So here's the thing. I don't think any of the Stones have made a truly great solo album. With The Beatles we had John's "Plastic Ono Band", George's "All Things Must Pass" and Paul's "Band On The Run". Truly great records in their own right. We have several good Stones solo discs, but Mick & Keith's mostly showed why they need each other. The best Ron Wood one came before he joined the band. I think Mick Taylor's first one was pretty good. Then we have Bill Wyman's "Monkey Grip" and "Stone Alone", and Charlie's big band excursions. Do you agree that Stones solo albums have been mainly disappointing, and if so, why?

"Good old Monkey Grip, Monkey Grip. Monkey Grip, Monkey Grip, Monkey Grip..." Everyone sing along now!

Stones solo albums tend to be pretty unimpressive. I'd say Keith's first solo album was a highlight as was Ronnie's first, along with Gimme Some Neck. Clearly Mick and Keith need each other. The Beatles are a completely different thing altogether--basically three musical geniuses who didn't need each other (as illustrated by their solo work). This same reason explains why there the Stones were able to stay together for so long though. Everyone always knew they power-center of the band was Mick and Keith who worked off of each other. After a few years the three Beatles didn't really need each other (as it was, the White Album is essentially three solo artists recording with each other).

Also, I'm a big Taylor fan but I found his first solo album to incredibly disappointing. For me, it kind of highlights Keith's old dig about Taylor being a "sideman." As incredible as the guitar playing is, he really cannot write a song. And Ronnie could (or at least was able to years ago).

I've got my own album to do by Ronnie, is very, very nice, and Mick's Wandering Spirit sounds really good, definately when you haven't heard it in ages. And the Webster Hall recordings have got so much dynamite !
I listened to Charlie's solo albums last weekend, while working in the kitchen, and Warm and Tender is a very lovely one, for a smooth sunday afternoon, with a hangover , to slowly waken up.

Rolling Richard from Holland.

Wandering Spirit is fantastic, and Slide on This is very good, I still play it regularly. Talk is Cheap of course is the best Stones album without Mick Jagger.

Mathijs

Sure. Taylor's A Stone's Throw. Lovely stuff. Play it all the time.

Jammin With the Blues Greats--not quite solo or an album--repeatedly finds its way into my DVD player.

Too Hot for Snakes and Real Live perhaps don't count as "solo" albums...

"Main Offender" and "Talk is Cheap" are both superb IMO; as is "Wandering Spirit".
"I've got my own Album", "Slide on This" - just as strong. "Gimme Some neck" has it all too, but one has to detract for that horrific mix. I love "1234" and "Now Look" as well, but it is clear that they are just a tad beneath his other ones.
With Jagger you got "Goddess in the Doorway" too, but it comes off a little too slick in places; eventhough the latter two are both miles better that "She's the Boss" or the bottom low of "Primitive Cool". "Primitive" is flat out a bad album.
Charlie's albums are so removed from the Stones' music that it is hard to compare them with the rest. "Warm And Tender" and "Long Ago & Far Away" are pretty solid.
Wyman's "Monkey Grip" isn't bad; Rock'n Roll Lite. "Stone Alone" could have been okay. Wyman had the pull of a Rolling Stone; i.e. good musicians. BU vocals, cutesy arrangments,ruin it.

Wandering Spirit and Talk is Cheap are both classics.

[thepowergoats.com]

Hmm...I think Talk Is Cheap is good. I don't know that it rises to the level of "great".

I love She's the Boss as much as any of the Stones' work.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
Wandering Spirit and Talk is Cheap are both classics.

the only ones i'd make an argument for "great" - and it's probably a losing argument at that...but certainly i'd rate them the two best....

I always return to record store to purchase Wandering Spirit.I love Put me In The trash , Dont Tear Me Up , Sweet Thing with its murky blues feel . UI love this album . I love Keith's first . I used to own the canister it came in with 3 seperate small CD's . Dont know what happened to it . Somebody probably ripped it off. KARMA!!

good but nor great, they surely need each other.

i wish they would still be working together.

woody's first album is great, so is slide, and slide live.
Micks spirit and both keith's albums are good too.
And I really like 'not for beginners' nice feel to it

it's helpful if you establish the parameters of what "great" is...i regard the Big Four as the only GREAT stones albums - and by that standard, nothing the stones have done individually hit that mark....

maybe you do, but others don't

Quote
StonesTod
it's helpful if you establish the parameters of what "great" is...i regard the Big Four as the only GREAT stones albums - and by that standard, nothing the stones have done individually hit that mark....

I should have been more specific: Are any Stones solo albums as great as any of the Stones greatest albums as a group? I think not, though there are a few perfectly good ones.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
it's helpful if you establish the parameters of what "great" is...i regard the Big Four as the only GREAT stones albums - and by that standard, nothing the stones have done individually hit that mark....

I should have been more specific: Are any Stones solo albums as great as any of the Stones greatest albums as a group? I think not, though there are a few perfectly good ones.

agreed. nothing wrong with calling them great....but if they are great, then what would you call the big four? super-duper fabulous or something? it gets to be a bit slippery....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
it's helpful if you establish the parameters of what "great" is...i regard the Big Four as the only GREAT stones albums - and by that standard, nothing the stones have done individually hit that mark....

