He wasn't trying to go solo, he was trying to rebuild the Stones without the bother of dealing with four guys who were his peers.

Quote
floodonthepage
Good lord, Jimmy Rip is so painfully average and such a Keith wannabe...down to some of the poses/stances and the scarves. He is part of the reason I think 'Wandering Spirit' is so overrated and why the early albums are better despite the 80's slick production, if for no other reason than the presence of Jeff Beck, Vernon Reid, Nile Rodgers, Pete Townshend, Herbie Hancock etc...though I think Rip does appear a bit on the 'Primitive Cool' album.

It was very interesting to hear Jagger do "Wild Colonial Boy". I never knew he performed that one. Man, I haven't watched "Ned Kelly" in years.

Jimmy Rip painfully average? You better clean your ears and listen to Wandering Spirit again... I think Rip's playing is ace throughout, no need for someone like Jeff Beck who's usually overplaying stuff like that.

In fact, I haven't heard any better guitar playing on Stones records from 1994 'til now - different, ok, but not better.

Rip's stage appearance - well, he looked considerably cooler than Waddy, that's for sure. And his playing was at least equal imo.

Seems like he was feeling a tad rusty after 6 years of hardly any live performances, and wanted to basically warm up and test the waters with then-current audiences in large venues, in a country far enough away from the US or UK to avoid excessive media exposure (and probably the other Stones) in case it didn't come off so great.
If he'd done a small arena or theatre tour, like Keith did, there probably wouldn't have been as much emphasis on Stones tunes. Definitely kind of cool to hear 'Foxy Lady' in the set. A few more covers wouldn't have hurt, either.

Strange criticism. First you accuse him (Jimmy Rip) for not being Keith Richards. Then you accuse him for being Keith Richards. Catch 22? Anyone?

Quote
GasLightStreet
Keith's point of view is accurate about Mick's tour:

Keith Richards (August 1988): Mick in Japan
I thought it was very sad that a high percentage of his show was Rolling Stones songs. If you're going to do something on your own, do stuff off the two albums you did. Don't pretend you're a solo artist and have two chicks prancing around doing Tumbling Dice, do you know what I mean? That severely pisses me off.

[timeisonourside.com]

Yet he quickly turned off his anger as the 1989 "triumphant return" was a straight copy of Mick 88 solo venture. In less than a year Keith went from "severely pissed" to "hey Mick inflatable dolls? Great idea!!"

Did not Keith himself do some of the Stones bits while touring solo? I mean, Gimme Shelter, Happy, Before They Make Me Run and others. Or was it just his prerogative to do some of the Stones songs with the Winos?

Quote
Mariuana
Did not Keith himself do some of the Stones bits while touring solo? I mean, Gimme Shelter, Happy, Before They Make Me Run and others. Or was it just his prerogative to do some of the Stones songs with the Winos?

Well, two of those three were basically his songs and even Gimme Shelter was something he takes a lot of credit for.
I read once he was especially upset that Mick did Beast of Burden, feeling that was mostly 'his' song.
But I think most of his anger was really fear that Mick's solo tour would work. Leaving him out of his own band.

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
Mariuana
Did not Keith himself do some of the Stones bits while touring solo? I mean, Gimme Shelter, Happy, Before They Make Me Run and others. Or was it just his prerogative to do some of the Stones songs with the Winos?

Well, two of those three were basically his songs and even Gimme Shelter was something he takes a lot of credit for.
I read once he was especially upset that Mick did Beast of Burden, feeling that was mostly 'his' song.
But I think most of his anger was really fear that Mick's solo tour would work. Leaving him out of his own band.

It weren't just three songs actually. The question was not really who gets more credits for which of the songs. It does not matter. It was if Keith's alone is allowed to do the Stones stuff in his solo tour while Mick, according to Keith's own words, is not.

Quote
Mariuana



It weren't just three songs actually. The question was not really who gets more credits for which of the songs. It does not matter. It was if Keith's alone is allowed to do the Stones stuff in his solo tour while Mick, according to Keith's own words, is not.

The Hollywood live album has two Stones songs, both originally sung by Keith.
Jagger live in Australia had 15 Stones numbers.

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
Mariuana



It weren't just three songs actually. The question was not really who gets more credits for which of the songs. It does not matter. It was if Keith's alone is allowed to do the Stones stuff in his solo tour while Mick, according to Keith's own words, is not.

