Still not satisfied what I said earlier. It was more like even though Jagger still was such a huge name, his actual performance didn't quite match with it. He was like an emperator without clothes or something like that. And people recognized that that night. The music scene and atmosphere had changed so rapidly at the time that the means with which Jagger tried to keep his spot and status wasn't any longer good enough to move the masses. No "Lonely At The Top" or "Just Another Night" could touch the zeitgeist - if that expression fits at all to the 80's - any longer. If some oddhead decides to watch that whole (tiring) Live Aid circus now, I wonder what he might think about Jagger's songs, after wittnessing the whole day and night stars after stars, and hits after hits. "What damn songs are those?" And this is one of the biggest rock stars ever? Does anyone even remembers those songs than we die-hard Stones fans today? And those songs were not very convincing either back in the day, even though "Just Another Night" had made a nice charting.

I mean, even Dylan's set is memorable (for hilarous reasons), but Jagger's is totally forgettable (except Tina duet). And that very performance was done to boost his solo career, and he actually fooled the Stones to get that chance. Especially Bill and Charlie would have liked to perform, but Mick didn't want to - except in the very last minute by going solo there.

- Doxa

Although, I get what you're saying, I'm not totally convinced - as I thought he put on an excellent performance, albeit with a distasteful band:

Quote
Doxa
Re Mick and Tina. Strange how much the things would change between the two in careerwise in four years. In 1981 she was basically that Ike's georgious chick and a legend from the past, and Jagger about the biggest cock in the music world. In 1985 in Live Aid, Jagger had lost a hell lot of his status (and balls), looked oddily a man with a huge past but rather teethless presence, while Tina was about the hottest female singer in the world at the moment, her solo career just having exploded the bank, and selling amounts Jagger could only dream of... And she really stole Jagger's spot that night...

- Doxa

I think Jagger had lost a lot of his status already by 81, Doxa, at least in the UK, as with the group as a whole. Worldwide, perhaps you are right. Of course, the difference between Tina and Mick is, she had been a star in the sixties and early seventies, but not enormously so, whereas Jagger's stardom was pretty much as large as they come, and his pinnacle was pretty much reached by the time the sixties were through. He was so largely identified with that sixties/turn of the seventies period, and he cultivated such a strong image within the culture of the sixties (youth rebellion and all), it was very hard to step out of that shadow, to convincingly come from another angle. Not that this (and the Stones releases) really helped him in any way.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
an excellent performance, albeit with a distasteful band:

Is it possible? You're only as good as your backing band (imo)...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Although, I get what you're saying, I'm not totally convinced - as I thought he put on an excellent performance, albeit with a distasteful band:

I agree with you, Dandelion. Jagger's voice was in better shape at Live Aid than on the 81/82 tour (maybe because it was a short set), although as you say, stylisically, it may not be to everyone's taste. Jagger has never really been able to recapture the raw energy of his singing, certainly if being judged on this performance, since.

Quote
dcba

Quote
DandelionPowderman
an excellent performance, albeit with a distasteful band:

Is it possible? You're only as good as your backing band (imo)...

Let's turn it around:
If you can lead a light-sounding 80s band into a good show and a good performance, you're an excellent frontman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to the first few seconds here

This is not the original broadcast but some polished version afterwards. "Everybody's Idol" started with "Lonely At The Top".

But surely there was a huge crowd response - you know THE Mick Jagger from The Rolling Stones!!! - but the enthusiasism was soon gone (even "Miss You" didn't seem to make a big impression), and it was not until Tina Turner entered and brought that back. Then that crowd exploded.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to the first few seconds here

This is not the original broadcast but some polished version afterwards. "Everybody's Idol" started with "Lonely At The Top".

But surely there was a huge crowd response - you know THE Mick Jagger from The Rolling Stones!!! - but the enthusiasism was soon gone (even "Miss You" didn't seem to make a big impression), and it was not until Tina Turner entered and brought that back. Then that crowd exploded.

- Doxa

Of course it is the broadcast, I watched it myself

If possible, the crowd reaction on Miss You (before AND after) is even louder

Here's Lonely At The Top for you







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-05 15:59 by DandelionPowderman.

