Chuck gets alot of flack on these boards but he does have an important role in the Stones as more than just the piano player. Found an interesting article here..
[www.jambase.com]

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Thanks for posting

it's a sad state of affairs...


But i did get a laugh when he said "the band has never sounded better"...yes they have Chuck,yes they have.

Quote
lem motlow
it's a sad state of affairs...


But i did get a laugh when he said "the band has never sounded better"...yes they have Chuck,yes they have.

I do have some respect for Chuck for apparently bringing a sense of organization to the band (with arrangements, etc.), but I can't put my finger on what it is about his piano playing that just does not appeal to me. To my ears, he's not even a close match with Ian Stewart. Maybe it's that he's TOO good. Too professional; he makes the Stones lose the edginess they had in the Ian Stewart era.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
lem motlow
But i did get a laugh when he said "the band has never sounded better"...yes they have Chuck,yes they have.

Just what I thought... I won't listen to any bootleg recorded after the ABB-tour, it just makes me sad.

Chuck brought organization to the chaos. He is the "musical director" of the Rolling Stones whether the stalwart fans here wish to admit it or not. He and Mick pick the setlists and arrangements and sweat over the detailia. He's the conduit between Mick and the band so they don't have to deal with each other. You need only read Ronnie's description of Chuck's position as detailed in "According to The Rolling Stones." I think it's somewhere around page 238.

Were it not for Chuck Leavell the Stones would not have been able to function as a world class, stadium attraction appealing to the broadest common denominator of paying customers for, lo, these past three decades. Chuck ain't leaving and Mick Taylor ain't coming back.

I'm sorry purists but it's like that and that's the way it is.

Thanks for posting.
Love this passage.
Chuck is a sweet & talented guy.

"Back in 1981 I did an audition with The Stones. Ian Stewart was my contact and the person who picked me up at the airport. We hit it off right away. They had heard about me and contacted me to come up to Longview Farm in Massachusetts to try out. It went well, but I didn’t get the gig right away. They took Ian McLagan out as he had been touring with them before. Then they came to Atlanta on that tour and played an unannounced show at the Fox Theater. Ian Stewart, who I had become good friends with, called me and asked if I’d like to come up and jam with them on a couple of tunes.

The moment came and he signaled me to get on stage, and he left me on piano with Mac playing organ. We did a couple of Chuck Berry songs and it was all really rockin’. Mac was so cool, and about halfway through it all he leaned over to me and said, ”Ah, you’ve done this before, haven’t ya?” It was such a sweet thing to say and we became great friends after that. We all still miss both Ians: Stu and Mac. Both left some heavy footprints with The Stones and others. It was an honor to know and to play with them."

Quote
rbk
Chuck brought organization to the chaos. He is the "musical director" of the Rolling Stones whether the stalwart fans here wish to admit it or not. He and Mick pick the setlists and arrangements and sweat over the detailia. He's the conduit between Mick and the band so they don't have to deal with each other. You need only read Ronnie's description of Chuck's position as detailed in "According to The Rolling Stones." I think it's somewhere around page 238.

Were it not for Chuck Leavell the Stones would not have been able to function as a world class, stadium attraction appealing to the broadest common denominator of paying customers for, lo, these past three decades. Chuck ain't leaving and Mick Taylor ain't coming back.

I'm sorry purists but it's like that and that's the way it is.

Aaahhh....True words you speak...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
rbk
Chuck brought organization to the chaos. He is the "musical director" of the Rolling Stones whether the stalwart fans here wish to admit it or not. He and Mick pick the setlists and arrangements and sweat over the detailia. He's the conduit between Mick and the band so they don't have to deal with each other. You need only read Ronnie's description of Chuck's position as detailed in "According to The Rolling Stones." I think it's somewhere around page 238.

Were it not for Chuck Leavell the Stones would not have been able to function as a world class, stadium attraction appealing to the broadest common denominator of paying customers for, lo, these past three decades. Chuck ain't leaving and Mick Taylor ain't coming back.

I'm sorry purists but it's like that and that's the way it is.

And he sterilized them in the process.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

-



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-10-07 13:07 by jambay.

He calls a bandmate an 'associate'

They were gonna have to get a "musical director" eventually anyway.
I can't see Mick or Keith (especially Keith) making a set list the way Springsteen does, or McCartney does. They should have learned from that, but they never did and the set lists have suffered.

I agree with an above post about his keyboard playing. There's something about it that just doesn't... do anything for me, although he's a talented musician, no question there.

I thought they should have had Chuck and Mac on tour in the '90s and beyond.
They always had two keyboard players most of the time anyway. Better that than hauling around a brass section for four or five songs.

