Hey Keith fans - this tune ROCKS!

I was on the fence (with Keith's troubles in recent years, and all), but I think I've decided to come back home to Keith's camp now. Thanks.

Edit, so I don't come off as a complete ass: I do have that album, but I was never crazy about the production. I'll give it another listen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 01:36 by Sipuncula.

I've always liked the studio version. It never really worked live for me. Mick's rhythm guitar part around the 0:25 - 0:33 point is very Stonesish.

jagger can rock as a solo and with stones too great track

creap!

I wonder if I can pinpoint what it is that makes virtually all of Mick's solo material fall flat, because it is a rather nice tune with a memorable hook. But even the dullest of Stones tracks has something Mick's solo work doesn't--The Stones. The Stones are a rock band, and if recorded by The Stones this track would have sounded more like a rock song, rather than just a dated middle-of-the-road pop song more suited to the likes of 80s era Rod Stewart. Without Charlie's snare drum attack and without the muscle of Keith's rhythm guitar, Mick always comes off as a bit of a lightweight on his own, despite the occasional "Stonesish" flourishes.

stonehearted - I agree with you with the exception of the Wandering Spirit album.

Quote
slew
stonehearted - I agree with you with the exception of the Wandering Spirit album.

Yes, I completely agree on the WS album--and it always kills me to think how much greater it would have been as a Stones album.

When I saw the subject, I thought it was about SuperHeavy album.

....anybody else not able to listen to that or is it just me?

Quote
Rip This
....anybody else not able to listen to that or is it just me?

Just you.

Mick Jagger ROCKS!

Wandering Spirit is a tremendous solo album - sorry Keith wasn't there........

Very apt title...total crap IMO.

Quote
stonehearted
I wonder if I can pinpoint what it is that makes virtually all of Mick's solo material fall flat, because it is a rather nice tune with a memorable hook. But even the dullest of Stones tracks has something Mick's solo work doesn't--The Stones. The Stones are a rock band, and if recorded by The Stones this track would have sounded more like a rock song, rather than just a dated middle-of-the-road pop song more suited to the likes of 80s era Rod Stewart. Without Charlie's snare drum attack and without the muscle of Keith's rhythm guitar, Mick always comes off as a bit of a lightweight on his own, despite the occasional "Stonesish" flourishes.

The chorus reminds me somewhat of parts of "Highwire" - and this one has that sharp edge and attack that's so painfully missing on Throwaway:





I would like to like Mick's solo work, but in most cases I just don't.

I like it, but a kewpie doll to anyone who can tell me what Mick whispers at the start.

Utter shite.

Mathijs

Quote
Title5Take1
I like it, but a kewpie doll to anyone who can tell me what Mick whispers at the start.

"I really need your body right away", is what I always heard, but it sounds awkward.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
stonehearted
I wonder if I can pinpoint what it is that makes virtually all of Mick's solo material fall flat, because it is a rather nice tune with a memorable hook. But even the dullest of Stones tracks has something Mick's solo work doesn't--The Stones. The Stones are a rock band, and if recorded by The Stones this track would have sounded more like a rock song, rather than just a dated middle-of-the-road pop song more suited to the likes of 80s era Rod Stewart. Without Charlie's snare drum attack and without the muscle of Keith's rhythm guitar, Mick always comes off as a bit of a lightweight on his own, despite the occasional "Stonesish" flourishes.

The chorus reminds me somewhat of parts of "Highwire" - and this one has that sharp edge and attack that's so painfully missing on Throwaway:





I would like to like Mick's solo work, but in most cases I just don't.

I think the term that best describes Mick as a solo artist is generic. Mick developed his singing style the way he did because of how The Stones play. They have a signature sound through which his inflections resonate, the attitude, the rock n roll strut. Outside the context of The Stones structure, Mick is just another singer, and not even a rock singer, much like Rod Stewart without his Faces.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
stonehearted
I wonder if I can pinpoint what it is that makes virtually all of Mick's solo material fall flat, because it is a rather nice tune with a memorable hook. But even the dullest of Stones tracks has something Mick's solo work doesn't--The Stones. The Stones are a rock band, and if recorded by The Stones this track would have sounded more like a rock song, rather than just a dated middle-of-the-road pop song more suited to the likes of 80s era Rod Stewart. Without Charlie's snare drum attack and without the muscle of Keith's rhythm guitar, Mick always comes off as a bit of a lightweight on his own, despite the occasional "Stonesish" flourishes.

The chorus reminds me somewhat of parts of "Highwire" - and this one has that sharp edge and attack that's so painfully missing on Throwaway:





I would like to like Mick's solo work, but in most cases I just don't.

