On [www.chuckleavell.com], diary 6-9 Aug in Nice.

"Tom found us and took us to the boat, a really nice vessel that was owned and operated by a couple named Glen and Emily. We boarded up and headed out to sea. With Tom and Laura were some of their friends which we met and relaxed with. The water was a bit choppy, but we still enjoyed cruising around the Mediterranean, stopping at some of the small Caps and inlets. We went to Monaco, Cap d’Ail, Vilefranche, St. Jean, Cap Ferrat. Tom pointed out to us the historic house where Exile on Main Street was recorded…Nellcote. He told us a story about talking to the woman that had rented it to Keith…. and that she had fainted when she saw what shape the house was in after they used it…apparently it was pretty well trashed. She sold it to another woman that Tom met later, and he asked her what it was like when she bought it. She told him there were boxes of tapes and all kinds of stuff laying around…and of course he asked her what she did with all of it…”I threw it away!!” was the reply. No telling what she might have had!"

and

"I did the usual routine, putting together the set list and so forth. I tried to get something different in there, but Mick didn’t want to get too experimental, so it wound up being a typical list."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-06 10:36 by Limbostone.

Limbostone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She told him there were boxes of tapes
> and all kinds of stuff laying around…and of course
> he asked her what she did with all of it…”I threw
> it away!!” was the reply. No telling what she
> might have had!"


Oh boy. That must've been the ever loving lulu of all times...

JumpingKentFlash

The story about the tapes sounds like bullshit to me.

And so Chuck and Mick cooperate on the setlist. Too bad Mick doesn't want to get experimental.

to bad chucks diary does not include his resignation

Maybe the tapes included Keith playing together with Gram Parsons. It is known that they were made, but nobody's heard them since.

Why? He's having a great time with the band.

> but Mick didn’t want to get too experimental, so it wound up being a typical list.

You'll find the more or less same words from Keith in "According to the Rolling Stones".

So they should agree with each other that each Stones member (maybe even the backliners) can make the setlist one after the other for every single show

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to bad chucks diary does not include his
> resignation


What a dumb comment.

I wish Mick would go with Chuck's suggestion about mixing up the set lists. Mick is really holding back the band.

I don't dig the story of the tapes either. By then the Stones already had a worldwide reputation, so it doesn't make any sense.

i guess this is just the boxes you see on some pictures but empty for sure... not with tapes or virgin ones !!

by the way what is amazing is that the band has recorded a so "american" record (with soul, gospel, blues in it) in such a place. I mean you could imagine it having been recorded somewhere in Mississipi but Villefranche is the french riviera full of joy and sun and Exile is so deep and dark in a way.
This is really the "tour de force" of this band.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melillo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > to bad chucks diary does not include his
> > resignation
>
>
> What a dumb comment.
>
> what an even dumber comment, i hope u are kidding man, he has ruined the bands sound since 89, why on earth do u like him



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-30 19:24 by melillo.

I don't get the reluctance to change up the damn set list. Can they really be that complacent and LAZY??

melillo Wrote:
> > what an even dumber comment, i hope u are
> kidding man, he has ruined the bands sound since
> 89,

Bullshit, it sounds just like Mick and Keith want it to. Chuck is an employee, not the CEO.

keith and ron barely know the 20 or so they play. They're the ones who need the rehearsal... maybe mick's lack of experimentation is with that in mind.

What's with all this Chuck bashing. I think the band sounded better in '89 then '81. Without Chuck there would be no "2000 light years" live or "Ruby Tuesday", maybe "Paint it Black"...leave the guy alone, at least he's down to earth.... More then I can say for SOME of the core band - like the 63 yr old singer who STILL thinks he's the center of the universe......

yeah your right micksbrain the stones would be just as good without mick jagger,
the most ridiculous quote that this planet has ever read, and it came from u micksbrain

Good point, CC! It just may be Mick's reluctance to push them too hard and force them into serious SCREW-UPS! Mick would hate to be embarrassed by them, although I'm sure he is from time to time.

yeah everytime ronnie takes a solo,lol

in a comfort zone they are. all of the great songs that have never been played or rarely played live, are dead. too bad.

