The tongue and lips logo on Mick's solo records aren't necessarily reflective of the albums being part of the same CBS deal (although Gazza is 100% correct) as Promotone also owns the copyright to WANDERING SPIRIT which was part of a separate deal with Atlantic after the CBS contract expired. WANDERING SPIRIT could easily have carried the tongue and lips logo had Mick chosen to do so. The decision not to was likely more to do with keeping the peace with Keith and the rest of the band at the time.

Its always interested me that while Keith's solo songs were published through the Stones' publishing company, his recordings were owned outright by the record label. This seemed short-sighted on Keith's part. He negotiated a good deal ($12 million for the three albums), but he can't take them with him unless he buys the masters back from Virgin. In contrast, Mick's work for Virgin is owned and published through his own companies - Jagged Recordings and Jagged Music. Keith may have set up Mindless Records in the mid-nineties but he's done precious little with the label.

On the topic of Bill Wyman, I was under the impression at the time that his decision to quit had more than a little to do with the band switching from full-time to part-time on a permanent basis. Despite pulling together FLASHPOINT and AT THE MAX and negotiating a new contract with Virgin, Bill knew the band was taking another lay-off for Mick and Keith to concentrate on their solo output. It was stated publicly they intended to alternate Stones activity with solo activity thereafter. Of course, Keith never jumped back on that course after the early nineties, but the Stones have remained an on-again, off-again pursuit for Mick. I actually believe Keith is (for once) being honest when he says he waits for the call from Mick. Mick decides when and if the band works.

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Gazza

They had a $28 million deal for 4 studio albums (a world record at the time)

$7 per record was world record. are you sure about that?

according to my abacus, $28 million divided by 4 is $7 million...

well, yeah, true, i already did this calculation.

but was that really a world record?

At the time (1983) it was the most lucrative record deal ever - yes.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick decides when and if the band works.

He's the Stones voice, literally.The only irreplaceable musician ,apart from the fact that Keith was composer too.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Keith ... negotiated a good deal ($12 million for the three albums)

do you think that Virgin made money on this deal? If not, have they recouped the remainder of keith's advance? I don't know what happens in these situations; this seems like a rare case where the artist could simply pay off his debt for a failure.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick decides when and if the band works.

He's the Stones voice, literally.The only irreplaceable musician ,apart from the fact that Keith was composer too.

Well, that's the question. Because he's the frontman he's not so much the voice as well as the face of the band.

"Apart from the fact that Keith was composer too". But Amsterdamned, that was a crucial fact! Without Richards no Jagger, as we've seen and heard. BTW: It's also vice versa. Biggest blame to both of them: 1) that they thought that they could do it together and could 'neglect' the crucial third man in the band and 2) (even more stupid) that they thought that they could make it on their own. Huge overestimation of themselves. They thought what some people here do think: that they were true geniuses. They weren't. Just like Lennon/McCartney they were just very good songwriters. No more, no less.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick decides when and if the band works.

He's the Stones voice, literally.The only irreplaceable musician ,apart from the fact that Keith was composer too.

Well, that's the question. Because he's the frontman he's not so much the voice as well as the face of the band.

"Apart from the fact that Keith was composer too". But Amsterdamned, that was a crucial fact! Without Richards no Jagger, as we've seen and heard. BTW: It's also vice versa. Biggest blame to both of them: 1) that they thought that they could do it together and could 'neglect' the crucial third man in the band and 2) (even more stupid) that they thought that they could make it on their own. Huge overestimation of themselves. They thought what some people here do think: that they were true geniuses. They weren't. Just like Lennon/McCartney they were just very good songwriters. No more, no less.

If Jagger/Richards and Lennon/McCartney are "just very good songwriters", no more no less, what eaxcly is the missing piece to make them classed any better (as "geniuses" - I don't really like the term - or something)? I mean in the game they are good at, I don't think there is anyone better than either of those duos.

