Tell Me :
Talk
Uh-oh, a man on a mission. I'm going with #2. With all the noise from a LOUD live show, the click track would prove problematic if it goes through the whole song. Chuck might be able to pull it off, but the noise around him would be a big distraction. On the other hand, it might explain the "plonkity plink" stuff he plays, as opposed to what we know he's capable of. Still, #2.
c'mon...we all know he is a robot....
If one is used at all, it is used as a reference for counting in... so, #3 with, possibly some chance of it being heard by others before songs start.
I do not think they are using a click track during actual performances of songs.
The programmed percussion/sample playback for Sympathy is obvious and different, that's an audible musical thing. A choice made because they want to have that extra percussion sound there.
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Anyone figure out how many BPM JJF was in 1969 on Ya Ya's? It would be ineteresting to compare with this.
Here is an overview on the tempo of "JJF" throughout the years...Ya Ya's included:
“Jumpin Jack Flash”
YEAR: BPM SOURCE
1969: 134 BPM (Get Yer Ya Ya's Out)
1975: 145 BPM (LA Friday)
1978: 157 BPM (Live In Texas 1978)
1981: 154 BPM (Hampton '81)
1989: 151 BPM (Toko Dome 1989)
1995: 139 BPM (Argentina 1995)
1997: 136 BPM (Chicago 1997)
1999: 139 BPM (Shepards Bush 1999)
2002: 132 BPM (Boston 2002)
2005: 137 BPM (Toronto 2005)
2007: 140 BPM (Shine A Light)
Done both. It's usually a real big pain in the ass, especially with a drummer that likes to speed up.
I'm with 2. From my understanding they can all hear it. Chuck does the count out loud so the band knows when they're going to start the song.
No. But I know one thing - it was the best way it was ever performed. I'll take a stab at it though - it's a bit less BPM.
Oh believe me, that has never entered my mind. That's just a simple counting. It has zero to do with performing and the abilities of. And seeing that the band is respected as a rhythm monster, well, that all came from the 1969 through 1970s shows, when there was no click track. With exception to a few songs they haven't been a rhythm monster since. So yeah, the click track has nothing to do with it.
So even after the results above proving that the BPM printed on the setlist DO NOT MATCH with how fast they actually play it on stage, we still want to believe that a) the entire band can hear a click track and b) Chuck counts off all the songs for the band?
A couple questions:
Why then are they printing the BPM on the setlists if they're not being followed? How is it that the entire band hear the click track? Through what method/devices? Through in-ear monitors?
Take a look at the first few seconds of these clips. Do you see Keith or any band member referencing a count off or a click track for guidance? I do not.
From the second the song starts, through the middle and tail end. The number fluctuates one or two points as Charlie dips and peaks at different points of the song. I recorded the number that it rested on for most of the song.
But the main point is that the tempo never even comes close to the BPM that's listed on the setlist. This disproves the belief that these songs were being played at those specific tempos each and every night, tour after tour, as controlled by some kind of click track or metronome. For years, people have seen that BPM printed on these setlists and thought they caught the band red-handed. Everyone automatically assumed it was true without doing the research. Now we see that the BPM listed have NOTHING to do with the how they play these songs on stage.
Thanks for the analysis, Justin. I've been wondering about it for some time.
What you got to do is to check tracks played in the same spot on the setlist to get a beter idea,and you have got to check the tracks where Chuck does the count in.
Concerning the spot: it makes a great difference whether they open with SFM, or when it is played midway or as as a closer. Then , there's a bunch of tracks where there is no count in, where Richards sets the tempo.
So to see whether Chuck uses a metronome, you must check a track with a clear count in, like Miss You or Monkey Man. If the difference between the tempo on the set list and the actual is greater than say 3%, we know Chuck doesn't use the metronome.
In my previous post I mentioned they used a click track to synch the lighting with the music -I have been behind the PA and behind the lightinh desk, and that's exactly what they do: synch with a pre-set tempo, and adjusting to reality within 3%.
Mathijs
Not everyone.
