"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."

Thanks, Gazza. The main reason, seems to me.

~"Love is Strong"~

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..

'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.

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..

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.

I was 18 in 1981, and growing up in Santa Monica hardly any of this statement makes sense to me - especially the comment in bold. The Stones were still highly relevant having just released Emotional Rescue which followed the landmark Some Girls. Tattoo You was yet to be seen or heard, and would become one of their most successful albums ever. Yes I was listening to the more current/younger bands like Clash, Pretenders, Talking Heads, et al, but couldn't stand Springsteen (and never have) though that's not relevant to this issue. Even though they were "old timers", the Stones were still highly respected and relevant unlike a band like The Who who were putting out drivel like Face Dances and It's Hard, though even they still had lots of respect amongst people my age - whenever they played live in the L.A. area they were the talk of the town. Now if someone was 18 in 1986 when the Stones released the dismal Dirty Work and there was no tour, I could see how calling them irrelevant would be justified as they were sort of floating around like old farts, but in 1980 they were still relevant...very relevant. "That Mick re-invented them in 1989 as a permanent touring act was a major accomplishment" (to quote you), it might have also been a major mistake - it was the dawning of the Vegas showtime years, and any quality control for recorded output was by now a thing of the distant past.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Gazza

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
Gazza

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
Gazza

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 !

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.

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 .

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]

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 .

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.

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
Gazza

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..

It absolutely kicked it into overdrive, especially when it was a precondition of the world record deal they signed with CBS in 1983.

It wasn't a precondition - it was a condition: part of the CBS deal was Mick having a solo deal.

Period. End of story. THEY ALL KNEW IT. Somebody got cranky about it.

Although this bit here... I extremely doubt nobody at CBS listened to SHE'S THE BOSS and didn't think there was something wrong:

As soon as I was planning on doing it (I told the band)... (A)nd I said, Well do you mind if I take this time out?... I think that the Stones didn't want it to be a shit record: Mick, don't make a shit record, because that's going to reflect on us. And I said, No, if it's a shit record - if I think it's shit, and CBS thinks it's shit - it won't go out! I don't think they were furious about it, because we talked about it. I talked about it with Keith, and he said, Hey, if you want to do it, go ahead. Don't forget you're taking a chance. I said, Well, yeah. You know, you've got to take chances in life. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Mick has always been right, I think, to defend what he did in terms of doing it. The quality is a whole other issue. What he said about it is perfectly straight up:

I was feeling very kind of stultified within the Rolling Stones and I felt I had to go and work with some other people to get a bit revitalized. And I think actually it worked, though it created a tremendous ruckus within the Rolling Stones, which was totally unnecessary really. And I think that everyone made much too much of a fuss about it. And I think everyone should have been a bit more indulgent. That's why
I was so surprised when Keith was so upset when I wanted to do something outside the band - he'd already done this thing with the New Barbarians.

[www.timeisonourside.com]

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.

Are you going to define how "relevant" fits into that? The Stones were huge in 1980. They were even bigger in 1981. Somehow you're ignoring that.

Just because someone, whether its a friend or the school you go to, isn't into a band that's big - I wasn't into U2 when THE JOSHUA TREE was all the rage - doesn't make them "not relevant".

I was heavily into Def Leppard and The Police - that had no influence on me liking the Stones. It was just more music to get into.

Of course they weren't fit to tour in 1986. For one thing, Charlie was strung out on heroin!