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.

Quote
Justin

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And if I should add to those myself, I think Mick sings to Chuck's keyboards because of hearing issues.

Additionally at some point he must have decided that the keyboards were the best to follow also because the guitar department had become so unreliable in recent years.

Quote
Beast
All what Tele has said

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele

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?

I guess I would take a step back, and ask the more general question, if there is one player in the band currently who might be defined as the 'weak link', who would that be...and do we get rid of that person?

I'm not sure that is territory we'd want to venture into.

As it stands, the band sounds better than it has in years...I'm not interested in experimenting with how much it would improve if we brought someone in to replace Chuck.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Silver Dagger
Chuck Leavell is the keyboard equivalent of what Robert Cray is to blues guitar.

Without the slightest disrespect intended for Tele, this comment is more devastating than every other criticism of Leavell in this thread put together.

Quote
wanderingspirit66

Quote
Justin

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And if I should add to those myself, I think Mick sings to Chuck's keyboards because of hearing issues.

Additionally at some point he must have decided that the keyboards were the best to follow also because the guitar department had become so unreliable in recent years.

This is essentially the Raison d'être for Jagger's reliance on Chuck but this board doesn't have the balls to go there

Quote
Naturalust
As Justin points out Chuck is the musical bed that Mick lies in, just like charlie is for Keith and possibly Keith is for Ronnie.

Quote
Naturalust
Hearing what Mick has in his monitor would be really telling on this subject. I imagine he's got a bit of Charlie and Keith and a lot of himself and Chuck.

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.

Quote
wanderingspirit66

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
treaclefingers
I think we should leave the poor guy alone.Then why do people continue to start threads about him with titles like "love him or despise him"?

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.

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?

I guess I would take a step back, and ask the more general question, if there is one player in the band currently who might be defined as the 'weak link', who would that be...and do we get rid of that person?

I'm not sure that is territory we'd want to venture into.

As it stands, the band sounds better than it has in years...I'm not interested in experimenting with how much it would improve if we brought someone in to replace Chuck.

Aww treacle.... I sure don't want to venture into "that territory" and ask general questions. I want to get more specific. I suggest taking a step forward - why criticize just Chuck's playing - he wears a beard - dammit - and hugs trees.. aargh...

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Silver Dagger
Chuck Leavell is the keyboard equivalent of what Robert Cray is to blues guitar.

Without the slightest disrespect intended for Tele, this comment is more devastating than every other criticism of Leavell in this thread put together.

Thank you.

Quote
Naturalust
Justin, NO Keith in Mick's monitor? If true no wonder they sounded a bit off during those shows. Keith and Mick are what most people probably focus on and the thought Mick not even listening Keith is beyond strange to me. peace

Quote
Justin

Quote
Naturalust
Justin, NO Keith in Mick's monitor?
But I would put money that Mick can hear Keith just fine through Keith's on-stage amps. I don't think Mick wants Keith dominating the mix in his monitors.

Mick could certainly hear Keith during SFTD in Frankfurt 2007. That was when/why Mick went over to the side and told the techies to turn Keith off as his playing was unrecognizable.

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

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Justin

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And if I should add to those myself, I think Mick sings to Chuck's keyboards because of hearing issues.

Great point. He very well could be. Additionally at some point he must have decided that the keyboards were the best to follow also because the guitar department had become so unreliable in recent years. Also at 70 years old it makes perfect sense that he land his voice to a soft piano than to a couple screaching guitars. The electric keyboard is the best instrument to hear in your monitor to sing to.

Chuck's role is tricky. He has to support mick yet still interact and integrate himself with the rest of the band. The few areas that Chuck can afford to "stretch" is basically just during solos or those extra long vamps at the end of the warhorses. Everytime mick sings--he's got to be back to his primary position to support Jagger. Sounds tough! And a little frustrating! And after a while...not very fun.

Considering Jagger is singing so extremely well these days it makes me wonder what kind of adjustments they may have made behind the scenes. my hunch is that Chuck is laying off his usual "support" duty by providing Jagger his bed of chords and instead playing a bit more freely which completely forces mick to sing without his usual safety net. Or maybe Chuck is simply playing different/alternate chord voicings on the keyboards which allow mick to take more melodic choices? Whatever it is, his singing is the best it's been in years so whatever they did definitely worked for the best.

These are all valid and good points. My only argument really is that there is a difference between the "role" (or roles) he plays and the demands of what make a truly great keyboardist in the Stones. Chuck is there for the former, not the latter.

I think you're dead bang on Tele.

The only argument I would have is, is it worth the risk at their age to go live with something completely new? The whole Mick Taylor addition was a safety net for the guitars, how much more risk do you think MJ will take?

That, and the fact there obviously is a relationship there with Chuck, why would anyone want to rock the boat?

It's sort of like the setlist argument...sure everyone wants to see more 'deep cuts' or more 'new material', but they are risk averse...this will never happen.

Quote
liddas
This is one of those very rare occasions when I agree with 71tele, even if I have to admit that this time around his overall sound has improved.

But let's bust a myth: the problem is not much when CL plays what he is supposed to play, but rather when he is allowed freedom to play what he wants - and most of the time the arrangements allowe him lots of space to play what he wants.

There is where CL fails to impress me. He always plays it safe. It's as if he plays what he thinks should be played in a Stones song. I've heard him play lots of nice notes, but never he put his personal seal on a song.

And in a group which is a concentration of strong characters, lack of character is what you note most.

