For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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."
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.
IT IS HERE OR THERE WHEN IT EQUALS $$$$$$.Quote
ChacalQuote
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..Quote
retired_dogQuote
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!
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.
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.
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.
Quote
BILLPERKSQuote
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 $$$$$$.
IF MAC WAS EVER PROPERLY COMPENSATED FOR HIS 60/70 'S WORK ,IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY.BUT HE HAS NEEDED THE $$$ WORKING WITH THE STONES PROVIDES.Quote
ChacalQuote
BILLPERKSQuote
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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote
DoomandGloom
George Thorogood .. Really wow.
Quote
dcbaQuote
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
rollmopsQuote
dcbaQuote
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