For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
Quote
wonderboyQuote
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!
You can have professionalism and order (Chuck's contribution) AND still get Keith's backup vocals.
Keith is (or used to be, at least) a wonderful harmony singer (just look at Exile, for example); however, the reason we have Bernard and Lisa is that Keith and Ronnie can't commit to getting up to the damn microphone and singing into it.
Quote
HMSQuote
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
If he´d never left his mark, he isn´t to blame. After all he´s an employee. In the 60s and 70s the piano was more important in Stones-music than in the 80/90/00s.
But I can honestly say that I like his playing on Fancy Man Blues.
Quote
HMSQuote
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
If he´d never left his mark, he isn´t to blame. After all he´s an employee. In the 60s and 70s the piano was more important in Stones-music than in the 80/90/00s.
But I can honestly say that I like his playing on Fancy Man Blues.
Quote
24FPSQuote
HMSQuote
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
If he´d never left his mark, he isn´t to blame. After all he´s an employee. In the 60s and 70s the piano was more important in Stones-music than in the 80/90/00s.
But I can honestly say that I like his playing on Fancy Man Blues.
Yes, if I could say one song Chuck's stands out on is Fancy Man Blues. And he's also got some tasty licks on the Some Girls bonus cut So Young. If there's a call for a light hearted plink plink plinkety boogie woogie part, he can cut it. He just doesn't seem to know when it's inappropriate like Midnight Rambler.
Darryl was good out of the box, too. I was actually encouraged by Love Is Strong and You Got Me Rocking. Then, for some unknown mystery, he stopped playing like that, like he was in the Rolling Stones, and now he's for the most part a non-entity, not livening up the old songs, or imprinting anything memorable on the new. Doom and Gloom is a great example of that.
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
Quote
souldoggieQuote
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
I remember two particular instances in the past on one of these many tiresome "Chuck's no good, he sucks" threads that made me scratch my head and laugh.
One time a regular contributor said the Stones shouldn't have a keyboard at all. ANY keyboard, organ, piano....period. (I'm not kidding, some moron actually said that)
Another time a bunch of the clueless were talking about how much Chick sucked with his "plinking" throughout the Some Girls Deluxe version of "So Young"....but it was actually Ian Stewart....Ooops...although Chuck does do a killer overdub piano solo on it.
Funny, when it was pointed out that it was Stu on the basic track everybody shut up. Hahahaha
I like Chuck's piano on Out of Tears.
I like his piano on Mean Disposition, too, in all of it's ragged glory, especially during the coda.
There's a bunch more, I just can't think of them right now. Then again, I like hearing piano and/or organ (preferably both) in both my rock and my roll.
Very true , i wish Chuck would play more Hammond B3 live on stage .A great example live is Saint of Me from B2B (on the studio release it is to my own pleasure and quite the surprise that it is the late great Billy Preston that was a virtuoso of the Hammond B3 .Wish i was there when Billy toured with the Stones .Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
souldoggieQuote
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
I remember two particular instances in the past on one of these many tiresome "Chuck's no good, he sucks" threads that made me scratch my head and laugh.
One time a regular contributor said the Stones shouldn't have a keyboard at all. ANY keyboard, organ, piano....period. (I'm not kidding, some moron actually said that)
Another time a bunch of the clueless were talking about how much Chick sucked with his "plinking" throughout the Some Girls Deluxe version of "So Young"....but it was actually Ian Stewart....Ooops...although Chuck does do a killer overdub piano solo on it.
Funny, when it was pointed out that it was Stu on the basic track everybody shut up. Hahahaha
I like Chuck's piano on Out of Tears.
I like his piano on Mean Disposition, too, in all of it's ragged glory, especially during the coda.
There's a bunch more, I just can't think of them right now. Then again, I like hearing piano and/or organ (preferably both) in both my rock and my roll.
Chuck's piano on So Young is not a real piano. Stu's was.
The thing is that no one doubts Chuck's abilities, he's an excellent pianist. However, to stick to the topic here, he has taken on the role of several piano and keyboard players, and plays on every song. And no matter which type of song, he's mainly sticking to his honky tonk-style. And he plays a lot.
