Tell Me :
Talk
So criticising Keith is a tough job for you? Because you like his conservative "style" (in music), even though the guy's has ran out of genius riffs, musical inventions and good melodies, to put together: songs, for decades now? I also love Keith's sense of musical style but what bothers me is that he obviously has run out of his old genious self, but him, and seemingly, many of his fans, does not want to recognize it, because I don't know why (they love him so much, he is so cool, "Keef" I guess?). The problem I have with Keith and his disciples is this blindness to see the reality of his doings. Since the late 70's, after "cleaning up", he started to ask the command but with wich actual muscles? What Keith really had to offer in the end? Five guitar, two hands, one @#$%&, and the millions repetitions of the riffs and ideas he invented a decade ago.
I think the wonder of the golden era is the constant development and musical innovations, (for example, Keith's open tunings) Keith was simply a genius at the time - and his deep passion and deeper understanding of (rootsy) music was the most important factor for The Stones taking such musical heights. They all know that.. Mick started to compose too, but it was Keith who leading the band in studio. Keith's intuitions were unique. "Gimme Shelter" is a work of a genius. EXILE's purity and deepness, too. I think because of those years - from BEGGARS to EXILE -The Stones finding a voice of their own, they all were and sill are grateful to Keith. Keith made them musically big. I think for this reason the rest also tolerated him, and also babied him when his musical compass started showing signs of weaknesses.
I would say it was after EXILE Keith's musical muse had dried out. Yeah, he could have come up with some nice riffs and songs but they all started to be according to certain pattern or form. There wsa anything new or exciting in teh riffs of, say, "If You Can't Rock Me" or "Dance Little Sister". But no way Keith was leading teh band to any new heights - more like being an anchor who kept them in their old and familiar musical landscapes. I am sure his role was still significant. They surely listened to him, but Keith couldn't anymore offer them the goods he once did.
My picture is that Keith's musical muse died during his junkie days. LIFE is good document of that - just read how passionate Keith is talking about the music during the golden period. You can hear his inspiration. But as far as the 70's scenes go it was just dope. Dope. Dope. Dope. All that he was interested. He somehow recollects SOME GIRLS sessions because even he knows how important that album was for their career. But even there instead of describing his musical ideas he just tells us stupid excuses for having a 45 minute break to shoot in toilet. He had time to "think" the songs there... The description of making "Before They Make me run" is a tale of super junkie Keef working all day, all night while the other just drop out. Just compare that to the way describes making BEGGARS BANQUET, or even EXILE, etc. At that time the music was the hot thing - not the man doing it.
So then comes THE BIG TURN in Keef mythology: he "cleaned up", and suddenly it was supposed to be like the old days again. "Hi mate, I'll take my responsibilities - co-leadership - back". This is how Keith sees the scene. Unfortunately it was not the old Keef - the musical genius and primus motor there who could things like BEGGARS BANQUET or EXILE - it was a post-junkie, innovatively dried out, alcoholic Keef. This was the man the rest needed to cope with - just look the TATTOO YOU scenes I posted above. Unreliable, egoist drunk who had decided that The Rolling Stones works nothing but according to his visions. The rest are just his puppets and he can do what ever with them. At the time the music journals started to write hings like “Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones" (I know, I was there). Keith surely read them. I can only imagine how much that did for his ego. Unfortunately the guy hadn't the musical substance - ideas and songs - to back up that claim. All his claim to leadership was to argue with Mick, opposite Mick's ideas (whatever they were). it sounds like more Mick tried to enrichen the Stones sound with new ideas, the more stubborn and conservative Keith was. For my eyes Keith just couldn't develop any further - his creativity and the ability adapt new ideas had dried out.
(in fact, Keith sounded like Brian Jones in 1965 when Mick and Keith started to write own material and laed The Stones to new musical sounscapes from the blues.)
Anyway, finally Mick fed up, and lost his interest in the Stones. That was the moment when The Rolling Stones died creatively. The musical adventure was finished - only nostalgia and autopilotism left. The Stones is some kind of Status Quo, or AC/DC or KISS or whatever: recicling the same old ideas.
What Keith Richards has really contributed ever since the BIG TURN? Recicling his old riffs, and song templetes. A kind of riffs Jagger or Wood or anyone who has listened his Richards can do. Few decent ballads. But hell lot of posing and bullshitting.
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
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-11 10:47 by Doxa.