I think the term that best describes Mick as a solo artist is generic. Mick developed his singing style the way he did because of how The Stones play. They have a signature sound through which his inflections resonate, the attitude, the rock n roll strut. Outside the context of The Stones structure, Mick is just another singer, and not even a rock singer, much like Rod Stewart without his Faces.

Completely disagree.

He's made some very poor song writing choices to be 'current' and relevant.

I'd say one of the worst things that ever happened to him was the success of Miss You, because there was an incredibly successful attempt at aping 'current styles'. That unfortunately gave him licence to keep trying to repeat that success.

He tried to sound 80s in a decade where the music generally sucked. Bad plan.

It had nothing to do with his singing, in fact his voice sounds great on a song like Throwaway. It's just everything else about that song and album in general were horrible. I listened to the album after a very long break, 20 years maybe? Horrible...just horrible. Production is awful.

He seemed to have thrown in the towel on being current with Wandering Spirit to huge success. I also don't think Goddess is as bad as everyone says, but then again, I never listen to it either...there is that track with Bono.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 09:47 by treaclefingers.

The song is really bad. However, Mick is good on it. I think that says it all about the production...

An example of Jagger wanting to do a contemporary pop rock song. Sound- and pruduction wise it is as "contemporary" as a cut from 1987 ever can be, and that it not necessarily a good thing... It has the problem like most of his 80's stuff that he really couldn't any longer control the contemporary trends and sounds as he did before. The track as a whole do not sound convincing.

But what I like in this song:

- Jagger's presence. From the first moment he starts to sing one can hear is full-heartidly there. He was not any longer the tourist or a hired singer he sounds in DIRTY WORK with not so much heart in it (think of especially "One Hit"). And he sounds more secure, strong and original as he did in SHE'S THE BOSS, which was too much "hey look, I've got my own album to do", and compromised too much between the trad. Stones and contemporary sounds (the opening track is peculiar). Now he sounds more of his own. You can hear it in his delivery.

- a new voice: the mindless, one-dimensional shouting of his previous 80's recordings is gone and substituted by more nuanced singing. Now it sounds still fresh, and not so mannered as it would later turned out to be. Most expressive voice since TATTOO YOU days.

- the verses, especially the first one. One of the best and most original both melody and lyricwise he ever has done, and musically it "flows" naturally - not so craftman-like and forced as he mostly sounds in his songs from 80's on.

What I don't like:

- the choruses - a total anti-climax after the great and promising verse. Simply annoying; a childish one-trick chorus idea. No, it is not even catchy, just stupid. (By teh way, a typical feature of Jagger solo songs is-that the quality differs a lot within a song, like he can't really handle the wholeness very well.)

- the intro riff - it is just so 80's; tries to be so catchy and so damn "positive" but just go to nerves...

I guess this will do.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 10:12 by Doxa.

Yes, I've got so used to Mick singing this way that I'd forgotten what a change (for the better) it was from his angry shouting on some of Dirty Work, and he kept that style on his return to the band. As stonehearted/treaclefingers/doxa all agree, the fault isn't with Mick's singing - it's the uninspired arrangement that doesn't do him or the song justice.

I love this song. I was going thru a painful breakup at the time (one of many!), and the chorus really suited the situation.

Let's work - not so much.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted
I think the term that best describes Mick as a solo artist is generic. Mick developed his singing style the way he did because of how The Stones play. They have a signature sound through which his inflections resonate, the attitude, the rock n roll strut. Outside the context of The Stones structure, Mick is just another singer, and not even a rock singer, much like Rod Stewart without his Faces.

Completely disagree.

He's made some very poor song writing choices to be 'current' and relevant.

I'd say one of the worst things that ever happened to him was the success of Miss You, because there was an incredibly successful attempt at aping 'current styles'. That unfortunately gave him licence to keep trying to repeat that success.

He tried to sound 80s in a decade where the music generally sucked. Bad plan.

It had nothing to do with his singing, in fact his voice sounds great on a song like Throwaway. It's just everything else about that song and album in general were horrible. I listened to the album after a very long break, 20 years maybe? Horrible...just horrible. Production is awful.

He seemed to have thrown in the towel on being current with Wandering Spirit to huge success. I also don't think Goddess is as bad as everyone says, but then again, I never listen to it either...there is that track with Bono.

Very interesting insights by both of you (and I don't think you necessarily are contradicting each other).

