Quote
Turner68



Indeed, what I remember about last Summer is that most of the people some people now try to paint as "anti-Mick" were talking about how amazing Mick was in concert - his singing, his performance, his health - and I'm expecting no less this Spring.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Turner68



Indeed, what I remember about last Summer is that most of the people some people now try to paint as "anti-Mick" were talking about how amazing Mick was in concert - his singing, his performance, his health - and I'm expecting no less this Spring.

Well, I need to say I have wondered the same thing - now seeing him hopeless, have people forgetten in how increduble condition Jagger has been lately???? Me - who have been a rather critical towards Jagger's doings for some years or decades - was absulutely stunned by his performance last year in Stockholm. I've seen quite many Stones shows since 1995 (unfortunately not earlier), and it was easily the best one I've seen from him. THe first time ever I felt his artistic presence - like he was acually using his voice, his body and music as a means of real artistic expression, not just an atheletic autopilot professionalism at work. That doesn't mean he hasn't been great and stunning before, but now it was different. He really put himself onstage there, felt like seeing Dylan-like artistic 'now and then' presence, so human. I assumed the sudden personal tragedy just having happened to him might had something to do in giving so much of himself for us (usually he is so distant in anything he does), The same kind of feelings I was able to read from the reports from the later legs of the tour, especially from Australia. Not sure about any longer about America - has the momentum passed, and are we back in 'normal'.

Anyway, after that Stockholm gig I remember thinking that 'goddamnit Mick, you go and hit the studio NOW, and put everything you want to express on tape there!'. Use that godgiven instrument and gift of yours for the good of all of us. Do your own BLOOD ON THE TRACKS or something.

Maybe because of that feeling I had then, I have some positive thoughts, or even high hopes, about a new Rolling Stones or a Jagger album. Even more as Keith has now shown that he also still - or again - 'has it' by releasing his own TIME OUT OF MIND (I like that analogy of Hairball, but hey, let us not draw that further, like we did with EXILE...).

So taking this 'new' more artistic-minded Jagger and Keith's being back in artistic condition with a more mature touch, and the guys seemingly doing nice together, I think we might have a chance to have an album that is different to the ones we are used during the last decades. Fingers crossed!

- Doxa

Quote
Turner68



I did that when you were posting your commentary a month or so ago... what I said then was that Keith's album is just out, so it's natural that the Keith fans would be excited and vocal (just as when Taylor joined the 50th anniversary tour his fans were the most vocal and excited) but that all that would die down by the time the Stones go back on the tour - more Mick fans would be active, and the Keith fans would be less energized.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball
[


I think you underestimate everyone who you declare not seeing half the story - they see it loud and clear. When you say that "the qualities in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages", aren't you referring to things that happened well over 30 years ago? Surely you can't say that the band has been in 'top form' since then, and I believe you've actually noted that the studio output of this latter period is not up to par (Jagger solo as well as Stones output). It's clearly obvious that Jagger played a big part in bringing the band into greatness and keeping them at the top for so many years, but he didn't do it alone. And for the last 30+ years where he has nearly taken sole leadership of the band, it seems clear that he's been fishing around in the wrong ponds. Just as you say Keith's quality of input is lacking (or conservative as you put it), the qualities that Mick once brought to the band have been diminished for one reason or another, and the results speak for themselves when the band barely touches any of it when performing live.

Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.

Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.

The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.

I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.

The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Turner68



I did that when you were posting your commentary a month or so ago... what I said then was that Keith's album is just out, so it's natural that the Keith fans would be excited and vocal (just as when Taylor joined the 50th anniversary tour his fans were the most vocal and excited) but that all that would die down by the time the Stones go back on the tour - more Mick fans would be active, and the Keith fans would be less energized.

Yes, I do remember you saying that and I think that was an apt observation. The reason why I made my commentary was simply because I saw the "celebration" having left out of hand: differing opinions were made non wanted, the guardians like you, Turner68, were taking care of that in even some other threads, the Jagger bashing - still can't see what that has to do with celebrating Keith's album - going ruthless, etc. etc. With the Taylorites it always been a norm that the threads dedicated to Taylor the critical and even bashing, repitive accounts towards Taylor and Taylorites are okay and a part of the game, but this kind of tolerance the Taylorites seem have for negative views was seemingly neglected by the people who were so thrilled about the new Richards release.

