Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I follow you regarding the expectations, Rocky. However, in retrospect, why would the CBS-people believe that Mick would outsell the Stones (Mick being in his 40s) anyway?

At the time, CBS was the biggest label around. Mick had only just turned 40 a few weeks before the deal was signed and TATTOO YOU had been multi-platinum and the 1981 US tour was a record-breaking success (putting it in context, the Jacksons' VICTORY tour on the strength of THRILLER only grossed half of what the Stones had done three years earlier despite higher ticket prices). It made perfect sense to think that the biggest label could take them (or at least Mick) to even greater heights. CBS was focused on creating albums that were events.

I don't doubt that at all. However, no matter how big you are, and how much marketing strenghts you possess, it was a gamble if they budgeted that Mick would outsell what was close to the Stones's record sales-peak, imo.

Remember, Some Girls sold even more than Tattoo You, and although the latter sold multi-platinum (and ER "only"double gold"), it still represented a decline in sales, compared to the peak.

But this is easy to say 29 years later, of course



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 16:46 by DandelionPowderman.

When you think that the albums were so close together: SOME GIRLS (over 6 million in the US), EMOTIONAL RESCUE (over 2 million in the US), and TATTOO YOU (over 4 million in the US), and then the record breaking 1981 tour and the equally large CBS deal less than two years later (before UNDERCOVER was released), it makes sense for Yetnikoff to have paid the price he did. He even says in his book that he saw their success and wondered why they weren't on his roster. And why would they leave Atlantic/EMI after their success? The money and the promise of investing in a solo career are the obvious incentive. The money first and foremost or else Atlantic wouldn't have been given a chance to counter. Prince Rupert's role in all of this shouldn't be overlooked either. He clearly took a long hard look at the rest of the band and supported the decision. Setting aside our feelings as Stones fans, it was the logical move to make. Mick was the one who didn't appear to be falling apart at the seams in spite of his own regular coke use at the time.

One last point regarding UNDERCOVER and Atlantic/EMI's reaction to the album. Bill German had noted at the time that the band owed the labels two more albums in the contracts signed in September 1977. Had they renewed instead of switching to CBS, it would have meant two more studio albums. If they switched labels, it would mean one album and a greatest hits. Since Ahmet Ertegun at least had a long history with them, having CBS "steal" the band from him and lose another studio album in the process would have made him all the more embittered. He felt they were his kids to an extent and this seemed like betrayal, rather than just business.

This is like the Graham Parsons thread: more popular than one could have expected.

Quote
Title5Take1
This is like the Graham Parsons thread

Yeah, and it is supposed to be about Bobby Womack talking about Mick Jagger

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

We're moving too fast
A few days ago the consensus at this forum was that Richards did not know anything about Jagger's solo plans and that Mick put his solo contract in the Stones's deal behind his back.
Today we have come to the conclusion that Richards not only knew about it but even signed a deal in which Jagger at his will could decide to record all the albums solo rather than with the Stones.
In my opinion it's too much. If Jagger had the opportunity to record all the albums alone, on his own (except the DW of course) and get all the money - why would he need Richards?

We do not know all details of the CBS deal - so let's agree on the most obvious. Richards knew about the solo Jagger's solo deal. He agreed to it and signed the contract and get the money that Mick negotiated with CBS. And then he started to ostracize Jagger

it took years but the people on this board are at least starting to realise that keith couldnt/wouldnt have signed a contract that he didnt read.

so the weekly "mick screwed the stones in the early 80s" thread is becoming a little more focused.

maybe jagger shouldnt have fired jane rose after all, shes seems pretty good at what she doeas.

the bobby womack thing is unfortunate,such a talented guy ending up a bitter crackhead.its a shame.

I think that last statement ProudMary made is accurate in as much non-insiders like most of us can ever reasonably agree. The rest is speculation based on available information.

I know we went off-topic, Rolling Hansie, but it is still rooted in Bobby Womack and what was going on in and around the time of the DIRTY WORK sessions. Besides, threads take on a life of their own with conversation staying to the Stones and individuals actually treating each other with respect is a good thing and was becoming all too rare around here of late.

