Chuck Berry's actions towards his fans and friends speaks volumes about the man.

Keith recounts in the movie, that once he was backstage at one of Chuck's concerts and when Berry was leaving after the show, KR tapped him on the shoulder and asked that he not rush off. Berry turned aound and smacked Keith, and he knew who he was hitting. KR said that it was the only time that someone took a shot at him that he didnt get back at.

Furthermore, my friend bumped into Chuck in Las Vegas walking around inside a casino appx 10 years ago. My pal politely told him that he and his father were big fans. Chuck told my friend ," Sonny boy, I dont give a F*** who father is and what he like, so get the F*** away from me". My pal was blown away and to this date, said that Chuck berry is the biggest AHOLE that he has ever met, famous or not famous.

Quote
Midnight Toker
Chuck Berry's actions towards his fans and friends speaks volumes about the man.

Keith recounts in the movie, that once he was backstage at one of Chuck's concerts and when Berry was leaving after the show, KR tapped him on the shoulder and asked that he not rush off. Berry turned aound and smacked Keith, and he knew who he was hitting. KR said that it was the only time that someone took a shot at him that he didnt get back at.

Furthermore, my friend bumped into Chuck in Las Vegas walking around inside a casino appx 10 years ago. My pal politely told him that he and his father were big fans. Chuck told my friend ," Sonny boy, I dont give a F*** who father is and what he like, so get the F*** away from me". My pal was blown away and to this date, said that Chuck berry is the biggest AHOLE that he has ever met, famous or not famous.

That one just does not sound like my father dude. If he's worn out after a show sure he'll tell someone he does not want to talk or sign autographs HOWEVER, to cuss some one out? That's a stretch. Hey, I guess anything is possible but that one. He's keenly aware pissing off a fan is like burning money.

What "YOUR FRIEND" said he observed and what I've seen over the past 8 years touring with him are 180 degrees apart. In the cases where there are no meet and greet's, he will still sign autographs and take pictures with fans. BlueBerry Hill in St. Louis he ALLWAYS signs every persons autograph that asks for one. When we are out of town, he will do dozens of autographs. I double as security for him and make sure the Hinkley's and Chapman's crazies are not around but he will take care of as many people as possible.

A perfect example of someone that pulled the "Chuck Berry's an @#$%&" card for you. We'd just finished the first of two shows at the Hackney Empire in London. Dad took pictures with the staff of the venue and signed autographs for them. The stage door swings open and we start heading for the cars. Low and behold there's around 75 people with LP's, CD's and tickets wanting autographs. We get him into the car, down comes the window and he starts signing.

There's one drunken TART in the crowd screaming about wanting something signed. She finally gets her ticket signed, walks away then starts yelling she wanted him to sign it with "To whatever her name is with love Chuck Berry" she jumps in front of a bunch of people and starts demanding he makes the additions. I told her there were still a number of people that have not had their items signed and to please under stand. What does she do. "Chuck Berry can bugger off! That @#$%& didn't sign my ticket." WTF? Is this B*tch for real?"

The fact is he signed it just not the way SHE wanted. Now my dad is a DICK and sucks. Come on, some people you just cannot satisfy.

CBII



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-23 06:07 by CBII.

There's no animosity. Just two guitar players working a part out. Classic scene. I love the part where Keith pops some gum into his mouth in order to keep it shut>

