in respone to the 78 appreciation topic, and i think 78 was a phenominal tour as did everyone else, someone mentioned stu and mac and how great they were. i agree and they were far better than chuck. chuck is a great player but he just goes so off on playing tangents and he is nowhere near as bluesy as their past players...i think a big reason why the stones sound different today is not only the absence of bill wyman, but also the piano playing IMO is terrible - it does not follow the rythms and it is like its own concert within a concert.. case in point, miss you now starts with piano as opposed to 78 and 81 with the guitar... chuck dominates too much and quite honestly, he is a great player but not great for the stones. all of their past piano players were far better for the stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-07 07:34 by bv.

as much as i agree, it will never happen since mick n keith have become so dependent of him, its a real shame

Whatever you think of his playing, please think one step further: what we have to thank him for. I think he's part of more than we will ever like to admit.

Come on, it's so easy to be negative...

Jelle

yeah i know... mick and keith use him as the musical director too i just think his style is too non-spontaneous, non-dangerous... it is not the stones. mick can be the musical director. or use chuck, but turn him waaaay down and stop using him for leadswhen it should be guitar playing. i am not opposed to piano playing at all - listen to 78 or 81 or 72 - lots of piano in the background - but the piano assisted the guitars and provided a bakdrop - it was not its own separate concert. and that is the problem with chuck's style.

not being negative, its just time for a change, every tour is basicly the same since 89 because the sound does not change that much, its not chuck bashing its just that they need a change, i mean its great that chuck gets them to open the vaults with rare songs but i still think they should give chuck a break

Chuck does what Mick wants him to do. And he does so well! Todays' Stones problem, if there is such a thing, is not Chuch! Chuck is a blessing for Stones fans!

melillo is right on 100%. every tour since 89 is pretty much the same. they need a sound change... and no anderson, i think mick does what chuck wants him to do. or at least, it is a 50-50 situation. chuck, not mick and not keith, is the musical director and therein lies the problem. he is not a musical director. he is a piano player. he did not write the songs and he is not part of the band player. when he plays, he does not assist ronnie and keith and darryl... he plays his own concert really. it is too much, too loud, and too off the rhythm. their sound today is so "happy" compared to 60's, 70's, and 81 - no danger in their concert sound. this also has to do with the absence of wyman... but since he is not coming back, then at least, let's change the piano player and get some fresh sound.

and ban non guitar players from throwing picks to the crowd

Strongly disagree here. Chuck Leavell is a true professional, and I think he now realizes he is NOT a Rolling Stone, but simply part of the support group. This became apparent during the Bigger Bang tour.

Remember, this is the guy who often encourages the band to dig deeper into their repetoire, so the bashing he gets is undeserved.

There's something more, isn't there? Some of you resent him simply because he's an American. It's true, isn't it?

Well, welcome to the global community. Bobby Keys has been there for years, and he's obviously a good ol' American boy.

... paul shaffer is taking his place.........

I really disliked having two overly slick "keyboardists" on '89 - 90, but it was the first tour in 7 years and blah blah blah...It annoyed me that Chuck was up front in the mix (and arrangements) on the Licks tour, but Ron Wood was struggling on the EU leg especially, and somebody professional was there to insure the show went on even if the guitar players died mid-set. Chuck's dominance attracted lots of negative attention, but I was happily surprised to find - at least on the fall '05/early '06 shows that the guitars were back, nothing canned except the intro to Sympathy, and both Chuck and horns were very much in a support role.

jjsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melillo is right on 100%. every tour since 89 is
> pretty much the same. they need a sound change...
> and no anderson, i think mick does what chuck
> wants him to do. or at least, it is a 50-50
> situation. chuck, not mick and not keith, is the
> musical director and therein lies the problem. he
> is not a musical director. he is a piano player.
> he did not write the songs and he is not part of
> the band player. when he plays, he does not
> assist ronnie and keith and darryl... he plays his
> own concert really. it is too much, too loud, and
> too off the rhythm. their sound today is so
> "happy" compared to 60's, 70's, and 81 - no danger
> in their concert sound. this also has to do with
> the absence of wyman... but since he is not coming
> back, then at least, let's change the piano player
> and get some fresh sound.


You're off here, just read the diaries and the interviews... Mick instructs Chuck to make more or less finished setlists, following guidelines set out by Mick. Then he shows the list to Mick, who approves it, or makes some changes. Another Chuck job is to propose new songs fomr time to time, for rehearsals or refreshing of the setlist.
You can say or think whatever you want about the sound, that's something else. But considering this sound you should keep one thing in mind: without Chuck, it will be awfully silent in the stadiums because it is either a tour with Chuck, or no tour at all. Take it or leave it.

Jelle

There was a strong Chuck bashing going on here few years ago, but then it - rightly - fade away. I think most of the people realized that Chuck is not the problem with recent Stones - the real trouble is with the people who once threw the responsible status 'musical director' out of their hands. In fact, Thanks to Chuck people are treated with some surprises in the set lists, if Chuck just manages to convince more conservative forces (Jagger) of his suggestions. The problem is that as far as those 'rarities' are concerned, Chuck is the one who needs to lead the band, fill the spaces, etc. because the heroes themselves do not remember anyomore their own songs and are too lazy or handicaped to learn them anymore.