Chuck and Darryl simply don't sound like the Rolling Stones. Well, they do now, because they've been with the band so long, but they don't fit. It's too bad, but I've long gotten over how the Stones sound in this day and age. The modern day Stones don't exist for me. They exist for another kind of fan. They used to change piano players and it always worked in some new way and pushed forward the artistic legacy of the band. There is no artistic legacy to the Post-Wyman years. There is a ticket selling legacy. There is no denying they're still a tremendous live draw, but the art is dead.

Quote
24FPS
Chuck and Darryl simply don't sound like the Rolling Stones. Well, they do now, because they've been with the band so long, but they don't fit. It's too bad, but I've long gotten over how the Stones sound in this day and age. The modern day Stones don't exist for me. They exist for another kind of fan. They used to change piano players and it always worked in some new way and pushed forward the artistic legacy of the band. There is no artistic legacy to the Post-Wyman years. There is a ticket selling legacy. There is no denying they're still a tremendous live draw, but the art is dead.

But didn't it work better, when his role was different? I thought the stuff Chuck did in 1982 was pretty good. Then again, Stu was still there with him...

too many notes, man...

Quote
crholmstrom
too many notes, man...

Nicky and Billy also played many notes, but (especially Nicky) had a way of cutting through with the really important ones and stay more in the background with the others, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
crholmstrom
too many notes, man...

Nicky and Billy also played many notes, but (especially Nicky) had a way of cutting through with the really important ones and stay more in the background with the others, imo.

A very perceptive assessment I think

Has to be said though that Chuck's increasing contribution to the arrangements over the "modern era", along with the horns, has often been in large part to allow those two clown princes with the guitars to play [or not play] whatever they like, when they like



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-09 13:28 by Spud.

Quote
24FPS
Chuck and Darryl simply don't sound like the Rolling Stones. Well, they do now, because they've been with the band so long, but they don't fit. It's too bad, but I've long gotten over how the Stones sound in this day and age. The modern day Stones don't exist for me. They exist for another kind of fan. They used to change piano players and it always worked in some new way and pushed forward the artistic legacy of the band. There is no artistic legacy to the Post-Wyman years. There is a ticket selling legacy. There is no denying they're still a tremendous live draw, but the art is dead.

Yep, they're still exciting to see live but for different reasons than when they were in their prime. The art died after the 1981-82 tours; the days when they were allowed to jam and improvise onstage. From 1989 on, they knew that in order to appeal to that broad common denominator, they would have to recreate the studio versions more closely, which killed that sense of spontaneity all but for good.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

I can only say I agree with all the other comments written above. Reading this interview only sadly confirms everything I think the Stones have become post early 80's. (Post "WW-III", I guess). It's actually sad also to see how Chuck Leavell doesn't even realise how sad it is what he says. Imagine telling Keith (or Mick) in the 70s that he would take directions from the piano-player...
In all real definitions of what it means to be a band, the Stones are not a band anymore. I still like some of the songs they occasionally bring out, and I have enjoyed some of the live concerts I have been to, but I can't take them seriously as an artistic, creative, musical unit anymore.

This has all been covered to death here and there is nothing going to change either Chuck or Darry's status as memebers of the Stones .The thing to remember is they are told what to play and how to play it by the boss (Mick ) and nothing is going to change that .My days about bitching about this are long over because it is a foregone conclusion that it is not going to change .As far as the setlist issue goes from what i know is that Chuck suggests songs to add to the setlist and anybody and everybody and there brother and sister knows that Mick is going to SING what HE wants to sing and play what he feels are the Stones strengths and bottom line is what ever he thinks PRESENTS the Stones in the BEST way possibile to present the material i.e. to the audience in the highest quality that meets his(mick) standards .Now having said that do i get off on going to see and hear the Stones live today and everyday that i have the luxury of being able to attend as many concerts as i can possibly go to? You bet your last dollar i do because nothing gets me off in a orgasmic bliss for 2 heart thumping chest pumping hours and everything else while i am breathing and living on this earth !

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
24FPS
Chuck and Darryl simply don't sound like the Rolling Stones. Well, they do now, because they've been with the band so long, but they don't fit. It's too bad, but I've long gotten over how the Stones sound in this day and age. The modern day Stones don't exist for me. They exist for another kind of fan. They used to change piano players and it always worked in some new way and pushed forward the artistic legacy of the band. There is no artistic legacy to the Post-Wyman years. There is a ticket selling legacy. There is no denying they're still a tremendous live draw, but the art is dead.

Yep, they're still exciting to see live but for different reasons than when they were in their prime. The art died after the 1981-82 tours; the days when they were allowed to jam and improvise onstage. From 1989 on, they knew that in order to appeal to that broad common denominator, they would have to recreate the studio versions more closely, which killed that sense of spontaneity all but for good.

