Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
deardoctor

Quote
71Tele
Some highlights:

Mick and Keith fight onstage
Ronnie nods out during solo
Charlie falls off of drum stool
The tour ends early with several canceled dates, and the band breaks up in acrimony.

that´s an absolut dream setlist!!!!!!!!!!!! would have been great

I don't mean to spoil anyone's fantasy, but there are good reasons they didn't tour in '84.

you mean it's not gonna happen???

I'm afraid not, Tod.

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
T&A
given that mick's '88 live act became the prototype for '89 and beyond, it's fair to suggest that '84 would have been much more similar to '81 than '89...

yes...and the '85 mini performance at LIVE AID was a good transition from '82 to '88.

Haha, how true! It showed the future of the Stone's live show in Mick's Vegasy set, and Keith and Ronnie being out of it and playing like crap.

Who back then could have known that's how they would actually end up!

Exactly! A wonderful observation!

It is incredible how much the clean and safe Live Aid pop Mick had changed from the postmodern rock cook he was still in 1982... And I still remember how ashamed I was of Ronnie's and Keith's guitar performances... but at least they were in a good company (well, Mick too, as far as Tina goes.)

I think Rocky Dijon's observation of the influence of Jacksons VICTORY Tour - might have something to do with it. I would say the material would be mostly based on Pathe Marconi era songs plus the HOT ROCKS material. The Taylor years would have been quite absent. And Taylor, too.

But musically I think it would have been quite a good tour... surely better than 1986 DIRTY WORK tour...

- Doxa

But the fact that it didn't occur speaks volumes that
(a) Jagger was so tired of the way 1981/82 happened (and how much Keith and Ronnie, and thereby the whole band, was on the edge all the time) that he was positive that "no more - ever" -> he wanted the risky guitar duet out of the musical command, and the sound to be secured by more 'pro' approach (what would took place in 1988 & 1989).
(b) Keith - in the height of his stardom - didn't have any will to make compromises by then -> one more tour of guitar-driven raw and spontaneus rock'n'roll a'la 1981/82...

You read these together and you know why there was no Rolling Stones Tour 1984. An impossible scenario. It would take another 5 years for those two guys to make a compromise solution (that, I have claimed quite often, was made in terms of Mick basically.)

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
But the fact that it didn't occur speaks volumes that
(a) Jagger was so tired of the way 1981/82 happened (and how much Keith and Ronnie, and thereby the whole band, was on the edge all the time) that he was positive that "no more - ever" -> he wanted the risky guitar duet out of the musical command, and the sound to be secured by more 'pro' approach (what would took place in 1988 & 1989).
(b) Keith - in the height of his stardom - didn't have any will to make compromises by then -> one more tour of guitar-driven raw and spontaneus rock'n'roll a'la 1981/82...

You read these together and you know why there was no Rolling Stones Tour 1984. An impossible scenario. It would take another 5 years for those two guys to make a compromise solution (that, I have claimed quite often, was made in terms of Mick basically.)

- Doxa

If point A is true, then you can't leave out Cohl's offer of more money than any tour in history, guaranteed, regardless of ticket sales. I think what happened is, Mick basically made the deal, and then put his foot down with Keith, saying that if things didn't go a certain way, there would be no deal. I think Keith looked at the potential paycheck, and basically said, "Crikey that's a lot of money! Ok, I give up, you win. Do whatever you want".

And the Vegas era was upon us.

Quote
71Tele
Some highlights:

Mick and Keith fight onstage
Ronnie nods out during solo
Charlie falls off of drum stool
The tour ends early with several canceled dates, and the band breaks up in acrimony.

LOL. nice scenery! ><

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Doxa
But the fact that it didn't occur speaks volumes that
(a) Jagger was so tired of the way 1981/82 happened (and how much Keith and Ronnie, and thereby the whole band, was on the edge all the time) that he was positive that "no more - ever" -> he wanted the risky guitar duet out of the musical command, and the sound to be secured by more 'pro' approach (what would took place in 1988 & 1989).
(b) Keith - in the height of his stardom - didn't have any will to make compromises by then -> one more tour of guitar-driven raw and spontaneus rock'n'roll a'la 1981/82...

You read these together and you know why there was no Rolling Stones Tour 1984. An impossible scenario. It would take another 5 years for those two guys to make a compromise solution (that, I have claimed quite often, was made in terms of Mick basically.)

- Doxa

If point A is true, then you can't leave out Cohl's offer of more money than any tour in history, guaranteed, regardless of ticket sales. I think what happened is, Mick basically made the deal, and then put his foot down with Keith, saying that if things didn't go a certain way, there would be no deal. I think Keith looked at the potential paycheck, and basically said, "Crikey that's a lot of money! Ok, I give up, you win. Do whatever you want".

