Tell Me :
Talk
Well spoken, matxil!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-31 12:58 by Meise.
I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't hear typically overblown 80's guitar solos and fake emotional singing in tracks like Don't Tear Me Up, Out Of Focus, Wandering Spirit, Evening Gown, Angel In My Heart, Use Me and others at all. Makes me think that the true reason what makes Wandering Spirit "unlistenable" to you is just the fact that it's Mick solo and therefore it is not allowed to be any good.
I'm a Stones fan since the mid-sixties, and believe me, my antenna to detect fake and overblown 80's and 90's atuff by "some long-haired fools" is always active.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-31 18:42 by retired_dog.
Those solos are on Wired All Night, Put Me In The Trash, Mother Of A Man and a few others, but they don't ruin the listening experience for me.
I tried listening to the album a couple of times and I once had a roommate who liked the album so I heard it a few times more passively as well. I cannot remember all the song-titles.
The terribly "pseudo-loud"-polished slick solos were in the rockers, don't remember the names of the songs. I remember "Out of Fwakaaa" and "Evening Gown" as two examples were I didn't like his singing.
As for your other comments, see my post just after the one you reacted to.
Oh, and by the way, just to "prove" I am not an X-hater or Y-lover, I actually do like "Just Another Night", no idea what album that is from, and I always thought his duet with Bowie "Dancing in the Streets" funny. Also, and I actually stated this before on this forum, I am of the opinion that it would have been much better for Mick, for Keith, for the Stones, and for myself, if they all would have gone on making solo albums after Undercover, instead of these half-washed Stones albums based on either fights or compromise between Mick and Keith. The fact that I don't like Mick's solo work doesn't mean I don't want him to make them. On the contrary.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-31 20:03 by matxil.
Although I have a weak spot for Steel Wheels and Bridges, I think Talk Is Cheap and Wandering Spirit are just as good as these two and considerably better than ABB and Voodoo Lounge. At the same time I think it was not a wise decision to release solo albums like the two mentioned that are so close to the sound of the Stones. I for one can imagine a lot of songs from TIC and WS in Stones band versions.
Great song
Mick would have had to work real real hard to turn CH into something as good as Tattoo You. I think the result would have been much worse than ABB. Why is everybody bashing ABB? It´s a damn fine album, best since ´86.
So the whole thing is about arguing that Keith Richards is a bigger solo star than Mick Jagger is or vice versa? What the hell is wrong with you Keithettes? Always Keith's supposed greatness is parasitic to and measured by Jagger's doings.
Yes, I believe Keef has a longer dick.
So much about discussing "Jagger's solo works". It's all about praising and defending Keith Richards, right?
And you agree with me about what???!!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 15:18 by Doxa.
That's true. In the case of Jagger, it is not solely how the audiences response to his doings, but also whatever he does is actually rather bounded by his own limitations, that is, the Stones vocabulary. Mick might be interest in whatever new trends happen, that seems to be his 'wandering spirit', but that doesn't translate that he could musically adapt to them convincingly, at least if he travels too far from his 'home vocabulary'. I think he somehow lost that sensitivity during the 80's. "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS were his last triumph in that sense. For Jagger disco music was just the latest trend - and a very succesfull form of black music - he had been following since his teenager years, and it wasn't just an odd move to transform an always rhythmn-based Stones groove to four-in-the-floor. As far as white rock goes, the punk revolution was about the best thing that could have happen to the Stones at the time. It gave them a justification to go to the basics, to play simple and raw Chuck Berry-based guitar stuff with a conviction and a feeling, no worrying about technical matters. etc. But as the disco evolved, and the new 'dance music' was entering to the scene, with the likes of Jacko and Prince, and finally the entrance of rap, that started to go beyond Jagger's reach. And the same we can say of the white rock music: evolving from the raw guitar-based punk into 'new wave', and the synths and all taking the lead as the 80's went on,´the birth of 'alternative rock', or what was left of old guitar rock was to be reduced under the new forms of technically-skilled 'hard rock', guitar heroes entering the scene again (that is known since then under the title of 'metal'), all that started to be rather difficult for Jagger to adapt to convincingly. At some time he probably thought that it surely was impossible for the Stones, but he most likely over-estimated his own skills in doing that.
Another thing to remember is that Jagger had already problems by the time of people like David Bowie entering the scene, but for some years he still managed to do rather well for not being an "old fart".
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 18:27 by Doxa.
I agree with how you started your post , you said "let my think aloud some thoughts (=bullshit) about Mick Jagger's solo career and albums".
I was saying that every time i take a look at this thread someone is dissing Crosseyed Heart. I just don't understand why people can't praise a Jagger solo album without referring to CH as a snooze fest or worse. I happen to think its the best album since Tatoo You. I can talk positively about CH without having to make comparisons with Micks solo albums or bashing them. As for Keithettes i have no idea what you are on about and i see no evidence on iorr to suggest that one exists. Keithettes only exist in your mind my friend.
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:
matxil
()
Date: March 31, 2017 11:50
It always surprises me that on this forum one cannot praise/criticize Jagger, Richards, Wood or Taylor without being labelled a <X>-hater or <Y>-lover.
Imagine someone choosing an apple for desert and someone else then blaming him: that's just because you're an orange-hater. Silly.
Given that they all play or have played in the greatest rock n roll band in the world, they have all done some wonderful stuff and since they are all human, they have all done pretty bad stuff too.
Imagine someone choosing an apple for desert and someone else then blaming him: that's just because you're an orange-hater. Silly.
Given that they all play or have played in the greatest rock n roll band in the world, they have all done some wonderful stuff and since they are all human, they have all done pretty bad stuff too.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Meise
()
Date: March 31, 2017 12:58
Quote
matxil
It always surprises me that on this forum one cannot praise/criticize Jagger, Richards, Wood or Taylor without being labelled a -hater or -lover.
Imagine someone choosing an apple for desert and someone else then blaming him: that's just because you're an orange-hater. Silly.
Given that they all play or have played in the greatest rock n roll band in the world, they have all done some wonderful stuff and since they are all human, they have all done pretty bad stuff too.
Well spoken, matxil!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-31 12:58 by Meise.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: March 31, 2017 18:36
Quote
matxilQuote
mtaylor
Wandering Spirit is great. What's the problem!!!!
There are good songs on it, but the sound, especially of the guitars and especially on the "rock" songs, is too slick, the 80's and 90s were full of this "loud guitar-solos" by some long-haired fool and they follow the same predictable pattern using the same effects. But the worst part is his voice doing too much of that fake emotional thing which he started to do somewhere in the 80s. I never really understood why he started doing that, given how good is voice, timing and intonation had been in the decades before. All of this makes Wandering Spirit unlistenable to me.
