Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
But then it is not obvious that a solo career was the only thought in his mind. And the reception to UNDERCOVER with the albumbuying public had a potential to motivate instead of demotivate him towards the band.

The third option that I'm trying to convince you about is that Mick used Undercover as a vehicle to experiment musically, technologically and marketing-wise to gain a valuable experience for what to come later

I fail to see the relevance for such experiment by the Stones for his recording of SHE'S THE BOSS by the involved musicians then. The songs emerge as widely differing in approach as well to this amateur listener. Besides, I am at a loss to see any positive experiences marketing-wise from the band activity here to his ensuing solo venture. But what do I know! Do you positively know anything? Possibly. I doubt it, though, in this context that is.

Well, some of the same musicians wound up on She's The Boss (Sly and Robbie) + other synth guys. It could be possible that the musical direction of Undercover wasn't coincidental. We know from interviews that Mick wanted to experiment with «hip hop»-technology etc. on She's The Boss. He already had done that on Undercover, and I bet it wasn't Keith's idea

However, I'm merely speculating here, if that didn't come across clearly.

For me, songs like Undercover, Feel On Baby and Too Much Blood represented the start of Mick's solo career musically. Those songs, and the sound of them, are so fundamentally different from the stuff on ER and TY (although there are musicians on ER who also contributed on She's The Boss as well).

To my ears as unsophiscated listener, I rather see the mentionned songs (in bold) as examples of the innovative Stones songs, with much variation in between them, that Mick was keen to have the Stones do more of, not solo stuff as far as I hear his solo albums. That might have been a direction for the Stones that we all have lost, something that is all the more sad.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
But then it is not obvious that a solo career was the only thought in his mind. And the reception to UNDERCOVER with the albumbuying public had a potential to motivate instead of demotivate him towards the band.

The third option that I'm trying to convince you about is that Mick used Undercover as a vehicle to experiment musically, technologically and marketing-wise to gain a valuable experience for what to come later

I fail to see the relevance for such experiment by the Stones for his recording of SHE'S THE BOSS by the involved musicians then. The songs emerge as widely differing in approach as well to this amateur listener. Besides, I am at a loss to see any positive experiences marketing-wise from the band activity here to his ensuing solo venture. But what do I know! Do you positively know anything? Possibly. I doubt it, though, in this context that is.

Well, some of the same musicians wound up on She's The Boss (Sly and Robbie) + other synth guys. It could be possible that the musical direction of Undercover wasn't coincidental. We know from interviews that Mick wanted to experiment with «hip hop»-technology etc. on She's The Boss. He already had done that on Undercover, and I bet it wasn't Keith's idea

However, I'm merely speculating here, if that didn't come across clearly.

For me, songs like Undercover, Feel On Baby and Too Much Blood represented the start of Mick's solo career musically. Those songs, and the sound of them, are so fundamentally different from the stuff on ER and TY (although there are musicians on ER who also contributed on She's The Boss as well).

To my ears as unsophiscated listener, I rather see the mentionned songs (in bold) as examples of the innovative Stones songs, with much variation in between them, that Mick was keen to have the Stones do more of, not solo stuff as far as I hear his solo albums. That might have been a direction for the Stones that we all have lost, something that is all the more sad.

I don't disagree with that. But I think he wanted She's The Boss to be «innovative with much variation» as well.

Musically speaking, there is a corelation between the sound and rhythmic elements of those three songs and the production of a good part of the She's The Boss tracks, though. By 1985, that «state of the art»-stuff was already obsolete, though...

Quote
HMS
Hearing Dont Stop, Highwire & Winning Ugly for the first time there´s no need for fake enthusiasm, those songs are exciting.

Fake enthusiasm indeed.

Their longest charting #1 LP.

One of their best sounding LPs (LIB, SF, EOMS and B&B have excellent sound but ER might be the best).

Fantastic mixing - She's So Cold is incredible. Unlike SOME GIRLS, ER has bottom to it and less AM radio trebly shit going on.

Charlie - excellent drumming. His new style is at its peak, notably She's So Cold, All About You and the title track.

Song wise... eh, there are some questionable ones on it. But hell, at that point, who cared? They were probably shocked at the results of SOME GIRLS. Mariachi horns on a ballad-esque song? Why not. With exception to Summer Romance, it's a 99% fresh album - and a few leftovers went to TATTOO YOU (Little T&A, Neighbours, No Use In Crying, Heaven).

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness
...............

I don't disagree with that. But I think he wanted She's The Boss to be «innovative with much variation» as well.