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
No you don't. The BPM for each song are printed the exact same way on every setlist...from tour to tour (see below). "Brown Sugar" was listed as 126 BPM on the Bridges To Babylon tour, the Licks tour and ABB tour. It's a simple copy and paste in the software they use to print the setlists.
No. Why have ANY leeway on the BPM? That is the whole point of this argument. People have been under the impression that the Stones play the exact BPM as listed on the setlist because they are playing to a click track. That's the entire argument we are disproving. Anyway, in the songs I've posted before there is more than a 5% difference in the printed BPM with what they're actually playing.
Bridges To Babylon
Licks
A Bigger Bang
You are debunking something that was never stated by anyone, certainly not by me: the Stones do not use a click-track throughout any song, nor do they use is on most songs. What I said is that they use a click-track to count-off a song, mostly to get it in synch with effects and lighting, and in some cases to get the band starting at the same time as there is no real intro riff (Don't Stop, Monkey Man, Undercover). About all songs started by Richards do not have a count-off, and it's Richards who set the temp, and these tracks have the greatest variances.
And last, for many musicians it actually is quite difficult to play along a click-track, or even translate a count-off properly. Especially in a live setting you tend to play faster than what is counted off -100 BPM easily becomes 104, 105 after the first few bars.
Mathijs
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
carlorossi
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:03
Quote
Justin
Just so we're all clear: which of the stances are people taking?
The band uses a click track/metronome throughout the enitre duration of each song in their set.
The band uses a click track/metronome just for the beginning of each song and then it is shut off.
Chuck Leavall is the only member who has access to a click track/metronome and counts the band in on each song.
Uh-oh, a man on a mission. I'm going with #2. With all the noise from a LOUD live show, the click track would prove problematic if it goes through the whole song. Chuck might be able to pull it off, but the noise around him would be a big distraction. On the other hand, it might explain the "plonkity plink" stuff he plays, as opposed to what we know he's capable of. Still, #2.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
lunar!!!
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:06
Quote
Justin
Just so we're all clear: which of the stances are people taking?
The band uses a click track/metronome throughout the enitre duration of each song in their set.
The band uses a click track/metronome just for the beginning of each song and then it is shut off.
Chuck Leavall is the only member who has access to a click track/metronome and counts the band in on each song.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
lunar!!!
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:07
..and the band uses a glockenspiel during all performances of 'ruby tuesday'....PS: chuck leavell is not a member...yea yea i know --he runs things on stage, picks the setlist, gets the band out of bed, and plays all the instruments but he is NOT a member!!
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:19
You're taking the word "member" way too seriously. Replace it with the word "person" and move on.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
lunar!!!
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:36
Quote
Justin
You're taking the word "member" way too seriously. Replace it with the word "person" and move on.
c'mon...we all know he is a robot....
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:59
Quote
Justin
Just so we're all clear: which of the stances are people taking?
1. The band uses a click track/metronome throughout the enitre duration of each song in their set.
2. The band uses a click track/metronome just for the beginning of each song and then it is shut off.
3. Chuck Leavall is the only member who has access to a click track/metronome and counts the band in on each song.
If one is used at all, it is used as a reference for counting in... so, #3 with, possibly some chance of it being heard by others before songs start.
I do not think they are using a click track during actual performances of songs.
The programmed percussion/sample playback for Sympathy is obvious and different, that's an audible musical thing. A choice made because they want to have that extra percussion sound there.
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: July 14, 2012 03:58
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Anyone figure out how many BPM JJF was in 1969 on Ya Ya's? It would be ineteresting to compare with this.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 04:10
Even as I begin to delve into this more, I'm just struck how people could really be satisfied to believe that it is Chuck's counting off from the beginning of the song that 100% explains why the band has played the way that they have all these years. It boggles my mind. Chuck flips on the metronome/click-track, counts off the the song with a "One. Two. A one, two, three!" and that accounts for these songs being performed so poorly? Yeah, don't think so.