I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't hear typically overblown 80's guitar solos and fake emotional singing in tracks like Don't Tear Me Up, Out Of Focus, Wandering Spirit, Evening Gown, Angel In My Heart, Use Me and others at all. Makes me think that the true reason what makes Wandering Spirit "unlistenable" to you is just the fact that it's Mick solo and therefore it is not allowed to be any good.
I'm a Stones fan since the mid-sixties, and believe me, my antenna to detect fake and overblown 80's and 90's atuff by "some long-haired fools" is always active.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-31 18:42 by retired_dog.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 31, 2017 18:56
Quote
retired_dogQuote
matxilQuote
mtaylor
Wandering Spirit is great. What's the problem!!!!
There are good songs on it, but the sound, especially of the guitars and especially on the "rock" songs, is too slick, the 80's and 90s were full of this "loud guitar-solos" by some long-haired fool and they follow the same predictable pattern using the same effects. But the worst part is his voice doing too much of that fake emotional thing which he started to do somewhere in the 80s. I never really understood why he started doing that, given how good is voice, timing and intonation had been in the decades before. All of this makes Wandering Spirit unlistenable to me.
I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't hear typically overblown 80's guitar solos and fake emotional singing in tracks like Don't Tear Me Up, Out Of Focus, Wandering Spirit, Evening Gown, Angel In My Heart, Use Me and others at all. Makes me think that the true reason what makes Wandering Spirit "unlistenable" to you is just the fact that it's Mick solo and therefore it is not allowed to be any good.
I'm a Stones fan since the mid-sixties, and believe me, my antenna to detect fake and overblown 80's and 90's atuff by "some long-haired fools" is always active.
Those solos are on Wired All Night, Put Me In The Trash, Mother Of A Man and a few others, but they don't ruin the listening experience for me.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 31, 2017 19:58
Quote
retired_dogQuote
matxilQuote
mtaylor
Wandering Spirit is great. What's the problem!!!!
There are good songs on it, but the sound, especially of the guitars and especially on the "rock" songs, is too slick, the 80's and 90s were full of this "loud guitar-solos" by some long-haired fool and they follow the same predictable pattern using the same effects. But the worst part is his voice doing too much of that fake emotional thing which he started to do somewhere in the 80s. I never really understood why he started doing that, given how good is voice, timing and intonation had been in the decades before. All of this makes Wandering Spirit unlistenable to me.
I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't hear typically overblown 80's guitar solos and fake emotional singing in tracks like Don't Tear Me Up, Out Of Focus, Wandering Spirit, Evening Gown, Angel In My Heart, Use Me and others at all. Makes me think that the true reason what makes Wandering Spirit "unlistenable" to you is just the fact that it's Mick solo and therefore it is not allowed to be any good.
I'm a Stones fan since the mid-sixties, and believe me, my antenna to detect fake and overblown 80's and 90's atuff by "some long-haired fools" is always active.
I tried listening to the album a couple of times and I once had a roommate who liked the album so I heard it a few times more passively as well. I cannot remember all the song-titles.
The terribly "pseudo-loud"-polished slick solos were in the rockers, don't remember the names of the songs. I remember "Out of Fwakaaa" and "Evening Gown" as two examples were I didn't like his singing.
As for your other comments, see my post just after the one you reacted to.
Oh, and by the way, just to "prove" I am not an X-hater or Y-lover, I actually do like "Just Another Night", no idea what album that is from, and I always thought his duet with Bowie "Dancing in the Streets" funny. Also, and I actually stated this before on this forum, I am of the opinion that it would have been much better for Mick, for Keith, for the Stones, and for myself, if they all would have gone on making solo albums after Undercover, instead of these half-washed Stones albums based on either fights or compromise between Mick and Keith. The fact that I don't like Mick's solo work doesn't mean I don't want him to make them. On the contrary.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-31 20:03 by matxil.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: March 31, 2017 21:38
But the solo-albums aren´t a compromise between J/R and still they are not as good as any Stones-album since 1986, including B2B. Wandering Spirit is the best solo-album by a Rolling Stone but overall it is not better than the Stones-albums that were to follow. WS has it´s hi´s and low´s just like any Stones album since DW.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 31, 2017 22:01
All three of Keith's solo album's are much better than any Jagger's solo albums. All Micks albums are better than Keith's and also better than Stones albums since Tattoo You. What is all this rubbish. Its like a kinder garden.
Lets just grow up a bit, instead of having this argument forever, basically some of us prefer Mick as a person and an artist. Some of us prefer Keith as a person and an artist. Whats the point in spending years on a forum trying to convert people to agreeing to prefer the other artist. Its boring and it's futile.
I like Keith more and nothing anyone ever says is going to change my mind or my ears, and vice versa. Mick and Keith are both incredible in so many ways and they both play in the best band in the world. That's good enough for me. I'm not picking on anyone in particular but sometimes i get the feeling its like Ground Hog Day, endlessly having the same disagreements about albums and band members. Its a never ending dick measuring contest lol.
Still Keith is best hehe
Lets just grow up a bit, instead of having this argument forever, basically some of us prefer Mick as a person and an artist. Some of us prefer Keith as a person and an artist. Whats the point in spending years on a forum trying to convert people to agreeing to prefer the other artist. Its boring and it's futile.
I like Keith more and nothing anyone ever says is going to change my mind or my ears, and vice versa. Mick and Keith are both incredible in so many ways and they both play in the best band in the world. That's good enough for me. I'm not picking on anyone in particular but sometimes i get the feeling its like Ground Hog Day, endlessly having the same disagreements about albums and band members. Its a never ending dick measuring contest lol.
Still Keith is best hehe
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: March 31, 2017 22:03
Mother of a Man is a Monster of a track!
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: March 31, 2017 22:09
Quote
HMS
But the solo-albums aren´t a compromise between J/R and still they are not as good as any Stones-album since 1986, including B2B. Wandering Spirit is the best solo-album by a Rolling Stone but overall it is not better than the Stones-albums that were to follow. WS has it´s hi´s and low´s just like any Stones album since DW.
Although I have a weak spot for Steel Wheels and Bridges, I think Talk Is Cheap and Wandering Spirit are just as good as these two and considerably better than ABB and Voodoo Lounge. At the same time I think it was not a wise decision to release solo albums like the two mentioned that are so close to the sound of the Stones. I for one can imagine a lot of songs from TIC and WS in Stones band versions.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: April 1, 2017 10:40
I also think that the good solo albums are better than most of the late era Stones albums. I include Ronnie solo albums. To me it is Steel Wheels, Voodoo and Bigger Bang, and all the Live albums that are the main culprits. Babylon and Stripped I think are very good.