C

Quote
mickschix
The bashing of Chuck on this site in the past has been ridiculous and I could never understand it...other than the fact that he's NOT IAN STEWART or Nickie! He's a superb piano/keyboard player with great timing and touch, plus he's modest as HELL! I like Chuck although bottom line, it doesn't matter what ANY of us think, MICK loves him, he stays!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas
This is one of those very rare occasions when I agree with 71tele, even if I have to admit that this time around his overall sound has improved.

But let's bust a myth: the problem is not much when CL plays what he is supposed to play, but rather when he is allowed freedom to play what he wants - and most of the time the arrangements allowe him lots of space to play what he wants.

There is where CL fails to impress me. He always plays it safe. It's as if he plays what he thinks should be played in a Stones song. I've heard him play lots of nice notes, but never he put his personal seal on a song.

And in a group which is a concentration of strong characters, lack of character is what you note most.

C

Thank you for putting it better in one post than I had managed to do in 100.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas
This is one of those very rare occasions when I agree with 71tele, even if I have to admit that this time around his overall sound has improved.

But let's bust a myth: the problem is not much when CL plays what he is supposed to play, but rather when he is allowed freedom to play what he wants - and most of the time the arrangements allowe him lots of space to play what he wants.

There is where CL fails to impress me. He always plays it safe. It's as if he plays what he thinks should be played in a Stones song. I've heard him play lots of nice notes, but never he put his personal seal on a song.

And in a group which is a concentration of strong characters, lack of character is what you note most.

C

Thank you for putting it better in one post than I had managed to do in 100.

He likely only plays what he wants when the tour is done. And as has been said 100 times, he plays what Mick wants while performing with the Stones.

I've heard this argument before and it's an unsupported broad generalization. I would love someone to actually post some examples of his playing from this tour which are mediocre or lame. I haven't heard any.

As far as putting his personal seal on a song I think most agree the job of sealing is left to the four main members and musicians hired as support are not encouraged to take this approach. I've no doubt Chuck could do it if he was told this was a requirement. peace

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas
This is one of those very rare occasions when I agree with 71tele, even if I have to admit that this time around his overall sound has improved.

But let's bust a myth: the problem is not much when CL plays what he is supposed to play, but rather when he is allowed freedom to play what he wants - and most of the time the arrangements allowe him lots of space to play what he wants.

There is where CL fails to impress me. He always plays it safe. It's as if he plays what he thinks should be played in a Stones song. I've heard him play lots of nice notes, but never he put his personal seal on a song.

And in a group which is a concentration of strong characters, lack of character is what you note most.

C

Thank you for putting it better in one post than I had managed to do in 100.

He likely only plays what he wants when the tour is done. And as has been said 100 times, he plays what Mick wants while performing with the Stones.

I've heard this argument before and it's an unsupported broad generalization. I would love someone to actually post some examples of his playing from this tour which are mediocre or lame. I haven't heard any.

As far as putting his personal seal on a song I think most agree the job of sealing is left to the four main members and musicians hired as support are not encouraged to take this approach. I've no doubt Chuck could do it if he was told this was a requirement. peace

I am sorry, what reaches my ears is not "an unsupported broad generalization", it's the sound of bland keyboard playing. You should at least allow intelligent people the dignity of knowing their own tastes without needing to project your own rationalizations on them.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas
This is one of those very rare occasions when I agree with 71tele, even if I have to admit that this time around his overall sound has improved.

But let's bust a myth: the problem is not much when CL plays what he is supposed to play, but rather when he is allowed freedom to play what he wants - and most of the time the arrangements allowe him lots of space to play what he wants.

There is where CL fails to impress me. He always plays it safe. It's as if he plays what he thinks should be played in a Stones song. I've heard him play lots of nice notes, but never he put his personal seal on a song.

And in a group which is a concentration of strong characters, lack of character is what you note most.

C

Thank you for putting it better in one post than I had managed to do in 100.

He likely only plays what he wants when the tour is done. And as has been said 100 times, he plays what Mick wants while performing with the Stones.

I've heard this argument before and it's an unsupported broad generalization. I would love someone to actually post some examples of his playing from this tour which are mediocre or lame. I haven't heard any.

As far as putting his personal seal on a song I think most agree the job of sealing is left to the four main members and musicians hired as support are not encouraged to take this approach. I've no doubt Chuck could do it if he was told this was a requirement. peace

I am sorry, what reaches my ears is not "an unsupported broad generalization", it's the sound of bland keyboard playing. You should at least allow intelligent people the dignity of knowing their own tastes without needing to project your own rationalizations on them.

lmfao, of course my post was my opinion and I of course don't allow or disallow anyone's dignity or project anything upon anyone, that's absurd. I think you are beginning to take this a bit too seriously Tele.

What I have said several times is show me the mediocre playing, post a clip from this tour that supports your comments, maybe then some of us can actually understand what you are saying. Otherwise it comes across as the same broad generalization that you have been saying about Chuck for years. peace

Quote
Rokyfan
Play any live Rocks Off post-72, compare with any with Nicky. Just one example. Any rocker, and imagine it with Stu.

Chuck's role is now, I guess, huge. He runs the musical show by default. I guess he's an adequate keyboardist for what the Stones ask and need him to do.

But I have played piano my whole life, by ear, from music and, in my opinion, Chuck's attempts at the Stones songs where piano is important are pathetic.

Piano, not keyboards. That's what I miss.