Just an odd idea but wouldn't it be cool if a new album were reversed, with keith doing all the singing and mick getting 1 or 2 songs to sing?

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

No,I love Mick's vocals and I love Keith's but on certain songs,you know the slow ones.

Naw, would not be cool, Mick's voice is 100 times better....

if Keith only could sing like in sixties or seventies (You Got The Silver! Happy! Run Rudolph Run! We Had It All! Coming Down Again! and more) it could be interesting, but since he lost his clear, high voice sometime down the road, a full album of Keith lead vocals...uhm...ehr...eh...better not. solo ok, but not Stones for sure. I always regret that Keith did not record solo albums when his voice was on top. and for Stones albums, with his shot voice one song with Keith lead vox is more than enough for me. Stones is Jagger on lead vox, lets keep it like this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-11-24 09:07 by alimente.

He wasn't too bad on Talk Is Cheap but yeah he has lost. He seems to sing with a fake American accent now. What the hell is that about?

That scenario might have become a reality in the run up to 'Dirty Work'. As we know things weren't going well during that period and Mick still courted the idea of a standalone solo career. Thankfully sense and Peace prevailed.
Slight tangent: He's not the greatest vocalist in the world but after all these years I think Ronnie's due a song on an album.
Er, Charlie may be another matter...

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

It'd basically be a Winos records.

StratoGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and I love Keith's but on
> certain songs.

Ehm sounds interesting? ;-)

Big T

Why not Chraly on vocals??

Ahhh, I like Keith singing some songs, both the slow ones like "This Place Is Empty" and the others, just as "Infamy", but Mick is the singer of the Rolling Stones and he should be this also in future, I mean, the main-singer.