Tell Me :
Talk
And there speaks a man who, depending on how you look at it, is either happy with his lot... or resigned to his fate .
A lot like myself if truth be told
he brought what Mick needed for the band : a straight reliable man. Yes he plays like a machine and his licks are mostly uninspired but (again) Mick needed someone he could rely on all the time.
For that Chuck is the man. For passion and musical improvement of what the guitars deliver he's not.
Chuck is the manifestion of the design Mick had in mind when the bad reformed in 1989 : a solid gig machine. Nothing more... (alas).
Funny I was just listening to "Make No Mistake" and I was impressed by BK's soft gentle style. He was a hugely talented guy, not just Keith's friend.
So I regretfully have to label your comment "complete BS".
I really like your posts because they're so outrageously out in left field as to what the average Stones fan, like myself, would think. Just because they're going to release two albums doesn't assure they'll be worth more than one rotation. Their best releases of the Post-Wyman era have been old rhythm tracks he played on with new vocals. Their live concerts are too predictable to be great, and only Ron and Mick can still claim their old powers. (And that's to be expected.)
As to your assessment of what makes a great musician I'm reminded of John Lennon who scoffed at those who thought a great singer was one who could hold the longest note. Who cares if Darryl is 'technically' better? Chuck and Darryl lack 'feel', THE most important in Rolling Stones music. I'll bet Ron and Mick Taylor both could play a more technical Little Red Rooster, but I'll take Brian, please.
I'll be honest, I haven't listened to Karl Denson, since I barely listen to anything new and live by the Stones. But 'better' than Bobby Keys? You better not say that in Lubbock.
Pretty good summary of the interview.
Ah, another not-factual opinion, just an opinion. A wrong opinion.
Just about any guitar player on the planet is probably technically better than Keith. That is a completely pointless point.
Not even remotely possible. Then again, seeing that that was said by someone that thinks DIRTY WORK is a great album, it makes sense.
As usual...
Regretfully? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I didn't know having a "masculine rough tone" was necessary to have a "great sound".
The bullshit pot has been overflowing for far too long.
All of those new releases with Wyman on them, regardless of whether the songs are any good (like a majority on the SOME GIRLS extra), sound great.
As much as I like some of what's happened post-Wyman, the Wyman era Stones will remain the best.
The art is dead? Onstage it's become a Rolling Stones Revue. That's more to do with technical excellence than creating art onstage. Granted, many concerts in the modern era have had some moments but in general, I feel they pretty much stopped creating art onstage after 1982. With Steel Wheels things became too structured onstage to allow much creativity, although there were still some inspired solos now and then. It became more like a caberet - albeit a very good one - than a vital, dangerous rock and roll show. Time will reveal if they can still be truly artistic in the studio. I hope they can. But live - once things become so structured, it becomes a theatrical presentation. If the musicians aren't free to improvise, they're just playing by rote rather than artistically expressing themselves. My final opinion....Anybody who think Jones, Leavell and Denson are better than their predecessors has missed something magical of what the Stones were once all about. You're entitled to your opinion, my friend, but I sure don't get it.
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
It's flat out idiotic that someone can seriously say that Karl Denson's abilities "reduces Keys to a tiny dwarf musically spoken".
That's just beyond reprehension.
If they were to've listened to you they would've made several more horrendous albums as is clear by your lack of taste in good music and your incredible taste in bad music.
It's partly because there is a deliberate attempt to do most of the songs at the exact same tempo as the studio cuts. Makes sense in theory but I think the stage and the studio have to be treated as two separate mediums. In the setting of a worked up crowd, some songs need to be kicked up a notch to maintain the excitement level. Thus, Brown Sugar at the studio tempo drags in concert, whereas back in the seventies it kicked ass. It would be easy to blame Chuck for this but Mick is probably telling him what tempos to use.
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
And that would be fantastic if you were running a government office.
[spelling edited]
Actually Matt Clifford replaced Stu '89/'90.
Chuck toured with the Stones including Stu already in'82.
Oh please spare me... Listen to lick Keith plays at 5:09 in this video: [www.youtube.com].
That's a lick even a virtuoso player like Paul Gilbert says is very technically challenging, look at 1:40: Paul Gilbert String Skipping
I bet most amateur guitar players who think they are technically better than Keith would not be able to play that lick at the same speed with the same precision as Keith does in the video I posted.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: September 9, 2016 16:34
Thank you DP , my brain is a little slow this morning .With every thought being to make the next 5.5 hours go by as fast as they can so i can start my weekend !Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheGreekyou 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
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.
