Two main issues as I see it.
1, some folks simply think that Chuck is too much of a "posh musician" for the stones and that they should have a boogie-woogie piano player in the vein of Stu.
2, Some folks hold and resent the perception that Chuck is too influential in the whole proceedings these days.

For some folks it's both ;^)

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two main issues as I see it.
> 1, some folks simply think that Chuck is too
> much of a "posh musician" for the stones and that
> they should have a boogie-woogie piano player in
> the vein of Stu.
> 2, Some folks hold and resent the perception
> that Chuck is too influential in the whole
> proceedings these days.
>
> For some folks it's both ;^)


ya, this sounds about right to me. as for anti-american-anti-southerner whatever, i don't really see that as the issue here (well okay, i'm a yankee and i live in europe , but really, chuck doesn't even fit any kind of southern stereotype that i've ever heard. for me the main problem seems to be that this totally bright clean smiley guy who tells us all about doin his laundry and other amazing tales has come to have a lot of say in the rolling stones' music, even more than keith these days... i think chuck is obviously a fine musician ... the stones wouldn't tolerate him for one minute if he wasn't ... but personally i sure would prefer mac's keyboard playing (and BTW, mac lives in austin texas ! And it's also true that chuck has certain "organizational skills" that the stones seem to need these days. anyway just my 2 cents...

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thats fine for you gazza, you like chucks sound so
> knock yourself out with it then, have a blast, i
> prefer the other stones piano players sound from
> the past thats all, but you feel the need to
> impose your will on people and force them to like
> chuck, whats that about,

I'm imposing my will to make people 'like' him? WTF are you on about? Its called a discussion, maybe the concept of that is lost on you.

I didnt even say I 'liked' his playing(I actually said I preferred Nicky hopkins, if you look closely), its of no consequence to me who plays piano for the Stones so long as the band are able to perform in an adequate manner (which without Leavell they dont appear to be), so try taking the time to read it before posting several pages of inane uninformed bilge

its been 18 years now
> with this guy not counting 82 when the stones were
> still the stones and did not let chuck GET IN THE
> WAY,like he does now, i mean cmon now, since 89
> each tour has been the same book with a different
> cover, the cover being the stage

...in which case Mick, keith, Charlie and Ronnie have no say in the matter, of course...



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-19 17:33 by Gazza.

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah well mick once said in an int on the ogwt
> that he likes to keep the backup
> people fresh and change it up now and then,HUH,i
> think its time to freshen up a bit at this point
> mick

Write to him and complain, then..... theyve probably about 5 weeks left as a touring band. Maybe he'll listen....

Chucky is honky tonky man but doesn't rock! Hey chucky man you are in the wrong group.

Dutch guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chucky is honky tonky man but doesn't rock! Hey
> chucky man you are in the wrong group.


stupidest post on the board. Chuck rocks!!!

Dutch guy isn't stupid, he's right. Greybeard is no pirate!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> melillo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > thats fine for you gazza, you like chucks sound
> so
> > knock yourself out with it then, have a blast,
> i
> > prefer the other stones piano players sound
> from
> > the past thats all, but you feel the need to
> > impose your will on people and force them to
> like
> > chuck, whats that about,
>
> I'm imposing my will to make people 'like' him?
> WTF are you on about? Its called a discussion,
> maybe the concept of that is lost on you.
>
> I didnt even say I 'liked' his playing(I actually
> said I preferred Nicky hopkins, if you look
> closely), its of no consequence to me who plays
> piano for the Stones so long as the band are able
> to perform in an adequate manner (which without
> Leavell they dont appear to be), so try taking the
> time to read it before posting several pages of
> inane uninformed bilge
>
> its been 18 years now
> > with this guy not counting 82 when the stones
> were
> > still the stones and did not let chuck GET IN
> THE
> > WAY,like he does now, i mean cmon now, since 89
> > each tour has been the same book with a
> different
> > cover, the cover being the stage
>
> ...in which case Mick, keith, Charlie and Ronnie
> have no say in the matter, of course...


I do read the posts gazza ok and all threw this thread you have been sticking up for chuck like he is the best thing since sliced bread, and i am supposed to take that to mean you DONT LIKE HIS PLAYING, wtf why dont you read your own posts instead of accusing me of not reading them,stop droaning on about how they cant live without chuck, bullocks, they are lazy and content thats all, if they had some balls they would fire chuck out of a cannon and not care where he lands

melillo Wrote:
> I do read the posts gazza ok and all threw this
> thread you have been sticking up for chuck like he
> is the best thing since sliced bread,

Comprehension wasnt your strongest subject at school, I see.....

and i am
> supposed to take that to mean you DONT LIKE HIS
> PLAYING, wtf why dont you read your own posts

Didnt say that either. Read it again. I'll even put it in italics this time to make it easy. 'I didnt even say I 'liked' his playing(I actually
said I preferred Nicky hopkins, if you look closely), its of no consequence to me who plays piano for the Stones


> instead of accusing me of not reading them,stop
> droaning on

I'm being accused of 'droaning on' by someone with 12 posts in the last 3 pages of this thread already who persistently rabbits how a hired hand has ruined the Stones groove or sound and who thinks a guy who occasionally plays saxophone has a more important role in the band than someone whom Mick and Keith have decided should be their musical director...

about how they cant live without
> chuck, bullocks, they are lazy and content thats
> all, if they had some balls they would fire chuck
> out of a cannon and not care where he lands


Hopefully somewhere soft. Like your head.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-20 01:04 by Gazza.

Mellilo, I happen to agree with Gazza; The Stones aren't lazy where Chuck is concerned, I think they simply recognize his talent. He is versatile, not imposing, and once in awhile he is a bit loud but that would be the problem for the soundboard to contend with. If Chuck were not an asset, at this point he would be GONE! And Gazza, you think this is the last 5 weeks of the Rolling Stones as a touring band??? Why do you say that??