Why are some people so anti-Chuck Levell?

He's only a backing musician - it's not as if his keyboards are intrusive in any way, or that they have altered the texture of the Stones' music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-17 16:51 by Rock'n'roller.

Two very big reasons the seem to bother many here are... he is an American and he is from the south. And a lot of people seem to be bothered cause he has a beard..

Sounds dumb but these are things I see written the most about him.

ah, time for the bi-monthly Chuck Leavell thread so soon?
spelling his name right might be a nice touch ...

well first he sucks, second his playing and sound is too tinkly . it has no part in the stones sound. and lastly him making set lists!!! horrible!!!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

American maybe (stone = english band) but I don't give a toss that he's from the South.

I think the main problem is he's about as Rock N Roll as a PG Tip!

But I do credit he's energy and focus within the Stones.....

Rock'n'roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are some people so anti-Chuck Levell?
>
> He's only a backing musician - it's not as if his
> keyboards are intrusive in any way, or that they
> have altered the texture of the Stones' music.

He's more than a backing musician. He LEADS the band like a gentleman-farmer Lawrence Welk. If he didn't have that piano he'd have a baton. He and Mick pick the set-list, Chuck counts off the songs and they all defer to him for time changes, bridges, endings, arrangements and so on. Keith and Ronnie just show up to play along. A vast number of the Stones' biggest hits have a prominent piano in the sound and Chuck replicates the sounds of those records more than he does his own.

This is all true but to admit it would be to admit that the Stones have become a Vegas show band rather than the world's most ferocious rock and roll ensemble.

Dumping Chuck makes some people think you could bring back the former glory of the '72-'73 and '81-'82 tours for example. Since that ain't ever gonna happen, Chuck is the convenient lightning rod for their frustration.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are some people so anti-Chuck Levell?
> >
> > He's only a backing musician - it's not as if
> his
> > keyboards are intrusive in any way, or that
> they
> > have altered the texture of the Stones' music.
>
> He's more than a backing musician. He LEADS the
> band like a gentleman-farmer Lawrence Welk. If he
> didn't have that piano he'd have a baton. He and
> Mick pick the set-list, Chuck counts off the songs
> and they all defer to him for time changes,
> bridges, endings, arrangements and so on. Keith
> and Ronnie just show up to play along. A vast
> number of the Stones' biggest hits have a
> prominent piano in the sound and Chuck replicates
> the sounds of those records more than he does his
> own.
>
> This is all true but to admit it would be to admit
> that the Stones have become a Vegas show band
> rather than the world's most ferocious rock and
> roll ensemble.
>
> Dumping Chuck makes some people think you could
> bring back the former glory of the '72-'73 and
> '81-'82 tours for example. Since that ain't ever
> gonna happen, Chuck is the convenient lightning
> rod for their frustration.


Isn't Keith involved at a fundamental level about the set list? Seems odd that he might not be. Are Jagger and Richards really content for the band to become a Vegas show band? Is it the appeal to the wider casual audience that has determined this? Do J & R lack confidence in their ability to be a straightforward rock and roll band?

Anti Chuck Leavell? That would be Keith. He is the anti Chuck!

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And a lot of people seem to be bothered cause he
> has a beard..

nothing wrong with the beard-
he needs to start wearing the leather trousers again, thats all.

I'm not

> Isn't Keith involved at a fundamental level about
> the set list?


In "According To The Rolling Stones" as well as numerous articles and Chuck's own blog, the answer is NO.

Are
> Jagger and Richards really content for the band to
> become a Vegas show band?

If the tours of the last 18 yers are indicative, the answer is YES.

Is it the appeal to the
> wider casual audience that has determined this?

Apparently so as this has been the formula for nearly two decades and the crowds keep getting bigger.

Do
> J & R lack confidence in their ability to be a
> straightforward rock and roll band?

We love them, absolutely f*cking LOVE THEM but it's patently obvious what they were - and what they are now. I've been listening to the Detroit '81 soundboards that have just surfaced. THAT was a rock and roll band.

I think he`s a fine man and a fine musician, however I think it is the Stones` fault he plays too loud sometimes and plays on too many songs. After all, the Stones themselves control that. It`s not like Chuck has anything to say about that.

