i don´t believe in that no demand nonsense. JAGGER in the US after 7 years would be a hit. And not being with the Stones in a way might have been a kind of novelty for many people.
Besides this, i think that us, the hardcores, would have been there all the same, even if we wanted the Stones.
Even nowadays, if Mick went solo, practically all of us would attend.

[m.rollingstone.com]

Maybe he thought that Joey wasn't ready for Europe or the US?

micks tour ended in early november and he had no time to do anything else.

they had the michael cohl deal in place and it was time to get the band back together,there was too much money at stake for one thing.
it takes a year to plan a big stones tour and they were gonna do an album also.

so by january of 1989 they were already down in the islands, he would've had to book his u.s tour and play all the dates in the 7 weeks between then and when he stopped on november 5th-not possible when you're planning what was then the biggest rock tour ever...and you have to write new songs for the stones album.

First he had to make the decision whether he wanted to play with Keith again.

There were no doubts about Mick planning to do a Euro + a US tour.

And there is no documentation on the Stones album and tour being the reasons for scrapping those plans - that's just you speculating. Could very well have been one of the reasons, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
First he had to make the decision whether he wanted to play with Keith again.

There were no doubts about Mick planning to do a Euro + a US tour.

And there is no documentation on the Stones album and tour being the reasons for scrapping those plans - that's just you speculating. Could very well have been one of the reasons, though.

It was the reason and that's not speculating.

I'm not surprised getting that confirmation from you, but thanks

there was no way he could do it and he would've had to have been out of his mind.

michael cohl had a meeting with him,cohl was flush with huge dollars from the pink floyd tour and wanted to snag the stones.
what was he gonna say"yeah michael could you hold on to that $65 million for awhile i've got this burning desire to go off on my own and tour the states and europe.that way i can make less money and water down the market a little"

they had already begun planning it before keith went on the talk is cheap tour-you can find his comment "you guys sit around all this time and you wanna work NOW" i've got gigs booked"
as soon as keith was done in december it was on...

jagger selling out an arena tour was a slam dunk-you have to remember ticket prices were about $35 dollars then-if he did an arena tour right now in the $75-$125 range it would sell out and also everyone on this board would go.

Quote
lem motlow
micks tour ended in early november and he had no time to do anything else.

they had the michael cohl deal in place and it was time to get the band back together,there was too much money at stake for one thing.
it takes a year to plan a big stones tour and they were gonna do an album also.

so by january of 1989 they were already down in the islands, he would've had to book his u.s tour and play all the dates in the 7 weeks between then and when he stopped on november 5th-not possible when you're planning what was then the biggest rock tour ever...and you have to write new songs for the stones album.

Yeah there was no time at the end of 1988...however there would have been loads of time between the fall of 1987 (remember he was rehearsing with Beck in August 1987 before Beck walked out on him) and March 1988 when he played in Japan and/or between March and September of 1988 when he played in Australia. It seems that the "dynamics" were not there to tour the US or Europe after "Primitive Cool" tanked in spite of RS's raving review.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-01 10:46 by gotdablouse.

Quote
varilla
Jimmy Rip, great guitarist. The Tele and the open G was too much though.
Not necessary at all

Hmmm... What should he have done? Play open G Stones songs in open D or open E or standard tuning on a Stratocaster or Les Paul, gain weight, shave his hair,wear a miniskirt and fishnet stockings on stage just to avoid any comparisons?

Jimmy Rip is a great guitarist and did a great job for Jagger, live and in particular on Wandering Spirit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-01 04:00 by alimente.

Quote
gotdablouse
Yeah there was no time at the end of 1988...however there would have been loads of time between the fall of 1987 (remember he was rehearsing with Beck in August 1987 before Beck walked out on him) and March 1988 when he played in Japan and/or between March and September of 1988 when he played in Australia. It seems that the "dynamics" were not there to tour the US or Europe after "Primitive Cool" tanked in spite of RS's raving review.

that would have meant either starting in a major market with a new band where the critics were waiting or doing just australia and then going to the states and/or europe.
bad idea that wasnt gonna happen-

the sales of primitive cool had nothing to do with anything,living legends sell tickets.
keith did his tour even though main offender was a worse bomb than primitive cool.keiths record came in at #99 on the charts and he sold tickets- though it kinda ended his solo career,he was off to the races and then "poof'

can someone find and post the video of mick and joe doing little red rooster at that club in australia?

