>> apart from his playing he wasn't able to remember the words of 3 (short) verses <<

um ... are we talking about the same performance? i mean the Nijmegen 07 rendition of Happy:


Keith sings all three verses - he even remembers to sing most of every line into the mic.
if a few words different from the studio version make a performance "terrible" for you,
then i guess you haven't enjoyed much all these decades. i am sorry for you, truly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 10:39 by with sssoul.

bjarke_nl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think all this can be explained with one thing:
> The mustache!;-) Once he gets rid of it, we will
> see the old Keith back. That's my theory, and I'm
> sticking to it untill I see him live later on the
> tour!:-)


Yeah, this is why life sucks!
Every'one tells you you're too young and then when you finally grew a moustache, they go: You're too old!

What can a poor man do?

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> apart from his playing he wasn't able to
> remember the words of 3 (short) verses <<
>
> um ... are we talking about the same performance?
> i mean the Nijmegen 07 rendition of Happy:
>


> vMjs

sorry sssoul - my fault, I was talkin' about the Paris performance, haven't hear Nijmegen yet.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me how something is said is just as important
> as what is said. I can relate to people who have a
> genuine concern for Keith and his health etc. but
> it seems that this thread was started in a very
> sarcastic manner- almost as if to knock Keith.

Maybe you're right. Many have expressed real concern over Keiths health and his playing. A lot of people have blindly denied that anything is wrong. That might be the reason for the bad tone and taste in this debate.
To put it straight. The guy is my rock'n'roll hero and I don't want him to end like a shadow of himself. I don't say that this has happened already, but I've never seen so many bad reports on his playing and the way he acts...and that's concerning me very much.
So if it's a health problem, I think they ought to stop this, even if it means I won't be able to see them in August.
If it's a alcohol or drugs thing, he should really pul himself together and deliver.
If it's an old age thing, well we have to accept it and somebody ought to tell Keith, that it's time.

Being a middle-aged man, 45, I´m a bit too old to defend all my old rock heroes whenever they´re criticised. But there was a time when I couldn´t stand someone telling me that, for example, Jimi Hendrix played bad at this and that concert. I knew this was true, but I denied it anyway because strangely enough it somehow felt like it was me personally who was criticised. It´s obvious that for many on this board it´s important to defend Keith when someone writes a negative comment about him, but I thinks it´s sad when people are being called idiots and whatever just because they express an opinion. After all, how fun would it be if all the posts were like, Keith was great tonight! followed by a hundred Yeah great! Fantastic! He´s the best!
Some people might prefer that, I don´t.

svendborg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Many have expressed real
> concern over Keiths health and his playing. A lot
> of people have blindly denied that anything is
> wrong. That might be the reason for the bad tone
> and taste in this debate.

again, those who do not agree immediately and completely with your view are "blind"
...
why?
i posted earlier something not to deny that Keith f+++ up the intro, or that he has gone thru a bad tour start, but to ask you how some good, very good, or great playing fits in the image of keith you are so willing to convince everyone is the true one.
but everyone that dont share your view is blind..
i see

maumau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> again, those who do not agree immediately and
> completely with your view are "blind"
> ...
> why?
> i posted earlier something not to deny that Keith
> f+++ up the intro, or that he has gone thru a bad
> tour start, but to ask you how some good, very
> good, or great playing fits in the image of keith
> you are so willing to convince everyone is the
> true one.
> but everyone that dont share your view is blind..
> i see


You should read what I wrote instead of reading what you think I wrote. My post was really on a positive note :-)

someone asked why you change the key of the song, the only reason i can think of is you wanna sing in a different key, which is not uncommen for a live show. A is lower than B.
if he plays with the sunburst tele or one of the black guard butterscotch teles i think is not a huge difference. the sunburst one maybe sounds a little treblier and cleaner, but you wouldn´t notice a huge difference especially live.

it ´s possible to be an expert about art and talk about picasso, van gogh, whoever and even say negative things without being a painter yourself or being able to do better.

so you can be a music expert without being able to play any instrument. maybe it helps to play one, but you don´t have to.

