I don't see why when there's any mention of "health issues" all attention goes squarely on Keith. Every member (with the exception of Mick) have had their own issues, the main one being Charlie and his serious illness a few years ago. Plus Ronnie had his own battles with alcohol. With them being as old as they are it's only natural for their health to be a main topic of conversation---but it shouldn't be viewed negatively. The guys are in their late 60's, living the easy life, they need to get together to see how well it all still works.

i heard from a friend from a friend there will be an announcement on sept 22
jeroen

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
Gazza

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote

It was just the core band – six of us

I'm saying nothing.

The fact that Mick is calling him to draw up a list of 30 songs for the Stones to play would suggest that - like it or not - he's seen as more important to the functional ability of the 'core band' than almost everyone else.

Definitely agree. Officially there are 4 members but behind the scenes there are these 6 members. I wonder what 30 songs he drew up (I think we can all guess 10 of them)?

And probably the reason they only booked time to record 2 songs (although maybe that's all they had), was in case things did not click, they did not want to waste money on studio time and maybe having people cancel other commitments to come to Paris for an extended time.

But I think what Chuck said is pretty such what everyone was thinking...

Well, a multi-disc greatest hits release has been mooted now for at least a year (which is why the outrage over them releasing it is a bit surprising). I would guess that Universal wanted the Stones to record a couple of new songs for it, though as a bit of a sales push. Its common practice now for a compilation to have a new song or two.

Quote
lettingitbleed
Good stuff. About as much info as we can except to receive.

I would have liked the interviewer to have asked more about the songs played!

Of course - but that wasn't the reason Chuck was being interviewed in the first place, so there was probably the proviso that the conversation wouldnt primarily be about the Stones.

Good news are accumulating these days. Thanks for the interview

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Gazza

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote

It was just the core band – six of us

I'm saying nothing.

The fact that Mick is calling him to draw up a list of 30 songs for the Stones to play would suggest that - like it or not - he's seen as more important to the functional ability of the 'core band' than almost everyone else.

As much as we hate to hear that, it's probably true.

Luckily, he's not in a position to announce a tour yet...

Exactly right. I don't like it either, but can't fault him for telling it like it is.

Quote
corriecas
i heard from a friend from a friend there will be an announcement on sept 22
jeroen

I heard the same thing three hours ago!

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote

It was just the core band – six of us

I'm saying nothing.

..yea, saw that...evidently he considers himself a 'core' member...and who else?....Darryl or Don Was on bass??.....hmmmm...jagger can't be bothered to pick out a few tracks to rehearse-he leaves it up to the 'musical director'....hmmph..

Quote
Dreamer
Thanks for the post Cocaine Eyes!

Between the lines;

"Keith would have no problem"

and;

"As far as what’s left of this year, I can’t see that it would be very much. But I do think the possibility exists that the band would want to tour again, so I think the answer is yes. Having spent time in rehearsal and the studio recently, there’s nothing but smiles and backslaps and hugs going down. It reminds you of how passionate we all are about doing this and how much you miss it when it’s gone."

It's clear that they still want to do something but it remains not clear what exactly they are going to do.
"the possibility exists" does not refer to a 2013 and 2014 tour like they used to do...
And doing two new songs and play another 20 of 30 is not just what you need to prepare for playing 4 serious 25 million dollar shows.
With Keith's arthritis they certainly need 5 or 6 weeks rehearsals; 4 shows or 40.
I don't expect serious rehearsals this year and that means no concerts this year. But sometimes they do unexpected things

What's your opinion Cocaine Eyes?

Expect the unexpected, always.

Did he address the rumor that many of us can't stand his playing?

Leavell's been doing the setlists for years -- I thought that was common knowledge.

