For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
skipstone
Mick was no Michael Jackson. Or Prince. He was Mick Jagger, singer for The Rolling Stones. Not Mick Jagger. Not Mick Jagger with a series of number one albums or Top Ten placing albums with Top Ten singles.
It never would have amounted to that status. It just doesn't work that way. He knew he was going to "go back" to the Stones. He just wanted to do something else. I bet it was the money, in the end, that determined his success. And he wasn't getting enough of it being a solo act. He needed the Stones.
i was at the byrne arena first level seats , the arena was packed from the floor to the upper level .not a empty seat .Quote
ROPENI
I am amazed at the # of people on this board that don't give Mick much credit for keeping the band alive,IMO if it wasn't for him there would not be any Rolling Stones,l think that if he had decided,to tour the states back in the days that he toured Japan and Australia he could have done very good business,and a tour here would have helped his solo career,and record sales a great deal,yet he choose to do another tour with the Stones,give him credit for that. Keith has this image of an outlaw that doesn't care for money ect,and people go for it like a moth to a flame.(what else has he contributed to the band lately???)
Keith tours were mostly all theaters,except for one in Argentina,and the one at the Brendan Byrne arena,which if l can recall correctly was not a sell out.
Since the early 80's Mick has been the machine that has kept the band alive and making tons of money,Keith has just been a so so guitar player,who needs all kind of back up help on stage to cover his playing.
So if we are all here in 2010 discussing the Rolling Stones, IMO is because of Mick's efforts to keep The Stones rolling.. Fire at will..
Quote
The GreekQuote
ROPENI
I am amazed at the # of people on this board that don't give Mick much credit for keeping the band alive,IMO if it wasn't for him there would not be any Rolling Stones,l think that if he had decided,to tour the states back in the days that he toured Japan and Australia he could have done very good business,and a tour here would have helped his solo career,and record sales a great deal,yet he choose to do another tour with the Stones,give him credit for that. Keith has this image of an outlaw that doesn't care for money ect,and people go for it like a moth to a flame.(what else has he contributed to the band lately???)
Keith tours were mostly all theaters,except for one in Argentina,and the one at the Brendan Byrne arena,which if l can recall correctly was not a sell out.
Since the early 80's Mick has been the machine that has kept the band alive and making tons of money,Keith has just been a so so guitar player,who needs all kind of back up help on stage to cover his playing.
So if we are all here in 2010 discussing the Rolling Stones, IMO is because of
Mick's efforts to keep The Stones rolling.. Fire at will..
i was at the byrne arena first level seats , the arena was packed from the floor to the upper level .not a empty seat .
Quote
Shawn20
Mick Jagger could only sell a theatre package in 1989????? I believe he didn't play the states because of his desire to keep the market for the eventual Steel Wheel's tour white hot.
Quote
skipstone
Mick was no Michael Jackson. Or Prince. He was Mick Jagger, singer for The Rolling Stones. Not Mick Jagger. Not Mick Jagger with a series of number one albums or Top Ten placing albums with Top Ten singles.
It never would have amounted to that status. It just doesn't work that way. .
Quote
skipstone
Keith, if anyone, had the most success overall. As in, as an artist, as a performer, as a loved musician and I bet as a person.
Quote
June 1988 Mick records demos in Paris with Woody.
July 1988 Mick works on the demos in London with Charlie.
Bill Wyman's involvment is questionable until March 1989 when Ronnie convinces him to rejoin the others.
Quote
Keefan
I saw Keef's very first solo show...Nov. 24th 1988, Fox Theater, Atlanta. GREAT SHOW...one of the best I've ever been to.
I haven't heard much of Jagger's solo stuff. I remember when the album he did with Jeff Beck came out, I though "oh boy, this is going to be fantastic!" Unfortunately that was not the case - I only heard one or two songs but what a horrible disappointment.
Quote
melillo
not only did mick not have the success of Michael Jackson he wasn't even on the same planet as sting or clapton either
Quote
stonehearted
No matter how big Mick's or Keith's solo efforts would have become, they would never have matched the width of appeal and payday potential of The Stones--and with no Yoko Ono type of situation getting in the way, why wouldn't the boys re-group at some point?