Three very good songs indeed

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele
What bothers me most about the record is that it is so clearly Mick and Keith working on their own tracks, using the other band members (or sometimes non-band members) as sideman, and Don Was mediating between the Mick and Keith camps, rather than "producing" in the usual sense. It wouldn't be the first record made this way (see Beatles White Album), but in this case the results are tainted by the process. Sounds very commitee-like, despite some good tracks. I never understood Don Was as a producer for the Stones. It seems like he was chosen more for his ability to be non-offensive to both Mick and Keith, rather than for being the most appropriate person musically, the same way Chuck got his gig.

That's ludicrous. The only story I've heard about Chuck's selection was that Stu said he was the man for the job.

peace

I stand by my post. Chuck is a people-pleaser. That's why he's there.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele
What bothers me most about the record is that it is so clearly Mick and Keith working on their own tracks, using the other band members (or sometimes non-band members) as sideman, and Don Was mediating between the Mick and Keith camps, rather than "producing" in the usual sense. It wouldn't be the first record made this way (see Beatles White Album), but in this case the results are tainted by the process. Sounds very commitee-like, despite some good tracks. I never understood Don Was as a producer for the Stones. It seems like he was chosen more for his ability to be non-offensive to both Mick and Keith, rather than for being the most appropriate person musically, the same way Chuck got his gig.

That's ludicrous. The only story I've heard about Chuck's selection was that Stu said he was the man for the job.

peace

I stand by my post. Chuck is a people-pleaser. That's why he's there.

If he didn't please Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie musically do you honestly think he'd last as long as he has? Being a nice guy and easy to get along with is essential for longevity in a band, can't blame him for that. Besides, as you yourself have pointed out, he hasn't had near the quality of material to work with (on recordings) as Nicky and Billy Preston did.

Besides, the guitars were so loud in the mix the past tour you couldn't even hear him or Darryl, seems they were just up there to please the other guys in the monitor mixes, musically of course.

peace

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele
What bothers me most about the record is that it is so clearly Mick and Keith working on their own tracks, using the other band members (or sometimes non-band members) as sideman, and Don Was mediating between the Mick and Keith camps, rather than "producing" in the usual sense. It wouldn't be the first record made this way (see Beatles White Album), but in this case the results are tainted by the process. Sounds very commitee-like, despite some good tracks. I never understood Don Was as a producer for the Stones. It seems like he was chosen more for his ability to be non-offensive to both Mick and Keith, rather than for being the most appropriate person musically, the same way Chuck got his gig.

That's ludicrous. The only story I've heard about Chuck's selection was that Stu said he was the man for the job.

peace

I stand by my post. Chuck is a people-pleaser. That's why he's there.

Wouldn't you be if you wanted to continue to play a gig you enjoyed doing that paid well? Plus, the role of "people pleasing" isn't something Chuck created for himself but rather something obviously forced upon him. Chuck doesn't play for us the audience, he plays mainly for Mick. He's the one pumped into Mick's monitors, it's him who Mick follows. This is how Mick has chosen to perform...ragging on Chuck seems useless when he's obviously there to primarily support Mick.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Shantipole
I must be the only person that absolutely loves "Too Tight." Great up-tempo track.

you're not alone, i also find it great. especially "i wrote that f*cking book"

Yep that's a great line!

Quote
Justin

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele
What bothers me most about the record is that it is so clearly Mick and Keith working on their own tracks, using the other band members (or sometimes non-band members) as sideman, and Don Was mediating between the Mick and Keith camps, rather than "producing" in the usual sense. It wouldn't be the first record made this way (see Beatles White Album), but in this case the results are tainted by the process. Sounds very commitee-like, despite some good tracks. I never understood Don Was as a producer for the Stones. It seems like he was chosen more for his ability to be non-offensive to both Mick and Keith, rather than for being the most appropriate person musically, the same way Chuck got his gig.