And the Vegas era was upon us.

Spot on. I am quite sure the motive had Keith for giving up his command and power was not "I want to save the band for any cost" but the sum Cohl put on the table. Keith's actions and especially non-actions ever since speaks volumes of him being in a very well-deserved and INCREBILY WELL paid a part time job that mostly includes just turning up and acting himself, and like playing the same old riffs, but which leaves a lot of room for him to be a family man and enjoy the fruits of being Keith Richards without any artistic demands for desperately finding another killer riff, or The Stones records and live sounds to go according his precise intuitions. Mick would probably just say that "aah, Keith finally grew up".

I don't claim that all of it happened in one minute, in 1989, but I think Keith's muse somehow got lost during the 90's, and as I can reflect, he lost most of his his creative touch and command on the Stones. Yeah, he got old, maybe tired, maybe lazy by natural reasons, and things like that, but I think it is likeable that the incredible sums they started to earn, did affect a lot of it. Maybe you cannot argue with that load of money. Not even if you are Keith Richards. I hope Keith speaks something of these themes in his autobiography (even I am afraid it will be just keeping up appearances).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-23 12:52 by Doxa.

I've never understood why UNDERCOVER was delayed for so long. I believe the album was finished by June. Around August, Mick was at Compass Point with Carlos Alomar working on demos for his solo album. The decision to bring UNDERCOVER out in November meant a Fall 1983 tour was definitely impossible (two years was too soon to tour the States again was the likely thinking).

By 1984, Mick was recording his solo album. The rest of the band expected they would start recording a new album later that year, but Mick kept delaying and the sessions would not happen until January 1985. Their business meetings throughout the year were not harmonious even if the legendary Charlie punching out Mick story is greatly exaggerated.

At the time, the word was no tour until a new album for CBS was released. In April 1986, just three weeks after DIRTY WORK's release, Keith was interviewed on The Today Show and confirmed Mick sent telegrams to the rest of the band saying he decided not to tour. Keith joked Mick misspelled "tour." Another band meeting followed in May 1986 after taping the "One Hit" video. This is where Mick stated his intention to record a second solo album, perform a 1987-88 World Tour as a solo artist, and then make a movie with Bowie. The Stones were essentially finished for the decade, if not forever.

Bill talked to the press immediately, feeling betrayed for taking Mick's side in not touring. Ronnie attempted damage control. Charlie was off with his Orchestra and seemingly cared little about the band's fate. Jane Rose was steering Keith toward a solo career by having him rehabilitate his image by high profile production and session work with Aretha and Chuck Berry to generate label interest in launching Keith as a solo act. Jane also did her best to disentangle Keith from Ronnie. Ronnie cut a solo album, AUTOMATIC which all of the majors rejected. Several tracks were reworked for SLIDE ON THIS five years later. Bill fared little better with his own album which sat unfinished for four years although he tinkered with it during the Steel Wheels tour, adding Matt Clifford and Chuck Leavell to the mix of contributors. Had PRIMITIVE COOL sold as well as its predecessor, the Stones would have finished for good.

Quote
Doxa
But the fact that it didn't occur speaks volumes that
(a) Jagger was so tired of the way 1981/82 happened (and how much Keith and Ronnie, and thereby the whole band, was on the edge all the time) that he was positive that "no more - ever" -> he wanted the risky guitar duet out of the musical command, and the sound to be secured by more 'pro' approach (what would took place in 1988 & 1989).
(b) Keith - in the height of his stardom - didn't have any will to make compromises by then -> one more tour of guitar-driven raw and spontaneus rock'n'roll a'la 1981/82...

You read these together and you know why there was no Rolling Stones Tour 1984. An impossible scenario. It would take another 5 years for those two guys to make a compromise solution (that, I have claimed quite often, was made in terms of Mick basically.)

- Doxa

Charlie also had his own very serious problems in the mid 80s, so you would have had potentially three band members with drug/alcohol habits. Say what you will about Mick, I am sure he thought about this and decided he wanted no part of it.

Mick's own coke problem wasn't exactly gone at the time, either.

Quote
71Tele

Charlie also had his own very serious problems in the mid 80s, so you would have had potentially three band members with drug/alcohol habits. Say what you will about Mick, I am sure he thought about this and decided he wanted no part of it.

Yeah, Cha's problems surely help either... if I have undersood right, Jagger had already ordered "no drugs allowed" policy to 1981/82 tour, but some members of the band didn't took it very seriously (which resulted in wild rumours concerning for example, Ronnie's post). For Keith it was seemingly an ego thing. According to Wyman, Jagger wasn't interted in European leg at all - partly to do with not big profits, but seemingly mostly due to bad band relationships. Now, to think that the control freak, the healthy, 80's work-out crazy Jagger would have three unreliable members to "baby", and still to rely on heavily, would not have been a promising project.

