Quote
slewan

but the big differnce is: Jagger didn't dare to take his solo tour to places that really matter, i.e. the USA, the UK and Europe.
It was relatively easy to sell out big venues down under and espically in the far east since Western artisted rarely toured there.

Yes he certainly went the easy route by harvesting "virgin" (Japan) or semi-virgin (Australia) markets.

Back in 1988, the Japanese economy was booming,Japan was seen in America as outperforming the US economy.So Mick maybe decided he would do shows there where the people could afford the tickets.He would not have play shows in say Congo or Afghanistan.He historically avoids countries with bad economies

Lol nobody plays in Congo or Afghanistan

Mick n Jeff did have a large tour planned , I always thought US dates had gone on sale and did not sell well, but cant really find anything to back that up

This story is from the October 8, 1987 issue of Rolling Stone.

Mick Jagger's first solo tour has been postponed. The tour had been tentatively scheduled to begin in Europe and reach the United States by October 87, although specific dates were never announced. Sources insist that the delay is mainly due to Jagger's wanting more rehearsal time with his band. But another reason could be the last-minute departure of guitarist Jeff Beck, who is featured on Jagger's new album, Primitive Cool.

At press time, Jagger was in London promoting the album and planning additional rehearsals with the rest of the band, which includes guitarist G.E. Smith, keyboardist Phil Ashley, bassist Doug Wimbish and drummer Simon Phillips.

So basically Mick had to play a concert of only solo songs in Afghanistan to not get flamed on here

Watching the Australia show now. I liked the fast version of IORR in the club, almost punk style. I'm not a fan of Primitive Cool, but Radio Control was actually pretty good. I still think Party Doll is awful. Wild Colonial Boy was very cool. A change of pace, and it was performed well. Man, it must be so hard to sing a cappella in a stadium when people start clapping along! I could see it in Mick's face just before the band kicked in. Gimme Shelter was enjoyable as well, lots of energy and speed.

Basically, Keith was pissed, because Mick wanted
to do something else away from the Stones
(aka solo stuff) - but ending up playing Stones songs.
Keith: "Come back when you are clean!" And I
always felt the same.

When he made the Wandering Spirit show in NYC,
THAT was a great solo show,
playing Rip This Joint, Live With Me and
Have You Seen Your Motheras Stones tracks.
That was OK.

And WS was way better than Main Offender.

Quote
NilsHolgersson
So basically Mick had to play a concert of only solo songs in Afghanistan to not get flamed on here

LOL no. That's weak.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball
Lol...calm down retired dog....if there's any such thing as "Keith vs. Mick bullshit", we clearly know which side you're taking with your imaginary defense and rationale of everything Mick does, and your anti-Keith stance.
And I thought for sure you'd be going after GasLightStreet's detailed reply to you that he posted above instead of constantly stalking me around here - now that is weird!

What GasLightStreet and you did not get is that my comparison was tongue-in-cheek (at least a bit!), but cool to see you both waste your precious time to jump on it.

Apart from that... people like you want to be stalked. You simply need it. Right?

Very poor tongue-in-cheek! How is making a valid point asking to be stalked? It's only about the context of "solo artist".

If Bono did a solo album or two and went on tour, of course he'd play some U2 songs, but it's very unlikely the set list would be dominated by U2 songs if he's going out as a solo artist.

Roger Waters HAS to play Pink Floyd songs, hell, he names his tours after Pink Floyd songs or albums, because no one would show up otherwise.

Quote
harlem shuffle
As always antijagger Hairball coming in with his stupid basement comments.Has this funny little guy nothing else to do?Get up from the basement Hairball,and find something funny to do.And no i don,t think Jagger is responsible for Corona

Huh.

Mom's basement speaks.

Quote
ukcal
Mick n Jeff did have a large tour planned , I always thought US dates had gone on sale and did not sell well, but cant really find anything to back that up

This story is from the October 8, 1987 issue of Rolling Stone.

Mick Jagger's first solo tour has been postponed. The tour had been tentatively scheduled to begin in Europe and reach the United States by October 87, although specific dates were never announced. Sources insist that the delay is mainly due to Jagger's wanting more rehearsal time with his band. But another reason could be the last-minute departure of guitarist Jeff Beck, who is featured on Jagger's new album, Primitive Cool.

At press time, Jagger was in London promoting the album and planning additional rehearsals with the rest of the band, which includes guitarist G.E. Smith, keyboardist Phil Ashley, bassist Doug Wimbish and drummer Simon Phillips.

