Doxa, your discussion of the post-Some Girls work glosses over one very important song in particular: "Start Me Up". I've always assumed this is predominantly a Keith song, but do we know who wrote it, and equally importantly, turned it from a reggae to a rocker?

I think this is relevant to the discussion because the song was such a huge hit (certainly much bigger than Emotional Rescue or Undercover) and has had such staying power, if it did come from Keith, or Mick/Keith collaboration, it certainly would give cause for Mick to consider that the partnership still had some value.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 10:29 by Turner68.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You are implying that Mick was tired of increasingly uninspired half baked riffs from Keith, and you say that Keith stopped evolving by Exile.

I can't interpret it differently than you meaning the material from the mid-70s was poorer because of what Keith brought to the table. I disagree here, obviously, as I love that material.

The second paragraph: How do you know it wasn't poorer in 1971 already, as they had to draw rather heavily on songs from 1968-1970 for SF and Exile?

Well, I do have the extraordinary opinion that albums like GOATS HEAD SOUP, IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, BLACK AND BLUE, EMOTIONAL RSECUE, UNDERCOVER, even SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU are not exactly equal in quality compared to BEGAARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE ON MAIN STREET. So that radical claim offends someone? Or the obervation that that something might had happened with Keith's creativity after the Big Four?

I didn't claim anything about 1971. Besides, it doesn't matter how old the stuff is if we are interested in Jagger's contribution. He sounds damn inspired in EXILE, and as far as I understand most of the stuff - in which Mick's contribution is crucial - was finished in 1971. bUt still I don't understand why this little detail has any relvance for teh points in my post?

Thanks for finally saying that this was just your opinion, because there are many fans who find the songwriting inpired for the SG, ER and TY sessions (the latter is mostly ER sessions, of course).

You didn't claim anything about 1971? When do you think Exile was recorded? That's exactly the year you said Keith stopped listening to new music and evolving.

You are putting words into my mouth...

But I really don't know what to think of that "there are many fans who think otherwise" point. You always seem to remind me of that. Of course there are, and of course I am only telling my point of view into things. People can agree or disagree.

But I need to clear up a few things. I don't claim anything categorical, but like almost always, I just try to catch some tendencies. I don't claim either that those Pathe Marconi sessions weren't "inspirational". Like I mentioned above, Jagger was extremely inspired especially during SOME GIRLS sessions, but that wasn't particularly due to Richards, or what he brought on the table (except, say, "Beast of Burden"). Or to put it other way, Richards wasn't that fond of Mick's desire to do a dance number or play those punk-inspired way too fast rockers. Jagger surely sounded inspirational in TATTOO YOU as well, but as we know, that album was exceptional in many ways, and he almost single-handidly finished it by himself. EMOTIONAL RESCUE seemingly was a pain of ass for him, as was UNDERCOVER as well. Because him and Keith seemed to fight about every detail about the album, both having a different vision about the direction of the band (Bill Wyman documents this well). It is telling that the strongest or at least most memorable songs Mick wrote for those two albums, both being first singles and hits - "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover of The Night" - Keith had nothing to do with them (and Keith hasn't hesitated telling his opinion of them).

But let me remind, once again, I am not here judging the whole Stones output and its quality; I just try reconstruct Jagger's perspective on the things, concentrated on his and Keith's colloboration. I know you are a huge fan of those Pathe Marconi sessions, and I wholeheartidly agree that those were very productive sessions with some high-caliber material. And there were all that 'ancient art of weaving' and so on. But that doesn't mean that Mick was particularly happy how the things were evolving. For example, you might be the world biggest 'weaving' fan, but I am not that sure that Jagger is - or that exactly was very inspirational for him.

But the output was still rather strong, because especially during SOME GIRLS sessions Mick seemed to be in the height of his own creative powers. He really was pushing forwards with a self-esteem which would also give a birth to his solo career. Even Keith commented in LIFE, of course with his belittlening way, "Jagger had finally learned to write rock numbers" (or something to the effect). He really had strong personal visions of the musical direction of the band, but even tough it still worked nicely with Keith in SOME GIRLS, it was clear that Keith, after sobering up, wasn't sharing those visions as the years go by. In my opinion, that tension was one very big reason for Jagger to go solo. So to understand the "WW3", I think we should take a closer look at what happened during those Pathe Marconi sessions, of how the things evolved. We also know that Jagger has refused to work with that Pathe Marconi method with the Stones again. The closest might the ones for VOODOO LOUNGE, but seemingly Mick lost the interest during the process.

- Doxa

You're jumping elegantly over my main beef with your theories. Mick and Keith (because they have to be together in some way for making a consistent great output, imo) must have experienced this clash earlier on - way earlier than you describe here. BB and LIB were the only albums in the "golden period" where most songs were from their respective sessions (Yeah, I know YCAGWYW was from 1968), while SF and Exile relied heavily on earlier greatness.

Because it is still the inspiration you are theorizing about, right, not merely the outcome?

Well, then something must have happened between the glimmers between 1968 and 1969, and of course we know what that was...

When Keith was on his way out of the heaviest drug haze he certainly didn't lack inspiration (lots of books AND Keith tell us that). I haven't read anything about quarreling and collaboration problems from the 1977 Pathé Marconi sessions. The problems started on the 1979 sessions. Despite those problems, these sessions provided material for ER, a good part of TY, the Undercover singles and a good part of the SG bonus album (add the RCA sessions in between the two Marconi sessions as well).

Like I said in my first post, I think you have good points, but there is a lot of thinking after writing as well. I'm just merely bringing those points to the table here (and that's of course way easier to do after reading your post )

Mick's quote from an interview after the 1977 sessions says a lot, imo:
«Keith has written his first whole song since Happy, and it's great!»

Quote
Naturalust

Some good points on either side of the discussion here. I tend to just think that it possibly a combination of them being more confident about and attached to their own ideas as mature and somewhat egotistical songwriters, combined with a lack of trust of each other to actually improve on them. I could further speculate about the equality of power they had when there were people like Brian and Taylor in the band that kind of kept them on an equal footing against all comers in the power struggle game, something sort of lost with Ronnie in the band as a quite obvious "junior" partner. This may have resulted in the power struggle being directly shifted to Keith vs Mick, especially after Keith cleaned up from heroin addiction. It's just an idea I'm throwing out there, not trying to insinuate this is actually the case. So many factors involved with creative collaborations it's hard to make accurate assumptions about what really happened. And it's doubtful we will ever hear Keith and Mick talk about it because that involves admitting something is wrong and they are more likely to blame factors other that themselves for their results

I think you catch something essential there. When there really was some potentially strong 'third man' there, that kept them more together. When the band finally was totally in the hands of them, the tension started to be between them. If I recall right, in Philip Norman's first Stones book, there was a quote by Anita Pallenberg saying something to the effect that some day Mick and Keith really need to confont each other. That was prior the WW3...

But about what you said of them maturing up as song-writers and habing egos and all that... I use that an excuse to discuss more about that theme.

1. To understand the bond between them I think we need to look at what their colloboration started with. I think there are two crucial features:

(a) Keith wrote most of the music, and Mick most of the lyrics ("most" = Keith coming up with some key phrases, Jagger finishing the melodies)

(b) They had a very similar taste; they listened the same music, and like Keith mentioned in LIFE, they had almost an equal opinion about what is good and what is bad.

These features seemed to keep them together, covering years from 1963 to 1966; about every Jagger/Richard tune from those days was really a colloboration of those two, no matter what the business deal of credition was (occasionally some other might have deserved something, but that was marginal, and not important here). With that bond together it was easy to get and keep the leadership in the band.

2. The things started to change in 1966/67 when writing material for BETWEEN THE BUTTONS they strated writing independently. Jagger would starting composing the music and Keith finishing the lyrics all by himself. There would be pieces like "Yesterday's Papers", which was totally done by Mick, and "Ruby Tuesday" by Keith. Even though from now on, most of the Jagger/Richard(s) pieces would be finished by the help of theother,it was clear that from then on there would be "Mick songs" and "Keith songs": either of them brought the song on the table, inwheras eralier they had done that literally together.

