I was listening to "Life" and one story stuck out: Supposedly Stu said "if something ever happens to me, Chuck's the guy". Really? I find this quite hard to believe, as there is almost nothing in the playing styles or personalities of these two players that leads me to believe Leavell is any kind of natural successor to Stu. On the other hand, Stu making that determination might explain why Leavell has been in the band so long (I had been leaning toward the theory that Chuck had sold his soul to Satin, as I couldn't come up with any other explanation). But it's odd, because when I think of Stu's boogie-woogie and other players, Chuck Leavell is not a name that comes to mind.

......Maybe he meant Chuck Norris ta replace him on security duties



ROCKMAN

I may be swearing in the church but I think Stu's musical contribution to The Rolling Stones goes quite unnoticed. I know he was founding member and, from what I heard, a great guy. But his pianoplaying wasn't exactly put in front, rather very much in the background. So it couldn't have been hard replacing him from a musical standpoint. Emotionally though, it must have been harder.

>......Maybe he meant Chuck Norris ta replace him on security duties

Or he meant Chuck Berry to give advice where to find Johnnie Johnson...

N

Charlie Watts told KR about Steve Jordan. His drumming style is very different from Charlie's

It must have been that Ben Waters was still too young at the time.
I would love it if the boys would give Ben a try for any future activity.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
71Tele
(I had been leaning toward the theory that Chuck had sold his soul to Satin, as I couldn't come up with any other explanation).

My God, you could be right - maybe he did sell his soul to satin? Just look at those shirts!

I don't believe the story either. It sounds like Keith knows that the fans don't like Chuck and he wanted to change that by faking this "stamp of approval" from Stu.

It won't work for me, though. I hear what I hear and except for a very small number of exceptions, Chuck Leavell's playing has never impressed me. Most of the time I find it downright annoying.

Stu brought Chuck in on the 81 tour and then the Undercover sessions

Quote
Stoneage
I may be swearing in the church but I think Stu's musical contribution to The Rolling Stones goes quite unnoticed. I know he was founding member and, from what I heard, a great guy. But his pianoplaying wasn't exactly put in front, rather very much in the background. So it couldn't have been hard replacing him from a musical standpoint. Emotionally though, it must have been harder.

Apart from that 1963 demo session (Diddley Daddy, Brights Light Big City, etc). He is just as up-front & important to the overall sound as the guitar(s) & harmonica on these recordings, & I suspect he would've remained so if he'd been kept as a full band member.

Met Chuck a couple of times and he's a really nice guy. Oi Gazza remember in Amsterdam 1995 when you asked him for an autograph and then ran off to find a pen somewhere leaving yours truly to engage Chuck in conversation till you got back?

Quote
The GR
Met Chuck a couple of times and he's a really nice guy. Oi Gazza remember in Amsterdam 1995 when you asked him for an autograph and then ran off to find a pen somewhere leaving yours truly to engage Chuck in conversation till you got back?

I'm sure he is a very nice guy. Can't stand his playing with the Stones.

Quote
Roll73

I knew Nancy Pelosi was his mother!
It ALL makes sense now....oh he has to go.

keith is....forgetful sometimes.what stu probably said was"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy..who you should have the police talk to first"

or"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy you should have fill in until you find someone who can play"

"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy...i want to clear out those trees at the back of my property"

Quote
lem motlow
keith is....forgetful sometimes.what stu probably said was"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy..who you should have the police talk to first"

or"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy you should have fill in until you find someone who can play"

"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy...i want to clear out those trees at the back of my property"

You're a mean, vicious git. I appreciate that.

Quote
lem motlow
keith is....forgetful sometimes.what stu probably said was"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy..who you should have the police talk to first"

or"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy you should have fill in until you find someone who can play"

"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy...i want to clear out those trees at the back of my property"

LOL

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Roll73

I knew Nancy Pelosi was his mother!
It ALL makes sense now....oh he has to go.

Nancy Pelosi has some nice hooters for an ole lady.

Quote
FreeBird
I don't believe the story either. It sounds like Keith knows that the fans don't like Chuck and he wanted to change that by faking this "stamp of approval" from Stu.

as Keith doesnt use the internet, cares even less about it plus the fact that a few internet posts dont exactly represent 'the fans', I would seriously doubt it. I would imagine that the vast majority of concert attendees give a damn who is playing piano. Half of them probably couldnt tell the difference between Chuck Leavell and Chuck Berry.

The fact that the guy has been there for three decades is because the Stones are obviously happy enough with his input. They hardly need to justify their choice by making up a story in a book.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-14 03:50 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
FreeBird
I don't believe the story either. It sounds like Keith knows that the fans don't like Chuck and he wanted to change that by faking this "stamp of approval" from Stu.

as Keith doesnt use the internet, cares even less about it plus the fact that a few internet posts dont exactly represent 'the fans', I would seriously doubt it. I would imagine that the vast majority of concert attendees give a damn who is playing piano. Half of them probably couldnt tell the difference between Chuck Leavell and Chuck Berry.

The fact that the guy has been there for three decades is because the Stones are obviously happy enough with his input. They hardly need to justify their choice by making up a story in a book.

The Stones are obviously happy with him. The reasons why they like him so much is emblematic of what has become of the group. I see him as a compromise choice between Mick and Keith, and someone who has been given a great deal of organizational responsibility. None of that has anything to do with his actual playing, however, and I find the idea that the great Ian Stewart designated him as his successor far fetched at best.

Why?

You're making it sound as if Stu was infallible in terms of taste (which he wasnt, if his contempt for 'Some Girls' is anything to go by...)

