Tell Me :
Talk
Why is that the question? Of course he wouldn't.
dont even bother shawn.its pretty obvious the writer did his jagger research on the internet probably taking information from these very fansites where these stories come from but it doesnt matter.
why? because of "the narrative" which is -mick jagger started a solo career to become a star like prince or michael jackson.it failed miserably and a humbled jagger was forced to crawl back to the rolling stones.
those who follow "the narrative " will not be convinced of anything that runs counter to its premise.its like looking into the dark hollow eyes of someone in a cult and trying to explain reality only to have them repeat over and over whats been drilled into their heads.
i can try once more but nothing seems to help-simple numbers mean nothing, a platinum solo album-blank stare
you could take only the fans who bought that solo album and sell out a 50 date arena tour-again,blank stare.
poison and motley crue did sold out arena tours in 1988-hello,are you in there?
rod stewart and david bowie sold out arenas...jagger,well sorry there was apparently an alternate universe in play,
i was there,if a mick jagger ticket had gone on sale anywhere in the united states of america i would have been in line with a stack of money-your friend shawn was there too right shawnnriffhard?no its not a government conspiracy we really remember...really.there were no mick tickets to have "poor sales"
look-i want you to focus-there is no rolling stones without mick jagger.for him to come crawling back to them is twisted logic.
stay with me now,dont start rocking back and forth...you see a person cant come crawling back to something that doesnt exist without them.o.k?
the psychology of it is facinating.like an anorexic looking into a mirror and seeing a fat person. sold out concerts around the world dont add up to success,a legendary performer - nobody wants to see him perform.and the they will hold onto that with white knuckles-"the narrative" must be protected.
ok,take off your tin foil hats we're done for today.
Japan was waiting for the stones forever if it were keith instead of mick I think they still would have sold out for keith
55.000 showing up for a Winos-concert? Heck, why not!
Exactly! When I hear those Japanese guitars, I automatically start fencing with my arms, as the feeling of being in the middle of a bee-swarm is imminent.
2 1 2 0
You said it - I've got nothing to add to it.
The Mick-defenders will probably have something to say about it, I suppose...
Great article my favourite bit was...
'Oh, the Stones, it's part of my youth, man, they say, because they saw you in Hyde Park 18 years ago and they have their @#$%& conservative little mental picture of you and they don't want you to change – not that they've bought a record of yours in 15 years. Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction'
So true, same with today and the nostalgia of bands reforming for the big money.
Typical eightees-phobia floating around here.
The best Rolling Stones cover band I have ever seen, we have to give Jagger that one. In the end he's the Rolling Stones voice, literally. Nothing wrong with a bit more flashy musicians to back him up. They don't have to sound exactly like Keith or Charlie. Jagger probably wanted some more discipline at that time, but apparently not as successful as the Stones, so what? You don't have to be a Jagger-defender to notice all that.
Like the Stones basically do for every tour? They are the blueprint and motivation
for all the 60's (and 70's) bands reforming and playing all there 40 year old music. Obviously there is a demand still and since ticket prices have become so high and touring money so good, can you blame them? I'm sure "just look at the Stones" has come up in just about every negotiation with promoters and band meetings.
"Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction?"
For the big money of course. Mick obviously gets some satisfaction from that. No way would he still be doing it for the creative satisfaction of singing Satisfaction for the 2000th time. peace
Yeah true, I was kind of stating the obvious there really with the nostalgia trip and the reforming of bands. Makes sense though if the money's right.
The 'Not that they've bought a record of yours for 15 years' line from Mick had me in stitches.
Fleetwood Mac are one of those. Saw them live in 2009 and they didn't play ONE song that was post 1987!
Right. And what's hilarious is after all the time between then and say, oh, 1994, what happened? Of course, the Stones. New songs. But something along the way changed - they stopped challenging the fans with new material. LICKS was awesome, yes, and a fantastic display of the, er, well, just like with 50 AND COUNTING, not entire catalog. But more so on the LICKS tour than 50.