Yeah, Jagger "grew up" as a singer as the Stones grew up as a band, and Jagger learn to express through that vehicle. It could be very well that his way to sing, his tone, phrasing and all - pretty much caked in blues - simply didn't fit all the musical landscapes of the 80's. There is a certain odd tension or anomaly there. Similar, and even stronger case is Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE. The musical sound world and the voice are totally in contrast to each other that the result is almost funny. (A bit similar impression as listening to Muddy Water's ELECTRIC MUDDY album from the late 60's, where Muddy was "updated" to the rock sounds of the day, with horrible results.)

Also the idea of seeing "Miss You" as a succesfull attempt to be "contemporary" which then lead Mick's thinking in future has a point in it. Surely The Stones have always followed trends, and adpted latest sounds to their music, but I guess it is true that "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS album altogether were the first case when that was clearly seen, taking that the band transformed so much of their sound from BLACK&BLUE, and sounding almost reinvented.

But I think there reasons are why "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS were so succesfull and convincing. For Jagger disco music was probably just another black music trend he had been followed from his youth, and a kind natutal development of soul, funk and other dancable forms of black music. And The Stones were, by nature, a damn "groovie" band, so adopting that musical form and making a convincing interpretation of that wasn't rocket science for them. "Miss You" sounds convincing, natural, and "Stonesy" as well. A natural extension of theirs.

The same can be said of the "punk influences" SOME GIRLS has. Jagger's "Rotten" was easily fitted to his own persona, and to their own rebellous past. They easily find a suitable punk sound of theirs by re-discovering their early roots in Chuck Berry to sound authentic.

But I think adopting those two contemporary trends - disco and punk - was the very last time The Stones and Jagger could do that convincingly. After that the new trends were out of their reach. The 80's were altogether a helluva decade in rethinking the whole music scene, and I think in many paths that had started in the 50's or 60's ended up there. Probably Jagger came into that conclusion by himself by the end of the 80's, and hadn't pretty much tried to do that since then. Some sure, but it is more like a make up thing.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 15:26 by Doxa.

Among the Jagger's works, I'd rather vote for these ones









HMN

Mick at his best, imo:

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick at his best, imo:

Yes, a wonderful ballad. Really like it.

Quote
Doxa
An example of Jagger wanting to do a contemporary pop rock song. Sound- and pruduction wise it is as "contemporary" as a cut from 1987 ever can be, and that it not necessarily a good thing... It has the problem like most of his 80's stuff that he really couldn't any longer control the contemporary trends and sounds as he did before. The track as a whole do not sound convincing.

But what I like in this song:

- Jagger's presence. From the first moment he starts to sing one can hear is full-heartidly there. He was not any longer the tourist or a hired singer he sounds in DIRTY WORK with not so much heart in it (think of especially "One Hit"). And he sounds more secure, strong and original as he did in SHE'S THE BOSS, which was too much "hey look, I've got my own album to do", and compromised too much between the trad. Stones and contemporary sounds (the opening track is peculiar). Now he sounds more of his own. You can hear it in his delivery.

- a new voice: the mindless, one-dimensional shouting of his previous 80's recordings is gone and substituted by more nuanced singing. Now it sounds still fresh, and not so mannered as it would later turned out to be. Most expressive voice since TATTOO YOU days.

- the verses, especially the first one. One of the best and most original both melody and lyricwise he ever has done, and musically it "flows" naturally - not so craftman-like and forced as he mostly sounds in his songs from 80's on.

What I don't like:

- the choruses - a total anti-climax after the great and promising verse. Simply annoying; a childish one-trick chorus idea. No, it is not even catchy, just stupid. (By teh way, a typical feature of Jagger solo songs is-that the quality differs a lot within a song, like he can't really handle the wholeness very well.)

- the intro riff - it is just so 80's; tries to be so catchy and so damn "positive" but just go to nerves...

I guess this will do.

- Doxa

Well, first of all, I like this song a lot, just as, btw, I like a lot of Mick's solo stuff, especially Wandering Spirit.

But, Doxa, thank you so much for your sophisticated considerations, and, it is always a great pleasure to read you, sir: Stay tuned, please.

Quote
stonehearted
I wonder if I can pinpoint what it is that makes virtually all of Mick's solo material fall flat, because it is a rather nice tune with a memorable hook. But even the dullest of Stones tracks has something Mick's solo work doesn't--The Stones. The Stones are a rock band, and if recorded by The Stones this track would have sounded more like a rock song, rather than just a dated middle-of-the-road pop song more suited to the likes of 80s era Rod Stewart. Without Charlie's snare drum attack and without the muscle of Keith's rhythm guitar, Mick always comes off as a bit of a lightweight on his own, despite the occasional "Stonesish" flourishes.

