Tell Me :
Talk
you heard of the three-year rule?
Nor did they for IORR. Though the Tour Of The Americas '75 was IORR heavy as it was the most recent album, the tour was a full 7 months after the release.
Also they didn't do a complete tour from March of '67 until November of '69 did they? That's from the release of Between The Buttons until just prior to the release of Let It Bleed.
Mick was wearing awful bad clothes. Those sweaters. YUCK. Not what you'd expect from an artist. More like a accountant or librairian.
I've heard of the 8 year rule.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-29 00:03 by treaclefingers.
When was it 8 years?
2007-2015
There was two years and two months between the release of Tattoo You and Undercover.
At that point, it was the longest gap between Stones studio albums ever.
They had already been off the road for 16 months when Undercover came out, and the 1982 Euro tour (about 35 shows) was hardly an arduous ordeal. They could quite easily have gone on the road in spring 1984.
By the time Undercover came out, they had signed the new deal with CBS and by early 1984 Mick was planning a solo record, I suppose. I dont think band relations were that good, although they were about to get much worse.
Well, OK, but they were considered old men by that point. Having just toured for TATTOO YOU in the States and Europe one would think they were not in any hurry to get back out. Not sure why or how it being the last Atlantic release and being signed to a new label would mean anything.
Not to mention Charlie's heroin problems--the real reason they couldn't/wouldn't tour Dirty Work. He also couldn't finish the Undercover album. Don't know which tracks he didn't play on. It's one thing to have a smack-addled rhythm guitarist, but a drummer has to be on. The Clash had the same problems with Topper Headon, that's why they replaced him for their Combat Rock tour. But who would you replace Charlie watts with? Better to just cover it with excuses instead: [Mick on Undercover going on tour]: "We'd just done one." And of course, breaking the 3-year cycle for the first time since 1969, he uses his solo albums as an excuse not to tour the Stones, which after 4-5 years, would have been far more lucrative. It just didn't make sense.
I believe the point was the new contract, PLUS the mick solo contract put everything in limbo. The band weren't exactly getting along, and probably not eager to play together.
Thank god we're finally blaming Charlie for something. The bastid.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: June 28, 2012 21:48
I have read countless threads on Dirty Work and the fact that they never toured in 86, but what about Undercover? Why did they not take it on the road?
Drake
Drake
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 28, 2012 21:49
Quote
flacnvinyl
I have read countless threads on Dirty Work and the fact that they never toured in 86, but what about Undercover? Why did they not take it on the road?
you heard of the three-year rule?
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
Send It To me
()
Date: June 28, 2012 22:01
Because it probably would have been the best Stones tour of all time - the perfect intersection of youthful energy, journeyman experience, culture and technology - therefore OF COURSE it didn't happen.
[www.iorr.org]
[www.iorr.org]
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 28, 2012 22:13
Well, they toured Europe in ´82. A new record and a new tour in ´83 would have been asking to much. In ´84 though, or ´85-´88, it would have been possible. But then again, Jagger didn't want to because by then he considered himself a solo artist eager to put out new records of his own...
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: June 28, 2012 22:18
That thread made my day...
I can understand not wanting to do a tour immediately following 82 but what band doesn't want to play out their new material...? aside from the Beatles.
I figured as much about the '3 year rule' but what about No Security? 97-98 B2B, then No Security?
Drake
I can understand not wanting to do a tour immediately following 82 but what band doesn't want to play out their new material...? aside from the Beatles.
I figured as much about the '3 year rule' but what about No Security? 97-98 B2B, then No Security?
Drake
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: June 28, 2012 22:21
Back in that era they didn't always tour right after an album came out. they didn't go on the road when they released Emotional Rescue.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-28 22:23 by ryanpow.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-28 22:23 by ryanpow.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: June 28, 2012 22:35
Quote
ryanpow
Back in that era they didn't always tour right after an album came out. they didn't go on the road when Emotional Rescue Came Out.
Nor did they for IORR. Though the Tour Of The Americas '75 was IORR heavy as it was the most recent album, the tour was a full 7 months after the release.
