For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
HairballQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Hairball
99,9 percent of ALL Stones fans love Wandering Spirit?
Not so sure about that, but if you insist.
And 'love' is a pretty strong word, I'd probably go with 'like' or to a lesser degree 'tolerate', although I'm only speaking for myself.
I'm no statistician, but 20 years on this board has taught me that WS is, almost without exceptions, praised among fans
Then I must be part of the exception and the .1 percent minority who don't feel that way.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick wanted to make pop records in the 80s. It was a hard blow for most fans.
That said, I like a lot of the stuff he released.
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick wanted to make pop records in the 80s. It was a hard blow for most fans.
That said, I like a lot of the stuff he released.
Do you mean that a lot of Stones fans felt "betrayed" by Jagger doing his own stuff?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
DandelionPowderman
Mick wanted to make pop records in the 80s. It was a hard blow for most fans.
That said, I like a lot of the stuff he released.
Do you mean that a lot of Stones fans felt "betrayed" by Jagger doing his own stuff?
No, merely that they were puzzled by the musical direction.
Quote
latebloomerQuote
Redhotcarpet
Micks solo career is ridiculed here and there is a general consesus regarding Keiths solo albums and Keiths views on what Mick did in the 80s.
Red, Mick's solo career was mostly ridiculed in the press as well when his first album was released, and the general consensus there was that Keith's first solo album was better. As for latter albums from both of them, I'd say that's not necessarily the case. Is that consensus fair? Maybe not, but people do tend to follow the herd.
As for Keith's views on Mick in the 80s, I think the take on that is more nuanced and has evolved. The more you read, the more you think you know, right?
Quote
DoxaQuote
latebloomer
I don't think that is true at all. If you polled the fans here, I would bet that the vast majority admire both Keith and Mick equally, even if they gravitate more towards one Stone than the other in terms of identification. Yes, there are a few vocal forum members that love to point out what they view as the success of Keith's solo work vs Mick's, but I'd say the same is true in the other direction as far as Mick being the "savior" of the Stones. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Fortunately you are right in that sense if we would poll the fans here, and even more if we would include 'casual fans' as well - the people the Stones are able to attract so much that they are the biggest concert selling act of the world. Most of the people would give a shit about possible Mick vs. Keith controversy. For most people Mick and Keith complete each other nicely to make the Stones even more attractive.
But it is the relatively small but very loud-mouthed and stubborn section of Stones hardcore fans that seem to think that "Keith Richards is the heart and soul of the Stones" or even "Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones", that is, any musical greatness or geniusity in the band is somehow up to Keith Richards. An essential part for them to praise their hero and his significance, as their hero so often does, is to mock Jagger. This belief is supported by the authority of traditional music press, starting somewhere during the 70's when they helped creating the "Keef" myth in expanse of Jagger, and since nobody gives a shit any longer, very rarely anyone in musical press is interested in updating or even questioning it. It is all nostalgia now.
So part of this ideology is to explain whatever 'bad' is associated with the Stones (especially their incredible greed), is Jagger's fault and if Keith would have his say, the things would be so much better. This logic is funny because, if we look at their doings since 1989 re-union, it either states that
(a) Keith agrees with Jagger how the band should be lead (is as greed as he is and agrees with the musical direction of the band/trusts on Jagger's judgment and is happy to act according the role he has in the show).
(b) if not, he is just a puppet, one of the yes-man in Jagger's driven boat (and is just happy to play with his old pals, although being artistically impotent, and laughing all the way to bank).
Which one would look better in the eyes of Richards myth? Neither I believe.
But according to the Keef ideology, The Stones would record great records if Jagger just would agreed to co-operate with Keith again - finishing Keith's sketches to proper songs, etc. The reality-baseless assumption of this idea is that Keith himself is somehow as creative and trivially as 'good' as he has ever been. No reflection is wasted in asking, for example, if there is something wrong not in Jagger's attitude but with Keith's famous "antenna" - why he is not able to inspire Jagger with his song sketches? What actually was the last time he did that? With "Beast of Burden"? It could be that among his hardcore fans they see in, say, CROSSEYED HEART, a handful of potential Rolling Stones classics had Jagger just added his contribution to them, and it is a mystery for many of them, why many people, myself and seemingly Jagger among them, does not see the supposed greatness in them (but more like a tiresome collection of old, many imes circulated cliches). The "feel" compotent, so much heralded by his fans, seemingly works only to a certain educated ears.