It is based on what we know, and we have very limited information.

Something went on back then, when Rocky. proud mary and myself were in our pre/early teens, something which we don't know about. It's a bit too much lining up the few facts we have AND draw conclusions. Assumptions and speculations, yes, but not conclusions.

We gotta remember that nobody in the Stones are downright stupid. They wouldn't have given Mick the right to record solo albums INSTEAD of RS-albums for a sum of money alone.

To follow the assumption-trail again: Heated discussions and possible threats of leaving the band for good are just as likely "incentives" for the other members to sign the contract as "they were too drunk or stoned, and they chose to take the money"... IMO

In 'Life', Keith makes a strong case that he was bitter that Mick's solo project turned out to be RS-esque, not some side interest of completely unrelated material, "Irish folk tunes". He felt he had been hoodwinked about the nature of what he had agreed to. And this is where the real animosity started. But we will never know how it had been presented to him.

>>the bobby womack thing is unfortunate,such a talented guy ending up a bitter crackhead.its a shame

As I pointed out in an earlier post, he was bitter about the RS from right after they recorded It's All Over Now.

Quote
proudmary
We're moving too fast
A few days ago the consensus at this forum was that Richards did not know anything about Jagger's solo plans and that Mick put his solo contract in the Stones's deal behind his back.
Today we have come to the conclusion that Richards not only knew about it but even signed a deal in which Jagger at his will could decide to record all the albums solo rather than with the Stones.
In my opinion it's too much. If Jagger had the opportunity to record all the albums alone, on his own (except the DW of course) and get all the money - why would he need Richards?

We do not know all details of the CBS deal - so let's agree on the most obvious. Richards knew about the solo Jagger's solo deal. He agreed to it and signed the contract and get the money that Mick negotiated with CBS. And then he started to ostracize Jagger

Good, critical points. Since we do not know the details, this is just assumption from my side. First - I don't think the decision who will record the two other records was totally in Mick's hand. I assume it was up to record company to suggest the artist they want the next record from. In practise, this, of course, was much in Mick's control because Yetnikoff wanted/believe in him.

The second issue - why Keith? Why The Stones at all? Why not just Mick? I suppose that was wise tactics by both sides (Mick and CBS) to play it safe. Besides I believe the back catalogue already then must weighted quite a lot in the deal. To me it looks actually quite a good strategy to transform The Rolling Stones into Mick Jagger solo career. It sounds even too smart to keep it all in one contract - and not as two different entities/deals. They were really making big moves.

But then - why did Keith accepted the deal? Well, I guess the first thing to note out is the one Proudmary mentioned - the money. Once again, the best deal in the music business by then. Keith has never been able to resist that (I am sure he is as greedy as Mick is, and they do speak the same language as far as money goes). He just had, first time in his life, his family life started happily going on, having kids and all that. A nice extra money would make that kind of life in certain premises much easier (besides, that was the point his wife said to him, when both being shocked of her cancer, thanking Keith for giving all that to make that life possible for her). Secondly, the contract still give a chance for the Stones to continue their existence. It, at least theoretically, kept the door open for further Stones albums (and with that, whatever). Especially if Keith would play his cards right.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 20:30 by Doxa.

Quote
Bliss
In 'Life', Keith makes a strong case that he was bitter that Mick's solo project turned out to be RS-esque, not some side interest of completely unrelated material, "Irish folk tunes". He felt he had been hoodwinked about the nature of what he had agreed to. And this is where the real animosity started. But we will never know how it had been presented to him.

>>the bobby womack thing is unfortunate,such a talented guy ending up a bitter crackhead.its a shame

As I pointed out in an earlier post, he was bitter about the RS from right after they recorded It's All Over Now.

keith was bitter,bobby was bitter-"i was cheated,robbed,tricked,now wheres that check i just got in the mail,i need some more coke"

Just my speculation, of course, but my guess is the rest of the band thought it would be one Mick solo album and then more Stones albums and tours. Keith's changed public behavior to Mick, which we're speculating was consistent with Jane Rose's interpretation of Mick's intent and her direction to her client, would indicate that he at least seemed to perceive it as a threat to the band far greater than what one solo album should have been. Then and now, Mick has always downplayed any threat to the band and stated that Keith overreacted.

