Last week I received my long waited Shattered! magazine (Shattered! is the Dutch Rolling Stones Fan Club). I read an interview with him and he says he always try to convice Mick to play rare songs. He wants to keep setlist interesting for the band and the audience. If he was the captain he didn't play song like JJF,BS,SMU in the clubs. Mick is always the one who wants to play on safe.

Never thought he is a fan of playing rare songs like the most of us

he also said something like that in a video on rs.com. But what I want to know is whe he dislikes the mix on Four Flicks.

no news there.. it's been long known that Chuck is the driver behind rarities...

Chuck probably wants to do more rarities just so he can add his god-awful plinky-plink sound to them, ruining them as well.



-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

AH, give the guy a BREAK! He's quite a good steady musician and I do wish Mick would listen to him and give those of us at arena and Stadium shows the set list we DESERVE! I'll tell you one thing, if I go to Boston and Hartford and I do not find the set lists enthralling, I may cut my tour plans VERY SHORT!

His work with the Stones doesn't compare to what he did with the Allman Brothers, but I think he's probably one of the best pianists that fits the bill.

I think we'd all think better of Chuck if he didnt overplay his part. Maybe I should send him a book on Johnnie Johnson or Ian Stewart. Excellent players who know when NOT to play. Chuck hits alot of notes when he plays. Nothing ringsout. Busy piano players destract from the guitars and everything else.

"Chuck isn't that bad at all" - But of course he is.

Chuck is awful. He drowns out the guitars and as bluespayer says plinkity plinks his sound into every song and sucks the life out of them. If he really is trying to get more obscure oldies played then yeah Chuck! otherwise, put a leash on this fool and let the guitars play!

I believe this is a struggle between A) Mid-register freaks and The others
and - simultaneously - a fight between 1) The 70´s-people (bron or raised or havin their musical taste and sense formed by that decade and 2) The others.

I tend to lean towards A) and 1); but as I´m getting terribly old (41)
I can see farther than before. Havin (re-)started likin Little Feat I can hear Chuckies influences and musical craddle.

I wont bash him anymore; but I hope for some more barbed wire-like sessions at a B-stage and some smaller club/theatre gigs, for my own sake in Europe. In Trondheim?

I also hate his busy plinkity-plink, but am always wondering... Isn't he actually filling in for "things" in the mix that do fall off? Like Ronnie goofing instead of playing good... Or, for all that the DVD mix, or my DVD player perhaps, allows me to judge, from even >Keith's< own playing (occasionally let's say)... What would a "poor" piano player-live musical director be expected to do then, certainly not "laying out" tastefully I imagine. Just a thought. I am still not sure what to think of his collaboration in this context.

If by not "that bad at all" you mean he sucks,then yeah I agree with you.He needs to be demoted & replaced or fired or learn how to play a real piano or something.He is the biggest problem with the live sound today - without him I think we would hear more loud guitars because the two of them would be forced to step it up which I believe they are still, for the most part, capable of.They have to decide which songs really require a keyboard player at all : Out of Tears - probably ~ Midnight Rambler - definitely not.

rbarnes00 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His work with the Stones doesn't compare to what
> he did with the Allman Brothers, but I think he's
> probably one of the best pianists that fits the
> bill.

...and the worst pianists of the stones.

Sure, maybe the worst pianist that the Stones have had, but as previously said, Ian Stewart isn't available. I can't think of anyone else that could play with the Stones, probably some "unknown" musician that they would find through tryouts. I had never heard of Darryl Jones before, but he works out great. But for now, I don't see the Stones replacing Chuck.

Chuck is the safety net for when Keith just decides to stop playing in mid-song to lean on his mike or do a smiley leg-kick pose or whatever he does these days. Same thing goes for Ronnie, to a large extent (rely on Chuck, that is). Chuck ensures that the songs keep on going and don't fall apart in mid-stream. Hey, I love the old band too, but Keith and Ronnie just can't hack it alone anymore I'm afraid. They can do it for a three-song PC set but not a whole concert.

Hey,if they can do it for 3 songs they should be able to do it for 23.

McLagan would be the logical choice to take over for Chuck.

Oh God how I wish that would happen.

-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey,if they can do it for 3 songs they should be
> able to do it for 23.


shoulda, woulda, coulda...laziness I guess

Mick and Charlie are the only ones who still deliver the goods each and every night, but there again don't fool yourselves into thinking the back-up singers are there for any other purpose than to camouflage Mick's ever-decreasing vocal range

I don't see how he is any worse now than he was in some of the '75-'76 shows.The backup singers I don't believe are involved in the first couple of songs or at the b stage.I believe the main reasons they are there are to make songs sound more like they do on the albums - sometimes a good idea, sometimes not,so Jagger doesn't have to risk singing certain parts of songs like "I can't get no" to preserve his voice for these long tours, & to try to enhance the overall sound like the backround singers on Exile and Let it Bleed did.I give them credit for doing most of what's necessary to deliver a quality product.If it means bringing in a couple of extra people,then they do it.

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I give them credit for doing most of what's
> necessary to deliver a quality product.If it means
> bringing in a couple of extra people,then they do
> it.


Exactly. That's why Chuck is there. So what if he doesn't play in a "Boogie-Woogie" style like Stewart or McLagen. You think he can't? He's the musical director on stage. Keith has simply given up and given Chuck that responsibility.

stonesfool Wrote:
--- Keith has simply given
> up and given Chuck that responsibility.


This is a meaningless sentence.
How do you prove that statement?
Wait till the 21st of August and see.
Dont judge the boys based on scenarios ten years ago.

One thing is for sure: The Stones like Chuck. He plays with them for more than 20 years.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a meaningless sentence.
> How do you prove that statement?
>

Pay close attention to what's happening on stage. Chuck counts down all the songs. They all look to him for guidance as to when to wrap up a song, etc. etc. Keith used to do all this years ago.