Quote
varilla
Jimmy Rip, great guitarist. The Tele and the open G was too much though.
Not necessary at all

Maybe he just likes playing telecasters? I saw him with Television last year (great gig btw) and he played a tele the whole show.

Quote
erad

Quote
varilla
Jimmy Rip, great guitarist. The Tele and the open G was too much though.
Not necessary at all

Maybe he just likes playing telecasters? I saw him with Television last year (great gig btw) and he played a tele the whole show.

In open G, I presume?

Both Mick and Keith sound best when they're making music together. Regarding Charly, Bill, Mick Taylor and Ron Wood: They all sound best when making music with The Rolling Stones.
Although: The recent Tribute to Jimmy Reed shows by Ron Wood and Mick Taylor also sound great!

Remember seeing both Perth 88 shoes and they were great. When he ripped out (no pun intended) CYHMK I was blown away. And it was so fkn good.
Ripp was doing all the Keithisms and Satriani was Ronnie like.

Both shows sold 20 000 tickets each within a day at $40 a ticket which was the norm then here. Nobody at the time Would have pulled that off here bar Jagger or the Stones.

U2 came a year later and sold 24 000 tix to three shows and McCartney just sold out one show at 25 000 in '93.

Jagger is a superstar and could have continued as a solo artist. I'm glad he didn't although WS I believe is a masterpiece. He would sell out arenas around re world still and/or stadiums priced reasonably.

The Rilling Stones are anything but priced readonably. As my bleeding credit card that's $1200 heavier thanks to two purchased tickets today to see them is proof of.

<Ripp was doing all the Keithisms and Satriani was Ronnie like.>

Not Taylor-like?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
erad

Quote
varilla
Jimmy Rip, great guitarist. The Tele and the open G was too much though.
Not necessary at all

Maybe he just likes playing telecasters? I saw him with Television last year (great gig btw) and he played a tele the whole show.

In open G, I presume?

Open G only where it fits. Rip knows what needs to be done in a given setting.

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
erad

Quote
varilla
Jimmy Rip, great guitarist. The Tele and the open G was too much though.
Not necessary at all

Maybe he just likes playing telecasters? I saw him with Television last year (great gig btw) and he played a tele the whole show.

In open G, I presume?

Open G only where it fits. Rip knows what needs to be done in a given setting.

Just pulling your leg. Jimmy is good

[www.youtube.com]


ah,here it is.

Thanks had never seen that footage.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

.

--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-07 19:37 by colonial.

Satriani's comment about how Mick can play to different sized audiences in different sized venues so well made me think of Billy Idol's recent memoir and a recent documentary on David Bowie. With both the Rebel Yell and Let's Dance tours they had small venues booked, but in the middle of both tours the albums exploded more than they expected and the ticket sales increased...so midstream they canceled small venues and rebooked in arenas and stadiums. I didn't know you could switch to such big venues at such short notice.

Dittos to those who said that Jagger would not go out on tour in the US just before a Rolling Stones tour. The reasons are obvious.

Read in bold below (the end of the article). I knew I had read it somewhere: [www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk]

Not fade away: Mick Jagger on the trials of life at 65
It's not very rock'n'roll, but Mick Jagger, the man who brought us 'Sympathy for the Devil', supermodel girlfriends and skin-tight jeans, recently acquired OAP status. So has he mellowed with age? James Mottram finds out


08 NOVEMBER 2008

Before Mick Jagger enters the hotel room, I'm half expecting to be reminded of the opening line of The Rolling Stones' old number "Mother's Little Helper".


You know the bit, as Jagger whines in that unmistakable voice of his, "What a drag it is getting old". This has been, after all, a watershed year for the Stones' lead singer. Turning 65 in July, all those jokes about the wrinkly rocker being old enough to collect his pension finally came true. Sir Mick – as he became in 2003 – is now officially an OAP. Not that he's ready to curl up with his cocoa just yet.


