To think that for so long I viewed the 81/82 tour as the least favorite. Now I see these clips and I realize how everything is tinted by it's context. Compared to a wild 78 tour, yes 81 looked sedate. Knowing what I know now 81 is real rock'n roll.

In the very first clip Doxa posted - what does Keith pick up stage front? because he does not join in playing for a good bit. I really like how Jagger is keeping a close eye on the situation. You see him first glance at Keith - obviously he knows this is not normal for Keith himself to disappear form the front at beginning of the show; then still about 1 minute later he glances back again, Keith's guitar has not come back yet.

Quote
cc

Quote
LOGIE
Pete Townshend did pecisely this as early as 1977, by aiming the Who Are You album directly at the american market, and though never openly admitting to it, Jagger might well have had this in mind with Some Girls.

how exactly would they have done this (aim an album specifically at the US market)?

"Sister Disco"?

Good question!

..and after reading that comment of Pete's in an interview of his some twenty-odd years' ago, I've asked it myself on many an occasion. Perhaps the answer comes in the fact that the Who Are You album makes no concessions whatsoever to punk rock, heavy metal or disco. Quite the reverse in fact.

Music Must Change actually has a considerable jazz influence to it, while New Song is a blatant, almost deliberate re-run of the Bell Boy riff. The album's lyrics are also very introspective.

Moreover, there's a great deal of synth throughout the album's nine tracks, which did NOT go down well with the UK critics at the time.

On the other hand, the US critics generally loved the album, rating it as an instant classic.

Quote
Gazza
If I remember right, Jagger said the expression "thats a load of old bollocks" about ten times in that NME interview.

...and the rest!

It was fighting talk all the way!

Here's a brief snippet:

It might show Townshend himself a bit out of touch. Maybe he meant as in power rock made for big FM radio. At the time mainstream radio was still ruled by Wings, REO, Doobie Bros - so since the Who do what they do, he felt that it stood a better chance in USA than UK. Punk already had taken a strong foothold there.
In retrospect Some Girls is a much more modern album than WAY (modern in those times)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-11 23:08 by Palace Revolution 2000.

Link to another thread concerning mainly 82 tour,with great pictures of Britney,
UrbanSteel and manofwealthandtaste.

[www.iorr.org]




1:30 picture montage of July 4th Cologne show

The day after the Leeds gig, Mick celebrated his 39th birthday.

You'll no doubt recognise Kenny Jones to the left of the picture.

Two pre-tour clips :


Mick´s press conference :





News flash / Interview concerning Glasgow with Mick :

...and another clip from Madrid show start (real stormy....!!!)
7-7 82

Blasting Hampton '81 right now. Seems to me this is the last time Ronnie got to play LOUD and solo like a crazy man -- his playing on Black Limo and Neighbors is just ripping. Ever since '89 you have to struggle to hear Ronnie except on a few showcase tunes like "CYHMK," "Don't Stop," or "If you Can't Rock Me"

I have to agree with the Wyman lovers, he's just unbelievable on "Imagination." I'm in minute 9, and they are just tearing it up. Wow!

I can't believe I have to go to bed and get up for work. Damn it!

Vienna,july 2nd incl.BW interview and Under my Thumb

Quote
Gazza
I also think the choice of 'Land of hope and Glory' at the end of that show (as seen on the pro shot video of the 2nd night) was wonderful. For the non-UK shows that summer, it was the '1812 Overture', I think.

The two Wembley 1982 shows were my shows number 4 and 5. I had seen them in 1973 Gothenburg (what a show in Scandinavium) and then I had waited for nine years to have them back in Scandinavia for the two Gothenburg Nya Ullevi shows. Needless to say I wanted more so I booked a flight to London, stayed with a friend, went to both shows, freezing cold by the way, and after that I am proud to say that I have seen each and every Wembley and London show.

Land Of Hope And Glory makes me sort of sad every time I hear it. That was what they played as I walked out of the Wembley gates. It would take another seven years until I saw the Stones again at Shea Stadium. And after that I have had problems going home between shows.

To be honest, I don't think the 1982 shows were that fantastic. We were young, the Stones were younger, but they were not as sharp as they have been on later tours. The set lists were the same, and it wasn't until 1989 they made my mind loose control so that I was going to shows rather than doing what other people are doing in life. Mind you I had 3 kids age 9, 11, 13 in 1989, may be that is why I could finally go on tours and stay on tours, but to be honest, I think the Stones just grew better and better tour by tour - for me...

Bjornulf

The Stones pre-tour press conference included a mention of the so-called "Commando Raids", which resulted in the Scottish warm-up gigs:

:

This is how the Daily Mail reported the press conference:

Great LOGIE,seems as if you´re sitting on a complete archive.

Quote
shortfatfanny
Great LOGIE,seems as if you´re sitting on a complete archive.

...the consequence of a mis-spent youth!

This is how NME reported the press conference:





and a couple of nice pics from the same event:

How the Daily Mail reported the Aberdeen gig:

:



...and a nice pic from the Daily Express:



...and two from Melody Maker:





...and finally a small titbit from the Daily Mail:

...and how the Sunday Times reported the Scotland gigs:

...and let's not forget the warm-up gig at the 100 Club:

Philip Norman seems to make the same claim in that Scottish review as he does in his Stones book: that the Stones are different to the Beatles in the sense that they somehow respect more their early material, and thereby, they play them close to the original versions. I find that claim a strange one. For many reasons, of which I think out loud two:

(a) The Beatles stopped touring in 1966 - what the hell can be said anything about their 'attitude' since then?

