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.

Its a bit easier to limit the amount of Stones songs on a Keith solo show as he simply doesn't sing on that many of them to begin with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-23 14:42 by Gazza.

The Webster Hall Show in '93 was a good set list. All stuff from Wandering Spirit and then end it with three Stones songs that were deep cuts. That wasn't a tour though, just a one off show, correct?

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.

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
GasLightStreet

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.

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
GasLightStreet

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.

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 )

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
ryanpow

Quote
GasLightStreet

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.

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

A one off(!) with only new songs, no old solo songs, and 3 Stones songs.

-Wired All Night (MJ)
- Out Of Focus (MJ)
- Sweet Thing (MJ)
- Use Me (Bill Withers)
- Don’t Tear Me Up (MJ)
- Evening Gown (MJ)
- Angel In My Heart (MJ)
- Wandering Spirit (MJ/Jimmy Rip)
- Put Me In The Trash (MJ/Jimmy Rip)
- Think (Lowman Pauling)
- Mother Of A Man (MJ)
- Rip This Joint (MJ/KR)
- Live With Me (MJ/KR)
- Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing In The Shadow? (MJ/KR)

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 !

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
GasLightStreet

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 !

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.

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
GasLightStreet

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.

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!

well, he could have. He just chose not to as he was playing stadiums in virgin,foreign markets instead of 3,000 seat theatres in the US. Plus it was a show that was 50% longer. Hard to extend two solo albums into a 130 minute show.

Entirely different ballgame. If you'd done an advance prediction for the sort of setlist Keith was going to play on his debut solo tour, it wouldnt have been that difficult to get it almost spot on - ie, his solo album plus a smattering of the most well known Stones songs that he'd sang lead on. 'I Wanna Be Your Man' and 'Time is on my side' were the only left-field choice, and the latter only so because Sarah Dash sang lead vocals.

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.

whooooops



ROCKMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-24 03:56 by Rockman.

I might be in the minority, but I'm grateful Mick didn't continue with his solo tour. From everything I've read and seen (on youtube) it looks quite embarrassing.
Who in the hell wants to see Mick and a faux band play Stones songs with Mick acting like it all actually mattered and was legit? Not to mention the horrible solo material...

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

Yeah but I reckon Mick just wanted ta show
Susie Davis mmmm and all dem backup singer gals around the world ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
GasLightStreet

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 !

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.

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 .

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
GasLightStreet

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
GasLightStreet

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 !

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.

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 .

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.

Well if Mick really listened to it in the first place he would /should have shelved it for eternity .

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.

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.

He did establish a Mick Jagger terrible bridge - just listen to Radio Control. The same awful bridge, his Jeff Becking everything, is also in Joy.

It's weird how Mick has had some great fantastic killer stuff and some horrendously awful terrible crap.

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 .

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.

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]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-24 20:53 by Gazza.

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.

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 !

I'm sure they had problems though. Frictions within the band, addictions, you name it. But they could have postponed a tour a year or two. I guess they needed a break.
But still, I think the real reason was Jagger's ambition to try his own wings. Which he did. A tour without him was, of course, impossible.

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 .

I think if Mick says the band members were a mess (himself included) and weren't getting on ... well, you're going to argue with him? I don't understand that.

In one sense Mick was protecting the band. If they had carried on they would have either ruined their reputation or band members would have died. At the very least he was protecting himself. Sometimes we believe that Mick Jagger is this all-calculating, all-powerful person. But in the '80s he was having a crisis like any man does at certain ages and trying to figure out what he really wanted to do. I'm glad he was smart enough to be the one to say no.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-24 23:01 by Stoneage.

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 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
wonderboy

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 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.

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
wonderboy

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 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.

That's just a bit of some cherry picking revisionist history it seems.

First off, what does "relevance" and music have to do with each other? Define relevant.

It's a term that's thrown around when people don't like or agree with something. Like U2.

"Their last album wasn't relevant."

That has zero ground. U2 fans bought it. It's not 1986 anymore.

"They're not relevant."

Their tours sell out. How much more "relevant" does a band need to be?