Before I even come to my final conclusions on this subject, it should be VERY clear to everyone that there is a far more disturbing reason for the decline in the band's playing and it has NOTHING to do with "click tracks", metronomes or Chuck at all. It's the players themselves and nobody else.
Before I even come to my final conclusions on this subject, it should be VERY clear to everyone that there is a far more disturbing reason for the decline in the band's playing and it has NOTHING to do with "click tracks", metronomes or Chuck at all. It's the players themselves and nobody else.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 14, 2012 04:42
To clarify, I picked #3 purely on a technical, not judgmental basis. If there's a click, I think it is being used as a tempo reference before they start songs.
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 07:22
I used a few online BPM counters to measure these songs and here are my results.
Specifically using the printed setlist copy we have posted, let us compare the BPM printed there with a performance of that song from that same tour. Below, I am labeling the BPM found on the above set list as the "official BPM"
“Street Fighting Man” (2002 setlist)
Official BPM: 123
Live Performance (New York 2002) BPM: 124
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 142
Live Performance (Toronto 2002) BPM: 130
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 129
“It’s Only Rock and Roll”
Official BPM: 125
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 137
“Rocks Off”
Official BPM: 139
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 142
“Tumblin Dice”
Official BPM: 107
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 113
“Start Me Up”
Official BPM: 120
Live Performance (Paris 2003) BPM: 127
Live Performance (Bilbao 2003) BPM: 130
Live Performance (Toronto 2003) BPM: 128
“Jumpin Jack Flash”
Official BPM: 135
Live Performance (Toronto 2003) BPM: 140
Live Performance (Boston 2002 #1) BPM: 127
Live Performance (Boston 2002 #2) BPM: 132
“Brown Sugar”
Offiical BPM: 126
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 134
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 137
“Gimme Shelter “
Official BPM: 116
Live Performance (Twickenham 2004) BPM: 124
“Sympathy For The Devil”
Official BPM: 109
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 109
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 109
As you can see…absolutely NONE of the live performances match the official BPM as noted on the official set list. They performed each song at different speeds each time. The only song that checks out and matches perfectly is “Sympathy For The Devil” since they are using the same percussion loop each time they perform the song. This song clocked in at 109 BPM every single time. But we've already agreed that the percussion loop does NOT count as a "click track." They CHOSE to use this loop to accentuate their performance. It is not a crutch in order to help them play it.
If there is a click track/metronome being used…it’s not doing a very good job making sure they keep to that specific number. This also eliminates the fact that Chuck guides them into the song with a count-off from his “own” metronome. Each song clocked in at the recorded BPM right as the song began. Chuck should have been fired for not following the BPM printed on the set lists!
Conclusion: As noted above: the BPM’s listed on the setlist are there for REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. There is no click track or metronome dictating that beat to the band. There is NO correlation between the tempo listed on the setlist with what they actually play on stage.
Metronome/Click Track = not used on stage.
Specifically using the printed setlist copy we have posted, let us compare the BPM printed there with a performance of that song from that same tour. Below, I am labeling the BPM found on the above set list as the "official BPM"
“Street Fighting Man” (2002 setlist)
Official BPM: 123
Live Performance (New York 2002) BPM: 124
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 142
Live Performance (Toronto 2002) BPM: 130
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 129
“It’s Only Rock and Roll”
Official BPM: 125
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 137
“Rocks Off”
Official BPM: 139
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 142
“Tumblin Dice”
Official BPM: 107
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 113
“Start Me Up”
Official BPM: 120
Live Performance (Paris 2003) BPM: 127
Live Performance (Bilbao 2003) BPM: 130
Live Performance (Toronto 2003) BPM: 128
“Jumpin Jack Flash”
Official BPM: 135
Live Performance (Toronto 2003) BPM: 140
Live Performance (Boston 2002 #1) BPM: 127
Live Performance (Boston 2002 #2) BPM: 132
“Brown Sugar”
Offiical BPM: 126
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 134
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 137
“Gimme Shelter “
Official BPM: 116
Live Performance (Twickenham 2004) BPM: 124
“Sympathy For The Devil”
Official BPM: 109
Live Performance (Twickenham 2003) BPM: 109
Live Performance (Boston 2002) BPM: 109
As you can see…absolutely NONE of the live performances match the official BPM as noted on the official set list. They performed each song at different speeds each time. The only song that checks out and matches perfectly is “Sympathy For The Devil” since they are using the same percussion loop each time they perform the song. This song clocked in at 109 BPM every single time. But we've already agreed that the percussion loop does NOT count as a "click track." They CHOSE to use this loop to accentuate their performance. It is not a crutch in order to help them play it.
