Totally agree. I loved his work with the Allmans and Sea Level in the 70's...but like Darryl Jones...his sound DOES NOT fit the Stones at all. Plinky plunk. A very bad fit. A terrible decision by the band to work with him this long. Very disappointing.


Can't agree with you there.

Darryl Jones has been great on this tour and since the first show in Oslo,I'm sure his solo's on Miss You are getting longer and longer.
Just like MR with Mick T,going from about 8:30 to close on 14 minutes in Vienna.

Some things have changed on this tour like OOC at nearly every gig so far...............and I love that song. ><

Chuck is great

Quote
dandelion1967
You guys are true Rolling Stones' fan, but not always in the "good side" of being a fan: much more like "sound groupie".
The point is: you are judging Chuck for his playing and think Mick Jagger is the 1975' Mick, Richards is 1972' Keith, Ronnie es 1975' Ron and Charlie is always Charlie. Those guys are in his 70's, and will never play like the way they play when they were in his 30's or 20's. For the show THEY WANT TO GIVE, they need someone like Chuck AND THEY HAVE HIM. If you listen to Chuck playing in other bands and think it's ok, why don't you realize that in the Stones he is playing what he is asked for?
I am a true Nicky fan, but I really think you are bashing Chuck. The good things from the past are here for us to enjoy. The first time I listen to Exile I didn't like it, it took me time to understand and enjoy that music. Maybe you will feel the same with the way the guys play right now. I don't know. But please stop this!! It's not Chucks playing, it's THE WAY THE ROLLING STONES TELL HIM TO PLAY! Say something about the 4 guys!

Yes, sorry if we judge the Rolling Stones sound according to...the Rolling Stones sound. Terrible of us.

He needs to play a real piano, maybe he would sound better

Quote
Gooo
He needs to play a real piano, maybe he would sound better

He may have played one in '82. Don't know if made a difference.
However, in '78 and '81, wasn't the piano just for Stu, and Mac handled the Hammond and electric piano? I don't recall seeing pictures of Ian McLagan on the grand piano on those tours.

chuck and daryl have a boss that tells them HOW to play .it is not chuck or daryl band !!!

Quote
TheGreek
chuck and daryl have a boss that tells them HOW to play .it is not chuck or daryl band !!!

That's the problem - he thinks it's The Chuck Leavell Show, Featuring The Rolling Stones!
Listen to the Midnight Rambler on the Hyde Park release - it's like "watch me outduel THREE guitarists!" Luckily live it's not usually too much of an issue, but on that recording I keep thinking of the scene in the movie Boogie Nights where Dirk Diggler complains that the music is drowning out his vocals. I can see Chuck in the mixing booth going "are the three guitars drowning out my honky tonk piano?" And don't even get me started on the "Patented Chuck Leavell SWIPE" to announce every chord change/transition. At some point I'm going to count how many 'swipes' he does during that HP show - because you know, a band that's played together for 50+ years can't go into a bridge without Chuck doing a grand swipe across the keys. He's awful.
I recall as a young kid asking my brother why there was bass guitar in some songs when you couldn't even really hear it. He was eating breakfast and said - 'well, it's kind of like the salt and pepper on these eggs. You might not really taste it, but you'd notice it if it was missing.' Chuck is like ketchup poured all over filet mignon.
One man's opinion - and yes, the employers are to blame.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-18 18:49 by DEmerson.

Chuck is great. No problem with him at all.

Quote
1962
Chuck is great. No problem with him at all.

Except for everything DEmerson just said. Ketchup on filet mignon indeed.

it's a good thing StonesTodd is not here to hear this chuck bashing !

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
DoomandGloom
I'm as much of a basher as anyone here but I think many are too hard on Chuck or don't understand how tough his role is and how it differs from the job of keyboard players in the past when the guitars ruled the stage.

True. I listen Chuck's work with John Mayer on his last album, and he's fantastic...what can I say? I don' get the hate...Matt Clifford was more of a tinker toy pianist to me. The Stones are not the band they once were, and rely on too many filler roles: four interchangeable back up singers, a fill-in bassist....what else? A triangle player?
Its all balloons and confetti and the Stones music gets drowned. Chuck has to be the backbone to a band that has lost much of its mojo live.

