The glory days of 72-73 and 81-82? They were not a great live band, sound wise back then, I think folks just have this thing about "the old days were better"

my biggest problem with chuck is that he thinks he is a stone, and he DAMN WELL IS NOT, my second problem is that he ruins the sound with his plinky style, but i do give him credit for the rare songs that are in the set list at times, but i still wish he would go away

pay pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stu was the greatest....no comparison to Chuck.


Well, he wasnt as versatile a musician for starters, and if you want to talk about the Stones most accomplished pianist, then I'll gladly throw the name Nicky Hopkins into the mix...

....but thats not my point. If Stu was still around, there'd no doubt be idiotic posts bemoaning what clothes he chose to wear or how he doesnt look like he belongs on a stage with the Stones, etc.

As if any of it matters.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my biggest problem with chuck is that he thinks he
> is a stone, and he DAMN WELL IS NOT,

how do you know what he 'thinks' ?

my second
> problem is that he ruins the sound with his plinky
> style,

Chuck plays in a manner that he's told to play. Does anyone seriously believe for a nano second that he holds such a sway over Mick and Keith that he dictates how high he is in the mix ,how much he plays or in what style? THEY hire HIM. IF he's 'ruining' the sound , its THEIR fault for allowing it.

Nicky Hopkins gets too much credit, Ian stewart is better, listen to the stuff he did with Howlin' Wolf (along with Clapton and Wyman)

Im not anti Chuck but pro Mac!

So very true. Anti South prejudice is rampant on the Chuck Leavell threads. Most of it has no basis in reality. yes, there was prejudice and hatred in the American South (I've lived in Ala./Fla.my life). But, Boston, MA was the scene of some of the worst racism that existed in the school integration 70's. It's still a great American city.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
THEY hire HIM. IF he's
> 'ruining' the sound , its THEIR fault for allowing
> it.

Amen.
If you ask me he's the most important musician on stage.
I don't like his style a lot. But when watching a Stones show I always have the thought: take Chuck away and everything falls apart.
In a way he deserves a lot of respect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-17 21:55 by BowieStone.

I think Charlie and Daryll are cabable to keep it from falling apart.

King Snake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think he`s a fine man and a fine musician,
> however I think it is the Stones` fault he plays
> too loud sometimes and plays on too many songs.
> After all, the Stones themselves control that.
> It`s not like Chuck has anything to say about
> that.
>
I'm sorry but it is not the stone's fault that he plays too loud. The mix heard on stage is very different to the mix heard out front. My biggest problem with the Licks tour was that the keys were way too loud but since they got a new front of house sound engineer the guitars are way up in the mix and the keys are back there where they should be.

To some extent, I think you've maybe hit the mail on the head - on previous tours (esp licks) the keys were actually louder than the guitars. And that is just not right in a band like the stones. I think even chuck realises this and he goes on about pearl necklaces enough to prove that he gets the idea (notwithstanding the fact that in england a pearl necklace is something very rude!).

But I like the guy and like his playing, as long as the volume is right. On some songs it can come up of course but on others it should be in the background, adding to the ambience instead of being in your face.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melillo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > my biggest problem with chuck is that he thinks
> he
> > is a stone, and he DAMN WELL IS NOT,
>
> how do you know what he 'thinks' ?
>
> my second
> > problem is that he ruins the sound with his
> plinky
> > style,
>
> Chuck plays in a manner that he's told to play.
> Does anyone seriously believe for a nano second
> that he holds such a sway over Mick and Keith that
> he dictates how high he is in the mix ,how much he
> plays or in what style? THEY hire HIM. IF he's
> 'ruining' the sound , its THEIR fault for allowing
> it.


gazza what imean is that it is my opinion that he thinks he is a stone, just by watching and listening to him interact with the stones, it just seems that way to me thats all, i dont feel that way about bobby and he has a hell of alot more right to consider himself a stone than chuck imho, as for him ruining the sound , whether or not its mick n keiths fault for hiring him is not the point, the point is that he ruins the sound, period, and there are alot of other folks on this board who feel the same, did mac ruin the sound no he didnt, did nicky or billy preston or stu ruin the sound, no they didnt did they

"just by watching and listening to him interact with the stones, it just seems that way to me thats all, i dont feel that way about bobby and he has a hell of alot more right to consider himself a stone than chuck imho"

What BS. Bobby Keys doesn't direct the band on stage. How can you direct the band and tempos without communicating with other members of the band.

