Tell Me :
Talk
a fair argument, but just emphasing that great rock n roll/horns + backing singers arent mutually exclusive
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-17 18:06 by Gazza.
Can't see anything wrong in an artist and a band actually singing in the mic, or playing the song correctly. Wouldn't compare them with Tom Jones anyway...
[www.reverbnation.com]
IORR............but I like it!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: May 17, 2008 17:39
thats true, but somehow the best versions of happy are the mick n keith duets for the most part, horns or no horns
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
scottkeef
()
Date: May 17, 2008 17:48
With all the flaws I agree that the 72-73 versions are the best onstage performances. with sssoul,thanks for the link-I always had trouble deciphering some of the lyrics! Also if there is a version of Keith doing "Dear Doctor" that would be nice to hear.I've never run across it.
Re: Happy
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: May 17, 2008 17:52
>> if there is a version of Keith doing "Dear Doctor" that would be nice to hear.
I've never run across it. <<
me neither. it's one of the closest duets they've done, of course - almost as close as Connection -
and maybe there's a version with Keith's harmonies brought more to the fore?
I've never run across it. <<
me neither. it's one of the closest duets they've done, of course - almost as close as Connection -
and maybe there's a version with Keith's harmonies brought more to the fore?
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: May 17, 2008 17:59
Jagger's back up vocal is grossly underestimated.....to add.....when Jagger and Keith "trade" vocals several masterpieces come to mind.........having said that recent versions of Happy seem pretty unhappy.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 17, 2008 18:06
Quote
melillo
thats true, but somehow the best versions of happy are the mick n keith duets for the most part, horns or no horns
a fair argument, but just emphasing that great rock n roll/horns + backing singers arent mutually exclusive
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-17 18:06 by Gazza.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: May 17, 2008 19:45
How about in, oh, which movie is it? Ladies And Gentleman or @#$%&? Mick and Keith are listening to the 45 somewhere, on the plane maybe? and it doesn't fade out as it does on the record, it keeps going!!! How I would LOVE to get my hands on that version!
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
scottkeef
()
Date: May 17, 2008 21:15
If memory serves me (and its been known to fail) I believe its in L&G and takes place in Keiths hotel room?
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
audun-eg
()
Date: May 17, 2008 21:19
Quote
melillo
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
Can't see anything wrong in an artist and a band actually singing in the mic, or playing the song correctly. Wouldn't compare them with Tom Jones anyway...
[www.reverbnation.com]
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
sweet neo con
()
Date: May 17, 2008 21:39
Quote
Rip This
Jagger's back up vocal is grossly underestimated.....to add.....when Jagger and Keith "trade" vocals several masterpieces come to mind.........having said that recent versions of Happy seem pretty unhappy.
IORR............but I like it!
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
buffalo7478
()
Date: May 20, 2008 03:01
'Anita love to keep me happy'? How about 'I need a love to keep me happy'? I think it's the second.
I have also read that Keith wants Mick offstage during his set. It may have started with Mick feeling the need to take over more vocals from Keith on Happy. I wish he would have taken over the vocals for the last 19 years. Love Keith, but he butchers the song - entirely. I would MUCH rather he concentrate on putting some fire into he guitar playing and let Mick help him along on the vocal.
Happy 'live', for me, has sadly joined Miss You as a beer and bathroom break song.
I have also read that Keith wants Mick offstage during his set. It may have started with Mick feeling the need to take over more vocals from Keith on Happy. I wish he would have taken over the vocals for the last 19 years. Love Keith, but he butchers the song - entirely. I would MUCH rather he concentrate on putting some fire into he guitar playing and let Mick help him along on the vocal.
Happy 'live', for me, has sadly joined Miss You as a beer and bathroom break song.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
scottkeef
()
Date: May 20, 2008 05:42
Seeing how that rumour started with a tour 17 or so years after the first performance of Happy it seems questionable to me(just my opinion).But to anyone witnessing any of the Wino tours can see Keith can pull off vocals when he wants to.
Re: Happy
Posted by:
nellcote'71
()
Date: May 20, 2008 06:43
Quote
with sssoul
>>
please listen to words. Anita love to keep me happy is not something Keith wrote for Mick to sing.