And that is... exactly what Jagger was piping up about being against doing.
Hilarious. It really is all about the $$$.
As far as I'm aware no one here has said such things to Rolling Stone magazine...
must..hang.. onto....narrative
micks 1985 solo album sold 1 million copies-doesnt matter.like the charactor in shutter island,there are just some realities that cannot be faced.
the public would be promised a setlist with 16 rolling stones songs and tunes from a hit record -doesnt matter.people dont want to hear mick jagger sing rolling stones songs or songs from his platinum album...
he would be scorned and ridiculed.the shows would have maybe 2 or 300 hundred people who would mock his pathetic attempts at a performance.
do 4500 seaters like keith did?no way. jagger would have to do bars and clubs at best.
the way they cling to the narrative is facinating,its almost pathological.you can give numbers,testimony from fans in australia,fans in the states who were following the band in 88 saying how everyone was dying for anything stones...nothing matters.they'll ignore every word-its just very important for mick to be that kid in the norman rockwell painting with the tomatoes flying.its one of the strangest things i've ever seen.
Probably 400,000 sold and 600,000 more shipped whether they wanted them or not. I recall seeing quite a few in bargain bins not too many years after. peace
Haha, hilarious! I'll leave this alone after this, but I 100% guarantee that everyone in my area of the world (Philly) was ravenously hungry for ANY Stones stuff, and had MJ played solo, he wouldn't have made SWheels money, but he would've been able to keep a roof over Jerry and the kids for sure.
Both sides have strong points, but let's agree on 16 Stones songs being a bit too much for a solo show
source?-i got my figure from billboard but anyway-ok,400,000 sold.if half the people who bought the first solo record went to a show he could sell out a 10 city arena tour-doesnt matter though.
lets try again because i'm still facinated by this.
if i concede two points it still ends in bizarro world.lets say...
1.micks solo records sucked,badly.they were the worst f.n music produced in the years they were released
2.every person who bought a ticket for every show in japan and australia did so because in japan the stones had never been there and they hadnt done australia since 1973.
k-now as a fan why on earth would you have a problem with jagger playing so many stones songs.the crowds either hadnt seen them in 15 years or in the case of japan-ever?
so you guys wanted those people to hear only music you think sucked-why? what did they ever do to you?
are you really sure these thoughts are your own? because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I actually thought Mick's solo work didn't suck. Bought the records, even learned a couple of the tunes. It wasn't smack you in the face, go tell all your friends good, but considering the time period, it was better than most stuff being released and played on the radio.
I think most peoples expectations of Mick were based on the great stuff he did in past years, hard to compete with his own Stones back catalog. Even the Stones haven't come close to doing that, unfortunately. As far as him playing Stones tunes, I think the thought of him breaking up the Stones and then playing mostly Stones tunes didn't sit quite right. If it was an amicable split by all parties it might have been easier to swallow but there was a feeling that the others still wanted to tour as the Stones.
As others have said, if you take the best stuff from Mick and Keith's solo records we could have had another classic Stones record. In fact that would be a great project for them still, take those best songs into the studio and cut them as Stones tunes....The album that could have been is born. peace
Actually, you get BRIDGES TO BABYLON. An album I love, but one that seems like a hybrid of two Glimmer Twin solo albums.
Although I somewhat agree, I was thinking more the actual tunes from the solo efforts, completely re-hashed with the suggestions of all the Stones band members, without Don Was producing, possibly Glyn Johns and George Drakoulias. No doubt Keith could dirty up some of Mick's more polished songs and Mick could sweeten Keith's songs with vocal changes and harmonies. This is a fantasy of course and they are probably too attached to their own songs. peace
The songs on B2B were practically solo efforts. Keith even wiped Mick's vocals on one of his songs, if memory serves.
You don't find it odd that the solo Jagger was more interested in living in the past than the present on that tour? It makes me wonder, what was the point? Might as well roll with the Stones then...
