Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa

Thank for getting the facts right about the CBS deal. Like you I wholeheartdly agree that Jagger's solo career was a serious try which, if turned out to be a success, would have been the end of the Stones. But then - if we really look Bill's talk about "playing reunions" - the reality of the Stones hasn't been that far from that. The way the Stones continued in 1989, very much in Jaggerian terms and live concept he tried in his solo tour '88, married to the nostalgia, the nature of the band and their habits of action were rather different than before. They gather when Mick whistles. If Keith wanted to 'save' the band, he did. But in many ways it was Pyrhos' win for him.

Personally, I think the option of two strong and profilic solo careers by Mick and Keith plus some "reunion" tour occasionally might have been a better option that the teethless, semi-retired nostalgia band we have now enyoyed 20 plus yaers.

- Doxa

I'm afraid I do not agree. He always said he wanted to combine a solo career and the Stones - in all his 80s interviews and then in an interview with Jean Wenner in 95
If Mick really wanted to develop only a solo career then after the success of She's The Boss with "Just Another Night" reaching #1 on the US Mainstream Rock chart and #12 on the US pop chart, and album going to #6 in the UK and #13 in the US he would have immediately started to work on the next album or a solo tour instead of working with the Stones,

This is quite correct.

I recall a BBC radio interview with him in June 1980 when Emotional Rescue came out and the interviewer (Richard Skinner) asking him did he fancy doing some solo work as it had been a decade since he had done so and the rest of the band had engaged in recent solo projects.

His reply was along the lines of "I have loads of old songs and ideas that I'm sure the band (ie the Stones) would never use, so I may as well go round the corner (ie into the studio) and knock 'em off".

When Skinner talked it up as a bit of exclusive that a solo project was forthcoming as well as another Stones album (which would be Tattoo You), Mick laughed and said "maybe....in your Christmas stocking!"...

Wouldnt maybe go as far to say that he was seriously engaged with the idea of a solo album (he didnt have a contract at that point to do one), but its not as if Yetnikoff's masterplan was some kind of Damascus-style awakening for him as a solo artist. The idea was already there.

ProudMary, I don't disagree with your view of what Mick said (there was an interview in Rolling Stone's 20th Anniversary issue in 1987 where he mentioned that Keith gets mad at him every time he says anything about the Stones - even nice things), my point was that the CBS deal was all about Mick. The Stones were seen as a spent force at the time. TATTOO YOU's phenomenal success and the record-breaking tour supporting it were perceived by industry movers and shakers like Yetnikoff to be proof that Mick was the key and the band was on their last legs. There's nothing inherently wrong with recognizing this and trying to maximize Mick as a solo star.

The deception on the public side is that Wasserman presented the August 1983 press release as "The Stones are moving to CBS" and since the mid-eighties, fans have believed that the band seemed to think it was about one Mick album and then business as normal and somehow the rest of the band got screwed by Mick. I will comment later on whether this is accurate or not.

While Keith likes to pretend to be disinterested in business or complain that Mick cuts him out, Yetnikoff remarked that Keith turns his persona on and off seemingly at will. He went through the frustration of business meetings with an incoherent Keith who even passed out once with Jagger visibly pissed off to suddenly seeing him snap into shape and become Jagger's right hand in negotiating points in their favor and giving the surprising impression of knowing what was going on.

I believe the decision to not announce Mick's first solo album immediately was a deliberate one to not interfere with the promotion for UNDERCOVER. This was an album that Mick and Keith and Chris Kimsey all described as a compromise and that they could have mixed forever and just reached a point where they stopped. Atlantic's dissatisfaction with the album and singles was also noted in interviews. It was crucial considering this, that the future move to CBS should promise more Stones albums and tours or else UNDERCOVER might have been a flop rather than just a disappointment.

You might be aware of Keith's appearance on NBC's Friday Night Videos in early 1984. It started with a pissed off introduction by Keith along the lines of "a couple weeks ago a friend of mine [Mick] was on the show, now I'm here to set the record straight." That was the first public sign of a crack, before that it was just talk from insiders that made its way to the music press. From 1979 - 1983 (thru Keith's wedding in Mexico in December of that year), Mick and Keith kept up a show of unity in interviews and public appearances. What problems existed were kept out of the spotlight. Keith changed that once it was announced in early 1984 that the new contract would start off with Mick's solo album. Keith made a point of visiting Pathe-Marconi just before Mick's solo announcement giving the impression that the Stones were heading to the studio later that year. Given that Mick was not only making a solo album but a feature film to promote it [Running Out of Luck], it seems impossible that he did not know that 1984 was not going to be a Stones year short of filming links for VIDEO REWIND to promote an end of contract compilation album for Atlantic/EMI.

It was a strange time. Charlie's alcohol and drug problems doubtless isolated Mick even more and Keith and Ronnie were both still far from clean. Bill's issues with Mandy (not an isolated incident since Bill's current wife Suzanne was underage when they first were sleeping together during the late seventies when Bill was still with Astrid) would have exploded in a much bigger way had the band been on tour behind DIRTY WORK. All of these factors doubtless influenced Mick's decision to distance himself. I believe it was in 1987 that Mick stated it was CBS who wanted another solo album from him. That might be disingenous, but if it was accurate, they could hardly be blamed. Yetnikoff and the rest of the CBS executives weren't fans looking for a Stones fix, they had a huge investment and while the Stones mattered in their artist roster, they didn't need them self-destructing and that is what the DIRTY WORK sessions and promotion were all about. The angle on the lyrics, the articles in the press, and the interviews were presented as "Come Watch Us Fall Apart." I'm not suggesting it was stagedd, but it was the result and it must have made CBS very uncomforatable considering their investment.

Mick's solo tour plans seemed to have been tied up in Roger Davies' (who Mick hired as a consultant for his solo career in 1986) suggestion that Mick tour as part of a package with Bowie and Tina Turner. Mick was focused on a (relatively speaking) small scale world tour on his own. Bill German reported on a Primitive-themed stage design being looked at in early Summer 1987 and Mick had booked an appearance on Saturday Night Live for November 14, 1987 to coincide with the start of the US leg of the tour (which was set to start in Europe). The plug was pulled on all of this - although Bowie and Tina went forward on their own - and Mick was back at Stage One in trying to find a guitar player/ musical director for his solo tour which was delayed until 1988.

