bv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mac is a great personal musician but I don't think
> he can be an invisible band leader, organizing
> stuff on the level that Chuck is doing. It is like
> Brian Jones. He had ideas and did stuff but he
> could not keep others in order and may be not even
> himself.

This is true. Plus its hard enough keeping Woody away from his vices without having another of his partners-in-crime on the road with him 24/7 to tempt him!

From reading Mac's excellent autobiography, I'm not so sure he'd be that fussed on working with the Stones again anyway and vice versa. They didnt treat him that well and I would imagine he's burned a few bridges with them by now.

Chuck's been there for pretty much a quarter of a century now. As long as Stu was. Mick and Keith may be a lot of things but theyre not stupid. If they felt they could get someone who did that job better, they would in a heartbeat. They obviously think the guy is competent enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-17 17:38 by Gazza.

Yeah.. the only way to deal with an @#$%& like Mick is to be an even bigger @#$%&, like Keith. That's why they're both so @#$%& cool.

Lukester, you took the words right out of my head! I don't appreciate others assuming I feel a certain way about something, in particular, the assumption that ALL Stones fans hate Chuck! And thanks Gazza for the info on Mac, I'll check out that site.

Hey Debra. So that's where I got those words? I knew they came from somewhere intelligent. Thanks.

I think Chelsea means well, just got a little carried away this one time. Must have been that damn dream poison, right Chelsea?

Speaking of dream poison, what the f*ck is it and where can I buy some? Does it really kill bad dreams much the way kwell lotion kills mites and lice. I need to get some, dream poison that is.

OK, if YOU say so Lukester.

Oh, I might have been generalizing a bit there Lukester. "Many" of us say that Leavell should...etc. Sorry.
What I was actually wanting to say in first post was that I think it would be silly to replace :Leavell at this state of the game. Because one way or another we'd get another one just like it.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Your apology is humbly accepted. Now party on!!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> From reading Mac's excellent autobiography, I'm
> not so sure he'd be that fussed on working with
> the Stones again anyway and vice versa. They didnt
> treat him that well and I would imagine he's
> burned a few bridges with them by now.
>


I read his book to, great book btw.
I dind't really get the idea the stones treated him that bad but he had some problems with Jagger about signing the contract for the tours he was on and a recording session after the '78 tour. To me it was like reading about the classic Jagger as far as when money is involved. Pretty funny and a bit embarrising. In the book he always talked about how great it was playing with his favorite band so i don't think he would say no if he was asked. So as far as burning bridges is concerned i don't think that is relevent. Ronnie played with him this year somewhere in Texas i think and after reading the book i really got the idea he is a very nice guy so i would imagine that he has no troubles with the stones.

What i never understood was, why he wasn't on the '82 tour. He didn't say anything about it in his book. Anyone?

Cheers,
Wuudy

I also read the book Wuudy; and agree that it is IMO one of the very best bios about the whole rockin lifestyle. It's been a while since I erad it but I thought I rememeber Mac saying that the reason he didn't go on to '82 had something to do with that very contract. Maybe he was just sick of Jagger.
81/82 was the time when Ron Wood supposedly was very much into the freebasing. With Mac along those two could not have possibly been a positive influence on each other. Maybe things came to a head and someone had to go.
Wasn't this the time when even Keith openly criticized Ronnie's druguse?

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

"They are sticking to what is working. 3 1/2 successful world tours with the exact same band. Thirteen people on stage. It works. Simple as that."

Yes, it does. But why they don't sound so nice as they once did with just a half of the people onstage?

Of course, my question is rhetorical. If we look what it means "to work" we can say that the band works mighty fine - better than EVER if gaining $$$$ is the criteria for 'workable'. In this sense the band didn't 'work' at the time they were releasing albums like Exile and touring for audienced of few thousands with Taylor... In fact, we should conclude that the band is nowadays in much better form than in '69 or '73... I think the band itself might agree with it.

