After watching the clip of silver train, there is several times the mick goes to chuck cause he's lost or needs ques or what not....Chuck plays a key roll, and i think that if it wasn't for him, they would be playing the same exact set night after night

.....keep on rolling.....

I thought the thread title referred to one of the neighbours in Neighbours.

I thought it referred to the penguin in Penguin in Bondage.

Hell yeah they need Chuck. And he has been playing very well in the stuff I've seen from this tour, not overbearing but solid and supportive. I've certainly got no complaints, just major respect and kudos. peace

Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-19 04:20 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer

Not to mention the large quantity of backing vocal he contributes.

Quote
71Tele
Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.

+1. Also, if Chuck is necessary despite his musical contributions being mediocre, what does that say about the others' musicality?

mediocre keyboard playing

Yeah tele and if he was playing more than mediocre, you'd be complaining that he was taking away from the Stones and trying to showboat. Obviously, his job is to please Mick and Keith and I'm pretty sure he has learned that virtuoso playing is not what they are looking for, and Chuck is certainly capable of virtuoso playing.

I am curious as to where specifically you think his playing is mediocre and what you think he should be playing instead of what he is. Any videos from the current tour that you can show us to support your comments? I know you haven't been happy with his plinky tone in the past but it seems to me that this tour he is blending in much better and the guitars are out front where they belong. with respect. peace

I suppose that I'm upset by the fact that he apparently has some influence on the setlist through Jagger, but rarely if ever has been pushing for rarities to be added recently. He's good on HTW, though.

Quote
71Tele
Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.

Chuck's role is far bigger than just a hallway monitor. Mick does not sing to guitars anymore. These days Mick sings to a piano. Period. The piano is the singer's best instrument to follow and that is exactly why Mick depends on Chuck.

Notice Chuck always plays in the keyboard's middle section---this is two fold: it adds a good cushion for Keith if he has trouble remembering changes but mainly it is 100% support for Mick. Chuck's playing is controlled (some have called it bland/mediocre) because that's exactly what Mick needs...a singer does not need flashy/free playing but rather more meat and potatoes kind of playing that's easy to sing to with the melody of the song ALWAYS present. That is exactly what Chuck does.

People can continue to rag on Chuck if they want but it's very clear by now that there is a very specific reason why his role is the way that it is. It's not an artistic choice but a job requirement from his boss. Does any of this make Chuck's playing any better? Not really. But focusing all the hate on Chuck is very misplaced and over-simplifying the issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-19 10:23 by Justin.

Quote
71Tele
Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.

Chuck has evolved in this band. Now that the guitars are holding their own he's beginning to actually play and he's been really good.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
71Tele
Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.

Chuck has evolved in this band. Now that the guitars are holding their own he's beginning to actually play and he's been really good.

Correct. Chuck has been freed up a bit more on this tour. With the band gelling as well as they have, I would say the reason is because it appears that mick is paying more attention to the guitars and using them as a guide more and actually playing off them.

On past tours, he's relied so much on Chuck (ABB tour) that there was a weird separation between the members in the band. Keith and Ronnie were sort of on their ownn little island while mick and Chuck were on another. Today, everything appears slightly more unified due in large part by the guitar department stepping up to the plate and providing mick a level of support he hasn't seen in a long while.

I think we should leave the poor guy alone.

If they feel that he adds to the equation, who the hell are we to second guess them?

It's not as though this is the first tour with him. He's been 'with' the band longer than Brian Jones and Mick Taylor combined.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
71Tele
Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.

+1. Also, if Chuck is necessary despite his musical contributions being mediocre, what does that say about the others' musicality?

My point exactly.

Quote
Naturalust
mediocre keyboard playing

Yeah tele and if he was playing more than mediocre, you'd be complaining that he was taking away from the Stones and trying to showboat. Obviously, his job is to please Mick and Keith and I'm pretty sure he has learned that virtuoso playing is not what they are looking for, and Chuck is certainly capable of virtuoso playing.

I am curious as to where specifically you think his playing is mediocre and what you think he should be playing instead of what he is. Any videos from the current tour that you can show us to support your comments? I know you haven't been happy with his plinky tone in the past but it seems to me that this tour he is blending in much better and the guitars are out front where they belong. with respect. peace

As to paragraph one: No, I wouldn't, and you have no idea what I'd be saying.
See all my posts complaining about Nicky Hopkins and Ian Stewart "showboating". Oh wait, there aren't any.

As to paragraph two: Basically everything he plays. It's mid-rangey, unsoulful, and unimaginative. I have offered lots of specifics before and don't find it necessary to repeat myself.

As to "improvements" it's a matter of degree. The improvements you mention don't overcome the stylistic deficiencies.

Chuck Leavell with the Rolling Stones is a Musical Director who happens to play keyboards rather than the best possible keyboardist for the Rolling Stones, and none of his many apologists here have made a cogent mucial defense of his playing.

