Quote
deardoctor

So dear Stones, please stop it before it´s going to be too ridiculous!!!!!!
What about a Jagger solo-tour with fresh musicans like in 1988?
So - now crucify me...

I never understood why he returned to the Stones after going solo.
Only for the money I presume.

that mick solo tour was awful, THE FAKE STONES

Quote
melillo
that mick solo tour was awful, THE FAKE STONES

i have trouble with that tour, too. and among other unfortunate things, it became the model for '89 and beyond for the stones live act.

yeah i mean the guy goes on a SOLO TOUR and does 90 percent stones set, what gives mick?

Unfortunately they were not capable to do that.

Quote
melillo
yeah i mean the guy goes on a SOLO TOUR and does 90 percent stones set, what gives mick?

The vocals:90% of the RS music after Keith got problems with his fingers.

Quote
socialdistortion
..meanwhile you got Keith, Ronnie, Mick, Charlie, Darryl, Blondie, Chuck, Bernard, Lisa, Bobby, plus 3 = 13 freakin people. Oy vey!

Isn't there a fouth horn dude, making it 14 people?

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
melillo
yeah i mean the guy goes on a SOLO TOUR and does 90 percent stones set, what gives mick?

The vocals:90% of the RS music after Keith got problems with his fingers.

huh?

Yeah, goat, 4 horns. "How I Wish" it was 5 Stones, a piano, and a sax.

Quote
melillo
yeah i mean the guy goes on a SOLO TOUR and does 90 percent stones set, what gives mick?

Mick played almost all of his solo stuff on that tour:
Lonely At The Top
Hard Woman
Just Another Night
Lucky In Love
Throwaway
Radio Control
Say You Will
Primitive Cool
Shoot Of Your Mouth
Party Doll
War Baby
+ What Kind Of World Is This (unreleased)
+ The Wild Colonial Boy

The thing is: he played a 28/30 song set each night!

The set list was pretty good: half of solo stuff, unreleased tracks, covers and Stones stuff. A good mix for a long setlist.

Keith's tour setlist was only 15-16 songs.

cmon even keith complained that mick did to many stones songs dude, its ok to sprinkle in a couple here and there but not that many its ridiculous, it was a solo tour not a stones cover band tour

If Mick did a solo tour, doing his own stuff, some Stones, some great covers, and didn't charge a kazillion bucks - damn right I'd be first in line.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
T&A

Quote
melillo
that mick solo tour was awful, THE FAKE STONES

i have trouble with that tour, too. and among other unfortunate things, it became the model for '89 and beyond for the stones live act.

At the time I totally missed Mick's 80's solo tours - probably due to the fact that he was touring in other side of the globe, and the internet was not so fast yet... and since the Stones got back, Jagger's tours seemed to have rightly vanished in the past. In fact, it has been not until lately I have had change to take a look at them more properly (thanks to youtube)

The more I've seen of it, the more I 've come to the conclusion what is expressed in those two posts above. Seemingly, Jagger's solo career was a try to take the Stones thing just by himself - to take legacy of The Stones with him, but 'fresh musicians' - not the difficult drunken ones he had had enough during the last decade or something. Jagger solo career was to continue where he left The Stones by the time of UNDERCOVER and 1981/82 tour. To an extent, he almost succeeded: if I remember right, at least his Australian tour was a great success - people went to see him as they were going to see the Stones (but was there also a cancelled tour due to the lack of interest somewhere [USA] too?). But unfortunately for Mick, his records sinked - especially PRIMITIVE COOL that might have been by then the least sold fresh studio album he had ever released in his life. My guess is that THEN he realized then that he will never remain a superstar ny his own - but solely as a frontman of The Rolling Stones. He needed the others, especially Keith.

