Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 4 of 5
Re: 1981
Posted by: hwkn ()
Date: April 24, 2011 04:08

Not in the Hang Fire video from Seattle posted above he wasn't wearing a Mariners jersey.[looked like it might've been a New York Jets jersey]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-24 04:10 by hwkn.

Re: 1981
Posted by: melillo ()
Date: April 24, 2011 04:27

your right but its an eagles jersey my mistake , but i know for sure he wore a mariners jersey during that show

Re: 1981
Posted by: marko ()
Date: April 24, 2011 08:29

oh wow,donĀ“t know nothing about mariners jersey outfits,but both shows are available as PRO-SHOT videos.

Also on SBD quality.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: April 24, 2011 13:28

Just forget it 3 times. cool smiley



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-24 13:44 by Amsterdamned.

Re: 1981
Posted by: melillo ()
Date: April 24, 2011 15:34

first show is in bad quality though

Re: 1981
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: April 24, 2011 15:37

Quote
melillo
your right but its an eagles jersey my mistake , but i know for sure he wore a mariners jersey during that show

i was there both seattle shows...don't remember any mariners jersey...maybe donned it for a song or something?

Re: 1981
Posted by: caschimann ()
Date: April 24, 2011 16:41

Virgin Priest, on every tour their was an image.
You can put the 1981/82 tour in your list and
call it the Sober-Family-Friendly-Tour
(Mick dressed as a pop-baseball-player, Keith clean playing with
frist time with naked arms ever, stage design colourful, stylish,
very modern for the start of the 80ies decade).
So of course their was an image:
The new friendly Stones for the whole Family:
Father/Mother born in the 1940ies, same age as the Mick, Keith & Co.
Son/daughter in the late teens/starting 20ies, first time ever watching the stones.
(Today we have 3-4 Generations).
So 1981/82 was just a new part of the history of that band.
But I understand you:
Because this tour was the first time I saw them.
And it ist tis first big impression that still make me sentimental when I see
pictures or u-tubes of this tour.


1981 is my Stones childhood.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Turd On The Run ()
Date: April 25, 2011 00:11

Quote
brianwalker
Quote
pgarof
Seen them on all tours since 71, When they played the MNews arena and Wembley arena in 2003 they were definatly NOT vegas, they were raw and at their best.

hot smiley

The Vegas stuff on this board is over the top.

I saw them in 1981 and they sucked. As far as I am concerned 81 was nothing but a blown opportunity. This was the Stones at their most famous, and most popular. The eyes of the world was on them like it never was before, they had no competition anymore, and they laid an egg. They played way to fast, the sound was way too thin, and they butchered their own songs. . I don't think there was one song from that tour that was played as good on stage then it was on record, except for JMI. Plus Jagger was unwatchable on that tour. After that although I loved their albums I thought they were nothing but hype as a live act. Look at the videos of 1981/82. You can see the dissappointment in the crowd. The only Stones tour I have ever seen where the crowd bored and uninterested.

You can go on and on about how much you like that it was just the Stones on stage in 1981, but what was coming out of the speakers wasn't good at all. I went to the concert with many people and they all agreed with exactly what I am saying. The movie of the tour confirmed it also.

I completely disagree. Saw the Stones live in New York and New Jersey in '81 and again in Europe 3 times in '82 and I can tell you that the press was thrilled and the crowd was anything but disappointed - ecstatic is more apt as a description. The Stones OWNED New York (the absolute center of the press universe at that time) and the U.S. that autumn...#1 album, #1 single, the world press clamoring, the Jovan sponsorship causing controversy, covers of Rolling Stone (when it and that still mattered) and absolute pandemonium at the shows. Laid an egg? Blown opportunity? I don't think so. Band of the year, record of the year, single of the year, and tour of the year. The Stones ruled. The U.S. Shows were a bit better than the European ones (as they always are, in my opinion...and I've been to every U.S. and European tour since '72 - thought I missed the '73 European Tour which is probably their absolute apex) but that is subjective. The outdoor stadium shows were a little less intense, but only because they were so massive and the Stones of that era were better built for the more "intimate" setting of Hockey arenas than the massive outdoor Football stadiums - nevertheless, even the outdoor concerts were joyous cultural events. The sound? Wild and thin and fast and sloppy and all mercury-like...colors everywhere...it was a new decade, a new era - the MTV, Rock as a global business epoch, but still with an edge...and a smile...and the Stones announced it and kicked the doors open. Ronnie was kinda dazed and confused but Keith was incredibly energized and in total control...even more so than '78. As Rolling Stone put it in those days...the Stones reach magnificent middle-age. Indeed.