If there is a click track/metronome being used…it’s not doing a very good job making sure they keep to that specific number. This also eliminates the fact that Chuck guides them into the song with a count-off from his “own” metronome. Each song clocked in at the recorded BPM right as the song began. Chuck should have been fired for not following the BPM printed on the set lists!
Conclusion: As noted above: the BPM’s listed on the setlist are there for REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. There is no click track or metronome dictating that beat to the band. There is NO correlation between the tempo listed on the setlist with what they actually play on stage.
Metronome/Click Track = not used on stage.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
carlorossi
()
Date: July 14, 2012 07:35
Interesting! I'm still curious how the time at the opening of a given song compares to the end, but this is a start. Or end. Either way, thanks for digging into it.
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 07:42
We'll get there. Baby steps.
This post above eliminates the printed setlist as the popular "smoking gun" that they in fact use clicktracks/metronomes on stage because they notate each song's tempo on the page. We can see that the number printed on the setlist is NOT the tempo in which they actually play these songs.
This post above eliminates the printed setlist as the popular "smoking gun" that they in fact use clicktracks/metronomes on stage because they notate each song's tempo on the page. We can see that the number printed on the setlist is NOT the tempo in which they actually play these songs.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 08:07
Quote
71Tele
Anyone figure out how many BPM JJF was in 1969 on Ya Ya's? It would be ineteresting to compare with this.
Here is an overview on the tempo of "JJF" throughout the years...Ya Ya's included:
“Jumpin Jack Flash”
YEAR: BPM SOURCE
1969: 134 BPM (Get Yer Ya Ya's Out)
1975: 145 BPM (LA Friday)
1978: 157 BPM (Live In Texas 1978)
1981: 154 BPM (Hampton '81)
1989: 151 BPM (Toko Dome 1989)
1995: 139 BPM (Argentina 1995)
1997: 136 BPM (Chicago 1997)
1999: 139 BPM (Shepards Bush 1999)
2002: 132 BPM (Boston 2002)
2005: 137 BPM (Toronto 2005)
2007: 140 BPM (Shine A Light)
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 14, 2012 12:37
Only asking, but how and at what point(s) in each song are you measuring the BPM?
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:27
Quote
Justin
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Ronnie talks about it in According To The Rolling Stones. They've been using a click track in recording studios for years.
I believe it is common practice for many bands to use a click track in the studio. It becomes useful especially when splicing together different takes of a song and they all seamlessly fit together, with each take of the song at the same speed.
Done both. It's usually a real big pain in the ass, especially with a drummer that likes to speed up.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:29
Quote
Justin
Just so we're all clear: which of the stances are people taking?
1. The band uses a click track/metronome throughout the enitre duration of each song in their set.
2. The band uses a click track/metronome just for the beginning of each song and then it is shut off.
3. Chuck Leavall is the only member who has access to a click track/metronome and counts the band in on each song.
I'm with 2. From my understanding they can all hear it. Chuck does the count out loud so the band knows when they're going to start the song.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:31
Quote
71Tele
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Anyone figure out how many BPM JJF was in 1969 on Ya Ya's? It would be ineteresting to compare with this.
No. But I know one thing - it was the best way it was ever performed. I'll take a stab at it though - it's a bit less BPM.
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: July 14, 2012 17:35
Quote
Justin
Even as I begin to delve into this more, I'm just struck how people could really be satisfied to believe that it is Chuck's counting off from the beginning of the song that 100% explains why the band has played the way that they have all these years. It boggles my mind. Chuck flips on the metronome/click-track, counts off the the song with a "One. Two. A one, two, three!" and that accounts for these songs being performed so poorly? Yeah, don't think so.
