Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

On live aid 1985 Jagger and his band gave this song a bit more of a warm rock feel, and indeed, Madonna's "La Isla Bonita" had a more romantic acoustic 'guitar trick' on that track. The mid- 8tees productions are a pain in the as every now and then.

Oh yeah, Madonna's that one. What I recall that by the time the Stones were using that trick in "Almost Hear You Sigh" that sounded like a cheap cliche already.

But hey you, my Taylorite friend, what do you think over-all of SHE'S THE BOSS? You are a fan of Beck and skillful guitar work, so I guess that part of the album works for you at least?

- Doxa

Cliches are often guilty pleasures, I bet everybody has one or two. I don't consider the acoustic guitar on "La Isla Bonita" to be a cheap cliche because it emphasizes the mood of the song. Where to draw the line, on "Blue and Lonesome"??

Jeff Becks's playing on She's the Boss is amazing when he's allowed to come out of the cage, creating these beautiful sound landscapes, never heard before on a Stones related album. It makes that record more interesting to listen to if your ears are opened for it, even after 30 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 13:12 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
stone4ever
Sleep Tonight and Too Rude from DW are better than all Jagger solo album's put together.

That's a good argument. Throw Harlem Shuffle and Had It With You in there and it's even better.

I just realized this is fascinating reading GasLightStreet.
As much as you hate Dirty Work, you go so far as to say that you think 4 tracks on it are better than all Micks solo Albums.
I didn't think it was possible to find someone hate Micks solo work to the extent that i do. Of course nothing Mick does is all bad, its just that before he went solo i had such high regard for him, i thought he was a god like genius, i really did.

look you two goons...give Wandering Spirit another listen. Too Rude=Too Boring and Sleep Tonight=I'm asleep, quit bothering me

I agree that we should take every opportunity to pummel Mick, but let's at least arm ourselves with a coherent argument and quality comparisons.

You'll notice what I said here...

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
stone4ever
Sleep Tonight and Too Rude from DW are better than all Jagger solo album's put together.

That's a good argument. Throw Harlem Shuffle and Had It With You in there and it's even better.

I just realized this if fascinating reading GasLightStreet.
As much as you hate Dirty Work, you go so far as to say that you think 4 tracks on it are better than all Micks solo Albums.
I didn't think it was possible to find someone hate Micks solo work to the extent that i do. Of course nothing Mick does is all bad, its just that before he went solo i had such high regard for him, i thought he was a god like genius, i really did.

It's a weird concept, really. Jagger has done some great solo songs and he's done some good solo songs - but aside from Stones fans, nobody even knows about them (the same for Keith's solo songs/albums). Some of them may have been better as Stones songs. But he's done a lot more bad solo songs than good solo songs. I've always thought if he had a sympathetic guitarist instead of a wanking Jeff Beck on some songs they'd be better, more listenable.

I say the 4 songs from DIRTY WORK in jest - although there are days when I think it's true. Are they really better than any of Jagger's solo songs? Or are those 4 DW songs just good enough?

To sum that up, I listen to songs from WS more than anything from DW, and for that matter just a few from PRIMITIVE COOL more than any from DW. So in that aspect, yes, some of Jagger's solo songs are better than the best 4 on DW. As much as I like Harlem Shuffle I'd really rather listen to Hang On To Me Tonight. As much as I like Had It With You I'd really rather listen to Put Me In The Trash. Too Rude - well, Kow Tow is more preferable. Sleep Tonight? Gimme Wired All Night.

Comparing songs that are completely different in style is senseless (Sleep Tonight-Wired All Night). Compare ballads to ballads and rockers to rockers if you feel the need to compare Stones-songs/solo-songs.

So, Sleep Tonight compared to Evening Gown would be 0:1, but compared to Handsome Molly it would be 1:0...

Quote
HMS
Comparing songs that are completely different in style is senseless (Sleep Tonight-Wired All Night). Compare ballads to ballads and rockers to rockers if you feel the need to compare Stones-songs/solo-songs.

So, Sleep Tonight compared to Evening Gown would be 0:1, but compared to Handsome Molly it would be 1:0...