Same old story...he might be a great "backbone" but he sounds lousy with the Stones. Why don't you get the "hate" (which is a characterization I reject because it isn't personal hate, it's dislike of his playing, not him personally)? It's matter of musical taste. He sounds like he belongs at a Holiday Inn lounge on a Tuesday night. Why do you think his playing with John Mayer (or his playing with the Allmans 90 years ago) makes him sound good with the Stones right now? Why - on a website ostensibly about a musical act - is criticizing one of the backup musicians out of bounds?

It seems this line of thinking encourages us to just accept mediocrity, and be happy with it. Those might be your standards in music, which is fine, but they aren't mine.

I share the same sentiments regarding this post as well.I don't dislike Chuck personally, but I have always thought that his style of playing was just not a good fit with the Stones sound. Nicky Hopkins, Ian Stewart, Ian McLagan were great support musicians on Stones albums and tours. When I hear the "twinking" that Chuck does on Midnight Rambler, it makes me cringe.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

For some reason, the most vocal are always the dissenters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-19 04:37 by Straycat13.

As a side musician, you simply don't go on stage with the Rolling Stones and play what YOU want, you play what THEY want. Simple as that.

The Stones must be happy with him.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
dandelion1967
You guys are true Rolling Stones' fan, but not always in the "good side" of being a fan: much more like "sound groupie".
The point is: you are judging Chuck for his playing and think Mick Jagger is the 1975' Mick, Richards is 1972' Keith, Ronnie es 1975' Ron and Charlie is always Charlie. Those guys are in his 70's, and will never play like the way they play when they were in his 30's or 20's. For the show THEY WANT TO GIVE, they need someone like Chuck AND THEY HAVE HIM. If you listen to Chuck playing in other bands and think it's ok, why don't you realize that in the Stones he is playing what he is asked for?
I am a true Nicky fan, but I really think you are bashing Chuck. The good things from the past are here for us to enjoy. The first time I listen to Exile I didn't like it, it took me time to understand and enjoy that music. Maybe you will feel the same with the way the guys play right now. I don't know. But please stop this!! It's not Chucks playing, it's THE WAY THE ROLLING STONES TELL HIM TO PLAY! Say something about the 4 guys!

Yes, sorry if we judge the Rolling Stones sound according to...the Rolling Stones sound. Terrible of us.

No, you're judging Chuck Leavell instead of judging Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. As the Greek said

Quote
chuck and daryl have a boss that tells them HOW to play .it is not chuck or daryl band !!!

That's what I meant. DeEmerson, for God sake, how can an employeed musicial think that the Rolling Stones are HIS band? Did Lisa sing what she wants? did Darryll play what he wants? Did Chuck play what he wants? They did play JUST WHAT THE ROLLING STONES LET THEM AND TELL THEM TO PLAY! Or Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are dumb, or they want his band to sound like they sound! I'm a musician too, and when some band hire you for a gig, you're not doing what you want, you play what you're request.

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


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

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

Quote
TheGreek
it's a good thing StonesTodd is not here to hear this chuck bashing !

No it's not........Greatest Chuck ever! Like fine wine, that Chuck.....

First, I don't buy this "he plays what Mick & Keith want" defense. If that's what they really want, they've lost their minds.

The specific problem for me (well, one of them anyway) is that no matter the song, he plays right in the mid range of keys, which is exactly the range the guitars are in. When you have two (or sometimes three) guitars going, to have a "piano" (quotation marks intentional) play in exactly the same sonic range just muddies up the sound and adds nothing. A boogie-woogie player like Stu played WAY up on top - the top two octaves or so, and even Nicky and Billy found lots of range to get around all that racket and find a musical space that complemented what the guitars and other instruments were doing. Chuck just smiles and plods along - BONK - BONK - BONK - right down the middle, as if he were leading a church singalong (a WHITE church, that is), and there were no other instruments. I doubt these were the exact instructions given him by Mick and Keith. I think Chuck has his own understanding of his role, which is less about being the keyboardist than about keeping time, counting the songs in, and keeping things organized. If so, the keyboard playing certainly suffers as a result.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-19 05:21 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
First, I don't buy this "he plays what Mick & Keith want" defense. If that's what they really want, they've lost their minds.