Before I even come to my final conclusions on this subject, it should be VERY clear to everyone that there is a far more disturbing reason for the decline in the band's playing and it has NOTHING to do with "click tracks", metronomes or Chuck at all. It's the players themselves and nobody else.
Oh believe me, that has never entered my mind. That's just a simple counting. It has zero to do with performing and the abilities of. And seeing that the band is respected as a rhythm monster, well, that all came from the 1969 through 1970s shows, when there was no click track. With exception to a few songs they haven't been a rhythm monster since. So yeah, the click track has nothing to do with it.
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 14, 2012 18:22
Charlie playing to a click track? You have got to be joking! Maybe Chuck can get close with count in's but this is preposterous to believe the Stone's do this. The don't. The list is just to get the count in close.
Roger Waters is syncing the Wall performance to click tracks because of all the visuals that need to be cued.
It is possible that the stones have labored over the correct tempos for songs to the point of having to nail down the approximate correct tempo, especially when the band are all on different drugs! They might even lay down some studio tracks to a click but NEVER NEVER NEVER in concert. peace
Roger Waters is syncing the Wall performance to click tracks because of all the visuals that need to be cued.
It is possible that the stones have labored over the correct tempos for songs to the point of having to nail down the approximate correct tempo, especially when the band are all on different drugs! They might even lay down some studio tracks to a click but NEVER NEVER NEVER in concert. peace
Re: Debunking the "click track" theory
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 19:52
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I'm with 2. From my understanding they can all hear it. Chuck does the count out loud so the band knows when they're going to start the song.
So even after the results above proving that the BPM printed on the setlist DO NOT MATCH with how fast they actually play it on stage, we still want to believe that a) the entire band can hear a click track and b) Chuck counts off all the songs for the band?
A couple questions:
Why then are they printing the BPM on the setlists if they're not being followed? How is it that the entire band hear the click track? Through what method/devices? Through in-ear monitors?
Take a look at the first few seconds of these clips. Do you see Keith or any band member referencing a count off or a click track for guidance? I do not.
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 19:58
Quote
His Majesty
Only asking, but how and at what point(s) in each song are you measuring the BPM?
From the second the song starts, through the middle and tail end. The number fluctuates one or two points as Charlie dips and peaks at different points of the song. I recorded the number that it rested on for most of the song.
But the main point is that the tempo never even comes close to the BPM that's listed on the setlist. This disproves the belief that these songs were being played at those specific tempos each and every night, tour after tour, as controlled by some kind of click track or metronome. For years, people have seen that BPM printed on these setlists and thought they caught the band red-handed. Everyone automatically assumed it was true without doing the research. Now we see that the BPM listed have NOTHING to do with the how they play these songs on stage.
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Sipuncula
()
Date: July 14, 2012 20:08
Quote
Justin
From the second the song starts, through the middle and tail end. The number fluctuates one or two points as Charlie dips and peaks at different points of the song. I recorded the number that it rested on for most of the song.
But the main point is that the tempo never even comes close to the BPM that's listed on the setlist. This disproves the belief that these songs were being played at those specific tempos each and every night, tour after tour, as controlled by some kind of click track or metronome. For years, people have seen that BPM printed on these setlists and thought they caught the band red-handed. Everyone automatically assumed it was true without doing the research. Now we see that the BPM listed have NOTHING to do with the how they play these songs on stage.
Thanks for the analysis, Justin. I've been wondering about it for some time.
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
peoplewitheyes
()
Date: July 14, 2012 21:17
god, isn't obvious why the live performances have gone downhill over the last decade or two, and it's nothing to do with click tracks.
isn't it because they're aging men, not particularly friends with each other, somewhat jaded and without the passion and fire that comes to men in their 20s and 30s, overflowing with testosterone, adulation, drugs, women and booze?
of course they played better, tighter, more passionately in their 'youth'. they hung out together, got f+cked up together, probably banged the same broads together, travelled the world on the crest of a wave, high on a plane, loved by all who mattered, looking down into an audience of beautiful people who wanted to be them or be with them.
come on! it's no freaking mystery why they dont play with the same fire as the 60s/70s/81-82
i cant believe the amount of head scratching going on on this threat trying to figure this out...
