For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Gazza
True, but in fairness those were markets that even the Stones had never played in before (and at that stage it was a fair bet that they never would). Whilst it was a solo tour, if you lived in Japan or Indonesia and bought tickets for that show, it would have been a huge let down had there not been a sizeable chunk of it devoted to Stones songs.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Gazza
True, but in fairness those were markets that even the Stones had never played in before (and at that stage it was a fair bet that they never would). Whilst it was a solo tour, if you lived in Japan or Indonesia and bought tickets for that show, it would have been a huge let down had there not been a sizeable chunk of it devoted to Stones songs.
Which proves Keith's point, really: Mick needed the Stones. He couldn't do a solo show, he could only do a Stones show with some solo songs.
That's weak! WEAK!
I agree 110% . Now what I wonder about was it Mick that picked up the phone or rang Keith's doorbell and talked about putting the Stones back together to make Steel Wheels and then tour in support of it ? Or did Mick start reading the tea leaves along with the Wall Street Journal and come to the realization that I need Keith, and Charlie and Bill and Ronnie to make tons of money ? ( sorry to be such a cold as ice bottom $ line kind of guy )Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Gazza
True, but in fairness those were markets that even the Stones had never played in before (and at that stage it was a fair bet that they never would). Whilst it was a solo tour, if you lived in Japan or Indonesia and bought tickets for that show, it would have been a huge let down had there not been a sizeable chunk of it devoted to Stones songs.
Which proves Keith's point, really: Mick needed the Stones. He couldn't do a solo show, he could only do a Stones show with some solo songs.
That's weak! WEAK!
Quote
ryanpowQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Gazza
True, but in fairness those were markets that even the Stones had never played in before (and at that stage it was a fair bet that they never would). Whilst it was a solo tour, if you lived in Japan or Indonesia and bought tickets for that show, it would have been a huge let down had there not been a sizeable chunk of it devoted to Stones songs.
Which proves Keith's point, really: Mick needed the Stones. He couldn't do a solo show, he could only do a Stones show with some solo songs.
That's weak! WEAK!
see my post above
Quote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
Undercover is a lot better of an album than it gets credit for . The last album the Glimmer twins wrote and developed and recorded songs for as a unit . Think about the last fertile period from 1977-1983 that produced Some Girls, Emotional Rescue , cant really count Tattoo You as that was mining the vaults and really not newly written material and the last gasp of Undercover , which really has some good tunes on it . Too bad this was the straw that broke the Glimmers back ! Thusly Mick coming out with a solo album ( yuck ) Lets not forget the sneaky album deal with CBS Records that also secretly included Mick's solo adventures . I wonder if the geniuses at CBS Records regretted that folly ? ( how could they not ? with diminished record sales ) Keith Richards was mightily pissed off and rightly so . I believe all of this was chroniceled in LIFE .Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
If they had toured UNDERCOVER... ha ha - what, they might've played 3 songs from it... and it would've had to of been in hockey/basketball arenas or domed stadiums since the album came out in November. But that would've cut into Mick starting work on his solo album... who knows. Spring/Summer of 1984? Maybe.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Gazza
True, but in fairness those were markets that even the Stones had never played in before (and at that stage it was a fair bet that they never would). Whilst it was a solo tour, if you lived in Japan or Indonesia and bought tickets for that show, it would have been a huge let down had there not been a sizeable chunk of it devoted to Stones songs.
Which proves Keith's point, really: Mick needed the Stones. He couldn't do a solo show, he could only do a Stones show with some solo songs.
That's weak! WEAK!
Quote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
Quote
TheGreekUndercover is a lot better of an album than it gets credit for . The last album the Glimmer twins wrote and developed and recorded songs for as a unit . Think about the last fertile period from 1977-1983 that produced Some Girls, Emotional Rescue , cant really count Tattoo You as that was mining the vaults and really not newly written material and the last gasp of Undercover , which really has some good tunes on it . Too bad this was the straw that broke the Glimmers back ! Thusly Mick coming out with a solo album ( yuck ) Lets not forget the sneaky album deal with CBS Records that also secretly included Mick's solo adventures . I wonder if the geniuses at CBS Records regretted that folly ? ( how could they not ? with diminished record sales ) Keith Richards was mightily pissed off and rightly so . I believe all of this was chroniceled in LIFE .Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
If they had toured UNDERCOVER... ha ha - what, they might've played 3 songs from it... and it would've had to of been in hockey/basketball arenas or domed stadiums since the album came out in November. But that would've cut into Mick starting work on his solo album... who knows. Spring/Summer of 1984? Maybe.
