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 )

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
wonderboy

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!

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.

That may be part of it but I suspect it had more to do with Mick's desire for professionalism. He wanted the guitarists focused on playing, not singing. In the studio, the Stones managed some very nice harmonies and we all know they had trouble replicating that live. Mick probably felt some pros would do a better job at that. Sadly, it's another case of professionalism at the expense of soul. It was a treat when in 2015 in Detroit, Keith and Ron were "allowed" to sing back up on Just My Imagination.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

He has to accomplish one thing...................We Love You........

__________________________

Quote
HMS

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 )

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.

That is indeed a good one.

He does a nice She's A Rainbow live as well.

Quote
HMS

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 )

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
24FPS

Quote
HMS

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 )

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.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

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 )

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.

Quote
souldoggie

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 )

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.

DP<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. >

Yep, he does deserve more props for his organ and Rhodes playing. It's much better than his piano stuff. And you nailed what perhaps is my problem with his piano playing. Always that same honky tonk style - even when totally inappropriate. that and the lack of dynamics. Plus the Stones allow him to be too loud in the mix, almost like a lead instrument. On some tours he was louder than the guitars, which is totally wrong for the Stones. Ian Stewart supported the band and was always low in the mix. I appreciated that subtlety. Sometimes you didn't notice him, but if he wasn't playing you'd know something was missing. I missed him on Some Girls. Those songs are great but have a much drier sound without a piano in the mix - well, most of them. I always thought Ian Maclagen should have been the keyboard player from 1989 on, but as we know, the Stones weren't looking to hire just an ivories tickler; they were hiring a "musical director."

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-14 13:48 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
souldoggie

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 )

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.

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 .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-14 13:50 by 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 .

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.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

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 .

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-14 14:58 by DandelionPowderman.

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.

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

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.

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
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

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.

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..

Without the 'professionalist turn' and after coming back from years of not touring and from a state of almost disbandment? Touring on a reduced scale for the venues? With no certainty as to who were fans, and how many would attend the concerts?

Yes, a possibility it would be. Much risk still involved.

Quote
Witness

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.

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
matxil

Quote
Witness

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.

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.

The complications of your alternative 1 (that appeals to me, that is not my objection) are
a) the disagreement between Keith who seemed to want to develop within some form of trademark what had become Rolling Stones music , and Mick, who through years seemed to want to expand that trademark.
b) their aging fan base and the difficulty in doing as before, renewing it, through daring creativity,
c) the changing musical scene since their comparatively(?) successful 1981-82 tours, the impact MTV had had and the split between that commercial "overground" and a set of undergrond scenes, spread around.

During that period the Stones had tried to make it through the new channels with UNDERCOVER, but with subdued success. Then before 1989 they were planning to come back after a few years of actual disbandment after the not to good DIRTY WORK album.

I guess that the Stones in Mick Jagger's thinking at least on one hand would need to present commercially oriented Rolling Stones music , on the other hand would need some new development still, and that to Mick the combination of this was the recreation of new and old studio originals live, played for audiences of stadia size. To play to smaller audiences would be to see themselves reduced from a major band to a medium one. Consequently, the mentionned coordination needs would arise and must be met. Whereas playing to the aging fans, without being able to attract other public would be a plan for stagnation in their perspective.

Edit: I discover afterwards that I had put in four words, where they were not to be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-14 16:43 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

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.

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!

There was no commercially viable alternative in 1989. Much as it chagrined die-hard fans, Mick surely wanted to makes the Stones as financially rewarding as possible. The professionalism endeared them to casual fans who like to hear things in as familiar an arrangement as possible. That made them a huge draw but to some of us it was a let-down. When I first got into the Stones, one thing that appealed to me was that they did live versions that sounded deliberately different. (Just listen to Ya Ya's; Stray Cat Blues, Sympathy For The Devil, Live With Me...) I remember in 1989, I was thrilled to have my ticket to go see them, but then I read a review of one of the tour's first shows and it said that for the first time they were replicating their studio arrangements. Danger! The show I saw thrilled me at many times, but there were points where I just thought it was kind of sad. I remember them doing You Can't Always Get What You want, for the first time with all the correct tempo changes, crescendos, etc. and thinking it was all very "correct" but the excitement had been left behind...like back in 1981 or so. These changes were all necessary in order to continue packing stadiums, and Mick knew that if the Stones were relegated to only filling smaller venues, their legendary status would be tarnished. I believe that many, many tickets in the modern era are sold to casual "classic rock" fans who want to see the Stones because of their legendary status, perhaps more so than to see a vital, exciting, living creative band as they once were.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-14 16:12 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Well, there was a novelty factor by the live recreation of studio originals at first. There was some excitement about that.

Quote
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.....

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
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.....

I don't disagree that it ended up with some aspects of a dead end, despite their great presence as a main asset. Unless they all the time had presented new and great material live. Instead they did more or less the opposite with their setlists.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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 .

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.

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
Witness
Well, there was a novelty factor by the live recreation of studio originals at first. There was some excitement about that.

It was indeed, and I don't remember many unhappy faces at the gig.

Sticking to this concept for decades, however, has worn out a few fans, perhaps..

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.

Good points.
- The tag, 'the world's greatest rock and roll band' has hurt the band, imo. By trying to live up to that, it's limited their options. I think they believe that the moment they stopped filling stadiums it would be the end of the band.
- Mick didn't want to come up with interesting and creative songs -- he wanted to be a huge star. He tried that on his own and it didn't work. The only way he can do that is with the Stones.
- Keith probably could have had a rewarding solo career and even formed his own band (he's done a lot of good work in that field) but he was 'married' to the Rolling Stones. He probably was afraid to picture life without the Stones And I don't think he would still be alive if he didn't have that support system in place.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
24FPS

Quote
HMS

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 )

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.

You must understand something: when stating something such as that about Wyman and why he was good, it's going over some heads here. What you state is truth but for some it doesn't matter.

Which is difficult to comprehend.

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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 .

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.

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 .

I think a factor is that Mick may find it easier to find his melodies by listening to the piano, who's notes are clean and distinct compared to distorted electric guitars. That's understandable but mix up the piano in Mick's monitor and mix it lower in what the audience hears. To me the sound of the Stones is the sound of guitars - with some notable exceptions.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

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.

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.

Quote
HMS

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.

I´ve always enjoyed the Live-Licks-version very much. I like it much better than any 1981/82-version I know.

Everyone knows you like flat and lifeless music. You've made that very clear.

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.

Your opinion is wrong. But then you say that it doesn't matter who's playing bass because "it's all just bass". So your opinion is not only wrong, it's completely irrelevant: you don't notice things, which says those tours would've been better with Wyman - which everyone but you knows.

Quote
HMS

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.

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.

That statement shows incredible musical ignorance and the inability to hear...oh, so very much. "Just bass?" Bass is an incredibly important component in rock and roll. Just as important as everything else. That's like saying anybody could play Keith Richards' guitar parts. Well, maybe they could but it would make huge difference. There is a world of recognizable difference in the bass styles of Wyman, Jones, Richards & Wood. Even Jagger on bass. I can usually listen to a Stones track and tell who's playing bass before I read the liner notes. I can't believe somebody can't hear the differences. Just listen to something they did with Wyman in 1981 and observe how the bass hedge-hops all over the place with with loping, rubbery elasticity. Then find a version of that same song done later with D. Jones on bass. He's in the pocket and all that but he's mostly playing monotonous eighth note runs with no sense of swing. He doesn't come close to Bill's original parts...or Keith's...or Ron's....all of who have distinctly unique styles.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."