gazza said: "it all worked out OK. Maybe if they didnt go through all that crap in the 80's the Stones would have split up for good by the end of the decade and we wouldnt be talking about them as a 'current' band like we're able to now."
***************

gazza...that's exactly how i've always felt.
something about the '80s "crap" made the '89 "comeback tour" a much
bigger deal than if they had just continued producing music (& touring)
with modest fanfair.

the whole...band is bigger than the sum of it's parts thing is very
interesting to me too. that jagger can do a solo tour..performing Stones
mega-hits with a different band and not get the same reception...just goes
to show that Mick Jagger is NOT the Rolling Stones. Mick should have known that...
I think Keith has always known that it the BAND...not the frontman.


IORR............but I like it!

>
> the whole...band is bigger than the sum of it's
> parts thing is very
> interesting to me too. that jagger can do a solo
> tour..performing Stones
> mega-hits with a different band and not get the
> same reception...just goes
> to show that Mick Jagger is NOT the Rolling
> Stones. Mick should have known that...
> I think Keith has always known that it the
> BAND...not the frontman.

i´m not sure about that, but didn´t Keith do the same on his solo-shows? I think he also played Stones-songs.
I think both know that the Stones are more interesting, but they still can do their own songs when ever they want to, or with whom they want to, i think.
Why shouldn´t Mick perform his own songs with other musicians? I am sure he knew, that the reaction would not be the same, he is not so stupid.

ilikemick wrote: "i´m not sure about that, but didn´t Keith do the same on his solo-shows? I think he also played Stones-songs.
I think both know that the Stones are more interesting, but they still can do their own songs when ever they want to, or with whom they want to, i think.
Why shouldn´t Mick perform his own songs with other musicians? I am sure he knew, that the reaction would not be the same, he is not so stupid."
********************

Not arguing about it but.....

A large percentage of Mick's solo setlist was Stones hits.
Probably about 80-85% Stones & 15-20% Jagger solo.

And I think Keith only did 4-5 Stones songs on his solo tour.
If memory serves....I think he played TOO RUDE / GIMME SHELTER /CONNECTION / HAPPY / BEFORE THEY MAKE ME RUN.

And I agree with you....it's perfectly fine for them to perform Stones songs...
My point was that a ROLLING STONES TOUR is a much bigger deal than
a mick jagger tour.....even though many think of frontman mick jagger AS the ROLLING STONES.

Even today I hear people saying they're "going to the 'Mick Jagger concert'" when
they are actually going to see THE ROLLING STONES. Newscasters say it too.

re: "I am sure he knew, that the reaction would not be the same, he is not so stupid."
***********
He toured in Australia & Japan and not the US or UK because he was probably unsure
how he (solo) would be received. And...when you break away from a successful group to try a solo career...I sort of think you should have the balls to perform your solo stuff.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-15 21:58 by sweet neo con.

Sweet Neocon, you are not entirely correct about Mick not playing alot of his solo material while on tour in Japan; in March of 1988 when he toured Japan he had Joe Satriani with him on lead guitar and Lisa Fisher and Bernard Fowler on back-up vocal. He had alot of BALLS because he even played " Wild Colonial Boy!" That must have surprised fans!! BALLS INDEED! In addition he played " Just Another Night," " Throwaway", " Radio Control", " Lonely at the Top", " War Baby"( another indication of fortitude on Mick's part!), " Foxy Lady" ( I know, Jimi tune), and " Party Doll". "Primitive Cool"is not as steeped in great tunes as " Wandering Spirit" but he made good choices. I think that " Primitive Cool" was a milestone for Mick because he was finding a different voice and experimenting. IMO when he released " Wandering Spirit" he was more comfortable with this new voice and the confidence shows.

>> If memory serves....I think [Keith] played ... <<

in 88 the Stones numbers Keith & the Winos did regularly were Too Rude, Before They Make Me Run,
Time Is On My Side, Happy, Connection and at some shows I Wanna Be Your Man which was ... ohh ~*YEAH!*~

ahem, i mean:
in 92/93 they did Gimmie Shelter, Too Rude, Time Is On My Side, Before They Make Me Run and Happy.

mickschix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think that " Primitive Cool" was a milestone for
> Mick because he was finding a different voice and
> experimenting. IMO when he released " Wandering
> Spirit" he was more comfortable with this new
> voice and the confidence shows.

That is a good observation! With his experiments in that album - for example, "Say You Will", Jagger found (created) a new way to use his voice, and I think that's the voice he has been used ever since (to an extent that is a clische sometimes). One can have any opinon about it's quality, but musically PRIMTIVE COOL is the last time a Rolling Stone tries to wider up his musical vocabulary. SHE'S THE BOSS was too close to Rolling Stones, quite 'safe' way to start a solo career. No big shocks for fans. WANDERING SPIRIT is one man's EXILE ON MAIN STREET: he runs through any musical form he knows in the past, with a renewed, trained voice, and the result is very cozy, homely and familiar. Like some people say, the best Stones album since TATTOO YOU. But I can understand why Jagger is not so satisfied with the concept of the album (and Rubin). It's perhaps too 'retro' for his taste. Perhaps he doesn't find himself saying anything there, really expressing himself, but more lik shifting already existing roles, and that's very easy for him to do. GODDESS is more 'real' Jagger, and musically it is closer to PRIMITIVE COOL.