So Doxa's coherent commentary, which you don't happen to agree with, is reason for you to ask him to leave?
I don't like your attitude...does that give me the right to ask you to leave?
Where's the 'bliss' baby?
Very good advice. I just wonder who will follow it
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
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.
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.
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?
One particular person on the board would love for us to only say nice things about Keith,but of course she knows Keith,and we are "evil" if we dared question anything that Mr Richards has written in his book.
So, Tele be nice..>
<
"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 02:46 by stupidguy2.
Very good summation...
My apologies Bliss...just reading your post made it appear that you were slagging him for having a negative view...I wasn't aware of the other history and circumstance.
He is NOT a girl, that's why we say HE
LOL swiss, no, he isn't a girl.
How many times do we have to say that to you
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
+1
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 11, 2010 10:34
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.
So criticising Keith is a tough job for you? Because you like his conservative "style" (in music), even though the guy's has ran out of genius riffs, musical inventions and good melodies, to put together: songs, for decades now? I also love Keith's sense of musical style but what bothers me is that he obviously has run out of his old genious self, but him, and seemingly, many of his fans, does not want to recognize it, because I don't know why (they love him so much, he is so cool, "Keef" I guess?). The problem I have with Keith and his disciples is this blindness to see the reality of his doings. Since the late 70's, after "cleaning up", he started to ask the command but with wich actual muscles? What Keith really had to offer in the end? Five guitar, two hands, one @#$%&, and the millions repetitions of the riffs and ideas he invented a decade ago.
I think the wonder of the golden era is the constant development and musical innovations, (for example, Keith's open tunings) Keith was simply a genius at the time - and his deep passion and deeper understanding of (rootsy) music was the most important factor for The Stones taking such musical heights. They all know that.. Mick started to compose too, but it was Keith who leading the band in studio. Keith's intuitions were unique. "Gimme Shelter" is a work of a genius. EXILE's purity and deepness, too. I think because of those years - from BEGGARS to EXILE -The Stones finding a voice of their own, they all were and sill are grateful to Keith. Keith made them musically big. I think for this reason the rest also tolerated him, and also babied him when his musical compass started showing signs of weaknesses.
I would say it was after EXILE Keith's musical muse had dried out. Yeah, he could have come up with some nice riffs and songs but they all started to be according to certain pattern or form. There wsa anything new or exciting in teh riffs of, say, "If You Can't Rock Me" or "Dance Little Sister". But no way Keith was leading teh band to any new heights - more like being an anchor who kept them in their old and familiar musical landscapes. I am sure his role was still significant. They surely listened to him, but Keith couldn't anymore offer them the goods he once did.
My picture is that Keith's musical muse died during his junkie days. LIFE is good document of that - just read how passionate Keith is talking about the music during the golden period. You can hear his inspiration. But as far as the 70's scenes go it was just dope. Dope. Dope. Dope. All that he was interested. He somehow recollects SOME GIRLS sessions because even he knows how important that album was for their career. But even there instead of describing his musical ideas he just tells us stupid excuses for having a 45 minute break to shoot in toilet. He had time to "think" the songs there... The description of making "Before They Make me run" is a tale of super junkie Keef working all day, all night while the other just drop out. Just compare that to the way describes making BEGGARS BANQUET, or even EXILE, etc. At that time the music was the hot thing - not the man doing it.
So then comes THE BIG TURN in Keef mythology: he "cleaned up", and suddenly it was supposed to be like the old days again. "Hi mate, I'll take my responsibilities - co-leadership - back". This is how Keith sees the scene. Unfortunately it was not the old Keef - the musical genius and primus motor there who could things like BEGGARS BANQUET or EXILE - it was a post-junkie, innovatively dried out, alcoholic Keef. This was the man the rest needed to cope with - just look the TATTOO YOU scenes I posted above. Unreliable, egoist drunk who had decided that The Rolling Stones works nothing but according to his visions. The rest are just his puppets and he can do what ever with them. At the time the music journals started to write hings like “Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones" (I know, I was there). Keith surely read them. I can only imagine how much that did for his ego. Unfortunately the guy hadn't the musical substance - ideas and songs - to back up that claim. All his claim to leadership was to argue with Mick, opposite Mick's ideas (whatever they were). it sounds like more Mick tried to enrichen the Stones sound with new ideas, the more stubborn and conservative Keith was. For my eyes Keith just couldn't develop any further - his creativity and the ability adapt new ideas had dried out.