You might also recall Musician's cover story on the Stones when DIRTY WORK was released. The article ran with the fact that at CBS everyone was discussing a possible Mick solo tour with Steve Vai and this was December 1985/January 1986 timeframe. Considering all of this and God knows what else that we aren't privy to, Keith's remarks about touring DIRTY WORK can be seen as unrealistic and since it is obvious he could not publicly manipulate Mick into a Stones tour, one has to conclude the public comments were self-serving to put a wedge between Stones fans and accepting Mick as a solo star and engendering support for Keith. It did work as we saw first with HAIL HAIL ROCK 'N' ROLL (with Chuck Berry as a Mick substitute for Keith's frustration/bitterness - remember the soundbyte of "the guy's given me more headaches than Mick Jagger" was everywhere in the Fall of 1987), then TALK IS CHEAP was certified Gold in the US (the CD actually cracked the Top Ten when CD's were charted separately by Billboard), even the success of LIFE can be seen as being built on the same platform. "Stones fans should side with Keith, if he had his way it would mean more and better Stones for us all." This was the very successful message that Jane Rose cultivated through amazingly clever media manipulation creating Keith as a populist roots rocker with musical integrity and an amazing superhuman survivor able to live a life fans cannot sustain. This was a major rehabilitation of the brain damaged joke image that would have made any solo deal with a major label impossible. Once Keith as a solo star was no longer viable, the shift becamse living off the image via PIRATES and LIFE. It's the only thing left and Jane deserves kudos for doing her job well. Andrew would have loved her.

All of that said, I'm not suggesting everyone should join in and bash Keith, but I think taking an honest view of what facts are known and not being led along by public remarks results in a more honest and insightful understanding of what was reality. For all intents and purposes, Mick and Keith both knew in August 1983 that the coming years would mean concentrating on Mick. From that perspective, Mick's positive comments about the band's future during the solo hiatus should be taken with as much a grain of salt as Keith's claims that he was blind-sided and betrayed by his best friend. They knew the truth but chose not to announce it publicly. Rather they each spun it their own way to serve their own purposes.

In that respect, the post-2007 state of the union can be viewed as more of the same just with the fact that age and health limit what they are capable of accomplishing together or apart from this point forward. Thanks for anyone who stuck through to the end of this spiel.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The CBS contract was for $28 million for four albums plus the Atlantic/EMI back catalog. The deal included an MJ solo album. When Jagger decided not to tour behind DIRTY WORK, but rather make another solo album - he was fulfilling the contractual obligation to CBS with a solo album. Yetnikoff pulled the Stones in by appealing to Jagger as a solo star. He admits the same in his autobiography. Yetnikoff saw Richards as a brain-damaged junkie and believed Jagger could be built into an MTV superstar with careful handling. It didn't work. Something Yetnikoff didn't understand then (see his interview in Rolling Stone circa 1990) or now (again, his autobiography). This was why Bill Wyman (who had stood by Mick during band meetings in 1984 believing Mick's solo effort should be tolerated and in 1986 when Mick decided not to tour) was so stung later in 1986 when Mick announced he planned a solo album, solo world tour, and then a couple of movies. The Stones were essentially finished. When Ronnie attempted damage control after Bill spoke out publicly, he was asked where he thought the Stones would be in 10 years, he replied playing reunions. I'm not arguing Mick didn't have reason to break away from Keith, but it is inaccurate to say that Mick going solo wasn't a threat to the band's future. The contractual obligation was an MJ solo album and a Stones album. The rest of the contract could have been all MJ solo albums had 1987 turned out differently. Jane Rose definitely made sure her client benefited from the anti-Jagger backlash that started in 1986 and, in many ways, the end result of that backlash is LIFE.

Wasn't the CBS deal in '84 about TWO solo albums by Jagger? Or was that later on? There's one thing I don't fully agree with, and that's the timing of it all for the second solo album: Jagger decided not to tour when DW came out not because he wanted to do another solo album, but because the band was in terrible shape. Charlie was a heroin addict, Wood and Richards strung out on coke, and Wyman was dating minors. The Stones where old hat in '86, and Jagger saw that. He knew a Stones tour in '86 would be a train wreck.

Mathijs

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Thanks for anyone who stuck through to the end of this spiel.

And thanks to you for your informative story

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

Quote
Mathijs
Wasn't the CBS deal in '84 about TWO solo albums by Jagger? Or was that later on? There's one thing I don't fully agree with, and that's the timing of it all for the second solo album: Jagger decided not to tour when DW came out not because he wanted to do another solo album, but because the band was in terrible shape. Charlie was a heroin addict, Wood and Richards strung out on coke, and Wyman was dating minors. The Stones where old hat in '86, and Jagger saw that. He knew a Stones tour in '86 would be a train wreck.

Mathijs

The CBS deal was announced as four albums in August 1983. In February 1984, it was confirmed the first album in the deal would be a Mick solo album. In May 1986, Mick confirmed he would be recording his second solo album later that year. The CBS deal guaranteed a Mick album and a Stones album. The other two albums could have been Stones albums or Mick albums. PRIMITIVE COOL fulfilled the obligation for a third release with STEEL WHEELS the fourth. You might recall in late 1988/early 1989 it was noted that if the Stones songwriting sessions in Barbados didn't work out, Mick would do a solo album with Joe Satriani and Jimmy Rip and Keith and the Winos would tour Europe. As far as CBS was concerned, Mick solo was an acceptable substitute for the Stones.

I agree about Mick not touring because of the band's condition and relationships, but I have never heard anything (apart from Keith's personal wishes) to indicate a 1986 tour was seriously discussed. There would have been sponsorship in place and dates and venues tentatively discussed by the time the album was released. Bill Graham would have been heavily involved in planning something. There was nothing to indicate it was ever a serious discussion. A putative tour was just a way of publicly dealing with the decision to let the band grind to a halt. DIRTY WORK's release was delayed to take advantage of the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award CBS bought for the band. There was never a tour in any real sense or else it would have started gearing up long before Feb/Mar 1986.