It's around 2pm when he finally arrives, a good half-hour late. "I didn't go to bed until five o'clock," he says, with a measure of pride, perhaps because it runs contrary to the image painted of him in the tabloids by his ex-wife Jerry Hall, that of a couch potato who likes an early night. He had spent the night partying with the other Stones in Berlin; if it got out of hand, it doesn't show. While the excesses of a rock'n'roll lifestyle may have taken their toll on his fellow band member Keith Richards, Jagger looks in remarkable shape. Rather like his slightly sucked-in cheeks, Jagger's torso, I imagine, is almost concave, as if he's had the flesh vacuumed out of him.



The Dartford-born singer puts his preternaturally skinny physique down to being raised in the aftermath of the Second World War. "It's the diet we had when we ......... were children," he smiles. "There was very little food, basically, and no junk food and no sugar." Never mind that his father, Joe, was a games teacher and relatively affluent compared to some. "Yeah, but that didn't get you any more food," he adds. "Teachers don't earn much money. Not to labour the point, but they think this is one reason why our generation doesn't get fat – unless you drink lots of beer, of course."


While the only things plump about him are those famous lips – more pink than bright red, as the Stones marketing might have us believe – he says "there's no secret" to staying fit. "You just have to do a bit of work when you get over 30. You have to go to the gym. Before 30, you don't really have to worry." Dressed in a striped shirt, lilac jumper and black jeans, lines already clustering around those ice-blue eyes, Jagger wisely makes no attempt to look younger by dressing up in rock-star clobber.


This is the third time I've encountered Jagger, though it's as if I've been in the presence of three different men. The first was pure accident, as I glimpsed him mooching around Selfridges' furniture department about five years ago. Making no attempt to conceal his identity with sunglasses or the like, he looked disarmingly ordinary – perhaps that's why he was able to browse through the store almost unnoticed. The second time, I saw the side most of us know: Jagger the Showman, doing what he does best. It was on stage during the Stones' recent A Bigger Bang tour, a two-year marathon jaunt around the globe that, after reportedly taking $558m, has become the highest-grossing tour of all time.


If you read anything about Jagger, it usually centres on his remarkable stage energy, undiluted despite his advancing years. Even now, there's still something animal about him in the spotlight. Does he see performance as an almost sexual act? "Is it like sex?" he ponders. "I don't know. Is there an orgasmic moment? Not that there necessarily has to be in sex. It's a different kind of thing. Often times, you have to be more calculated about what you do." It recalls Truman Capote's comment in light of touring with the band; that everything he saw "had been coolly and efficiently manufactured by the Stones and their managers". You don't get to last 46 years in the music business by leaving things to chance.


It's Jagger's vim and vigour that fuels Shine a Light, the band's first concert movie since 1983's Let's Spend The Night Together, which has just been released on DVD. Directed by long-time Stones fan Martin Scorsese, it captures the band's gig at New York's Beacon Theatre, a pit-stop during the Bigger Bang tour. Even with Scorsese's involvement, it doesn't come close to touching the likes of the notorious fly-on-the-wall documentary @#$%& Blues, which detailed the band's drug-fuelled 1972 US tour, or Gimme Shelter, the seminal account of the 1969 Altamont gig when a Hell's Angel stabbed a fan to death. Not that Jagger wanted another behind-the-scenes documentary. "It's a bit of a cliché, Marty and I felt, doing the backstage stuff. Everyone's done that."


If the film is primarily a straight-up concert movie, it does hint at what a giant corporate machine The Rolling Stones have become, with Jagger leading the charge. One early shot sees him sitting in First Class, sipping champagne and working on the set-list for the show. As tongue-in-cheek as it is, it highlights a core truth: much of the Stones' success comes down to Jagger micro-managing the band's business affairs. As he puts it, "I don't think anyone else in the band is the slightest bit interested in that part of it. As long as it's successful." It was he who pushed the Stones into becoming the first band to truly exploit the money to be made from tours and merchandise.


Estimates vary, but Jagger's now worth in the region of £150m – and it's certainly convenient to think of the former economics student as an omniscient control freak, a man the US press dubbed "the greatest businessman in rock'n'roll history". In person, he's aloof and wary, not......... the charming stumble-drunk that is Keith Richards. Rarely given to introspection, he's uncomfortable being interviewed. Thus, in Kevin Macdonald's documentary Being Mick, showing him up close and personal with his numerous children, it was almost a given that this was an entirely manufactured exercise. Or as Jagger explains, slipping into a Nazi commandant voice as he does so, "It was all within my control."