(But I - at least to a degree - agree with the idea "third man" is essential to the the success of the Stones story, be the third person Brian Jones, ALO or Mick Taylor. Since the Glimmer domination it has been Mick vs Keith all the way, with not such great results any longer. Ronnie is just a middle man, a messenger boy...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 18:43 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick decides when and if the band works.

He's the Stones voice, literally.The only irreplaceable musician ,apart from the fact that Keith was composer too.

Well, that's the question. Because he's the frontman he's not so much the voice as well as the face of the band.

"Apart from the fact that Keith was composer too". But Amsterdamned, that was a crucial fact! Without Richards no Jagger, as we've seen and heard. BTW: It's also vice versa. Biggest blame to both of them: 1) that they thought that they could do it together and could 'neglect' the crucial third man in the band and 2) (even more stupid) that they thought that they could make it on their own. Huge overestimation of themselves. They thought what some people here do think: that they were true geniuses. They weren't. Just like Lennon/McCartney they were just very good songwriters. No more, no less.

If Jagger/Richards and Lennon/McCartney are "just very good songwriters", no more no less, what eaxcly is the missing piece to make them classed any better (as "geniuses" - I don't really like the term - or something)? I mean in the game they are good at, I don't think there is anyone better than either of those duos.

(But I - at least to a degree - agree with the idea "third man" is essential to the the success of the Stones story, be the third person Brian Jones, ALO or Mick Taylor. Since the Glimmer domination it has been Mick vs Keith all the way, with not such great results any longer. Ronnie is just a middle man, a messenger boy...)

- Doxa

Real geniuses can do it on their own. The four above mentioned couldn't.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick decides when and if the band works.

He's the Stones voice, literally.The only irreplaceable musician ,apart from the fact that Keith was composer too.

Well, that's the question. Because he's the frontman he's not so much the voice as well as the face of the band.

"Apart from the fact that Keith was composer too". But Amsterdamned, that was a crucial fact! Without Richards no Jagger, as we've seen and heard. BTW: It's also vice versa. Biggest blame to both of them: 1) that they thought that they could do it together and could 'neglect' the crucial third man in the band and 2) (even more stupid) that they thought that they could make it on their own. Huge overestimation of themselves. They thought what some people here do think: that they were true geniuses. They weren't. Just like Lennon/McCartney they were just very good songwriters. No more, no less.

If Jagger/Richards and Lennon/McCartney are "just very good songwriters", no more no less, what eaxcly is the missing piece to make them classed any better (as "geniuses" - I don't really like the term - or something)? I mean in the game they are good at, I don't think there is anyone better than either of those duos.

(But I - at least to a degree - agree with the idea "third man" is essential to the the success of the Stones story, be the third person Brian Jones, ALO or Mick Taylor. Since the Glimmer domination it has been Mick vs Keith all the way, with not such great results any longer. Ronnie is just a middle man, a messenger boy...)

- Doxa

Real geniuses can do it on their own. The four above mentioned couldn't.

I'm not so sure. Maradona couldn't either all alone to win the World Cup 1986 (and I don't mean the God's assistance here...) The geniuses can be team players as well.

- Doxa

Maradonna did it on his own. You could have picked 10 other guys from the street and Maradonna had won that cup just as easily. But the whole comparison isn't too the point of course. We were talking about composing music. A true genius (like Mozart) can do that all by himself. He doesn't need any help. If he composes alone he is still a genius. Keith nor Mick is/was that.

If we forget all the mysterious, naive, romantic over-tones, the term "genious" is nothing but a word with which we describe people who tend to be awesome in their - whatever - doings . Yeah, Mozart was a genious, as is Einstein (to use other cliche), as is Maradona, or this guy:





Anyway, as a term it does not belong to my preferable vocabulary. It doesn't really say anything substantive than "@#$%& great"...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
If we forget all the mysterious, naive, romantic over-tones, the term "genious" is nothing but a word with which we describe people who tend to be awesome in their - whatever - doings . Yeah, Mozart was a genious, as is Einstein (to use other cliche), as is Maradona, or this guy:





Anyway, as a term it does not belong to my preferable vocabulary. It doesn't really say anything substantive than "@#$%& great"...