Some of you probably recall that there were a couple band meetings in 1984. Bill German documented them well at the time. The last one I believe was the one in Amsterdam that Ronnie was not invited to attend which seemed to indicate the seriousness of where the prior meeting left off in the Summer 1984.

We have Bill Wyman's own remarks in 1986 that he was defending Mick at these meetings. Wyman felt Mick had earned the right to go solo and felt Keith overreacted any time anyone did something outside the band. Either at these meeting or their May 1986 band meeting following the taping of the "One Hit" video, Bill also defended Mick's decision to not tour.

Charlie, if we're to judge by whatever went down at the Amsterdam meeting (obviously something less melodramatic than Keith's cowboy movie version of the event) appears to have been in Keith's camp.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Keith raised the issue that Mick could be cutting them loose after one album and that stirred a great deal of friction with Ronnie trying unsuccessfully to play peacemaker and getting removed from the discussions as a result, Charlie was left incensed (as late as 1988 he was praising Keith's album and stating the Stones should be doing creative work like TALK IS CHEAP), and Bill honestly trusted Mick had no ulterior motive and was the victim of Keith's manipulation and fears.

It is entirely possible that Keith was right about Mick just as it is entirely possible that Keith's paranoia became a self-fulfilling prophecy and that the DIRTY WORK sessions drove Mick away. I don't particularly trust either Glimmer Twin's version of the events.

I do believe that when Bill spoke to the UK press (pretty sure it was at an airport and not something he thought through), he was genuinely stung by Mick's decision to "carrry on without the Stones." I remember watching Ronnie sitting in a darkened TV studio a few days later seeming very sombre and nervously stammering as he tried to exercise damage control once newspapers ran with the story that the band had just broke up based on Bill's remarks.

The entire relationship with Keith and Jane Rose interests me. In spite of Keith's tough guy persona, he seemed to need someone to fulfill Anita's role of mothering and directing him and informing his opinions of others. That role fell to Jane. She definitely excels at what she does, but her own agenda has definitely had a huge impact on the past few decades of the band.

Quote
Bliss
In 'Life', Keith makes a strong case that he was bitter that Mick's solo project turned out to be RS-esque, not some side interest of completely unrelated material, "Irish folk tunes". He felt he had been hoodwinked about the nature of what he had agreed to. And this is where the real animosity started. But we will never know how it had been presented to him.

.

That is Keith's word there, and unfortunately I can't trust him. To me eyes it looks like he was blinded by the money, and didn't really thought the consequences until it was too late. Maybe he feels like being fooled. Maybe he was just stupid. His moaning afterwards sounds a bit childish. "Hi, I liked the money, but not what I signed for to get that".

And it rather funny that Keith Richards has a normative say of the content of Jagger's solo work - that's Mick's artistic choice, for god sake - unless there is this fear of Jagger doing something Stones-like serious without him and the Stones.

I think Keith's moaning of Jagger's contract foul play is just bluffing. He was just pissed off because Jagger wanted to go solo and leave him and the Stones behind. I don't think was anything legalwise or even morally wrong in that, or how it was executed. Keith just didn't like it.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 21:21 by Doxa.

"Well it was just my speculation....."

It would really be interesting to know why Mick fired Jane Rose and why she resents him so much. Could it be that it was a spontaneous decision to record a second solo album instead of a Stones album because he was simply hurt by Keith´s public overreaction? Maybe it is comparable to what is going on today due to Keith´s Book. Mick postponed everything because he needed time to get over it or to decide if he could ever work with Keith again. And not because he wanted to be a solo star so desperatly as traditionally told.

Some great contributions here.

Just some random thoughts.

1) I don't believe that CBS based its investment on the possible future sales of new releases by Jagger alone or the Stones as a band. It was based mainly on the sales of the back catalog. By the time DW was released, at least in Italy, the Stones were already something from the past. With exceptions, sales figures were not made by teens anymore. I can remember that when they showed Live Aid, I was the only one interested in seeing Jagger, Keith, Led Zep etc. (let alone knowing who they were). Jagger probably was able to reach also some younger new fans, but he invested a huge amount of money in promoting himself in the (then) new video/TV market.

