Quote
Title5Take1

Quote
dcba
In 1986 the Stones were not really clean and Womack was a HUGE cokehead.

From RONNIE p. 195, "Bobby Womack was also a regular at my house, and whenever he'd come to have a hit on the [freebase] pipe, he'd go straight into the wardrobe, shut the door and stand there in the dark. Hey, where's Bobby? Oh, he's in the wardrobe with the clothes." p. 196, "Bobby and I would wind up locked in the bathroom freebasing, and not come out for days. He was spending so much time at our house with me that Jo actually asked once, `Don't you live somewhere? Don't you have a home to go to?'"

Maybe then Mick's treatment of him was justified.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Sounds simply stunning but pretty hard to find a place for it in a Rolling Stones album, especially during the 80's. Unfortunately.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Ronnie Wood on drums again.


Regardless of how we analyze each word and nuance, the gist is Womack doesn't have much love for Jagger, and I have a feeling this kind of quote stings Jagger more than the Keith barbs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 11:51 by Palace Revolution 2000.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Sounds simply stunning but pretty hard to find a place for it in a Rolling Stones album, especially during the 80's. Unfortunately.

- Doxa

Well, Harlem Shuffle would have had to go, obviously.

There should always be room for a soul number on a Stones record, imo

OT: Funnily that great "Invations" out-take, its feeling and atmosphere, reminds me one of my ever favourites, recorded some two/yhree yaers laterby two other giants:





- Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Regardless of how we analyze each word and nuance, the gist is Womack doesn't have much love for Jagger, and I have a feeling this kind of quote stings Jagger more than the Keith barbs.

I agree with your sentiments - no matter how cokeheaded Womack was at the time and surely enjoed with his babits being in "Keith's court" and with the "pals", Jagger seemingly did it rather easy to not like him at the time (mid-80's). Just look what pissed Jeff Beck would say in 1987 after leaving Jagger's band (check the Beck thread)... Even though I'd ask Keith to buy a mirror and reflect his own doings then (and a little prior that) there is surely some piece of truth in Keith's claim that Mick became "unbearable" then. Most likely there was a bit too much piss in Mick's head at the time, to say it straight. He didn't treat people very good.

This is just my own speculation but I think the mid-80's Jagger - pushing hard his solo career and trying to be so current - didn't really care the 'old' people Keith brought to sessions, no matter how 'big' names they once were. It should have been Michael Jackson or Prince for Mick then... I think that might explain some of Mick's attitude towards Womack (and being a terribbe cokehead didn't help either). Can't see Jagger getting along with Tom Waits, another Keith's pal, neither...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Regardless of how we analyze each word and nuance, the gist is Womack doesn't have much love for Jagger, and I have a feeling this kind of quote stings Jagger more than the Keith barbs.

I agree with your sentiments - no matter how cokeheaded Womack was at the time and surely enjoed with his babits being in "Keith's court" and with the "pals", Jagger seemingly did it rather easy to not like him at the time (mid-80's). Just look what pissed Jeff Beck would say in 1987 after leaving Jagger's band (check the Beck thread)... Even though I'd ask Keith to buy a mirror and reflect his own doings then (and a little prior that) there is surely some piece of truth in Keith's claim that Mick became "unbearable" then. Most likely there was a bit too much piss in Mick's head at the time, to say it straight. He didn't treat people very good.

This is just my own speculation but I think the mid-80's Jagger - pushing hard his solo career and trying to be so current - didn't really care the 'old' people Keith brought to sessions, no matter how 'big' names they once were. It should have been Michael Jackson or Prince for Mick then... I think that might explain some of Mick's attitude towards Womack (and being a terribbe cokehead didn't help either). Can't see Jagger getting along with Tom Waits, another Keith's pal, neither...

- Doxa

Agree. And I think the time when the Keith-vocal tracks became boring was when he came under the influence of Tom Waits' fake authentic bum-songs. Post-Some Girls that is.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Regardless of how we analyze each word and nuance, the gist is Womack doesn't have much love for Jagger, and I have a feeling this kind of quote stings Jagger more than the Keith barbs.

Mick did not like Bobby Womack at the very beginning, so I do not think he cares what Womack thinks about him 30 years later.
I believe hbwriter when he says that Jagger took the book and "Keith's barbs" very hard.
There is the end of May 2012 - and we have nothing. The only time where you can see them all together it's in an orchestrated a reality of documentary.
I think that Mick has decided not to fight with Richards fot the Stones - the time will put everything in place anyway - but to follow Richards' example and to start building his personal brand "Mick Jagger", instead of being driving force that pushes the Stones forward.

