For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
keithsmanQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
keithsmanQuote
GasLightStreet
Please don't promote something that, like a Stones album , in 1986 that should've been released as a 4 track EP, should be deleted from the history of music.
Hehe, yeah that was bellow the belt These sort of things leave scars that won't heal no matter how much time as passed, we forgive but we can't forget
Seriously though, after that video and the TOTP and Countdown promotional live rehearsed performances of Lets Work, i knew then that no matter what Mick does from here on, it will never be quite the same, Keith must have been grinning all the way to the bank.
You bring up a point without saying it directly but perhaps Let's Work can be the pinpointing of when Mick had nothing but yes men around him. Although that does not explain the 1986 disaster, of which there were obviously yes men involved for that tragedy to be allowed to come out.
It's confusing because we get the impression that Mick was doing solo promotion when DW was being completed, he himself says in interviews that he thought the making of DW went on for too long. Its very contradictory depending to who you listen to. At the time everyone said DW was Keith's baby.
So i guess Mick is saying that the making of DW went on for so long that it merged into Micks involvement with his solo album, so Mick can be forgiven in that regard. DW really is an example of what can happen to Keith when he is given too much rope, he kind of hung himself
Lets Work is an example of what happens to Mick when he has full control. I see what you mean by yes men. England Lost is another example, my God if ever there is an examples of be careful of what you wish for.
Quote
matxil
I don't want to repeat myself too often, which is why I am trying not to post on the "yeah, a new album coming up" thread, or posting again what I like about CH or why I prefer they'd all gone 100% solo a long time ago, but I do want to make a comment about the last 2 pages of this thread where "Let's Work" has been used as an argument against Mick Jagger.
I don't think that's fair.
I am not a big fan of Mick Jagger's solo work but I think he was the first to recognize, back then, that music was evolving one way and the Stones were kind of stuck in "Stones by numbers". So he wanted to try different things. "Let's Work" was made very much tongue in cheek and not a fair representation of everything he did solo. I remember my embarassment when it first came on Music Box and MTV (that's how old I am), but, 1) at least he tried something different 2) it's not typical of his general solo output.
Since ER and U, he's been trying to somehow find some middle ground between rock music and "modern musical developments". I don't think he managed yet but at least he tried.
Keith went a different way, staying closer to his roots, but developing it in a direction suitable for his voice. I like it better. Much better. But just as judging the Stones on "Gomper" or Keith's output on "Infamy" wouldn't be fair either, neither is judging Mick on "Let's Work". And to be honest, yesterday I looked at the clip again and yes, it's awful but I could somehow see how it was meant to be funny.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
I don't want to repeat myself too often, which is why I am trying not to post on the "yeah, a new album coming up" thread, or posting again what I like about CH or why I prefer they'd all gone 100% solo a long time ago, but I do want to make a comment about the last 2 pages of this thread where "Let's Work" has been used as an argument against Mick Jagger.
I don't think that's fair.
I am not a big fan of Mick Jagger's solo work but I think he was the first to recognize, back then, that music was evolving one way and the Stones were kind of stuck in "Stones by numbers". So he wanted to try different things. "Let's Work" was made very much tongue in cheek and not a fair representation of everything he did solo. I remember my embarassment when it first came on Music Box and MTV (that's how old I am), but, 1) at least he tried something different 2) it's not typical of his general solo output.
Since ER and U, he's been trying to somehow find some middle ground between rock music and "modern musical developments". I don't think he managed yet but at least he tried.
Keith went a different way, staying closer to his roots, but developing it in a direction suitable for his voice. I like it better. Much better. But just as judging the Stones on "Gomper" or Keith's output on "Infamy" wouldn't be fair either, neither is judging Mick on "Let's Work". And to be honest, yesterday I looked at the clip again and yes, it's awful but I could somehow see how it was meant to be funny.
Good post, and I agree. However, Let's Work can't have been completely tongue in cheek, as it was the leading single off the album. Too much money was invested in this to just having a laugh.
Those «Miami Vice»-rhythm was all the rage at the time, something Mick knew well, of course.
When we dig deeper into the song, though, it isn't really that bad – it's the production that is laughable, imo. That, and the chorus. The verses, and the bridge in particular, is quite good.
But the song svcks. It did back then, and it does today.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
However, Let's Work can't have been completely tongue in cheek, as it was the leading single off the album. Too much money was invested in this to just having a laugh.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
However, Let's Work can't have been completely tongue in cheek, as it was the leading single off the album. Too much money was invested in this to just having a laugh.
Odd things happened back then - it was the bloody 80's at their darkest - so using crazy odd ideas done with tongue-in-cheek resulted as incredible hits back then (look what, say, an old hag like Phil Collins made at the time). The whole pop music wasn't very serious at all. I guess Jagger tried something like that by using his persona and status as a starting point to make something 'fun' (basically, that's nothing new: that's an art Mick had been championing since the early 70's after realizing that he is an old fart as far as the new trends go). The whole song was an odd man out in PRIMITIVE COOL (like, say, "Miss You" was in SOME GIRLS) and using that was as a leading single with that video was a huge risk. And, as we know, it failed big time (and for a good reason). It could be that it was fatal for Jagger's solo career. It would be interesting to know what Mick thinks about it nowadays if he chooses to remember...
