Quote
Stoneage
Looks like we are giving Chuck the blame for the fact that Keith and Ronnie don't deliver anymore. It's like the coach who constantly blames the ref for his team losing again. It's easier...
In fact the only two that have delivered at a constant level in the Stones are Charlie and Bill. And Charlie is the only one left. Mick has also delivered but his voice has let him down...

Rotten ref.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

Ah, then I need to refresh your memory. Years ago I posted a comparison between Imagination from Hampton '81 and Imagination from Napoli '82. In short, it basically showed how Leavell's playing just is totally un-R&R, dragging the track down with with numb plinky plink piano, whearas Ian MacLagan really added groove and spice to the track on the Wurlitzer, really duetting with Wood, Richards and Ernie Watts.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

Ah, then I need to refresh your memory. Years ago I posted a comparison between Imagination from Hampton '81 and Imagination from Napoli '82. In short, it basically showed how Leavell's playing just is totally un-R&R, dragging the track down with with numb plinky plink piano, whearas Ian MacLagan really added groove and spice to the track on the Wurlitzer, really duetting with Wood, Richards and Ernie Watts.

Mathijs

i was talking about real folks...

Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

he was bloody good on that one he was.

he knows. and he only got bloody awful when the band took a turn for the worse. just trying to keep up (or down) with things....that ain't a crime, is it?

Charlie was more balding

Quote
Stoneage
Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

ernie hated his time with the band. in fact, he doesn't even mention it on his online bio....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Stoneage
Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

ernie hated his time with the band. in fact, he doesn't even mention it on his online bio....

I wouldn't be surprised if they mocked him because he was, more or less, bald. Or maybe the great leader keith was pissed because Ernie dared to steal some limelight from him?

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

Ah, then I need to refresh your memory. Years ago I posted a comparison between Imagination from Hampton '81 and Imagination from Napoli '82. In short, it basically showed how Leavell's playing just is totally un-R&R, dragging the track down with with numb plinky plink piano, whearas Ian MacLagan really added groove and spice to the track on the Wurlitzer, really duetting with Wood, Richards and Ernie Watts.

Mathijs

what is "totally un-R&R" ?
never thought of Imagination as a R&R song...and duetting with Earnie Watts was simply imposible as he wasn´t playing with them on the ´82 tour...

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Stoneage
Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

ernie hated his time with the band. in fact, he doesn't even mention it on his online bio....

I wouldn't be surprised if they mocked him because he was, more or less, bald. Or maybe the great leader keith was pissed because Ernie dared to steal some limelight from him?

don't think so...more just hated the whole stones-on-the-road lifestyle...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

he was bloody good on that one he was.

he knows. and he only got bloody awful when the band took a turn for the worse. just trying to keep up (or down) with things....that ain't a crime, is it?

I ain't no capital crime at least.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

he was bloody good on that one he was.

he knows. and he only got bloody awful when the band took a turn for the worse. just trying to keep up (or down) with things....that ain't a crime, is it?

It ain't no capital crime at least.

barely a misdemeanor or mistreater....

I think there's too much negativity here, the real problem with the stones is Keith, without Chucks playing the stones would probably sound awful live.

This dry soundboard recording shows pretty well what Chuck adds to the Stones sound.







Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-08 17:33 by TheBlockbuster.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

he was bloody good on that one he was.

he knows. and he only got bloody awful when the band took a turn for the worse. just trying to keep up (or down) with things....that ain't a crime, is it?

It ain't no capital crime at least.

barely a misdemeanor or mistreater....

Thanks for the spellcheck BTW.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
I think there's too much negativity here, the real problem with the stones is Keith, without Chucks playing the stones would probably sound awful live.

This dry soundboard recording shows pretty well what Chuck adds to the Stones sound.

Not impressed by the piano at all.

Quote
TheBlockbuster
I think there's too much negativity here, the real problem with the stones is Keith, without Chucks playing the stones would probably sound awful live.

This dry soundboard recording shows pretty well what Chuck adds to the Stones sound.

He's honky tonkin' up Angie, that's what he does

Quote
Stoneage
Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

Who else in the band did they give a wig to?

gimme back my wig and honey let your head go bald...or something...says hound dog taylor...he was cool....

Quote
Stoneage
Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

Really? What about UMT, LSTNT, Whip, Shattered, Twenty Flight Rock, She's So Cold and Satisfaction?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Stoneage
Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

Really? What about UMT, LSTNT, Whip, Shattered, Twenty Flight Rock, She's So Cold and Satisfaction?

Not to mention the world's best version of JJF.
and wasn't it Ernie overplaying the tambourine on YCAGWYW?

i will tolerate only so much chuck-bashing...but let there be no doubt: I will NOT TOLERATE ANY ernie-bashing. You guys got that straight? ok....

What about haggis bashing, can we still do that? Ernie wouldn't care...

Quote
Munichhilton
What about haggis bashing, can we still do that? Ernie wouldn't care...

i guess that's ok, but there's nothing wrong with haggis...it's by far the best stuff i've ever seen hanging in a sheep's stomach at a glasgow butcher shop.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-08 19:00 by StonesTod.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

Ah, then I need to refresh your memory. Years ago I posted a comparison between Imagination from Hampton '81 and Imagination from Napoli '82. In short, it basically showed how Leavell's playing just is totally un-R&R, dragging the track down with with numb plinky plink piano, whearas Ian MacLagan really added groove and spice to the track on the Wurlitzer, really duetting with Wood, Richards and Ernie Watts.