Whoa. smile. Anita love to keep me happy??
Where did you come up with that?
Time to use your edit button.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: May 20, 2008 09:36
Can't help but laugh.
Folks used to give Keith stick for missing vocal cues, screeching out of tune and singing off mic.
Now he gets stick for singing off guitar ;^)
As far as Happy is concerned, For me it's not so much that the performances were better in the "old" days...it's more that the arrangements were better.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 09:39 by Spud.
Folks used to give Keith stick for missing vocal cues, screeching out of tune and singing off mic.
Now he gets stick for singing off guitar ;^)
As far as Happy is concerned, For me it's not so much that the performances were better in the "old" days...it's more that the arrangements were better.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 09:39 by Spud.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: May 20, 2008 09:58
Anita love to keep me happy
Yeah, never interpreted it that way, but it is not very different from "you got it in for me" (Infamy). I like it.
The Ladies & Gentlemen version of Happy has a soundtrack that does not fit the images. Was the music taken from a different show, was it an overdub? I don't know. But I always feel a bit let down that the camera's are registering Mick shaking his behind when Keith is actually whipping out the riffs off his guitar.
Now Happy may not be a good example, because it is definitely Keith doing the lead vocals here, but how about Connection? That was a song that surely was meant to be sung by the Twins. After Keith started doing it with the Winos it was suddenly "his" lead vocal song.
I would even go as far as saying that I would like Connection being done by Mick and Keith as a duet in the future and if that would mean Blondie would have to take charge of the guitar parts, so be it!
Yeah, never interpreted it that way, but it is not very different from "you got it in for me" (Infamy). I like it.
The Ladies & Gentlemen version of Happy has a soundtrack that does not fit the images. Was the music taken from a different show, was it an overdub? I don't know. But I always feel a bit let down that the camera's are registering Mick shaking his behind when Keith is actually whipping out the riffs off his guitar.
Now Happy may not be a good example, because it is definitely Keith doing the lead vocals here, but how about Connection? That was a song that surely was meant to be sung by the Twins. After Keith started doing it with the Winos it was suddenly "his" lead vocal song.
I would even go as far as saying that I would like Connection being done by Mick and Keith as a duet in the future and if that would mean Blondie would have to take charge of the guitar parts, so be it!
Re: Happy
Posted by:
Lady Jayne
()
Date: May 20, 2008 10:16
Quote
nellcote'71Quote
with sssoul
>>
please listen to words. Anita love to keep me happy is not something Keith wrote for Mick to sing.
Whoa. smile. Anita love to keep me happy??
Where did you come up with that?
Time to use your edit button.
I'm glad I'm not the only one - the words are and always have been "I need a love to keep me happy" aren't they?
Re: Happy
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: May 20, 2008 10:21
>> Where did you come up with that? Time to use your edit button. <<
smile to you too, dear: maybe it's time for you to listen to what he's singing.
"i need a love" is not exactly normal syntax, is it - what, you think it's just a coincidence
that his lyric sounds just like the the name of his long-term partner?
[shrug] okay, go ahead and think that if you prefer - it kinda shook me up too at first,
but eppur si muove, you know? the stupid part is that Nick Kent wrote that "Angie means 'Anita i need you'"
and everyone repeats that as if it made any sense at all. it's not Angie that means that - he got the wrong song.
>> it is not very different from "you got it in for me" (Infamy). <<
or Eileen/i lean
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 10:50 by with sssoul.
smile to you too, dear: maybe it's time for you to listen to what he's singing.
"i need a love" is not exactly normal syntax, is it - what, you think it's just a coincidence
that his lyric sounds just like the the name of his long-term partner?
[shrug] okay, go ahead and think that if you prefer - it kinda shook me up too at first,
but eppur si muove, you know? the stupid part is that Nick Kent wrote that "Angie means 'Anita i need you'"
and everyone repeats that as if it made any sense at all. it's not Angie that means that - he got the wrong song.