No reflection is wasted either to stop, for example, asking why Richards seems to be so happy about the course of the Stones, calling it "best Stones yet", since Jagger 'vegazised' the band in 1989, using his own 1988 solo tours as the model in modernizing the band and their show.
Part of the ideology is to emphasize the importance of "WWIII" (Keith's very own term), and that Keith somehow won the war and 'saved' the Stones by releasing his TALK IS CHEAP album (which didn't actually sell much more than Jagger's clearly flopping PRIMITIVE COOL). That is total bullshit, based most likely to own preference in regards their solo albums or taking Keith's sayings at face value. Surely Keith also was the darling boy of the musical press at the time (and Jane Rose did a PR work which would make Andrew Look Oldham proud), which went along with "anti-Mick" sentiments of the era, based on him, once again, not acting according to their expectations (he had difficulties especially with the 'critical'/'serious' rock press since the early 70's). Jagger's 'flop' was a happy news for many, seeing that difficult sonfb..h to fall finally big time. It all worked so nicely to the benefit of Keith, who actually did nothing else but talked a lot and released a record that pleased only the most hardcore Rolling Stones fans.
Yeah, Jagger flopped, but instead of "crawling back", as it many times liked to be seen in certain circles, he took the control of the band more strongly to his hands than ever been. Wasn't that one of the main reasons why, according to Keith, the whole 80's tension intially took place, him wanting more of the control? But suddenly Mick calling the shots was alright to Keith in 1989.... The albums started to done the way Jagger wanting them to do, quickly and effectively, and when he wanted; the shows were based on latest stage gimmicks, an army of hired hands supporting them and taking care of the professionalism no matter which was the condition of the guitar section in a given day, etc. (One could also say that Keith had grown up during the 80's as well, and realized that Mick was right in wanting to modernize and professionalize the band - the routines that had worked in the past, didn't work any longer - but Keith never admits this because it conflicts with his own preferred WWIII story. If one reads LIFE it is very hard for Keith to say anything coherent of the post-1989 Stones; too many contradictions there).
But it is not only against or in respect to Jagger this "Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones" ideology works. Be it Brian Jones, Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman, the Richards devotees love to downplay their role in the history of The Stones. As far pure creativity goes, it is pretty hard for these people to give any credit for any other Stone than to their hero. (One can start that by searching what people here have to say about Bill's supposed role in coming up with the "Jumpin' Jack flash" riff)
But before I'll continue to talk about Jagger's solo doings, let me finally remark that I know that a certain non-factual mythology is and has always been part of the Stones attraction, even though it has been decades since any of those things some relevance to any of us. But I think for any adult-minded Stones fan who actually wants to check the reality behind the myths, I advice to start with the Keith Richards tale. The (blind) adoration among his hardcore fans (and also reflected in traditional musical press) is no doubt real, but it seems to not only give him way too much credit in the history of the Stones, but also, oddily, a strange free pass in regards to not-so-pleasent Stones activities. Keith's actual genius stands that critical test.
- Doxa
Quote
DoxaQuote
latebloomer
I don't think that is true at all. If you polled the fans here, I would bet that the vast majority admire both Keith and Mick equally, even if they gravitate more towards one Stone than the other in terms of identification. Yes, there are a few vocal forum members that love to point out what they view as the success of Keith's solo work vs Mick's, but I'd say the same is true in the other direction as far as Mick being the "savior" of the Stones. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Fortunately you are right in that sense if we would poll the fans here, and even more if we would include 'casual fans' as well - the people the Stones are able to attract so much that they are the biggest concert selling act of the world. Most of the people would give a shit about possible Mick vs. Keith controversy. For most people Mick and Keith complete each other nicely to make the Stones even more attractive.
