For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Witness
GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY needs no excuse, but is a distinct expression for Mick Jagger's non-Stones music, whereas MAIN OFFENDER probably springs from Keith Richards' need at its time simply to make some music
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
I seem to remember that Mick, conscious that he had made a brilliant solo album, took care that it should not impair MAIN OFFENDER's possiblities and waited for some time to release WANDERING SPIRIT.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
I seem to remember that Mick, conscious that he had made a brilliant solo album, took care that it should not impair MAIN OFFENDER's possiblities and waited for some time to release WANDERING SPIRIT.
Yep, but he was the first to decide he would take time off from the Stones to record.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
I seem to remember that Mick, conscious that he had made a brilliant solo album, took care that it should not impair MAIN OFFENDER's possiblities and waited for some time to release WANDERING SPIRIT.
Yep, but he was the first to decide he would take time off from the Stones to record.
Is that illegal or morally wrong?
- Doxa
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
I seem to remember that Mick, conscious that he had made a brilliant solo album, took care that it should not impair MAIN OFFENDER's possiblities and waited for some time to release WANDERING SPIRIT.
Yep, but he was the first to decide he would take time off from the Stones to record.
Is that illegal or morally wrong?
- Doxa
Not wrong in that sense, but just misguided in that over the long haul it has detracted from their recording legacy of later years, because Mick's decision came at a point when they were still producing mountains of material on a regular basis.
So as a result of Jagger's decision to use the best of his writing material for himself and create a faux-Stones sound for his solo material--leaving Keith with no other option but to fill the time with solo projects himself--people now look back on the 80s and 90s as lacking for memorable quality Stones music being produced. If Mick and Keith had just pooled their talents over those 10 years, there could have been two more Stones albums in the 80s and two more in the early 90s, in which case people would not be looking now at Tattoo You as their last creative high point.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
I seem to remember that Mick, conscious that he had made a brilliant solo album, took care that it should not impair MAIN OFFENDER's possiblities and waited for some time to release WANDERING SPIRIT.
Yep, but he was the first to decide he would take time off from the Stones to record.
Is that illegal or morally wrong?
- Doxa
Not wrong in that sense, but just misguided in that over the long haul it has detracted from their recording legacy of later years, because Mick's decision came at a point when they were still producing mountains of material on a regular basis.
So as a result of Jagger's decision to use the best of his writing material for himself and create a faux-Stones sound for his solo material--leaving Keith with no other option but to fill the time with solo projects himself--people now look back on the 80s and 90s as lacking for memorable quality Stones music being produced. If Mick and Keith had just pooled their talents over those 10 years, there could have been two more Stones albums in the 80s and two more in the early 90s, in which case people would not be looking now at Tattoo You as their last creative high point.
Quote
kleermaker
They should have stopped after IORR of course, before all the stadium shit happened, the connection with big worldwide companies etc., which ended all artistic freedom and creativity (it was gone anyway).
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
I seem to remember that Mick, conscious that he had made a brilliant solo album, took care that it should not impair MAIN OFFENDER's possiblities and waited for some time to release WANDERING SPIRIT.
Yep, but he was the first to decide he would take time off from the Stones to record.
Is that illegal or morally wrong?
- Doxa
Quote
WitnessQuote
stoneheartedQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowderman
Main Offender came before WS. At the same time as Slide On This, if memory serves...
I seem to remember that Mick, conscious that he had made a brilliant solo album, took care that it should not impair MAIN OFFENDER's possiblities and waited for some time to release WANDERING SPIRIT.
Yep, but he was the first to decide he would take time off from the Stones to record.
Is that illegal or morally wrong?
- Doxa
Not wrong in that sense, but just misguided in that over the long haul it has detracted from their recording legacy of later years, because Mick's decision came at a point when they were still producing mountains of material on a regular basis.
So as a result of Jagger's decision to use the best of his writing material for himself and create a faux-Stones sound for his solo material--leaving Keith with no other option but to fill the time with solo projects himself--people now look back on the 80s and 90s as lacking for memorable quality Stones music being produced. If Mick and Keith had just pooled their talents over those 10 years, there could have been two more Stones albums in the 80s and two more in the early 90s, in which case people would not be looking now at Tattoo You as their last creative high point.
To my belief only Keith's firat album, but it was, as said, aimed at saving the Stones from Mick's temptations outside the Stones, and Mick's third album might mainly be said to have detracted songs from the Stones catalogue. Mick Jagger's other albums were largely different from the Stones, and from Keith's second album only "I Hate It When You Leave" to me had obvious Stones album contential capacity. From SHE'S THE BOSS,though, there was also the superb "Hard Woman". However, apart from the mentionned two albums and the two songs in addtion, I think it is somewhat exaggerated how much the band was made to suffer from solo albums from Mick and Keith. In that respect, it was rather the torn working relations between the two of them that were the critical factor. One main source for this seems to have been dividing opinons as to which kinds of innovation could included in the band's output.( Maybe also the unwillingness of their customers to accept new material had its impact.)
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Witness
.......................................
