|
|
| Mother baby |
Why does every one hate Chuck so much? After all if Mick and Keith didn't want him there, he wouldn't be there. And who knows what Stu might have tought. But my guess is that Stu would have wanted Chuck or whoever, to be treated with the same respect Stu himself would have had in the same position???????????
[Edited by Mother baby] |
|
|
| marko |
Chuck don�t know shit about swingin good rock n roll!he is�
too phony arse wipe. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
stu was stu
and chuck might be a good musician with clapton, or was with George h, but not for the stones! |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
Chuck is a note player.
Stu is a boogie/soul player.
Now who would you choose?
Thats why the Still Life tour was so fantastic. |
|
|
| Mother baby |
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:
Chuck is a note player.
Stu is a boogie/soul player.
Now who would you choose?
Well of course for me, I would choose Stu.
[Edited by Mother baby] |
|
|
| SirMuddy |
btw Stu could had choose Chuck...
They played together on the European 1982 still life tour...
Anyway
Oneluv |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
I don't object to Chuck's "sound" at all, it is actually very Stonesy. Listen to him and Mac playing on Live And Eclectic (Ronnie's live album) - it's actually quite amazing, because he's low in the mix, behind Mac and the guitars, and that kinda clonking sound that we hate so much now fits in perfectly behind everything else.
Stu did indeed choose Chuck, and Chuck is indeed, according to several accounts, one of the nicest guys in rock'n'roll.
But the fact is, the keyboard he's playing now has too much of a fake reverb effect, sounds too clean-cut and fake in comparison to Stu's "worn-out" supporting barrelhouse style. He's also far too high up in the soundboard mixes, so even if you hear a good concert this tour, chances are if you get a soundboard of it you'll hear Chuck bonking along front and center. He needs to be given a real piano, like Stu and Mac (in addition to the organ - when he plays organ it sounds great, did you notice? "She Smiled Sweetly" is a good example this tour), and turned down in the mix, 'till he's behind Ronnie and Keith. With an unobtrusive sound, those clunking constant inversions will sound a hell of a lot better.
But right now, it just ain't cuttin' it.
Waitaminute... didn't Chuck co-write "Back To Zero"?
Kill the bastard.
-tSYX --- Now I ain't lookin' for no pretty face... |
|
|
| vampire |
I like Chuck. He sent me her "What�s In that Bag" signed, in 98/99, and he plays keyboards very well, I�d say.
I really don�t care if who�s playing is Chuck or Stu. I prefer Nicky, instead.
Cheers, Chuck |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
THE HORROR...WE PROBABLY HAVE STU TO BLAME FOR HIRING HIM BUT THEY DIDNT HAVE TO KEEP HIM AROUND FOR 20 YEARS!HE JUMPED THE SHARK IN 1989,NOW HE'S A GRATUITOUS,LINDA MACARTNEY LIKE PRESENCE.ALL CAUSE HE DOES THE THINKING "OBERGRUPENFUHRER" REFUSES TO DO. |
|
|
| marko |
Well chucks been there since 1982! |
|
|
| dealer squealing |
Well if Chuck is to be treated like Stu, then why haven�t they put Chuck behind the curtains?? |
|
|
| Mother baby |
Chuck wouldn't play behind a curtain.
Stu did what he had to....and the Rolling Stones are a better band for it. |
|
|
| jb |
He was fine with the Allman Brothers but cannot be compared to the likes of Stu, Nicky Hopkins, Mac, and the great Billy Preston. They were the right guys for the right time period and blended in quite nicely. Chuck, on the other hand, has dramatically replaced the guitar driven sound with his ad nauseum solos and loud mix. |
|
|
| vampire |
If you could change, who would be the Chuck replacement?
|
|
|
| jb |
Billy Preston .... |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
quote:
vampire wrote:
If you could change, who would be the Chuck replacement?
Ian McLagan. Billy Preston would demand to have his own section in the concerts again.
Plus, we'd run the risk of a reprise of everyone's favorite activity.
-tSYX --- Rockin' and a-reelin' with a whole lotta feelin'... |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
i was always surprised ivan neville wasn't considered to be the right man
chuck's role is more than just a keyboard player (unfortunately) - he is the bridge between keith and mick that needed to be built after "world war three" went down in the mid 80's (no coincidnce that being the same time stu went)
as keith said "stu was the glue" that held the band together - chuck is too in a way
but stu was a glue like good old fashoined boiled up horse bones - chuck is more like some modern toxic polyurethane (sp?) nightmare |
|
|
| T&A |
Mac has said many times (publicly and privately - he'll respond to your emails personally) that he would love to be working with the Stones but that he never hears from them anymore. Probable reason: bad influence on Woody (gulp, gulp). |
|
|
| Rags |
Interesting discussion...
>If you could change, who would be the Chuck replacement?
Mac hands down!
Mac and Woody need to team up again. They would be good for each other musically and spiritually. Keith is the bad influence. Mac has been clean since the 80s. It's all about the music now.
|
|
|
| VoodooChileInWOnderl |
I agree 100% Rags... of the surviving keys he's the most stone what a pity he was not invited to jam at least for a song in Texas
in order
1.- Nicky
2.- Stu
3.- Mac
Then:
Leon Russell
Al Kooper
Jack Nitzche
Billy Preston
Benmount Tench
Chuck Leavell
|
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
Replacement for Chuck? -that's easy.....Ed from the Black Crowes, or Johnnie Johnson. I mean he's really not THAT much older than our beloved geezers. |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]