Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

It also has a unmistakable sound, groove and feel.

The melody is not less developed than some of the Talk Is Cheap and Main Offender-tracks, so that argument is moot, imo.

That said, I quickly grew tired of it, after enjoying it quite a bit when the album came out..

You're right that "underdeveloped melodies" are something like Keith's trademark, but sometimes it works very well ("Wicked As It Seems", "Thief in the Night") and sometimes it falls flat, as it does on Infamy. The song might have worked better with different vocals.

Agreed, but both of your examples are rather heavy on melody - for Keith, that is. You can actually hum and sing those tunes

Really? I never manage more than little mumbled lines like "playtime, but it's far too late" and then sort of jumping to the backing vocals going "hard on it, hard on it", back to Keith "what you gonna give?" and then not remembering how to go on from there on. And with Thief more or less the same happens.
Maybe you should do some cover-versions with the forum-band? They must be fun (but difficult) to cover.

Try the choruses.. At least TITN will stick in your mind

I bet WAIS will get «all over you» as well...

Quote
matxil

Quote
DandelionPowderman

It also has a unmistakable sound, groove and feel.

The melody is not less developed than some of the Talk Is Cheap and Main Offender-tracks, so that argument is moot, imo.

That said, I quickly grew tired of it, after enjoying it quite a bit when the album came out..

You're right that "underdeveloped melodies" are something like Keith's trademark, but sometimes it works very well ("Wicked As It Seems", "Thief in the Night") and sometimes it falls flat, as it does on Infamy. The song might have worked better with different vocals.

That's interesting that that is brought up, "underdeveloped melodies", because Mick said Thief In The Night wasn't much different from the demo yet... Might As Well Get Juiced is, according to what I remember reading back then from one of The Dust Brothers, not different from Mick's demo.

Quote
Witness
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.

Haha.. I guess I have covered so (too) many subjects in regards to the Stones that I can't even remember myself (it surprises me everytime when some topic is talked here, and out of curiosity I check what I have said about it by using the 'search' button... it is almost embarrassing haha). About 10 to 15 years ago I was very much concerned about 'Brian era', and I also wrote a lot to Brian Jones fansites, because those places pretty much better suited to deal that era better than our IORR. It wasn't so easy sometimes, since among Brian Jones fans especially The Glimmer Twins were treated almost like an enemy... Now those sites don't exist any longer, and hadn't for years. But I learned a great deal from those people, many of them having a direct relation to that era and to its unique perspectives.

But as far as Blue & Lonesome vs. their early R&B records go, I wrote a long piece about Blue & Lonesome, including briefly that theme as well, here: []

EDIT: A-ha, seemingly that address is blocked from this site><. But I guess googling "EOMS On Blue & Lonesome: Doxa interviewing Doxa" might get one there...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 15:11 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
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.

Haha.. I guess I have covered so (too) many subjects in regards to the Stones that I can't even remember myself (it surprises me everytime when some topic is talked here, and out of curiosity I check what I have said about it by using the 'search' button... it is almost embarrassing haha). About 10 to 15 years ago I was very much concerned about 'Brian era', and I also wrote a lot to Brian Jones fansites, because those places pretty much better suited to deal that era better than our IORR. It wasn't so easy sometimes, since among Brian Jones fans especially The Glimmer Twins were treated almost like an enemy... Now those sites don't exist any longer, and hadn't for years. But I learned a great deal from those people, many of them having a direct relation to that era and to its unique perspectives.

But as far as Blue & Lonesome vs. their early R&B records go, I wrote a long piece about Blue & Lonesome, including briefly that theme as well, here: []

EDIT: A-ha, seemingly that address is blocked from this site><. But I guess googling "EOMS On Blue & Lonesome: Doxa interviewing Doxa" might get one there...

- Doxa

In fact, I am registered there, but never wrote a word and seldom or never do I read. But I read your review, curious from time time if you would post anything about it on that site, having once noticed your presence there.

But somehow that is a completely another universe. In addition. you did not treat the subject as deeply as you go into them here. And as you told that you at the moment have nothing more to come up with regarding the Stones, I presented my suggestion. Here would be a site to dwell more seriously on such themes from the distant earliest era, as much as that is what BLUE AND LONESOME is most related to.

Some lack of seriousness in all their assumed coolness is my main criticism of that site.

Mick on She's The Boss (From 1985):

«I wanted to make a commercial record», Mr. Jagger readily admitted, «but one that I really liked. I wasn't trying to be super-commercial, but some of the songs I wrote turned out to be relatively catchy, didn't they? A lot of the songs are really quite traditional underneath, blues-rooted in fact, but played with a musical approach that reflects the range of what I've been listening to».

[www.nytimes.com]

Quote
stone4ever



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

Thank you.

I just comment something I just can't find myself agreeing with how you read me.

