Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining
Well, it really is a question of personal taste as to whether Mick still retains any element of charisma, certainly when talking in terms of performance.

Well I guess it is, but I think only a cold-hearted Rolling Stones fan can not see the charisma invested in that man. From what I have wittnessed during my life that it is quite universal appeal even if one does not specially like his music. Now and then. I see the words "any element of charisma" quite annoying actually, and I don't think is worthwhile to discuss on the topic any further if one's picture of current Jagger is so low. We don't have much common ground to build up a fruithful conversation. It would be like an atheist and a true believer discussing of God. I don't say this too often, but now I need to say that.

No matter how much I criticize Keith Richards and his doings lately, I would never say he has no charisma. All of those guys have lots of it. I would even say that they play with their charisma; their Vegas shows are build on that. Their skills might disappear but the charisma stays - and thanks for that, a lot is forgiven.

- Doxa

Yes, but we all age, which brings about changes irrespective of personal intentions. Jagger still manages to maintain a degree of charisma personally, as in his off stage personality, and still very much within the way he speaks. However, he's just too heavy handed when it comes to performance, as if he's so desperately keen to prove himself in terms of vitality, that he completely loses sight of his goals in a musical sense. I'm not sure Jagger could ever sing like he did years ago anyway. His singing has become a most unattractive instrument in recent years.

Quote
Title5Take1
I love it. I love Mick in this. I love his suit. If Mick can't be over-the-top, who can? It reminds me of what Mick said in VOGUE MAGAZINE in the 90's: "I agree with Eddie Murphy, that the only reason white people play golf is so they can dress like black people." Mick doesn't need an excuse to dress crazy.

Quote
Doxa
It looks like that Jagger is alright when he doesn't need to be associated with the current Stones. That sounds like a prison for his muse.

- Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa
It looks like that Jagger is alright when he doesn't need to be associated with the current Stones. That sounds like a prison for his muse.

- Doxa

Doxa, it isn't so much Jagger being more suited to outside collaborations, as opposed to being within the group. It is more to do with his personal projection. 'Miracle Worker' for me, is head and shoulders above much of what the Stones have released in recent decades, in terms of it appearing infectious, but Jagger doesn't do it for me anymore. His vocals have become much thinner and overaccentuated to the point of being unbearable, in my opinion. The point The Joker makes in comparing Jagger's vocals on 'Miracle Worker' to 'You're So Vain', is an odd one. Jagger on 'You're So Vain' sings almost lazily behind Carly Simon, but he does so in a completely charming way. However, your estimation with regards to 'Primitive Cool' is one i wholeheartedly agree with. Some of those songs are the closest Jagger comes to appearing autobiographical, and even to a degree, mature, which at the time was actually quite a large step to take. To a degree the production does date the album, and roots it firmly in the eighties, but in a sense it does mark a much more significant step than the retro, more Stones sounding 'Wandering Spirit'. 'Primitive Cool' if anything is Jagger's most experimental album. However, the Stones fans are also rather a conservative bunch, hence the appreciation of 'Wandering Spirit' over much of Jagger's other solo output, and especially 'Primitive Cool'.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa
It looks like that Jagger is alright when he doesn't need to be associated with the current Stones. That sounds like a prison for his muse.

- Doxa

Doxa, it isn't so much Jagger being more suited to outside collaborations, as opposed to being within the group. It is more to do with his personal projection. 'Miracle Worker' for me, is head and shoulders above much of what the Stones have released in recent decades, in terms of it appearing infectious, but Jagger doesn't do it for me anymore. His vocals have become much thinner and overaccentuated to the point of being unbearable, in my opinion. The point The Joker makes in comparing Jagger's vocals on 'Miracle Worker' to 'You're So Vain', is an odd one. Jagger on 'You're So Vain' sings almost lazily behind Carly Simon, but he does so in a completely charming way. However, your estimation with regards to 'Primitive Cool' is one i wholeheartedly agree with. Some of those songs are the closest Jagger comes to appearing autobiographical, and even to a degree, mature, which at the time was actually quite a large step to take. To a degree the production does date the album, and roots it firmly in the eighties, but in a sense it does mark a much more significant step than the retro, more Stones sounding 'Wandering Spirit'. 'Primitive Cool' if anything is Jagger's most experimental album. However, the Stones fans are also rather a conservative bunch, hence the appreciation of 'Wandering Spirit' over much of Jagger's other solo output, and especially 'Primitive Cool'.