If anything you should be bitching about Keith cause he can no longer direct the band the way he used to.

I don't get the whole idea of who has the right to consider themselves Stones, they all know its the 4 main guys and rest play their parts the way they are told. Do you really think a control freak like Mick wouldn't want it the way it currently is.


If you remember back in the day some critics did feel Billy Preston ruined the sound. I think the sound of the band today has a lot more to do with others rather than just Chuck. For one Ronnie and Keith can't carry the band like they used to, therefore that is why everyone else is more prominent in the sound...

yeah and thats why he ruins the sound ok, if keith and woody cant hack it anymore whos fault is that, i never heard chuck ruin the sound back in 82, the stones would not allow it because back then they were a real rock n roll band

Its unfair to compare today to 1982, because the Stones knowingly changed the formats of their shows. Doesn't matter if Chuck or whoever was in the band they would have gone this route regardless. They became the same act that Mick was on his little solo tour. Blame Mick or Keith. Chuck is doing what they want him to do

True, Chuck isn't cast in the same mould as yer average rail-thin, jaded British minstrels of the 1960'es, but we don't have to look at him - the guy can play and if he helps keeping the band together, it's great with me.

thats fine of course i want them to tour rather than not, i go to every tour since the chuck era began, iam not blaming him, its just the state of the stones at this point

Chuck leavell does a very good job for the Stones! One should not blame him for everything one does not like during a Stones show. He keeps some necessary structures in the music.

Chuck does exactly what Mick tells him to do and if it were not for Chuck, many times their sound would dissolve into chaos! Keith is so unstable much of the time that Chuck has become increasingly more necessary, like it or not. He keeps their sound on track, helps the band out of trouble. Watch him, he is NOT disruptive, his playing is usually tasty and under-stated and I sure don't find it " plinky"! He can be a bit over-enthusiatic at times, but Hey, he enjoys his gig! Who wouldn't love his job? I would chop off my pinky to have his job!! Then again, with no pinky I couldn't DO his job! I think that some folks have been very unkind for no good reason. He knows full well he is not a Stone but he is a solid member of that back-up group and I happen to appreciate his place in that group.

melillo Wrote:
> gazza what imean is that it is my opinion that he
> thinks he is a stone, just by watching and
> listening to him interact with the stones, it just
> seems that way to me thats all,

He HAS to interact with them. Its part of his role onstage as theyve basically given him the role of defacto musical director. And the logical reason that would be the case is because the guy who PREVIOUSLY held that role evidently isnt able to perform that function to the level that he used to be.

i dont feel that
> way about bobby and he has a hell of alot more
> right to consider himself a stone than chuck imho,

No he doesnt. Based on what..having been there for xx amount of years? Thats meaningless. You may as well argue that Lisa Fisher and Bernard Folwer are more important than Darryl Jones using that yardstick. Bobby's role is as a bit part player. Nothing more. Chuck's role is far more important. Say what you like, but unlike Bobby, Chuck has never let the Stones down and gone AWOL mid-tour. Keys was lucky they ever forgave him for that.



> as for him ruining the sound , whether or not its
> mick n keiths fault for hiring him is not the
> point, the point is that he ruins the sound,

No. It IS the point. The buck stops with the Stones. No one else. They hire the band and the people responsible for the sound. If theres a problem with it, then its their responsibility for dealing with it. The Stones arent stupid. theyve been in this game long enough to know when someone isnt delivering the goods or when their contribution is no longer required.

> period, and there are alot of other folks on this
> board who feel the same,

who cares? LOL


did mac ruin the sound
> no he didnt, did nicky or billy preston or stu
> ruin the sound, no they didnt did they

Its pretty hard for a piano to ruin the sound in a guitar driven band, but maybe you should ask yourself why the sound was different thirty or forty years ago compared to now. It may be for the same reason why instead of one extra musician being required onstage to help the Stones get through a show, they now need enough for a baseball team. Personally, I find Preston's influence in the 75-76 era a bit overbearing, and for all Chuck's flaws at least the Stones didnt have to give him a two song solo spot during the show!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 01:22 by Gazza.

