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.

Quoting one of favorite movies "he could have been a contender"

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

I would like to offer an alternate view.

Mick is probably the greatest frontman in music. A solo album/tour SHOULD have been huge. Up there with the main '80's artists such as Madonna, Jackson, Springsteen and George Michael.

I don't believe that the Stones were a reasonable back-up option at the time and CBS encouraged Mick to strike out on his own. CBS took a business view. At the time Mick had more revenue-generating potential than Keith. It's no wonder that they backed him.

Hindsight is a wonderful gift and none of us really knows what went on. Suffice to say Mick and Keith had a reconciliation and they've generated millions since.

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..

i was at the byrne arena first level seats , the arena was packed from the floor to the upper level .not a empty seat .

i wish they would have combined the work into a stones album that would have been great

Quote
The Greek

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..

i was at the byrne arena first level seats , the arena was packed from the floor to the upper level .not a empty seat .

Greek l will take your word for it...

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

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.

Amazing then that the Stones were able to sell half a million tickets for 10 sold out shows on Tokyo in 1990, less than 2 years after Mick had potentially saturated the market.

keiths solo gig at byrne arena was seriously empty , trust me at least half empty, i was there and it was amazingly small crowd

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. .

Sometimes it does, skip. Michael Jackson may indeed have been a big star in the 70s both solo and as part of the Jackson 5 at the same time, but it was only when he signed a solo deal with Epic in the late 70s (the band had been with the label since 1975) that his career went on to a completely different level as a megastar in terms of sales. The band was pretty much put on hold after that and the next studio album they made in 1984 (the one which featured Jagger, oddly enough) wasnt a big success, despite the successful tour that followed it. Michael left the band shortly afterwards and they petered out, releasing one more album without him.

Epic was a subsidiary of CBS, so its quite possible that when that label signed the Stones in 1983 that they envisaged a similar scenario - a very successful commercial act who were probably seen as having a limited shelf life (in the Jacksons case, because of the traditional fickleness of a young fanbase - in the Stones case, because they were already seen as being ancient in rock n roll terms) , but who had a very charismatic and globally-recognised lead singer whose commercial potential could outlast the longevity of the band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-08-13 04:11 by Gazza.

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.

In peoples minds it seems so, yes. But would it be so without Keith´s 25 year career of Mick-bashing?
He, his people and his fanbase deliberately started a round of Mick-bashing with the intention of rewriting history, by making Mick a sideman of the Stones. With telling everyone that Keith IS the Stones, and all what comes with that, like the misinformation about Mick´s solo career.
It is stuck in peoples minds that Mick went solo because he wanted to have a career like M. Jackson, he failed completely because he sold only about 200 records and than came running back to Keith because he realized that he needs Keith to write a good song.
These things got repeated for 25 years, written and copied by journalists without doing their work, which is researching before writing, underlined with the "right" quotes by Keith, which were/are full of hatred.
I see the result here when I say for example, that Mick sold more than Keith. People have a hard time to believe it, but it is a fact. Or, another example, even after 40 years of songwriting, some have a problem to believe, that Mick is able to write a "complicated" song like 100 years ago.

Only in the last couple of years, I think, more and more of the truth comes through.
Mick never did that, nor his fans (maybe BECAUSE Mick did not do it) so for the last 25 years we got brainwashed by the Keith-camp.
Only in the last couple of years Keith´s fassade breakes apart a little, it seems.

So all what I (or maybe lem motlow) want to say is, that it is sometimes good to see things through Mick´s eyes, and not always everthing only through Keith´s.

In terms of sales, SHE'S THE BOSS sold over double of what TALK IS CHEAP sold. TALK IS CHEAP outsold PRIMITIVE COOL and GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY by over 200,000 copies each. WANDERING SPIRIT sold about the same as TALK IS CHEAP (a little more, but not substantially greater). MAIN OFFENDER outsold ALFIE. ALFIE outsold LIVE AT THE HOLLYWOOD PALLADIUM. THE VERY BEST OF MICK JAGGER outsold MAIN OFFENDER. None of them approach the sales of the few Stones studio albums during the same era.