Quote
boogie1969
I've watched that scene many times and I disagree. I don't think Keith is playing it wrong, and if he is it's so minimal that it doesn't matter. Chuck is just using it as an opportunity to establish his dominance, and to let Keith know that even though he might be the guy putting everything together, Chuck is still in the man in charge. The bonus features on the Hail Hail deluxe DVDs include a featurette in which Taylor Hackford, the film's director, tells how Chuck did all kinds of things to prove his dominance, and show that he was not to be fooled with or taken advantage of. When Taylor and his partners first met Chuck to discuss the movie, it was in a fancy L.A. restaurant and Taylor was paying, but Chuck showed up with his own food- a hamburger from a fast food joint. Then when they went to St. Louis to meet him, before he'd fully agreed to do the film, Chuck took them for a ride in his motor home and rear-ended or hit somebody's car, I forget now exactly what happened. Anyways, the other person who was involved got out of their car and started pounding on the motor home's door, screaming "I know that's you in there Chuck Berry, get out here!". Chuck turned to Taylor and said, "If you want me to do this movie, you need to get out and take care of this", which Taylor did. Then, on the first day of filming, he demanded a cash payment before he would do anything, and this was on top of the fee he had already negotiated. Taylor and his partners were shocked and didn't know what to think or do, but Chuck insisted he wouldn't do a thing until they gave him the extra cash. They paid him and he did whatever they told him to the rest of the day. If I remember the story correctly, he couldn't have been nicer. Taylor thought no big deal, everything would be fine from then on. Next day, same thing, Chuck demanded another cash payment before he'd do anything. Again, Taylor had no choice but to pay him. This continued every day until the filming finished. Once Taylor and his team understood this was something Chuck did to assure himself he wasn't being taken advantage of and they paid him his daily cash, which if I remember correctly was always a different amount, they had little trouble from Chuck.

There was nothing wrong with the way Keith played the slur in Carol, Chuck was just busting balls because that's his way of assuring himself things are going the way he thinks they should.

(And sorry about the blank post below, I hit the post message button instead of preview. D'oh!)

I'm going to step through your observations as best as I can. Here goes...

Keith was playing that slur very wrong. No matter how it may have been a subtle imperfection it was wrong. You are correct after so many tries Keith continued to play it incorrectly and dad just said e'ff it he's not going to get it so lets move on. When it comes down to it, the only person that gets to play something wrong is the writer. Everyone else is interpreting what the originator created.

As to establishing the dominant role. You are absolutely correct. There was not one but two very strong willed and dominant people in that movie and Keith is the other one. Neither of them realized a puppeteer was really pulling the strings and that was Taylor Hackford. The man was a news reporter prior to becoming a movie director (a very good one mind you). If it had been just a concert movie there would have been no reason for all the additional interplay. Taylor knew he had two people with a great deal of outlaw history under their belts, copious amounts of bravado and he milked it for everything he could. It worked! A good number of people have seen that movie.

The negotiations in the restaurant and dad walking in with some McDonald's. Well, that was a good business move on dad's part. It's letting the other side of the table know "E'FF all this crap trying to impress me, I'm here to talk business not be distracted by a $1000.00 Steak for lunch". The old man has seen it all believe me. He may have fallen for that BS when he started out but to hell with that mess at age 59.

Hackford that crafty devil never mentioned if he himself PAID for the damages to the other guys car now does he? Implying something to keep the audience captivated and at the same time not pulling out any documentation proving HE or Delilah paid for the damages (remember this one for a little later) was a great move. If he'd did have documentation, I would have framed it and presented it on film. There's no doubt my dad made Taylor walk out there and get the brunt of the cursing out for the damage to the car.

The cash payment each day. I remember, exactly what Hackford says and also remember what the movie studio did. The contract (oh yeah, he says there wasn't one) the agreement was dad would be paid for a performance. OK what constitutes a performance I believe was Taylor's dilemma. Exactly what was the negotiated agreement? From what Hackford said they started paying him everyday. Therefore the agreement after review from the movie studio and Delilah production's legal team was... Chucks right, we have to pay him every time he picks up his guitar or is filmed. No big deal. Yeah, I'm sure my father was protecting himself, that's business. I'm sure plenty of my fellow compatriots here in the US have seen or heard the phrase "What would Jesus do?" Let's change that to (I'm watching out for lightning bolts...) "What would Mick Jagger do?" I venture to guess the exact same thing and the solicitors in the UK and the Lawyers in the USA would have come to the same conclusion. Of course my father was nice about it, he was not being a twerp about it, just conducting business as most business people do.

CBII

Quote
WeLoveYou
Why didn't they get Chuck to sign a contract, then if he abandoned the film then they could sue him for breach of contract. He has pulled this stunt before with concerts, refusing to play unless he was paid large amounts of cash.

Is that so? Can you elaborate? It's pretty common knowledge he like many artists want's his paper BEFORE he gets on a plane. So if he's already been paid, where's all this large sum of money business coming from?