Once the band shot the "One Hit" video with Russell Mulcahy in May 1986, that was it. Keith was on NBC's The Today Show for an interview in early April (over a month before the "One Hit" videotaping) and claimed Mick had sent a telegram begging off the imaginary tour (soundbyte jibe was Keith laughing saying Mick spelled tour wrong - a telegram with a typo?) June 1986 was his solo appearance on "Friday Night Videos" which was supposed to showcase a live solo performance with sidemen of "Sleep Tonight." Only Paul Shaffer and Marcus Miller backed him. The drum kit remained empty (Keith claimed Ronnie was supposed to turn up to play drums, but that is questionable).

If there was never a tour seriously considered for DIRTY WORK, Mick's plans naturally were to do another solo album and a solo tour and then more movies. The decision might have been made from the outset of the CBS contract or during the Paris or New York '85 sessions, but there is no way any DIRTY WORK tour was ever planned by Rupert or anyone else who would have been involved. Mick and CBS would not have been talking to Steve Vai in late '85 or early '86 about a solo tour if there was.

My guess is after the aggravation of the '81-'82 tours and Mick feeling that those tours and TATTOO YOU's success were due to his hard work rather than a group effort, the time seemed right to finally go solo. The Stones would wind down rather than break up once the Atlantic/EMI deal ended in 1984. UNDERCOVER was a contractual obligation and reinforced the decision. Keith was, at the time, very supportive of "Undercover of the Night" (see the praise he heaps on the 12" mix in his 1983 Musician interview) IF it hadn't been selected as a single and turned into something aimed at the pop charts. He and Mick agreed that "She Was Hot" was just the label playing it safe with a formula single selected as a follow up (again, see the Musician interview in 1983). Keith's love of the 12" mix of "Feel On, Baby" that he crafted in near isolation from the rest of the band at Compass Point coupled with his remarks about the "Undercover" 12" mix suggests he would have loved trying to make a dub album in the Lee "Scratch" Perry vein instead of what UNDERCOVER became. He was wary of being influenced by MTV and its current stars (perhaps understanding the allure for Jagger as a solo artist) and outright hated "Too Much Blood" going so far as to walk out of the sessions. His attitude and reactions likely cemented Mick's decisions regarding the CBS deal. Ahmet Ertegun stated that CBS' numbers made no sense when Mick and Keith gave Atlantic a chance to counter.

All of this lines up to Mick deciding during the 1983 sessions that the next contract would make his solo career. DIRTY WORK was the ugly contractual obligation no one wanted to make. It was a band stabbing themselves in the back repeatedly and the album reflects that lack of creative harmony. SHE'S THE BOSS and RUNNING OUT OF LUCK and Live Aid were to mark the solo debut. "Ruthless People" was the stop-gap that failed to work. Yetnikoff ordered up a Weird Al parody which fell flat when the single flopped. PRIMITIVE COOL was supposed to put Mick center stage as a solo artist and be a major release and major tour (with or without Bowie and Tina Turner as co-attractions), but it disappointed. From there, Mick fell to Plan B which was reinventing the Stones for the MTV era. It worked and they all enjoyed cashing in on the subsequent reunion album and world tour model every few years after for nearly twenty years.

When all was said and done, the CBS deal promised something Mick and CBS couldn't deliver - Mick bigger than the Stones. Don't believe the hype about Mick defecting. Keith and Jane Rose both surely understood this by late summer 1983. Everything that followed was calculated to salvage what they could for Keith. Had he not burned himself out with staying on the road too long in the nineties, Keith might have been able to sustain his creativity beyond the BRIDGES sessions, but it appears he did indeed "lose his touch" in more ways than one.

Thank you for that insight Rocky.
Fascinating.....you should write a book. I remember that period very clearly and it was a tough time to be a Stones fans.

Thanks Rocky. Wonderful insight.

The link below has an old article from the NY Times magazine section from 1989. It seems to refer to the period after the release of Talk is Cheap and before the recording of Steel Wheels - a nice read.

[www.iorr.org]

Quote
proudmary
MarshaH

The title of the originale article - the one you took this quote from -

Bobby Womack: 'I can sing my ass off, better than I could before'
[www.guardian.co.uk]

and he never said in one sentence that he thinks Mick is a**hole, all I can see
"he had a problem with Mick Jagger' - Alexis Petridis's words
"Some people never grow up if you give 'em too much," he grimaces. "They gonna be @#$%&, then they just become a bigger @#$%&." - Womack's words

so the title of your thread is misleading

It was mostly Keith's idea to get Womack on DW sessions and it was to be his duty to take care of money and everything else for the artist, for whom he carried responsibility.
"Keith Richards had been looking for songs to possibly include on the album and had been working up songs with Ronnie Wood and Womack while waiting for Jagger to return to the studio in Paris after doing promo work on his solo album. To Richards's surprise, Jagger liked the feel and cut the vocals quickly."
The Stones have a history of using people, that's for sure but the Stones not only Jagger - he and Richards get the same money in the end.
Richards just chose the role of the good cop always throwing the blame on Jagger.
I wonder why people which Mick brought to the Stones' had never discredit Richards in the press?
I think it reflects the atmosphere in the the circles of each other. I can not imagine how Tom Stoppard or Michael Apted (Jagger's friends who were doing something for the Stones) will tell anything about Keith exept good

Good one PM. The Fair and Balanced" crew that raises hell when a single word or article mis-represents one Glimmer Twin seem to recuse themselves when something mis-leading has an anti-Jagger sentiment

>>It didn't work. Something Yetnikoff didn't understand then (see his interview in Rolling Stone circa 1990) or now (again, his autobiography)


RD, could you please elaborate on this for those of us who haven't seen the interview or book?

What is your take on the relative failure of Mick's solo efforts? Was it the limitations of the material, poor marketing, or the public's closeminded determination to retain the RS in their original form because of nostalgia?