Well, if we live totally in a Mick Jagger or Rolling Stones universe, those crowd responses are rather strong, especially compared to the lame Stones audiences during the last decades or so - and surely Mick was just entering to his middle age, looks fresh and is vital and everything - but this needs to be put in context - in that very concert.

My initial reaction was then that Jagger didn't make people move like many other acts did. Some acts made so strong reaction that people ran to shops to buy their records. Jagger did not. No any argument decades later will not to rethink my stance and to make Jagger a "winner" in that concert.

- Doxa

But do you see the audience at all during Mick's show?

Queen, perhaps the strongest band at Wembley, performed in broad daylight...

Is Mick following this thread? See his Facebook today! ;-)

I don't think Hall and Oates is in any way a "distasteful" band. They did well considering the short amount of time they, probably, were given to rehearse the songs. I think Mick's slot was a bit too late though. And the concept of Mick not doing Stones songs (even if he did some) was a bit hard to sell to to the public. I remember staying up late ready to tape it but falling asleep (Mick was on about 3 in the morning European time if I remember correctly) and waking up in the middle of "Just Another Night". The Mick and Tina duet is a hell of a lot better than any duet during the 2012 tour though...




Live Aid

Quote
Doxa
Still not satisfied

Well, isn't that your own problem ?

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Mick is one hell of a performer but a couple of things stick out from his live aid performance. One, he does is Dirty Work Era Yelling. I am a fan of Hall and Oates but their band does not suit Micks singing at all and his singing does nothing for them either. Its a mis-match. It just plain does not sound good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-05 22:34 by ryanpow.

Mick Jagger was turning into a joke in 1985. Live Aid is synonymous with Queen and to a lesser degree U2, and a lame nostalgia act (Macca). Jagger was not important, just a flashback from the 60s.

Quote
LieB

Quote
stonehearted
However, there was one moment caught in CS Blues where Mick wasn't very nice to Tina. She comes in to visit them backstage, and then as she's walking away and after passing through a stage door, Mick shouts something insulting behind her.

That's not quite true. They say hi to each other (give one another a kiss, etc.) chat for a bit, and afterwards, when Tina has left the room, Mick says something like "it's nice to have a chick on tour". Not insulting, just a bit derogatory.

This mixes up two different tours.

In the Gimme Shelter movie, after they watch the clip of Tina fellating the microphone, Mick deadpans "it's nice to have a chick around once in a while" (not a verbatim quote).

CS Blues was the 72 tour 3 years later. I really doubt he said the same exact thing about the same person (aMaybe he did, I don't know, but it seems more likely you are confusing the two events). In the movie, following the clip of he rsinging, it's a very funny line.

Even back in 1981 the Stones made their guests wear RS merchandise.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Doxa
Still not satisfied

Well, isn't that your own problem ?

When I am, I won't have an urge to write no more...

- Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Mick Jagger was turning into a joke in 1985. Live Aid is synonymous with Queen and to a lesser degree U2, and a lame nostalgia act (Macca). Jagger was not important, just a flashback from the 60s.

Not sure about turning to a joke, but let's say, irrelevant, a kind of funny character who had no place in day's scene. And you made a good point about "lame nostalgia".

Namely, I think in many ways Live Aid was a first instance of the whole rock culture explicitly recognizing the significance of nostalgia, especially concerning the big names from the 60's and early seventies (who actually were having rather hard times during the mid-80's). They were there to present the great music from the past. Macca, topping the Wembley bill, was a poster boy for that, but the happy re-unions - CSN&Y, Zeppelin (sort of) - belonged to the concept. (Now there is nothing strange in that since we have used to the nostalgia shows ever since, but it was novel then).

But at the same time they were those contemporary hot names of the day, especially Queen and U2, in the top of their game, or getting there. We have to also remember that the biggest names of the day - Jacko and Bruce - were not performing.

It is remarkable in Jagger's performance that it was an anti-thesis to anything "nostalgic". No, Jagger's artistic statement was to show that he is a contemporary act, or that he wanted to be one, and launching now there a new Mick Jagger, a star of his own right, without the "historic" Rolling Stones. Now in a hindsight, how easy it could have been for him to make the event a Rolling Stones show? Just have the whole group there, and play, say, "Start Me Up", "Brown Sugar", "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Satisfaction".