CBII

Quote
rollmops
I think the fact that Chuck, stops abruptly Keith during the song, is purely aggressive. Chuck could have waited the end of the song and made his remarks to keith. Then it turns into an obvious power struggle(Keith do the same by stopping abruptly Chuck) between Keith and Chuck and during that round Chuck wins.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Not very aggressive at all. They did not stop during the middle of the live performance but during a rehearsal. That happens ALL the time.

Aggressive is being in Bonn Germany (November 2005 if I remember correctly) and the drummer was so bad he was excused after the third song. His replacement (some drunk dude from out of the audience) actually did a better job and he received a standing ovation from the crown at the end of the concert.

The moral of the story? Use people that are familiar with your current playing style not from recordings 50 years old. The Saint Louis sidemen Myself, James Marsala bass, Bob Lohr piano and Keith Robinson drums (as dad likes to call us the BlueBerry Hill Band) are all locked and loaded from first note to last strum. Same holds true for Daniel Trusstrup Rossing (Norway) and Jean Biger (France) they joined us and became the sidemen on Drums and Piano in Europe. We provided my father two hundred shows of consistency and gave two stars (my dad and sister) all the breathing room they needed to keep the crowd captivated. The winners? You the fans.

Quote
cc
I think it has more to do with something swiss mentions only in passing--that keith is playing the song as he always has, in a style he developed when he was a kid (someone else can fill in his age at the first record--20?). Maybe if he was learning the song for the first time at 43, he would have noticed the slicker way that it's actually played. But as a young lad he didn't have the patience to hear that, or the quality record player, and began playing it his way, and 20 years later it's hard to unlearn. Berry is definitely trying to embarrass him, or to create a scene for the film, which is actually fairly generous of him, since it's one of the most interesting parts; the difference is minimal at most.

I agree with Keith learning how to play it one way and having to relearn it at a much older age. I started playing live music at 39 it was and still can be hell playing stuff correctly.

I disagree, Taylor Hackford was trying to put some drama in the film. Otherwise, that would have been left on the cutting room floor. There were plenty of other disagreements during the rehearsals, that's the way rehearsals are.

CBII

Quote
NickB
You know I wish I was able to do the same thing for Keith (like Keith did for Chuck, nice b'day concert) but then Keith ain't bitter, old and grumpy like Chuck.

I've always wondered whether CBII considers his old man a pain in the ass? (perhaps not the right place for father son relationships) My father is a pain in the arse by the way.

He's the coolest dad on Earth. He's taught me more about how to deal with business situations, how to quickly determine if someone is one the level or full of Sod and how to cope with things than most people will ever be able to comprehend. Somethings said are true and others not about his life but at the end of the day that's MY father and MY hero.

Keith is a bit older than my father was during the filming of Hail, Hail. Some of the comments he's said about Mick over the years (being Knighted, being a Bi&ch not liking this and that) would lead one to think he's become a grumpy old man too. I personally don't think that about Keith but I have an obvious Bias. He's OK by me.

CBII



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-23 06:45 by CBII.

Quote

I'm going to step through your observations as best as I can. Here goes...

Keith was playing that slur very wrong. No matter how it may have been a subtle imperfection it was wrong. You are correct after so many tries Keith continued to play it incorrectly and dad just said e'ff it he's not going to get it so lets move on. When it comes down to it, the only person that gets to play something wrong is the writer. Everyone else is interpreting what the originator created.

As to establishing the dominant role. You are absolutely correct. There was not one but two very strong willed and dominant people in that movie and Keith is the other one. Neither of them realized a puppeteer was really pulling the strings and that was Taylor Hackford. The man was a news reporter prior to becoming a movie director (a very good one mind you). If it had been just a concert movie there would have been no reason for all the additional interplay. Taylor knew he had two people with a great deal of outlaw history under their belts, copious amounts of bravado and he milked it for everything he could. It worked! A good number of people have seen that movie.