(in fact, Keith sounded like Brian Jones in 1965 when Mick and Keith started to write own material and laed The Stones to new musical sounscapes from the blues.)
Anyway, finally Mick fed up, and lost his interest in the Stones. That was the moment when The Rolling Stones died creatively. The musical adventure was finished - only nostalgia and autopilotism left. The Stones is some kind of Status Quo, or AC/DC or KISS or whatever: recicling the same old ideas.
What Keith Richards has really contributed ever since the BIG TURN? Recicling his old riffs, and song templetes. A kind of riffs Jagger or Wood or anyone who has listened his Richards can do. Few decent ballads. But hell lot of posing and bullshitting.
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
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-11 10:47 by Doxa.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: November 11, 2010 11:03
Doxa, I wish you write the book about Stones. Maybe it'll be the first decent one. They deserve it
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 11, 2010 11:04
I agree with you, Doxa. However, I think it's appropriate to acknowledge Keith's input on DW (not a great album, I know, but that's really not Keith's fault - his input was very good, imo). as well as Talk Is Cheap, his playing on the SW/UJ-tour and Main Offender.
After that, things started to stall a bit.
After that, things started to stall a bit.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: November 11, 2010 11:05
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
-Bliss
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
mikeeder
()
Date: November 11, 2010 12:05
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 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.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
texas fan
()
Date: November 11, 2010 14:45
Bliss, I enjoy your posts very much. I disagree, however, about Doxa. He is very insightful about the music and has contributed many great posts that were not negative about anything. It's true, he doesn't like the new stuff, or not as much, but I don't think we should be suggesting that this is a "fans of the current Stones only" kind of site. Just my opinion, speaking as someone that does still like the current Stones and appreciate they're continued existence for a variety of reasons, but realizes that they are neither as creative nor as relevant as they used to be.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: November 11, 2010 14:57
I love this board.
Posters get sooo worked up about the most ridiculous things, threaten to leave then take absolutely ages to go!!
Hilarious....
Posters get sooo worked up about the most ridiculous things, threaten to leave then take absolutely ages to go!!
Hilarious....
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: November 11, 2010 15:44
Holy crap - You are all unbeleivable!!!
Keith has ruined this, Mick has ruined that.............
For Chrissakes we should all stop talking like we are insiders of the Rolling Stones!!!!
Keith has ruined this, Mick has ruined that.............
For Chrissakes we should all stop talking like we are insiders of the Rolling Stones!!!!
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 11, 2010 16:40
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
So Doxa's coherent commentary, which you don't happen to agree with, is reason for you to ask him to leave?
I don't like your attitude...does that give me the right to ask you to leave?
Where's the 'bliss' baby?
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 11, 2010 16:45
Quote
slew
we should all stop talking like we are insiders of the Rolling Stones
Very good advice. I just wonder who will follow it
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 11, 2010 19:59
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.
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.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 11, 2010 20:07
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
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.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: November 11, 2010 20:40
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
>>>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
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: November 11, 2010 23:59
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.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: November 12, 2010 00:22
What good is a Stones board if we can't debate shit we've been debating with ourselves since we became fans? I didn't know other Stones fans when I was a young fan so I have all these pent-up theories.....lol
I need to vent and share.
Doxa, you're one of the reasons I started posting here because I loved your detailed and perceptive posts. Who care what guitar Keith is using on Midnight Rambler, I used to care, but now I just want to talk about the interesting shit: the dynamics, the fractured relationships. People ranting about Keith? Its about time?
I need to vent and share.
Doxa, you're one of the reasons I started posting here because I loved your detailed and perceptive posts. Who care what guitar Keith is using on Midnight Rambler, I used to care, but now I just want to talk about the interesting shit: the dynamics, the fractured relationships. People ranting about Keith? Its about time?
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: November 12, 2010 00:26
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.
I don't mind critisism and debate but this whole Mick-Keith thing really seems to be getting out of hand.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 12, 2010 00:36
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.
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?
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
ROPENI
()
Date: November 12, 2010 02:10
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?
One particular person on the board would love for us to only say nice things about Keith,but of course she knows Keith,and we are "evil" if we dared question anything that Mr Richards has written in his book.
So, Tele be nice..>
<"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: November 12, 2010 02:45
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?
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 02:46 by stupidguy2.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 12, 2010 03:12
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.
Very good summation...
