I have been thinking about the studio material after Steel Wheels, and I have come up with adjectives that I think describe almost all of the Mick & Keith songs since then. I realize it is a gross generalization, but not too far off:

Mick's songs: Calculated
Rather than real emotion or insight, the fact that he is trying to pass off his lyrics as authentic feeling is transparent. Likewise, the musical themes often seem calculated to appeal to a certain "market". Even when the song works on some levels, it is too calculated to fully enjoy.

Keith's songs: Half-finished.
There are grooves, ideas, riffs. Coherent lyrics or developed themes? Not so much. Lots of "baby, baby, baby" filler in the vocals. I used to love the one vocal Keith would get per album. Then he got more, but more wasn't really better.

My timeline is fairly arbitrary. In fact, you could say this about most of the material from Dirty Work on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 07:38 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
My timeline is fairly arbitrary. In fact, you could say this about most of the material from Dirty Work on.

I would say that too. I still enjoy the Undercover album, but after tha it's been an akward marriage of the two styles that really skew each album's focus after that, but even worse, it affects the songwriting. I'm sorry, Mick AND Keith are BOTH to blame for that.

[thepowergoats.com]

Mick's songs calculated - the first obvious one - If You Can't Rock Me

Regarding Keith's songs - I generally agree - but How can i Stop and You Don't have to Mean It are fully developed and classic - and they are a couple of the best songs on that album. The next album - why did he bother?

Quote
71Tele
I have been thinking about the studio material after Steel Wheels, and I have come up with adjectives that I think describe almost all of the Mick & Keith songs since then. I realize it is a gross generalization, but not too far off:

Mick's songs: Calculated
Rather than real emotion or insight, the fact that he is trying to pass off his lyrics as authentic feeling is transparent. Likewise, the musical themes often seem calculated to appeal to a certain "market". Even when the song works on some levels, it is too calculated to fully enjoy.

Keith's songs: Half-finished.
There are grooves, ideas, riffs. Coherent lyrics or developed themes? Not so much. Lots of "baby, baby, baby" filler in the vocals. I used to love the one vocal Keith would get per album. Then he got more, but more wasn't really better.

My timeline is fairly arbitrary. In fact, you could say this about most of the material from Dirty Work on.

spot on, tele

Tele71's comment on Keith's latter day work - "grooves, ideas, riffs" - lacking full development ......

EXACTLY how I felt about most of Talk Is Cheap. Nearly all of it infact.

Jagger's solo songs are fully developed - but often vacuous/soul-less/heartless.

Quote
Deluxtone

EXACTLY how I felt about most of Talk Is Cheap. Nearly all of it infact.

really? i think the TIS songs are generally better developed than Main Offender, which is really just a collection of song ideas....

completely agree and i think it also shows how very little working together on songs mick and keith have done in the past 25 yrs (at least).

it also demonstrates why without that dynamic the stones have made albums that sound like either a solo album or two solo albums in one.

about ifycrm--i always felt the entire IORR was calculated because after popular opinion at the time termed GHS too soft, the band needed to come up with something "Stonesy." IORR is the first album where, i think, they are consciously trying to sound like "the Stones"

Quote
71Tele
I have been thinking about the studio material after Steel Wheels, and I have come up with adjectives that I think describe almost all of the Mick & Keith songs since then. I realize it is a gross generalization, but not too far off:

Mick's songs: Calculated
Rather than real emotion or insight, the fact that he is trying to pass off his lyrics as authentic feeling is transparent. Likewise, the musical themes often seem calculated to appeal to a certain "market". Even when the song works on some levels, it is too calculated to fully enjoy.

Keith's songs: Half-finished.
There are grooves, ideas, riffs. Coherent lyrics or developed themes? Not so much. Lots of "baby, baby, baby" filler in the vocals. I used to love the one vocal Keith would get per album. Then he got more, but more wasn't really better.

My timeline is fairly arbitrary. In fact, you could say this about most of the material from Dirty Work on.

Quote
kissinc***incannes

about ifycrm--i always felt the entire IORR was calculated because after popular opinion at the time termed GHS too soft, the band needed to come up with something "Stonesy." IORR is the first album where, i think, they are consciously trying to sound like "the Stones"

[/quote]

Indeed!

I think IORR has some fantasic moments, Fingerprint File and Time Waits for No One come to mind.

[thepowergoats.com]

talking about goats head and its only rock and roll is totally missing his point.the band was fully functioning and firing on all cylinders in the early 70s.

to follow up on what 71tele said:i've thought about this lately and i totally agree.besides half finished riffs and unconvincing vocals what strikes me is the total lack of country and blues flavor in the newer music.its at the heart of what the great work was. the mick and keith harmonies and bending notes of old are total country.that flavor thrown into a hot steaming vat of blues and rock and roll WAS the stones sound.

now its this...kind pop rock.listen to "driving too fast" the whole song sounds like inxs's devil inside with different lyrics.hey,hey you got me rockin now...what the fukc is that all about about...

its just laziness.i know we all get old but are you really that busy guys?take some time and put some work into the damn thing.these finger paintings go right up on the wall next to the masterpieces ya know.

you bring up good points, but what you say also demonstrates why ghs and iorr are relevant to the discussion. the band was not firing on all cylinders during keith's joyride through junkieville and it is not coincidence his relative decline opened the door to jagger bringing back the r&b sound into the band and the de-emphasis of keith's country/blues interests, also keith became taken by reggae in jamaica when they recorded GHS. this was the time post-Exile that country became an afterthought to the Stones sound.

so really the stones sound, as you define accurately below ended with Exile, and that sound was really only a phase that began with BB, of course it is not coincidence that they rode that sound during their golden period nearly 40 years ago. they became a different band in the mid-70s in sound and style. they found a forumla. if you combine ghs-iorr-b&b...that pretty much has been the band's sound with slight variations for newer r&b styles and sometimes a bit harder rock n roll with a dash of reggae and a ballad or two on the side.

