Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
flilflam
This is what Rip This joint is supposed to sound like. There is a vast difference in quality between this original version and this rip off presented by someone who does not seem to know the difference between Stones music and Muzak.

Agreed!.That's a part of the point I'am trying to make.
The Stones after Taylor are making Muzak, with some exeptions. Jagger should have stayed solo,maybe some co-writing with Keith. Jagger's band maybe a bit impersonal,but trice better then the lame music the Stones made,repeating themselves and getting worse over the years.
A pitty Jagger and Richards went for the $$$$$..,even if they wanted to slit each others throat.

Oh dear,how did you sound about 40 years ago ?
What did you do,how did you move ?
What did you eat and drink ?
Reading and watching the same stuff ?
Listening to the same music ?
Knowing the same people ?
Leaving your home once in a while ?
Learning anything with more or less skill ?
Loving someone ?
Experiencing anything ?
Having a life ?

If you don´t like anything about the Stones the last 36 years and your
only interest is in establishing

The Temple Of Taylor,

have you ever asked yourself

WHAT AM I DOING HERE ?

( In case you didn´t realize...the Taylor years are my absolute favourite ones
concerning the Stones,which doesn´t mean at all to trash the time before and after...)

A lot of questions there

Yes, I have a lovely girlfriend.
I'am living in Amsterdam,a lovely city.
I visit lots of concerts, Path Mhetheny last week. John MC Laughlin in Luxemburg next month.Allan Holdsworth in a few weeks. Bospop in July to see Jeff Beck.
I am perfectly aware of contemporary music and what's going on.
I teach people how to play the guitar,and you have to love them,otherwise forget it.I'am playing 2 times a week myself.

All I want to do is starting an interesting discussion, and I respect every one's opinion,as long as people don't insult each other.It makes people emotional I hope.
I just don't understand what people like about the Post Taylor period compared to Jaggers band.A matter of taste?Read Bill Perks comments on this,Taylors comments when he joined,read quotes of Jeff Beck and Ry Cooder;you might get a bit more worldwise..
I make a musical point.And I visit this site cause I loved the Stones '63-76 and maybe there are some nice novelties.
I hope you understand what I'am doing here now?
I hope I satisfied your curiosity.Xxx

Good and fair answer,thank you for that.
Wasn´t curiosity ( and not meant cynical at all ),just some rhetoric questions ´cause I don´t get that bitterness.
Thanks for answering anyway.

Quote
"Bliss
I don't think he has gotten my point, so I will try one last time.

For what it's worth, I think Mick is stellar, and is equal or better than Elvis, Michael Jackson, almost anyone you could name. He has an absolutely unique voice and delivery....in my opinion, Mick's solo career didn't succeed. People just could not accept him outside of the Stones, no matter how good he was."

Agree.Many People are not 100% honest and want to see the Stones together,even if they play crap.

>>Man Dr Gazza picked apart that post from Bliss with surgical precision.

I don't think he has gotten my point, so I will try one last time.

I did get your point, and I respect it. I just dont happen to agree with you. Simple.

For what it's worth, I think Mick is stellar, and is equal or better than Elvis, Michael Jackson, almost anyone you could name. He has an absolutely unique voice and delivery.

As a solo act? I'm presuming youre talking about him as a performer, in which case its a fair argument - although his greatness as a performer is enhanced by the chemistry within the band he's fronting. The Stones, that is.

As has been pointed out here many, many times, because the Stones are so enduring, they are a vital part of many people's youth, the time in their life when they were at their best and happiest. So people are very reluctant to ever let them evolve and change, because if they did, a part of their past would be gone. I'm no different. There are probably a hundred guitarists who are better than Mick Taylor is now, and who would be a better addition to the Stones; I don't care. I just want Mick Taylor in the Stones again, like he was when I was young.

That is why, in my opinion, Mick's solo career didn't succeed. People just could not accept him outside of the Stones, no matter how good he was.

No - its simply because that by the time he started doing solo material, that he was past his best as a songwriter and the music simply wasnt that good. It wasnt BAD, but it was no better than a shitload of other acts were putting out around the same time.

>>All archive material was considered subpar at the time. Other acts can release archive material and also make new music. The Stones are coming to the end of their career. Would you suggest they leave these sort of projects for another few years, by which time no one will care?

