Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
lunar!!!

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
All of these "why the hate/dislike?" threads seem to run the same parallel course to each other. The only difference is who the act is and who is accused of being "a hater" and who is accused of being a "a supporter".

All these threads have alternating posts with some people bashing on the act and some people having the utmost respect for the act... and it goes back and forth... and the tide comes in... and the tide goes out.

And in the end, everyone thinks what they thought to start with.

i really hate hate threads...we can start another thread on a fresh topic instead....like...er....um....uhhh.....nevermind....How 'bout thoses Giants!?

Go Giants!! They are great!!... no wait... The Giants SUCK!!... no wait... The Giants are GREAT, Go Giants!!!! no wait....

I wasnt saying anything other than the hate/dislike threads tend to run parallel and play out thesame old story.... not saying they are good or bad... or that we should or should not have them.... I was just saying it is interesting how in one thread someone will accuse others of being haters... and then in another thread that same person will be bashing in the same way... and that after pages and pages there is no real point... just opinions... no right or wrong.. just unchanged opinions.

Carry on...

LOVE IT!!!

-perhaps it is the beard he wears.....hmmm..yes...i think it must be the beard....very un-Stonesy to have a beard...stubble-yes, but a full beard?...AHA!! --finally got to the bottom of it!!--that's why he sucks!! HE WEARS A BEARD!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH....

The one simple reason people hate Chuck? He's not Ian Stewart,or Nicky Hopkins.

Quote
71Tele
My take is that none of the things you mention make his keyboard playing with the Rolling Stones sound any better. I would pose a different question: Why the constant asking of why leavell isn't liked? It's simple: He sounds like crap with the Stones.

Well said. The percieved admiration of Mick and Keith for Chuck mystifies me. With Chuck, the piano's role within the band bears no resemblance to what it was with the incomparable Ian Stewart. Chuck's a good piano player but perhaps too perfect for the Stones. Plus, a lot of us resent that he somehow was allowed to almost take over the band and change their sound from the excitment of the ragged-but-right tours of '69 - '81 to something way more slick and professional than many of us want the Stones to sound.

What if Chuck opens for the band, with an A-list guest lineup, and that in current rehearsals with the band, his piano sits in a prominent, center stage position? Of course rehearsals would not necessarily reflect the live stage, but one never knows. So it might be the band playing around the Chuck, rather than the opposite.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-23 19:49 by paulm.

I don't understand it, myself. Ian Stewart said Chuck was the best keyboardist to play with the Stones, and crowned him thus.

Certainly, I have recordings of Chuck with the Allmans, i.e. Brothers & Sisters, Wipe The Windows Dollar Gas, Live @ Nassau Archive, and he really did bring an excellent extra dimension to the post-Duane sound.

Likewise Sea Level is an excellent jazz fusion band, which was Chuck and Jaimoe's baby. Chuck has also complimented Eric Clapton's 24 Nights cd, and the Unplugged cd, so there seems nothing wrong with his musicianship.

Quote
tomcasagranda
I don't understand it, myself. Ian Stewart said Chuck was the best keyboardist to play with the Stones, and crowned him thus.

Certainly, I have recordings of Chuck with the Allmans, i.e. Brothers & Sisters, Wipe The Windows Dollar Gas, Live @ Nassau Archive, and he really did bring an excellent extra dimension to the post-Duane sound.

Likewise Sea Level is an excellent jazz fusion band, which was Chuck and Jaimoe's baby. Chuck has also complimented Eric Clapton's 24 Nights cd, and the Unplugged cd, so there seems nothing wrong with his musicianship.

Again, Chuck's playing with other bands is used as evidence that his playing with the Stones is great - an argument which makes absolutely no sense, since the criticism of Chuck here is about HIS PLAYING WITH THE STONES. I do not understand why his playing with any of these acts is supposed to make him sound better to me with the Stones. Please explain.

