Tell Me :
Talk
that may indeed have been a request from the filmmaker,
but there are shots of them sharing mics in the 90s as well
Mick and Keith don't like each other very much.
Just as simple as that indeed.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
That is true. Keith quit heroin in 1980 and there must have been some awful scenes before that 1981 tour. Simple as that. They were friends until Keith went "clean".
An interesting observation. So Mick doesn't go for a leak or something, he just stands there watching Richards?
Mick can't change his own shirt?
you've never been backstage at the theater or ballet?
Nope.
Well - Just a thought. Mick sings his ass off and runs all over the stage while performing. It's no surprise that Keith's set is placed about midway through the gig. At that point, I'm sure Mick needs and deserves a break; some time to freshen up, rest for a few minutes and gear up to resume his high energy performing for the second half of the show.
On various '81 shows Jagger stayed on stage during T&A, so the contract is just another myth.
Mathijs
If there indeed was a contract, it would have been settled before the 1989 tour, imo. There was no reason for a contract back in 1981.
But I believe it's a myth, too.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
jaggerman
()
Date: January 1, 2012 01:23
Been watching The Ladies and Gentlemen vid an listening to
the Brussels disc and was curious why mick doesnt help out
any more on vocals during happy,i kinda like the dual vocals
my self adds more punch to the song
Happy new year all !!!!!
the Brussels disc and was curious why mick doesnt help out
any more on vocals during happy,i kinda like the dual vocals
my self adds more punch to the song
Happy new year all !!!!!
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
thecitadel
()
Date: January 1, 2012 01:24
I read somewhere that in recent band contracts for tours it states that Mick must leave the stage during Keith's solo numbers. Not sure if thats true or not
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 1, 2012 01:35
Keith is a grown man now. He doesn't need help anymore...
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 1, 2012 01:43
More seriously, I think when the Stones hired back up singers (in 1989), they basically didn't need any longer help from the other members in choruses. Just like Keith and Ronnie didn't need any longer to 'help' Mick (
), Mick didn't need to help any longer Keith in "Happy".
What goes for the mysterious contract for 1981 tour - Mick should leave he stage while Keith does "Little T&A" - I don't know if it is an urban legend or not. I have always thought that the reason why Jagger leaves the stage is just to rest a while and change clothes. I don't think there are any 'deeper' reasons for that.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-01 01:44 by Doxa.
), Mick didn't need to help any longer Keith in "Happy".What goes for the mysterious contract for 1981 tour - Mick should leave he stage while Keith does "Little T&A" - I don't know if it is an urban legend or not. I have always thought that the reason why Jagger leaves the stage is just to rest a while and change clothes. I don't think there are any 'deeper' reasons for that.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-01 01:44 by Doxa.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: January 1, 2012 01:49
Doxa, that seems possible since from 81-on the shows have for the most part been over 2 hours long.
[thepowergoats.com]
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: January 1, 2012 03:15
I don't think Mick and Keith have shared a mic since the 80s, except for Shina A Light. I think Scorsese pushed them into it then.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: January 1, 2012 04:11
Quote
71Tele
I don't think Mick and Keith have shared a mic since the 80s, except for Shina A Light. I think Scorsese pushed them into it then.
that may indeed have been a request from the filmmaker,
but there are shots of them sharing mics in the 90s as well
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 1, 2012 04:17
perhaps Keith is confident and comfortable singing it on his own now?
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: January 1, 2012 08:14
It always seemed funny to me how much of the spotlight Mick Had during Keith's song in the 70's. By the end part of Happy Mick completely takes over on lead vocals, not that it sounded bad. But It just makes sense to me that if Keith was to keep having a song during the show that Mick should just leave the stage and let him do it.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-01 08:18 by ryanpow.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-01 08:18 by ryanpow.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
tumblingdice
()
Date: January 1, 2012 10:21
Always like Jagger taking over on that song...perhaps Keith should leave the stage and let Jagger sing it.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: January 1, 2012 11:07
Quote
jaggerman
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Mick and Keith don't like each other very much.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
straycatuk
()
Date: January 1, 2012 11:36
Happy on Texas 78 is one of my all time favourite Stones performances. Mick keeps looking over his shoulder for Keith coming back to the mike. Keith's too busy in the engine room to notice .
sc uk
sc uk
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: January 1, 2012 12:14
Quote
Doxa
the reason why Jagger leaves the stage is just to rest a while and change clothes.
Just as simple as that indeed.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 1, 2012 12:47
Quote
JustinQuote
jaggerman
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Mick and Keith don't like each other very much.
That is true. Keith quit heroin in 1980 and there must have been some awful scenes before that 1981 tour. Simple as that. They were friends until Keith went "clean".