2) The reason why Jagger failed as a solo artist was that his albums were just old songs with a new sound. The new sound was not receibved well by most old Stones fans, and the old songs (and the old singer) kept away the new fans. I may also respectfully add that they were not even great albums to start with.

3) There is no way one can judge how Mick and Keith behaved. And there is no need to do so, either. Who's fault was it, who did wrong and who did right.

4) As Keith notes in his book, all that happened after the 89 reunion, is a compromise solution justified by the very simple consideration that it is better to have the so called Vegas Stones around than nothing. Being a huge Police fan, I can tell you that their last reunion tour didn't add a thing to their legacy, sure, but I couldn't care less: it was a blast to hear those songs performed live once again.

C

Quote
liddas

2) The reason why Jagger failed as a solo artist was that his albums were just old songs with a new sound. The new sound was not receibved well by most old Stones fans, and the old songs (and the old singer) kept away the new fans. I may also respectfully add that they were not even great albums to start with.


C

I agree with this. I was 17 in 1985, when She's the Boss came out, had been a Stones fans since SG. I was excited - the politics between Mick and Keith were vaguely played out in the media, but we didn't have all the details...so I was excited for Mick. I mean, this was Mick F*** Jagger! The guy who wrote Sympathy for the Devil, Exile on Main Street. At that point, Mick still had some remnants of that iconic aura. And I remember that deflated feeling I got when I heard the first single. Then I heard the rest of the album and I was positively disilusioned. It sounded .....lame. There was no other word for it. The music, the lyrics, the videos.....they all seemed so weak, phony and desperate.
IMO, that's why Mick's solo career fell flat. It's that simple. WHat he was delivering was not good or authentic. And the public was not interested.
I think the 80s were a very difficult time for artists of the Stones' generation to really fit in...the synth sounds, the whole MTV thing....it was a very crass time musically, and music like the Stones - raw, rootsy at its best - just wasn't happening. That's why the indie thing hit so big later, it was a reaction to all of that.....
But for artists like the Stones - their whole aesthetic was out of time throughout the 80s.
By the time Wandering Spirit came out, the tide has changed somewhat - retro sounds were trendy, but although WS was really good, it was too late for people to see Mick Jagger as a viable solo artist. It was too late. I also think Mick was too visible throughout the 80s - the tabloids recorded every supposed romance with every young, nubile woman Mick came into contact with...etc.....and he came to be seen as a parody of the aging, randy rock star. I think that image started to become dated...and he wasn't cool anymore. At least that's the way I saw it. And I was a fan.....
But it always goes back to the music - if the music had been better, less pretentious, more organic..things might have been different. But except for a few songs, the whole of his solo period was mediocre.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 00:06 by stupidguy2.

she's the boss went platinum pretty quickly,platinum albums do not equal failure anywhere on this planet.mick was just killing time between stones work,waiting for the others to sort themselves out.he's doing the same thing to this day.

if you think he was making a career out of being a solo act then it probably wouldnt take much to convince you that he's also planning on being a full time cast member on saturday night live and becoming the lead singer of the foo fighters.no wait,i got it-he was leaving to become an actor after performance but the movie didnt do well so he came back to the band,yeah thats it.i've figured him out.

he's been in the stones for 50 years but apparently he's been on his way out the door for 30 of those years,guy sure takes a long time to leave.

Quote
liddas
it was a blast to hear those songs performed live once again.

And isn't that what it's all about ?

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Even though he's a sex addict and has peculiar hobbies Bill Wyman is the only one in the band who articulates himself intelligible. Bill said after Mick's first solo record something like this: "What's the point of doing Rolling Stones records as a solo artist. Isn't it better to do that with the Rolling Stones?". Bill often strikes me as the only Stone with a portion of common sense (well, his sex addiction set apart).

