For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Stoneage
Okay, a plausible explanation. But I guess Jagger going solo in the midst of this turmoil didn't help the situation. It wasn't exactly the ice breaker they needed..
Quote
wonderboy
'Define relevant.'
Well, I was 18 in 1980, and at that time and going forward the Stones weren't a happening band in my age group. People liked bands that were current -- Police, Clash, the prog rock bands, the punk-inspired bands. Pretenders. Springsteen's The River was probably the height of his career. Dire Straights, Talking Heads. Then came REM, U2, As a young person you wanted the new band or the band that was about to do something new.
In 1980, we knew the Stones had done what they were going to do. Mick knew that, too.
If you liked the Stones, as I did, you were listening to albums that were mostly 10 years old.
That Mick re-invented them in 1989 as a permanent touring act was a major accomplishment. He couldn't have done that in 1985, because they were all sick of each other and in no fit condition to tour. That's what Mick says, and it seems believable. If you kept up with the rock press back then, you knew that.
You are correct as I was looking at it in the wrong context with sobriety and not focusing on the actual relationship aspect , which really was dysfunctional . I guess I was commenting from my heart where I wanted them to work regardless of the toxicity of the relationship .Quote
GazzaQuote
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]
Who said anything about sober?
the issue is 'functional'. They were still functional in 1976 and 1981 despite individual band members being addicts. In the mid 80s they were a mess. Mick is even admitting HE wasnt up to it. But what would HE know?
their poor relationships preventing them from working/touring together for prolonged periods in the mid 80s. It happened again after Keith's autobiography came out.
Quote
GazzaQuote
Stoneage
Okay, a plausible explanation. But I guess Jagger going solo in the midst of this turmoil didn't help the situation. It wasn't exactly the ice breaker they needed..
It absolutely kicked it into overdrive, especially when it was a precondition of the world record deal they signed with CBS in 1983.
Quote
wonderboy
'Define relevant.'
Well, I was 18 in 1980, and at that time and going forward the Stones weren't a happening band in my age group. People liked bands that were current -- Police, Clash, the prog rock bands, the punk-inspired bands. Pretenders. Springsteen's The River was probably the height of his career. Dire Straights, Talking Heads. Then came REM, U2, As a young person you wanted the new band or the band that was about to do something new.
In 1980, we knew the Stones had done what they were going to do. Mick knew that, too.
If you liked the Stones, as I did, you were listening to albums that were mostly 10 years old.
That Mick re-invented them in 1989 as a permanent touring act was a major accomplishment. He couldn't have done that in 1985, because they were all sick of each other and in no fit condition to tour. That's what Mick says, and it seems believable. If you kept up with the rock press back then, you knew that.