Quote
Doxa
... no matter how cokeheaded Womack was at the time and surely enjoed with his babits being in "Keith's court" and with the "pals", Jagger seemingly did it rather easy to not like him at the time (mid-80's). Just look what pissed Jeff Beck would say in 1987 after leaving Jagger's band (check the Beck thread)... Even though I'd ask Keith to buy a mirror and reflect his own doings then (and a little prior that) there is surely some piece of truth in Keith's claim that Mick became "unbearable" then. Most likely there was a bit too much piss in Mick's head at the time, to say it straight. He didn't treat people very good.

This is just my own speculation but I think the mid-80's Jagger - pushing hard his solo career and trying to be so current - didn't really care the 'old' people Keith brought to sessions, no matter how 'big' names they once were. It should have been Michael Jackson or Prince for Mick then... I think that might explain some of Mick's attitude towards Womack (and being a terribbe cokehead didn't help either). Can't see Jagger getting along with Tom Waits, another Keith's pal, neither...

- Doxa

Maybe Jagger was unbearable but not more than Richards in the same period - with KR's unwillingness to accept new ideas, a struggle for leadership and Jagger sabotage - not to talk about alcohol and drug dependence. To organize gangs within the band including guest musicians it's not the best way to make someone nice.
Richards simply did not leave Jagger other way but to try to break out of that environment. The whole story about Mick's solo career - sucked out of finger. If Richards acted differently in the beginning and then responded to a solo adventure adequately there would be no problems
Richards knew perfectly well about Jagger solo plans - it was in their contact - he agreed to this, and he knew that Jagger was not going leave the Stones (no matter how successful he would have been solo) because according to the same contract, the Stones had to recorde four more albums.
All this so-called "unbearable Jagger" - it's just Keith's jealous reaction to Mick's desire to try go solo
On the other hand when a New Barbarians went on tour without Jagger, Mick took this like man (though he was upset as Bill said in Stone Alone ot his other book)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 14:07 by proudmary.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa
... no matter how cokeheaded Womack was at the time and surely enjoed with his babits being in "Keith's court" and with the "pals", Jagger seemingly did it rather easy to not like him at the time (mid-80's). Just look what pissed Jeff Beck would say in 1987 after leaving Jagger's band (check the Beck thread)... Even though I'd ask Keith to buy a mirror and reflect his own doings then (and a little prior that) there is surely some piece of truth in Keith's claim that Mick became "unbearable" then. Most likely there was a bit too much piss in Mick's head at the time, to say it straight. He didn't treat people very good.

This is just my own speculation but I think the mid-80's Jagger - pushing hard his solo career and trying to be so current - didn't really care the 'old' people Keith brought to sessions, no matter how 'big' names they once were. It should have been Michael Jackson or Prince for Mick then... I think that might explain some of Mick's attitude towards Womack (and being a terribbe cokehead didn't help either). Can't see Jagger getting along with Tom Waits, another Keith's pal, neither...

- Doxa

Maybe Jagger was unbearable but not more than Richards in the same period - with KR's unwillingness to accept new ideas, a struggle for leadership and Jagger sabotage - not to talk about alcohol and drug dependence. To organize gangs within the band including guest musicians it's not the best way to make someone nice.
Richards simply did not leave Jagger other way but to try to break out of that environment. The whole story about Mick's solo career - sucked out of finger. If Richards acted differently in the beginning and then responded to a solo adventure adequately there would be no problems
Richards knew perfectly well about Jagger solo plans - it was in their contact - he agreed to this, and he knew that Jagger was not going leave the Stones (no matter how successful he would have been solo) because according to the same contract, the Stones had to recorde four more albums.
All this so-called "unbearable Jagger" - it's just Keith's jealous reaction to Mick's desire to try go solo
On the other hand when a New Barbarians went on tour without Jagger, Mick took this like man (though he was upset as Bill said in Stone Alone ot his other book)

Some mistakes need to be cleared up here:

- Mick told Keith he wouldn't be working with the Stones anymore via his secretary in 1985.
- Keith has stated that he didn't know about Mick's solo plans, and especially not that it would happen in conflict with Stones's touring plans.
- The New Barbarians was a touring band, supporting Ronnie's album. There was no need for Mick to take that in any way.
- You state that Keith was not open to new ideas. How did Undercover come about, then? An album with a totally different sound, mostly because of Mick's creative input.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa
... no matter how cokeheaded Womack was at the time and surely enjoed with his babits being in "Keith's court" and with the "pals", Jagger seemingly did it rather easy to not like him at the time (mid-80's). Just look what pissed Jeff Beck would say in 1987 after leaving Jagger's band (check the Beck thread)... Even though I'd ask Keith to buy a mirror and reflect his own doings then (and a little prior that) there is surely some piece of truth in Keith's claim that Mick became "unbearable" then. Most likely there was a bit too much piss in Mick's head at the time, to say it straight. He didn't treat people very good.

