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.

These are purely musical criticisms. How tough the role is should not matter. Someone either sounds good with the band, or they don't, regardless of what "role" they play. I have said it before: almost none of the defenses of Chuck are musical. It's always about what a nice guy he is or how important his "role" is. I don't need to "understand" anything beyond the fact that I don't like his playing with the Stones.

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.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-11 05:30 by 71Tele.

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 agree. He sounds like one of those cheeky Christmas Show entertainers my parents made me watch in Finland.

Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-11 05:59 by stupidguy2.

Chuck is more than a back up guy, he has credentials at least as long as Mick Taylor's. He was a full member of The Allman Brothers during their most popular period co-writing some of their best songs. I like what he plays in the Stones, no excuses necessary for me. I saw Nicky and Stu with the band as well as Billy... They are all legends, Hopkins is the most important musician the Stones ever employed, Leavell's legacy is to carry this band on his shoulders, which he does with authority, he can not get away with simply coloring the sound as guys did in the past. He must hammer on the changes, join together verses to choruses and bridges. Losing Bill and Darrell's "politeness" made this Chuck's job alone on stage. I'm sure Charlie appreciates what he does in this band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-11 06:20 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Tele, Chuck was always a grand piano guy until The Stones. I'd guess if they were willing to cart one around and pay someone to tune it for six hours before each show he'd be a happy guy. Most rock bands today stick a keyboard into the frame of a grand piano so it's purely visual, instead The Stones and Chuck aren't interested in pretending. Now more than ever this band is in the moment, relying on less trickery than The Steel Wheels era. Time has made them different, they are working hard to present a world class show, and that it is. When I went to see them in Philly I was proud of them for not taking any easy roads, instead they rehearse hard and continue to leave lifetime memories like they did in Glastonberry, Leavell is an important part of all that.

Face it, the Stones don't care anymore about the music, or the presentation. I just saw the Berlin clip of You Got The Silver and Keith had the balls to say, "It's good to be here," pause, wait a beat, "It's good to be anywhere," and then give a cigarette weezy laugh. And he delivers the line like he's never done it before. My father commented on a famous female singer he saw in Vegas some years back. He loved what he thought were the ad libs and the emotion and everything. He loved it so much he went back to see her again. He was shocked that she gave exactly the same show, same supposed adlibs, everything.

That is where we are now. It's a Vegas show traveling around the world. And we're supposed to jump up like cocained monkeys because they played Waiting On A Friend. The irony is that this is the most staid, non-surpising, least musical Stones tour we've ever witnessed, and the concert goers are throwing obscene money at them to do the same thing over and over again.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Tele, Chuck was always a grand piano guy until The Stones. I'd guess if they were willing to cart one around and pay someone to tune it for six hours before each show he'd be a happy guy. Most rock bands today stick a keyboard into the frame of a grand piano so it's purely visual, instead The Stones and Chuck aren't interested in pretending. Now more than ever this band is in the moment, relying on less trickery than The Steel Wheels era. Time has made them different, they are working hard to present a world class show, and that it is. When I went to see them in Philly I was proud of them for not taking any easy roads, instead they rehearse hard and continue to leave lifetime memories like they did in Glastonberry, Leavell is an important part of all that.

"Not taking any easy roads"? You're kidding, right?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Tele, Chuck was always a grand piano guy until The Stones. I'd guess if they were willing to cart one around and pay someone to tune it for six hours before each show he'd be a happy guy. Most rock bands today stick a keyboard into the frame of a grand piano so it's purely visual, instead The Stones and Chuck aren't interested in pretending. Now more than ever this band is in the moment, relying on less trickery than The Steel Wheels era. Time has made them different, they are working hard to present a world class show, and that it is. When I went to see them in Philly I was proud of them for not taking any easy roads, instead they rehearse hard and continue to leave lifetime memories like they did in Glastonberry, Leavell is an important part of all that.

"Not taking any easy roads"? You're kidding, right?

Go look at other bands from their era or slightly younger. Mott The Hoople, Bad Company, Allman Brothers... Their shows are lame compared to The Stones. If you don't think they put more time and money into preparing their show than most any band you are wrong. I can see they sweat blood to still maintain their greatness.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Go look at other bands from their era or slightly younger. Mott The Hoople, Bad Company, Allman Brothers... Their shows are lame compared to The Stones. If you don't think they put more time and money into preparing their show than most any band you are wrong. I can see they sweat blood to still maintain their greatness.

I am not saying they don't work hard to put on a professional show, but that's entertainment, not artistry. Greatness comes more from the artistry, in my opinion. I can see lots of shows in Vegas that are expensive to put on and very professionally and skillfully performed, and almost none of them have anything I would call "greatness".