Quote
treaclefingers
I think we should leave the poor guy alone.

If they feel that he adds to the equation, who the hell are we to second guess them?

It's not as though this is the first tour with him. He's been 'with' the band longer than Brian Jones and Mick Taylor combined.

Then why do people continue to start threads about him with titles like "love him or despise him"?

Oh, and about his background singing: It begs the question why the Rolling Stones have delegated backing vocals to him at all. Seems like something Keith Richards used to do. Now he either can't be bothered, or Mick doesn;t want him to do it anymore.

And Treacle, I am surprised that you indulged in this line of reasoning: That if Mick & Keith chose him somehow criticizing his musicality is off-limits. Why? And by the same token, how does his longevity in the band inoculate his playing from criticism? By that line of reasoning, no one here would ever criticize Keith's playing, and people do that all the time. What's so special about Chuck?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-19 06:42 by 71Tele.

chuck is a tremendous talent,anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.do we forget he played with the allman brothers,he never would of played with both the stones and allmans withourt skill.

Quote
backstreetboy1
chuck is a tremendous talent,anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.do we forget he played with the allman brothers,he never would of played with both the stones and allmans withourt skill.

Ah, of course now we get the Allman Brothers Defense. Chuck's playing NOW in the STONES cannot possibly be criticized because he played great in the Allman Brothers 40 years ago. That makes a lot of sense. But then I'm a fool (according to your post) so what the fvck do I know about it?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust
mediocre keyboard playing

Yeah tele and if he was playing more than mediocre, you'd be complaining that he was taking away from the Stones and trying to showboat. Obviously, his job is to please Mick and Keith and I'm pretty sure he has learned that virtuoso playing is not what they are looking for, and Chuck is certainly capable of virtuoso playing.

I am curious as to where specifically you think his playing is mediocre and what you think he should be playing instead of what he is. Any videos from the current tour that you can show us to support your comments? I know you haven't been happy with his plinky tone in the past but it seems to me that this tour he is blending in much better and the guitars are out front where they belong. with respect. peace

As to paragraph one: No, I wouldn't, and you have no idea what I'd be saying.
See all my posts complaining about Nicky Hopkins and Ian Stewart "showboating". Oh wait, there aren't any.

As to paragraph two: Basically everything he plays. It's mid-rangey, unsoulful, and unimaginative. I have offered lots of specifics before and don't find it necessary to repeat myself.

As to "improvements" it's a matter of degree. The improvements you mention don't overcome the stylistic deficiencies.

Chuck Leavell with the Rolling Stones is a Musical Director who happens to play keyboards rather than the best possible keyboardist for the Rolling Stones, and none of his many apologists here have made a cogent mucial defense of his playing.

Well I may be wrong about the specifics but it's a fair bet you would be criticizing him no matter how he played. peace

I did this little test before and none of the Chuck apologists stepped up, so I will try again:

Without mentioning that he does the setlists, that Mick & Keith (or Ian Stewart) chose him, that they need him to count the songs off, that he played really great on the Allman Brothers "Jessica", that he's been in the band for a million years, or any OTHER reasons superfluous to the musical point, please SOMEONE say something specific that they love or think is indispensible about Chuck Leavell's keyboard playing with the Rolling Stones.

Quote
Naturalust

Well I may be wrong about the specifics but it's a fair bet you would be criticizing him no matter how he played. peace

No, it isn't "fair" because if my only criticism is musical, why the HELL would I still be criticizing him if I liked the way he played?

You sure are good at figuring what I WOULD say. Or rather, you think you are good at it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-19 07:00 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
I did this little test before and none of the Chuck apologists stepped up, so I will try again:

Without mentioning that he does the setlists, that Mick & Keith (or Ian Stewart) chose him, that they need him to count the songs off, that he played really great on the Allman Brothers "Jessica", that he's been in the band for a million years, or any OTHER reasons superfluous to the musical point, please SOMEONE say something specific that they love or think is indispensible about Chuck Leavell's keyboard playing with the Rolling Stones.

I already did that above. Nothing to add to that?

For a band that's primarily guitar driven, a lot of people sure get worked up about a hired keyboard/piano player.

I barely notice to the keys when listening to the albums--except for No Expectations and Time Waits For No One, where they really become a factor. But then again those numbers aren't the standard rock and roll for which the Stones are known.

When I saw the Stones in concert last year, I don't believe I listened to a single piano note. I just kept marveling at the gloriously loud volume of the guitars and the thwack and pop in Charlie's drums, especially on Paint It Black.

In rock and roll, the keys are just there, underneath, like the pistons working with the rest of the engine, and aside from Jerry Lee Lewis, it's never really front and center. So, what's the big deal?