I think the best stuff Chuck has done on stage with the Stones is his hammond or Fender Rhodes playing. That is more subtle, and he is getting more of those «tiaras» across than on the piano, where he is plinking away, with very little dynamics.
Just my two cents.
Quote
TheGreek
In Chuck's defense , he is told what to play (i.e. plink plonk) how to play it and when to play it and just like some here have said he was louder in the live mix on for instance the ABB tour when he was "covering for the guitars" he is following ORDERS from the BOSS Mick Jagger .Also i want to point out that it is Mick Jagger that runs the show .So really we should hold him responsible as to the live PRESENTATION of our favorite band , because no one tells him how HIS band should play or sound .Chuck does get beat up unfairly a lot for this myself included over the years with my comments but we do have to keep it real in the field and he is a damn great keyboard player in his own right and why else would have the late great Ian STU Stewart have choosen him for the JOB in the first place .I have seen Chuck many times before the Stones with Sea Level and with Eric Clapton and have enjoyed his playing a lot i will tell you .
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread both pro and con. But after all is said and done, perhaps those of us on the con side shouldn't be so hard on Chuck. As has been pointed out, Chuck is merely dong the bidding of Mick Jagger who, back in 1989 chose to sacrifice much of the Stones soul for ticket-selling professionalism. Understandable. Money talks, but as much as I love the Stones and hope to see them again, I'm somewhat disappointed with the slick approach they've taken since 1989.
Quote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread both pro and con. But after all is said and done, perhaps those of us on the con side shouldn't be so hard on Chuck. As has been pointed out, Chuck is merely dong the bidding of Mick Jagger who, back in 1989 chose to sacrifice much of the Stones soul for ticket-selling professionalism. Understandable. Money talks, but as much as I love the Stones and hope to see them again, I'm somewhat disappointed with the slick approach they've taken since 1989.
Before this becomes another thread, bashing Mick Jagger for his alleged GREED, present a sketch of the real alternatives for the Rolling Stones round 1989, apart from disbanding!
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread both pro and con. But after all is said and done, perhaps those of us on the con side shouldn't be so hard on Chuck. As has been pointed out, Chuck is merely dong the bidding of Mick Jagger who, back in 1989 chose to sacrifice much of the Stones soul for ticket-selling professionalism. Understandable. Money talks, but as much as I love the Stones and hope to see them again, I'm somewhat disappointed with the slick approach they've taken since 1989.
Before this becomes another thread, bashing Mick Jagger for his alleged GREED, present a sketch of the real alternatives for the Rolling Stones round 1989, apart from disbanding!
An alternative? To play a bit smaller venues than stadiums, where they could have better control over the sound – with less sidemen..
Quote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread both pro and con. But after all is said and done, perhaps those of us on the con side shouldn't be so hard on Chuck. As has been pointed out, Chuck is merely dong the bidding of Mick Jagger who, back in 1989 chose to sacrifice much of the Stones soul for ticket-selling professionalism. Understandable. Money talks, but as much as I love the Stones and hope to see them again, I'm somewhat disappointed with the slick approach they've taken since 1989.
Before this becomes another thread, bashing Mick Jagger for his alleged GREED, present a sketch of the real alternatives for the Rolling Stones round 1989, apart from disbanding!
Quote
matxilQuote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread both pro and con. But after all is said and done, perhaps those of us on the con side shouldn't be so hard on Chuck. As has been pointed out, Chuck is merely dong the bidding of Mick Jagger who, back in 1989 chose to sacrifice much of the Stones soul for ticket-selling professionalism. Understandable. Money talks, but as much as I love the Stones and hope to see them again, I'm somewhat disappointed with the slick approach they've taken since 1989.
Before this becomes another thread, bashing Mick Jagger for his alleged GREED, present a sketch of the real alternatives for the Rolling Stones round 1989, apart from disbanding!
Two alternatives:
1) They would continue to be a band, often sloppy, sometimes not, trying out new things, jamming on stage, with ups and downs, playing on smaller stages, making less money, smaller audiences, but with more respect from die-hard fans and serious music-critics. In the 80's, Keith would sometimes talk about "taking the Stones to a more mature level", which - I have understood him well - did not mean "more polished", but rather taking more risks, but without losing the heart, the soul and the essential roughness that always used to define the Stones.
