Rolling Stones Forum

Interview mit Chuck Leavell über SAL


AAJ: I thought Martin Scorsese did a fine job on the film Shine a Light. During the opening black-and-white scenes you are seen in your central role as musical navigator, but during the on-stage portion you only see Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie and the background singers. Why was that? Did the camera for the keyboards malfunction?

CL: Every film done on the Rolling Stones is ninety percent Mick Jagger. That's just the way they operate, and you know that going in. We all knew that there would be little of us on screen other than what incidental things might come up. You'd love to have more camera time, and I was pleased they did a remix. I'll give you a story on this. After the first cut, Scorsese and his team came to Rome when we were touring, and we rented a theater and went in and watched it. I'm sure all of us, myself included, were disappointed in some aspects of it. It's so much the principals, especially Mick, and very little of anything else in terms of the camera, and also the mix. It's like the rest of us just don't exist.

And so I went to Mick and I said, “Listen, you haven't asked me, but here's my comments on the film and on the audio mix.” I literally typed it out in a four page letter to him. All the comments were specific, from this song to that song, the camera angles, and especially the audio mix. I don't know whether it made any difference or not, but I can tell you that I was pleased that in the final cut at least the audio mix was much better balanced that what we heard in Rome, and I feel pretty good about that. As for the camera thing, it's like I said--every film they've ever done has been that way. I think it's unfortunate because there's so much more to the Rolling Stones. It's not just me--how many shots of Bobby Keys do you see in that film, and how many shots of the horn players? They may get a total of three seconds of camera time in a two hour film.

AAJ: I think serious Stones fans were probably a little bit disappointed.

CL: I think it is so much deeper and more interesting than that but, you know, that's their way.

AAJ: I know Keith has said that the Stones are a guitar band. It's also a major musical enterprise with a fan base that has pretty clear expectations that must be respected when performing. I'm curious, though, when you guys are off somewhere rehearsing with no audience to please and egos more or less in check, are there times when they aren't the “Stones” and you all are simply musicians jamming the blues and relating to each other like you did when you were a kid back in Alabama?

CL: Oh, sure there are. Man, that goes on all the time, and I think there are also documented events--listen to “Losing My Touch” on Forty Licks (Virgin, 2002). That's very unlike the Stones and very Keith like and it certainly gives me some good space to play. And when you listen to the Stripped (Virgin, 1995) record, that's another example of when they take the focus a little bit down from the principals and you hear a little more of a band sound, and even on Shine a Light (Interscope, 200, when you listen to the audio soundtrack you can hear us there. Yeah, those moments happen. But Mick has a certain concept of who the Rolling Stones are and who they aren't. And he sticks very close to that and he's never gonna change it, and it's always gonna be about him and Keith. Ronnie Wood has had some difficult times of late, and I saw something in the press recently where Mick said, “You know, we're going to tour with or without him.” I understand that, but that gives you a little insight into who Mick thinks the Rolling Stones are and what he thinks the Rolling Stones are. And he's certainly not afraid to let people know that and make it clear that the Rolling Stones are basically Mick and Keith. They would say Charlie, and I would say Charlie too. But they have a commercial entity that, at least at the present moment, has four principal members, and that's what they want to keep things focused on.

AAJ: One can understand why they wouldn't want to tamper with that kind of success. But the interesting thing, Chuck, is that you've had the contrast. Keith said they are a guitar band, and the Allman Brothers were the ultimate guitar band, but they heard your chops and they asked you to join the band and they turned their sound around for you, so you've seen every side. You've been with the most successful rock band of all time, but considering what the Allman Brothers Band did, I think that's also a huge compliment to your talent.

CL: Well, I appreciate that and you're right, and of course that was a completely different situation. And sometimes, quite frankly, I do lament the fact that I've not been able to have that type of influence with my role in the Stones. There are plenty of recordings laying around, and there are moments and there are also complete songs that were done and never released where I have a more prominent role. I would have loved to have had a stronger influence on the band musically, but it's their show and they're going to run it the way they choose.



aus: All about Jazz