I'm listening to some outtakes from the past...Good Time Women, Blood Red Wine, Claudine, etc. I still think this is just a desperate cynical means of squeezing money out of the fans; it's sub-par material. I don't think releasing it now will enhance their legacy.

Their recorded legacy is safe. Its unrealistic to expect an artist to produce a high standard of work for five decades - especially when their best work happens to be some of the greatest music ever made. Who says they're going to release this stuff anyway? No one seriously expects a few outtakes to be of a similar standard to Jumpin Jack Flash, They're assessed more as a curio than anything else. If the Stones dont make another record, what alternate method of keeping their music alive do you suggest for the next 40 years? A new 'Licks' type release every 2 or 3 years featuring the same old hits?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 00:50 by Gazza.

>>If the Stones dont make another record, what alternate method of keeping their music alive do you suggest for the next 40 years? A new 'Licks' type release every 2 or 3 years featuring the same old hits?

As I said in my first post in this very interesting debate, I think the Stones are creatively exhausted. ABB was their last hurrah, as far as new material is concerned. I just think Mick is too energetic, greedy and egotistical to hang up his boots for good. It may be that he concentrates on other things, like his g/f's career, film production or maybe he will buy a cricket team. But (I think) the chances are equally good that he will put out a new record, and possibly tour behind it. Whether that is commercially or critically successful is another matter.

As to keeping their music alive...considering the state of modern music which you have accurately assessed as shit, Stones classics will live on and on, much as they already do now. I have every official release they ever put out (not talking about novelty items or boots) and I mostly now play things from 1968-1974.

I think its certainly probable that at some point he'll do more solo stuff.I also agree with you that the Stones are creatively pretty much exhausted (although I think one more studio album - made to justify a tour more than anything - is possible)

I dont think a Jagger solo career will be in any way successful though and I doubt he does either - its more a vanity project, and I've my doubts as to whether he'd feel the need to be bothered touring for something that doesnt generate a lot of money. He doesnt need to make the effort.

To get back to what I think the origin of this thread is getting at, I'm glad he didnt decide to leave the band and pursue a solo career in the mid 80s.

And I'm pretty sure he's pretty glad he didnt as well.

its a myth that jagger ever wanted to leave the stones and become a solo artist.he never said he was leaving the stones,his solo deal was part of a multi-record STONES deal.keith,charlie,ronnie and bill all signed the deal.the entire spin doctored story was put out there by a former stones publicist that jagger fired.shes still bitter and to this day fills a certain alcholic guitarists head full of this unending nonsense.do shes the boss,wandering spirit,goddess or any of micks recordings sound even remotely like prince or michael jackson? did he ever give any indication he planned to go on tour again wearing his 1981-82 stage clothes?if he ever said he was leaving the stones could someone reprint the qoute for me.and no he shouldnt have.

Mm. Jagger witheld his creative input from Dirty Work and refused to tour with the Stones. The group never actually broke up but there was a lot of impetus for Mick to make the leap to solo star in the 80's. Undercover had been their least successful record in years, solo stars like Jackson, Prince and Springsteen were in the ascendant, and Jagger has always been competitive. He was tired of hassling with Keith, and their relationship has never been the same since.

Quote
lem motlow
its a myth that jagger ever wanted to leave the stones and become a solo artist.he never said he was leaving the stones,his solo deal was part of a multi-record STONES deal.keith,charlie,ronnie and bill all signed the deal.the entire spin doctored story was put out there by a former stones publicist that jagger fired.shes still bitter and to this day fills a certain alcholic guitarists head full of this unending nonsense.do shes the boss,wandering spirit,goddess or any of micks recordings sound even remotely like prince or michael jackson? did he ever give any indication he planned to go on tour again wearing his 1981-82 stage clothes?if he ever said he was leaving the stones could someone reprint the qoute for me.and no he shouldnt have.

Its not like he was going to say it publicly while still a band member, is it?