Yetnikoff literally said he couldn't understand why both Jagger albums weren't bigger in his post-Sony RS interview and in his autobiography a few years ago. That was the extent of the remark - absolute puzzlement. This isn't some sort of blindspot from a non-Stones fan. This is a guy who did understand how to market the hell out of Michael Jackson, Billy Joel, and Bruce Springsteen in the eighties. Jagger eluded him and he couldn't get why.

That said, I didn't mean to imply I had the answers. It isn't as simple as the whole is larger than the sum of the parts as Keith has said. Truth be told, the Stones haven't been able to live up to their legacy either for the past 30 years. New product (key word here) sold as "Rolling Stones" will outsell Jagger solo or certainly Richards solo, but they were unable to recapture 1981 when they last had the single and album everyone wanted. Since then they've had plenty of years where they were the top act to catch live, but it's no secret that if everyone who paid for a concert ticket bought the CD or CD single, the band would have been ecstatic. They sacrificed relevancy as recording artists for phenomenal success as a nostalgia act. If the money is what mattered, I suspect it was the only option they had.

I might prefer a dozen more WANDERING SPIRIT's and MAIN OFFENDER's instead, but I doubt they would willingly trade that for the touring revenue. Keith would likely have ended up on an indie label by now had he kept at his solo career. As it stands he'll probably have one high-profile critically-acclaimed album culled together at some point in the next few years that will sell reasonably well for what it is and might receive a Grammy nod if the money's behind it. It'll be elder statesman routine. I believe Dave Stewart is working on Mick to release some sort of mega-set of his back catalog with tons of unreleased tracks as a digital only release.

More will come to be sure, but since THE VERY BEST OF MICK JAGGER immediately following the close of the BIGGER BANG tour, it's all been about looking back and squeezing every last drop out of it. Meantime we all hang on for one last go-round and get worked up over every appearance and public utterance. I'm talking about myself as well as anyone else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 00:49 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Stoneage
I can understand that Mick was tired and bored of the bluesrock format they were molded into, and wanted to be more contemporary and follow trends. The sad thing, however, was that he was never good at it. All his attempts failed. When he finally had a hit it was "Moves like jagger" - a song he had nothing to do with! So in the end, he broke up the Rolling Stones for a string of throwaway solo records. From the mid-80s and onwards his heart was never with the Rolling Stones.

It is obvious that Mick/Keith conflict had nothing to do with music. They are both committed to the blues and their roots to the same extent - which is why Wandering Spirit is the best Stones album from a TY
I think that in the mid-'80s (after the release of She's the Boss) something happened that was perceived by Jagger as a personal betrayal from Richards side, and since then "his heart was never with Keith'

and Richards - he hates Jagger from the late 70's but in a strange way he thinks Mick belongs to him.

What do you suppose did it? I think it was just the result of 15 years of working with someone who has become the biggest obstacle to progress due to stubbornness and massive substance abuse. Finally, you just can't take it anymore so you just cut off emotionally. If there was a sense of betrayal, it would be because Keith was originally Mick's partner and closest friend.

These record deals were a mess. I mean you will have to decide whether to go solo or stay with the band. You can't do both unless you are schizofrenic. And to the public the whole deal is only confusing.
The result in the end was a half-hearted solo effort and a disintegrating Rolling Stones. A lose-lose situation...

Quote
wanderingspirit66
The Fair and Balanced" crew that raises hell when a single word or article mis-represents one Glimmer Twin seem to recuse themselves when something mis-leading has an anti-Jagger sentiment

What a load of crock. Please read the complete thread before you post such nonsense. Several posters, myself included, complimented proudmary for posting the link to the original article.

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

Quote
Rocky Dijon

You might be aware of Keith's appearance on NBC's Friday Night Videos in early 1984. It started with a pissed off introduction by Keith along the lines of "a couple weeks ago a friend of mine [Mick] was on the show, now I'm here to set the record straight." That was the first public sign of a crack, before that it was just talk from insiders that made its way to the music press.

I'd call that good-natured banter. As much evidence of a rift as Mick imitating Keith on Saturday Night Live and calling himself an 'ignorant slut' !

There probably already WAS one, but I wouldnt attach any significance to THAT line.

Quote
Bliss

What do you suppose did it? I think it was just the result of 15 years of working with someone who has become the biggest obstacle to progress due to stubbornness and massive substance abuse. Finally, you just can't take it anymore so you just cut off emotionally. If there was a sense of betrayal, it would be because Keith was originally Mick's partner and closest friend.

I think its as simple as that. Can you imagine having to hold it all up while you're partner is a junkie...?
We cannot underestimate how wasted Keith was...
There was a recent episode of Kitchen Nightmares where these two brothers owned a restaurant together....one brother became a drug addict for close to 15 years, squandered money, didn't give a shit about the business while the restaurant was struggling to survive....while the other brother held it all together alone, took the fall, took the losses.....and when the addict brother finally got clean and wanted to regain some power - the brother that had been keeping things together had lost his passion for the restaurant, lost respect for his brother who abandoned him...and felt underappreciated for basically covering for his brothers' ass.... the bitterness was real.
Mick will never say how Keith's addiction affected him personally, the toll it took, the stress he was under....but many of us who have known addicts know how draining and thankless and one-sided that relationship can be. Mick is human.
Funny thing is, the addict never remembers what a pain in the ass he was and never seems to get why people are bitter.

Like Stu once said, 'Mick held the band together when Keith wasn't interested...'
I think there is some lasting bitterness on Mick's part.....because Keith very quickly turned around, boasted how he 'licked' smack, and proceeded to act like the last 15 years had not happened, at least not the way everyone around him saw it. Keith owed alot to Mick, and instead trashed his attemptes at going solo, attacked him personally, and publically demeaned him.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 03:46 by stupidguy2.

It was mentioned that Bobby made loads of money off the songwriting royalties for the Stones' version of It's All Over Now. But given how so many other artists and writers were screwed by trusting the wrong people and signing bad deals....did Bobby ever get a penny in royalties? Or was hearing his song become a hit just a reminder that he got ripped off (or that he himself screwed up?)