If we look the 'Jagger Remembers' interview (ROLLING STONE '95) I think the way Jagger describes the 70's activities - typically, "it was just another drug tour", etc - is As always he doesn't judge Keith in public but one can see how much that the drug scene and its effect on 'business' seemed to trouble Mick's mind. He seemingly wanted to get rid of that in the early 80's (that also marked the 'new' jogging-athlete-Jagger - a very 80's figure - to born). I don't think Jagger is hypocrite in these matters; he just decided that enough is enough - he was sick and tired living in constant "fear" of the guys screwing up the plans and gigs he puts so much energy and effort. (Somehow I can't blame him - as far as I can see, both Keith and Ronnie behaved quite childishly in the early/mid 80's.)

I totally agree with Rocky Dijon that if PRIMITIVE COOL had been a true hit album, there wouldn't have been The Rolling Stones any longer (but like I argue in "Jagger 88" thread, that maybe wouldn't been such a bad thing after all.)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-23 20:28 by Doxa.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick's own coke problem wasn't exactly gone at the time, either.

No, but does the coke count? I sometimes quite puzzled by what these guys mean by "drugs" or "drug/addiction problems"...

- Doxa

When I listen to PRIMITIVE COOL, WANDERING SPIRIT, TALK IS CHEAP, and MAIN OFFENDER, I likewise wish they had stayed solo. I would have missed seeing them live and I do greatly enjoy their nineties work "together," but I suspect they would have been more prolific and more creatively successful apart without the compromising. The mega-tours late in life really wore on them. Keith either lost much of his creativity or has had to stifle it. Mick lost much of his direction as the gaps between songwriting and recording grew ever larger and were largely spent trying to create music that fits a mold instead of nurturing his creative aspirations. Mick would have been successful on a smaller scale. Keith would have been a much-loved cult figure. I prefer the idea of Keith making albums every couple years to living out the fantasy of being Captain Hook to Mick's Peter Pan.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick's own coke problem wasn't exactly gone at the time, either.

No, but does the coke count? I sometimes quite puzzled by what these guys mean by "drugs" or "drug/addiction problems"...

- Doxa

I think the problem is not drugs per se, but people becoming unreliable. Mick has always been in control and I believe he lost patience dealing with band members and other associates who were not in control. Easy to understand his point of view on that.

"Keith being Captain Hook to Mick's Peter Pan"... Exactly! That was brilliant!

- Doxa

Supposedly in '81 the contract said anyone caught with drugs would have to stay at separate hotels.

This thread reminds me of a great fanfiction that was written some years ago...

[www.iorr.org]

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Mick's own coke problem wasn't exactly gone at the time, either.

No, but does the coke count? I sometimes quite puzzled by what these guys mean by "drugs" or "drug/addiction problems"...

- Doxa

I think the problem is not drugs per se, but people becoming unreliable. Mick has always been in control and I believe he lost patience dealing with band members and other associates who were not in control. Easy to understand his point of view on that.

I would add or liable to lose control at any time, but I agree with this. Regardless of how clean he was himself, Mick had grown up, Keith and Ronnie hadn't. I don't think he really had a problem with all the fun and games, as he seemingly enjoyed them too up until it happened, but I think after the Toronto bust, Mick had had enough. Playtime was over, and he was not going to have anyone, not even Keith, bring that kind of heat on the band again.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
When I listen to PRIMITIVE COOL, WANDERING SPIRIT, TALK IS CHEAP, and MAIN OFFENDER, I likewise wish they had stayed solo. I would have missed seeing them live and I do greatly enjoy their nineties work "together," but I suspect they would have been more prolific and more creatively successful apart without the compromising. The mega-tours late in life really wore on them. Keith either lost much of his creativity or has had to stifle it. Mick lost much of his direction as the gaps between songwriting and recording grew ever larger and were largely spent trying to create music that fits a mold instead of nurturing his creative aspirations. Mick would have been successful on a smaller scale. Keith would have been a much-loved cult figure. I prefer the idea of Keith making albums every couple years to living out the fantasy of being Captain Hook to Mick's Peter Pan.

Rocky, I think you're on to something but in a very odd way. Mick has only one solo album, Wandering Spirit, that is a truly focused body. Keith's two albums are what I would consider 'normal', doing what he does, as in business as usual - making a rock'n'roll record. If you want to call Dogshit In The Doorway "prolific" then I think you have missed something ha ha.

It's one thing to experiment, it's another to have it sound good and actually be good.