ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Madison Square Garden, January 14, 1998
© Fernando Aceves
[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: -Chuck Levell is versatile and it isn't as stupid as some think to have hired him- Return to archive
03-14-04 06:00 AM
IanBillen I hear people bash Chuck so much. Saying he simply sucks and is the worst thing anyone has ever seen up on stage with The Stones but come on now lets think about it in this light....
Chuck is versatile and a good Keys player. The reason they keep him is he is so versatile. They kept the versatility over someone who has an idnetifiable style. This is because there are so many damn different sounding Stones tunes. Take for instance the difference between 2000 Light Years from Home with Chuck on the keys to the clunky Honky Tonk Women piano sound which he does pretty decent. He is pretty good at both. This and 350 others. I would prefer someone new in the studio. Maybe someone new on tour. But I cant say the Stones descision to keep Chuck Levell is as stupid as some think.
However, I really wish they would keep him a little lower in the mix at times. For instance in Cleveland and Giants (saw em both for Licks) the mix was great. However, when I saw them in Pittsburgh I heard too much of Chuck and not enough Keith and Ronnie. I went around the whole arena to see if it was just where I was sitting but this was not the case. Well I guess there could be logical resons for this besides it being specifically the Stones choice such as the acoustics of the joint, the engineers who may get sloppy or ear fatigue in controlling the live sound mix, and maybe one of our boys is having a bad night. Just some casual thoughts. Again, I wouldn't mind someone new on Keys for a change up. However, I don't feel The Stones desicion to keep him on is as stupid or silly as some may think. And for Gods sake he isn't terrible or a joke. He is a professional Instrumentalist who was hired to tour with the Rolling Stones! How can he be? It is not like he is only good enough to play on weekends at the local pub. Thank you for the read.
Look forward to your quality input.
Anyone?
Ian
03-14-04 06:08 AM
fmk438j I don't think anyone disputes his absolute importance to current stones' encarnation.

But that's what shits everyone, that he is so needed in that role of filler and carrier.




[Edited by fmk438j]
03-14-04 06:14 AM
Moonisup i like chuck
03-14-04 10:15 AM
exilestones@netscape The thing people seem not to like about Chuck is that he plays too many parts where lead fills should be. Take Midnight Rambler on the last tour. Also they don't like his over all pretty sound. Not as pretty and stylish as Nicky and never jamming like Stu or Mac.
03-14-04 10:54 AM
BILL PERKS CHUCK SUCKS
03-14-04 01:39 PM
Jumacfly I hate it but i blame Keith and Ronnie for not being involved in the stage sound...
Keith was very angry in 76 after Billy Preston cuz he thought the Stones became a piano band , nowadays he don t care about that and we all suffer in silence....

Another fact is that since Bill left, the stones try to sound on stage like they sounded on records, so the Band plays with piano and horns (they used to in the other 60s /70 s tours, but in a different mood) and loose IMHO his main force "live" : two f**king raw guitars!
today there s more room for horns and piano, like on studio recording, and less guitar...that s IMHO why Stones fans don t like Chuck, he s the symbol for many of us of this "clean new sound" that we don t really appreciate

cheers

Julian, still alive after a terrific whisky party yesterday night
03-14-04 02:36 PM
stewed & Keefed Chuck the Fuck
[Edited by stewed & Keefed]
03-14-04 02:49 PM
IanBillen
Yes, I see how the music has been less guitary and more smooth. Maybe the Stones aren't supposed to sound like that anymore? I don't know. Was Stu the best? Who was the best for the Stones according to you folks?
Ian
03-14-04 03:11 PM
Moonisup
quote:
stewed & Keefed wrote:
Chuck the Fuck
[Edited by stewed & Keefed]



you could get banned for that! I know that Gazza is a cousin of Chuck, yes, I had to tell you all!
03-14-04 04:10 PM
stewed & Keefed lol
03-14-04 09:18 PM
T&A I have never understood the hatred among many of the diehard for Chuck. I actually think alot of it has to do with non-musical things - like his looks, for instance. He doesn't "look like a Stone." but, you know that kind of idiotic attitude is what kept Stu from occupying his rightful place in the band from the start.

Chuck is a master musician. Listening to his solo album gives one a true appreciation of his abilities. He can alternate among many styles on piano/organ effortlessly. His work with the Allmans was brilliant (no-one seems to doubt that). His place in the mix may be high sometimes - but that ain't his fault. Folks talk about his "playing pretty" bullshit on songs like Rambler. Pretty? Gimme a break - it's playing boogie to a boogie song - what the hell do you want?

The guy is a crack musician who has found a way to stay in the band for over 2 decades (a feat unto itself). And, like I've said many times - if Mick and Keith didn't have someone with his extraordinary gifts to do arrangements and be the stage manager, etc., they may not be as interested in touring in the first place - as Chuck makes it more possible for them just to show up.

We should thank Chuck for being there and be glad that he is...
03-14-04 11:47 PM
IanBillen
quote:
T&A wrote:
I have never understood the hatred among many of the diehard for Chuck. I actually think alot of it has to do with non-musical things - like his looks, for instance. He doesn't "look like a Stone." but, you know that kind of idiotic attitude is what kept Stu from occupying his rightful place in the band from the start.

Chuck is a master musician. Listening to his solo album gives one a true appreciation of his abilities. He can alternate among many styles on piano/organ effortlessly. His work with the Allmans was brilliant (no-one seems to doubt that). His place in the mix may be high sometimes - but that ain't his fault. Folks talk about his "playing pretty" bullshit on songs like Rambler. Pretty? Gimme a break - it's playing boogie to a boogie song - what the hell do you want?

The guy is a crack musician who has found a way to stay in the band for over 2 decades (a feat unto itself). And, like I've said many times - if Mick and Keith didn't have someone with his extraordinary gifts to do arrangements and be the stage manager, etc., they may not be as interested in touring in the first place - as Chuck makes it more possible for them just to show up.

We should thank Chuck for being there and be glad that he is...

Interesting points. Good Stuff to think about. Only reason I would encourage someone new in the studio is a change-up.
Ian
03-15-04 03:41 AM
gotdablouse Chuck certainly makes Mick and Keith's life easier on the road, what with his mastering of the back catalogue, his ability to fill the gaps and general contribution to making the sound "dollar-friendly" by apprealing to the crowds that have the cash.

The question is whether that's a good thing or not. Other than helping all the Stones's touring crew make dough, I don't see any immediate advantage to the true fans who would like to really hear the Stones. The last time that happened was in 1981!
03-15-04 07:21 AM
zebulon Chuck's ok!

... after all, he has played with the Allman Brothers before - and that's a band I love, too.
03-15-04 12:15 PM
jb Chuck is an enabler for Keith and Ronnie to pose as opposed to playing.
03-15-04 02:00 PM
SoulSurvivr
quote:
BILL PERKS wrote:
CHUCK SUCKS



I concur. Christ - all I need to do is LOOK at him and my stomach curdles - let alone listen to his mindless, rinky-dink, toy-piano playing...

CUE SHOT OF CHUCK AT THE END OF THE PIANO SOLO ON 4FLIX MSG.
03-15-04 02:18 PM
jb [quote]BILL PERKS wrote:
CHUCK SUCKS
[/quote

I truly despise Bill Perks.

BEST VIEWED HIGH