i dont know what to do more than quote you
i really dont know

and that "concern about health" is all dozens of threads are about since... since when? since those about ronnie stopped i guess

anyway i was quoting you but my argument was not just about you but to all call "blind" those that dont see (or see completely or just in the same exact way) what they see. And also about those who want to turn an opinion (being that positive or negative) into fact.

dont get me wrong, i am concerned too about keith
and i have posted simply and plainly my "horror" for his playing as i heard it thru some clips on youtube

i is just that i resist in making or accepting a whole complete theory put as "fact" and also i dont understand the zeal of some people that feel the need to plainly "spam" this board to make it clear, and clear, and clear, and clear



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 12:31 by maumau.

edited in hopes that the message got through and won't need repeating


- had it with you :E june 28th 1967, courtesy of the Daily Mail & BrownEyedGirll



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 17:08 by with sssoul.

i am sorry if i got your question wrong sssoul.
but my response was meant very friendly. not wanting to say anything about you or keith.

Keith looks a bit old and frail. Get over it. It'll happen to us all ' some point.
Keith didn't fcuk up Charlie did.

End of. Move on. Nothing to see here.

NickB

ps If I see another Keith is not well/ playing badly post/topic I think I'll sell up and live like a hermit in the Himalayas;-)

Come on, Svartmer...

Jimi Hendrix IS dead! It's ELVIS that isn't!

klypp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on, Svartmer...
>
> Jimi Hendrix IS dead! It's ELVIS that isn't!

What! He´s dead? Wait, I have to check this!

to me the 2007 version is way better
cause it is real
in the 70s I have not been alive and I do not give a shit what has been then
fukk the past

keep on rollin keith
and deuce get a life

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to me the 2007 version is way better
> cause it is real
> in the 70s I have not been alive and I do not give
> a shit what has been then
> fukk the past
>
> keep on rollin keith
> and deuce get a life

No the past is great...without it no future..and this band has a great history.

Good point Justin! - but in my case, I'm not going to pay good money to "see"
a musician just to "see" him. When their skills fade, thats enough for me. Same
as althetes, just because one of your favorite ballplayers wants to keep playing
if they can't produce like they used to, you know what happens..

MLC

with sssoul Wrote:
>and what do you think of rest of the
> number, once they get over that glitch?
> to me it sounds like they pulled its socks right
> up and played it well.
>
> >> I will say that his vocals on the song are
> actually excellent. Very very strong. <<
>
> that's how it sounds to me too.

Yeah, I think it sounded great. When I heard reports of Keith screwing up the intro, it put up a huge red flag in my mind. I thought, "My God, first Brown Sugar...then Satisfaction..now Happy...pretty simple and important songs and Keith is having trouble with them..."

Watching the video made me realize that it wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. Considering Keith's behavior as of late, which I will admit is a bit subdued--his singing in this is incredibly confident. Almost screaming the lyrics and very alert.

NickB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith looks a bit old and frail. Get over it.
> It'll happen to us all ' some point.
> Keith didn't fcuk up Charlie did.
>
> End of. Move on. Nothing to see here.
>
> NickB
>
> ps If I see another Keith is not well/ playing
> badly post/topic I think I'll sell up and live
> like a hermit in the Himalayas;-)


Ditto that. A sensible view !

Enuff already !!! ;^)

MCDDTLC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point Justin! - but in my case, I'm not going
> to pay good money to "see"
> a musician just to "see" him. When their skills
> fade, thats enough for me. Same
> as althetes, just because one of your favorite
> ballplayers wants to keep playing
> if they can't produce like they used to, you know
> what happens..
>
> MLC


Exactly. This, is an example of someone realizing Keith's slipping and accepting it positively. Which, I believe, should be the mentality of all fans. Realistically, I believe the majority of fans are already sympathetic and understanding of the band and their aging process...and that's great. But there are still a portion of fans out there that seem to be angry and incredibly sour about the downfall of Keith lately. I think that's just awful and cold.