That was the reason the Stones VERY QUICKLY were brought back. Of course, Keith - the most loyal guy in the world whose destiny and love of life is The Rolling Stones - compromised. Keith had shown his ego and demand for his share of the command of the band during the beginning of the decade and Jagger voted with his feet - that was the message that went through and Keith was humble man by the end of the decade. He would have done ANYTHING to get the band together again. So Mick gave the orders - take the 'professional' concept of arranging the music and how is to be to presented live. Most of important part of the deal was that the band was not longer depended on the shaky hands and heads of the guitarists. Mick brought the legacy of players to make sure that the band will rock steadily. Keith got a nice free passenger role in the band he once lead by his instincts and will. He was a co-frontman with Mick without the real power to make decisions. Mick needs Keith in order to keep the image of band alive - and to an extent, that is true of Ronnie, too. But both of those guys can fool as much as they can - it's good they do that because that's works for The Stones - as long as they don't mess with business and other important things. Jagger has TOTAL control over the Stones music nowadays, as far as touring goes.

The 'problem' is that in studio Keith has always been the boss - for example, the others needed to have lived "Keith's time" but Jagger seems to have taken care of that too. This is done, let me speculate, in terms of few constructed principles:

(a) do as few records as possible
(b) do those only when it is needed for image reasons
(c) when that is needed, spend as little time as possible in the studio.

The result is that by the time of making ABB - which - this speaks volumes: was not done, say, in Keith's basement but in Mick's castle - Keith's role and effect seemed to be reduced to minimum: he is there as a visitor to give Mick's songs (the ones Mick has already composed by his own) his own flavor, plus the chance to present a solo ballad or two of his own if and and if he has already composed them - there is no longer time to start developing the ideas - recording the atmosphere, etc - like Keith once did when he was making masterpieces. As we can hear ABB is full of half-finished, uninspired, recicled songs. By the time the band get into rehearsals of the new tour, it was already thinking like "do we really need to present these torso song sketches into audience? Which will be bored sooner to death - them or us?"

It looks like that the deal Ron Wood made with the devil in 1975 - to have a chance to play in the greatest rock and roll band in the world but in the cost of losing one's own artistic identity and creativity - Keith Richards did in 1989.

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 09:01 by Doxa.

[
That was the reason the Stones VERY QUICKLY were brought back. Of course, Keith - the most loyal guy in the world whose destiny and love of life is The Rolling Stones - compromised.


I think the reason the Stones went back together was, because Keith did the phonecall this time. I see that as a sort of apology call, and of course Mick went back to work with Keith. After all he never wanted to leave the Stones to start a solo career instead of the Stones. All what he wanted to do was a solo record. So he had no reason not to work with Keith again, when the chemestry is there again. I am sure it was not the money, they were already rich, and it was not fame, they were already famous. I never believed in that superstar thing as Mick´s only motivation.




But both of those guys can fool as much as they can - it's good they do that because that's works for The Stones - as long as they don't mess with business and other important things. Jagger has TOTAL control over the Stones music nowadays, as far touring goes.


Jagger had total power over the Stones from 1970 on as for touring. And in the studio he was the boss the same as Keith.


The 'problem' is that in studio Keith has always been the boss - for example, the others needed to have lived "Keith's time" but Jagger seems to have taken care of that too. Thi is done in terms of few constructed principles:

(a) do as few records as possible
(b) do those only when it is needed for image reasons
(c) when that is needed, spend as little time as possible in the studio.


I don´t think that these are their(Jagger´s) principles. It was discussed in other threads, but they are just older, have other interests, have children etc.
elunsi

To add few things to my ranting above: I don't think the reasons that drove Mick to a solo career - and take the legacy of the Stones with him there - were only Keith and Ronnie (the ego fights with Keith plus Keith's and Ronnie's constant troubles with substances and their childish behavior), but also Charlie (remember the bunch story in Amsterdam during UNDECOVER recordings plus Charlie's sinking into alcohol and heroin in mid-80's - like Mick had said the others were not in the condition to tour by the time of DIRTY WORK). It also needs to be noted that Bill Wyman had shown intentions for leaving from the early 70's n. Bill wasn't probably much keen on continuing anymore either. I guess the whole band seemed like a lost case or a burden in the eyes of Mick by the mid-80s. It might have felt like a relief the IDEA to get rid of the others - to be dependent on so many not so energetic and vital characters like he is - plus taking the fact that he had been leading the others - HIS backing band - to success for decades by now. Why should he share all the glory and profits with the rest. The three of them were not his employeers but business partners.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 09:18 by Doxa.

