| February 10th, 2006 10:38 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
from his diary:
I had adjusted my position on the stage with Mick's approval the day before...at first they had put me right in front of Ronnie's amps, which was a very uncomfortable position for me to be in. I begged Mick to allow me to move up just about three feet to get out of the line of fire, and he had agreed...and I was happy. So the first run through went fine as far as I was concerned. However, bad news was to come. Patrick Woodroffe came to me saying that I was in the way of a certain camera angle and he was insisting that I move back. I told him that there was a good reason why I had moved....and had him stand there while Dave Rouze, Ronnie's tech, banged on Ronnie's guitar to show him what it was like. He winced at the sound....but would not relent his insistence that I move. I argued as much as I could....and was really quite shocked that Patrick would not defend me keeping my position. Another part of this situation that was frankly demeaning to me was that in essence he was telling me to get out of the way of the camera...to get out of the shot. The inevitable message was that he (or whoever) didn't want me in camera range. The bottom line was that I was over ruled and was put back into direct line of Ronnie's amp. Honestly, it could not have been a worse position for me to be in...but there was no choice for me in the matter and no sense arguing any further, so I had to accept it. The next run through was the "back up" recording. My position made it impossible for me to find any comfort level...all respect to Ronnie, and it had nothing to do with him...but all I could hear was his guitar. No drums, no vocals, very little of my keys....no bass. Basically, about as disastrous as it could get. I have no idea what anything sounded like....and had to play strictly by rote, hoping that somehow it would turn out ok. I would think that more emphasis would be put on allowing everyone....including the keyboard player...to be in a comfort zone with sound as well as positioning. But obviously that is not a priority in this particular situation. Unfortunate for me, but it's certainly not the first time I've been left to deal with undesirable circumstance. I did the best I could...but I have to admit it was more than a disappointment. I guess the good news is that it's for only 12 minutes. During the back up taping it was obvious that not all were hearing well...during Satisfaction it was apparent that Keith thought his ending solo was coming....as Mick went through the last verse...I was watching this go down thinking to myself...this is why comfort and sound should always take precedence over camera angles and other fluff. |
| February 10th, 2006 10:43 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
from his diary:
I had adjusted my position on the stage with Mick's approval the day before...at first they had put me right in front of Ronnie's amps, which was a very uncomfortable position for me to be in. I begged Mick to allow me to move up just about three feet to get out of the line of fire, and he had agreed...and I was happy. So the first run through went fine as far as I was concerned. However, bad news was to come. Patrick Woodroffe came to me saying that I was in the way of a certain camera angle and he was insisting that I move back. I told him that there was a good reason why I had moved....and had him stand there while Dave Rouze, Ronnie's tech, banged on Ronnie's guitar to show him what it was like. He winced at the sound....but would not relent his insistence that I move. I argued as much as I could....and was really quite shocked that Patrick would not defend me keeping my position. Another part of this situation that was frankly demeaning to me was that in essence he was telling me to get out of the way of the camera...to get out of the shot. The inevitable message was that he (or whoever) didn't want me in camera range. The bottom line was that I was over ruled and was put back into direct line of Ronnie's amp. Honestly, it could not have been a worse position for me to be in...but there was no choice for me in the matter and no sense arguing any further, so I had to accept it. The next run through was the "back up" recording. My position made it impossible for me to find any comfort level...all respect to Ronnie, and it had nothing to do with him...but all I could hear was his guitar. No drums, no vocals, very little of my keys....no bass. Basically, about as disastrous as it could get. I have no idea what anything sounded like....and had to play strictly by rote, hoping that somehow it would turn out ok. I would think that more emphasis would be put on allowing everyone....including the keyboard player...to be in a comfort zone with sound as well as positioning. But obviously that is not a priority in this particular situation. Unfortunate for me, but it's certainly not the first time I've been left to deal with undesirable circumstance. I did the best I could...but I have to admit it was more than a disappointment. I guess the good news is that it's for only 12 minutes. During the back up taping it was obvious that not all were hearing well...during Satisfaction it was apparent that Keith thought his ending solo was coming....as Mick went through the last verse...I was watching this go down thinking to myself...this is why comfort and sound should always take precedence over camera angles and other fluff.
