Tell Me :
Talk
The "chose" subject: This was exactly what Chuck Leavell told me.
The Cockney subject: Stewart is a Scottish name but Stu was born and raised in London as Rod Stewart. I'm sure their dialect is more London than Scotish. Lennon is of Irish origin but listen to early Beatles interviews, he like the others speaks Liverpudlian and not Irish. It is very amazing to listen to the change of language in their interviews, they really switched to Southern English and later on to that can't=kent americanized English.
Chuck Leavell pronounced it the way I tried to describe.
He said: [Wud ya loik to ‘ave a li’l bit/d-of fon wiv-us?!]
He didn't say: [Hwu:d yu la-ik to he:v a lit-a-bit af fun with us?!]
The : means the vowel is pronounced long; The ' shall indicate the Glottal Stop in little; The - shall indicate that these words are spoken as one except in la-ik which shall mark rather two spoken syllables.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-17 15:31 by JJHMick.
... he was added on in 1982, actually.
[thepowergoats.com]
Yes. His point, apparently.
Yes, and we all have to face the fact that the Stones seem to regard him in the same league as Bobbby Keys nowadays. - Somewhere in this thread was a quote with something like 'He is no rock star'. Did Charlie ever look like a rock star?
wooah baby, bring it on............
C
Seen from another angle, it perhaps says more about the dodgy tastes of the great British public!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: September 17, 2008 08:55
Quote
stonesrule
Stu was a Scot...not a Cockney, And not exactly accurate to say it was Stu who "chose" Leavell.
The "chose" subject: This was exactly what Chuck Leavell told me.
The Cockney subject: Stewart is a Scottish name but Stu was born and raised in London as Rod Stewart. I'm sure their dialect is more London than Scotish. Lennon is of Irish origin but listen to early Beatles interviews, he like the others speaks Liverpudlian and not Irish. It is very amazing to listen to the change of language in their interviews, they really switched to Southern English and later on to that can't=kent americanized English.
Chuck Leavell pronounced it the way I tried to describe.
He said: [Wud ya loik to ‘ave a li’l bit/d-of fon wiv-us?!]
He didn't say: [Hwu:d yu la-ik to he:v a lit-a-bit af fun with us?!]
The : means the vowel is pronounced long; The ' shall indicate the Glottal Stop in little; The - shall indicate that these words are spoken as one except in la-ik which shall mark rather two spoken syllables.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-17 15:31 by JJHMick.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: September 17, 2008 09:06
>> Stu was born and raised in London <<
no he wasn't - he was born in Scotland and raised in Sutton (which technically became part of Greater London in 1963).
thanks for the analysis of Chuck's efforts to imitate his pronunciation, but ...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-17 09:52 by with sssoul.
no he wasn't - he was born in Scotland and raised in Sutton (which technically became part of Greater London in 1963).
thanks for the analysis of Chuck's efforts to imitate his pronunciation, but ...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-17 09:52 by with sssoul.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: September 17, 2008 12:27
I don't read between the lines of Chuck's comments in the same way as some folks seem to have. I don't think he's expressing any really deep dissatisfaction with his lot at all.
Any musician in any band situation will tell you the same stories about how their particular contribtions or views might have been more to the fore in this piece of work or that. Chuck's not a "Rock Star", he's a professional musician of the highest calibre. He knows what his job is in the context of the Stones and I suspect he's essentially very happy with it. If he didn't think he was getting from the band the respect which his position merits, he wouldn't have stayed with it for twenty-odd years.
Any musician in any band situation will tell you the same stories about how their particular contribtions or views might have been more to the fore in this piece of work or that. Chuck's not a "Rock Star", he's a professional musician of the highest calibre. He knows what his job is in the context of the Stones and I suspect he's essentially very happy with it. If he didn't think he was getting from the band the respect which his position merits, he wouldn't have stayed with it for twenty-odd years.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Doc
()
Date: September 17, 2008 13:10
Well, SAL is a Scorcese movie.
It is made the way HE sees the Stones.
Like probably any old-shool Stones fan who knows the band since the 60ies, the main characters are the 4 remaining "real" Stones.
