Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Pink Floyd and Mick’s solo tour were the yardsticks, not the Who's tour.

Makes sense the more I look into it. I just found it interesting that two formerly stripped-down bands came back in the same year with such heavily augmented ensembles.

I'm totally with you. The business changed, and both the Stones and the Who adapted to it

They had to play by the rules. And the rule for stadium concert at that time was: make it BIG!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Pink Floyd and Mick’s solo tour were the yardsticks, not the Who's tour.

Makes sense the more I look into it. I just found it interesting that two formerly stripped-down bands came back in the same year with such heavily augmented ensembles.

I'm totally with you. The business changed, and both the Stones and the Who adapted to it

Plus, both bands realized they had achieved sufficiently legendary status to attract a lot more casual fans who would demand hearing the songs the way they remembered them! It wasn't just diehards anymore...

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Pink Floyd and Mick’s solo tour were the yardsticks, not the Who's tour.

Makes sense the more I look into it. I just found it interesting that two formerly stripped-down bands came back in the same year with such heavily augmented ensembles.

I'm totally with you. The business changed, and both the Stones and the Who adapted to it

Plus, both bands realized they had achieved sufficiently legendary status to attract a lot more casual fans who would demand hearing the songs the way they remembered them! It wasn't just diehards anymore...

Good point.

I am more in the "Mick camp" than Keith's but that concert is painful to watch - Mick lost his way. Its similar to the Live Aid spectacle and nonsense. Looking at that set list its embarrassing and Keith was certainly right on point when he said - you want to tour without the Stones? Fine than take your shitty band and play your solo songs (paraphrasing). No ways about it a very bad time in the Stones history and all on Mick.......

Quote
AlmostHearYouSigh
I am more in the "Mick camp" than Keith's but that concert is painful to watch - Mick lost his way. Its similar to the Live Aid spectacle and nonsense. Looking at that set list its embarrassing and Keith was certainly right on point when he said - you want to tour without the Stones? Fine than take your shitty band and play your solo songs (paraphrasing). No ways about it a very bad time in the Stones history and all on Mick.......

Yeah, it was like Mick trying to prove he didn't need the Stones. One can only wonder how well a Mick solo tour of the US would have sold in the late eighties. No way he would have matched the Stones ability to sell out Shea Stadium six times!

i guess the Who are influenced by Keef and mick, and not the other way round. anyway. They are 2 different bands and Brands. The Who of the 60's and 70's are not the same as they are now, just like the Stones. Mind you, the Who were a great band. Tommy,Quadrophenia, Who are you. I love the Who, never seen them live.

Great musicians, from both bands, and we should cherish them, before they die.
Jeroen

Jagger is supposed to be so shrewd and calculating but a lot of his solo career played out like a train wreck. You just wonder, 'what was he thinking.'
Why would he go out and do Honky Tonk Women and put together a knock off version of the Stones?
A solo career takes time to develop. I think he rushed it and didn't trust that his own material might have gotten over if he had been more patient. Also a solo career requires an artist to put himself out there and reveal something of himself; I don't think he wanted to do that or even believed in that concept.

Jagger' solo stuff look crazy now but you have to remember hat in the 80s He was still young (early to mid-40s) - but Charlie was in bad shape, Bill was 59 and Keith And Ronnie were continually drunk and in Ronnie's case, wasted on crack. So I think Mick can be forgiven for thinking that the Stones were on their last legs and he wanted to get some professional musicians behind him. And I have to say, when I saw him in 1988 I really believed that the Stones were finished. The Mcke solo show in Sydney was a great show and I thought that if I can't see the Stones then this is a pretty good second-best option. Thankfully the Stones managed to get their shit together and the shows I have seen over the past 27 years have been awesome. I'm just saying that I can understand why Mick did what he did.....

Quote
john lomax
Jagger' solo stuff look crazy now but you have to remember hat in the 80s He was still young (early to mid-40s) - but Charlie was in bad shape, Bill was 59 and Keith And Ronnie were continually drunk and in Ronnie's case, wasted on crack. So I think Mick can be forgiven for thinking that the Stones were on their last legs and he wanted to get some professional musicians behind him. And I have to say, when I saw him in 1988 I really believed that the Stones were finished. The Mcke solo show in Sydney was a great show and I thought that if I can't see the Stones then this is a pretty good second-best option. Thankfully the Stones managed to get their shit together and the shows I have seen over the past 27 years have been awesome. I'm just saying that I can understand why Mick did what he did.....

Good insights....I can also understand him wanting to be successful without the risk of relying on drunk and drug-addled players. But it just felt wrong to see him do so many Stones songs if he wanted to promote a solo career. But maybe he really did start to believe that the Stones were HIS backing band and he had a right to those songs; I mean, he did co-write most of them. But all the showbiz shtick.....too much!