But it is the relatively small but very loud-mouthed and stubborn section of Stones hardcore fans that seem to think that "Keith Richards is the heart and soul of the Stones" or even "Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones", that is, any musical greatness or geniusity in the band is somehow up to Keith Richards. An essential part for them to praise their hero and his significance, as their hero so often does, is to mock Jagger. This belief is supported by the authority of traditional music press, starting somewhere during the 70's when they helped creating the "Keef" myth in expanse of Jagger, and since nobody gives a shit any longer, very rarely anyone in musical press is interested in updating or even questioning it. It is all nostalgia now.
So part of this ideology is to explain whatever 'bad' is associated with the Stones (especially their incredible greed), is Jagger's fault and if Keith would have his say, the things would be so much better. This logic is funny because, if we look at their doings since 1989 re-union, it either states that
(a) Keith agrees with Jagger how the band should be lead (is as greed as he is and agrees with the musical direction of the band/trusts on Jagger's judgment and is happy to act according the role he has in the show).
(b) if not, he is just a puppet, one of the yes-man in Jagger's driven boat (and is just happy to play with his old pals, although being artistically impotent, and laughing all the way to bank).
Which one would look better in the eyes of Richards myth? Neither I believe.
But according to the Keef ideology, The Stones would record great records if Jagger just would agreed to co-operate with Keith again - finishing Keith's sketches to proper songs, etc. The reality-baseless assumption of this idea is that Keith himself is somehow as creative and trivially as 'good' as he has ever been. No reflection is wasted in asking, for example, if there is something wrong not in Jagger's attitude but with Keith's famous "antenna" - why he is not able to inspire Jagger with his song sketches? What actually was the last time he did that? With "Beast of Burden"? It could be that among his hardcore fans they see in, say, CROSSEYED HEART, a handful of potential Rolling Stones classics had Jagger just added his contribution to them, and it is a mystery for many of them, why many people, myself and seemingly Jagger among them, does not see the supposed greatness in them (but more like a tiresome collection of old, many imes circulated cliches). The "feel" compotent, so much heralded by his fans, seemingly works only to a certain educated ears.
No reflection is wasted either to stop, for example, asking why Richards seems to be so happy about the course of the Stones, calling it "best Stones yet", since Jagger 'vegazised' the band in 1989, using his own 1988 solo tours as the model in modernizing the band and their show.
Part of the ideology is to emphasize the importance of "WWIII" (Keith's very own term), and that Keith somehow won the war and 'saved' the Stones by releasing his TALK IS CHEAP album (which didn't actually sell much more than Jagger's clearly flopping PRIMITIVE COOL). That is total bullshit, based most likely to own preference in regards their solo albums or taking Keith's sayings at face value. Surely Keith also was the darling boy of the musical press at the time (and Jane Rose did a PR work which would make Andrew Look Oldham proud), which went along with "anti-Mick" sentiments of the era, based on him, once again, not acting according to their expectations (he had difficulties especially with the 'critical'/'serious' rock press since the early 70's). Jagger's 'flop' was a happy news for many, seeing that difficult sonfb..h to fall finally big time. It all worked so nicely to the benefit of Keith, who actually did nothing else but talked a lot and released a record that pleased only the most hardcore Rolling Stones fans.
Yeah, Jagger flopped, but instead of "crawling back", as it many times liked to be seen in certain circles, he took the control of the band more strongly to his hands than ever been. Wasn't that one of the main reasons why, according to Keith, the whole 80's tension intially took place, him wanting more of the control? But suddenly Mick calling the shots was alright to Keith in 1989.... The albums started to done the way Jagger wanting them to do, quickly and effectively, and when he wanted; the shows were based on latest stage gimmicks, an army of hired hands supporting them and taking care of the professionalism no matter which was the condition of the guitar section in a given day, etc. (One could also say that Keith had grown up during the 80's as well, and realized that Mick was right in wanting to modernize and professionalize the band - the routines that had worked in the past, didn't work any longer - but Keith never admits this because it conflicts with his own preferred WWIII story. If one reads LIFE it is very hard for Keith to say anything coherent of the post-1989 Stones; too many contradictions there).