I don't even know if the Band had a right to "edit" MS's work, otherwise than the sound mix.
SAL is not a music video, it's a movie.
It is made the way HE sees the Stones.
Like probably any old-shool Stones fan who knows the band since the 60ies, the main characters are the 4 remaining "real" Stones.
I don't even know if the Band had a right to "edit" MS's work, otherwise than the sound mix.
SAL is not a music video, it's a movie.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: September 18, 2008 21:06
i find it very intresting that chuck leavall has an issue with his lack of camera time in shine a light.let's look back to Scorcese THE LAST WALTZ which was dominated by the BAND'S guitarist ROBBIE ROBBERTSON who had a lot of camera time instead of the TRIUMVIRATE OF LEVON HELM, RICK DANKO,and RICHARD MANUEL,who were the vocalist of THE BAND.another funny thing about this is that ROBBIE ROBERTSON liked to sing and they never had his mic plugged (cant sing to save his life)in thats so funny to me.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
1cdog
()
Date: September 19, 2008 01:22
I came across this article a couple of days ago and started to start a thread. Glad I did not do so now that I see this one.
I think it is an excellent interview and I would recommend going to the link and reading the entire interview.
I think it is an excellent interview and I would recommend going to the link and reading the entire interview.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Elastic
()
Date: September 22, 2008 04:50
CHuck is a sideman, right? Am I missing something?......
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Rufestone
()
Date: September 22, 2008 09:55
maby no backing band ,back to the old days . only bobby .
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: September 22, 2008 14:20
Quote
ohnonotyouagain
Did Chuck play on the Steel Wheels tour? For some reason I was thinking Matt Clifford was the only keyboardist then.
... he was added on in 1982, actually.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 22, 2008 14:27
Quote
Elastic
CHuck is a sideman, right? Am I missing something?......
Yes. His point, apparently.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: September 22, 2008 23:35
Quote
GazzaQuote
Elastic
CHuck is a sideman, right? Am I missing something?......
Yes. His point, apparently.
Yes, and we all have to face the fact that the Stones seem to regard him in the same league as Bobbby Keys nowadays. - Somewhere in this thread was a quote with something like 'He is no rock star'. Did Charlie ever look like a rock star?
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
mofur
()
Date: September 23, 2008 00:32
There is also an interview in "Keyboard Magazine", Sept. issue [www.keyboardmag.com]
It says much the same, perhaps with a little more emphasis on how he feels his contributions are not taken seriously enough. You can't read the article on the site - I think? The link is for a master class by CL ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-23 00:34 by mofur.
It says much the same, perhaps with a little more emphasis on how he feels his contributions are not taken seriously enough. You can't read the article on the site - I think? The link is for a master class by CL ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-23 00:34 by mofur.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 23, 2008 00:40
Quote
JJHMickQuote
GazzaQuote
Elastic
CHuck is a sideman, right? Am I missing something?......
Yes. His point, apparently.
Yes, and we all have to face the fact that the Stones seem to regard him in the same league as Bobbby Keys nowadays. quote]
..which is pretty reasonable considering Bobby's only really an occasional sax player, almost certainly doesnt make any contribution to song suggestions and isnt employed as a musical director
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: September 23, 2008 09:13
Quote
GazzaQuote
JJHMickQuote
GazzaQuote
Elastic
CHuck is a sideman, right? Am I missing something?......
Yes. His point, apparently.
Yes, and we all have to face the fact that the Stones seem to regard him in the same league as Bobbby Keys nowadays. quote]
..which is pretty reasonable considering Bobby's only really an occasional sax player, almost certainly doesnt make any contribution to song suggestions and isnt employed as a musical director
Right, to be precise: We all have to face the fact that the Stones seem to trust Chuck more than Bobby Keys as they give him a responsibility not yet given to any non-group-member before. Plus: We all have to face the fact that we as fans must regard Chuck to be in the in the same league as Bobby Keys, nowadays.
Let's open a threat and vote on Contributions Of Side(wo)men, like:
Lisa duetting with Mick on Monkey Man
Bobby solo on CYHMK
Chuck for turning HTW from a Blues into a Boogie
John Paul Jones string arrangement on She's A Rainbow or the like
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: September 23, 2008 09:43
which is pretty reasonable considering Bobby's only really an occasional sax player
Yeah but on the road Bobby also has ta look after the Dom
......And them there hotel bath-tubs....I fought everyone knew that..