You're senseless. And clearly ignorant, since they were not being 'compared'.

If you choose between two songs you automatically compare.

Quote
HMS
If you choose between two songs you automatically compare.

Idiot - comparing is tangerine pie to navel orange pie.

Choosing between two songs is not comparing. You're such a dolt.

People are ranking Hard Woman too highly, it seems. It's decent but that's about it. I don't go out of my way to listen to it. (And the single version is a cool novelty, but not really worth wasting listening time on)

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
If you choose between two songs you automatically compare.

Idiot - comparing is tangerine pie to navel orange pie.

Choosing between two songs is not comparing. You're such a dolt.

You have two songs to choose from. You pick the one that is more attractive to you. Your decision is based on comparison.

Quote
LeonidP
People are ranking Hard Woman too highly, it seems. It's decent but that's about it. I don't go out of my way to listen to it. (And the single version is a cool novelty, but not really worth wasting listening time on)

Agree. In 1985 I liked it but only for a short while. After listening to it you quickly realize that Hard Woman is a bloated, overproduced schmaltzy song. And Mick sings in a very strange way, I think he´s imitating some other artist, the result is almost ridiculous.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I really like Run Rudolph Run and The Harder They Come. The latter is perhaps a little rough, though?

Of course, but for me that's part of its charm. And the way Keith injects some Rock'n'Roll into this Reggae tune. And the way this track builds from start to finish. It just has this natural flow that always attracts me in musical performances whenever I detect it. It just sounds like a live performance in contrast to a perfectly produced multitrack studio recording that has lost all warts and stuff. Just like many early Reggae recordings. Or like a garage band. Simply love that.

Memories are hard to recollect. Who knows if I was already a Stones' "fan-atic" in 1983?

For sure I had already consumed my Rolled Gold cassette, side one of Tattoo You and I loved Undercover.

On the other hand, at the time I did not know Sticky or Exile. Probably not even Some Girls. I knew nothing of the band and the fights that were tearing it apart. Probably I hardly knew who Keith Richards was. If anyone, Brian Jones was the star (to my excuse, I grew up in a Beatles friendly family, and in a Beatles friendly country!!!).

I bought She's the boss because it was a hot release, not because it was Jagger's first solo work. For sure Jagger's age was not an issue. It was quite normal to have "old" rocker on the charts. Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, Rod Stewart, etc. were all very popular. (For what matters, from the point of view of a 15 year old kid, any age above 25 was "old"!!!)

I liked it! It was fun. A party record.

The sound, the synths, electric drums, effected guitars etc. didn't put me off at all. Sure I liked my Sex Pistols, Clash and AC/DC's back in black was still in heavy rotation, but I was also digging Prince, the Police's Ghost in the Machine, the early Cure, the Talking Heads etc.

Later on, when I started playing an instrument, I learned to appreciate how well it was crafted. Jagger got together some great musicians.

In retrospect - and this is just speculation - I don't think that Mick with Boss was trying to make something "different" form a Stones product. It was meant to be a Stones record, without the Stones. In fact it is not that far away from the style of Mick's songs on Undercover. The stones could have played any song on Boss. Back to Zero is an example.

Having a band of employees made a big difference. Boss doesn't sound forced. It is coherent. It does not have the many compromises that Undercover has.

On the other hand, the band of employees is also the big limit of Boss. The music is executed professionally, but at the end of the day, it leaves me cold. Its like a performance of the typical house band of US talk shows: great, but no band was ever formed wanting to be a Paul Shaffers' band!

I can't remember Boss being regarded as a fiasco. That is, if fiasco it was.

For me it remains a good album, with a standout masterpiece, Hard Woman, and a bunch of very good songs, very well executed.

To date, Jagger's best.

C

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I really like Run Rudolph Run and The Harder They Come. The latter is perhaps a little rough, though?

Of course, but for me that's part of its charm. And the way Keith injects some Rock'n'Roll into this Reggae tune. And the way this track builds from start to finish. It just has this natural flow that always attracts me in musical performances whenever I detect it. It just sounds like a live performance in contrast to a perfectly produced multitrack studio recording that has lost all warts and stuff. Just like many early Reggae recordings. Or like a garage band. Simply love that.

"perfectly produced multitrack studio recording that has lost all warts and stuff" ...

Harder They COme

i don't know why anyone refers to it as "micks solo career" or "keiths solo career"-thanks to michael cohl they both had side projects,not careers.as much as i knock the beatles-paul mccartney had a solo career,mick and keith did some side work when their band wasn't doing anything.
the stones had broken up when cohl grabbed them and they both hung it up for the big money,that's the bottom line.

it's an interesting "what if?" but none of it really went anywhere.jagger never toured the states or europe and his band wasn't great.keith did a couple of theater tours and 2 records and then nothing for decades.
to compare any of it to an actual stones record is beyond ridiculous for the simple reason the players in mick and keiths bands just aren't that good.
all of a sudden i'm supposed to think the goofy looking guy who played guitar for linda ronstadt is one of the greats because he's in "the winos" uh.no.he's average at best.
and micks writing songs with lenny kravitz? great ,find the biggest poser in rock and start writing with him or better yet dave stewart.when i think of great rock and roll i think eurythmics first thing,good one mick.who needs jagger richards when you have....dave.

the guys who are actually in the rolling stones are there for a reason and no matter what mick and keith do neither of them will ever make a solo album as good as ronnies "i've got my own album to do" it's never even gonna be close so why bother.

Quote
LeonidP
People are ranking Hard Woman too highly, it seems. It's decent but that's about it. I don't go out of my way to listen to it. (And the single version is a cool novelty, but not really worth wasting listening time on)

I think when some of us say we like or love Hard Woman, its more of a best out of a bad bunch really, Jagger solo leaves so few delights that we actually get exited about a song that would be embarrassing on a Stones album.

Quote
lem motlow
i don't know why anyone refers to it as "micks solo career" or "keiths solo career"-thanks to michael cohl they both had side projects,not careers.as much as i knock the beatles-paul mccartney had a solo career,mick and keith did some side work when their band wasn't doing anything.
the stones had broken up when cohl grabbed them and they both hung it up for the big money,that's the bottom line.

it's an interesting "what if?" but none of it really went anywhere.jagger never toured the states or europe and his band wasn't great.keith did a couple of theater tours and 2 records and then nothing for decades.
to compare any of it to an actual stones record is beyond ridiculous for the simple reason the players in mick and keiths bands just aren't that good.
all of a sudden i'm supposed to think the goofy looking guy who played guitar for linda ronstadt is one of the greats because he's in "the winos" uh.no.he's average at best.
and micks writing songs with lenny kravitz? great ,find the biggest poser in rock and start writing with him or better yet dave stewart.when i think of great rock and roll i think eurythmics first thing,good one mick.who needs jagger richards when you have....dave.

the guys who are actually in the rolling stones are there for a reason and no matter what mick and keith do neither of them will ever make a solo album as good as ronnies "i've got my own album to do" it's never even gonna be close so why bother.

I love this post, its so honest and down to earth after all the Doxa bullshit.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I really like Run Rudolph Run and The Harder They Come. The latter is perhaps a little rough, though?

Of course, but for me that's part of its charm. And the way Keith injects some Rock'n'Roll into this Reggae tune. And the way this track builds from start to finish. It just has this natural flow that always attracts me in musical performances whenever I detect it. It just sounds like a live performance in contrast to a perfectly produced multitrack studio recording that has lost all warts and stuff. Just like many early Reggae recordings. Or like a garage band. Simply love that.

Indeed, but it could use a mix.

Quote
HMS

Quote
LeonidP
People are ranking Hard Woman too highly, it seems. It's decent but that's about it. I don't go out of my way to listen to it. (And the single version is a cool novelty, but not really worth wasting listening time on)

Agree. In 1985 I liked it but only for a short while. After listening to it you quickly realize that Hard Woman is a bloated, overproduced schmaltzy song. And Mick sings in a very strange way, I think he´s imitating some other artist, the result is almost ridiculous.

Mick is always impersonating someone, i'm not sure Mick actually has a voice of his own anymore, its full of Americanisms and twangy sounds. I love how he sang in the 60's and 70's right up to Undercover. After that he sort of sings in a self conscious hiding his true voice manner. Also he cuts his vocals short on some live songs like Honky Tonk Woman and JJF. You don't get much bang for your buck with Mick these days. I mean it shows he can sing when he want's to, like with Blue And Lonesome, i was so surprised he could still actually sing like that. He must be economizing when we hear him live.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 23:05 by stone4ever.

Quote
lem motlow
i don't know why anyone refers to it as "micks solo career" or "keiths solo career"-thanks to michael cohl they both had side projects,not careers.as much as i knock the beatles-paul mccartney had a solo career,mick and keith did some side work when their band wasn't doing anything.
the stones had broken up when cohl grabbed them and they both hung it up for the big money,that's the bottom line.

it's an interesting "what if?" but none of it really went anywhere.jagger never toured the states or europe and his band wasn't great.keith did a couple of theater tours and 2 records and then nothing for decades.
to compare any of it to an actual stones record is beyond ridiculous for the simple reason the players in mick and keiths bands just aren't that good.
all of a sudden i'm supposed to think the goofy looking guy who played guitar for linda ronstadt is one of the greats because he's in "the winos" uh.no.he's average at best.
and micks writing songs with lenny kravitz? great ,find the biggest poser in rock and start writing with him or better yet dave stewart.when i think of great rock and roll i think eurythmics first thing,good one mick.who needs jagger richards when you have....dave.

the guys who are actually in the rolling stones are there for a reason and no matter what mick and keith do neither of them will ever make a solo album as good as ronnies "i've got my own album to do" it's never even gonna be close so why bother.

There's a lot of truth in your post, lem! That's why I called their solo "careers" or better: solo activities minor "footnotes" in the bigger scheme of things, which of course gave us some great songs nevertheless, but all in all I would have preferred them to invest their energy and songwriting skills into the Stones, what imho would have resulted in better and most likely more band albums in the past decades.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
lem motlow
i don't know why anyone refers to it as "micks solo career" or "keiths solo career"-thanks to michael cohl they both had side projects,not careers.as much as i knock the beatles-paul mccartney had a solo career,mick and keith did some side work when their band wasn't doing anything.
the stones had broken up when cohl grabbed them and they both hung it up for the big money,that's the bottom line.

it's an interesting "what if?" but none of it really went anywhere.jagger never toured the states or europe and his band wasn't great.keith did a couple of theater tours and 2 records and then nothing for decades.
to compare any of it to an actual stones record is beyond ridiculous for the simple reason the players in mick and keiths bands just aren't that good.
all of a sudden i'm supposed to think the goofy looking guy who played guitar for linda ronstadt is one of the greats because he's in "the winos" uh.no.he's average at best.
and micks writing songs with lenny kravitz? great ,find the biggest poser in rock and start writing with him or better yet dave stewart.when i think of great rock and roll i think eurythmics first thing,good one mick.who needs jagger richards when you have....dave.

the guys who are actually in the rolling stones are there for a reason and no matter what mick and keith do neither of them will ever make a solo album as good as ronnies "i've got my own album to do" it's never even gonna be close so why bother.

There's a lot of truth in your post, lem! That's why I called their solo "careers" or better: solo activities minor "footnotes" in the bigger scheme of things, which of course gave us some great songs nevertheless, but all in all I would have preferred them to invest their energy and songwriting skills into the Stones, what imho would have resulted in better and most likely more band albums in the past decades.

Not to mention live tours would have been a blast between 82' and 89' Mick and Keith missed there prime years, lots of artists perform at the peak of their powers in their late thirties early forties, Bowie and Freddie Mercury come to mind.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
LeonidP
People are ranking Hard Woman too highly, it seems. It's decent but that's about it. I don't go out of my way to listen to it. (And the single version is a cool novelty, but not really worth wasting listening time on)

I think when some of us say we like or love Hard Woman, its more of a best out of a bad bunch really, Jagger solo leaves so few delights that we actually get exited about a song that would be embarrassing on a Stones album.

As I was one to say that I love and even adore "Hard Woman", and, besides, that it possibly is the only great song on SHE'S THE BOSS, I like to add that this does not imply that I consider the rest of the album's songs as "a bad bunch". This album to me is better than what appears to be its reputation. And, in addition, "Hard Woman" to me would not be embarassing on a Stones album.

Quote
Witness

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
LeonidP
People are ranking Hard Woman too highly, it seems. It's decent but that's about it. I don't go out of my way to listen to it. (And the single version is a cool novelty, but not really worth wasting listening time on)

I think when some of us say we like or love Hard Woman, its more of a best out of a bad bunch really, Jagger solo leaves so few delights that we actually get exited about a song that would be embarrassing on a Stones album.

As I was one to say that I love and even adore "Hard Woman", and, besides, that it possibly is the only great song on SHE'S THE BOSS, I like to add that this does not imply that I consider the rest of the album's songs as "a bad bunch". This album to me is better than what appears to be its reputation. And, in addition, "Hard Woman" to me would not be embarassing on a Stones album.

Ok Witness, i consider myself told off

Its all subjective really, i don't want anything i say on here to be taken personally by others, because we are just giving our opinion on this band and it's members. If i think She's The Boss is the biggest pile of shit i ever walked in, it shouldn't be taken by anyone as a personal insult. I can't even remember that you in particular said you loved Hard Woman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 23:58 by stone4ever.

Quote
stone4ever
Mick is always impersonating someone, i'm not sure Mick actually has a voice of his own anymore, its full of Americanisms and twangy sounds. I love how he sang in the 60's and 70's right up to Undercover. After that he sort of sings in a self conscious hiding his true voice manner. Also he cuts his vocals short on some live songs like Honky Tonk Woman and JJF. You don't get much bang for your buck with Mick these days. I mean it shows he can sing when he want's to, like with Blue And Lonesome, i was so surprised he could still actually sing like that. He must be economizing when we hear him live.

i actually have the answer to this stone4ever and you're on the right track-

i have a friend who is a voice coach and i asked her once"why don't people sing like that anymore?" refering to people like janis joplin,early robert plant,roger daltrey etc..they just let it fly from the gut and each had their own unique style.now people just hit notes.

singing is now much like the difference between the 80's guitar slingers playing 1000 miles an hour and going nowhere and all sounding the same as opposed to say.. cream era clapton just bleeding out a solo.
her answer was "you can't sing like that anymore,you'll destroy your voice.it makes for great music and a really short career"
mick uses a voice coach and now does that studied,controlled way of singing to prolong his career.we'd all like to hear him just go out there and rip it but a tour would be about 4 shows long.

i know he drives the fans crazy but everytime i look at him in a practical real world way i think the same thing-the little prick knows what he's doing.

Hard Woman isn´t a "bad" song. It´s very melodic and has ok lyrics. Without the schmaltzy synthi-strings and overproduction and a more "natural" way of singing it wouldn´t be embarassing at all.

Part of his vocal lessons is the ability to 'sing through the nostrils' which is the reason he sounds so 'nasally' the last couple of decades - very noticeable during the end of the Desert Trip weekend two set.
Not so much 'nasally' on Blue and Lonesome, but he probably suffered for letting it rip on that album. Sometimes his singing on B&L is painfully over the top and exaggerated which probably tore his throat up more.
Kudos to Mick for giving his all on that, but it's really his harp playing that steals the show imo.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
stone4ever
Mick is always impersonating someone, i'm not sure Mick actually has a voice of his own anymore, its full of Americanisms and twangy sounds. I love how he sang in the 60's and 70's right up to Undercover. After that he sort of sings in a self conscious hiding his true voice manner. Also he cuts his vocals short on some live songs like Honky Tonk Woman and JJF. You don't get much bang for your buck with Mick these days. I mean it shows he can sing when he want's to, like with Blue And Lonesome, i was so surprised he could still actually sing like that. He must be economizing when we hear him live.

i actually have the answer to this stone4ever and you're on the right track-

i have a friend who is a voice coach and i asked her once"why don't people sing like that anymore?" refering to people like janis joplin,early robert plant,roger daltrey etc..they just let it fly from the gut and each had their own unique style.now people just hit notes.

singing is now much like the difference between the 80's guitar slingers playing 1000 miles an hour and going nowhere and all sounding the same as opposed to say.. cream era clapton just bleeding out a solo.
her answer was "you can't sing like that anymore,you'll destroy your voice.it makes for great music and a really short career"
mick uses a voice coach and now does that studied,controlled way of singing to prolong his career.we'd all like to hear him just go out there and rip it but a tour would be about 4 shows long.

i know he drives the fans crazy but everytime i look at him in a practical real world way i think the same thing-the little prick knows what he's doing.

Cheers Lem that does explain a lot. Its how it sounds, like he is constantly saving his voice, even on the last show of any tour he is saving and nurturing the voice so he can make more money in the future. I find myself almost willing Mick to think @#$%& it , let them have it tonight, and spit shout and holler those lyrics the way they were written to be sang. But like you say, look at Roger Daltry, his voice is all but shot to pieces.

Quote
stone4ever
Cheers Lem that does explain a lot. Its how it sounds, like he is constantly saving his voice, even on the last show of any tour he is saving and nurturing the voice so he can make more money in the future. I find myself almost willing Mick to think @#$%& it , let them have it tonight, and spit shout and holler those lyrics the way they were written to be sang. But like you say, look at Roger Daltry, his voice is all but shot to pieces.

we've all thought that but there are real world consequences.he could blow his voice out for real.that means throat surgery and possibly the end of mick and the end of the rolling stones.
the best pure voice i've heard in years is adeles and she had throat surgery in her early 20's.theres no promise you come back.it's scary as hell.

it's micks version of keiths arthritis.i always think "come on keith,get back there next to charlie and beat the shit out of that guitar like you used to" he doesn't complain but we all know those fckng hands gotta hurt.bang a few chords and hold your hand above your head.it may look like posing but it's a survival mechanism.if anyone knows how to survive it's the rolling stones..

I liked Doxa's reappraisal of "Shes The Boss".
I been sitting here, and I have Jagger solo albums on shuffle. And I got to say I am surprised at the overall quality.
With Jagger I think there is a reverse to the sum-is-better-than-the-parts dynamic.
Usually we say the overall album is better than the individual songs. With Jagger I think it is exactly the other way around. His albums get a bad rap; then you listen to the tracks, and they are just not that bad.

Quote
HMS

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
HMS
If you choose between two songs you automatically compare.

Idiot - comparing is tangerine pie to navel orange pie.

Choosing between two songs is not comparing. You're such a dolt.

You have two songs to choose from. You pick the one that is more attractive to you. Your decision is based on comparison.

Iot. You really need to stop thinking. Because you are ignorant.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
stone4ever
Sleep Tonight and Too Rude from DW are better than all Jagger solo album's put together.

That's a good argument. Throw Harlem Shuffle and Had It With You in there and it's even better.

I just realized this is fascinating reading GasLightStreet.
As much as you hate Dirty Work, you go so far as to say that you think 4 tracks on it are better than all Micks solo Albums.
I didn't think it was possible to find someone hate Micks solo work to the extent that i do. Of course nothing Mick does is all bad, its just that before he went solo i had such high regard for him, i thought he was a god like genius, i really did.

look you two goons...give Wandering Spirit another listen. Too Rude=Too Boring and Sleep Tonight=I'm asleep, quit bothering me

I agree that we should take every opportunity to pummel Mick, but let's at least arm ourselves with a coherent argument and quality comparisons.

Ok dad what ever you say

that's better, now go grab me a beer from the fridge.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I liked Doxa's reappraisal of "Shes The Boss".
I been sitting here, and I have Jagger solo albums on shuffle. And I got to say I am surprised at the overall quality.
With Jagger I think there is a reverse to the sum-is-better-than-the-parts dynamic.
Usually we say the overall album is better than the individual songs. With Jagger I think it is exactly the other way around. His albums get a bad rap; then you listen to the tracks, and they are just not that bad.

You have a stronger immune system to crap then I do.