It's not meant as a defense, it's just a fact. If they don't want the way he plays, they would tell him and instruct him accordingly. Otherwise he would be out. It's not that he's the only keyboard player in the world. They want this kind of "keeping it all together"-style because this style is obviously needed. Really, the Stones side musicians have far less freedom to do anything on their own than we tend to believe.

Quote
alimente

Quote
71Tele
First, I don't buy this "he plays what Mick & Keith want" defense. If that's what they really want, they've lost their minds.

It's not meant as a defense, it's just a fact. If they don't want the way he plays, they would tell him and instruct him accordingly. Otherwise he would be out. It's not that he's the only keyboard player in the world. They want this kind of "keeping it all together"-style because this style is obviously needed. Really, the Stones side musicians have far less freedom to do anything on their own than we tend to believe.

This may indeed be true, but for the millionth time, he still doesn't sound good as the Stones' keyboardist. Why are musical criticisms answered with non-musical defenses, which aren't relevant to whether he sounds good or not? I would like the Chuck defenders to post some of his keyboard highlights here to show why they think he is good with the Stones. It's quite interesting to me that no one has ever done so,

He's a good musician.

He's not rock'n roll, that's all.

***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie

Quote
DEmerson

Quote
TheGreek
chuck and daryl have a boss that tells them HOW to play .it is not chuck or daryl band !!!

That's the problem - he thinks it's The Chuck Leavell Show, Featuring The Rolling Stones!
Listen to the Midnight Rambler on the Hyde Park release - it's like "watch me outduel THREE guitarists!" Luckily live it's not usually too much of an issue, but on that recording I keep thinking of the scene in the movie Boogie Nights where Dirk Diggler complains that the music is drowning out his vocals. I can see Chuck in the mixing booth going "are the three guitars drowning out my honky tonk piano?" And don't even get me started on the "Patented Chuck Leavell SWIPE" to announce every chord change/transition. At some point I'm going to count how many 'swipes' he does during that HP show - because you know, a band that's played together for 50+ years can't go into a bridge without Chuck doing a grand swipe across the keys. He's awful.
I recall as a young kid asking my brother why there was bass guitar in some songs when you couldn't even really hear it. He was eating breakfast and said - 'well, it's kind of like the salt and pepper on these eggs. You might not really taste it, but you'd notice it if it was missing.' Chuck is like ketchup poured all over filet mignon.
One man's opinion - and yes, the employers are to blame.

Oh God YES! >< That's been driving me bonkers for years. It used to kill me whenever they did Monkey Man.

I like Chuck. I suspect we have to him to thank for pushing Mick along to play some rarer tunes, at least in the past. I seem to remember a story where Mick was done with Loving Cup during Licks but Chuck pushed to play it again. I think it was in Japan somewhere.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
alimente

Quote
71Tele
First, I don't buy this "he plays what Mick & Keith want" defense. If that's what they really want, they've lost their minds.

It's not meant as a defense, it's just a fact. If they don't want the way he plays, they would tell him and instruct him accordingly. Otherwise he would be out. It's not that he's the only keyboard player in the world. They want this kind of "keeping it all together"-style because this style is obviously needed. Really, the Stones side musicians have far less freedom to do anything on their own than we tend to believe.

This may indeed be true, but for the millionth time, he still doesn't sound good as the Stones' keyboardist. Why are musical criticisms answered with non-musical defenses, which aren't relevant to whether he sounds good or not? I would like the Chuck defenders to post some of his keyboard highlights here to show why they think he is good with the Stones. It's quite interesting to me that no one has ever done so,

Tele, you should ask the defenders, not me. I'm just describing the powers that are, and, let's be realistic, there's only a handful of people in the world who, like you and me, dissect the music into it's parts, and, furthermore, the vast majority of people go to a Stones show to see them, rock out, dance to the music, watch Mick and, to a lesser degree, Keef, Ronnie and Charlie, enjoy themselves, meet friends, feel the atmosphere, whatever - and simply don't care a shit what the side musicians do or don't do. And as long as they sell out their shows and receive enthusiastic reviews, they would probably laugh off all their critics like "Hey, we have the winning formula, your points simply don't count! Scratch my back!"