Musically speaking, there is a corelation between the sound and rhythmic elements of those three songs and the production of a good part of the She's The Boss tracks, though. By 1985, that «state of the art»-stuff was already obsolete, though...

I am not able to deny (or to verify) that, 'musically speaking', there may be a correlation in sound and rhytmic elements of those three songs and parts of SHE'S THE BOSS, even if I don't capture it. And I am not opposed to that solo album, I find it interesting, but may have some reservations. Have always loved "Hard Woman" though. However, to me SHE'S THE BOSS remains simply different from those three songs.
Whether it is obsolete as well, I cannot judge. I see it is the outcome of one long moment.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-27 18:05 by Witness.

I dont think that songs like Too Much Blood, Feel On Baby or Undercover Of The Night are some kind of "rehearsal" for Mick´s solo-career.
By 1983 he knew that the Stones on their upcoming album had to sound at least a bit "contemporary" to not end on the "boring-old-farts"-shelf. He was and is always looking for new influences. Sometimes the results are quite satisfying, sometimes they are truly awful.

With She´s The Boss he tried to be the "most contemporary" of all "contemporary artits". Somebody told him before that as a solo-singer he could be bigger than Michael Jackson & Madonna. That was completely wrong as we know by now. Back in 1985 She´s The Boss was state of the art in style and production but today it sounds even more dated than TSMR.

The sleeve was a big let down after SG, also the waste of time poster included in my copy.
That said, it was all forgotten once the needle hit Dance

Quote
Moonshine
The sleeve was a big let down after SG, also the waste of time poster included in my copy.
That said, it was all forgotten once the needle hit Dance

Yeah, I hated the cover but the music made up for it. I like covers that show the band...like Black and Blue.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
exilestones

Possibly better image quality

Was this the only poster they ever put out that said only that? It's HILARIOUS. The Rolling Stones On Rolling Stones Records And Tapes.

WOO HOO!

At least they used the original logo.

Aside from the EMOTIONAL RESCUE font, it says nothing at all about any release! It's not promoting anything!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
exilestones

Possibly better image quality

Was this the only poster they ever put out that said only that? It's HILARIOUS. The Rolling Stones On Rolling Stones Records And Tapes.

WOO HOO!

At least they used the original logo.

Aside from the EMOTIONAL RESCUE font, it says nothing at all about any release! It's not promoting anything!

Shame this wasn't the one included with the album

Quote
GasLightStreet
Their longest charting #1 LP.

One of their best sounding LPs (LIB, SF, EOMS and B&B have excellent sound but ER might be the best).

Fantastic mixing - She's So Cold is incredible. Unlike SOME GIRLS, ER has bottom to it and less AM radio trebly shit going on.

Charlie - excellent drumming. His new style is at its peak, notably She's So Cold, All About You and the title track.

Song wise... eh, there are some questionable ones on it. But hell, at that point, who cared? They were probably shocked at the results of SOME GIRLS. Mariachi horns on a ballad-esque song? Why not. With exception to Summer Romance, it's a 99% fresh album - and a few leftovers went to TATTOO YOU (Little T&A, Neighbours, No Use In Crying, Heaven).

HUGE disapointment after the classic that is Some Girls

Quote
Moonshine

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
exilestones

Possibly better image quality

Was this the only poster they ever put out that said only that? It's HILARIOUS. The Rolling Stones On Rolling Stones Records And Tapes.

WOO HOO!

At least they used the original logo.

Aside from the EMOTIONAL RESCUE font, it says nothing at all about any release! It's not promoting anything!

Shame this wasn't the one included with the album

Great poster...I have this on a big rectangular button.

I bet if ER would have been released before Some Girls, ER would be considered the classic, not Some Girls...

Some Girls is considered a classic because of Miss You and because it is their best selling album (thanks to Miss You). Musically it is so-so, an average album with only two outstanding tracks.

Imo, ER is an improvement in every way. More varity, better rockers, a better disco-track, better sound and a great great Keith-song. The only thing I dont like about ER is Indian Girl. Replace it with Neighbours or No Use In Crying and what do you get? A perfect Stones album!

Quote
HMS
I bet if ER would have been released before Some Girls, ER would be considered the classic, not Some Girls...

Some Girls is considered a classic because of Miss You and because it is their best selling album (thanks to Miss You). Musically it is so-so, an average album with only two outstanding tracks.

Imo, ER is an improvement in every way. More varity, better rockers, a better disco-track, better sound and a great great Keith-song. The only thing I dont like about ER is Indian Girl. Replace it with Neighbours or No Use In Crying and what do you get? A perfect Stones album!

