Ok, I know, the great set list debate! But this is a little different . . . actually probably not, its probably been discussed, well, sorry if it has but i missed it . . .

First off I was and always have been a true believer in changing up the set list, but as of late I have accepted the Stones for who they are and for what they (depending on you point of view this is either good or bad) and appreciating the shows that they have given us over the years . . .

After a few months hiatus away from the band,
Today I listen to Talk is Cheap, Steel Wheels and the Philly '89 rehearsals. (I was at both Philly shows in '89)

Listening to those recordings made me wish for Keith to at least play some solo material within his two song slot. He has had a number of years to do this, so I'm thinking that it will not happen. Not quite sure why not, but a few reasons, and certainly not all, are that he has enough Stones lead vocal material for the two slots, playing solo stuff is a kinda disrespectful thing to the stones, and it may open up a can of worms with Jagger. Imagine Jagger slipping in something like Let's Work . . . oh the humanity!

Imagine Keith doing:

Wicked as it seems
Make no mistake

Or he could do a combination of a stones song then a solo song, the solo stuff would be easy to do, for christ sakes they have a 15 piece band up there, backing singers and all . . .

Has anyone ever felt this way, or wished this way, if so, what would you like Keith to do?

sing back-up only and play the guitar with no mugging.

I think at their age they should take a 15/20 minute intermission and play 2x 1 hour + sets with no keith set ,but maybe connection /ygts sung with mick !

sc uk

2 10-12 minute versions of Happy. One with Mick.

The very idea of Let's Work being performed! Cracks me up...

32-20 blues-Keith only
Happy or Connection

What about "the worst"?

Quote
NorthShoreBlues2
Ok, I know, the great set list debate! But this is a little different . . . actually probably not, its probably been discussed, well, sorry if it has but i missed it . . .

First off I was and always have been a true believer in changing up the set list, but as of late I have accepted the Stones for who they are and for what they (depending on you point of view this is either good or bad) and appreciating the shows that they have given us over the years . . .

After a few months hiatus away from the band,
Today I listen to Talk is Cheap, Steel Wheels and the Philly '89 rehearsals. (I was at both Philly shows in '89)

Listening to those recordings made me wish for Keith to at least play some solo material within his two song slot. He has had a number of years to do this, so I'm thinking that it will not happen. Not quite sure why not, but a few reasons, and certainly not all, are that he has enough Stones lead vocal material for the two slots, playing solo stuff is a kinda disrespectful thing to the stones, and it may open up a can of worms with Jagger. Imagine Jagger slipping in something like Let's Work . . . oh the humanity!

The stampede out the door would make the catastrophe at that Who Cincinnati concert look like a picnic.

No member of the band has ever performed any of their solo work on stage with the Stones - I don't know if this is written into the contract like Mick's absence from the stage during Keith's set, but written or unwritten it seems to be the rule. I think NorthShoreBlues2 might be right - if Keith did sing Wicked As It Seems or whatever, there might have to be a tradeoff allowing Mick to do one of his (it doesn't HAVE to be Let's Work!) - and that might be the reason it's never been done, because I think Keith still resents Mick's solo stuff and wouldn't want to do it.

The question is: could it work? Most of Mick's solo songs aren't quite Stones material, and the Stones are not the Winos (see the recent discussion about Steve Jordan, for instance). I'd like to see them try it (maybe allow Ronnie to add one of his too), as long as nobody expects the results to sound much like the originals. Could be very interesting. But I don't think it'll ever happen.

Quote
Gazza

The stampede out the door would make the catastrophe at that Who Cincinnati concert look like a picnic.

I'm sorry, if I missed something but what happened at this concert!?


As for NorthShore's suggestion: People don't go to Stones concerts to hear Keith's solo stuff. Not the vast majority anyway.

if they do tour again - and i'm not at all convinced they will - they will have to come up some major changes in the act to get some of the old-guard here interested....

personally, i would be impressed if they acknowledged that they're not what they used to be and "play to their age" - that doesn't just mean changes in the setlist - but changes in their stage approach - and allow keith to play "within" his limitations. i'd be fine if they all sat down and played good parts of the set...eschew the warhorses in favor of "lesser" affair that enables them to focus on the music, not the spectacle.

but, that's just me and nobody ever listens to me...just ask the wife and kids....

Quote
Green Lady
No member of the band has ever performed any of their solo work on stage with the Stones -

aside from the coupla times keith sang "sure the one you need" in '75....

Quote
therollingmanu

Quote
Gazza

The stampede out the door would make the catastrophe at that Who Cincinnati concert look like a picnic.

I'm sorry, if I missed something but what happened at this concert!?


As for NorthShore's suggestion: People don't go to Stones concerts to hear Keith's solo stuff. Not the vast majority anyway.

Fans trampled each other in 1979 at a Who show in Cincinnati - this was pretty much the death of festival style seating. 9 or 11 died. Awful.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
T&A

Quote
Green Lady
No member of the band has ever performed any of their solo work on stage with the Stones -

aside from the coupla times keith sang "sure the one you need" in '75....