What is strange is this: at the times of greatest need for a Stones album, it is the solo releases that have also tanked. You would think that since there was no Stones album, all the good stuff was ending up on solo albums, but no. Maybe there's a reason we did not get an album. Then when they were redhot, when the late era Stones hot their stride, all the solo albums became shit hot again too.
Now that I would really love a Stones album, we got Keith's Crosseyed snooze fest.
What is strange is this: at the times of greatest need for a Stones album, it is the solo releases that have also tanked. You would think that since there was no Stones album, all the good stuff was ending up on solo albums, but no. Maybe there's a reason we did not get an album. Then when they were redhot, when the late era Stones hot their stride, all the solo albums became shit hot again too.
Now that I would really love a Stones album, we got Keith's Crosseyed snooze fest.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 1, 2017 12:00
Above post is food for thought, Mick and Keith using their best contributions to solo work was bad news for Stones albums. They must have used all their best stuff for solo album's. I still think Crosseyed Heart would have been as good as Tatoo You had Mick worked his magic on it. That's not to say I don't love Keith’s vocals on it.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: April 1, 2017 13:49
Quote
LeonidP
Mother of a Man is a Monster of a track!
Great song
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: April 1, 2017 14:26
Quote
stone4ever
Above post is food for thought, Mick and Keith using their best contributions to solo work was bad news for Stones albums. They must have used all their best stuff for solo album's. I still think Crosseyed Heart would have been as good as Tatoo You had Mick worked his magic on it. That's not to say I don't love Keith’s vocals on it.
Mick would have had to work real real hard to turn CH into something as good as Tattoo You. I think the result would have been much worse than ABB. Why is everybody bashing ABB? It´s a damn fine album, best since ´86.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 1, 2017 14:31
Quote
HMSQuote
stone4ever
Above post is food for thought, Mick and Keith using their best contributions to solo work was bad news for Stones albums. They must have used all their best stuff for solo album's. I still think Crosseyed Heart would have been as good as Tatoo You had Mick worked his magic on it. That's not to say I don't love Keith’s vocals on it.
Mick would have had to work real real hard to turn CH into something as good as Tattoo You. I think the result would have been much worse than ABB. Why is everybody bashing ABB? It´s a damn fine album, best since ´86.[[/u]/quote]
Because people don't like it !
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-01 14:31 by stone4ever.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Testify
()
Date: April 2, 2017 02:03
My opinion on Wandering Spirit is excellent, great album of Jagger, I think is the best. There is not one bad song, a very varied album not boring.
And 'one of the few albums that I could listen and re-listen for hours without getting bored. Thanks Mick!
And 'one of the few albums that I could listen and re-listen for hours without getting bored. Thanks Mick!
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: April 2, 2017 02:47
Quote
Testify
My opinion on Wandering Spirit is excellent, great album of Jagger, I think is the best. There is not one bad song, a very varied album not boring.
And 'one of the few albums that I could listen and re-listen for hours without getting bored. Thanks Mick!
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 2, 2017 11:06
Interesting article here on Micks solo attempts and other observations on Mick and Keith's relationship from a man in the loop.
[www.nydailynews.com]
[www.nydailynews.com]
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Monsoon Ragoon
()
Date: April 2, 2017 12:34
I think - to be honest - that Primitive Cool is a very good album and much better than Crosseyed Heart. The latter is totally boring. But I don't know if it makes sense to compare Jagger with Richards albums.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 2, 2017 14:43
Why can't you just say that YOU prefer Primitive Cool to Crosseyed Heart. Its a never ending merrygoround of what WE as individuals prefer. I would say they are all great albums if fans like them, why does it have to be comparison.
If we are going to try and get closure on WHO had the most success as far as solo albums goes it has to go to Keith. He was virtually unknown at the time as far as super stardom goes to non devoted Stones fans, and yet his solo albums generally sold on a par with Micks. Mick the BIG STAR most famous face on the planet struggled to outsell his band mate even though Mick spent fortunes on Videos and PR.
I remember in the 80's i would mention Keith Richards to people in general conversation and lots of people reacted with like who is Keith Richards, is he in the Stones or something. They didn't know one song Keith sang. So yes i would say that Keith must have delivered the solo goods better than Mick because he was a rank outsider when it came to expectations. Not to mention the rave reviews he got from the Wino's gigs. Keith really was an awesome surprise as a solo artist, covering Blues, Soul and Reggae throughout his albums. It was Keith who took more chances and tried something new outside of Stones material. It was Keith who mostly kept to non Stones songs in his live set lists, it was Keith who refused to cash in on the Stones past, it was Keith who would have had a better career as a solo artist had the Stones not got back together, and finally it was Mick who asked Keith to come back and make another album and tour with the Stones when he realized that Keith was doing quite alright without him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 14:46 by stone4ever.
If we are going to try and get closure on WHO had the most success as far as solo albums goes it has to go to Keith. He was virtually unknown at the time as far as super stardom goes to non devoted Stones fans, and yet his solo albums generally sold on a par with Micks. Mick the BIG STAR most famous face on the planet struggled to outsell his band mate even though Mick spent fortunes on Videos and PR.
I remember in the 80's i would mention Keith Richards to people in general conversation and lots of people reacted with like who is Keith Richards, is he in the Stones or something. They didn't know one song Keith sang. So yes i would say that Keith must have delivered the solo goods better than Mick because he was a rank outsider when it came to expectations. Not to mention the rave reviews he got from the Wino's gigs. Keith really was an awesome surprise as a solo artist, covering Blues, Soul and Reggae throughout his albums. It was Keith who took more chances and tried something new outside of Stones material. It was Keith who mostly kept to non Stones songs in his live set lists, it was Keith who refused to cash in on the Stones past, it was Keith who would have had a better career as a solo artist had the Stones not got back together, and finally it was Mick who asked Keith to come back and make another album and tour with the Stones when he realized that Keith was doing quite alright without him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 14:46 by stone4ever.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 2, 2017 14:45
Hello, it is a rainy Sunday, and inspired by this thread, let my think aloud some thoughts (=bullshit) about Mick Jagger's solo career and albums. I will discuss the albums one by one. The rest will follow later.