- Doxa

They need him for several reasons, no matter if you like it or not. They will NEVER get rid of him.

sluissie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> You can say or think whatever you want about the
> sound, that's something else. But considering this
> sound you should keep one thing in mind: without
> Chuck, it will be awfully silent in the stadiums
> because it is either a tour with Chuck, or no tour
> at all. Take it or leave it.
>

if chuck couldn't make a show for some reason, he could be replaced overnight in the middle of a tour leg with zero cancellations...or postponements...zero. overnight. imo that would be the bottom line reality. not one missed gig. not one.

Agree, it would be no prblem to replace him on a tour once it has started. But that doesn't mean that the setplists will improve. It would, I guess, put an end to any setlist refreshments for the remainder of that tour. More conservatism, 19 songs max, and only one, max two different versions of more or less the same setlist. I doubt the Stones will tour as easily again if Chuck will not do it any longer. That is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not talking about him as a piano player.

Jelle

I say, get rid of all the crappy back-up singers and all the horns.
Chuck can stay.

Guitar, guitar, drums, bass and keys is all you need. +vocals of cource.

Imagine Brown Sugar with a kick ass guitarsolo insted of that crappy saxofon solo. That would make the song 10 times better.

Crappy? That sax solo IS Brown Sugar.

JumpingKentFlash

Hasse78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say, get rid of all the crappy back-up singers
> and all the horns.
> Chuck can stay.
>
> Guitar, guitar, drums, bass and keys is all you
> need. +vocals of cource.
>
> Imagine Brown Sugar with a kick ass guitarsolo
> insted of that crappy saxofon solo. That would
> make the song 10 times better.


Crappy "saxofon" solo? Oh my God,that just wouldn't do.Bobby Keys is awsome.Never should they tour without him.The horns,backup singers (Lisa!)are great too. Chuck I can do without.He does overplay,and he should atleast sit out certain songs(Start Me UP).Plus,I hate his crappy permed mullet hair.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-06 14:52 by pay pay.

Chuck Leavell is an accomplished and immensly keyboard player who is able as a musical director to keep the ship on an even keel so to speak.

His ability lies in the fact that he is able to cue guitar solos, choruses, middle 8's and endings. They need him in order to function properly as a band otherwise it would be chaos up there on stage with so many players e.g. backing singers, occasionally 3 guitar players, 4 horns.

You have to remember that this is not just rock n roll anymore it is a successful business that needs Chucks professionalism and ability to enable that business to succeed.

But whatever you people do don't bash him because of your jealousy and your inability to understand his integral role in the band. I happen to like his playing style.....as did the Black Crowes (he's all over their 1st album).

NickB

ps Hasse78, sorry fella but you're wrong with that comment about the crappy sax solo.
I do however like Ronnies solo on the back of the flat bed truck when they drove it thru New York.

When I saw them the last time I though everything that had to do with back-up was VERY toned down. I could hardly hear Chuck. I could hear him on HTW and he did a great job. The brass section weren't used much (But boy oh boy did they kick ass on Bitch). Darryl was great (Midnight Rambler especially).

JumpingKentFlash

All this bashing is pretty pointless. One day it goes against Ronnie, the next against Chuck, the next against Blondie, etc. It's as silly as those "I'm drunk and Keith wears a wig" threads.

1) mick's too dependent on chuck.

2) the band needs a restaurant critic.

3) chuck makes the band look tall.

...and it's pointless. like changing your shoes for the last mile of a marathon.


IORR............but I like it!

I know you guys would be against me when it came to the sax solo. That´s the beauty with personal opinions. They are never wrong.
I personally think that the saxsolo is total crap and my ears starts to blead when I hear it. )

But I ant got no problem with chuck. His pianoplaying is fine by me.

Chuck is a very nice person.He kinda IS one of the guys now. PERIOD.

the stones need chuck
but he should not wear these tight tiger shirts
too fat, sorry

I have to chuckle every time I see these "drop chuck" threads that complain about his style of playing, being up front in the mix, how much better Ian McClagan would do in that spot...the problem isn't with Chuck or ANY of the sidemen(and woman!) the problem is with the Rolling Stones! Its time for us lifelong fans(me included) to face the facts, there's NOTHING menacing about the Stones anymore...their arrangements have been the same for nearly twenty years now, they will NEVER change them again! The Stones are a Vegas act now, slick and professional...no sloppy guitars like in their hayday when they really WERE the greatst rock 'n roll band in the world! So if blame needs to be placed somewhere(does it really?) then place it firmly on the shoulders of Mick and Keith, this is how they want the Stones to look/sound in their declining years!
By the way I first saw the Stones 42 years ago tonight in Clearwater, Florida...later that night Keith supposedly woke up and recorded the opening notes to Satisfaction on his tape deck...the world was never the same after that night!

Awwwright, Mr. D. you' ve had your speech
I heard about 30 years ago "Rock'n Roll is dead"...
but it is still an incalculable animal.

maybe transforming ...

I suggest to give Chuck a sidekick by Tom Waits.
You knwow Tom Waits?
I think he would fit perfect along with chuck.

I am phantasyzing about a new sound,
more grounded, like flavoured with an earth smell after a hot summer days rain,
than the space ship is landing ...

"when I travel coast to coast
you' re the hook I miss the most
feel on, baby"

Get over it, Chuck is necessary to the Stones of TODAY! If Keith and Ronnie could be trusted to be ON every night, they may consider not having Chuck, although I think he adds ALOT to their sound! As it is, Chuck is here to stay! It could be alot worse and I personally like his style!

mickschix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Keith and Ronnie could be trusted to be
> ON every night


thats ridiculous, for the money they make on these tours they should make sure they are ON everynight instead of relying on chuck and his orchestra