Add Live With Me, Sweet Virginia, Casino Boogie, Rip This Joint and other iconic solos
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 9, 2016 16:38
Quote
TheGreekThank you DP , my brain is a little slow this morning .With every thought being to make the next 5.5 hours go by as fast as they can so i can start my weekend !Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheGreekyou 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
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.
Add Live With Me, Sweet Virginia, Casino Boogie, Rip This Joint and other iconic solos
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: September 9, 2016 16:41
,Quote
TheGreek
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 !
And there speaks a man who, depending on how you look at it, is either happy with his lot... or resigned to his fate .
A lot like myself if truth be told
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: September 9, 2016 17:21
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Maybe it's that he's TOO good. Too professional; he makes the Stones lose the edginess they had in the Ian Stewart era.
he brought what Mick needed for the band : a straight reliable man. Yes he plays like a machine and his licks are mostly uninspired but (again) Mick needed someone he could rely on all the time.
For that Chuck is the man. For passion and musical improvement of what the guitars deliver he's not.
Chuck is the manifestion of the design Mick had in mind when the bad reformed in 1989 : a solid gig machine. Nothing more... (alas).
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: September 9, 2016 17:24
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. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them.
Funny I was just listening to "Make No Mistake" and I was impressed by BK's soft gentle style. He was a hugely talented guy, not just Keith's friend.
So I regretfully have to label your comment "complete BS".
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: September 9, 2016 17:46
Can it be a little bit of both ?Quote
Spud,Quote
TheGreek
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 !
And there speaks a man who, depending on how you look at it, is either happy with his lot... or resigned to his fate .
A lot like myself if truth be told
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 9, 2016 17:59
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.
I really like your posts because they're so outrageously out in left field as to what the average Stones fan, like myself, would think. Just because they're going to release two albums doesn't assure they'll be worth more than one rotation. Their best releases of the Post-Wyman era have been old rhythm tracks he played on with new vocals. Their live concerts are too predictable to be great, and only Ron and Mick can still claim their old powers. (And that's to be expected.)
As to your assessment of what makes a great musician I'm reminded of John Lennon who scoffed at those who thought a great singer was one who could hold the longest note. Who cares if Darryl is 'technically' better? Chuck and Darryl lack 'feel', THE most important in Rolling Stones music. I'll bet Ron and Mick Taylor both could play a more technical Little Red Rooster, but I'll take Brian, please.
I'll be honest, I haven't listened to Karl Denson, since I barely listen to anything new and live by the Stones. But 'better' than Bobby Keys? You better not say that in Lubbock.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
DEmerson
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:15
It's the Chuck Leavell show, featuring Chuck's special guests, The Rolling Stones!
He's horrible. Sorry - ban me, delete the post. He gives me nightmares.
He's horrible. Sorry - ban me, delete the post. He gives me nightmares.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:23
Quote
DEmerson
It's the Chuck Leavell show, featuring Chuck's special guests, The Rolling Stones!
He's horrible. Sorry - ban me, delete the post. He gives me nightmares.
Pretty good summary of the interview.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:26
We always try to pull something special out of the hat for an event like this.
Can anyone point to "something special" at other events "like this"? Because I can't think of any.
Can anyone point to "something special" at other events "like this"? Because I can't think of any.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:31
Quote
HMS
Chuck ---> better musician than both Ians.
Ah, another not-factual opinion, just an opinion. A wrong opinion.
Quote
HMS
Daryl ---> technically way better than Wyman.
Just about any guitar player on the planet is probably technically better than Keith. That is a completely pointless point.
Quote
HMS
Karl Denson ---> what a sound, far better than Keys.
Not even remotely possible. Then again, seeing that that was said by someone that thinks DIRTY WORK is a great album, it makes sense.
As usual...
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:34
Quote
dcbaQuote
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. Bobby was a friend of the Stones that´s the main reason he played with them.
Funny I was just listening to "Make No Mistake" and I was impressed by BK's soft gentle style. He was a hugely talented guy, not just Keith's friend.
So I regretfully have to label your comment "complete BS".
Regretfully? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I didn't know having a "masculine rough tone" was necessary to have a "great sound".
The bullshit pot has been overflowing for far too long.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:38
Quote
24FPSQuote
HMS
The Rolling Stones no band anymore? The art is dead?
They gonna release TWO albums.
Just because they're going to release two albums doesn't assure they'll be worth more than one rotation. Their best releases of the Post-Wyman era have been old rhythm tracks he played on with new vocals.
All of those new releases with Wyman on them, regardless of whether the songs are any good (like a majority on the SOME GIRLS extra), sound great.