It is almost unbelievable how much Jagger has declined as a lyricist since PRIMITIVE COOL. I think you are right in describing it as "mature" - I think with that album Mick continued what he touched in BLACK&BLUE (things like "Memory Motel" and "Fool to Cry", and "Worried Aout You") that showed a kind of reflective maturity. He rejected that in SOME GIRLS and the years following that just to have "fun" (which was great in its own terms). The 'deeper' Jagger returned in PRIMITIVE COOL (unfortunately to disappear soon).
Anyway, if one compares not just PRIMITIVE COOL but WANDERING SPIRIT to VOODOO LOUNGE just from the lyrical point of view, the contrast is horrible. It sounds like Mick decided when going to a Stones session that "okay, let us leave the brains out". Then we got lyrical 'gems' like "Love is Strong", "You Got me Rocking", "I Go Wild", "Sparks Will Fly"... it sounds like he didn't even care how stupid the lyrics might be. "Throwaway" or "Mother of Man" sounds like Shakespeare compared to them. This is one of those reasons I have claimed here at IORR that The Stones during the 90's started to underestimate the taste and intelligence of their audience. They simply didn't care any longer of the quality of their product. It was like "hey, let's just play something that somehow sounds like The Stones, and it will do okay". To me it started in VOODOO LOUNGE.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

It is almost unbelievable how much Jagger has declined as a lyricist since PRIMITIVE COOL. I think you are right in describing it as "mature" - I think with that album Mick continued what he touched in BLACK&BLUE (things like "Memory Motel" and "Fool to Cry", and "Worried Aout You") that showed a kind of reflective maturity. He rejected that in SOME GIRLS and the years following that just to have "fun" (which was great in its own terms). The 'deeper' Jagger returned in PRIMITIVE COOL (unfortunately to disappear soon).

- Doxa

Quote
sarahunwin
I bet that L'Wren chose and designed the pink suit!

Quote
Big Al
I hate to admit it, but for me, Jagger is the weak link, here.

Quote
bart-man




I like it

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa

It is almost unbelievable how much Jagger has declined as a lyricist since PRIMITIVE COOL. I think you are right in describing it as "mature" - I think with that album Mick continued what he touched in BLACK&BLUE (things like "Memory Motel" and "Fool to Cry", and "Worried Aout You") that showed a kind of reflective maturity. He rejected that in SOME GIRLS and the years following that just to have "fun" (which was great in its own terms). The 'deeper' Jagger returned in PRIMITIVE COOL (unfortunately to disappear soon).

- Doxa

The Stones, and of course including Jagger, did have an incredibly effective way lyrically of expressing the familiar musical themes of love, sex, and occasional social/political issues which pretty much went against the grain of the cliched lyrical style which would have been so easy for them to have slipped into. 'Satisfaction', 'Paint It Black', through 'Brown Sugar' and 'Tumbling Dice' etc. were all very individidual within their observations, or/and themes, which enabled the Stones (alongside many of their contempories) to write songs which were unique within them existing on their own terms, even on the occasions when sex was the underlying theme. They put their unique spin on those songs, and resisted formulating the lyrics in too straightforward a manner. However, i think the 'Primitive Cool' album was one of the rare times that Jagger actually attempted to lift the veil, so to speak, if just a little, on his true self, or at the very least where he tried to inject something a little more profound, and perhaps autobiographical to proceedings. Lennon, Dylan, and Townshend, have recorded works which are pretty much directly identifiable to themselves as people in a more personal sense, and 'Primitive Cool' is pretty much (in part) where Jagger attempts to do the same. It is an unusual album in many ways, as it does tend to find Jagger attempting to emulate contemporary fashion, in a way that perhaps can be deemed a touch inauthentic, and yet lyrically, as a whole the album manages to achieve something which is extremely rare for Jagger - a degree of sincerity, existing aside from the more typical sex, and lust stereotypical themes. Jagger sounds really convincing on this album, and you almost feel at times he is actually in touching distance. Pretty much after 'Primitive Cool' the more stereotypical themes would return, but this time in a much less imaginative, and ultimately more one dimensional way than those of a similar theme from earlier in the Stones career. Vocally on 'Primitive Cool' Jagger is fairly strong too. After listening to his more recent offerings, vocally, Jagger voice sounds so much thicker and more vital, even if again at times his voice may have lacked his younger self's element of sensitivity.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa

It is almost unbelievable how much Jagger has declined as a lyricist since PRIMITIVE COOL. I think you are right in describing it as "mature" - I think with that album Mick continued what he touched in BLACK&BLUE (things like "Memory Motel" and "Fool to Cry", and "Worried Aout You") that showed a kind of reflective maturity. He rejected that in SOME GIRLS and the years following that just to have "fun" (which was great in its own terms). The 'deeper' Jagger returned in PRIMITIVE COOL (unfortunately to disappear soon).

