Quote
powerage78
I really prefer Stu and Nicky Hopkins, real rock'n roll "bastringue" players More fun, more feeling.

and......Mac !!!

Jeroen

Quote
corriecas
yeah sure, he is a nice guy, cares about the earth and thats wonderfull.

but.......he aint rock n roll. Bring back Mac !!!!!!!!!!!!!

i think Chuck spoils the stones music and dont do it any good with his eternal clickcalckclick. it becomes irritating, for me.

Hope this does not get me banned Bjornulf.

Jeroen

Doesnt keith spoil the music like playing sometimes like a kid starting out?

Yes

Quote
corriecas

Quote
powerage78
I really prefer Stu and Nicky Hopkins, real rock'n roll "bastringue" players More fun, more feeling.

and......Mac !!!

Jeroen

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
corriecas
yeah sure, he is a nice guy, cares about the earth and thats wonderfull.

but.......he aint rock n roll. Bring back Mac !!!!!!!!!!!!!

i think Chuck spoils the stones music and dont do it any good with his eternal clickcalckclick. it becomes irritating, for me.

Hope this does not get me banned Bjornulf.

Jeroen

Doesnt keith spoil the music like playing sometimes like a kid starting out?

touche.

Quote
corriecas
yeah sure, he is a nice guy, cares about the earth and thats wonderfull.

but.......he aint rock n roll. Bring back Mac !!!!!!!!!!!!!

i think Chuck spoils the stones music and dont do it any good with his eternal clickcalckclick. it becomes irritating, for me.

Hope this does not get me banned Bjornulf.

Jeroen

Rock n roll can sometimes be the thing you hear, not the thing you see or the thing you read in a so-called biography. Mac wasnt impressing when he played with the Stones, he was backing the sound with his playing... and playing aside with Stu. He did the backing vocals too, so his job in 1978-1981 was almost the same than Chuck's job. And in fact, Chuck join the Stones when Mac wasnt capable of doing what he was asked for. Nicky and Billy didn't `back-up nothing, they both were as important as the others. Mac never came on top of the mix, and listening to his playing wasnt impressing at all.

But you might like how Mac LOOKS and his way of living. Yeah, that's rock n roll isn't?
I really don't think Mac will do it better than Chuck. With Stu, Nicky and Billy banging keys on heaven, no one will do it better than Chuck. And there's almost 30 years of touring to prove it! You might not like it, but story tells that the Rolling Stones want to sound like they sound, play like they play and use Chuck as they use it.

--------------------------------------------


"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"

--------------------------------------------

Wish Stu was still here...

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

If Chuck didn't fit in with The Stones any way at all, he would be out.

Personality,musicianship,ability, lifestyle ................. it all fits in with the 4 Rolling Stones.

Has he saved enough money touring with the Stones to buy a real piano yet?

Quote
71Tele
Has he saved enough money touring with the Stones to buy a real piano yet?

><

Quote
71Tele
Has he saved enough money touring with the Stones to buy a real piano yet?

+1!!

--------------------------------------------


"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"

--------------------------------------------

With a piano, you play piano. With a keyboard, any instrument, and guitar, when guitarists don't...

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

As many have stated, it's not that they dislike Chuck, just not with the Stones. But he's really just a symptom of the sclerotic state of the band. They're extremely set in their ways, with the days of adventure long past. They've basically had the same backing musicians for the last 25 years. They are now a guaranteed product. You know exactly what you are going to get set-wise and sound-wise. The young Stones would have made withering fun of the old Stones.

Rocks off is the perfect exemple... Live, you realize that Chuck is not a rock'n roll piano player...

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
24FPS
As many have stated, it's not that they dislike Chuck, just not with the Stones. But he's really just a symptom of the sclerotic state of the band. The young Stones would have made withering fun of the old Stones.

This is extremely well said 24FPS! peace

Quote
24FPS
As many have stated, it's not that they dislike Chuck, just not with the Stones. But he's really just a symptom of the sclerotic state of the band. They're extremely set in their ways, with the days of adventure long past. They've basically had the same backing musicians for the last 25 years. They are now a guaranteed product. You know exactly what you are going to get set-wise and sound-wise. The young Stones would have made withering fun of the old Stones.

I agree with you,but there is nothing surprising about a bunch of 70 year olds wanting an uncomplicated life.

They have got a tried and tested way of doing things, and probably haven't hired and fired that many staff in the last 20 years.

As you say,a guaranteed product.
You've only got to read Chucks' Tour Diary to see that.

If I see 3 or 4 shows on this tour,I know 70% I have heard on the previous gig,but maybe the other 30% are differant at each gig I go to.
I'm happy with that. ><

Chuck is the living personification of the Vegas-isation of the Stones. Not just his playing, but the boring, predictable, take-no-risks unartistic, unadventoruous approach they take. Don't bother telling me it's better than not having the Stones at all, I agree. It just could be so much more.

Quote
71Tele
Chuck is the living personification of the Vegas-isation of the Stones. Not just his playing, but the boring, predictable, take-no-risks unartistic, unadventoruous approach they take. Don't bother telling me it's better than not having the Stones at all, I agree. It just could be so much more.

Maybe we're kidding ourselves when we think it could be so much more. Keith can barely get out the opening riffs to songs now. I read some people saying 'Keith is on Fire' on stage on this tour and then I hear it and I wonder about their ears, or standard for being 'On Fire'. The group obviously is not pining to do a side from Between The Buttons, or even dip their toes in a little Delta Blues. At least the Bigger Bang Tour had 'Back of My Hand'.

