He can pull it off, by touring with Taylor, Woody, Darryl and the rest of the back-up team with the name Rolling Stones (enough Stones history there to make it legitimate) but without Keith he shouldn't play Keith's compositions, than he could do it as the Rolling Stones, and with a last album featuring this line-up being anounced as the last Stones album with the very last Stones stadium tour it will even be a big succes, no doubt.

stadium tour as a bye bye tour sucks outright shite

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
Rickster
if I want to here him sing Stones songs I want the band to be the Stones not a bunch of back up musucians so no I would not go.

Well if you look how many vack up musicians the Stones have with them now,it's pretty much the same thing.

That's what I was thinking... Doesn't Mick cut the deal w/ Cohl and then tell the rest of the Stones what they'll be paid? All that would change would be the fact that he'd have to design the stage by himself. The musical director would still consult on the setlists, We'd still sit here and complain about the guitar players and the setlists and the backup musicians would still carry the show.

Quote
behroez
He can pull it off, by touring with Taylor, Woody, Darryl and the rest of the back-up team with the name Rolling Stones (enough Stones history there to make it legitimate) but without Keith he shouldn't play Keith's compositions, than he could do it as the Rolling Stones, and with a last album featuring this line-up being anounced as the last Stones album with the very last Stones stadium tour it will even be a big succes, no doubt.

brother are you actually talking about a Rolling Stones tour without KEITH????
man i didn't want to live to see this day

i'd go see fricken Charles anywhere tho

Mick Jagger solo.Of course i wanna go.
Skipstone and the others Keith Richards fans,should go to see Winos.
Personally i dont care about them,boring band.

Quote
Beelyboy
i'd go see fricken Charles anywhere tho

And I'd be there with you on both of your last two postings. Although, on some levels, it can be argued that Brian started the band, I feel that what became The Rolling Stones started on a train platform and only Mick & Keith were there that day. If I'm not mistaken, is it accurate to say that only Mick & Keith have played EVERY single Rolling Stones show in the bands history? My memory isn't what it used to be but I believe that to be the case. To tour without Keith would be to tour without the bands heart, soul and balls.

Blasphemy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I would personally only see that show if Keith had (knock on woody) passed on and it were for a benefit.

I'm talking about the lull we're having, not to replace Keith or the Stones. If Mick woke up one day and had an idea to do a simple, creative tour putting in the full capability of his singing into it without running around... would you go?

Damn #$%&ing straight I would.

[thepowergoats.com]

[quote



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-13 03:29 by melillo.

But here we are talking about a Mick Jagger tour.Not a Stonestour.
Stonestour without Keith?Just nonsense,never gonna happen.
Mick Jagger solo,could be very interresting and fun.

I am a selfish guy....as a Jagger solo tour would probably be my only chance to hear gems like Memo From Turner, Too Many Cooks, Dont Tear Me Up, Evening Gown, Wandering Spirit and others live, I am all up for it.

Quote
mr_dja
To tour without Keith would be to tour without the bands heart, soul and balls.

Blasphemy.

I disagree, for it could be argued that the Stones have allready been touring without Keith during the ABB tour. Meaning without THE riffmaster, he could hardly play, i would argue that those concerts would have been better if they left Keith off stage and phoned Taylor to fill the vacuum. Your arguement about the historical importance of Keith is ofcourse true and valid, but i argued before in others threads that Pink Floyd did the same twice; first by sacking their leader,songwriter and singer Syd Barrett (against their fans wishes) and than subsequently making under the leadership of their new songwriter and singer Roger Waters the Floyd classics Wall and Dark Side of the Moon. And even than when Floyds leader, songwriter and singer Roger Waters left, Floyd made (again against the wishes of the fans who argued that Floyd had no right to exist without Waters) made the album A Momentary Lapse of Reason which went straight to top of the UK and US charts. So there could be life after Keith. I am not saying this because i don't like Keith or anything, i am purely looking at his state as a musician. It has been said that from 78 to 83 was Mick's strongest influence on the Stones sound, after that the fight with Keith started and the following compromise. But it could be argued that exactly the period from Some Girls to Undercover was the last golden era of the Stones and that consequently the following compromise demonstrates that Keith's holding fast to some imaginary Stones Root sound is keeping the potential of the band some what back. Mick Jagger looks like he can go another few years, so wouldn't it be a waiste to see the Stones go out like a candle because of one person? But i agree with you that playing Keith compositions without him is a blasphemy, so new songs and new renditions of songs covered by the Stones before would settle that. It is really a choice, what do you want? the Rolling Stones slowly drowning in the nostalgic waters of what once was? Or the Rolling Stones finishing off with a "Big Push", which i think would be more befitting and deserving for the band with this great reputation.

Quote
behroez

But i agree with you that playing Keith compositions without him is a blasphemy, so new songs and new renditions of songs covered by the Stones before would settle that. .

Why would that be blasphemy? No one will ever be allowed to play a Keith song? And is Keith allowed to play and sing a song composed by Mick?

Behroez surely is not what bassplayer617 calls "conservative"!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-13 13:42 by Doxa.

Quote
elunsi
Why would that be blasphemy? No one will ever be allowed to play a Keith song? And is Keith allowed to play and sing a song composed by Mick?