Firstly, I don't see Richards to be blamed for Jagger's shortcomings. Mick can only blame himself for that people were not so impressed by his solo works. By contrast, Keith himself gained a lot from MIck's shortcomings. By the time he released his solo album, Jagger had unitentionally cleared a path for him to shine, to make his 'statement'. A part of the charm of archaic-sounding TALK IS CHEAP was to be contrasted with Jagger's 'trendy-sounding' albums. For the Stones fans, the only point of reference of Jagger's SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL were the Stones albums. These days people seem to forget that difference (how different kind of deals these two solo 'careers' were). To put it simply, Mick's stuff was related to the Stones, while Keith's was related to Mick's. Jagger clearly had a more anmbitious goal in his mind - to continue the Stones success by his own, while Keith basically just realeased a solo album because Jagger had done two already and the future of the Stones was uncertain. Generally, Keith's career is much more parasitic to Mick's existence and doings than Mick's is to Keith's. This, however, can't be confused with to the fact Mick not being able to be such a superstar by his own outside the context of The Rolling Stones, but Keith and any other Rolling Stone had very much more to lose than Mick in the case of the Stones falling apart. I take that to be reason, with Michael Cohl's huge numbers (=equals the same), why all the rest of them okayed nicely and did what they were told to, when Jagger decided to continue his career under the umbrella notion of the Stones again.

And about me being "hypocritical" and being "biased and obsessed" about Mick, hmm... of course, there are blind spots in me, but let's say, I don't see any of this very personal, but more like observing certain funny things about the band I felt love with as a teeenager boy. I am not any longer that boy... Like Wittness mentioned in his post, I've been rather critical towards Jagger along the years as well. It is lately that I have started re-thinking more about Richards, and all the things related to him and to his reputation (especially since releasing LIFE). He has been treated generally with silky gloves by many Stones fans and music press, while Jagger has always been a kind of easy and obvious target in criticism (sometimes with a just, sometimes not).

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 16:48 by Doxa.

Make No Mistake, open G riffs in minor, Bootsy Collins going nuts, Steve Jordan's drumming, Keith's borderless, new, darker voice and the dueting with Sarah Dash. Add totally untraditional keyboard playing by Neville, violins and the Memphis Horns and we got a lovely eclectic mess.

I'm not sure it would be correct to call the sound of Talk Is Cheap archaic at all? It's Keith, make no mistake about it, but it never sounded like the Stones to me. There was a coolness to it, and a vibe in the sound that the Stones just never had.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Make No Mistake, open G riffs in minor, Bootsy Collins going nuts, Steve Jordan's drumming, Keith's borderless, new, darker voice and the dueting with Sarah Dash. Add totally untraditional keyboard playing by Neville, violins and the Memphis Horns and we got a lovely eclectic mess.

I'm not sure it would be correct to call the sound of Talk Is Cheap archaic at all? It's Keith, make no mistake about it, but it never sounded like the Stones to me. There was a coolness to it, and a vibe in the sound that the Stones just never had.

Open G riffs in minor? Bloody hell, isn't that innovative!

But being "archaic" I was contrasting that to the sounds of the day, the ones Mick was with no a shame so much flirting with. Instead of "archaic", one could call it "primitive" or, even better, "old-fashionable" or "non-trendy". Isn't, according to a received view, the biggest sin of Jagger always following the trends, something ever-conservative, roots-loyal - any good music, if it is not the Stones, stopped around 1971, if not 1961 - Richards supposedly never do?

Of course, TALK IS CHEAP was different compared to the Stones works in the past, with a different "vibe" in the sound simply - but not only - due to the reason that there is no Jagger around and Jordan instead of Watts on drums. No matter how much some Richards devotees like to think that "Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones", it is people like Jagger or Watts who have a big role for the Stones sounding like the Stones. As far as I am concerned the strenght of TALK IS CHEAP is that it emphasizes the Richards component, making it so explicit, in the Stones music. Like Keith showing all he has offer when there is no other forces around to make compromises with, and he can just rely on his own intuition. Pretty hardcore stuff, which is good. But it also revails how much more the Stones are than Keith Richards (we could say the same of Jagger's solo doings as well). So funnily, the strenght of TALK IS CHEAP - beind slightly different, and thereby more substantive by its own, to a typical Stones product - is also its weakness. It sounded damn fresh, sonically and musically, in 1988 when it was released. A great statement back then (even though I am not so sure if the years have treated so kindly). Still remember how thrilled I was when entering the record store to purchase that one, just think of Keith solely on his own, calling the shots for everything, singing a whole album through, how would he manage.... aah, nostalgia...

Anyway, even though I am sure there will be now dozens of post about TALK IS CHEAP by Keith fans here, I will wait "Keith Richards solo works" thread to discuss more about its nuances... (and see if it is possible to talk such a thing without spoiling any 'celebration mood' as was once with CROSSEYED HEART.. I doubt.. haha).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 17:54 by Doxa.

I don't think anyone in the whole wide world thinks "Keith Richards is the Rolling Stones". Obviously, "Mick and Keith and Charlie (and after them, the rest) are the Rolling Stones".

Instead of archaic/trendy, maybe it's more accurate to speak about pop/not-pop.