Doxa,
you made the point!
To mention one thing: I agree totally what you wrote, especially about the boring ABB, we don´t know any outakes of Bridges to B., but at least for steel wheels and voodoo L. Keith got an enormous influence. Lot´s of rough versions with his voice. Maybe Keith lives his image (clown and pirate, not a serious guitar player anymore) since the late 90s

Quote
elunsi


I think the reason the Stones went back together was, because Keith did the phonecall this time. I see that as a sort of apology call, and of course Mick went back to work with Keith. After all he never wanted to leave the Stones to start a solo career instead of the Stones. All what he wanted to do was a solo record. So he had no reason not to work with Keith again, when the chemestry is there again. I am sure it was not the money, they were already rich, and it was not fame, they were already famous. I never believed in that superstar thing as Mick´s only motivation.

I'm sorry but I am a bit more cynical about these matters. I am convinced that Mick really wanted to leave the Stones - no matter what he said then or now - and Keith got angry because he saw - better than perhaps than anybody - the real nature of the things. He was mad, for example, that SHE'S THE BOSS was way too much a record Mick could have done with the Stones. It was The Stones music going to the direction MIck wanted it to go - not something Mick could just make by his own, something totally different for a change. Keith went mad because Mick wanted boost his solo career and market the album instead of concentrating on new recording (DIRTY WORK). Mick' disinterest on doing DIRTY WORK plus not willing to tour behind the album spoke volumes to Keith I am sure. And after killing the idea of a Stones tour, Jagger went on making a tour by his own, and bringing heavily Stones material there, and that drove Keith more than mad and he was VERY vocal about it. Of course, making ANOTHER solo album wouldn't help the case either.

Since the 80's I don't think the chemistry has been there anymore. I think Mick and Keith are solely business partners who know that they need each other and for that reason tolarate each other. They can be friends, but they don't breath the same musical air anymore. The result is the Stones albums full of easy musical compromises (of course, there might be few expections). There is no that creative spark anyomre - it's barely the long history and nostalgy plus the money and fame & attention that drives them. They are addicted to their fame, I think.

Quote
elunsi


Jagger had total power over the Stones from 1970 on as for touring. And in the studio he was the boss the same as Keith.

I cannot agree. Keith was the band leader through the 70's - they all followed him on stage. He lead the band that Mick fronted. The pulse of The Stones was Keith's pulse. In the studio he was the person everyone followed and gathered around. Mick trusted Keith's instincts. Keith was and reminded as the musical heart of The Stones no matter how deep in dope he was. Mick controlled everything outside the musical substance, and of course, had his sayings into music as well. Even in SOME GIRLS - Mick's most profilic product within the Stones - Keith lead the band into greatness. It is also SOME GIRLS where Mick and Keith's colloboration seemed the last time to click really well. (It is perhaps the result of this album that Jagger thought he might able to do the whole thing just by his own. Be the boss in studio.) It's been downhill ever since. Jagger opportunism goes worse as Keith's conservatism does, and those two just don't seem to meet anymore. Perhaps they just grew apart from each other. When they finally did the 'peace' in 1989 I think that was just a compromise solution. They avoid all the riskies of fight and the result is music without much edge and inspiration.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 10:12 by Doxa.

Quote
deardoctor
To mention one thing: I agree totally what you wrote, especially about the boring ABB, we don´t know any outakes of Bridges to B., but at least for steel wheels and voodoo L. Keith got an enormous influence. Lot´s of rough versions with his voice. Maybe Keith lives his image (clown and pirate, not a serious guitar player anymore) since the late 90s