This is just my own speculation but I think the mid-80's Jagger - pushing hard his solo career and trying to be so current - didn't really care the 'old' people Keith brought to sessions, no matter how 'big' names they once were. It should have been Michael Jackson or Prince for Mick then... I think that might explain some of Mick's attitude towards Womack (and being a terribbe cokehead didn't help either). Can't see Jagger getting along with Tom Waits, another Keith's pal, neither...

- Doxa

Maybe Jagger was unbearable but not more than Richards in the same period - with KR's unwillingness to accept new ideas, a struggle for leadership and Jagger sabotage - not to talk about alcohol and drug dependence. To organize gangs within the band including guest musicians it's not the best way to make someone nice.
Richards simply did not leave Jagger other way but to try to break out of that environment. The whole story about Mick's solo career - sucked out of finger. If Richards acted differently in the beginning and then responded to a solo adventure adequately there would be no problems
Richards knew perfectly well about Jagger solo plans - it was in their contact - he agreed to this, and he knew that Jagger was not going leave the Stones (no matter how successful he would have been solo) because according to the same contract, the Stones had to recorde four more albums.
All this so-called "unbearable Jagger" - it's just Keith's jealous reaction to Mick's desire to try go solo
On the other hand when a New Barbarians went on tour without Jagger, Mick took this like man (though he was upset as Bill said in Stone Alone ot his other book)

Some mistakes need to be cleared up here:

- Mick told Keith he wouldn't be working with the Stones anymore via his secretary in 1985.
- Keith has stated that he didn't know about Mick's solo plans, and especially not that it would happen in conflict with Stones's touring plans.
- The New Barbarians was a touring band, supporting Ronnie's album. There was no need for Mick to take that in any way.
- You state that Keith was not open to new ideas. How did Undercover come about, then? An album with a totally different sound, mostly because of Mick's creative input.

What goes for 'World War Three' - Keith's melodramatic tabloid expression, of course - I think there needs to be disinguished the causes from the effects - Keith's book is totally worthless in trying to see the former. He only seems to discuss Jagger's behavior after Mick being seemingly fed up with working with Keith and the Stones. So he just see the symptoms, not the disease. He can't see at all what drove Mick away - why he didn't want to work with Keith any longer. Complaining about being contacted via a secretary, fooled with record contract, etc. is childish crying from Keith's side and not willingness to deal with the real issue. Over-all, Keith is such a cry-baby in describing those times - was then when started the war in press, and still is (and of course, the Stones community still seem to echo Keith's stance). Sounds like a bitter ex-husband trying desperately to find some technical misbehavings after realizing that he is finally left, and she is gone for good.

I pretty much symphatize Mick's side on things (and I think Mary is on a right track there), even though I also recognize that Mick's behavior - and how treat people - wasn't spot on always. The solo record deal seem to bugger Keith because he forget to read the contract he signed, or was too stoned to remember that, or most likely, he just bullshits about it because he didn't like the idea of Jagger making a solo album (and probably believes in his own bs now). Shit, even I knew in 1983 - a fan boy in Finland - that the Stones had made a recod deal that included four new albums and a Jagger solo album. In his book Bill Wyman does not see it any problem - he only mentions Keith being upset when Mick was making the solo album instead of doing some Stones thing. To my eys Keith just tries to find some stupid formal excuses with which he can blame or attack Jagger for "disloyalty" or whatever. Jagger's solo career seem to be a problem an sich for Keith.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 16:03 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa
... no matter how cokeheaded Womack was at the time and surely enjoed with his babits being in "Keith's court" and with the "pals", Jagger seemingly did it rather easy to not like him at the time (mid-80's). Just look what pissed Jeff Beck would say in 1987 after leaving Jagger's band (check the Beck thread)... Even though I'd ask Keith to buy a mirror and reflect his own doings then (and a little prior that) there is surely some piece of truth in Keith's claim that Mick became "unbearable" then. Most likely there was a bit too much piss in Mick's head at the time, to say it straight. He didn't treat people very good.

This is just my own speculation but I think the mid-80's Jagger - pushing hard his solo career and trying to be so current - didn't really care the 'old' people Keith brought to sessions, no matter how 'big' names they once were. It should have been Michael Jackson or Prince for Mick then... I think that might explain some of Mick's attitude towards Womack (and being a terribbe cokehead didn't help either). Can't see Jagger getting along with Tom Waits, another Keith's pal, neither...