That's ludicrous. The only story I've heard about Chuck's selection was that Stu said he was the man for the job.

peace

I stand by my post. Chuck is a people-pleaser. That's why he's there.

Wouldn't you be if you wanted to continue to play a gig you enjoyed doing that paid well? Plus, the role of "people pleasing" isn't something Chuck created for himself but rather something obviously forced upon him. Chuck doesn't play for us the audience, he plays mainly for Mick. He's the one pumped into Mick's monitors, it's him who Mick follows. This is how Mick has chosen to perform...ragging on Chuck seems useless when he's obviously there to primarily support Mick.

All right Chuck-lovers, don't get your panties in a bunch.

My point was that the Stones have hired people (like Don Was) in the post-Wyman Era based as much on their ability to get along with both the Mick and Keith camps as much as musicality or talent.

As Chuck's playing and role have been discussed here ad nauseum I don't really feel it's necessary to repeat it all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-30 21:55 by 71Tele.

Well if you're going to rehash the people pleasing argument again, discussions about Chuck's designed role in the band will be brought up since the two topics are linked (even though you may believe they are separate, unrelated issues).

My point was that the Stones have hired people (like Don Was) in the post-Wyman Era based as much on their ability to get along with both the Mick and Keith camps as much as musicality or talent

Just your opinion based on your dislike of both of their contributions or do you have information to support this assertion? It's a pretty disparaging comment so you should expect some different opinions.

peace

Quote
Naturalust
My point was that the Stones have hired people (like Don Was) in the post-Wyman Era based as much on their ability to get along with both the Mick and Keith camps as much as musicality or talent

Just your opinion based on your dislike of both of their contributions or do you have information to support this assertion? It's a pretty disparaging comment so you should expect some different opinions.

peace

Of course there are differences of opinion, but my view remains: After 1989 it became more important for the Stones to use people who could please (or not offend) both the Mick and Keith camp. It's one of the ways the operation of the band went from an artistic one to more of an organizational one, and I am not nearly the only person here to point that out.

If you really think Chuck is as good as Nicky Hopkins and Don Was is as good as Jimmy Miller, from a musical standpoint, you are entitled to your opinion. Oh, and it's great to express an opinion and be told "it's just my opinion". File that under "D", for "Duh", as if I was saying it was also your opinion, or it was proven in a labarotory under strict control conditions. It goes without saying as well that yours are "just your opinion". I thought we should be beyond having to clarify what is and isn't an opinion by this point.

So much defensiveness here.

Peas.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-31 02:02 by 71Tele.

Sorry, but except for a handful of songs, the Post-Wyman studio Stones don't move me.

<<My point was that the Stones have hired people (like Don Was) in the post-Wyman Era based as much on their ability to get along with both the Mick and Keith camps as much as musicality or talent>>

I suppose you could fit Ron Wood in that category as well, though that was still the pre-post-Wyman era.

By the way, why would they hire someone that they wouldn't get along with? And why would the person hired not want to get along with his employers?

I don't understand the criticism of a hired hand who gets along with his employers. It's not like hired musicians should fight with the core band members as if they were equal members themselves with half a century and more of personal history behind them.

<<Oh, and it's great to express an opinion and be told "it's just my opinion". File that under "D", for "Duh", as if I was saying it was also your opinion, or it was proven in a labarotory under strict control conditions. It goes without saying as well that yours are "just your opinion". I thought we should be beyond having to clarify what is and isn't an opinion by this point.

So much defensiveness here.

Peas.

So much offensiveness here.

war. famine. pestilence. endless reruns of Holiday On Ice on home video.

Quote
stonehearted
<<My point was that the Stones have hired people (like Don Was) in the post-Wyman Era based as much on their ability to get along with both the Mick and Keith camps as much as musicality or talent>>

I suppose you could fit Ron Wood in that category as well, though that was still the pre-post-Wyman era.

By the way, why would they hire someone that they wouldn't get along with? And why would the person hired not want to get along with his employers?

