why are the stones playin with so many people on the stage
it is so useless

Agreed.

Not useless. They can play lots of songs they couldn't play before...

JumpingKentFlash

no that is not true kent
which songs?

horns they have always had
the rest, i am afraid, are there to fill the gaps

so we can recognize the song

maybe that's a little too far...

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no that is not true kent
> which songs?


2000 Light Years they would never have played without those back up musicians...

JumpingKentFlash

but...without the other musicians....we wouldnt have the horns in satisfaction...or tumblin dice, brown sugar, i miss the horns in jjf and miss you quite frankly, the versions are great now, but it was good with the horns too, and without the backup vocals..and especially lisa..all those people add something more to the music than just what the stones and daryll create, add more music, sounding more like songs rather than just guitars and micks voice....HOWEVER, they have toned it down with the backround people correct? when i saw them in moncton, chucks keys were low in the mix, and the horns as well (most evident in YCAGWYW, Tim Ries entry horn play)

The songs doesn't have to be a copy of the orignal song, in that case I can play them at home.

__________________________

They need something happening while the guitars aren't playing.

I see, good luck for you guys then! Hope you get a gig


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

I just wish they'd get rid of the backup singers. But they wont.

-Drake

drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just wish they'd get rid of the backup singers.
> But they wont.


definitely

and just keep a sax and that's it.

like in 81

Basically it is the Back Up singers that seem to resonate with those that are unhappy.

As pointed out, horns have been around a long time . Keyboards...often were two; you had Ian Sturt with Nicky Hopkins, Ian with Ian McGlagan. So in a weid way, all that is new is the back up singers. They all just seem so much more obtrsive than in the past (from 1982 back) because, IMO, the guitars are just so much less prominent.

I really hate when the backup singers keep repeating "satisfaction" when the band drags that song out as the encore. So annoying.

(excuse my english)

Mmmh, I remember 1982, when keyboards (Mc Lagan, stewart) wasn't a orchestra's director and gap's filler (Chuck), and the backup singers were KEith and Ron, and there no were a third guitar (aghhhh...) and the bassist were a stone, and...
they didn't must be back on stage in 1989. they have STOP in 1982...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-06 23:56 by ROADRUNNER.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As pointed out, horns have been around a long time
> . Keyboards...often were two; you had Ian Sturt
> with Nicky Hopkins, Ian with Ian McGlagan. So in a
> weid way, all that is new is the back up singers.
> They all just seem so much more obtrsive than in
> the past (from 1982 back) because, IMO, the
> guitars are just so much less prominent.


But they played boogie woogie on their pianos, they don't do that now.

What would your answer be if the Stones
asked you to join as a back-up singer..........?



ROCKMAN

You got a point there!
I'd even do tuba-solos in every song if they asked me.

Not as a back up singer, I would slam some yale house doors on stage if they play We Love You

__________________________

Yeah Erik......should have made it a New Topic.
Would be interesting to read everyones answer........

Did you get my address etc Erik?



ROCKMAN

Rockman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah Erik......should have made it a New Topic.
> Would be interesting to read everyones
> answer........

Yes, it would! "What could YOU contribute with for Rolling Stones?"

> Did you get my address etc Erik?


No, I didn't get a reply, I wondered about that. Please try again, Rockman.
a-j-tei@online.no

I would like a duet with Mick!!

the lament is for the backup singers but the "problem" is chuck because no one (nicky, ian, ian or billie) seemed to have the position and influence that chuck has now.
however the "problem" has more than one face
1) i think he has a prominent role in the fact that since 1989 stones have turned more and more to stick to the original recorded version of the song
2) he gives the tempo and substitutes keith in that too many times
3) he is pretty much responsible for the setlists
4) he is pretty much responsible for the band to have played many songs live they have never played before
5) he is pretty much responsible for the fact that the band is still around

NICOS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not as a back up singer, I would slam some yale
> house doors on stage if they play We Love You


All right man!!!!