This leads me to beleive that Chuck has plenty of say with Mick and Keith and was humiliated by the network folks. He seems to play a much more crucial role than Ronnie, Keith, or Charlie. Thankfully he has been writing some great setlists as of late. |
| February 10th, 2006 10:52 PM |
|
|
| Altamont |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
This leads me to beleive that Chuck has plenty of say with Mick and Keith and was humiliated by the network folks. He seems to play a much more crucial role than Ronnie, Keith, or Charlie. Thankfully he has been writing some great setlists as of late.
Seems like Chuck was largely responsible for the great setlists from the Licks tour. Like him or not, he is the one who encourages the band to do the rare stuff. |
| February 10th, 2006 10:54 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Altamont wrote:
Seems like Chuck was largely responsible for the great setlists from the Licks tour. Like him or not, he is the one who encourages the band to do the rare stuff.
I usually take a beating for supporting him...but it has been publicly stated that it was Chuck who pushed for As tears Go By and Sway this tour....I assume countless others. |
| February 10th, 2006 11:13 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
I must have missed this one, how do you know who writes the setlists? |
| February 10th, 2006 11:16 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
CraigP wrote:
I must have missed this one, how do you know who writes the setlists?
been stated in a few interviews, but go to www.chuckleavell.com click on the tour diary and you will see several instances where chuck mentions that he writes the setlist. Chuck writes them and Mick approves them |
| February 10th, 2006 11:21 PM |
|
|
| Scottfree |
I guess on a positive note, it sounds as though Ronnie in fact does play his guitar... |
| February 10th, 2006 11:27 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Scottfree wrote:
I guess on a positive note, it sounds as though Ronnie in fact does play his guitar...
true:
From Chucks site for you:
" As usual I went down early to the gig...although Mick had canceled the sound check saying that he had a cold and wanted to rest as much as possible. Hearing this, I wrote up a set list that wouldn't tax him too much...no songs with high notes or that would make things too tough. I ran it by him and he approved it, appreciating my forethought." |
| February 11th, 2006 03:09 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
I hate Chuck on so many levels...
BUT!!!
He is the real reason we get what we get on so many levels.. Bottom line, he's probably the biggest Stones fan out there!!! |
| February 11th, 2006 03:56 AM |
|
|
| egon |
Chuck is "the man".... with a diary.
 |
| February 11th, 2006 05:03 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
Waht is Back Taping?
where the back vox recorded before??
was it playback? |
| February 11th, 2006 05:57 AM |
|
|
| J.J.Flash |
Anybody here knows my opinion about him...... should I .... nah, nevermind |
| February 11th, 2006 06:19 AM |
|
|
| Ramrod |
I finally got around to checking out the Superbowl show on the youtube site and thought they looked great and sounded like '60's garage punk, which is a compliment! Their energy level was up there, which considering the technical difficulties with onstage sound and monitoring as explained by Chuck is a testament to their professionalism.
Backing tapes? Well there was some disembodied background vocals which were audible, but the band sounded pretty much live. I am disappointed but not suprised that the ABC network would put the vision ahead of the sound. After all they think in terms of pictures, pictures and pictures. Plus I bet they didn't even know who Chuck was. To them he could have been a pickup player, for all they knew. It's all so typical of big networks and their thinking. They know not rock'n'roll. The Stones deserved much better than that sort of treatment.
But in spite of all the problems, I for one loved the rawness of the superbowl sound. Maybe that rawness could be a springboard for the next Stones album. Ditch the production and get back to the garage. Keiths wayward guitar style was refreshingly dangerous in an increasingly protooled, massaged and boringly safe audio world. |
| February 11th, 2006 07:25 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
What strikes me most is that, apperently, Jagger pulls ALL the strings. If you're an integral part of the band but you have to ask the singer if you're allowed to move 3 feet back because you're directly in front of a guitar amp, that's quite terrible. I can imagie that all other backing musicians have absolutely nothing to say, all they can do is obey Jagger.