Belated response to BustedTrousers:

Here's the timetable I believe is correct

May 1986 Stones in London for "One Hit" video and business meeting. Mick tells the others he's decided to record a second solo album (meaning album 3 of the 4 album CBS deal will not benefit any of them) and do a world tour as a solo act (world tour plan confirmed in Beggars Banquet, Rolling Stone, and various media outlets at the time), then make a movie (either ROCKET BOYS or SUGAR) with Bowie. That's his plan for the rest of the decade.

Summer 1987 PRIMITIVE COOL is mastered in June. Mick shoots a couple music videos in July. Release scheduled for September. Mick is mulling offer to join package tour with Bowie and Tina Turner. Roger Davies (Tina's manager and the guy who put together the Bowie/Tina tour) is Creative Consultant on PRIMITIVE COOL album. Jeff Beck is supposed to be Jagger's band leader for his solo set.
Jagger backs out and puts touring plans on hold. Beck says he fell out with Jagger over money. G. E. Smith backed out earlier because Jagger wouldn't commit to Bowie/Tina tour and Smith didn't want to lose Saturday Night Live bandleader gig if the Jagger tour wasn't definite.

January 1988 Mick is in New York rehearsing with Satriani and Jimmy Rip for his Japanese tour in March.

March 1988 Mick's solo tour of Japan is huge success. Discussions in Rolling Stone and on MTV at the time that a tour of Austalia and South America are likely for later in the year.

May 1988 Stones meeting in London to discuss possible album and tour for 1989.

June 1988 Mick records demos in Paris with Woody.

July 1988 Mick works on the demos in London with Charlie.

July 1988 Mick solo tour of Australia, New Zealand, and Indonesia confirmed. South America is a possiblity afterwards.

August 1988 Mick meets with Keith in New York. Keith plays him TALK IS CHEAP. Mick plays him the demos he recorded with Charlie and Ronnie. Meeting ends in a fight. Keith tells the press that he later apologized to Mick for yelling at him.

September-November 1988 Mick's tour Down Under is a huge success. Rolling Stone, Beggars Banquet report that if the Stones reunion doesn't happen, Mick will record his third solo album (album #4 in CBS deal) with Satriani and Rip early 1989 and tour America and Europe as a solo artist.

January 1989 Mick and Keith are on board with the Stones. Bill Wyman's involvment is questionable until March 1989 when Ronnie convinces him to rejoin the others.

nice info rocky, very interesting stuff

Nice thread where I got to after following a link in Darryl Jones interview - November 19 [www.iorr.org]

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.

Never heard of that before, wonder what the source is...

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Mick made every effort to walk away from the Stones, and I dont say that to be mean towards Mr Jagger. I have no idea how much KR & MJ have apparently hated each other or when it started. I do know that KR made it a contract issue that MJ had to leave the stage during 81 tour when KR did Litle T&A.

Jagger seems to have checked out after Undercover. Shes the Boss, (I didn't like that he used Lonely at the Top for solo), the massive promotion he put in for that, barely involved in Dirty Work from most accounts, did Live Aid solo, Primitive Cool and the tour.

I always felt that KR did a solo album in 1988 because he HAD to. The Stones were dead. Jagger had already left 3 years earlier.

Interesting about Bill being needed convincing to 'rejoin' in 1989...had never heard that.

Sounds as though things were quite a shambles by 1988, and that if Mick's solo albums had sold better we might be writing about a '50th Anniversary Reunion Tour' instead of "50 and Counting".

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.

I was there too. Thanksgiving night. Hard to believe it's been 25 years!

"No Anchovies, Please"

Wonder what the fight was.

Mick: Your album sounds good.
Keith: Yours sounds like shit.

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?

David Bowie factor was big being that Mick hung out with him a lot! and was envious of his solo sucess and career. Mick wanted this same type of sucess where you pay your supporting musicians rather than split the Stones profits five ways. Plus Mick figured he could do all the songwriting without Keith. Plus the prestige of being a solo act and not in a band.