Also, Ian Stewart's comments were obviously well before any of the tours which have been the instigation of the criticism. We are supposed to be believe that since Ian Stewart "crowned" him decades ago that makes Leavell immune from all criticism for eternity. Another ridiculous argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-23 20:25 by 71Tele.

I'll take chuck's plink plink over lisa and her destruction of jjf and satisfaction. The way she turns them into gospel with her howling makes me want to vomit.

He's a nice guy with nice piano tinkling, but MR for example isn't a nice piece of music but a real shocker. If you add some tinkling lines in the way of a honky tonk piano theme, you are not the right piano player for the band, if you have the pre '89 Stones, i.e. the real Stones, in mind. For any kind of Vergas acts he is the right man, in fact. Thus he is the man who has the lead on stage since '89, actually, neither Keith nor Ronnie ...

I think Chuck embodies Mick's drive for the band to be a sleek professional unit from 1989 onwards.

Quote
tomcasagranda
I think Chuck embodies Mick's drive for the band to be a sleek professional unit from 1989 onwards.

All the women go crazy, for the Early Roman Kings.

If anyone cares, at no time did l wanted to turn this thread into a "Hate Chuck" thread,on the contrary l was just interested in seeing the reasoning why so many folks here dislike him very profoundly..So as to not offend anyone's sensibilities,l have taken the word hate out of the title..Thank You

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

No one hates Chuck, no one hates Darryl. But enough is enough. Get some new blood. Veterans need some new talent around them to keep thinks interesting. That's why I'd love to have Jack White produce their next (if there is one) album. I can see that they've finally settled into middle age and I don't blame them for kicking back and doing what's easy. But if there aren't some actual changes in the sound, then it's pretty much over.

I know Keith bitches about Mick Taylor making them more of a differentiated lead/rhythm band. But so what? Mick's elegant lead made a pocket where Keith did his funky thing. And people often consider that era the peak of the band. They need some strong new players. How about a bass player with some emotion for rock and roll? How about a melodic lead player? Get a friggin' Ska horn section. Go out on a high artistic note. See if Johnnie Johnson had a protege. But this group that's backed them since Steel Wheels needs to be refreshed.

Dammit Chuck

Boring hog wash!

Because he's not British. Because he's not Mac who should be there in every regard.

chuck is a great musician,if anybody thinks not there a deaf moron.

Quote
mjmjr
I'll take chuck's plink plink over lisa and her destruction of jjf and satisfaction. The way she turns them into gospel with her howling makes me want to vomit.

Do we need a "why the profound dislike for Lisa" thread? Just joking, really...

Quote
tomcasagranda
I think Chuck embodies Mick's drive for the band to be a sleek professional unit from 1989 onwards.

It is one aspect of it, you're absolutely right...In my opinion, it was refreshing to see such a "professional" show from the Stones in 1989, but this turned into the "Vegas" Stones we now all know and love (or not love). No more danger. Competence and predictability have trumped excitement. Some people seem to like that though. Good for them.

Quote
24FPS
No one hates Chuck, no one hates Darryl. But enough is enough. Get some new blood. Veterans need some new talent around them to keep thinks interesting. That's why I'd love to have Jack White produce their next (if there is one) album. I can see that they've finally settled into middle age and I don't blame them for kicking back and doing what's easy. But if there aren't some actual changes in the sound, then it's pretty much over.

I know Keith bitches about Mick Taylor making them more of a differentiated lead/rhythm band. But so what? Mick's elegant lead made a pocket where Keith did his funky thing. And people often consider that era the peak of the band. They need some strong new players. How about a bass player with some emotion for rock and roll? How about a melodic lead player? Get a friggin' Ska horn section. Go out on a high artistic note. See if Johnnie Johnson had a protege. But this group that's backed them since Steel Wheels needs to be refreshed.

Wait, do people normally live to be 140?

Quote
windmelody

Quote
tomcasagranda
I think Chuck embodies Mick's drive for the band to be a sleek professional unit from 1989 onwards.