Ah ha ha.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 3, 2015 09:10
Quote
melillo
the question is would Keiths solo tour have sold out the Tokyo dome?
Why is that the question? Of course he wouldn't.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: February 4, 2015 03:32
Quote
shawnriffhard1
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.
dont even bother shawn.its pretty obvious the writer did his jagger research on the internet probably taking information from these very fansites where these stories come from but it doesnt matter.
why? because of "the narrative" which is -mick jagger started a solo career to become a star like prince or michael jackson.it failed miserably and a humbled jagger was forced to crawl back to the rolling stones.
those who follow "the narrative " will not be convinced of anything that runs counter to its premise.its like looking into the dark hollow eyes of someone in a cult and trying to explain reality only to have them repeat over and over whats been drilled into their heads.
i can try once more but nothing seems to help-simple numbers mean nothing, a platinum solo album-blank stare
you could take only the fans who bought that solo album and sell out a 50 date arena tour-again,blank stare.
poison and motley crue did sold out arena tours in 1988-hello,are you in there?
rod stewart and david bowie sold out arenas...jagger,well sorry there was apparently an alternate universe in play,
i was there,if a mick jagger ticket had gone on sale anywhere in the united states of america i would have been in line with a stack of money-your friend shawn was there too right shawnnriffhard?no its not a government conspiracy we really remember...really.there were no mick tickets to have "poor sales"
look-i want you to focus-there is no rolling stones without mick jagger.for him to come crawling back to them is twisted logic.
stay with me now,dont start rocking back and forth...you see a person cant come crawling back to something that doesnt exist without them.o.k?
the psychology of it is facinating.like an anorexic looking into a mirror and seeing a fat person. sold out concerts around the world dont add up to success,a legendary performer - nobody wants to see him perform.and the they will hold onto that with white knuckles-"the narrative" must be protected.
ok,take off your tin foil hats we're done for today.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: February 4, 2015 06:50
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
melillo
the question is would Keiths solo tour have sold out the Tokyo dome?
Why is that the question? Of course he wouldn't.
Japan was waiting for the stones forever if it were keith instead of mick I think they still would have sold out for keith
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 4, 2015 10:07
Quote
melilloQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
melillo
the question is would Keiths solo tour have sold out the Tokyo dome?
Why is that the question? Of course he wouldn't.
Japan was waiting for the stones forever if it were keith instead of mick I think they still would have sold out for keith
55.000 showing up for a Winos-concert? Heck, why not!
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: February 4, 2015 11:43
Quote
JumpinJeppeFlash
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.
Exactly! When I hear those Japanese guitars, I automatically start fencing with my arms, as the feeling of being in the middle of a bee-swarm is imminent.
2 1 2 0
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 4, 2015 17:18
Hope you don't wanna talk about the Stones. Oh, no, you do, don't you? You want to talk about the Staahns.
I see Mick was still stinging from the fantastic disaster of DIRTY WORK...
I see Mick was still stinging from the fantastic disaster of DIRTY WORK...
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 4, 2015 17:44
I was surprised to find out way after the fact that Jagger had apparently even considered touring the US. For who? Who would bother to go see Jagger solo?
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind. It was convenient for the rock press to compare him craving the success of Madonna, Prince and whoever else... because he was acting like a spoiled little solo star. He had just one little problem with all of it:
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone. Yet the Stones did STEEL WHEELS and released an OK song for a single (Mixed Emotions) and it got more attention than anything Jagger ever did solo.
Mick wanting to do work outside of the Stones, fine, whatever. Just don't act like it's "important" to the world. Keith's albums and tours actually featured music and songs and he wasn't concerned about being a star. His first tour he did 5 Stones songs (that includes the two covers). The second tour he did 4.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind. It was convenient for the rock press to compare him craving the success of Madonna, Prince and whoever else... because he was acting like a spoiled little solo star. He had just one little problem with all of it:
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone. Yet the Stones did STEEL WHEELS and released an OK song for a single (Mixed Emotions) and it got more attention than anything Jagger ever did solo.
