Quote
lem motlow
aww,so cute.

another of the iorr message boards little darlings who got picked on.i can add him to the list that includes gram parsons and others who mean old mick jagger mistreated.
jagger haters-get a grip.mick jagger is not the cause of all the evil in the world,you need to calm down,take a breath and face reality.

ian mclagen went to his boss and asked for a raise-he was told no.he quit his job-it happens all the time.
this is what is called a "business decision"- the two parties couldnt agree on a number so they went their seperate ways.

mr maclagan-believed he deserved more than what he was getting paid,he's a very good keyboard player,had been touring with the band and wanted more money.

mr jagger-he had a set price for mr maclagans services.in his view, while mr maclagan was a good player he didnt sell even one concert ticket by being there and there are a million players who would kill to be onstage with the rolling stones.
mac couldve stayed for the price he was offered but he chose to leave-nothing personal,have a good life.

it reminds me of something i read years ago written by a former stones employee-"if you have any ego at all or expect them to cater to you in any way.you'll be sadly disappointed.the rolling stones are about the band members,anyone who is not one of the rolling stones is expendable."

Easy for you to say. I'll bet Jagger really low balled him. And there is a personal dimension being that the Stones and Faces grew up in the same music scene and crossed paths many times. Jagger and Mclagen knew each other for years. Being cheap with a stranger is different than being cheap with someone you know who could use the gig and the money that comes with it

I have not read Macs version of the salary dispute in the book but it is probably accurate



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-08 00:48 by triceratops.

dont get me wrong,i like mac and wish he would have stayed but it seems the board adopts these pets that we are supposed to feel sorry for.

jagger looks after the bands finances and does the dirty work,so to speak.i'm sure the rest of the band didnt just look up onstage one night and mac was gone.if keith,charlie and bill had a big problem with the decision i'm sure mac would have gotten his money.

what does a stones tour take? a couple weeks of rehearsal and 8 weeks on the road? you have the rest of the year to do what you want.

being able to say "i just finished the stones tour" would help a career i would think,chuck seems to have done quite well with it as well as daryl,lisa and the rest.

there is something to be said for knowing your role,mac seems to think he can dictate to the rod stewarts and mick jaggers of the world and he has alot of gigs playing in bars to show for it.

IT WAS NOT MAC'S CHOICE..
CHUCK AUDITIONED FOR 81 TOUR,BUT THEY CHOSE MAC INSTEAD.MAC HAD A COKE(BASE) PROBLEM AT THE TIME(AS DID WOODY),AND MICK CHOSE THE MORE STABLE MUSICIAN FOR 82 & BEYOND.

Quote
lem motlow
dont get me wrong,i like mac and wish he would have stayed but it seems the board adopts these pets that we are supposed to feel sorry for.

jagger looks after the bands finances and does the dirty work,so to speak.i'm sure the rest of the band didnt just look up onstage one night and mac was gone.if keith,charlie and bill had a big problem with the decision i'm sure mac would have gotten his money.

what does a stones tour take? a couple weeks of rehearsal and 8 weeks on the road? you have the rest of the year to do what you want.

being able to say "i just finished the stones tour" would help a career i would think,chuck seems to have done quite well with it as well as daryl,lisa and the rest.

there is something to be said for knowing your role,mac seems to think he can dictate to the rod stewarts and mick jaggers of the world and he has alot of gigs playing in bars to show for it.

In spite of the forum's alleged tendency to adopt pets (you gotta give it to Mac - he does have a high "pet factor" ), I think your view of the underlying problems leading to Ian's departure is a bit one-sided.

It would not have broken the bank to give him a small raise. For a musician who's found out he's getting paid far less than anyone else, for the same amount of work, it's not terribly unreasonable to ask.
When you want to get rid of someone (for whichever reason - partying may have been a factor), there are ways to provoke a conflict. And this, added to the irreconcilable difference that already exist, will become the proverbial straw.
Some CEO's are quite capable of making this happen.

Musically speaking Mac was the perfect fit - he could have played anything CL plays but in a more authentic style. And it's amazing to think in how many ways he's connected to the band.

I never got the impression Mac thinks he can be dictatorial, it does not appear to be part of his personality. The real issue with the Faces' lack of continuity with most of the original line-up would sooner be the prima donna. (No, his name is not Mac).
McLagan just followed his own path - which is not always the one of least resistance - and certainly deserves credit for doing so.

Whether he plays small venues and nice theatres or provides mass entertainment in big arenas is neither here nor there, really.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-08 02:22 by Chacal.