But that is old news now, so I hope we don't need to continue that anymore.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't expect a singer/songwriter-tinged album from Keith, so I really don't understand how a different album than his previous ones can be described as «conservative».

Time to stop this nonsense, imo. No more bashing - let's look forward to a new Stones album

Actually, I wasn't initially talking about CROSSEYED being 'conservative' - it is, though, by the terms I defined above - but of it attracting a conservative side of Stones fans. Well, looking all those posts now trying to 'defend' CROSSEYED HEART and point out its qualities - isn't there alraedy a thread for that fiesta already here? - and at the same bashing Jagger and see any new forms of music taking since the golden age of rock music harmful- even using Dylan to back up an argument - just verifies my point. Using a term 'conservative' is no pejorative but descriptive.

Most of the members of big rock and roll generations are very conservative - even intolerant - in regards to latest currents - how is that so shocking to say it loud? (In most cases, it is an age gap.) Because rock music was so 'liberal' by nature long time ago? a 'wrong' word?

- Doxa

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball
[


I think you underestimate everyone who you declare not seeing half the story - they see it loud and clear. When you say that "the qualities in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages", aren't you referring to things that happened well over 30 years ago? Surely you can't say that the band has been in 'top form' since then, and I believe you've actually noted that the studio output of this latter period is not up to par (Jagger solo as well as Stones output). It's clearly obvious that Jagger played a big part in bringing the band into greatness and keeping them at the top for so many years, but he didn't do it alone. And for the last 30+ years where he has nearly taken sole leadership of the band, it seems clear that he's been fishing around in the wrong ponds. Just as you say Keith's quality of input is lacking (or conservative as you put it), the qualities that Mick once brought to the band have been diminished for one reason or another, and the results speak for themselves when the band barely touches any of it when performing live.

Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.

Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.

The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.

I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.

The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.

- Doxa

And right there we should respectfully agree to disagree regarding Crosseyed Heart. You like it as a solo album "on it's own little terms" (whatever that means), while I think it stands on it's own and is leaps and bounds better than any Mick solo and indeed ranks up there with my favorite Stones albums. You also say you're glad it remains a Keith solo album, claiming Mick couldn't help it even if it were given the Stones treatment. I on the other hand am glad it remained a solo album because I firmly believe Mick would have possibly ruined it. An interesting thought to ponder though is the 'what if' factor. It might have been the best Stones album in decades (?), but then again it may have turned ugly with Micks input - I lean towards the latter based on my opinions regarding Mick's Stones input/solo material for the last several decades.

And opinion it is. You seem to want to come up with a scientific solution and lay a foundation as to what makes the Stones great. And then when someone has a differing opinion about why they love the Stones that doesn't quite meet your criteria or match your hypothesis, you say they just don't get it! You somehow want to come to the defense of Mick and say people are wrong for thinking the way they do. I appreciate your enthusiasm and enjoy reading some of your opinions, but I don't always agree. And when I disagree (with anyone), I don't come around in a roundabout way saying that that you are wrong for thinking the way you do and that you just don't get it! The bottom line is, it really doesn't have to get all personal, and as has been mentioned several times - Mick doesn't really need to be defended. He's a big boy who makes his own choices, and within that territory he can't please all the people all of the time - and the same goes for Keith. Some are more diehard and fanatical about it than others, but the common ground here is that everyone here likes the Stones for one reason or another. It's not a science, it's an art where everyone has a right to their opinions about it.

Quote
KRiffhard
It seems that many people would be happy with another album similar to ABB or a sort of 'Goddes in the Doorway' part. 2.
If you're pleased...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't expect a singer/songwriter-tinged album from Keith, so I really don't understand how a different album than his previous ones can be described as «conservative».

