Me and my 4 year old are currently watching the hal Ashbury movie. Did anyone ever notice that in the first two songs above the stage there is flickering banner that first says "the rolling stones" and next "Mick Jagger". But the banner doesn't mention any of the other band members.
Did that not annoy Keith?

Quote
Whale
Me and my 4 year old are currently watching the hal Ashbury movie. Did anyone ever notice that in the first two songs above the stage there is flickering banner that first says "the rolling stones" and next "Mick Jagger". But the banner doesn't mention any of the other band members.
Did that not annoy Keith?

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes on that one. A few years later the cold war ensued that lasted until the Steel Wheels tour. Things were never the same.

Isn't this still happening today in some form. For example when someone talks to me about The Stones it's always about Mick, been this way since i can remember. Unfortunatley to non-fans The Rolling Stones is Mick Jagger. Actually I think this is the same for many bands. Queen comes to mind immediately, it's always about Freddie.

Tattoo You came out that year, and I wonder if the cover that featured Mick and Keith bothered Charlie, Bill and Ronnie.


The "Mick Jagger" banner was probably the work of a local promoter. When Ronnie was in the Faces, it was common for promoters to bill them as "Rod Stewart & Faces" to sell more tickets.

Also, it's been discussed here previously that the DVD version is a bit sped up compared to the original VHS. When I bought the DVD, it literally ruined it for me since the songs, which were already performed fast, were even faster!

Quote
GasLightStreet

That's the wrong movie!

Quote
loog droog
Tattoo You came out that year, and I wonder if the cover that featured Mick and Keith bothered Charlie, Bill and Ronnie.


The "Mick Jagger" banner was probably the work of a local promoter. When Ronnie was in the Faces, it was common for promoters to bill them as "Rod Stewart & Faces" to sell more tickets.

but it was never "John Lennon (or Paul McCartney) & some other guys"

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
GasLightStreet

That's the wrong movie!

i think his point might have been that it's a 81 show and jagger is featured so prominently on the cover

I think it is rather the stadium's electronic board and that the Stones had nothing to do with what was displayed on it.

Yeah thats more like it ...

No big deal ...



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Yeah thats more like it ...

No big deal ...

Zactly! I quite enjoy going to see Mick Jagger and His Rolling Stones.

Because for the average fan the Stones would still be the Stones if any member left except Jagger.Had Keith gone to prison because of theCanadian drug bust , and Taylor or Clapton took his place the fans would still have considered them the Stones even though the most important creator of the music was gone.But they would not accept the band as the Stones without Jagger



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-29 12:31 by Taylor1.

Quote
Taylor1
Because for the average fan the Stones would still be the Stones if any member left accept Jagger.Had Keith gone to prison because of theCanadian drug bust , and Taylor or Clapton took his place the fans would still have considered them the Stones even though the most important creator of the music was gone.But they would not accept the band as the Stones without Jagger

I think that's probably right, though of course we'll never know. Since that time Keith has become a household name in his own right.

Amazingly Queen was able to continue without Freddie. I don't think that remotely possible with the Stones and MJ.

Quote
slewan

Quote
loog droog
Tattoo You came out that year, and I wonder if the cover that featured Mick and Keith bothered Charlie, Bill and Ronnie.


The "Mick Jagger" banner was probably the work of a local promoter. When Ronnie was in the Faces, it was common for promoters to bill them as "Rod Stewart & Faces" to sell more tickets.

but it was never "John Lennon (or Paul McCartney) & some other guys"

Yes, but unlike the Stones, Queen, Led Zep, Faces, etc., the Beatles didn't have a frontman per se.

And yes, that banner was a bit out of order imo

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
hockenheim95

Quote
GasLightStreet

That's the wrong movie!

i think his point might have been that it's a 81 show and jagger is featured so prominently on the cover

That's it!

4 band members in a silouehette?

A bit blatant.

The LP cover for GHS wasn't any different really.

How many LP covers have had the band yet alone anyone from the band on them? I know of 2 in the 1970s and 2 in the 1980s. One since then. I know the 1960s had a few early on, with BUTTONS being the last. Jesus, the next one was 1976.