Well if Mick really listened to it in the first place he would /should have shelved it for eternity .Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
TheGreekUndercover is a lot better of an album than it gets credit for . The last album the Glimmer twins wrote and developed and recorded songs for as a unit . Think about the last fertile period from 1977-1983 that produced Some Girls, Emotional Rescue , cant really count Tattoo You as that was mining the vaults and really not newly written material and the last gasp of Undercover , which really has some good tunes on it . Too bad this was the straw that broke the Glimmers back ! Thusly Mick coming out with a solo album ( yuck ) Lets not forget the sneaky album deal with CBS Records that also secretly included Mick's solo adventures . I wonder if the geniuses at CBS Records regretted that folly ? ( how could they not ? with diminished record sales ) Keith Richards was mightily pissed off and rightly so . I believe all of this was chroniceled in LIFE .Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
If they had toured UNDERCOVER... ha ha - what, they might've played 3 songs from it... and it would've had to of been in hockey/basketball arenas or domed stadiums since the album came out in November. But that would've cut into Mick starting work on his solo album... who knows. Spring/Summer of 1984? Maybe.
You'll see no argument from me about UNDERCOVER. U is indeed their last inventive album as a unit, as a band, with some great tunes on it. BUT IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS... whatever. That's such a load of shit. U is their most different sounding LP ever.
The Stones were up about it when U came out... but quite dismissive of it later.
I think Mick has done an incredible job. I think he's taken quite a leap forward, lyric-wise, on this album.
- Keith Richards, 1983
(M)y favorites are... Undercover, Tie Me Up and Too Much Blood.
- Mick Jagger, 1983
Obviously, I think it's pretty good and it's the best we could make right now. I'm pretty happy with it.
- Keith Richards, 1983
(On Undercover) the songs are much stronger. I think Mick's come up with some good sort of lyrics and his VOICE sounds great on it. And there's also - there's a good feel to it. I think Mick and Keith have done really well on this album. The only fault I've got against it is again they've spent MUCH too long mixing the bloody thing. And, as a result, the actual sound of the instruments is a little bit harder and cold, whereas when they're still in the early stages, when they're just basic tracks, to me a lot of those things sound better.
- Ian Stewart, 1984
Yeah, I liked (Undercover). It didn't sell perhaps as much as I would have liked, though it sold over 2 million copies - I shouldn't really complain. There was plenty of stuff on it that was mine: Undercover, She Was Hot. Keith contributed to all that stuff. Some was completely his. But it wasn't like I was frustrated with it because it wasn't my material.
- Mick Jagger, 1984
Not a very special record.
- Mick Jagger, 1995
I thought it was a little busy. It didn't hang together, although some of the individual tracks I enjoyed very much. Some albums, you can have some of the best tracks in the world, and they just don't hang together, track by track by track. It's the hardest bit to do sometimes because you have to choose the tracks when you just don't know anymore, because you're at the end of the whole process of making a record. If it sounds cohesive that's always a bit of luck.
- Keith Richards, late 1980s/90s
In terms of the musical peaks on that album, there really aren't that many. That was definitely a time of disruption - and not one that I refer to very often.
- Ron Wood, 2003
As if anything Ronnie has to say about what they do carries any weight - he never tells the truth.
Ian Stewart hits it on the head. It has Mick's best vocal work, although I don't get how he couldn't hear that there are some fantastic guitar sounds. The album sounds closer to EMOTIONAL RESCUE in tonal quality than SOME GIRLS, which is one of their worst sounding albums.
That aside, it is the end of an era that started in 1978 with SOME GIRLS. Sure, TATTOO YOU didn't have anything new done for it band wise but it's partially in the the era canon because of the SG/ER sessions.
Does anyone think it's possible that Mick listened to SHE'S THE BOSS after it was all done and figured it was an awful album and there was no way to tour it? Seems reasonable to me.