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: November 12, 2010 03:35
...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.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: November 12, 2010 04:34
I don't know about life, Keith Richards wants to get one...if it wasn't for Mick Jagger's input Keith richards would probaly be dead or if not that slumming it like a pauper on the dead beat dusty cobweb London blues circuit at best
IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL (BUT I LIKE IT); Ian Dury & the Blockheads' jazz - funk fusion with ingenius often funny lyrics about a tremendous amount of different topics is pretty hot rocking too......
IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL (BUT I LIKE IT); Ian Dury & the Blockheads' jazz - funk fusion with ingenius often funny lyrics about a tremendous amount of different topics is pretty hot rocking too......
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 12, 2010 07:28
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
My apologies Bliss...just reading your post made it appear that you were slagging him for having a negative view...I wasn't aware of the other history and circumstance.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: November 12, 2010 07:46
Doxa. Is. A. Girl.
Stop saying "he" y'all!
Stop saying "he" y'all!
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 12, 2010 09:07
stupidguy2, Jagger's certainly not shallow in a business sense, and he's not shallow where looking after his personal interests are concerned. I actually find him a rather meticulous person in many ways. I'm sure he still gets a kick when he goes on tour, and sees the numbers who have come to see him, yet behind it all whether he still has any genuine interest in the music, is very debateable. The problem with the Stones is they have become a brand name, with very little in terms of them being motivated in any way, aside from just drawing in the crowds and the money. Doxa's quite right about the way the emphasis shifts within Keith's book post 'Exile On Main Street', where he tends to spend his time reminiscing his drug taking and his run ins with the law. I have no doubt at this point he was pre-occupied with drugs etc. I think that the fact that the Stones have managed to stay together over the longer period, does suggest that within themselves they do lack in terms of needing to be creative and continuing to stretch themselves, and feel very insular within their little group, unlike the Beatles, for example, and have done so for more years than i care to remember. Jagger did carry the group largely in the late seventies, and certainly where the more profile songs were concerned. 'Fool To Cry', 'Miss You' and 'Emotional Rescue' did show them in a more contemporary light. In a sense i can well understand Jagger feeling the need to go solo, but in my opinion, his solo career was executed badly, and there was too much of clinical air in the way he approached it. It was almost as though he was too pre-occupied in the potential of being a huge solo star, than actually really concentrating on the quality and sincerity within the music. I think Keith also realised, if Mick did prove successful longterm, within his own right, he and the rest of the Stones would be out of a job. Had Jagger actually pulled it off in a more authentic way, who knows? But it was at this point when he lost interest in being an artist because he was in love with the music, and his ambitions were simply on being a star because he loved the adulation. There was nothing comtemporary and effective in the sense of 'Miss You', in his new musical offerings, just pure calculation. Having said that i've always had a sneaking regard for 'Just Another Night'.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 09:26 by Edward Twining.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 09:26 by Edward Twining.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 12, 2010 10:47
Quote
swiss
Doxa. Is. A. Girl.
Stop saying "he" y'all!
He is NOT a girl, that's why we say HE
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 12, 2010 11:49
Quote
swiss
Doxa. Is. A. Girl.
LOL swiss, no, he isn't a girl.
How many times do we have to say that to you
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: November 12, 2010 11:50
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.
+1
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
mikeeder
()
Date: November 12, 2010 14:44
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.
Re: More love for Keith
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 13, 2010 06:17
mikeeder,
'19th Nervous Breakdown' is the single that really grabs me from the early years. I think it's one of the few singles from that period that lacks a powerful riff, but instead it has an almost rockabilly rhythm. It is the way the music and lyrics tend to fit together so well that i love, where also at times Mick and Keith tend to be singing in unison on the verses. Actually there's a dynamism to '19th Nervous Breakdown', where there's the possibility the whole thing could veer quite dangerously out of control where as well as the song's rhythm on the verses, there is the brilliant guitar interplay interludes, between Keith and Brian, and Bill's dramatic dive bombing bass lines at the end. There's a lot of action packed within that track, for sure, and it is typical of the Stones sound, before they became a little more sophisticated, especially from around 69 onwards. Wasn't it Keith who once made the observation that '19th Nervous Breakdown' was influenced by the Everly Brothers? I can only think he's referring to both he and Mick's singing in unison. Keith was very important in terms of his vocal harmonies back in those days, and highly effective too.