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
[blogs.ajc.com]


Q. So what is the status of a tour?

A. They have not made any announcements, so there’s no official news to report. They [rumored Brooklyn dates] will remain rumors until the band confirms, but we recently had sessions in Paris and worked on two great songs. One, Keith [Richards] brought in called ‘One More Shot.” It’s really cool, great guitar riff. And Mick has one called ‘Doom and Gloom.’ The song sounds a lot different than the title. The theme is that he’s talking to a girl saying all I hear from you is doom and gloom – let’s go party, let’s go dance. It’s an up-tempo tune. They’ll be on the 50th anniversary set coming in November.
[/b]

I was wondering if "One Last Shot" was composed by Keef during last sessions with Steve Jordan...

"One Last Shot"? Just another way of saying: "Out In A Blaze Of Glory".

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
KRiffhard

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
[blogs.ajc.com]


Q. So what is the status of a tour?

A. They have not made any announcements, so there’s no official news to report. They [rumored Brooklyn dates] will remain rumors until the band confirms, but we recently had sessions in Paris and worked on two great songs. One, Keith [Richards] brought in called ‘One More Shot.” It’s really cool, great guitar riff. And Mick has one called ‘Doom and Gloom.’ The song sounds a lot different than the title. The theme is that he’s talking to a girl saying all I hear from you is doom and gloom – let’s go party, let’s go dance. It’s an up-tempo tune. They’ll be on the 50th anniversary set coming in November.
[/b]

I was wondering if "One Last Shot" was composed by Keef during last sessions with Steve Jordan...

"One Last Shot"? Just another way of saying: "Out In A Blaze Of Glory".

A Stones song that's really a Bon Jovi song you mean?

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
71Tele
Did he address the rumor that many of us can't stand his playing?

Find a way to deal with it.

Quote
lunar!!!

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote

It was just the core band – six of us

I'm saying nothing.

..yea, saw that...evidently he considers himself a 'core' member...and who else?....Darryl or Don Was on bass??.....hmmmm...jagger can't be bothered to pick out a few tracks to rehearse-he leaves it up to the 'musical director'....hmmph..

Chuck is not a Rolling Stone.

He's not in the band.

Chuck is an associate - disposable.

If Chuck IS in the band and he IS Mick's music partner then this isn't the Rolling Stones.

It's Mick, Chuck and guests.

Nobody outside the Rolling Stones calls the shots.

I wonder what Keith thinks (or is he happy to take the money these days).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-15 10:27 by GravityBoy.

Quote
Long John Stoner

Quote
71Tele
Did he address the rumor that many of us can't stand his playing?

Find a way to deal with it.

Working on it, but it has proved challenging.

It was just the core band – six of us

I have nothing against Chuck, but this is a bit too much.


Having spent time in rehearsal and the studio recently, there’s nothing but smiles and backslaps and hugs going down.

I can clearly see that...just PR phrases.



On the other hand it is difficult when one is still getting the same question about the tour over and over again and must not tell the answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-15 15:02 by Happy24.

Quote
Glam Descendant
Leavell's been doing the setlists for years -- I thought that was common knowledge.

This is not true. Jagger decides, depending on the state of his voal ranges at that moment, and then Mick talks it over with chuck.

jeroen

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
corriecas
i heard from a friend from a friend there will be an announcement on sept 22
jeroen

I heard the same thing three hours ago!

hilarious

"Chuck is an associate - disposable"

You got it wrong : Chuck is a crutch. The band needs him and Jagger lets him do all the "mundane" things he doesn't want to bother with anymore

Mick : "WAYou is in... A? C? Chuck, what's the key!?"

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Chuck: Mick [Jagger] had called me and said, listen, how about putting together a list of 20 or 30 songs that would be good for us to do.

