Quote
HMS

Quote
LeonidP
his singles/one-offs, etc.,
such as Dancing In the Street, State of Shock, Will.I.Am, etc. = crap

State Of Shock isn´t crap, imo. It´s excellent, pure genius.
Ruthless People is one of the very best songs he ever recorded as a solo-artist, it´s greater than great, simply marvelous. Dancing In The Street is very enjoyable.

Michael Jackson at the time of recording State Of Shock with Mick, said he couldn't believe how flat Micks voice was. Jackson originally intended to duet the song with Freddie Mercury.
I'm interested in why you think its genius, come on dude Gimme Shelter is Genius.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-03 22:28 by stone4ever.

Quote
stone4ever
I'm interested in why you think its genius, come on dude Gimme Shelter is Genius.

State Of Shock is a perfect Kick-Ass-song.

Rare version of State Of Shock with Freddie Mercury
[www.youtube.com]

Quote
HMS

Quote
stone4ever
I'm interested in why you think its genius, come on dude Gimme Shelter is Genius.

State Of Shock is a perfect Kick-Ass-song.

But does that make it genius

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
GasLightStreet

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
GasLightStreet

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

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

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

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

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

Ok dad what ever you say

Quote
MKjan

No, Talk is Cheap and Main Offender have some great songs.
If you like discipline in Rock, The Eagles are your band.zzzzzzz
Some great songs on Jaggers solo work too.

Of course Talk is Cheap and Main Offender have some great songs,only a moron would deny that, but when I bought the vinyl at the time I got the feeling that Keith as a guitarist wasn't really inspired anymore, or a bit drunk. I still hear it like that. Guest musicians like Waddy Wachtel were more than welcome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-03 23:34 by TheflyingDutchman.

Check this page for Jagger's solo works:

[www.rollingstonesnet.com]

Chris M.

I did my reviews above just by recollection, not having listened many of the songs or even albums for ages (that's what the critics do, right?). So when I described something - such as SHE'sS THE BOSS - as "not very memorable", that should be taken actually literally haha...

But now I decided to listen the whole stuff again with almost fresh ears. So let me reflect as I am listening the album(s) from the beginning to the end. Let's start logically from...

SHE'S THE BOSS

"Lonely At The Top": it is not as bad as I thought. Even Jaggers non-nuanced over-acted shouting, so typical to this era, isn't that bad (or is it?). It is so 80's rock as it can be be. Still the whole impression is a bit cold and plastic. Still not fond either of Beck's (?) soloing (here). Lyrically I think Jagger doesn't quite hit the mark, even though trying to be self-reflective (?) here. An ego-trip.

"A 1/2 Loaf": this has been alawys been one of my favourites in the album, and yeah, here we can hear Jagger's voice a bit more relaxed and more colourful, not over-trying so bloody much all the time. A well written piace, nice dynamics in carrying the melody and the song structure (usually in Jagger's songs some part - verse, chorus, middle eight - does not work as good as the others, or starts to sound too manufactured, but here is not that problem). The 80's sonic landscape works nicely, even the guitars are okay.

"Running Out of Luck": A funky little R&B dance number. This isn't actually not far from the grooves Jagger's been doing with the Stones in their previous Pathe Marconi era albums. Jagger even in harmonica, somewhere there in the back. That's nice.

"Turn The Girl Loose". More 80's funky dance, dance, dance, baby.. It is these kind of elements from which people like Prince were making the classics at the time. Mick tries, tries, tries so haaard and shouts mindlessly his hearts out, but some sort of anomaly is there between that pure rock vocal delivery and the dance track.

"Hard Woman": I have always had a soft spot in my heart for this piece. A guilty pleasure. It is a question of semantics if Jagger doesn't destroy this with manouvres and over-interpretation, but like is with his best works a'la "Angie", he manages to do it convincingly here, like no one else could have done (kids, don't try this at home!). A well-written ballad. Full of sugar and slickness, but shit, doesn't we all need that sometimes?

"Just Another Night": Probably because this is about the only song from the album I have listened occasionally during these last 30 years, it sounds now a bit too quaint, or like an eternal warning what was wrong with the mid-80's production ideals. There is bloody much happening everything, and listened it to via earphones now, I feel like my head is about to explode... Synths, cold drums, keyboards and guitars here and there. Can't recall was an acoustic guitar solo a trademark trick then? All together, a well-written, catchy dance piece based on a cool riff not so untypical to Michael Jackson's superhits.

"Lucky In Love". A melodic pop piece, once again made for a dance floor. But I can't help that those drums andthat same rhythm again and again with that keyobards sound starts to sound repititive by now. And the guitars so distinctively on the little space of their own, not organically fitting to the whole. And there is something annoying in that main melody hook that has always bothered me. And Mick, why to shout so hell loud all the time. Relax, man! Yes, you are a lucky man! The ending is funny: "I'm broke!"