Remember Mick and Bowie doing "Dancing in The Streets" They were big pals.

another thread where we discuss the bands solo efforts and rewrite history and tell the bands story in jane rose 1.0-

we've been through this 100 times but i'll ask the same question i always do-can anyone give me one single article,film clip ,sound bite,qoute from a friend,.family member or overheard conversation of mick jagger ever once saying he was gonna leave the rolling stones to become a solo act?

there's a clip on youtube where he explains the entire thing-he had a surplus of songs written because the stones only put out a record every couple of years and half of that was keiths, so he put them out on his own.a simple answer to a simple question.

a few guys in the band had really lost it by the early 80's and the real question was who was gonna be standing behind jagger when the band started working again.

not only did mick not have the success of Michael Jackson he wasn't even on the same planet as sting or clapton either

When I read about Macca and his concerts (and the success he has) I think about Mick doing the same thing, had the stones not lived until today for whatever reason.

A solo Mick with a good backing band and the stones catalog would be a very popular act. I think he would love to do something like that.

money talks and that alone would have been enough to get them back out there again!

I think it's fairly obvious what Mick would have done had thing's gone as hoped. He planned on quitting the Stones I believe, the second his solo career seemed a success and I truely believe he thought he was going to be the next big thing. Elvis huge I don't know? But I think Jagger had the ego at that time to feel he could do it, and really put it to Keith one final time. His solo stuff sucked though so, so much for that idea. He had to go back to his old band if he ever hoped to play the big time again and so in time we got Steel Wheels.
Keith on the other hand I think was always more realistic in his plans. Do a good first solo record and put together a rockin good band. Go on the road and play smaller places selling out each stop and thereby giving a good account of yourself. Record enough of the shows to put out a good solid live solo record and hopefully make a bit of cash. Then hopefully by this time your wayward over-egoed one time best friend lead singer and songwriting partner has had his ass kicked hard enough to see he needs you. Go back and do what you'd wanted to be doing all along. Be the @#$%& Rolling Stones and make a ton more money even if you hate each others guts by now, the end.

Mick did not have the balls to play with his cover band in the US or Europe, that's why he stayed down under and in Asia. His solo career was a colossal failure, obviously the opposite of what he thought and planned.

No doubt his plan was to leave the Stones if his career took off, but it tanked. He did at one point call the band a millstone around his neck. Nobody wasinterested, but that was Mick/s plan. But, as was pointed out, if that happened, they would have inevitably gotten back together for a reunion tour anyway, so it's really more a question of degree.

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

True, he completely crashed. Must have been devastating to his ego.

I stopped listening to the Stones before Black and Blue came out and recently getting up to speed since then, I'm glad I dropped off before Black and Blue because IMO the Stones just got weaker and weaker and what is the most surprising is how in their weakest periods they end up making the most money, go figure.

I think Mick (and Keith) having a go at a solo thing was probably a good thing because the Stones were just going through the motions in the 80s IMO.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-28 07:51 by howled.

Maybe it would have been better, since we would have been spared the Vegas Years and the self covering ...

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?

It's the combination of Mick and Keith which makes the Stones so great.

When I'm listening to their solo work I always get the feeling that something is missing.

Michael Jackson, George Michael, Elton John or Prince, they were / are great solo artists, Prince for example is just a genius in music on his own part, Mick is a great frontman and performer for the band but musically he has always needed Keith to make it musically perfect. And Keith has needed Mick.

Paul McCartney and John Lennon needed each other to make the Beatles so great musically, John Lennon could produce musically pretty good stuff also during his solo career but Paul has been weak in his solo efforts musically, Paul has had very successful tours of course.

As for motives for Mick's solo career I think there are several: he was tired with the Stones and Keith, he wanted to try something new for a change, he wanted to see if it's possible to become a Music Television generation solo star, he had financial motives, I can understand Mick very well, Keith was angry because Keith has so strong emotional bond to the Stones, Keith sees the band as part of himself, for Mick it's a different thing. Keith had never been truly interested in solo projects until he made Talk Is Cheap, after that his attitude changed a little bit.

If you could put together some best elements from Mick's solo work and Keith's solo work, there could be maybe two really good Stones albums.

I think their solo efforts were definitely successes, if not always profit-wise, they were successful in creating an outlet for them to get away from it all and individually perform. They are always "The Stones" whether solo or together, let's face it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-29 06:52 by MP.