....still love the Stones, though!
isn't it because they're aging men, not particularly friends with each other, somewhat jaded and without the passion and fire that comes to men in their 20s and 30s, overflowing with testosterone, adulation, drugs, women and booze?
of course they played better, tighter, more passionately in their 'youth'. they hung out together, got f+cked up together, probably banged the same broads together, travelled the world on the crest of a wave, high on a plane, loved by all who mattered, looking down into an audience of beautiful people who wanted to be them or be with them.
come on! it's no freaking mystery why they dont play with the same fire as the 60s/70s/81-82
i cant believe the amount of head scratching going on on this threat trying to figure this out...
....still love the Stones, though!
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 14, 2012 23:16
You're on track, peoplewitheyes. I have a few more tests to do before I post my final reactions but as I'm digging through this stuff, it's becoming very clear that all this blame about click tracks (however people propose they are being used) or Chuck being the band's metronome/rhythm master were completely misplaced as we overlooked a much simpler reason for the decline in playing throughout the so-called "Vegas era." It was so easy to write them off as guys who were following click tracks under Chuck's trance this whole time but logistically, none of that ever fit and we were all too lazy to actually do the work to get to the bottom of it to figure it out.
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: July 14, 2012 23:33
Quote
Justin
You're on track, peoplewitheyes. I have a few more tests to do before I post my final reactions but as I'm digging through this stuff, it's becoming very clear that all this blame about click tracks (however people propose they are being used) or Chuck being the band's metronome/rhythm master were completely misplaced as we overlooked a much simpler reason for the decline in playing throughout the so-called "Vegas era." It was so easy to write them off as guys who were following click tracks under Chuck's trance this whole time but logistically, none of that ever fit and we were all too lazy to actually do the work to get to the bottom of it to figure it out.
What you got to do is to check tracks played in the same spot on the setlist to get a beter idea,and you have got to check the tracks where Chuck does the count in.
Concerning the spot: it makes a great difference whether they open with SFM, or when it is played midway or as as a closer. Then , there's a bunch of tracks where there is no count in, where Richards sets the tempo.
So to see whether Chuck uses a metronome, you must check a track with a clear count in, like Miss You or Monkey Man. If the difference between the tempo on the set list and the actual is greater than say 3%, we know Chuck doesn't use the metronome.
In my previous post I mentioned they used a click track to synch the lighting with the music -I have been behind the PA and behind the lightinh desk, and that's exactly what they do: synch with a pre-set tempo, and adjusting to reality within 3%.
Mathijs
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 14, 2012 23:51
Quote
Justin
Everyone automatically assumed it was true without doing the research.
Not everyone.
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 15, 2012 01:07
Next in our series "click track" mythbusting, let's now focus our attention on Chuck. The popular notion is that Chuck is the only one who has access to a clicktrack/metronome and it is he who dictates the tempo through a loud countoff at the beginning of each song (the famous "One! Two! A one, two three, four!). A quick review of the videos above proves that Chuck does NOT count in every song. All the tunes Keith starts---are all him by himself with no assistance or guidance.
The songs that Chuck does come in on are a VERY SMALL percentage of songs where the band must start all together—all at once.
Some examples:
“Far Away Eyes”
“Let It Bleed”
“Undercover of The Night”
“Don’t Stop”
“Monkey Man”
“The Night Time Is The Right Time”
“Can’t Turn You Loose”
“Neighbors”
“Get off My Cloud”
So if Chuck’s lead count-in is “proof” that he uses a metronome, let’s go ahead a double check how accurate his count ins are.