Now that's an angle

Quote
HMS
I bet if ER would have been released before Some Girls, ER would be considered the classic, not Some Girls...

Some Girls is considered a classic because of Miss You and because it is their best selling album (thanks to Miss You). Musically it is so-so, an average album with only two outstanding tracks.

Imo, ER is an improvement in every way. More varity, better rockers, a better disco-track, better sound and a great great Keith-song. The only thing I dont like about ER is Indian Girl. Replace it with Neighbours or No Use In Crying and what do you get? A perfect Stones album!

You should stop taking the brown acid. SG is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better. One of their top 4 or 5

Quote
HMS
I bet if ER would have been released before Some Girls, ER would be considered the classic, not Some Girls...

Some Girls is considered a classic because of Miss You and because it is their best selling album (thanks to Miss You). Musically it is so-so, an average album with only two outstanding tracks.

Imo, ER is an improvement in every way. More varity, better rockers, a better disco-track, better sound and a great great Keith-song. The only thing I dont like about ER is Indian Girl. Replace it with Neighbours or No Use In Crying and what do you get? A perfect Stones album!

Not again, please. Stop trolling, please. Look at the albums that got a "deluxe" treatment so far and you can easily see which ones the Stones themselves regard as their "classic" albums (from 1971 onwards, of course). Plus each and every song from Some Girls as been played live. I usually respect minority opinions but claiming that SG has only two outstanding tracks and is overall only average is an insult.

Some Girls is their last purely classic album. From start to finish it is brilliant. ER is a novelty record. A bit lazy and disjointed. Fun, but not near as impactful as Some Girls. The Stones are great when they are in conflict and have shit going wrong in their lives. Some Girls is a New York divorce concept album, and it is brilliant. Brilliant playing by everyone involved, great art work, great small tour that was balls to the walls rock with no pomp.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-07-06 16:26 by whitem8.

Quote
whitem8
Some Girls is their last purely classic album. From start to finish it is brilliant. ER is a novelty record. A big lazy, and disjointed. Fun, but not near as impactful as Some Girls. The Stones are great when they are in conflict and have shit going wrong in their lives. Some Girls is a New York divorce concept album, and it is brilliant. Brilliant playing by everyone involved, great art work, great small tour that was balls to the walls rock with no pomp.

Yes. Exactly. You nailed it.

Quote
alimente

Quote
HMS
I bet if ER would have been released before Some Girls, ER would be considered the classic, not Some Girls...

Some Girls is considered a classic because of Miss You and because it is their best selling album (thanks to Miss You). Musically it is so-so, an average album with only two outstanding tracks.

Imo, ER is an improvement in every way. More varity, better rockers, a better disco-track, better sound and a great great Keith-song. The only thing I dont like about ER is Indian Girl. Replace it with Neighbours or No Use In Crying and what do you get? A perfect Stones album!

Not again, please. Stop trolling, please. Look at the albums that got a "deluxe" treatment so far and you can easily see which ones the Stones themselves regard as their "classic" albums (from 1971 onwards, of course). Plus each and every song from Some Girls as been played live. I usually respect minority opinions but claiming that SG has only two outstanding tracks and is overall only average is an insult.

He's really an insult to the legacy of the Stones' music regarding anyone with any knowledge of their catalog considering he thinks DIRTY WORK is an excellent album.

Why is it that any album failing to be as good as SG is automaticaly classed as rubbish in some folks' eyes ?

I Like ER. Some good songs, a good sound and, all in all, a great fun album.

Quote
Spud
Why is it that any album failing to be as good as SG is automaticaly classed as rubbish in some folks' eyes ?

I Like ER. Some good songs, a good sound and, all in all, a great fun album.

Because they choose to have a narrow view of the Stones. It can't all be like EXILE. Something that is truly bad is unmistakable (that would be that pathetic excuse of a release in 1986). But something that is a follow-up that reveals a lot less effort than its predecessor, well, ER gets that because it's true.

At least it sounds a hell of a lot better. SG sounds terrible.

ER is good, it's just not great. So there's one SG leftover on it - it sounds like it. But it's the sound of a band that seemingly had started to lose interest in the creative process (one can only thank Jagger agreeing to finish entire leftovers for TATTOO YOU) - supposedly they spent more time arguing about the mixes than the making of the LP whereas with SG they spent a ton of time, comparatively, making the LP.

Still, there were some excellent results: Down In The Hole, She's So Cold, Emotional Rescue, All About You, Summer Romance, Dance. Where The Boys go is just... they probably did that as a warm up and liked its bit of snarl but there's nothing great about it, it just fits. Let Me Go... eh, nice idea, some good guitar but otherwise rather bland.