>> it is not very different from "you got it in for me" (Infamy). <<
or Eileen/i lean
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 10:50 by with sssoul.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2008 11:02
<And I was pretty happy about it,
which is why it ended up being called Happy.>
I'm more suspiscious about that explanaiton
which is why it ended up being called Happy.>
I'm more suspiscious about that explanaiton
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2008 11:07
<"i need a love" is not exactly normal syntax, is it>
What do you mean, with sssoul?
OK, let's say he has been kidding around with the "...Anita loves to keep me happy"-line. I can understand that, but there is no prove of that, and it's hard to interpret his pronounciation this way, imo.
What do you mean, with sssoul?
OK, let's say he has been kidding around with the "...Anita loves to keep me happy"-line. I can understand that, but there is no prove of that, and it's hard to interpret his pronounciation this way, imo.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: May 20, 2008 11:36
Letting my thoughts go their own way about this thread: Does anyone think there is a chance that Keith will ever be doing "Sweethearts together" during his lead vocal turn?
By the way, as a non-English speaker I always thought the lyrics were "I need your love", not 'I need a love'.
By the way, as a non-English speaker I always thought the lyrics were "I need your love", not 'I need a love'.
Re: Happy
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: May 20, 2008 11:55
>> What do you mean, with sssoul? <<
i mean that normal syntax would be "i need love" or "i need your love",
or "i need you, love", if it were a form of direct address.
as noted above, it's not the only instance of wordplay in Keith's lyrics; on the other hand,
plain old unnatural phraseology isn't very typical of the way he writes.
but like i also indicated above, if folks prefer to believe it's merely a coincidence
that he chose this odd phrase that just happens to sound exactly like his long-term partner's name,
it's no skin off my nose :E
>> OK, let's say he has been kidding around with the "Anita loves to keep me happy" line <<
it's not "Anita loves to" - it's "Anita love".
>> I always thought the lyrics were "I need your love", not 'I need a love'. <<
it's normal to think that, because that would be normal syntax. but what he's singing is "a love"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 12:00 by with sssoul.
i mean that normal syntax would be "i need love" or "i need your love",
or "i need you, love", if it were a form of direct address.
as noted above, it's not the only instance of wordplay in Keith's lyrics; on the other hand,
plain old unnatural phraseology isn't very typical of the way he writes.
but like i also indicated above, if folks prefer to believe it's merely a coincidence
that he chose this odd phrase that just happens to sound exactly like his long-term partner's name,
it's no skin off my nose :E
>> OK, let's say he has been kidding around with the "Anita loves to keep me happy" line <<
it's not "Anita loves to" - it's "Anita love".
>> I always thought the lyrics were "I need your love", not 'I need a love'. <<
it's normal to think that, because that would be normal syntax. but what he's singing is "a love"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 12:00 by with sssoul.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:06
OK. You may be right. But I've never been able to hear any "I need love", "I need your love" or "Anita love (?)".
I don't think Jordan and Waddy Wachtel are singing "Anita love" on the Winos' versions either. They are singing "I need a love" at the Palladium anyway.
But - stranger things have happened
I don't think Jordan and Waddy Wachtel are singing "Anita love" on the Winos' versions either. They are singing "I need a love" at the Palladium anyway.
But - stranger things have happened
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:13
But, but... is "Anita love to keep me happy" normal syntax?
I like the play with words and sounds, but I fail to see how the "normal syntax" argument can be used to make a point here. Boy, I should have stayed awake during my English lessons at school. There's so much to learn.
And I will have to listen very carefully to find out I was mistaken about the "I need your love" lyrics. I googled this sentence and found out only non-English sites come with this version, so I guess you need to be a native speaker to actually hear what Keith is singing and not to fill in what you think he sings.
I like the play with words and sounds, but I fail to see how the "normal syntax" argument can be used to make a point here. Boy, I should have stayed awake during my English lessons at school. There's so much to learn.
And I will have to listen very carefully to find out I was mistaken about the "I need your love" lyrics. I googled this sentence and found out only non-English sites come with this version, so I guess you need to be a native speaker to actually hear what Keith is singing and not to fill in what you think he sings.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:19
I think she means "Anita love", as in "Anita-love", but I'm not sure...