The Stones were in their 40's by the time they inked that CBS deal. Unheard of for a rock band. It would have been quite reasonable at the time to assume that they didnt have a lot of time left and for Jagger to be thinking ahead to a time when a post-Stones career would have been on the horizon. Especially considered the relationships within the band at the time. I wouldnt criticise him at all for thinking that way.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
lem motlow
its a myth that jagger ever wanted to leave the stones and become a solo artist.he never said he was leaving the stones,his solo deal was part of a multi-record STONES deal.keith,charlie,ronnie and bill all signed the deal.the entire spin doctored story was put out there by a former stones publicist that jagger fired.shes still bitter and to this day fills a certain alcholic guitarists head full of this unending nonsense.do shes the boss,wandering spirit,goddess or any of micks recordings sound even remotely like prince or michael jackson? did he ever give any indication he planned to go on tour again wearing his 1981-82 stage clothes?if he ever said he was leaving the stones could someone reprint the qoute for me.and no he shouldnt have.

Its not like he was going to say it publicly while still a band member, is it?

The Stones were in their 40's by the time they inked that CBS deal. Unheard of for a rock band. It would have been quite reasonable at the time to assume that they didnt have a lot of time left and for Jagger to be thinking ahead to a time when a post-Stones career would have been on the horizon. Especially considered the relationships within the band at the time. I wouldnt criticise him at all for thinking that way.

a myth? not at all...the stones were, for the first time ever, not functioning in any form as a band, and were PUBLICLY feuding, fueling widespread speculation that it was OVER. and as others have pointed out, the stones got back together in '89 after Mick's two albums failed to catapult him as a solo artist and keith proved he had staying power as a solo act, both in the studio and on the concert trail....if you think Mick didn't agree to get back together for those reasons alone, i don't know what to tell you....

Quote
lem motlow
its a myth that jagger ever wanted to leave the stones and become a solo artist.he never said he was leaving the stones,his solo deal was part of a multi-record STONES deal.keith,charlie,ronnie and bill all signed the deal.the entire spin doctored story was put out there by a former stones publicist that jagger fired.shes still bitter and to this day fills a certain alcholic guitarists head full of this unending nonsense.do shes the boss,wandering spirit,goddess or any of micks recordings sound even remotely like prince or michael jackson? did he ever give any indication he planned to go on tour again wearing his 1981-82 stage clothes?if he ever said he was leaving the stones could someone reprint the qoute for me.and no he shouldnt have.

good post, lem motlow

>>the entire spin doctored story was put out there by a former stones publicist that jagger fired.shes still bitter and to this day fills a certain alcholic guitarists head full of this unending nonsense

You sound like you have insider info on Jane Rose. I have never heard this. Please share.

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A

Quote
Gazza

Quote
T&A
my my my. gazza is getting frighteningly close to joining us whiners on the dark side. he's got all the right stuff, now he just needs to hold his nose, close his eyes and jump in with both feet.

Not really saying anything I havent been saying for years. The Stones are a nostalgia act and little else, and this has been the case throughout the last decade - just pointing out that the suggestion that Mick could have a successful solo career in this day and age is fanciful.

yeah, ok. i guess. but you're not a card-carrying member of the official whiners club...probably not willing to pay your dues or something.....

..only because the prices are too high

all new members are guarateed a hat and dvd and access to the best seats at the next whiners' convention

Where is my DVD?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 11:12 by Doxa.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Good and fair answer,thank you for that.
Wasn´t curiosity ( and not meant cynical at all ),just some rhetoric questions ´cause I don´t get that bitterness.
Thanks for answering anyway.

No problem,I'am not bitter either.Just like to throw some oil on the fire when it comes to the Ron Wood period. There could have been a much better man to replace Taylor,maybe even better than Taylor himself. That would have been great,and in favour with the Stones creativity.Unfortunately it didn't happen.. And the rest is history.

Should Jagger have stayed solo?

This is a good question indeed. I try to discuss it in more general level.

First of all, it is the issue of the past: the option to take the solo route now, 2010, is totally irrelevant. As the honor guest of the IORR whiner club pointed out above, Jagger is almost 70 years old now. Because he looks so healthy and all that seem to be a reason for some people to think that nothing has changed at all, and Mick is as Mick as ever. A reality check, people. We are talking about a senior citizen here who is not going to do anything that is comparable to what he has done in his incredible career.

