Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Thunderman, Nov 12, 2019.
Kinda takes away from the definition of "forum" then, doesn't it?
You asked for a version without piano. I told you one does exist. And it is better without piano.
And, yes, one guy with an acoustic can rock harder than a whole band. I suggest you watch Richie Havens at Woodstock and then watch a Bon Jovi performance.
Well, if I post 2+2=4 in the first post is there really any reason for anybody to post after that?
Yeah. I think we should burn all pianos. They are archaic instruments that have no place in modern music.
Violins too, now that I think about it. 'Course, I've always felt that way about violins. And fiddles...
Not four guitarists on one song. I think the Skynyrd guys had three and that was too much. Four is just flat out stupid.
Mark E. Smith seems to have had very minimal requirements:
"If it's me and yer granny on bongos, it's the Fall."
I posted above that Mozart music has a need for pianos. The Ramones never used pianos, The Sex Pistols never used pianos, Motorhead never used pianos. Pianos are for Mozart. Pianos are not for kick ass rock and roll music.
I could probably defend having just three members.
Jimi Hendrix Experience
Anything from one person and a laptop to the largest number of people you can think of.
The more I think about it, 4 is rarely a magic number. The Beatles couldn’t do it too well without George Martin. (Sorry, John Lennon, you’re just wrong on that.)
We know many of the side “men” never get their due, but I always appreciated that the Stones at their best went all in for using side men and outside musicians. The people who made great differences in their music — Ian Stewart, Jack Nitzsche, Nicky Hopkins, “Rocky Dijon,” Jimmy Miller, Ry Cooder, Bobby Keys, Jimmy Price, Merry Clayton and SO many more — way outnumber the so-called Stones and in some cases were more responsible for their music.
Like I said, the Stones needed 20 to 24 people plus a full choir at their peak. And the Beatles needed 5+, at least.
Nicky Hopkins on the 45 version of “Revolution” totally ruined the song..
(In case not noticed.....this is heavy sarcasm)
On the piano, oddly enough the song Rock & Roll Music by Mr Berry not only features a prominent piano part as the actual lead instrument, (Lafayette Leake), but it's even mentioned in the lyrics. As is a sax. Lafayette is also front & center on Sweet Little Sixteen. And if anybody thinks that the Beatles are more rock & roll than Chuck Berry is, I seriously question their grip on reality...
You can mount a defense for these guys???
I applaud your honesty.
Well, I never really liked Punk, though I enjoyed the movie "CBGB", partly because it showed the debauchery of the whole genre at its core. But I liked Blondie and the Talking Heads.
It may explain why I was never really a Doors fan as well. I really do have my limits.
From 1 (solo artist) to infinity (a massive orchestra) IMO.
I'm also a huge fan of Genesis. i.e.Tony Banks.
Problem is that "R&R" is a ridiculously broad genre. Watch "soul sacrifice" in the woodstock movie and tell me that Hammond organ does not seriously rock!
Was going to say Rundgren. Guess the same principle applies.
Counterpoint: The Who - Live at Leeds
Indeed it does. But then, Gregg Allman, (among others), proved that a Hammond rocked. And the Allman Brothers proved that double drummers rock as well. With Butch Trucks laying down the straight ahead meat & potatoes rhythm, Jaimoe played polyrhythms around him that added colors & texture. Listen to any version of Done Somebody Wrong by them, & that rhythm section of Jaimoe, Butch & Berry Oakley sounds like a souped up 57 Chevy revving & roaring along.
Well there’s solo classical piano, the Bill Evans trio, the John Coltrane Quartet, the Miles Davis Quintet, the Benny Goodman Sextet, classical symphonies, and infinity. There are also trolls, gnomes, fairies and elves.
Bass Drums Guitar and either keys, sax or a dumbed down one note at a time pseudo guitar player.
Separate names with a comma.