When you listen to Exile On Main St. , Mick is obviously doing more than background vocals , And as you watch this one,[IMG[

[[/IMG] you can clearly see that originally that Mick was much more involved with this number . At what point did this become Keiths ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-17 04:56 by boston2006.

Well...Keith sings the verses which outweighs singing background or singing a refrain.

But that example is of Mick doing more than ususal...as it looks like Keith...seems to be...struggling to keep focused?

steel wheels it became keiths, all the great versions of happy are from 72-78 imho, even that one above is better than any version post 78

More like struggling to stay on his feet.
LA 75 - classic stuff.

From what I've read , it was noy originally supposed to be a Keith number but in those crazy days at Nelcotte , Mick was either a no show or late and Keith laid down the original tracks . But now it's stricly a solo and Mick takes a breather to rest etc. . When did this happen ?

Keith freaking wrote it..duh..
JR

Yeah , I understand that Keith wrote it . I'm sure there is many that Keith was the driving force on but he didn't sing lead vocals on .

JR do you get my point ?

It was Keith all the way, no Mick at all. Jimmy plays drums - it's a Keith and Jimmy song.

Going a little off topic :

The best live version,in my view,is the one from Essen on 10-10-'73 as heard on the Midnight Beat CD "The Stars In The Sky They Never Lie".In general the '72-'73 versions were the best,followed by the 1978 versions (on good nights) but,I am not a fan of the '75-'76 versions which they screwed up on a regular basis.Richards was too messed up to even come close to getting the vocals right,he would not even sing into the mic and the result were near unrecognizable versions.To me,they sound like pale imitations of the '72-'73 versions.I prefer many of the '88 - '06 versions (and maybe one or two of the '07 versions) to the '75-'76 versions.Most of the 2007 versions were even worse than the '75-'76 versions however,on the other more recent versions (i.e. '88-'06) they were at least trying a different angle than they used with the earlier versions.The '75-'76 performances of Happy seem like bad counterfeits of the '72-'73 renditions.

Theif -- it makes me happy just knowing someone actually cares that much about a song, this song, to comment like that! Now, I'm really wanting to hear your favorite version. I've made 2 full cds of versions of Midnight Rambler, but I've been meaning to do it with a bunch of other songs! You know how on some days you just want to hear Bitch over and over?!

>> From what I've read , it was noy originally supposed to be a Keith number <<

whoa, hold those horses - there's a story like that circulating about You Got the Silver,
but certainly not about Happy. Happy has always been a Keith Number, through & through
and right from the get go. yes he reportedly did the basic recording with just Bobby Keys and Jimmy Miller,
but that doesn't mean it was ever "not supposed to be a Keith Number". what an idea

I dont think its complicated, before 89(and Keiths mini-set) Mick probably just needed SOMETHING to do!

good question boston2006...

at some point (tour rehearsals??) they must have decided that
what WAS a duet (mick was more than just background) would now
be a song Keith would do by himself (vocally).

No different than if all of a sudden Keith stopped contributing his
vocals to SALT OF THE EARTH or MEMORY MOTEL.......ok....losing Mick's vocals
on HAPPY wouldn't be quite as drastic...but you know what I mean.

Was the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle TOur the first time they didn't
sing it together? I prefer the mix of their voices.....but it's
understandable that it would become part of Keith "mini-set".

Is there a bootleg with ONLY Mick doing primary vocals on Happy?? PLease post.


IORR............but I like it!

>> Is there a bootleg with ONLY Mick doing primary vocals on Happy?? <<

no. the notion that it was ever considered a "possible Mick LV song" is just mistaken.
please listen to words. Anita love to keep me happy is not something Keith wrote for Mick to sing.

Mick's major role on 72-78 concert renditions of Happy are the other side of a coin
that some people seem only recently to have noticed: Keith doesn't do much simultaneous singing & playing.
in the 70s he was more inclined to back off the singing to concentrate on playing;
since 89 he's been more inclined to unhand the guitar in order to sing.
and of course since 89 Keith's had the whole accompanying entourage to back him up,
so in that way the absence of Mick's back-up on Happy is equivalent to the absence
of Keith's back-up on (for example) JJF, HTW, Shattered, etc. of course we would love it if ...
but meanwhile ... i love the Rolling Stones. :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-17 16:37 by with sssoul.