But it is not only against or in respect to Jagger this "Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones" ideology works. Be it Brian Jones, Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman, the Richards devotees love to downplay their role in the history of The Stones. As far pure creativity goes, it is pretty hard for these people to give any credit for any other Stone than to their hero. (One can start that by searching what people here have to say about Bill's supposed role in coming up with the "Jumpin' Jack flash" riff)
But before I'll continue to talk about Jagger's solo doings, let me finally remark that I know that a certain non-factual mythology is and has always been part of the Stones attraction, even though it has been decades since any of those things some relevance to any of us. But I think for any adult-minded Stones fan who actually wants to check the reality behind the myths, I advice to start with the Keith Richards tale. The (blind) adoration among his hardcore fans (and also reflected in traditional musical press) is no doubt real, but it seems to not only give him way too much credit in the history of the Stones, but also, oddily, a strange free pass in regards to not-so-pleasent Stones activities. Keith's actual genius stands that critical test.
- Doxa
Quote
wonderboy
It's possible to believe many, conflicting things about Keith -- he was the best songwriter in the band, he lost his way sometime in the 1970s, his jazzy-type ballads after that were still among the most interesting moments in the band, his solo albums were mostly good, he screwed up his solo career because he was drunk and undisciplined, he retains a certain level of authenticity, he went along with the Vegas Stones quite happily.
Mick's role in the past 30 years has been to monetize the thing and keep it rolling. You can admire that the same way you'd admire a businessman, but it's not art. We might have had better music if they had gone their separate ways after they fell out, but on the other hand Keith would probably be dead if it wasn't for the structure and the meaning the Stones give him.
Quote
stone4everQuote
LeonidP
Nah, I agree completely with Keith's "dogshit in the doorway" assessment.
never truer words spoken.
I stay out of Mick solo threads because i can't help but feel negative about Micks solo ventures, so my lips are sealed but Keith definitely summed it up beautifully with the "dogshit in the doorway" comment.
Quote
Witness
You yourself don't abstain from introducing Keith in a thread about Mick's solo albums.Quote
stone4everQuote
LeonidP
Nah, I agree completely with Keith's "dogshit in the doorway" assessment.
never truer words spoken.
I stay out of Mick solo threads because i can't help but feel negative about Micks solo ventures, so my lips are sealed but Keith definitely summed it up beautifully with the "dogshit in the doorway" comment.
Quote
lem motlow
it doesn't have anything to do with mick or keith individually that they haven't produced a bunch of great music in the past few years.
it's simple,they don't like each other.they keep the band together for a cash cow.neither one of them want to spend anymore time with the other than they have to.they work hard when they're together for the brand,they don't want to suck or it hurts the stones name.
anything you see that is not the rolling stones,that's what they really want to do.crosseyed heart,brad paisley and don henly,movies,sitting on the beach.the rest is working for money to finance the lifestyle
there is no blame,it's just over and has been for a long time..
Quote
lem motlow
it doesn't have anything to do with mick or keith individually that they haven't produced a bunch of great music in the past few years.
it's simple,they don't like each other.they keep the band together for a cash cow.neither one of them want to spend anymore time with the other than they have to.they work hard when they're together for the brand,they don't want to suck or it hurts the stones name.
anything you see that is not the rolling stones,that's what they really want to do.crosseyed heart,brad paisley and don henly,movies,sitting on the beach.the rest is working for money to finance the lifestyle
there is no blame,it's just over and has been for a long time..
Quote
Witness
It may be part of the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth. They seem to like being on stage as the Rolling Stones, even with more or less unchanged setlists. Perhaps relishing the adoration at least.
Neither is it unthinkable that they, mutual dislikes or not, may take pride in another effort to make one more worthy studio album. And when their past offerings from the last decades have not lived up to earlier achievements, one contributing factor has been a negative incentive from the public's lack of interested reception. Of course, a vicious circle.
Quote
lem motlow
you would have thought i said"i would like to thank your mothers for the oral sex,i'll mail them each their 5 dollars soon"
Quote
stone4ever
Ultimately Mick's focus is on stretching this thing out for all its worth for the sole motive of making more money. Playing the percentage game with set lists to maximize top Dollar for bum's on seats. Definitely this is not art. This is not about creativity or musicianship, Mick has (since 89') managed to whip himself up into peak physical form and i commend him for that but at what price. Mick lengthened his career but is quantity better than quality for the observer, listener.
Quote
Hairball
Infamy is one of Keith's all time weakest tracks imo.