The negotiations in the restaurant and dad walking in with some McDonald's. Well, that was a good business move on dad's part. It's letting the other side of the table know "E'FF all this crap trying to impress me, I'm here to talk business not be distracted by a $1000.00 Steak for lunch". The old man has seen it all believe me. He may have fallen for that BS when he started out but to hell with that mess at age 59.

Hackford that crafty devil never mentioned if he himself PAID for the damages to the other guys car now does he? Implying something to keep the audience captivated and at the same time not pulling out any documentation proving HE or Delilah paid for the damages (remember this one for a little later) was a great move. If he'd did have documentation, I would have framed it and presented it on film. There's no doubt my dad made Taylor walk out there and get the brunt of the cursing out for the damage to the car.

The cash payment each day. I remember, exactly what Hackford says and also remember what the movie studio did. The contract (oh yeah, he says there wasn't one) the agreement was dad would be paid for a performance. OK what constitutes a performance I believe was Taylor's dilemma. Exactly what was the negotiated agreement? From what Hackford said they started paying him everyday. Therefore the agreement after review from the movie studio and Delilah production's legal team was... Chucks right, we have to pay him every time he picks up his guitar or is filmed. No big deal. Yeah, I'm sure my father was protecting himself, that's business. I'm sure plenty of my fellow compatriots here in the US have seen or heard the phrase "What would Jesus do?" Let's change that to (I'm watching out for lightning bolts...) "What would Mick Jagger do?" I venture to guess the exact same thing and the solicitors in the UK and the Lawyers in the USA would have come to the same conclusion. Of course my father was nice about it, he was not being a twerp about it, just conducting business as most business people do.

CBII

CBII, thanks for your reply to me and your other postings on this topic, I'm sure I'm not the only one who was hoping you'd show up and give us your Dad's side of things. After reading the above reply though, I got the feeling you might have felt I was being critical of your Dad. If I came across at all like I was criticizing him in my comments, I certainly didn't mean to, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I went back and looked at my other posts and I did say he pulled a lot of crap and was difficult, but I said those things because I felt he had a right to. I don't think he was out of line with Keith, just trying to make a point and show he wasn't to be taken lightly, or taken advantage of. I feel the same way about the dinner, the motorhome incident, and the daily payments he demanded. I don't blame him for being like that, he came from a time when performers, especially black performers, were constantly taken advantage of. Although it didn't come across in my posts, I thought the way he dealt with Taylor was hilarious and also very smart.

From what I've read and heard over the years your Dad is, understandably, bitter about some things, and can be unpredictable and difficult as a result, but I also can't recall ever hearing of him ripping anyone off or not honoring a contract. If you don't mind me asking, is there any truth to his being bitter, or has he reached a point where he's ok with everything he's been through over the years.

Thanks CBII for taking the time to add all your comments. Fascinating reading, seriously! You know the truth about your Dad more than anyone else here.

Quote
CBII
Keith was playing that slur very wrong. No matter how it may have been a subtle imperfection it was wrong. You are correct after so many tries Keith continued to play it incorrectly and dad just said e'ff it he's not going to get it so lets move on.

Great reading all of your posts, CBII Feel fortunate that you're here (I'm new-ish on iorr so we haven't crossed paths before)

fwiw...this is how I hear it on the video on the previous page. After several attempts, Keith does play it right, at minute :31, and Chuck says "Perfect! perfect." It's not perfect, but heading in the right direction.

Keith then plays it wrong at :38, wrong at 1:11, wrong at 1:21 (Chuck: "You wanna get it right - let's get it right." )

Keith plays right notes, but wrong timing at 1:38; Chuck plays the slur along with/over Keith at 2:18.

Chuck wails the slurs assertively over Keith at 3:12.

Keith plays it tenatively but mostly right (leaving out a couple notes around it) at 3:30.

Keith hits it right, at 4:27 - unless that's Chuck playing over him again?







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-23 19:05 by swiss.

CBII-

It isn't your fault that your dad was a dickhead to my friend who is a physician in Las Vegas. I know other people (not autograph purveyors) who have met your father in the past 30 years and they have said the same thing about him.

