<Actually Matt Clifford replaced Stu '89/'90.
Chuck toured with the Stones including Stu already in'82.>

Matt Clifford played synths, etc, not piano so you can't say he took Stu's role. Chuck tickled the ivories...As for 1982, Chuck had a much less prominent role than what he took on in '89.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
<Actually Matt Clifford replaced Stu '89/'90.
Chuck toured with the Stones including Stu already in'82.>

Matt Clifford played synths, etc, not piano so you can't say he took Stu's role. Chuck tickled the ivories...As for 1982, Chuck had a much less prominent role than what he took on in '89.

According to Nico Zentgraf's listings Chuck and Matt Clifford both played keyboards...,Matt Clifford french horn and I'm sure those horrible synths parts as well.

Hello,

please look at this video of Ian Mclagan

[www.youtube.com]

you can not replace this magic with anyone better trained, the same apply to Ian Steawrt and Bill Wyman.

Bye
Fernando

Quote
Fernandobsas
Hello,

please look at this video of Ian Mclagan

[www.youtube.com]

you can not replace this magic with anyone better trained, the same apply to Ian Steawrt and Bill Wyman.

Bye
Fernando

*That was gorgeous. Thank you.

Without CL we would get Angie and Like A Rolling Stone every night.

This is part of the reason I feel annoyed when people rip on Ronnie both live and studio work. Would any other guitarist be able to flourish in the environment that Ronnie has toured under for the most part since joining the stones? Or in the studio where mick and keith rule but their song output declined compared to their prior years?

Without Mac/Stu/Hopkins/keys/wyman I feel like the environment has become sterile for producing music but as has been stated earlier they don't tour any more for spontaneity they do it for a predictable and likeable show.

The last time I can recall feeling any kind of excitement or suprise since the 82 tours was when clapton came out and killed it on I think it was little red roosterin 89. Since then I can't recall much and the "guest stars" such as the talentless taylor swift etc from the modern era pale in comparison, at least for my personal tastes.

Quote
woodyweaving
This is part of the reason I feel annoyed when people rip on Ronnie both live and studio work. Would any other guitarist be able to flourish in the environment that Ronnie has toured under for the most part since joining the stones? Or in the studio where mick and keith rule but their song output declined compared to their prior years?

Without Mac/Stu/Hopkins/keys/wyman I feel like the environment has become sterile for producing music but as has been stated earlier they don't tour any more for spontaneity they do it for a predictable and likeable show.

The last time I can recall feeling any kind of excitement or suprise since the 82 tours was when clapton came out and killed it on I think it was little red roosterin 89. Since then I can't recall much and the "guest stars" such as the talentless taylor swift etc from the modern era pale in comparison, at least for my personal tastes.

Solid points. I love Ron Wood and he is one of the reasons the Stones remain compelling despite the soulless professionalism of Leavell Incorporated.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

The role of Chuck L is 'plink-plink-plink' and '1-2-3-4'.

Chuck holds the band together, without him they would drift apart, he is the band´s backbone on stage. He became musical director not just for nothing. The Stones need a musician like Chuck and the Stones know it. And that´s why he has got the job. VL- and Licks-Tour were highlights in the Stones´ touring career. And nowadays they need Chuck´s helping hand more than ever to keep on delivering great live-shows. Thank God for Chuck, he is a very talented and very appreciated musician (take a look at the impressive list of famous artists he´s been working with), an organizer, a mediator, a friendly man, a cool cat and last but not least he has a beautiful white beard and hair galore.

The Ians could never be the backbone of the band, 1981/82 was fun but a mess. Today´s crowds would never accept that. Everybody knows that the Stones never played worse than in 1981/82, except for a very few occasions.

About Darryl Jones/Bill Wyman: I never noticed any difference. Bill Wyman playing bass, Keith playing bass, Ronnie playing bass, even Mick playing bass - no difference at all for me. Bill did not play on Emotional Rescue, nevertheless what great bass line. I think he did not play on Winning Ugly and still - great bass. About Karl Denson I´ve said everything there is to say: he is a giant with a marvelous tone, if they would let him play Slave, his solo perhaps would be better/even more expressive than Sonny Rollins´.

