What caused the fight??
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: August 16, 2021 04:42
I was just watching the video for Worried About You and watching the interaction between Mick and Keef, got me thinking.......what caused the great riff that caused them not to speak for so many years and then launched their solo careers and almost derailed all that we have enjoyed since then? I'm sure it's been discussed on here a hundred times, so please forgive my ignorance.....or forgetfulness - not sure which!!
Re: What caused the fight??
There had been reports about tensions between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Any doubts about the 50th anniversary tour?
"Not to me, but to many people there was a doubt.
The two big offenders of that virtually lived together
when they were kids, didn't they? They lived down the
road from each other. It comes from all that.
They're like brothers, arguing about the rent,
and then if you get between it, forget it. They leave you high and dry.
I think it's part of being together for 50 years.
Keith couldn't say things in his book without knowing
Mick that well. I haven't read it, actually, I just heard
things he'd said, and it's what he felt
Charlie Watts 2013
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
After years of running the show, Keith kicks smack and tells Mick, "thanks man, I'm back" and Mick says, "that's great, I'm doing a solo album".
Keith shows him the blade and says F-you Brenda!
Well that didn't go too well, so Mick signs a secret solo deal with CBS, we get WWIII and the carnage that ensues includes She's The Boss, Dirty Work, no tour...wait, yes tour but Jagger solo tour & Prinitive Cool, and even more flotsam and jetsam, and Keith creates the magnificent Talk Is Cheap and takes some expensive winos on tour and when they both realize no one is actually making any money, Mick's Emotions has the band reunite to form the Vegas Stones and here we are.
Posted by: DGA35 ()
I think the fact Mick wanted a solo career and thought he didn't need the rest of the band. No tour behind Dirty Work, although I've always thought that it was due to Charlie being in no condition due to his addictions. No one knew about it at the time and I only found out when I saw an interview with Mick and Charlie on 60 Minutes in 94 when Charlie discussed it. At that point I thought that sure, Mick and Keith didn't get along well but also they were covering for Charlie.
In 1989 during Steel Wheels recording, Michael Cohl from CPI made the band a huge offer to promote their tour. I remember reading Bill Graham, who used to handle their tours said my lover has become my whore or something to that affect. He went on to manage their tours throughout the 90s and 00s. Guess it's easier to get along with each other when you're looking at hundreds of millions of dollars!
thanks for the responses so quickly!!
Would you wanna put up with Keith from 70 to 82?
Posted by: SomeTorontoGirl ()
Ah. I thought this was about the fight in the fish and chip shop. Carry on.
DGA35
I think Keith was even more disappointed when Mick said he didn't want to tour the Undercover-album.
Posted by: dcba ()
since 1980 or so (and Keith's comeback after spending years in a drug haze) they've been able to feign comaraderie in public while going at each other's throat in private.
That's not truly counter-productive as the veiled war between the Twins gave us Tattoo You. Chris Kimsey assembled the basic tracks from previous sessions simply because in 1980 Keith and Mick were not on "speaking terms".
If they gotten along with each other in 80-81 they would have recorded another rather mediocre album à la Emotional Rescue.
Posted by: Send It To me ()
Jagger is, on one hand, a hard-working professional and pragmatist/realist, and on the other, very flip, offhand, and dismissive.
Keith is like a mafia member who believes he's taken a sacred oath of loyalty, and can be very domineering about his retrograde musical standards while at the same time working in a chaotic state waiting for inspiration to strike.
They're both concerned with their control of the band and their image, in different ways.
The conflicts between these two styles were inevitable, although they each give the other something they lack. I think it worked when they were younger because Keith was more in tune with the spirit of the times instead of trying to preserve something fading away and because Mick was less guarded and willing to just roll with things.
Human relationships are interesting, especially creative ones.
Posted by: snoopy2 ()
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-18 01:39 by snoopy2.
Posted by: thomashanck ()
in the film "let's spend the night together"
you can see above the stage
"mick jagger" and "rolling stones",
somewhere i read that keith was not amused when he saw this,
[www.youtube.com]
00:45 min. and so on
I think drugs, other temptations and a lack of discipline had something to do with it also. Wyman had a problem with Keith's leadership (drug hours) on Exile already for instance.
Imagine starting your working day att 11 pm and finishing it 6 am. Or just having a junkie as your boss?
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
If they could not make millions of dollars doing live shows the band would have broken up in 1989. If Mick could make hundrends of millions selling cds or downloads they would have released more than one album of new material in 24 years. Even the songs they have done since 1989 do not have much collaboration between Mick and Keith. It is like the Beatles White Album. But even under those conditions , the greatness of the songs Mick and Keith have written in the last 60 years and their talents as performers can still result in great live shows from 1989 to today
I thought they worked together pretty closely for ABB? Whilst Charlie was going thru his cancer treatments, they were putting together the album just the two of them - I seem to recall reading that somewhere. That they felt they owed it to Charlie to deliver one more album or something like that and if he was able to come back and play drums they'd redo his parts. Am I mis-remembering that?