So, I admire Jagger's urge to be a non-nostalgia act in that very occasion, even though it didn't turn out to be a real success. He really tried his very best, and I don't see anything to complain about in his performance (in its own terms). He probably never had worked on stage so hard as he did that night. But, unfortunately for him, the "world" was not too impressed, no matter how 'great' he did. The concept of a tremendous rock legend with a supposedly contemporary music and touch just didn't work.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-06 10:35 by Doxa.

For me it's hard to look back at LIve Aid. I thought the whole thing was fantastic at the time, but if you look back at it most of the bands and acts where quite hideous. It's really the same as looking back at music from 1986: it was just terrible times.

I remember Jagger's performance as fantastic, and getting rave reviews all over, much unlike Dylan's performance which was thrashed.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

I remember Jagger's performance as fantastic, and getting rave reviews all over, much unlike Dylan's performance which was thrashed.

Mathijs

But that started to be the time when anything Mick or the Stones did seemed to go beyond critisism and was considered worth of praisal. They were representing something that was a value of its own. Partly due to the aging of rock journalism, and the old editors defending their own heroes. Even such 'masterpieces' as UNDERCOVER, DIRTY WORK or even Jagger's solo albums got great reviews. But as the sales show, and sensing a bit of the climate, the 'world' was not quite agreeing with.

Dylan's middle finger performance is a classic of its own...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Mick Jagger was turning into a joke in 1985. Live Aid is synonymous with Queen and to a lesser degree U2, and a lame nostalgia act (Macca). Jagger was not important, just a flashback from the 60s.

Not sure about turning to a joke, but let's say, irrelevant, a kind of funny character who had no place in day's scene. And you made a good point about "lame nostalgia".

Namely, I think in many ways Live Aid was a first instance of the whole rock culture explicitly recognizing the significance of nostalgia, especially concerning the big names from the 60's and early seventies (who actually were having rather hard times during the mid-80's). They were there to present the great music from the past. Macca, topping the Wembley bill, was a poster boy for that, but the happy re-unions - CSN&Y, Zeppelin (sort of) - belonged to the concept. (Now there is nothing strange in that since we have used to the nostalgia shows ever since, but it was novel then).

But at the same time they were those contemporary hot names of the day, especially Queen and U2, in the top of their game, or getting there. We have to also remember that the biggest names of the day - Jacko and Bruce - were not performing.

It is remarkable in Jagger's performance that it was an anti-thesis to anything "nostalgic". No, Jagger's artistic statement was to show that he is a contemporary act, or that he wanted to be one, and launching now there a new Mick Jagger, a star of his own right, without the "historic" Rolling Stones. Now in a hindsight, how easy it could have been for him to make the event a Rolling Stones show? Just have the whole group there, and play, say, "Start Me Up", "Brown Sugar", "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Satisfaction".

So, I admire Jagger's urge to be a non-nostalgia act in that very occasion, even though it didn't turn out to be a real success. He really tried his very best, and I don't see anything to complain about in his performance (in its own terms). He probably never had worked on stage so hard as he did that night. But, unfortunately for him, the "world" was not too impressed, no matter how 'great' he did. The concept of a tremendous rock legend with a supposedly contemporary music and touch just didn't work.

- Doxa

Yeah I went too far with "turning into a joke", what I really meant was Jagger as too much of a household name, a popcultural reference, rather than an artist. But there was also some interest in what may come from his solo career I guess. Maybe a toungue in cheek view of his solo career. I dont know how to explain it but he was Jagger of the Stones competing with the 80s stars with new material but with old fame. New and yet old news.

I didnt read your post Doxa, just the beginning, before answering. You said it, "The concept of a tremendous rock legend with a supposedly contemporary music and touch just didn't work." Spot on

I still don't see what's so awful about the Dylan-Richards-Wood Live Aid performance. A bit unrehearsed, maybe, each playing their own thing, but it works, in a ragged, gutsy way. You can hear Dylan turning to Keith at the end of the clip saying, "Could you hear it? I couldn't hear a thing".