I recall hearing that also, but can't remember exactly where or when. It could have just been various press speculation coming to that conclusion which would seem an accurate assessment. As for Rolling Stones magazine - what a load of B.S. - good buddies with Jagger (gave Goddess in the Doorway 5 of 5 stars lol), so of course they would make up excuses for him. Yeah right...Mick wanted more rehearsal time...and when that story didn't fly,
it was because Jeff Beck bowed out which was probably partially the reason. Even if the initial speculation of not selling well is inaccurate, Mick probably saw the light and realized it was doomed to be somewhat of a failure. As for Jeff Beck bowing out, probably one of the wisest decision he's ever made - he probably decided on that because he didn't want to be part of a glorified Stones circus/cover band and realized how ridiculous it all was.

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

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball
Lol...calm down retired dog....if there's any such thing as "Keith vs. Mick bullshit", we clearly know which side you're taking with your imaginary defense and rationale of everything Mick does, and your anti-Keith stance.
And I thought for sure you'd be going after GasLightStreet's detailed reply to you that he posted above instead of constantly stalking me around here - now that is weird!

What GasLightStreet and you did not get is that my comparison was tongue-in-cheek (at least a bit!), but cool to see you both waste your precious time to jump on it.

Apart from that... people like you want to be stalked. You simply need it. Right?

Very poor tongue-in-cheek! How is making a valid point asking to be stalked? It's only about the context of "solo artist".

If Bono did a solo album or two and went on tour, of course he'd play some U2 songs, but it's very unlikely the set list would be dominated by U2 songs if he's going out as a solo artist.

Roger Waters HAS to play Pink Floyd songs, hell, he names his tours after Pink Floyd songs or albums, because no one would show up otherwise.

My stalking-comment was aimed exclusively at Hairball who complained about being stalked by me because I singled him out for his anti-Jagger campaign on an almost daily basis, and that's not limited to the "solo artist"-context but appears in almost every thread where the name Jagger appears in whatever context and where you can see that Hairball has added comments.

Apart from that, I ask myself if we can really speak of full-blown "solo careers" considering three album releases by Keith and four by Mick in all these decades (not years!) and the handful of live shows they actually played, that constitute nothing more than little episodes in the big picture imo.

Episodes btw., and I repeat myself here because I've said it again and again, that I find largely superfluous because a substantial amount of Mick's and Keith's solo material could as well have been recorded by the Stones - what would have given us one or two good to even excellent Stones albums and a lot more recent (well...!) material to choose from for the Stones live setlists.

Quote
GasLightStreet

If Bono did a solo album or two and went on tour, of course he'd play some U2 songs, but it's very unlikely the set list would be dominated by U2 songs if he's going out as a solo artist.

Roger Waters HAS to play Pink Floyd songs, hell, he names his tours after Pink Floyd songs or albums, because no one would show up otherwise.

Regarding Bono/U2, I made the exact same point earlier in this thread - if a majority of his "solo" setlist was U2 songs while U2 was still an existing band, it would be very odd.
Same thing goes with the Jagger "solo" shows - while the Stones themsleves were still in existence over 65% of Mick's setlist was Stones songs...bizarre, so bizarre that it pissed Keith off.

As for Roger Waters, true he wouldn't sell as many tickets without making the Pink Floyd connection obvious, but in his defense he hasn't been a member of the band he co-founded since the mid-'80's.
And perhaps most important fact is that he wrote 90% of the Pink Floyd material he performs - entire albums such as The Wall were his concepts, so makes sense he would play material from his former band.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-11-19 18:23 by Hairball.

Gas light Hairball,move up from the basement so you can see daylight.Living in a basement for years,can,t be any good for you two.So lighteen up and dance in the sunshine

Gas light Hairball,you can write down every bad things you two has said over the years about Jagger,should be a book of 2000 pages.You can call it The Basement Tapes

As is often pointed out, back then the Stones were on long hiatus. They were in a semi-broken up state through the bulk of the Eighties, especially in regard to live performances. Rumors had it that Mick and Keith were going through a frail relationship (they were). Fans were worried if they could see them playing together again. I felt then, as I do now, under such circumstances, Mick choosing to play as many Stones songs as he wanted on his solo show tolerated as well as justified.

Quote
Hairball

it was because Jeff Beck bowed out which was probably partially the reason. Even if the initial speculation of not selling well is inaccurate, Mick probably saw the light and realized it was doomed to be somewhat of a failure. As for Jeff Beck bowing out, probably one of the wisest decision he's ever made - he probably decided on that because he didn't want to be part of a glorified Stones circus/cover band and realized how ridiculous it all was.

Probably Beck recognized that Jagger was building a backup/insurance Rolling Stones band, in case the originals didn't shape up.

Why bother to give Hairball and the likes the attention?

It's like kids in school who really needs attention, they will keep on with the same stuff until they get a reaction.