Posted by: Rocktiludrop ()
VoodooLounge13
Forget all the bolloocks you hear on here, basically Keith was larger than life in the early 80s he was the Stone everyone wanted to meet and interview, he's stage presence was starting to rival Micks and he was the definition of cool, Mick couldn't handle it so went solo for a bit, when he realised Keith was becoming a performer in his own right with the Expensive Wino's Mick panicked and called Keith up and said let's get back together on the road.
Keith obviously obliged, you can't afford Keith's lifestyle touring with the Wino's and Mick can't afford his lifestyle on a failed solo career.
End of, storm in a tea cup, big deal, they were always fated to be together, the masses just aren't interested enough in them as solo artists.
Unfortunately because they didn't tour behind Undercover or Dirty Work we missed the best of Keith, he was a force of nature at that time, so Mick muted him, job done Mick.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-16 18:04 by Rocktiludrop.
If I remember Keith's book, Richards said that at th time of the "Perfomance" movie making,his relationship with Mick was damaged. I think Keith said that after it was not the same. If doubt in Keith's mind started there, it is possible to trace the fall out to that point although it is a stretched.
How much collaboration was there on ABB. If Keith was not there to contribute to Mick's songs I doubt they would have sounded much different.And in my opinion ABB is along with Dirty Work their worst album anyway. Where is the collaboration on Bridges to Babylon. Don Was had to work in separate rooms with Mick and Keith. That is collaboration? It sounds like they mostly just sang or played on each other's songs
Taylor1
Well, I seem to recall reading an interview where they talked about working together to finish the album. ABB may suffer from being a bit too long, but I do remember listening to it for a solid 4 months straight when it came out - that's how stoked I was to have a new Stones album after so long. It's far from their worst, as is Dirty Work in my opinion. IMHO, since 1980, the 2 albums I listen to the absolute least are Emotional Rescue and Undercover - in that order. I love the snarl that DW has - you can feel the tension in the songs, and I always enjoyed it for that. And while I do enjoy SW (as that was the album on which I got into the Stones), it's production has not aged well. The tin-ny sound really detracts from it. Conversely, an album that I liked enough at the time - BTB - has really become (to me) their last great album. And I remember at the time thinking what a disappointment it was from VL, which for me will always be their best album, easily eclipsing the Big 4 - but again I was an 18 year boy when it came out, just coming into my own sexuality, and that album oooooooooooooooooooooooozes sex appeal start to finish. It's got Mick's swagger all over it; the coolness of Keef; Ron's consistent riffs; and Charlie pounding out the rhythm in all sorts of hidden places. It's dirty sex and morning after and unbathed continued sex. Voodoo Lounge is quintessential Stones at the climax of their return to greatness and importance. BTB was almost martian by comparison, but as I've gotten older, I've really come to appreciate it more and more, though it is the only album where I always skip at least 1 song, possibly two, depending on my mood (MAWGJ and Gunface). I always thought the 3 Keef songs were weak on the album, but again, as I've gotten older, I really enjoy them much more, and TITN is really one of his finer moments.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-16 22:28 by VoodooLounge13.
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
I thought they worked together pretty closely for ABB? Whilst Charlie was going thru his cancer treatments, they were putting together the album just the two of them - I seem to recall reading that somewhere.
They did. While Charlie was going through treatment and recovering Mick and Keith recorded demos of material they had written individually (as usual, more Mick than Keith) and some they'd written together.
Nothing recording wise on ABB is from the demos, with exception to some of Mick's drum bits added wherever as samples, it's all Mick, Keith and Charlie. Oh yeah, there was the usual hype. They haven't worked this way since the 1960s... blah blah blah, all that usual crap.
They also worked a lot together for VOODOO LOUNGE in Barbados, which, considering Don Was' comment about Mick and Keith never working together like they did in 2004 since the 1960s, he... forgot about 1993/94?
Mick said he had very little leftover from WANDERING SPIRIT while Keith ripped himself off for Love Is Strong and ripped off a fill he did for his cover of Eddie Cochran's Something' Else from his MO tour for You Got Me Rocking.
And, of course, everything else was completely original.
Posted by: gotdablouse ()
Rocktiludrop
^^ This !
As far as Mick and Keith not getting along, what else is new?! Exile mixing in 72, Roy Gallagher's comments after his 75 "audition", the mixing of UC (so petty and bad that Mick had to promise Kimsey there would be none of this nonsense to get him back on board for SW), VL mixing, etc...
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio
Posted by: Bliss ()
Try to imagine if you were a tireless workhorse like Mick, running a massive company, and your business partner is a shambolic heroin addict>>alcoholic who wants an equal say in every management decision you want to execute. After 10-15 years of this, wouldn't you be screaming for your freedom?
"Mick couldn't handle it so went solo for a bit"
Mick couldn't fathom the constant criticism from a man who was a ombie since 1975,hardly contributed to the songwriting and who suddenly wanted an equal share of the band's control... so yeah he "went solo for a bit".