“Don’t Stop”
Official BPM: 124
Live Performance BPM: 131
“Monkey Man”
Official BPM: 97
Live Performance BPM: 102
“Let It Bleed”
Official BPM: 116
Live Performance BPM: 121
“Neighbors”
Official BPM: 155
Live Performance BPM: 163
"Undercover of the Night"
Official BPM: 112 (check ABB set list below)
Live Performance: 125
None of the "official BPM" markings match the tempo they eventually played on stage---yet again. If Chuck is the "time keeper" for the band, why is he not accurately following the tempo that is outlined for him in the setlist? Why even have the BPM marked if they are not going to be followed?
Again, we see that people have taken the BPM on the setlists way too seriously. They are there for reference purposes only. Someone noted each song's tempos in rehearsal and then included the info on the setlist primarily for the crew--the lighting crew, to be specific. They need a number to estimate the tempo. The BPM listed on the setlist is that number. It's protocol, it's procedure. Not a strict rule to be followed.
Just the fact that there is other information that is also not pertinent to Chuck's role but it's still printed on the setlist: Bernard/Lisa/Blondie off stage, what songs the brass comes in, the name of the venue---these are not CRUCIAL information for Chuck to do his job. None of the Stones use these setlists. The BPM's are guides for the lighting crew. The band will play these songs in the tempos they've always played; there is no click track or metronome forcing them to play it to the tempo on the setlist.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-15 03:59 by Justin.
The songs that Chuck does come in on are a VERY SMALL percentage of songs where the band must start all together—all at once.
Some examples:
“Far Away Eyes”
“Let It Bleed”
“Undercover of The Night”
“Don’t Stop”
“Monkey Man”
“The Night Time Is The Right Time”
“Can’t Turn You Loose”
“Neighbors”
“Get off My Cloud”
So if Chuck’s lead count-in is “proof” that he uses a metronome, let’s go ahead a double check how accurate his count ins are.
“Don’t Stop”
Official BPM: 124
Live Performance BPM: 131
“Monkey Man”
Official BPM: 97
Live Performance BPM: 102
“Let It Bleed”
Official BPM: 116
Live Performance BPM: 121
“Neighbors”
Official BPM: 155
Live Performance BPM: 163
"Undercover of the Night"
Official BPM: 112 (check ABB set list below)
Live Performance: 125
None of the "official BPM" markings match the tempo they eventually played on stage---yet again. If Chuck is the "time keeper" for the band, why is he not accurately following the tempo that is outlined for him in the setlist? Why even have the BPM marked if they are not going to be followed?
Again, we see that people have taken the BPM on the setlists way too seriously. They are there for reference purposes only. Someone noted each song's tempos in rehearsal and then included the info on the setlist primarily for the crew--the lighting crew, to be specific. They need a number to estimate the tempo. The BPM listed on the setlist is that number. It's protocol, it's procedure. Not a strict rule to be followed.
Just the fact that there is other information that is also not pertinent to Chuck's role but it's still printed on the setlist: Bernard/Lisa/Blondie off stage, what songs the brass comes in, the name of the venue---these are not CRUCIAL information for Chuck to do his job. None of the Stones use these setlists. The BPM's are guides for the lighting crew. The band will play these songs in the tempos they've always played; there is no click track or metronome forcing them to play it to the tempo on the setlist.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-15 03:59 by Justin.
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 15, 2012 03:49
Quote
Mathijs
What you got to do is to check tracks played in the same spot on the setlist to get a beter idea
No you don't. The BPM for each song are printed the exact same way on every setlist...from tour to tour (see below). "Brown Sugar" was listed as 126 BPM on the Bridges To Babylon tour, the Licks tour and ABB tour. It's a simple copy and paste in the software they use to print the setlists.
Quote
Mathijs
If the difference between the tempo on the set list and the actual is greater than say 3%, we know Chuck doesn't use the metronome.
No. Why have ANY leeway on the BPM? That is the whole point of this argument. People have been under the impression that the Stones play the exact BPM as listed on the setlist because they are playing to a click track. That's the entire argument we are disproving. Anyway, in the songs I've posted before there is more than a 5% difference in the printed BPM with what they're actually playing.