Mick wanting to do work outside of the Stones, fine, whatever. Just don't act like it's "important" to the world. Keith's albums and tours actually featured music and songs and he wasn't concerned about being a star. His first tour he did 5 Stones songs (that includes the two covers). The second tour he did 4.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 4, 2015 18:08
Quote
GasLightStreet
I was surprised to find out way after the fact that Jagger had apparently even considered touring the US. For who? Who would bother to go see Jagger solo?
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind. It was convenient for the rock press to compare him craving the success of Madonna, Prince and whoever else... because he was acting like a spoiled little solo star. He had just one little problem with all of it:
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone. Yet the Stones did STEEL WHEELS and released an OK song for a single (Mixed Emotions) and it got more attention than anything Jagger ever did solo.
Mick wanting to do work outside of the Stones, fine, whatever. Just don't act like it's "important" to the world. Keith's albums and tours actually featured music and songs and he wasn't concerned about being a star. His first tour he did 5 Stones songs (that includes the two covers). The second tour he did 4.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
You said it - I've got nothing to add to it.
The Mick-defenders will probably have something to say about it, I suppose...
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: February 4, 2015 21:30
Say what you want about Mick, but I'd love to see him play piano and guitar totally solo in a theater type venue. Just Mick, showing off some of the great tunes he's written, talking about writing them and what they mean to him. Think Dead Flowers with just Mick and the piano, or Brown Sugar with just Mick and an open G tuned guitar. Not all the dancing around, Mick putting all his efforts into the music and vocal delivery.
I wouldn't expect it to be musically perfect but the opportunity to see what he can do without all the backing musicians would be a real treat. I think most folks would be surprised at his abilities and appreciate more what he brings to the Stones on a musical level. peace
I wouldn't expect it to be musically perfect but the opportunity to see what he can do without all the backing musicians would be a real treat. I think most folks would be surprised at his abilities and appreciate more what he brings to the Stones on a musical level. peace
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
brownsugar86
()
Date: February 4, 2015 22:07
Quote
shawnriffhard1
Actually, I'd say that they were of vital importance to keeping the Stones rolling (sorry, it was there; I had to take it). It laid out the template for all future shows and renewed MJ's interest in working with Keith after, what I suspect, coming very close to saying fuk it altogether. Check this interview from 1987. It really is interesting to read where his mind was at the time.
[www.theguardian.com]
Great article my favourite bit was...
'Oh, the Stones, it's part of my youth, man, they say, because they saw you in Hyde Park 18 years ago and they have their @#$%& conservative little mental picture of you and they don't want you to change – not that they've bought a record of yours in 15 years. Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction'
So true, same with today and the nostalgia of bands reforming for the big money.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: February 4, 2015 22:13
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreet
I was surprised to find out way after the fact that Jagger had apparently even considered touring the US. For who? Who would bother to go see Jagger solo?
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind. It was convenient for the rock press to compare him craving the success of Madonna, Prince and whoever else... because he was acting like a spoiled little solo star. He had just one little problem with all of it:
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone. Yet the Stones did STEEL WHEELS and released an OK song for a single (Mixed Emotions) and it got more attention than anything Jagger ever did solo.
Mick wanting to do work outside of the Stones, fine, whatever. Just don't act like it's "important" to the world. Keith's albums and tours actually featured music and songs and he wasn't concerned about being a star. His first tour he did 5 Stones songs (that includes the two covers). The second tour he did 4.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
You said it - I've got nothing to add to it.
The Mick-defenders will probably have something to say about it, I suppose...
Typical eightees-phobia floating around here.
