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

Oh, wal, then change it to Jagger Should Have Stayed Solo. That will confuse everyone to the point of leaving it alone...

Quote
T&A

you indicated those who don't agree with you just "don't get it." i disagree. there's been some entertainment value they've offered in the last couple of decades, but the stones that I (and others) "got" so very well for a very long time have long-since departed, at least as a musical enterprise and functional/working band.

Ok. Personally, I think that point is fairly stated, but why are we coming here every day saying it over and over with such fervor? Are we evangelists for the Church of the Fact that the Stones Have Sucked Since 1973? Are there separate churches for those that believe the true sucking didn't start until 1983, 1989, 2002 or 2006?

Should Jagger have stayed solo?

Depends on what time your taking about......after Memo From Turner .......YES .....I really think he could have made some great hits....
After his real solo projects NO

__________________________

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?

This hypothesis generally doesn't apply to classical music composers and performers. Isn't that strange? Because there's no essential difference between composers and performers of whatever kind of music. The conclusion must be that this hypothesis has been falsified.

The interesting question remains: why is the music of the Stones doomed to vanish? I've uploaded some Stones music on YT and it's nice to see the statistics they deliver. What's the case? 100% of the people who viewed my clips are male and their age is between 55 and 65! Well, what can one conclude from that? Not too difficult a question.

>>This hypothesis generally doesn't apply to classical music composers and performers. Isn't that strange? Because there's no essential difference between composers and performers of whatever kind of music. The conclusion must be that this hypothesis has been falsified

Or maybe a certain level of testosterone is essential for the composition of great rock music.

Quote
Bliss
>>This hypothesis generally doesn't apply to classical music composers and performers. Isn't that strange? Because there's no essential difference between composers and performers of whatever kind of music. The conclusion must be that this hypothesis has been falsified

Or maybe a certain level of testosterone is essential for the composition of great rock music.

No, I guess not. Ever seen Don Giovanni live? Quite some testosteron there. Just another r & r myth. But to reveal a bit of the veil: see Tele's very recent post. It has something to do with trendyness and leaving behind your musical roots.

Actually, I am a big opera fan.

But it is the decline of the Stones we are discussing. How do you account for their creative exhaustion?

They are not creatively exhausted; as the "Rolling Stones" they are. But Jagger and Richards I would say are not exhausted.

Wandering Spirit is a great album. The best solo effort and each song is really good. Goddess is in 2nd place and is a fine album as well.

And do you like Keiths solo efforts?
Mick is great with or without Keith!
It's Mick's band......the Stones.

are u kidding, STB AND PC ARE GARBAGE, TALK IS CHEAP DESTROYED BOTH OF THEM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-11 04:24 by melillo.

Uh, no. Jagger had to get the Stones back together after Primative Cool stiffed. He'd "crapped out twice" and knew it.

Quote
baxlap
Uh, no. Jagger had to get the Stones back together after Primative Cool stiffed. He'd "crapped out twice" and knew it.

since you're so good at reading his mind...

what was his plan when CBS called him up after a few years and said"hey mick,you owe us 3 more albums of new material with the stones"?

1. oh,sorry i forgot.

2.$28 million dollar contract?,i thought that was a dinner check i signed

or # -3.i thought terence trent 'darby had me covered

.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
They are not creatively exhausted; as the "Rolling Stones" they are. But Jagger and Richards I would say are not exhausted.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
baxlap
Uh, no. Jagger had to get the Stones back together after Primative Cool stiffed. He'd "crapped out twice" and knew it.

since you're so good at reading his mind...

what was his plan when CBS called him up after a few years and said"hey mick,you owe us 3 more albums of new material with the stones"?

1. oh,sorry i forgot.

2.$28 million dollar contract?,i thought that was a dinner check i signed

or # -3.i thought terence trent 'darby had me covered

.

After 'Primitive Cool' came out, there was just 1 studio album left in the CBS contract.

AFAIK the deal was for four albums, at least one of which had to be a Jagger solo album.

She's The Boss, Dirty Work, Primitive Cool and Steel Wheels.

so then keith and the other stones signed a contract with cbs that included mick solo albums and then turned around and acted suprised/angry that mick made the records?

please explain..

He´s been a solo act the last decade, with the Stones as a rather tired backing group.

Quote
Svartmer
He´s been a solo act the last decade, with the Stones as a rather tired backing group.

good one,but typical of the response i get when i ask this question.i'm still something like 100-0 on this one.asked it 100 times-0 good answers.

Quote
Bliss
Actually, I am a big opera fan.

But it is the decline of the Stones we are discussing. How do you account for their creative exhaustion?

Didn't I say something like "But to reveal a bit of the veil: see Tele's very recent post. It has something to do with trendyness and leaving behind your musical roots."?

Well, I think that remark has something to do with 'creative exhaustion', don't you think? It started from the moment they (the Glimmers, Jagger in the first place because Richards was down and out at that time) choose to 'hook on' to new trends that aren't lasting per se, instead of evolving along the lines of their own development as composers and musicians. It was an artistic breach that lead to nowhere, as has been proven.

Quote
lem motlow
so then keith and the other stones signed a contract with cbs that included mick solo albums and then turned around and acted suprised/angry that mick made the records?

please explain..

I'm simply telling you what the CBS deal was. How you wish to interpret the band's relationships around that time is up to yourself. I've no more an insight than you have.