Allen Klein controlled publishing rights to "It's All Over Now." I've never heard that Bobby didn't get paid, but it's an interesting consideration.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Bliss

What do you suppose did it? I think it was just the result of 15 years of working with someone who has become the biggest obstacle to progress due to stubbornness and massive substance abuse. Finally, you just can't take it anymore so you just cut off emotionally. If there was a sense of betrayal, it would be because Keith was originally Mick's partner and closest friend.

I think its as simple as that. Can you imagine having to hold it all up while you're partner is a junkie...?
We cannot underestimate how wasted Keith was...
There was a recent episode of Kitchen Nightmares where these two brothers owned a restaurant together....one brother became a drug addict for close to 15 years, squandered money, didn't give a shit about the business while the restaurant was struggling to survive....while the other brother held it all together alone, took the fall, took the losses.....and when the addict brother finally got clean and wanted to regain some power - the brother that had been keeping things together had lost his passion for the restaurant, lost respect for his brother who abandoned him...and felt underappreciated for basically covering for his brothers' ass.... the bitterness was real.
Mick will never say how Keith's addiction affected him personally, the toll it took, the stress he was under....but many of us who have known addicts know how draining and thankless and one-sided that relationship can be. Mick is human.
Funny thing is, the addict never remembers what a pain in the ass he was and never seems to get why people are bitter.

Like Stu once said, 'Mick held the band together when Keith wasn't interested...'
I think there is some lasting bitterness on Mick's part.....because Keith very quickly turned around, boasted how he 'licked' smack, and proceeded to act like the last 15 years had not happened, at least not the way everyone around him saw it. Keith owed alot to Mick, and instead trashed his attemptes at going solo, attacked him personally, and publically demeaned him.

Great post. And adding to that, how bitter Keith became towards Mick. This also is a common phenomena when someone has been by the side of an addict, and the addict gets clean, and resents their partner. One thing about Mick, he has rarely vented his speel in public about Keith and the years of having to manage him and the Stones.

Rocky Dijon, absolutely great stuff. You are not just offerening a massive amount of facts but making them alive by giving us a great, coherent story over them. I just make some quick comments.

(1) Especially I am thankful for explaining the nature of UNDERCOVER as a contract filler. The term 'compromise" you use describes very well the album made under those circumstances. In recent Stones histories the album and its making seems almost forgotten. In ROLLING WITH THE STONES, the only thing Wyman said of making it, was that "recording went smoothly", which was in a huge contrast to the scene making EMOTIONAL RESCUE. I guess the smoothness is due to that their mind was already elsewehere; they - Jagger that is - was negotating a new deal while doing it - the fact which I believe didn't make Atlantic happy (and yeah, I also remember them moaning somehow later; they weren't satisfied with the product Stones offered to them). Even Richards seemed to behave okay. Perhaps he knew that this needs to be done if there is a future. I have a feeling that Keith wasn't so stubborn then than he was while doing EMOTIONAL RESCUE because he knew he was in the very process of losing his 'friend/partner' and his own future as Rolling Stone. The last time to be good, so to say.

But if we look the record there are some half-baked fillers that wouldn't made any Stones album prior that; think of "It Must Be Hell" that is even produced terrible weakly. Without some new experiments - especially the title song - there is not much inspiration in the album, and many songs are just basically jams (okay by their own terms, but releasing them as such speaks volumes of bands concentration). Jagger worked about two tracks hard and then studied the new video format. Probably Keith had something muse-like going on with "Feel On Baby" but then basically went through the motions.

(2) Like I have said earlier, I am thankful for you finally clearing the nature of the CBS deal. I have never before looked at it so closely, and its timing, etc. Now it all make sense. Likewise I think that both Mick and Keith knew by fall 1983 that it is going to be about Jagger in the future. And all their actions and tactic moves after that should be interpreted that in mind. Keith - and especially Jane Rose - were not fool.

Actually it was a perfect deal for Jagger at the moment: after two oligatory records by both sides, it left the option open who will fill the contract - Jagger or The Stones (even I am sure Jagger alraedy knew while signing the contract that the third will be in any case his solo album). It would be interesting to know how much Keith was involved while making the contract; how did he accept that in the first place - or was Jagger already then giving him an ultimatum: "sign this or it's over". In any case Keith started to moan - at least in public - not until the deal was put on practise, that is, Jagger was actually making his first solo album (and probably giving it stronger contribution, and more time of his life, he did for example, to UNDERCOVER). Could be that then Richards really understood what this will mean to the band, to him, that is. Then we had Jane Rose's PR cylinders all working on. For example, Keith complained that SHE'S THE BOSS is too much a Rolling Stones-like; it should have been something "MIck Jagger sings Frank Sinatra", etc. I remember reading it then, and laughing it, but now one can see how much there was going on.

(3) Mick's disinvolvement in DIRTY WORK is perfectly understable now if we consider the nature of CS deal. The record was an obligatory contrary filler, and only Keith's strong push for it, talking about touring, etc., was either (a) theatrical in order to sapotage Jagger's solo plans, or (b) he really wanted to carry the band in his shoulders. Pick up your guess. We all know the sad results. Jagger pretty much had his next solo album in mind, and I liek yoy Rocky, I believe never considered seriously touring with The Stones (the latter was just Keith's fiction). The Steve Vai involvement alraedy back then is news to me, and it suits to the picture.

Wyman, by the way, sounds bitter about Live Aid. He and Charlie would like to have contributed, but 'they' - The Rolling Stones, but who really? - refused since their recording duties in Paris (Geldof came even to visit them there to talk them over). But in the very last minute Jagger 'decided' to perform solo. That sounds a bit...

4. All in all, Rocky's posts give a clear picture that Mick's solo career was a serious option, and they all - the whole band - knew the reality back then. Jagger's solo career would have meant the end of the Stones. The issue was which path Jagger would take. He was a serious professional then, pushing hard his career, and not making any half-baked side projects back then. But taking the condition of the band back then, Jagger's own stance (solo career) sounds reasonable. Jagger was working hard, full of energy, but that cannot be said of the others. Especailly during DIRTY WORK.