But even though teh guys were now more independent creativewise, they would still think more or less alike of the music; they would listen same stuff, being influenced by the same stuff. Keith might have had some second-thoughts about the psychedelia afterwards, but he seemingly was as much into it as Mick was at the time when making SATANIC MAJESTIES. And a few years later, Keith seemingly didn't mind at all that "Mick songs" dominated STICKY FINGERS album ("Brown Sugar", "Sway", "Bitch", "Sister Morphine", "Dead Flowers", "Moonlight Mile"...), and loved adding his pieces there, and as far as I know he had ever had any reason to bash that material. Also even decades afterward, Jagger has no problem saying that his favourite Stones ballad is "Ruby Tuesday".

3. But, as we know, something happened during the 70's. Mick and Keith, not probably in overnight but little by little, started to develop a different taste for music. I think one can not point out a certain timing for that. My picture is that EXILE ON MAIN STREET was the last album they still were thinking alike of the music. And that by EMOTIONAL RESCUE it was clear that they were miles apart from each other; roughly: Mick a pure trend follower, trying to get rid of the past, and Keith a rootsie rock man, seeing about nothing interesting happening in the music world since the early 70's reggae. It could be that the tension occurred big time already during SOME GIRLS but probably Keith just couldn't 'stand up for his rights' yet.

If we now think that both of them were able to write coherent songs without the help of the other, both huge rock stars with strong vision and not any lack of ego, and not anymore thinking the same of what is good or bad music, that was a disaster situation for a real, fruiful,inspiring colloboration.

4. But of course, there are other factors as well to understand the artistic downhill of Jagger/Richards teamwork, Keith's dopeville years and its effect on creativity not being the smallest. If I now again consider those wasted years from Jagger's perspective, I think that was a painful period for him. Jagger was so used to work with Keith, and I am sure he genuily trusted him, and respected his output and judgement. One might even say that Mick and the functionality of teh band were dependent artisticially of Keith. Mick wasn't that confident yet by his own, and the output of the Stones seemingly suffered of this (Keith's bad condition). This covers probably that mid seventies 'low' period from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE (and like I hinted above, hiring "poor man's Keef" Ronnie might also something to in covering the lack of Keith's output). My guess is that as the result of those wasted years, Jagger finally lost his trust on Keith's ability and judgment, and that has never recovered. "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS was a personal triumph for Jagger and I think their success made him rather sure that he can handle everything by his own from now on. But then Keith 'woke up', but it was too late...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 12:43 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You are implying that Mick was tired of increasingly uninspired half baked riffs from Keith, and you say that Keith stopped evolving by Exile.

I can't interpret it differently than you meaning the material from the mid-70s was poorer because of what Keith brought to the table. I disagree here, obviously, as I love that material.

The second paragraph: How do you know it wasn't poorer in 1971 already, as they had to draw rather heavily on songs from 1968-1970 for SF and Exile?

Well, I do have the extraordinary opinion that albums like GOATS HEAD SOUP, IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, BLACK AND BLUE, EMOTIONAL RSECUE, UNDERCOVER, even SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU are not exactly equal in quality compared to BEGAARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE ON MAIN STREET. So that radical claim offends someone? Or the obervation that that something might had happened with Keith's creativity after the Big Four?

I didn't claim anything about 1971. Besides, it doesn't matter how old the stuff is if we are interested in Jagger's contribution. He sounds damn inspired in EXILE, and as far as I understand most of the stuff - in which Mick's contribution is crucial - was finished in 1971. bUt still I don't understand why this little detail has any relvance for teh points in my post?

Thanks for finally saying that this was just your opinion, because there are many fans who find the songwriting inpired for the SG, ER and TY sessions (the latter is mostly ER sessions, of course).

You didn't claim anything about 1971? When do you think Exile was recorded? That's exactly the year you said Keith stopped listening to new music and evolving.

You are putting words into my mouth...

But I really don't know what to think of that "there are many fans who think otherwise" point. You always seem to remind me of that. Of course there are, and of course I am only telling my point of view into things. People can agree or disagree.

But I need to clear up a few things. I don't claim anything categorical, but like almost always, I just try to catch some tendencies. I don't claim either that those Pathe Marconi sessions weren't "inspirational". Like I mentioned above, Jagger was extremely inspired especially during SOME GIRLS sessions, but that wasn't particularly due to Richards, or what he brought on the table (except, say, "Beast of Burden"). Or to put it other way, Richards wasn't that fond of Mick's desire to do a dance number or play those punk-inspired way too fast rockers. Jagger surely sounded inspirational in TATTOO YOU as well, but as we know, that album was exceptional in many ways, and he almost single-handidly finished it by himself. EMOTIONAL RESCUE seemingly was a pain of ass for him, as was UNDERCOVER as well. Because him and Keith seemed to fight about every detail about the album, both having a different vision about the direction of the band (Bill Wyman documents this well). It is telling that the strongest or at least most memorable songs Mick wrote for those two albums, both being first singles and hits - "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover of The Night" - Keith had nothing to do with them (and Keith hasn't hesitated telling his opinion of them).

But let me remind, once again, I am not here judging the whole Stones output and its quality; I just try reconstruct Jagger's perspective on the things, concentrated on his and Keith's colloboration. I know you are a huge fan of those Pathe Marconi sessions, and I wholeheartidly agree that those were very productive sessions with some high-caliber material. And there were all that 'ancient art of weaving' and so on. But that doesn't mean that Mick was particularly happy how the things were evolving. For example, you might be the world biggest 'weaving' fan, but I am not that sure that Jagger is - or that exactly was very inspirational for him.

But the output was still rather strong, because especially during SOME GIRLS sessions Mick seemed to be in the height of his own creative powers. He really was pushing forwards with a self-esteem which would also give a birth to his solo career. Even Keith commented in LIFE, of course with his belittlening way, "Jagger had finally learned to write rock numbers" (or something to the effect). He really had strong personal visions of the musical direction of the band, but even tough it still worked nicely with Keith in SOME GIRLS, it was clear that Keith, after sobering up, wasn't sharing those visions as the years go by. In my opinion, that tension was one very big reason for Jagger to go solo. So to understand the "WW3", I think we should take a closer look at what happened during those Pathe Marconi sessions, of how the things evolved. We also know that Jagger has refused to work with that Pathe Marconi method with the Stones again. The closest might the ones for VOODOO LOUNGE, but seemingly Mick lost the interest during the process.

- Doxa

You're jumping elegantly over my main beef with your theories. Mick and Keith (because they have to be together in some way for making a consistent great output, imo) must have experienced this clash earlier on - way earlier than you describe here. BB and LIB were the only albums in the "golden period" where most songs were from their respective sessions (Yeah, I know YCAGWYW was from 1968), while SF and Exile relied heavily on earlier greatness.

Because it is still the inspiration you are theorizing about, right, not merely the outcome?

Well, then something must have happened between the glimmers between 1968 and 1969, and of course we know what that was...

When Keith was on his way out of the heaviest drug haze he certainly didn't lack inspiration (lots of books AND Keith tell us that). I haven't read anything about quarreling and collaboration problems from the 1977 Pathé Marconi sessions. The problems started on the 1979 sessions. Despite those problems, these sessions provided material for ER, a good part of TY, the Undercover singles and a good part of the SG bonus album (add the RCA sessions in between the two Marconi sessions as well).

Like I said in my first post, I think you have good points, but there is a lot of thinking after writing as well. I'm just merely bringing those points to the table here (and that's of course way easier to do after reading your post )

Mick's quote from an interview after the 1977 sessions says a lot, imo:
«Keith has written his first whole song since Happy, and it's great!»