PART ONE: SHE'S THE BOSS
SHE'S THE BOSS was a big deal at the time when it was released, the first solo album by a 'big' Stone. And since it was Jagger, it wasn't considered just a 'solo album' a'la Wood's or Wyman's he might do as a side project to his main job and never actually compared to it, but this was something Stones-level important. Anyone knew it at the time, though Jagger himself – naturally - tried to avoid the comparison to the Stones.
Altogether, I think the album turned out to be a brief disappointment. More qualitywise than salewise (it is still easily the best selling Stones solo album ever, but of course damn far not only from an (aimed) MIchael Jackson level but also from a typical Stones level). A solo Jagger was stuck somewhere the middle of the Stones and 'what is trendy now'. A kind of forced, non-natural compromise, and SHE'S THE BOSS failed between them: compared to the Stones, it was too 'poppish', and for the trends of the day, it was too 'Stonesy' (if nothing else, but Jagger's own trademark blues-based rock voice and image, no matter how hard he tried to polish it, was something he couldn't transform too much).
The cruel fact was that by the mid-80's there started to be a huge gap between what is now called the 'classic rock' (what the Stones represented) and what the kids were digging at the moment. My guess is that Jagger tried to charm both potential audiences: the 'old' Stones fans and the 'new' kids, and thereby to continue the huge success he had accustomed with the Stones. He might have calculated – very justified at the time and now - that the only way to have hit singles and albums goes through 'being trendy' – that is, to get the biggest potential audience, the kids, to buy the stuff. And he was assured that he can not do that with the Stones any longer (he was right about that). And probably he thought that his old fans – the Stones fans – will just follow him (or maybe he thought that those people might have grown up a bit too much, are not any longer into pop music. So one cannot count on them).
But he failed to charm either of the potential audiences. It sold rather well, yes, but I claim – no statistics to show though – that the people who were actually buying the record were mostly 'non-trendy' Stones fans (who were curious to get it because it was Jagger). There was no new ”Miss You” in it to charm non-Stones fan audiences.
It could be that it was almost a mission impossible to mix those two trends, and what Jagger tried was doomed to fail (he wasn't the only 60's rock legend discovering that – just listen, for example, Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE from the same year. But then again, people like Paul Simon and David Bowie were exceptions). What worked still in 1978 (mixing the Stones with currents like disco and punk), didn't work any longer in 1985 (to come to terms with Prince, Michael Jackson or Duran Duran). Or we can say it: trying to cope with the trends convincingly was not any longer in Jagger's grasp. What worked for 70's stars Bowie or Freddie Mercury didn't work for 60's icon Jagger. He was too much that Jagger, a Rolling Stone. (Remember, I was still a kid also at the time, and very reflective what the people of my age were into).
SHE'S THE BOSS is by no means a bad record, but not very memorable either. ”Just Another Night” is a good song and it was a minor hit single. Compared to the Stones music at the time (think especially of UNDERCOVER), the album was much more melodic generally. We haven't heard pure ballads like ”Hard Woman” for ages. In some songs the mix of dance music, latest sounds and the old rhythm and blues works rather well. I think the weakest cut actually is the only pure Stones rocker, ”Lonely At The Top”- probably aimed to please the 'old' fanbase – since it so clearly shows the lack of the real magic. Rocking and trying way too hard without a natural swing and flow. My guess is that when Keith Richards was criticising SHES THE BOSS for being ”too Stonesy” (against the usual perception of his fans), he had this song in particular in mind. If Jagger feels the Stones as a framework being too limited, why he wants to do similar music on his own? Since it was an ever-important opening track, it probably put too much mood for the whole record.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 15:24 by Doxa.
PART ONE: SHE'S THE BOSS
SHE'S THE BOSS was a big deal at the time when it was released, the first solo album by a 'big' Stone. And since it was Jagger, it wasn't considered just a 'solo album' a'la Wood's or Wyman's he might do as a side project to his main job and never actually compared to it, but this was something Stones-level important. Anyone knew it at the time, though Jagger himself – naturally - tried to avoid the comparison to the Stones.
Altogether, I think the album turned out to be a brief disappointment. More qualitywise than salewise (it is still easily the best selling Stones solo album ever, but of course damn far not only from an (aimed) MIchael Jackson level but also from a typical Stones level). A solo Jagger was stuck somewhere the middle of the Stones and 'what is trendy now'. A kind of forced, non-natural compromise, and SHE'S THE BOSS failed between them: compared to the Stones, it was too 'poppish', and for the trends of the day, it was too 'Stonesy' (if nothing else, but Jagger's own trademark blues-based rock voice and image, no matter how hard he tried to polish it, was something he couldn't transform too much).
The cruel fact was that by the mid-80's there started to be a huge gap between what is now called the 'classic rock' (what the Stones represented) and what the kids were digging at the moment. My guess is that Jagger tried to charm both potential audiences: the 'old' Stones fans and the 'new' kids, and thereby to continue the huge success he had accustomed with the Stones. He might have calculated – very justified at the time and now - that the only way to have hit singles and albums goes through 'being trendy' – that is, to get the biggest potential audience, the kids, to buy the stuff. And he was assured that he can not do that with the Stones any longer (he was right about that). And probably he thought that his old fans – the Stones fans – will just follow him (or maybe he thought that those people might have grown up a bit too much, are not any longer into pop music. So one cannot count on them).
But he failed to charm either of the potential audiences. It sold rather well, yes, but I claim – no statistics to show though – that the people who were actually buying the record were mostly 'non-trendy' Stones fans (who were curious to get it because it was Jagger). There was no new ”Miss You” in it to charm non-Stones fan audiences.
It could be that it was almost a mission impossible to mix those two trends, and what Jagger tried was doomed to fail (he wasn't the only 60's rock legend discovering that – just listen, for example, Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE from the same year. But then again, people like Paul Simon and David Bowie were exceptions). What worked still in 1978 (mixing the Stones with currents like disco and punk), didn't work any longer in 1985 (to come to terms with Prince, Michael Jackson or Duran Duran). Or we can say it: trying to cope with the trends convincingly was not any longer in Jagger's grasp. What worked for 70's stars Bowie or Freddie Mercury didn't work for 60's icon Jagger. He was too much that Jagger, a Rolling Stone. (Remember, I was still a kid also at the time, and very reflective what the people of my age were into).
