Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead?
Posted by: Turd On The Run ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:28

Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…? new


The highlight of many Stones shows in the 1969 tour and – as I remember it – the 1994-95 Voodoo Lounge tour, was a live acoustic set. It added a sparkling touch of class to the show. The acoustic set allowed the Stones to showcase some of their more subtle material and dig deep into their roots. It provided and exquisite respite from the locomotive rumble of the rest of the show.

In 1969 it was Mick and Keith sitting on stools at the front of the stage and laying on the audience songs like ‘Prodigal Son’ and ‘You Got To Move’…really glorious, bluesy stuff that pointed to their earliest roots. In 1994-95 it was ‘Sweet Virginia’ and ‘Angie - their ‘roots’ now being their own older material - which gave us all a chance to revel in their longevity and their more graceful, brooding tunes.

Taking into account that some of Keith’s sets on this tour have taken on the tone of Grand Guignol Theater [i.e. the fear that something horrible might happen at any moment] - and since these sets have always been about giving Keith a moment in the spotlight and Mick a breather before the homestretch of the B-stage show and the beloved[?], raucous ‘warhorses’ that have closed every Stones show since the early 1970’s - why not replace Keith’s [sometimes – not always] near-car-crashes with a tasteful set of acoustic songs, with Mick, Keith, and Ronnie…each with a guitar…sitting relaxed on stools at the front of the stage, digging deep into a short set of bluesy, Stonesy numbers?

Keith can STILL have his moment in the spotlight with ‘You Got The Silver’ and/or ‘This Place Is Empty’…with Mick and Ronnie accompanying him and Mick singing harmonies…and Keith would probably be far more comfortable sitting down and warbling these lovely gems with his buddies at his side strumming the frets. Let’s face it…Keith’s voice and abilities are FAR more suited to these slower tunes nowadays than still trying to belt out [not to mention play on his guitar] ‘Wanna Hold You’ or ‘Happy’ with conviction and vitality. The slower, more reflective tunes fit him perfectly now.

And Mick can bless us with great renditions of ‘No Expectations’ and maybe even an acoustic ‘Laugh, I Nearly Died’ with Ronnie playing tasteful slide and Keith strumming the melodies.

Everybody gets what they want. We get great, heartfelt music. Keith gets his spot in the spotlight. Mick gets a chance to slow down and relax before the homestretch…and the show is given a tasteful interlude.

Now wouldn’t THAT be glorious?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-22 07:55 by bv.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: WilcoMick ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:31

Send them a letter! Although I like the idea I don't think Keith will give up his '10 minutes of glory'.

Wilco

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:35

Make the gig three hours, add this Turd-ish piece & make Keefs spot
four song long. Rise the tix price 25% if that would make it easier. sad smiley

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Date: June 21, 2007 19:35

Yes they should! Maybe compromise and let Keef sing while playing his acoustic.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Date: June 21, 2007 19:37

NO

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:37

the acoustic set done in Miami '94 (and repeated I believe once or twice in '95 in Japan) was done for the PPV cameras...it wasn't something done for the tour in general. It came off EXTREMELY well, IMO and I think became the early prototype for developing the b-stage concept on the next tour.

but, as long as keith can stand or sit and sing, his mini-set isn't going anywhere, regardless of how bad it may be getting. it's called "ego."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-21 20:29 by StonesTod.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:40

yeah, send 'em a letter - and be sure to mention that for tons of people Keith's set is the highlight of the show.
a regular three- or four-number Keith set would be brilliant, and it would be way cool if Ronnie had an LV turn as well -
but mainly i reckon they can decide for themselves what works for them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-21 20:01 by with sssoul.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: ChrisM ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:43

An acoustic set would be grand. It would a nice dimension to the set.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:43

So Keef singin two songs is "ego"... yawning smiley
Ever contemplated why he wish Jagger out of the way?

Its great for the group they have such altruistic natures as Jagger
in the band, so that they/he can point out the way how to be ... smiling smiley

Keith Richards is one of the most interestin' modern singers of today;
and at least two decades has past since Jagger sounded that On.
That rare thing called "feelin'" & "soul" gets a more intense nerve
when expressed by people who have lived a tough live.

Keep yer general Keef-bashing posts at some other site!

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:44

I rather see Keith doing one solo and singing background the whole show...or lets say Salt or Memory..they both be singing...on the second one.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: WilcoMick ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:48

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah, send 'em a letter - and be sure to mention
> that for tons of people Keith's set is the
> highlight of the show.
> a regular three- or four-number Keith set would be
> brilliant, and it would be way cool if Ronnie had
> an LV turn as well -
> but mainly i reckon they can decide for themselves
> what works for them.