To use a hip term from the business nowadays, it is funny how much Jagger (and the Stones) have externalized some very basic doings of their activity. Makes me wonder why it is so hard for Mick to come up a list of 20 or 30 songs himself. Why to consult an outsider? It is that lazyness? Or has he somehow lost the grasp to his own activity (their past catalog) Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

So in the end the result is that the the Stones song lists and arrangements are pretty much directed by Chuck Leavell. To me ears it sounds like that the band has long ago lost a living touch to their own material, and to their artistic growth. Like they don't care to care any longer. (And Chuck does his thing as a hired gun should do: trying to keep the thing as traditional as it can be. He is not there to really push the band to new msuical adventures.)

This is just me, but this 'externalization' sounds odd to me. Is there any major rock act having such 'mother's little helpers'? Macca? The Who? Dylan? Springsteen? U2?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-15 12:49 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Chuck: Mick [Jagger] had called me and said, listen, how about putting together a list of 20 or 30 songs that would be good for us to do.

To use a hip term from the business nowadays, it is funny how much Jagger (and the Stones) have externalized some very basic doings of their activity. Makes me wonder why it is so hard for Mick to come up a list of 20 or 30 songs himself. Why to consult an outsider? It is that lazyness? Or has he somehow lost the grasp to his own activity (their past catalog) Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

So in the end the result is that the the Stones song lists and arrangements are pretty much directed by Chuck Leavell. To me ears it sounds like that the band has long ago lost a living touch to their own material, and to their artistic growth. Like they don't care to care any longer. (And Chuck does his thing as a hired gun should do: trying to keep the thing as traditional as it can be. He is not there to really push the band to new msuical adventures.)

This is just me, but this 'externalization' sounds odd to me. Is there any major rock act having such 'mother's little helpers'? Macca? The Who? Dylan? Springsteen? U2?

- Doxa

Maybe he just gets bored with his own choices occasionally......

Or.....maybe Chuck has just slipped into the Ian Stewert role who apparently (from what I've read) often used to tell them what to do, and in Ian's case sometimes when not even asked to do so...............



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-15 13:03 by EddieByword.

I indeed think they dont care as much as they used to have, i hope.

why why does it takes solong to make an announcement...
I think they want to see what the rehearsals in October and noveber will be and how it goes.
if it goes well, they will put out an announcement mid November, for shows in december.
if the shows go well, and they have an audience, there will be some shows next year.

If everthing goes wrong, no shows and the band still has enough money from the GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR cd, Crossfire Hurricane and Charlie is my darling

jeroen

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Chuck: Mick [Jagger] had called me and said, listen, how about putting together a list of 20 or 30 songs that would be good for us to do.

To use a hip term from the business nowadays, it is funny how much Jagger (and the Stones) have externalized some very basic doings of their activity. Makes me wonder why it is so hard for Mick to come up a list of 20 or 30 songs himself. Why to consult an outsider? It is that lazyness? Or has he somehow lost the grasp to his own activity (their past catalog) Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

So in the end the result is that the the Stones song lists and arrangements are pretty much directed by Chuck Leavell. To me ears it sounds like that the band has long ago lost a living touch to their own material, and to their artistic growth. Like they don't care to care any longer. (And Chuck does his thing as a hired gun should do: trying to keep the thing as traditional as it can be. He is not there to really push the band to new msuical adventures.)

This is just me, but this 'externalization' sounds odd to me. Is there any major rock act having such 'mother's little helpers'? Macca? The Who? Dylan? Springsteen? U2?

- Doxa

Maybe he just gets bored with his own choices occasionally......

Yeah, it could be so. And honestly we fans should thank Chuck for having any variation - and some 'obscure' numbers from the past. If it would be up to Mick we probably would jut get the same war horses show again and again. But that fact seems to imply that they - or Mick - have really lost their "touch" to their own productivity. They need outsider help to keep their song choices interesting. I don't think that is such a nice scenario, but unfortunately speaks rather harsh language of their artistic ambition and state of affairs. They don't write inspiring new music anymore that they want their audiences to listen to - damn just watched TEXAS LIVE again last night, and my god what a strong artistic statement that is - and they don't care their old stuff either to have any inspiration from there either. It is just the war horses they know how to play half-sleep, and they know those will always attract their audiences.