And by the way, Keith may have been playing the slur in "Carol' incorrectly, but your dad could have cared less about the quality of the sound in " Hail Hail". When CB walked over to Keith in the middle of a song and said " let's go to B flat", and Keith said "No", that spoke volumes. Keith put him in his place. Rehearse for two weeks to film a movie and he pulls this by changing keys in mid song? Good for Keith.If it were up to your dad, the sound of the movie would have sucked. Your dad can thank Keith for making it a classic rock and roll film.

As influential as your father has been to rock and roll, he doesn't apppear to be a people person and he carries a huge grudge(s). It is apparent that after watching the film, he carries a few. It is what it is.

CBII_

Personally, I wanna believe that your DAD, the great Chuck Berry, is a great guy. You sound like a cool guy yourself. Take care.

Very cool reading CBII as always
Much appreciated

HMN

Quote
boogie1969

Quote

I'm going to step through your observations as best as I can. Here goes...

Keith was playing that slur very wrong. No matter how it may have been a subtle imperfection it was wrong. You are correct after so many tries Keith continued to play it incorrectly and dad just said e'ff it he's not going to get it so lets move on. When it comes down to it, the only person that gets to play something wrong is the writer. Everyone else is interpreting what the originator created.

As to establishing the dominant role. You are absolutely correct. There was not one but two very strong willed and dominant people in that movie and Keith is the other one. Neither of them realized a puppeteer was really pulling the strings and that was Taylor Hackford. The man was a news reporter prior to becoming a movie director (a very good one mind you). If it had been just a concert movie there would have been no reason for all the additional interplay. Taylor knew he had two people with a great deal of outlaw history under their belts, copious amounts of bravado and he milked it for everything he could. It worked! A good number of people have seen that movie.

The negotiations in the restaurant and dad walking in with some McDonald's. Well, that was a good business move on dad's part. It's letting the other side of the table know "E'FF all this crap trying to impress me, I'm here to talk business not be distracted by a $1000.00 Steak for lunch". The old man has seen it all believe me. He may have fallen for that BS when he started out but to hell with that mess at age 59.

Hackford that crafty devil never mentioned if he himself PAID for the damages to the other guys car now does he? Implying something to keep the audience captivated and at the same time not pulling out any documentation proving HE or Delilah paid for the damages (remember this one for a little later) was a great move. If he'd did have documentation, I would have framed it and presented it on film. There's no doubt my dad made Taylor walk out there and get the brunt of the cursing out for the damage to the car.

The cash payment each day. I remember, exactly what Hackford says and also remember what the movie studio did. The contract (oh yeah, he says there wasn't one) the agreement was dad would be paid for a performance. OK what constitutes a performance I believe was Taylor's dilemma. Exactly what was the negotiated agreement? From what Hackford said they started paying him everyday. Therefore the agreement after review from the movie studio and Delilah production's legal team was... Chucks right, we have to pay him every time he picks up his guitar or is filmed. No big deal. Yeah, I'm sure my father was protecting himself, that's business. I'm sure plenty of my fellow compatriots here in the US have seen or heard the phrase "What would Jesus do?" Let's change that to (I'm watching out for lightning bolts...) "What would Mick Jagger do?" I venture to guess the exact same thing and the solicitors in the UK and the Lawyers in the USA would have come to the same conclusion. Of course my father was nice about it, he was not being a twerp about it, just conducting business as most business people do.

CBII

CBII, thanks for your reply to me and your other postings on this topic, I'm sure I'm not the only one who was hoping you'd show up and give us your Dad's side of things. After reading the above reply though, I got the feeling you might have felt I was being critical of your Dad. If I came across at all like I was criticizing him in my comments, I certainly didn't mean to, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I went back and looked at my other posts and I did say he pulled a lot of crap and was difficult, but I said those things because I felt he had a right to. I don't think he was out of line with Keith, just trying to make a point and show he wasn't to be taken lightly, or taken advantage of. I feel the same way about the dinner, the motorhome incident, and the daily payments he demanded. I don't blame him for being like that, he came from a time when performers, especially black performers, were constantly taken advantage of. Although it didn't come across in my posts, I thought the way he dealt with Taylor was hilarious and also very smart.