I say let's replace Keith's set by a Ronnie set! Let Ronnie sing Seven Days and Buried Alive, acoustic or electric I don't care.

Wilco

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Gangster-of-love ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:52

Hey guys, don't get rediculous....that's a quiet good idea, to bring a kind of fresh blood into the set.

Would be an alternative for a new and final tour.

Keep on rollin'
Gangster

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:54

A total unplugged tour is my cup of tea.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:55

I like the acoustic set idea (b-stage?) and rooster's thoughts - 1 Keith song solo and maybe "Salt" or "Memory".

"No Anchovies, Please"

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: WilcoMick ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:56

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A total unplugged tour is my cup of tea.

With 1 song by Chuck? ;-)

Wilco

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:56

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Keef singin two songs is "ego"... yawning smiley
>

continuing to perform as a front-man when the capability is no longer there -yeah, I would say ego has something to do with it.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: June 21, 2007 19:57

WilcoMick wrote:

With 1 song by Chuck? ;-)


Sea Level featuring Mick Jagger?

"No Anchovies, Please"

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:04

I remember we were shocked to found out Jagger was on stage during T&A in Leeds suposed to be the last Stones show!! way back in 1982!! yes he was singing with Keith on stage!!! why wont that happen again??cause it was the only show that happened...ohh the sangria begin to work!!

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:23

>> An acoustic set would be grand. It would a nice dimension to the set. <<

sure it would! but not "instead of Keith's set".
"as well as" will be great any time the Stones decide they want to do that.
how about a short Barbarians set as well? when the Mick wants two breaks


and meanwhile ... how *uplifting* that Turd felt *yet another* thread about his view of Keith's abilities is needed,
apparently with the idea that someone from the Stones camp reads this board, and will pass along his supportive advice

to be a Rolling Stone you gotta be tough tough tough tough tough tough tough



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-21 21:35 by with sssoul.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:27

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Baboon Bro Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So Keef singin two songs is "ego"... yawning smiley
> >
>
> continuing to perform as a front-man when the
> capability is no longer there -yeah, I would say
> ego has something to do with it.

Only gets better & better... Like a fine vintage wine...

Ever considered ´not too few people actually like Keith?

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:30

Turd On The Run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now wouldn’t THAT be glorious?


Of course! Thanks for taking the challenge to speak out what I was thinking too for quite some time now, but did not dare to mention on this board....!

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:30

there's a point at which everything, including wine, ceases to improve with age....'nuff said.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Raoul Duke ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:37

Turd On The Run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taking into account that some of Keith’s sets on
> this tour have taken on the tone of Grand Guignol
> Theater - and since these sets have always been
> about giving Keith a moment in the spotlight and
> Mick a breather before the homestretch of the
> B-stage show and the beloved[?], raucous
> ‘warhorses’ that have closed every Stones show
> since the early 1970’s - why not replace Keith’s
> near-car-crashes with a tasteful set of acoustic
> songs, with Mick, Keith, and Ronnie…each with a
> guitar…sitting relaxed on stools at the front of
> the stage, digging deep into a short set of
> bluesy, Stonesy numbers?

Keith's set has worked very well in the shows I've seen on this tour. Just because you got a bum show doesn't mean they should scrap that part altogether. Besides, if there is something seriously wrong with Keith, I would hope they would not go on stage and give him the help he needs as opposed to "take care of it" by playing a slower, bluesier set.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:40

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there's a point at which everything, including
> wine, ceases to improve with age....'nuff said.


No there isnt.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: phd ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:44

I already heard " Waiting on a Friend", "Let it Bleed" & " Love in Vain". There it is. I'm HAPPY.

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: tomcat2006 ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:47

I'd vote for Keef losing a song and Ronnie doing Seven Days - how cool would that be!!

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: rooster ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:48

Is Dick Taylor still alive!!???

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: June 21, 2007 20:50

WHy would one need Keef anyway?

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: WilcoMick ()
Date: June 21, 2007 21:36

tomcat2006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd vote for Keef losing a song and Ronnie doing
> Seven Days - how cool would that be!!

You got my support!

Wilco

Re: Should the Stones do an acoustic set instead and eliminate Keith’s set…?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: June 21, 2007 21:39

More Jagger on harmonica, (much) less dancin',
more riddem & blues, more rock, more blues,
more Jagger on guitar & more Keef & Woody - that's my idea.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1681
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home