Quote
Chacal

Quote
lem motlow
dont get me wrong,i like mac and wish he would have stayed but it seems the board adopts these pets that we are supposed to feel sorry for.

jagger looks after the bands finances and does the dirty work,so to speak.i'm sure the rest of the band didnt just look up onstage one night and mac was gone.if keith,charlie and bill had a big problem with the decision i'm sure mac would have gotten his money.

what does a stones tour take? a couple weeks of rehearsal and 8 weeks on the road? you have the rest of the year to do what you want.

being able to say "i just finished the stones tour" would help a career i would think,chuck seems to have done quite well with it as well as daryl,lisa and the rest.

there is something to be said for knowing your role,mac seems to think he can dictate to the rod stewarts and mick jaggers of the world and he has alot of gigs playing in bars to show for it.

In spite of the forum's alleged tendency to adopt pets (you gotta give it to Mac - he does have a high "pet factor" ), I think your view of the underlying problems leading to Ian's departure is a bit one-sided.

It would not have broken the bank to give him a small raise. For a musician who's found out he's getting paid far less than anyone else, for the same amount of work, it's not terribly unreasonable to ask.
When you want to get rid of someone (for whichever reason - partying may have been a factor), there are ways to provoke a conflict. And this, added to the irreconcilable difference that already exist, will become the proverbial straw.
Some CEO's are quite capable of making this happen.

Musically speaking Mac was the perfect fit - he could have played anything CL plays but in a more authentic style. And it's amazing to think in how many ways he's connected to the band.

I never got the impression Mac thinks he can be dictatorial, it does not appear to be part of his personality. The real issue with the Faces' lack of continuity with most of the original line-up would sooner be the prima donna. (No, his name is not Mac).
McLagan just followed his own path - which is not always the one of least resistance - and certainly deserves credit for doing so.

Whether he plays small venues and nice theatres or provides mass entertainment in big arenas is neither here nor there, really.

IT IS HERE OR THERE WHEN IT EQUALS $$$$$$.

I remember an interview with Bill during the '81 tour where the interviewer said something to him like, well, really, the Stones aren't a democracy, what Mick says goes, and Bill said something like, not at all, I'll give you an example, the rest of the band outvoted Mick on our choice for keyboard player for this tour. I think Mick was so disgusted with all the drug use, and Mac was so @#$%& up at the time that he didn't want him along for that reason, and then the money thing was Mick's ultimate out. And I was at Hampton, Mac was there for the PPV, it was Keith's birthday, Chuck didn't start until '82 and I was naïve enough to think Mac wasn't doing it because he was playing with Bonnie Raitt at the time. There are a lot of things the Stones could do today to help the band regain their authenticity, and having Mac and Mick Taylor along would be THE two best moves. Chuck is talented and a great guy I think, but I never liked the combination, and not having Stu around just makes it worse.

Quote
MainStreetExile
I remember an interview with Bill during the '81 tour where the interviewer said something to him like, well, really, the Stones aren't a democracy, what Mick says goes, and Bill said something like, not at all, I'll give you an example, the rest of the band outvoted Mick on our choice for keyboard player for this tour. I think Mick was so disgusted with all the drug use, and Mac was so @#$%& up at the time that he didn't want him along for that reason, and then the money thing was Mick's ultimate out. And I was at Hampton, Mac was there for the PPV, it was Keith's birthday, Chuck didn't start until '82 and I was naïve enough to think Mac wasn't doing it because he was playing with Bonnie Raitt at the time. There are a lot of things the Stones could do today to help the band regain their authenticity, and having Mac and Mick Taylor along would be THE two best moves. Chuck is talented and a great guy I think, but I never liked the combination, and not having Stu around just makes it worse.

Big fat

Quote
Chacal

It would not have broken the bank to give him a small raise. For a musician who's found out he's getting paid far less than anyone else, for the same amount of work, it's not terribly unreasonable to ask.
When you want to get rid of someone (for whichever reason - partying may have been a factor), there are ways to provoke a conflict. And this, added to the irreconcilable difference that already exist, will become the proverbial straw.
Some CEO's are quite capable of making this happen.

Yep. A reasonable guy you have known for years asks for a reasonable raise. You deny it so that he will leave due to pride. Every man has his pride so Mac left and wrote about it in his book

Quote
Chacal
When you want to get rid of someone (for whichever reason - partying may have been a factor), there are ways to provoke a conflict.

And that's exactly what went on. Mick wanted to get rid of him. The money issue was just a good opportunity. Mac may have been the right fit musically, but he was in Keith's and Ronnie's camp, and that meant partying 'til the cows came home and an increasing level of unreliability that came along with it. For relatively short tours this kind of Rock'n'Roll lifestyle may be handable, but long (and later even yearlong) mega-tours require a degree of professionalism that doesn't gel all too well with the Rock'n'Roll lifestyle in the Keith-Ronnie-Mac kinda way. Three in the same camp made it difficult for Mick to play the watchdog for this kindergarden. In a way, Mac's departure was also a clear warning sign in Ronnie's direction. George Thorogood waiting in the wings didn't happen for no reason!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-08 04:54 by retired_dog.

