For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
Doxa
Just one question: are you able to see anything worth critizing at all in Keith's take on things? Or is that Keih can do - or - think no wrong? To my eyes you just love to co-bash Jagger with Keith. Because that's all Keith has to offer in describing since the late-70's Stones happenings. Blame it all on Mick. Yeah.
I might have critizied Mick Jagger more than any other contributor in this forum. And basically, I agree with Keith's Jagger criticism. But I am sick and tired of of hearing this obvious bullshit from a man who is as much quilty to the Stones creative downhill as Jagger is. A man who seems to live still mentally in 60's/70's. I don't defend Mick because I like him. I defend him because for the sake of justice.
As far as I am concerned, Keith lost it in 1972. Mick lost it in 1981.
- Doxa
I actually think fundamentally we agree, Doxa. Your remarks about Keith losing it in 72 and Jagger in 81, may be true to a point. I actually think credit has to be given to the effectiveness of much of the 73-81 output, because despite the group not quite firing on all cylinders during that period, 'Goats Head Soup', 'Black And Blue', 'Some Girls' and 'Tattoo You', still stand up especially well. True, there is perhaps an underlying lack of direction and lack of focus a little on all those albums at times to a degree, apart from the more focused 'Some Girls', perhaps, yet there is also plenty to enjoy as well. Somehow Keith's pre occupation with drugs is actually papered over quite well, with Mick Taylor, Ronnie Wood, Harvey Mandel, Wayne Perkins, and Jagger himself, taking up the slack. How much Keith truly contributed artistically, is something i find pretty hard to fathom, hence the reason i'm not bashing Keith's attitude in his book too strongly, because i just don't know. There seems a detachment creeping into the music not just by Richards, but by Jagger too. Jagger begins camping it up to a much greater degree towards the mid seventies. On the surface, and certainly in live performance, the deterioration with regards to Jagger and Richards singing/playing and general performances appear pretty equal. There seems a decline, and perhaps an indulgency creeping into their (and possibly more Jagger's) performances, a theatricality so to speak on the 75/76 tours, and then they seem much more on the ball in 78. The quote you gave earlier:
" And what the master and leader reflects at the time:
Keith Richards (1981): Getting back on the road
(Rounding up the Stones is) surprisingly easy. Getting them over the idea of working on the road, that's the hard bit. You know, they're going, OHHH, I DON'T wanna go on the ROAD. And I'm trying to hustle them, because I know that it's the only way to keep 'em together. They always feel good about it once they DO it; maybe I kind of crystallize that feeling or focus it or whatever, because everybody feels the same way as me, but not at the same time. But if the band wantds to stay together, then we do have to go on the road and we do have to work. And once we get up there and start rehearsing, it's great. And it only gets better and better, you know?
Does anyone see any inconsistincy between his words and actions? I would say talk is cheap.
But yeah, more love to Keith and to his honest words of wisdom in LIFE and elsewhere.
- Doxa "
seems very feesible, aside from the fact in my opinion the biggest problem on the 81 tour in terms of performance was Mick, and his terrible gruff vocals. The rest of the band seem on really very good form, and especially the performances of the guitar players, the ancient art of weaving between Keith and Ronnie. Mick may of course have been the business brains behind the 81 tour, but in performance he's just not there, at least vocally. Sometimes i do question whether Keith is actually referring to the business side of the Stones in relation to being carried by Jagger, as much as the music.
I like Keith's album 'Talk Is Cheap', certainly sylistically more than Jagger's more superficial eighties solo efforts, yet especially on the rockers, Keith's riffs sound pretty routine and formulaic. Some of the album is pretty good though, especially 'Big Enough', 'Make No Mistake', and 'Take It So Hard', but like Jagger, by this point in time, Keith had seen much better days. Jagger, on 'Primitive Cool' actually becomes more reflected in places, which is actually a rare occurance for him, so there is some development there, aside from the often gross eighties style production.