The best Rolling Stones cover band I have ever seen, we have to give Jagger that one. In the end he's the Rolling Stones voice, literally. Nothing wrong with a bit more flashy musicians to back him up. They don't have to sound exactly like Keith or Charlie. Jagger probably wanted some more discipline at that time, but apparently not as successful as the Stones, so what? You don't have to be a Jagger-defender to notice all that.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: February 4, 2015 22:23
Quote
brownsugar86Quote
shawnriffhard1
Actually, I'd say that they were of vital importance to keeping the Stones rolling (sorry, it was there; I had to take it). It laid out the template for all future shows and renewed MJ's interest in working with Keith after, what I suspect, coming very close to saying fuk it altogether. Check this interview from 1987. It really is interesting to read where his mind was at the time.
[www.theguardian.com]
Great article my favourite bit was...
'Oh, the Stones, it's part of my youth, man, they say, because they saw you in Hyde Park 18 years ago and they have their @#$%& conservative little mental picture of you and they don't want you to change – not that they've bought a record of yours in 15 years. Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction'
So true, same with today and the nostalgia of bands reforming for the big money.
Like the Stones basically do for every tour? They are the blueprint and motivation
for all the 60's (and 70's) bands reforming and playing all there 40 year old music. Obviously there is a demand still and since ticket prices have become so high and touring money so good, can you blame them? I'm sure "just look at the Stones" has come up in just about every negotiation with promoters and band meetings.
"Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction?"
For the big money of course. Mick obviously gets some satisfaction from that. No way would he still be doing it for the creative satisfaction of singing Satisfaction for the 2000th time. peace
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 4, 2015 22:44
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreet
I was surprised to find out way after the fact that Jagger had apparently even considered touring the US. For who? Who would bother to go see Jagger solo?
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind. It was convenient for the rock press to compare him craving the success of Madonna, Prince and whoever else... because he was acting like a spoiled little solo star. He had just one little problem with all of it:
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone. Yet the Stones did STEEL WHEELS and released an OK song for a single (Mixed Emotions) and it got more attention than anything Jagger ever did solo.
Mick wanting to do work outside of the Stones, fine, whatever. Just don't act like it's "important" to the world. Keith's albums and tours actually featured music and songs and he wasn't concerned about being a star. His first tour he did 5 Stones songs (that includes the two covers). The second tour he did 4.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
Being critical of playing 16 Stones songs in your solo setlist has nothing to do with 80s phobia. I love the 80s, the early 80s, that is
You said it - I've got nothing to add to it.
The Mick-defenders will probably have something to say about it, I suppose...
Typical eightees-phobia floating around here.
The best Rolling Stones cover band I have ever seen, we have to give Jagger that one. In the end he's the Rolling Stones voice, literally. Nothing wrong with a bit more flashy musicians to back him up. They don't have to sound exactly like Keith or Charlie. Jagger probably wanted some more discipline at that time, but apparently not as successful as the Stones, so what? You don't have to be a Jagger-defender to notice all that.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: February 4, 2015 22:54
Words DP, words.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
brownsugar86
()
Date: February 4, 2015 22:58
Quote
Naturalust
Like the Stones basically do for every tour? They are the blueprint and motivation
for all the 60's (and 70's) bands reforming and playing all there 40 year old music. Obviously there is a demand still and since ticket prices have become so high and touring money so good, can you blame them? I'm sure "just look at the Stones" has come up in just about every negotiation with promoters and band meetings.
"Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction?"
For the big money of course. Mick obviously gets some satisfaction from that. No way would he still be doing it for the creative satisfaction of singing Satisfaction for the 2000th time. peace
Yeah true, I was kind of stating the obvious there really with the nostalgia trip and the reforming of bands. Makes sense though if the money's right.
The 'Not that they've bought a record of yours for 15 years' line from Mick had me in stitches.
Fleetwood Mac are one of those. Saw them live in 2009 and they didn't play ONE song that was post 1987!
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 4, 2015 22:59
Ha ha, what happened there?
I tried to say that it was the 16 song Stones set on his solo tour I was critical of, not the 80s. I love the 80s - the early 80s, that is
EDIT: The post wound up in the middle of the other one...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-04 23:01 by DandelionPowderman.
