Quote
From4tilLate

Quote
Brstonesfan
it's very sad how this came about on the 81 tour...per contract from rumors we have heard.

How many times do I have to say it? The rumor that it's written in the contract has only ONCE been "reported" in 30 years. Nick Kent wrote the piece that ran in Spin Magazine in the States in 1985. In that same article he wrote that in 1981 Keith "hijacked the cherry picker, rose up and played a 17-minute guitar solo" (never happened) and that in 1982 Keith "ran across the stage and slugged Ronnie in the mouth" (never happened). Do I have to keep repeating myself?

Apparently...

Same contract that allegedly punished Ronnie for substance abuse by making him stay at separate hotels.

Quote
Long John Stoner


Boy, if this video is any indication, Mick kept hanging around the front of the stage because seemingly Keith had little or no interest in doing the vocal. Somebody had to do the lyric.

So Keith was too out of it. He could only manage guitar. It used to bug me that Keith could not be bothered to sing harmony live on the tunes he did when recording them. Of course he sang some live harmony but not much, depending on the era. Now the back up singers bridge this gap.

Quote
triceratops
Of course he sang some live harmony but not much, depending on the era. Now the back up singers bridge this gap.

not only. this year, Keef definitely was pushed up in the
vocal mix when he sang for example on RT or LSTNT. great moments

It is Mick who insist on the break and rightfully so....it works out for both.

Mick takes a piss...

Has his hair washed and blowed dried in minutes...

Has a drink...

And gets focused for the second half.

If you look at pictures of the tours through the years...you will see
Mick's hair is all of a sudden fresh and new (no sweat) after Keith's set.

C'mon...these guys have this shit down to a science.

When they go to introduce the band...do you notice Keith, Ronnie and Charlie disappear for a pee and show up just in time to be introduced?

Who and especially those guys at that age can last all that time without a piss?

PECMAN

Quote
Pecman
It is Mick who insist on the break and rightfully so....it works out for both.

Mick takes a piss...

Has his hair washed and blowed dried in minutes...

Has a drink...

And gets focused for the second half.

If you look at pictures of the tours through the years...you will see
Mick's hair is all of a sudden fresh and new (no sweat) after Keith's set.

C'mon...these guys have this shit down to a science.

When they go to introduce the band...do you notice Keith, Ronnie and Charlie disappear for a pee and show up just in time to be introduced?

Who and especially those guys at that age can last all that time without a piss?

PECMAN

...boy, oyur post probably is the most eye-opening... Never noticed that about Mick's hair or Ronnie, Keith, & Charlie...

Quote
Pecman
When they go to introduce the band...do you notice Keith, Ronnie and Charlie disappear for a pee and show up just in time to be introduced?

Who and especially those guys at that age can last all that time without a piss?

PECMAN

indisputable point raised.
but i won't comment on the freshness
of Micks hair throughout the show

just "breaking" after having had thousands and thousands of people watching every move of his, for an hour. And changing clothes.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
From4tilLate
In that same article he wrote that in 1981 Keith "hijacked the cherry picker, rose up and played a 17-minute guitar solo" (never happened)

have to agree it doesn't sound like something Keef would likely do.
he'd probably hijack a cherry picker given the chance, but i can't
imagine him playing solo for 17 minutes. on which song even?

Free Bird

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
Pecman
When they go to introduce the band...do you notice Keith, Ronnie and Charlie disappear for a pee and show up just in time to be introduced?

Who and especially those guys at that age can last all that time without a piss?

PECMAN

indisputable point raised.
but i won't comment on the freshness
of Micks hair throughout the show

A good spritz of dry shampoo.

I don't agree . They always until 81 stayed on the stage together. By 89, Keith was getting 2 songs, so I can understand Mick leaving for 1, but not both. It clearly has something to do with the frayed relationship. It is incomprehensible that the last time they joined in on "Happy" was 78. At this stage, yes, maybe Mick wants the break for the hair switch, but everyone knows here that their relationship on stage, sans a few memorable moments (including this last tour) is non existent at times.

Quote
Brstonesfan
I don't agree . They always until 81 stayed on the stage together. By 89, Keith was getting 2 songs, so I can understand Mick leaving for 1, but not both. It clearly has something to do with the frayed relationship. It is incomprehensible that the last time they joined in on "Happy" was 78. At this stage, yes, maybe Mick wants the break for the hair switch, but everyone knows here that their relationship on stage, sans a few memorable moments (including this last tour) is non existent at times.

The whole Keith/Mick thing is quite simply a very clever PR ploy:

- Keeps the band in the news between tours whenever they have a new falling out,

- Each personality appeals to a different type of fan (and so enables the band as a whole to attract more fans),

- Creates more interest and press in the lead up to a new album and tour ("will they get along? are they getting along?")

If someone were to do an analysis of the amount of press written about the Stones from 81 onwards, I have no doubt that the vast majority of it is about Keith and Mick's relationship. It's amazing that they have sustained the story for so long.

Adults who are each worth 100s of millions of dollars don't work together if they don't like working together.

Regarding Mick leaving the stage, it helps further the Keith/Mick marketing angle and gives the singer a well-deserved break.