The Hollywood live album has two Stones songs, both originally sung by Keith.
Jagger live in Australia had 15 Stones numbers.

Maybe it's because Jagger actually sings the vast majority of the Stones output?

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
Stoneage
Why blame Jimmy Rip? He's doing what he's paid for. Professionally so. He can't turn himself into Keith Richards. The blame belongs somewhere else...

Ummmmm...what? You just made my point. You're right, he can't turn himself into Keith Richards. Exactly. If you're a wannabe the blames belongs with the person wanting to be.

That's not a point. That is an assumption from your side. You assume he wants to be Keith Richards. You claim he's a Keith Richards wannabe. I don't think anything of that is true.

Seriously? It is a point. You don't think it's true. That's an opinion. My post is also an opinion. The point being that he can't turn himself into Keith. That's a point we seem to agree on. The rest of this is unraveling a bit. I'm not a Rip fan, I'll leave it at that. Gold Rings On Ya.

This "Gold Rings On Ya" fanfare makes me think that this may actually be a case of one Keith wannabe accusing another person of (allegedly) being a Keith wannabe.

Maybe it's because Jagger actually sings the vast majority of the Stones output?

Distinction retired_dog----
You show great leadership qualities
Go straight to the head of the class



ROCKMAN

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
Mariuana



It weren't just three songs actually. The question was not really who gets more credits for which of the songs. It does not matter. It was if Keith's alone is allowed to do the Stones stuff in his solo tour while Mick, according to Keith's own words, is not.

The Hollywood live album has two Stones songs, both originally sung by Keith.
Jagger live in Australia had 15 Stones numbers.

Now it has four (with the bonus tracks) And BTMMR wasn't included.

I think Keith reacted because Mick did most of the Stones-hits.

Can't think of any other musician that goes solo and plays more than a small handful of tunes from their main (sometimes former) group.
Usually they go solo because they have something else to say outside of their group, and their solo material makes up a majority of their setlists,
yet for some reason Mick thought it was a good idea to perform 15 Stones songs? Might be a bit more understandable if the Stones no longer existed,
but the fact is they were still a band for all intents and purposes, and it's really no wonder why Keith was pissed off and said what he did.

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

can we get back to the Jimmy Ripp
argument ... trying ta follow it was kinda entertaining ...



ROCKMAN

Watched the whole video, enjoyed it a lot. Jagger is the man.

Not many artists that came from the 60s and 70s adapted so well to the 80s style and visuals. I can only think of Bowie, who was also huge in the 80s, and maybe a few others. I dare to say, had the stones finished by then, Mick could have followed this way, and fill stadiums for the years to come. For the average concert goer, Mick and the classic stones songs would be enough to make a great show, as he proves here.

The best example today is Roger Waters. For the Pink Floyd fan, his shows will always lack something compared to the ones in the past with the band, namely with David Gilmour. But for the casual fan (who makes 90% + of the concert venues), those shows are perfect.

The presence and voice of the lead singer, the high quality playing of the classic songs and a great production create a live experience very close to the original product, to most in the audience. And that's what makes a memorable night, like the one people on this show had.

Quote
Mariuana

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
Mariuana
Did not Keith himself do some of the Stones bits while touring solo? I mean, Gimme Shelter, Happy, Before They Make Me Run and others. Or was it just his prerogative to do some of the Stones songs with the Winos?

Well, two of those three were basically his songs and even Gimme Shelter was something he takes a lot of credit for.
I read once he was especially upset that Mick did Beast of Burden, feeling that was mostly 'his' song.
But I think most of his anger was really fear that Mick's solo tour would work. Leaving him out of his own band.

It weren't just three songs actually. The question was not really who gets more credits for which of the songs. It does not matter. It was if Keith's alone is allowed to do the Stones stuff in his solo tour while Mick, according to Keith's own words, is not.

Keith didn't say that, whatever that even says, he said that a "high percentage of his show was Rolling Stones songs." Completely accurate statement in context of a solo show.

Mick's tour, with two solo albums out, featured more (14) Stones songs than (what appears to be his average of 9) solo songs.

Keith's tour, with only one album out, featured Keith's entire solo album, which was more than Stones songs.

That's a considerable difference and it gives Keith's comment some weight to Mick's "his show" ie the solo artist.