Time to stop this nonsense, imo. No more bashing - let's look forward to a new Stones album

Actually, I wasn't initially talking about CROSSEYED being 'conservative' - it is, though, by the terms I defined above - but of it attracting a conservative side of Stones fans. Well, looking all those posts now trying to 'defend' CROSSEYED HEART and point out its qualities - isn't there alraedy a thread for that fiesta already here? - and at the same bashing Jagger and see any new forms of music taking since the golden age of rock music harmful- even using Dylan to back up an argument - just verifies my point. Using a term 'conservative' is no pejorative but descriptive.

Most of the members of big rock and roll generations are very conservative - even intolerant - in regards to latest currents - how is that so shocking to say it loud? (In most cases, it is an age gap.) Because rock music was so 'liberal' by nature long time ago? a 'wrong' word?

- Doxa

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
KRiffhard
It seems that many people would be happy with another album similar to ABB or a sort of 'Goddes in the Doorway' part. 2.
If you're pleased...

Well, I would be pleased not to get a "Crossdressed Fart", part 2.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't expect a singer/songwriter-tinged album from Keith, so I really don't understand how a different album than his previous ones can be described as «conservative».

Time to stop this nonsense, imo. No more bashing - let's look forward to a new Stones album

Actually, I wasn't initially talking about CROSSEYED being 'conservative' - it is, though, by the terms I defined above - but of it attracting a conservative side of Stones fans. Well, looking all those posts now trying to 'defend' CROSSEYED HEART and point out its qualities - isn't there alraedy a thread for that fiesta already here? - and at the same bashing Jagger and see any new forms of music taking since the golden age of rock music harmful- even using Dylan to back up an argument - just verifies my point. Using a term 'conservative' is no pejorative but descriptive.

Most of the members of big rock and roll generations are very conservative - even intolerant - in regards to latest currents - how is that so shocking to say it loud? (In most cases, it is an age gap.) Because rock music was so 'liberal' by nature long time ago? a 'wrong' word?

- Doxa

I just don't see how fans who love Crosseyed Heart can be labeled "conservative" when they got something entirely else than they expected and loved it.

And I don't see how I am defending the album by pointing that out.

We were looking forward to cool open G-riffs and got "John Hiatt"! (I can't really see the Dylan comparison). Still, you keep going about the conservative fanboys.

Wrong word indeed, and a discussion which is banging in open doors, imo.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball
[


I think you underestimate everyone who you declare not seeing half the story - they see it loud and clear. When you say that "the qualities in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages", aren't you referring to things that happened well over 30 years ago? Surely you can't say that the band has been in 'top form' since then, and I believe you've actually noted that the studio output of this latter period is not up to par (Jagger solo as well as Stones output). It's clearly obvious that Jagger played a big part in bringing the band into greatness and keeping them at the top for so many years, but he didn't do it alone. And for the last 30+ years where he has nearly taken sole leadership of the band, it seems clear that he's been fishing around in the wrong ponds. Just as you say Keith's quality of input is lacking (or conservative as you put it), the qualities that Mick once brought to the band have been diminished for one reason or another, and the results speak for themselves when the band barely touches any of it when performing live.

Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.

Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.

The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.

I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.

The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.

- Doxa

And right there we should respectfully agree to disagree regarding Crosseyed Heart. You like it as a solo album "on it's own little terms" (whatever that means), while I think it stands on it's own and is leaps and bounds better than any Mick solo and indeed ranks up there with my favorite Stones albums. You also say you're glad it remains a Keith solo album, claiming Mick couldn't help it even if it were given the Stones treatment. I on the other hand am glad it remained a solo album because I firmly believe Mick would have possibly ruined it. An interesting thought to ponder though is the 'what if' factor. It might have been the best Stones album in decades (?), but then again it may have turned ugly with Micks input - I lean towards the latter based on my opinions regarding Mick's Stones input/solo material for the last several decades.