Quote
Brstonesfan
I don't agree . They always until 81 stayed on the stage together. By 89, Keith was getting 2 songs, so I can understand Mick leaving for 1, but not both. It clearly has something to do with the frayed relationship. It is incomprehensible that the last time they joined in on "Happy" was 78. At this stage, yes, maybe Mick wants the break for the hair switch, but everyone knows here that their relationship on stage, sans a few memorable moments (including this last tour) is non existent at times.

The last time Mick supposedly joined in was on Little T+A on a euro gig in 1982.

It could be as innocent as that Mick wants a little longer break, hence two songs.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
Brstonesfan
I don't agree . They always until 81 stayed on the stage together. By 89, Keith was getting 2 songs, so I can understand Mick leaving for 1, but not both. It clearly has something to do with the frayed relationship. It is incomprehensible that the last time they joined in on "Happy" was 78. At this stage, yes, maybe Mick wants the break for the hair switch, but everyone knows here that their relationship on stage, sans a few memorable moments (including this last tour) is non existent at times.

The whole Keith/Mick thing is quite simply a very clever PR ploy:

- Keeps the band in the news between tours whenever they have a new falling out,

- Each personality appeals to a different type of fan (and so enables the band as a whole to attract more fans),

- Creates more interest and press in the lead up to a new album and tour ("will they get along? are they getting along?")

If someone were to do an analysis of the amount of press written about the Stones from 81 onwards, I have no doubt that the vast majority of it is about Keith and Mick's relationship. It's amazing that they have sustained the story for so long.

Adults who are each worth 100s of millions of dollars don't work together if they don't like working together.

Regarding Mick leaving the stage, it helps further the Keith/Mick marketing angle and gives the singer a well-deserved break.

Hear, hear!

The last point I´ve take notice is that for the URBAN JUNGLE TOUR ,Mick forced Keith to sign an official document in which he ( keith) accepted that Mick had not to do the chorus in keith´s songs.( two new singers had to do). However, keith accepted under the condition it became a two-songs set.Mick accepted
Sorry for my english mistakes.

Where's Mick Go During Keith's Set? Drink, eat something, a shower, oxygen.....

Quote
keith75
The last point I´ve take notice is that for the URBAN JUNGLE TOUR ,Mick forced Keith to sign an official document in which he ( keith) accepted that Mick had not to do the chorus in keith´s songs.( two new singers had to do). However, keith accepted under the condition it became a two-songs set.Mick accepted
Sorry for my english mistakes.

Where's Mick Go During Keith's Set? Drink, eat something, a shower, oxygen.....

It would be interesting if you had any sources that could confirm that Mick "forced" Keith to do this?

You're also saying "for the UJ-tour". They didn't have an agreement for the SW-tour?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-28 15:06 by DandelionPowderman.

Let's have facts and sources, please.

Quote
From4tilLate

Quote
Brstonesfan
it's very sad how this came about on the 81 tour...per contract from rumors we have heard.

How many times do I have to say it? The rumor that it's written in the contract has only ONCE been "reported" in 30 years. Nick Kent wrote the piece that ran in Spin Magazine in the States in 1985. In that same article he wrote that in 1981 Keith "hijacked the cherry picker, rose up and played a 17-minute guitar solo" (never happened) and that in 1982 Keith "ran across the stage and slugged Ronnie in the mouth" (never happened). Do I have to keep repeating myself?

YES! Please continue repeating yourself! Then maybe these myths will become true! Just like Muddy Waters painting the ceiling, Keith "bashing" the guy in the head during Satisfaction in 1981 and, of course this one actually NOT made up by Keith, Keith falling out of a coconut tree.

I had that SPIN issue and I wondered about that hijacking the cherry picker.

But we have video evidence of the guitar bashing incident ....

Quote
EJM
But we have video evidence of the guitar bashing incident ....

Yes there is video evidence but the truth of the event does not match up to the myth.

So what is the myth - the video shows person going up to the stage towards Mick, keith hitting him with his guitar and then going back to continue playing - is there more ?

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
triceratops
Of course he sang some live harmony but not much, depending on the era. Now the back up singers bridge this gap.

not only. this year, Keef definitely was pushed up in the
vocal mix when he sang for example on RT or LSTNT. great moments

What song is RT?
I find it quite irritating sometimes to have to think about what song is ment by only using the first letters. It happens a litte bit too much on IORR (It's Only Rock 'n'Roll).

Ruby Tuesday?

Today, Keith is very prominent in the vocal mix on WH, RT, LSTNT and The Last Time (2012). Probably a few more as well, yeah, DF.

Dunno, but starting around the turn of the century I'll bet wherever he goes he has cotton stuffed in ears.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-29 05:05 by TonyMo.

I've read Nick Kent papers and I think there are true. Sorry, now I know that there are completely untrue

Quote
stonehearted
Logs on to IORR to laugh at the set list complaints.

Ha Ha Ha

Well done.

Mick runs to the merch booths, gets told which Stones T-shirt is the poorest seller that night, puts on said model, runs back to the stage for the 2nd part of the show, and shows off his Stones T-shirt to the crowd.

Yeah, except that on the recent tours, at least on 50 and Counting, his t-shirts are plain black, from what I saw, not counting the jackets and the button-up shirts under those.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
angee
Yeah, except that on the recent tours, at least on 50 and Counting, his t-shirts are plain black, from what I saw, not counting the jackets and the button-up shirts under those.

Quite a stickler aren't you?!