It's a little pathetic how personally everyone attacks this guy. It's as if they are taking out their frustrations in their own lives or their overwhelming desire to be in the Stones on him. I understand if people don't like his playing or style, but this is a little lame.

It all comes down to his piano sound.

Well,we all know there are 4 official Stones. Hell, unbeknownst to many was the fact that even Ronnie was not made an official Stone until the early nineties. The debate could go on and on, but does playing backup behind a legendary band who's members are what the crowd came to see, entitle one to say they are a Rolling Stone? Bobby Keys knows his place and to my knowledge never claimed to be a Stone. The fact is, people want to see Mick, keith, Charlie and Ron and don't really give a hoot about the backing crew. There's other backup singers, piano players and bass players who could slot right in if Jones, Lisa, Bernard and the horns all disappeared. Even that second guitar spot held by Ron can be changed if need be. But lose Mick, Charlie or Keith, and there would be no more Rolling Stones no matter what backup player may think of himself as being a Stone.

I guess this answers the question.

and maybe this one.

.......hey everybody wants ta be a Rolling Stone ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
Title5Take1
In an article on Daryl a while back, Keith generously said that anyone on stage with them was a Rolling Stone. But the journalist then said (to the reader) that the Rolling Stones were those who took the final bows at the end. That sounds about right.

So, according to Keith, Dave Matthews is a Rolling Stone.

And so's this guy... since he was onstage with the band

Quote
gotdablouse
without Chuck it's unlikely Mick would still be out there on stage with the Stones

They have a word for this at Buckingham Palace : a butler! He helps you make thru daily life and its burdens.

But does a butler think he's one of the Royals cos he's among them and working for them on a daily basis?

Probably not...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-16 12:32 by dcba.

Ok on the concept but it's a little bit more than that in the case of Chuck, no? He's got the musical expertise and he's the reason Mick doesn't have to worry about everything and pick up fights with Keith and Ronnie because they miss cues. I mean it's not like Chuck tells anyone what to play but Mick knows he's there in the background to make sure there are no "trainwrecks" or take care of them when they happen, that's "priceless". I don't consider him a Stone but I'm thankful he's around and won't get my panties in a twist like some here if he puts stuff like that on his site.

That reminds me of when I was reading the TOTA book many moons ago during the 1975 rehearsals that Keith had missed and where Mick was frustrated at Ronnie not being able to play the songs properly. Billy was around though, I guess he didn't have the same influence as Chuck.

Quote
The Wick
It's a little pathetic how personally everyone attacks this guy. It's as if they are taking out their frustrations in their own lives or their overwhelming desire to be in the Stones on him. I understand if people don't like his playing or style, but this is a little lame.

I agree.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
scottkeef
Well he DOES write down the songs Mick tells him and counts off the intro! har har Chuck Leavell..a legend in his own mind... ( and no, I really dont consider him an Allman Brother either..)

Look, he has a songwriting credit on a Stones album. He deserves full membership.

They denied credits to Mick Taylor yet let Chuck have one? I just threw up a little in my mouth...

I think that was Keith's passive-aggressive way of saying 'stop bugging us about song writing'. I don't think Mick would have even allowed it.

The dreck that Chuck put his imprint on has to be the worst in the entire Stones catalogue. Notice he never got another shot after that.

Quote
stonesdan60
Well,we all know there are 4 official Stones. Hell, unbeknownst to many was the fact that even Ronnie was not made an official Stone until the early nineties. The debate could go on and on, but does playing backup behind a legendary band who's members are what the crowd came to see, entitle one to say they are a Rolling Stone? Bobby Keys knows his place and to my knowledge never claimed to be a Stone. The fact is, people want to see Mick, keith, Charlie and Ron and don't really give a hoot about the backing crew. There's other backup singers, piano players and bass players who could slot right in if Jones, Lisa, Bernard and the horns all disappeared. Even that second guitar spot held by Ron can be changed if need be. But lose Mick, Charlie or Keith, and there would be no more Rolling Stones no matter what backup player may think of himself as being a Stone.

Spot on.

Everything is well stated.

Papa was a rolling stone, wherever he laid his Chuck Leavell was his home

Quote
dcba

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
Title5Take1
In an article on Daryl a while back, Keith generously said that anyone on stage with them was a Rolling Stone. But the journalist then said (to the reader) that the Rolling Stones were those who took the final bows at the end. That sounds about right.