I just knew that if I said something like that, one of you out there would know better! I should have learned my lesson by now.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
T&A

Quote
Green Lady
No member of the band has ever performed any of their solo work on stage with the Stones -

aside from the coupla times keith sang "sure the one you need" in '75....

I just knew that if I said something like that, one of you out there would know better! I should have learned my lesson by now.

just remember to never use words like never....

Maybe he can do just one song. Even a Chuck Berry or a rocker of his choice( cover song). I don't think he would do a solo song. It would seem weird. I think they lose their momentum when he plays. Especially two slow songs. I never left when he sings but you see alot of movement from the crowd.

Two songs, 40 minutes apart to let Mick rest and re-group.
Who cares what he plays as long as he plays.
Unfortunately KR songs have gone LasVegas on us, check out 'Little T&A' from SAL, the worst song on the entire album and I love SAL.

Really stretching eh?

NEVER.

Like it was said, it's the Stones, not solo. Keith can tour on his own if he wants to sing more than two.

Mick as well, doing solo.

That sums that up. No solo songs on a Stones tour. Never. They have enough solo songs within the Stones.

Northshore - just wondering - what inspired your IORR name?

Quote
skipstone
Northshore - just wondering - what inspired your IORR name?

North Shore of the center of the universe, Boston!!!!! just kidding . . .

Quote
clapton71
Maybe he can do just one song. Even a Chuck Berry or a rocker of his choice( cover song). I don't think he would do a solo song. It would seem weird. I think they lose their momentum when he plays. Especially two slow songs. I never left when he sings but you see alot of movement from the crowd.

Of course the show loses momentum. What would you expect at any show where you've been watching Jagger prance about for an hour and then suddenly he leaves the stage for ten minutes. Hard act to follow in terms of intensity. Mick needs a break and Keith's more than aware (and accepts) that things will go down a few notches in his absence.

He generally does one rocker and one ballad. Cant think there's been too many examples of him playing two slow songs.

And as evidenced on the last US & European tours, he doesnt seem to (or can't) play guitar AND sing lead at the same time anymore. Probably a post-accident motor skills problem. He mentioned that he was on medication to prevent seizures after his accident. Its possible that the degree of co-ordination required to do both simultaneously may be a factor in his choice to only do one at a time.

Quote
Green Lady
I don't know if this is written into the contract like Mick's absence from the stage during Keith's setthink it'll ever happen.

IS that actually written into a contract or does he just do that to rest/ get a break since the Steel Wheels tour?

Like T&A says, I would not even look for changes within the existing confines. The whole package and notion of a Stonesgig should change IMO. Get rid of the Bstage - or make Bstage the A-stage.Maybe the reason keith is not coming off so good, is because he is trying to act like a young buck up there. He would lose no cool-points for sitting down; do some Prodigal Son, Factory Girl

Arrr Keith should move back to the 4-5 spot and get the push
& momentum from that first bracket of opening songs like in the ole days...

Can't believe the 72 boys haven't already suggested it.....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Arrr Keith should move back to the 4-5 spot and get the push
& momentum from that first bracket of opening songs like in the ole days...

Can't believe the 72 boys haven't already suggested it.....

Yes rockman, absolutely, i agree . . . good post.

2002 - don´t look back.Mick.

Keef singin' Gimme Shelter & Careless Ethiopians or Pressure Drop plus Happy. Or why not Little T & A or Before They.. istead of Happy?

I have to say no solo stuff - I would like to see Mick come out and sing back up like on the studio versions.

I can remember some shows where he played Slipping Away and TITN. I understand Mick works the crowd but he can pull on the reins when he wants to. One song and the group is back in it. I think someone made a comment that Mick focuses on showmanship and not on the singing. There can be a happy median. I don't need to see his dance moves on every song. What energy they will have at their age is to be seen. I agree the music is more important and should be their top priority.

When does Charlie get a break?? I can't imagine sitting there and doing that for two hours. I can't even ride in a car for more than half an hour without my back hurting! I mean, I don't care that he is sitting down, that can't be comfortable...wonder what kind of exercises he has to do and how he would have to get in shape to do that after long breaks between tours.

I think we all need to see Mick continue to run around.... He knows how to pace himself -- still think he should make a series of Jane Fonda-like exercise videos! He'd get Oprah to get that weight off.

I've never been a huge fan of Keith's set myself, but if Mick needs a two song break then how about Keith & Ronnie singing a song each? I think this could be more interesting for casual fans, especially now that Keith struggles to sing & play guitar at the same time. I'm not a great fan of Ronnie's voice, but I think him singing something like 'Seven Days' would be as good as anything Keith can do.

Another point: people on here are often suggesting that Keith should go on the road with The Winos again, but how about The New Barbarians instead? It would be good for Ronnie too.