The initial issue seems to be that Mick cut himself a solo deal on the back of a Stones contract to begin with. As far as I'm aware the band werent aware of this in advance. (Didnt stop them signing it, though!). I dont think there was a major issue with him making a solo record per se.

The deal was inked in mid 1983. The deterioration in the band's relationships werent anywhere near as bad then as they became in 85-86 around the time Dirty Work was made.

Mick was seen at that time as not putting the effort in to the new Stones album as his songwriting contribution was minimal compared to previous releases. The bad feeling was magnified further when he refused to tour behind the record due to the bad health of the band members and the poor relationships within the group. A decision which was absolutely justified.

Was Rewind, the album, the end of the Atlantic deal or the beginning of the CBS deal? It's one of them.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
lem motlow
so then keith and the other stones signed a contract with cbs that included mick solo albums and then turned around and acted suprised/angry that mick made the records?

please explain..

I'm simply telling you what the CBS deal was. How you wish to interpret the band's relationships around that time is up to yourself. I've no more an insight than you have.

The initial issue seems to be that Mick cut himself a solo deal on the back of a Stones contract to begin with. As far as I'm aware the band werent aware of this in advance. (Didnt stop them signing it, though!). I dont think there was a major issue with him making a solo record per se.

The deal was inked in mid 1983. The deterioration in the band's relationships werent anywhere near as bad then as they became in 85-86 around the time Dirty Work was made.

Mick was seen at that time as not putting the effort in to the new Stones album as his songwriting contribution was minimal compared to previous releases. The bad feeling was magnified further when he refused to tour behind the record due to the bad health of the band members and the poor relationships within the group. A decision which was absolutely justified.

fair enough-but i wonder how many of the fans who keep repeating the mantra-[he was leaving to go solo, wear lemon yellow tights and be michael jackson]know that the other stones,keith in particular,knew his solo records were part of the plan all along.

gazza,were micks solo records part of the stones contract or did he have his own deal?i remember 83 but not that well. whew,27 years.

Should Mick have stayed solo?

As far as marriage Yep....But music wise Nope......



ROCKMAN

Quote
Gazza
The initial issue seems to be that Mick cut himself a solo deal on the back of a Stones contract to begin with.

I thought at the time seeing the Stones logo on a solo album that it was part of the Stones contract - and that is also meant that Mick was still a Rolling Stone.

However, it probably had more to do with trying to sell it with the idea of misleading people into buying it because it had the Stones logo on it.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Gazza

Quote
lem motlow
so then keith and the other stones signed a contract with cbs that included mick solo albums and then turned around and acted suprised/angry that mick made the records?

please explain..

I'm simply telling you what the CBS deal was. How you wish to interpret the band's relationships around that time is up to yourself. I've no more an insight than you have.

The initial issue seems to be that Mick cut himself a solo deal on the back of a Stones contract to begin with. As far as I'm aware the band werent aware of this in advance. (Didnt stop them signing it, though!). I dont think there was a major issue with him making a solo record per se.

The deal was inked in mid 1983. The deterioration in the band's relationships werent anywhere near as bad then as they became in 85-86 around the time Dirty Work was made.

Mick was seen at that time as not putting the effort in to the new Stones album as his songwriting contribution was minimal compared to previous releases. The bad feeling was magnified further when he refused to tour behind the record due to the bad health of the band members and the poor relationships within the group. A decision which was absolutely justified.

fair enough-but i wonder how many of the fans who keep repeating the mantra-[he was leaving to go solo, wear lemon yellow tights and be michael jackson]know that the other stones,keith in particular,knew his solo records were part of the plan all along.

gazza,were micks solo records part of the stones contract or did he have his own deal?i remember 83 but not that well. whew,27 years.

It was part of the deal. They had a $28 million deal for 4 studio albums (a world record at the time), with the clause that at least one of them would be a Jagger solo record. Presumably that meant that Jagger got a bigger cut as he had more records to deliver. They released 4 CBS albums - 2 Jagger solo records and 2 Stones records (Shes The Boss, Dirty Work, Primitive Cool, Steel Wheels)

Quote
skipstone
Was Rewind, the album, the end of the Atlantic deal or the beginning of the CBS deal? It's one of them.

Rewind was released as the final part of their just-expired deal with EMI (theyd signed with EMI in 1977).

There were no compilations issued while the Stones were on CBS, with the exception of the 'Collectibles' CD that was issued as a limited edition with Flashpoint and which was also part of the 15-CD box that came out in 1991 when CBS repackaged all their post-1970 studio and live albums.

Quote
Gazza

They had a $28 million deal for 4 studio albums (a world record at the time)

$7 per record was world record. are you sure about that?

The Stones ended for me when Bill Wyman left and Mick & Keith stopped sharing a microphone. After that we have The Fabulous Rolling Stones Experience featuring Mick Jagger.

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Gazza

They had a $28 million deal for 4 studio albums (a world record at the time)

$7 per record was world record. are you sure about that?

according to my abacus, $28 million divided by 4 is $7 million...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
Gazza

They had a $28 million deal for 4 studio albums (a world record at the time)

$7 per record was world record. are you sure about that?

according to my abacus, $28 million divided by 4 is $7 million...

well, yeah, true, i already did this calculation.

but was that really a world record?

and how much is 7 divided by 5. uhhh, poor mick.

i´d prefer to be beyonce or robbie williams.