Good supplementary points, Powderman.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Naturalust

Some good points on either side of the discussion here. I tend to just think that it possibly a combination of them being more confident about and attached to their own ideas as mature and somewhat egotistical songwriters, combined with a lack of trust of each other to actually improve on them. I could further speculate about the equality of power they had when there were people like Brian and Taylor in the band that kind of kept them on an equal footing against all comers in the power struggle game, something sort of lost with Ronnie in the band as a quite obvious "junior" partner. This may have resulted in the power struggle being directly shifted to Keith vs Mick, especially after Keith cleaned up from heroin addiction. It's just an idea I'm throwing out there, not trying to insinuate this is actually the case. So many factors involved with creative collaborations it's hard to make accurate assumptions about what really happened. And it's doubtful we will ever hear Keith and Mick talk about it because that involves admitting something is wrong and they are more likely to blame factors other that themselves for their results

I think you catch something essential there. When there really was some potentially strong 'third man' there, that kept them more together. When the band finally was totally in the hands of them, the tension started to be between them. If I recall right, in Philip Norman's first Stones book, there was a quote by Anita Pallenberg saying something to the effect that some day Mick and Keith really need to confont each other. That was prior the WW3...

But about what you said of them maturing up as song-writers and habing egos and all that... I use that an excuse to discuss more about that theme.

To understand the bond between them I think we need to look at what their colloboration started with. I think there are two crucial features:

(a) Keith wrote most of the music, and Mick most of the lyrics ("most" = Keith coming up with some key phrases, Jagger finishing the melodies)

(b) They had a very similar taste; they listened the same music, and like Keith mentioned in LIFE, they had almost an equal opinion about what is good and what is bad.

These features seemed to keep them together, covering years from 1963 to 1966; about every Jagger/Richard tune from those days was really a colloboration of those two, no matter what the business deal of credition was (occasionally some other might have deserved something, but that was marginal, and not important here). With that bond together it was easy to get and keep the leadership in the band.

The things started to change in 1966/67 when writing material for BETWEEN THE BUTTONS they strated writing independently. Jagger would starting composing the music and Keith finishing the lyrics all by himself. There would be pieces like "Yesterday's Papers", which was totally done by Mick, and "Ruby Tuesday" by Keith. Even though from now on, most of the Jagger/Richard(s) pieces would be finished by the help of theother,it was clear that from then on there would be "Mick songs" and "Keith songs": either of them brought the song on the table, inwheras eralier they had done that literally together.

But even though teh guys were now more independent creativewise, they would still think more or less alike of the music; they would listen same stuff, being influenced by the same stuff. Keith might have had some second-thoughts about the psychedelia afterwards, but he seemingly was as much into it as Mick was at the time when making SATANIC MAJESTIES. And a few years later, Keith seemingly didn't mind at all that "Mick songs" dominated STICKY FINGERS album ("Brown Sugar", "Sway", "Bitch", "Sister Morphine", "Dead Flowers", "Moonlight Mile"...), and loved adding his pieces there, and as far as I know he had ever had any reason to bash that material. Also even decades afterward, Jagger has no problem saying that his favourite Stones ballad is "Ruby Tuesday".

But, as we know, something happened during the 70's. Mick and Keith, not probably in overnight but little by little, started to develop a different taste for music. I think one can not point out a certain timing for that. My picture is that EXILE ON MAIN STREET was the last album they still were thinking alike of the music. And that by EMOTIONAL RESCUE it was clear that they were miles apart from each other; roughly: Mick a pure trend follower, trying to get rid of the past, and Keith a rootsie rock man, seeing about nothing interesting happening in the music world since the early 70's reggae. It could be that the tension occurred big time already during SOME GIRLS but probably Keith just couldn't 'stand up for his rights' yet.

If we now think that both of them were able to write coherent songs without the help of the other, both huge rock stars with strong vision and not any lack of ego, and not anymore thinking the same of what is good or bad music, that was a disaster situation for a real, fruiful,inspiring colloboration.

But of course, there are other factors as well to understand the artistic downhill of Jagger/Richards teamwork, Keith's dopeville years and its effect on creativity not being the smallest. If I now again consider those wasted years from Jagger's perspective, I think that was a painful period for him. Jagger was so used to work with Keith, and I am sure he genuily trusted him, and respected his output and judgement. One might even say that Mick and the functionality of teh band were dependent artisticially of Keith. Mick wasn't that confident yet by his own, and the output of the Stones seemingly suffered of this (Keith's bad condition). This covers probably that mid seventies 'low' period from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE (and like I hinted above, hiring "poor man's Keef" Ronnie might also something to in covering the lack of Keith's output). My guess is that as the result of those wasted years, Jagger finally lost his trust on Keith's ability and judgment, and that has never recovered. "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS was a personal triumph for Jagger and I think their success made him rather sure that he can handle everything by his own from now on. But then Keith 'woke up', but it was too late...

- Doxa

They were inspired by the same music - often - but they also learned how to "plunder" Motown hits and blues in the 60s, reggae, dance hall, funk etc in the 70s. Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s. He still listens to reggae. Maybe he got stuck in country. Had they continued to listen to new music or old but new genres to them - both of them - they might have been able to also produce together.

<Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s.>

You surely mean after the 70s? Because you are confirming my points in your post: Keith brought funk and reggae (and rockabilly, like Teddy mentioned) to the table in the 70s.

Yes, I think what happened on the music scene in the 80s sort of killed Keith's up till then interest in new music.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Naturalust

Some good points on either side of the discussion here. I tend to just think that it possibly a combination of them being more confident about and attached to their own ideas as mature and somewhat egotistical songwriters, combined with a lack of trust of each other to actually improve on them. I could further speculate about the equality of power they had when there were people like Brian and Taylor in the band that kind of kept them on an equal footing against all comers in the power struggle game, something sort of lost with Ronnie in the band as a quite obvious "junior" partner. This may have resulted in the power struggle being directly shifted to Keith vs Mick, especially after Keith cleaned up from heroin addiction. It's just an idea I'm throwing out there, not trying to insinuate this is actually the case. So many factors involved with creative collaborations it's hard to make accurate assumptions about what really happened. And it's doubtful we will ever hear Keith and Mick talk about it because that involves admitting something is wrong and they are more likely to blame factors other that themselves for their results

I think you catch something essential there. When there really was some potentially strong 'third man' there, that kept them more together. When the band finally was totally in the hands of them, the tension started to be between them. If I recall right, in Philip Norman's first Stones book, there was a quote by Anita Pallenberg saying something to the effect that some day Mick and Keith really need to confont each other. That was prior the WW3...

But about what you said of them maturing up as song-writers and habing egos and all that... I use that an excuse to discuss more about that theme.

To understand the bond between them I think we need to look at what their colloboration started with. I think there are two crucial features:

(a) Keith wrote most of the music, and Mick most of the lyrics ("most" = Keith coming up with some key phrases, Jagger finishing the melodies)

(b) They had a very similar taste; they listened the same music, and like Keith mentioned in LIFE, they had almost an equal opinion about what is good and what is bad.

These features seemed to keep them together, covering years from 1963 to 1966; about every Jagger/Richard tune from those days was really a colloboration of those two, no matter what the business deal of credition was (occasionally some other might have deserved something, but that was marginal, and not important here). With that bond together it was easy to get and keep the leadership in the band.

The things started to change in 1966/67 when writing material for BETWEEN THE BUTTONS they strated writing independently. Jagger would starting composing the music and Keith finishing the lyrics all by himself. There would be pieces like "Yesterday's Papers", which was totally done by Mick, and "Ruby Tuesday" by Keith. Even though from now on, most of the Jagger/Richard(s) pieces would be finished by the help of theother,it was clear that from then on there would be "Mick songs" and "Keith songs": either of them brought the song on the table, inwheras eralier they had done that literally together.