The best works of the Stones were rather more than pop (with the rather nice exception of Aftermath), and more based on some obscure, personal mix of soul, blues, rock n roll, etc...
Mick Jagger's solo work, despite some influences from those styles, were much closer to pop music.
Keith Richards wouldn't sound pop even when he wanted to (and maybe occasionally he did want to), simply because of his voice.

What me, personally, keeps me off Jagger's music is just that. Even his more country or "rocker" based songs on WS have that pop element, with the slick "pseudo-loud" guitars which makes it comparable (maybe better, but still comparable) to stuff like Chris Rea or Bryan Adams.

Doxa, I am looking forward to your retrospect re-reviews of Keith's solo albums.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.

Dandie, I don't quite grasp what you are claiming here... or that someone has claimed something different what you are saying. Yeah, Mick adopted to the times like he had done since, say, 1963, when the Stones went professional and started to do a career in show business, sometimes more in the lead, and sometimes more like following the changing trends. It was Jagger (with Keith) who wanted to update the band to meet the challange of the new professional rock bands in 1969 and picked up a guitarist suitable to the task. Some say their 1969 American Tour is a landmark in rock tours, but it was not - thanks to the acts like Hendrix, The Cream or The Who, the live concerts had just changed from the earlier Beatles-era pop tours with screaming chicks no one hearing anything, and the Stones needed to change as well to stay relevant.

And it was Jagger (and this time not with Richards) who decided that a relevant rock show is damn long (Watts claimed for that Led Zeppelin) and all kind of extra gimmicks and costumes (a'la Bowie or Pink Floyd or whatever) is needed to entertain the audiences in 1975. It was Jagger, kicked ass by the punks, again who decided that 'back-to-the-basics' is a cool thing to do in 1978.

So it was Jagger once again adapting to the times and meeting the challenge during the 80's. This time the change of the climate was such a huge that he seemingly first concluded that the Stones (taken especially the condition of certain key members in the band) simply cannot transform enough to meet the challenge. Their hailed first real stadium-class tour 1981/82 was surely a triumph, but not just full of arguing and trouble (none of them seemingly have much fond memories of that tour), it was based on fragile concepts and sounds and risky procedures that were horribly dated as the 'professionalized' 80's go further, despite it being today viewed as a last 'real' Stones tour. Jagger's Australian and Japan tours with his all-stars band was like testing the waters (and as it turned out, the musical blueprint for the Stones shows ever since). Like Jagger has stated he was personally nervous how he would manage himself - it had been five years since his last tour, and later he admitted that he actually had troubles in singing, etc. So it is not far-reaching to suggest that if the guy was nervous about his own performance, he picked up a safety net around him, musicians he knew he could trust, and not least didn't need to worry how they could survive. The millions of fans, including the hardcore ones as well, who have enjoyed seeing the Stones in countless times since 1989, should actually be grateful for Jagger updating his game with his solo band ... The modern Stones show concept turned out be such a winner pragmatically that it didn't needed to be readjust ever since...

Anyway, I've been lately, as a part of this 're-listening Jagger solo works' project, listened to the recordings of these 80's Jagger solo tours (something I don't remember much doing ever), and it is interesting, sometimes even fascinating to compare those to his doings with the Stones. There is so much similarities with the 1989 Stones on, but still enough difference to make it worth listening. Seemingly the ideal Jagger had in his mind was a certain 'modernized Stones' - the classical Stones meet the demands of the 'hard rock' of the day with the needed guitar heroes. And if not anything else, it is funny to hear Jagger doing Jimi Hendrix.... (I recall hearing him doing "Foxy Lady", but not "Red House").

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 19:25 by Doxa.

I meant that Jagger did an arena version of what acts like Pink Floyd were doing in stadiums on his solo tours. Do we know that he called the shots on this, BTW?

Promoters gradually took over, because there were increasingly much more money involved in touring. People like Michael Cool were different than Bill Graham etc. As were the times. People had more money to spend.

They played stadiums with PAs on the 75 tour already. But now the Promoters craved longer shows and more hoopla to charge the punters more.

What I'm saying is that Mick adopted these trends well, but I'm not sure about him being the brain behind it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 19:24 by DandelionPowderman.

Veering a bit off topic, but....

Quote
Doxa
But as far as Blue & Lonesome vs. their early R&B records go, I wrote a long piece about Blue & Lonesome, including briefly that theme as well, here...googling "EOMS On Blue & Lonesome: Doxa interviewing Doxa" might get one there...

I was able to find it - nice review/'interview', and a shame it wasn't posted here on IORR in the original B&L thread - it's not too late to do so!
One paragraph in particular speaks volumes though (for me), and I'm sure many here can relate to and appreciate this:

Quote
Doxa
Hey, wait a minute, do you mean that ‘blues purists’ cannot like this album?