Quote
lem motlow
she's the boss went platinum pretty quickly,platinum albums do not equal failure anywhere on this planet.mick was just killing time between stones work,waiting for the others to sort themselves out.he's doing the same thing to this day.

if you think he was making a career out of being a solo act then it probably wouldnt take much to convince you that he's also planning on being a full time cast member on saturday night live and becoming the lead singer of the foo fighters.no wait,i got it-he was leaving to become an actor after performance but the movie didnt do well so he came back to the band,yeah thats it.i've figured him out.

he's been in the stones for 50 years but apparently he's been on his way out the door for 30 of those years,guy sure takes a long time to leave.

I don't think anyone really believes Mick was planning on 'leaving the Stones' in any permanent way...
But I do think it was important to him, as an artist, to branch out, to get critical acclaim on his own, independent of of the Stones.
She's the Boss may have sold....but it didn't set the world on fire, and it didn't get any cool points....and for an iconic figure like Mick - it must have been deflating.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 02:02 by stupidguy2.

what record industry sales tracker gives out awards for"setting the world on fire and cool points"?

its the same old story,a straw man argument is set up-"mick expected it to do more" "it didnt sell as well as michael jackson and madonna" "he wanted to be a huge star on his own"-and so with these imaginary expectations a platinum record done without his band and completely on his own- is somehow a failure.you normally only see spin like this in politics.

where did mick say these things?? when did he say he expectated to sell mass amounts of solo records? wanted to be a big star on his own? i would like a link to this because it looks an awful lot like these thoughts and ideas are being projected onto this person.

how do you know his goal wasnt a gold record since it wasnt with the stones and he had no prior track record as a solo artist,maybe he was happy it went platinum and not "deflated"at all.

was keith "deflated" because his best selling solo record only went gold,half of micks sales? even though he has said his solo career-what was that saying??-oh,yeah "soared like a bird while micks crashed to the ground."ah,those damn facts always f/ck up a good story,dont they now.

Who quoted Mick? I saw speculation only. But since you asked...sure, I'll bite. SHE'S THE BOSS was a commercial disappointment just as UNDERCOVER, DIRTY WORK, BRIDGES TO BABYLON, and A BIGGER BANG were. When you have multi-platinum success, platinum makes people disappointed.

As for Keith, yeah I'm sure he was knocked out TALK IS CHEAP went gold, especially when PRIMITIVE COOL failed to do so. Of course, after MAIN OFFENDER stiffed in a big way -- not a disappointment, an out and out failure after his first album sold half a million copies, well why not count how many albums Keith's made since then.

I'm not sure what more you're looking for when multiple posts on the past couple pages all made it clear everyone was speculating unless they referenced a source.

I'm betting this is prior to this particular contract but does someone remember which contract negotiation that keith nodded off during? I can't find the quote from Mick saying how shocked he was that keith would do that when it meant so much money at stake. Thanks.

just to bring it back to bobby womack...

Quote
lem motlow
what record industry sales tracker gives out awards for"setting the world on fire and cool points"?

its the same old story,a straw man argument is set up-"mick expected it to do more" "it didnt sell as well as michael jackson and madonna" "he wanted to be a huge star on his own"-and so with these imaginary expectations a platinum record done without his band and completely on his own- is somehow a failure.you normally only see spin like this in politics.

where did mick say these things?? when did he say he expectated to sell mass amounts of solo records? wanted to be a big star on his own? i would like a link to this because it looks an awful lot like these thoughts and ideas are being projected onto this person.

how do you know his goal wasnt a gold record since it wasnt with the stones and he had no prior track record as a solo artist,maybe he was happy it went platinum and not "deflated"at all.

was keith "deflated" because his best selling solo record only went gold,half of micks sales? even though he has said his solo career-what was that saying??-oh,yeah "soared like a bird while micks crashed to the ground."ah,those damn facts always f/ck up a good story,dont they now.

Cmon Lem, I usually agree with you...
but Mick cares about how he is perceived, he cares about having a certain artistic credibility. He's never going to say that....but he is a competitor, and he is vain. It had to matter to him that he didn't 'set the world on fire'
Because that's the Stones had always done.....in so many terms. Im not talking about Michael Jackson or Prince success....just to be taken seriously. And She's the Boss did not generate the kind of artistic or mainstream acceptance he wanted.
I can't give you a quote...you know that - this is just something we have surmised of Jagger throughout the years..that he wants to be relevant.
He cares. Why the hell else would he work with someone like Rob Thomas?
And you know this is all speculation....except when you have direct quotes, this is not a thesis - its a board where we share opinions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 06:00 by stupidguy2.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
mitchflorida1
never heard of it. and I noticed that Womack has been covering a lot of other peoples songs, like California Dreaming, Fly Me to the Moon, and All along the Watchtower.