Bravo Gazza, my man!

Agree, couldn't have said it better myself!

Since when is it bad to be an American from the South? If not for the American South there would be no Rolling Stones as we know them. It's the cradle of their music! And I think Chuck does a great job of leading the band. Before he arrived imho they had become a ragged cover band of themselves. I don't want to hear the records note for note on the stage. But some semblance of the songs is nice. Why make all those great records then slag it all off on stage? Cheers! 5

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > as for him ruining the sound , whether or not
> its
> > mick n keiths fault for hiring him is not the
> > point, the point is that he ruins the sound,
>
> No. It IS the point. The buck stops with the
> Stones. No one else. They hire the band and the
> people responsible for the sound. If theres a
> problem with it, then its their responsibility for
> dealing with it. The Stones arent stupid. theyve
> been in this game long enough to know when someone
> isnt delivering the goods or when their
> contribution is no longer required.
>

The buck does stop with the stones and thank god that they hired a new sound man for the ABB tour - things have improved drastically since then. Licks tour was the bottom of the barrel as far as sound mix goes, although the CD and DVD were an improvement sound wise.

Chuck's actual playing is absolutely fine and it is certainly not his fault if he is mixed too loud. He'll hear his own monitor mix and that's that as far as he can tell. Even the stones can only rely on what they hear on stage and what their trusted friends and relatives in the audience tell them. But who says that Jade Jagger is the best judge of the mix? For all we know, she could be into dance music and therefore a shit judge of the mix. In any case, Chuck certainly did not spoil it for me in either 06 or 07.

So the Stones aren't stupid but neither are they necessarily in the best position to judge the front of house sound.

I thought the sound mixes for No Security and the tour before that were far better than this tour. Yes, the guitars are louder, okay but the sound is much muddier, on the whole. I know I'm in the minority on that so far. Maybe it's the difference between more bass and less treble too, or possibly, could it be, the difference in playing?

I do grant that the keyboards are more muted and I agree with that.

Gazza Wrote:

>
>

>
>
>

> >

>
> Its pretty hard for a piano to ruin the sound in a
> guitar driven band


> yeah i know that, but somehow chuck still manages to do just that, i mean you have to admit part of chucks long stay with the stones is somewhat do to the stones being a bit lazy


>

Gazza, your points are right on the frigging money. It's amazing you have to spell it out. It's hilarious, "Chuck's piano ruins the sound...blah, blah, blah." Chuck plays EXACTLY what the Stones want to hear or he'd be gone. They like the sound so much that they've had him on stage with them for over 20 years. His keyboards are first class and sound great, throughout the set.
I could be wrong, but my guess is that most of the Chuck bashers are teenagers. Young fellows.

I didnt say he wasnt listening to the stones course he does, but that doesnt mean we have to think it sounds good ,geez man, so how come they still rocked out in 82 with chuck there, uh er could it be because they didnt think they needed loads of help like today, and he was only there in 82 because mick was to cheap to pay MAC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 03:16 by melillo.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so how come they
> still rocked out in 82 with chuck there, uh er
> could it be because they didnt think they needed
> loads of help like today,

and thats Chuck's fault, how???

melillo Wrote:
> > yeah i know that, but somehow chuck still
> manages to do just that,


Not to my ears. The shows I've seen and heard lately sounded fine and were very guitar driven, mix-wise.... I barely noticed Chuck's presence, to be perfectly honest. It didnt intrude on the sound from what I could tell. My review at the time described the guitars as 'louder than bombs' and they really were booming.


i mean you have to admit
> part of chucks long stay with the stones is
> somewhat do to the stones being a bit lazy
>

Its not for either of us to second guess that as we dont know the ins and outs of the band dynamics and how they all work with each other. You could argue that theyre being lazy (maybe complacent is the word youre looking for?)..one could also argue that, unlike us, theyre professional musicians who have been in the most successful band in the world for 45 years and know what the f**k they're doing and also know the difference by now between hiring someone who's a dud and who's capable of doing a good job for them.

all i am saying is that they are at this point in there career now, of course they know what they are doing, i just mean that sometimes chuck overwhelms the sound just a bit, and on other songs like monkeyman he does a great job imho, i enjoy all the post 82 shows that i have seen