Quote
Bliss
Thank you, Doxa for your comprehensive explanation. Since it is clear that the Stones in their current form do not and cannot satisfy your high standards, I think it is a wise choice to at least take a break from this forum. It surely does not do you or the other members here any good for you to be expressing such a level of negativity toward the subject of the forum, the Rolling Stones. You might want to follow up on my earlier suggestion to start a forum which is focused exclusively on the Stones' earlier work. Wishing you all the very best,
-Bliss
Quote
slew
we should all stop talking like we are insiders of the Rolling Stones
Quote
mikeeder
Well I will add my two cents. I love the 1963-66 Stones. I am first a Brian Jones fan and I also think that Mick and Keith did their least contrived work here. 1967 was more hit or miss but at least there was still a sense of trying new things. 1968 was when the Stones hard rock template was set. I like their 68-78 sound very much but I feel they were a bit more posed or less willing to experiment. Brian is felt on Beggers to some extent but after that there is a sensitivity to their work that was forever lost. 1968-72 was a special period but again I feel more studied. Still I am a big fan up through the 1978 stuff but only Tatoo You really catches my ear afterwords. OK 1973-78 was a bit over the top at times but I like songs pretty much. They aren't groundbreaking but they are good. ABB and Voodoo are OK I suppose but nothing real special. The live shows since 1981 are just not something I enjoy. Some are ok but I feel the 1978 tour was the last time they seemed real.
I think Keith came into his own from 1968 on and I also love his voice going back to the start all the way through 1974. Keith started to decline in 1975 when his voice started showing signs of wear. His studio singing was still pretty good for the rest of the decade but on stage he could be rough some nights. Still far better then later of course. By 1979 his face caved in and he began to act like a parody of himself. I hate his movements on stage since then. He began to coast big time and by 1981 his playing had become flash and unmelodic. His voice got worse and worse but I do admit his solo albums weren't too bad. If the songs weren't classics they do feel more heartfelt then anything else he has cut since 1980. Maybe Infamy. This Place Is Empty and The Worst are OK but other then that I dislike most of Keiths Stones work after Wanna Hold You. Since 1997 his playing and singing on stage is pretty bad and even when I saw them in 1994 I felt Ron far outshined him. Attitude wise he bought his image and the somewhat insightful interviews he gave before 1979 were a thing of the past. He just kind of became a joke.
Jagger I think was best when Brian was there to balance him out. Oh he was always a bit silly on stage with how he moved, but it's fun. At the RNR Circus Mick really is kind of a character for the first time playing up the camp value. He did this for the next ten years but hell his songs were still good (if more contrived) and he's still fun to watch. From 1981 on Jagger has been kind of a joke. Tatoo You was the last great vocals he did though I do admit Wandering Spirit was a fine LP. He's held up a little better then Keith and at least tries to be professinal but he is too much of a parody himself and it gets worse with every year. Only the rare times he is not trying to Mick Jagger does he really come through. One of my favorite things he did since 1981 was the Elysian Fields movie. He shows restraint and some sort of emotion and really he entertained me in a way that his records haven't done in years. As with Keith I go with the sixties and seventies incarnation.
As for the rest of the band, Charlie and Bill, were good in their day but since Bill left the sound has altered in a bad way. I admire Wyman for leaving and really think Charlie's lost a lot of credibility playing with the circus that is their shows since 1989.
Let's quickly do the Mick Taylor/Woodie debtate. Mick T. was very talented but had little charisma. Musically he was fantastic but he just didn't have the entertainment part down visually. Mick, Brian, and Keith possesed a talent for getting across to an audience and though Mick T. added a lot when he was there, I can't say he was as important as those three were to the Stones overall sound or image.
Ronnie did have stage presence in the seventies at least and could sing half decent then too. I think before he was freebasing he was a pretty cool fit and while less talented then Brian or Mick T. he did have his own thing going. Since the freebase days something is gone. He was the best performer when I saw them in 1994 but he just doesn't have that spark that he once did.
All in all the problem I have with the post 1980 Stones is down not only to the music and how rickety or mannered it sounds, but it's also down to the fact that Ron and Keith just couldn't sing anymore. Since 1989 Mick's voice is too deep t do justice to the material from my favorite period (63-66) and honestly the backing vocals aren't to my taste at all. Girl singers at a Stones show!! Blondie is good but for those who know his work with The Flame and The Beach Boys his talent is kind of wasted here.
I am sorry if I sound so negitive. I really do love the original Stones and again must stress that I truly enjoy the Mick T. and early Wood periods as well. It's just that they hurt their legacy by not knowing when to quit and it seems to be all about money. I will say if they did anything right since 1980 they do sell tickets and make reams of cash. They do know how to promote themselves. Sadly this is at the expense of the fans who really loved them in their prime.
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
slew
we should all stop talking like we are insiders of the Rolling Stones
Very good advice. I just wonder who will follow it
Quote
Edward Twining
What Jagger doesn't do, and perhaps was never truly the Stones forte at their peak anyway, is actually write songs that are personally revealing, or reflective in any way, or attempts to truly connect beyond the superficialities of being the rock 'n' roll star, raunchy and sexy, with a bevy of birds and all. quote]
But that's just it,
What makes you think his best material is not personal?