Perhaps we will never know how near the option of Jagger actually leaving the Stones behind ever was in the 80's. I think it was very close to reality. I think the truth is that Jagger chickened out, and took the safe route. IF he had had been more brave and ambituous he would pushed his solo acreer ahead, worked his ass off once again, and perhaps would have won the people's hearts back again after they had finally get used to the idea that the Rolling Stones is dead and gone for good. Perhaps.

I think Jagger gave up too quickly. He seemingly was terrified of the commercial disaster of PRIMITIVE COOL, and did anything to save his super star status. This gave us the Vegas Stones nostalgy act that - honestly speaking - has not given us anything memorable as far as music is concerned. All the records from STEEL WHEELS to A BIGGER BANG are half-baked autopilot throwaway albums made to justify the Cohl tours. "You Got Me Rocking" indeed.

If the music and nothing but the music matters Mick should have taken the solo route. I think that in that case he would have been forced to come up with something more interesting than the compromise muzak stuff he "composed" half-sleep with Keith. In fact, both of them were better without the presence of the other "half". Evidence:

(1) PRIMITIVE COOL and TALK IS CHEAP -> STEEL WHEELS
(2) WANDERING SPIRIT and MAIN OFFENDER -> VOODOO LOUNGE

I think both cases show that Mick and Keith could compose more intersting and authentic music alone than the compromise stuff they do together.

(3) BRIDGES TO BABYLON

The nature of this album is that it is made of two solo projects. It is no wonder that it is actually the most listenable and un-muzak of modern era Stones albums, for example, it includes songs like Mick's "Saint of Me" and "Out of Control" that as songs are as close as they since "come back" or "re-union" had been able to get to the category of "memorable songs".

(4) GODDESS ION THE DOORWAY -> A BIGGER BANG

No matter how much Jagger's GODDESS is "officially" laughed and mocked here and elsewhere, the truth is that it includes much more ambitious and interesting and perhaps even memorable music than A BIGGER BANG which is the mother of all pastishe albums that doesn't include one single idea that can be called "original". It almost hurts me how stupid MIck and Keith take their Rolling Stones audiences to be.

The end of argument. (The point of it is that based merely to the facts we are awere of now, we can conclude that the solo option is creatively more fruithful than the conservative Stones album-route - one can only imagine what would have happen if Mick - and Keith - had put all his energy into solo career in past 20 years. He might even have something remarkable, who knows. To me it looks like that Mick and Keith if anything succeeded in killing each other's creative muse by being forced to continue the Cohl circus.)

Additional note: I am only talking about creativity here, and I pass the whole positive Cohl era mega-tours aspect aside. It looks like to have the latter the former was sacrificed. But most of the big masses and hardcore fans seem to be happy for it. Just to see The Stones in town.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 12:24 by Doxa.

To add a bit of the "argument" above...

Let's go back to the 80's.

UNDERCOVER was an evidence that Mick and Keith's creative juices together were dried up. The inspiration based on 'punk' era and the "miracle" of Marconi sessions was over. To be true, EMOTIONAL RESCUE had alraedy showed that the everything is not alright in the creativity section (and the leadership). As we know TATTOO YOU had nothing to do with current creativity. DIRTY WORK was an evidence how weak Stones album can be without having Mck's mind and interest present.

I think the problem with EMOTIONAL RESCUE, UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK - very mediocre stuff by Stones standards - is that Mick and Keith couldn't get along any longer. The tension between their egos was not a source of inspiration any longer but had an effect to the decline of the band. It alost killed teh band. After "re-union" the tension is killed off by musical compromises: each of them not trying to tease the other. Mick comes up with boring and simple Stones-like songs, and Keith shuts his eyes for some of Mick's currency manouvers, etc. Because of that none of the albums since STEEL WHEELS does not contain the edge typical for The Stones at their best.

I don't say that SHE'S THE BOSS is a very good album, but seemingly it was more inspired and natural effort than anything the Stones did at the time. Mick seemingly wanted to get rid of the band uncreative atmophere of the Stones. I cannot blame him.

