Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
swiss
Maybe if they both were able to tend to themselves creatively they could collaborate again. Because in their case the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts - and part of the creative magic is an alchemy that arises between Keith and Mick, and spreads to Charlie, then to whomever else.

I think a big part of the problem swiss, is that Mick and Keith are no longer interested in being a creative team like they used to be. Their lives have changed so much, they aren't really the same people who use to sit around in their free time, let alone while working, and write songs, like they did in the 60's-early 70's. They use to work together constantly because the band were constantly working. Now the band rarely works, and they rarely work together, and this is not going to change.

The Stones have essentially given up creatively because their financial success is tied to touring as what is basically a nostalgia act, that gets more guaranteed money than any act in history whether their current record sells or not. As a result, they've gotten too far away from what they originally were, a band that makes it's living writing and playing music, and lives to do so regardless of how financially successful they are, as long as they remain successful enough. Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, etc., are all musicians who haven't changed in ways that have taken them away from what they originally were.

As I mentioned before, I can't think of a single band that's been around as long as the Stones, that have evolved, but never to the point that they are no longer what they started out as, like the above solo artists have. For whatever reasons, it's obviously easier to do it long-term alone, than in a band.

BustedT, I think Keith is still interested in being a creative team, at least in theory. He's constantly dropping everything from hints to barbs at Mick about "get us in a room and let us work our magic," but--altho I have my issues with Mick--I think there are probably some pretty good reasons Mick doesn't take him up on that. And my theory, as of last night, is Keith doesn't bring full chops to the table because he's not tending to himself as an individual artist, and unless he does that he can't bring chops to the table. And without bringing chops to the table he's bringing his garrulous personality, his creativity somewhat clouded and shrouded by booze and disuse, and a pretty wide passive-aggressive streak. What fun is that for Mick? How can Mick trust him enough under those circs to let down his uptight perfectionist guard and access his own creativity.

If Keith were to straighten up and fly right (to use an expression from his childhood) and seriously approach Mick about creating, maybe they could do so.

It struck me last night how much discipline all of the older peeps above still have. A balance of loose nonlinear creative flow + discipline to build the structure that can give raw creativity its shape and meaning.

Mick is all structure and no loose. Keith all loose and no structure. can't create art with only one. And each one of these guys can rightfully complain about the other being intolerable. But neither appears to be trying to be whole, integrated people or artists, themselves.

Most partnerships are hard. Collaboration is no easy task.

I wonder--not only what bands have sustained themselves creatively and productively over time but--what musical or artistic partnerships have lasted til death do them part?

- swiss

Quote
swiss

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
swiss
Maybe if they both were able to tend to themselves creatively they could collaborate again. Because in their case the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts - and part of the creative magic is an alchemy that arises between Keith and Mick, and spreads to Charlie, then to whomever else.

I think a big part of the problem swiss, is that Mick and Keith are no longer interested in being a creative team like they used to be. Their lives have changed so much, they aren't really the same people who use to sit around in their free time, let alone while working, and write songs, like they did in the 60's-early 70's. They use to work together constantly because the band were constantly working. Now the band rarely works, and they rarely work together, and this is not going to change.

The Stones have essentially given up creatively because their financial success is tied to touring as what is basically a nostalgia act, that gets more guaranteed money than any act in history whether their current record sells or not. As a result, they've gotten too far away from what they originally were, a band that makes it's living writing and playing music, and lives to do so regardless of how financially successful they are, as long as they remain successful enough. Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, etc., are all musicians who haven't changed in ways that have taken them away from what they originally were.

As I mentioned before, I can't think of a single band that's been around as long as the Stones, that have evolved, but never to the point that they are no longer what they started out as, like the above solo artists have. For whatever reasons, it's obviously easier to do it long-term alone, than in a band.

BustedT, I think Keith is still interested in being a creative team, at least in theory. He's constantly dropping everything from hints to barbs at Mick about "get us in a room and let us work our magic," but--altho I have my issues with Mick--I think there are probably some pretty good reasons Mick doesn't take him up on that. And my theory, as of last night, is Keith doesn't bring full chops to the table because he's not tending to himself as an individual artist, and unless he does that he can't bring chops to the table. And without bringing chops to the table he's bringing his garrulous personality, his creativity somewhat clouded and shrouded by booze and disuse, and a pretty wide passive-aggressive streak. What fun is that for Mick? How can Mick trust him enough under those circs to let down his uptight perfectionist guard and access his own creativity.

If Keith were to straighten up and fly right (to use an expression from his childhood) and seriously approach Mick about creating, maybe they could do so.
- swiss

This is what I'm talking about though, swiss. Mick has no time anymore for Keith's shenanigans and half-assedry, and Keith would rather talk about "get us in a room and let us work our magic," than actually do it, especially if it involves having to adjust his approach to Mick, and his own usual way of working. And speaking of the disuse, I just imagine Keith has gotten loopier and loopier in recent years.