Re: 1981
Posted by: whitem8 ()
Date: April 25, 2011 03:01

It is no surprise that the 81 tour for me is a catch 22. My first show, thrilling memories, and a lot of excitement. But man it has not aged well. Firstly, the crowd in Detroit was going crazy! Everyone at the Pontiac Silverdome was totally in awe of the spectacle. But was the music good. Well it was pretty good. But what I don't like is Jagger's singing for a majority of the 81 tour. And his stage presence sucked! Jagger sounded much better in Europe 82. But for the most part many of the performances were pretty sloppy, which isn't always a bad thing for The Stones.

Re: 1981
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: April 25, 2011 04:07

I think TOTR has it right when he reminds us of historical context. It was indeed a triumphant tour in '81. And Jagger in Rolling Stone wearing the U.S. Flag cape was the peak of that stage of their career. They led a resurgence of rock and roll, and their own resurgance as a live act after the not so triumphant Some Girls Tour. (Which was amazingly short).

They came back as something else in '89. That was like a career spanning tour. They dug deeply into the 60s with 2000 Light Years, Ruby Tuesday and Paint It Black. Tours since then have lacked a certain coherence, except for No Security. Some good shows, but not particular feeling behind them.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: April 25, 2011 09:30

In 1981 they were a band on their last tour. Mick wanted to have his solo career and I guess the experience from the ER sessions was the last straw. Ever really. But they were still a band. 1989 is a deal, the results of Mick's solo attempts, the last chance to cash in. Doesnt mean it's all bad but it is the beginning of Vegas: Keith doing the geeky thing on laughing Chuck's plinky plonk piano on HTW.

Re: 1981
Posted by: tops06 ()
Date: April 25, 2011 20:17

Amen brother. My first concert ever attended - opening show in Philly. Fell in love with their music the previous year. here we are almost 30 years later and I can remeber it like it was yesterday!

Re: 1981
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: April 26, 2011 00:47

Looking back, 81/82 was the last tour. They still had some musical relevance with a big hitsingle and a good album to follow up. From 89`and on it was all about the money. They had stopped functioning as a creative unit and were really a revival-band on click-tracks.

Re: 1981
Posted by: whitem8 ()
Date: April 26, 2011 02:26

Really?? Well as I recall all the buzz around the 81 tour was it was the first tour with a corporate sponsor. And it was touring behind an album of rehashed old material for the most part. So don't fool yourself, that tour was about the Money for sure. From all accounts it was still a very fractious band. Ronnie banned from the backstage area, Keith and Mick fighting about the cherry picker, Keith and Mick just fighting. So what got them to make just enough peace to get them back on the road? MONEY. What got them to amp up the entire circus from the simple 78 tour? MONEY. Stones tours have always been about the money. It is just as they become more sophisticated, they became more savvy about how to extract more and more MONEy from the road.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: April 26, 2011 02:54

To stay relevant in popular music you'll have to produce hit singles or hit albums. "Start Me Up" and "Tattoo You" made the trick for them then. They have simply been unsuccesful in that department since then.