Stu was more limited in terms of playing styles than Leavell, Hopkins, Preston or McLagan were. However, I'm sure he was a better judge of what the Stones were looking for than any of us. And as he also reminded Keith that he should use Johnnie Johnson sooner rather than later (which Keith did the following year for 'Hail Hail Rock n Roll'), its quite evident that Keith respected his advice.

Quote
Gazza
Why?

You're making it sound as if Stu was infallible in terms of taste (which he wasnt, if his contempt for 'Some Girls' is anything to go by...)

Stu was more limited in terms of playing styles than Leavell, Hopkins, Preston or McLagan were. However, I'm sure he was a better judge of what the Stones were looking for than any of us. And as he also reminded Keith that he should use Johnnie Johnson sooner rather than later (which Keith did the following year for 'Hail Hail Rock n Roll'), its quite evident that Keith respected his advice.

You're absolutely right on that score, but it is hard to see Chuck as any kind of successor to Stu spiritually. That is from the point of view of a soulful boogie-woogie piano player. I don't claim to be a better judge of what the Stones are looking for, just that I find it hard to accept Leavell as any kind of direct successor to Stu.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
lem motlow
keith is....forgetful sometimes.what stu probably said was"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy..who you should have the police talk to first"

or"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy you should have fill in until you find someone who can play"

"if anything happens to me,chucks the guy...i want to clear out those trees at the back of my property"

LOL

LOLouder

Quote
Gazza

Quote
FreeBird
I don't believe the story either. It sounds like Keith knows that the fans don't like Chuck and he wanted to change that by faking this "stamp of approval" from Stu.

as Keith doesnt use the internet, cares even less about it plus the fact that a few internet posts dont exactly represent 'the fans', I would seriously doubt it. I would imagine that the vast majority of concert attendees give a damn who is playing piano. Half of them probably couldnt tell the difference between Chuck Leavell and Chuck Berry.

The fact that the guy has been there for three decades is because the Stones are obviously happy enough with his input. They hardly need to justify their choice by making up a story in a book.

wow...he's been there twice as long as Brian and MT put together!

For that matter, even Daryl's been around longer than Brian and MT put together!

Well, he seems to have appeased both Mick AND Keith 'cause he got a co-writing credit for one tune on DW and ended up in the Hail Hail film (why he's there, I have no idea). CL also seems to have a pretty easy-going personality and won't give Mick any problems like Billy (a big star at the time) or Mac (money and drugs).
AS much as I prefer Billy or Mac, I can't see Ian McLagan walking into gigs with a binder in his hand and saying to Mick, "Uh, how about She's A Rainbow?" But that's what Jagger wants (and gets since 1989).

Quote
tomk
Well, he seems to have appeased both Mick AND Keith 'cause he got a co-writing credit for one tune on DW and ended up in the Hail Hail film (why he's there, I have no idea). CL also seems to have a pretty easy-going personality and won't give Mick any problems like Billy (a big star at the time) or Mac (money and drugs).
AS much as I prefer Billy or Mac, I can't see Ian McLagan walking into gigs with a binder in his hand and saying to Mick, "Uh, how about She's A Rainbow?" But that's what Jagger wants (and gets since 1989).

They'd even have given Brian Jones and Mick Taylor songwriting credits on that album...anything to further remove their involvement. Let's blame this travesty where it belongs. Charlie and his addiction to smack.

Quote
tomk
Well, he seems to have appeased both Mick AND Keith 'cause he got a co-writing credit for one tune on DW and ended up in the Hail Hail film (why he's there, I have no idea). CL also seems to have a pretty easy-going personality and won't give Mick any problems like Billy (a big star at the time) or Mac (money and drugs).
AS much as I prefer Billy or Mac, I can't see Ian McLagan walking into gigs with a binder in his hand and saying to Mick, "Uh, how about She's A Rainbow?" But that's what Jagger wants (and gets since 1989).

Getting a writing credit on DW is kind of like making the major leagues, but with the 1962 Mets. You baseball fans will appreciate the analogy.

Quote
Gazza
as Keith doesnt use the internet, cares even less about it plus the fact that a few internet posts dont exactly represent 'the fans', I would seriously doubt it.

Word of mouth... I believe I read somewhere that Chuck himself knows how the fans feel about him, in which case it would be natural that he talked about it with Keith.

And of course there's a difference between fans and casual concert attendees. I maintain that it's safe to say that the majority of actual fans don't like Chuck Leavell.

We may talk about Chuck leavell, but as I see it he is in may ways the musical director of the band. He does the musical arrangements on many songs, sets the tempos, the pre-recorded bits and click-tracks. So if you like Stones post `89, Chuck is the man you should praise.

Quote
FreeBird

Quote
Gazza
as Keith doesnt use the internet, cares even less about it plus the fact that a few internet posts dont exactly represent 'the fans', I would seriously doubt it.

Word of mouth... I believe I read somewhere that Chuck himself knows how the fans feel about him, in which case it would be natural that he talked about it with Keith.

And of course there's a difference between fans and casual concert attendees. I maintain that it's safe to say that the majority of actual fans don't like Chuck Leavell.

..an incredible assumption to make, in both cases....

Quote
Gazza

Quote
FreeBird
And of course there's a difference between fans and casual concert attendees. I maintain that it's safe to say that the majority of actual fans don't like Chuck Leavell.

..an incredible assumption to make, in both cases....

Yes and no, respectively. Do you really believe there's a silent majority out there actually liking Chuck's playing? Are you playing devil's advocate? Or do you like him yourself?