It's understandable, given how little control he has over the reams of tabloid column inches his life has generated. Jagger has been painted as so many different personas: the gangly, blues-loving teen, the Crowley-esque dabbler in diabolism (inspired by the classic track "Sympathy for the Devil"), the sexually promiscuous rock star (dating everyone from Carla Bruni to Sophie Dahl), and the cricket-loving country gent. As he puts it, "People seem to find it hard to accept that you can be several people at the same time." Not least playing a gyrating hipster on stage. "Of course it's a different persona," he argues. "If you came to a dinner party as your stage persona, he wouldn't be a very welcome guest!"


Currently dating the stylist L'Wren Scott, who is more than two decades his junior, Jagger likes to promote himself as the doting father. There is Karis, who came from his brief affair with the singer Marsha Hunt; Jade, from his first marriage to Bianca; his four children with Jerry Hall – Elizabeth, 24, James, 23, Georgia, 16, and Gabriel, 11. Then there's nine-year-old Lucas, the product of a three-month affair with the Brazilian model Luciana Morad that effectively ended his two decades together with Hall. At one point, when discussing the band's former bassist Bill Wyman, he tells me, "I saw him at my kid's 16th birthday party." The mind boggles at what this bash was like – Jagger playing responsible parent to a bunch of rowdy teens is an amusing prospect.


Now nearly teetotal, there's nothing he likes more than eight hours sleep a night and Jagger is far removed from the likes of Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison, who lived fast and died young. "Most people did survive," he counters. "It's how you came out the other side and what shape you're in, I suppose." In Jagger's case, he'd been a whipping boy for the establishment – after the Stones became involved in a landmark drugs bust when Richards' Sussex mansion was raided in 1967. "Looking back it was very funny," he reflects, "but it wasn't at the time very funny. It completely took over our lives creatively. We couldn't do this or that. You had to spend all your time dealing with the police. We definitely were being targeted. It was quite a common thing really."


For the record, Jagger doesn't believe narcotics were particularly helpful in the songwriting process that he and Richards got down to a fine art. "I think they're overrated as a creative method," he says. Certainly, having watched his former band member, Brian Jones, head down a path into narcotic-fuelled oblivion before he wound up dead in a swimming pool, Jagger has been wise to remain relatively restrained. Far more dangerous to him was the aftermath of the Altamont gig. It was revealed earlier this year that a bunch of Hell's Angels plotted to kill Jagger after he sacked them as stage security following the concert stabbing. Plotting to raid his Long Island property by boat, their plan was foiled when a storm nearly sunk their craft. Yet in many ways, this sort of incident only serves to further the media mystique that surrounds Jagger and the Stones.


"I think journalism helped make the Stones dangerous and respectable all at the same time," he says. "After you've been around for 10 or 15 years, you can't be either a) new or b) subversive. People that try to be subversive for more than 10 years, you'll never get anywhere. So people get used to that whole idea. By the mid-1970s, it was very difficult. That's why punk tried to remake this subversive rock moment." So how does he see rock'n'roll now? "It's another time, but there are people still doing what we did. There are tons of bands, looking like they're playing guitars! Millions of them. I see them all the time." .........


Another side to Jagger is his movie work. Shine a Light aside, Jagger has enjoyed a rather indifferent career as a movie producer, beginning in 2001 with the Second World War code-cracking thriller Enigma for his company Jagged. This year, he produced The Women, a remake of the 1939 George Cukor comedy starring Rosalind Russell and Joan Crawford. Despite a cast including Meg Ryan, Annette Bening and Eva Mendes, the film took just $26m in the US and garnered some scathing reviews ("a witless, straining mess," said the New York Times). "It gives me a different outlet," he explains, vaguely, when I ask him why he does it.


One can't help but think that Jagger is in it merely to dabble – rather like his four solo albums, including 2001's much-maligned Goddess in the Doorway, or his intermittent acting career. While his screen debut as a debauched rock star in Performance was hardly stretching him, his follow-up as the lead in 1970s outlaw story Ned Kelly left him looking faintly ridiculous in a wispy beard and iron helmet. Since then, his roles, from a time-travelling bounty hunter in Freejack to a cross-dressing cabaret owner in Bent, have been idiosyncratic to say the least.