ROCKMAN
Yeah but on the road Bobby also has ta look after the Dom
......And them there hotel bath-tubs....I fought everyone knew that..
ROCKMAN
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 23, 2008 10:11
<Did Charlie ever look like a rock star?>
The ultimate rock star, imo.
The ultimate rock star, imo.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
turd
()
Date: September 23, 2008 10:20
SAL was a film aimed at a global market. Mick Jagger is a household name, most people know at least one Rolling Stones song (Satisfaction), some people know of Keith Richards image and reputation. but don't necessarily connect him to the Stones. RW has had media coverage in the UK because of his boozing and womanising, a lot of people still connect him with Rod Stewart. That's it - no one unless they have Stones albums will know the rest of the band.
The marketing men would not want the cameras to focus on a fuzzy old man with a grey beard (however good his playing is) for more than 3 seconds because it detracts the publics attention away from the leading star. It would have been the same for Ian Stewart and Ian macLagan too.
As for the keyboards in the mix - they never have been up front so why should they be now. The honky tonk piano in HTW is horrible if you ask me.
In my local town, 25 people came to the local cinema to see SAL. Mamma Mia ran for a week - sold out every night. I think that says something of the Great British public's perception of the Rolling Stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-23 10:22 by turd.
The marketing men would not want the cameras to focus on a fuzzy old man with a grey beard (however good his playing is) for more than 3 seconds because it detracts the publics attention away from the leading star. It would have been the same for Ian Stewart and Ian macLagan too.
As for the keyboards in the mix - they never have been up front so why should they be now. The honky tonk piano in HTW is horrible if you ask me.
In my local town, 25 people came to the local cinema to see SAL. Mamma Mia ran for a week - sold out every night. I think that says something of the Great British public's perception of the Rolling Stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-23 10:22 by turd.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Jack Knife
()
Date: September 23, 2008 10:24
Mick Jagger killed the Rolling Stones in 1973. Its been his back-up band ever since. ALL of them. He's no better than Rod Stewart. He keeps Keith and the name for financial reasons only. He certainly no longer has any loyalty, originality, song-writing skills nor does he care about any musical or creative legacy other than what they accrued pre-1973.
THREE studio albums in eighteen years. At least he realises he's creatively spent. Who knows how it would have been if he'd allowed Keith, Ronnie, Charlie and Bill to have a hand in the Rolling Stones. Instead we got "Anybody Seen My Baby" and "Streets Of Love." What an egomaniacal jerk.
THREE studio albums in eighteen years. At least he realises he's creatively spent. Who knows how it would have been if he'd allowed Keith, Ronnie, Charlie and Bill to have a hand in the Rolling Stones. Instead we got "Anybody Seen My Baby" and "Streets Of Love." What an egomaniacal jerk.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
ERC6761
()
Date: September 23, 2008 10:37
Quote
Jack Knife
Mick Jagger killed the Rolling Stones in 1973. Its been his back-up band ever since. ALL of them. He's no better than Rod Stewart. He keeps Keith and the name for financial reasons only. He certainly no longer has any loyalty, originality, song-writing skills nor does he care about any musical or creative legacy other than what they accrued pre-1973.
THREE studio albums in eighteen years. At least he realises he's creatively spent. Who knows how it would have been if he'd allowed Keith, Ronnie, Charlie and Bill to have a hand in the Rolling Stones. Instead we got "Anybody Seen My Baby" and "Streets Of Love." What an egomaniacal jerk.
wooah baby, bring it on............
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: September 23, 2008 11:20
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Did Charlie ever look like a rock star?>
The ultimate rock star, imo.
C
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 23, 2008 11:39
LOL! Priceless pics 
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Beast
()
Date: September 23, 2008 12:30
Quote
turd
In my local town, 25 people came to the local cinema to see SAL. Mamma Mia ran for a week - sold out every night. I think that says something of the Great British public's perception of the Rolling Stones.