But even though teh guys were now more independent creativewise, they would still think more or less alike of the music; they would listen same stuff, being influenced by the same stuff. Keith might have had some second-thoughts about the psychedelia afterwards, but he seemingly was as much into it as Mick was at the time when making SATANIC MAJESTIES. And a few years later, Keith seemingly didn't mind at all that "Mick songs" dominated STICKY FINGERS album ("Brown Sugar", "Sway", "Bitch", "Sister Morphine", "Dead Flowers", "Moonlight Mile"...), and loved adding his pieces there, and as far as I know he had ever had any reason to bash that material. Also even decades afterward, Jagger has no problem saying that his favourite Stones ballad is "Ruby Tuesday".

But, as we know, something happened during the 70's. Mick and Keith, not probably in overnight but little by little, started to develop a different taste for music. I think one can not point out a certain timing for that. My picture is that EXILE ON MAIN STREET was the last album they still were thinking alike of the music. And that by EMOTIONAL RESCUE it was clear that they were miles apart from each other; roughly: Mick a pure trend follower, trying to get rid of the past, and Keith a rootsie rock man, seeing about nothing interesting happening in the music world since the early 70's reggae. It could be that the tension occurred big time already during SOME GIRLS but probably Keith just couldn't 'stand up for his rights' yet.

If we now think that both of them were able to write coherent songs without the help of the other, both huge rock stars with strong vision and not any lack of ego, and not anymore thinking the same of what is good or bad music, that was a disaster situation for a real, fruiful,inspiring colloboration.

But of course, there are other factors as well to understand the artistic downhill of Jagger/Richards teamwork, Keith's dopeville years and its effect on creativity not being the smallest. If I now again consider those wasted years from Jagger's perspective, I think that was a painful period for him. Jagger was so used to work with Keith, and I am sure he genuily trusted him, and respected his output and judgement. One might even say that Mick and the functionality of teh band were dependent artisticially of Keith. Mick wasn't that confident yet by his own, and the output of the Stones seemingly suffered of this (Keith's bad condition). This covers probably that mid seventies 'low' period from GOATS HEAD SOUP to BLACK AND BLUE (and like I hinted above, hiring "poor man's Keef" Ronnie might also something to in covering the lack of Keith's output). My guess is that as the result of those wasted years, Jagger finally lost his trust on Keith's ability and judgment, and that has never recovered. "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS was a personal triumph for Jagger and I think their success made him rather sure that he can handle everything by his own from now on. But then Keith 'woke up', but it was too late...

- Doxa

They were inspired by the same music - often - but they also learned how to "plunder" Motown hits and blues in the 60s, reggae, dance hall, funk etc in the 70s. Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s. He still listens to reggae. Maybe he got stuck in country. Had they continued to listen to new music or old but new genres to them - both of them - they might have been able to also produce together.

To some extend I think you are right. But I would add that he actually was inspired by new stuff too, namely the flawed,drunkard retro-style of Tom Waits. A path that doesn't seem to interest Jagger much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 12:59 by GetYerAngie.

That's a very good observation, GetYerAngie.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You are implying that Mick was tired of increasingly uninspired half baked riffs from Keith, and you say that Keith stopped evolving by Exile.

I can't interpret it differently than you meaning the material from the mid-70s was poorer because of what Keith brought to the table. I disagree here, obviously, as I love that material.

The second paragraph: How do you know it wasn't poorer in 1971 already, as they had to draw rather heavily on songs from 1968-1970 for SF and Exile?

Well, I do have the extraordinary opinion that albums like GOATS HEAD SOUP, IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, BLACK AND BLUE, EMOTIONAL RSECUE, UNDERCOVER, even SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU are not exactly equal in quality compared to BEGAARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE ON MAIN STREET. So that radical claim offends someone? Or the obervation that that something might had happened with Keith's creativity after the Big Four?

I didn't claim anything about 1971. Besides, it doesn't matter how old the stuff is if we are interested in Jagger's contribution. He sounds damn inspired in EXILE, and as far as I understand most of the stuff - in which Mick's contribution is crucial - was finished in 1971. bUt still I don't understand why this little detail has any relvance for teh points in my post?

Thanks for finally saying that this was just your opinion, because there are many fans who find the songwriting inpired for the SG, ER and TY sessions (the latter is mostly ER sessions, of course).

You didn't claim anything about 1971? When do you think Exile was recorded? That's exactly the year you said Keith stopped listening to new music and evolving.

You are putting words into my mouth...

But I really don't know what to think of that "there are many fans who think otherwise" point. You always seem to remind me of that. Of course there are, and of course I am only telling my point of view into things. People can agree or disagree.

But I need to clear up a few things. I don't claim anything categorical, but like almost always, I just try to catch some tendencies. I don't claim either that those Pathe Marconi sessions weren't "inspirational". Like I mentioned above, Jagger was extremely inspired especially during SOME GIRLS sessions, but that wasn't particularly due to Richards, or what he brought on the table (except, say, "Beast of Burden"). Or to put it other way, Richards wasn't that fond of Mick's desire to do a dance number or play those punk-inspired way too fast rockers. Jagger surely sounded inspirational in TATTOO YOU as well, but as we know, that album was exceptional in many ways, and he almost single-handidly finished it by himself. EMOTIONAL RESCUE seemingly was a pain of ass for him, as was UNDERCOVER as well. Because him and Keith seemed to fight about every detail about the album, both having a different vision about the direction of the band (Bill Wyman documents this well). It is telling that the strongest or at least most memorable songs Mick wrote for those two albums, both being first singles and hits - "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover of The Night" - Keith had nothing to do with them (and Keith hasn't hesitated telling his opinion of them).

But let me remind, once again, I am not here judging the whole Stones output and its quality; I just try reconstruct Jagger's perspective on the things, concentrated on his and Keith's colloboration. I know you are a huge fan of those Pathe Marconi sessions, and I wholeheartidly agree that those were very productive sessions with some high-caliber material. And there were all that 'ancient art of weaving' and so on. But that doesn't mean that Mick was particularly happy how the things were evolving. For example, you might be the world biggest 'weaving' fan, but I am not that sure that Jagger is - or that exactly was very inspirational for him.

But the output was still rather strong, because especially during SOME GIRLS sessions Mick seemed to be in the height of his own creative powers. He really was pushing forwards with a self-esteem which would also give a birth to his solo career. Even Keith commented in LIFE, of course with his belittlening way, "Jagger had finally learned to write rock numbers" (or something to the effect). He really had strong personal visions of the musical direction of the band, but even tough it still worked nicely with Keith in SOME GIRLS, it was clear that Keith, after sobering up, wasn't sharing those visions as the years go by. In my opinion, that tension was one very big reason for Jagger to go solo. So to understand the "WW3", I think we should take a closer look at what happened during those Pathe Marconi sessions, of how the things evolved. We also know that Jagger has refused to work with that Pathe Marconi method with the Stones again. The closest might the ones for VOODOO LOUNGE, but seemingly Mick lost the interest during the process.

- Doxa

You're jumping elegantly over my main beef with your theories. Mick and Keith (because they have to be together in some way for making a consistent great output, imo) must have experienced this clash earlier on - way earlier than you describe here. BB and LIB were the only albums in the "golden period" where most songs were from their respective sessions (Yeah, I know YCAGWYW was from 1968), while SF and Exile relied heavily on earlier greatness.

Because it is still the inspiration you are theorizing about, right, not merely the outcome?

Well, then something must have happened between the glimmers between 1968 and 1969, and of course we know what that was...

When Keith was on his way out of the heaviest drug haze he certainly didn't lack inspiration (lots of books AND Keith tell us that). I haven't read anything about quarreling and collaboration problems from the 1977 Pathé Marconi sessions. The problems started on the 1979 sessions. Despite those problems, these sessions provided material for ER, a good part of TY, the Undercover singles and a good part of the SG bonus album (add the RCA sessions in between the two Marconi sessions as well).