Re: 1981
Posted by: loog droog ()
Date: April 26, 2011 03:23

1981 was when you started to see a lot of the original fans bring their kids with them to shows.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: April 26, 2011 09:43

Quote
whitem8
Really?? Well as I recall all the buzz around the 81 tour was it was the first tour with a corporate sponsor. And it was touring behind an album of rehashed old material for the most part. So don't fool yourself, that tour was about the Money for sure. From all accounts it was still a very fractious band. Ronnie banned from the backstage area, Keith and Mick fighting about the cherry picker, Keith and Mick just fighting. So what got them to make just enough peace to get them back on the road? MONEY. What got them to amp up the entire circus from the simple 78 tour? MONEY. Stones tours have always been about the money. It is just as they become more sophisticated, they became more savvy about how to extract more and more MONEy from the road.

I don't know if this is all completely true. Wood was never been banned from the backstage erea (where would he stay then? The parking lot?), and to all accounts (Wyman, Ian MacLagan, Wood, Richards, Bill Graham) they all enjoyed the '81 tour very much, everybody was in good spirits once the tour got rolling. Wood was partying a bit hard once in a while, that's true.

It wasn't until '87 or so that Keith started badmouthing Jagger in public, as he did with Life, and started saying 'I never liked this or that in such and so tour'. It was then that he suddenly started complaining about the cherry picker.

Mathijs

Re: 1981
Posted by: tomk ()
Date: April 26, 2011 10:02

Quote
Mathijs
Quote
whitem8
Really?? Well as I recall all the buzz around the 81 tour was it was the first tour with a corporate sponsor. And it was touring behind an album of rehashed old material for the most part. So don't fool yourself, that tour was about the Money for sure. From all accounts it was still a very fractious band. Ronnie banned from the backstage area, Keith and Mick fighting about the cherry picker, Keith and Mick just fighting. So what got them to make just enough peace to get them back on the road? MONEY. What got them to amp up the entire circus from the simple 78 tour? MONEY. Stones tours have always been about the money. It is just as they become more sophisticated, they became more savvy about how to extract more and more MONEy from the road.

I don't know if this is all completely true. Wood was never been banned from the backstage erea (where would he stay then? The parking lot?), and to all accounts (Wyman, Ian MacLagan, Wood, Richards, Bill Graham) they all enjoyed the '81 tour very much, everybody was in good spirits once the tour got rolling. Wood was partying a bit hard once in a while, that's true.

It wasn't until '87 or so that Keith started badmouthing Jagger in public, as he did with Life, and started saying 'I never liked this or that in such and so tour'. It was then that he suddenly started complaining about the cherry picker.

Mathijs

I think it goes back a little further than that. In Barbara Charone's book, Keith badmouths Mick's 1975 tour outfits and such, saying "What does Mick need all that for?"

Re: 1981
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: April 26, 2011 10:23

Quote
whitem8
Really?? Well as I recall all the buzz around the 81 tour was it was the first tour with a corporate sponsor. And it was touring behind an album of rehashed old material for the most part. So don't fool yourself, that tour was about the Money for sure. From all accounts it was still a very fractious band. Ronnie banned from the backstage area, Keith and Mick fighting about the cherry picker, Keith and Mick just fighting. So what got them to make just enough peace to get them back on the road? MONEY. What got them to amp up the entire circus from the simple 78 tour? MONEY. Stones tours have always been about the money. It is just as they become more sophisticated, they became more savvy about how to extract more and more MONEy from the road.

Of coruse its about money but in 1968 it wasnt just money although it was all about money because there would be no (more) big money if they didnt find a new course. Nothing wrong with that but to me the 1989/Vegas/contract tour is too obvious, it's not about a new musical style, or new ideas just marketing. I think Mick simply had enough during the ER sessions. Meaning that whatever relationship they had, probably very rocky already in 1973, was completely over. The roll left the rock.

Re: 1981
Posted by: fela ()
Date: April 26, 2011 10:57

mathijs;
Beast of Burden from the Let's Spend movie still is my benchmark of what R&R should be


it is from the Phoenix show, right ?? if so, too bad it sounds not so good on the soundboard tape as on the movie...

i know the edit story, but i love the sound of the LSTNT version, (thats my Rolling Stones too)

is there a way to get the LSTNT movie sountrack in good quality ? does exist ??

