I came across the following while reading the book "Kremlin Rising". A book about Vladimir Putin and contemporary Russia.It touched on the new Russia music. To quote musician turned radio station owner Misha Kozyrez "Pop will always tell you everything's fine, okay, it's cool. Rock will tell you it's not cool". I thought this was relevant to the relationship of alot of R&R's songwriting duo's, Mick (Pop) & Keith (Rock), Mccartney (Pop) & Lennon (Rock) and to a lesser degree Townshend (who writes 99.9 of the Who songs) and Daltrey (like Keith Richard more anchored). You can almost always seem to tell the Mick songs from the Keith songs. The two together like John and Paul seem to compliment each other. The yin/yang. Any thoughts?

This may apply quite well (though not exclusively) to Macca & Lennon but doesn't hold up when applied to the Glimmer twins at all. Most Stones material won't tell you it's cool (eg. Gimme Shelter, Heartbreaker, Fingerprint File etc.) but Mick writes most of the lyrics. If you can make such a reduction then I'd say both Mick and Keith are 'rock' rather than 'pop'. They have a yin and yang thing going on but in terms of personality rather than the music. Also I would argue that Townshend is far more 'rock' than Daltrey. His songs are invariably dark, questioning and edgy. How many Townshend songs tell you everything is fine??

... well, since you ask: maybe that statement you start from is true of a lot of contemporary Russian rock, but i wouldn't agree that it characterizes rock music in general - there's also "feel-good" rock, and the Stones sure have generated a glorious lot of it. nor would i agree that Jagger/Richards can be summed up as (respectively) "reassuring pop/menacing rock"; nor do i imagine that the way their creative partnership works is readily evident to outsiders (maybe not even to insiders).
yin/yang? sure - if we understand yin/yang as swirling greys blues black & white.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Rock as a form of social protest in 60-70s maybe yes, rock as a music no.
It's very sad to hear such a crap from a guy who is responsible for the music people listen on the radio.

yeah, and it's not like rock ever had any monopoly on social protest anyway. the guy's statement simply doesn't hold water.

smile: i was just watching an 83 interview with the Glimmer Twins, made during the filming of the Undercover promo. the interviewer was going on about what scathing social commentary the whole album was dripping with, while the Glimmer Twins voted firmly for the principle that rock is all about sex, risk and immaturity.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Mick tends to be more lightweight in his songwriting.Listen to his solo albums or "Back to zero" 'Hearts for sale" 'Indian Girl" "Emotional Rescue"etc.Pop: lyrics? Maybe Not. Music? Yes.Keith:Rock! "Gimme Shelter." "You Don't Move Me " The Worst" etc. I realize that not all of Mick's muic is "Pop", Trendy maybe a better word.Mick and Keith solo efforts have never matched their work together.As Newsweek recently stated:Keith reminds Mick he is a musician,Mick reminds Keith he is a superstar.Mick and Keith have often quarraled over the finished songs. As for the Who, they were a Pop group in the beginning.The point i was making was about the relationship of Townshend and Daltrey.The Who at their peak rival the Stones. Only if the often talked about tour together had materialized.

definetly do not agree. mick is definetly just as rock as keith.

there is definetly a ying yang going on, but it's not that. it's their diverse personalitlies that seem to strike a chord which allows them to make the beautiful songs they make.

but when is something rock and when is it pop? let's take a band like Greenday. they play rock-music. but then again they are what you may call a pop-band. the rolling stones are not a pop band. but they ARE a rock band. they were a pop band 40 years ago.

I never would nor have i said that the Stones were/are a pop group.(Maybe for a brief moment in the mid-sixties). In the beginning more of a blues band.Listen to "Goddess in the doorway".Now listen to "Talk is cheap".For that matter listen to "Goats Head Soup"(more of a Mick album than a Keith) then listen to "Exile on main street"."Emotional rescue"(Mick's) vs "Dirty Work"(Keith's). Listen , i love all of these records. Just talking about style. That what i love about them the diffences. Keith never record with Michael Jackson! I think that Keith had more to do with Justin Timberlake coming onstage with them in Toronto than Mick. He took His daughters to one of his band's shows(Justin T.) and met him. I still cringe on that one. Even Metallic's hardcore fans have scream about going commerial (selling out,going soft(pop) when they released "Load" and "Reload". Just my humble opinion.