I think that two of the points mentioned above were probably the main reasons:

The difficulty Mac had in getting better pay, as well as a clear idea of his financial renumeration;

and the fact that Mac did heartily partake in drugs and alcohol during his time with the Stones, making him perhaps seem in retrospect like an uncertain choice for the non-debauched era (similarly to Bobby Keys, who only got back in because of Keith's genuine friendship with him). It's probably not a great move to get wasted with the band you are a paid sideman with, because it'll inevitably label you as a bit of a freeloader or hanger-on, even if that is not the case in reality.

Mac addresses this in All The Rage, and it seems that he knows very well that his addictive post-Faces years are somewhat regretful to him.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Chacal
When you want to get rid of someone (for whichever reason - partying may have been a factor), there are ways to provoke a conflict.

And that's exactly what went on. Mick wanted to get rid of him. The money issue was just a good opportunity. Mac may have been the right fit musically, but he was in Keith's and Ronnie's camp, and that meant partying 'til the cows came home and an increasing level of unreliability that came along with it. For relatively short tours this kind of Rock'n'Roll lifestyle may be handable, but long (and later even yearlong) mega-tours require a degree of professionalism that doesn't gel all too well with the Rock'n'Roll lifestyle in the Keith-Ronnie-Mac kinda way. Three in the same camp made it difficult for Mick to play the watchdog for this kindergarden. In a way, Mac's departure was also a clear warning sign in Ronnie's direction. George Thorogood waiting in the wings didn't happen for no reason!

George Thorogood .. Really wow. I do love Ronnie as the entire package of performer but much of the Taylor talk is because he's been unremarkable as a soloist. I wonder how much of the talk would still exist if they'd hired another gunslinger instead. People can forget Ian returning because Chuck has is an ultimate professional. I imagine he'll play for whatever he's offered because he knows how to parle this job into bigger things. He's the keyboard player but i preferred when The Stones carried 2..

One must take the longer view with these things. Mick was fed up with the substance abuse and the instability it caused. He couldn't do anything about the main problem (Keith, let's face it) but he was damned if he was going to deal with a whole coterie of partyers and drug users. Many people here don't realize or don't want to acknowledge that beloved Ronnie was nearly kept off the '81 tour. Mick had do to the dirty work and watch out for business interests, and that meant sometimes making unpopular decisions. No one dislikes Chuck more than me from a musical standpoint, but he was the choice over Mac when all the factors were weighed. Authenticity was sacrificed in the name of continuity. Is that musically the best case scenario? No! But we may not have had a Rolling Stones at all beyond the 80s had Mick not put his foot down on several of these matters.

Quote
71Tele
One must take the longer view with these things. Mick was fed up with the substance abuse and the instability it caused. He couldn't do anything about the main problem (Keith, let's face it) but he was damned if he was going to deal with a whole coterie of partyers and drug users. Many people here don't realize or don't want to acknowledge that beloved Ronnie was nearly kept off the '81 tour. Mick had do to the dirty work and watch out for business interests, and that meant sometimes making unpopular decisions. No one dislikes Chuck more than me from a musical standpoint, but he was the choice over Mac when all the factors were weighed. Authenticity was sacrificed in the name of continuity. Is that musically the best case scenario? No! But we may not have had a Rolling Stones at all beyond the 80s had Mick not put his foot down on several of these matters.

I think this is the most reasonable explanation.

Of course all accounts say that Mick himself was quite full of coke at the time, so I can just imagine how low his level of tolerance could have been ...

C

Reasonable indeed! But keep in mind that Ronnie did a good 81 tour, and that the supposed thought of replacing him is only speculation from fans.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Reasonable indeed! But keep in mind that Ronnie did a good 81 tour, and that the supposed thought of replacing him is only speculation from fans.

Yes, good, even great tour by our standards (or, at lest mine).

But at the time music was going in a different direction. And by the then general standards (shared by Jagger, at least based on She's the Boss), Ronnie's (& Keith's) guitar work was considered sub par when they were on a good day, you can just imagine on the "occasional" bad night!


C

It had more to do with being afraid of Keith being dragged back on the stuff again, than with Ronnie's playing, methinks.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It had more to do with being afraid of Keith being dragged back on the stuff again, than with Ronnie's playing, methinks.

Ronnie's playing was not the problem, it was his latent unreliability. The Stones at the time could have replaced Mac, they could have replaced even Ronnie, but Keith...contractual and monetary issues aside,Keith? Not really. Of course Mick was afraid of Keith being dragged back on the stuff!

That's what I meant.