I should have been more specific: Are any Stones solo albums as great as any of the Stones greatest albums as a group? I think not, though there are a few perfectly good ones.

agreed. nothing wrong with calling them great....but if they are great, then what would you call the big four? super-duper fabulous or something? it gets to be a bit slippery....

Agree. The Big Four are beyond great. But no Stones solo album is considered a classic rock or pop album in the category of Sgt. Pepper, Tommy, Dark Side Of The Moon, Astral Weeks, Blonde On Blonde, etc. Perhaps two or three beatle solo efforts would qualify.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
it's helpful if you establish the parameters of what "great" is...i regard the Big Four as the only GREAT stones albums - and by that standard, nothing the stones have done individually hit that mark....

I should have been more specific: Are any Stones solo albums as great as any of the Stones greatest albums as a group? I think not, though there are a few perfectly good ones.

agreed. nothing wrong with calling them great....but if they are great, then what would you call the big four? super-duper fabulous or something? it gets to be a bit slippery....

Agree. The Big Four are beyond great. But no Stones solo album is considered a classic rock or pop album in the category of Sgt. Pepper, Tommy, Dark Side Of The Moon, Astral Weeks, Blonde On Blonde, etc. Perhaps two or three beatle solo efforts would qualify.

plastic ono band & all things must pass are in that league, imo....

Should I have said, "Wandering Spirit and Talk Is Cheap sure didn't disappoint me the way the group's efforts did at that time?"

[thepowergoats.com]

Imho Talk is Cheap had great songs but suffered from a horrible FM-friendly production. MOffender was the opposite : great natural sound but hardly any songs (999, Wicked As It Seems, and Demon are the best).
Despite the great job by Rubin WS still suffered from typical Jagger songwriting : instant catchy tunes but embarrasing a few years later.

Tried to listen to "Sweet Thing" recently?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
it's helpful if you establish the parameters of what "great" is...i regard the Big Four as the only GREAT stones albums - and by that standard, nothing the stones have done individually hit that mark....

I should have been more specific: Are any Stones solo albums as great as any of the Stones greatest albums as a group? I think not, though there are a few perfectly good ones.

agreed. nothing wrong with calling them great....but if they are great, then what would you call the big four? super-duper fabulous or something? it gets to be a bit slippery....

Agree. The Big Four are beyond great. But no Stones solo album is considered a classic rock or pop album in the category of Sgt. Pepper, Tommy, Dark Side Of The Moon, Astral Weeks, Blonde On Blonde, etc. Perhaps two or three beatle solo efforts would qualify.

plastic ono band & all things must pass are in that league, imo....

Agree completely.

1. Now Look [www.iorr.org]

2. Wandering Spirit

3. Talk Is Cheap

1. Talk Is Cheap
2. Wandering
3, Main Offender'

As has been stated, there weren't very many good songs on Main Offender...

I actually remember running to the record store ("youngsters, we had "Record Stores" in the old days...") to pick up Monkey Grip. It was the first Stones solo album and I was eager with anticipation to find out what a Bill Wyman record would sound like. Well, I quickly found out!

I don't know... I'd agree that none of the Stones' solo albums are as good as the group's, but I'd disagree that any of the Beatles' solo albums are as good. The albums named by John, Paul, and George are all major albums, but song for song IMO not a patch on the Beatles' best. And only Paul IMO had a sustained solo career. John of course had potential but many of his albums are pretty dreadful, and George's output is turgid. So I think the basis for comparison is unfair.

now, I think Lou Reed's and John Cale's best solo albums stand with the Velvet Underground's best, but I'm not sure how many others here know the material.

Quote
cc
I don't know... I'd agree that none of the Stones' solo albums are as good as the group's, but I'd disagree that any of the Beatles' solo albums are as good. The albums named by John, Paul, and George are all major albums, but song for song IMO not a patch on the Beatles' best. And only Paul IMO had a sustained solo career. John of course had potential but many of his albums are pretty dreadful, and George's output is turgid. So I think the basis for comparison is unfair.

now, I think Lou Reed's and John Cale's best solo albums stand with the Velvet Underground's best, but I'm not sure how many others here know the material.

''

I certainly wasn't saying that all the Beatles solo albums measure up to Beatles albums - only two or three. There were sure some stinkers too.

Quote
71Tele

I certainly wasn't saying that all the Beatles solo albums measure up to Beatles albums - only two or three. There were sure some stinkers too.

understood--I said that I don't think any of them measure up... if we're to define great as narrowly as you suggested. Plastic Ono Band & All Things Must Pass in particular strike me as important albums, interesting but somewhat for historical reasons, not records that song for song come close to their work in the group setting.

I LOVE "Talk is Cheap" - I.M.H.O. Not a weak song on the album.
Better than "Steel Wheels" & "Dirty Work" & "Emotional Rescue"

Now "Main Offender" has ALOT of great riff's , great songwriting... but something happened in the mix where it just lays flat and has no energy like T.I.C

Mick's G.I.T.D. is pretty good but doesn't even come close to Keith's solo's

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

I don't think any of them could be considered great because they were all made well past the Stones' Golden Era.

The question should be, how do they measure up to Stones' material of the time, and moving forward?