Quote
largelingerie
Theif -- it makes me happy just knowing someone actually cares that much about a song, this song, to comment like that! Now, I'm really wanting to hear your favorite version. I've made 2 full cds of versions of Midnight Rambler, but I've been meaning to do it with a bunch of other songs! You know how on some days you just want to hear Bitch over and over?!

Well,I did put a little more thought into it than "everything old is better than everything not old".That's my general take on it after listening to x-hundred live cd's over the years.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Is there a bootleg with ONLY Mick doing primary vocals on Happy?? <<

no.

True but,some of the '75-'76 live versions are close to a Jagger only vocal after the opening lines when Richards does not sing into the microphone for nearly the rest of the song.

>> some of the '75-'76 live versions are ... <<

well, you're exaggerating a little, but ... right: Keith in the 70s was a guitarist who also sang.
it was in the 80s that he really became a lead vocalist as well as a guitarist.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Is there a bootleg with ONLY Mick doing primary vocals on Happy?? <<

no. the notion that it was ever considered a "possible Mick LV song" is just mistaken.
please listen to words. Anita love to keep me happy is not something Keith wrote for Mick to sing.

With Sssoul....I understand....but that doesn't automatically
mean that Mick never tried it out in the studio....

Yes Keith's lyrics are specific to him...but so were the lyrics to Wild Horses
before Mick rewrote them and sang lead vocals. Also thought there might
be a bootleg from the duet recording sessions with Keith vocals turned down...or off.
It's not unheard of that such a thing might exist. HEck there are bootlegs
with all tracks separated.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
boston2006
From what I've read , it was noy originally supposed to be a Keith number but in those crazy days at Nelcotte , Mick was either a no show or late and Keith laid down the original tracks . But now it's stricly a solo and Mick takes a breather to rest etc. . When did this happen ?

1989. 'Happy' hadnt been performed on tour prior to that since 1978.

From 1972 - 82, if Keith sang lead vocals, it was just on one song.

From 1989 onwards, it became a 2-song mini set, with Mick offstage during it (according to (I think) Bockris' bio of Keith, its a condition of the contract that Mick remains offstage, although that seems a bit far fetched to me).

those 72-78 versions of happy are a rock n roll band playing a rock n roll song, unlike the tom jones meets the rolling stones versions we have been getting since 89, i know a lot of people prefer the 89-present versions and thats fine too, its just a matter of taste

The only flaw with the rock n roll band playing a rock n roll song in that era is that the rock n roll guitarist singing it usually is incapable of getting his mouth anywhere near the microphone.

Keith's onstage singing improved dramatically after he did his first solo tour and had to learn what was entailed in actually fronting a band for an entire show instead of for five minutes.

Prefer the Tokyo 1990 version myself but the Ladies & Gents one is an occasion where Keith does manage the vocal really well (with a little help from Mick of course)

>> (according to (I think) Bockris' bio of Keith, its a condition of the contract
that Mick remains offstage, although that seems a bit far fetched to me). <<

actually i was just reading that part of Bockris last night, and what he says is
that it was in 81/82 that the contract stipulated that Mick would be off stage during Keith's LV turn.
it's not 100% clear whether that was (supposedly) Keith's or Mick's stipulation.

>> that doesn't automatically mean that Mick never tried it out in the studio <<

... but is there any evidence at all that it was ever considered a possible Mick-LV song?
the only statement of that sort that i've ever seen is boston2006's post above, which i think
is a case of mistaken identity. there's a story like that about You Got the Silver,
which of course there is a Mick-LV version of.

here's what [www.timeisonourside.com] has about Happy - if there are any statements
from anyone in the band that suggest that it was ever considered a possible a Mick-LV number
i'd love to read them:

Happy was something I did because I was for one time EARLY for a session. There was Bobby Keys and Jimmy Miller.
And we were in the South of France, it was at the time we were recording Exile. We had nothing to do
and had suddenly picked up the guitar and played this riff. So we cut it and it's the record,
it's the same. We cut the original track with a baritone sax, a guitar and Jimmy Miller on drums.
And the rest of it is built up over that track. It was just an afternoon jam that everybody said,
Wow, yeah, work on it.
- Keith Richards, 1982