A brief last point: funnily, the huge record deal was many ways a bad contract for CBS, and I am sure they were disappointed. It was not until STEEL WHEELS they probably had a product that could somehow fulfill their expectations. By the 80's standards SHE'S THE BOSS or DIRTY WORK were not any huge sellers, and PRIMITIVE COOL was a clear flop.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 10:10 by Doxa.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Yetnikoff literally said he couldn't understand why both Jagger albums weren't bigger in his post-Sony RS interview and in his autobiography a few years ago. That was the extent of the remark - absolute puzzlement. This isn't some sort of blindspot from a non-Stones fan. This is a guy who did understand how to market the hell out of Michael Jackson, Billy Joel, and Bruce Springsteen in the eighties. Jagger eluded him and he couldn't get why.

That said, I didn't mean to imply I had the answers. It isn't as simple as the whole is larger than the sum of the parts as Keith has said. Truth be told, the Stones haven't been able to live up to their legacy either for the past 30 years. New product (key word here) sold as "Rolling Stones" will outsell Jagger solo or certainly Richards solo, but they were unable to recapture 1981 when they last had the single and album everyone wanted. Since then they've had plenty of years where they were the top act to catch live, but it's no secret that if everyone who paid for a concert ticket bought the CD or CD single, the band would have been ecstatic. They sacrificed relevancy as recording artists for phenomenal success as a nostalgia act. If the money is what mattered, I suspect it was the only option they had.

I might prefer a dozen more WANDERING SPIRIT's and MAIN OFFENDER's instead, but I doubt they would willingly trade that for the touring revenue. Keith would likely have ended up on an indie label by now had he kept at his solo career. As it stands he'll probably have one high-profile critically-acclaimed album culled together at some point in the next few years that will sell reasonably well for what it is and might receive a Grammy nod if the money's behind it. It'll be elder statesman routine. I believe Dave Stewart is working on Mick to release some sort of mega-set of his back catalog with tons of unreleased tracks as a digital only release.

More will come to be sure, but since THE VERY BEST OF MICK JAGGER immediately following the close of the BIGGER BANG tour, it's all been about looking back and squeezing every last drop out of it. Meantime we all hang on for one last go-round and get worked up over every appearance and public utterance. I'm talking about myself as well as anyone else.

Personally, I love both Mick and Keith's solo work. They add an interesting and valuable dimension to their body of work as the RS. I also enjoy Mick's recent efforts, SuperHeavy, although I am rather put off by his exaggerated, parodic appearance lately - too much movement, bopping around, silly pink suit.

But RD, I am interested to hear why you think Mick's solo career didn't take off. Do you think he was just too old to begin a solo rock career at that point?

If only they would play to their strengths, instead of trying to grasp what they have lost! Specifically, Mick's superb voice for the blues, plus a lifetime of experience.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Bliss

What do you suppose did it? I think it was just the result of 15 years of working with someone who has become the biggest obstacle to progress due to stubbornness and massive substance abuse. Finally, you just can't take it anymore so you just cut off emotionally. If there was a sense of betrayal, it would be because Keith was originally Mick's partner and closest friend.

I think its as simple as that. Can you imagine having to hold it all up while you're partner is a junkie...?
We cannot underestimate how wasted Keith was...
There was a recent episode of Kitchen Nightmares where these two brothers owned a restaurant together....one brother became a drug addict for close to 15 years, squandered money, didn't give a shit about the business while the restaurant was struggling to survive....while the other brother held it all together alone, took the fall, took the losses.....and when the addict brother finally got clean and wanted to regain some power - the brother that had been keeping things together had lost his passion for the restaurant, lost respect for his brother who abandoned him...and felt underappreciated for basically covering for his brothers' ass.... the bitterness was real.
Mick will never say how Keith's addiction affected him personally, the toll it took, the stress he was under....but many of us who have known addicts know how draining and thankless and one-sided that relationship can be. Mick is human.
Funny thing is, the addict never remembers what a pain in the ass he was and never seems to get why people are bitter.

Like Stu once said, 'Mick held the band together when Keith wasn't interested...'
I think there is some lasting bitterness on Mick's part.....because Keith very quickly turned around, boasted how he 'licked' smack, and proceeded to act like the last 15 years had not happened, at least not the way everyone around him saw it. Keith owed alot to Mick, and instead trashed his attemptes at going solo, attacked him personally, and publically demeaned him.

Great post. And adding to that, how bitter Keith became towards Mick. This also is a common phenomena when someone has been by the side of an addict, and the addict gets clean, and resents their partner. One thing about Mick, he has rarely vented his speel in public about Keith and the years of having to manage him and the Stones.

I also agree with all the above posts for explaining Jagger's behavior towards Keith. Not any big drama or anything - in the course of time, human mind just adapts some stances and strategies in order to cope with the environment, and causally goes on. I guess Jagger's mind worked like any Darwinian organism if offered by too much bad stimulus. Finally you don't give a shit actually emotionally. Keith understood that way too late. If he never did. He just saw that Jagger gives a shit about him any longer. Since 1989 it's all just business with a minmal co-operation face to face. That's my picture of this so called 'melodrama' or 'marriage' or 'brotherhood' or whatever Keith calls it (ending up sounding like a bitter ex-wife/husband postulating excuses, dissing, sharing gossips, etc.).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 10:30 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
whitem8

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Bliss

What do you suppose did it? I think it was just the result of 15 years of working with someone who has become the biggest obstacle to progress due to stubbornness and massive substance abuse. Finally, you just can't take it anymore so you just cut off emotionally. If there was a sense of betrayal, it would be because Keith was originally Mick's partner and closest friend.