Re: 1981
Date: April 26, 2011 12:53

Quote
tomk
Quote
Mathijs
Quote
whitem8
Really?? Well as I recall all the buzz around the 81 tour was it was the first tour with a corporate sponsor. And it was touring behind an album of rehashed old material for the most part. So don't fool yourself, that tour was about the Money for sure. From all accounts it was still a very fractious band. Ronnie banned from the backstage area, Keith and Mick fighting about the cherry picker, Keith and Mick just fighting. So what got them to make just enough peace to get them back on the road? MONEY. What got them to amp up the entire circus from the simple 78 tour? MONEY. Stones tours have always been about the money. It is just as they become more sophisticated, they became more savvy about how to extract more and more MONEy from the road.

I don't know if this is all completely true. Wood was never been banned from the backstage erea (where would he stay then? The parking lot?), and to all accounts (Wyman, Ian MacLagan, Wood, Richards, Bill Graham) they all enjoyed the '81 tour very much, everybody was in good spirits once the tour got rolling. Wood was partying a bit hard once in a while, that's true.

It wasn't until '87 or so that Keith started badmouthing Jagger in public, as he did with Life, and started saying 'I never liked this or that in such and so tour'. It was then that he suddenly started complaining about the cherry picker.

Mathijs

I think it goes back a little further than that. In Barbara Charone's book, Keith badmouths Mick's 1975 tour outfits and such, saying "What does Mick need all that for?"
But these are all normal day-today remarks between guys who have lived on top of each other for many years, and have a deep musical bond. Keith isn;t going to adore everything Mick does, and viceversa. In 77 Jagger was seriously entertaining the idea of replacing Keith; we know why he was forced to think like that, bur some fans I know see this as unforgivable.

Re: 1981
Date: April 26, 2011 12:56

2 things re the 81 tour:
Keith seemed very in control, and at the top of his game. His playing is not only stellar, he is carrying Ronnie.
What I don't get is how Ronnie cleaned up so well. Somehow Jo must have scrubbed him into shape every night. By all accounts he was very strung out, but I can't see the cracks (no pun intended). Anyone else I know who was on the pipe - you could tell it a mile away. Ron doesn't only not show it, he looked particularly sharp on the 81 tour IMO.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: April 26, 2011 12:59

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
2 things re the 81 tour:
Keith seemed very in control, and at the top of his game. His playing is not only stellar, he is carrying Ronnie.
What I don't get is how Ronnie cleaned up so well. Somehow Jo must have scrubbed him into shape every night. By all accounts he was very strung out, but I can't see the cracks (no pun intended). Anyone else I know who was on the pipe - you could tell it a mile away. Ron doesn't only not show it, he looked particularly sharp on the 81 tour IMO.



Re: 1981
Posted by: More Hot Rocks ()
Date: April 26, 2011 15:17

81 Jagger at his worst. Ronnie close to his worst. Even Keith says so. Non creative tour. Punk 3 min song set list. No "deep" cuts. A bore at best.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: April 26, 2011 15:56

Quote
tomk
Quote
Mathijs
Quote
whitem8
Really?? Well as I recall all the buzz around the 81 tour was it was the first tour with a corporate sponsor. And it was touring behind an album of rehashed old material for the most part. So don't fool yourself, that tour was about the Money for sure. From all accounts it was still a very fractious band. Ronnie banned from the backstage area, Keith and Mick fighting about the cherry picker, Keith and Mick just fighting. So what got them to make just enough peace to get them back on the road? MONEY. What got them to amp up the entire circus from the simple 78 tour? MONEY. Stones tours have always been about the money. It is just as they become more sophisticated, they became more savvy about how to extract more and more MONEy from the road.

I don't know if this is all completely true. Wood was never been banned from the backstage erea (where would he stay then? The parking lot?), and to all accounts (Wyman, Ian MacLagan, Wood, Richards, Bill Graham) they all enjoyed the '81 tour very much, everybody was in good spirits once the tour got rolling. Wood was partying a bit hard once in a while, that's true.

