Did they have any idea it would be the last time they played on stage together for such a long time? Had deep problems already begun? Its seemed like they were in top form and had a great tour. Then it was followed by their darkest period. When was the crash?

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

Ronnie was having drug problems, but the real kicker was Mick's solo deal. A fun tour though.

So they had no idea at the end of that tour?

"You'll be studying history and you'll be down the gym. And I'll be down the pub, probably playing pool and drinking."

No....Keith wanted to tour behind Dirty Work (or Undercover maybe.....I'm not all that knowledgable about their 80's work)......Mick's solo deal, which was inked after the '81/82 tours was the main reason for their absence from the concert stage through most of the '80's.

It was the best tour since '78 . . .

But seriously, folks: it was the last GREAT stones' tour. (each succesive one has had its highlights, of course)

It is certain that they did not know it would be so long before their next tour. Jagger many times said "see you next year" showing that they planned to tour in '82 as well

Sadly, the dual guitar attach was never the same after they came back in 89. I don't know why they decided Keith and Ronnie were no longer enough as back up singers after the success of 81. Had to make it slicker I guess.

I've never been a fan of 81/82. My recollections is that is when Ronnie started really goofing-off too much. And the set list was disappointing. I liked 78 much more.

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

bigfrankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never been a fan of 81/82. My recollections
> is that is when Ronnie started really goofing-off
> too much. And the set list was disappointing. I
> liked 78 much more.

WOW, i loved 81, i thought it was the best 2 hour's of stones concert ever as a band and the smoking solo"s by Woody his Broadcaster was screaming that night.That is Hampton by the way. i did'nt see any goofing off that night?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-06 05:31 by stonesfrk.

Im a fan of the 81 tour. There was goofing off there on Hampton, check out RW inbetween hang fire and miss you He's skipping around and jumping, then he knocks over the mike stand. One thing I was impressed with is how mick doesnt get uptight about the shenanigans going on around him. IMO it makes him seem really cool.


and then theres this one part where Im not quite sure of whats going on. before TD mick goes "Rude, Rude" to Keith and then says something I dont undertand, it sounds like "Wish I wasnt you" or something. and then you see Keith putting down a bottle of booze. what was that about, was Keith not allowed to drink hard stuff? I find that hard to believe but that seems like whats going on. Or did he take Micks bottle?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-06 06:06 by ryanpow.

I thought Mick said "rude, rude, rude, I wish I were nude"

>> "rude, rude, rude, I wish I were nude" <<

yeah, that's what he says, and i too have always wondered what provoked that -
drinkin straight from the bottle doesn't seem anywhere near rude enough!
but maybe Mick was feelin his oats like everyone else on that stage and just wanted to say that.

I agree with Markdog. since 89 it just seems like Keith and Ronnie are more concerned with striking a pose or that occasional laugh or gesture to each other than striking that lick on time. Maybe there just having more fun and figure they've already proved they're the greatest rock band, I don't know for sure. I don't buy the argument "well they're old fogies now", just watch Clapton and others from their generation who still hit that same exact note as if it were yesterday. They are still great, I just feel they could be better. Can't say the same for Charlie though, he's on night after night.

We'll every gig I've been to since 89 Keith and Ronnie seem pretty damn fine to me..... and millions of others.

Unleash the dogs.

bigfrankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never been a fan of 81/82. My recollections
> is that is when Ronnie started really goofing-off
> too much. And the set list was disappointing. I
> liked 78 much more.


The setlists were fantastic. Half of the show (12 songs or more) consisted of songs 3 years old or less and of the rest, they unearthed old 60's songs they hadnt played in over a decade (eg Under my thumb) or indeed ever (let it Bleed), and even thre in a couple of unreleased covers.

And they werent afraid to drop a few 'warhorses' (Sympathy, IORR etc) because they knew they had plenty of other great songs in their armoury as well as plenty of strong newer ones.

shadooby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just watch Claptonand others from their generation who still hit
> that same exact note as if it were yesterday.



Funny how we all have different perspectives. I would NEVER want it said that the Stones played a song the exact same way as they did "in the old days."

Also, people keep holding Clapton up as an example of someone who is still as good as he was. I've always been a fan of his, and continue to be, but he does not play with the same passion and sense of adventure that he did. He has become much more tasteful and much more focused on the singing and the song, for better or worse...

Given the choice, I'd see the Stones about 9 times out of 10.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bigfrankie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've never been a fan of 81/82. My
> recollections
> > is that is when Ronnie started really
> goofing-off
> > too much. And the set list was disappointing. I
> > liked 78 much more.
>
>
> The setlists were fantastic. Half of the show (12
> songs or more) consisted of songs 3 years old or
> less and of the rest, they unearthed old 60's
> songs they hadnt played in over a decade (eg Under
> my thumb) or indeed ever (let it Bleed), and even
> thre in a couple of unreleased covers.
>
> And they werent afraid to drop a few 'warhorses'
> (Sympathy, IORR etc) because they knew they had
> plenty of other great songs in their armoury as
> well as plenty of strong newer ones.


Completely agree Gazza, the set lists were great on this tour, perfect mix of new and old. And they tried a different number as an opener and it worked great. In 2005, Start Me Up seemed to be the most predictable song to open with and when they followed with YGMR it had me thinking, why are they running through the same songs again. Bet nobody expected Under My Thumb in 81. And 6, sometimes 7 news songs that all worked great live. Add song old numbers like Time is On My Side and you have a set list nothing like the past few tours at this time.