Chuck is one of the world`s top keyboard players who`s done outstanding work with lots of top notch artists.

Yes he`s American, and yes he`s from the South, and yes he plays country. The Stones know that and obviously like what he`s doing `cause he`s been a back-up musician with them for about 25 years now. There`s a tons of keyboard players to choose from, they obviously like him best. So blame the Stones if you don`t like what Chuck`s doing.

Marhsall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
and lastly him making set lists!!!
> horrible!!!

horrible would be if he would not have a role in the making of the setlists
otherwise you would have another bunch of warhorses even in the spots from 3 to 7

True too, I feel Chuck has played quite a big part in the setlist-improvement since No Security.

Chuck's a gent and a fine musician. To expect the Stones to emulate the Stooges (still 4 in the band, no backing musicians) isn't going to happen. There's no way the Stones could cut it now without any backing musicians - in 2007 they are what they are; a great band who need a lot of support (vocals, horns, keys, etc) to put on a large scale show. Just be grateful they are still going, 2007 Stones-with-Chuck is miles better than the alternative of no Stones

... he is an American and he is from the south.


I'm in trouble here! Headed over to Rocks Off or Stones Doug's!

"No Anchovies, Please"

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... he is an American and he is from the south.
>
>
> I'm in trouble here! Headed over to Rocks Off or
> Stones Doug's!


Pick me up on the way!

Rock'n'roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are some people so anti-Chuck Levell?

I know what you mean...though are you the right person to ask this question?
I mean it's just an oppinion some people have. You should know yourself stateing in the other tread: "Never understood why people would want to make music like the Allman Brothers. Why do they bother? Doesn't seem to be any point"...

i think its his smile

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

S.T.P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are some people so anti-Chuck Levell?
>
> I know what you mean...though are you the right
> person to ask this question?
> I mean it's just an oppinion some people have. You
> should know yourself stateing in the other tread:
> "Never understood why people would want to make
> music like the Allman Brothers. Why do they
> bother? Doesn't seem to be any point"...

Sure, but some people are simply bothered about his beard and single expression face. Anyway I may have been thinking about the Average White Band in that thread as always mix the two up (the name, not the music perhaps).

Rock'n'roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, but some people are simply bothered about
> his beard and single expression face.

whats the problem with the beard??

He seems to take the blame for everything these days which is really a shame.

don't listen to them chuck...you da man...keep rockin brother

rlngstns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> don't listen to them chuck...you da man...keep
> rockin brother


amen!

He reminds me of Mr. Kimball for some reason....

King Snake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True too, I feel Chuck has played quite a big part
> in the setlist-improvement since No Security.

"Some Girls," "Sway," "She Was Hot,"

How about returning to the "S's," Chuck, and pulling out "Soul Survivor"?

since i have read in his diary on his homepage, that he was """"so proud""" to meet george bush in the white house for a dinner, he is not my favorite man

Whatever! All I know is the stones were starting to sound like crap in their live performances, when Chucj came along, their sound quality has been much more consistant, (consistantly good that is).
So what he's from the south, so is Bobby Keys, and how long has he played with the stones?

R Wrote:
> He's more than a backing musician. He LEADS the
> band like a gentleman-farmer Lawrence Welk. If he
> didn't have that piano he'd have a baton. He and
> Mick pick the set-list, Chuck counts off the songs
> and they all defer to him for time changes,
> bridges, endings, arrangements and so on. Keith
> and Ronnie just show up to play along. A vast
> number of the Stones' biggest hits have a
> prominent piano in the sound and Chuck replicates
> the sounds of those records more than he does his
> own.
>
> This is all true but to admit it would be to admit
> that the Stones have become a Vegas show band
> rather than the world's most ferocious rock and
> roll ensemble.
>
> Dumping Chuck makes some people think you could
> bring back the former glory of the '72-'73 and
> '81-'82 tours for example. Since that ain't ever
> gonna happen, Chuck is the convenient lightning
> rod for their frustration.


All true,unfortunately.

Its also much easier to bash a hired hand than it is to criticise your heroes and admit that they have shortcomings.

There's a lot more aspects of the Stones and what they represent in the 21st Century that warrant criticism than the style or appearance of a keyboard player.

God knows what some people would come out with if Stu was still around.

Stu was the greatest....no comparison to Chuck.