From what I've read and heard over the years your Dad is, understandably, bitter about some things, and can be unpredictable and difficult as a result, but I also can't recall ever hearing of him ripping anyone off or not honoring a contract. If you don't mind me asking, is there any truth to his being bitter, or has he reached a point where he's ok with everything he's been through over the years.

As my UK friends say "No worries". Everyone here is just discussing a topic close to them. I did not mean to come off as my feathers had been ruffled. Just providing my prospective on the facts from that period of time.

Bitter is not quite the correct word (IMO) to reflect his feelings toward what happened at the start of his career. Eric Clapton used that term in the movie. Cautious and keen to what can happen are better ones to me. Many of the Black performers took it up the hind quarters by the "Business" BUT they were not the only ones ganked (St. Louis term for ripped off). It happens to this day if you as a band do not have the knowledge or don't enlist the services of a very good Solicitor that's working FOR YOU.

CBII

Keith plays the part on Ya-Ya's only, due to the tempo of the song, it's a bit more laid back - he kind of oozes it instead of twangs it (like Chuck does). And it's basically impossible to hear where he's starting it (correctly or incorrectly) because of the vocal. From what I can tell he's doing it 'incorrectly'. Which is how I learned it, ha ha.

Always sounded fine to me.

Quote
Midnight Toker
CBII-

It isn't your fault that your dad was a dickhead to my friend who is a physician in Las Vegas. I know other people (not autograph purveyors) who have met your father in the past 30 years and they have said the same thing about him.

And by the way, Keith may have been playing the slur in "Carol' incorrectly, but your dad could have cared less about the quality of the sound in " Hail Hail". When CB walked over to Keith in the middle of a song and said " let's go to B flat", and Keith said "No", that spoke volumes. Keith put him in his place. Rehearse for two weeks to film a movie and he pulls this by changing keys in mid song? Good for Keith.If it were up to your dad, the sound of the movie would have sucked. Your dad can thank Keith for making it a classic rock and roll film.

As influential as your father has been to rock and roll, he doesn't apppear to be a people person and he carries a huge grudge(s). It is apparent that after watching the film, he carries a few. It is what it is.

Is that so? Well I guess daddy-o then falls (as far as your friend is concerned) in with the wide swath of celebrities that have pissed off fans by not getting the response they expected. Like I stated in my original response, I thought it was a possibility. It really comes down to percentages I guess. Sometimes, pissing off a fan justly or not will start a Snowturd rolling down the hill of gossip.

As to changing keys mid-course? That's how Chuck Berry Plays it baby! We do key changes all the time on stage and it's pulled off perfectly. Ya know, looking back that's really funny. From my perspective, the Fox line up was the pick up band. With the exclusions of Johnny Johnson and my sister who were the only two people on that stage that had the ability to turn on a dime with him. Everyone else simply did not have the time behind the wheel to adapt. I'm not knocking anyone at the Fox shows, every one of them were and are excellent players and artists however, they were not Chuck Berry's regulars. Keith puts things into perspective in a very profound way when he said he wanted to put together a good band for my dad. The best band to put together for him would have been the core Chuck Berry band, with them showing everyone else how to play a live Chuck Berry concert. In the end though, Taylor Hackford got what he wanted a news story / documentary that has kept millions of people watching the movie over and over and over. We should never forget, this is nothing more than a movie. Movies are made to entertain and make everyone involved money.

Harken back to when Hackford was talking about the band performing at the Cosmo Club. Taylor implied they were just some pickup band nobodies. Whoa! That was Johnny Johnson on piano (!), my brother-in-law Chuck Clay (drums) and Gus Thornton (Johnny's bass player) playing that set. They were perfect from note one. Why? Because they were the real band with the exception of Guss. Jimmy Marsala was in California at the time and could not be there. There was nearly 100 years of playing experience between those for guys with 70 of it being between Dad and Johnny. Are we to assume when it was my dad's line-up at a place HE really wanted to play, Johnny Johnson was just some old Tavern / Pub player? Hell NO! Johnny was the same top notch piano player he'd always had been. The puppeteer managed to discount the band that my father loved playing with as not to take away from the "REAL Musician's that would perform at the FOX and you fell for it. Lets face reality here, Taylor Hackford is a directorial genius.