These are the exact posters who I believe should stop going to see them live. It's a hard decision to make considering we've all boughten tickets to see them whenever they were in town for how many decades now? It's become a habit. A reflex like blinking: The Stones are in town: gotta get a ticket. But for those who despise how Keith plays or how Mick sings or who thinks Ronnie sucks...should really stay home.

It's not the Stones fault that they don't sound like they did 2, 10, or 30 years ago...it's YOUR fault for hoping that they still do and shelling out $400 to go see them to prove you wrong. You're setting yourself up for your own disaster.

Svartmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being a middle-aged man, 45, I´m a bit too old to
> defend all my old rock heroes whenever they´re
> criticised. But there was a time when I couldn´t
> stand someone telling me that, for example, Jimi
> Hendrix played bad at this and that concert. I
> knew this was true, but I denied it anyway because
> strangely enough it somehow felt like it was me
> personally who was criticised. It´s obvious that
> for many on this board it´s important to defend
> Keith when someone writes a negative comment about
> him, but I thinks it´s sad when people are being
> called idiots and whatever just because they
> express an opinion. After all, how fun would it be
> if all the posts were like, Keith was great
> tonight! followed by a hundred Yeah great!
> Fantastic! He´s the best!
> Some people might prefer that, I don´t.

I think it has to do with the fact, that we are many that are fed up with negative postings in general so therefore when something comes along that is maybe not bitching - people will stand up and react.

Keith's health is not a light issue - but this comes after numerous threads about his hair, his teeth, his clothes and finally the moustache and the beer (or whatnot?) belly he has aquired.

I mean - grown-up people appealing to Keith Richards on this board to "please lose the moustache" What the f*ck is that all about? If we could have done without such childish nonsense, maybe people would have a little patience when the subject is perhaps heartfelt and worthy of our time. Just concern in re to serious subject matter is always welcome to me.

I have not seen the man live this time around - I've seen pictures of him - and he does indeed seem to be looking older even than just 9 months back when I last saw him live.

On the other hand I thought he looked great at his mother's funeral and at the premiere of "Pirates". And that is not too long ago.

Maybe he just looks older because his face is a little more fleshed out - maybe it IS the moustache - maybe he's fighting some ordinary disease - playing on stage when he perhaps should be in bed, thereby prolonging the illness.

Maybe he is just being Keef by drinking away his sorrows and finding out that his capabilities for the drink have shrunk

I just know that the Stones could not get insured unless all the key players are deemed fit for fight. If there is something serious wrong with our man, I doubt any insurance company would touch him. If they/he cannot get insured, I'm pretty sure a tour of this magnitude would be called off.

And to me - the f*ck-ups at concerts just show that they are still real people. Does anybody really get less fun out of the concert just because he sings the same verse twice or comes in the wrong place? At the end of the day IORR!!


......and if they were really this slick machine with no mistakes, there would be other whiners ready with complaints about "Las Vegas", click-tracks and pre-recorded songs *lol*

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> edited in hopes that the message got through and
> won't need repeating
>
> [img.photobucket.com]
> 19670628haditwithyou_DailyMail_BEG.jpg
> - had it with you :E june 28th 1967, courtesy of
> the Daily Mail & BrownEyedGirll


Oh, c'mon, you can't fool me, that's George alright.

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Svartmer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Being a middle-aged man, 45, I´m a bit too old
> to
> > defend all my old rock heroes whenever they´re
> > criticised. But there was a time when I
> couldn´t
> > stand someone telling me that, for example,
> Jimi
> > Hendrix played bad at this and that concert. I
> > knew this was true, but I denied it anyway
> because
> > strangely enough it somehow felt like it was me
> > personally who was criticised. It´s obvious
> that
> > for many on this board it´s important to defend
> > Keith when someone writes a negative comment
> about
> > him, but I thinks it´s sad when people are
> being
> > called idiots and whatever just because they
> > express an opinion. After all, how fun would it
> be
> > if all the posts were like, Keith was great
> > tonight! followed by a hundred Yeah great!
> > Fantastic! He´s the best!
> > Some people might prefer that, I don´t.
>
> I think it has to do with the fact, that we are
> many that are fed up with negative postings in
> general so therefore when something comes along
> that is maybe not bitching - people will stand up
> and react.
>