"Well, they can, if they are big-hearted enough or like Jagger’s voice an sich. But the problem lies deeper. We have to remember that this album is not directed to ‘blues purists’ as more than their early recordings were. Like then, this is done for a bigger audience. The same old principle of ‘popularizing the blues’ holds here. It could be that even for the Stones fans who are familiar with the original versions – and having a bit of ‘blues purism’ in their hearts – the Stones doesn’t actually ‘add’ much difference or offer some artistically important surprises here. I can very well understand anyone who has grown up listening to Howlin’ Wolf singing ”Commit A Crime”, and knows the song thereby, whatever Jagger does, it would sound lame. The same argument could be directed to against all of them, especially since they try so one-to-one follow the originals. My heuristic advice simply is: try to forget all you know about the originals, and just try to concentrate this as a product of its own. Or better: just think of it solely in the context of The Rolling Stones, not in a correspondence with the blues tradition. To put it in simple terms: they might not sound very authentic or even be a great blues band, or adding anything to blues legacy, but they sound damn fine Rolling Stones making a statement in a contemporary pop world".

And on that note, I believe it's time to crank this baby up!

Howlin' Wolf - Commit A Crime




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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 19:51 by Hairball.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I meant that Jagger did an arena version of what acts like Pink Floyd were doing in stadiums on his solo tours. Do we know that he called the shots on this, BTW?

Promoters gradually took over, because there were increasingly much more money involved in touring. People like Michael Cool were different than Bill Graham etc. As were the times. People had more money to spend.

They played stadiums with PAs on the 75 tour already. But now the Promoters craved longer shows and more hoopla to charge the punters more.

What I'm saying is that Mick adopted these trends well, but I'm not sure about him being the brain behind it.

I really can't grasp what do mean by those ones in bold. That Jagger invented a wheel (a modern stadium show)? Hell no - who claims anything of the sort! What does it matter from where the ideas (models, trends) derive from. It is what one does (be it the question of adapting to or being innovative). Being a natural-born performer Jagger seemingly wanted to perform and wanted to do it according to the criteria of the day like he had for ages by then, like I described briefly above (probably seen enough of current hot concerts during the 80's and concluding 'that's the deal today. Fvk, me too!'). He didn't need to "invent" anything or be "any kind of brain behind anything". All he needed to do was to find the right people around him - musicians, promoters, etc - and go out and do his thing. That they were reaching to a Michael Cohl era, and the grosses were just increasing enermously (which most probably is the biggest reason behind the Stones re-union in 1989), of course has a role, but Jagger needed to get his shit together being able to take his share of the cake (of how huge it was he probably even didn't know before seeing Cohl's numbers). Jagger might be a good business man and greedy as hell (ask Jeff Beck), but foremost he is a performer, and a very ambitious one. It those two and half hours he does there, that's his claim for fame (especially since the late 80's). It is the professionalism, how to accomplish a modern show, Jagger brought with him to the Stones from his solo tour experiment. He had a concept tested suited to Cohlian premises.

What do you mean by Jagger probably "not calling the shots" in regards to his solo tour? Someone forced him to play in certain places with certain group of musicians, ordered him to do a certain setlist by certain given arrangements and sing and move according to a certain choreography? (unless that 'someone' is a potential audience he wants to charm, and thereby guiding his decisions...)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 20:32 by Doxa.

I explained what I meant: that a bigger and longer show, a more showbiz-glitzy approach, not necessarily was what Mick wanted. But he had to do it to make the big money.

Quote
Hairball

I was able to find it - nice review/'interview', and a shame it wasn't posted here on IORR in the original B&L thread - it's not too late to do so!
One paragraph in particular speaks volumes though (for me), and I'm sure many here can relate to and appreciate this:

Haha... I need to say that when I was writing that piece in December I had also something what you have said in mind... Some of us Stones fans, probably trained by our heroes, are "blues purists", and that's why it is hard to appreciate BLUE & LONESOME, because we - I belong to them as well - know the genre so well. I know many blues purists (some of them being Stones fans, some not) and generally they are not that impressed about the album. And I do understand why. It is the Stones fan, not the blues purist in me, that digs BLUE & LONESOME haha....

I think the irony of the 'greatest R&R band of the world' is people like Charlie Watts honestly saying that "that's what we do best" (playing the blues) although them not ranking very high as a blues band (something I am sure all of them would admit), sounding as some sort of willing amateurs at their best, but damn lame compared to the real blues men...

By analogy, I think a similar case applies for the Stones doing country music (C&W). Funny thing is that I don't care much about C&W altogether, that's never been my thing, but to my ears The Stones doing country music always sounds great, especially Jagger's over the top vocals... But I am sure that for many 'C&W purists' they sound fake and cheap... And we could add the same thing for, say, reggae and funk (as a big fan of both those genres, I think The Stones are almost awfully bad in interpreting neither of them...)...

Oh shit, this went OT... Sorry..

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-19 21:14 by Doxa.

mick did say something to the effect that we[the stones] invented the modern tour,us and pink floyd"

that's not the exact qoute but pretty close.i was suprised because he's not normaly that straightforward.the 81/82 tour was the precurser to the really professional stadium tour. even though everybody had been doing stadiums for years that was when mick really came into his own in the business.the sponsors,keeping track of every t-shirt sold and even concession stand sales..watching every dollar and making sure the band got what they earned.

it's funny how everyone bashed the stones mercilessly about the sponsorship.as usual,just like the pushing the age barrier thing the stones get absolutly no credit for anything they do.they get bashed like all hell,open the door for everyone else and then it's like it never happened.