- Doxa

Maybe Jagger was unbearable but not more than Richards in the same period - with KR's unwillingness to accept new ideas, a struggle for leadership and Jagger sabotage - not to talk about alcohol and drug dependence. To organize gangs within the band including guest musicians it's not the best way to make someone nice.
Richards simply did not leave Jagger other way but to try to break out of that environment. The whole story about Mick's solo career - sucked out of finger. If Richards acted differently in the beginning and then responded to a solo adventure adequately there would be no problems
Richards knew perfectly well about Jagger solo plans - it was in their contact - he agreed to this, and he knew that Jagger was not going leave the Stones (no matter how successful he would have been solo) because according to the same contract, the Stones had to recorde four more albums.
All this so-called "unbearable Jagger" - it's just Keith's jealous reaction to Mick's desire to try go solo
On the other hand when a New Barbarians went on tour without Jagger, Mick took this like man (though he was upset as Bill said in Stone Alone ot his other book)

Some mistakes need to be cleared up here:

- Mick told Keith he wouldn't be working with the Stones anymore via his secretary in 1985.
- Keith has stated that he didn't know about Mick's solo plans, and especially not that it would happen in conflict with Stones's touring plans.
- The New Barbarians was a touring band, supporting Ronnie's album. There was no need for Mick to take that in any way.
- You state that Keith was not open to new ideas. How did Undercover come about, then? An album with a totally different sound, mostly because of Mick's creative input.

What goes for 'World War Three' - Keith's melodramatic tabloid expression, of course - I think there needs to be disinguished the causes fron the effects - Keith's book is totally worthless in trying to see the former. He only seems to discuss Jagger's behavior after Mick being seemingly fed up with working with Keith and the Stones. So he just see the symptoms, not teh disease. He can't see at all what drove Mick away - why he didn't want to work with Keith any longer. Complaining about being contacted via a secretary, fooled with record contract, etc. is childish crying from Keith's side and not willingness to deal with the real issue. Over-all, Keith is such a cry-baby in describing those times - was then when started the war in press, and still is (and of corse, The Stones community still seem to echo Keith's stance). I pretty much symphatize Mick's side on things (and I think Mary is on a right track there), even though I also recognize that Mick's behavior - and how treat people - wasn't spot on always. The solo record deal seem to bugger Keith because he forget to read the contract he signed, or was too stoned to remember that. Shit, even I knew in 1983 - a fan boy in Finland - taht the Stones had made a recod deal that included four new albums and a Jagger solo album. In hsi book Bill wyman does not see it any problem - he only mentions Keith being upset when Mick was making it instead of doing some Stones thing. To my eys Keith just tries to find some stupid formal excuses with whhich he can blame Jagger for "disloyalty" or whatever. Jagger's solo career seem to be a problem an sich for Keith.

- Doxa

You're quoting me, Doxa, but you're not commenting on my points.

In fact, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything in your post.

However, when a frontman takes (in reality) 6 years off from his band, conflicts are bound to happen, whether someone is a crybaby, warbaby or not

Much has been said about how Mick held the band together during the early to late 70s and I agree,props to him but let's not forget he also was the one that did his best to KILL the band in the mid 80s. Other than that people here always complain about Keith but Mick is a prima donna and a little bitch about so many things..Ron had to watch the LSS with Rod and now for years with Mick

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Some mistakes need to be cleared up here:

- Mick told Keith he wouldn't be working with the Stones anymore via his secretary in 1985.
- Keith has stated that he didn't know about Mick's solo plans, and especially not that it would happen in conflict with Stones's touring plans.
- The New Barbarians was a touring band, supporting Ronnie's album. There was no need for Mick to take that in any way.
- You state that Keith was not open to new ideas. How did Undercover come about, then? An album with a totally different sound, mostly because of Mick's creative input.

Some are hard to believe, others are simply not true.

-Jagger never told Richards he would not work anymore. He did wire though that he would not tour on the back of Dirty Work in '86.
- It is very, very hard to believe Richards did not know about the solo deal Jagger made with CBS. It was a contract worth millions of dollars, negociated with hard-nosed lawyers from both sides over an extended period of time, signed by all Stones except Wood. It is impossible Richards did not know the content of the contract.
- Richards is conservative in his musical tastes, and he has not hidden the fact that he never liked tracks like Undercover and Too Much Blood, on which he doesn't play.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Some mistakes need to be cleared up here:

- Mick told Keith he wouldn't be working with the Stones anymore via his secretary in 1985.
- Keith has stated that he didn't know about Mick's solo plans, and especially not that it would happen in conflict with Stones's touring plans.
- The New Barbarians was a touring band, supporting Ronnie's album. There was no need for Mick to take that in any way.
- You state that Keith was not open to new ideas. How did Undercover come about, then? An album with a totally different sound, mostly because of Mick's creative input.