Regarding not being a people person and the grudge business. That statement about my father could be said about any entertainer. Some of our fellow members here on IORR have ripped Keith and Mick new AHoles about how they think Mick Taylor was cheated out of money and artistic credit, how the Rolling Stones care nothing about the fans, are only in the business for the money and will crush anyone that gets in their way. I don't hold that same opinion since I have no direct information about the contractual agreements with the Rolling Stones and Mick Taylor, cannot see them doing anything other than the only real Jobs they have known for the last 45+ years and protecting their interests. All we have are our opinions on these matters.

Like you said, it is what it is...

CBII



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-23 17:47 by CBII.

Quote
swiss

Quote
CBII
Keith was playing that slur very wrong. No matter how it may have been a subtle imperfection it was wrong. You are correct after so many tries Keith continued to play it incorrectly and dad just said e'ff it he's not going to get it so lets move on.

Great reading all of your posts, CBII Feel fortunate that you're here (I'm new-ish on iorr so we haven't crossed paths before)

fwiw...this is how I hear it on the video on the previous page. After several attempts, Keith does play it right, at minute :31, and Chuck says "Perfect! perfect." It's not perfect, but heading in the right direction.

Keith then plays it wrong at :38, wrong at 1:11, wrong at 1:21 (Chuck: "You wanna get it right - let's get it right.")

Keith plays right notes, but wrong timing at 1:38; Chuck plays the slur along with/over Keith at 2:18.

Chuck wails the slurs assertively over Keith at 3:12.

Keith plays it tenatively but mostly right (leaving out a couple notes around it) at 3:30.

Keith hits it right, at 4:27 - unless that's Chuck playing over him again?

Great analysis of the clip.

Hey CBII thanks for your responses. It's great to hear that your Dad is a hero to you. In many respects I wish my Dad had invented Rock N Roll but he didn't but I still think of him as a bit of a hero.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

I have always loved this film. Keith is good for his idol, Mr. Berry, but Chuck is also good for Keith - as witnessed in the above scene. Chuck oozes rock and roll. A great film.

Quote
CBII

Quote
cc
I think it has more to do with something swiss mentions only in passing--that keith is playing the song as he always has, in a style he developed when he was a kid (someone else can fill in his age at the first record--20?). ...

I agree with Keith learning how to play it one way and having to relearn it at a much older age. I started playing live music at 39 it was and still can be hell playing stuff correctly.

I disagree, Taylor Hackford was trying to put some drama in the film. Otherwise, that would have been left on the cutting room floor. There were plenty of other disagreements during the rehearsals, that's the way rehearsals are.

CBII - what you say about the director's agenda makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your many patient posts here.

sorry - tried to edit 2 posts that have that GD ") caused by " ) and instead posted posts twice -- aaargh. Request to BV: any chance you can add ability to delete our own posts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-23 19:04 by swiss.

ooops - wish we could delete our own posts - I meant to edit that damn ") that always pops up when you type " ) but posted by mistake



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-23 19:02 by swiss.

I bet KeithNacho plays Carol in open G!

Quote
CBII

When it comes down to it, the only person that gets to play something wrong is the writer. Everyone else is interpreting what the originator created.

Well....All the double stops your father is so (rightfully) famous for are interpretations of T-Bone Walker riffs and stops. In that sense Keith's version is interpreting your fathers version, and there is no 'right' or 'wrong'.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
CBII

When it comes down to it, the only person that gets to play something wrong is the writer. Everyone else is interpreting what the originator created.

Well....All the double stops your father is so (rightfully) famous for are interpretations of T-Bone Walker riffs and stops. In that sense Keith's version is interpreting your fathers version, and there is no 'right' or 'wrong'.

Mathijs

You are absolutely correct. My dad readily admits T-Bone walker, Charlie Christian, Carl Hogan, Muddy Waters and others as influences. The only difference? He was not making a movie with them. If one of those guys told him he was playing something wrong and he was, they too would have been in their bounds to want it the way they played it. Hell, he's shown me stuff I was playing wrong and I've had to correct it. It's his music and his show. I'm just trying to play in the right key and not get in the way.