So what attracts him to a part? "I don't know," he shrugs. "Sometimes I get offered little quirky roles and if I like the idea and I feel good at the time, I'll just do them. You never know how a film is going to turn out. There can be great people involved and it can turn out rubbish, so it's always a leap in the dark." Still, it's understandable why he does it: Jagger, by nature a performer, can't always be on stage. He is certainly aware of just how addictive it is. "You don't really want to be doing it all the time. Like when you're young, you think if you're not having sex, you're wasting your time. But as you get older you realise everything has its place."


It's the same thing with performance, he says. "You don't want to be thinking, 'I'm not performing tonight. Why am I not performing? I'm just going out to dinner with my friends – I should be on stage somewhere!' So it's a great thing to do but you don't want to be doing it all the time. But a lot of people are like that – a lot of actors. They do eight shows a week on stage. It's addictive. And if they don't go straight into the next one, they don't think that their life's worth living. I mean, you go to dinner with some comedians and they're trying out their jokes on you. They're still on. I'm not saying I'm boring, but you have to have a regular life. You don't want to be a performer all the time. You don't want me on the table singing."


It must be strange for Jagger, who now has homes all over the world – from the Loire Valley to Mustique and beyond – to realise how far he's come. After the Stones' first single, their 1963 cover of Chuck Berry's "Come On", Jagger admits he had no conception the band would last the next two years, let alone any further. "You didn't expect the work to go on and keep coming. You just do it for a year or two ... but it wasn't like we were going to break up or anything." Yet the band came close to implosion in the 1980s, when Jagger began to pursue a solo career and he and Richards began squabbling over songwriting credits. In the end, after Jagger's 1988 US solo tour was cancelled due to poor ticket sales, the Stones embarked on their hugely successful campaign to promote Steel Wheels, arguably the last album of any value they produced.


The Stones have lasted a further two decades, despite the departure in 1993 of Wyman, and show no signs of stopping. Does he know why they stuck it out?


"Because we were successful," he says. "I don't think we stayed together only for the success, but if we hadn't had the success, we wouldn't have stayed together. You need those two things – the love of doing it and the love of other people wanting you to do it." While Jagger claims he doesn't "feel there's a pressure to go on being sexy", I wonder if he wakes up at night, worrying about not being able to deliver on stage?


"Sure," he replies, "but don't look at the clouds of tomorrow through the sunshine of today!" Now that's sound advice from Sir Mick.

"It's the diet we had when we ......... were children," he smiles. "There was very little food, basically, and no junk food and no sugar."

the question is would Keiths solo tour have sold out the Tokyo dome?

I think we're looking at "creative journalism" here. I was at the height of my Stones mania, and I don't remember ever hearing about any cancelled solo tour. I'm sure if tickets ever went on sale (again, I don't believe this actually happened), it would have been big news if he couldn't sell tickets. Just doesn't make any sense. I think playing in Australia and Japan was far enough away that Keith wasn't really threatened, but if he had been successful in the US, that might have been the straw that would've broken Keith's spiritual back.

PROMOTERS OFFER THE ARTIST THE TOUR BASED ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN EARN IN A COUNTRY.MICK WOULDVE TOURED THE US IF IT HAD MADE FINANCIAL SENSE.

AND HE WOULD'VE LEFT THE MILLSTONES IN THE PAST IF HE COULD HAVE.


BUT THE PAYING PUBLIC DICTATED THAT HE GO CRAWLING BACK.

No need to capitalize everything BILLPERKS, it's bad etiquette for posting here.

But I have to agree that if Mick's solo career took off and he achieved the level of David Bowie, Michael Jackson, or even the Stones, he would have likely left the band. Possibly to return only for selected reunion shows. Maybe one of the reasons no one wanted to see it happen. peace

Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash

Quote
BostonLass
Satriani discusses working with Jagger.

[www.foxnews.com]

Those Jagger Solo tours back in the 80s were horrible with Satriani trying to imitate Keith. It's a miracle Keith ever wanted to play with Mick again after that.

I saw two of those shows plus a broadcast Sydney show and they were all superb.
Jimmy Ripp was the one doing the Keith impersonating, not Satriani.