Why did the band choose to not follow the 70s tradition of American one summer and Europe the Fall of the next year?

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

seems strange, but between 1976 and 1989 - THATS A FULL 13 YEAR TIMESPAN! - there were only the two American tours 1978 and 1981 and of course Europe 1982, so just THREE TOURS IN 13 YEARS!

Keith's shape, I beleive.

Quote
The Menace of Mayfair
Why did the band choose to not follow the 70s tradition of American one summer and Europe the Fall of the next year?

Dont know if its a 'tradition' when they only did it once (or twice, if you mean the 76 tour which was April-June and not 'fall') . I think even the 1978 tour was a surprise, and as it was only about 25 shows, many of which were in theatres

1972-73 and 1975-76 werent 'world tours' in the way we know them now. In all four of those years they were actually promoting a recently released studio album instead of touring both markets behind ONE studio release as has been the case since 1981

Quote
Gazza
Dont know if its a 'tradition' when they only did it once (or twice, if you mean the 76 tour which was April-June and not 'fall') . I think even the 1978 tour was a surprise, and as it was only about 25 shows, many of which were in theatres

1972-73 and 1975-76 werent 'world tours' in the way we know them now. In all four of those years they were actually promoting a recently released studio album instead of touring both markets behind ONE studio release as has been the case since 1981

But from 1966 to 1982, they used to tour one year in USA (1966, 1969, 1972, 1975, 1978, 1981), one year in Europe (1967, 1970, 1973, 1976, not in 1979, 1982) and not to tour the third year (1968, 1971 only few shows in UK, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1983)

They didn't tour because, for the first time, they hadn't anything to promote. ???

---

Sorry for my english ; I'm a french little boy (but I like it)

Doesn't it cost them more money overall to tour Europe? Plus all the taxes? I'd think that's a reason why.

And maybe they just didn't feel like it.

That's an interesting fact, Gazza, that the US/EU tours were each supporting a different album. Of course, the 75 tour was for Made In The Shade basically. But they used to PROMOTE their latest or upcoming release, unlike the past couple of tours.

I do wish bands would release more albums. This touring for 2 or 3 years on one album is a joke.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith's shape, I beleive.

I thought Keef was offa thu junk? True, Some Girls was released in 78, but surely they could have barnstormed Europe in the Summer of 79?

Keith and Ronnie toured the US in april and may 1979. In january and in the summer the boys were all busy recording Emotional Rescue. In december 1979 Charlie toured with Rocket 88.

Quote
skipstone
Doesn't it cost them more money overall to tour Europe? Plus all the taxes? I'd think that's a reason why.

And maybe they just didn't feel like it.

That's an interesting fact, Gazza, that the US/EU tours were each supporting a different album. Of course, the 75 tour was for Made In The Shade basically. But they used to PROMOTE their latest or upcoming release, unlike the past couple of tours.

I do wish bands would release more albums. This touring for 2 or 3 years on one album is a joke.

1975 was basically to promote IORR, not Made in the Shade....

Quote
marcovandereijk
Keith and Ronnie toured the US in april and may 1979. In january and in the summer the boys were all busy recording Emotional Rescue. In december 1979 Charlie toured with Rocket 88.

Thanks for the info.! I completely forgot the boys were off doing things. I bet Mick didn't wanna tour and stayed home bonking Jerry Hall.

Quote
olorin

Quote
Gazza
Dont know if its a 'tradition' when they only did it once (or twice, if you mean the 76 tour which was April-June and not 'fall') . I think even the 1978 tour was a surprise, and as it was only about 25 shows, many of which were in theatres

1972-73 and 1975-76 werent 'world tours' in the way we know them now. In all four of those years they were actually promoting a recently released studio album instead of touring both markets behind ONE studio release as has been the case since 1981

But from 1966 to 1982, they used to tour one year in USA (1966, 1969, 1972, 1975, 1978, 1981), one year in Europe (1967, 1970, 1973, 1976, not in 1979, 1982) and not to tour the third year (1968, 1971 only few shows in UK, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1983)

They didn't tour because, for the first time, they hadn't anything to promote. ???