I guess these days that long time ago forgotten 80's oddity has only significance for die-hard Keith Richards fanatics like our Keithsman...
- Doxa
Quote
matxil
I don't want to repeat myself too often, which is why I am trying not to post on the "yeah, a new album coming up" thread, or posting again what I like about CH or why I prefer they'd all gone 100% solo a long time ago, but I do want to make a comment about the last 2 pages of this thread where "Let's Work" has been used as an argument against Mick Jagger.
I don't think that's fair.
I am not a big fan of Mick Jagger's solo work but I think he was the first to recognize, back then, that music was evolving one way and the Stones were kind of stuck in "Stones by numbers". So he wanted to try different things. "Let's Work" was made very much tongue in cheek and not a fair representation of everything he did solo. I remember my embarassment when it first came on Music Box and MTV (that's how old I am), but, 1) at least he tried something different 2) it's not typical of his general solo output.
Since ER and U, he's been trying to somehow find some middle ground between rock music and "modern musical developments". I don't think he managed yet but at least he tried.
Keith went a different way, staying closer to his roots, but developing it in a direction suitable for his voice. I like it better. Much better. But just as judging the Stones on "Gomper" or Keith's output on "Infamy" wouldn't be fair either, neither is judging Mick on "Let's Work". And to be honest, yesterday I looked at the clip again and yes, it's awful but I could somehow see how it was meant to be funny.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Hehe, you may be right. Perhaps he was just having a laugh at the industry and the contemporary music scene and tried to thrive off that? He knew he was regarded an old fart, though, as he points that out repeatedly in the dialogue with his child in the title track on Primitive Cool
Maybe he still got that twinkle in his eye, regarding Let's Work - as he chose to add it on his greatest hits compilation?
Quote
keithsmanQuote
matxil
I don't want to repeat myself too often, which is why I am trying not to post on the "yeah, a new album coming up" thread, or posting again what I like about CH or why I prefer they'd all gone 100% solo a long time ago, but I do want to make a comment about the last 2 pages of this thread where "Let's Work" has been used as an argument against Mick Jagger.
I don't think that's fair.
I am not a big fan of Mick Jagger's solo work but I think he was the first to recognize, back then, that music was evolving one way and the Stones were kind of stuck in "Stones by numbers". So he wanted to try different things. "Let's Work" was made very much tongue in cheek and not a fair representation of everything he did solo. I remember my embarassment when it first came on Music Box and MTV (that's how old I am), but, 1) at least he tried something different 2) it's not typical of his general solo output.
Since ER and U, he's been trying to somehow find some middle ground between rock music and "modern musical developments". I don't think he managed yet but at least he tried.
Keith went a different way, staying closer to his roots, but developing it in a direction suitable for his voice. I like it better. Much better. But just as judging the Stones on "Gomper" or Keith's output on "Infamy" wouldn't be fair either, neither is judging Mick on "Let's Work". And to be honest, yesterday I looked at the clip again and yes, it's awful but I could somehow see how it was meant to be funny.
Lets Work symbolizes three of Micks solo albums, ( excluding WS ) it is transparent what Mick was aiming for, get inside the mind of Mick, what was he trying to achieve here and what did he learn from it.
Mick still tries to attract an audience that has no interest him.
He doesn't seem to know his audience but then again he does.
He's not Prince , he's not Bowie, nor can he ever be received by a modern genre the way those artists were in their time. It's too late and he just can't cut it on his own in that way.
He is what he is and he has achieved great success being what he is, i just don't understand why he thinks he needs to fake being something he is not.
If he were any good at trying something else he would have had success by now.
This is not using Lets Work as an excuse to have an argument against Mick, its a fact. I think Mick probably realizes this fact but something over rides it.
He totally realizes what music his fans want him to sing when he does live shows with the Stones, and he totally realized this when he played mostly Stones songs with his solo tour of Japan etc.
I am also tired of repeating myself.
He knows what makes him the 100's of millions that he has made over the years, he is fully aware of what puts bums on seats, so why go for the teeny boppers or whatever you call a young audience, it makes no sense, what is his motive.
So i hear a few of you say, " well it doesn't matter , Mick's not interested in solo success, he's just enjoying himself doing what he want's" OK good point but he's going to get bashed for it if it's disappointing to his fans like me.
I just wish he would get over himself, drop the Peter Pan complex at 75 years of age and be that god like genius that we all know him to be.