And opinion it is. You seem to want to come up with a scientific solution and lay a foundation as to what makes the Stones great. And then when someone has a differing opinion about why they love the Stones that doesn't quite meet your criteria or match your hypothesis, you say they just don't get it! You somehow want to come to the defense of Mick and say people are wrong for thinking the way they do. I appreciate your enthusiasm and enjoy reading some of your opinions, but I don't always agree. And when I disagree (with anyone), I don't come around in a roundabout way saying that that you are wrong for thinking the way you do and that you just don't get it! The bottom line is, it really doesn't have to get all personal, and as has been mentioned several times - Mick doesn't really need to be defended. He's a big boy who makes his own choices, and within that territory he can't please all the people all of the time - and the same goes for Keith. Some are more diehard and fanatical about it than others, but the common ground here is that everyone here likes the Stones for one reason or another. It's not a science, it's an art where everyone has a right to their opinions about it.

Well, I truly disagree with you. CH is nowhere near Stones level - yes it is the best KR solo, but that doesn't say much. Wandering Spirit was on Stones level, but no other solo projects have been. I agree with Doxa, the best thing about CH is that it was succesfull and I really hope that it prevents more than one Keith-vocal (and hopefully there will be just a duet like on Black and Blue) on the new album. Keith has charm, but he must focus on his guitar...

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball
[


I think you underestimate everyone who you declare not seeing half the story - they see it loud and clear. When you say that "the qualities in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages", aren't you referring to things that happened well over 30 years ago? Surely you can't say that the band has been in 'top form' since then, and I believe you've actually noted that the studio output of this latter period is not up to par (Jagger solo as well as Stones output). It's clearly obvious that Jagger played a big part in bringing the band into greatness and keeping them at the top for so many years, but he didn't do it alone. And for the last 30+ years where he has nearly taken sole leadership of the band, it seems clear that he's been fishing around in the wrong ponds. Just as you say Keith's quality of input is lacking (or conservative as you put it), the qualities that Mick once brought to the band have been diminished for one reason or another, and the results speak for themselves when the band barely touches any of it when performing live.

Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.

Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.

The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.

I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.

The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.

- Doxa

And right there we should respectfully agree to disagree regarding Crosseyed Heart. You like it as a solo album "on it's own little terms" (whatever that means), while I think it stands on it's own and is leaps and bounds better than any Mick solo and indeed ranks up there with my favorite Stones albums. You also say you're glad it remains a Keith solo album, claiming Mick couldn't help it even if it were given the Stones treatment. I on the other hand am glad it remained a solo album because I firmly believe Mick would have possibly ruined it. An interesting thought to ponder though is the 'what if' factor. It might have been the best Stones album in decades (?), but then again it may have turned ugly with Micks input - I lean towards the latter based on my opinions regarding Mick's Stones input/solo material for the last several decades.

And opinion it is. You seem to want to come up with a scientific solution and lay a foundation as to what makes the Stones great. And then when someone has a differing opinion about why they love the Stones that doesn't quite meet your criteria or match your hypothesis, you say they just don't get it! You somehow want to come to the defense of Mick and say people are wrong for thinking the way they do. I appreciate your enthusiasm and enjoy reading some of your opinions, but I don't always agree. And when I disagree (with anyone), I don't come around in a roundabout way saying that that you are wrong for thinking the way you do and that you just don't get it! The bottom line is, it really doesn't have to get all personal, and as has been mentioned several times - Mick doesn't really need to be defended. He's a big boy who makes his own choices, and within that territory he can't please all the people all of the time - and the same goes for Keith. Some are more diehard and fanatical about it than others, but the common ground here is that everyone here likes the Stones for one reason or another. It's not a science, it's an art where everyone has a right to their opinions about it.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball
[


I think you underestimate everyone who you declare not seeing half the story - they see it loud and clear. When you say that "the qualities in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages", aren't you referring to things that happened well over 30 years ago? Surely you can't say that the band has been in 'top form' since then, and I believe you've actually noted that the studio output of this latter period is not up to par (Jagger solo as well as Stones output). It's clearly obvious that Jagger played a big part in bringing the band into greatness and keeping them at the top for so many years, but he didn't do it alone. And for the last 30+ years where he has nearly taken sole leadership of the band, it seems clear that he's been fishing around in the wrong ponds. Just as you say Keith's quality of input is lacking (or conservative as you put it), the qualities that Mick once brought to the band have been diminished for one reason or another, and the results speak for themselves when the band barely touches any of it when performing live.

Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.

Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.

The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.

I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.

The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.

- Doxa

And right there we should respectfully agree to disagree regarding Crosseyed Heart. You like it as a solo album "on it's own little terms" (whatever that means), while I think it stands on it's own and is leaps and bounds better than any Mick solo and indeed ranks up there with my favorite Stones albums. You also say you're glad it remains a Keith solo album, claiming Mick couldn't help it even if it were given the Stones treatment. I on the other hand am glad it remained a solo album because I firmly believe Mick would have possibly ruined it. An interesting thought to ponder though is the 'what if' factor. It might have been the best Stones album in decades (?), but then again it may have turned ugly with Micks input - I lean towards the latter based on my opinions regarding Mick's Stones input/solo material for the last several decades.

And opinion it is. You seem to want to come up with a scientific solution and lay a foundation as to what makes the Stones great. And then when someone has a differing opinion about why they love the Stones that doesn't quite meet your criteria or match your hypothesis, you say they just don't get it! You somehow want to come to the defense of Mick and say people are wrong for thinking the way they do. I appreciate your enthusiasm and enjoy reading some of your opinions, but I don't always agree. And when I disagree (with anyone), I don't come around in a roundabout way saying that that you are wrong for thinking the way you do and that you just don't get it! The bottom line is, it really doesn't have to get all personal, and as has been mentioned several times - Mick doesn't really need to be defended. He's a big boy who makes his own choices, and within that territory he can't please all the people all of the time - and the same goes for Keith. Some are more diehard and fanatical about it than others, but the common ground here is that everyone here likes the Stones for one reason or another. It's not a science, it's an art where everyone has a right to their opinions about it.

Well, I truly disagree with you. CH is nowhere near Stones level - yes it is the best KR solo, but that doesn't say much. Wandering Spirit was on Stones level, but no other solo projects have been. I agree with Doxa, the best thing about CH is that it was succesfull and I really hope that it prevents more than one Keith-vocal (and hopefully there will be just a duet like on Black and Blue) on the new album. Keith has charm, but he must focus on his guitar...

And you truly have a right to that opinion even though we completely disagree!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball
[


I think you underestimate everyone who you declare not seeing half the story - they see it loud and clear. When you say that "the qualities in Jagger are actually the same ones which has brought the band into greatness, and helped to keep the band alive and in top for ages", aren't you referring to things that happened well over 30 years ago? Surely you can't say that the band has been in 'top form' since then, and I believe you've actually noted that the studio output of this latter period is not up to par (Jagger solo as well as Stones output). It's clearly obvious that Jagger played a big part in bringing the band into greatness and keeping them at the top for so many years, but he didn't do it alone. And for the last 30+ years where he has nearly taken sole leadership of the band, it seems clear that he's been fishing around in the wrong ponds. Just as you say Keith's quality of input is lacking (or conservative as you put it), the qualities that Mick once brought to the band have been diminished for one reason or another, and the results speak for themselves when the band barely touches any of it when performing live.

Well, for Mick keeping the band in top, has not solely - are actually much - to with the studio output for the last 30 years. I guess that what the Stones mostly is for Jagger - a touring circus he runs and takes of, and the biggest act in that business. And nothing indicates that they won't be as long as Jagger has the stamina and motivation. The studio output of the Stones since 1989 is rather marginal thing in compared to that - it is morelike 'I guess we need also release some new music here and then, to be a living and breating band and everything, not that we really need or want to'. And one can hear that from the results.

Another thing is that the creative juices of both Mick an dKeith have dried a long time ago. Yeah, they can up with some okay tunes here and then, somehow adding something to their legacy, but the days they were able writing stunning, distinctive songs - and albums full of them - are long past. I think that is the real reson why they don't bother even playing them. Jagger claims the conservatism of their audience for that, but I think everyone involved knows the real truth for their absence. Playing them would be 'apolegetic' or 'forcing the audience like them', and no one would be happy. We have to remember that their past doings are just so 'bigger than life' that competing with them would be a mission impossible. And I think recognizing their own lack of ability to write actually great new music is the reason why they are not so keen entering teh studio too often either.