Yes, but why are some fans so delicate? I know that feeling of having to deny Hendrix had a bad night and defend the greatness of Machine Gun over and over but Keith plays every year so there's much more to back up with, AND, I dont think it's just about him playing bad a souple of nights, it's really a yearn for something more from the whole band. And when there's a thread about this a lot of fans scream that Mick sings better than ever and Keith is great and Ronnie too.

To those of you that say that after his initial mistake Keith then carries the song fine to the end - do notice that Blondie is playing rhythm too - so it's hard to know who is carrying the song. I'm not saying that it isn't Keith - but you just can't be sure. (And ask yourselves why they have Blondie doing rythm on this song - if not as an insurance policy).

Sorry if this was pointed out before.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but why are some fans so delicate? I know
> that feeling of having to deny Hendrix had a bad
> night and defend the greatness of Machine Gun over
> and over but Keith plays every year so there's
> much more to back up with, AND, I dont think it's
> just about him playing bad a souple of nights,
> it's really a yearn for something more from the
> whole band. And when there's a thread about this a
> lot of fans scream that Mick sings better than
> ever and Keith is great and Ronnie too.

Now - I do hope you read my whole post? ;-)

It seems that on this board there are people who really have nothing better to do than to slag off the Stones at every opportunity (I think I once likened it to a PETA-member on o fur board)

When the "Biggest Bang" came out somebody thought it was a good idea to post a thread saying how bad the cover was!

All of the Stones - Charlie excepted I think - have been accused of wearing wigs or ugly clothes and - in Keef's case - even a misfitting moustache. What is it to you or me? I could not give a flying f*ck - I want the music.

And it's not just the subject matter that tires me - it's the "appealing to Keith or Mick or Ronnie" as if they were in the room with you - your best buddies who you can take aside in the kitchen and give a "good talking to".

They're not! And I hardly think that Keef's choice of shoes - or facial hair - have any longlasting bearing on the Stones' songs or performance *lol*

But all these moans distract you, so when there might be something serious afoot you don't take notice. It's much like kids - if they keep on moaning about this and that you sort of not listen - then when something IS wrong, you don't listen to them

...and then again - judging from the latest reports, there is nothing seriously wrong. Except he looks perhaps a little more like his age now than before - maybe his make-up artiste has had a few bad days *lol*

Well...all of this matters not one whit, as I have today recieved in my mail the "Biggest Bang" - so have my evening cut out for me ;-)

>> Yeah, I think it sounded great. ... Watching the video made me realize that it wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. <<

thanks Justin. it really puzzled me that there were so many reports that this number was a disaster -
maybe a lot of people didn't watch/listen to more than the first few seconds?
and/or the Dire Climate around here lately affected their receptors?
and/or there may be some people for whom one glitch really does ruin the whole number.
in any case it's unfortunate, to my mind. concern for Keith in its proper place, of course - but that was a nice solid Happy!

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that was a nice solid Happy!

Why not simply declare it the best performance of Happy EVER.
Always look on the bright side of life.
And everyone lived happily ever after.
Cheers guys!!!

i am also not sure who made the mistake in the beginning. it maybe shows that the whole band is a little insecure at the moment.
but i must say after that first mistake it´s propably the best performance from keith when singing one of his songs, that i have seen so far this year from clips and live in frankfurt.

i cant lie
it is charlie that makes the mistake by coming in half a measure too soon. keith and ronnie seem to just try and balance it out to fix it up.
once keith comes in though, the song rolls on like any other recent performance of happy. if anything, ronnies weird slide solo is the downer of the tune.

If some one were to ask me the best show Keith ever played, I know what would pop into my head: Inglewood, 11/8/69, 2nd. True or not, I recommend this show to every Keith fan. It is a very strong and sexy performance. It is also a vivid reminder.