I know, cause I work with them.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball
Lol...calm down retired dog....if there's any such thing as "Keith vs. Mick bullshit", we clearly know which side you're taking with your imaginary defense and rationale of everything Mick does, and your anti-Keith stance.
And I thought for sure you'd be going after GasLightStreet's detailed reply to you that he posted above instead of constantly stalking me around here - now that is weird!

What GasLightStreet and you did not get is that my comparison was tongue-in-cheek (at least a bit!), but cool to see you both waste your precious time to jump on it.

Apart from that... people like you want to be stalked. You simply need it. Right?

Very poor tongue-in-cheek! How is making a valid point asking to be stalked? It's only about the context of "solo artist".

If Bono did a solo album or two and went on tour, of course he'd play some U2 songs, but it's very unlikely the set list would be dominated by U2 songs if he's going out as a solo artist.

Roger Waters HAS to play Pink Floyd songs, hell, he names his tours after Pink Floyd songs or albums, because no one would show up otherwise.

My stalking-comment was aimed exclusively at Hairball who complained about being stalked by me because I singled him out for his anti-Jagger campaign on an almost daily basis, and that's not limited to the "solo artist"-context but appears in almost every thread where the name Jagger appears in whatever context and where you can see that Hairball has added comments.

Apart from that, I ask myself if we can really speak of full-blown "solo careers" considering three album releases by Keith and four by Mick in all these decades (not years!) and the handful of live shows they actually played, that constitute nothing more than little episodes in the big picture imo.

Episodes btw., and I repeat myself here because I've said it again and again, that I find largely superfluous because a substantial amount of Mick's and Keith's solo material could as well have been recorded by the Stones - what would have given us one or two good to even excellent Stones albums and a lot more recent (well...!) material to choose from for the Stones live setlists.

Their solo careers - ha ha, yeah, the context is extremely short. That is a good point. There was a lot of hype (some of it from Keith, although "hype" might be the wrong word) that made it sound like Mick was completely bent on "competing" with the younger acts/artists at the time. Although there may be some truth to that, or at least it could be viewed as a convenient "argument", I think Mick's reasons are valid of why he wanted to do solo albums.

I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very... you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental. Outside of this kind of mainstream rock. More like the stuff Material does. Slightly left of the mainstream, you know what I mean? You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon.

- Mick Jagger, September 1983

[timeisonourside.com]


I'd like to explore as many areas as I can, and at the moment I thought I should do more solo work. In a band, everyone is supposed to contribute, which is a wonderful way of making records, but there are other ways of making music. And I had a very clear idea of what I wanted to do and should sound like. The other musicians are very talented and they had ideas, but most of the things came out as I planned them on demos.

- Mick Jagger, 1987

[timeisonourside.com]


Of course, the good thing is Mick got to do the different things he wanted to do with his two and Keith learned a lot about what Mick did as a front man with his two. Plus Keith finally came around to having a better understanding of being in the Stones bubble for so long.

Quote
harlem shuffle
Gas light Hairball,move up from the basement so you can see daylight.Living in a basement for years,can,t be any good for you two.So lighteen up and dance in the sunshine

Gas light Hairball,you can write down every bad things you two has said over the years about Jagger,should be a book of 2000 pages.You can call it The Basement Tapes

First off, you get an F for originality.

Second off, the "bad things" about Jagger... you are clearly a fanboy, where as a majority of people here that bother to comment are critical fans. You are obviously not capable of being a critical fan, which seems to be something that hurts your feelings, for what reason is both obscenely obvious and completely impossible to comprehend, like why anyone would think the London and NY remixes of Winning Ugly are good.

Quote
GasLightStreet
I could do all kinds of things. I could go very commercial - very, VERY commercial American pop. Or I could go for just ordinary, straight rock and roll, in an English way. Or I could mix it up: some very... you know, some HITS, and some things that are a bit more experimental. Outside of this kind of mainstream rock. More like the stuff Material does. Slightly left of the mainstream, you know what I mean? You could do some interesting things in that area. I have a lot of stuff. I think I'm gonna do it relatively soon.

- Mick Jagger, September 1983

[timeisonourside.com]

I'd like to explore as many areas as I can, and at the moment I thought I should do more solo work. In a band, everyone is supposed to contribute, which is a wonderful way of making records, but there are other ways of making music. And I had a very clear idea of what I wanted to do and should sound like. The other musicians are very talented and they had ideas, but most of the things came out as I planned them on demos.