The issue is not that if the music is 'contemporary' or 'rootsy' or whatever. But that of: if it is great or not.

I know you Keith Richards fans love CROSSEYED HEART dearly, and I also like it very much as a Keith Richards solo album. It is great within its own little terms, but as a Rolling Stones item I don't see there anything really worthwhile. Actually if translated into a Rolling Stones album - which I think should not to be done - it is a rather lame effort. There really aren't any distinctive songs or song sketches, which Jagger could transform into memorable Rolling Stones level greatness by adding his contribution there. Yeah, we could get a couple of Keith ballads - as they are now - to fill the Keith section of the album, and then a couple of "onemoreshots" when 'Jaggerized'. And that's it. Aren't, say, VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG full of that alraedy? If it is like Keith has said that his task is to "inspire Mick", I am rather sure that the material of CROSSEYED HEART would not have done that. So I am glad that Keith did it alone - the songs sounding and looking exactly like him, with no any compromises. That's why the album is so genuine and great by its own terms.

The Richards guys here seem to typically blame Jagger for their creative downhill, and if Keith would have more a say, the things would have been better (or be better now if the Stones would be 'crosseyedheartized'). Bullshit me thinks. Keith is as much to blame as Mick - if there is anything to 'blame' in matters like these: you can't force the creativity.

- Doxa

And right there we should respectfully agree to disagree regarding Crosseyed Heart. You like it as a solo album "on it's own little terms" (whatever that means), while I think it stands on it's own and is leaps and bounds better than any Mick solo and indeed ranks up there with my favorite Stones albums. You also say you're glad it remains a Keith solo album, claiming Mick couldn't help it even if it were given the Stones treatment. I on the other hand am glad it remained a solo album because I firmly believe Mick would have possibly ruined it. An interesting thought to ponder though is the 'what if' factor. It might have been the best Stones album in decades (?), but then again it may have turned ugly with Micks input - I lean towards the latter based on my opinions regarding Mick's Stones input/solo material for the last several decades.

And opinion it is. You seem to want to come up with a scientific solution and lay a foundation as to what makes the Stones great. And then when someone has a differing opinion about why they love the Stones that doesn't quite meet your criteria or match your hypothesis, you say they just don't get it! You somehow want to come to the defense of Mick and say people are wrong for thinking the way they do. I appreciate your enthusiasm and enjoy reading some of your opinions, but I don't always agree. And when I disagree (with anyone), I don't come around in a roundabout way saying that that you are wrong for thinking the way you do and that you just don't get it! The bottom line is, it really doesn't have to get all personal, and as has been mentioned several times - Mick doesn't really need to be defended. He's a big boy who makes his own choices, and within that territory he can't please all the people all of the time - and the same goes for Keith. Some are more diehard and fanatical about it than others, but the common ground here is that everyone here likes the Stones for one reason or another. It's not a science, it's an art where everyone has a right to their opinions about it.

Excuse me, dear Hairball, but where I do claim that if one does not agree with me, one does not 'get it'? My intention is to be so explicit - that's why I use so many words - that at least I hope it is pretty easy to see for anyone to see if he or she agrees with me or not. My posts basically are just some food for thought - reactive by nature, and trying to find angles and perspectives which might not be so obvious or at least very much emphasized in threads like this. For example, in this thread - like I have done lately - I have tried to offer opinions in regards Jagger and the issue of creativity that are actually sympathic towards him. Is that somehow a bad thing in a Rolling Stones fan board? I hope not. In your world that probably is "defending Jagger", but in mine it is just trying to understand the actions and mindset of probably the most important member of The Rolling Stones.

Nor I don't get the point of "being personal". It is the opinions we here share and it is the opinions that interests me. I don't see anything personal here.

In regards CROSSEYED HEART, I don't really see in where we really disagree. Both are happy that it 'remained' as a Keith solo album, and both agree it would have been worse if it had been translated into a Stones album. Probably we might disagree slightly about the reason why it would not have been a good Stones album: for you Jagger - being as hopeless/tasteless/bad or whatever he is- would have "ruined" it, for me that would have happened, because the material couldn't have inspired Jagger enough to make anything memorable out of it.