Jagger is at fault here, because he is the one who always claims his songs are not personal, but maybe that's another way of keeping you guessing and not reading anything too deep. But read between the lines, Edward,. He wants you to think his songs are meaningless because that keeps you from knowing him.
I will argue that Jagger writes about nothing but his true self. I will give you this, Jagger did lose some of that authenticity in the 80s, for the reasons you suggested. I agree with your assessment of Jagger in the 80s and much of the 90s -you can tell when he's faking it, its something false in the voice and its horrendous (All of She's the Boss, most of Primitive Cools and on through Streets of Love etc....)But his best material has always had an urgency. For example, I beleive Some Girls was his divorce album - the anger, bitterness, pain and loneliness that comes with a breakup - that's what makes it real. Listen to the outtakes of the Some Girls sessions and you will hear a man bleeding. You can't fake that and you wouldn't be able to relate to these songs if the urgency was not there, in the lyrics, delivery and in his voice. That's real shit, Edward, My original point was that these accusations or perceptions of Jagger being shallow are betrayed by the quality of his best songs, lyrics, performances. Jagger would rather you think he's shallow than have you suspect he has feelings and can be human and vulnerable. That, I suspect, is his biggest secret, but if you listen to Jagger at his best, he literally "spills it all over the page." But if you buy the image, you might miss it. The problem is that, and this where I do agree with you, most of his output post-Tattoo You has had an air of insincerity.....and so that "shallow" image persists with legitimate reason. But then he will do something like Plundered My Soul and reminds you of the Jagger you used to admire as an artist because that Mick Jagger is the real deal.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 00:10 by stupidguy2.
Quote
slew
Actually there are only a few here who pretend they are "insiders" and it's tiresome when they lord it over the rest of us. What bothers me much more is the defensive carping from people who cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of their heroes and who conflate being a fan with hero worship.
I don't mind critisism and debate but this whole Mick-Keith thing really seems to be getting out of hand.
Quote
71TeleQuote
slew
Actually there are only a few here who pretend they are "insiders" and it's tiresome when they lord it over the rest of us. What bothers me much more is the defensive carping from people who cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of their heroes and who conflate being a fan with hero worship.
I don't mind critisism and debate but this whole Mick-Keith thing really seems to be getting out of hand.
What does that mean "getting out of hand"? What will happen if this is debated (other than maybe Keith showing us the blade)? I remind you this was not brought on by us on the board, it was by Keith's various grudges and comments about Mick in his book. It is perfectly natural when he writes these provocative things that we discuss and debate them, or would you prefer we just reverently read the book and accept everything as gospel?
Quote
71Tele
What does that mean "getting out of hand"? What will happen if this is debated (other than maybe Keith showing us the blade)? I remind you this was not brought on by us on the board, it was by Keith's various grudges and comments about Mick in his book. It is perfectly natural when he writes these provocative things that we discuss and debate them, or would you prefer we just reverently read the book and accept everything as gospel?
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
71Tele
What does that mean "getting out of hand"? What will happen if this is debated (other than maybe Keith showing us the blade)? I remind you this was not brought on by us on the board, it was by Keith's various grudges and comments about Mick in his book. It is perfectly natural when he writes these provocative things that we discuss and debate them, or would you prefer we just reverently read the book and accept everything as gospel?
I also think this has to do with years and years of many of us reading Keith's various taunts about Jagger and have gotten tired of it. This is our band and one member keeps airing his insecurities, which threatens the integrity of our band to those who don't know better. I've always thought Keith was jealous, petty etc...and now everybody knows.
Quote
Bliss
I have not asked Doxa to leave. He has stated that he is not comfortable here and I wished him well for the future.
>>>Sorry... I stop here because I don't feel doing it anymore. For respect sharing thoughts with you Edward I wrote this last "sad analysis" or whatever it is. I'm dried out. Take care.
- Doxa
Quote
swiss
Doxa. Is. A. Girl.
Stop saying "he" y'all!
Quote
swiss
Doxa. Is. A. Girl.
Quote
Rip This
...I would suggest that Mick and Keith try couples counseling...one gets pissed and broods the other whips (or threatens to whip) out his blade...you canlt find consensus in that environment.