I mean, I want more Taylor, more setlist variations, more deep cuts, but it's hard to argue with a winning formula, it's impossible to argue with success.

I am tempted to start a "post your favorite Chuck keyboard part" thread, but I doubt I would get many takers. He certainly is the best setlist-maker and intro-counter they have ever had, I'll give him that.

Quote
71Tele
I am tempted to start a "post your favorite Chuck keyboard part" thread, but I doubt I would get many takers. He certainly is the best setlist-maker and intro-counter they have ever had, I'll give him that.

How many posts do you think you'd receive in a Your Favorite Ian Stewart Keyborad Part? Or one for Mac or Nicky?

Please don't think I'm trying to antagonize you. Hopefully we've both been around here long enough that you realize that, while I may not always agree with you, I do respect your opinions and views and know that you don't just post to read your own post.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is something along the lines of, piano & keyboard parts played by anyone other than possibly MJ, in my mind are always secondary to what the band is doing. Not having an encyclopaedic memory of every single Stones tune is presenting me with a hard time coming up with ANY great keyboard parts in ANY Stones tune that I could say "so & so played this and it MADE the tune." That's not to say it never happened just that it's not in the front part of my memory. I'd do much better in a conversation about sax solos and or horn parts.

Side Note: While you made a good point with your reference to the sonic range that Chuck seems to stay in cluttering up the same range the guitars are filling, you may want to rethink your slam on the music coming out of predominantly white churches. Although the stereotype has, in many cases, been rightly earned, I'd like to think that a musician such as yourself would stay away from using it in a serious conversation as it really is far from the truth.

That's my two cents not worth much more. I'm back to the show & WC threads for a few more minutes!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
71Tele
I am tempted to start a "post your favorite Chuck keyboard part" thread, but I doubt I would get many takers. He certainly is the best setlist-maker and intro-counter they have ever had, I'll give him that.

Since........they did it.

Makes a mean cup of coffee.......

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
71Tele
I am tempted to start a "post your favorite Chuck keyboard part" thread, but I doubt I would get many takers. He certainly is the best setlist-maker and intro-counter they have ever had, I'll give him that.

How many posts do you think you'd receive in a Your Favorite Ian Stewart Keyborad Part? Or one for Mac or Nicky?

Please don't think I'm trying to antagonize you. Hopefully we've both been around here long enough that you realize that, while I may not always agree with you, I do respect your opinions and views and know that you don't just post to read your own post.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is something along the lines of, piano & keyboard parts played by anyone other than possibly MJ, in my mind are always secondary to what the band is doing. Not having an encyclopaedic memory of every single Stones tune is presenting me with a hard time coming up with ANY great keyboard parts in ANY Stones tune that I could say "so & so played this and it MADE the tune." That's not to say it never happened just that it's not in the front part of my memory. I'd do much better in a conversation about sax solos and or horn parts.

Side Note: While you made a good point with your reference to the sonic range that Chuck seems to stay in cluttering up the same range the guitars are filling, you may want to rethink your slam on the music coming out of predominantly white churches. Although the stereotype has, in many cases, been rightly earned, I'd like to think that a musician such as yourself would stay away from using it in a serious conversation as it really is far from the truth.

That's my two cents not worth much more. I'm back to the show & WC threads for a few more minutes!

Peace,
Mr DJA

OK, maybe the white churches thing was a bit much. Hyperbole. I meant that such a soulless keyboard sound would never be allowed in a black church. Didn't mean to offend anyone. But the point about playing in the mid-range still stands.

Again, I have no problem with the man himself, but the keyboard sound is...blah.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-20 04:53 by 71Tele.

Chuck ain't Mac, he ain't Stu, he ain't Jim Dickinson...he's Chuck Leavell. IMHO, he's done a stand up job with the boys. He's a gentleman, he loves the Stones, and he does a bang up job. He is indispensable in some ways, so he stays. I personally like him and if Mick didn't, he wouldn't be up there every night.

There are some pretty funky white churches in the South...
Tele, does the Chuck-i-licious song have to be a Stones song?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-20 06:50 by stupidguy2.

Maybe his job is to fill out the sound and give Mick a safe backing track. Maybe it's that simple.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-20 10:27 by Redhotcarpet.