Quote
Taylor1
Although I think he has written 7 or 8 great solo songs, I never saw the point of his solo career in the sense that the music was not that different from what he did with he Stones. How different is Throwaway from Sad Sad Sad. It could have been on Steel Wheels. And the arrangements weren't either. If he was going to do something solo, he could have done electronic music, worked with a Brian Eno. Or maybe an album of Irish style folk songs.
This is kind of like the pot calling the kettle . Every one was imbibing some types of substances back then and what does that have to do with performing and plying there trade ? It would be hilarious for me to know the laundry list of substances that they all were on at any given time including Sir Michael Phillip Jagger . Keith was off the "bad " drug at this time and he always was on when the proverbial red light went on and is the consummate professional . To me it seems like we are picking on them when all I am saying is that I wish they did tour in between Tattoo You and Steel Wheels . I would take the Stones in all there decadence and debauchery any day of the year . This is the Rolling Stones after all and not some squeaky clean outfit of the Tabernacle Choir of Salt Lake City .Quote
GazzaQuote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
They hated each others guts by the mid 80s and Mick refused to tour with them with Dirty Work because half the band were so @#$%& up on drugs that, in his words, 'they werent fit to cross the Champs-Elysees, let alone go on the road'
Smart move. The damage could well have proved irrepairable.
Quote
TheGreekThis is kind of like the pot calling the kettle . Every one was imbibing some types of substances back then and what does that have to do with performing and plying there trade ? It would be hilarious for me to know the laundry list of substances that they all were on at any given time including Sir Michael Phillip Jagger . Keith was off the "bad " drug at this time and he always was on when the proverbial red light went on and is the consummate professional . To me it seems like we are picking on them when all I am saying is that I wish they did tour in between Tattoo You and Steel Wheels . I would take the Stones in all there decadence and debauchery any day of the year . This is the Rolling Stones after all and not some squeaky clean outfit of the Tabernacle Choir of Salt Lake City .Quote
GazzaQuote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
They hated each others guts by the mid 80s and Mick refused to tour with them with Dirty Work because half the band were so @#$%& up on drugs that, in his words, 'they werent fit to cross the Champs-Elysees, let alone go on the road'
Smart move. The damage could well have proved irrepairable.
Your right because after having seen them live in 1981 , I thought they were done as a touring outfit . I felt extreme joy and happiness when Steel Wheels came out along with the tour and also a great sense of relief to be able to witness the Stones again live in concert !Quote
Stoneage
You're probably right, Greek. I think it was a pretense too. I guess his solo career was in the making already then. And, in hindsight, I don't think much positive things came out of that in the end.
For sure it wasn't easy being a Rolling Stones fan then. Seven years of no touring and a half-measured album (DW) in between Jagger's solo career attempts.
As Lt. Colombo ( Peter Falk ) would say "just one more question ? " when were they ever sober as an entire unit or band ? For me it doesn't count now that they have past the normal retirement age . It just doesn't cut it for me to that they couldn't tour because of all the friction and drama when there's money to be made . Also worth noting until they reached the retirement age when did Keith and Mick not have issues with one another ? There have always been substance issues and personal issues with these guys . Sometimes drama gets those creative juices flowing ,versus what you get when every one is playing nicey nice .Quote
GazzaQuote
TheGreekThis is kind of like the pot calling the kettle . Every one was imbibing some types of substances back then and what does that have to do with performing and plying there trade ? It would be hilarious for me to know the laundry list of substances that they all were on at any given time including Sir Michael Phillip Jagger . Keith was off the "bad " drug at this time and he always was on when the proverbial red light went on and is the consummate professional . To me it seems like we are picking on them when all I am saying is that I wish they did tour in between Tattoo You and Steel Wheels . I would take the Stones in all there decadence and debauchery any day of the year . This is the Rolling Stones after all and not some squeaky clean outfit of the Tabernacle Choir of Salt Lake City .Quote
GazzaQuote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
They hated each others guts by the mid 80s and Mick refused to tour with them with Dirty Work because half the band were so @#$%& up on drugs that, in his words, 'they werent fit to cross the Champs-Elysees, let alone go on the road'
Smart move. The damage could well have proved irrepairable.