As much as I like some of what's happened post-Wyman, the Wyman era Stones will remain the best.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:51
Check out Karl Denson on youtube, spotify or elsewhere. Nothing Bobby Keys ever did comes close to Karl Denson. In fact Denson reduces Keys to a tiny dwarf musically spoken. Rest his soul, Bobby might have been a great guy but just an average player compared to a giant like Denson. Look out, listen and you´ll know.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
HonkeyTonkFlash
()
Date: September 9, 2016 18:59
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.
The art is dead? Onstage it's become a Rolling Stones Revue. That's more to do with technical excellence than creating art onstage. Granted, many concerts in the modern era have had some moments but in general, I feel they pretty much stopped creating art onstage after 1982. With Steel Wheels things became too structured onstage to allow much creativity, although there were still some inspired solos now and then. It became more like a caberet - albeit a very good one - than a vital, dangerous rock and roll show. Time will reveal if they can still be truly artistic in the studio. I hope they can. But live - once things become so structured, it becomes a theatrical presentation. If the musicians aren't free to improvise, they're just playing by rote rather than artistically expressing themselves. My final opinion....Anybody who think Jones, Leavell and Denson are better than their predecessors has missed something magical of what the Stones were once all about. You're entitled to your opinion, my friend, but I sure don't get it.
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: September 9, 2016 19:02
Karl Denson would still be a better sax player than Bobby keys even if he had both hands tired behind his back. Keys doesn't even come close.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 9, 2016 19:03
Yes he's good but he's not got that rock'n'roll element that Keys had. His style is way different from Bobby Keys' style. That does not make Denson's talents in a position that "reduces Keys to a tiny dwarf musically spoken".
That is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said, HMS - and you say ridiculous things in every post you pustulate.
From your constant farting about DIRTY WORK to how EXILE sucks and now this.
You are not a Stones fan, you're an idiot.
That is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said, HMS - and you say ridiculous things in every post you pustulate.
From your constant farting about DIRTY WORK to how EXILE sucks and now this.
You are not a Stones fan, you're an idiot.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
HonkeyTonkFlash
()
Date: September 9, 2016 19:15
I don't think anyone should be called an idiot for having different tastes than most of us, but it is totally baffling to me - and lots of others - how anyone could say Exile is full of filler while lauding Dirty Work. Makes me scratch my head...D. Jones over Wyman? My God, listen to live recordings from 1981 - just for one example and show me where Wyman's splendid, rubbery, hedge-hopping bass is inferior to Jones' monotonous thumping. Jones is probably technically better but..oh hell...I know this has been beaten to death here before....
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: September 9, 2016 19:21
I think I am an idiot in good company. The Stones must be fookin´ idiots to always replace members or tour-musicians with the most inferior and most unfitting guys they can find (Darryl/Chuck/Karl... let´s not forget Sasha, although she aint no guy).
It´s very sad that the Stones won´t listen to those fans who knows everything best. Maybe they also should have had their songs written by those fans, at least for the last three decades.
It´s very sad that the Stones won´t listen to those fans who knows everything best. Maybe they also should have had their songs written by those fans, at least for the last three decades.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 9, 2016 19:36
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
I don't think anyone should be called an idiot for having different tastes than most of us, but it is totally baffling to me - and lots of others - how anyone could say Exile is full of filler while lauding Dirty Work. Makes me scratch my head...D. Jones over Wyman? My God, listen to live recordings from 1981 - just for one example and show me where Wyman's splendid, rubbery, hedge-hopping bass is inferior to Jones' monotonous thumping. Jones is probably technically better but..oh hell...I know this has been beaten to death here before....
It's flat out idiotic that someone can seriously say that Karl Denson's abilities "reduces Keys to a tiny dwarf musically spoken".
That's just beyond reprehension.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 9, 2016 19:37
Quote
HMS
I think I am an idiot in good company. The Stones must be fookin´ idiots to always replace members or tour-musicians with the most inferior and most unfitting guys they can find (Darryl/Chuck/Karl... let´s not forget Sasha, although she aint no guy).
It´s very sad that the Stones won´t listen to those fans who knows everything best. Maybe they also should have had their songs written by those fans, at least for the last three decades.
If they were to've listened to you they would've made several more horrendous albums as is clear by your lack of taste in good music and your incredible taste in bad music.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
georgemcdonnell314
()
Date: September 9, 2016 19:38
I think the tempo we get from Chuck is the difference. Chuck makes the song sound more drawn out and almost symphonic instead of the boogie woogie feel we got from the previous keyboard players.
Certainly the tempo has changed. Even some of the more up tempo songs are to drawn out.
Miss you is way to long these days. I'd love to hear it played the same tempo as 78 or even 81.