Quote
Hairball
Can't think of any other musician that goes solo and plays more than a small handful of tunes from their main (sometimes former) group.
Usually they go solo because they have something else to say outside of their group, and their solo material makes up a majority of their setlists,
yet for some reason Mick thought it was a good idea to perform 15 Stones songs? Might be a bit more understandable if the Stones no longer existed,
but the fact is they were still a band for all intents and purposes, and it's really no wonder why Keith was pissed off and said what he did.

The reasoning behind it is not really too hard to grasp - the Stones were falling apart for various reasons (artistically, creatively, personally) and this was Jagger telling the rest, and Keith in particular: "We will do it like this in future, we have to adjust to the times or we won't do anything at all and I will carry on like this!" And Keith obliged.

Or like wonderboy said it in short above: Jagger "wasn't trying to go solo, he was trying to rebuild the Stones without the bother of dealing with four guys who were his peers."

This was far more serious than your usual solo project.

Sounds a bit farfetched that he would go to such lengths imo - even to the point of lashing out like a dictator - "We will do it my way, or else"!!!
In reality, and in my opinion, seems he was chasing the fame and glory as an individual outside of the band, and had he had any success, the Stones would have been history.
Thankfully, his attempt was unsuccessful.

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

Wow, tons of warhorses in that setlist.

Quote
Hairball
Sounds a bit farfetched that he would go to such lengths imo - even to the point of lashing out like a dictator - "We will do it my way, or else"!!!
In reality, and in my opinion, seems he was chasing the fame and glory as an individual outside of the band, and had he had any success, the Stones would have been history.
Thankfully, his attempt was unsuccessful.

Jagger "chasing fame and glory as an individual"? I mean, how much more fame and glory as he'd already enjoyed as the world's most famous and glorious performer could he possibly have gained? Jagger is no idiot, nor even just naive.

He would not have started this solo adventure if everything had been alright in the Stones camp. Plus he made perfectly clear that he did not want to tour with the Stones at the time because "physically, the band was in no shape to tour".

The solo tours were his vision of how the Stones should sound in future and also a warning signal to certain band members that they'd better clean up their acts.

Basement News 8 -- October 1993



ROCKMAN

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball
Sounds a bit farfetched that he would go to such lengths imo - even to the point of lashing out like a dictator - "We will do it my way, or else"!!!
In reality, and in my opinion, seems he was chasing the fame and glory as an individual outside of the band, and had he had any success, the Stones would have been history.
Thankfully, his attempt was unsuccessful.

Jagger "chasing fame and glory as an individual"? I mean, how much more fame and glory as he'd already enjoyed as the world's most famous and glorious performer could he possibly have gained? Jagger is no idiot, nor even just naive.

He would not have started this solo adventure if everything had been alright in the Stones camp. Plus he made perfectly clear that he did not want to tour with the Stones at the time because "physically, the band was in no shape to tour".

The solo tours were his vision of how the Stones should sound in future and also a warning signal to certain band members that they'd better clean up their acts.

Similar to Sting and Michael Jackson (and others who leave their bands/groups), seems clear he wanted the limelight all to himself without all the baggage.
He'd been trying to chase the fame and glory as an individual outside of the Stones since She's the Boss in '85 (probably even before that), even performing solo at Live Aid while two his bandmates played with Dylan.
Yet you say he was sending out "a warning signal" in '88 by having a second solo album with Primitive Cool, putting together a band, going out on tour, all just to to send a warning signal to certain band members...
Again, sounds WAY too farfetched to me, but if you think that's the way it was so be it. I'm just glad his experimental solo adventure didn't work out as he might have hoped, otherwise no more Stones.

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

EEErrrr i reckon Mick just wanted ta tour
with a gang of girls .... but Jerry was around at least in Melbourne



ROCKMAN

Quote
Hairball

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball
Sounds a bit farfetched that he would go to such lengths imo - even to the point of lashing out like a dictator - "We will do it my way, or else"!!!
In reality, and in my opinion, seems he was chasing the fame and glory as an individual outside of the band, and had he had any success, the Stones would have been history.
Thankfully, his attempt was unsuccessful.

Jagger "chasing fame and glory as an individual"? I mean, how much more fame and glory as he'd already enjoyed as the world's most famous and glorious performer could he possibly have gained? Jagger is no idiot, nor even just naive.

He would not have started this solo adventure if everything had been alright in the Stones camp. Plus he made perfectly clear that he did not want to tour with the Stones at the time because "physically, the band was in no shape to tour".