- Doxa

P.S. To think of TATTOO YOU and "Start Me Up". One can not underestimate how important that album (and single) is for the Stones. They were bloody lucky to "open the vaults" at the time. Without TATTOO YOU the Stones catalog from the 80's would be quite a sad thing to watch in retrospect. It really saves a lot, and at the time I think its both artistic and commercial success probably bought them a future as well - it nicely covers the actual state of the affairs in the band! Funny though, if they wouldn't have relaesed TY, probaly Mick's solo career might have started from more polished table, and the people wouldn't have been so Stones-sensitive then...! And if they wouldn't have released it, I most probably wouldn't be here writing...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 14:09 by Doxa.

"I think the problem with EMOTIONAL RESCUE, UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK - very mediocre stuff by Stones standards - is that Mick and Keith couldn't get along any longer Mick seemingly wanted to get rid of the band uncreative atmophere of the Stones. I cannot blame him."

Agreed!

ATTENTION: because I seem to go so off the topic here, I decided to make own thread of this post, so please if you are interested in commenting it please do so in: [www.iorr.org]

Quote
Amsterdamned
"I think the problem with EMOTIONAL RESCUE, UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK - very mediocre stuff by Stones standards - is that Mick and Keith couldn't get along any longer Mick seemingly wanted to get rid of the band uncreative atmophere of the Stones. I cannot blame him."

Agreed!

Funny though how the criteria seems to change when teh time goes by... Thanks to the era from STEEL WHEELS to A BIGGER BANG now those 80's albums still seem to have features that make them sound authentic and exciting, you know the Stones still like rolling on. The groove in EMOTIONAL RESCUE is incredible and UNDERCOVER rocks perhaps harder than any of their albums. The guitars in DIRTY WORK are raw and dirty. All in all, even though the songwriting has gone downhill the band as a musical unit is still as hot as ever. There is no muzak there.

And taking the standard we have now used in the last twenty years, albums like GOATS HEAD SOAP and BLACK&BLUE are now almost masterworks when still back in the 80's they were seen as more or less the low points, with THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES, of their career, you know reflections of the 'weak' period between EXILE and SOME GIRLS... Now it looks like IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL is the only really 'mediocre' album they did back in the 70's. All the others are great, inspired and innovative. (Of course, the perspective is mine, but I think it also reflects a bit larger view.)

Just take the ballad section: just compare the quality of "Angie" or "Winter" or "Memory Motel" to "Streets of Love" or "Already Over me" or "Out of Tears", etc. An incredible difference in innovativity. And back in the 70's and the 80's peopel were criticizng the Stones for doing such cheap crap...

Or the rockers section: "Star Star", "Heartbreaker", "Silver Train", "Hand of Fate" or "Crazy Mama" to... whatever (can't remeber their @#$%& names)... From the base of rockers since 1989 all of them are works of genious even though back in the day they were mediocre, Stones by numbers kind of things...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 14:59 by Doxa.

Apart from the fact that you forgot to mention some more albums after B&B as very mediocre stuff by Stones standards I agree once more!!

Bliss - you are hilarious.

and the answer is- WE KNOW MICK NEVER PLANNED ON LEAVING THE STONES BECAUSE HE SIGNED A $28 MILLION DOLLAR MULTI-RECORD DEAL WITH CBS THAT RAN CONCURRENT[that means at the same time] WITH HIS SOLO DEAL.i hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story though.

i like mick alot and i'm always suprised at the sheer volume of nonsense thats attributed to him,especially on fan sites that are supposedly dedicated to his lifes work.there are many but let me name a couple of my favorites.

jagger is constantly portrayed as a money grubber who caused sky-high ticket prices with his greed.but if i ask"didnt keith,charlie and ronnie sign the same contract"no one responds.was there ever a holdup because another member of the group said"i'm not signing this,it will cause the fans to pay too much"oddly,never happens.

he likes and tries to write "hits"-nooo,that bastard.guys, from the beginning of the stones they've tried to write hit pop singles.from "play with fire" to "ruby tuesday"and on and on.it might not always work but its kinda part of the job.

mick doesnt like exile-nonsense.most of this comes from the 1995 jann wenner interview where he said basically he didnt think exile was as good as let it bleed and beggars banquet.he couldnt understand why many people thought it was their best album when it didnt have alot of great songs on it.thats fair,there is no midnight rambler,gimme shelter,street fighting man,sympathy etc on exile.and hes also right that it isnt mixed as well as the 3 before it.

i wont defend him again for awhile but people,your music collections would have alot less quality without the old devil,no?