But then again, Jagger also knows that of the 150 million watching, only three people will actually look at the bearded piano player. All else will only watch Mick and Keith. So Patrick actually might be right....
Mathijs |
| February 11th, 2006 07:27 AM |
|
|
| NHStonesfan |
"and had to play strictly by rote"
Interesting diary account and I can't blame him for feeling the way he did but he ought to being able to play those 3 rote by now. Then again I'm better at listening to live Stones than producing. |
| February 11th, 2006 09:41 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
I believe Chuck is a valued addition for many reasons...when he is mixed properly like this tour! |
| February 11th, 2006 11:17 AM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
Ridiculous that any of the key members of the band has to put up with indignities like that. ... |
| February 11th, 2006 11:38 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
Moon is up: chuck lover since 2003!
Remember that ! |
| February 11th, 2006 12:06 PM |
|
|
| Nellcote |
Chuck is part of the supporting cast.
He needs to remember this.
The second time I read this it became
more apparant to me that he feels he is more than this.
It's all about the four Stones, frankly Chuck should
find it fortunate he was on the stage.
I appreciate that Chuck has brought cohesiveness
to the Stones, as well as songs which may have
never been played without him.
I would think that the chap who staged this event
Don Mischer, was controlling what was happening, and
had this Patrick as his mouthpiece.
So, while Chuck is probably higher on the depth chart with the Stones, the director for this event, who with the charge of the NFL to not have any problems with this event, knows it is all about the four Stones, no one else.
|
| February 11th, 2006 12:17 PM |
|
|
| Stray Cat UK |
I can't beleive this,but I actually feel sorry for the guy.
|
| February 11th, 2006 12:17 PM |
|
|
| Stray Cat UK |
I can't beleive this,but I actually feel sorry for the guy.
|
| February 11th, 2006 12:45 PM |
|
|
| monkeyman62 |
does chucks position really matter , who cares, was anyone
intereseted in chuck, gimme a break, i couldnt care less where he was positioned |
| February 11th, 2006 01:08 PM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Mick Jagger writes the set lists. Chuck, I'm sure, has plenty of suggestions and can be quite convincing with getting them to do the odd song, but Jagger writes them.
On the four clicks docu-disk you can see Ronnie praise Mick for his set list at the Toronto club show, fort instance.
Hell, Mick has to sing them. He needs to pace the show according to what he can do.
|
| February 11th, 2006 02:07 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Nellcote wrote:
Chuck is part of the supporting cast.
He needs to remember this.
Well that's not necessily a good thing. When you had 6 (counting Bill, Stu or Nicky) Stones it was much better than just 4.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| February 11th, 2006 04:32 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
just because you're a backup should not mean putting up with physical discomfort....those TV appearances always seem a mixed blessing
|
| February 11th, 2006 04:36 PM |
|
|
| monkeyman62 |
[quote]Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Well that's not necessily a good thing. When you had 6 (counting Bill, Stu or Nicky) Stones it was much better than just 4.
nick and stu werent stones either, as much as i respect stu he was not a stone, thus the supporting cast |
| February 11th, 2006 05:38 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
Waht is Back Taping?
where the back vox recorded before??
was it playback?
there was a filmed dress rehearsal in case power went dead or mick starting exposing himself or any other "unforeseen malfuntion", they could go to a taped performance |
| February 12th, 2006 12:03 AM |
|
|
| ExileInLA |
He just didn't want to be in front of Ronnie's amp while Ronnie was playing "Stay With Me" and the Stones were playing "Start Me Up". Can't blame him.
[Edited by ExileInLA] |
| February 12th, 2006 12:43 AM |
|
|
| KeepRigid |
What is Chuck's take on Michelle Kwan's intentions?
Has he said or drawn anything?
Where do we go from here? |
| February 12th, 2006 05:06 AM |
|
|
| Navin |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
...apperently, Jagger pulls ALL the strings....all they can do is obey Jagger....
But if Keith says "no" Mick is fucked !! |