SHE'S THE BOSS is by no means a bad record, but not very memorable either. ”Just Another Night” is a good song and it was a minor hit single. Compared to the Stones music at the time (think especially of UNDERCOVER), the album was much more melodic generally. We haven't heard pure ballads like ”Hard Woman” for ages. In some songs the mix of dance music, latest sounds and the old rhythm and blues works rather well. I think the weakest cut actually is the only pure Stones rocker, ”Lonely At The Top”- probably aimed to please the 'old' fanbase – since it so clearly shows the lack of the real magic. Rocking and trying way too hard without a natural swing and flow. My guess is that when Keith Richards was criticising SHES THE BOSS for being ”too Stonesy” (against the usual perception of his fans), he had this song in particular in mind. If Jagger feels the Stones as a framework being too limited, why he wants to do similar music on his own? Since it was an ever-important opening track, it probably put too much mood for the whole record.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 15:24 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 2, 2017 14:46
PART TWO: PRIMITIVE COOL
In PRIMITIVE COOL Jagger took more chances and put all his energy to charm the new audiences. But commercially speaking failed, as we know, big time. Not probably any 'Stones-related' album is mocked as much as this one. Which is natural because for the Stones/classic rock audience Jagger sounds almost like showing a middle finger by trying so shamelessly to be so 'trendy'. But, unfortunately for Mick and fatally for his whole solo career, the new 80's pop audiences couldn't care less. For them the iconic rock star was a pure fake. A hard lesson for Jagger I am sure (and I think he has never really recovered of that).
But that said, and looking now in hindsight, PRIMITIVE COOL presents still an interesting phase in Jagger's career; the very last time an artist trying to reinvent himself. In here we hear him pushing his voice to limits, discovering new techniques, especially in the ways to carry the melodies, that he is familiar with ever since (whether we like it or not). As a song-writer, musically and lyrically, he is still trying to conquer some new grounds. Unfortunately due to typical 80's over-production, the results are almost unreachable – rightly for many people even unlistenable - today. Some nice songs are lost. Not all of them are as horrible as ”Let's Work” is (I am rather sure that never has a leading single failed so miserably in selling an album as this one did. It alone killed the chance of PRIMITIVE COOL I am afraid) ”Throwaway” is a decent rocker, and unlike ”Lonely At The Top” it works independently of the Stonesian vocabulary (the chorus could be a bit imaginative though) and things like ”Say You Will”, ”Party Doll” and ”Kow Tow” has strong melodies in them and delivered well, and the lyrical content of ”Primitive Cool” belongs to one of his most interesting ones ever.
My old saying is that when all is sit and done, and Jagger's career and artistic integration will be looked more 'objectively', this one will be seen in a different light. It is a kind of SATANIC MAJESTIES of the 80's. And the last time we saw Mick Jagger reinventing himself.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 23:30 by Doxa.
In PRIMITIVE COOL Jagger took more chances and put all his energy to charm the new audiences. But commercially speaking failed, as we know, big time. Not probably any 'Stones-related' album is mocked as much as this one. Which is natural because for the Stones/classic rock audience Jagger sounds almost like showing a middle finger by trying so shamelessly to be so 'trendy'. But, unfortunately for Mick and fatally for his whole solo career, the new 80's pop audiences couldn't care less. For them the iconic rock star was a pure fake. A hard lesson for Jagger I am sure (and I think he has never really recovered of that).
But that said, and looking now in hindsight, PRIMITIVE COOL presents still an interesting phase in Jagger's career; the very last time an artist trying to reinvent himself. In here we hear him pushing his voice to limits, discovering new techniques, especially in the ways to carry the melodies, that he is familiar with ever since (whether we like it or not). As a song-writer, musically and lyrically, he is still trying to conquer some new grounds. Unfortunately due to typical 80's over-production, the results are almost unreachable – rightly for many people even unlistenable - today. Some nice songs are lost. Not all of them are as horrible as ”Let's Work” is (I am rather sure that never has a leading single failed so miserably in selling an album as this one did. It alone killed the chance of PRIMITIVE COOL I am afraid) ”Throwaway” is a decent rocker, and unlike ”Lonely At The Top” it works independently of the Stonesian vocabulary (the chorus could be a bit imaginative though) and things like ”Say You Will”, ”Party Doll” and ”Kow Tow” has strong melodies in them and delivered well, and the lyrical content of ”Primitive Cool” belongs to one of his most interesting ones ever.
My old saying is that when all is sit and done, and Jagger's career and artistic integration will be looked more 'objectively', this one will be seen in a different light. It is a kind of SATANIC MAJESTIES of the 80's. And the last time we saw Mick Jagger reinventing himself.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 23:30 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 2, 2017 14:47
PART THREE: WANDERING SPIRIT
In WANDERING SPIRIT, five years later, Jagger took a safe route. The album almost like sounds ”okay, you want me sound like a Rolling Stone, there you have it”. And the targated audience – Stones fans – responded with applauds. ”The best Stones-related album since TATTOO YOU”, etc. It could be that the producer Rubin had a huge hand by making it so ”Stonesy” (Jagger is claimed to have initially a more trendy album in his mind), but at the same token we could say that the trends of the day had turned more warm to traditional forms of rock music. So for Jagger, ear always open for trends, it was not such a non-hip thing to do.
It is a good album, and I guess it was a pleasent surprise for almost anyone at the time. We didn't expect that from him, did we? No doubt his strongest solo effort. The ear-pleasing country number ”Evening Gown” is a real gem, ”Sweet Thing” is a good funk number, ”Out of Focus” is a charming exercise in mixing catchy melody with an exciting rhythm. Things like ”Handsome Molly” and ”Angel In My Heart” were real surprises at the time. The original songs altogether are stronger than anything the Stones were able to come up in STEEL WHEELS or VOODOO LOUNGE. Funnily, the method of the latter album was basically the same - that of covering different musical styles the Stones have done in the past. However, if in the case of the Stones the result turned out to be indirect and pastishe-like, that is, the Stones were copying themselves doing the styles they once did, Jagger's album sounded hitting more directly to the target, thereby sounding more inspired and fresh. So it was no wonder that VOODOO LOUNGE sounded disappointing after the promising WANDERING SPIRIT.
I would go so far that I think WANDERING SPIRIT is actually the best Stones-related album since UNDERCOVER (before BLUE & LONESOME). Compared to Keith's best effort and strongest candidate with BRIDGES TO BABYLON, TALK IS CHEAP, it is able to offer a more complete presentation of Stones-like greatness. The weakness – and strength – of Keith's album is its purist-like idiosyncracy. In TALK IS CHEAP we can hear the 'heart of the Stones' naked, but also the obvious lack of what else is needed to achieve Stones-like wholesome greatness. The skeleton is there, yes, but we need more flesh (great singer, finished songs, Charlie Watts, etc.). I guess the general problem with Jagger solo products, if compared to the Stones output, has been a some sort of lack of 'musical soul', so much presented in Keith's doings. But WANDERING SPIRIT succeeds in filling up that hole. The result is almost a miracle: Jagger succeeds in doing wholesome Stones-like music independently. It is only the ears trained to the very idiosyncracies of Stones sound that seem to miss the 'real thing'. I guess I have those ears, but I think the power of WANDERING SPIRIT is that of being and sounding briefly different, but still cohesive and authoritian in its own terms. I don't miss The Rolling Stones when I listen to this album (especially if the best they can offer is ''Stones-by-numbers' albums like VOODOO or A BIGGER BANG, trusting way too much on their 'trademark sound').