"when he realised Keith was becoming a performer in his own right with the Expensive Wino's Mick panicked and called Keith up and said let's get back together on the road".
When Keith realised his larger-than-life media stature didn't translate well in record and concert ticket sales (TIC was a moderate success) he called Mick up and said let's get back together on the road.
"Keith obviously obliged, you can't afford Keith's lifestyle touring with the Wino's and Mick can't afford his lifestyle on a failed solo career.
End of, storm in a tea cup, big deal, they were always fated to be together, the masses just aren't interested enough in them as solo artists".
Posted by: Natlanta ()
dcba
It's two sides of the same coin, but i believe Keith when he said while on tour in 88' with the Wino's that Mick rang him and said he wanted to make an album and tour with the Stones, and Keith said what are you trying to do screw me up.
Mick has not denied that tale of events.
I enjoy that video and find the interaction between Mick and Keith, especially when Keith puts his arm on his shoulder, to be quite intimate and touching.
Their differences were more professional than personal, in my view. Even in the 80s, I think they loved each other.
From Mick's point of view, he probably found drunk/coked up Keith much more problematic than high/nodding Keith. Mick wanted to work quickly and was tired of waiting around for Keith to develop a tune out of 14 hours of strumming the chords to Tumbling Dice. Mick wanted hits and dance music and didn't care that Keith seemed to put most of his energy into odd soul pieces like All About You.
As for Keith, he was terrified of being left on his own, knew that he needed somebody to edit his ideas and knew he couldn't be a front man. But on the flip side, he knew that he had most of his bandmates on his side for various reasons (at some level, even Bill trusted Keith the musician more than Mick and Charlie has never found Mick's musical ideas that interesting. Ronnie, of course, was in the band because of Keith. Keith had also shrewdly spent the 70s polishing his own brand in the rock press to protect himself in the public's view.
Anyway, Mick tried to go solo as a side project, did it in kind of an underhanded way, failed, and gave up his artistic desires for a steady stream of concert income and all that hedonistic rewards of touring. To be a succesful solo artist you have to give the public a bullshit artistic persona, and Mick doesn't do that.
They both made clear-headed and smart decisions for themselves. They are both intelligent men who didn't screw up success as most bands do. I kinda think that in an alternate reality, they went solo in 1985 for good and made much more interesting music apart than together. But just as likely in another reality, Keith OD's and Mick becomes a laughingstock. So they chose survival.
Posted by: stonesstein ()
Mick Jagger was born on a Monday morning
Keith Richards was born on a Saturday night
Yes, it's true!
- Todd Snyder "Brenda" - the finest thumbnail summation of Mick & Keith, ever!
Go download it and listen. WOW!
stonesstein
Kick me like you kicked before.
I can't even feel the pain no more.
wonderboy
A really well thought out astute post Wonderboy, its an interesting slant on their relationship, you summed it up beautifully, i agree they have a love and respect for each other, but it unfortunately spills out into competition and on Micks part jealousy at times, Mick really does come across as Brenda when Keith won't behave lol, and Keith's like the proverbial old man coming in drunk again after a night of excess, it's kind of depressing in a way, they would have been happier had they stayed apart in 85' slowly they would have forged better and better material with better producers and collaborations, it's telling when Keith is often asked why do the Stones continue, and he says the Glory man, it's all about the Glory. They just can't receive that level of adulation on their own.
I agree with you, solo artists do need a bullshit artistic persona, Bowie came straight to mind, he was on another level, Mick should have realised he was never going to be a Bowie that late in the game , its pitiful that he thought he could be, Mick in the 80s was seen as a laughing figure, he was brunt of jokes and people taking the piss, he was also seen as an old ugly dinosaur in comparison to artists like Bowie, not only that, without Keith he just couldn't come up with the musical goods, Let's Work and She's the Boss, its so cringe worthy, to this day most Stones fans just try to blot this period out, Keith on the other hand proved where the sound of the Stones was coming from, and he still produces the goods, Crosseyed Heart is a fine album, something to be proud of, when i think of Micks recent efforts like England Lost & Gotta Get A Grip etc. its still damn cringe worthy.
I tend to agree with the assessment of Mick's solo career as being cringeworthy, though he did have a brief period in there with Wandering Spirit and Goddess in the Doorway, which, though not as good as WS, I thought was still a decent outing. Even Old Habits had its moments, but since then it has been downhill again......until Eazy Sleazy, which is a damn fine song. For Keef, though I've never understood the appeal of TIC (it has a few gems - Locked Away is one of my favorite Keef solo songs), he has definitely gotten better with each outing. Main Offender to me is a phenomenal album, start to finish, and Crosseyed Heart, with its assorted genres is an album by a more mature artist. It's the kind of leap the Stones would never take at this stage, and they should.
adamw3405 , Bashlets , DandelionPowderman , Doxa , edwinholland , exilestones , gagiwh , glimmerman , Hairball , Harry , hockenheim95 , IsakSun , jason8903 , LeonidP , loog droog , rogerriffin , rootsman , sbetz , stoned52