Yeah, what I thought above was, of course, that even though they created in 1989 certain sketch to how to do things, there has been the gradual change ever since. ABB is where we finally get. STEEL WHEELS was a buddy-buddy-effort by Mick and Keith - they wanted to things to be like in good ole days, write together, went even to Moroocco, etc. They got (relatively) quickly together a mediocre album which had "WE ARE BACK!" written all over it. VOODOO lOUNGE was much more serious effort - and Mick gave lot of room for Keith to do an album of his insticts - well, the policy didn't quite go all the way through, but still. Of course, the conservatism nature of the album was "too retro" for the taste of Mick. But most of the Stones fans were thrilled - the band really was back as a musical entity as it was once known. Best since EXILE, blah blah... BRIDGES TO BABYLON was more Mick-oriented album, that is, there were new musical ideas - actually, as described by many: it was the two solo albums combined (which, unfortunately was carefully separeted from each other). But what I like this album very much is that Mick seemed to be into it - really wanting to develop the music of the Stones to a new direction. The album almost sounded like an effort of a real, breathing band. ABB was a total throw back in that sense. Minimal effort in every sense (it lamost sounds like Mick thinking: let us to do a retro Stones album as Keith would do it, with the difference that I run the show.)

But shit: four albums in two decades: that is not much creative energy wasted - the gaps between the albums are so huge that they always start from a point of zero - never to contunue where they last left. It is no wonder that there is not any real progression going there compared to the times when every album was different compared to the previous one. Like with their live sound, the differences between the albums are question of nuances.

It is also this reason I think - TO GO TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD!!!! >< - that the 'decline' of their sound is so easily seen. They try to play with the same concept, with a same style like they have since 1989, unfortunately they are not able to do it anymore. It is almost shocking to wittness how well they played in, say, 1994, or in 1997, even though at the time it did not make much difference. Now it does!

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 11:08 by Doxa.

you guys sound like a bunch of spoiled USC fans -- if ya dont win the league title and go to the Rose Bowl or BCS every year, ya complain and say it has been a shitty year.

Be happy they are still around, and playing as well as they still do, even if it is not as great as it once was (and I am not conceding that this is the case).


p

Quote
timbernardis
you guys sound like a bunch of spoiled USC fans -- if ya dont win the league title and go to the Rose Bowl or BCS every year, ya complain and say it has been a shitty year.

Be happy they are still around, and playing as well as they still do, even if it is not as great as it once was (and I am not conceding that this is the case).


p

Being happy they are still around does not prevent us to discuss critically of their doings. I think it is a right of any music fan to make judgments of his/her own and express them. At least partly the point of forums like iORR is to discuss The Rolling Stones. This is what we do here.

- Doxa

I promise you, in a few years we all wish that they should have stopped once - with honour. As I said - have a look at chuck Berry now.
Only repeating the last tours, while every time getting little worse, are these the stones you love? Come on brother this way to die is too cheap

Quote
deardoctor
I promise you, in a few years we all wish that they should have stopped once - with honour. As I said - have a look at chuck Berry now.
Only repeating the last tours, while every time getting little worse, are these the stones you love? Come on brother this way to die is too cheap

exactly!

Quote
deardoctor
I promise you, in a few years we all wish that they should have stopped once - with honour. As I said - have a look at chuck Berry now.
Only repeating the last tours, while every time getting little worse, are these the stones you love? Come on brother this way to die is too cheap

Unfortunately, I already made this conclusion when I saw SHINE A LIGHT (and listened to its soundtrack). That was the very point I realized - now it is getting too far. The band simply is not anymore in the level of its music anymore. Nowadays they play solely with their stage - especially Keith's - charisma and presence plus Mick Jagger's 8th wonder of the world' athletics (a latter seems to be a circus number as a value of its own). I love seeing Keith alive, and I love seeing Mick Jagger running and jumping there as I am projecting all of my Stones fandom and fantizies there when I saw them on stage. It is like not wanting to realize that this policy of "okay, one more time greatest hits tour with the same concept" has gone waaaayyyyy too long. But not being there present but solely watching documents like SAL gives the oppurtunity to evaluate the music and action a bit more objectively. And I don't think they get any better in future.

Of course, when the band announces a new tour I will forget all my critical thoughts and run to see them, once again... (I am sure that my action will not look very healthy and good in a long run either...)