It could be that one reason why WANDERING SPIRIT sounds more effortless and natural than the previous solo albums is that Jagger isn't really trying so hard as he sounded doing in SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL. Probably by then the solo career option wasn't such a big deal anymore, like his career depending on it. He had come to terms with the fact that if he was going to continue being a superstar, the context will be that of the Rolling Stones. The demand, and thereby the market, for 'classic rock' -nostalgy had shown its huge potential. Probably he could not have even imagined in ten years earlier, when calculating the solo career option, how huge that market can really be one day. The old rock generations just didn't lost the interest, quite the contrary: they were wealthy enough to invaste so much into their hobbies that they couldn't have as teenagers. The more conservative – true to the values – their heroes were, the better. The bigger the gap to passing on currents were, the more valuable and unique the old stars were. The Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger, were the biggest heroes of this nostalgy movement. They were a direct link to the great days of rock and roll.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 19:11 by Doxa.
In WANDERING SPIRIT, five years later, Jagger took a safe route. The album almost like sounds ”okay, you want me sound like a Rolling Stone, there you have it”. And the targated audience – Stones fans – responded with applauds. ”The best Stones-related album since TATTOO YOU”, etc. It could be that the producer Rubin had a huge hand by making it so ”Stonesy” (Jagger is claimed to have initially a more trendy album in his mind), but at the same token we could say that the trends of the day had turned more warm to traditional forms of rock music. So for Jagger, ear always open for trends, it was not such a non-hip thing to do.
It is a good album, and I guess it was a pleasent surprise for almost anyone at the time. We didn't expect that from him, did we? No doubt his strongest solo effort. The ear-pleasing country number ”Evening Gown” is a real gem, ”Sweet Thing” is a good funk number, ”Out of Focus” is a charming exercise in mixing catchy melody with an exciting rhythm. Things like ”Handsome Molly” and ”Angel In My Heart” were real surprises at the time. The original songs altogether are stronger than anything the Stones were able to come up in STEEL WHEELS or VOODOO LOUNGE. Funnily, the method of the latter album was basically the same - that of covering different musical styles the Stones have done in the past. However, if in the case of the Stones the result turned out to be indirect and pastishe-like, that is, the Stones were copying themselves doing the styles they once did, Jagger's album sounded hitting more directly to the target, thereby sounding more inspired and fresh. So it was no wonder that VOODOO LOUNGE sounded disappointing after the promising WANDERING SPIRIT.
I would go so far that I think WANDERING SPIRIT is actually the best Stones-related album since UNDERCOVER (before BLUE & LONESOME). Compared to Keith's best effort and strongest candidate with BRIDGES TO BABYLON, TALK IS CHEAP, it is able to offer a more complete presentation of Stones-like greatness. The weakness – and strength – of Keith's album is its purist-like idiosyncracy. In TALK IS CHEAP we can hear the 'heart of the Stones' naked, but also the obvious lack of what else is needed to achieve Stones-like wholesome greatness. The skeleton is there, yes, but we need more flesh (great singer, finished songs, Charlie Watts, etc.). I guess the general problem with Jagger solo products, if compared to the Stones output, has been a some sort of lack of 'musical soul', so much presented in Keith's doings. But WANDERING SPIRIT succeeds in filling up that hole. The result is almost a miracle: Jagger succeeds in doing wholesome Stones-like music independently. It is only the ears trained to the very idiosyncracies of Stones sound that seem to miss the 'real thing'. I guess I have those ears, but I think the power of WANDERING SPIRIT is that of being and sounding briefly different, but still cohesive and authoritian in its own terms. I don't miss The Rolling Stones when I listen to this album (especially if the best they can offer is ''Stones-by-numbers' albums like VOODOO or A BIGGER BANG, trusting way too much on their 'trademark sound').
It could be that one reason why WANDERING SPIRIT sounds more effortless and natural than the previous solo albums is that Jagger isn't really trying so hard as he sounded doing in SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL. Probably by then the solo career option wasn't such a big deal anymore, like his career depending on it. He had come to terms with the fact that if he was going to continue being a superstar, the context will be that of the Rolling Stones. The demand, and thereby the market, for 'classic rock' -nostalgy had shown its huge potential. Probably he could not have even imagined in ten years earlier, when calculating the solo career option, how huge that market can really be one day. The old rock generations just didn't lost the interest, quite the contrary: they were wealthy enough to invaste so much into their hobbies that they couldn't have as teenagers. The more conservative – true to the values – their heroes were, the better. The bigger the gap to passing on currents were, the more valuable and unique the old stars were. The Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger, were the biggest heroes of this nostalgy movement. They were a direct link to the great days of rock and roll.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 19:11 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 2, 2017 14:48
PART FOUR: GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY
If the above holds true, then theoretically it looked all good for GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY. It was was 'just' a solo album, something he was able to do just for fun, or if you like, out of true artistic inspiration. So there one could hear what Mick just loves doing. Unfortunately it revealed the cruel fact that artistically he never survived the landcape of the 80's and as a song-writer I can only concude that he has lost the muse. He sounds a victim of his own cliches and song and melody patterns. Add there the way-too mannered, nasal-sounding voice. The result with its over-production is some sort of 'back to the 80's' project, PRIMITIVE COOL Vol. 2, without the freshness and real inspiration of the original. But c'mon, if he was not able to do a good pop record in his forties, what could you expect from a man hitting his sixties? Especially by the 80's means.
Besides its musical weaknesses, it is the 'peter pan complex' hitting so strongly in this album. The album almost begs asking that 'C'mon, Mick. Can't you see the anomaly between your doings and reality?'. It could be that Mick really is true to himself, and presents him 'rightly'. But almost anyone else – except him and die-hard ”Mickettes” (hahaha) - sees the anomaly, an old man trying to sound sexy and ageless/young, which makes him sound so funny and even ridiculous at worst (to put it mildly). The peter pan thing works well in the context of a Rolling Stones show. That is the selling point of those shows. But on his own, solely in musical terms, he is lost. He is as much a victim of his own myth than his Glimmer Twin partner is. GODDESS is a testimony of that.