I tried to say that it was the 16 song Stones set on his solo tour I was critical of, not the 80s. I love the 80s - the early 80s, that is
EDIT: The post wound up in the middle of the other one...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-04 23:01 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 5, 2015 00:33
Quote
NaturalustQuote
brownsugar86Quote
shawnriffhard1
Actually, I'd say that they were of vital importance to keeping the Stones rolling (sorry, it was there; I had to take it). It laid out the template for all future shows and renewed MJ's interest in working with Keith after, what I suspect, coming very close to saying fuk it altogether. Check this interview from 1987. It really is interesting to read where his mind was at the time.
[www.theguardian.com]
Great article my favourite bit was...
'Oh, the Stones, it's part of my youth, man, they say, because they saw you in Hyde Park 18 years ago and they have their @#$%& conservative little mental picture of you and they don't want you to change – not that they've bought a record of yours in 15 years. Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction'
So true, same with today and the nostalgia of bands reforming for the big money.
Like the Stones basically do for every tour? They are the blueprint and motivation
for all the 60's (and 70's) bands reforming and playing all there 40 year old music. Obviously there is a demand still and since ticket prices have become so high and touring money so good, can you blame them? I'm sure "just look at the Stones" has come up in just about every negotiation with promoters and band meetings.
"Why should I live in the past just for their petty ... satisfaction?"
For the big money of course. Mick obviously gets some satisfaction from that. No way would he still be doing it for the creative satisfaction of singing Satisfaction for the 2000th time. peace
Right. And what's hilarious is after all the time between then and say, oh, 1994, what happened? Of course, the Stones. New songs. But something along the way changed - they stopped challenging the fans with new material. LICKS was awesome, yes, and a fantastic display of the, er, well, just like with 50 AND COUNTING, not entire catalog. But more so on the LICKS tour than 50.
And that is... exactly what Jagger was piping up about being against doing.
Hilarious. It really is all about the $$$.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: February 5, 2015 02:48
All I can say in Mick's defense is who among us hasn't said things so many years ago and basically lived to eat their words. peace
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 5, 2015 06:48
Quote
Naturalust
All I can say in Mick's defense is who among us hasn't said things so many years ago and basically lived to eat their words. peace
As far as I'm aware no one here has said such things to Rolling Stone magazine...
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: February 5, 2015 23:56
Quote
GasLightStreet
I was surprised to find out way after the fact that Jagger had apparently even considered touring the US. For who? Who would bother to go see Jagger solo?
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind.
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
must..hang.. onto....narrative
micks 1985 solo album sold 1 million copies-doesnt matter.like the charactor in shutter island,there are just some realities that cannot be faced.
the public would be promised a setlist with 16 rolling stones songs and tunes from a hit record -doesnt matter.people dont want to hear mick jagger sing rolling stones songs or songs from his platinum album...
he would be scorned and ridiculed.the shows would have maybe 2 or 300 hundred people who would mock his pathetic attempts at a performance.
do 4500 seaters like keith did?no way. jagger would have to do bars and clubs at best.
the way they cling to the narrative is facinating,its almost pathological.you can give numbers,testimony from fans in australia,fans in the states who were following the band in 88 saying how everyone was dying for anything stones...nothing matters.they'll ignore every word-its just very important for mick to be that kid in the norman rockwell painting with the tomatoes flying.its one of the strangest things i've ever seen.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: February 6, 2015 03:53
"Forget it, Lem, it's Todgertown."
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: February 6, 2015 07:12
Quote
lem motlow
micks 1985 solo album sold 1 million copies-doesnt matter..
Probably 400,000 sold and 600,000 more shipped whether they wanted them or not. I recall seeing quite a few in bargain bins not too many years after. peace
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
shawnriffhard1
()
Date: February 6, 2015 07:41
Quote
lem motlowQuote
GasLightStreet
I was surprised to find out way after the fact that Jagger had apparently even considered touring the US. For who? Who would bother to go see Jagger solo?
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind.