I don't understand the criticism of a hired hand who gets along with his employers. It's not like hired musicians should fight with the core band members as if they were equal members themselves with half a century and more of personal history behind them.

<<Oh, and it's great to express an opinion and be told "it's just my opinion". File that under "D", for "Duh", as if I was saying it was also your opinion, or it was proven in a labarotory under strict control conditions. It goes without saying as well that yours are "just your opinion". I thought we should be beyond having to clarify what is and isn't an opinion by this point.

So much defensiveness here.

Peas.

So much offensiveness here.

war. famine. pestilence. endless reruns of Holiday On Ice on home video.

You are arguing against points I didn't make. I never suggested anyone should fight with the core members of the band.

As for criticism, why don't you understand? Unless we feel that all players are equal to all others at all times (which some apparently want to believe), musical criticisms and comparisons are not only appropriate, but are part of what we do here.

I am pointing out decisions the band (Mick & Keith, but not always both) have made. Since 1989 the band has had to function in a certain way, which has meant certain compromises, musical and otherwise. Now, it may be that this is the only way the band can function now - fine. I am simply making observations, and not ones which are particularly far-fetched or unusual.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust
My point was that the Stones have hired people (like Don Was) in the post-Wyman Era based as much on their ability to get along with both the Mick and Keith camps as much as musicality or talent

Just your opinion based on your dislike of both of their contributions or do you have information to support this assertion? It's a pretty disparaging comment so you should expect some different opinions.

peace

Of course there are differences of opinion, but my view remains: After 1989 it became more important for the Stones to use people who could please (or not offend) both the Mick and Keith camp. It's one of the ways the operation of the band went from an artistic one to more of an organizational one, and I am not nearly the only person here to point that out.

If you really think Chuck is as good as Nicky Hopkins and Don Was is as good as Jimmy Miller, from a musical standpoint, you are entitled to your opinion. Oh, and it's great to express an opinion and be told "it's just my opinion". File that under "D", for "Duh", as if I was saying it was also your opinion, or it was proven in a labarotory under strict control conditions. It goes without saying as well that yours are "just your opinion". I thought we should be beyond having to clarify what is and isn't an opinion by this point.

So much defensiveness here.

Peas.

No, I actually liked both Nicky's and Jimmy Miller's work considerable better and didn't ever insinuate otherwise. My question about your disparaging statement about why the Stones hired Chuck was to simply determine if it was your opinion or you had heard an interview or had another source which discussed it. We actually do have people on this board who express knowledge that isn't strictly opinion based, and are kind enough to share the interview or other source of their information. It was a fair and benign intentioned question. In fact my opinion is based on interviews with the band where they specifically talked about Chuck's selection being heavily influenced by Ian Stewart's recommendation. I can dig that out for you if you want.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Naturalust
My point was that the Stones have hired people (like Don Was) in the post-Wyman Era based as much on their ability to get along with both the Mick and Keith camps as much as musicality or talent

Just your opinion based on your dislike of both of their contributions or do you have information to support this assertion? It's a pretty disparaging comment so you should expect some different opinions.

peace

Of course there are differences of opinion, but my view remains: After 1989 it became more important for the Stones to use people who could please (or not offend) both the Mick and Keith camp. It's one of the ways the operation of the band went from an artistic one to more of an organizational one, and I am not nearly the only person here to point that out.

If you really think Chuck is as good as Nicky Hopkins and Don Was is as good as Jimmy Miller, from a musical standpoint, you are entitled to your opinion. Oh, and it's great to express an opinion and be told "it's just my opinion". File that under "D", for "Duh", as if I was saying it was also your opinion, or it was proven in a labarotory under strict control conditions. It goes without saying as well that yours are "just your opinion". I thought we should be beyond having to clarify what is and isn't an opinion by this point.

So much defensiveness here.

Peas.