Elvis began the stadium era when he played the cotton bowl in texas back in the late 50's.of course beatles fans still believe,wrongly, that the moptops started it at shea stadium.but then again they think the beatles were a rock and roll band too,so go figure.

..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-20 10:31 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
stone4ever



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

Thank you.

I just comment something I just can't find myself agreeing with how you read me.

Firstly, I don't see Richards to be blamed for Jagger's shortcomings. Mick can only blame himself for that people were not so impressed by his solo works. By contrast, Keith himself gained a lot from MIck's shortcomings. By the time he released his solo album, Jagger had unitentionally cleared a path for him to shine, to make his 'statement'. A part of the charm of archaic-sounding TALK IS CHEAP was to be contrasted with Jagger's 'trendy-sounding' albums. For the Stones fans, the only point of reference of Jagger's SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL were the Stones albums. These days people seem to forget that difference (how different kind of deals these two solo 'careers' were). To put it simply, Mick's stuff was related to the Stones, while Keith's was related to Mick's. Jagger clearly had a more anmbitious goal in his mind - to continue the Stones success by his own, while Keith basically just realeased a solo album because Jagger had done two already and the future of the Stones was uncertain. Generally, Keith's career is much more parasitic to Mick's existence and doings than Mick's is to Keith's. This, however, can't be confused with to the fact Mick not being able to be such a superstar by his own outside the context of The Rolling Stones, but Keith and any other Rolling Stone had very much more to lose than Mick in the case of the Stones falling apart. I take that to be reason, with Michael Cohl's huge numbers (=equals the same), why all the rest of them okayed nicely and did what they were told to, when Jagger decided to continue his career under the umbrella notion of the Stones again.

And about me being "hypocritical" and being "biased and obsessed" about Mick, hmm... of course, there are blind spots in me, but let's say, I don't see any of this very personal, but more like observing certain funny things about the band I felt love with as a teeenager boy. I am not any longer that boy... Like Wittness mentioned in his post, I've been rather critical towards Jagger along the years as well. It is lately that I have started re-thinking more about Richards, and all the things related to him and to his reputation (especially since releasing LIFE). He has been treated generally with silky gloves by many Stones fans and music press, while Jagger has always been a kind of easy and obvious target in criticism (sometimes with a just, sometimes not).

- Doxa

Thanks for your response Doxa,
I suppose you are right , we are all funny in our own way on here getting over the top about emotions we had for this band when we were in our teen's and twenties.
I find myself laughing at the way we dredge up these old memories of our favorite Stone and the right's and wrong's of Mick and Keith's fall out's over the years especially in the 80's.
I agree Keith came out better off after these exchanges, but you have to admit Keith pull's off the charm more in interviews and comes across as sincere in a more approachable way than Mick. I don't suppose Mick cares as much as Keith what people think of him. Keith appears more desperate to be liked and loved, a more emotional soul i think. I guess Keith tries harder than Mick in this way, so why should he not receive deeper affection from fan's for that side of his personality.
Mick on the other hand is content to distance himself from fan's and journalist's, he seems indifferent to revealing his feelings, you get the distinct message he doesn't want to give anything away in interviews.

It's a bit sour grapes of you to resent any praise Keith gets for his music or his humanness, i suppose Keith is more of an heroic figure, the survivor, the Pirate, the Junkie, the hard man, the purist, the roots man, the bad ass etc. He has so many forms to his character, whereas Mick's character can come across as a bit one dimensional and detached in comparison.
I know these are childish shallow observations of these two personalities but this is the core of why Mick can get such a bad rap at times.

As for the Sound Keith's albums conjure up in comparison to Mick's, i can only assume that this is just the way Keith sounds, nothing planned or pre meditated about them surely ? Whereas Mick is guilty of wanting to sound current and of the time. The 80's production is all over Micks first two albums and that alone makes them difficult for some to enjoy or listen to in 2017. Personally i think Keith's solo albums are timeless in comparison.
I don't know what to say to you Doxa, get over it comes to mind lol
get over Keith.
Let's remember these guy's will not be here for much longer to annoy any of us. Just enjoy them while they are still Rocking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-20 22:11 by stone4ever.

Quote
Hairball
...In other words, you think it's a great song while I think it's a weak song - and evidently several others who have chimed in also think it's weak.

Well obviously you are all wrong and I am the only one that is right.

It occurs to me that Keith has been able to carve out a solo career for himself *inside* the Rolling Stones.
He gets one or two jazzy/standard/Keith ballads (some people find them fascinating, others are bored) on every album.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Hairball

I was able to find it - nice review/'interview', and a shame it wasn't posted here on IORR in the original B&L thread - it's not too late to do so!
One paragraph in particular speaks volumes though (for me), and I'm sure many here can relate to and appreciate this:

Haha... I need to say that when I was writing that piece in December I had also something what you have said in mind... Some of us Stones fans, probably trained by our heroes, are "blues purists", and that's why it is hard to appreciate BLUE & LONESOME, because we - I belong to them as well - know the genre so well. I know many blues purists (some of them being Stones fans, some not) and generally they are not that impressed about the album. And I do understand why. It is the Stones fan, not the blues purist in me, that digs BLUE & LONESOME haha....