So, according to Keith, Dave Matthews is a Rolling Stone.

And so's this guy... since he was onstage with the band

I still have no regrets about doing that...whatta night!!!

Do kids still throw stones at you and call you "Frankenstein face"?
It's been 30+ years, didn't your face heal after all this time?

Wait wait wait... What song/songs is Chuck given credit??

He aint ever gonna replace Ian Stewart.

But...Chuck, he is a nice guy. i think.

The only problem, in my opinion is, He is a Yea sayer to Mr Jagger.

Hence, the current setlists.

Jeroen

Quote
flacnvinyl
Wait wait wait... What song/songs is Chuck given credit??

CS Blues
Jeroen

Quote
flacnvinyl
Wait wait wait... What song/songs is Chuck given credit??

Back To Zero

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
marcovandereijk
I think it is offensive towards Stu.

Really? Stu mentioned that Chuck would be a great replacement for him. It's been mentioned on here many times.

proving only that not even Stu was perfect.

Quote
michel
It all comes down to his piano sound.

Exactly. It sucks. But yes, he's a nice guy. Leo Durocher had something to say once about nice guys.

I'm reading one of the newer Stonesbooks right now, and there are many quotes from all in there. I don't really dig the ones from Leavell because he sort of paints the picture as if he was a full Stone. E.g. he will share stories about Stu from the very first US tours. When Leavell wasn't even a blip on the Allman Bros' screen yet.
In the old days one of Keith's quotes would have applied to him: (paraphrased) "people will hang round the band, until they start seeing themselves as a full band member; that's when it is time to cut them off"

Quote
millerman60
You have to be an Englishman to be a Rolling Stone, preferably from London. Yanks need not apply.

Funny, the only ones from London are Charlie, Bill and Ronnie.

Quote
stonesdan60
Well,we all know there are 4 official Stones. Hell, unbeknownst to many was the fact that even Ronnie was not made an official Stone until the early nineties. The debate could go on and on, but does playing backup behind a legendary band who's members are what the crowd came to see, entitle one to say they are a Rolling Stone? Bobby Keys knows his place and to my knowledge never claimed to be a Stone. The fact is, people want to see Mick, keith, Charlie and Ron and don't really give a hoot about the backing crew. There's other backup singers, piano players and bass players who could slot right in if Jones, Lisa, Bernard and the horns all disappeared. Even that second guitar spot held by Ron can be changed if need be. But lose Mick, Charlie or Keith, and there would be no more Rolling Stones no matter what backup player may think of himself as being a Stone.

Sounds like they are now a 3 piece band

Quote
Dreamer
It's what he says on Twitter on March 9th, regarding his column (from
Fri, Oct 07 2011 at 2:08 PM) A Rolling Stone remembers Steve Jobs for the website of Mother Nature Network [www.mnn.com]

which is also placed on his own website [www.chuckleavell.com]

To calm down matters: As far as I know there are editors on the Mother Nature Network website who edit all manuscripts. They certainly have chosen the headline and not necessarily Chuck himself.
Actually, it is only in the headline said that he is "a Rolling Stone" and in all other places - including latest articles - he is "the Rolling Stones keyboardist". That can't be denied.

Quote
marcovandereijk
I think it is offensive towards Stu.

Yes, it is offensive towards Stu. It was Stu who has chosen him as his sideman live. And it was the band (certainly Mick, Keith & Charlie at least) who have chosen him to be him on piano for their farewell to Stu gig in the 100 Club.

Maybe the "Rolling Stones' Musical Director" sounds better...

Quote
LastStopThisTown
Maybe the "Rolling Stones' Musical Director" sounds better...

I like the "musical butler" title, myself...

Chuck does not call himself a Rolling Stone. It's just the title of the article.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He is hired because he is a good backing musician, that's all.

He does do a little bit more than that.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He is hired because he is a good backing musician, that's all.

He does do a little bit more than that.

Sure, but he didn't in 1982 when they hired him. I'm pretty sure of that

It's not his fault that he became a buffer between Mick and Keith (hence the set list suggestions), or that he is still on stage with the Stones, for that matter. I just don't think Mick (or Keith) would change a safe line up - as well as there are tasks they don't bother to do themselves anymore, that they let Chuck do.

But he is a backing musician, not a Rolling Stone