All very true...but we still get more than a few inspired moments and train wrecks to remind us what the Rolling Stones are all about

The Rolling Stones no band anymore? The art is dead?
They gonna release TWO albums.
Their live concerts are still great.
There were times when their playing was much worse than now.
Mick sings great, Charlie is still thundering, Ronnie & Keith still do what they´ve always done but better than a decade ago. They aren´t dead yet.

Chuck ---> better musician than both Ians.
Daryl ---> technically way better than Wyman.
Karl Denson ---> what a sound, far better than Keys.

They are a great band with great backing musicians and they are still the Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-09 15:27 by HMS.

Hello,

What i think is that the best rock and roll was and is made by rhythm guitars and no so trained people, so when you insert "best musicians" in a rock band something is missing.

Bye
Fernando

Quote
HMS
The Rolling Stones no band anymore? The art is dead?
They gonna release TWO albums.
Their live concerts are still great.
There were times when their playing was much worse than now.
Mick sings great, Charlie is still thundering, Ronnie & Keith still do what they´ve always done but better than a decade ago. They aren´t dead yet.

Chuck ---> better musician than both Ians.
Daryl ---> technically way better than Wyman.
Karl Denson ---> what a sound, far better than Keys.

They are a great band with great backing musicians and they are still the Stones.

Karl is very good, but even you don't really think he has a better sound than Bobby. You must be refering to something else, surely..

Quote
HMS
The Rolling Stones no band anymore? The art is dead?
They gonna release TWO albums.
Their live concerts are still great.
There were times when their playing was much worse than now.
Mick sings great, Charlie is still thundering, Ronnie & Keith still do what they´ve always done but better than a decade ago. They aren´t dead yet.

Chuck ---> better musician than both Ians.
Daryl ---> technically way better than Wyman.
Karl Denson ---> what a sound, far better than Keys.

They are a great band with great backing musicians and they are still the Stones.

If that's your opinion, you must love those "just-for-the-occasion" bands, made up of Phil Collins, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Bono Vox, etc. etc. etc. playing each other songs on one of those boring gala events.
Me, I prefer seeing footage of - for example - Dead Boys in New York's CBGB.
The difference between those two entirely different interpretations of what rock n roll should sound like (especially live) is similar to the difference between pre-80's Stones and what came after.

Let the Stones play a 300-seats-club and you´ll see that they are still the world´s greatest R n R-band.

Karl Denson has a great sound, a very big, masculine rough tone and he´s a better player than Bobby Keys ever was. Even better than Ernie Watts who was noodling too much. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them. Now sadly he has to be replaced and they replaced him with a giant.

Keith doesn't complain -- he seems to say generally nice things about Chuck and D.Jones -- so I can't say anything bad, either.
He has rather gracefully given up his role at musical director. Maybe it was something Mick insisted upon. Maybe it's easier for him given his age and health issues. Probably he just enjoys his role these days. Chuck might keep everything organized and on time, but .... 'just as long as the guitar plays...'

Quote
HMS
Let the Stones play a 300-seats-club and you´ll see that they are still the world´s greatest R n R-band.

Karl Denson has a great sound, a very big, masculine rough tone and he´s a better player than Bobby Keys ever was. Even better than Ernie Watts who was noodling too much. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them. Now sadly he has to be replaced and they replaced him with a giant.

you do realise that when you slam Bobby Keys that he invented the solo on Brown Sugar and so many other (such as the sax solo before Mick Taylors solo on cant you hear me knocking) ICONIC solos on Stones albums from the GOLDEN era ? What recorded contribution did Karl Denson make ? (by the way he blows some tasty horn no if ands or buts)

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
HMS
Let the Stones play a 300-seats-club and you´ll see that they are still the world´s greatest R n R-band.

Karl Denson has a great sound, a very big, masculine rough tone and he´s a better player than Bobby Keys ever was. Even better than Ernie Watts who was noodling too much. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them. Now sadly he has to be replaced and they replaced him with a giant.

you do realise that when you slam Bobby Keys that he invented the solo on Brown Sugar and so many other (such as the sax solo before Mick Taylors solo on cant you hear me knocking) ICONIC solos on Stones albums from the GOLDEN era ? What recorded contribution did Karl Denson make ? (by the way he blows some tasty horn no if ands or buts)

Add Live With Me, Sweet Virginia, Casino Boogie, Rip This Joint and other iconic solos

Quote
HMS
Let the Stones play a 300-seats-club and you´ll see that they are still the world´s greatest R n R-band.

Karl Denson has a great sound, a very big, masculine rough tone and he´s a better player than Bobby Keys ever was. Even better than Ernie Watts who was noodling too much. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them. Now sadly he has to be replaced and they replaced him with a giant.

Totally agree