All the women go crazy, for the Early Roman Kings.

Love that line! Go Bob!

He's a talented keyboard player...but he has no style. Preston, Mac, Hopkins, you can pick them out a mile away. There were a few guitar players I knew in high school and college who could play faster than anyone, knew all the licks and scales but had no style of playing whatsoever. What set me apart was (ha ha!) I listened to Ya Ya's and they didn't.

Quote
tomk
He's a talented keyboard player...but he has no style. Preston, Mac, Hopkins, you can pick them out a mile away. There were a few guitar players I knew in high school and college who could play faster than anyone, knew all the licks and scales but had no style of playing whatsoever. What set me apart was (ha ha!) I listened to Ya Ya's and they didn't.

Agreed - you can definitely pick Preston out on Shine A Light, Dancing With Mr D, 100 Years' Ago, Brussels Affair, LA75, and he's worth every penny. Mac you can pick out on Some Girls, Fort Worth 78, Live 1981, and Nicky Hopkins is all over the Stones stuff from Satanic through to IORR. Chuck's work with the Stones lacks substance, as if it is, on the odd occasion, just there, and nothing more. Chuck definitely asserted himself with the Allmans, but then I still think Chuck is merely doing what Mick tells him to; nothing more, nothing less.

Quote
tomcasagranda

Quote
tomk
He's a talented keyboard player...but he has no style. Preston, Mac, Hopkins, you can pick them out a mile away. There were a few guitar players I knew in high school and college who could play faster than anyone, knew all the licks and scales but had no style of playing whatsoever. What set me apart was (ha ha!) I listened to Ya Ya's and they didn't.

Agreed - you can definitely pick Preston out on Shine A Light, Dancing With Mr D, 100 Years' Ago, Brussels Affair, LA75, and he's worth every penny. Mac you can pick out on Some Girls, Fort Worth 78, Live 1981, and Nicky Hopkins is all over the Stones stuff from Satanic through to IORR. Chuck's work with the Stones lacks substance, as if it is, on the odd occasion, just there, and nothing more. Chuck definitely asserted himself with the Allmans, but then I still think Chuck is merely doing what Mick tells him to; nothing more, nothing less.

Spot on.

Ian, NICKY, BILLY, Mac. Those were the piano/keyboard but also heavily influential co members.

And in defense of Chuck. His part in this is completely different. I'd prefer someone else but the show they present since 1989 is aimed at pleasing as many ticketbuyers as possible. Now and then they release some bootleg to please the real fans but this is the deal Mick signed in 1989 and the only reason Keith can say he's part of the Rolling Stones. Remember Mick is always Mick Jagger but up until "Pirates of the Carbs"-Keith, he was still Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones to the big masses. Charlie on Brian: We took away the one thing that he had which was being in a band. That's my opinion.

Thats Keith or was Keith up until two years ago.

Quote
Carnaby
Because he's not British. Because he's not Mac who should be there in every regard.

Billy wasn't british either...

Funny how there's so much dislike for Chuck and no ill feelings towards the ones that hired him in the first place and have the power to fire him...

Quote
mtaylor
No hate - just pure facts.

Listen to Stones before and after 1982 and you will have an answer why Chuck is no good to Stones.

Lots of stuff changed after '82. No Stu. No Bill. Keith quit singing background vocals. A whole lot of backup musicians/singers joined.

Can we blame Chuck for all that (I'm sure some wiseguy will reply 'yes' )??

Personally I think he's one of the best rock piano players on the planet, at least if you listen to the Allmans and Clapton's Unplugged set (which personally I think he made that what it was!). Now...that doesn't necessarily mean he's a good fit...but who is then??

Quote
ROPENI
he wears "baggie pants"...

...unlike Stu who was famous for his tight fitting jumpsuits.

Quote
kovach

Quote
ROPENI
he wears "baggie pants"...

...unlike Stu who was famous for his tight fitting jumpsuits.

.