Re: Happy
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:21
marcovandereijk honey: the point is that "Anita/i need a love to keep me happy"
is a play on words, not normal syntax.
>> But I've never been able to hear any "I need love", "I need your love" <<
that's because that's not what he's singing. it would be normal syntax if he were singing either of those,
but he's not - he's singing "Anita/i need a love". a play on words.
and yes, maybe the wordplay includes a hyphen - if the hyphen works for you, you can use it for free :E
as for what Jordan and Wachtel were singing: whatever it was, it doesn't alter what Keith's singing in the original.
anyway as we've all noticed Keith often changes his lyrics - to all his songs - in concert,
but the original remains what it is. that's one of the glories of recorded music :E
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 13:52 by with sssoul.
is a play on words, not normal syntax.
>> But I've never been able to hear any "I need love", "I need your love" <<
that's because that's not what he's singing. it would be normal syntax if he were singing either of those,
but he's not - he's singing "Anita/i need a love". a play on words.
and yes, maybe the wordplay includes a hyphen - if the hyphen works for you, you can use it for free :E
as for what Jordan and Wachtel were singing: whatever it was, it doesn't alter what Keith's singing in the original.
anyway as we've all noticed Keith often changes his lyrics - to all his songs - in concert,
but the original remains what it is. that's one of the glories of recorded music :E
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 13:52 by with sssoul.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:22
So is "I need a love"?
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:43
Now to fullfil my English lessons: Does "a love" not exist? Is that like "a milk" or "a water"? Or could "a love" be used in terms of "a girlfriend"?
Just wondering and eager to learn.
Just wondering and eager to learn.
Re: English lesson
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:57
>> English lessons <<
yes, love (in the sense of the feeling) is a noncount noun so it's not standard to say "a love".*
and yes, someone could refer to their lover as their love, in which case it's a count noun,
so in that sense "a love" is theoretically possible, but not normal.** "my love" would be way more likely
(nota bene to Dandelion Powderman: i'm not suggesting that "my love" is what Keith's singing in Happy -
i'm just mentioning it as an example of normal/natural English, okay? :E )
* "a love" does occur, of course, in (mostly poetic) phrases like a love like ours,
but i'm talking about normal usage, as in how anyone would normally say "i need love"
** okay okay, some people say things like "be a love and let me use your car",
but that's Special English for Buttering-Up :E
Keith is also known to use "love" in direct address to women, as in "how ya doin, love?"
but when he's referring to women in the third person, he rather famously tends to use other terms :E
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 16:03 by with sssoul.
yes, love (in the sense of the feeling) is a noncount noun so it's not standard to say "a love".*
and yes, someone could refer to their lover as their love, in which case it's a count noun,
so in that sense "a love" is theoretically possible, but not normal.** "my love" would be way more likely
(nota bene to Dandelion Powderman: i'm not suggesting that "my love" is what Keith's singing in Happy -
i'm just mentioning it as an example of normal/natural English, okay? :E )
* "a love" does occur, of course, in (mostly poetic) phrases like a love like ours,
but i'm talking about normal usage, as in how anyone would normally say "i need love"
** okay okay, some people say things like "be a love and let me use your car",
but that's Special English for Buttering-Up :E
Keith is also known to use "love" in direct address to women, as in "how ya doin, love?"
but when he's referring to women in the third person, he rather famously tends to use other terms :E
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-20 16:03 by with sssoul.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: May 20, 2008 13:08
Thanks, love.
Re: English lesson
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: May 20, 2008 13:15
you're welcome - 3 pound 10 please :E
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-21 10:47 by with sssoul.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-21 10:47 by with sssoul.
Re: Happy , When did it becomes Keiths song ?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2008 13:16
<i'm not suggesting that "my love" is what Keith's singing in Happy -
i'm just mentioning it as an example of normal/natural English, okay? :E )>
Of course, my love
i'm just mentioning it as an example of normal/natural English, okay? :E )>
Of course, my love
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , bobo , Carnaby , DandelionPowderman , EJM , erad , gerritr , gomper076 , Joce , Kobroo , kstones79 , LSTNT , midimannz , Paddy , The Sicilian
Guests:
1159
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10