I think its as simple as that. Can you imagine having to hold it all up while you're partner is a junkie...?
We cannot underestimate how wasted Keith was...
There was a recent episode of Kitchen Nightmares where these two brothers owned a restaurant together....one brother became a drug addict for close to 15 years, squandered money, didn't give a shit about the business while the restaurant was struggling to survive....while the other brother held it all together alone, took the fall, took the losses.....and when the addict brother finally got clean and wanted to regain some power - the brother that had been keeping things together had lost his passion for the restaurant, lost respect for his brother who abandoned him...and felt underappreciated for basically covering for his brothers' ass.... the bitterness was real.
Mick will never say how Keith's addiction affected him personally, the toll it took, the stress he was under....but many of us who have known addicts know how draining and thankless and one-sided that relationship can be. Mick is human.
Funny thing is, the addict never remembers what a pain in the ass he was and never seems to get why people are bitter.

Like Stu once said, 'Mick held the band together when Keith wasn't interested...'
I think there is some lasting bitterness on Mick's part.....because Keith very quickly turned around, boasted how he 'licked' smack, and proceeded to act like the last 15 years had not happened, at least not the way everyone around him saw it. Keith owed alot to Mick, and instead trashed his attemptes at going solo, attacked him personally, and publically demeaned him.

Great post. And adding to that, how bitter Keith became towards Mick. This also is a common phenomena when someone has been by the side of an addict, and the addict gets clean, and resents their partner. One thing about Mick, he has rarely vented his speel in public about Keith and the years of having to manage him and the Stones.

I also agree with all the above posts for explaining Jagger's behavior towards Keith. Not any big drama or anything - in the course of time, human mind just adapts some stances and strategies in order to cope with the environment, and causally goes on. I guess Jagger's mind worked like any Darwinian organism if offered by too much bad stimulus. Finally you don't give a shit actually emotionally. Keith understood that way too late. If he never did. He just saw that Jagger gives a shit about him any longer. Since 1989 it's all just business with a minmal co-operation face to face. That's my picture of this so called 'melodrama' or 'marriage' or 'brotherhood' or whatever Keith calls it (ending up sounding like a bitter ex-wife/husband postulating excuses, dissing, sharing gossips, etc.).

- Doxa

Let's not forget there were two guys working together in France in 2004, playing different instruments, writing songs together. You may like or dislike ABB, but it was as much of a joint effort Mick and Keith could make at the time.

Both Mick and Keith's stories from the sessions confirm that.

Thanks Rocky et al. for your inputs in this thread. They make this forum deeply valuable.

Great take, Rocky! But it's your theory, based on facts taken from an open sources - right?

CBS deal was for four albums - one solo Jagger (with the possibility of a second) and the three albums by the Stones. The last album of this contract was Flashpoint

Yetnikoff wasn't a fool, he didn't sign a potentially big solo artist who didn't have any solo work at the time for the record sum of money in the history of the show business. He signed the biggest rock act who had five or six consecutive number one albums
That's why DW was not an obligatory contractory filler - it was the first Stones album in their new company, the one which was the biggest and most influential in the record bisness
I still think that Jagger at the time did not think to leave the Stones, so he started working on the album with the Stones, but Richards turned the session into a war for influence.
And it is absolutely clear that Mick had no plans for a solo tour while working on the DW. We're talking about mid-85, and he began working on Primitive Cool in spring 87
When Jagger knows what to do - he does it precisely and with maximum efficiency. The problem arises when he does not know what to do.
If he wanted the success of his solo career no matter what - he would do it.

Quote
proudmary
Great take, Rocky! But it's your theory, based on facts taken from an open sources - right?

CBS deal was for four albums - one solo Jagger (with the possibility of a second) and the three albums by the Stones. The last album of this contract was Flashpoint

Yetnikoff wasn't a fool, he didn't sign a potentially big solo artist who didn't have any solo work at the time for the record sum of money in the history of the show business. He signed the biggest rock act who had five or six consecutive number one albums
That's why DW was not an obligatory contractory filler - it was the first Stones album in their new company, the one which was the biggest and most influential in the record bisness
I still think that Jagger at the time did not think to leave the Stones, so he started working on the album with the Stones, but Richards turned the session into a war for influence.
And it is absolutely clear that Mick had no plans for a solo tour while working on the DW. We're talking about mid-85, and he began working on Primitive Cool in spring 87
When Jagger knows what to do - he does it precisely and with maximum efficiency. The problem arises when he does not know what to do.
If he wanted the success of his solo career no matter what - he would do it.

And he did! IMO, He was successful with STB, at least as successful as he could expect to be. Mick's mistake, however, was that he couldn't see that he had reached his potential as a solo artist, and instead he started recording that second solo album.

Mick was reaching his peak at Live Aid, with his performance there, imo.

BTW, do you know the contractual facts better than Rocky, or are you guessing?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Let's not forget there were two guys working together in France in 2004, playing different instruments, writing songs together. You may like or dislike ABB, but it was as much of a joint effort Mick and Keith could make at the time.

Both Mick and Keith's stories from the sessions confirm that.

Good that you thought of it - this is a case in point. Do you remember what was the end of this attempt to resurrect the spirit of the former partnership?
It was amazing, and on this question of the nature of their relationship should be closed.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary
Great take, Rocky! But it's your theory, based on facts taken from an open sources - right?

CBS deal was for four albums - one solo Jagger (with the possibility of a second) and the three albums by the Stones. The last album of this contract was Flashpoint

Yetnikoff wasn't a fool, he didn't sign a potentially big solo artist who didn't have any solo work at the time for the record sum of money in the history of the show business. He signed the biggest rock act who had five or six consecutive number one albums
That's why DW was not an obligatory contractory filler - it was the first Stones album in their new company, the one which was the biggest and most influential in the record bisness
I still think that Jagger at the time did not think to leave the Stones, so he started working on the album with the Stones, but Richards turned the session into a war for influence.
And it is absolutely clear that Mick had no plans for a solo tour while working on the DW. We're talking about mid-85, and he began working on Primitive Cool in spring 87
When Jagger knows what to do - he does it precisely and with maximum efficiency. The problem arises when he does not know what to do.
If he wanted the success of his solo career no matter what - he would do it.

And he did! IMO, He was successful with STB, at least as successful as he could expect to be. Mick's mistake, however, was that he couldn't see that he had reached his potential as a solo artist, and instead he started recording that second solo album.