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DoomandGloom
Go look at other bands from their era or slightly younger. Mott The Hoople, Bad Company, Allman Brothers... Their shows are lame compared to The Stones. If you don't think they put more time and money into preparing their show than most any band you are wrong. I can see they sweat blood to still maintain their greatness.

I am not saying they don't work hard to put on a professional show, but that's entertainment, not artistry. Greatness comes more from the artistry, in my opinion. I can see lots of shows in Vegas that are expensive to put on and very professionally and skillfully performed, and almost none of them have anything I would call "greatness".

Difference is in Vegas they used programmed music, nothing is organic. The Stones are 1000% real besides the intro to Sympathy which gives the boys a pee, joint and vodka break. They present themselves with no excuses, real and raw. It is a very brave show for proven entertainers who could rely on button pushers playing loops of Nicky Hopkins. How do they maintain this? With rehearsal and dedication from players like Chuck who is willing to take a bullet for the band rather than make himself a spot in the spot light. Which he is capable of.. I sometimes cry a little when I see them, only true artists can touch people like that, they are forever real.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-11 08:13 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DoomandGloom
Go look at other bands from their era or slightly younger. Mott The Hoople, Bad Company, Allman Brothers... Their shows are lame compared to The Stones. If you don't think they put more time and money into preparing their show than most any band you are wrong. I can see they sweat blood to still maintain their greatness.

I am not saying they don't work hard to put on a professional show, but that's entertainment, not artistry. Greatness comes more from the artistry, in my opinion. I can see lots of shows in Vegas that are expensive to put on and very professionally and skillfully performed, and almost none of them have anything I would call "greatness".

Difference is in Vegas they used programmed music, nothing is organic. The Stones are 1000% real besides the intro to Sympathy which gives the boys a pee, joint and vodka break. They present themselves with no excuses, real and raw. It is a very brave show for proven entertainers who could rely on button pushers playing loops of Nicky Hopkins. How do they maintain this? With rehearsal and dedication from players like Chuck who is willing to take a bullet for the band rather than make himself a spot in the spot light. Which he is capable of.. I sometimes cry a little when I see them, only true artists can touch people like that, they are forever real.

The criticism of Chuck is not that we want him to be more in the spotlight (though judging by the number of interviews he grants, he seems to quite enjoy the spotlight), it is that he simply plays the music in a safe and boring style. And I am not sure what "bullet" he is taking, exactly. I have been listening to the Stones seriously for over 40 years, and enjoy the current show (which I agree is better than no show at all). I just think the artistry is clearly a distant second to the spectacle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-11 08:29 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Look at Ronnie. He 'fit' the Stones ..
But in large part, that meant he played an important role beyond the music or his guitar. I love Ronnie and believe he added a different element to the Stones post- Taylor, but one could argue that, musically, he didn't really challenge the Stones. But his greatest asset may be that he let Mick and Keith be Mick and Keith, without ego. Maybe Chuck's role is what the Stones need now. Chuck's got some sweet lines on Mayer's more recent work, and that just validates my suspicions that the Stones are not inspiring these musicians to fly.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Look at Ronnie. He 'fit' the Stones ..
But in large part, that meant he played an important role beyond the music or his guitar. I love Ronnie and believe he added a different element to the Stones post- Taylor, but one could argue that, musically, he didn't really challenge the Stones. But his greatest asset may be that he let Mick and Keith be Mick and Keith, without ego. Maybe Chuck's role is what the Stones need now. Chuck's got some sweet lines on Mayer's more recent work, and that just validates my suspicions that the Stones are not inspiring these musicians to fly.

Yes, Ronnie is a good example of deciding to get someone easy to hang with rather than someone who would challenge them more musically (like Taylor). That is a decision they made, and it was their right to make it. I am not sure in the long run it best served them as artists, but that has been debated here many, many times.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Look at Ronnie. He 'fit' the Stones ..
But in large part, that meant he played an important role beyond the music or his guitar. I love Ronnie and believe he added a different element to the Stones post- Taylor, but one could argue that, musically, he didn't really challenge the Stones. But his greatest asset may be that he let Mick and Keith be Mick and Keith, without ego. Maybe Chuck's role is what the Stones need now. Chuck's got some sweet lines on Mayer's more recent work, and that just validates my suspicions that the Stones are not inspiring these musicians to fly.

Yes, Ronnie is a good example of deciding to get someone easy to hang with rather than someone who would challenge them more musically (like Taylor). That is a decision they made, and it was their right to make it. I am not sure in the long run it best served them as artists, but that has been debated here many, many times.