There are subtle differences between 81 and 82 (other than obvious line-up changes - Bobby & Chuck).

I like 82 better - the horns in Hang Fire, the long break in Miss You, everyone sings better, Angie brought back, less flange on the guitars, Mick's funny & hyper...

Mick's funny & hyper... er, cocaine, maybe?

I liked the set list---they took some chances and still promoted their most recent release at the same time--very cool.

As for dropping the warhorses like Sympathy and IORR, not really sure I would put it like that since they had not played either of those songs on their last tour. Actually, if you think about it more "warhorses" in '81 than '78.

But, it was a great tour and brought them back in a big way.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-07 22:32 by Glass Slide.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I like 82 better - the horns in Hang Fire, the
> long break in Miss You, everyone sings better,
> Angie brought back, less flange on the guitars,
> Mick's funny & hyper...

surely you jest? the horns rendered the (typically excellent) hang fire unlistenable. one of the few times i was glad that HF clocks in at only 2 mins . . .

the setlists, by the way, were the best in the illustrious history of The Rolling Stones. the opening lineup of UMT, WTWCD, & LSTNT was a knock out - not to mention the ballad mini-set and the fact that they were playing the all-too-ignored BLACK LIMOUSINE every night.

oh, and ernie watts @#$%& killed . . .

The 81 US tour was their longest to date and Bill said there was lots of arguing and fighting during the tour. They paid Ronnie $500k for the tour but he had to clean up his act first.

Glass Slide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As for dropping the warhorses like Sympathy and
> IORR, not really sure I would put it like that
> since they had not played either of those songs on
> their last tour. Actually, if you think about it
> more "warhorses" in '81 than '78.
>
>

If there were, it was only because the shows were 50% longer!

Miss You and Start Me Up werent 'warhorses' in 1981-82, though. They were recent hits.

The only warhorses that were played on that tour were Satisfaction, JJF, Brown sugar, Tumbling Dice, HTW and YCAGWYW. Not even a quarter of the show on some nights.

In '78, they were usually playing about 18 songs per show - 8 new songs, 2 Chuck Berry covers, with only 4 of the remaining songs (BS/JJF/TD/HTW) being warhorses that were played regularly (SF man and Satisfaction got a few airings apiece)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-08 18:56 by Gazza.

not a big fan of the 81/82 tour. Mick's voice sucked, ernie watts sucked (even though he was a very good player), even Charlie was repetitive...obviously drugs/alcohol were the issues.

Mind you, Time IOMS is superb, and UMT...

Check out Satisfaction....very, very ordinary....

I think it was better that they didn't tour in 1983 and 1986. The band wasn't in good shape those days. Ronnie was heavily addicted to Freebase in the early 80s. In 1986 the whole athmosphere was bad (due to Mick's lack of interest in the band), and additionally Charlie was in Smack during that time.

They would have made a bad job, and concert attendees would have been upset by a non existing band.

shadooby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't buy the argument
> "well they're old fogies now", just watch Clapton
> and others from their generation who still hit
> that same exact note as if it were yesterday.
>


I don't think Clapton is as good as he was 20 or 30 years ago.......and quite honestly, I've bought live recordings by Clapton (post 1990) that totally put me to sleep..........I would have laughed at you statement if I had read it before I watched his Crossroads Guitar Festival dvd.....the songs Clapton played on there featured some of the best playing I had heard from him in years....maybe it was all the talent around him that was pushing him on....

Luke33 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not a big fan of the 81/82 tour. Mick's voice
> sucked, ernie watts sucked (even though he was a
> very good player), even Charlie was
> repetitive...obviously drugs/alcohol were the
> issues.

I agree, 1981/82 was Charlie´s worst tour. His playing was unusually stiff and unimaginative. I´ve never liked the band´s sound on that tour, mostly because of Ernie Watts.

They were still in their 30's and confident enough to just go out and rock.

Middle aged / elderly guys are older and wiser and able to offer a consistently good / confident / professional show. The downside is the swagger and inspiration is diminished.

I loved the '81 tour and have always loved the Still Life record. Even saw the movie in the theater when it was released.

What I think alot of people forget is that this tour was without doubt the most hyped entertainment event of the 1980's in the US. Bigger than Live Aid, We Are The World and all that (maybe not in actual eyeballs at the concerts / tv but in attention span of the media). The media covered the tour on a pretty much daily basis:

Starting with Geraldo Rivera's 20/20 interview with the band at Longview Farm, then the tour kickoff in Philly with Mick in football pants, Jann Wenner cover story in RS, the constant rotation of Start Me Up on the brand new MTV and following up with MTV interviews and updates from Europe '82 and the heavy play of the live Going to a Go Go video. Finishing with the release of the movie.

The Hampton concert ppv / simulcast was shown in theaters. Not a everyday occurrence.

Gazza Wrote:
If there were, it was only because the shows were
> 50% longer!
>
> Miss You and Start Me Up werent 'warhorses' in
> 1981-82, though. They were recent hits.
>

I agree about miss you, but I think SMU instantly became a warhose.

81 was the last tour a new warhosrse was unveiled.