No, I actually liked both Nicky's and Jimmy Miller's work considerable better and didn't ever insinuate otherwise. My question about your disparaging statement about why the Stones hired Chuck was to simply determine if it was your opinion or you had heard an interview or had another source which discussed it. We actually do have people on this board who express knowledge that isn't strictly opinion based, and are kind enough to share the interview or other source of their information. It was a fair and benign intentioned question. In fact my opinion is based on interviews with the band where they specifically talked about Chuck's selection being heavily influenced by Ian Stewart's recommendation. I can dig that out for you if you want.

peace

Oh, forget it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-31 04:44 by 71Tele.

"He's an honorary forest ranger" funny.... I have to agree Chuck has not been memorable. He's been spectacular in every other aspect in his career. He's as talented as any one from their past but his inability to bring something inspired to The Stones' stage is a mystery.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Shantipole
I must be the only person that absolutely loves "Too Tight." Great up-tempo track.

you're not alone, i also find it great. especially "i wrote that f*cking book"

Yes, not sure what that comment came from, I haven't seen hate for Too Tight ... It's a great tune, and of course has that great line!

agree with alhavu,overproduced.like the production on a bigger bang much better.that being said,a very solid record,flip the switch alone makes the album worth it.thief in the night by keith,excellent.solid record all around.

Quote
DoomandGloom
"He's an honorary forest ranger" funny.... I have to agree Chuck has not been memorable. He's been spectacular in every other aspect in his career. He's as talented as any one from their past but his inability to bring something inspired to The Stones' stage is a mystery.

I get the feeling sidemen (and even Ronnie) are somehow prevented/discouraged from bringing inspired performances to the Stones shows. We all know Chuck and Darryl are superb musicians, so what's holding them back? Keith talked about the sidemen in the 70's (like Billy Preston) somehow dominating and changing what the Stones were about so maybe they are adamant about not letting that happen again.

I also get the feeling that without sidemen like Chuck and Darryl and sympathetic but arguably uninspiring musicians like Ronnie in the band that the Stones may have given up long ago. This is a good gig for all of them and they may have learned that letting Mick and Keith be the only real standouts in best for the longevity of their Stones careers.

Besides as Mick points out in the below vid: "Chuck is a great all around musician...Is quite talented as an arranger and helps [Mick] very much and rest of the band with arranging of the tunes... he is a great historian... he has an active book with all the arrangements, et al"

Basically he has many talents other than his ability to be non-offensive that qualify him to play with the Stones. So when you're dissing Chuck for not moving you like Nicky did you've got to remember his role is much more broad and complex than Nicky's ever was.





peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DoomandGloom
"He's an honorary forest ranger" funny.... I have to agree Chuck has not been memorable. He's been spectacular in every other aspect in his career. He's as talented as any one from their past but his inability to bring something inspired to The Stones' stage is a mystery.

I get the feeling sidemen (and even Ronnie) are somehow prevented/discouraged from bringing inspired performances to the Stones shows. We all know Chuck and Darryl are superb musicians, so what's holding them back? Keith talked about the sidemen in the 70's (like Billy Preston) somehow dominating and changing what the Stones were about so maybe they are adamant about not letting that happen again.

I also get the feeling that without sidemen like Chuck and Darryl and sympathetic but arguably uninspiring musicians like Ronnie in the band that the Stones may have given up long ago. This is a good gig for all of them and they may have learned that letting Mick and Keith be the only real standouts in best for the longevity of their Stones careers.

Besides as Mick points out in the below vid: "Chuck is a great all around musician...Is quite talented as an arranger and helps [Mick] very much and rest of the band with arranging of the tunes... he is a great historian... he has an active book with all the arrangements, et al"

Basically he has many talents other than his ability to be non-offensive that qualify him to play with the Stones. So when you're dissing Chuck for not moving you like Nicky did you've got to remember his role is much more broad and complex than Nicky's ever was.





peace

So much right about your post...and so much wrong.