Wood is the perfect guy for artistry. His contributions to the songs written in his era has been great. What he lacks is the ability to parrot or expand Taylor's parts, in other words being a non artist, an imitator is not his strength. Wood was chosen for his ability to contribute to songs to come. It was also decided that Keith had gotten lazy because of Taylor and Wood would allow Keith more room. The buddy factor and British thing also played a big part.

I loved The Stones with all their previous great keyboard players,and I still love The Stones with Chuck on keyboards and musical director.

He knows what he's doing and he does it well.

I'm sure the 4 boys in the band and all the other artists that make up The Rolling Stones on tour,really appreciate him,and like him as a person. ><

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Look at Ronnie. He 'fit' the Stones ..
But in large part, that meant he played an important role beyond the music or his guitar. I love Ronnie and believe he added a different element to the Stones post- Taylor, but one could argue that, musically, he didn't really challenge the Stones. But his greatest asset may be that he let Mick and Keith be Mick and Keith, without ego. Maybe Chuck's role is what the Stones need now. Chuck's got some sweet lines on Mayer's more recent work, and that just validates my suspicions that the Stones are not inspiring these musicians to fly.

Yes, Ronnie is a good example of deciding to get someone easy to hang with rather than someone who would challenge them more musically (like Taylor). That is a decision they made, and it was their right to make it. I am not sure in the long run it best served them as artists, but that has been debated here many, many times.

Disagree strongly. The musical spark he lit with Some Girls was much needed (and loved) by millions of fans.

Music isn't just about going in more advanced or complex directions. With Ronnie, the band found back some of its original naive and charming sound, something that both the first generation of fans and newer fans appreciated strongly, imo.

Quote
24FPS
...I just saw the Berlin clip of You Got The Silver and Keith had the balls to say, "It's good to be here," pause, wait a beat, "It's good to be anywhere," and then give a cigarette weezy laugh. And he delivers the line like he's never done it before.

+1
I hate that stupid "it's good to be anywhere" line and it never fails to make me feel extremely embarrassed. In fact, the first time I noticed this lack of spontaneity is already more than a decade ago, when Keith "spontaneously" would play a few bars on the piano during Honky Tonk Women, and then would round it off by smashing a few notes with his feet: *every bloody concert*! Pathetic.
As far as I know, at least neither Mick nor any of the rest of the band does this sort of thing. It boggles me how someone can keep making that same "joke" every night, for years already, and then face his bandmates without feeling completely ridiculous.

<<It boggles me how someone can keep making that same "joke" every night, for years already, and then face his bandmates without feeling completely ridiculous.>>

He probably does it for the first-timers. The kids love it, the kids love it....

EVery time he does it, I try to pretend it's part of the lyrics of the next song.

He didn't do it in Oslo. Only "On with the show". The rest was "new"

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
71Tele

Quote
stupidguy2
Jeez. For such a supposed lameass, Chuck sure does incite some self-righteous outrage.
Did you guys ever think it's the latter day Stones that personifies an acceptance of mediocrity?
His work with the Allmans and Mayer is soulful, fresh and rootsy. That's something the Stones - with a few isolated exceptions - haven't been.
I personally enjoy criticizing Ernie Watts' kazoo- playing, or Don Was' lameass productions with the Stones. And don't get me started on the chorus of 'mediocrity' in the choir pew. So I have no problem with the criticisms of Chuck. Theres more wrong with the latter day Stones live than the piano sound. Both Was and Chuck excel with other artists... So what does that say about the Stones? Just my opinion.

You make some good points. It begs the question: If Chuck is so "soulful" with other artists, why is he such a paint-by-numbers keyboardist with the Stones? How "soulful" can you be when you can't even be bothered to ever play a real piano with the band? If you're saying it's more the Stones' fault than his, perhaps you're right. Perhaps his role as setlist-maker, diplomat, and tempo-keeper, ARE more important to the band than his keyboard playing. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, the fact remains that the Stones' keyboard sound suffers greatly with him there, at least to this listener's ears.

Look at Ronnie. He 'fit' the Stones ..
But in large part, that meant he played an important role beyond the music or his guitar. I love Ronnie and believe he added a different element to the Stones post- Taylor, but one could argue that, musically, he didn't really challenge the Stones. But his greatest asset may be that he let Mick and Keith be Mick and Keith, without ego. Maybe Chuck's role is what the Stones need now. Chuck's got some sweet lines on Mayer's more recent work, and that just validates my suspicions that the Stones are not inspiring these musicians to fly.