Mathijs

Mathijs, the thing I do not understand is why Mick and Keith would put up with a player who is dragging tracks down? Surly they heard (and are still hearing) the same thing you heard (and is still hearing). Some other people here say the same thing, so it's got to be quite noticeable. What is your opinion why the Stones would put up with him for so long?

Quote
TheBlockbuster
I think there's too much negativity here, the real problem with the stones is Keith, without Chucks playing the stones would probably sound awful live.

This dry soundboard recording shows pretty well what Chuck adds to the Stones sound.

That guitar "playing" sounds as if who is "playing" the guitar doesn't understand what 'timing' is anymore or, just as with Buddy Guy on that horrible version of Champagne And Reefer, he can't hear shit for his own timing and sounds like shit no matter what timing wise. That's not negativity, that's observation.

Awful horrendously bad version of Angie to boot.

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

Ah, then I need to refresh your memory. Years ago I posted a comparison between Imagination from Hampton '81 and Imagination from Napoli '82. In short, it basically showed how Leavell's playing just is totally un-R&R, dragging the track down with with numb plinky plink piano, whearas Ian MacLagan really added groove and spice to the track on the Wurlitzer, really duetting with Wood, Richards and Ernie Watts.

Mathijs

Mathijs, the thing I do not understand is why Mick and Keith would put up with a player who is dragging tracks down? Surly they heard (and are still hearing) the same thing you heard (and is still hearing). Some other people here say the same thing, so it's got to be quite noticeable. What is your opinion why the Stones would put up with him for so long?

It's the sound of $$$$$ing in their ears that blocks out reality.

Quote
Stoneage
Why didn't they keep Ernie Watts in the band. He did not only play his parts perfectly, he also covered for constant bum notes from the dynamic duo.
It's Ernie that makes Hampton so good. If it was his baldness that worried them they could have given him a wig too.

a really nice wig..like the kind Jagger wears.....OOOPS!!!...nuts..now the secret is out!!....

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
CousinC
We like the other players better cause it was another band.

and to your point, i don't recall folks bashing chuck's playing on the '82 european tour

Ah, then I need to refresh your memory. Years ago I posted a comparison between Imagination from Hampton '81 and Imagination from Napoli '82. In short, it basically showed how Leavell's playing just is totally un-R&R, dragging the track down with with numb plinky plink piano, whearas Ian MacLagan really added groove and spice to the track on the Wurlitzer, really duetting with Wood, Richards and Ernie Watts.

Mathijs

Mathijs, the thing I do not understand is why Mick and Keith would put up with a player who is dragging tracks down? Surly they heard (and are still hearing) the same thing you heard (and is still hearing). Some other people here say the same thing, so it's got to be quite noticeable. What is your opinion why the Stones would put up with him for so long?

It more had to do with the Jagger/Richards rivalry. In '81 there was a large Richards camp, with Wood, Ian MacLagan, Bobby Keys and Freddie Sessler, partying all night and on stage. There's quite some reports from within the Stones that Jagger wanted to take more control both off and on stage. The story is that Jagger did not want Ian MacLagan and Bobby Keys for the '82 tour due to their drink and drugs habit, and that an agreement of sorts was made -you get to take Bobby Keys, I get Chuck Leavell. And in the end, I guess it i mainly Jagger whom really likes Chuck's playing style, judging on the type of musicians Jagger has used for his solo carreer.

Mathijs

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
TheBlockbuster
I think there's too much negativity here, the real problem with the stones is Keith, without Chucks playing the stones would probably sound awful live.

This dry soundboard recording shows pretty well what Chuck adds to the Stones sound.

That guitar "playing" sounds as if who is "playing" the guitar doesn't understand what 'timing' is anymore or, just as with Buddy Guy on that horrible version of Champagne And Reefer, he can't hear shit for his own timing and sounds like shit no matter what timing wise. That's not negativity, that's observation.

Awful horrendously bad version of Angie to boot.

I have to second that. Keith is way out there on this one.

Quote
Mathijs
And in the end, I guess it i mainly Jagger whom really likes Chuck's playing style, judging on the type of musicians Jagger has used for his solo carreer.

Mathijs

I guess Leavell is modern, voice-coached Jagger's trusted man - he is there to provide the hints for right notes for Jagger to follow, keeping the songs in a right track (I think "Angie" above is a good example of that). I think this reminds us of Jagger's remerk of Taylor once being the "melodic" guitar player which made his singing easier. I suppose Keith and Ronnie are rather hopeless guitarists in that sense to guide and help the singer in his melodies (and whatever weaknesses there is in modern - post '89 - Jagger's singing, he at least stays in tune rather well.)

The Leavell-Jagger axis is extremily clear in them playing more obscure tunes, old rarities, etc.- it is seemingly Chuck who actually knows and plays the tunes and Jagger síngs for him (or within the context provided by him). This also is the source for karaoke-like performances - teh Stones making replicas of their old songs, which is typical to whole Vagas-era.

- Doxa