Quote
HMS
Chuck holds the band together, without him they would drift apart, he is the band´s backbone on stage. He became musical director not just for nothing. The Stones need a musician like Chuck and the Stones know it. And that´s why he has got the job. VL- and Licks-Tour were highlights in the Stones´ touring career. And nowadays they need Chuck´s helping hand more than ever to keep on delivering great live-shows. Thank God for Chuck, he is a very talented and very appreciated musician (take a look at the impressive list of famous artists he´s been working with), an organizer, a mediator, a friendly man, a cool cat and last but not least he has a beautiful white beard and hair galore.

The Ians could never be the backbone of the band, 1981/82 was fun but a mess. Today´s crowds would never accept that. Everybody knows that the Stones never played worse than in 1981/82, except for a very few occasions.

About Darryl Jones/Bill Wyman: I never noticed any difference. Bill Wyman playing bass, Keith playing bass, Ronnie playing bass, even Mick playing bass - no difference at all for me. Bill did not play on Emotional Rescue, nevertheless what great bass line. I think he did not play on Winning Ugly and still - great bass. About Karl Denson I´ve said everything there is to say: he is a giant with a marvelous tone, if they would let him play Slave, his solo perhaps would be better/even more expressive than Sonny Rollins´.

I appreciate the way Chuck's organizational skills hold the band together but as a piano player he's boring as hell. Ian Stewart's boogie-woogie jangled the nerves and added to the excitement. Sure, today's crowds would probably boo a 1981 performance but that's because they're casual fans who missed out on the magic of what a live Stones show used to be all about. It used to be about excitement and the thrill of hearing songs done differently from the studio versions, not carbon copies. As for not being able to hear the difference between Bill Wyman and others playing bass - well, I'm the guy who told GasLightStreet it was not nice to call you an idiot, but those statements about the various bass players making no difference....doesn't make you an idiot, but apparently you have no ears.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
woodyweaving
Since then I can't recall much and the "guest stars" such as the talentless taylor swift etc from the modern era pale in comparison, at least for my personal tastes.

You may not like Taylor Swift and her music, but to call her talentless I think is a very far stretch.

Quote
Hairball

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.

Neutered them...but Mick sharpened the spoon they did it with...

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.

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.

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

You're right but you seem to be oblivious of the fact it's MICK who ordered all these changes to happen within the band not Chuck. Chuck is an employee.

If in 1989 Mick had let the old "wasted onstage" spirit to go on I'm sure Chuck would stumble every night onstage with a 3-days beard and glass of whiskey in his hand (prentending to be drunk).

Mick offered a position ("sanitize this band") Chuck saw the job offer got the job and since 1989 he does his best to please his boss.

Quote
Fernandobsas
Hello,

please look at this video of Ian Mclagan

[www.youtube.com]

you can not replace this magic with anyone better trained, the same apply to Ian Steawrt and Bill Wyman.

Bye
Fernando

Beautiful!!Tears in me eyes !!last time i saw Mac, was the reunion of the Faces at Bospop, Weert, Holland in 2010. That was great too. Surely missed, also with the Stones he is missed. By me at least. he gave the band a raw edge.
Jeroen

Quote
corriecas

Quote
Fernandobsas
Hello,

please look at this video of Ian Mclagan

[www.youtube.com]

you can not replace this magic with anyone better trained, the same apply to Ian Steawrt and Bill Wyman.

Bye
Fernando

Beautiful!!Tears in me eyes !!last time i saw Mac, was the reunion of the Faces at Bospop, Weert, Holland in 2010. That was great too. Surely missed, also with the Stones he is missed. By me at least. he gave the band a raw edge.
Jeroen

Mac and Stu were rock and roll musicians. Chuck is a musical technician. There is a world of difference.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Chuck is obviously Micks right hand man and the only one he needs to go on tour with The Rolling Stones. Music has nothing to do with this nor art.

The Role Of Chuck*



* (Chuck-Y)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-12 00:47 by schillid.