- Doxa

Quote
Witness
Well, we all have our prejudices, small or great. Seen in another perspective than by both parties here: Yours, not only yours, must be the exaggeration that there is no quality at any level of positive merit to be found at all in the studio material from the Rolling Stones post 1989. Then you make grand reasoning around that apparent fact and arrive at farreaching conclusions.

I can't see through my own prejudices, of course.

P.S. In regards to the Glimmer Twins issue, I have had my own prejudices, with which I have been struggling with. I happened to step onboard when the significance of Keith Richards and as a real hero of the band seemed to be the latest discovery in the news. That was 1981. Surely Keith, the true down-earth, druggie rebel in the shadow of that 'difficult, arrogant, jet setter Jagger, was already the darling boy of the critical rock music press of the 70's (which actually was critical back then), but it really hit big time during the early 80's, especially during the 1981 tour. And then the WW3 years happened. The tension between the Glimmers was in its strongest; Keith seemingly gathering all the sympathy and Jagger all the blame (his solo doings giving a bit too easy target for a critical bashing -"Let's Work" - c'mon!). Of course, as a young fan boy, playing guitar and everything, I belonged to the Richards block (though I guess I might thinking being neutral). Keith looked and sounded cool, his doings seemed to be always right, while Jagger's doings seemed hard to understand sometimes.

Well, it took me years to really see through to get over of that interpretation (based on whatever prejudices and influences), and probably without a medium of internet I wouldn't ever considered doing that. It was the discussion among other fans that really get me going, and I started reflecting more and more through all the things Stones related. Or one could say: taking the topic of The Rolling Stones seriously, and seeing them in a more critical light than my earlier 'blind' fanhood could ever had allowed (even though I had by VOODOO LOUNGE kind of giving up seeing them as a serous creative act any longer). I think the central theme in my 'studies on dynamics of the band' - happened mostly here in the very pages of IORR - has been that of my 80's dictum (or actually myth) that "Keith Richards Is The Rolling Stones", which I've been most seriously put on the target. So actually recognizing the real significance of people like Brian Jones and Mick Taylor in their story, and probably, lastly of Mick Jagger, have all been happened by the expanse of Keith Richards. It was not motivated by any agenda, but a result of reflection, when really put under a 'scrutiny' - what really has been happened, and who did and what. For example, my account what really happened during "WW3", and what caused it, has totally changed from the impression I had during those times (when I seemingly was an easy target of Jane Rose's masterful PR machine and one-sided rock media). Probably for that personal reason - this is a confession - I might be a bit sensitive towards hearing too much of that "Mick this and that, blah blah blah, but Keith is so cool..." It is just so 80's...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't expect a singer/songwriter-tinged album from Keith, so I really don't understand how a different album than his previous ones can be described as «conservative».

Time to stop this nonsense, imo. No more bashing - let's look forward to a new Stones album

Actually, I wasn't initially talking about CROSSEYED being 'conservative' - it is, though, by the terms I defined above - but of it attracting a conservative side of Stones fans. Well, looking all those posts now trying to 'defend' CROSSEYED HEART and point out its qualities - isn't there alraedy a thread for that fiesta already here? - and at the same bashing Jagger and see any new forms of music taking since the golden age of rock music harmful- even using Dylan to back up an argument - just verifies my point. Using a term 'conservative' is no pejorative but descriptive.

Most of the members of big rock and roll generations are very conservative - even intolerant - in regards to latest currents - how is that so shocking to say it loud? (In most cases, it is an age gap.) Because rock music was so 'liberal' by nature long time ago? a 'wrong' word?

- Doxa

I just don't see how fans who love Crosseyed Heart can be labeled "conservative" when they got something entirely else than they expected and loved it.

And I don't see how I am defending the album by pointing that out.

We were looking forward to cool open G-riffs and got "John Hiatt"! (I can't really see the Dylan comparison). Still, you keep going about the conservative fanboys.