Quote
stonehearted
I still don't see what's so awful about the Dylan-Richards-Wood Live Aid performance. A bit unrehearsed, maybe, each playing their own thing, but it works, in a ragged, gutsy way. You can hear Dylan turning to Keith at the end of the clip saying, "Could you hear it? I couldn't hear a thing".

They had major sound trouble. On a couple of songs, Ronnie busted strings and went off and on stage with new guitars, because he couldn't hear himself. However, it wasn't as bad as many claims, imo.

Quote
Doxa
".

Namely, I think in many ways Live Aid was a first instance of the whole rock culture explicitly recognizing the significance of nostalgia, especially concerning the big names from the 60's and early seventies (who actually were having rather hard times during the mid-80's). They were there to present the great music from the past. Macca, topping the Wembley bill, was a poster boy for that, but the happy re-unions - CSN&Y, Zeppelin (sort of) - belonged to the concept. (Now there is nothing strange in that since we have used to the nostalgia shows ever since, but it was novel then).

But at the same time they were those contemporary hot names of the day, especially Queen and U2, in the top of their game, or getting there. We have to also remember that the biggest names of the day - Jacko and Bruce - were not performing.

It is remarkable in Jagger's performance that it was an anti-thesis to anything "nostalgic". No, Jagger's artistic statement was to show that he is a contemporary act, or that he wanted to be one, and launching now there a new Mick Jagger, a star of his own right, without the "historic" Rolling Stones. Now in a hindsight, how easy it could have been for him to make the event a Rolling Stones show? Just have the whole group there, and play, say, "Start Me Up", "Brown Sugar", "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Satisfaction".

So, I admire Jagger's urge to be a non-nostalgia act in that very occasion, even though it didn't turn out to be a real success. He really tried his very best, and I don't see anything to complain about in his performance (in its own terms). He probably never had worked on stage so hard as he did that night. But, unfortunately for him, the "world" was not too impressed, no matter how 'great' he did. The concept of a tremendous rock legend with a supposedly contemporary music and touch just didn't work.

- Doxa

Too true, Doxa.

Nostalgia didn't really have much of a place in popular music in the mid eighties, unlike today. Whatever may have been the shortcomings, certainly in retrospect, to the then current 'eighties sound', in a sense, there was a feeling that popular music was still moving forward, or at the very least, finding a different perspective from which had gone before. To a large degree, Jagger, was reacting to the contemporary sounds, no different than was to be expected at the time. Without keepimg up with current trends you were always in danger of being considered irrelevant, etc. Jagger's problem wasn't wholly that his solo output wasn't great, but that he was never likely to escape his iconic musical/social standing as an artist from a very different generation. He was just too inseperable from the sixties/early seventies period, to be taken sincerely on his own present musical terms. Just as he was attempting to broaden his fan base to cover a younger generation etc. there was always a thought that there was a large degree of cynicism involved also. The strange thing is, at the time i liked SHE'S THE BOSS a great deal more than both UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK, and although i still believe there are still some good songs/ideas to be found on that album, as a whole, i find its eighties sound pretty unbearable to listen to now.

Yes, the LIVE AID show was perhaps the first hints of musical nostalgia taking centre stage (aside perhaps from the re-evaluation of Lennon's music following his murder in 1980), although the nostalgia industry didn't really come fully to fruition until perhaps the mid nineties. In the eighties, there was still the feeling that the music was still evolving, whatever may be some of the disputed conclusions formed in retrospect. The art was still considered to be moving onwards and upwards, so to speak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-06 12:34 by Edward Twining.

<there was a feeling that popular music was still moving forward, or at the very least, finding a different perspective from which had gone before>

That is very true, Edward - and that's why acts like Neil Young, Eric Clapton and Bob/Keith/Ronnie came across like "boring ol' farts" in this show.

However, Mick was good keeping up with these times on stage, imo. And he had three relatively current hits: State Of Shock, Just Another Night and Dancing In The Street. Especially the latter helped to keep him on top of people's minds.

Paradoxically enough, the desire to obtain a contemporary sound did help Mick for a while as a solo artist - especially on stage. On the albums it sounded dated already by the release time - mainly because of the fast-forward moving studio technology, trends etc. Live, that development didn't happen as fast..

Yes Dandelion.