Okay, that was a poor sarcasm, sorry for that. I totally agree with majority here that Chuck is not the one to blame - if there is someone to blame at all. He is essential to the band as it nowadays is. As an event, with all those lights, screens, clothes, huge characters, hit songs everyone knows, the Stones concert is a huge event, a circut act that seems to gather wealthy people all around the world. And because it supposingly has something to do with music, someone has to do the dirty work too, keep the machine on a musical track, so that the stars of the circus have time and place to shine. It's nice to be there sometimes, to have the experience....Thanks Chuck for make it possible, to SEE THEM.

I need to confess that I feel myself a low rate Rolling Stones fan nowadays, because I really don't find much musical enjoyment from the stuff the band accomplishes nowadays. I mean, what's the worth of any bootleg since 1989? Does one get a lot of kicks for hearing one? I don't. A souvenir perhaps, but that's about it. If there is a rare gem, say "She Smiled Sweetly", it is interesting to hear it once, but that is more than enough. Once the curiosity is satisfied, the stamp collected, I don't find any reason or temptetion to listen it again. There is no musical thrill or spark there. Do anyone know what I mean? I like watching videos... you know, their visual presence is so much of the cake nowadays. But without footage the product is mostly boring.

Maybe I sound a little bit too negative now, but I just listened those Woodstock 1978 rehearsals (sent by Cafaro, thanks!) and once again realized why this band is so great, why it makes the difference, and why I love it so much.. It's the Rolling @#$%& Stones... There is nothing wrong with Chuck, but he is not kind of guy who turns me on. Thanks him for making the circus possible... Next summer I am gonna witness one more time Chuck Leavell Orchestra featuring Mick Jagger Plays The Rolling Stones! Of course, I need to see my heroes alive while they still are. Go ahead Mick and Keith, and laugh all the way to bank!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-18 17:33 by Doxa.

Doxa:

I hesitate, but ultimately applaud your post.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "They are sticking to what is working. 3 1/2
> successful world tours with the exact same band.
> Thirteen people on stage. It works. Simple as
> that."
>
> Yes, it does. But why they don't sound so nice as
> they once did with just a half of the people
> onstage?
>
> Of course, my question is rhetorical. If we look
> what it means "to work" we can say that the band....

>

that entire post was brilliant Doxa; said so much so eloquently and honestly; with genuine affection and respect for what the band kinda 'represented' to you in different periods,,,,and also such a sharp eye and perspective on bigger pictures of the band's relative importance, now and back in the day...
really appreciate that...
eloquent and beautifully expressed post and it helped me by articulating a perspective i sense, and feel, but can't express with such plain spoken even handedness and crispness... that wuz great kiddo...
ty

"Chuck Leavell Orchestra featuring Mick Jagger Plays The Rolling Stones" (Doxa)

That's one to remember! Great!

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-29 08:06 by cirrhosis.

no stones = no chuck
nonchucks = nostones
chuckaboom bhuckaboom don't u just love it
no stone = no math
no math = no stones divided by no chuck = no darryl
darryl + chuck = No Stones minus blondie = algie bra
so:
if stone a. left memphis at 400 mph and chuck left his piano in houston,
what time would stone b. get hungry for tater tots...

only lisa knows...
everyone's replaceable except the original 3...
and even them according to most folks here...
so...what the hey

I was told there would be no math

MB + CC = TRUE LUV

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was told there would be no math


i didn't think you'd mind if i changed the equation leetle apple blossom

well, seeing a few shows on this tour my opinion is that chuck really thinks he is indispensable. his behaviour indicates it a lot. but he isn't indispensable - nobody is. if he wasn't there someone else would count the them in. i think all of the rest will be able to count to 3 or 4. i just think he takes himself as to important, he thinks he's one of the stones, but he isn't and he will never be. he is and he will be only just a support musician nothing more, dispensable every time.

that's my opinion on chuck. i wouldn't miss him.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-29 08:06 by cirrhosis.

Oh yeah, I forget the original question...

Well, if they could replace the founder of the band, high profile and iconic multi-instrumentalist with a unprofilic and virtually unknown blues guitarist, and few years later, a guitar virtuoso of super class with sloppy, rough edged copy of Keith, and much later, as a musical director replace Keith Richards with Chuck Leavell... I don't think they will have problems in finding a substitute for Chuck...