Some are hard to believe, others are simply not true.

-Jagger never told Richards he would not work anymore. He did wire though that he would not tour on the back of Dirty Work in '86.
- It is very, very hard to believe Richards did not know about the solo deal Jagger made with CBS. It was a contract worth millions of dollars, negociated with hard-nosed lawyers from both sides over an extended period of time, signed by all Stones except Wood. It is impossible Richards did not know the content of the contract.
- Richards is conservative in his musical tastes, and he has not hidden the fact that he never liked tracks like Undercover and Too Much Blood, on which he doesn't play.

Mathijs

Well, the telegram said "in the seeable future", not the "dirty work-tour".

I find it hard to believe, too (reg. the contract), and I was only referring to Richards's statement, which he keeps on upholding.

I know there was tension on the Undercover-sessions. Still, Mick got through with a dramatic change of musical style WITH contributions from Richards. IMO, Keith plays on Undercover. In your (former?) opinion, he also plays on Too Much Blood, together with Jim Barber.

My point is, The Stones have faced so many musical changes during the years, probably due to Mick's whishes, that it would be impossible to state that Keith's conservatism stopped anything significantly. Even Keith has lead the band to different music styles (reggae, funk, jazzy stuff), altough it's been more related stuff to the band's chore-style.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 16:12 by DandelionPowderman.

The CBS contract was for $28 million for four albums plus the Atlantic/EMI back catalog. The deal included an MJ solo album. When Jagger decided not to tour behind DIRTY WORK, but rather make another solo album - he was fulfilling the contractual obligation to CBS with a solo album. Yetnikoff pulled the Stones in by appealing to Jagger as a solo star. He admits the same in his autobiography. Yetnikoff saw Richards as a brain-damaged junkie and believed Jagger could be built into an MTV superstar with careful handling. It didn't work. Something Yetnikoff didn't understand then (see his interview in Rolling Stone circa 1990) or now (again, his autobiography). This was why Bill Wyman (who had stood by Mick during band meetings in 1984 believing Mick's solo effort should be tolerated and in 1986 when Mick decided not to tour) was so stung later in 1986 when Mick announced he planned a solo album, solo world tour, and then a couple of movies. The Stones were essentially finished. When Ronnie attempted damage control after Bill spoke out publicly, he was asked where he thought the Stones would be in 10 years, he replied playing reunions. I'm not arguing Mick didn't have reason to break away from Keith, but it is inaccurate to say that Mick going solo wasn't a threat to the band's future. The contractual obligation was an MJ solo album and a Stones album. The rest of the contract could have been all MJ solo albums had 1987 turned out differently. Jane Rose definitely made sure her client benefited from the anti-Jagger backlash that started in 1986 and, in many ways, the end result of that backlash is LIFE.

Thanks for the inside info, RD. Didn't know this. This confirms my idea that it was Jagger who broke upp the band in the mid-eighties.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The CBS contract was for $28 million for four albums plus the Atlantic/EMI back catalog. The deal included an MJ solo album. When Jagger decided not to tour behind DIRTY WORK, but rather make another solo album - he was fulfilling the contractual obligation to CBS with a solo album. Yetnikoff pulled the Stones in by appealing to Jagger as a solo star. He admits the same in his autobiography. Yetnikoff saw Richards as a brain-damaged junkie and believed Jagger could be built into an MTV superstar with careful handling. It didn't work. Something Yetnikoff didn't understand then (see his interview in Rolling Stone circa 1990) or now (again, his autobiography). This was why Bill Wyman (who had stood by Mick during band meetings in 1984 believing Mick's solo effort should be tolerated and in 1986 when Mick decided not to tour) was so stung later in 1986 when Mick announced he planned a solo album, solo world tour, and then a couple of movies. The Stones were essentially finished. When Ronnie attempted damage control after Bill spoke out publicly, he was asked where he thought the Stones would be in 10 years, he replied playing reunions. I'm not arguing Mick didn't have reason to break away from Keith, but it is inaccurate to say that Mick going solo wasn't a threat to the band's future. The contractual obligation was an MJ solo album and a Stones album. The rest of the contract could have been all MJ solo albums had 1987 turned out differently. Jane Rose definitely made sure her client benefited from the anti-Jagger backlash that started in 1986 and, in many ways, the end result of that backlash is LIFE.