Mick was reaching his peak at Live Aid, with his performance there, imo.

BTW, do you know the contractual facts better than Rocky, or are you guessing?

No, he did not. Immediately after Live Aid and his #1 hit with Bowie he had to go on solo tour or record another solo album. He waited two years and never went on tour in America and Europe.

do you know the contractual facts better than Rocky, or are you guessing

We've read the same books and interviews. In addition there is a logic. Stones' last album for CBS wasn't Steel Weels, it was Flashpoint
This makes 4 albums - She's The Boss, DW, SW and FP( and Privitive Coool being 5th as additional Jagger solo album)

@ProudMary, yes my sources are open. I've never claimed insider knowledge. We have the same knowledge, the only difference might lie in interpretation which is subjective so I can't be more right or wrong than you or anyone else in arguing a position, it's just my opinion. Regarding the CBS deal, it was for four studio albums. FLASHPOINT (like COLLECTABLES) and the Atlantic/EMI reissues would have been additional. It was likely part of the "tour support" clause (which I've never read, of course) that is referenced in the contract since I am unaware of CBS having any other input into either Mick's tour or the Stones'. My only disagreement over Mick and a solo tour prior to 1987 is the Musician cover story in Feb/Mar 1986 (can't remember which). It specifically mentions CBS execs quietly (as in supposedly confidential) discussing Steve Vai going out on tour with Mick ("but we can't talk about it now"). Maybe Mick made the decision during the DIRTY WORK sessions. It was clear from his schedule that as soon as principal photography on RUNNING OUT OF LUCK wrapped he was headed to Paris for the Stones sessions. I understood Gazza thinking I made a mountain out of a molehill with Keith's Friday Night Videos appearance just as Mick started recording SHE'S THE BOSS, but it represents the public change in Keith where Mick now becomes a target to varying degrees. That wasn't the case in interviews 1979 - 1983 where they were still Twins as far as the public was concerned.

@Doxa, my remarks about UNDERCOVER being a compromise are drawn from the 1983 Musician cover story. It is said that Mick, Keith, and Chris Kimsey agreed to simply stop mixing at some point or they could have gone on forever. Additionally Bill German noted in Spring 1983 that Mick and Keith were in separate studios (NY and Compass Point) mixing tracks and sending the tapes back and forth.

@Bliss, I enjoy a lot of the Glimmers' solo work, sometimes more than their work together during the same period. My own guess is that the legacy of the band is too great and audiences largely just wanted to keep them in that time. Most people that see them live like them "when they were good" and that's what they want. They're not interested in new work that isn't all over the radio and ingrained as "classic rock" that everyone knows. Had Mick gone solo in the early seventies, he would have been huge, but thank Clapton he didn't.

@DandelionPowderman, I respectfully disagree regarding SHE'S THE BOSS. The expectation was this would be multi-platinum #1 album with many hit singles. It did okay, selling about as well as UNDERCOVER. Technically, that's a disappointment as far as sales forecasts.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
@ProudMary, yes my sources are open. I've never claimed insider knowledge. We have the same knowledge, the only difference might lie in interpretation which is subjective so I can't be more right or wrong than you or anyone else in arguing a position, it's just my opinion. Regarding the CBS deal, it was for four studio albums. FLASHPOINT (like COLLECTABLES) and the Atlantic/EMI reissues would have been additional. It was likely part of the "tour support" clause (which I've never read, of course) that is referenced in the contract since I am unaware of CBS having any other input into either Mick's tour or the Stones'. My only disagreement over Mick and a solo tour prior to 1987 is the Musician cover story in Feb/Mar 1986 (can't remember which). It specifically mentions CBS execs quietly (as in supposedly confidential) discussing Steve Vai going out on tour with Mick ("but we can't talk about it now"). Maybe Mick made the decision during the DIRTY WORK sessions. It was clear from his schedule that as soon as principal photography on RUNNING OUT OF LUCK wrapped he was headed to Paris for the Stones sessions. I understood Gazza thinking I made a mountain out of a molehill with Keith's Friday Night Videos appearance just as Mick started recording SHE'S THE BOSS, but it represents the public change in Keith where Mick now becomes a target to varying degrees. That wasn't the case in interviews 1979 - 1983 where they were still Twins as far as the public was concerned.

@Doxa, my remarks about UNDERCOVER being a compromise are drawn from the 1983 Musician cover story. It is said that Mick, Keith, and Chris Kimsey agreed to simply stop mixing at some point or they could have gone on forever. Additionally Bill German noted in Spring 1983 that Mick and Keith were in separate studios (NY and Compass Point) mixing tracks and sending the tapes back and forth.

@Bliss, I enjoy a lot of the Glimmers' solo work, sometimes more than their work together during the same period. My own guess is that the legacy of the band is too great and audiences largely just wanted to keep them in that time. Most people that see them live like them "when they were good" and that's what they want. They're not interested in new work that isn't all over the radio and ingrained as "classic rock" that everyone knows. Had Mick gone solo in the early seventies, he would have been huge, but thank Clapton he didn't.

@DandelionPowderman, I respectfully disagree regarding SHE'S THE BOSS. The expectation was this would be multi-platinum #1 album with many hit singles. It did okay, selling about as well as UNDERCOVER. Technically, that's a disappointment as far as sales forecasts.

I follow you regarding the expectations, Rocky. However, in retrospect, why would the CBS-people believe that Mick would outsell the Stones (Mick being in his 40s) anyway?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-30 15:58 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I follow you regarding the expectations, Rocky. However, in retrospect, why would the CBS-people believe that Mick would outsell the Stones (Mick being in his 40s) anyway?

At the time, CBS was the biggest label around. Mick had only just turned 40 a few weeks before the deal was signed and TATTOO YOU had been multi-platinum and the 1981 US tour was a record-breaking success (putting it in context, the Jacksons' VICTORY tour on the strength of THRILLER only grossed half of what the Stones had done three years earlier despite higher ticket prices). It made perfect sense to think that the biggest label could take them (or at least Mick) to even greater heights. CBS was focused on creating albums that were events.