I think Chuck's an excellent piano player. Love his playing on Clapton's 'Unplugged' album, and on the old Allman brothers stuff.

I'm not sure why all the hate here. Yes, in retrospect, he may have overplayed on Steel Wheels. But at the time I remember everyone being ecstatic about that tour. I sure was,

And let's face it, the Stones aren't going to let an outsider come in and overplay without their blessing. So you might as well blame them as much as Chuck if you don't like it.

Soory, wrong thread ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-14 15:58 by wolfi.

Quote
FreeBird

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?

I believe that most people couldnt give a shit who plays the keyboards, quite frankly. And that most of them would barely be able to notice the difference.

I have no strong feelings either way about him - but I've always argued that the buck stops with the Stones. They've forgotten more about who or what's best for them than you or I will ever know, lets face it. If fans have a problem with a hired hand, take it up with the Stones themselves.

Chuck is really a GREAT pianist.
What is really wrong with him is his ATTITUDE. He just has an anti rocanroll attitude.
Just remember his blog during the Bigger Bang tour: BORING, never a hint of rock or roll.

He plays well, he is just not cool, and this is strange in the Stones entourage.

Obviously he is there because Mick needs him.

Quote
varilla
Chuck is really a GREAT pianist.
What is really wrong with him is his ATTITUDE. He just has an anti rocanroll attitude.
Just remember his blog during the Bigger Bang tour: BORING, never a hint of rock or roll.

He plays well, he is just not cool, and this is strange in the Stones entourage.

Obviously he is there because Mick needs him.

Mick probably has (or perhaps 'had' is more appropriate) his hands full with the 'rock and roll' contingent of Keith and Ronnie already, and can use all the help on the 'administrative' side of things, so he can focus on the macro picture, and the performance.

In this case 'boring' Chuck would be the 'rock' (as in anchor) in the band, to Keith's 'roll'.

Quote
varilla
Chuck is really a GREAT pianist.
What is really wrong with him is his ATTITUDE. He just has an anti rocanroll attitude.
Just remember his blog during the Bigger Bang tour: BORING, never a hint of rock or roll.

He plays well, he is just not cool, and this is strange in the Stones entourage.

Obviously he is there because Mick needs him.

So he should be dropped because of his online 'blog'? Christ..what next?

What do you think a Charlie Watts online blog would read like if there was such a thing?

These guys are in their 60s. If you want to be obsessed with a bunch of hedonists, I think you're following the wrong band or else living in a timewarp.

Obviously i won´t expect all the execess of previous decades but you can have a cool attitude towards music and life even if you are only drinking mineral water.
You want some examples: Mick Jagger, Ron Wood, Charlie Watts, Ian Mc Lagan, Kenney Jones, etc

Come on man!!! This is The Rolling Stones!!!!! We need a little touch of class, coolness, excentricity,far from normal people....
You know what i mean....

Quote
Stoneage
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.

Praise him?

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
Stoneage
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.

Praise him?

I believe the point was, if you like any post '89 stones shows, then you could praise him, as he's had a big hand in it. I believe that is a logical argument, don't you? If you don't like post '89 stones, then you may feel free to malign him.

Quote
Roll73

[/quote]

Nancy Pelosi has some nice hooters for an ole lady.[/quote]

Now coming back to the more important. Yep, Nancy really got boobs.

Quote
Phil Good

Quote
Roll73

Nancy Pelosi has some nice hooters for an ole lady.[/quote]

Now coming back to the more important. Yep, Nancy really got boobs.[/quote]

so does chuck.

Quote
varilla
Obviously i won´t expect all the execess of previous decades but you can have a cool attitude towards music and life even if you are only drinking mineral water.
You want some examples: Mick Jagger, Ron Wood, Charlie Watts, Ian Mc Lagan, Kenney Jones, etc

Come on man!!! This is The Rolling Stones!!!!! We need a little touch of class, coolness, excentricity,far from normal people....
You know what i mean....

Kenney Jones' hobby is playing polo. Thats very rock n roll, eh?

McLagan is deemed off limits to be hired for the Stones because he's regarded as too much of a negative influence on Woody. Thats how safe the Stones have become.

Which is fine by me. At these prices, I can do without seeing someone on stage barely able to stand up. Nor do I need to live my life vicariously through someone else's off-stage habits. What they do for the two hours they're on a stage is all that matters.

That Nancy Pelosi is a milf. Even though she looks as fixed as the Rolling Stones stage sound post 1989.

I find it extraordinary that people would think that somehow this story was made up to give Chuck Leavell some kind of credibility. Please look at his resume and realize that he doesn't need Stu's or anyone else's approval. Please think for one second why on earth Keith would make this up. The Stones basically don't give a toss about anyone but themselves, especially Mick and Keith, otherwise we wouldn't have had to put up with this shit



Mick and Keith showed Stu's importance for them by showing up for the tribute gig and remembering their old friend, oh hang on, that never happened.

Quote
The Wick
Mick and Keith showed Stu's importance for them by showing up for the tribute gig and remembering their old friend, oh hang on, that never happened.

Yes they did. In 1986.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-14 20:17 by Sleepy City.

Quote
Gazza
I believe that most people couldnt give a shit who plays the keyboards, quite frankly. And that most of them would barely be able to notice the difference.

I agree, very true. We're not talking lead vocalist here where it would be instantly recognizable.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
The Wick
Mick and Keith showed Stu's importance for them by showing up for the tribute gig and remembering their old friend, oh hang on, that never happened.

Yes they did. In 1986.

I was talking about the recent gig when neither showed up. In 86 it would have been pretty vile if they had not shown up considering he had passed away relatively recently.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
The Wick
Mick and Keith showed Stu's importance for them by showing up for the tribute gig and remembering their old friend, oh hang on, that never happened.

Yes they did. In 1986.

I don't know if I get your answer right?! If I do, let me suppport your view: Yes, Mick and Keith showed up in 1986 in Stu's honour and played with Charlie and Ronnie and Bill - then known as The Complete Fab Five Mk. III Rolling Stones - the following set in London's 100 Club:

Route 66 - Down The Road Apiece - Key To The Highway - Confessin’ The Blues - Mannish Boy - Bye Bye Johnny - Harlem Shuffle - Little Red Rooster - Down In The Bottom - Dust My Blues - Little Queenie.

As this was a very special evening for them they paid taxis and pints for their fellow Englishmen Eric Clapton (gtr), Jeff Beck (gtr), Simon Kirke (dr), Pete Townshend (gtr) and Jack Bruce (bass).

So, they only needed a keyboard player as this was the evening in memory of a keyboard player.

But there was none left as all parents able to conceive English pianists (only singers' and guitarrists' parents survived and the parents of Ringo Starr and Keith Moon) were killed during WW II air raids.

With no Englishman existing to play the above mentioned 12-bar Blues and Boogie Woogie tracks they had to pay a trans Atlantic flight for an American by the name of Charles Leavell. He had played with the late great totally unknown Allwomen Sisters, a very versatile electronic dance outfit with no tradition and ambition to play 12 bar Blues and Boogie Woogie at all.

Further unfortunately, the Stones had no money to pay the return ticket of that hired musician as they had to pay too much royalties for Mick T and no further income in the following decades from touring to hire pianists more able to play in the tradition of their founding member.

Surreal and brilliant...LOL

Gazza; These are the best posts you have ever did. great, great points!