Point well taken Rocky, but I think She's The Boss was at least amusing(the title track and Lucky in Love) and imo One Hit To The Body and even Dirty Work are better than anything on Primitive Cool.

Quote
farawayeyes2
80s were great in their way actually, imo you just dont need to compare them to the 60s or the 70s

if you don't compare the 80's to any other decade of the past century or so, it really stands alone as a remarkable decade...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-22 17:38 by T&A.

Quote
T&A

Quote
farawayeyes2
80s were great in their way actually, imo you just dont need to compare them to the 60s or the 70s

if you don't compare the 80's to any other decade of the past century or so, it really stands alone as a remarkable decade...

re: music & fashion..........remarkably lame....just my opinion.


IORR............but I like it!

I like "Radio Control" as well.

"Turn the Girl Loose" (despite thematic similarities to "Emotional Rescue") has that dreadful keyboard bridge that convinces you Mick needs a musical collaborator. Definitely would have been scrapped by CBS if it wasn't Mick Jagger.

As for "Let's Workout" - check out Mark Marek's "Dirty Workout" cartoon on the innser sleeve of DIRTY WORK. My kids still get a kick out of Hugo Phurst.

Was at work last night and Let's Work suddenly blared from the radio.
I turned it up.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Was at work last night and Let's Work suddenly blared from the radio.
I turned it up.

there you are...we wuz just talking about you the other day. i disremember what it was about, though....

Link???

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Link???

yes, i'm sure there is one

Quote
T&A

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Link???

yes, i'm sure there is one

Could you find it for me honey lumps?

JumpingKentFlash

i can't resist a little sweet-talk...

[www.iorr.org]

ahh, yes, Micks first solo-single ...

Many Stonesfans have been in fear Mick would split the Rolling Stones by doing this, so this "Must be bad", no chance for Mick.

There has been soloworking by Brian Jones, Ronnie Wood, Bill Wyman, Charlie, too. But that was without any danger for the main group, The Rolling Stones. But a solo released by Mick? No way!!! Give some contra, Keef, please!!!

But are/were these solos done by Mick really soooo bad?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-22 18:13 by HighwireC.

I was actually watching the video to Emotional Rescue last night. It too is quite a laugh. I had to wonder how Keith took part in it or let it happen!

Quote
T&A

Quote
farawayeyes2
80s were great in their way actually, imo you just dont need to compare them to the 60s or the 70s

if you don't compare the 80's to any other decade of the past century or so, it really stands alone as a remarkable decade...

yeah man thats true it's called "historicism". you cant compare everything.

But it was Mick who had said back then something like... how long must I be saddled with the Rolling Stones? So it seems he would have left if his records had done well enough...

Quote
georgeV
I was actually watching the video to Emotional Rescue last night. It too is quite a laugh. I had to wonder how Keith took part in it or let it happen!

Dancing With Mr. D is so much better, one of my favorites, a "must see":




...

historicism? i like to think of it as historicynicism....a little harder to pronounce but well worth the effort....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-22 18:35 by T&A.

Quote
skipstone
What exactly is or was Mick's learning of singing a new professional way? I have never heard anything different. Just more falsetto.

Well, the term "professional" should be put in quatations, but with this album the voice of the Jagger known ever since was born. He left the loud (and a bit pointless) shouting that was his trademark from UNDERCOVER to DIRTY WORK, including his solo efforts, behind and found a new way to express with a more "tender", and nuance-riched way of himself. The result is also that the melodic lines are more easier for this new, trained, but a bit thinner Jagger voice to reach. This is especially true in each and every ballad he has done ever since, and most notably, in his live performances of old ballads since 1988 solo and STEEL WHEELS tour. Before that Jagger always had difficulties with slow tempo songs (is there any version of "Angie" or "Wild Horses" prior 1982 that goes in key?). It can be also said that the Jagger of today is a victim of the manouvres and cliches learned then; especially this is to be heard in BRIDGES TO BABYLON and GODDESS albums. I think his original voice coach was Dave Stewart who 'forced' Mick to try a song like "Say You Will". Jagger himself even admits this that he was impressed of what he can do with his voice, and gives full credit for Dave for kicking his ass for it.

I think it is easier to see my point is just listen Jagger's vocals in DIRTY WORK and PRIMITIVE COOL and one can hear the difference. PC is, in fact, a quintessential album to understand 'modern' era (1989 on) Stones... If one could really compare the 'new' Jagger with the old one, I think the b-side (In old vinyl terms) of TATTOO YOU (the slow songs) is a good comparison to the new 'trained'' voice starting from "Say You Will", "Kow Tow" and "Party Doll" The way he impresses himself is really different.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-22 18:49 by Doxa.

Might be the only one, but for me Let's Work is one of the best tracks on Primitive Cool. I don't want to say that I like it, but the rest of the album is almost unlistenable.