Doing the songs now that they could do in their sleep is what they can do, period. I'm sure Jagger could stretch out some more, and Ronnie seems up for anything, but Keith, and even Charlie, have plateaued. They want comfort now, not adventure. Chuck, Darryl, Lisa, Bernard, Bobby, these are comfortable people for them to be around; people they don't have to explain anything to. They too can do these setlists in their sleep.

For a certain percentage of the fan base, it just doesn't cut it anymore. They're glad for the group that they're still wanted out there, live, and I'm happy for those fans who have never seen them. I saw a number of blues artists in their sunsets, and I'm glad I did. Sure, I would have loved to see Muddy Waters and Little Walter ripping it up together in the 50s, but seeing Muddy sit on a stool and declare that he was, "A Rollin' Stone", in the 70s was enough for me. God bless every fan who sees the Rolling Stones and still gets a charge out of it.

Quote
71Tele
Chuck is the living personification of the Vegas-isation of the Stones. Not just his playing, but the boring, predictable, take-no-risks unartistic, unadventoruous approach they take. Don't bother telling me it's better than not having the Stones at all, I agree. It just could be so much more.

What's especially frustrating is they still have it in them when they choose to. I think opening the 50 and counting tour with I Wanna Be Your Man was all at once exciting, unpredictable, risky, artistic and adventurous.

71Tele said it all.

I have always wondered if any of the boys have ever spent some time down at Charlane. Would be a nice getaway for them.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
71Tele
Chuck is the living personification of the Vegas-isation of the Stones. Not just his playing, but the boring, predictable, take-no-risks unartistic, unadventoruous approach they take. Don't bother telling me it's better than not having the Stones at all, I agree. It just could be so much more.

Maybe we're kidding ourselves when we think it could be so much more. Keith can barely get out the opening riffs to songs now. I read some people saying 'Keith is on Fire' on stage on this tour and then I hear it and I wonder about their ears, or standard for being 'On Fire'. The group obviously is not pining to do a side from Between The Buttons, or even dip their toes in a little Delta Blues. At least the Bigger Bang Tour had 'Back of My Hand'.

Doing the songs now that they could do in their sleep is what they can do, period. I'm sure Jagger could stretch out some more, and Ronnie seems up for anything, but Keith, and even Charlie, have plateaued. They want comfort now, not adventure. Chuck, Darryl, Lisa, Bernard, Bobby, these are comfortable people for them to be around; people they don't have to explain anything to. They too can do these setlists in their sleep.

For a certain percentage of the fan base, it just doesn't cut it anymore. They're glad for the group that they're still wanted out there, live, and I'm happy for those fans who have never seen them. I saw a number of blues artists in their sunsets, and I'm glad I did. Sure, I would have loved to see Muddy Waters and Little Walter ripping it up together in the 50s, but seeing Muddy sit on a stool and declare that he was, "A Rollin' Stone", in the 70s was enough for me. God bless every fan who sees the Rolling Stones and still gets a charge out of it.

When an artist chooses "comfort" ahead of risk or artistic statement, he or she is no longer an artist, but merely an entertainer.

I always enjoy the Rolling Stones as entertainers. They never fail to give me a couple of hours of fun - even joy. But I miss the artists called the Rolling Stones, who gave me lifetimes of enjoyment and introspection, and who changed my life and the life of an entire culture. What happened to those guys?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-09 03:24 by 71Tele.

I actually prefer Billy and Mac (but that's just me).
They've used two keyboard players a lot over the years, whenever Stu wanted to plat, that is. Nowadays I don't see why they can't have Chuck and Mac; they can swap and MAc can play Hammond on tunes. Be kind of a funkier band, and cheaper than paying for a horn section that plays on only a few tunes.

Chuck is really good on hammond organ.

Bashing Chuck is so... noughties.

- Doxa

On the other hand: someone who's throwing guitarpicks with his name on it in the audience, while he doesn't play the quitar for one second at any Stones concert, well that is a little... strange at least?

Who would that be?

"I always enjoy the Rolling Stones as entertainers. They never fail to give me a couple of hours of fun - even joy. But I miss the artists called the Rolling Stones, who gave me lifetimes of enjoyment and introspection, and who changed my life and the life of an entire culture. What happened to those guys?"

They became old. I am happy to seem them as they are now. Firstly, there are occasional sparks of their old selves. Second, I have never heard anybody else who can do the music of my life the same way they do. Finally, we have no option (except of not seeing them live at all).

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Bob C.
Good story. Chuck is great. I don't know why people on this site put him down.

Because we don't like his keyboard playing, and don't think it fits the Rolling Stones.

Mystery solved.

can Mac come back ?

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Bob C.
Good story. Chuck is great. I don't know why people on this site put him down.

Because we don't like his keyboard playing, and don't think it fits the Rolling Stones.

Mystery solved.

can Mac come back ?

It's ok with me, but they haven't asked my opinion.

Chuck's work with others is great and soulful. I haven't been a fan of the Stones live sound since 1989 or so. So I don't get the singling out of the piano player.
I have more issues with their army of backup singers, yes, including Lisa...
If anything personifies the Stones' modern-era slick, sterile stage sound it's the Fifth Dimension on every Stones song.