- Doxa

MicksBrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
MB + CC = TRUE LUV


Are you referring to me, Mr. MB?

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "They are sticking to what is working. 3 1/2
> successful world tours with the exact same band.
> Thirteen people on stage. It works. Simple as
> that."
>
> Yes, it does. But why they don't sound so nice as
> they once did with just a half of the people
> onstage?
>
> Of course, my question is rhetorical. If we look
> what it means "to work" we can say that the band
> works mighty fine - better than EVER if gaining
> $$$$ is the criteria for 'workable'. In this sense
> the band didn't 'work' at the time they were
> releasing albums like Exile and touring for
> audienced of few thousands with Taylor... In fact,
> we should conclude that the band is nowadays in
> much better form than in '69 or '73... I think the
> band itself might agree with it.
>
> Okay, that was a poor sarcasm, sorry for that. I
> totally agree with majority here that Chuck is not
> the one to blame - if there is someone to blame at
> all. He is essential to the band as it nowadays
> is. As an event, with all those lights, screens,
> clothes, huge characters, hit songs everyone
> knows, the Stones concert is a huge event, a
> circut act that seems to gather wealthy people all
> around the world. And because it supposingly has
> something to do with music, someone has to do the
> dirty work too, keep the machine on a musical
> track, so that the stars of the circus have time
> and place to shine. It's nice to be there
> sometimes, to have the experience....Thanks Chuck
> for make it possible, to SEE THEM.
>
> I need to confess that I feel myself a low rate
> Rolling Stones fan nowadays, because I really
> don't find much musical enjoyment from the stuff
> the band accomplishes nowadays. I mean, what's the
> worth of any bootleg since 1989? Does one get a
> lot of kicks for hearing one? I don't. A souvenir
> perhaps, but that's about it. If there is a rare
> gem, say "She Smiled Sweetly", it is interesting
> to hear it once, but that is more than enough.
> Once the curiosity is satisfied, the stamp
> collected, I don't find any reason or temptetion
> to listen it again. There is no musical thrill or
> spark there. Do anyone know what I mean? I like
> watching videos... you know, their visual presence
> is so much of the cake nowadays. But without
> footage the product is mostly boring.
>
> Maybe I sound a little bit too negative now, but I
> just listened those Woodstock 1978 rehearsals
> (sent by Cafaro, thanks!) and once again realized
> why this band is so great, why it makes the
> difference, and why I love it so much.. It's the
> Rolling @#$%& Stones... There is nothing wrong
> with Chuck, but he is not kind of guy who turns me
> on. Thanks him for making the circus possible...
> Next summer I am gonna witness one more time Chuck
> Leavell Orchestra featuring Mick Jagger Plays The
> Rolling Stones! Of course, I need to see my heroes
> alive while they still are. Go ahead Mick and
> Keith, and laugh all the way to bank!
>
> - Doxa

The best I heard this tour..not speaking about sound quality !Is Toronto 05 I really like it!!!I keep on playing it and it is makin me feel good.

Did you have to go quote that WHOLE post?

No ,much to long when stoned.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you have to go quote that WHOLE post?



Hi Reptile, you have been a little freshie-boy lately! Wut's up wif dat?

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MicksBrain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> MB + CC = TRUE LUV
>
>
> Are you referring to me, Mr. MB?


IT'S POSSIBLE......

Ohhh, I see. Always leave 'em guessing.

Pretty sneaky sis.

CindyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reptile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Did you have to go quote that WHOLE post?
>
>
>
> Hi Reptile, you have been a little freshie-boy
> lately! Wut's up wif dat?

Arr.. I'm a little annyoyed by.. everything.. NOT YOU. Guess the Charlie quitting thing kind of freaked me out.. I should never have become a fan of those old guys. They'll all be dead and gone in a couple o' years, what can I do? Don't worry, won't kill myself. Puberty's a bitch, though, you get all emotional about everything and shit.