Why don't you write your own damn songs, Bobby?

After you've composed anything thats 1% as good as this, take a trip to the Clue Store and pick one up...

Fantastic tune! (and a pretty good movie too)

Well, I can quote Keith - he wrote that Mick said the RS were a millstone around his neck. I would say he definitely wanted his freedom from the RS - artistic, financial, and personal. But at the same time, he wanted to be the RS, looking at the setlist from his solo tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 09:13 by Bliss.

Quote
Stoneage
Even though he's a sex addict and has peculiar hobbies Bill Wyman is the only one in the band who articulates himself intelligible. Bill said after Mick's first solo record something like this: "What's the point of doing Rolling Stones records as a solo artist. Isn't it better to do that with the Rolling Stones?". Bill often strikes me as the only Stone with a portion of common sense (well, his sex addiction set apart).

What's the point? Having complete autonomy, all the glory, and not having to share the money. Not to mention being free of the ordeal of having a difficult junkie/alcoholic as his creative and business partner.

For starters.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
lem motlow
she's the boss went platinum pretty quickly,platinum albums do not equal failure anywhere on this planet.mick was just killing time between stones work,waiting for the others to sort themselves out.he's doing the same thing to this day.

if you think he was making a career out of being a solo act then it probably wouldnt take much to convince you that he's also planning on being a full time cast member on saturday night live and becoming the lead singer of the foo fighters.no wait,i got it-he was leaving to become an actor after performance but the movie didnt do well so he came back to the band,yeah thats it.i've figured him out.

he's been in the stones for 50 years but apparently he's been on his way out the door for 30 of those years,guy sure takes a long time to leave.

I don't think anyone really believes Mick was planning on 'leaving the Stones' in any permanent way...
But I do think it was important to him, as an artist, to branch out, to get critical acclaim on his own, independent of of the Stones.
She's the Boss may have sold....but it didn't set the world on fire, and it didn't get any cool points....and for an iconic figure like Mick - it must have been deflating.

I think the term indepenedent - commerciallly and artisticwise - is crucial here. That doesn't necessarily mean the total end of the Stones, but that Jagger wanted to made sure that he can do it convincingly by his own as well.
I think the possibilities people in charge were facing and speculating at the time - as we now - were, when they knew that Jagger will go solo in any case:

(1) Jagger's solo career only - no Stones.
(2) Jagger's profilic solo career and the Stones as his side project.
(3) The Stones as his main project, very much in his command, and Jagger's solo career as a side project.
(4) Jagger does some irrelevant solo albums, but all reamains the same and The Stones continue as like they always had.

I suppose Keith's fear was (1), and I think (2) would have mean the same for him as well, and he had earlier fighted pretty much against the scenario of (3), totally Jagger-lead Stones. He defended (4), but Jagger pretty much had shown that the old way will do no more. Both options (1) and ((4) were extremes, and used in (Keith's) public rhetorics, but in reality I think the real issue was between the options (2) and (3). I think the battle was thereby already settled in Mick's terms - the option (3) wasn't really so bad for him. I guess he seriously worked to make the option (2) possible. Very hard to think he would have given up totally the Stones - there was so much legacy and, especially, back catalog, to take care of that I suppose dealing with that would have been easier by having the band somehow alive. Perhaps the scenes we are facing these days - and how The Stones supposedly exist now - wouldn't have been far what Mick had in his mind back then. I also think (2) was Yetnikoff's plan.

Anyway, the option (3) was the one finally took place, and like I said, even that wasn't so bad option for Mick, if we think how fed up he was with the Stones earlier, and their working methods. Jagger wasn't at all such a loser of the 80's he is pretty much projected in Keith-lead Stones mythology,

- Doxa