I like the horns but Indian Girl is pretty bad. It's easily the weakest track on ER, just as Respectable is the weakest track on SG. Just as with SG there is very interesting guitar on ER. Send It To Me is hilarious and has nice guitars in it but it's probably just as fitting as Imagination is on SG - they could've done better.

If it´s greatness what you want as a Stones-fan, stop listening to them after 1971, in terms of greatness all releases after SF would be disappointing...

Every artist has his peak and a few masterpieces to document it and a lot of other work that might not come close to the masterpieces. Most (or all) Stones-albums post SF aren´t great, they are mostly just very good. And that´s enough for me. I dont expect greatness after SF - it is only topped by LIB - I just expect very good albums and ER is a very good album, like Undercover is a very good album. Black And Blue is also a very good album, SG, imo isn´t.

They touched greatness with Dirty Work but not really achieved it, as marvelous as DW is, it is just another very good album, of course one of the best of the very-good-albums.

ER has only one sucker, most Stones-albums have more. ER is a joyful listening experience, although it hasn´t the qualities that LIB or SF made great.

Btw, Respectable, imo, isnt the weakest track on SG, Whip, Lies, Shattered, BTMMR are all weaker and Faraway Eyes is one of the worst Stones-tracks I´ve ever heard, an annoying waste of time.

Finally, I like Emotional Rescue (the song) better than Miss You.

Quote
whitem8
Some Girls is their last purely classic album. From start to finish it is brilliant. ER is a novelty record. A bit lazy and disjointed. Fun, but not near as impactful as Some Girls. The Stones are great when they are in conflict and have shit going wrong in their lives. Some Girls is a New York divorce concept album, and it is brilliant. Brilliant playing by everyone involved, great art work, great small tour that was balls to the walls rock with no pomp.

3 brilliants in one post. I have tried to tell you people before you have made the word meaningless by the constant overuse. Does brilliant mean great? Good? Average? Can't tell anymore. Please find new words to describe things.

Here is the urban dictionary for the word. And its spot on.

brilliant
A term the British use to describe everything.
I's brilliant in't it? Right, yah, bloody brilliant. Wha' is? Oh, yah, right, brilliant. Bloody brillant.



So you don't consider TY a classic? I can't imagine saying that Some Girls is a classic but TY is not.

If you mean that you enjoy SG alot then that is a different story.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-07-07 19:13 by stanlove.

Quote
HMS
If it´s greatness what you want as a Stones-fan, stop listening to them after 1971, in terms of greatness all releases after SF would be disappointing...

u.

So EOMS is not a great album? Posts like this kill me.

Quote
Spud
Why is it that any album failing to be as good as SG is automaticaly classed as rubbish in some folks' eyes ?

I Like ER. Some good songs, a good sound and, all in all, a great fun album.

+1

Quote
Spud
Why is it that any album failing to be as good as SG is automaticaly classed as rubbish in some folks' eyes ?

I Like ER. Some good songs, a good sound and, all in all, a great fun album.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your description of ER. I for one would always say its a pretty good album that just had the fate of being sandwiched between two better ones.

One thing for me and my listening tastes now is ER is alittle young for me. I don't listen to it anymore because it seems geared towards someone younger. But thats just my musical preference today. But I would never say it wasn't a good album and i really liked it when it came out.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
HMS
If it´s greatness what you want as a Stones-fan, stop listening to them after 1971, in terms of greatness all releases after SF would be disappointing...

u.

So EOMS is not a great album? Posts like this kill me.

No, it isn't. But it could have been a great album - a great 12-track-album.
Too many fillers to call it a great album. Very good - yes, great - no.

Quote
HMS
They touched greatness with Dirty Work

You're killing me HMS! It's hilarious!

Quote
HMS

Quote
stanlove

Quote
HMS
If it´s greatness what you want as a Stones-fan, stop listening to them after 1971, in terms of greatness all releases after SF would be disappointing...

u.

So EOMS is not a great album? Posts like this kill me.

No, it isn't. But it could have been a great album - a great 12-track-album.
Too many fillers to call it a great album. Very good - yes, great - no.

This is the problem on music boards. Too much personal preference stated as facts. Obviously EOMS is regarded as a great album and one of the greatest in the history of rock. If your tastes don't jive with that you shouldn't stat to someone as a fact that they never did anything great after 1971. You should say you didn't think anyone was great after 1971. Huge difference that music board people never get.

I don't like Abby Road but I won't tell someone that the Beatles never did anything great after 1968. I would say I don't personally like Abby Road very much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-07-07 02:34 by stanlove.