True that starting from this album, Jagger's singing changed. He became a better singer from a technical point of view, but this made him a slightly worst singer for the stones.

What is great about the music of the stones, is that all technically demanding bits of music are totally functional to the final result. Be it a guitar part or a vocal line. Every new style that was absorbed was a challenge for the group. None of the stones have ever practiced a particular "style" before composing in that particular "style".

The "new" Jagger tends to include in his singing small embellishments that clearly come directly from his training sessions, and have nothing to do with the particular composition these ideas are applied to.

The result is the "mannerism" that spoils the enjoyment of lots of the music made from Steel Wheels onwards. One of the things I like of ABB, is that Jagger is much looser than in the past.

Since by now I am way off topic, may I add that I love the way Jagger sang the slow numbers in the 70's eraly 80's, and that I consider Tattoo You side B the true highlight of his singing career!

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-22 19:23 by liddas.

I actually just recently listened to She's the Boss and Primitive Cool as albums for the first time, though from my youth I remembered the radio/MTV tracks, to the minimal extent that they were played--that is, they were much hyped before their debuts, as the new releases of a Rolling Stone, but then shortly disappeared.

I'm persuaded by Doxa's interpretation of Primitive Cool... there are more serious, ambitious songs on this record than on any since, and to the extent that his later spiritual epics like "Saint of Me" are serious, they're just following up on what he did here. The title track, for instance, is not really like any other song he's written. The lyrics are reflective and interesting, even if the song is a bit of chore to listen to... So whereas Wandering Spirit is a better album, it's really just a collection of styles that he already knows, each one done in an almost boutique manner. Primitive Cool actually sounds like an effort to create something new, though hardly radical.

but it's amazing that it's been over 20 years, and he has basically stuck with the routines he learned for this record. How can he be so attached to Dave Stewart and Matt Clifford, when these guys really did so little for mick's career? Loyalty to them seems like strange decisionmaking for someone supposedly so shrewd. In the disappointment following this record, he must have just coasted back into the Stones and lost most of his interest in music in the process. Earlier in his career, he was always slightly changing his style. Now it's been this princely, prissy persona for over 20 years.

I really don't mind the music of "Let's Work." It's got a vaguely African rhythm and bright guitar line that was fairly hip for a pop song of that period. mick's vocal line sinks it by being so simplistic, and his loud voice just sits awkwardly in the mix. But the worst are the lyrics--who can take a rich @#$%&'s preaching that the average joe is just lazy and doesn't want to work? Margaret Thatcher could have written this song. This ignorance slathers a bad taste over the whole album. The title track basically accuses the 60s generation of hypocrisy, but in a much more evenhanded way.

I can't quite believe I feel moved to defend the lyrics to "Let's Work," but Mick didn't start out rich. He got where he is and stayed there through his work ethic. I didn't disagree with the song's sentiment, just thought it turned out poorly. By comparison, "Hang Fire" is much more critical of the lower classes as layabouts content to squander their welfare check on gambling and booze. You won't find me complaining about "Hang Fire," though.

Mick's finest solo record






"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Rocky Dijon


"Turn the Girl Loose" (despite thematic similarities to "Emotional Rescue") has that dreadful keyboard bridge that convinces you Mick needs a musical collaborator. Definitely would have been scrapped by CBS if it wasn't Mick Jagger.

Maybe...but at the time I was so hungry for anything new from the
Stones (or individual Stones) that I bought the JUST ANOTHER NIGHT single before the
album came out. I knew the flipside (Turn the Girl Loose) would be
better....it had to be. (i'm not a big fan of Just Another Night)

It's kind of interesting to think about Mick's image & musical reputation
had he never done any solo albums. I must admit...his solo stuff has tarnished
my overall perception more than I thought possible. Slipping from "near genius"
to...THANK GOD HE MET KEITH RICHARDS and is smart enough keep the gravy train rolling.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I can't quite believe I feel moved to defend the lyrics to "Let's Work," but Mick didn't start out rich. He got where he is and stayed there through his work ethic.

yeah, his work ethic... plus the extraordinary luck to have been at the right time and found the right collaborators. Fiscal prudence/ruthlessness doesn't hurt either, when your idea of a work ethic is to get wasted and use recording studios in a profligate manner for decades. Millions of his fans (me included) would love to have to "work" like that. One can detect the satire behind "Hang Fire," but at least it's tongue-in-cheek. To sermonize about this earnestly as in "Let's Work" is just obtuse. The children's-reader level of the lyrics is even more insulting--it's as if he wanted it sung at the UN.

what malaise was he was speaking to, anyway? The song is profoundly misguided. As if the world's poor were just waiting for some noble, bootstrapping soul to give them the answer. Yeah, that's the root of the problem. Maybe this song has been Bono's inspiration? Not coincidentally, I believe the Western economy was booming at the time, though the US stock market would shortly crash, and the savings & loan charade would be exposed, leading to more of hardworking people's income being diverted to rescue risky investors, just like today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-22 23:21 by cc.