Like I said in my first post, I think you have good points, but there is a lot of thinking after writing as well. I'm just merely bringing those points to the table here (and that's of course way easier to do after reading your post )

Mick's quote from an interview after the 1977 sessions says a lot, imo:
«Keith has written his first whole song since Happy, and it's great!»

Yeah, I might have a slightly different picture of Keith's functionality during early Pathe Marconi sessions, but over-all I don't find anything to disagree with.

It could be that something happened between Jagger and Richards already in 1968/69 which would affect to their colloboration, but if you bother to read through what I wrote to my my post above, I think that didn't really was such disastrous for their output since the guýs were still thinking alike of the music. That's why we still get such an incredible work as EXILE ON MAIN STREET. If the guys wouldn't have agreed on the main visions, that sort of cohesion the album has, wouldn't have been possible.

Oh yeah, a quote by Bill Wyman of the SOME GIRLS sessions (I know he has said something different as well, but that is what he writes in ROLLING WITH THE STONES, p. 445):

"We recorded until the end of November - much of the time it was frustrating. Keith wouldn't turn up when we did, and when he wanted to work he'd call us in."

But thanks Dandie, like always, of your inspiring and insigthful comments. I always respect them (especially the critical ones)!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 13:09 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s.>

You surely mean after the 70s? Because you are confirming my points in your post: Keith brought funk and reggae (and rockabilly, like Teddy mentioned) to the table in the 70s.

Yes, I think what happened on the music scene in the 80s sort of killed Keith's up till then interest in new music.

I love Keiths guitar playing in the 70s and his riffs and voice but seemingly he didnt evolve with Mick they way they did when they were younger. Im talking about songwriting, producing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 13:06 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You are implying that Mick was tired of increasingly uninspired half baked riffs from Keith, and you say that Keith stopped evolving by Exile.

I can't interpret it differently than you meaning the material from the mid-70s was poorer because of what Keith brought to the table. I disagree here, obviously, as I love that material.

The second paragraph: How do you know it wasn't poorer in 1971 already, as they had to draw rather heavily on songs from 1968-1970 for SF and Exile?

Well, I do have the extraordinary opinion that albums like GOATS HEAD SOUP, IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, BLACK AND BLUE, EMOTIONAL RSECUE, UNDERCOVER, even SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU are not exactly equal in quality compared to BEGAARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE ON MAIN STREET. So that radical claim offends someone? Or the obervation that that something might had happened with Keith's creativity after the Big Four?

I didn't claim anything about 1971. Besides, it doesn't matter how old the stuff is if we are interested in Jagger's contribution. He sounds damn inspired in EXILE, and as far as I understand most of the stuff - in which Mick's contribution is crucial - was finished in 1971. bUt still I don't understand why this little detail has any relvance for teh points in my post?

Thanks for finally saying that this was just your opinion, because there are many fans who find the songwriting inpired for the SG, ER and TY sessions (the latter is mostly ER sessions, of course).

You didn't claim anything about 1971? When do you think Exile was recorded? That's exactly the year you said Keith stopped listening to new music and evolving.

You are putting words into my mouth...

But I really don't know what to think of that "there are many fans who think otherwise" point. You always seem to remind me of that. Of course there are, and of course I am only telling my point of view into things. People can agree or disagree.

But I need to clear up a few things. I don't claim anything categorical, but like almost always, I just try to catch some tendencies. I don't claim either that those Pathe Marconi sessions weren't "inspirational". Like I mentioned above, Jagger was extremely inspired especially during SOME GIRLS sessions, but that wasn't particularly due to Richards, or what he brought on the table (except, say, "Beast of Burden"). Or to put it other way, Richards wasn't that fond of Mick's desire to do a dance number or play those punk-inspired way too fast rockers. Jagger surely sounded inspirational in TATTOO YOU as well, but as we know, that album was exceptional in many ways, and he almost single-handidly finished it by himself. EMOTIONAL RESCUE seemingly was a pain of ass for him, as was UNDERCOVER as well. Because him and Keith seemed to fight about every detail about the album, both having a different vision about the direction of the band (Bill Wyman documents this well). It is telling that the strongest or at least most memorable songs Mick wrote for those two albums, both being first singles and hits - "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover of The Night" - Keith had nothing to do with them (and Keith hasn't hesitated telling his opinion of them).

But let me remind, once again, I am not here judging the whole Stones output and its quality; I just try reconstruct Jagger's perspective on the things, concentrated on his and Keith's colloboration. I know you are a huge fan of those Pathe Marconi sessions, and I wholeheartidly agree that those were very productive sessions with some high-caliber material. And there were all that 'ancient art of weaving' and so on. But that doesn't mean that Mick was particularly happy how the things were evolving. For example, you might be the world biggest 'weaving' fan, but I am not that sure that Jagger is - or that exactly was very inspirational for him.

But the output was still rather strong, because especially during SOME GIRLS sessions Mick seemed to be in the height of his own creative powers. He really was pushing forwards with a self-esteem which would also give a birth to his solo career. Even Keith commented in LIFE, of course with his belittlening way, "Jagger had finally learned to write rock numbers" (or something to the effect). He really had strong personal visions of the musical direction of the band, but even tough it still worked nicely with Keith in SOME GIRLS, it was clear that Keith, after sobering up, wasn't sharing those visions as the years go by. In my opinion, that tension was one very big reason for Jagger to go solo. So to understand the "WW3", I think we should take a closer look at what happened during those Pathe Marconi sessions, of how the things evolved. We also know that Jagger has refused to work with that Pathe Marconi method with the Stones again. The closest might the ones for VOODOO LOUNGE, but seemingly Mick lost the interest during the process.

- Doxa

You're jumping elegantly over my main beef with your theories. Mick and Keith (because they have to be together in some way for making a consistent great output, imo) must have experienced this clash earlier on - way earlier than you describe here. BB and LIB were the only albums in the "golden period" where most songs were from their respective sessions (Yeah, I know YCAGWYW was from 1968), while SF and Exile relied heavily on earlier greatness.

Because it is still the inspiration you are theorizing about, right, not merely the outcome?

Well, then something must have happened between the glimmers between 1968 and 1969, and of course we know what that was...

When Keith was on his way out of the heaviest drug haze he certainly didn't lack inspiration (lots of books AND Keith tell us that). I haven't read anything about quarreling and collaboration problems from the 1977 Pathé Marconi sessions. The problems started on the 1979 sessions. Despite those problems, these sessions provided material for ER, a good part of TY, the Undercover singles and a good part of the SG bonus album (add the RCA sessions in between the two Marconi sessions as well).

Like I said in my first post, I think you have good points, but there is a lot of thinking after writing as well. I'm just merely bringing those points to the table here (and that's of course way easier to do after reading your post )

Mick's quote from an interview after the 1977 sessions says a lot, imo:
«Keith has written his first whole song since Happy, and it's great!»

Yeah, I might have a slightly different picture of Keith's functionality during early Pathe Marconi sessions, but over-all I don't find anything to disagree with.

It could be that something happened between Jagger and Richards already in 1968/69 which would affect to their colloboration, but if you bother to read through what I wrote to my my post above, I think that didn't really was such disastrous for their output since the guýs were still thinking alike of the music. That's why we still get such an incredible work as EXILE ON MAIN STREET. If the guys wouldn't have agreed on the main visions, that sort of cohesion the album has, wouldn't have been possible.

Oh yeah, a quote by Bill Wyman of the SOME GIRLS sessions (I know he has something different as well, but that is what he writes in ROLLING WITH THE STONES, p. 445):

"We recorded until the end of November - much of the time it was frustrating. Keith wouldn't turn up when we did, and when he wanted to work he'd call us in."

But thanks Dandie, like always, of your inspiring and insigthful comments. I always respect them (especially the critical ones)!