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
must..hang.. onto....narrative
micks 1985 solo album sold 1 million copies-doesnt matter.like the charactor in shutter island,there are just some realities that cannot be faced.
the public would be promised a setlist with 16 rolling stones songs and tunes from a hit record -doesnt matter.people dont want to hear mick jagger sing rolling stones songs or songs from his platinum album...
he would be scorned and ridiculed.the shows would have maybe 2 or 300 hundred people who would mock his pathetic attempts at a performance.
do 4500 seaters like keith did?no way. jagger would have to do bars and clubs at best.
the way they cling to the narrative is facinating,its almost pathological.you can give numbers,testimony from fans in australia,fans in the states who were following the band in 88 saying how everyone was dying for anything stones...nothing matters.they'll ignore every word-its just very important for mick to be that kid in the norman rockwell painting with the tomatoes flying.its one of the strangest things i've ever seen.
Haha, hilarious! I'll leave this alone after this, but I 100% guarantee that everyone in my area of the world (Philly) was ravenously hungry for ANY Stones stuff, and had MJ played solo, he wouldn't have made SWheels money, but he would've been able to keep a roof over Jerry and the kids for sure.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 6, 2015 09:50
Quote
Rocky Dijon
"Forget it, Lem, it's Todgertown."
Both sides have strong points, but let's agree on 16 Stones songs being a bit too much for a solo show
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: February 6, 2015 21:27
Quote
NaturalustQuote
lem motlow
micks 1985 solo album sold 1 million copies-doesnt matter..
Probably 400,000 sold and 600,000 more shipped whether they wanted them or not. I recall seeing quite a few in bargain bins not too many years after. peace
source?-i got my figure from billboard but anyway-ok,400,000 sold.if half the people who bought the first solo record went to a show he could sell out a 10 city arena tour-doesnt matter though.
lets try again because i'm still facinated by this.
if i concede two points it still ends in bizarro world.lets say...
1.micks solo records sucked,badly.they were the worst f.n music produced in the years they were released
2.every person who bought a ticket for every show in japan and australia did so because in japan the stones had never been there and they hadnt done australia since 1973.
k-now as a fan why on earth would you have a problem with jagger playing so many stones songs.the crowds either hadnt seen them in 15 years or in the case of japan-ever?
so you guys wanted those people to hear only music you think sucked-why? what did they ever do to you?
are you really sure these thoughts are your own? because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: February 6, 2015 21:48
Quote
lem motlowQuote
NaturalustQuote
lem motlow
micks 1985 solo album sold 1 million copies-doesnt matter..
Probably 400,000 sold and 600,000 more shipped whether they wanted them or not. I recall seeing quite a few in bargain bins not too many years after. peace
source?-i got my figure from billboard but anyway-ok,400,000 sold.if half the people who bought the first solo record went to a show he could sell out a 10 city arena tour-doesnt matter though.
lets try again because i'm still facinated by this.
if i concede two points it still ends in bizarro world.lets say...
1.micks solo records sucked,badly.they were the worst f.n music produced in the years they were released
2.every person who bought a ticket for every show in japan and australia did so because in japan the stones had never been there and they hadnt done australia since 1973.
k-now as a fan why on earth would you have a problem with jagger playing so many stones songs.the crowds either hadnt seen them in 15 years or in the case of japan-ever?
so you guys wanted those people to hear only music you think sucked-why? what did they ever do to you?
are you really sure these thoughts are your own? because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I actually thought Mick's solo work didn't suck. Bought the records, even learned a couple of the tunes. It wasn't smack you in the face, go tell all your friends good, but considering the time period, it was better than most stuff being released and played on the radio.
I think most peoples expectations of Mick were based on the great stuff he did in past years, hard to compete with his own Stones back catalog. Even the Stones haven't come close to doing that, unfortunately. As far as him playing Stones tunes, I think the thought of him breaking up the Stones and then playing mostly Stones tunes didn't sit quite right. If it was an amicable split by all parties it might have been easier to swallow but there was a feeling that the others still wanted to tour as the Stones.