Exactly!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[Some mistakes need to be cleared up here:

- Mick told Keith he wouldn't be working with the Stones anymore via his secretary in 1985.
- Keith has stated that he didn't know about Mick's solo plans, and especially not that it would happen in conflict with Stones's touring plans.
- The New Barbarians was a touring band, supporting Ronnie's album. There was no need for Mick to take that in any way.
- You state that Keith was not open to new ideas. How did Undercover come about, then? An album with a totally different sound, mostly because of Mick's creative input.

What goes for 'World War Three' - Keith's melodramatic tabloid expression, of course - I think there needs to be disinguished the causes fron the effects - Keith's book is totally worthless in trying to see the former. He only seems to discuss Jagger's behavior after Mick being seemingly fed up with working with Keith and the Stones. So he just see the symptoms, not teh disease. He can't see at all what drove Mick away - why he didn't want to work with Keith any longer. Complaining about being contacted via a secretary, fooled with record contract, etc. is childish crying from Keith's side and not willingness to deal with the real issue. Over-all, Keith is such a cry-baby in describing those times - was then when started the war in press, and still is (and of corse, The Stones community still seem to echo Keith's stance). I pretty much symphatize Mick's side on things (and I think Mary is on a right track there), even though I also recognize that Mick's behavior - and how treat people - wasn't spot on always. The solo record deal seem to bugger Keith because he forget to read the contract he signed, or was too stoned to remember that. Shit, even I knew in 1983 - a fan boy in Finland - taht the Stones had made a recod deal that included four new albums and a Jagger solo album. In hsi book Bill wyman does not see it any problem - he only mentions Keith being upset when Mick was making it instead of doing some Stones thing. To my eys Keith just tries to find some stupid formal excuses with whhich he can blame Jagger for "disloyalty" or whatever. Jagger's solo career seem to be a problem an sich for Keith.

- Doxa

You're quoting me, Doxa, but you're not commenting on my points.

In fact, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything in your post.

However, when a frontman takes (in reality) 6 years off from his band, conflicts are bound to happen, whether someone is a crybaby, warbaby or not

Sorry, I tried to see the issue - and especially your first point - from a bigger picture. Mathijs talked about alraedy about some, and I just as add something.

Like you, I never thought that The New Barbabians tour was any problem for Mick (even though Mick sometimes responded in justifying his own solo career that Keith also have done solo things alrady by referring to it) but according to Bill Wyman, that was not totally the case. Bill writes in ROLLING WITH THE STONES: "While he was in good spirits, I think felt slightly betrayed". However, like you, I don't see any reason to take that like that. Anyway, that took after the first terrible sessions for EMOTIONAL RESCUE which according to Bill, "went bad to worse", and "Keith annoyed Mick so much that Mick refused to come to studio". There was a lot of shit going on behind the scenes, and Keith is partly hypocrite in blaming Mick for disloyalty. But also Mick might have known the consequences of his own actions later on...

What goes for UNDERCOVER. Yeah, it has some new experiments - Pathe Marconi sound filtered through a new production idealogy - but maybe that was not enough for Jagger. And we don't know hom much compromises were done to even achieve that. I think the issue was more that of Mick and Keith not getting along, not to mention fruitfully working together, any longer. The album is rather mediocre by their standards. Where all all the good songs? Keith's musical conservatism - "stubborness" - can be read almost almost any interview given at the time. It was all Sam Cooke, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc from then on and all the current acts were laughed out of the court. I am sure this can be reflected in the studio as well - when Keith determining teh nature of the Stones sound, etc.

I see UNDERCOVER as like Jagger giving a last chance to the Stones to see if it can fulfill his musical ideas (even though they had a contract of three other albums). For some reason Jagger seemed to give up the idea after that, and put his heart on solo career, and as far as The Stones go, accepted its 'nostalgic' nature ever since - which emerged finally as some kind of daily work for him to make a lot of money. But Mick's mind is still a mystery to me...

But I am rather convinced that Jagger actually wanted to break free and continue as a full time solo artist (and I don't blame him). But as a careful man, he kept his back secured; thereby the four album deal with the Stones. So he played with double cards - and I think Keith knew that. But I am sure if Jagger's albums had been monster hits, the story of the Stones had been sealed. It didn't but we never got 100% functioning and committed Jagger back.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 17:13 by Doxa.