In 1966 they toured Australia, Britain, continental Europe as well as the US. I would imagine that they would employed a similar pattern in 1967 but for their legal problems.

Different touring modus operandi from 69...prior to that, they didnt tour to promote a new product, as touring was what they did most of the time regardless of what was being released (the Stones have played just over 2,000 shows in their career - half of them were from 1962-67)

In 1973 they also toured Australia, Hawaii and N Zealand - and would have played shows in the far East too but for Mick being refused a visa to Japan. they didnt have a new release to promote then either.

By the mid 70's, the albums were being released less frequently (every two years or so instead of every year). Much of 1979 and 1983 were spent working on a new record to be released towards the end of the year (ER was delayed until mid 1980) so thats probably the main reason why they didnt tour those years. the New Barbarians tour in '79 was basically to promote Ronnie's "Gimme some neck" record.

gazza:
In 1973 they also toured Australia, Hawaii and N Zealand - and would have played shows in the far East too but for Mick being refused a visa to Japan. they didnt have a new release to promote then either.


goatsheadsoup?

p

I dont think GHS was released at that point. they were still playing either exile songs or older stuff on that tour.

Most of ER was recorded in February 1979 wasn't it. Perhaps they were planning to tour later that year, if it had been released. But don't you normally have to plan a tour about a year in advance?

I don't know, but i wonder if Mick's involvement with Jerry, and Keith's with Patti took priority over band issues. I think after 1978, (and largely before), Mick and Keith had developed their separate social worlds and circles of friends, and that the Stones work-thing was more of a duty and less of joy. Keith got his rocks-off with Ronnie, and Mick .......... with Jerry. Perhaps Wood's tour threw the Stones machine off track. Wonder what Jagger made of that? Perhaps he didn't care. But what was happening was that Ronnie's gig was taking priority over Stones' business.

But why shouldn't he make solo albums and tour if they (Mick?) wouldn't make him an official band member.

More to the point then, why didn't they tour (UK or US) in 1980, to promote ER?

Why didn't a 1980-81 tour make sense.

(btw I wish they's made a double album out of ER and Tattoo (which was virtually all in the bag by 1980). Now that would have been something to tour with!

Mick & Keith's personal life seemed a little uncertain and there must not have been enough time to plan a tour. BY the time the air cleared it was time to start another record.

A 1980 tour did not take place because they didn't want to tour. I've read this several times. It was the first time that they said no to touring but agreed on a tour the next year, 1981. The only dates I remember for 1980 was a strange one off gig in China they were trying for but failed almost immediately being planned. Also, by this time Keith was starting to enjoy himself more in his personal life and he needed a break.

Quote
timbernardis
gazza:
In 1973 they also toured Australia, Hawaii and N Zealand - and would have played shows in the far East too but for Mick being refused a visa to Japan. they didnt have a new release to promote then either.


goatsheadsoup?

p

GHS came out at the end of the summer of 1973. Most of it was recorded in Nov-dec 1972.
The winter tour was Jan-Feb 1973.They toured Europe after GHS came out

according to micks ogwt 78 interview, the 79 euro tour was on hold pending keiths trial

Quote
Four Stone Walls
I wish they's made a double album out of ER and Tattoo (which was virtually all in the bag by 1980). Now that would have been something to tour with!

Now THAT would've been an awesome album...an end-of-an-era document that would have cleared out a lot of the vaults and put an exclamation point on the Stone's monumental 1970's journey.

Yet, the sound of both albums is SO different...it would be interesting to see how they could have pulled off a cogent sound and mood combining the material of those very disparate albums. ER is very spare and 'Disco/New-Wavey' in that 1978-1980 way...whereas Tattoo You's sound, song selection, and feel is classicist and more full-bodied. But what a gas it would be to hear 'All About You' next to 'Worried About You'...!

