For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
...the anticipation is not so thrilling as I can pretty much predict how the songs are going to sound. In the old days I'd be thinking, "Wow - I wonder what a live version of 'x' might sound like?"
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...
You mean Honky Tonk Rambler?
Quote
GasLightStreet
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...
Quote
HMSQuote
GasLightStreet
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...
Midnight Rambler is as dark and menacing as ever. Even more now without Taylor.
"happy shiny sunny day piano" - never noticed anything like that on MR during the last decades.
Quote
HMSQuote
GasLightStreet
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...
Midnight Rambler is as dark and menacing as ever. Even more now without Taylor.
"happy shiny sunny day piano" - never noticed anything like that on MR during the last decades.
Quote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You haven't??
I picked a random latter-day Rambler, and pressed «rec». These are the «dark and menacing» notes that I captured...
[www.youtube.com]
Quote
HMSQuote
DandelionPowderman
You haven't??
I picked a random latter-day Rambler, and pressed «rec». These are the «dark and menacing» notes that I captured...
[www.youtube.com]
Hardly audible, but... as usual I can hear nothing "wrong" with Chuck´s playing. I recommend listening to all 1990-2013-MR-versions officially released, we´ve got at least half a dozen and they´re all great, some even stunning, especially those on FourFlicks/BiggestBang.
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...
Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.
As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.
Quote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
You're asking for Back To Zero here...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...
Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.
As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.
Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
#1 DP , you replied so fast to that one (you do know your Stones) ok i just had a listen and it is funny to me that i was able to listen on You Tube which Eagle Rock here in the states always blocks everything but not Back To Zero which is a okay track by the Stones .Nice groove to it and i have heard many worse things than this but it seems more like a Jagger track and Chuck is barely audibile on this , i mean really mixed down low . So compare apples to oranges with Chuck versus Ian and no contest .Ditto with all the late greats Ian Stewart,Ian Mclagen ,Nicky Hopkins, Billy Preston (remember him the 5TH BEATLE ) No comparison !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
You're asking for Back To Zero here...
Quote
Chacho
All I can say is that I am very glad that the times that I have seen The Rolling Stones live in my lifetime, either Ian Stewart or Nicky Hopkins were playing piano.
Quote
TheGreek#1 DP , you replied so fast to that one (you do know your Stones) ok i just had a listen and it is funny to me that i was able to listen on You Tube which Eagle Rock here in the states always blocks everything but not Back To Zero which is a okay track by the Stones .Nice groove to it and i have heard many worse things than this but it seems more like a Jagger track and Chuck is barely audibile on this , i mean really mixed down low . So compare apples to oranges with Chuck versus Ian and no contest .Ditto with all the late greats Ian Stewart,Ian Mclagen ,Nicky Hopkins, Billy Preston (remember him the 5TH BEATLE ) No comparison !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheGreek
Ok HMS here is a real question ready .Name the album and song where Chuck Leavell made his mark on a OFFICAL STUDIO album that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
You're asking for Back To Zero here...
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
And while we're discussing the Chuck L. modern era, does anyone but me miss the days when Keith and Ron would provide caterwauling, howling backing vocals? Yep - technically inferior to Bernard and Lisa, but so much more soulful and fun!
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
And while we're discussing the Chuck L. modern era, does anyone but me miss the days when Keith and Ron would provide caterwauling, howling backing vocals? Yep - technically inferior to Bernard and Lisa, but so much more soulful and fun!
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...
Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.
As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.
Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
However, prettyness does not necessarily exclude menace ?
Besides, I seem to remember from one of your discussions formerly with Doxa, that there was something presented out of Mick Taylor's guitar playing live that you found too brutal for your liking in one way or other. Or has my memory failed me?
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
It's really more about the plink-plink and happy shiny sunny day piano in songs like, oh, Midnight Rambler...
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TravelinManQuote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
RockingLonestar
"The sum total of his collaborations in more than 50 years as an active musician includes names such as David Gilmour, Sea Level, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, John Mayer, The Black Crowes, Gov’t Mule, Miranda Lambert and Widespread Panic."
It´s so ridiculous that there are IORR members who critisize his playing.
The only excuse is that they are
1. deaf
2. ignorant
3. non musicians
There are plenty of us who are musicians, and neither deaf nor ignorant. The Chuck vs. Stu debate is very similar to the Taylor vs. Wood debate. Granted it's all a privilege of personal taste and everybody's entitled to their opinions. I play piano and guitar so I respect the technical expertise of Mick Taylor and Chuck Leavell. But as a lover of rock and roll, I'd rather listen to Ron Wood's rough and ready licks and Ian Stewart's nerve jangling boogie. Technical excellence doesn't thrill me the way raw rock and roll energy does. I will say, though that Mick Taylor added something beautiful to the Stones, whereas in my opinion Chuck adds nothing in the way Stu did. Chuck just fills in musical spaces with "correct" but uninspired plonking. Very talented but lacking in soul. I prefer musicians with soul even if they're technically less proficient than the professionals. I know...I've said all this to death so I'll shut up now........And yeah..Chuck's licks on something like Midnight Rambler are entirely too "happy" sounding for the mood of the piece.
This is probably the most touchy subject around here because people get really defensive but...
Besides just plain enjoying/admiring his playing much more, I've always preferred Mick Taylor's tone to Ron Wood's. Taylor can play some pretty menacing riffs (the verses to Gimme Shelter, parts of Rambler), he's not all pretty phrases and melodies.
As far as the piano players, Hopkins and Stu both played acoustic pianos and that is far superior to any electric piano, ever. So once again, a matter of tone for me.
Those parts were pretty, too. Nothing wrong with that, of course.