The solo tours were his vision of how the Stones should sound in future and also a warning signal to certain band members that they'd better clean up their acts.

Similar to Sting and Michael Jackson (and others who leave their bands/groups), seems clear he wanted the limelight all to himself without all the baggage.
He'd been trying to chase the fame and glory as an individual outside of the Stones since She's the Boss in '85 (probably even before that), even performing solo at Live Aid while two his bandmates played with Dylan.
Yet you say he was sending out "a warning signal" in '88 by having a second solo album with Primitive Cool, putting together a band, going out on tour, all just to to send a warning signal to certain band members...
Again, sounds WAY too farfetched to me, but if you think that's the way it was so be it. I'm just glad his experimental solo adventure didn't work out as he might have hoped, otherwise no more Stones.

I'm not convinced that Jagger was determined to leave the Stones right from the start of his solo adventures. It may have developed this way, not least due to the ever-increasing conflict with Keith about the direction of the band amongst other factors. But that Jagger felt he needed some fresh air is obvious. Suggesting that he was just seeking the limelight all for himself is simply an all too one-dimensional viewpoint that fits your usual Jagger narrative, however.

In the end it boils down to the question if the Stones were stuck because Jagger went solo or if Jagger went solo because the Stones were stuck (keeping in mind that reportedly, severe problems were going back to at least the ER sessions).

But yeah, we did get them back, our Stones. But did we really? 4 studio albums of new original material in more than 30 years speak volumes that the creative differences that became so obvious in the mid-80's had never been entirely healed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-11-15 08:58 by retired_dog.

He did Winning Ugly live!?! Now, that I’d like to hear!

Very enjoyable, watched Deep Down Under and Tokyo. The full Tokyo shortlist that night si think was 16 Stones songs and 6 solo tunes. Hardly a man promoting a potential solo career, more as wonder boy remarked above, a first step to touring on his own, playing a Stones set basically but with a new band.

Quote
IrelandCalling4
Very enjoyable, watched Deep Down Under and Tokyo. The full Tokyo shortlist that night si think was 16 Stones songs and 6 solo tunes. Hardly a man promoting a potential solo career, more as wonder boy remarked above, a first step to touring on his own, playing a Stones set basically but with a new band.

FYI the 3 Osaka shows prior to the Tokyo shows had 2 more songs from She’s The Boss as well as one from Primitive Cool, that were then dropped from the set presumably for Mick under the weather.

The lineup of the Japanese leg of Mick’s solo tour included Lisa Fischer for the backing vocals, which resembled the Steel Wheels Tour (U.S. and Japan) even closer than the OZ/NZ leg.

Some references for the discussion:

Mick Jagger Solo Australia/Japan 1988 Set List
[iorr.org]

Crowd carrying Mick - Gimme Shelter - Tokyo 1988
[iorr.org]

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
floodonthepage

Quote
Stoneage
Why blame Jimmy Rip? He's doing what he's paid for. Professionally so. He can't turn himself into Keith Richards. The blame belongs somewhere else...

Ummmmm...what? You just made my point. You're right, he can't turn himself into Keith Richards. Exactly. If you're a wannabe the blames belongs with the person wanting to be.

That's not a point. That is an assumption from your side. You assume he wants to be Keith Richards. You claim he's a Keith Richards wannabe. I don't think anything of that is true.

Seriously? It is a point. You don't think it's true. That's an opinion. My post is also an opinion. The point being that he can't turn himself into Keith. That's a point we seem to agree on. The rest of this is unraveling a bit. I'm not a Rip fan, I'll leave it at that. Gold Rings On Ya.

This "Gold Rings On Ya" fanfare makes me think that this may actually be a case of one Keith wannabe accusing another person of (allegedly) being a Keith wannabe.

Wow. If I quote someone I'm trying to be them? Especially quoting a Stones member on a Stones board? My hunch is you're baiting and looking for stuff. But Gold Rings On Ya anyway!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-11-16 06:47 by floodonthepage.

It is logical that Keith commented that way, he was pissed ... but he too did the same in his concerts. Sure he did play few Stones songs, but only because it was another kind of show.
Keith played in small spaces, Mick put on a great show and people would be pissed if he didn't play the Stones classics.
Comparing things makes no sense, what Keith said was dictated by his pissed mood.