Quote
Justin

Quote
71Tele
I did this little test before and none of the Chuck apologists stepped up, so I will try again:

Without mentioning that he does the setlists, that Mick & Keith (or Ian Stewart) chose him, that they need him to count the songs off, that he played really great on the Allman Brothers "Jessica", that he's been in the band for a million years, or any OTHER reasons superfluous to the musical point, please SOMEONE say something specific that they love or think is indispensible about Chuck Leavell's keyboard playing with the Rolling Stones.

I already did that above. Nothing to add to that?

Well, in a million threads about this, you are the first.

Quote
stonehearted
For a band that's primarily guitar driven, a lot of people sure get worked up about a hired keyboard/piano player.

I barely notice to the keys when listening to the albums--except for No Expectations and Time Waits For No One, where they really become a factor. But then again those numbers aren't the standard rock and roll for which the Stones are known.

When I saw the Stones in concert last year, I don't believe I listened to a single piano note. I just kept marveling at the gloriously loud volume of the guitars and the thwack and pop in Charlie's drums, especially on Paint It Black.

In rock and roll, the keys are just there, underneath, like the pistons working with the rest of the engine, and aside from Jerry Lee Lewis, it's never really front and center. So, what's the big deal?

Then why have keyboards at all? The obvious answer to me is that the Stones aren't AC/DC. They are a blues-based band in which keyboards - though usually not the featured instrument - are an important part of the overall musical blend, a spice if you will, if not the dominant flavor. The fact that they have had such great keyboardists in the past (Stewart, Hopkins, Preston, etc) means that it is all the more glaring when they have a merely serviceable one. And if the qualifications for a keyboardist in the Rolling Stones these days has more to do with matters other than keyboard playing, it says something about the band, doesn't it?

So to me it's not about getting "worked up", it's about maintaining standards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-19 07:08 by 71Tele.

<<keyboards - though usually not the featured instrument - are an important part of the overall musical blend, a spice if you will, if not the dominant flavor.>>

I'll leave you to fuss over the "spice" and the "flavor"--you seem to have quite a gourmet cuisine in the works on the stove at your house.

I'll just warm up some meat and potatoes in the microwave and have my usual feast--a veritable beggar's banquet, if I may say.

Quote
stonehearted
<<keyboards - though usually not the featured instrument - are an important part of the overall musical blend, a spice if you will, if not the dominant flavor.>>

I'll leave you to fuss over the "spice" and the "flavor"--you seem to have quite a gourmet cuisine in the works on the stove at your house.

I'll just warm up some meat and potatoes in the microwave and have my usual feast--a veritable beggar's banquet, if I may say.

You may say whatever you like. What I would say is that it is hardly "fussing" to care over details of music. If I liked the musical equivelant of meat and potatoes I would probably listen to AC/DC, not the Rolling Stones.

Quote
Justin

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
71Tele
Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.

Chuck has evolved in this band. Now that the guitars are holding their own he's beginning to actually play and he's been really good.

Correct. Chuck has been freed up a bit more on this tour. With the band gelling as well as they have, I would say the reason is because it appears that mick is paying more attention to the guitars and using them as a guide more and actually playing off them.

On past tours, he's relied so much on Chuck (ABB tour) that there was a weird separation between the members in the band. Keith and Ronnie were sort of on their ownn little island while mick and Chuck were on another. Today, everything appears slightly more unified due in large part by the guitar department stepping up to the plate and providing mick a level of support he hasn't seen in a long while.

well said!!! also, to those who say he's mediocre, do you think keith would play with him if he was mediocre?????

.....keep on rolling.....

Quote
You Got to Roll Me

Quote
Justin

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
71Tele
Put me down in the "despise" camp...It's not so much him personally. It's the fact that they are willing to tolerate mediocre keyboard playing precisely because they do need him in the role of setlistmaster-song counter-offer. Those who point out how "necessary" he is sometimes don't realize the full context of what they are saying.

Chuck has evolved in this band. Now that the guitars are holding their own he's beginning to actually play and he's been really good.

Correct. Chuck has been freed up a bit more on this tour. With the band gelling as well as they have, I would say the reason is because it appears that mick is paying more attention to the guitars and using them as a guide more and actually playing off them.

On past tours, he's relied so much on Chuck (ABB tour) that there was a weird separation between the members in the band. Keith and Ronnie were sort of on their ownn little island while mick and Chuck were on another. Today, everything appears slightly more unified due in large part by the guitar department stepping up to the plate and providing mick a level of support he hasn't seen in a long while.

well said!!! also, to those who say he's mediocre, do you think keith would play with him if he was mediocre?????

Well, since Keith IS playing with him, I would say yes!

Quote
71Tele

You sure are good at figuring what I WOULD say. Or rather, you think you are good at it.

It's not that hard actually. As you point out, there have been a million threads about Chuck and you have bashed him in just about every one. I think most people who have been here a while know how you feel about Chuck by now and could probably figure out what you would say without too much problem, especially since you've said it a million times. peace