Seriously? The road is no place to be if you're a heroin addict - which Charlie was at the time. Woody was in a pretty poor state as well. I never mentioned Keith as being the one with an addiction problem at this period.
And its no place to be with people you cant stand the sight of.
All very well saying you wanted a tour despite it's 'decadence'. Jagger simply knew they werent up to it. They probably wouldnt have been able to finish it and I doubt we'd have had the 30 plus years of touring that we've enjoyed since if they had.
The album wasn't that good. It was OKAY. It certainly wasn't a great Rolling Stones album. The feeling inside the band was very bad, too. The relationships were terrible. The health was diabolical. I wasn't in particularly good shape. The rest of the band, they couldn't walk across the Champs Elysées, much less go on the road.
- Mick Jagger, 1989
Touring Dirty Work would have been a nightmare. It was a terrible period. Everyone was hating each other so much: there were so many disagreements. It was very petty; everyone was so out of their brains, and Charlie was in seriously bad shape. When the idea of touring came up, I said, I don't think it's gonna work. In retrospect I was 100% right. It would have been the worst Rolling Stones tour. Probably would have been the end of the band... (Charlie was doing drugs and drinking.) Keith the same. Me the same. Ronnie - I don't know what Ronnie was doing. We just got fed up with each other. You've got a relationship with musicians that depends on what you produce together. But when you don't produce, you get bad reactions - bands break up. You get difficult periods, and that was one of them.
- Mick Jagger, 1995
[www.timeisonourside.com]
Quote
Stoneage
Sorry, but I don't believe that, Wonderboy. I firmly believe he was aiming for a solo career. Which he did. All the rest is excuses, nothing else. The band has never been free from addictions or frictions
(until now when they are closing in on 80). Not in 1976, not in 1983. It was tricky for Jagger though. He had to multitask to sort this thing out. He wanted a solo break still he didn't want to break up the band.
I will quote you when you wrote " Keith couldn't be counted on for business " Not true because when Keith got off the junk he wanted to reassert himself and Mick had taken over complete control of the group since Keith was under the control of the Dragon . Now Keith is off the junk and wants to get back to his natural position as Musical director and Mick was like NO . Think about the fights that caused ? In the studio must have been hell and we know Keith's account in Life that they had 2 versions mixed I believe for Undercover and Micks version was the version released . Then fast forward to Dirty Work and they kept there distance in the studio where Mick would come in after Keith, Ronnie and Charlie would lay down there tracks and it was quite the exercise in distancing .Quote
wonderboyQuote
Stoneage
Sorry, but I don't believe that, Wonderboy. I firmly believe he was aiming for a solo career. Which he did. All the rest is excuses, nothing else. The band has never been free from addictions or frictions
(until now when they are closing in on 80). Not in 1976, not in 1983. It was tricky for Jagger though. He had to multitask to sort this thing out. He wanted a solo break still he didn't want to break up the band.
I think he kinda wanted a solo career, but he really didn't put everything into it. He was hoping lightning would strike but he also wanted the Stones as a fallback.
How about this explanation -- after the extensive studio work for SG and ER, they didn't go into the studio for the next album. Musical differences, personal differences, whatever. They toured in 1981-82. I don't think he enjoyed this tour.
They went back into the studio for Undercover -- I think he worked hard on the album but critically it didn't do well. That must have disappointed him. Going back to the 81-82 tours, I know many people enjoyed them, and they had huge audiences, but the Stones were not really relevant anymore. I'm sure he knew this. Young kids were into different music.
What I wrote previously still stands. The band had lost unity, Charlie had checked out, Keith couldn't be counted on for business and Ronnie was Ronnie. I think he was looking for an escape route if things went bad.
He went through the motions with DW, which turned out to be awful, and now the band was in even worse shape, plus Keith was calling him Brenda behind his back, and Charlie was punching him.
I do sympathize with him here. We're lucky he didn't make a real effort to go solo earlier and do it with more of a commitment. I think he decided in the end he'd rather be rich and succesful with the Vegas Stones than play smaller venues like a David Bowie-style artist.