Music moves me or doesn't. I don't care what kind of "role" someone has. It isn't a mitigating factor in terms of the music. And by the way, whether or not Ian Stewart anointed Chuck has no bearing on whether I like his playing either - it's completely irrelevant. Now, as to whether sidemen in the Stones are discouraged from playing as well as they could, perhaps, but that's a different point. So, whomever is to "blame" for Chuck not using a real piano and having (in my opinion) a very mid-rangey and unsoulful approach is of secondary importance. The fact is, to my ears, he does. That should be enough to decide whether someone's playing moves you or not, not these other non-musical factors. And it's not "bashing" to say you don't care for someone's playing, it's simply a statement of your taste and judgment, like me saying I never have preferred Ron Wood's treatment of All Down The Line as much as Mick Taylor's. If Mick Taylor had "anointed" Ron Wood as his successor it would not change what I hear one bit.

The Stones now are an entertainment monolith: A professional show, much in the Vegas tradition. Nothing wrong with that, but it is different than a band going out there night after night and taking chances. It's two totally different approaches. All I really have done is point out the obvious, and state which version I prefer. It doesn't mean I think any particular player is a bad musician necessarily, they're all professionals. But Elvis' Vegas act was very professional too, and I still prefer the perfromances in the 50s with Scotty Moore and Bill Black.

No worries, Tele, I'm not questioning your tastes or like or dislike of Stones music with or without any of the musicians. That is yours alone and unimpeachable.

As I said, I was just curious about your statement of why Chuck was hired and I personally think his musical abilities had everything to do with it. I may not like Chuck's playing with the band either, wish it were a lot more audible in the mix for one thing, wish he was more adventurous too but Chuck's effect on the overall musicality of the band goes beyond his role as piano player; and if you like the arrangements, the more varied set lists, Mick and Keith's comfort level and performances, I think Chuck can take some of the credit.

There are plenty of reasons to stand up for Chuck's playing, not many in the Stones mind you and that's perplexing and makes me think it must be more about other factors in the band not under his control.

Here is an example of what Chuck can contribute to live guitar based rock and roll and as I said in another post it makes me wish the Stones would just turn Darryl and Chuck up in the mix! Ok I know the (electric) piano is a bit tinkley but somehow it fits, imo and leaves plenty of sonic space for the guitars and vocals, and the playing is great.





peace

Quote
Naturalust
No worries, Tele, I'm not questioning your tastes or like or dislike of Stones music with or without any of the musicians. That is yours alone and unimpeachable.

As I said, I was just curious about your statement of why Chuck was hired and I personally think his musical abilities had everything to do with it. I may not like Chuck's playing with the band either, wish it were a lot more audible in the mix for one thing, wish he was more adventurous too but Chuck's effect on the overall musicality of the band goes beyond his role as piano player; and if you like the arrangements, the more varied set lists, Mick and Keith's comfort level and performances, I think Chuck can take some of the credit.

There are plenty of reasons to stand up for Chuck's playing, not many in the Stones mind you and that's perplexing and makes me think it must be more about other factors in the band not under his control.

Here is an example of what Chuck can contribute to live guitar based rock and roll and as I said in another post it makes me wish the Stones would just turn Darryl and Chuck up in the mix! Ok I know the (electric) piano is a bit tinkley but somehow it fits, imo and leaves plenty of sonic space for the guitars and vocals, and the playing is great.





peace

I agree he wouldn't have been hired if he were not a professional and able to do the job. But you have written yourself about his roles in the band. I merely believe that his other roles are more important to the band than the actual style and sound of his keyboard playing with the Stones, which I think is rather workmanlike and undistinguished. In a way, we are saying similar things. I am just not that interested in those other roles, nor do I need to be convinced of the quality of his playing with other artists, as that is not relevant to his playing with the Stones.

As I have said many times in these "Chuck" discussions, his fans rarely use examples of his playing with the Stones to dispute critiques of his playing with the Stones. This continues to be the case.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-31 10:48 by 71Tele.

Well he does a nice job on the piano solo on Honkey Tonk Women live... not bad.