I think the irony of the 'greatest R&R band of the world' is people like Charlie Watts honestly saying that "that's what we do best" (playing the blues) although them not ranking very high as a blues band (something I am sure all of them would admit), sounding as some sort of willing amateurs at their best, but damn lame compared to the real blues men...

By analogy, I think a similar case applies for the Stones doing country music (C&W). Funny thing is that I don't care much about C&W altogether, that's never been my thing, but to my ears The Stones doing country music always sounds great, especially Jagger's over the top vocals... But I am sure that for many 'C&W purists' they sound fake and cheap... And we could add the same thing for, say, reggae and funk (as a big fan of both those genres, I think The Stones are almost awfully bad in interpreting neither of them...)...

Oh shit, this went OT... Sorry..

- Doxa

Yes I get all that, and as a Stones fan I can appreciate what they have done with B&L also - I actually think it's their best cohesive album in decades, even though it's an album of covers. And for the record, I wouldn't consider myself a 'blues purist' as there's plenty of blues covers I do enjoy - just so happens that 99.999% of the time I think the originals are superior! As with B&L, to borrow your words: "they might not sound very authentic or even be a great blues band, or adding anything to blues legacy, but they sound damn fine Rolling Stones making a statement in a contemporary pop world".

Amen to that.

And then there's this:

Quote
Doxa
We have to remember that this album is not directed to ‘blues purists’ as more than their early recordings were. Like then, this is done for a bigger audience.

Agree to a point, but as I had written around the time of the B&L release - times have changed alot since then. What they were doing then was cutting edge - it was daring and challenging to the general music listening masses. they were turning many people on to the blues who may have never heard it; uncovering hidden gems from the depths. These days blues is no longer some hidden/unkown/exotic entity as it was in the beginning of the Stones' career. It's practically as commonplace as elevator music. You even have 10 year old snotty white kids playing blues style guitar as if they were the devil himself. It's become so generic and well known, that the Stones simply could not accomplish now what they did back then - the world already knows the blues like the back of their hands. Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts, and yes the album sold very well, but in the big picture the impact of this album and it's legacy will be minimal.

But back to Mick solo - it's a shame he didn't release his blues album with the Red Devils. Maybe with the success of B&L, he will reevaluate that decision and release it at some point in time!

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

Yeah timeless and boring,only Keith,s hangarounds play them

<They were turning many people on to the blues who may have never heard it; uncovering hidden gems from the depths>

They might still do that with B&L, Hairball

Doxa, thank you.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<They were turning many people on to the blues who may have never heard it; uncovering hidden gems from the depths>

They might still do that with B&L, Hairball

Yes, I did say "Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts " (with B&L)...and even perhaps the blues in general I'll add.
BUT - because the blues is much more common today amongst the masses compared to back then , the level of impact and amount of people they turned on is nowhere near the same.
Probably 90% (or more) of people today can name a blues tune, whereas back then it was probably less than 5% (or less). Even Aerosmith did a blues covers album, so they already covered the teeny bopper market!

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman


They might still do that with B&L, Hairball

Yes, I did say "Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts " (with B&L)...and even perhaps the blues in general I'll add.
BUT - because the blues is much more common today amongst the masses compared to back then , the level of impact and amount of people they turned on is nowhere near the same.
Probably 90% (or more) of people today can name a blues tune, whereas back then it was probably less than 5% (or less). Even Aerosmith did a blues covers album, so they already covered the teeny bopper market!

Nothing will be as enlightening as it was back in the day. The music, like information, flows faster today. However, the youngsters might only get a superficial taste of different music styles. That's why it is important that huge bands like the Stones are making a record like B&L, imo.

They're doing their part and deserve credit for that.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman


They might still do that with B&L, Hairball

Yes, I did say "Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts " (with B&L)...and even perhaps the blues in general I'll add.
BUT - because the blues is much more common today amongst the masses compared to back then , the level of impact and amount of people they turned on is nowhere near the same.
Probably 90% (or more) of people today can name a blues tune, whereas back then it was probably less than 5% (or less). Even Aerosmith did a blues covers album, so they already covered the teeny bopper market!

Nothing will be as enlightening as it was back in the day. The music, like information, flows faster today. However, the youngsters might only get a superficial taste of different music styles. That's why it is important that huge bands like the Stones are making a record like B&L, imo.

They're doing their part and deserve credit for that.

Gotta give 'em credit then for doing their part - no matter how insignificant it is.
But not sure if they even had that in mind with B&L when they played it safe by quickly recording an album of old blues covers. They did it for the love of it, and because their album of originals was going nowhere. Glad they made it, but hope they can get it together and be creative on their own terms - I'm sure a new album of originals will turn on a bunch of kids to the Stones themselves who know hardly anything about them, except for the fact that that they do covers of old blues tunes. It would be great for some young kids to hear a new worthy Stones tune, and then discover their entire catalogue - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The blues is already well established amongst the majority, it's time for them to keep their own name and sound alive and kicking.