- Doxa

Quote
melillo

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
melillo
yeah i mean the guy goes on a SOLO TOUR and does 90 percent stones set, what gives mick?

The vocals:90% of the RS music after Keith got problems with his fingers.

huh?

Just forget it.

Quote
timbernardis

Be happy they are still around, and playing as well as they still do, even if it is not as great as it once was (and I am not conceding that this is the case).


p

Sorry, Tim, but if anyone is asking me to fork out a considerable wedge of cash for the privilege of seeing them perform, then its reasonable to expect a high quality of performance every time - there has to be more appeal than just the thrill of being in their 'presence'.

I'm there for the music. Not to be a cheerleader. (Believe me, you wouldnt want to see me with pom-poms)

Quote
jamesfdouglas
If Mick did a solo tour, doing his own stuff, some Stones, some great covers, and didn't charge a kazillion bucks - damn right I'd be first in line.

He is still Mick Jagger - I'm right behind you in line.

Quote
Doxa

(...)
So Mick gave the orders - take the 'professional' concept of arranging the music and how is to be to presented live. Most of important part of the deal was that the band was not longer depended on the shaky hands and heads of the guitarists. Mick brought the legacy of players to make sure that the band will rock steadily. Keith got a nice free passenger role in the band he once lead by his instincts and will. He was a co-frontman with Mick without the real power to make decisions. Mick needs Keith in order to keep the image of band alive - and to an extent, that is true of Ronnie, too. But both of those guys can fool as much as they can - it's good they do that because that's works for The Stones - as long as they don't mess with business and other important things. Jagger has TOTAL control over the Stones music nowadays, as far as touring goes.

The 'problem' is that in studio Keith has always been the boss - for example, the others needed to have lived "Keith's time" but Jagger seems to have taken care of that too. This is done, let me speculate, in terms of few constructed principles:

(a) do as few records as possible
(b) do those only when it is needed for image reasons
(c) when that is needed, spend as little time as possible in the studio.

(...)

It looks like that the deal Ron Wood made with the devil in 1975 - to have a chance to play in the greatest rock and roll band in the world but in the cost of losing one's own artistic identity and creativity - Keith Richards did in 1989.

- Doxa

I think you hit the nail on the head, Doxa. Maybe a little bit pointed here and there, but nevertheless a fine, dead-on-target analysis!!

Quote
Shawn20

Quote
jamesfdouglas
If Mick did a solo tour, doing his own stuff, some Stones, some great covers, and didn't charge a kazillion bucks - damn right I'd be first in line.

He is still Mick Jagger - I'm right behind you in line.

no offence to Charlie, but Jagger is basically carrying this band on those tiny shoulders of his....

yep....i'm third in line...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
timbernardis
you guys sound like a bunch of spoiled USC fans -- if ya dont win the league title and go to the Rose Bowl or BCS every year, ya complain and say it has been a shitty year.

Be happy they are still around, and playing as well as they still do, even if it is not as great as it once was (and I am not conceding that this is the case).


p

Being happy they are still around does not prevent us to discuss critically of their doings. I think it is a right of any music fan to make judgments of his/her own and express them. At least partly the point of forums like iORR is to discuss The Rolling Stones. This is what we do here.

- Doxa

Well, this is true, Doxa. It also gives me the right to complain about the views that I don't agree with.

Gazza wrote:

Sorry, Tim, but if anyone is asking me to fork out a considerable wedge of cash for the privilege of seeing them perform, then its reasonable to expect a high quality of performance every time - there has to be more appeal than just the thrill of being in their 'presence'.

I'm there for the music. Not to be a cheerleader. (Believe me, you wouldnt want to see me with pom-poms)


and I feel I do still get good performances, tho nothing in my mind, not ANY band, can justify those prices -- i mean, even if THE PLEXIGLASS or Jesus himself came down do I want to be paying that. Well, on second thought, for an appearance by THE PLEXIGLASS ...

The very notion of you with pom poms has just caused me to vomit, WHY DID U HAVE TO BRING THAT UP??!!


p

Great string of posts, Doxa.