I believe 'Just Another Night' to be a fine single, and the modern technology actually suits it, i feel. 'State Of Shock' i'm less sure about, and 'Dancing In The Street' was, for me, a pretty tasteless cover, which only benefitted with its success, by its association with LIVE AID. I think it's a low point for both the careers of Jagger and Bowie, although David's vocal participation isn't overwhelmingly evident, unlike Jagger's. However, his presence in the video cannot be denied!

I'm not sure how to place the eighties in context with the other decades within popular music. I suppose the technology of the time rendered much of it a little shallow and superficial (especially from 84 onwards), and yet the acts/songs were still memorable (if not always in the most tasteful of ways) and didn't take themselves too seriously, unlike today. I can still instantly identify those songs even now, yet the songs these days tend to sound largely anonymous, and pretty boring. Yes, for all the perceived shortcomings of the 'eighties sound' there was a feeling of moving into new territory. Now we are all forever looking back for inspiration, many of the songs of which, fail to come close to the originals, in terms of quality, and appearing memorable.

Yes i know i'm generalising a little!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<there was a feeling that popular music was still moving forward, or at the very least, finding a different perspective from which had gone before>

That is very true, Edward - and that's why acts like Neil Young, Eric Clapton and Bob/Keith/Ronnie came across like "boring ol' farts" in this show.

However, Mick was good keeping up with these times on stage, imo. And he had three relatively current hits: State Of Shock, Just Another Night and Dancing In The Street. Especially the latter helped to keep him on top of people's minds.

Paradoxically enough, the desire to obtain a contemporary sound did help Mick for a while as a solo artist - especially on stage. On the albums it sounded dated already by the release time - mainly because of the fast-forward moving studio technology, trends etc. Live, that development didn't happen as fast..

Edward's point is spot on. The 80's really was 'changing of the guards' - or it looked like that at the time - and all of these 'old farts' were kinda lost. In retrospect looking their career, you can clearly see that most of them were like 'what will we do now in these new circusmstances' - a career low point for many of them. The nostalgia alone was not enough (there was no market in it yet, people were 'too young'), but you needed to do something current to remain 'relevant'. But most of them - Paul Simon being an exception with GRACELAND, and Bowie as well (but the latter was a kind of chameleont) - couldn't d do that convincingly. LIVE AID, at the same time as offering a justified spot for all these old legends to shine, also at the same time, pretty much made it clear how 'old farts' they really were, and how far the thing they present is from the current things.

Jagger really pushed hard to stay current, but unlike you, Dandie, seem to think, the results weren't really convincing, and not even in LIVE AID. If Bob, Keith, Eric, Neil, Page etc. really were 'old farts', Jagger was like 'an old fart desperatively trying to remain current or follow the trends', which, in a way, was even more comical.

Yeah, Jagger had some success with his singles. But of the three you mentioned he was with two riding with two big contemporary names. First with Michael Jackson (The Jacksons, but hey...), then with Bowie, who was big with his LET'S DANCE album (which is said to have being a rather strong model of how to update sound to current things for Jagger), which damn well boosted the sales (as its charity nature and LIVE AID connection). Re Bowie, he was really still or again considered "cool" those days, unlike Jagger (I still remember being angry for the reviews of which many praised 'stylistic' Bowie and claimed 'noisy' MIck having too much space). And like I have claimed here, Jagger's LIVE AID performance was actually made memorable and newsworthy thanks to Tina Turner. And that was the only live performance of solo Mick Jagger (of the 80's) the world would ever see (yeah, he did tour in the part of the world where the Stones hadn't toured for ages or ever - a safe bet - but that's it.) If we now think of three of his 'co-partners', I think Jagger actually gained more of them, than they of him (all the others could make huge hits by their own).

So how 'solo' Jagger's solo career actually was (at least if think of its success side)? Or how independently he tried to build it up?

Next year, 1986, Jagger - alone - made a title song for movie RUTHLESS PEOPLE, and it was advertised a lot and talked about (especially prior its release). It didn't make TO 50 in Billboard, and no one remembers that now. That was something Mick Jagger ever had experienced by then: a total flop. Things didn't look much better next year with "Let's Work"....

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-06 13:56 by Doxa.