>> the 79 euro tour was on hold pending Keith's trial <<

Keith's trial was in october 1978, but the prosecution proceeded to appeal the sentence
(pushing for a prison term), and maybe it didn't seem very prudent to plan major public undertakings
until it was clear that there would be a happy ending to that episode. i suppose if they'd really felt like it
they would've toured anyway (why would "Keith's shape" be a barrier in 79?!) so it was probably a result of assorted causes.

Quote
melillo
according to micks ogwt 78 interview, the 79 euro tour was on hold pending keiths trial

yes, but that interview took place before he was 'sentenced'

They wanted to give it all up but dragged themselves out for the 78 tour. The reason that the Some Girls/ER sessions produced so many songs was so they had enough material to put out an album every couple of years with out having to record any thing.

Quote
harlito1969
A 1980 tour did not take place because they didn't want to tour. I've read this several times. It was the first time that they said no to touring but agreed on a tour the next year, 1981. The only dates I remember for 1980 was a strange one off gig in China they were trying for but failed almost immediately being planned. Also, by this time Keith was starting to enjoy himself more in his personal life and he needed a break.

Jagger refused to tour in 1974. I think Keith was quoted as expression his disgust that Mick would "write off a year in a single sentence".

Dont know about Keith feeling he 'needed a break ' in 1980. He played as many concerts in 1979 as he had done in 1978 and that wasnt very many.

its strange when people look back on the 70's as some kind of golden age of Stones tours, because they only played around 240 shows in that entire decade - and in only four of them (1972-73 and 1975-76) did they play more than 25 shows in a calendar year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-09 14:53 by Gazza.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
Most of ER was recorded in February 1979 wasn't it.

No. They recorded for just under a month in the Bahamas in Jan-Feb 1979, then did 3 sessions of a month or so at a time in Paris from mid June to mid October (with a couple of breaks) and then a month in New York doing overdubs and mixing etc. Only a couple of songs from early 1979 are on ER.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
Perhaps they were planning to tour later that year, if it had been released. But don't you normally have to plan a tour about a year in advance?

Not necessarily. Depends on the scale of it. The 1978 tour was put together quite hastily.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
I don't know, but i wonder if Mick's involvement with Jerry, and Keith's with Patti took priority over band issues. I think after 1978, (and largely before), Mick and Keith had developed their separate social worlds and circles of friends, and that the Stones work-thing was more of a duty and less of joy. Keith got his rocks-off with Ronnie, and Mick .......... with Jerry. Perhaps Wood's tour threw the Stones machine off track. Wonder what Jagger made of that? Perhaps he didn't care. But what was happening was that Ronnie's gig was taking priority over Stones' business.

No..the Barbarians tour really took place because Woody was aware the Stones werent going to be touring in the near future. No way would he have been in a position to nix a Stones tour for a solo project. Besides, his tour only lasted a few weeks. It never took "priority".

Quote
Four Stone Walls
But why shouldn't he make solo albums and tour if they (Mick?) wouldn't make him an official band member.

More to the point then, why didn't they tour (UK or US) in 1980, to promote ER?

Why didn't a 1980-81 tour make sense.

(btw I wish they's made a double album out of ER and Tattoo (which was virtually all in the bag by 1980). Now that would have been something to tour with!

Well..they pretty much did tour behind both. I've a BBC radio interview with Mick in June 1980 when ER came out and he talks about going on tour later in the year, but its so vague, its quite evident it wasnt really on the cards. I suppose maybe they realised they had enough material ready that they could do another album quickly and THEN tour - in fact he more or less hinted at that in the interview. And thats pretty much what happened. They put out two studio albums 14 months apart. First time theyd gone less than 18 months between records in almost a decade.