Certainly the tempo has changed. Even some of the more up tempo songs are to drawn out.
Miss you is way to long these days. I'd love to hear it played the same tempo as 78 or even 81.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
HonkeyTonkFlash
()
Date: September 9, 2016 20:45
Quote
georgemcdonnell314
I think the tempo we get from Chuck is the difference. Chuck makes the song sound more drawn out and almost symphonic instead of the boogie woogie feel we got from the previous keyboard players.
Certainly the tempo has changed. Even some of the more up tempo songs are to drawn out.
Miss you is way to long these days. I'd love to hear it played the same tempo as 78 or even 81.
It's partly because there is a deliberate attempt to do most of the songs at the exact same tempo as the studio cuts. Makes sense in theory but I think the stage and the studio have to be treated as two separate mediums. In the setting of a worked up crowd, some songs need to be kicked up a notch to maintain the excitement level. Thus, Brown Sugar at the studio tempo drags in concert, whereas back in the seventies it kicked ass. It would be easy to blame Chuck for this but Mick is probably telling him what tempos to use.
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: September 9, 2016 20:52
There´s one good reason to slow songs down: The Stones are more or less in their mid-seventies...
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: September 9, 2016 21:05
Darryl replaced the retired from the Rolling Stones Bill Wyman , Chuck replaced the dearly DEPARTED Ian Stewart, Karl replaced the dearly DEPARTED Bobby Keys .Quote
HMS
I think I am an idiot in good company. The Stones must be fookin´ idiots to always replace members or tour-musicians with the most inferior and most unfitting guys they can find (Darryl/Chuck/Karl... let´s not forget Sasha, although she aint no guy).
It´s very sad that the Stones won´t listen to those fans who knows everything best. Maybe they also should have had their songs written by those fans, at least for the last three decades.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: September 9, 2016 21:45
Denson is like Chuck :
he got the gig not because he's a great player but because he's relaible (doesn't drink or do drugs, will show up on time, will say "yes" to every suggestion thown to him etc etc). That goes with the band becoming professionals (1989-now).
he got the gig not because he's a great player but because he's relaible (doesn't drink or do drugs, will show up on time, will say "yes" to every suggestion thown to him etc etc). That goes with the band becoming professionals (1989-now).
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 9, 2016 22:37
Quote
dcba
Denson is like Chuck :
he got the gig not because he's a great player but because he's relaible (doesn't drink or do drugs, will show up on time, will say "yes" to every suggestion thown to him etc etc). That goes with the band becoming professionals (1989-now).
And that would be fantastic if you were running a government office.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: September 9, 2016 23:10
Quote
dcba
Denson is like Chuck :
he got the gig not because he's a great player but because he's reliable (doesn't drink or do drugs, will show up on time, will say "yes" to every suggestion thrown to him etc etc). That goes with the band becoming professionals (1989-now).
[spelling edited]
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: September 10, 2016 01:14
Quote
TheGreekDarryl replaced the retired from the Rolling Stones Bill Wyman , Chuck replaced the dearly DEPARTED Ian Stewart, Karl replaced the dearly DEPARTED Bobby Keys .Quote
HMS
I think I am an idiot in good company. The Stones must be fookin´ idiots to always replace members or tour-musicians with the most inferior and most unfitting guys they can find (Darryl/Chuck/Karl... let´s not forget Sasha, although she aint no guy).
It´s very sad that the Stones won´t listen to those fans who knows everything best. Maybe they also should have had their songs written by those fans, at least for the last three decades.
Actually Matt Clifford replaced Stu '89/'90.
Chuck toured with the Stones including Stu already in'82.
Re: The Role Of Chuck L....
Posted by:
TheBlockbuster
()
Date: September 10, 2016 01:45
Quote
GasLightStreet
Just about any guitar player on the planet is probably technically better than Keith. That is a completely pointless point.
Oh please spare me... Listen to lick Keith plays at 5:09 in this video: [www.youtube.com].
That's a lick even a virtuoso player like Paul Gilbert says is very technically challenging, look at 1:40: Paul Gilbert String Skipping
I bet most amateur guitar players who think they are technically better than Keith would not be able to play that lick at the same speed with the same precision as Keith does in the video I posted.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
dishevelmentblues , downagain , DrPete , guyrachel , Handova , highgatehillbilly , keithpinkmoon , makustone , MonkeyMan2000 , OttoH , perkmo , RaahenTiikeri , Rambler62 , rastakeith , rebelhipi , roryg , Shawn20 , souldoggie , spunky , Tonstone , Topi , Torsten , TW2019
Guests:
1641
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10