I remember reading chucks tour diary for when he was in san francisco and he went on this rant about how his cell phone company was trying to scam him. FASCINATING read.


Im just joking around Im not Anti-chuck. But I dont find his entrys to be that interesting.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-31 04:57 by ryanpow.

....CC is right, they dont know how to play other songs,, they didnt even learn the last album but for simple formulated onnonot and that awful rough justice,,,,
i cant believe they let that chuck guy mention anything about the stones.. his whole persona kills any feel they have left,,, mind booglin' too me,, i dont believe he has anything to do with the set listsk, he's the fall clown.

Don't forget that had Chuck got his share in the final decision, they would have rehearsed Harlem Shuffle, Let Me Go, Undercover and The Last Time, amongst others.

All you can blame him for is not being in complete control.

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't get the reluctance to change up the damn
> set list. Can they really be that complacent and
> LAZY??


not they, HE. (that's MICK, for the slow-witted amongst us . . .)

I suspect one reason Mick doens't want to try anything 'adventurous', as Chuck likes to put it, is because he doesn't really trust his guitarplayers for delivering a proper version. Indeed first timers seem often to suck. I guess he is aware that they actually are unable to do lengthy reheasals (and they need LONG and FOCUSED rehearsels for a good debut), and therefore decides to not bring much new to the stage.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah your right micksbrain the stones would be
> just as good without mick jagger,
> the most ridiculous quote that this planet has
> ever read, and it came from u micksbrain

Hey GENIUS, where does my comment say Jagger should not be in the band? I said I don't see Chuck as any kind of negative addition and I do believe he has pushedon a lot of the rare songs to be played live. Possibly SWAY, CYHMK, Monkey Man, She's a Rainbow, who kmows what else....I just said Jagger still thinks he's the center of the universe and I got news for you. In the 70's when the Stones came to town it WAS a big deal - these days RAP and Britney Spears rule, no young kids are thinking of the stones like in the 60's and the 70's.....Sh*t man, your comprehension is worse then RAINMAN'S - holy moly....

I'm all for Chuck if he's pushing the Stones to do different songs. Chuck's position in the band: music is central. And it's great that he wants to make the set more musically interesting by adding new cuts. Mick, Keith--and especially Ronnie--I think, often fall into the rock-star complex because they're out in front of the audience more so than any other band member...they know that a significantly louder cheer is going to be screamed in their faces when they "Brown Sugar" than if they play "She Was Hot."

What is with the Chuck bashing. How can you say he has ruined the Stones sound, Mick and Keith would not keep him if he was ruining the band. If he was high in the mix on past tours than that is because the Stones wanted it. Stop blaming this guy for everything.

Chuck is a huge reason why we have gotten to hear songs that we thought we'd never hear. Chuck helps assemble the set lists but goes over them with Mick, this has been stated many times by members of the band. If Chuck had his way we would be getting a lot more variety in the set lists, he has not forgotten something the great songs in the Stones catelog and seems to push to get them played all the time.

southboundtrain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm all for Chuck if he's pushing the Stones to do
> different songs. Chuck's position in the band:
> music is central. And it's great that he wants to
> make the set more musically interesting by adding
> new cuts. Mick, Keith--and especially Ronnie--I
> think, often fall into the rock-star complex
> because they're out in front of the audience more
> so than any other band member...they know that a
> significantly louder cheer is going to be screamed
> in their faces when they "Brown Sugar" than if
> they play "She Was Hot."


I don't see why they can't play both.

notice all the chuck lovers are post 82 stones fans, what a shock ,lol
chuck and his vegas act have killed rock n roll, what a shame



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-01 03:31 by melillo.

>not they, HE. (that's MICK, for the slow-witted amongst us . . .)


Well, Keith's not exactly been daring in his setlist choices in awhile. (Though he used to be: who would have predicted "The Nearness Of You", "Wanna Hold You" or "All About You"? I wish he'd get back to being adventurous and debut "Coming Down Again" or something... Maybe he & Van will sing "You Win Again".)