Well, Mick got in two songs with new sounds (Both became singles):









Keith got one







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-29 17:17 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The CBS contract was for $28 million for four albums plus the Atlantic/EMI back catalog. The deal included an MJ solo album. When Jagger decided not to tour behind DIRTY WORK, but rather make another solo album - he was fulfilling the contractual obligation to CBS with a solo album. Yetnikoff pulled the Stones in by appealing to Jagger as a solo star. He admits the same in his autobiography. Yetnikoff saw Richards as a brain-damaged junkie and believed Jagger could be built into an MTV superstar with careful handling. It didn't work. Something Yetnikoff didn't understand then (see his interview in Rolling Stone circa 1990) or now (again, his autobiography). This was why Bill Wyman (who had stood by Mick during band meetings in 1984 believing Mick's solo effort should be tolerated and in 1986 when Mick decided not to tour) was so stung later in 1986 when Mick announced he planned a solo album, solo world tour, and then a couple of movies. The Stones were essentially finished. When Ronnie attempted damage control after Bill spoke out publicly, he was asked where he thought the Stones would be in 10 years, he replied playing reunions. I'm not arguing Mick didn't have reason to break away from Keith, but it is inaccurate to say that Mick going solo wasn't a threat to the band's future. The contractual obligation was an MJ solo album and a Stones album. The rest of the contract could have been all MJ solo albums had 1987 turned out differently. Jane Rose definitely made sure her client benefited from the anti-Jagger backlash that started in 1986 and, in many ways, the end result of that backlash is LIFE.

Thank for getting the facts right about the CBS deal. Like you I wholeheartdly agree that Jagger's solo career was a serious try which, if turned out to be a success, would have been the end of the Stones. But then - if we really look Bill's talk about "playing reunions" - the reality of the Stones hasn't been that far from that. The way the Stones continued in 1989, very much in Jaggerian terms and live concept he tried in his solo tour '88, married to the nostalgia, the nature of the band and their habits of action were rather different than before. They gather when Mick whistles. If Keith wanted to 'save' the band, he did. But in many ways it was Pyrhos' win for him.

Personally, I think the option of two strong and profilic solo careers by Mick and Keith plus some "reunion" tour occasionally might have been a better option that the teethless, semi-retired nostalgia band we have now enyoyed 20 plus yaers.

- Doxa

I can understand that Mick was tired and bored of the bluesrock format they were molded into, and wanted to be more contemporary and follow trends. The sad thing, however, was that he was never good at it. All his attempts failed. When he finally had a hit it was "Moves like jagger" - a song he had nothing to do with! So in the end, he broke up the Rolling Stones for a string of throwaway solo records. From the mid-80s and onwards his heart was never with the Rolling Stones.

Of course, there wasn't a whole lot to break-up at that point. As Mick said, the spark was gone.

Quote
Doxa

Thank for getting the facts right about the CBS deal. Like you I wholeheartdly agree that Jagger's solo career was a serious try which, if turned out to be a success, would have been the end of the Stones. But then - if we really look Bill's talk about "playing reunions" - the reality of the Stones hasn't been that far from that. The way the Stones continued in 1989, very much in Jaggerian terms and live concept he tried in his solo tour '88, married to the nostalgia, the nature of the band and their habits of action were rather different than before. They gather when Mick whistles. If Keith wanted to 'save' the band, he did. But in many ways it was Pyrhos' win for him.

Personally, I think the option of two strong and profilic solo careers by Mick and Keith plus some "reunion" tour occasionally might have been a better option that the teethless, semi-retired nostalgia band we have now enyoyed 20 plus yaers.

- Doxa

I'm afraid I do not agree. He always said he wanted to combine a solo career and the Stones - in all his 80s interviews and then in an interview with Jean Wenner in 95
If Mick really wanted to develop only a solo career then after the success of She's The Boss with "Just Another Night" reaching #1 on the US Mainstream Rock chart and #12 on the US pop chart, and album going to #6 in the UK and #13 in the US he would have immediately started to work on the next album or a solo tour instead of working with the Stones,
and that's when Richards actually did everything possible to alienate Jagger
and still Mick waited for '87 for the second album
There was one 87 interview where Jagger said he would like to work with the Stones, and he spoke with Richards about it and that he did not want to listen to him. I remember Mick's words(paraphrasing from memory but close to the text) - it is not the mid-70s when I could leave to the village not knowing what was happening to me, and wait when Keith'll want to work with me again. I can not sit and wait for him.

"If Keith wanted to 'save' the band, he did. But in many ways it was Pyrhos' win for him."
I'm always surprised when people say that the only reason for Jagger to go back to the Stones was the money. Excuse me, but what's about Richards? He formed the band - not hired session musicians on one-off project, it was a group of people who expected that they will work together happily ever after.
Keith left them and returned to the Stones, despite the fact that he resented Jagger for many years just when Michael Cohn offered them huge money for the tour.
He didn't want to do anything with Jagger before that offer

"The way the Stones continued in 1989, very much in Jaggerian terms and live concept he tried in his solo tour '88"

but it was always the case with the Stones - they have always acted on Jagger's terms and Jagger has always defined their live perfomances concept.