- Mick Jagger, 1987

[timeisonourside.com]

Interesting quotes, but not sure that much of Micks solo material is very experimental or adventurous at all, but I guess my definition of experimental/adventurous is a bit more extreme than Mick's.
My first impressions of his solo material was a softer and more generic version of Mick than what he had done with the Stones - more commercial even with the then state-of-the-art '80's production, etc.
There might be some his stuff that could be considered a bit "off the wall" and slightly outside of the mainstream, but generally speaking it's all rather tame, and dare I say boring to my ears
As for Keith solo - yes it's closer to the familiar turf of typical Stonesiness, but it really isn't that simply defined. I'm not even sure what "typical Stonesiness" means as they've covered so much territory as a band throughout their history, but maybe it has to do with some of the typical guitar heavy/riff driven rock and roll tunes they've recorded. But it went much deeper than that, and at times strayed in to a more personal rootsier vibe imo.
But we all have our personal opinions on what we like, and for me just so happens that Mick is a WAY better when he's with the Stones - clearly one of the all time greatest frontmen, and easily one of my favorites.
As for Keith, I think he's great with or without the Stones, but he'll always be a Rolling Stone first and foremost. If only they could get it together and release some more new Stones material...
It would be the best of both worlds, and pretty sure most here would agree with that. That said, it would also be nice to get some more Keith solo material some day....

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-11-20 06:03 by Hairball.

Learn to read before you speak Gas Light,my comments Are on you and you,re alter ego Hairball.It,s a lot of music i don,t like so much,soloalbums from both Mick Jagger and Keith Richards,especially She,s the boss and Talk is cheap,these albums are in my opinion not very good.And lots of other stuff from Mick and Keith,i almost never play.I have never been a Keith Richards hater as you and you,re hangarounds try to tell everybody.But you and you,re muppet friend Hairball has this antiJagger campaign for 10-15 years now.But of course Keith is a god for you and the rest of the muppetgang.Last concert i saw with the Stones,was in Stockholm october 2017,and to tell the truth,it was terrible to Watch what state Keith was in.First songs was terrible playing by Keith,a bit better later in the concert.Biggest dissapointments in my history of the Stones.So you,re antijagger comments and the godpraising of Richards are very comical and stupid.So take you,re muppet friends out for some time,and hopefully even you can see the daylight maybee

Sting mainly police, but he did write them
Tom Petty RIp mainly Heartbreakers but he co-wrote many

Hey the eagles all do Eagles songs on solo tours, Don Fed does 12 eagles songs in a 13 song set!!! but he was fired

But the real killer is the fact they did solo stuff on Eagles tours, many many times!!

What solo songs would make a stones gig?...not a chance - might be a new topic

Quote
ukcal

What solo songs would make a stones gig?...not a chance - might be a new topic

Interesting point of argument.
I sometimes wonder if Ronnie’s solo spot on a Stones show worth considering, maybe one song if not two — I Can Feel The Fire or Seven Days. Bad idea?

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
ukcal

What solo songs would make a stones gig?...not a chance - might be a new topic

Interesting point of argument.
I sometimes wonder if Ronnie’s solo spot on a Stones show worth considering, maybe one song if not two — I Can Feel The Fire or Seven Days. Bad idea?

Sure The One You Need, obviously

This rudeness towards each other, which is notable sometimes, - is it really necessary?

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
ukcal

What solo songs would make a stones gig?...not a chance - might be a new topic

Interesting point of argument.
I sometimes wonder if Ronnie’s solo spot on a Stones show worth considering, maybe one song if not two — I Can Feel The Fire or Seven Days. Bad idea?

A Ronnie spot doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean Ronnie doesn't sing lead vocals on any Stones songs while Keith does. Thus Ronnie's songs don't have to do anything with the Stones except that he's a member of the Stones.
And Keith' solo spots don't feature songs from his solo album either.

Quote
slewan

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
ukcal

What solo songs would make a stones gig?...not a chance - might be a new topic

Interesting point of argument.
I sometimes wonder if Ronnie’s solo spot on a Stones show worth considering, maybe one song if not two — I Can Feel The Fire or Seven Days. Bad idea?

A Ronnie spot doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean Ronnie doesn't sing lead vocals on any Stones songs while Keith does. Thus Ronnie's songs don't have to do anything with the Stones except that he's a member of the Stones.
And Keith' solo spots don't feature songs from his solo album either.

They have done Sure The One You Need live with Keith on vocals, though.

I remember, when the group held the press conference for the Steel Wheels tour at Grand Central Station, NYC, a reporter asked them if they considered playing songs from the solo albums, to which Mick replied, “No solo material!”
Although Mick denied it flatly, the very fact that someone did ask this question suggests their respective solo activities making their presence felt around these times and the possibility of them including the solo material in the Stones set not necessarily thought inconceivable among the general public.

Quote
RisingStone
I remember, when the group held the press conference for the Steel Wheels tour at Grand Central Station, NYC, a reporter asked them if they considered playing songs from the solo albums, to which Mick replied, “No solo material!”

I always loved the band for NOT playing solo stuff.
A Stones show always meant Stones songs (+ maybe a cover).