Well from all accounts our old men are on the best behavior of their careers... Even for these hardcores playing music is more important than getting high. It makes no sense to hire past party partners when you can have a working relationship with hired musicians who are on the same page and offer no temptation. I would not be surprised to hear Chuck step up his game this time around, certainly he's capable of inspiring. Both he and Darrell are a bit too careful and that stems from their previous lack of confidence in the guitar section... Here and now in 2014 as impossible as it may seem they are evolving..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-09 12:59 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
BILLPERKS

Quote
Chacal
McLagan just followed his own path - which is not always the one of least resistance - and certainly deserves credit for doing so.

Whether he plays small venues and nice theatres or provides mass entertainment in big arenas is neither here nor there, really.

IT IS HERE OR THERE WHEN IT EQUALS $$$$$$.

Hard to believe as it may sound, but not all choices in life are based exclusively on potential financial gain or a 'what's in it for me' kind of attitude.
What I meant to say is that I can't see why commercially driven musicians should be rated higher than those that carve out a career doing what they believe in, instead of going along with a relatively easy ride on the gravy train.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-08 22:25 by Chacal.

Mac joined James McMurtry's band for a European tour and played all over one of his albums (St. Mary of the Woods). Check youtube for Mcmurtry Live in Europe. "Choctaw Bingo" is a Mac highlight, he's on the studio version as well, really tearing it up. Never mind, here's the live version with Mac:

Quote
Chacal

Quote
BILLPERKS

Quote
Chacal
McLagan just followed his own path - which is not always the one of least resistance - and certainly deserves credit for doing so.

Whether he plays small venues and nice theatres or provides mass entertainment in big arenas is neither here nor there, really.

IT IS HERE OR THERE WHEN IT EQUALS $$$$$$.

Hard to believe as it may sound, but not all choices in life are based exclusively on potential financial gain or a 'what's in it for me' kind of attitude.
What I meant to say is that I can't see why commercially driven musicians should be rated higher than those that carve out a career doing what they believe in, instead of going along with a relatively easy ride on the gravy train.

IF MAC WAS EVER PROPERLY COMPENSATED FOR HIS 60/70 'S WORK ,IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY.BUT HE HAS NEEDED THE $$$ WORKING WITH THE STONES PROVIDES.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Reasonable indeed! But keep in mind that Ronnie did a good 81 tour, and that the supposed thought of replacing him is only speculation from fans.

It's not speculation that they considered leaving him off the tour (well, Mick did), and Keith had to rally to stop this from happening.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-09 02:00 by 71Tele.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It had more to do with being afraid of Keith being dragged back on the stuff again, than with Ronnie's playing, methinks.

Now, that part I agree with. Though if you read Keith's account (as well as others) Ronnie was in freebase-land around this time. When Keith Richards tells you you have a drug problem, that's pretty bad.

Mac's band opened for the Stones in Austin 2006 at Zikers Park. He lives in Austin.

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Quote
jp.M
the first choice for piano on the 1978 tour was Gary Brooker....Mick phoned him as he was a Stones'friend since the 1964 concerts
Gary did prefer to stay with "Procol harum" opening the way to Ian...

You forgot another guy in between : Bernhard Harvey who did most of the 78 rehearsals in Woodstock. He got the boot (or decided to leave) and Mac was called at the very last time to play the tour.

I guess Jagger did find Mac expandable...

Quote
DoomandGloom
George Thorogood .. Really wow.

Yeah, I've heard this and read about it, but there is no way it would have happened. I love Thorogood so don't get me wrong, but his style of playing would work for maybe three or four Stones songs maximum. He can't play an actual melodic solo to save his life. I would have paid to see that go down though, GT trying to nail down YCAGWYW.

Quote
dcba

Quote
jp.M
the first choice for piano on the 1978 tour was Gary Brooker....Mick phoned him as he was a Stones'friend since the 1964 concerts
Gary did prefer to stay with "Procol harum" opening the way to Ian...

You forgot another guy in between : Bernhard Harvey who did most of the 78 rehearsals in Woodstock. He got the boot (or decided to leave) and Mac was called at the very last time to play the tour.

I guess Jagger did find Mac expandable...

Who is Bernhard Harvey? I have never heard of him before. I have the "Pearls at Swine" and 4cd woodstock rehearsals and I don't remember seeing his name mentionned. Thank you.
Rock and roll,
Mops

Quote
rollmops

Quote
dcba

Quote
jp.M
the first choice for piano on the 1978 tour was Gary Brooker....Mick phoned him as he was a Stones'friend since the 1964 concerts
Gary did prefer to stay with "Procol harum" opening the way to Ian...

You forgot another guy in between : Bernhard Harvey who did most of the 78 rehearsals in Woodstock. He got the boot (or decided to leave) and Mac was called at the very last time to play the tour.

I guess Jagger did find Mac expandable...

Who is Bernhard Harvey? I have never heard of him before. I have the "Pearls at Swine" and 4cd woodstock rehearsals and I don't remember seeing his name mentionned. Thank you.
Rock and roll,
Mops

Bernard..... Reggae musician and still active