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
shadooby
()
Date: January 1, 2012 15:14
Mick goes backstage so no one can see him laughing at how Keith can't play guitar and sing at the same time anymore.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Zack
()
Date: January 1, 2012 15:43
Quote
jamesfdouglas
Perhaps Mick is doing what a lot of people do when Keith sings, goes for a leak.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
rowley
()
Date: January 1, 2012 18:48
In Washington on the last tour, I was at the side of the stage where I could see what Mick does while Keith is singing. Mick walked behind the curtain and stuck both arms in the air. A female assistant pulled Mick's shirt up over his head and then a second female assistant put a new shirt on him. Then Mick sipped something from a plastic cup until it was time to go back out. So you may not know how many Rolling Stones it takes to change a light bulb but you now know how many women it takes to change Mick's shirt.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Hillside Blues
()
Date: January 1, 2012 18:55
Technicly, it's not the Rolling Stones anymore when Mick walks off stage. He should be there. Playing harmonica on Infamy, vocals on Happy, backing vocals on Slipping Away etc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-01 18:56 by Hillside Blues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-01 18:56 by Hillside Blues.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
drummer_dude
()
Date: January 1, 2012 19:26
Yes he(Mick) does do backing vocals on Keith's songs so why not have Mick with Keith on stage. With all these background singers it made the Stones lazy with their duties as a band. By it staying like it was before it would have kept Keith and Ronnie in practice to do background vocals and that is the true Rolling Stones with them participating and doing the background vocals. Mick should stay singing with Keith. They need to bring this back if they do another tour
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: January 1, 2012 19:40
Because it doesn't matter anymore. 1978 was the last time being an actual band mattered. 1981/82 was all about the money and it's been that way ever since.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: January 1, 2012 21:07
Quote
rowley
In Washington on the last tour, I was at the side of the stage where I could see what Mick does while Keith is singing. Mick walked behind the curtain and stuck both arms in the air. A female assistant pulled Mick's shirt up over his head and then a second female assistant put a new shirt on him. Then Mick sipped something from a plastic cup until it was time to go back out. So you may not know how many Rolling Stones it takes to change a light bulb but you now know how many women it takes to change Mick's shirt.
An interesting observation. So Mick doesn't go for a leak or something, he just stands there watching Richards?
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: January 1, 2012 21:09
Quote
rowley
A female assistant pulled Mick's shirt up over his head and then a second female assistant put a new shirt on him.
Mick can't change his own shirt?
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: January 1, 2012 21:12
Quote
YoungieQuote
rowley
A female assistant pulled Mick's shirt up over his head and then a second female assistant put a new shirt on him.
Mick can't change his own shirt?
you've never been backstage at the theater or ballet?
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: January 1, 2012 21:14
Quote
proudmary
you've never been backstage at the theater or ballet?
Nope.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: January 2, 2012 13:10
Quote
jaggerman
Been watching The Ladies and Gentlemen vid an listening to
the Brussels disc and was curious why mick doesnt help out
any more on vocals during happy,i kinda like the dual vocals
my self adds more punch to the song
Happy new year all !!!!!
Well - Just a thought. Mick sings his ass off and runs all over the stage while performing. It's no surprise that Keith's set is placed about midway through the gig. At that point, I'm sure Mick needs and deserves a break; some time to freshen up, rest for a few minutes and gear up to resume his high energy performing for the second half of the show.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 2, 2012 14:29
Both LADIES AND GENTLEMEN and LIVE IN TEXAS versions of "Happy" belong to one of the greatest captured moments in Rolling Stones history. In a way, "Happy" is in both cases even one of the highlights of the show, where the Glimmer Twins co-work and mutual chemistry is so touchtable. When "Happy" made its comeback in 1989 it never recaptured that feeling again. I agree with the poster who said that when Mick Jagger is not on stage it is not The Rolling Stones there. It is just Keith's solo band - almost different entity then - a funny 'now something totally different' moment within the show. But like said, I believe Jagger's absence is due to him deserving a little break, nothing more dramatic.
But taking the egos involved, it is kinda funny that when Keith does the first verse of "Happy" in LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, the cameras shoot Jagger's ass...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-02 14:31 by Doxa.
But taking the egos involved, it is kinda funny that when Keith does the first verse of "Happy" in LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, the cameras shoot Jagger's ass...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-02 14:31 by Doxa.
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 2, 2012 15:19
Mick Needs a break!
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 2, 2012 15:45
Quote
Doxa
More seriously, I think when the Stones hired back up singers (in 1989), they basically didn't need any longer help from the other members in choruses. Just like Keith and Ronnie didn't need any longer to 'help' Mick (
What goes for the mysterious contract for 1981 tour - Mick should leave he stage while Keith does "Little T&A" - I don't know if it is an urban legend or not. I have always thought that the reason why Jagger leaves the stage is just to rest a while and change clothes. I don't think there are any 'deeper' reasons for that.
- Doxa
On various '81 shows Jagger stayed on stage during T&A, so the contract is just another myth.
Mathijs
Re: why no dual vocals anymore on Happy??
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 2, 2012 16:15
Quote
MathijsQuote
Doxa
More seriously, I think when the Stones hired back up singers (in 1989), they basically didn't need any longer help from the other members in choruses. Just like Keith and Ronnie didn't need any longer to 'help' Mick (
What goes for the mysterious contract for 1981 tour - Mick should leave he stage while Keith does "Little T&A" - I don't know if it is an urban legend or not. I have always thought that the reason why Jagger leaves the stage is just to rest a while and change clothes. I don't think there are any 'deeper' reasons for that.
- Doxa
On various '81 shows Jagger stayed on stage during T&A, so the contract is just another myth.
Mathijs
If there indeed was a contract, it would have been settled before the 1989 tour, imo. There was no reason for a contract back in 1981.
But I believe it's a myth, too.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bashlets , Domonkos , einte , glmmr_twn , keithpinkmoon , martinw , mick64 , mike567 , NeddieFlanders , NilsHolgersson , PaintMonkeyManBlack , peoplewitheyes , riccardo99 , StonedRambler , Taylor1 , Topi , Torsten , wupperstein
Guests:
1255
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10