Quote
matxilQuote
keithsmanQuote
matxil
I don't want to repeat myself too often, which is why I am trying not to post on the "yeah, a new album coming up" thread, or posting again what I like about CH or why I prefer they'd all gone 100% solo a long time ago, but I do want to make a comment about the last 2 pages of this thread where "Let's Work" has been used as an argument against Mick Jagger.
I don't think that's fair.
I am not a big fan of Mick Jagger's solo work but I think he was the first to recognize, back then, that music was evolving one way and the Stones were kind of stuck in "Stones by numbers". So he wanted to try different things. "Let's Work" was made very much tongue in cheek and not a fair representation of everything he did solo. I remember my embarassment when it first came on Music Box and MTV (that's how old I am), but, 1) at least he tried something different 2) it's not typical of his general solo output.
Since ER and U, he's been trying to somehow find some middle ground between rock music and "modern musical developments". I don't think he managed yet but at least he tried.
Keith went a different way, staying closer to his roots, but developing it in a direction suitable for his voice. I like it better. Much better. But just as judging the Stones on "Gomper" or Keith's output on "Infamy" wouldn't be fair either, neither is judging Mick on "Let's Work". And to be honest, yesterday I looked at the clip again and yes, it's awful but I could somehow see how it was meant to be funny.
Lets Work symbolizes three of Micks solo albums, ( excluding WS ) it is transparent what Mick was aiming for, get inside the mind of Mick, what was he trying to achieve here and what did he learn from it.
Mick still tries to attract an audience that has no interest him.
He doesn't seem to know his audience but then again he does.
He's not Prince , he's not Bowie, nor can he ever be received by a modern genre the way those artists were in their time. It's too late and he just can't cut it on his own in that way.
He is what he is and he has achieved great success being what he is, i just don't understand why he thinks he needs to fake being something he is not.
If he were any good at trying something else he would have had success by now.
This is not using Lets Work as an excuse to have an argument against Mick, its a fact. I think Mick probably realizes this fact but something over rides it.
He totally realizes what music his fans want him to sing when he does live shows with the Stones, and he totally realized this when he played mostly Stones songs with his solo tour of Japan etc.
I am also tired of repeating myself.
He knows what makes him the 100's of millions that he has made over the years, he is fully aware of what puts bums on seats, so why go for the teeny boppers or whatever you call a young audience, it makes no sense, what is his motive.
So i hear a few of you say, " well it doesn't matter , Mick's not interested in solo success, he's just enjoying himself doing what he want's" OK good point but he's going to get bashed for it if it's disappointing to his fans like me.
I just wish he would get over himself, drop the Peter Pan complex at 75 years of age and be that god like genius that we all know him to be.
If he had done what you propose, he would have stuck in 1964 with covering blues artists. Or in 1967 with trying to sound like other british pop bands. Instead, both Mick and Keith always tried to change, to improve and - whether you like it or not - see what was popular at that time. This goes both for Mick *and* Keith. They both looked for influences, first in soul music, then the Beatles, then Velvet Underground, Cream, Hendrix, then later reggae, and then punk and disco. It's that, as also Dandelion pointed out, what gave us a good deal of great songs on Tattoo You for instance. And that was both Mick *and* Keith trying something new.
What has changed is that they started looking in different directions. Which is not so strange after 25 years working together. What is strange is that for 25 years (give or take) they were pretty much on the same page. A certain John and Paul only managed that for 10 years (much less actually).
Quote
Maindefender
I think the cassette was a freebie from Keith's site. I listened to about 30 seconds before ejecting.......lol really bad sound
I'm ready for some more Richards/Jordan material.......
Quote
BitchKeepsBitchin
This thread is highjacked -
Crosseyed Heart is KEEF's best,
that's all I got.
That's the funniest line on the CD and I love the way that KEEF gives a little chuckle there.
Quote
matxil
I don't want to repeat myself too often, which is why I am trying not to post on the "yeah, a new album coming up" thread, or posting again what I like about CH or why I prefer they'd all gone 100% solo a long time ago, but I do want to make a comment about the last 2 pages of this thread where "Let's Work" has been used as an argument against Mick Jagger.
I don't think that's fair.
I am not a big fan of Mick Jagger's solo work but I think he was the first to recognize, back then, that music was evolving one way and the Stones were kind of stuck in "Stones by numbers". So he wanted to try different things. "Let's Work" was made very much tongue in cheek and not a fair representation of everything he did solo. I remember my embarassment when it first came on Music Box and MTV (that's how old I am), but, 1) at least he tried something different 2) it's not typical of his general solo output.
Since ER and U, he's been trying to somehow find some middle ground between rock music and "modern musical developments". I don't think he managed yet but at least he tried.
Keith went a different way, staying closer to his roots, but developing it in a direction suitable for his voice. I like it better. Much better. But just as judging the Stones on "Gomper" or Keith's output on "Infamy" wouldn't be fair either, neither is judging Mick on "Let's Work". And to be honest, yesterday I looked at the clip again and yes, it's awful but I could somehow see how it was meant to be funny.