Seen from another angle, it perhaps says more about the dodgy tastes of the great British public!
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Svartmer
()
Date: September 23, 2008 12:44
If the Stones can get Meryl Streep for the next movie I´m sure they can succeed too.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 23, 2008 14:22
Quote
JJHMickQuote
GazzaQuote
JJHMickQuote
GazzaQuote
Elastic
CHuck is a sideman, right? Am I missing something?......
Yes. His point, apparently.
Yes, and we all have to face the fact that the Stones seem to regard him in the same league as Bobbby Keys nowadays. quote]
..which is pretty reasonable considering Bobby's only really an occasional sax player, almost certainly doesnt make any contribution to song suggestions and isnt employed as a musical director
Right, to be precise: We all have to face the fact that the Stones seem to trust Chuck more than Bobby Keys as they give him a responsibility not yet given to any non-group-member before. Plus: We all have to face the fact that we as fans must regard Chuck to be in the in the same league as Bobby Keys, nowadays.
What exactly has Bobby done thats made him such an indispensable and vital cog in the Stones machine to some people - playing an iconic sax solo on one or two of their biggest hits isnt really THAT big a deal. They managed without him for well over a decade after he let them down in mid tour in 1973. I like the guy and he's a fine musician, but he's no more or less important than most of the other backing musicians. He's never been anything more than a bit part player. It seems that his elevation is based on the fact that he's been there for a long time.
the idea that someone who's onstage for a third of a show should be deemed as important to the band's sound as someone theyve chosen to be their musical director is a bit odd to me. If the Stones have given Chuck that role, its their decision and no one elses, so the buck stops with them if fans have a problem with it, as they seem to feel that Keith cant hack that role anymore.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: September 23, 2008 14:52
Liddas,they say every picture tells a story ,and those photos tell me everything i need to know and also confirms everything about chuck .as they say you cant make stuff(photos)up like that .
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 23, 2008 15:06
the first pic reminds me of The Good Ole Boys from The Blues Brothers
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 23, 2008 15:47
"...yes, we are the good ol' (blues) brothers...
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: September 23, 2008 17:17
can you imagine chuck playing the opening chords of heartbreaker on that strapped on keyboard .
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: September 23, 2008 21:26
It's not Chuck that'll be looking ridiculous. It's the strapped on keyboard looking ridiculous on everybody even Billy Preston.
Listen to those hordes of keyboards (no matter how "down in the mix" they are)on Goat's Head Soup then you know why this record is regarded so low by most of the fans.
Listen to those hordes of keyboards (no matter how "down in the mix" they are)on Goat's Head Soup then you know why this record is regarded so low by most of the fans.
Re: Chuck Leavell Interview. (Stones content).
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: September 23, 2008 21:38
Well personally his role as the set list consultant is a load of crap. They continue to play boring set lists overall (we know the exceptions) and for some reason Undercover Of The Night. So that says a lot about his influenece over the set list.
As far as his griping about what he plays not being mixed high enough, he plays the same bluesy perfect jingle jangle pretty sugary shit like Matt Clifford did - it just doesn't suit them - it's perfect, not loose. If he were to do the barrel rolling boogie of Stu then maybe they'd crank him up a bit. And why he sings backing vocals on songs I'll never know - he basically made Street Fighting Man on the Licks tour sound like it was coming out of a stereo in a mall (other than that I thought it was fantastic). The only thing he plays worth a shit is the intro to Monkey Man. Mick Jagger plays more interesting keyboards than Chuck.
Difinitely get Ian McLagen back.
As far as his griping about what he plays not being mixed high enough, he plays the same bluesy perfect jingle jangle pretty sugary shit like Matt Clifford did - it just doesn't suit them - it's perfect, not loose. If he were to do the barrel rolling boogie of Stu then maybe they'd crank him up a bit. And why he sings backing vocals on songs I'll never know - he basically made Street Fighting Man on the Licks tour sound like it was coming out of a stereo in a mall (other than that I thought it was fantastic). The only thing he plays worth a shit is the intro to Monkey Man. Mick Jagger plays more interesting keyboards than Chuck.
Difinitely get Ian McLagen back.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1373
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10