Yes, Ronnie is a good example of deciding to get someone easy to hang with rather than someone who would challenge them more musically (like Taylor). That is a decision they made, and it was their right to make it. I am not sure in the long run it best served them as artists, but that has been debated here many, many times.

Disagree strongly. The musical spark he lit with Some Girls was much needed (and loved) by millions of fans.

Music isn't just about going in more advanced or complex directions. With Ronnie, the band found back some of its original naive and charming sound, something that both the first generation of fans and newer fans appreciated strongly, imo.

You're exactly right about Some Girls. That was precisely 36 years ago. I waited for something equally good from them after that...I'm still waiting. (I don't count Tattoo You because it was mostly older re-done tracks).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-11 18:37 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
You're exactly right about Some Girls. That was precisely 36 years ago. I waited for something equally good from them after that...I'm still waiting. (I don't count Tattoo You because it was mostly older re-done tracks).

Well, 'Miss You' was a worldwide smash. I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed 'Rough Justice' and that was totally Ronnie on slide that made it possible. Ronnie has never been a riff master, but neither was Taylor. That particular talent seems tied in with the songwriting prowess of Keith. On the other hand I've come to appreciate Ronnie's playing, even if it's not as distinctive as you would expect in a group like the Stones.

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

Plinky plink tinkly tink.

Quote
ROPS

Quote
71Tele

Quote
ROPS
Chuck and Mick are the leaders of The Rolling Stones,they pick which songs are to be played,the tempo,in which order,etc,and then they tell the rest of the band,which basically act as backing musicians,for the two.....

Does that make his keyboard playing sound better? Really, why respond to criticisms about his playing by talking about attributes or qualities unrelated to his playing? Seems like this happens every time someone dares say they don't like Chuck's keyboard playing, but I don't see too many passionate defenses of his actual playing or sound - only posts about what a nice guy he is or how important he is to the setlists, rarities, etc.

71Tele,l am not a musician,but ihmo,his playing fits right with what the boys do nowdays,which to me is very average, playing wise....

That pretty much sums it up. There's nothing dirty to it, it has no swagger, it's bland and pedestrian played excellently.

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!

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


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

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-17 22:02 by dandelion1967.

Quote
FanOfGRARBITW

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

Chuck IS great. He is a great musician who can oversee arrangements of songs,and many other functions besides just doing his duties as the piano player. My problem is that despite his admirable talent - and he is very talented, I play the piano a bit but I doubt I could ever play as well as him - his STYLE of playing just doesn't seem to gel with the Stones the way Ian Stewart or Ian Mclagen did. His playing certainly doesn't kill my enjoyment of the Stones and there are a handful of songs where I do really do like what he plays, but I just think the Stones sounded better with the two aforementioned Ians. The Ians rule.

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.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DoomandGloom
Go look at other bands from their era or slightly younger. Mott The Hoople, Bad Company, Allman Brothers... Their shows are lame compared to The Stones. If you don't think they put more time and money into preparing their show than most any band you are wrong. I can see they sweat blood to still maintain their greatness.

I am not saying they don't work hard to put on a professional show, but that's entertainment, not artistry. Greatness comes more from the artistry, in my opinion. I can see lots of shows in Vegas that are expensive to put on and very professionally and skillfully performed, and almost none of them have anything I would call "greatness".

Difference is in Vegas they used programmed music, nothing is organic. The Stones are 1000% real besides the intro to Sympathy which gives the boys a pee, joint and vodka break. They present themselves with no excuses, real and raw. It is a very brave show for proven entertainers who could rely on button pushers playing loops of Nicky Hopkins. How do they maintain this? With rehearsal and dedication from players like Chuck who is willing to take a bullet for the band rather than make himself a spot in the spot light. Which he is capable of.. I sometimes cry a little when I see them, only true artists can touch people like that, they are forever real.

Real and Raw would be five players on stage, with a keyboardist for songs that need it and Bobby for songs that need it. No backup vocalists, no keyboards playing guitar riffs, and so on. Raw these days means Keith's f***ups, which unfortunately are not the result of inspired spontaneity. Sure, it's still a live band on stage, and yes the principals are communicating better, but this is a tightly controlled set and variations are not encouraged. It may be the modus opernadi for the last 25 years, but it is also anathema to the sound with which the Stones built their reputation as the greatest rock n roll band in the world. The one song that truly is real and raw every night is Midnight Rambler, but that is quite enough for the band, thank you very much. The show is still fun when all the bells and whistles are added, and I would recommend it, but let's not pretend this is real & raw rock'n'roll. Neil Young & Crazy Horse & Bruce Springsteen are but two other classic acts that can make that claim far better. I adore the Stones but the facts are facts.