complain about his "I just put my finger in a light socket" hairdo!

THAT'S WHY THEY hide him behind the stage......ha..

Cool down and accept the way the Stones are organizing their shows. That is my take on this. For the first 3 songs the Stones have a general policy that only the core band should be on stage. I.e. Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie, Darryl and Chuck. The same people we see on the B-stage. So that everybody can see who is in the core band, nothing more spectacular. Then for song number four and on they allow any of the 13 musicians in the complete band setup to join in on stage. Nothing secret. Nothing special about that. Blondie is playing guitar on many songs. I would assume you might have personal opinions on who should play on songs, but really that is decided by the Stones themselves, and I don't really question their choices. The back-up musicians are normally adding to the sound rather than destroying it.

Would it be better to have it the way U2 does it? Major playback on every song? I don't think so.

Bjornulf

plus the stones have been doing that since 1969 with keys and jim price....
the great part is on the bang tour you hear the core band more than any tour since 1981....the stones are doing it right on this one!

why can't we just have this good-natured, reasonable discussion without being admonished to "cool down"?

My thing with Blondie's playing is that, at least at the show I saw, (1/18) I could not hear it all and I thought the sound was very good--quite clear. My thinking was if you are not going to be able to hear it, what is the point?

My preference is the core band--one the things I LOVE about the '78 tour.

I may be critcal of Ronnie's playing but to suggest that the Stones use Blondie or anyone else as a "ghost" player is really unfair, not to mention crazy.

The acoustic "wash", I think is something that is more applicable to studio recordings then live performances. Imo the reason for that is in a live setting between the volume and the size of the venue you lose the "nuance" effect.

Just my .02

Well - I think of myself to have a rather positive and moderate view of the Stones today.

Even if I can't see the point in Blondie playing acoustic guitar on the rock songs (mind you, I didn't say I don't understand it for the ballads), I still think that if he plays, he should be on stage. Or if they hide him, at least hide him properly - it just gives a bad picture if you can see him on the video, sitting behind the amps.

And there is a difference between a studio recording and a live song - you may have layers of guitars on a studio recording, and sure an acoustic can sound great then.
But as JuanTCB mentioned, an acoustic may sound more like a percussion instrument live - at least that seems to be the case with Blondie's playing on some songs, you mainly hear his fingers/pick on the strings.. Well, it might also be the qualit of the webcast that makes it sound like that. But from what I can hear, Blondie doesn't sound any good on those rock songs like JJF, IORR, etc. Of course I have to accept that it is like that and it's a minor complaint, overall I'm very happy with the sound on this tour.


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

Actually, if they want a 3rd player they should use Mick--he plays a good rhythm and it fills out the sound. I also like the way he sings when he plays--if you notice, his style changes quite a bit, and I always thought it sounded good.

It's funny, '78-82 he played alot of guitar on stage and not nearly as much now.
I hate to keep beating the '78 tour horse, but I thought MJ's playing instead of the horns resulted in a much rawer kind of sound.

I have no objections whatsoever concerning Blondie's playing.


bv Wrote:

> Would it be better to have it the way U2 does it?
> Major playback on every song? I don't think so.


Is this really true? More details please.

sometimes the best things are very sutle.....the best things are not even apperant?...i think it works and they all sound great....

I thought this post was gonna say Blondie (Debra Harry) playing guitar on Miss You or something with the Stones.

I wish.

The tide is high...

if in 1973 you asked to keith what he thought of an hidden guitarist behind the stage to help the band, the answer would begin by "@#$%& off".
Keith told, to play, you need a 5 strings, 2 fingers and 1 @#$%&. But now,has he a second @#$%&.
Seriously, I love them but sometimes it's a little bit sad to watch that. They don't need a third guitar. The thing they needed was STU's piano.

I didn't have time to read all the replies, so sorry if it's been brought up.
In Montreal, he did not play acoustic during JJF but instead played what used to be Ronnie's electric sitar part. From where we sat we could see him well. But I can't tell for sure if it was the actual el. sitar, or just an ordinary guitar. But it was electric, and sounded OK as the part we all know from the record.

Silly me! I was thinking about SFM instead re. Ronnie el. sitar!
But the rest of my post holds...

bv: ' major playback on every song by U2 ' What bullshit accuse is this?
The Stones lost part of the rawness since 89 by adding too many back ground musicians. Except a piano player (a real one), a saxophone player and maybe a trumpet player, the Stones don't need more. I hate Lisa screaming on Satisfaction, JJF, IORR. Her trick on GS we know by now after 5/6 tours. Bernard was a good combination with Ron during the Slide on this tour but is useless now. Won't even mention Blondie.
Get Keith/Ron back doing the back vocals. And get them back on their guitars.

Thank you kees, that's what I've been trying to say. as for U2, I have no clue.