What about the idea of the Stones throwing in a few solo songs in their live shows - 2 hours doesn't do them justice - how come McCartney can play 2 1/2 hours plus and Elton is apparently doing more than 2.5 hours.
In an interview during one of his solo tours (not sure if 1988 or 1992) Keith was talking about how he rationalized using Gimme Shelter in his set list. The indication was he felt singing any songs Mick did the lead on were out of bounds on his solo tour. Using reverse logic, I think they both agree that solo songs are off limits for a Stones concert. I see this as a huge missed opportunity. They should not be afraid to put in one solo song each, and maybe they could even increase the set list by one song from the New Barbarians to give Keith and Ronnie a chance to duet. Finally, while I'm at it: the great duet versions of Happy and Connection would be killers as songs rotated in the 6-9 slot, separate from Keith's two solos while Mick takes his break.
There are so many possible things that the Stones could do to throw a bone to the diehard fans, even if it's just one song a night, that it makes it all the more disapppointing that they are not inclined to do so.
"What about the idea of the Stones throwing in a few solo songs in their live shows - 2 hours doesn't do them justice - how come McCartney can play 2 1/2 hours plus and Elton is apparently doing more than 2.5 hours."
If they should extend the show to a 2,5 hour show, they should include more Stones songs, not solo stuff..... there is more than enough Stones songs to be played....
Would love to hear the Stones do Mick's Evening Gown. Also the Stones did Mick and Peter Tosh's Don't Look Back during the Licks tour, but that is more of a cover.
However this will never happen, we can't even get Mick to come out and do his harmonica part in Imfamy.
paul just stands there..he could not do what jagger does for 2 1/2 hours..he be dead! i would rather them do 2 solo stuff instead of covers...or more stones and no covers...
winos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about the idea of the Stones throwing in a > few solo songs in their live shows -
You must be kidding. Its hard enough to get them to do anything from the back catalogue on this tour that isnt already known to 99% of their audience without expecting them to play solo stuff instead of about 300 other songs from their back catalogue which would be higher in the request list....
I'd wait until the list of STONES songs they play is almost exhausted before they pull out some solo stuff...
Devyn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw the Eagles this year and they did solo stuff > from Glen, Don, and Joe, even some James Gang
Yeah but thats The Eagles, not the Stones
Those guys have all had major careers separate from their work in the band - in Joe Walsh's case, much of it before he joined them
The Eagles might need to pad a show out with solo material - the Stones DONT
BOBM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They should not be afraid to put in > one solo song each, and maybe they could even > increase the set list by one song from the New > Barbarians to give Keith and Ronnie a chance to > duet.
What you are asking for is a prolongation of the infamous piss break. Let's face it, neither Keith nor Ronnie can really sing. None of them sould sing more than he does (rather less). My bladder ain't that weak yet.
The New Barbarians never even made a record, so how they could/should be given a song in a Stones list 26 years after their only tour is beyond me
At least there are a few people in the audience these days who own a few of the band's solo albums. But I'd imagine if you asked about 90% of them who the New Barbarians were, they'd probably think it was some obscure Arnold Schwarzenegger film...