Personally, I think the option of two strong and profilic solo careers by Mick and Keith plus some "reunion" tour occasionally might have been a better option

Totally agree

Quote
Stoneage
When he finally had a hit it was "Moves like jagger" - a song he had nothing to do with!

Therefore, it's not his hit. Any attempts to think that is just silly.

And Mick's side of the story (1987) is that the break may have saved the Stones:

MUSICIAN MAGAZINE: How is this going down with the rest of the Stones?

JAGGER: "I think they've all got lots to do. I hear Keith's working on his album in Canada. I won't even go to Canada! [laughs] My tour is not going to be anything like a Stones tour, so I don't think anyone should feel threatened."

MUSICIAN: You still view the Stones as an ongoing entity?

JAGGER: "Yes, I do, very much. And I think the Stones should go on the road, and so on. I don't believe in forcing things when they're not right. It's a mistake, `cause they tend to really fall apart.

"I saw the last Who tour in Philadelphia, and that was a classic example. They did the tour for money, and they weren't getting on; they were hating each other, and it came across onstage. I was upset as a member of the audience. And then it was the end. It taught me a lesson. I didn't want to be in that situation of not getting on with people but being forced into this intensive situation of working and living together. If we had gone on tour and someone had said, `Is this the last time?' we probably would have said, `Yeah!'

"You've got to be in harmony when making music, you really must. It's bad enough to work in an office with someone you don't get along with. You can have a bit of an edge, and obviously there are disagreements. But if someone in the band wants to go on the road, everyone has to agree. It's not just the money. As a prime member of the band, I felt that if I wasn't totally happy, my opinion should be respected because I had valid reasons. Even if they weren't, I still have an opinion."

MUSICIAN: But it sounds like the rest of the band may have been scared you were really calling it quits without saying so.

JAGGER: "Yeah, they were! But I wasn't. I don't think they believed me then, but I think they do now."

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Stoneage
When he finally had a hit it was "Moves like jagger" - a song he had nothing to do with!

Therefore, it's not his hit. Any attempts to think that is just silly.

Of course I know that, GC. I was just using the example to make a point!

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Stoneage
When he finally had a hit it was "Moves like jagger" - a song he had nothing to do with!

Therefore, it's not his hit. Any attempts to think that is just silly.

Of course I know that, GC. I was just using the example to make a point!

Nor is the song about him. Point taken

Quote
Stoneage
I can understand that Mick was tired and bored of the bluesrock format they were molded into, and wanted to be more contemporary and follow trends. The sad thing, however, was that he was never good at it. All his attempts failed. When he finally had a hit it was "Moves like jagger" - a song he had nothing to do with! So in the end, he broke up the Rolling Stones for a string of throwaway solo records. From the mid-80s and onwards his heart was never with the Rolling Stones.

It is obvious that Mick/Keith conflict had nothing to do with music. They are both committed to the blues and their roots to the same extent - which is why Wandering Spirit is the best Stones album from a TY
I think that in the mid-'80s (after the release of She's the Boss) something happened that was perceived by Jagger as a personal betrayal from Richards side, and since then "his heart was never with Keith'

and Richards - he hates Jagger from the late 70's but in a strange way he thinks Mick belongs to him.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Stoneage
I can understand that Mick was tired and bored of the bluesrock format they were molded into, and wanted to be more contemporary and follow trends. The sad thing, however, was that he was never good at it. All his attempts failed. When he finally had a hit it was "Moves like jagger" - a song he had nothing to do with! So in the end, he broke up the Rolling Stones for a string of throwaway solo records. From the mid-80s and onwards his heart was never with the Rolling Stones.

It is obvious that Mick/Keith conflict had nothing to do with music. They are both committed to the blues and their roots to the same extent - which is why Wandering Spirit is the best Stones album from a TY
I think that in the mid-'80s (after the release of She's the Boss) something happened that was perceived by Jagger as a personal betrayal from Richards side, and since then "his heart was never with Keith'

and Richards - he hates Jagger from the late 70's but in a strange way he thinks Mick belongs to him.

I think Mick already was tired of Keith in the 70'ies because of his use of drugs and drinking. Keith maybe quit the heavy drug usage but continued on alcohol / coke. Ronnie's escalating problems didn't do good either and when Charlie also got his problems - enough was enough. Must have been impossible to work in these conditions. At the same having a looser like Womack hanging around - no wonder Mick gave up for some time.