Also they didn't do a complete tour from March of '67 until November of '69 did they? That's from the release of Between The Buttons until just prior to the release of Let It Bleed.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: June 28, 2012 22:40
How many sessions have been photographed? Are their photos from SOME GIRLS, vOODOO LOUNGE? Wayne Perkins playing on Hand of Fate? Sonny Rollins playing on Waiting on a Friend?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-29 00:23 by Title5Take1.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-29 00:23 by Title5Take1.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 28, 2012 23:42
Because they had just finished one? They started on the LP in late 1982, right? Kind of quick to just go back out on the road, which, realistically, would have been 1984 one might think. Still a bit soon by Stones standards.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 28, 2012 23:43
What cracks me up about seeing photo sessions, especially from UNDERCOVER, is that the photos do not reflect the sound of the LP. In fact, it's difficult to think of even one that does.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: June 28, 2012 23:50
yeahfrom what I remember of pictures from those sessions it just looks like another day at the office.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-28 23:51 by ryanpow.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-28 23:51 by ryanpow.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 28, 2012 23:59
Quote
ryanpow
yeahfrom what I remember of pictures from those sessions it just looks like another day at the office.
Mick was wearing awful bad clothes. Those sweaters. YUCK. Not what you'd expect from an artist. More like a accountant or librairian.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:03
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
flacnvinyl
I have read countless threads on Dirty Work and the fact that they never toured in 86, but what about Undercover? Why did they not take it on the road?
you heard of the three-year rule?
I've heard of the 8 year rule.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-29 00:03 by treaclefingers.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:04
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
flacnvinyl
I have read countless threads on Dirty Work and the fact that they never toured in 86, but what about Undercover? Why did they not take it on the road?
you heard of the three-year rule?
I've heard of the 8 year rule.
When was it 8 years?
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:06
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
flacnvinyl
I have read countless threads on Dirty Work and the fact that they never toured in 86, but what about Undercover? Why did they not take it on the road?
you heard of the three-year rule?
I've heard of the 8 year rule.
When was it 8 years?
2007-2015
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:13
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Because they had just finished one? They started on the LP in late 1982, right? Kind of quick to just go back out on the road, which, realistically, would have been 1984 one might think. Still a bit soon by Stones standards.
There was two years and two months between the release of Tattoo You and Undercover.
At that point, it was the longest gap between Stones studio albums ever.
They had already been off the road for 16 months when Undercover came out, and the 1982 Euro tour (about 35 shows) was hardly an arduous ordeal. They could quite easily have gone on the road in spring 1984.
By the time Undercover came out, they had signed the new deal with CBS and by early 1984 Mick was planning a solo record, I suppose. I dont think band relations were that good, although they were about to get much worse.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:23
Quote
Gazza
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Because they had just finished one? They started on the LP in late 1982, right? Kind of quick to just go back out on the road, which, realistically, would have been 1984 one might think. Still a bit soon by Stones standards.
There was two years and two months between the release of Tattoo You and Undercover.
At that point, it was the longest gap between Stones studio albums ever.
They had already been off the road for 16 months when Undercover came out, and the 1982 Euro tour (about 35 shows) was hardly an arduous ordeal. They could quite easily have gone on the road in spring 1984.
By the time Undercover came out, they had signed the new deal with CBS and by early 1984 Mick was planning a solo record, I suppose. I dont think band relations were that good, although they were about to get much worse.
Well, OK, but they were considered old men by that point. Having just toured for TATTOO YOU in the States and Europe one would think they were not in any hurry to get back out. Not sure why or how it being the last Atlantic release and being signed to a new label would mean anything.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:45
Quote
Gazza
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Because they had just finished one? They started on the LP in late 1982, right? Kind of quick to just go back out on the road, which, realistically, would have been 1984 one might think. Still a bit soon by Stones standards.
There was two years and two months between the release of Tattoo You and Undercover.
At that point, it was the longest gap between Stones studio albums ever.