Right there was a softer side missing later. Again it feels a bit more natural to me less stagey. 1968-72 (particularly the occasinal times when Brian would still add something that first year) it was still solid. Even 1973-78 gets a positive spin from me, but it's what they did early 63-early 67 that makes me a hard core fan.Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
mikeeder
Well I will add my two cents. I love the 1963-66 Stones. I am first a Brian Jones fan and I also think that Mick and Keith did their least contrived work here. 1967 was more hit or miss but at least there was still a sense of trying new things. 1968 was when the Stones hard rock template was set. I like their 68-78 sound very much but I feel they were a bit more posed or less willing to experiment. Brian is felt on Beggers to some extent but after that there is a sensitivity to their work that was forever lost. 1968-72 was a special period but again I feel more studied. Still I am a big fan up through the 1978 stuff but only Tatoo You really catches my ear afterwords. OK 1973-78 was a bit over the top at times but I like songs pretty much. They aren't groundbreaking but they are good. ABB and Voodoo are OK I suppose but nothing real special. The live shows since 1981 are just not something I enjoy. Some are ok but I feel the 1978 tour was the last time they seemed real.
I think Keith came into his own from 1968 on and I also love his voice going back to the start all the way through 1974. Keith started to decline in 1975 when his voice started showing signs of wear. His studio singing was still pretty good for the rest of the decade but on stage he could be rough some nights. Still far better then later of course. By 1979 his face caved in and he began to act like a parody of himself. I hate his movements on stage since then. He began to coast big time and by 1981 his playing had become flash and unmelodic. His voice got worse and worse but I do admit his solo albums weren't too bad. If the songs weren't classics they do feel more heartfelt then anything else he has cut since 1980. Maybe Infamy. This Place Is Empty and The Worst are OK but other then that I dislike most of Keiths Stones work after Wanna Hold You. Since 1997 his playing and singing on stage is pretty bad and even when I saw them in 1994 I felt Ron far outshined him. Attitude wise he bought his image and the somewhat insightful interviews he gave before 1979 were a thing of the past. He just kind of became a joke.
Jagger I think was best when Brian was there to balance him out. Oh he was always a bit silly on stage with how he moved, but it's fun. At the RNR Circus Mick really is kind of a character for the first time playing up the camp value. He did this for the next ten years but hell his songs were still good (if more contrived) and he's still fun to watch. From 1981 on Jagger has been kind of a joke. Tatoo You was the last great vocals he did though I do admit Wandering Spirit was a fine LP. He's held up a little better then Keith and at least tries to be professinal but he is too much of a parody himself and it gets worse with every year. Only the rare times he is not trying to Mick Jagger does he really come through. One of my favorite things he did since 1981 was the Elysian Fields movie. He shows restraint and some sort of emotion and really he entertained me in a way that his records haven't done in years. As with Keith I go with the sixties and seventies incarnation.
As for the rest of the band, Charlie and Bill, were good in their day but since Bill left the sound has altered in a bad way. I admire Wyman for leaving and really think Charlie's lost a lot of credibility playing with the circus that is their shows since 1989.
Let's quickly do the Mick Taylor/Woodie debtate. Mick T. was very talented but had little charisma. Musically he was fantastic but he just didn't have the entertainment part down visually. Mick, Brian, and Keith possesed a talent for getting across to an audience and though Mick T. added a lot when he was there, I can't say he was as important as those three were to the Stones overall sound or image.
Ronnie did have stage presence in the seventies at least and could sing half decent then too. I think before he was freebasing he was a pretty cool fit and while less talented then Brian or Mick T. he did have his own thing going. Since the freebase days something is gone. He was the best performer when I saw them in 1994 but he just doesn't have that spark that he once did.
All in all the problem I have with the post 1980 Stones is down not only to the music and how rickety or mannered it sounds, but it's also down to the fact that Ron and Keith just couldn't sing anymore. Since 1989 Mick's voice is too deep t do justice to the material from my favorite period (63-66) and honestly the backing vocals aren't to my taste at all. Girl singers at a Stones show!! Blondie is good but for those who know his work with The Flame and The Beach Boys his talent is kind of wasted here.
I am sorry if I sound so negitive. I really do love the original Stones and again must stress that I truly enjoy the Mick T. and early Wood periods as well. It's just that they hurt their legacy by not knowing when to quit and it seems to be all about money. I will say if they did anything right since 1980 they do sell tickets and make reams of cash. They do know how to promote themselves. Sadly this is at the expense of the fans who really loved them in their prime.
I love reading your post, mikeeder, and agree very much with what you are saying. It is great to have someone writing who favours the Brian Jones era too, because he is too often overlooked on this forum, in favour of the endless Taylor/Wood debates. The Stones, in a sense, hit their stride in terms consistency within their album output starting with 'Beggars Banquet', but as much as i enjoy the 68-72 era, there is a naivety to the early Stones which i find most endearing.