- Doxa

Bill also wrote this (about the 1977-sessions):

«We had such a great time in the studio that we never stopped really. We were going to be there for four or five weeks originally—middle of October till early December—and we were still there in February. We were enjoying ourselves, we were getting things done and getting off on new songs. We probably finished 12 or 13 songs, and then there’s a whole mass of demos and jams. We finished up with 96 reels of tape, where a normal band might use six for an album».

Cheers indeed!

The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s.>

You surely mean after the 70s? Because you are confirming my points in your post: Keith brought funk and reggae (and rockabilly, like Teddy mentioned) to the table in the 70s.

Yes, I think what happened on the music scene in the 80s sort of killed Keith's up till then interest in new music.

I love Keiths guitar playing in the 70s and his riffs and voice but seemingly he didnt evolve with Mick they way they did when they were younger. Im talking about songwriting, producing.

But here we were talking about him stopping being influenced by / being interested in new music (in the 70s). That's not true, as he brought those modern musical styles to the table.

Nobody's disagreeing about the more fragile Mick/Keith relationship. Doxa's initial statement was that Keith stopped evolving, hence Mick got poorer stuff to work with.

That is a plausible thought, but a way too one-dimensional one, imo, especially as we know how the creativity and inspiration flourished in the late 70s.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s.>

You surely mean after the 70s? Because you are confirming my points in your post: Keith brought funk and reggae (and rockabilly, like Teddy mentioned) to the table in the 70s.

Yes, I think what happened on the music scene in the 80s sort of killed Keith's up till then interest in new music.

I love Keiths guitar playing in the 70s and his riffs and voice but seemingly he didnt evolve with Mick they way they did when they were younger. Im talking about songwriting, producing.

Yeah, I don't think it was not the question that Keith didn't evolve. He did but within his own some sort of settled framework with seemingly turned out to be too narrow for Mick's taste. Keith's path started to be more that of getting interested in forms of music that were pretty close to the ones he was already familiar with, for example, naturally stemming out of the black music tradition he loved. I think with funk and reggae - very dancable music - he surely was still on the same page as Mick, and the mid-seventies Stones albums were a testimony of that (and even later); actually what was new on them, with Mick's heavy ballads, was exactly that (think of BLACK AND BLUE). But he probably didn't stomach, say, glam rock or certain kind of hard rock - or usually what the white rock acts were up to, and what the kids started be crazy for... He never been a David Bowie or Zeppelin fan... What clearly set Mick and Keith apart was their attitude towards disco music and punk.

Teddy's mentioning of rock-abilly (in late 70'/early 80's I guess?) is also a good example of Keith's interest within his own 'roots-friendly' framework. That had an effect to the Stones sound of the day.

A good one also that Tom Waits one! (But pretty hard to imagine Jagger doing anything of the sort...)

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 13:37 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman



Bill also wrote this (about the 1977-sessions):

«We had such a great time in the studio that we never stopped really. We were going to be there for four or five weeks originally—middle of October till early December—and we were still there in February. We were enjoying ourselves, we were getting things done and getting off on new songs. We probably finished 12 or 13 songs, and then there’s a whole mass of demos and jams. We finished up with 96 reels of tape, where a normal band might use six for an album».

Cheers indeed!

The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

Yeah, I know that quote from your Pathe Marconi thread and was referring to that...

But to me that sounds like a PR talk at the time of its release... Seemingly, Bill's diaries tell a bit different story...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 13:51 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s.>

You surely mean after the 70s? Because you are confirming my points in your post: Keith brought funk and reggae (and rockabilly, like Teddy mentioned) to the table in the 70s.

Yes, I think what happened on the music scene in the 80s sort of killed Keith's up till then interest in new music.

I love Keiths guitar playing in the 70s and his riffs and voice but seemingly he didnt evolve with Mick they way they did when they were younger. Im talking about songwriting, producing.

Yeah, I don't think it was not the question that Keith didn't evolve. He did but within his own some sort of settled framework with seemingly turned out to be too narrow for Mick's taste. Keith's path started to be more that of getting interested in forms of music that were pretty close to the ones he was already familiar with, for example, naturally stemming out of the black music tradition he loved. I think with funk and reggae - very dancable music - he surely was still on the same page as Mick, and the mid-seventies Stones albums were a testimony of that (and even later); actually what was new on them, with Mick's heavy ballads, was exactly that (think of BLACK AND BLUE). But he probably didn't stomach, say, glam rock or certain kind of hard rock - or usually what the white rock acts were up to, and what the kids started be crazy for... He never been a David Bowie or Zeppelin fan... What clearly set Mick and Keith apart was their attitude towards disco music and punk.

Teddy's mentioning of rock-abilly (in late 70'/early 80's I guess?) is also a good example of Keith's interest within his own 'roots-friendly' framework. That had an effect to the Stones sound of the day.

A good one also that Tom Waits one! (But pretty hard to imagine Jagger doing anything of the sort...)

- Doxa

Yeah, that would be very hard. I think the Tom Waits influence that has dominated the Keith-vocals since ER is one of the main reasons to the incoherence in the post-SG work. T&A on TY is of course a telling exception.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 14:05 by GetYerAngie.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman



Bill also wrote this (about the 1977-sessions):

«We had such a great time in the studio that we never stopped really. We were going to be there for four or five weeks originally—middle of October till early December—and we were still there in February. We were enjoying ourselves, we were getting things done and getting off on new songs. We probably finished 12 or 13 songs, and then there’s a whole mass of demos and jams. We finished up with 96 reels of tape, where a normal band might use six for an album».

Cheers indeed!

The Anita-incident influenced Mick and Keith's relationship even more than we think, I guess - hence they started writing less together, and had to rely on the song-bank (with nuggets from earlier years) for SF and Exile. Most of SF isn't even from the 70s.

Yeah, I know that quote from your Pathe Marconi thread and was referring to that...

But to me that sounds like a PR talk at the time of its release... Seemingly, Bill's diaries tell a bit different story...

- Doxa

Or he actually thought it was great fun when Keith finally showed up

PS: They did indeed work till February..

Quote
Roll73

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Roll73
A Bigger Bang's been out for 10 odd years - Crosseyed Heart for a couple of months.

I've listened to CH at least 3 times as much in the last month as I have ABB in 10 years.

This isn't a maths question - just an observation. Either that's reason to be hopeful or to think - should they even bother?

Huh? What is a "maths"?

Mathematics (or Arithmetic if you prefer). Just saying that my post was starting to sound like a question on a school test. Or not.

I've never heard mathematics used like that, only as math.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Also, Doxa's post is (albeit excellently subtle) a slap in the face to all of us who love SG, ER, TY and Undercover. 

He's got a point, though, but he should know that A LOT of the material on SF and Exile is from 1968-1970. So, if the inspiration wore thin it started even earlier than after the Exile sessions. 

Well, that's fine - but to my ears those are great albums because they feature some nice Jagger-Richards songs as well as some that are solo songs, like All About You, Heaven and Miss You. All 4 of those LPs have inspiration on them.

Keith missing in action? Harghhhh. He's in excellent form on all 4 of those LPs, albeit UNDERCOVER is the actual follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE. His playing throughout U is excellent, especially on She Was Hot and Tie You Up.

Jagger the solo artist? That's the real issue.

The myth of EXILE is that it was recorded in France. So it goes. It might be easy to say it's when something was recorded, not released. But then with something like TATTOO YOU and EXILE, it may be heavier on when it was released since neither are outright "new" albums.

Form the interwikis:

"In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths or, in English-speaking North America, math."

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Also, Doxa's post is (albeit excellently subtle) a slap in the face to all of us who love SG, ER, TY and Undercover. 

He's got a point, though, but he should know that A LOT of the material on SF and Exile is from 1968-1970. So, if the inspiration wore thin it started even earlier than after the Exile sessions. 

I don't see stating an opinion about the Rolling Stones as a slap in the face of any board member. When I say I don't like Dirty Work or I think "Love is Strong" is stones by numbers I certainly don't mean to belittle someone else's opinion.