Hmm Nicky Hopkins around 1972 had some importance for Stones sound but Chuck.... Nope...

2 1 2 0

Hopkins was crucial. As was Brown and also Preston once they löst Taylor.

Quote
TheBlockbuster

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.

No. You can point out whatever licks etc Keith does, that's not the point. Read what I said. It's nothing to do with how good or bad Keith is.

Quote
HMS
The Ians could never be the backbone of the band, 1981/82 was fun but a mess. Today´s crowds would never accept that. Everybody knows that the Stones never played worse than in 1981/82, except for a very few occasions.

Quote
HMS
About Darryl Jones/Bill Wyman: I never noticed any difference.

What a surprise.

Quote
HMS
Bill Wyman playing bass, Keith playing bass, Ronnie playing bass, even Mick playing bass - no difference at all for me.

Uh huh. It's so obvious it's past being funny.

Quote
HMS
Bill did not play on Emotional Rescue, nevertheless what great bass line. I think he did not play on Winning Ugly and still - great bass.

How could you not know who played bass on your favorite album? You call yourself a fan? John Regan played bass on Winning Ugly but due to the song it's as pedestrian as anything is that's "funky". Funky bass can not save a shit song.

Quote
HMS
About Karl Denson I´ve said everything there is to say: he is a giant with a marvelous tone, if they would let him play Slave, his solo perhaps would be better/even more expressive than Sonny Rollins´.

You've said everything there is to say that's in that meter up there.

For the Stones it seems not very important who actually plays bass. Taking a look at the album-credits it seems that the bass part is quite often done by whoever is in the studio and has not his fingers broken. So why should I care more for who´s playing bass than the Stones themselves?

GLS, I think you need to adjust your BS-detector. It´s very well known that musically the 1981/82-tour was nearly a disaster. Keith and Ronnie fuked up almost every song, they were a messy amateur-garage-band playing in front of 50.000 people. Like I said it was fun, but from a musical point of view it was horrible.

Quote
HMS
The Ians could never be the backbone of the band, 1981/82 was fun but a mess. Today´s crowds would never accept that. Everybody knows that the Stones never played worse than in 1981/82,

This is one of the rare occasions that I agree with you, but today's crowds would have accepted it if you listen to their recent musical live efforts and the applause the Stones get. Of course we have to consider the musician's age, nowadays.

Let's not let the audiences off the hook here-they way people listend to music changed also.Years of sitting in their living rooms watching videos with lyp-synced vocals made the fans into little bots who thought live music was an in-person version of what they saw on mtv.Mick was in tune to that.

It's always "how they played on this tour,how they played on that tour"-if you're saying that you have no clue about the pre-81 Stones.

they were not only different every night, sometimes it would change during the show-they would start off great and crashland into the worst shambolic mess you've ever heard or start rough and gell into something that changed the way you thought about music because it was so good.

I saw a show in Cleveland on the 78 tour that was so bad that if it was the first time you had seen the Rolling Stones it would probably be your last,it SUUUUCKED.picture the 78 satuday night live performance only worse and it lasted longer... well actually i think they only played a little over an hour,,thank god.
it was probably a bad review in the Cleveland plain dealer the next day,most of the crowd was probably so high they didn't care and the show was forgotten.
if that was today you would have phone video loaded to youtube instantly,the 25 cable news channels, the internet media as well as the old media would be giving the last rites to the Stones a half an hour after the show.

The Rolling Stones aren't "sterilized" or "neutered", they are good as hell-it's not possible to just wing it in this day and age,they have to be more even keel.the highs aren't as high but the lows aren't as low either.
the problem isn't just the Stones after all,it's you and me.

Quote
HMS
For the Stones it seems not very important who actually plays bass. Taking a look at the album-credits it seems that the bass part is quite often done by whoever is in the studio and has not his fingers broken. So why should I care more for who´s playing bass than the Stones themselves?