(b) Through the seventies, The Stones actually had an 'attitude' problem to their prior "Jumping Jack Flash" material. In 1981/82 they seemed a bit soften their attitude, and took some surprise choices to their repertuare, such as "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time Is On my side" but the way they played them was not particularly trying to stay faithful to the originals - in fact - they started to do that in 1989. And for example, the version they did of "Satisfaction" in 1981/82 sounded almost like a joke. That's attitude problem...

(Norman's book was the first I read of The Stones, and even though it is written nicely (one of teh best Stones books in stylistic wise), what most bothers me most in the book - forget the factual errors - is that the guy is not a fan of their music, and seemingly, this seems to have a consequence that he doesn't really understand something crucial in the Stones: their music. I think the claim he does above is a symptom of that.)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-18 20:23 by Doxa.

Quote
bv

Quote
Gazza
I also think the choice of 'Land of hope and Glory' at the end of that show (as seen on the pro shot video of the 2nd night) was wonderful. For the non-UK shows that summer, it was the '1812 Overture', I think.

The two Wembley 1982 shows were my shows number 4 and 5. I had seen them in 1973 Gothenburg (what a show in Scandinavium) and then I had waited for nine years to have them back in Scandinavia for the two Gothenburg Nya Ullevi shows. Needless to say I wanted more so I booked a flight to London, stayed with a friend, went to both shows, freezing cold by the way, and after that I am proud to say that I have seen each and every Wembley and London show.

Land Of Hope And Glory makes me sort of sad every time I hear it. That was what they played as I walked out of the Wembley gates. It would take another seven years until I saw the Stones again at Shea Stadium. And after that I have had problems going home between shows.

To be honest, I don't think the 1982 shows were that fantastic. We were young, the Stones were younger, but they were not as sharp as they have been on later tours. The set lists were the same, and it wasn't until 1989 they made my mind loose control so that I was going to shows rather than doing what other people are doing in life. Mind you I had 3 kids age 9, 11, 13 in 1989, may be that is why I could finally go on tours and stay on tours, but to be honest, I think the Stones just grew better and better tour by tour - for me...

I dont think so i saw magic back than! yes the set was the same every night...but not played the same! anything could happen! A wild JJF free for all party it was raw!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-18 20:41 by rooster.

Such a great thread.....thank you LOGIE!!

Quote
Doxa
Philip Norman seems to make the same claim in that Scottish review as he does in his Stones book: that the Stones are different to the Beatles in the sense that they somehow respect more their early material, and thereby, they play them close to the original versions. I find that claim a strange one. For many reasons, of which I think out loud two:

(a) The Beatles stopped touring in 1966 - what the hell can be said anything about their 'attitude' since then?

(b) Through the seventies, The Stones actually had an 'attitude' problem to their prior "Jumping Jack Flash" material. In 1981/82 they seemed a bit soften their attitude, and took some surprise choices to their repertuare, such as "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time Is On my side" but the way they played them was not particularly trying to stay faithful to the originals - in fact - they started to do that in 1989. And for example, the version they did of "Satisfaction" in 1981/82 sounded almost like a joke. That's attitude problem...

(Norman's book was the first I read of The Stones, and even though it is written nicely (one of teh best Stones books in stylistic wise), what most bothers me most in the book - forget the factual errors - is that the guy is not a fan of their music, and seemingly, this seems to have a consequence that he doesn't really understand something crucial in the Stones: their music. I think the claim he does above is a symptom of that.)

- Doxa

Having received such lavish praise for his book, "Shout!", about the Beatles, Philip Norman made the mistake of applying an almost identikit structure to his 1984 Rolling Stones biography.

However, it didn't work, and he was rightly panned by the critics!

It was certainly entertaining and highly readable, but lacked any substance or credibility because of such a limited range of contributors, most of whom seemed only able to "clarify" second-hand or anecdotal incidents.

Norman also had an annoying habit of drawing ludicrous comparisons between the Stones and the Beatles, even when there were no grounds whatsoever for doing so.

How about this fantastic picture from Slane, Ireland, taken by Denis O'Regan:



...and a small clipping from the Daily Mail:

great Slane picture.never seen it before............. rock n roll !

sc uk

In a couple of days we will have 15 never before seen pics from Gothenburg 1982,
and in a couple of weeks some 20-30 more, at our site.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

This picture I took at one of the Cologne shows. I have more pics from the Munich and Cologne concerts somewhere and also a lot of newspaper articles and other things from 1982. I will look for it within the next days.

Quote
straycatuk
great Slane picture.never seen it before............. rock n roll !

sc uk

I thought Mick wore orange pants at the Slane show?






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-21 01:20 by Britney.

Thanks for spotting that one, Britney!

In which case, the publication, "Q Classic: The Rolling Stones, Classic, Rare & Unseen" has obviously got it wrong!

...so can anyone out there identify where that superb pic DOES come from?