This doesn't mean that aren't any good songs in the album. There are, like in any Rolling Stones-related item in recent decades, but those are so forgettable that I can't even name them (except the mentioned "Blue" haha). Sorry. In my book, like I argued in some other thread, GODDESS starts an trilogy, continuing in A BIGGER BANG and completing in CROSSEYED HEART, showing that the once strong and vital song-writers The Glimmer Twins are kaputt as song-writers, alone or together. But we all age, don't we?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 23:41 by Doxa.
If the above holds true, then theoretically it looked all good for GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY. It was was 'just' a solo album, something he was able to do just for fun, or if you like, out of true artistic inspiration. So there one could hear what Mick just loves doing. Unfortunately it revealed the cruel fact that artistically he never survived the landcape of the 80's and as a song-writer I can only concude that he has lost the muse. He sounds a victim of his own cliches and song and melody patterns. Add there the way-too mannered, nasal-sounding voice. The result with its over-production is some sort of 'back to the 80's' project, PRIMITIVE COOL Vol. 2, without the freshness and real inspiration of the original. But c'mon, if he was not able to do a good pop record in his forties, what could you expect from a man hitting his sixties? Especially by the 80's means.
Besides its musical weaknesses, it is the 'peter pan complex' hitting so strongly in this album. The album almost begs asking that 'C'mon, Mick. Can't you see the anomaly between your doings and reality?'. It could be that Mick really is true to himself, and presents him 'rightly'. But almost anyone else – except him and die-hard ”Mickettes” (hahaha) - sees the anomaly, an old man trying to sound sexy and ageless/young, which makes him sound so funny and even ridiculous at worst (to put it mildly). The peter pan thing works well in the context of a Rolling Stones show. That is the selling point of those shows. But on his own, solely in musical terms, he is lost. He is as much a victim of his own myth than his Glimmer Twin partner is. GODDESS is a testimony of that.
This doesn't mean that aren't any good songs in the album. There are, like in any Rolling Stones-related item in recent decades, but those are so forgettable that I can't even name them (except the mentioned "Blue" haha). Sorry. In my book, like I argued in some other thread, GODDESS starts an trilogy, continuing in A BIGGER BANG and completing in CROSSEYED HEART, showing that the once strong and vital song-writers The Glimmer Twins are kaputt as song-writers, alone or together. But we all age, don't we?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 23:41 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 2, 2017 14:54
Yes you are right Doxa i agree with you , that was bullshit. Mick hardly reinvented himself with his solo albums, he embarrassed himself yes, he made a bit of an unsuccessful tit of himself yes.
I feel compelled to re-post this
Why can't you just say that YOU prefer Primitive Cool to Crosseyed Heart. Its a never ending merrygoround of what WE as individuals prefer. I would say they are all great albums if fans like them, why does it have to be comparison.
If we are going to try and get closure on WHO had the most success as far as solo albums goes it has to go to Keith. He was virtually unknown at the time as far as super stardom goes to non devoted Stones fans, and yet his solo albums generally sold on a par with Micks. Mick the BIG STAR most famous face on the planet struggled to outsell his band mate even though Mick spent fortunes on Videos and PR.
I remember in the 80's i would mention Keith Richards to people in general conversation and lots of people reacted with like who is Keith Richards, is he in the Stones or something. They didn't know one song Keith sang. So yes i would say that Keith must have delivered the solo goods better than Mick because he was a rank outsider when it came to expectations. Not to mention the rave reviews he got from the Wino's gigs. Keith really was an awesome surprise as a solo artist, covering Blues, Soul and Reggae throughout his albums. It was Keith who took more chances and tried something new outside of Stones material. It was Keith who mostly kept to non Stones songs in his live set lists, it was Keith who refused to cash in on the Stones past, it was Keith who would have had a better career as a solo artist had the Stones not got back together, and finally it was Mick who asked Keith to come back and make another album and tour with the Stones when he realized that Keith was doing quite alright without him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 14:59 by stone4ever.
I feel compelled to re-post this
Why can't you just say that YOU prefer Primitive Cool to Crosseyed Heart. Its a never ending merrygoround of what WE as individuals prefer. I would say they are all great albums if fans like them, why does it have to be comparison.
If we are going to try and get closure on WHO had the most success as far as solo albums goes it has to go to Keith. He was virtually unknown at the time as far as super stardom goes to non devoted Stones fans, and yet his solo albums generally sold on a par with Micks. Mick the BIG STAR most famous face on the planet struggled to outsell his band mate even though Mick spent fortunes on Videos and PR.
I remember in the 80's i would mention Keith Richards to people in general conversation and lots of people reacted with like who is Keith Richards, is he in the Stones or something. They didn't know one song Keith sang. So yes i would say that Keith must have delivered the solo goods better than Mick because he was a rank outsider when it came to expectations. Not to mention the rave reviews he got from the Wino's gigs. Keith really was an awesome surprise as a solo artist, covering Blues, Soul and Reggae throughout his albums. It was Keith who took more chances and tried something new outside of Stones material. It was Keith who mostly kept to non Stones songs in his live set lists, it was Keith who refused to cash in on the Stones past, it was Keith who would have had a better career as a solo artist had the Stones not got back together, and finally it was Mick who asked Keith to come back and make another album and tour with the Stones when he realized that Keith was doing quite alright without him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 14:59 by stone4ever.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: April 2, 2017 15:13
For an individual member it's impossible to escape from the gravity of the planet "Rolling Stones" indeed. That's their fate and fortune at the same time.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 2, 2017 15:17
Quote
stone4ever
Yes you are right Doxa i agree with you , that was bullshit. Mick hardly reinvented himself with his solo albums, he embarrassed himself yes, he made a bit of an unsuccessful tit of himself yes.
I feel compelled to re-post this
Why can't you just say that YOU prefer Primitive Cool to Crosseyed Heart. Its a never ending merrygoround of what WE as individuals prefer. I would say they are all great albums if fans like them, why does it have to be comparison.
If we are going to try and get closure on WHO had the most success as far as solo albums goes it has to go to Keith. He was virtually unknown at the time as far as super stardom goes to non devoted Stones fans, and yet his solo albums generally sold on a par with Micks. Mick the BIG STAR most famous face on the planet struggled to outsell his band mate even though Mick spent fortunes on Videos and PR.