It's just an opinion about music and, in the case of Doxa's post, speculation about what might have caused what many (myself included) feel has been the decline of the band's creative energies.

A slap in the face would be something quite different.

The great mystery, to me, of the Stones is a double sided coin - how have they kept doing it so long, and yet at the same time how/why did they lose the magic that made them relevant for nearly 20 years? It seems natural and normal to speculate about it on a fan board, especially in the run up to a new album.

Mick and Keith hold equal responsibility for the success or failure of the songwriting in the band - how is that even controversial?

HMS thinks DIRTY WORK is one of their greatest albums and is better than EXILE.

So where as Doxa may be stirring the pot, others are completely off their meds.

In the end, there are those that know and the rest that believe. Believers never know, they're too busy believing.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Roll73

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Roll73
A Bigger Bang's been out for 10 odd years - Crosseyed Heart for a couple of months.

I've listened to CH at least 3 times as much in the last month as I have ABB in 10 years.

This isn't a maths question - just an observation. Either that's reason to be hopeful or to think - should they even bother?

Huh? What is a "maths"?

Mathematics (or Arithmetic if you prefer). Just saying that my post was starting to sound like a question on a school test. Or not.

I've never heard mathematics used like that, only as math.

You say tomato and I say tomato.
America and Britain. divided by a common language!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s.>

You surely mean after the 70s? Because you are confirming my points in your post: Keith brought funk and reggae (and rockabilly, like Teddy mentioned) to the table in the 70s.

Yes, I think what happened on the music scene in the 80s sort of killed Keith's up till then interest in new music.

I love Keiths guitar playing in the 70s and his riffs and voice but seemingly he didnt evolve with Mick they way they did when they were younger. Im talking about songwriting, producing.

But here we were talking about him stopping being influenced by / being interested in new music (in the 70s). That's not true, as he brought those modern musical styles to the table.

Nobody's disagreeing about the more fragile Mick/Keith relationship. Doxa's initial statement was that Keith stopped evolving, hence Mick got poorer stuff to work with.

That is a plausible thought, but a way too one-dimensional one, imo, especially as we know how the creativity and inspiration flourished in the late 70s.

Well, I don't rememeber making such a straight statement, or that was not my intention, but yeah, my claim was actually that Jagger/Richards colloboration waekened due to Keith's contribution wasn't very inspirational for Mick any longer. That of Keith not evolving much from the musical presuppositions of EXILE ON MAIN STREET being one reason, while Mick seemingly wanted to move on. But other being that of his antenna's stopping functioning as good as earlier. Just remember what sort of stuff this guy had put on the table just a couple of years earlier... (sometimes I get the feeling that those who are strongly defending the mid 70's material do not really see or have forgotten how damn strong the material Keith could deliver in his peak years... "Gimme Shelter", "Street Fighting Man", "Ruby Tuesday". "Paint It Black", etc. etc. . Mick knew that man, and I am sure also missed him during the dark 70's. when all he was able to see was - this is a caracature! - a guy, if he turns up at all, trying desperately come up with just another variant of open tuning riffage he called a "song". "Hey Mick, finish this one!" "Oh thanks, mate..." )

But about that 'not evolving' idea... I think one way to understand Keith's musical evolution or path after EXILE is to see as writing one more songs into it. To make the 'Americana statement' of the album even more complete. I mean, his reggae, funk and rock-a-billy experiments adds there nicely, probably Waits stuff as well. But by contrast, I think Jagger wanted to get rid of the whole 'Americana' thing (especially when that sort of thing started to be out of date), to do something more 'modern' or 'relevant'. But it wasn't so easy - for some years he seemed to struggle how to do it - or even what to exactly to do. Probably because (a) the band was very strongly rooted to the bluesy rock sound they had created in those peak years, that it was hard to do something else convincingly; (b) he wasn't that sure what they should do now, how to adapt to the latest trends, or even into which ones, and in which degree. I think Jagger - and The Stones - didn't succeed until - and for the very last time - in SOME GIRLS, an album, which is not only a fresh coctail of something new and old, but being convincing, even 'relevant' as well.

Hmm.. if Keith's later ambitions - the ones which make him 'click' - could be defined as writing new pages into EXILE book, Mick's could be defined as writing anything else but not EXILE since that book is already written...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 15:28 by Doxa.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Hairball
Keith has made clear that ALL of Micks solo albums/projects mean very little to him, if anything at all (see GODDESS for example).

Is that really to be believed? Keith's way of bashing Goddess (his "funny" Dogshit in the doorway-thing) just doesn't sound like no interest or objectivity at all . Could anyone imagine Jagger bashing CH punning like that, calling it undeservedly Crossdressed Fart in public or something?

In this issue of Rolling Stone...

What don't you like about his solo albums?
Wimpy songs, wimpy performance, bad recording. That's about enough.

Quote
TeddyB1018
This discussion suggests the Stones should have broken up years ago, and some here may believe that. It certainly goes to why the Stones don't record much and play old songs. If Mick Jagger can't take Keith Richards's "half-baked" songs and turn them into Rolling Stones songs, I would take the side that it's on him. It's what he used to do. Back in 1981, he took a half-baked riff and wrote Start Me Up. If he thinks that's too boring to do occasionally. then there is basically no reason for him to record with the band. Exile did feature several glorified jams that were not really finished songs, just "feels". Those of us who like Crosseyed Heart hear Rolling Stones music in it, something we haven't heard for a while.

Something definitely ended after UNDERCOVER was released and they had their fun making the videos for the singles. It really seems like it was a last blast of creative wind. Listen to DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS and it's the sound of a bored band.

The overall recent picture reveals the attitude that Mick has of 'why bother'. Keith, clearly someone with patience the size of the northern hemisphere since he waits for Mick to call but Mick would rather do other "things", recent things that may have been different etc but weren't good, decided to bother. The results?

CROSSEYED HEART.

Perhaps if all of Mick's solo albums were as stellar as WANDERING SPIRIT, not necessarily with its way of being recorded and sound but quality, then it's extremely possible things would have turned out different.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Turner68

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Doxa

Quote
mr_dja

I didn't read Doxa's post the way you did. As I understand it, Doxa feels (incorrectly, IMO) that people are blaming Mick for the creative decline of the Stones and is saying that Mick and Keith bear equal responsibility. I agree with this, although it's not exactly earth-shattering to point out that the two creative forces in the band are both responsible, nor do i believe anyone really believes that mick is the sole reason the band has stopped being a creative force.

And you may be right with your reading of Doxa's post... It wouldn't be the first or last time that I've read something incorrectly! I agree with your post in so far as I think that things are a lot more gray than black and white as far as the accountability is concerned. Although some posts come across as pointing 'in one direction' only, you're probably also correct that no one is 100% on one side or the other.

The more I think about it, the more I wish Stu were still around to keep his three chord wonders/showers of shit in line. Instead of those silly WWJD bracelets that were so popular a few years back, I wonder if someone could get the Stones to all wear WWST (What Would Stu Think) bracelets in the future. Or maybe they could post big pictures of Brian, MT, Stu & Bill on the wall of the studio to remind them that some of their previous methods of working produced (arguably) better results than some of the methods they're using now.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Turner68 interpreted my point right. I just wanted open up the case from Mick's perspective, since we do know the other perspective so damn well - that's something we can daily read here, probably due to the Keith euphoria at the moment. Just wanted to balance the things a bit. Jagger's "faults" seem to be so easily to be pointed at, but not Keith's responsibility in the case.

Like I replied to one comment, I don't really 'blame' anyone for their creative downhill. Actually I find the whole idea of 'blaming' someone in a case like this an odd one (the point is not to judge, but to understand certain developments). There is no one to blame. One cannot force creativity, or make two people 'click' if they don't. No one can lock up these two guys inside the kitchen, if they, or either of them, don't want to. No one can force them to make records, spending months in the studio to get the right take or whatever, if they don't want to. These are grown up men, with the minds of their own.