Quote
lem motlow
talking about goats head and its only rock and roll is totally missing his point.the band was fully functioning and firing on all cylinders in the early 70s.

to follow up on what 71tele said:i've thought about this lately and i totally agree.besides half finished riffs and unconvincing vocals what strikes me is the total lack of country and blues flavor in the newer music.its at the heart of what the great work was. the mick and keith harmonies and bending notes of old are total country.that flavor thrown into a hot steaming vat of blues and rock and roll WAS the stones sound.

now its this...kind pop rock.listen to "driving too fast" the whole song sounds like inxs's devil inside with different lyrics.hey,hey you got me rockin now...what the fukc is that all about about...

its just laziness.i know we all get old but are you really that busy guys?take some time and put some work into the damn thing.these finger paintings go right up on the wall next to the masterpieces ya know.

The Stones has changed the sound of their records ever since they started recording, and that is part of why they are still interresting to listen to. Second, they change the music style from record to record, which one other reason for them to keep fresh to their fans.
Third, they work differently on every album the last 30 years, which gives us differently made songs, which influences the final album. One more thing to show that they are a living band.
Fourth, they keep track of the kind of music thats going on on every given time. Keeps them updated and not outdated.
Nad if people can truly believe that Waiting on a friend, If you really want to be my friend, Always suffering, Sad Sad Sad, Love is strong, I go wild, Rough justice, Through and through, The Worst, Almost hear you sigh, and a lot more songs are really good Stonsey songs.... Well I don't know... Why bother. Stick to the sixties and a couple of years into the seventies, and stay there. No progress or fun anymore for you guys....
And live they change the arrangements for a lot of the so called war horses, which makes the songs keep fresh, even when heard 50 times over the years.Just listen to satisfaction live from the sixties and trhouhg the tours ever since. Always something different. Shure we all have our favourites, but it's definetely
better than doing it the way AC/DC does. Exactly the same every gig, every tour...

As for me, I still enjoy every record, I play them a lot, and try to have them as my treassures, like the old ones. Sure I have my favorites, but still I love the new stuff as well and it's a privillidge to have a ral rock'n roll band still delivering their goods. I consider myself very lucky.

great points and that username...good stuff.i agree with what you're saying but i think we're talking about from goats head to tattoo you -a slip of the foot compared to steel wheels on-completely falling the rest of the way off the cliff into the abyss..before, even when it was bad it was good,now alot of the time its just baaad.

I agree with the poster who decried the lack of blues and country influence. It's really not that I only enjoy the stuff through 1972 or 1973, it's that I long for finished coherent great songs that I know they are capable of, not having to settle for grooves and riffs. They don't have to be "hits". I would be thrilled with a few tunes along the lines of "Torn & Frayed".

Old men slip into a comfy groove. They discover a store that sells trousers that suit them and stick with it.

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
Old men slip into a comfy groove. They discover a store that sells trousers that suit them and stick with it.

And this was first evident in Stripped. It was comfy, non-risk taking on their part. And When I head them dig out old nuggets on the BTB tour afterwards, it all had that same 'safe' kind of feel. Under My Thunb comes to mind.

[thepowergoats.com]

I don't even think that it is too generalized; I think it is true.
This is exactly why "Laugh I nearly Died" bugs me so much. it comes on as the obvious best choice off that album, but everything about it rings calculated IMO.


It is rare nowadays that the two styles merge; because that is what made and gave us all those classics: when Jagger and Richards put their heads together, and combined those two approaches into one great song. Another reason for them to go back to sharing the mike.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kissinc***incannes

about ifycrm--i always felt the entire IORR was calculated because after popular opinion at the time termed GHS too soft, the band needed to come up with something "Stonesy." IORR is the first album where, i think, they are consciously trying to sound like "the Stones"

Indeed![/quote]

If all the "calculated" output of the latter day Stones would heve sounded as good as "If You Con't Rock Me" I would have been more than happy with it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-10 14:14 by Wild Slivovitz.

Absolutely spot on the original post by 71Tele.

I also agree with the point of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL in regards to the post STEEL WHEELS-albums, especially VOODOO LOUNGE.

I think IORR was the first time Stones tried re-create the EXILE atmosphere, but failed quite badly. One can just compare "Rocks Off" to "If You Can't Rock Me", and hear the difference in vitality vs. forcement, inspired vs. unispired, originality vs.copy, etc. VOODOO LOUNGE is a good example of The Stones trying to reach to the heights of EXILE again, but end up making another version of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL instead.

(Actually DIRTY WORK was perhaps the first album that was said to go "back to EXILE", aka. being "Keith's album", etc, but in that case even the standard of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL was way too high...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-10 14:10 by Doxa.

Doxa,

I rate Dirty Work far higher than IORR album. Less calculated, more spontaneous - and infact the songs generally ARE more complete - just that most people don't like them, or their production.

but glad that you too equate IORR with Voodoo Lounge, (as being largely contrived). My 'take' too.

Are exceptions on both ofcourse - Time Waits, F File, The Worst, Out of Tears



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-10 23:26 by Four Stone Walls.

I always thought the 10 best songs on Voodoo make an excellant album but there was that thought at the time that albums should fill a CD and VL diluted it's quality.