But taking Chuck's role as it is, I think he has every reason to talk about "us", him being a fundamental player in the band - no matter how much that kind of talk pisses us fans off. He has a role in modern Stones Ian Stewart could have only dreamed of. Even though, Stu was a kind of 'insider critic' or 'conscience', and trying to keep the band in track (no matter if they really listened to him, though), just thinking Mick asking him to do 20 track list would have sounded absurd. Asking that kind of thing from anyone outside the core band would have sounded absurd all the way to 1982. Or asking consultation, even musical directorship, how to play their own songs.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-15 13:23 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Chuck: Mick [Jagger] had called me and said, listen, how about putting together a list of 20 or 30 songs that would be good for us to do.

To use a hip term from the business nowadays, it is funny how much Jagger (and the Stones) have externalized some very basic doings of their activity. Makes me wonder why it is so hard for Mick to come up a list of 20 or 30 songs himself. Why to consult an outsider? It is that lazyness? Or has he somehow lost the grasp to his own activity (their past catalog) Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

So in the end the result is that the the Stones song lists and arrangements are pretty much directed by Chuck Leavell. To me ears it sounds like that the band has long ago lost a living touch to their own material, and to their artistic growth. Like they don't care to care any longer. (And Chuck does his thing as a hired gun should do: trying to keep the thing as traditional as it can be. He is not there to really push the band to new msuical adventures.)

This is just me, but this 'externalization' sounds odd to me. Is there any major rock act having such 'mother's little helpers'? Macca? The Who? Dylan? Springsteen? U2?

- Doxa

One of your suggestions in your earlier post, Doxa, seems essential to me.

Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

Because, if there is a newfound personal harmony to some extent between Mick and Keith, and I believe that is more than possible, else nothing perhaps would have happened, this might be a way for Mick to contribute to conserve that balance, himself trying to avoid to take a too much dominating role. In case, a concession made by Mick.

And, besides, has it not been Chuck's role with his instrumentation to provide for a balance of sound in live performances of songs, making him all the more the natural person to ask, with Chuck's knowledge of strengths and weaknesses in their live playing of the various songs?

Good points Witness! Chuck has been considered in the inner circle for a long time now. By both Keith and Mick. And he also can sit back, think about their strengths and weaknesses live and suggest songs that will work to their strengths. Yeah, gone are the days that both Mick and Keith would sit with a bunch of songs and decide. But also they didn't have to do much either, by playing the same set every night. And yeah, thanks to Chuck he resurrected some great stuff, and got them to play deep cuts. I am interested and eager to hear the two knew ones, and to hear them live.

Quote
SecondSet

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
corriecas
i heard from a friend from a friend there will be an announcement on sept 22
jeroen

I heard the same thing three hours ago!

hilarious

Exactly!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Chuck: Mick [Jagger] had called me and said, listen, how about putting together a list of 20 or 30 songs that would be good for us to do.

To use a hip term from the business nowadays, it is funny how much Jagger (and the Stones) have externalized some very basic doings of their activity. Makes me wonder why it is so hard for Mick to come up a list of 20 or 30 songs himself. Why to consult an outsider? It is that lazyness? Or has he somehow lost the grasp to his own activity (their past catalog) Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

So in the end the result is that the the Stones song lists and arrangements are pretty much directed by Chuck Leavell. To me ears it sounds like that the band has long ago lost a living touch to their own material, and to their artistic growth. Like they don't care to care any longer. (And Chuck does his thing as a hired gun should do: trying to keep the thing as traditional as it can be. He is not there to really push the band to new msuical adventures.)

This is just me, but this 'externalization' sounds odd to me. Is there any major rock act having such 'mother's little helpers'? Macca? The Who? Dylan? Springsteen? U2?

- Doxa

Maybe he just gets bored with his own choices occasionally......