I think in a sense with Jagger's eighties solo career, he was pretty much doing what so many of the veteran artists were doing by the mid eighties, in trying to incorporate modern technology into their sound. Even Bob Dylan and Lou Reed were doing it, although i think Jagger's efforts seems to have dated more than most. In a sense he went the whole hog, so to speak. By the mid eighties it did seem an artist had to conform to a certain sound to have a hit, to almost be allowed to be seduced by modern technology, so to speak. There wasn't the feeling of musical nostalgia there is today, where so many of the younger artists get their inspiration, and often their sound, from those older artists, and the many reissues of classic albums was not such a prominant feature. I always believe the MTV Unplugged series helped shift the emphasis a little more back to basics, and also magazines like Mojo, that tended to reminisce greatly about those classic sounds. I actually had a mild regard for 'She's The Boss' at the time. It seemed fairly good, especially after being force fed groups like the Thompson Twins, and Level 42, in the media, but now i can barely listen to it. The Stones 'Undercover' album, however, doesn't seem half as bad, despite also at times incorporating a more contemporary sound. Maybe that is because many of the modern sounds were used with a great deal more discretion. 'Undercover Of The Night' and 'Too Much Blood' are of that time frame musically, yet exist fairly independantly too. I think Jagger was pretty good still at knowing where to draw the line, or perhaps Keith wouldn't allow things to get quite so out of hand. It's a pity, because 'She's The Boss' does contain a few nice ideas in places. Jagger was young enough to still have his basic faculties too, and especially vocally, however somewhere along the line, even in that regard, he'd begun to lose his perspective. That was pretty much Jagger's predicament, post 'Tattoo You'. 'Tattoo You' was the last time Jagger's faculties were all in perfect working order.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 06:26 by Edward Twining.
'19th Nervous Breakdown' is the single that really grabs me from the early years. I think it's one of the few singles from that period that lacks a powerful riff, but instead it has an almost rockabilly rhythm. It is the way the music and lyrics tend to fit together so well that i love, where also at times Mick and Keith tend to be singing in unison on the verses. Actually there's a dynamism to '19th Nervous Breakdown', where there's the possibility the whole thing could veer quite dangerously out of control where as well as the song's rhythm on the verses, there is the brilliant guitar interplay interludes, between Keith and Brian, and Bill's dramatic dive bombing bass lines at the end. There's a lot of action packed within that track, for sure, and it is typical of the Stones sound, before they became a little more sophisticated, especially from around 69 onwards. Wasn't it Keith who once made the observation that '19th Nervous Breakdown' was influenced by the Everly Brothers? I can only think he's referring to both he and Mick's singing in unison. Keith was very important in terms of his vocal harmonies back in those days, and highly effective too.
I think in a sense with Jagger's eighties solo career, he was pretty much doing what so many of the veteran artists were doing by the mid eighties, in trying to incorporate modern technology into their sound. Even Bob Dylan and Lou Reed were doing it, although i think Jagger's efforts seems to have dated more than most. In a sense he went the whole hog, so to speak. By the mid eighties it did seem an artist had to conform to a certain sound to have a hit, to almost be allowed to be seduced by modern technology, so to speak. There wasn't the feeling of musical nostalgia there is today, where so many of the younger artists get their inspiration, and often their sound, from those older artists, and the many reissues of classic albums was not such a prominant feature. I always believe the MTV Unplugged series helped shift the emphasis a little more back to basics, and also magazines like Mojo, that tended to reminisce greatly about those classic sounds. I actually had a mild regard for 'She's The Boss' at the time. It seemed fairly good, especially after being force fed groups like the Thompson Twins, and Level 42, in the media, but now i can barely listen to it. The Stones 'Undercover' album, however, doesn't seem half as bad, despite also at times incorporating a more contemporary sound. Maybe that is because many of the modern sounds were used with a great deal more discretion. 'Undercover Of The Night' and 'Too Much Blood' are of that time frame musically, yet exist fairly independantly too. I think Jagger was pretty good still at knowing where to draw the line, or perhaps Keith wouldn't allow things to get quite so out of hand. It's a pity, because 'She's The Boss' does contain a few nice ideas in places. Jagger was young enough to still have his basic faculties too, and especially vocally, however somewhere along the line, even in that regard, he'd begun to lose his perspective. That was pretty much Jagger's predicament, post 'Tattoo You'. 'Tattoo You' was the last time Jagger's faculties were all in perfect working order.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 06:26 by Edward Twining.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.