That happened in one grand bash in France for Exile. I had the riff. The rest of the Stones were late
for one reason or another. It was only Bobby Keys there and Jimmy Miller, who was producing.
I said, I've got this idea; let's put it down for when the guys arrive. I put down some guitar and vocal,
Bobby was on baritone sax and Jimmy was on drums. We listened to it, and I said,
I can put another guitar there and a bass. By the time the Stones arrived, we'd cut it.
I love it when they drip off the end of the fingers. And I was pretty happy about it,
which is why it ended up being called Happy.
- Keith Richards, 2002

That's a strange song in a way 'cause if you play it you actually become happy (laughs).
Even in the worst of circumstances. There's a little magical bounce on it... I can play it now
and it gives you a lift, you know. I don't know why, except maybe the word (laughs).
- Keith Richards, 2003



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-17 17:13 by with sssoul.

Re : the rock 'n' roll band comment :

Most of the '75-'76 versions and some '78 versions are a rock 'n' roll band butchering a rock 'n' roll song.I'm just calling a spade a spade.If that's what you want to hear then god bless you.

The post '89 versions of Happy have nothing to do with Tom Jones and more to do with making the song sound recognizable to the audience.They added background vocalists and a horn section.Big deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-17 16:56 by Theif in the Night.

>> The only flaw with the rock n roll band playing a rock n roll song in that era is that
the rock n roll guitarist singing it usually is incapable of getting his mouth anywhere near the microphone. <<

smile: yeah, in several numbers in the 75 LA Forum show Keith is clearly struggling with the limits of his cable.
among other things he's clearly struggling with - but still! going cordless was definitely a huge breakthrough
in terms of singing into the mic. that shows in 81/82 (although as Gazza notes the Winos experience
was the biggest Great Leap Forward in Keith's LV development).


but back to Happy ... i love that 75 Forum Happy for 17 reasons at once, including that moment
when Keith directs that ever-so-heartfelt "please" to the Mick, to just take the vocal over. Glimmer love

Quote
with sssoul
>>

... but is there any evidence at all that it was ever considered a possible Mick-LV song?
....there's a story like that about You Got the Silver,
which of course there is a Mick-LV version of.

I don't know. Until I heard Mick try "Silver" and Keith
try "Dear Doctor" (he did..didn't he? I think I have it on a boot)
I didn't give much thought to it. I merely asked the question...
"Is there a bootleg with ONLY Mick doing primary vocals on Happy?? ".

We've all heard Keith humbly say stuff like...why would i sing, we've already
got a lead singer.....so I don't think it would be unheard of the
there might be a Mick only recording of it...especially since his
vocal contribution on the final studio version was more harmony/duet than background.

Just asking (& hoping) that's all. Not dissing Keith's version at all.


IORR............but I like it!

>> Just asking <<

right - and i'm just answering. no.

Quote
Gazza
The only flaw with the rock n roll band playing a rock n roll song in that era is that the rock n roll guitarist singing it usually is incapable of getting his mouth anywhere near the microphone.

Keith's onstage singing improved dramatically after he did his first solo tour and had to learn what was entailed in actually fronting a band for an entire show instead of for five minutes.

Prefer the Tokyo 1990 version myself but the Ladies & Gents one is an occasion where Keith does manage the vocal really well (with a little help from Mick of course)

The L&G version is a really great rendition. Lots of atmosphere. Fine singing. Great looks, also. My personal favourite!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-17 17:19 by Greenblues.

..............................................................Keith Richards



ROCKMAN

the best part of the tokyo 90 version is woodys solo, blistering!!!!!!

Quote
Theif in the Night
Re : the rock 'n' roll band comment :

Most of the '75-'76 versions and some '78 versions are a rock 'n' roll band butchering a rock 'n' roll song.I'm just calling a spade a spade.If that's what you want to hear then god bless you.

The post '89 versions of Happy have nothing to do with Tom Jones and more to do with making the song sound recognizable to the audience.They added background vocalists and a horn section.Big deal.

not forgetting the irony in that the studio version appears on possibly the greatest 'rock n roll' album in history - which is an album absolutely dripping in horn sections, session musicians and backing singers.