As others have said, if you take the best stuff from Mick and Keith's solo records we could have had another classic Stones record. In fact that would be a great project for them still, take those best songs into the studio and cut them as Stones tunes....The album that could have been is born. peace
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: February 6, 2015 23:59
Quote
Naturalust
As others have said, if you take the best stuff from Mick and Keith's solo records we could have had another classic Stones record. In fact that would be a great project for them still, take those best songs into the studio and cut them as Stones tunes....The album that could have been is born. peace
Actually, you get BRIDGES TO BABYLON. An album I love, but one that seems like a hybrid of two Glimmer Twin solo albums.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: February 7, 2015 05:40
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
Naturalust
As others have said, if you take the best stuff from Mick and Keith's solo records we could have had another classic Stones record. In fact that would be a great project for them still, take those best songs into the studio and cut them as Stones tunes....The album that could have been is born. peace
Actually, you get BRIDGES TO BABYLON. An album I love, but one that seems like a hybrid of two Glimmer Twin solo albums.
Although I somewhat agree, I was thinking more the actual tunes from the solo efforts, completely re-hashed with the suggestions of all the Stones band members, without Don Was producing, possibly Glyn Johns and George Drakoulias. No doubt Keith could dirty up some of Mick's more polished songs and Mick could sweeten Keith's songs with vocal changes and harmonies. This is a fantasy of course and they are probably too attached to their own songs. peace
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 7, 2015 14:43
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Rocky DijonQuote
Naturalust
As others have said, if you take the best stuff from Mick and Keith's solo records we could have had another classic Stones record. In fact that would be a great project for them still, take those best songs into the studio and cut them as Stones tunes....The album that could have been is born. peace
Actually, you get BRIDGES TO BABYLON. An album I love, but one that seems like a hybrid of two Glimmer Twin solo albums.
Although I somewhat agree, I was thinking more the actual tunes from the solo efforts, completely re-hashed with the suggestions of all the Stones band members, without Don Was producing, possibly Glyn Johns and George Drakoulias. No doubt Keith could dirty up some of Mick's more polished songs and Mick could sweeten Keith's songs with vocal changes and harmonies. This is a fantasy of course and they are probably too attached to their own songs. peace
The songs on B2B were practically solo efforts. Keith even wiped Mick's vocals on one of his songs, if memory serves.
Re: Joe Satriani and Mick Jagger
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 7, 2015 16:59
Quote
lem motlowQuote
GasLightStreet
I was surprised to find out way after the fact that Jagger had apparently even considered touring the US. For who? Who would bother to go see Jagger solo?
A whole lot of nobody. The thought "Mick Jagger should do a solo tour!" never once crossed my mind.
Shitty songs on shitty albums.
Nothing he did captured anyone.
Meanwhile Mr Solo Star Jagger did... oh, 16 Stones songs... on his solo tour.
must..hang.. onto....narrative
micks 1985 solo album sold 1 million copies-doesnt matter.like the charactor in shutter island,there are just some realities that cannot be faced.
the public would be promised a setlist with 16 rolling stones songs and tunes from a hit record -doesnt matter.people dont want to hear mick jagger sing rolling stones songs or songs from his platinum album...
he would be scorned and ridiculed.the shows would have maybe 2 or 300 hundred people who would mock his pathetic attempts at a performance.
do 4500 seaters like keith did?no way. jagger would have to do bars and clubs at best.
the way they cling to the narrative is facinating,its almost pathological.you can give numbers,testimony from fans in australia,fans in the states who were following the band in 88 saying how everyone was dying for anything stones...nothing matters.they'll ignore every word-its just very important for mick to be that kid in the norman rockwell painting with the tomatoes flying.its one of the strangest things i've ever seen.
You don't find it odd that the solo Jagger was more interested in living in the past than the present on that tour? It makes me wonder, what was the point? Might as well roll with the Stones then...
Ah ha ha.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1892
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10