Honestly, do any of you really have a problem with him playing acoustic guitar as audio enhancement? It doesn't bother me at all.

To me, it's just another layer in the 21st century Stones' version of a wall of sound on stage.

yeh i have a slight problem with it...it dosen't keep me up nights...
and i'm not gonna slam blondie...but there's 3 guys there that play real nice acoustic that are actually rolling stones...if something cries for texture and the electrics aren't making it all happen live for whatever reason...
if they're gonna get another guitarist, get another guitarist, not a crutch...
and he can take bernard and lisa with him on the way out...


that being said, they are what they are and they do what they do and bring on thet tour and i don't have a personal problem with it...jist the aforementioned opine...excited about the tour...very much so...charlie watts, keith richards, mick jagger, ron wood...we're already living with a generic session guy on bass for godsake...

If it adds to the Stones sound and helps copensate for Keith abd Ronnie's cock-up's, then I'm all for it. From what I have heard, his strumming is tasteful enough. However, just like Chuck Levell, in an ideal world I wouldn't have him there.

I indeed have a problem with it, it makes no sense at all.
I'd rather hear a raw, f**cked up version with Keith and Ronnie,
than hear some intruder covering up the messs and glossing it over.

Similar to the Michaelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel.
I liked the old, deteriorated, nicely aged and weathered version.
Once they "restored" it, the colors seem unnaturally bright, like a cartoon.

Blondie turns the Stones sound into a cartoon, very unnatural and contrived.
If they insist on keeping him, I say he sticks to the tambourine,
and add a backing vocal here and there, but thats it!

He was playing electric guitar as well at Twickenham last year, from where I was in the dissabled section on Ronnie's side I could clearly see he was playing an electric guitar on some numbers.
I did mention it on a thread last year,but not sure where it is now

Doesn't bother me whatsoever.
A big part of the Stones recorded work over the years has been the layering of guitar parts to create the complete sound.
As far as I'n concerned, and irrespective of all the discussion about whether he's covering for anybody else, it simply helps to bring that element to the live sound.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, do any of you really have a problem with him playing acoustic guitar as audio enhancement?

Not at all.

Most of the recorded versions of songs have layers of guitars, at least since 1967; they also have keyboards, horns etc. Extra percussion (did anyone moan about Ollie Brown....OK so the internet wasn't available to fans in 75/76). trying to emulate some of that on stage - so what?

Why all this bitching about Blondie (really nice friendly man, great singer, good musician, fighter - imagine growing up in South Africa in the 60s); and Chuck (only spoke to him once but so pleasant considering a fairly pissed brit fan caught him in a bar in Denmark; and great musician with awesome history).

I guess we would all like to be up there playing with the boys!

seems keith and ronnie need a rumpelstilstilsken to help them with their "weave"

why play acoustic guitar on gimme shelter like he did on the licks tour - it adds nothing to the live performance. Those two MUTED rhythm guitars are enough.
LOL

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why play acoustic guitar on gimme shelter like he did on the licks tour

Because Keith wanted him to.

"Those two MUTED rhythm guitars are enough. LOL"

Its a shame OpenG that you can't stick with your point instead of having a veiled dig.

come on ablett those great dueling guitars are enough why have a acoustic you can barely hear it does not enrich the live song like some extra vibrato or some good BROWN SUGAR you can put into your coffee or engine .

But thats not your point OpenG and you know it. It doesn't matter two hoots if Blondie plays an acoustic guitar that isn't that audible. Your not satisfied with the way RW and KR play. But then you haven't been to a gig in eons......

no i love those guitars - i love two guitars that sound the same joined to the hip you have convinced me of that with me on this forum the last two years.

its about rock and roll and attitude musician ship means nothing.

play that guitar boy

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!

Its a shame you can't make a show. You might change your tune......

come on ablett, me and wife were in london in 2006 but only made it to sticky fingers restaurant, and we have other family summer vacation plans that do not involve the stones .

play that guitar boy.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, do any of you really have a problem with
> him playing acoustic guitar as audio enhancement?
> It doesn't bother me at all.
>

If its deemed to be necessary by the band at this stage in their careers, then, no I don't.