In other words, Keith still wants to show up with a bottle of Jack and a bag of coke, at least in attitude if not in practice, which doesn't produce the results it once did, and Mick ain't having it anymore. Especially at four in the morning.

Mick has to be up to early, to count his money, you know.

Quote
bustedtrousers
This is what I'm talking about though, swiss. Mick has no time anymore for Keith's shenanigans and half-assedry, and Keith would rather talk about "get us in a room and let us work our magic," than actually do it, especially if it involves having to adjust his approach to Mick, and his own usual way of working. And speaking of the disuse, I just imagine Keith has gotten loopier and loopier in recent years.

In other words, Keith still wants to show up with a bottle of Jack and a bag of coke, at least in attitude if not in practice, which doesn't produce the results it once did, and Mick ain't having it anymore. Especially at four in the morning.

Mick has to be up to early, to count his money, you know.

All true, brother trousers...

And the other side of it, as you litely allude to, is that Mick has become a prickly prissy bitter brittle tightass, who would be no fun to work with IF he also hadn't been doing some "work" on his own as an individual to be able to wade into the strange amorphous unknowable world of his own creativity.

If I were Keith I would lob barbs at him too. In short, they both would need to take responsibility for their own continued development. Mick limbering up creatively, Keith forcing himself to be be more structured.

- swiss

Wonderful posts here. Really spot on the theme of the creativity and troublesome Mick/Keith relationship.

- Doxa

I think the way forward would be the way backward. If they went back to a few appearances as a blues band, where they started, I think it would revive them, get them used to playing together with music they enjoyed, and get them working again. Something like that happened in the '90's when Clapton returned to blues music and got his creative juices (and chops) revived. There's no reason the Stones couldn't do that, too. And they wouldn't have to prance around the stage.

I used to think it could happen. But it won't happen. They'd have to play smaller places. There wouldn't be as much money. They'd have to spend time together. And they just don' seem to care anymore.

At most, we might get one more album and one tour, just like the past few. That's not bad, but it's not the way I'd wish they'd go.

It seems now the best way to go is like mellencamp simply realize the commercial part of making music and selling large quantities of it especially for classic rockers is over and just do what whatever the hell pleases you

Quote
swiss

Quote
bustedtrousers
This is what I'm talking about though, swiss. Mick has no time anymore for Keith's shenanigans and half-assedry, and Keith would rather talk about "get us in a room and let us work our magic," than actually do it, especially if it involves having to adjust his approach to Mick, and his own usual way of working. And speaking of the disuse, I just imagine Keith has gotten loopier and loopier in recent years.

In other words, Keith still wants to show up with a bottle of Jack and a bag of coke, at least in attitude if not in practice, which doesn't produce the results it once did, and Mick ain't having it anymore. Especially at four in the morning.

Mick has to be up to early, to count his money, you know.

All true, brother trousers...

And the other side of it, as you litely allude to, is that Mick has become a prickly prissy bitter brittle tightass, who would be no fun to work with IF he also hadn't been doing some "work" on his own as an individual to be able to wade into the strange amorphous unknowable world of his own creativity.

If I were Keith I would lob barbs at him too. In short, they both would need to take responsibility for their own continued development. Mick limbering up creatively, Keith forcing himself to be be more structured.

- swiss

I don't think either of them is all that interested in doing that.

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
swiss
In short, they both would need to take responsibility for their own continued development. Mick limbering up creatively, Keith forcing himself to be be more structured.

I don't think either of them is all that interested in doing that.

Me either. There's little incentive for them to buck against their habits, natures, and peccadilloes now.

And...until I can honestly say I'm the best person I'm capable of becoming, in every way--growing on all fronts, disciplined where I need to be and a flexible flyer elseways--I can't really preach to Mick and Keith.

Quote
swiss

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
swiss
In short, they both would need to take responsibility for their own continued development. Mick limbering up creatively, Keith forcing himself to be be more structured.

I don't think either of them is all that interested in doing that.

Me either. There's little incentive for them to buck against their habits, natures, and peccadilloes now.

And...until I can honestly say I'm the best person I'm capable of becoming, in every way--growing on all fronts, disciplined where I need to be and a flexible flyer elseways--I can't really preach to Mick and Keith.

I agree, and I have no interest in preaching to them, I gave up on them long ago. I love these discussions where we try and figure them out, but at this point, I could give a rat's ass about what they do. Whatever it is, it's their right, and I feel they've earned it, even if I don't like it (which kind of contradicts my saying I could give a rat's ass. Oh well.).