I remember in the 80's i would mention Keith Richards to people in general conversation and lots of people reacted with like who is Keith Richards, is he in the Stones or something. They didn't know one song Keith sang. So yes i would say that Keith must have delivered the solo goods better than Mick because he was a rank outsider when it came to expectations. Not to mention the rave reviews he got from the Wino's gigs. Keith really was an awesome surprise as a solo artist, covering Blues, Soul and Reggae throughout his albums. It was Keith who took more chances and tried something new outside of Stones material. It was Keith who mostly kept to non Stones songs in his live set lists, it was Keith who refused to cash in on the Stones past, it was Keith who would have had a better career as a solo artist had the Stones not got back together, and finally it was Mick who asked Keith to come back and make another album and tour with the Stones when he realized that Keith was doing quite alright without him.
So the whole thing is about arguing that Keith Richards is a bigger solo star than Mick Jagger is or vice versa? What the hell is wrong with you Keithettes? Always Keith's supposed greatness is parasitic to and measured by Jagger's doings.
Yes, I believe Keef has a longer dick.
So much about discussing "Jagger's solo works". It's all about praising and defending Keith Richards, right?
And you agree with me about what???!!
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 15:18 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: April 2, 2017 15:43
Guys, no need to get so serious about Jagger's albums. There's some good and some bad on them. But it's just music after all. Yes, it sounds different and - in the same time, quite close - to Stones albums. It's Jagger pushing a bit further his idea of a rock star. It's often over the top, exuberant, and quite sophisticated but you can't deny his song craft skills and his unmistakable way of singing. To me I feel he got better with his albums (Superheavy has really some good songs - and some really bad, ok). This said I'm really glad he did a blues album with the Stones rather than with a no name band. I think we all agree he sounds no better than with the Stones. 
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 2, 2017 18:21
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
For an individual member it's impossible to escape from the gravity of the planet "Rolling Stones" indeed. That's their fate and fortune at the same time.
That's true. In the case of Jagger, it is not solely how the audiences response to his doings, but also whatever he does is actually rather bounded by his own limitations, that is, the Stones vocabulary. Mick might be interest in whatever new trends happen, that seems to be his 'wandering spirit', but that doesn't translate that he could musically adapt to them convincingly, at least if he travels too far from his 'home vocabulary'. I think he somehow lost that sensitivity during the 80's. "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS were his last triumph in that sense. For Jagger disco music was just the latest trend - and a very succesfull form of black music - he had been following since his teenager years, and it wasn't just an odd move to transform an always rhythmn-based Stones groove to four-in-the-floor. As far as white rock goes, the punk revolution was about the best thing that could have happen to the Stones at the time. It gave them a justification to go to the basics, to play simple and raw Chuck Berry-based guitar stuff with a conviction and a feeling, no worrying about technical matters. etc. But as the disco evolved, and the new 'dance music' was entering to the scene, with the likes of Jacko and Prince, and finally the entrance of rap, that started to go beyond Jagger's reach. And the same we can say of the white rock music: evolving from the raw guitar-based punk into 'new wave', and the synths and all taking the lead as the 80's went on,´the birth of 'alternative rock', or what was left of old guitar rock was to be reduced under the new forms of technically-skilled 'hard rock', guitar heroes entering the scene again (that is known since then under the title of 'metal'), all that started to be rather difficult for Jagger to adapt to convincingly. At some time he probably thought that it surely was impossible for the Stones, but he most likely over-estimated his own skills in doing that.
Another thing to remember is that Jagger had already problems by the time of people like David Bowie entering the scene, but for some years he still managed to do rather well for not being an "old fart".
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 18:27 by Doxa.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: April 2, 2017 19:05
Quote
DoxaQuote
stone4ever
Yes you are right Doxa i agree with you , that was bullshit. Mick hardly reinvented himself with his solo albums, he embarrassed himself yes, he made a bit of an unsuccessful tit of himself yes.
I feel compelled to re-post this
Why can't you just say that YOU prefer Primitive Cool to Crosseyed Heart. Its a never ending merrygoround of what WE as individuals prefer. I would say they are all great albums if fans like them, why does it have to be comparison.
If we are going to try and get closure on WHO had the most success as far as solo albums goes it has to go to Keith. He was virtually unknown at the time as far as super stardom goes to non devoted Stones fans, and yet his solo albums generally sold on a par with Micks. Mick the BIG STAR most famous face on the planet struggled to outsell his band mate even though Mick spent fortunes on Videos and PR.
I remember in the 80's i would mention Keith Richards to people in general conversation and lots of people reacted with like who is Keith Richards, is he in the Stones or something. They didn't know one song Keith sang. So yes i would say that Keith must have delivered the solo goods better than Mick because he was a rank outsider when it came to expectations. Not to mention the rave reviews he got from the Wino's gigs. Keith really was an awesome surprise as a solo artist, covering Blues, Soul and Reggae throughout his albums. It was Keith who took more chances and tried something new outside of Stones material. It was Keith who mostly kept to non Stones songs in his live set lists, it was Keith who refused to cash in on the Stones past, it was Keith who would have had a better career as a solo artist had the Stones not got back together, and finally it was Mick who asked Keith to come back and make another album and tour with the Stones when he realized that Keith was doing quite alright without him.
So the whole thing is about arguing that Keith Richards is a bigger solo star than Mick Jagger is or vice versa? What the hell is wrong with you Keithettes? Always Keith's supposed greatness is parasitic to and measured by Jagger's doings.
Yes, I believe Keef has a longer dick.
So much about discussing "Jagger's solo works". It's all about praising and defending Keith Richards, right?
And you agree with me about what???!!
- Doxa
I agree with how you started your post , you said "let my think aloud some thoughts (=bullshit) about Mick Jagger's solo career and albums".
I was saying that every time i take a look at this thread someone is dissing Crosseyed Heart. I just don't understand why people can't praise a Jagger solo album without referring to CH as a snooze fest or worse. I happen to think its the best album since Tatoo You. I can talk positively about CH without having to make comparisons with Micks solo albums or bashing them. As for Keithettes i have no idea what you are on about and i see no evidence on iorr to suggest that one exists. Keithettes only exist in your mind my friend.
Re: Mick Jagger solo works
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: April 2, 2017 19:10
To put it short. By the time Jagger started his solo career he was already an old fart. He, basically, had nothing to offer. The kids weren't paying attention to him.
They had better artists to choose from. And the old fans only wanted him to get back to The Stones ...
They had better artists to choose from. And the old fans only wanted him to get back to The Stones ...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Broesel2404 , Green Lady , latvianinexile , mikey C , NathanLaze , SecondSet , snarf2014 , stonemac , Stoney1962 , StonyRoad , Topi , woodyrichards , ziggenpuss
Guests:
2157
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10