They had already been off the road for 16 months when Undercover came out, and the 1982 Euro tour (about 35 shows) was hardly an arduous ordeal. They could quite easily have gone on the road in spring 1984.
By the time Undercover came out, they had signed the new deal with CBS and by early 1984 Mick was planning a solo record, I suppose. I dont think band relations were that good, although they were about to get much worse.
Not to mention Charlie's heroin problems--the real reason they couldn't/wouldn't tour Dirty Work. He also couldn't finish the Undercover album. Don't know which tracks he didn't play on. It's one thing to have a smack-addled rhythm guitarist, but a drummer has to be on. The Clash had the same problems with Topper Headon, that's why they replaced him for their Combat Rock tour. But who would you replace Charlie watts with? Better to just cover it with excuses instead: [Mick on Undercover going on tour]: "We'd just done one." And of course, breaking the 3-year cycle for the first time since 1969, he uses his solo albums as an excuse not to tour the Stones, which after 4-5 years, would have been far more lucrative. It just didn't make sense.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:48
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
Gazza
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Because they had just finished one? They started on the LP in late 1982, right? Kind of quick to just go back out on the road, which, realistically, would have been 1984 one might think. Still a bit soon by Stones standards.
There was two years and two months between the release of Tattoo You and Undercover.
At that point, it was the longest gap between Stones studio albums ever.
They had already been off the road for 16 months when Undercover came out, and the 1982 Euro tour (about 35 shows) was hardly an arduous ordeal. They could quite easily have gone on the road in spring 1984.
By the time Undercover came out, they had signed the new deal with CBS and by early 1984 Mick was planning a solo record, I suppose. I dont think band relations were that good, although they were about to get much worse.
Well, OK, but they were considered old men by that point. Having just toured for TATTOO YOU in the States and Europe one would think they were not in any hurry to get back out. Not sure why or how it being the last Atlantic release and being signed to a new label would mean anything.
I believe the point was the new contract, PLUS the mick solo contract put everything in limbo. The band weren't exactly getting along, and probably not eager to play together.
Re: Undercover - Photos from sessions? Why no tour?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 29, 2012 00:49
Quote
stonesnow
Quote
Gazza
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Because they had just finished one? They started on the LP in late 1982, right? Kind of quick to just go back out on the road, which, realistically, would have been 1984 one might think. Still a bit soon by Stones standards.
There was two years and two months between the release of Tattoo You and Undercover.
At that point, it was the longest gap between Stones studio albums ever.
They had already been off the road for 16 months when Undercover came out, and the 1982 Euro tour (about 35 shows) was hardly an arduous ordeal. They could quite easily have gone on the road in spring 1984.
By the time Undercover came out, they had signed the new deal with CBS and by early 1984 Mick was planning a solo record, I suppose. I dont think band relations were that good, although they were about to get much worse.
Not to mention Charlie's heroin problems--the real reason they couldn't/wouldn't tour Dirty Work. He also couldn't finish the Undercover album. Don't know which tracks he didn't play on. It's one thing to have a smack-addled rhythm guitarist, but a drummer has to be on. The Clash had the same problems with Topper Headon, that's why they replaced him for their Combat Rock tour. But who would you replace Charlie watts with? Better to just cover it with excuses instead: [Mick on Undercover going on tour]: "We'd just done one." And of course, breaking the 3-year cycle for the first time since 1969, he uses his solo albums as an excuse not to tour the Stones, which after 4-5 years, would have been far more lucrative. It just didn't make sense.
Thank god we're finally blaming Charlie for something. The bastid.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Barnestormer , Blueranger , CherrySunburst , Deathgod , dede_894 , Eleanor Rigby , fefete , gimmerambler , GravityBoy , josef , kaskatanas , machan37 , masscomb , moosman , RollingFreak , ryanpow , Sjouke , sonomastone , stevecardi , TE , THE DON , thetiger , Vocalion
Guests:
191
Record Number of Users:
56
on June 20, 2013 00:52
Record Number of Guests:
250
on June 20, 2013 00:29