It wasn't until '87 or so that Keith started badmouthing Jagger in public, as he did with Life, and started saying 'I never liked this or that in such and so tour'. It was then that he suddenly started complaining about the cherry picker.

Mathijs

I think it goes back a little further than that. In Barbara Charone's book, Keith badmouths Mick's 1975 tour outfits and such, saying "What does Mick need all that for?"

I think the crucial thing is doing it public or not. Charone's book revailed something of the problems of the Stones inner circle sure (like some other Stones books) but it was a second hand talk, not a statement from the horse's mouth. The Stones used to be were very loyal to the band and to each other, and not doing the dirty laundry in public until the mid-80's. For example, there is no comment from Brian Jones that there was some bad vibes going on within the band. Even still in 1981 Keith never talked anything bad of Mick in public, even we now know there was a terrible ego war going on behind the screen. See for example Keith's CREEM interview made during the 1981 tour. He actually defends Jagger there for not not being a Rod Stewart or Elton John kind of pisshead superstar, like the interviewer rhetorically suggests. 1981 the band looked happy and coherent team in public's eyes.

I think for that reason Keith's badmouthing of Mick in the second half of the 80's came kind of shock because that was something never heard before. And even though the guys seemed to settle their problems in public in 1989, Keith's LIFE clearly revails the naked truth of their relationship - that they haven't been any friends since - when? - maybe the early 70's. Since 1989 It is a cold war like - they are just business partners who need to cope with each other somehow (which they do as minimally as possible). We knew, of course, they have not been in very good or close terms for a long time, but a least to myself it was still a brief disappointment that they are in so bad terms in generally. Or that Keith makes such a strong and nasty public attack against his most important work mate ever.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-26 16:06 by Doxa.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Shawn20 ()
Date: April 26, 2011 17:22

Quote
Stoneage
To stay relevant in popular music you'll have to produce hit singles or hit albums. "Start Me Up" and "Tattoo You" made the trick for them then. They have simply been unsuccesful in that department since then.

This is the gospel truth. Sammy Davis Jr. hated "Candy Man" in the early 70s - but he declared there is nothing that beats a hit record.

Re: 1981
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: April 26, 2011 17:49

Thanks for your response, Shawn 20! It's nice to have a positive response now and then. Otherwise it feels like writing in the sand (or for the trolls...).

Re: 1981
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: April 26, 2011 18:00

Quote
Shawn20
Quote
Stoneage
To stay relevant in popular music you'll have to produce hit singles or hit albums. "Start Me Up" and "Tattoo You" made the trick for them then. They have simply been unsuccesful in that department since then.

This is the gospel truth. Sammy Davis Jr. hated "Candy Man" in the early 70s - but he declared there is nothing that beats a hit record.

Both comments are right on time.

BTW, I still hate "Candy Man". Bet Sinatra and Deano gave him hell about that one.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Re: 1981
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: May 11, 2011 23:53

Finally got a chance to watch my newly acquired 'Hampton '81' and 'Wembley '82' DVDs. I don't if it was just this particular night, but the Hampton concert doesn't show the band in full, mostly because of Ronnie's hardly playing. Keith is giving it his all, and, as always, Bill and Charlie are great. I was a little confused by Keith's bare arms. Those same arms were exposed on his '88 solo tour, and they looked like hell. I thought I was seeing the abcesses from his junkie years.

This is the period where Bill is most recognized. I think his playing changed because of the lack of guitar power the band used to have. Bill had to fatten the sound and fill in the melody spaces because there was a lot more space to fill. The absence of a Mick Taylor is never more evident. Ronnie got better, or more engaged, as time went on, but he's no Mick Taylor.

The 'Wembley '82' disc was inferior in quality to the '81' DVD. I wouldn't say it was a good night for Mick on that date. The whole band, excepting Bill, seemed to be trying to pull together a flat night.

Re: 1981
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: May 12, 2011 00:04

interesting - MY version of the hampton show features some of ronnnie's best-ever playing with the stones...go figure....

Goto Page: Previous12345Next
Current Page: 4 of 5


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 997
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home