Quote
HighwireC
ahh, yes, Micks first solo-single ...

Many Stonesfans have been in fear Mick would split the Rolling Stones by doing this, so this "Must be bad", no chance for Mick.

There has been soloworking by Brian Jones, Ronnie Wood, Bill Wyman, Charlie, too. But that was without any danger for the main group, The Rolling Stones. But a solo released by Mick? No way!!! Give some contra, Keef, please!!!

But are/were these solos done by Mick really soooo bad?

The difference being that Brian, Ronnie, Bill and Charlie weren't the primary songwriters for the Stones, so side projects were their only 'vehicle' to indulge whatever muse they had.

Secondly, the Stones were in a state of disarray and Mick - with some influence by Walter Yetnikoff - managed to cut himself a solo deal as part of a new Stones contract with CBS. Unlike the other band members, he clearly saw the Stones as having a very limited future and was looking towards a career beyond the band. Had Mick's solo career been the success that he and Yetnikoff envisioned (see that of Michael Jackson post-Jackson 5 for a similar template), the Stones would have been finished. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Keith only signed a solo deal with Virgin when it was evident he couldn't keep the band together.

Yes, the Stones certainly were in a state of " disarray" and that puts it mildly but all of the frustration was not Keith's alone. Back up a bit to what Jagger had gone through to keep the band together leading to this period that I call " the clash of the Titans"! I recall Keith being non-cooperative quite a lot of the time when Jagger wanted to get together to create some new material. ( Part of that was due to heroin...example the 1977 Canadian drug bust which found Mick supporting Keith and no doubt going through some rather nasty legal business, ending with Keith playing a benefit with the support of his bandmates). I know, all past history, all under the bridge but my point is that there were reasons for discontent on both sides resulting in a less than adult response . I was very worried during this period, fearing they'd never resolve their differences. I think that the " limited future" was a real possibility back then; Mick does have an ego and without a doubt was looking for a way to continue his career but his reasoning was not without merit.

Keith would have made out better if Jagger had become a star.

Love "Lets Work", Love the video too. Refreshingly different. Talking of ego, if a muso doesnt have an ego he wont make it, thankfully Mick has an ego because Keith would have failed without him.

Ego is not a dirty word ......



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Ego is not a dirty word ......

But it's a crappy song

Quote
mickschix
Yes, the Stones certainly were in a state of " disarray" and that puts it mildly but all of the frustration was not Keith's alone. Back up a bit to what Jagger had gone through to keep the band together leading to this period that I call " the clash of the Titans"! I recall Keith being non-cooperative quite a lot of the time when Jagger wanted to get together to create some new material. ( Part of that was due to heroin...example the 1977 Canadian drug bust which found Mick supporting Keith and no doubt going through some rather nasty legal business, ending with Keith playing a benefit with the support of his bandmates). I know, all past history, all under the bridge but my point is that there were reasons for discontent on both sides resulting in a less than adult response . I was very worried during this period, fearing they'd never resolve their differences. I think that the " limited future" was a real possibility back then; Mick does have an ego and without a doubt was looking for a way to continue his career but his reasoning was not without merit.

Very good post. To understand what happened in the 80's - and especially Mick's drive for a solo career- one needs to look further back... Jagger was in the height of his creativity in the late-seventies (writing most of SOME GIRLS and EMOTIONAL RESCUE, finishing TATTOO YOU by his own), running the business of The Stones alone, while Keith was struggling to get out of heroin, still drinking hard, acting perhaps more like spoiled baby than ever, and demanding the co-leadership of the Stones, etc. There are many factors, and I can easily understand the will of Jagger to continue The Stones career solely by his own - why should he share all the income if he basically is doing all the hard work - plus babying Keith (and Ronnie)? It is easy to see Keith as a hero in all this, but it is not so simple.

I have argued in other posts that Jagger actually won the ego war of the 80's, and The Stones are run by according to his will (professionalism, side musicians, etc. the concept he created for his solo tour) from 1989 on. But I don't think Jagger is so proud of the win; he would have liked to turn out different, and the whole name of The Stones would have been a part of history, while the legacy of the band would have been carried in his solo career - like he did in '88. The Stones remained, but somehow Mick lost his artistic interest to develop the story any further - the point cc argued above - it is just now basically a money machine and ego machine to enjoy teh fruits of being a superstar, and remaining as one. Keith seem to agree with him just to have the band "working" (maybe Keith's ego is satisfied by keeping the band alive, and enjoying the failure of Jagger's departure.)

- Doxa