I'm not sure i agree with you, stonehearted, if you are using 'Throwaway' as an example, although fundamentally with the exception of PRIMITIVE COOL, Jagger's solo work does tend to 'lack' something. However, it is also true that the Stones output has also been lacking that certain something post TATTOO YOU too, but with PRIMITIVE COOL at least Jagger is trying something a little different in terms of him seeming a little more autobiographical in terms of his tone, and in a sense even with regards to the more typically Stones like 'Throwaway', Jagger is singing with a greater sense of conviction and authenticity. Maybe what he achieves isn't always successful on PRIMITIVE COOL, but at least he's willing to try a different approach, and one that at times proves quite absorbing.

'Throwaway' for me, works, despite its 80s sound, because it has a spirit of excess within its grooves, which is pretty much lacking within what Jagger's later solo work and also within what the Stones have done since, where ultimately a more clean and clinical (and conservative) approach starting with STEELWHEELS has rendered everything to sound that little too safe and predictable. I'd rather have 'Throwaway' any day than 'Sad Sad Sad', 'I Go Wild' 'Rough Justice' etc, etc, because it moves a little bit beyond simply existing as a Stones pastiche. Maybe those 80s elements have dated it somewhat, yet in another sense they (and the fact Jagger is playing with different musicians) gives it that extra shot of vitality. The problem with much of the Stones post TATTOO YOU output, is much of it sounds decidedly sketchy and underdeveloped, as if the Stones are simply sticking to what's been tried and tested before, but with increasingly dwindling returns, because the songs and arrangements lack any real depth and focus. With 'Throwaway' Jagger is working with different musicians, who despite working within a more typical Stones rocking genre, actually manage to give the song some fresh impetus. Yes, no doubt with 'Throwaway', Jagger is jumping on a more typically 80s bandwagon of sound, yet i think it is rather blind to see 'Throwaway' as only that. It stands up to repeated listens, whereas much of the later Stones output simply doesn't, because in part, the Stones become too predictable within their sound.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 18:41 by Edward Twining.

Jagger at his finest.....And the best song The Stones didnt write IMHO





What a drag it is gettin' old

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
stonehearted
I wonder if I can pinpoint what it is that makes virtually all of Mick's solo material fall flat, because it is a rather nice tune with a memorable hook. But even the dullest of Stones tracks has something Mick's solo work doesn't--The Stones. The Stones are a rock band, and if recorded by The Stones this track would have sounded more like a rock song, rather than just a dated middle-of-the-road pop song more suited to the likes of 80s era Rod Stewart. Without Charlie's snare drum attack and without the muscle of Keith's rhythm guitar, Mick always comes off as a bit of a lightweight on his own, despite the occasional "Stonesish" flourishes.

I'm not sure i agree with you, stonehearted, if you are using 'Throwaway' as an example, although fundamentally with the exception of PRIMITIVE COOL, Jagger's solo work does tend to 'lack' something. However, it is also true that the Stones output has also been lacking that certain something post TATTOO YOU too, but with PRIMITIVE COOL at least Jagger is trying something a little different in terms of him seeming a little more autobiographical in terms of his tone, and in a sense even with regards to the more typically Stones like 'Throwaway', Jagger is singing with a greater sense of conviction and authenticity. Maybe what he achieves isn't always successful on PRIMITIVE COOL, but at least he's willing to try a different approach, and one that at times proves quite absorbing.

'Throwaway' for me, works, despite its 80s sound, because it has a spirit of excess within its grooves, which is pretty much lacking within what Jagger's later solo work and also within what the Stones have done since, where ultimately a more clean and clinical (and conservative) approach starting with STEELWHEELS has rendered everything to sound that little too safe and predictable. I'd rather have 'Throwaway' any day than 'Sad Sad Sad', 'I Go Wild' 'Rough Justice' etc, etc, because it moves a little bit beyond simply existing as a Stones pastiche. Maybe those 80s elements have dated it somewhat, yet in another sense they (and the fact Jagger is playing with different musicians) gives it that extra shot of vitality. The problem with much of the Stones post TATTOO YOU output, is much of it sounds decidedly sketchy and underdeveloped, as if the Stones are simply sticking to what's been tried and tested before, but with increasingly dwindling returns, because the songs and arrangements lack any real depth and focus. With 'Throwaway' Jagger is working with different musicians, who despite working within a more typical Stones rocking genre, actually manage to give the song some fresh impetus. Yes, no doubt with 'Throwaway', Jagger is jumping on a more typically 80s bandwagon of sound, yet i think it is rather blind to see 'Throwaway' as only that. It stands up to repeated listens, whereas much of the later Stones output simply doesn't, because in part, the Stones become too predictable within their sound.

Well stated.