Methinks this 'Mick Hate' swells up from some mythological 5-string Pirateland full of things tied to people's hair and endless over-used soundbites.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
skipstone
Bliss - you are hilarious.

I wish I never had started this topic. Let's go back to the Taylor-Wood battle again

Dear SS, I am glad I provided you with some comic relief in this overheated discussion. You often do the same for me, and I am glad I can return the favour.

Although many of us have made some excellent points, things seem to have fallen off the rails because the basis of this topic is ultimately irrational: how you feel about Mick, how much he moves you. The evaluation of albums shows that. There is not much consensus, apart from the top four. So it's difficult to have a coherent discussion and arrive at a definitive conclusion.

But it is a hypothetical question. Mick had his solo career from 1985 to 2001, and has not done anything since, though it remains to be seen whether he will resurrect his solo career once the Stones have finished. To me, the last thing of any merit the Stones have done is Bridges to Babylon in '97. I would argue that Goddess in the Doorway (2001) is better than ABB (2005). But of course, there is no consensus. It's a personal choice.

What I do not get is why the quality of composition and lyrics goes downhill as musicians get older. Yes, performing abilities may decline, but why should writing ability, unless mental deterioration has occurred?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 22:59 by Bliss.

Quote
lem motlow
and the answer is- WE KNOW MICK NEVER PLANNED ON LEAVING THE STONES BECAUSE HE SIGNED A $28 MILLION DOLLAR MULTI-RECORD DEAL WITH CBS THAT RAN CONCURRENT[that means at the same time] WITH HIS SOLO DEAL.i hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story though.

i like mick alot and i'm always suprised at the sheer volume of nonsense thats attributed to him,especially on fan sites that are supposedly dedicated to his lifes work.there are many but let me name a couple of my favorites.

jagger is constantly portrayed as a money grubber who caused sky-high ticket prices with his greed.but if i ask"didnt keith,charlie and ronnie sign the same contract"no one responds.was there ever a holdup because another member of the group said"i'm not signing this,it will cause the fans to pay too much"oddly,never happens.

he likes and tries to write "hits"-nooo,that bastard.guys, from the beginning of the stones they've tried to write hit pop singles.from "play with fire" to "ruby tuesday"and on and on.it might not always work but its kinda part of the job.

mick doesnt like exile-nonsense.most of this comes from the 1995 jann wenner interview where he said basically he didnt think exile was as good as let it bleed and beggars banquet.he couldnt understand why many people thought it was their best album when it didnt have alot of great songs on it.thats fair,there is no midnight rambler,gimme shelter,street fighting man,sympathy etc on exile.and hes also right that it isnt mixed as well as the 3 before it.

i wont defend him again for awhile but people,your music collections would have alot less quality without the old devil,no?

are you mick's mommy?

he should have worked together with interesting, artistic, and current songwriters and producers unless he was talented enough to do it all himself, which he is not.

neither jeff beck or matt clifford are of any help.

and when working together with a producer than let them do their work and not come with a finished song that only needs a solo here and there.

thats all you got? fukcing really? jesus christ..and micks mom is dead numb nuts

Quote
lem motlow
thats all you got? fukcing really? jesus christ..and micks mom is dead numb nuts

hey!!! that's MR. NUMB NUTS to you!!!!!

Gentlemen please!!!

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
skipstone
Bliss - you are hilarious.

I wish I never had started this topic. Let's go back to the Taylor-Wood battle again

Hear, hear! It's so obvious Mick J. never could make it on his own (the same goes for his 'friend' Keith R). Let alone that he can it as yet. He's missing some crucial capacities (regardless of his lazyness ), just like his before mentioned 'friend'. Not worth discussing, too evident. But the crucial question is: why is the music of the Stones (of whatever era) doomed to vanish? Think about that, my friends. Use your brains and you'll find the answer.

Quote
Bliss
What I do not get is why the quality of composition and lyrics goes downhill as musicians get older. Yes, performing abilities may decline, but why should writing ability, unless mental deterioration has occurred?

Bob Dylan?