There's a clip of T-Bone Walker and my dad playing Everyday I have the Blues on youtube. It's quite obvious to me dad gets to the point he feels "it's not my song" the only person can do this justice is T-Bone. He proceeds to give Mr. Walker his 355 and let's him handle his business. T-Bone's attack is much smoother, cooler and laid back. My dad's playing is really aggressive and dominant on the top of the groove. As you said, it was his interpretation of what he'd learned listening to old 78's and watching T-Bone on stage. I get a real kick out of one part where my father is so off into the moment, T-Bone has stopped playing and is trying to give the Guitar back to my dad. My father was the awe struck student at that moment, eyes closed and shuffling around on stage like he was in a trance.

Keith was really on top of his game throughout those couple of weeks in 1985. I saw more top notch playing by both of them than most people could ever imagine. There were challenge and response sequences that seemed to go on forever. I can't remember if that was filmed or not because the film crew did not show up until several days after they started playing in the studio.

Like I said, Taylor Hackford is one helluva director. Some 20+ years later and we all have devoted a day or so on at most 2 minutes of a 2 hour movie. That's what I call a provocateur.

CBII

CBII, one of my favorite parts of the movie is when your Dad is sitting on a couch by himself, softly singing that ballad, which I'm guessing is an old standard from his youth. Very plain, rough and simple sounding, but beautiful and sincere too, you can tell by that scene he must really love playing that type of stuff. Since seeing that, I've always thought it would be wonderful if he made an album of nothing but those type of songs, (and recorded exactly like that one, just him and a guitar, on a couch, playing off the cuff!). This makes me wonder what he would think of doing an album like that, and why he hasn't made a record at all in so long. If Jerry Lee Lewis can still get a record put out, surely Chuck Berry can. Can you tell us why he hasn't released anything since, if I'm not mistaken, Rockit in 1979?

Boogie,

That new material should have been on store shelves years ago. He just has not gotten around to finishing it. You have a point about Mr. Lewis and the same holds true for the James Brown (RIP), B.B. King, George Jones and his other contemporaries.

Your point is well taken about releasing a "Standards" from his youth. He certainly plays them to this day when warming up before shows and loves them. The specific tune you are talking about it "A Cottage For Sale". Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Billy Eckstein and others also covered it. Judy Garland's cover is so riveting it will almost make you cry.

CBII

Quote

Boogie,

That new material should have been on store shelves years ago. He just has not gotten around to finishing it. You have a point about Mr. Lewis and the same holds true for the James Brown (RIP), B.B. King, George Jones and his other contemporaries.

Your point is well taken about releasing a "Standards" from his youth. He certainly plays them to this day when warming up before shows and loves them. The specific tune you are talking about it "A Cottage For Sale". Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Billy Eckstein and others also covered it. Judy Garland's cover is so riveting it will almost make you cry.

CBII

Your Dad's version almost makes me cry.

I hope we hear that album of his soon than later. I looked up Rockit on one of the online music services yesterday after asking you about new material. I was curious about how it sounded and whether or not I would like it, because usually I don't like anything all the guy's from the 50's did after about, oh say, 1959 . Seriously though, I don't think any newer releases I've heard in the past 20 years from Jerry Lee, Little Richard, etc. has been been worth a damn. I know Rockit was 30 years ago, but I really dug it! It was typical Chuck Berry, with an updated, for the time, sound that I didn't hate. I don't know much about his other post 60's releases, but Rockit leads me to believe the same could be said about Chuck Berry that they use to say about the Ramones, not all their albums may have been as great as the first few, but they never made a truly bad one either. They had such a winning formula that, as long as they didn't stray to far from it, it was hard to f-uck it up (if you liked them of course). I feel the same way about Chuck's music.

Thanks again CBII. If you see this in time, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you (and your Dad too!).

In my experience, the difference between a good working player, and a great musician, is that the musician is almost incapable of truly copying another person's licks note for note. What fascinates me about Keith is where he differs from Berry, not where he tries to shadow him. Older players have told me that it was considered bad form to cop somebody's licks too closely. It was actually considered a kind of theft.