For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
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
Quote
71TeleQuote
NaturalustQuote
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
71TeleQuote
NaturalustQuote
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
Nikkeiyou're not alone, i also find it great. especially "i wrote that f*cking book"Quote
Shantipole
I must be the only person that absolutely loves "Too Tight." Great up-tempo track.
Quote
JustinQuote
71TeleQuote
NaturalustQuote
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
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
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.
Quote
71TeleQuote
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.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
71TeleQuote
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
Nikkeiyou're not alone, i also find it great. especially "i wrote that f*cking book"Quote
Shantipole
I must be the only person that absolutely loves "Too Tight." Great up-tempo track.
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.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
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
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