But I am quite convinced that PRIMITIVE COOL is the dearest and most important for Jagger himself, even though he might not ever reveal that because he hates commercial failures...

- Doxa

Very True, Doxa! Primitive Cool is a break out cd; I happen to like Wandering Spirit just as much, however. That would be a great interview question for Mick, asking which of his solo cds he likes the best. I play Goddess alot, never get tired of it, and again, I agree that it is the REAL Mick. I just could not get into She's The Boss all that much but I see it as a necessary step in his progression, the developement of the Jagger we have today.

sweet neo con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A large percentage of Mick's solo setlist was
> Stones hits.
> Probably about 80-85% Stones & 15-20% Jagger solo.
>

Thats not actually true. Its a bit of a myth (perpetuated by Keith at the time) that Jagger basically thought the Stones were old hat (which is probably correct) and then went and did a solo tour with what Keith called a 'jerk off band' and the set was full of Stones songs.

the reality isnt QUITE as extreme as that. While it was close to that in Japan, by the time they played Australia it wasnt quite the same


Sample setlist from Japan (Osaka 88)

(Honky Tonk Women/Throwaway/Bitch/Let’s Spend The Night Together/
Beast Of Burden/Tumbling Dice/Miss You/Ruby Tuesday/Just Another
Night/War Baby/Harlem Shuffle/Foxy Lady/Party Doll/Band
introduction/You Can’t Always Get What You Want/Gimme Shelter/
Start Me Up/Brown Sugar/It’s Only Rock’n Roll/Jumping Jack Flash/
Sympathy For The Devil/Satisfaction)

Sydney September 1988
Throwaway/Just Another Night/Lonely At The Top/Honky Tonk
Women/Miss You/Tumbling Dice/Radio Control/Ruby Tuesday/Can’t
You Hear Me Knocking/Harlem Shuffle/Lucky In Love/Primitive
Cool/War Baby/You Can’t Always Get What You Want/Band
introduction/One Hit/Foxy Lady/Party Doll/Wild Colonial Boy/
Bitch/Rip This Joint/Gimme Shelter/Start Me Up/It’s Only Rock’n
Roll/Jumping Jack Flash/Sympathy For The Devil/Satisfaction)

(source - nzentgraf.de)

certainly more "Stones heavy" in Japan (where the Stones had never performed until that time) but definitely less the case in Australia.

There wasnt really THAT much of a difference between the balance of Stones/solo songs in his set and the ones Keith played. Whats interesting about Mick's selections were the inclusion of some Stones songs that hadnt been played before (or in a long time) and which made their way into the Stones set on the following tour after a long absence

Even more interesting is the fact that the arrangements were identical on many of these songs on STEEL WHEELS and succeeding tours (with the notable exception of "Sympathy For the Devil"). Despite Chuck Leavell or Matt Clifford getting the lion share of credit (or blame) for arrangements in recent years, a listen to Jagger's rehearsals or soundboards from 1988 points to Jagger and/or Jimmy Rip as the most likely culprit. Have a listen to "Ruby Tuesday" with Phil Ashley and Richard Cottle in Japan or Phil Ashley and Susie Davis Down Under and it sounds identical to the STEEL WHEELS version. Even "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" sounds very close to how the Stones played it on LICKS. "One Hit" and "Harlem Shuffle" carried over Jagger's tour arrangements to the STEEL WHEELS tour as well in markedly different arrangements than found on DIRTY WORK (although "Harlem Shuffle" live was more faithful to Bob & Earl's original recording than DIRTY WORK). Despite what Keith said in the press over the years, he obviously went along with what Mick wanted from the second they hit Barbados in January 1989. More than anything else it makes me suspect some of the public feuding was and is just carefully calculated PR and just a variation on Oldham's Bad Boys marketing push.

I always thought that was the case, to some degree, Rocky ( re: the Mick/Keith feuding). Oldham was a master at working the media, but then in the 60's it became obvious that for the Stones to succeed, they had to be the opposite of the Beatles. A new version of an old theme, good vs evil, to state the obvious! That was a great quote to use, Gazza, illustrating exactly how nasty Keith could be in assessing Mick's solo career..." jerk off band" indeed!! SATRIANI?? I think NOT! I imagine Keith was spitting nails when he found out that Satriani had agreed to back up Mick. I know Joe uses some unusual techniques, not always favored by thoe that consider themselves guitar masters, BUT he is effective and interesting, to say the least.

I know it would end badly but i would have loved a ''Undercover'' and ''Dirty work '' tour thats for sure...I like to watch the Jagger 88 japan video....there are great songs on his albums i agree(hard woman...out of luck....dont call me up.......hiding away...god gave me..ect.....the red devils tapes are ace....remember the one with billy preston wasnt that ..out of focus? I like the solo SFTD solo effort from jagger more than the nu wadays version of it.....but hell i miss keith on all of those albums....why not solo with Keith and other people like in the old days