Quote
wonderboyQuote
Stoneage
Sorry, but I don't believe that, Wonderboy. I firmly believe he was aiming for a solo career. Which he did. All the rest is excuses, nothing else. The band has never been free from addictions or frictions
(until now when they are closing in on 80). Not in 1976, not in 1983. It was tricky for Jagger though. He had to multitask to sort this thing out. He wanted a solo break still he didn't want to break up the band.
I think he kinda wanted a solo career, but he really didn't put everything into it. He was hoping lightning would strike but he also wanted the Stones as a fallback.
How about this explanation -- after the extensive studio work for SG and ER, they didn't go into the studio for the next album. Musical differences, personal differences, whatever. They toured in 1981-82. I don't think he enjoyed this tour.
They went back into the studio for Undercover -- I think he worked hard on the album but critically it didn't do well. That must have disappointed him. Going back to the 81-82 tours, I know many people enjoyed them, and they had huge audiences, but the Stones were not really relevant anymore.
Quote
TheGreekAs Lt. Colombo ( Peter Falk ) would say "just one more question ? " when were they ever sober as an entire unit or band ? For me it doesn't count now that they have past the normal retirement age . It just doesn't cut it for me to that they couldn't tour because of all the friction and drama when there's money to be made . Also worth noting until they reached the retirement age when did Keith and Mick not have issues with one another ? There have always been substance issues and personal issues with these guys . Sometimes drama gets those creative juices flowing ,versus what you get when every one is playing nicey nice .Quote
GazzaQuote
TheGreekThis is kind of like the pot calling the kettle . Every one was imbibing some types of substances back then and what does that have to do with performing and plying there trade ? It would be hilarious for me to know the laundry list of substances that they all were on at any given time including Sir Michael Phillip Jagger . Keith was off the "bad " drug at this time and he always was on when the proverbial red light went on and is the consummate professional . To me it seems like we are picking on them when all I am saying is that I wish they did tour in between Tattoo You and Steel Wheels . I would take the Stones in all there decadence and debauchery any day of the year . This is the Rolling Stones after all and not some squeaky clean outfit of the Tabernacle Choir of Salt Lake City .Quote
GazzaQuote
TheGreek
I also think it was dumb/stupid not to roll the Stones out in support of Undercover , and then not to tour in support of Dirty Work as well . Why let other inferior bands / groups / artist make money and not the Stones ? I bet somewhere along the way Mick Jagger realized that about the $ left behind in peoples wallets and purses . Mick Jagger is no dummy yet he screwed up on that one !
They hated each others guts by the mid 80s and Mick refused to tour with them with Dirty Work because half the band were so @#$%& up on drugs that, in his words, 'they werent fit to cross the Champs-Elysees, let alone go on the road'
Smart move. The damage could well have proved irrepairable.
Seriously? The road is no place to be if you're a heroin addict - which Charlie was at the time. Woody was in a pretty poor state as well. I never mentioned Keith as being the one with an addiction problem at this period.
And its no place to be with people you cant stand the sight of.
All very well saying you wanted a tour despite it's 'decadence'. Jagger simply knew they werent up to it. They probably wouldnt have been able to finish it and I doubt we'd have had the 30 plus years of touring that we've enjoyed since if they had.
The album wasn't that good. It was OKAY. It certainly wasn't a great Rolling Stones album. The feeling inside the band was very bad, too. The relationships were terrible. The health was diabolical. I wasn't in particularly good shape. The rest of the band, they couldn't walk across the Champs Elysées, much less go on the road.
- Mick Jagger, 1989
Touring Dirty Work would have been a nightmare. It was a terrible period. Everyone was hating each other so much: there were so many disagreements. It was very petty; everyone was so out of their brains, and Charlie was in seriously bad shape. When the idea of touring came up, I said, I don't think it's gonna work. In retrospect I was 100% right. It would have been the worst Rolling Stones tour. Probably would have been the end of the band... (Charlie was doing drugs and drinking.) Keith the same. Me the same. Ronnie - I don't know what Ronnie was doing. We just got fed up with each other. You've got a relationship with musicians that depends on what you produce together. But when you don't produce, you get bad reactions - bands break up. You get difficult periods, and that was one of them.
- Mick Jagger, 1995
[www.timeisonourside.com]