They were accumulating a hell of a lot of songs in the late 70s, part of which may have been down to the uncertainty over Keith's future. Even after the 1978 tour they were recording again in Hollywood within a month. Its generally believed they were stockpiling songs for the 'worst case scenario' as the widespread belief for many people in late 1978 was that Keith was looking at a jail sentence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-09 14:55 by Gazza.

Good points generally Gazza, but ........

1. "accumulating a hell of a lot of songs in the late 70s"

That was the 1977-78 SG sessions. First ones since 1975 (?).
Then they did some sessions in 1979 - but those didn't produce a lot more material.

2. You don't need me to tell you that Tatty You was mainly old material, not a "New" album as such at all. Sucking in the Seventies Part 2.

For Undercover they did not record much new stuff either, Still relying on some 1979 material and even some stuff from 1975 (Cellophane Trousers).

Ronnie was writing prolific in the late seventies and early eighties however!

Since the SG sessions I don't think Keith and Mick really worked closely until 1989.

I see a lot of parallels between the SG approach - quick, intense recording and immediate tour - as the the 1989 SW rebirth. Both times they HAD to get on track. Their reputation/careers depended on it. Necessity the mother of creative invention.

It's sad/strange that after the 2getting back on track" of 1978, they sort of let it all slip. But I do think it had a lot to do with Mick nad Keith having more interest in their personal lives. The Stones had become a secondary project. This was confirmd in the eighties.

Like with Beatles I expect marital politics played a large part. I can't imagine Keith "had a lot of time for" J Hall any more tha he had had for Bianca.

Keith and Ronnie were more of an item, than Keith and Mick since 1978. Not maritally.

But totally on a parallel mental trajectory - why didn't Keith get Ronnie to work with him in 1988? Even Taylor got in on that act!

1. they must have cut about 40 songs or more when you combine the 1979 sessions with the one in LA after Some Girls ended.... I would imagine a sizeable proportion of those would have been written before they knew the eventual outcome of Keith's trial. In fact you could argue that by the time they were finishing Some Girls in early 78 they were stockpiling songs. Almost all of the songs on that album were cut in late 1977, yet they recorded for two months more in early 1978, cutting some 30 songs.


2. I didnt say it was new material for TY. I did say that by the time ER came out they knew that enough material in the can to put out another studio album soon afterwards

In terms of songwriting and recording, 1977-79 was almost certainly the most prolific era of their career.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-09 15:36 by Gazza.

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Since the SG sessions I don't think Keith and Mick really worked closely until 1989.

I see a lot of parallels between the SG approach - quick, intense recording and immediate tour - as the the 1989 SW rebirth. Both times they HAD to get on track. Their reputation/careers depended on it. Necessity the mother of creative invention.

It's sad/strange that after the 2getting back on track" of 1978, they sort of let it all slip. But I do think it had a lot to do with Mick nad Keith having more interest in their personal lives. The Stones had become a secondary project. This was confirmd in the eighties.

Like with Beatles I expect marital politics played a large part. I can't imagine Keith "had a lot of time for" J Hall any more tha he had had for Bianca.

Keith and Ronnie were more of an item, than Keith and Mick since 1978. Not maritally.

But totally on a parallel mental trajectory - why didn't Keith get Ronnie to work with him in 1988? Even Taylor got in on that act!

absolutely correct with pretty much all of that, I think.

As to the last point, Ronnie had his own commitments around then - touring with Bo Diddley in 1987 and 1988, his new nightclub in Miami, it was also around the time his artwork side projects took off (by necessity as he was almost broke), plus I think he'd also dropped back into some bad old habits....

These two clips from (NME at the time) seem to point towards the concerns that the band had about the Canadian Government's appeal over Keith's 'sentence':

thanks Logie - do you have the date of that first clipping, by any chance?
the second one is clearly from late April/early May 79, but if you can tune it finer than that
that would be great to know more exactly too.

Which sessions was Mick really hoarse on for ER? Summer Romance, Indian Girl, come to mind.