2) Mick Jagger would have his solo-career and Keith Richards would have his solo-career. At least Keith - I think - would have come up with interesting albums, never popular with huge crowds, but certainly expanding the scope of blues, soul, rock music. Whether Mick might have come up with something interesting is open for debate.
For alternative 1), Mick and Keith would have needed to be on the same wavelength, so 2) would have been more likely.
Quote
WitnessQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread both pro and con. But after all is said and done, perhaps those of us on the con side shouldn't be so hard on Chuck. As has been pointed out, Chuck is merely dong the bidding of Mick Jagger who, back in 1989 chose to sacrifice much of the Stones soul for ticket-selling professionalism. Understandable. Money talks, but as much as I love the Stones and hope to see them again, I'm somewhat disappointed with the slick approach they've taken since 1989.
Before this becomes another thread, bashing Mick Jagger for his alleged GREED, present a sketch of the real alternatives for the Rolling Stones round 1989, apart from disbanding!
Quote
Witness
Well, there was a novelty factor by the live recreation of studio originals at first. There was some excitement about that.
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
Witness
Well, there was a novelty factor by the live recreation of studio originals at first. There was some excitement about that.
Right...But when it became clear that they were bent on repeating that formula for all eternity.....
He is for sure keeping time for Mick , the guitars are there loud in the mix when it comes time for a signature solo for instance when Keith plays my all time favorite lick (solo)for Honky Tonk ,or when Ronnie plays CYHMK ,or Heartbreaker .I also have noticed when it is rhythm the guitars in the mix drop off to barely audibile. One of the reasons i think maybe Chuck keeps time for Mick is because either Keith or Ronnie are having fun on a solo they can keep Charlie in there groove when Mick is like the bridge is finished ,time to move on .Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheGreek
In Chuck's defense , he is told what to play (i.e. plink plonk) how to play it and when to play it and just like some here have said he was louder in the live mix on for instance the ABB tour when he was "covering for the guitars" he is following ORDERS from the BOSS Mick Jagger .Also i want to point out that it is Mick Jagger that runs the show .So really we should hold him responsible as to the live PRESENTATION of our favorite band , because no one tells him how HIS band should play or sound .Chuck does get beat up unfairly a lot for this myself included over the years with my comments but we do have to keep it real in the field and he is a damn great keyboard player in his own right and why else would have the late great Ian STU Stewart have choosen him for the JOB in the first place .I have seen Chuck many times before the Stones with Sea Level and with Eric Clapton and have enjoyed his playing a lot i will tell you .
I think it's more like the band likes what he plays, more than that he's told to play the stuff he plays.
And we know from bootlegs that Mick in-ear mix is relying heavily on Chuck, and that the guitars are almost absent in the mix. So, he's in way keeping the rhythm for Mick, with Charlie and Darryl.
Quote
Witness
Well, there was a novelty factor by the live recreation of studio originals at first. There was some excitement about that.
Quote
matxil
Two alternatives:
1) They would continue to be a band, often sloppy, sometimes not, trying out new things, jamming on stage, with ups and downs, playing on smaller stages, making less money, smaller audiences, but with more respect from die-hard fans and serious music-critics. In the 80's, Keith would sometimes talk about "taking the Stones to a more mature level", which - I have understood him well - did not mean "more polished", but rather taking more risks, but without losing the heart, the soul and the essential roughness that always used to define the Stones.
2) Mick Jagger would have his solo-career and Keith Richards would have his solo-career. At least Keith - I think - would have come up with interesting albums, never popular with huge crowds, but certainly expanding the scope of blues, soul, rock music. Whether Mick might have come up with something interesting is open for debate.
For alternative 1), Mick and Keith would have needed to be on the same wavelength, so 2) would have been more likely.
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
24FPSQuote
HMSQuote
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 of the Rolling Stones that wowed the fans ? (not a concert on a tour )
If he´d never left his mark, he isn´t to blame. After all he´s an employee. In the 60s and 70s the piano was more important in Stones-music than in the 80/90/00s.
But I can honestly say that I like his playing on Fancy Man Blues.