It is funny that that 1981 tour poster featured Mick... and then the band.

Quote
daniel t
I think it is rather the stadium's electronic board and that the Stones had nothing to do with what was displayed on it.

Sorry. That's my English. I came up with "flickering banner". "Electronic board" is a much more apt description

actly! I quite enjoy going to see Mick Jagger and His Rolling Stones.

YEAH well nobody else could front The Rolling Stones ..... NOBODY



ROCKMAN

I played this video until it wore out twice, started out by renting it from the video store until i managed to buy it in the shops.
For me this was when Mick was at his peak, funny and brilliant, the expression of his performances were magical, Keith came to life too, well larger than life if anything, the Glimmers on coke or so rumour has it.
Not the best sound recordings but the atmosphere made up for that, especially on the live album of the same tour, that start with UMT and LSPNT, it doesn't get any better.

Quote
loog droog
Tattoo You came out that year, and I wonder if the cover that featured Mick and Keith bothered Charlie, Bill and Ronnie.

I guess Charlie didn't care because he considered all the stuff as somehow silly, Bill most likely didn't like it and Ronnie was just glad to have a steady job…

I've always thought it was more like ticker tape showing all the names. The film footage shows only part of it.

Mathijs

Can't recall if it was in Sandford's or Bockris's book, but he claimed that it was only Mick's name on the screen and that Keith wasn't too happy about it.

LSTNT movie is great apart from 2 things;

1. All the songs are sped up and too fast - poor editing

2. The song editing is dreadful with beginnings and endings abruptly cut off

Should be re-released at the proper speed and the editing tidied up.

Agree with keefriffhards that the Stones were brilliant in '81. I too wore out Still Life and this movie. Couldn't get enough.

Quote
jigsaw69
LSTNT movie is great apart from 2 things;

1. All the songs are sped up and too fast - poor editing

2. The song editing is dreadful with beginnings and endings abruptly cut off

Should be re-released at the proper speed and the editing tidied up.

Agree with keefriffhards that the Stones were brilliant in '81. I too wore out Still Life and this movie. Couldn't get enough.

This would be fantastic but I read here some time ago that Hal Ashby destroyed all raw footage so this is not possible anymore.

I once read (dunno the book exactly) that in certain places during the 1981 tour the band was announced as "Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones". The hell knows why that happened or who originated that. The only thing for sure is that Keith was massively pissed.

Keith mentions it in his book:

"”Well, Mick got very big ideas. All lead singers do. It's a known affliction called LVS, lead vocalist syndrome. There had been early symptoms, but it was now rampant. A video display in the stadium in Tempe, Arizona, where the Stones were performing and Hal Ashby was shooting Let's Spend the Night Together announced, "Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones." Since when? Mick was a controller of every detail, and it was no producer's oversight. The shots were excised."

ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
actly! I quite enjoy going to see Mick Jagger and His Rolling Stones.

YEAH well nobody else could front The Rolling Stones ..... NOBODY

Not Terence Trent d'Arby? What about Roger Daltrey? How about Don Covay? Ah, 1986-1988 were a great time for rumors.

Imagine if post-DIRTY WORK albums had 2-3 Jagger vocals and the rest split between Keith, Ronnie, and Bill and maybe guest shots by Bobby Womack. That was also suggested by one reputable music magazine. What a thought.

Quote
DGA35
Also, it's been discussed here previously that the DVD version is a bit sped up compared to the original VHS. When I bought the DVD, it literally ruined it for me since the songs, which were already performed fast, were even faster!

i didn't know that

is it just the original vhs playing at the right speed?

does the original laserdisc and beta copies play at the same speed?

Quote
mk76
Keith mentions it in his book:

"”Well, Mick got very big ideas. All lead singers do. It's a known affliction called LVS, lead vocalist syndrome. There had been early symptoms, but it was now rampant. A video display in the stadium in Tempe, Arizona, where the Stones were performing and Hal Ashby was shooting Let's Spend the Night Together announced, "Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones." Since when? Mick was a controller of every detail, and it was no producer's oversight. The shots were excised."

Thank you!
People on this forum know everything