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Hairball

Quote
DandelionPowderman


They might still do that with B&L, Hairball

Yes, I did say "Sure they may have turned on some people on to some 'deeper' cuts " (with B&L)...and even perhaps the blues in general I'll add.
BUT - because the blues is much more common today amongst the masses compared to back then , the level of impact and amount of people they turned on is nowhere near the same.
Probably 90% (or more) of people today can name a blues tune, whereas back then it was probably less than 5% (or less). Even Aerosmith did a blues covers album, so they already covered the teeny bopper market!

Nothing will be as enlightening as it was back in the day. The music, like information, flows faster today. However, the youngsters might only get a superficial taste of different music styles. That's why it is important that huge bands like the Stones are making a record like B&L, imo.

They're doing their part and deserve credit for that.

Gotta give 'em credit then for doing their part - no matter how insignificant it is.
But not sure if they even had that in mind with B&L when they played it safe by quickly recording an album of old blues covers. They did it for the love of it, and because their album of originals was going nowhere. Glad they made it, but hope they can get it together and be creative on their own terms - I'm sure a new album of originals will turn on a bunch of kids to the Stones themselves who know hardly anything about them, except for the fact that that they do covers of old blues tunes. It would be great for some young kids to hear a new worthy Stones tune, and then discover their entire catalogue - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The blues is already well established amongst the majority, it's time for them to keep their own name and sound alive and kicking.

Sorry to quote all these boxes, but I'd like to comment generally to the stuff written here. Of that, thank you, gentlemen.

Like you both guys state, what the Stones now did with BLUE & LONESOME is different what they once did. Back then, yeah, they were introducing a whole new kind of genre to new (pop) audiences, and even though the kids today might know as little - or not much actively more - about the blues today they did in 1964, the Stones - an old favourite of grandpa generation - most likely are not the kind of pop entity to "enlighten" them. Probably Justin Bieber, Beyonce or people like might succeed in that... At least might have their music played more in pop radio, and thereby tobe reached better by young masses, at least as far as America, the home of the blues, is concerned...

To me the function of BLUE & LONESOME simply is being like a reminder of the existence of this once great genre, Chicago blues, something that once was called Rhythm&Blues. This presupposes that people actually awere of this kind of music. And this exactly is the case, like Hairball noted, in regards to old (rock) generations. The blues is an established genre, even though it exists for many in the very marginal and in music history books, outside the 'blues purists' circles. But the Stones managed to push a little new life to it. For the Stones fans generally it was great to hear them sounding so relaxed and focused, so fresh, but I think its strong sales - it is relatively speaking their biggest hit album since TATTOO YOU - are not only to be explained by mobilizing teh potential Stones fans who supposedly were eager to buy anything novel, after a long wait, from them. No, I think teh album reached a bigger audience, because of the actual power of the music ("The Stones? hmm... hey wait a minute... damn, that actually sounds good!"). Many long term rock fans hadn't actually heard such archaic but damn good stuff for ages ("Was that old and obvious stuff really so good?"). I think the Stones managed in BLUE & LONESOME to talk in such familiar, but probably a bit forgotten terms that turned out to be surprisingly tempting for a rather big audience (that most likely they couldn't have done with a typical Stones music a'la A BIGGER BANG). BUt I don't think any other act than the Stones - due to their reputation and fame but also due to their very particular and unique sound (shit they actually sound convincing and catchy in playing the blues!) - could have managed in doing that.

So in a way I still claim that the Stones were, once again,"popularizing the blues", like they once did in their early days. Now the potential audiences were different by their prior knowledge of the blues, then knowing nothing, now at least something (and it could be that in certain cases, the question might have been even about the very same people!).

How "significiant" is that? I don't know (and what do we realistically expect from these days any longer?) Most likely BLUE & LONESOME is going to be just another post-TATTOO YOU-like 'flavor of the month' type of album, not much to remembered outside the circles of die-hard fans. But like I wrote in my review, I think it still looks good in their CV. I think it is rather cool that the Stones, knowing their pioneering history in the genre and maybe because of that, were able to re-spread the word of the blues now a half century later (if nothing else, probably the people will rediscover their old Little Walter and Howlin Wolf records, or even purchase some new ones). A nice, mature statement (which, I think, actually is adding something to their legacy).

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-21 11:22 by Doxa.

This is significant no matter how «intentional» it was to turn young people on to the blues by doing this album.

A #1 blues record, with some stuff on it that was pretty unfamiliar, even for many blues fans.

Of course, they couldn't predict the album to top the charts, but they knew it would cause quite a stir in the market, because of their long absence from it with new stuff.

This album is more educational than all the american songbooks and cheap cash in-attemps from other big artists (Aerosmith and Rod Stewart spring to mind).

I know my share of the blues, and there were several songs on B&L that I probably only had heard once, or just a couple of times. I missed the beauty of those songs for different reasons. They are not by the biggest blues artists who the kids superficially know the names of.

