Is it just me, or is Mick Jagger the only current member of SuperHeavy with any perceived relevance. Joss Stone was pretty big in 2004 or something, as was Damian Marley. Dave Stewart was huge in 1984. Why has Mick joined such a weak crowd? I don't dislike any of them, but I can't see it being any kind of commercial success, and I think Mick always sets out for a commercial success. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But Mick never does it just for his muse. World beats? Really? I just can't imagine.

[www.non-filters.com]

mick specializes in these pop-but-not-actually-popular collaborators. I wouldn't expect anything different. He probably tried to get Lenny Kravitz involved.

Quote
nonfilter
I think Mick always sets out for a commercial success. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But Mick never does it just for his muse. World beats? Really? I just can't imagine.

All we can do is just wait and see.
There are a lot of examples of people in this world who find the inspiration towards the
end of their carreer to create something with great artistic value, not caring about the
money anymore. I thing artistic recognition is something Mick wants even more than money.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

I suppose it depends on what you think qualifies as relevance.

And what relevance does Mick have? He's an icon and a legend, so at this point it's a given anything he does will draw at least some level of attention/sales. But I don't think that type of notoriety, in and of itself, really makes him relevant. When was the last time he did anything truly relevant, like an album or tour, that really captured the world's attention (especially the youth's) on a mass level, like he and the Stones use to? I don't think the tours really count as relevant anymore, because they've been profit driven nostalgia since 89.

I don't think he's much more relevant than Joss Stone or anyone else at this point. Famous? Yes. People more interested in whatever he does? Yes.

Relevant? No.

Quote
bustedtrousers
I suppose it depends on what you think qualifies as relevance.

And what relevance does Mick have? He's an icon and a legend, so at this point it's a given anything he does will draw at least some level of attention/sales. But I don't think that type of notoriety, in and of itself, really makes him relevant. When was the last time he did anything truly relevant, like an album or tour, that really captured the world's attention (especially the youth's) on a mass level, like he and the Stones use to? I don't think the tours really count as relevant anymore, because they've been profit driven nostalgia since 89.

I don't think he's much more relevant than Joss Stone or anyone else at this point. Famous? Yes. People more interested in whatever he does? Yes.

Relevant? No.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-06-03 09:52 by guitarbastard.

The trouble is that when folks are rich and influential enough to do any daft thing they want...they invariably do ;^)

I never got this term 'relevant'...relevant to who...my 83 year old mother....or me (a Stones and Mick Jagger fan)...my 15 year old neighbour or his 40 year old mother....the American record buying public....or the vastly superior (in numbers anyway) Chinese record buying public ????? I just don't understand the use of the term in in relation to music....I like the Stones' & Mick's stuff a lot but I wouldn't ever say music is relevant to me ...as the song goes......... I (just) like it..............if Joss Stone, Dave Stewert et al can pull a few songs out of the bag that I decide I like then great....why not......

What is music supposed to be relevant to to give it creedance ?.(In the eyes of people who use this term ?)...Politics ? Religion ? What drugs are best ? Social oppression by the state ? What ? Is it supposed to be relevant to the space program ? Well they put music on the Voyager spaceships which were sent into interstellar space in the '70's (In case they were ever found by an alien race , there were communiques of various types on board including music) so does any future music have to be relevant to the space program also...facetiousness aside I really don't get the reason for the common use of this word in relation to music.............anyone know ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-06-03 12:41 by EddieByword.

Dave Stewart was huge in 1984. Yes, he was. Problem is when people we highly esteem, ain`t popular by others. Dave Stewart has also collaborated with Bryan Ferry, a typical victim to this phenomenon. Yes, we love the best from the 80s, but we/they? aren`t willing to buy albums of people who try once more. There you got it.

Why don't we wait and see what the finished product sounds like...and Joss Stone has a great voice. And yes, I think this is a project that Mick is working on more for fun and to express his creativity more than anything.

I agree with you. What is "relevant" ??? To me relevant is

1) it's got a good beat
2) you can dance to it

Is Muddy Waters or Hank Williams relevant? Should I stop listening to them?

Quote
EddieByword
I never got this term 'relevant'...relevant to who...my 83 year old mother....or me (a Stones and Mick Jagger fan)...my 15 year old neighbour or his 40 year old mother....the American record buying public....or the vastly superior (in numbers anyway) Chinese record buying public ????? I just don't understand the use of the term in in relation to music....I like the Stones' & Mick's stuff a lot but I wouldn't ever say music is relevant to me ...as the song goes......... I (just) like it..............if Joss Stone, Dave Stewert et al can pull a few songs out of the bag that I decide I like then great....why not......

What is music supposed to be relevant to to give it creedance ?.(In the eyes of people who use this term ?)...Politics ? Religion ? What drugs are best ? Social oppression by the state ? What ? Is it supposed to be relevant to the space program ? Well they put music on the Voyager spaceships which were sent into interstellar space in the '70's (In case they were ever found by an alien race , there were communiques of various types on board including music) so does any future music have to be relevant to the space program also...facetiousness aside I really don't get the reason for the common use of this word in relation to music.............anyone know ?

I'll wait and see. I am a bit iffy about Damian Marley if it really brings rap into it. I'd prefer "Hideaway" and "Rain Fall Down" to Biz Markie sampled in "Anybody Seen My Baby" if that's the style we're getting. A. R. Rahman might bring an interesting "Continental Drift" sound to things. Mick and Dave Stewart have written very good songs and very poor songs together so hopefully it's the former. Based on the evidence in the studio and onstage, Mick and Joss Stone work well together so we'll see how it turns out. I'd rather it was a Stones album, but something is better than nothing.

It'll be the biigest flop since Jagger's last solo work

No @#$%& is interested. A new Wino's album on the otherhand ... YES PLEASE

Be fair, apart from ALFIE everything else Mick has done outsold MAIN OFFENDER so you can't really call his solo career a commercial flop. For my money, WANDERING SPIRIT and MAIN OFFENDER were both excellent albums. If we can't have new Stones, I'll settle for new Mick and new Keith.

Right again!!!
bye
jeroen

Quote
EddieByword
I never got this term 'relevant'...relevant to who...my 83 year old mother....or me (a Stones and Mick Jagger fan)...my 15 year old neighbour or his 40 year old mother....the American record buying public....or the vastly superior (in numbers anyway) Chinese record buying public ????? I just don't understand the use of the term in in relation to music....I like the Stones' & Mick's stuff a lot but I wouldn't ever say music is relevant to me ...as the song goes......... I (just) like it..............if Joss Stone, Dave Stewert et al can pull a few songs out of the bag that I decide I like then great....why not......

What is music supposed to be relevant to to give it creedance ?.(In the eyes of people who use this term ?)...Politics ? Religion ? What drugs are best ? Social oppression by the state ? What ? Is it supposed to be relevant to the space program ? Well they put music on the Voyager spaceships which were sent into interstellar space in the '70's (In case they were ever found by an alien race , there were communiques of various types on board including music) so does any future music have to be relevant to the space program also...facetiousness aside I really don't get the reason for the common use of this word in relation to music.............anyone know ?

I guess it means "important" or something, I don't quite know either. Important to probably the teenage audience in USA and Europe. By those terms then I guess the Stones are vastly irrelevant, but so it's most music. The role music plays today is completely minor compared to the 60's or 70's. Or maybe it means what's in the charts.

The only thing I really want from Mick is some blues material, either new or classic. Aligning himself with great blues players would be a big plus, but even if it was just him playing acoustic guitar, that would still be great. And he would go out in a big blaze of glory, showcasing his unique and phenomenal voice.