- Doxa

The Stones, and of course including Jagger, did have an incredibly effective way lyrically of expressing the familiar musical themes of love, sex, and occasional social/political issues which pretty much went against the grain of the cliched lyrical style which would have been so easy for them to have slipped into. 'Satisfaction', 'Paint It Black', through 'Brown Sugar' and 'Tumbling Dice' etc. were all very individidual within their observations, or/and themes, which enabled the Stones (alongside many of their contempories) to write songs which were unique within them existing on their own terms, even on the occasions when sex was the underlying theme. They put their unique spin on those songs, and resisted formulating the lyrics in too straightforward a manner. However, i think the 'Primitive Cool' album was one of the rare times that Jagger actually attempted to lift the veil, so to speak, if just a little, on his true self, or at the very least where he tried to inject something a little more profound, and perhaps autobiographical to proceedings. Lennon, Dylan, and Townshend, have recorded works which are pretty much directly identifiable to themselves as people in a more personal sense, and 'Primitive Cool' is pretty much (in part) where Jagger attempts to do the same. It is an unusual album in many ways, as it does tend to find Jagger attempting to emulate contemporary fashion, in a way that perhaps can be deemed a touch inauthentic, and yet lyrically, as a whole the album manages to achieve something which is extremely rare for Jagger - a degree of sincerity, existing aside from the more typical sex, and lust stereotypical themes. Jagger sounds really convincing on this album, and you almost feel at times he is actually in touching distance. Pretty much after 'Primitive Cool' the more stereotypical themes would return, but this time in a much less imaginative, and ultimately more one dimensional way than those of a similar theme from earlier in the Stones career. Vocally on 'Primitive Cool' Jagger is fairly strong too. After listening to his more recent offerings, vocally, Jagger voice sounds so much thicker and more vital, even if again at times his voice may have lacked his younger self's element of sensitivity.

Very, very well put. I sometimes wonder that if we take Jagger's cleverness, especially in lyrics section, but it is also seen in his delivery, and way to work with the melody lines, etc. how much poorer the legendary Stones stuff might have been. Just to think of how reflective and lyrically capturing some songs like "Sympathy For The Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", etc. are, and I take them to be mostly Jagger's contributions. It is not just the great riff and a great sound of the unique band; there is something unique in that Jagger guy to lift the song to greatness. His unique touch, not to forget his intelligence. For that reason I have always been a bit surprised how much Jagger's solo stuff is critizied or even hated so much by the 'ordinary' Stones fans. I can hear and see there the same guy who once contributed to the greatest rock music ever done - as much contributing to that as Keith Richards once did, really - because I still see there a distinctive factor what makes the Stones so great. It is the same artist there but using to some extent different means and context. If one doesn't approciate that, it makes me wonder how one can actually appreciate the Stones in their prime (since Jagger's contribution is such a crucial thing of the whole deal). I guess I like more Jagger's personal and idiosyncratic touch than any certain style or kind of music ("rock", "blues", etc.). So for me a Jagger's solo career or SuperHeavy is just all the same. I just like the guy's touch. Like in the past, he really distinguishes The Stones for not to be an ordinary rock and roll band. The always elastic Jagger's very difficult to determine in traditional rock terms. By contrast, Keith is, because he represents the bloody criteria what rock is all about.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
]

I sometimes wonder that if we take Jagger's cleverness, especially in lyrics section, but it is also seen in his delivery, and way to work with the melody lines, etc. how much poorer the legendary Stones stuff might have been. Just to think of how reflective and lyrically capturing some songs like "Sympathy For The Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", etc. are, and I take them to be mostly Jagger's contributions. It is not just the great riff and a great sound of the unique band; there is something unique in that Jagger guy to lift the song to greatness. His unique touch, not to forget his intelligence. For that reason I have always been a bit surprised how much Jagger's solo stuff is critizied or even hated so much by the 'ordinary' Stones fans. I can hear and see there the same guy who once contributed to the greatest rock music ever done - as much contributing to that as Keith Richards once did, really - because I still see there a distinctive factor what makes the Stones so great. It is the same artist there but using to some extent different means and context. If one doesn't approciate that, it makes me wonder how one can actually appreciate the Stones in their prime (since Jagger's contribution is such a crucial thing of the whole deal). I guess I like more Jagger's personal and idiosyncratic touch than any certain style or kind of music ("rock", "blues", etc.). So for me a Jagger's solo career or SuperHeavy is just all the same. I just like the guy's touch. Like in the past, he really distinguishes The Stones for not to be an ordinary rock and roll band. The always elastic Jagger's very difficult to determine in traditional rock terms. By contrast, Keith is, because he represents the bloody criteria what rock is all about.

- Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa
]

I sometimes wonder that if we take Jagger's cleverness, especially in lyrics section, but it is also seen in his delivery, and way to work with the melody lines, etc. how much poorer the legendary Stones stuff might have been. Just to think of how reflective and lyrically capturing some songs like "Sympathy For The Devil", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", etc. are, and I take them to be mostly Jagger's contributions. It is not just the great riff and a great sound of the unique band; there is something unique in that Jagger guy to lift the song to greatness. His unique touch, not to forget his intelligence. For that reason I have always been a bit surprised how much Jagger's solo stuff is critizied or even hated so much by the 'ordinary' Stones fans. I can hear and see there the same guy who once contributed to the greatest rock music ever done - as much contributing to that as Keith Richards once did, really - because I still see there a distinctive factor what makes the Stones so great. It is the same artist there but using to some extent different means and context. If one doesn't approciate that, it makes me wonder how one can actually appreciate the Stones in their prime (since Jagger's contribution is such a crucial thing of the whole deal). I guess I like more Jagger's personal and idiosyncratic touch than any certain style or kind of music ("rock", "blues", etc.). So for me a Jagger's solo career or SuperHeavy is just all the same. I just like the guy's touch. Like in the past, he really distinguishes The Stones for not to be an ordinary rock and roll band. The always elastic Jagger's very difficult to determine in traditional rock terms. By contrast, Keith is, because he represents the bloody criteria what rock is all about.

- Doxa

Doxa, i think though that Jagger's solo career began in earnest long after the Stones had actually peaked, and just as his own efforts were not especially celebrated by the fans, it's also true that neither were the Stones releases from that same period. I am also a little unsure, and to a point, question as to whether the greatness of an artist, and especially Jagger and the Stones, actually ever remains a constant throughout their career. The idea of a perennial level of high quality, for me, exists with very few artists. Musicians get bored, lose inspiration, and they age, which can affect their writing and playing abilities etc. I believe lack of inspiration became a major factor with the Stones musical output too, when it started to decline around the mid seventies. Admittedly, Jagger initially did seem to make a determined effort with his solo career, to embrace a contemporary sound, and to deliver songs that perhaps on paper were of a higher calibre than that of the Stones at the time, but i think hindsight tends to show that he was not altogether successful. Maybe Jagger tried too hard to appear contemporary, appearing to belong to the moment, so to speak, which has resulted in his eighties releases now seeming especially dated, perhaps more dated than at any other period in his career. Also, Doxa, you make a point about the lyrical effectiveness of tracks like 'Sympathy For The Devil' and 'You Can't Always Get What You Want', and also relate to Jagger's delivery. I believe because of Jagger's immensely powerful visual image within the way he performs, other aspects relating to Jagger's considerable talent, are overlooked, such is the greatness of Jagger's visual presence (raw and raunchy and all). Those sixties and seventies songs were sung by Jagger with incredible sensitivity, when the songs called for it, 'You Can't Always Get What You Want', being a prime example, but you won't find that same level of complimentary interpretations within Jagger's more heavy handed readings of the songs from 'She's The Boss' and 'Primitive Cool'- sometime just post 'Tattoo You' that instinctive ability appears to have escaped him. Jagger by the mid eighties still had an incredibly impressive 'rock' voice, but all the little intricacies and subtelties had began to escape him, so for me he wasn't quite the same Jagger, as in earlier times. As a singer he just wasn't so well rounded. That's not to say he wasn't impressive within a more rock format, but the more mannered vocal styling was already beginning to destroy some of the more sensitively required vocal readings. Up to and including 'Tattoo You' it is pretty hard to find an uncomplimentary Jagger vocal reading, however.

Quote
treaclefingers
I wonder though if the vocal decline may have had more to do with the natural decline of his voice, with aging, than with losing an 'instinctive ability'. Whenever it was, mid-80s I think, when he took vocal lessons, I think the mannered style of singing that we hear today, took over as a way to compensate for the loss of natural ability due to aging.
His aggressive vocal style would be something that would probably wreak havoc with his vocal chords, particularly as he's aged. As well, his voice would have naturally gotten deeper with age, meaning in order to hit key 'high notes' in concert, would have meant an alternate delivery.

I'm just thinking that something had to give, and right or wrong, the direction he's chosen with his vocals was a calculated compromise on his part...a decision I would give him credit for in proactively making.