Now i'm really interested in the original post!

Cheers,
Wuudy

Well here's my view.

I like Chuck's playing, I've never met the man, but I think he does good.

He does 'exactly what it says on the tin' - he gives the Stones sound a wider perspective - that can't be bad!

Regards,


Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

very sad

Railing staine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> very sad
>


Well if he's so wrong for the Rolling Stones then why has he been with them for so long?

Are the people on IORR in a better position to judge who should accompany the Stones, rather that the Stones?

I think not...

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

I was not talking about Chuck, but about the post

Railing staine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was not talking about Chuck, but about the post

Apologies mate!!

Regards,

Ian.




Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

So much crap going on here. The Stones are @#$%& because they hired Chuck and Chuck himself is a @#$%& for 'plinking up' every single stones song. Just listen to the intro of Loving Cup (any Licks boot) and then tell me Chuck is doing a good job...

he does his job, that's all

JumpingKentFlash I didn't see your original Chuck post on this thread but I'm going to take this opportunity to say something I've wanted to say for a long time.

I can appreciate your passion for the Stones but I have to say that it's really aggravating to see your posts on so many threads.

I'm not looking for a fight, and I'm not into personal attacks, I'm just suggesting you post something when you actually have something worthwhile to say.

I'm expecting you to reply by calling me a retard but I would enjoy this site (and the others you post on) so much more if I didn't have to read or scroll past so many of your posts.

Obviously you can, and will, do whatever you want. I'm just stating my opinion - though i'm pretty sure i'm not alone in this opinion.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Chuck wasnt there, then people would simply
> find someone else to whine about and another
> bandwagon to jump on.
>
> I mean, do people seriously believe the guy
> dictates to the Stones how they should play their
> own songs and how high HE should be in the mix?
>



then why does it happen gazza
are you saying the stones chose to
become this vegas act by themselves
very sad for the the stones then

Are we allowed to make fun of this little episode?
If so I'll do it in a few days or so.

Anyway, what wonders me is the Kentbashing we're now getting. So it's ok to call Chuck a monkey on this board, which the Chuck-webmasters will read as well, but to kindly ask him (through them) to take a step back is not done?
I must confess I was a little chocked when I first read it (see my post above, the second in this thread) but really, critisism is most effective when the person involved actually knows.

It reminds me of one time in college when we students were all annoyed that the 'interdisciplinary approach' to practical social sciences that the teachers preached, were not effectively practised by them, i.e. they were self defensive (selfish). Anyway, me, the enthusiast young student, told the professor exactly that. After which I got bashed by my fellow students for me insulting the professors that we would need so hard in the years to come. I felt really stupid, but still I think that, alltough hardly sublte, I was very right.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If Chuck wasnt there, then people would
> simply
> > find someone else to whine about and another
> > bandwagon to jump on.
> >
> > I mean, do people seriously believe the guy
> > dictates to the Stones how they should play
> their
> > own songs and how high HE should be in the
> mix?
> >
>
>
>
> then why does it happen gazza
> are you saying the stones chose to
> become this vegas act by themselves
> very sad for the the stones then


Yes, I am. The buck stops with them for everything - no one else. If they have musical shortcomings to the extent that they need Chuck to have such a high profile, mix etc, and if they need Blondie to 'shadow' Keith, etc - then it's their problem, not the fault of a hired hand. Personally, it doesnt bother me that much. I still think they're a great live band and put on a hell of a show. If you'd said to me when I saw them in '82 for the first (and so I thought the only) time that over two decades later I'd have seen them another 33 times on four world tours (with 3 trips across the pond) and that I'd be waiting on yet another world tour in 2005, I'd have thought that you were @#$%& insane. I'm glad they're still around - if they feel the need to have a few extra people onstage, it doesnt really take the enjoyment away from me. Those people dont try and upstage them and couldnt anyway.


It's also their 'problem'/fault and no one elses that they have chosen to become a Vegas style oldies act due to their lack of enthusiasm and conviction for writing and performing new material, for their obscene ticket prices (THEIR choice alone - not Cohl's, not Clear Channel's - as Mick has admitted in interviews that THEY set the prices) which have resulted in them appealing to an almost exclusively affluent, corporate and aging style of audience and which has diminished their legacy and reputation as an evolving band accessible to everyone. These days the Stones seem more interested in flogging overpriced merchandise and ripping their fanbase off than in doing something creative.

Its nice for their bank balances but absolutely worthless in terms of legacy and credibility. Thats the side of the Stones as they are now which seriously annoys me - a helluva lot more than who their sidemen are. Its a long way from what the Stones are meant to be and its something which as someone who's been a fan of the band all his life and a fan of rock n roll in general, I find obscene (and I dont accept this 'but thats the way music is now - accept it' shit - it shouldnt be and for many major artists, it still isnt). As I've said before, theres a horrible irony in a band singing lines like "its only rock n roll but I like it" to people who have paid sometimes over a THOUSAND @#$%& DOLLARS for the privilege of watching them do it.

Hey JKF,

you have been posting too often, too much, too many times.
I think you should take a break and only reply to one thread a week.
It is officially time for an intervention, buddy.

The truth hurts.
Sorry.

Please, let him post as much as he wants. We can all make a mistake.