Bridges To Babylon
Licks
A Bigger Bang
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
parislocksmith
()
Date: July 15, 2012 11:38
When was the last time you saw the Stones in concert?
Wyman: It was at London’s O2 Arena in 2007 or 2008. I don’t hear the Stones the same way now as when I was in the band, because in those days, it was all sort of dangerous and loose. Now, it’s like a machine. It’s like they’re playing to click tracks, which we never did. The music has become more machine-like than I would like, and that’s not the way it was when I was with them.
[www.bassplayer.com]
Wyman: It was at London’s O2 Arena in 2007 or 2008. I don’t hear the Stones the same way now as when I was in the band, because in those days, it was all sort of dangerous and loose. Now, it’s like a machine. It’s like they’re playing to click tracks, which we never did. The music has become more machine-like than I would like, and that’s not the way it was when I was with them.
[www.bassplayer.com]
Re: The "Click Track" Theory -- DEBUNKED
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: July 15, 2012 12:15
Quote
Justin
Next in our series "click track" mythbusting, let's now focus our attention on Chuck. The popular notion is that Chuck is the only one who has access to a clicktrack/metronome and it is he who dictates the tempo through a loud countoff at the beginning of each song (the famous "One! Two! A one, two three, four!). A quick review of the videos above proves that Chuck does NOT count in every song. All the tunes Keith starts---are all him by himself with no assistance or guidance.
The songs that Chuck does come in on are a VERY SMALL percentage of songs where the band must start all together—all at once.
Some examples:
“Far Away Eyes”
“Let It Bleed”
“Undercover of The Night”
“Don’t Stop”
“Monkey Man”
“The Night Time Is The Right Time”
“Can’t Turn You Loose”
“Neighbors”
“Get off My Cloud”
So if Chuck’s lead count-in is “proof” that he uses a metronome, let’s go ahead a double check how accurate his count ins are.
None of the "official BPM" markings match the tempo they eventually played on stage---yet again. If Chuck is the "time keeper" for the band, why is he not accurately following the tempo that is outlined for him in the setlist? Why even have the BPM marked if they are not going to be followed?
Again, we see that people have taken the BPM on the setlists way too seriously. They are there for reference purposes only. Someone noted each song's tempos in rehearsal and then included the info on the setlist primarily for the crew--the lighting crew, to be specific. They need a number to estimate the tempo. The BPM listed on the setlist is that number. It's protocol, it's procedure. Not a strict rule to be followed.
Just the fact that there is other information that is also not pertinent to Chuck's role but it's still printed on the setlist: Bernard/Lisa/Blondie off stage, what songs the brass comes in, the name of the venue---these are not CRUCIAL information for Chuck to do his job. None of the Stones use these setlists. The BPM's are guides for the lighting crew. The band will play these songs in the tempos they've always played; there is no click track or metronome forcing them to play it to the tempo on the setlist.
You are debunking something that was never stated by anyone, certainly not by me: the Stones do not use a click-track throughout any song, nor do they use is on most songs. What I said is that they use a click-track to count-off a song, mostly to get it in synch with effects and lighting, and in some cases to get the band starting at the same time as there is no real intro riff (Don't Stop, Monkey Man, Undercover). About all songs started by Richards do not have a count-off, and it's Richards who set the temp, and these tracks have the greatest variances.
And last, for many musicians it actually is quite difficult to play along a click-track, or even translate a count-off properly. Especially in a live setting you tend to play faster than what is counted off -100 BPM easily becomes 104, 105 after the first few bars.
Mathijs
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ash , colonial , DREAMTIME , flacnvinyl , Godxofxrock9 , gtx8834 , His Majesty , HouseBoyKnows , joshbg2k , kowalski , Neighbours , nick , ROPENI , schillid , SecondSet , sonomastone , stonehearted , StonesCat , TeaAtThree , terukun , THE DON , The Sicilian , TOOTSIE , U2Stonesfan
Guests:
174
Record Number of Users:
56
on June 20, 2013 00:52
Record Number of Guests:
250
on June 20, 2013 00:29