I can easily see 999, Wicked As It Seems, a touched up Running Too Deep and Demon on Stones albums as well. No to mention Words Of Wonder.
Quote
WitnessQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Witness
.......................................
I can easily see 999, Wicked As It Seems, a touched up Running Too Deep and Demon on Stones albums as well. No to mention Words Of Wonder.
To forget and not include the hardrock song "999", I admit, was a major slip on my part. Apart from that, the demanding criterium was "obvious", and my impression of some other songs is that they are would have needed some elaboration. Therefore are not obvious material for a Stones album. I am not at all so enthusiastic about "Words of Wonder", but will not exclude that some band adaptation could have transformed it into something approaching the interesting. As it was, it was not obvious album material in my judgement. However, "I Hate It When You Leave" is very impressive and a masterpiece in my evaluation.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Horrible musically, really?
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
kleermaker
They should have stopped after IORR of course, before all the stadium shit happened, the connection with big worldwide companies etc., which ended all artistic freedom and creativity (it was gone anyway).
AFTER IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL? I'd possibly say that was their most uninspiring album of the seventies. Maybe after SOME GIRLS and the 78 tour, perhaps, when the Stones had successfully managed to reinvigorate their career in the eyes of the record buying public, and their live performance in the Woodie era was at a pinnacle. However, for me TATTOO YOU was the last Stones album that could honestly be said to contain songs of the calibre to be called classics. The 81/82 tour i agree was quite horrible musically, in retrospect, although the spark of spontaneity within their playing was still very much in evidence. Sometimes i'm inclined to think they would have been better to quit following the release of TATTOO YOU and before the 81 tour - leave the fans wanting more, so to speak, before their performances became merely a spectacle. However, they'd have missed out on so much wonderful cash!
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowderman
Horrible musically, really?
Dandelion, what about 'Let Me Go', 'She's So Cold', 'Lets Spend The Night Together', 'Shattered' etc. I noticed you have picked a couple of those more downbeat and reflective songs, rather than the songs that are more of a true reflection of the 81 tour, where song after song is tossed off much too fast, and in a very offhand way. I still prefer it to the Stones later tours, mind, because there was still a true musical interaction/spontaneity between Keith and Ronnie, and Bill's bass is still pumping quite pleasingly, and Charlie's drums still sound very crisp. However, Jagger sounds for the most part as if he'd really rather be somewhere else, he's really not bothered. There is little real 'soul' to any of those performances (and that refers to the group as a whole for the most part, too). Whatever, however Dandelion, may be the shortcomings within the gruffness and uncommitted style of Jagger's singing, he was still much more capable than he is today, when he set his mind to it, as evidenced on those clips you posted.
However, if you compare any of those 81/82 clips with the LIVE IN TEXAS 78 DVD, that 78 show trumps just about everything 81/82 has to offer, and very much everything ever since. That was the last time, at least as recorded evidence, from what i've heard, that the Stones sound truly on top form.
Quote
WitnessQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
kleermaker
They should have stopped after IORR of course, before all the stadium shit happened, the connection with big worldwide companies etc., which ended all artistic freedom and creativity (it was gone anyway).
AFTER IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL? I'd possibly say that was their most uninspiring album of the seventies. Maybe after SOME GIRLS and the 78 tour, perhaps, when the Stones had successfully managed to reinvigorate their career in the eyes of the record buying public, and their live performance in the Woodie era was at a pinnacle. However, for me TATTOO YOU was the last Stones album that could honestly be said to contain songs of the calibre to be called classics. The 81/82 tour i agree was quite horrible musically, in retrospect, although the spark of spontaneity within their playing was still very much in evidence. Sometimes i'm inclined to think they would have been better to quit following the release of TATTOO YOU and before the 81 tour - leave the fans wanting more, so to speak, before their performances became merely a spectacle. However, they'd have missed out on so much wonderful cash!
In that vein, they could have stopped when they gradually ceased to be an R&B band and started to make rock and pop singles and experimental pop. "Go out on top" with "Little Red Rooster". That would be according to the opinion of somebody in the '60s.
How do you like the suggestion? You would not many of you have had some song(s) or some album(s) that you find indispensable. If you react against it, that will amount to my reaction that they ought to stop at any point in time! I will not miss any issue. (What I would least of all have reacted against, was if TATTOO YOU had been reduced to a maxi single "Waiting on a Friend".]
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't get the "too fast-thing", as songs like JJF and SFM were played in a neck-breaking speed in 1972...
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowderman
I don't get the "too fast-thing", as songs like JJF and SFM were played in a neck-breaking speed in 1972...
Yes, but they had SOUL.
Quote
Edward Twining
Maybe after SOME GIRLS and the 78 tour, perhaps, when the Stones had successfully managed to reinvigorate their career in the eyes of the record buying public, and their live performance in the Woodie era was at a pinnacle.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
DandelionPowderman
I don't get the "too fast-thing", as songs like JJF and SFM were played in a neck-breaking speed in 1972...
Yes, but they had SOUL.
They had flash, not soul. IMO, this has soul, charm, the will to explore on stage, as well as interplay based on equality: