Tell Me :
Talk
Taking me litterally is a bad idea, he he
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.
Jagger going solo is another debate and another story. When She's The Boss came and Pete Townshend hammered out Keith's Lonely At The Top-riff with a thin 80s sound, even I - as a 14 year old - sensed that this was going to be different.
There is good stuff on the album, though.
As far as I remember it, and actually I remember it very well, most Stones fans took notice of it, nothing more and nothing less. In the 8-tees disco and pop scene /circuit the Stones and Jagger as solo artist(s) weren't that hot. The Stones could fill stadiums though, that's the funny paradox.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 20:59 by TheflyingDutchman.
I know.
This has to be one of the best pieces ever written about the band, the press and the fans. Bravo Doxa. wow.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-15 09:06 by Redhotcarpet.
Doxa thank you, interesting reading and a lot of good points there.
One thing comes to mind, you tend to get stuck on perpetually blaming Keith for Mick's shortcomings. Why can't Mick take the flack for his underwhelming solo records without bringing Talk Is Cheap or anything Keithness into play.
Mick solo was Mick's choice, you can bang on about Keith devotees saying what they say and thinking what they think about Keith until the cows come home, but the fact remains that Keith's albums were maybe a pleasant surprise for many and Mick maybe let HIMSELF down a little with his solo albums.
Its all down to expectations at the end of the day,up until WW3 most expected less from Keith and more from Mick. End of, finish. You over analyse Keith, i don't honor Keith with the credit you do to him for being particularly analytical or premeditated about anything he does. He is a force of nature yes but not nearly as cunning as you make out.
The other thing is that you are the very thing you hate about Keith's devotees, you are equally biased and obsessed about Mick in the same way, its all a bit hypercritical and upside down lol.
Regardless of my rant i love your input on here, WE ARE NOT WORTHY
This is what i keep attempting to say but get lost somehow Wonderboy.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 23:22 by stone4ever.
Ok so i got drawn in lol Doxa will do that to me
Depressing but true
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.
They might not like each other, but they love the Rolling Stones.
Here's an analogy: I coached my daughter's soccer team for year. These girls practiced together, played together, shared a lot of emotional moments. They respected each other, cheered each other, consoled each other. But one time in the summer when we weren't playing, I suggested to my daughter that she get together with them and she said, 'We're not really friends, you know.' So they were very close when they had a common purpose; otherwise, not so much.
One difference in sports in that a sports team has a coach who can force a certain order, but with the Stones they really don't have an outside manager. The Beatles fell apart after they lost their manager and Lennon didn't want to manage or be managed by Paul. The Stones survived because Keith has probably deep down accepted that Mick is the boss.
This now stands as my favorite quote of all time on IORR.
As for the Mick and Keith crap, we all play into their hands. Yeah, I'm sure Jane Rose and Keith pissed Mick off just as Keith's idiotic remarks with LIFE did. As Mick has pointed out, Keith can only talk about Mick because why else would anyone talk to him? Cruel, but not entirely untrue.
As for playing into their hands, I believed the story Mick, Ronnie, Bill, and Charlie told Mary Turner on OFF THE RECORD in 1980 that Mick repeated during promotion for SOME GIRLS DELUXE over 30 years later, that Keith isolated himself when working on "All About You" and "We Had It All." Bill German and the rock press reported they did not see eye to eye at the time, professionally. Keith did his best over the years to talk about how honest he was about "All About You" and then what happens...an outtake turns up with Mick singing harmony on a song he claimed never to have heard until the album was done.
Then there's the matter of "Infamy." When A BIGGER BANG came out, I latched onto this song as Keith saying Mick had it in for him and had rewritten his part. I thought it was an honest statement of the state of the union. It made sense. It fit the rumors as well as the remarks to the press. It was part of the story of the fragile truce that gave us the Stones, but we all knew it could be better if only Keith were allowed to be in charge. The thing is, one day I looked at the credits and damn if the song doesn't show genuine harmony with Mick and Keith playing and singing all over the track, switching up on bass, guitars, keyboards, harp, and trading vocals.
I'm reminded of the difficult relationship between Peter Sellers and director Blake Edwards on the Pink Panther sequels. Everyone told the same story. They hated one another, communicated only by notes delivered by messengers. It was a joyless chore they only did for the money. The weird thing is despite cast and crew telling the same story both at the time and decades later, the actual evidence of on set footage shows the two of them repeatedly collapsing with laughter at what they accomplished together.
Do I think Mick and Keith's tension and resentment is entirely without merit? No. Do I think it became something to give the press decades ago that has become as much of a cartoon as the laughing pirate? Yeah, I do. Successful people are often driven by ego to belittle their collaborators to claim they are chiefly responsible for their success. Playing up tension that still produces the goods is interesting in the same way people love to know who a celebrity is screwing. It's part of celebrity pop culture and says as much about us as them. Ultimately, I take everything with a grain of salt and recognize that everyone talking to the press wants to protect their privacy, stroke their ego, and make sure the powers behind the curtain are satisfied they told the right story to sell more product.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-15 19:13 by Rocky Dijon.
Was thinking about that today now that some shows are in the cards for the fall in Paris in the new 40,000 seat indoor arena...The ONE indisputable positive I can see is that younger generations can get a brush with the great, even if it's not what it used to be. If they'd packed it in 1986 I would have never seen them live in 1990, if they'd packed it in 2007 I would have never seen them rehearse or play a club gig and I couldn't have taken my kids to see them in a stadium, etc...that's priceless.
--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio
Agree, if by weakest you mean one of his best!
Actually I don't consider it one of his best, but it's a great track nonetheless.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 14, 2017 20:20
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.
Taking me litterally is a bad idea, he he
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: April 14, 2017 20:26
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.
Do you mean that a lot of Stones fans felt "betrayed" by Jagger doing his own stuff?
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 14, 2017 20:32
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?
No, merely that they were puzzled by the musical direction.
Jagger going solo is another debate and another story. When She's The Boss came and Pete Townshend hammered out Keith's Lonely At The Top-riff with a thin 80s sound, even I - as a 14 year old - sensed that this was going to be different.
There is good stuff on the album, though.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: April 14, 2017 20:58
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.
As far as I remember it, and actually I remember it very well
, most Stones fans took notice of it, nothing more and nothing less. In the 8-tees disco and pop scene /circuit the Stones and Jagger as solo artist(s) weren't that hot. The Stones could fill stadiums though, that's the funny paradox.Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 20:59 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 14, 2017 21:05
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?
I know.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 14, 2017 21:14
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
This has to be one of the best pieces ever written about the band, the press and the fans. Bravo Doxa. wow.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-15 09:06 by Redhotcarpet.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: April 14, 2017 22:33
good job doxa,you've explained to perfection something i've been saying for years.a huge number of the rolling stones hardcore fans have bought into something that has turned out to be a whole lotta p.r. and bullshit.
when i posted on stonesdougs site around the time of the licks tour 02/03 there was a post by a fan who said keith was throwing picks during a song and he caught one.i simply asked-"who was playing his guitar parts while he was busy tossing picks into the crowd?
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"
there was outrage,i had dared to insult his royal highness.i was posting under the name "macabre" and it became a war between macabre and the rest of the board.
the only other person who would dare agree with me is a guy "mr lawyer" who i think is indeed a lawyer from miami and still posts there.it became a game of seeing if we could make the keithettes heads explode..question-"does jagger hold keith at gunpoint,hold his family hostage or both when he forces him to take the millions"-their little fingers were typing up a storm coming up with some serious reality bending shit,it was alot of fun torturing them but it was for their own good.
i felt as though i were talking to a bunch of 14 year old groupies.one guy said something derogatory about keith and came back and apoligized to the board,said he was having a bad day and that he was sorry-I'M NOT KIDDING.of course you could shit all over jagger with impunity.he was the jerk raising the ticket prices.they all knew keith would play for free if given the choice.i'm dead serious,they used to actually say that on a regular basis!
that same time,the licks tour is where "vegas stones" came from.it had nothing to do with setlists.it started when lisa and bernard where acting like they were throwing dice during tumbling dice.the lamest thing i ever saw on a rolling stones stage,it made chuck look like nicky hopkins.
"a fcking vegas act with backup dancers,we should call them the "vegas stones" next thing i know everyone is outraged again,except,again mr lawyer who was delighted to piss off the board along with me.
eventually they warmed up to "vegas stones" but of course with a caveat-IT WAS MICKS FAULT!
when i posted on stonesdougs site around the time of the licks tour 02/03 there was a post by a fan who said keith was throwing picks during a song and he caught one.i simply asked-"who was playing his guitar parts while he was busy tossing picks into the crowd?
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"
there was outrage,i had dared to insult his royal highness.i was posting under the name "macabre" and it became a war between macabre and the rest of the board.
the only other person who would dare agree with me is a guy "mr lawyer" who i think is indeed a lawyer from miami and still posts there.it became a game of seeing if we could make the keithettes heads explode..question-"does jagger hold keith at gunpoint,hold his family hostage or both when he forces him to take the millions"-their little fingers were typing up a storm coming up with some serious reality bending shit,it was alot of fun torturing them but it was for their own good.
i felt as though i were talking to a bunch of 14 year old groupies.one guy said something derogatory about keith and came back and apoligized to the board,said he was having a bad day and that he was sorry-I'M NOT KIDDING.of course you could shit all over jagger with impunity.he was the jerk raising the ticket prices.they all knew keith would play for free if given the choice.i'm dead serious,they used to actually say that on a regular basis!
that same time,the licks tour is where "vegas stones" came from.it had nothing to do with setlists.it started when lisa and bernard where acting like they were throwing dice during tumbling dice.the lamest thing i ever saw on a rolling stones stage,it made chuck look like nicky hopkins.
"a fcking vegas act with backup dancers,we should call them the "vegas stones" next thing i know everyone is outraged again,except,again mr lawyer who was delighted to piss off the board along with me.
eventually they warmed up to "vegas stones" but of course with a caveat-IT WAS MICKS FAULT!
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Moonshine
()
Date: April 14, 2017 22:38
Doxa, very thought provocking and makes a lot of sense. I got into the stones around Talk Is Cheap and believed every word especially the rolling stone piece.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 14, 2017 22:54
You are a very observant reader as well, Doxa.
You have covered so many subjects in your posts. But I can't remember to have seen you dealing with the first period up to, for instance, AFTERMATH. Maybe, you have during periods when I have been absent as reader. If you have not, it is obviously understandable from your age. It would have been inspiring for listening to read your takes on such stuff, though.
Recently, I myself have been confronting BLUE AND LONESOME with their first three UK studio albums and the German Decca AROUND AND AROUND. My own starting point as listener once in time. [Added later on: Motivation for this out of context post:] When you say that you have little more to add about the Stones, I wonder what points of view that you might have arrived at, if you had made that kind of confrontations.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 23:12 by Witness.
You have covered so many subjects in your posts. But I can't remember to have seen you dealing with the first period up to, for instance, AFTERMATH. Maybe, you have during periods when I have been absent as reader. If you have not, it is obviously understandable from your age. It would have been inspiring for listening to read your takes on such stuff, though.
Recently, I myself have been confronting BLUE AND LONESOME with their first three UK studio albums and the German Decca AROUND AND AROUND. My own starting point as listener once in time. [Added later on: Motivation for this out of context post:] When you say that you have little more to add about the Stones, I wonder what points of view that you might have arrived at, if you had made that kind of confrontations.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 23:12 by Witness.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:00
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
Doxa thank you, interesting reading and a lot of good points there.
One thing comes to mind, you tend to get stuck on perpetually blaming Keith for Mick's shortcomings. Why can't Mick take the flack for his underwhelming solo records without bringing Talk Is Cheap or anything Keithness into play.
Mick solo was Mick's choice, you can bang on about Keith devotees saying what they say and thinking what they think about Keith until the cows come home, but the fact remains that Keith's albums were maybe a pleasant surprise for many and Mick maybe let HIMSELF down a little with his solo albums.
Its all down to expectations at the end of the day,up until WW3 most expected less from Keith and more from Mick. End of, finish. You over analyse Keith, i don't honor Keith with the credit you do to him for being particularly analytical or premeditated about anything he does. He is a force of nature yes but not nearly as cunning as you make out.
The other thing is that you are the very thing you hate about Keith's devotees, you are equally biased and obsessed about Mick in the same way, its all a bit hypercritical and upside down lol.
Regardless of my rant i love your input on here, WE ARE NOT WORTHY
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:08
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.
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.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:18
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.
This is what i keep attempting to say but get lost somehow Wonderboy.
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.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 23:22 by stone4ever.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:22
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..
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..
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:23
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.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
powerage78
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:24
Mick is still a RS engine.
Not Keith IMO, on stage anyway.
Wandering spirit is a great album.
But I prefer Talk is cheap and Main offender.Rock'n'roll spirit.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 23:25 by powerage78.
Not Keith IMO, on stage anyway.
Wandering spirit is a great album.
But I prefer Talk is cheap and Main offender.Rock'n'roll spirit.
***
I'm just a Bad Boy Boogie
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-14 23:25 by powerage78.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:25
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.
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.
Ok so i got drawn in lol Doxa will do that to me
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:27
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..
Depressing but true
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:36
The yuppie decade, new forms of promoting, the entertainment business and other bands like Pink Floyd paved the way for what Doxa calls the Vegas Stones, not Mick or his solo tour. He was just darn good at adopting this trend and exploiting it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-16 15:13 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-16 15:13 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 14, 2017 23:48
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..
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.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 15, 2017 16:02
Maybe Keith was surprised by how easy he won fame in the mainstream without (as Doxa elaborated) really having to do anything but one album and give the same answers in interviews from then on be it about Brian and Mick, weaving, open tunings, or how seemingly effortless he quit heroin. Maybe Keith new he was really lucky Mick failed and that Talk is cheap was really a onetimer (not a great album, just true to their heritage)and that he better just kiss and make up and sign whatever paper Mick hands him. As long as his status as Keef on stage and in the media is secured.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: April 15, 2017 16:13
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.
They might not like each other, but they love the Rolling Stones.
Here's an analogy: I coached my daughter's soccer team for year. These girls practiced together, played together, shared a lot of emotional moments. They respected each other, cheered each other, consoled each other. But one time in the summer when we weren't playing, I suggested to my daughter that she get together with them and she said, 'We're not really friends, you know.' So they were very close when they had a common purpose; otherwise, not so much.
One difference in sports in that a sports team has a coach who can force a certain order, but with the Stones they really don't have an outside manager. The Beatles fell apart after they lost their manager and Lennon didn't want to manage or be managed by Paul. The Stones survived because Keith has probably deep down accepted that Mick is the boss.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 15, 2017 17:31
Yes, wonderboy, that may capture it.
And when they seem preoccupied by money gains, I wonder if it is so much that they need much more wealth than they have got. Alternatively, money gains may have become a success criterion for them. Substituting the recognition and genuine interest that they long since have been met with for their new songs, when there have been any. A fact contributing to the lessened work effort they long have given it in a kind of vicious circle. Feeding at the same time their disagreement on choice of song material and how it is to be arranged.
And when they seem preoccupied by money gains, I wonder if it is so much that they need much more wealth than they have got. Alternatively, money gains may have become a success criterion for them. Substituting the recognition and genuine interest that they long since have been met with for their new songs, when there have been any. A fact contributing to the lessened work effort they long have given it in a kind of vicious circle. Feeding at the same time their disagreement on choice of song material and how it is to be arranged.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: April 15, 2017 17:32
The only negative thing you really can say against each of their solo work is that they didn't continue to release regularly despite any presumed success and critique.
In one aspect Keith 'outsold' Mick: There is no Jagger song book but one of Talk Is Cheap.
In one aspect Keith 'outsold' Mick: There is no Jagger song book but one of Talk Is Cheap.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: April 15, 2017 19:09
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"
This now stands as my favorite quote of all time on IORR.
As for the Mick and Keith crap, we all play into their hands. Yeah, I'm sure Jane Rose and Keith pissed Mick off just as Keith's idiotic remarks with LIFE did. As Mick has pointed out, Keith can only talk about Mick because why else would anyone talk to him? Cruel, but not entirely untrue.
As for playing into their hands, I believed the story Mick, Ronnie, Bill, and Charlie told Mary Turner on OFF THE RECORD in 1980 that Mick repeated during promotion for SOME GIRLS DELUXE over 30 years later, that Keith isolated himself when working on "All About You" and "We Had It All." Bill German and the rock press reported they did not see eye to eye at the time, professionally. Keith did his best over the years to talk about how honest he was about "All About You" and then what happens...an outtake turns up with Mick singing harmony on a song he claimed never to have heard until the album was done.
Then there's the matter of "Infamy." When A BIGGER BANG came out, I latched onto this song as Keith saying Mick had it in for him and had rewritten his part. I thought it was an honest statement of the state of the union. It made sense. It fit the rumors as well as the remarks to the press. It was part of the story of the fragile truce that gave us the Stones, but we all knew it could be better if only Keith were allowed to be in charge. The thing is, one day I looked at the credits and damn if the song doesn't show genuine harmony with Mick and Keith playing and singing all over the track, switching up on bass, guitars, keyboards, harp, and trading vocals.
I'm reminded of the difficult relationship between Peter Sellers and director Blake Edwards on the Pink Panther sequels. Everyone told the same story. They hated one another, communicated only by notes delivered by messengers. It was a joyless chore they only did for the money. The weird thing is despite cast and crew telling the same story both at the time and decades later, the actual evidence of on set footage shows the two of them repeatedly collapsing with laughter at what they accomplished together.
Do I think Mick and Keith's tension and resentment is entirely without merit? No. Do I think it became something to give the press decades ago that has become as much of a cartoon as the laughing pirate? Yeah, I do. Successful people are often driven by ego to belittle their collaborators to claim they are chiefly responsible for their success. Playing up tension that still produces the goods is interesting in the same way people love to know who a celebrity is screwing. It's part of celebrity pop culture and says as much about us as them. Ultimately, I take everything with a grain of salt and recognize that everyone talking to the press wants to protect their privacy, stroke their ego, and make sure the powers behind the curtain are satisfied they told the right story to sell more product.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-15 19:13 by Rocky Dijon.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: April 15, 2017 19:28
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.
Was thinking about that today now that some shows are in the cards for the fall in Paris in the new 40,000 seat indoor arena...The ONE indisputable positive I can see is that younger generations can get a brush with the great, even if it's not what it used to be. If they'd packed it in 1986 I would have never seen them live in 1990, if they'd packed it in 2007 I would have never seen them rehearse or play a club gig and I couldn't have taken my kids to see them in a stadium, etc...that's priceless.
--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 15, 2017 21:10
"Infamy"
Don't you know you've got it in for me
I knew it right from the start
I'm still learning my lines baby
Since you've rewritten my part
Oh why have you got it in for me
Things they are not what they seem
You're living in a nightmare baby
But I mistook it for a dream
Yeah just for a dream
But I mistook it all for a dream, yeah
You've got it in for me
I know you've got it in for me
You didn't miss a thing
It's you that wrote the song, baby
But me who's got to sing
I knew you had it in for me
Where you take it from here?
We got along so famously
This time you made it clear, yeah
You made it very, very clear
You made it abundantly clear
You've got it in for me
I knew it right from the start
You've already convicted me
Why are you hard on my heart
Ooh you're right on my heart
Oh yes so hard
So hard on my heart (you got it in for me)
Ooh in for me, baby (you got it in for me)
Why, baby, why baby why? (you got it in for me)
All you want to do is wipe the floor with me (you got it in for me)
Come on - why, baby, why? (you got it in for me)
Hummm.
Right from the start (you got it in for me)
Yes you've got it in for me (you got it in for me)
In for me right from the start (you got it in for me)
I should have seen it coming (you got it in for me)
Fine, fine heart (you got it in for me)
Ooh yeah...
Sure why not. You dont move me part two, sort of.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-15 21:12 by Redhotcarpet.
Don't you know you've got it in for me
I knew it right from the start
I'm still learning my lines baby
Since you've rewritten my part
Oh why have you got it in for me
Things they are not what they seem
You're living in a nightmare baby
But I mistook it for a dream
Yeah just for a dream
But I mistook it all for a dream, yeah
You've got it in for me
I know you've got it in for me
You didn't miss a thing
It's you that wrote the song, baby
But me who's got to sing
I knew you had it in for me
Where you take it from here?
We got along so famously
This time you made it clear, yeah
You made it very, very clear
You made it abundantly clear
You've got it in for me
I knew it right from the start
You've already convicted me
Why are you hard on my heart
Ooh you're right on my heart
Oh yes so hard
So hard on my heart (you got it in for me)
Ooh in for me, baby (you got it in for me)
Why, baby, why baby why? (you got it in for me)
All you want to do is wipe the floor with me (you got it in for me)
Come on - why, baby, why? (you got it in for me)
Hummm.
Right from the start (you got it in for me)
Yes you've got it in for me (you got it in for me)
In for me right from the start (you got it in for me)
I should have seen it coming (you got it in for me)
Fine, fine heart (you got it in for me)
Ooh yeah...
Sure why not. You dont move me part two, sort of.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-15 21:12 by Redhotcarpet.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: April 16, 2017 00:34
Infamy is one of Keith's all time weakest tracks imo.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: April 16, 2017 05:22
Quote
Hairball
Infamy is one of Keith's all time weakest tracks imo.
Agree, if by weakest you mean one of his best!
Actually I don't consider it one of his best, but it's a great track nonetheless.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: April 16, 2017 11:27
Who knows? At some point someone in the Stones organisation, maybe one of the Glimmer Twins, realized that the whole WWIII was known to press, fanbase, and even outsiders. Someone must have decided to turn a liability into an asset, and run with it.
Look at Fleetwood Mac. Ever since 'Rumors" in what '73?, they have been squeezing every drop out of that whole feuding lovers having to work together and xreate better music. Every time they do "Silver Springs" or "Go Your Own Way" you have to sit through Lindsey and Stevie throwing darts into each other's eyes.
I wonder how much of the Mick/Keith feud is fueled, and re-fuelled by only them.
Because truth be told: when it come to Stones, what else is there really left to talk about? Do we have to listen to talkshow hosts do the "Keith did so many drugs, he will outlast nuclear bombs ...". Keith's indestructability has become punchline to lame sitcom jokes.
If we didn't have them arguing, what would be left?
And that is , at least my own sad truth: I have run out of things to discuss about the Stones. They were the best ever.
But in the post 89 era I wish they had stuck with the Blue& Lonesome/Stripped/ theme, and stayed far away from "Spark will Fly".
Look at Fleetwood Mac. Ever since 'Rumors" in what '73?, they have been squeezing every drop out of that whole feuding lovers having to work together and xreate better music. Every time they do "Silver Springs" or "Go Your Own Way" you have to sit through Lindsey and Stevie throwing darts into each other's eyes.
I wonder how much of the Mick/Keith feud is fueled, and re-fuelled by only them.
Because truth be told: when it come to Stones, what else is there really left to talk about? Do we have to listen to talkshow hosts do the "Keith did so many drugs, he will outlast nuclear bombs ...". Keith's indestructability has become punchline to lame sitcom jokes.
If we didn't have them arguing, what would be left?
And that is , at least my own sad truth: I have run out of things to discuss about the Stones. They were the best ever.
But in the post 89 era I wish they had stuck with the Blue& Lonesome/Stripped/ theme, and stayed far away from "Spark will Fly".
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: April 16, 2017 12:57
Sparks Will Fly is a pretty good Stones-rocker, not worse than most of their rockers on ER, TY, Undercover. Very enjoyable song and fun to listen to. Clearly better than I Go Wild. Sparks Will Fly is more enjoyable than most Jagger- and Richards-solo-stuff. Not really a masterpiece, but it´s only R n R and I like it very much. One of the better songs on VL.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1086
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10