Yes, if I could say one song Chuck's stands out on is Fancy Man Blues. And he's also got some tasty licks on the Some Girls bonus cut So Young. If there's a call for a light hearted plink plink plinkety boogie woogie part, he can cut it. He just doesn't seem to know when it's inappropriate like Midnight Rambler.
Darryl was good out of the box, too. I was actually encouraged by Love Is Strong and You Got Me Rocking. Then, for some unknown mystery, he stopped playing like that, like he was in the Rolling Stones, and now he's for the most part a non-entity, not livening up the old songs, or imprinting anything memorable on the new. Doom and Gloom is a great example of that.
The songs where you can compare Darryl's bass playing with the swinging stuff Bill Wyman used to play makes me sad. The example I always think of is Neighbours. On Live Licks it just plods along, flat and lifeless. In 1981-82 it both rocked and swung, and Wyman had much to do with that.
Quote
TheGreekHe is for sure keeping time for Mick , the guitars are there loud in the mix when it comes time for a signature solo for instance when Keith plays my all time favorite lick (solo)for Honky Tonk ,or when Ronnie plays CYHMK ,or Heartbreaker .I also have noticed when it is rhythm the guitars in the mix drop off to barely audibile. One of the reasons i think maybe Chuck keeps time for Mick is because either Keith or Ronnie are having fun on a solo they can keep Charlie in there groove when Mick is like the bridge is finished ,time to move on .Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheGreek
In Chuck's defense , he is told what to play (i.e. plink plonk) how to play it and when to play it and just like some here have said he was louder in the live mix on for instance the ABB tour when he was "covering for the guitars" he is following ORDERS from the BOSS Mick Jagger .Also i want to point out that it is Mick Jagger that runs the show .So really we should hold him responsible as to the live PRESENTATION of our favorite band , because no one tells him how HIS band should play or sound .Chuck does get beat up unfairly a lot for this myself included over the years with my comments but we do have to keep it real in the field and he is a damn great keyboard player in his own right and why else would have the late great Ian STU Stewart have choosen him for the JOB in the first place .I have seen Chuck many times before the Stones with Sea Level and with Eric Clapton and have enjoyed his playing a lot i will tell you .
I think it's more like the band likes what he plays, more than that he's told to play the stuff he plays.
And we know from bootlegs that Mick in-ear mix is relying heavily on Chuck, and that the guitars are almost absent in the mix. So, he's in way keeping the rhythm for Mick, with Charlie and Darryl.
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
The songs where you can compare Darryl's bass playing with the swinging stuff Bill Wyman used to play makes me sad. The example I always think of is Neighbours. On Live Licks it just plods along, flat and lifeless. In 1981-82 it both rocked and swung, and Wyman had much to do with that.
Quote
HMSQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
The songs where you can compare Darryl's bass playing with the swinging stuff Bill Wyman used to play makes me sad. The example I always think of is Neighbours. On Live Licks it just plods along, flat and lifeless. In 1981-82 it both rocked and swung, and Wyman had much to do with that.
I´ve always enjoyed the Live-Licks-version very much. I like it much better than any 1981/82-version I know.
Quote
HMS
Imo, the Stones did some of their best tours after Wyman´s departure. With Wyman still in the band Licks, No Security, Voodoo-Lounge-tours couldn´t have been better. Personally I don´t care who´s playing bass with the Stones, be it Darryl, be it Bill - it´s all right with me. It´s all just bass.
Quote
HMSQuote
HonkeyTonkFlash
The songs where you can compare Darryl's bass playing with the swinging stuff Bill Wyman used to play makes me sad. The example I always think of is Neighbours. On Live Licks it just plods along, flat and lifeless. In 1981-82 it both rocked and swung, and Wyman had much to do with that.
I´ve always enjoyed the Live-Licks-version very much. I like it much better than any 1981/82-version I know.
Imo, the Stones did some of their best tours after Wyman´s departure. With Wyman still in the band Licks, No Security, Voodoo-Lounge-tours couldn´t have been better. Personally I don´t care who´s playing bass with the Stones, be it Darryl, be it Bill - it´s all right with me. It´s all just bass.