In an ideal world, they'd be a lot younger, no one would have arthritis or diminished playing skills due to a lifetime of excess and it would be nice to have a stripped-down sound for a change, but for various reasons - which tend to be based on necessity more than anything else - that isnt going to happen.

Let the poor lad play He gets bored standing and singing harmony.

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But thats not your point OpenG and you know it. It
> doesn't matter two hoots if Blondie plays an
> acoustic guitar that isn't that audible. Your not
> satisfied with the way RW and KR play. But then
> you haven't been to a gig in eons......


huh? ablett, its absolutely obvious that KR asked blondie to play because HE HIMSELF is not satisfied with his and ronnie's performance. why else would he have? theres a reason they didnt employ "audio enhancement" in '72 . . .

I don't actually buy the "diminished playing ability" thing to any real extent.
[Yes maybe diminished to a degree...but not to the point where they can't play perfectly adequately if they want to]
I am, however, prepared to accept the idea that holes in the sound need filling because Keith and Ronnie both like to spend more time on stage throwing shapes and posing than on playing the guitar. Whether this is to the detriment or benefit of the show as a whole is open to debate I suppose.

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't actually buy the "diminished playing
> ability" thing to any real extent.
>
> I am, however, prepared to accept the idea that
> holes in the sound need filling because Keith and
> Ronnie both like to spend more time on stage
> throwing shapes and posing than on playing the
> guitar. Whether this is to the detriment or
> benefit of the show as a whole is open to debate I
> suppose.


I aggree almost 100% ;-)

Depends on your point of view. The other musicians on the stage are an enhancement to the Stones cleaner, larger, "ensemble" sound; or are all part of the smoke screen to fill in the sound of a band with limited and diminished abilities.

Take a refresher listen to "Ya-Ya's." The only other musician on stage was a piano player on three songs. I don't think another half a dozen back-up musicians were needed at all.

Hairball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I indeed have a problem with it, it makes no sense
> at all.
> I'd rather hear a raw, f**cked up version with
> Keith and Ronnie,
> than hear some intruder covering up the messs and
> glossing it over.
>
> Similar to the Michaelangelo's paintings in the
> Sistine Chapel.
> I liked the old, deteriorated, nicely aged and
> weathered version.
> Once they "restored" it, the colors seem
> unnaturally bright, like a cartoon.
>
> Blondie turns the Stones sound into a cartoon,
> very unnatural and contrived.
> If they insist on keeping him, I say he sticks to
> the tambourine,
> and add a backing vocal here and there, but thats
> it!



Good comparison, btw, do you have a pic of the old one ?

[www.cegur.com]
hi mandrack, as per your above request re: hairball's analogy, here's some before and after restoration pix of a section of the Sistine Chapel...interesting...makes his analogy more real in a way, for me anyway, hope u enjoy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-29 05:18 by Beelyboy.

I'd prefer just the Stones on stage as far as quitars go. No back-up singers either. That and Wyman.

Hairball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I indeed have a problem with it, it makes no sense
> at all.
> I'd rather hear a raw, f**cked up version with
> Keith and Ronnie,
> than hear some intruder covering up the messs and
> glossing it over.
>
> Similar to the Michaelangelo's paintings in the
> Sistine Chapel.
> I liked the old, deteriorated, nicely aged and
> weathered version.
> Once they "restored" it, the colors seem
> unnaturally bright, like a cartoon.
>
> Blondie turns the Stones sound into a cartoon,
> very unnatural and contrived.
> If they insist on keeping him, I say he sticks to
> the tambourine,
> and add a backing vocal here and there, but thats
> it!


Yeah, but viewing the sistine chapel is free. As much as I wish the "enhancement" wasn't necessary, if I'm going to pay so much money to see them play, I want a great show. If they need some help, so be it (I just wish you hadn't told me!)Besides, who can tell the difference in a stadium?

*********************************
And the queen is bravely shouting,
"What the hell is going on?"

the stones today:

VOCALS:BERNARD & LISA
BASS: DARRYL
KEYBOARDS: CHUCK
GUITARS: BLONDIE

Thank you, Charlie, you're the best.