If you go by how people see U2 not being relevant since whenever, the Stones haven't been relevant since 1981 (and for some people as far back as 1973 or whatever). Apparently the Stones even know this because their set lists pretty much dictate that nothing they did after 1981 is relevant.


But let me get back to when the Stones were "relevant".

The Stones peaked in 1981-82 of the 1978-1984 phase. TATTOO YOU was gargantuan. Just because it didn't sell 10 million copies or whatever SOME GIRLS did doesn't make it "less". In the US the success of Miss You vs Start Me Up was cultural over regular ol' rock'n'roll. Miss You struck a nerve and was their last #1 single, Start Me Up was just the usual single ala Jumpin' Jack Flash or Brown Sugar - really good, obvious and rocking but didn't shake the world like Miss You did even though Start Me Up was number one for 13 weeks on the Top Tracks chart but only peaked at #2 on the singles chart. The 1981 tour alone was a gazillion times bigger than the 1978 tour. Then they toured in 1982. UNDERCOVER was well received, it wasn't poorly received, but because it was the first LP to not go number one since whenever it's a "disappointment". It didn't have a BIG SINGLE. It only sold a million copies.

It was a TOTAL FAILURE.

It was the start of the DOWNFALL!!!

If it was released today and charted exactly the same people would be screaming THE STONES ARE BACK! and Too Much Blood would get 18 remixes.

They were all over MTV with the singles.



Regarding Mick saying they weren't fit. Well, it's no secret they weren't getting along. Which is really strange if it's very seriously thought about: they had a huge run of success, had recorded a ton of songs... and they weren't getting along? How many things can be successful if no one is getting along? They weren't getting along so bad that Mick decided to finish leftovers for a new Stones album? And then a 2 year tour? And then they weren't getting along that Mick and Keith worked together in New York and demoed songs for UNDERCOVER?

Obviously there's truth to them not getting along but it's probably way bigger than reality. Keith, probably rightfully or fairly so, felt threatened by Mick doing a solo album because it brought forth a fear of the Stones not working anymore.

That's quite logical. Especially coming from his perspective.

That aside, he did come around to seeing the positive of it, saying something along the lines of after so many years in a bubble one probably has an urge to do something else and he also mentioned Charlie.

As it turns out, that's exactly what happened. Whether it's good or bad is moot. Keith's albums were way better than Mick's but no one said anything about Keith not going back to the Stones. I don't think I've ever read anywhere that Mick was never going to work with the Stones again. Fairly so he simply wanted to do something else.

Weird timing? Mick was how old in 1985? 42? The Stones signed a new contract...


Look at them today on Spotify alone. Paint It Black is their highest streaming song on at 438 million. AC/DC's highest is 578 million. Journey is 849 million. Nirvana 759 million.

The Stones song is from 1967.


A song released in 1984 that sounds timeless is... not relevant?

A song that is released in, arbitrarily, 1984 or so, that sounds like everything else that's new, say a Prince song, Let's Go Crazy, is... relevant?

Is it relevant now? It's on the radio now. People stream it now.


Dated is a better word for how music fits in with a time regarding a particular sound. Relevant is strictly a cultural thing. Like how Keith went on about 'flavor of the month'. Being "relevant" musically is probably more akin to a bad thing - because it's dated.

A new effect called the Fluffilator comes out and 28 artists use it and it's on 28 releases over 2 years and 8 months and never used again.

It's relevant, right?


Back to relevant vs dated:

What sounds more like 1984? Head Over Heals, King Of Pain, Money For Nothing, All Night Long, The Reflex, Just Another Night, Panama, Dancing In The Dark, Mr Roboto, It's A Mistake, The Wild Boys, The Power Of Love, State Of Shock, Overkill, or Let's Go Crazy?

Some of those don't really sound like the year they came from and some obviously stink of 1983, 1984 or 1985.


The Stones were in the public eye quite well from Miss You and SOME GIRLS through Undercover Of The Night and REWIND. They had a tiny blip with Harlem Shuffle. By 1989 everything had changed: they were a living dinosaur and put out a new album that sold better than the previous 2 albums combined... yet it's not very good... and on and on.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-25 23:01 by Gazza.