The next thing to is to ask why it is so. If it is up to Jagger, like is usually suggested (and I think rightly), we could address the question simply: why does Jagger not want to do that? Why he does not seem to be interested in colloborating with Keith seriouly for a long time now?

That was the question in my mind when I made my post. I haven't seen anyone really reflecting that question very much lately - trying to understand Jagger's motives and actions (at least with some kind of empathy).

To summarize, I think the cruel fact is that Jagger lost years ago the faith that those kitchen deals or endless recording sessions could produce any quality stuff. It once did, but as a pragmatic man, come to the conclusion that it reached a point that the results were not any longer worth the effort. Suddenly it wasn't 1965 or 1971 aor even 1977 any longer, and he moved on. And this already happened when making records still mattered in the music business.

- Doxa

Hmmm. Maybe the words 'Now you wanna throw the dice You already crapped out twice' had some kind of shadow effect on Mick's drive to work with Keith. I do not recall how Mick reacted to that because I've never read anything about it.

That may be key to some of what you say. Mick seems to be a bit reclusive in those aspects whereas Keith is open and free.

Granted, they chummed it up on camera for a fake delivery of writing Mixed Emotions together but everyone knows that's not what happened. It's partially been Mick's solo songs driving the Stones under the name of the Stones that has lead to, as some have stated, Keith's letting go and giving up any authority within the band in some kind of overall basis, hence the waiting for Mick to call bit. I know there have been instances in the past when Keith doesn't play on something, Sway being the first one I can think of. Saint Of Me, the third song he hasn't played guitar on while Mick has since Sway as far as I can think right now (the other one is I'm Not Signifying). Keith does his songs and Mick has mostly nothing to do with them. Two exceptions I can think of are Slipping Away and This Place Is Empty.

I don't know if that addresses trying to understand Mick's motives.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Also, Doxa's post is (albeit excellently subtle) a slap in the face to all of us who love SG, ER, TY and Undercover. 

He's got a point, though, but he should know that A LOT of the material on SF and Exile is from 1968-1970. So, if the inspiration wore thin it started even earlier than after the Exile sessions. 

Well, that's fine - but to my ears those are great albums because they feature some nice Jagger-Richards songs as well as some that are solo songs, like All About You, Heaven and Miss You. All 4 of those LPs have inspiration on them.

Keith missing in action? Harghhhh. He's in excellent form on all 4 of those LPs, albeit UNDERCOVER is the actual follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE. His playing throughout U is excellent, especially on She Was Hot and Tie You Up.

Jagger the solo artist? That's the real issue.

The myth of EXILE is that it was recorded in France. So it goes. It might be easy to say it's when something was recorded, not released. But then with something like TATTOO YOU and EXILE, it may be heavier on when it was released since neither are outright "new" albums.

Yes and no, as many of the songs on TY are from the ER sessions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-30 15:44 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Maybe Keith never really evolved in the 70s.>

You surely mean after the 70s? Because you are confirming my points in your post: Keith brought funk and reggae (and rockabilly, like Teddy mentioned) to the table in the 70s.

Yes, I think what happened on the music scene in the 80s sort of killed Keith's up till then interest in new music.

I love Keiths guitar playing in the 70s and his riffs and voice but seemingly he didnt evolve with Mick they way they did when they were younger. Im talking about songwriting, producing.

But here we were talking about him stopping being influenced by / being interested in new music (in the 70s). That's not true, as he brought those modern musical styles to the table.

Nobody's disagreeing about the more fragile Mick/Keith relationship. Doxa's initial statement was that Keith stopped evolving, hence Mick got poorer stuff to work with.

That is a plausible thought, but a way too one-dimensional one, imo, especially as we know how the creativity and inspiration flourished in the late 70s.

Well, I don't rememeber making such a straight statement, or that was not my intention, but yeah, my claim was actually that Jagger/Richards colloboration waekened due to Keith's contribution wasn't very inspirational for Mick any longer. That of Keith not evolving much from the musical presuppositions of EXILE ON MAIN STREET being one reason, while Mick seemingly wanted to move on. But other being that of his antenna's stopping functioning as good as earlier. Just remember what sort of stuff this guy had put on the table just a couple of years earlier... (sometimes I get the feeling that those who are strongly defending the mid 70's material do not really see or have forgotten how damn strong the material Keith could deliver in his peak years... "Gimme Shelter", "Street Fighting Man", "Ruby Tuesday". "Paint It Black", etc. etc. . Mick knew that man, and I am sure also missed him during the dark 70's. when all he was able to see was - this is a caracature! - a guy, if he turns up at all, trying desperately come up with just another variant of open tuning riffage he called a "song". "Hey Mick, finish this one!" "Oh thanks, mate..." )

But about that 'not evolving' idea... I think one way to understand Keith's musical evolution or path after EXILE is to see as writing one more songs into it. To make the 'Americana statement' of the album even more complete. I mean, his reggae, funk and rock-a-billy experiments adds there nicely, probably Waits stuff as well. But by contrast, I think Jagger wanted to get rid of the whole 'Americana' thing (especially when that sort of thing started to be out of date), to do something more 'modern' or 'relevant'. But it wasn't so easy - for some years he seemed to struggle how to do it - or even what to exactly to do. Probably because (a) the band was very strongly rooted to the bluesy rock sound they had created in those peak years, that it was hard to do something else convincingly; (b) he wasn't that sure what they should do now, how to adapt to the latest trends, or even into which ones, and in which degree. I think Jagger - and The Stones - didn't succeed until - and for the very last time - in SOME GIRLS, an album, which is not only a fresh coctail of something new and old, but being convincing, even 'relevant' as well.

Hmm.. if Keith's later ambitions - the ones which make him 'click' - could be defined as writing new pages into EXILE book, Mick's could be defined as writing anything else but not EXILE since that book is already written...

- Doxa

Albeit you're cleverly using Mick as a «shield» here, these are your words (and since you don't know how Mick thinks, some of it most come from you ):

So if we consider this from Mick's point of view - not popular here - after EXILE or so Keith's music just weren't exciting for him - just repitive and seemingly going downhill in quality (and in quantity as well). And remember: Mick had seen what this man once was - how great, unique, fresh stuff he could have come up with. But he also saw and understood the change in creativity. As the 70's go further, it was clear that there were no any longer any gimmesheltesr, honkytonkwomens or streetfightingmans to be born. There were half-baked riffs saying the same thing over and again, the recording processes just taking longer and longer

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bill also wrote this (about the 1977-sessions):

«We had such a great time in the studio that we never stopped really. We were going to be there for four or five weeks originally—middle of October till early December—and we were still there in February. We were enjoying ourselves, we were getting things done and getting off on new songs. We probably finished 12 or 13 songs, and then there’s a whole mass of demos and jams. We finished up with 96 reels of tape, where a normal band might use six for an album».

Bill said something about DIRTY WORK resulting in them using 426 reels of tape (or some number in the 400s).

A normal band would not've recorded DIRTY WORK...

Remember that in the 1960s, up till BTB (Yesterday's Paper was the first complete song Mick wrote), it was Keith who wrote most of the music as well - not just riffs and hooks/a lyrical phrase. He offered more or less complete stuff.

The sketches were enough when Mick had learned how to write songs on his own, hence they developed that form of writing together.

When listening to the Satanic box we get how it was done back in the day. For instance on Dandelion, where we hear Keith play and sing the whole song, more or less finished except for the complete lyrics.

Things changed indeed, but I'm not sure if it was for the reasons you assume, Doxa. Who knows, btw?

These songwriting discussions sometimes remind me of conspiracy theories in that they often start with someone's ideology (usually concerning Keith or Mick's abilities) and then use small sound bites and observations to connect the dots to achieve whatever result fits their way of looking at things.