- Doxa

No, this guy wasn't a genius, but is a legendary guitarist. You better don't inflate the meaning of the word.

J/R, L/M, B.D.: f. great songwriters. J.H, M.T.: f. great guitarists. Etc. None of them a genius like Mozart or Einstein

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
If we forget all the mysterious, naive, romantic over-tones, the term "genious" is nothing but a word with which we describe people who tend to be awesome in their - whatever - doings . Yeah, Mozart was a genious, as is Einstein (to use other cliche), as is Maradona, or this guy:





Anyway, as a term it does not belong to my preferable vocabulary. It doesn't really say anything substantive than "@#$%& great"...

- Doxa

No, this guy wasn't a genius, but is a legendary guitarist. You better don't inflate the meaning of the word.

J/R, L/M, B.D.: f. great songwriters. J.H, M.T.: f. great guitarists. Etc. None of them a genius like Mozart or Einstein

Semantics.

- Doxa

Clarity

Quote
cc

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Keith ... negotiated a good deal ($12 million for the three albums)

do you think that Virgin made money on this deal? If not, have they recouped the remainder of keith's advance? I don't know what happens in these situations; this seems like a rare case where the artist could simply pay off his debt for a failure.

ahem--anyone care to return the thread to the topic of solo careers, and my question above: Were keith's 3 albums profitable?

Just because Keith signed a deal for $12 million does not mean he got $12 million. Record deals are a loan, nothing else. Those kind of big money deals are more of a 'we're willing to spend this much on your albums' kind of arrangement.

Whether it's the Stones, Madonna, Jacko or U2 - the big record deals are just that, big figures that might happen. Doesn't mean they will - and sometimes it works the other way, like what Sony did with Jacko's HIStory comp - they spent way more money to hype the piece of shit then they made with that album plus the video release and wound up having to lay off (fire) a bunch of their staff.

Jacko cost them a ton of money.

Quote
Doxa
I'm not so sure. Maradona couldn't either all alone to win the World Cup 1986 (and I don't mean the God's assistance here...) The geniuses can be team players as well.

- Doxa

As a matter of fact, Maradona DID win the world cup basically ALONE. As far as "God's Assistance" is concerned, well maybe it's just about time for the supporters of the defeated team to get over it (after 24 years!). Ok, enough. Sorry for the OT.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

As a matter of fact, Maradona DID win the world cup basically ALONE. .

Fact? Alone?

He may have used his hand to win the cup, but he had no part in being goalkeeper etc etc, he was part of a team that won it that is fact!

I'm scottish so his use of his hand was quite funny for me, not as funny as how poor we are as an international team though!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-16 12:18 by His Majesty.

Anyway: Mick Jagger should not have stayed solo.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz
Anyway: Mick Jagger should not have stayed solo.

I agree!

I think its fair to say Virgin did not make anywhere close to $12 million off the three Keith solo albums. I believe he's still under contract to them and they still get a cut of his session work and guest spots. The real value to signing Keith in 1987 was that it got them the Stones four years later and that was likely part of Branson's calculation at the time.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I think its fair to say Virgin did not make anywhere close to $12 million off the three Keith solo albums. I believe he's still under contract to them and they still get a cut of his session work and guest spots. The real value to signing Keith in 1987 was that it got them the Stones four years later and that was likely part of Branson's calculation at the time.

thanks, that's what I imagined--is it any wonder this business model has crashed?

HYSYMB by Jagger is far better than the Stones NOT playing the song. And Jagger's singing is beautiful, both on HYSYMB and RTJ, spot on. Cant actually remember hearing him singing like that with the Stones, and I think it has a lot to do with the freedom that other band gives him because of their professionalism. Last time I looked at the Stones, Jagger is half of his time occupied with signalling and keeping the band together on stage.

It's no Stones but it is no shyt either