Wrong word indeed, and a discussion which is banging in open doors, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm tired of the artificial "camps". All Stones fans know that Mick and Keith are equally important for the Stones to function. I don't see the point of trying to unveil a friction that simply isn't there.

Turner is right. People have been exciting about a good record. That's all that is to it. No need for trying to create separation. Everybody looks forward to a new album, let's discuss a potential new album not fictional "camps".

Quote
frankotero
I suspect they feel a lot of pressure to make music on the same level as some of the past glories.

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm tired of the artificial "camps". All Stones fans know that Mick and Keith are equally important for the Stones to function. I don't see the point of trying to unveil a friction that simply isn't there.

Turner is right. People have been exciting about a good record. That's all that is to it. No need for trying to create separation. Everybody looks forward to a new album, let's discuss a potential new album not fictional "camps".

but cAMP X-RAY...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I didn't expect a singer/songwriter-tinged album from Keith, so I really don't understand how a different album than his previous ones can be described as «conservative».

Time to stop this nonsense, imo. No more bashing - let's look forward to a new Stones album

Actually, I wasn't initially talking about CROSSEYED being 'conservative' - it is, though, by the terms I defined above - but of it attracting a conservative side of Stones fans. Well, looking all those posts now trying to 'defend' CROSSEYED HEART and point out its qualities - isn't there alraedy a thread for that fiesta already here? - and at the same bashing Jagger and see any new forms of music taking since the golden age of rock music harmful- even using Dylan to back up an argument - just verifies my point. Using a term 'conservative' is no pejorative but descriptive.

Most of the members of big rock and roll generations are very conservative - even intolerant - in regards to latest currents - how is that so shocking to say it loud? (In most cases, it is an age gap.) Because rock music was so 'liberal' by nature long time ago? a 'wrong' word?

- Doxa

I just don't see how fans who love Crosseyed Heart can be labeled "conservative" when they got something entirely else than they expected and loved it.

And I don't see how I am defending the album by pointing that out.

We were looking forward to cool open G-riffs and got "John Hiatt"! (I can't really see the Dylan comparison). Still, you keep going about the conservative fanboys.

Wrong word indeed, and a discussion which is banging in open doors, imo.

I obviously seem to use the term 'conservative' in a larger sense than you do - referring to different musical genres. I think anyone knowing Keith Richards, especially being a hardcore fan of his, knows the kind of music Keith likes, and most likely, likes them as well. So for them there was nothing surprising in CROSSEYED HEART genre-wise if knowing from where Keith comes from. If there had been, say, a hip hop song there, I guess the real liberalism of his hardcore fanbase would have been tested... (all this iwould just ridiculous speculation had not a guy called Mick Jagger existed - who knows, like some people seem to be afraid here, what the "current sounds" in a new Stones album Ron talks about might be like....).

But in the sense you seem to use the word, you, of course, are right. The album was a nice surprise for many of his audience, offering things Keith hadn't really released before, or at least, to this extent. Like you said in some of your posts, Keith adapting a kind of singer/song-writer role altogether - instead that of old riffmaster - was an novelty per se.

I hope you catched my post in which I tried to explain the logic of being 'adventurous' - one can be that no matter if one is such genre-liberal as Mick or genre-conservative as Keith, and I think in ther case, Keith has been actually more adventurous than Mick during the last decades or so.

Leave that "conservative boys" stuff out, please. That's your words, not mine. Do you people - this is not just for you, Dandie - actually read my posts through - I do understand if you don't though - or are you just picking up some terms that you seemingly want to feel be hurted by? Look that Big Bad Bad Doxa is, once again, "bashing poor Keith Richards fans".

- Doxa, a genre conservative, and proud of it!

Quote
marcovandereijk
All I hope for, is that they will get together in the studio with the whole bunch,
start jamming around ideas that were brought in by both Mick and Keith or the two of them
together and that they will manage to inspire each other to make the songs come alive.
They're a BAND for gods sake, so please operate like one. Challenge, surprise, stimulate
each other and see what happens. Lock yourselves up in a studio, basement, kitchen or
whatever and let the ideas flow freely.