GLS, I think you need to adjust your BS-detector. It´s very well known that musically the 1981/82-tour was nearly a disaster. Keith and Ronnie fuked up almost every song, they were a messy amateur-garage-band playing in front of 50.000 people. Like I said it was fun, but from a musical point of view it was horrible.

You continue to find new ways to tunnel into patheticism with your posing as a Stones fan. Keep up the fantastic trollholeness.

Quote
HMS
For the Stones it seems not very important who actually plays bass. Taking a look at the album-credits it seems that the bass part is quite often done by whoever is in the studio and has not his fingers broken. So why should I care more for who´s playing bass than the Stones themselves?

GLS, I think you need to adjust your BS-detector. It´s very well known that musically the 1981/82-tour was nearly a disaster. Keith and Ronnie fuked up almost every song, they were a messy amateur-garage-band playing in front of 50.000 people. Like I said it was fun, but from a musical point of view it was horrible.

On the basis of Stones songs that you like and dislike, often narrowing down their rich diversity, and with respect to the former Stones guitarist, whom you passionately slight, what do YOU really mean by the words "from a musical point of view"? And does the magic of Rolling Stones music result from faultlessness or some other sources, sometimes touching on an ecstatic string?

Your noun "fun" about 1981-82, by the way, has for me never caught my experience of being present at a Rolling Stones concert.

I was myself to Stones concerts on June 19 and 20, 1982. To my non-musician ears, the first of those two concerts was the most uninspired Stones concert that I have attended. But the second was a triumphant victory that gave promises, later met by UNDERCOVER.

Where the Stones once had what I will hail as their 'artistic turn', already started before Mick Taylor joined the band, from then he contributing vitally to it, I somewhat reluctantly accept the need for 'a professionalist turn' much, much later when the band, instead of disbanding, was to continue and go on big stadia tours, that is the Steel Wheels/ Urban Jungle tour. That turn involved, as already have been told, originally an interesting novelty, the recreation of studio originals. It necessitated more premeditated arrangements and much more coordination. By that, a musical coordinator. But all that, not without a major cost for the kind of band that the Stones had been. And, over prolonged time, not seldom with some aspects of a musical stalemate.

When a musical coordinator seemed to become an unavoidable need, in all sadness, it is still legitimate to consider how well Chuck Leavell has performed his function. Myself I don't know what to conclude. Besides, however, apart from that judgement, I am one of the many, who almost never have liked how his piano playing has sounded, when I notice it.

Mister Osvaldo...Chuck L. says: "I can only say that honestly the band has never sounded better.". What do you think...

In one aspect he may be right: speaker technology has improved drastically since the early 1980s.

Quote
GasLightStreet
In one aspect he may be right: speaker technology has improved drastically since the early 1980s.

Careful, GasLightStreet: Agreeing with HMS on a certain fact, even if it's just a minor detail, might go to his head, resulting in even more stuff for your BS detector, probably more than it can handle! In other words: If you offer HMS just your small finger, he will most likely take your whole arm.

Quote
HMS

The Ians could never be the backbone of the band, 1981/82 was fun but a mess. Today´s crowds would never accept that. Everybody knows that the Stones never played worse than in 1981/82, except for a very few occasions.

.

That's a sadly funny comment. I have every Stones on DVD commercially sold, excepting the newest Hyde Park, which I saw on cable TV and had no desire to see again. On a Saturday night I usually have a judicious slice of brownie, pop a Stella, and put on a vintage Stones concert. Although I have nothing against them, ever since we were deluged with concerts from Steel Wheels and before, I haven't opened my Four Flicks or A Biggest Bang boxsets. Those later versions of the Stone don't move me.

Lately I've been going back and forth between Hampton '81 and Roundhay Park '82. They are funky, there is some great guitar work from Keith, and sometimes Ronnie, and fantastic bass work all around from Bill Wyman. There is magic in the accumulation of all their talents, and something beyond. If that's the worse they ever played, I guess I like the Stones when they're terrible.

You remind me of a friend we had who we'd chase down when we knew they'd gone to see a movie we hadn't seen yet. If he had a sour opinion, or called the movie dumb, we almost raced to see it ourselves, his taste was so bad.