Without taking this too far, this was an important release. Probably even more important than the Stones knew it would be.

Quote
Hairball

Gotta give 'em credit then for doing their part - no matter how insignificant it is.
But not sure if they even had that in mind with B&L when they played it safe by quickly recording an album of old blues covers. They did it for the love of it, and because their album of originals was going nowhere. Glad they made it, but hope they can get it together and be creative on their own terms - I'm sure a new album of originals will turn on a bunch of kids to the Stones themselves who know hardly anything about them, except for the fact that that they do covers of old blues tunes. It would be great for some young kids to hear a new worthy Stones tune, and then discover their entire catalogue - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The blues is already well established amongst the majority, it's time for them to keep their own name and sound alive and kicking.

Gotta still - oh yeah, I will discuss Mick Jagger solo works soon haha - comment a bit more of this interesting piece. What Hairball writes is always very inspiring to me.

Firstly, by "playing it safe" does not seem to me to be an accurate way to describe neither making or releasing a pure blues album.

Yeah,it could be relatively easy for them to do a bunch of blues covers, but what 'being easy' (or not) has to do with creative work? Do we need to have apply some sort of Protestantic Ethics, work our asses off in pain for days, and weeks and months, in order to make great music/art? Probably sometimes, but that's not necessary. It didn't take for the Stones but only a couple of hours to write and record a thing like "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" and we know how ageless the result is. If the creativity and focus is present, the things can go very quickly and 'easily'.

I think that is what happened in those BLUE AND LONESOME sessions. The guys just found their focus and purpose, and ooh la la, the result, quickly and effectively done, is to be heard in the album. If that all happened because they were not going anywhere with their 'original' music, and Keith suggesting that what if they do "Blue & Lonesome" to make them feel more comfortable (with the 'room' or with themselves/music), it doesn't really matter. There doesn't need to be any Big Plan in order to come up with great results. It doesn't matter from where or why the inspiration comes or happens. The only thing that matters is that it happens. My picture is, like Keith has described it in his own terms, they suddenly 'clicked', and once got there, they didn't want kill the momentum but just pushed forward. Pushed actually so hard during those three days that Ronnie's fingers were hurting (If one listens the album, one can imagine why). The guys seemingly were rather content with the results, even though they were not sure what to do with it.

Then there comes the other part, that of releasing the stuff, which surely was not 'playing it safe' at all. Jagger seemingly negotiated hard with the record company and was worried, like them, about its commercial value. To release a pure blues album consisting of covers in 2016.. c'mon! Yeah, of the big names Clapton and Aerosmith did that in 2004 and managed to sell rather nicely (both around 2 millions copies) but that was 12 years ago, the whole market had changed effectively since then! Seemingly the album was relaesed because the record company was afraid that the band is not able to come up with an originals album, as it was initially planned, and probably just thought 'better than nothing' and hoped for the best.

Well, as we know, its sales exdeeded big time all the realistic expectations - by Jagger, by Universal, by our very own georgelicks - and it topped the charts worldwide, being about the best selling season album during the hottest season of the year, doing much better chartwise than what Clapton or Aerosmith had done 12 yaers earlier.

Sometimes great things happen just by accident... But still I think it is rather cool that the Stones had balls - against probably their own, their probable audiences and their record company's expectations - to trust on their musical judgment, first simply carrying doing the shit when they hit the right mood, and, secondly, releasing the shit. Was it 'shit, we can't come up with anything as good as this' or 'shit, this is just so @#$%& good that we need to release this', doesn't really matter.


Secondly, I also, of course, would like to hear a new originals album from them, but I don't think that would much help them to reach new fans from the younger generation. For that the best way is to do concerts and let their parents and grand-parent to do 'recruition' the by bringing them there (and ask them to over-come what their school mamas had educated by force in their music history classes (boring!))... If we look at the sales of BLUE AND LONESOME and see how much the physical sales are percentage-wise of the whole sales (streaming), and compare that to the best selling pop acts today, that tells quite a lot of the age range of their potential audience. Add there the difficulties to have radio-play for their singles, they are in a serious trouble to 'reach the kids of today' by releasing any new music. It could be that during the 90's and probably even still in 00's, that idea - through a new album people will discover the Stones and their great past - but I think those salad days are over (haha, finally a Jagger solo reference!). I especially think VOODOO LOUNGE worked such a way. As I have said in the past, they could retitled it as STONES FOR DUMMIES...

More generally, despite all the streaming, radio-play and all that hassle of today's music business, I think an oldies act like the Stones have the same basic - and even worse - generational gap problem than an act like Frank Sinatra had by the time the kids had started listening rock and roll. No matter how great new music Sinatra would come up in, say, 1967, that wouldn't help the kids to discover his glory past achievements (Dylan seemingly is doing that now for them...). Probably the hip kids who were eager to hear a new Jimi Hendrix or a Doors album in 1968, wouldn't give a shit what even an old fart like Elvis Presley was doing at the time no matter how much his 'come-back' was heralded by a bit older folks...

OMG, I feel like talkin'...


- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-21 11:18 by Doxa.