Yeah, it could be so. And honestly we fans should thank Chuck for having any variation - and some 'obscure' numbers from the past. If it would be up to Mick we probably would jut get the same war horses show again and again. But that fact seems to imply that they - or Mick - have really lost their "touch" to their own productivity. They need outsider help to keep their song choices interesting. I don't think that is such a nice scenario, but unfortunately speaks rather harsh language of their artistic ambition and state of affairs. They don't write inspiring new music anymore that they want their audiences to listen to - damn just watched TEXAS LIVE again last night, and my god what a strong artistic statement that is - and they don't care their old stuff either to have any inspiration from there either. It is just the war horses they know how to play half-sleep, and they know those will always attract their audiences.

But taking Chuck's role as it is, I think he has every reason to talk about "us", him being a fundamental player in the band - no matter how much that kind of talk pisses us fans off. He has a role in modern Stones Ian Stewart could have only dreamed of. Even though, Stu was a kind of 'insider critic' or 'conscience', and trying to keep the band in track (no matter if they really listened to him, though), just thinking Mick asking him to do 20 track list would have sounded absurd. Asking that kind of thing from anyone outside the core band would have sounded absurd all the way to 1982. Or asking consultation, even musical directorship, how to play their own songs.

- Doxa

That's about right, slipped into and surpassed, it doesn't piss me off at all about Chuck, I figure if Mick & Keith want him in then fine, it's their band, if I or anyone else doesn't like it then 'we' can take 'our' interest elswhere, no problem...............

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Chuck: Mick [Jagger] had called me and said, listen, how about putting together a list of 20 or 30 songs that would be good for us to do.

To use a hip term from the business nowadays, it is funny how much Jagger (and the Stones) have externalized some very basic doings of their activity. Makes me wonder why it is so hard for Mick to come up a list of 20 or 30 songs himself. Why to consult an outsider? It is that lazyness? Or has he somehow lost the grasp to his own activity (their past catalog) Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

So in the end the result is that the the Stones song lists and arrangements are pretty much directed by Chuck Leavell. To me ears it sounds like that the band has long ago lost a living touch to their own material, and to their artistic growth. Like they don't care to care any longer. (And Chuck does his thing as a hired gun should do: trying to keep the thing as traditional as it can be. He is not there to really push the band to new msuical adventures.)

This is just me, but this 'externalization' sounds odd to me. Is there any major rock act having such 'mother's little helpers'? Macca? The Who? Dylan? Springsteen? U2?

- Doxa

One of your suggestions in your earlier post, Doxa, seems essential to me.

Or is Chuck's role being a kind of neutral voice and consultation in order not to stress too much tension (and questions of power) within the group? Chuck seems to be much apprecieted by both Mick and Keith.

Because, if there is a newfound personal harmony to some extent between Mick and Keith, and I believe that is more than possible, else nothing perhaps would have happened, this might be a way for Mick to contribute to conserve that balance, himself trying to avoid to take a too much dominating role. In case, a concession made by Mick.

And, besides, has it not been Chuck's role with his instrumentation to provide for a balance of sound in live performances of songs, making him all the more the natural person to ask, with Chuck's knowledge of strengths and weaknesses in their live playing of the various songs?

A reasonable observation. In a way Chuck is a peacekeeper. But right now it really is Keith who is in the concession business. So it's not (about) Mick trying to avoid a too much dominating role. It's about how Mick is much better in strategy and tactics...he's just not taking the dominating role.

In my humble opinion, the Chuck situation is a deal (spoken or unspoken) between Mick and Keith. Mick gets to have Chuck in the 'band' while Keith gets to have Bobby Keys in the 'band'.

Mick gets a clean, sober, never-busted Chuck Leavell while Keith gets his old, one-time drug-buddy. Now, praise God, Bobby Keys is also clean and sober which (possibly) is good for Keith.

So, the Bobby & Chuck thing is perfect for both Mick & Keith.It's a win-win for all concerned.