Blasphemy is a big word indeed. But to send Keith on a well deserved pension and than go around the world using the name Rolling Stones AND playing those songs that Keith (whom you just send away) has written is, how shall i put it, parasitic comes close, well it is just not honarable, it doesn't feel right. But using the name Rolling Stones and having a line up that has historically some credibility of using that name and playing really new songs (and new renditions of older covers) befitting that new re-start is honarable and does feel right. Well, to me at least.

It would be the ultimate excuse for a X-Pensive Winos reunion.

What would be britney? This Keith-less Stones tour (which isn't what I started the thread about) or simply a solo Mick tour (which is what I started this thread about)?

[thepowergoats.com]

Right on, TRULYMICKS!! And NeoCon, just for the record, after they dumped that crook-creep Allen klein, WHO do you think helps manage their money?? Three guesses..and why would you doubt Mick's intelligence in matters of money? They all seem to be doing just fine.

If you like the Stones you kinda have to like both Mick and Keith right??? Its the combustion they create together that works best. i like Keith better but I certainly do not dislike Mick.

sorry, jamesfdouglas, i would like to say just one word to that

[quote="James Kirk"


Jagger's first solo album "She's the Boss" sales were solid, but not spectacular for a superstar of his status. It was thought that Jagger would/could make a huge dent on the pop scene at the time.

"She's the Boss" peaked in America at #13 and had a couple of moderate hit singles. Wandering Spirit actually charted higher #11 in 1993. Where Jagger ran into trouble was around the time shortly before and after "Dirty Work" The public felt (fueled by Keith Richards public attacks on Jagger) that Jagger was putting himself before the Stones by doing press for his solo records and not touring with the Stones.

As far as Richards is concerned. I don't think he was looking for pop success in the same way Jagger was. That's why it was so shocking that Richards "Talk is Cheap" went gold and had a mainstream rock hit "Take it so Hard" while Jagger's "Primitive Cool" didn't even make it into the top 40 (peaked at #41)in the United States... Richards record was far better and much more organic that Jagger's 80's processed sounding "Primitive Cool"

Richards record recieved great critical accolades while Jagger took a somewhat undeserved critical bashing. Again, Richards was seen as trying to keep the Stones rolling and Jagger was seen as a lightweight that just wanted pop hits.[/quote]

that´e what i am talking about: She´s the boss went platinum, was more successfull than Talk is cheap, but gets called solid, moderate, while Keith´s position 99 gets celebrated as a huge success.

As for the reviews, Mick got even good reviews for Goddess in the doorway.

I would go to see Mick, I have never seen him solo.

Quote
mickschix
And NeoCon, just for the record, after they dumped that crook-creep Allen klein, WHO do you think helps manage their money?? Three guesses..and why would you doubt Mick's intelligence in matters of money? They all seem to be doing just fine.

read my post...i recognized that Mick is a good businessman (aka good with deal-making/money/investing).
Being an "Economist" is a completely different thing.

Here's a Wiki definition...
"An economist is an expert in the social science of economics.[1] The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. Within this field there are many sub-fields, ranging from the broad philosophical theories to the focused study of minutiae within specific markets, macroeconomic analysis, microeconomic analysis or financial statement analysis, involving analytical methods and tools such as econometrics, statistics, economics computational models, financial economics, mathematical finance and mathematical economics."

My wife was an award winning Economics major at a major university...she would not consider herself an Economist.
So..calling Mick an "Economist" when he only attended the London School of Econ for 1 year (or less) is silly.

I'm good with money...does that make me an Economist?


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-14 15:57 by sweet neo con.

I would go , why not? as long as the ticket prices were reasonable, that why iam also hoping charlie brings his solo act back to the blue note in new york, always have a great time there when charlie is in town

For social purposes, I'd definetly go to see Mick so as to catch up with a lot of the people from this board!

Mick's voice is nothing like it used to be, and performance-wise, that would be the biggest sticking point of all, though I'd certainly look forward to unfamiliar material, fewer warhorses, and perhaps, even some stunning arrangements.

So yes, count me in for a couple of shows!

Quote
harlem shuffle
But here we are talking about a Mick Jagger tour.Not a Stonestour.
Stonestour without Keith?Just nonsense,never gonna happen.
Mick Jagger solo,could be very interresting and fun.

it really wasn't was it? saw mick w backup band on snl doing 'dont tear me up'
actually enjoyed it. love the mickster but really, personally i have no interest in seeing mick solo...those solo tours (not Keith's oddly enough) were just not very interesting to me somehow...sounded faux-stones, down to the material and riffs...ok, he's got a right to do whatever but tho that nite was a guilty pleasure it just seemed strange to me...mick w U2 doing 'shelter' also did not thrill me personally.

"Richards record recieved great critical accolades while Jagger took a somewhat undeserved critical bashing."

And Richards got an official songbook of his.

i would go see him in a heartbeat solo if it was like country blues folk roots kinda thing...but not doing stones material w a band vaguely trying to approximate that RS sound.

OK, NEOCON, I see your point but that may be splitting hairs; my point is that Mick is qualified to handle the Stones' money matters. I don't think you necessarily need to be a bonafide " Economist" to do the job well.
Anyway, we got way off the topic of whether or not we'd go to see a Mick solo gig and it seems that many here would gladly see Mick play his soo material. Glad to see that and I'm sure the musicians he'd pick to back him would be worthy!