While it seems unlikely I will get to any shows on this leg of the tour, I really hope they use the horn section less and just let the band sink or swim with what they have. The core band sound works great down on the B stage so why not give the horns a rest for much of the set. Just turn up those guitars and let Keith and Ronnie go for it and blast away. Anyway, have a great time guys in Europe and let us know how things are going.

From what Ive heard, I think the horns sound better than they have in a long time on this tour. Maybe since the early 70's. Or have I been smoking too much catnip?


theyre particulary good on All Down The Line, Bitch and Tumbling Dice.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-05 08:51 by ryanpow.

The horns are usually only on 3-4 songs and I agree that they add a lot to the sets. Not to mention, they're great guys who the Stones happen to have a great amount of respect for. Tim Ries and Michael Davis are awesome when they do the Rolling Stones Project (they also have a CD out that's great). Bernard is often on stage with them doing vocals and some other guest musicians. If you get a chance, go see them!!

Oh, another off the top of my head that the horns do is Brown Sugar and YCAGWYW

I am not trying to say that horns don't work well with certain numbers. The players are great that they always bring. Perhaps, it is more of a sound mix issue. The Stones have always sounded best to me when the guitars are way up in the mix. If Chuck and the keyboard sound becomes dominant or the horn section, then many of the songs don't work as well to my ears. Then again our guitar players aren't what they used to be either, and this may be where we are at. If Keith and Ronnie are having a good show, then everything tends to fall into place. Keith's songs since 2000 are unfortunately more horn driven as he has taken up the crooner role. I would prefer he lose this direction on at least one of his songs and return to playing his guitar with an edge to it. Overall, I think the Stones have brought some better sound systems the past few tours. As it always goes, where you are located within a particular venue determines what your ears are going to get. Sort of an arbitrary thing unless you are in the first 20-30 rows in front of the stage. Good luck at Werchter!

The Horns are very importand for the stones sound. They are working with honrns since the sixties. And their songs work really good with horns.

Keep the horns and bring back Matt Clifford.

Add some more synth.

The stage lighting needs some improvement also.

Do not waste time and creativity on reharsing, song rearrangements, and song selection.

On the ABB shows I saw, the horns were turned right down in the mix. I have no problem with the sound they are currently touring with which is 100000000 times better than Licks.

...."more synth"....that was a good one, Tantekathe

Horns are definitely needed for some songs, however some songs they are just way too much like Jumpin Jack Flash or on a song like Bitch where they took over and play the opening riff right from the start. They should be used where they are originally used instead of dominating the sound.

Never liked horns on any rockers...they'd tag them on at the end of JJF, or Satisfaction or even HTW. I'm surprised they haven't added them to SMU. It just don't sound right to have horns going during a rocker like JJF. Keep the horns for ballads or soul/funk stuff. Not rock and roll.

filstan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As it always goes,
> where you are located within a particular venue
> determines what your ears are going to get. Sort
> of an arbitrary thing unless you are in the first
> 20-30 rows in front of the stage. Good luck at
> Werchter!


Presumably the best sound mix is therefore in the middle of the pitch next to the sound desk, but I don't see everyone running to get there!

I'd like to know where this idea came from that the Stones are supposed to be a four piece guitar band with a singer ?

The Stones have almost always effectively been an 8 or 9 piece band, whether recording or performing.

hey Tantekäthe,

"I need more cowbell err, synth. I need more synth"

Go Dawgs!

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horns are definitely needed for some songs,
> however some songs they are just way too much like
> Jumpin Jack Flash or on a song like Bitch where
> they took over and play the opening riff right
> from the start.

you may be nothing but a hound dog, but you are exactly correct. the horns have utterly decimated one of of my all time faves, Bitch. its supposed to be a GUITAR rocker!

yes, Bitch is a gituar rocker, the riff is crucial but brass is also an essential element to the sound on this one.


Ive just been listening to the bitch on 40 licks extras. I like it but can see how the horns dominate on that one. On ABB tour it sounds much better. theres one version I downloaded from some ABB show, I dont know wich one and The version I heard in oakland is what ive heardthey were much lower in the mix and the notes they played were a little different I think. It sounded like a '72 bitch



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-05 20:48 by ryanpow.

Spud said:
"I'd like to know where this idea came from that the Stones are supposed to be a four piece guitar band with a singer ?"

How about Brian Jones? Stew, Mick and Keith, Charlie and Bill. Sorry that makes it a five piece with singer.

Quite right . I stand corrected ;^)
Five piece band... and a singer with big lips who dances funny.
But the point remains the same.

Hound Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horns are definitely needed for some songs,
> however some songs they are just way too much like
> Jumpin Jack Flash or on a song like Bitch where
> they took over and play the opening riff right
> from the start. They should be used where they are
> originally used instead of dominating the sound.


I like the horns, usually, but I agree with you about "Bitch."

The Stones r and b and soul connection left them open to adding horns to their sound. I grant that this was a benefit to many songs. The list is a long one where certain songs benefit from having a horn section. It fattens up the sound. Can't Turn You Loose is a good example of recent workups they have done where the horn section makes the sound bigger and serves to counter what the rest of the band is producing.

Spud said again:
> Quite right . I stand corrected ;^)
>Five piece band... and a singer with big lips who dances funny.
>But the point remains the same.

What point are you making? That the sound and direction of the original band was wrong? I am not sure what you think the core sound of the Stones was or is? Listen to the early albums. No horns needed there. Obviously, it is easy to see why the bigger gigs are enhanced with a horn section and extra vocals over the past 18 years. It can be easily argued that the age of the core players has made these additions necessary, although the size of the venues count for alot IMHO. I just like the sound these guys make much better when it's a guitar driven band.