"Secrets": Once again, a surprisingly melodic piece. The guy really can compose songs. A kind of sister song to "1/2 Loaf".

"She's The Boss". Musically this is sooo typical 80's pop music - based on that cartoon-like funny even corny riff one could hear in so many hits back in the time from Duran Duran to Depeche Mode - as it can be. But the lyrics are so ambigiously Jaggerish, once again reflecting the eternal tension and fight over power in relationships, and Mick playing with his role there. Musically Jagger would continue from here to "Back to Zero" in DIRTY WORK. Not probably the most promising musical path...

Altogether, a very nice listening experience (I listened it twice actually). A compact, coherent album with not many, if any obvious fillers - but not any killer tracks either. At the moment I agree with Witness that the album actually is better than its reputation, and surely better than I recalled it to be. There actually aren't so much Stonesy elements as I had thought it to have (except Jagger's distinguished voice naturally. Which is actually good. It could be that I always have more of those 'Stones fan ears' when I have listened to the album, and back in the day I wasn't very fond of at all what was happening in the day's pop music... Now all of that is long gone and a matter of nostalgy and cultural history, so it doesn't matter. SHE'STHE BOSS is a nice time capsule to the mid-80's musically, reflected through the eyes of a man with an unique background. Its soundscape sounds almost exciting today. Instead of being "down-watered-Stones' it's actually enough different, and thereby a strong showcase of Jagger extending his musical vocabulary from the familiar Stones one. Listening how hard he tries - even too hard sometimes, unfortunately - it is obvious that Jagger needed to do this one, to go solo, and play with different musicians. He needed to have this one out of his system. It is clear that he couldn't have used the Stones as his medium of expression (just listening to UNDERCOVER or DIRTY WORK confirms this).

The point is that if one doesn't like dance music, one will never like or 'get' this album. That usually - oddily, if really reflect the history of rock and roll - is an obstacle for a typical white male guitar-obsessed rock and roll generations from which a bulk of Stones fans derives from. Did Jagger tried to challenge them, or did he give a @#$%& about their prejudices, I don't know, but of course, he didn't have much chance to win here. Unfortunately to him, no one else much paid attention to his doings at the time, since he, ironically, was an icon of those same rock and roll generations (read: an old fart to the day's music generation, as Stoneage noted above). But I somehow admire Mick's guts in this sense, trying to challenge at least himself.

I'm glad he made this album. Today I think it actually looks good in his CV and let me predict that in future its significance will be noted more when the people are able to see through the same old tiresome dictum that Jagger's solo career was a "disaster" and he almost "ruined" the holy Stones institution in continuing doing the same, predictable music and albums. And pay more attention to what he actually accomplished. It's a bit like some phases in Dylan's career, like the Christian period, which might have disappointed some ears at the time by not meeting certain expectations based on guy's past doings, but which later will be seen as an important and interesting phases in artist's career. When there still was a muse, dareness and ambition around.

Will I listen to SHE'S THE BOSS more in future? Not probably much per se, but I know there is that option available when I need some basic, 80's dance music to move my ass. It has a clear function. (But of course, it could be that I still rather choose a Michael Jackson or Prince album over it, like the kids did back then.)

- Doxa



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 00:24 by Doxa.

That was really a nice and, even more important, stimulating read, Doxa. I am impressed at your willingness at a reappraisal. You set an example for so many more at that project.

Only about "Hard Woman", though: I don't find "sugar and slickness" there. Instead some desperate resignation at giving up his love story. Maybe feigned for the sake of the song. Or possibly about ...... Bianca? I don't know, of course. Some might know.

Quote
Witness


Only about "Hard Woman", though: I don't find "sugar and slickness" there. Instead some desperate resignation at giving up his love story. Maybe feigned for the sake of the song. Or possibly about ...... Bianca? I don't know, of course. Some might know.

Well, when using those terms I had the over-all sonic impression of the song in my mind, especially the arrangement and (over-)production of the track. They didn't much hold their horses at the studio deck at the time, now did they? Every button, track and trick, and there were so many of them suddenly available, needed to be used in creating a certain musical atmosphere...

Never thought about any specific target of the song. Bianca, who knows...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
"Just Another Night": Probably because this is about the only song from the album I have listened occasionally during these last 30 years, it sounds now a bit too quaint, or like an eternal warning what was wrong with the mid-80's production ideals. There is bloody much happening everything, and listened it to via earphones now, I feel like my head is about to explode... Synths, cold drums, keyboards and guitars here and there. Can't recall was an acoustic guitar solo a trademark trick then? All together, a well-written, catchy dance piece based on a cool riff not so untypical to Michael Jackson's superhits.


- Doxa

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 00:51 by TheflyingDutchman.

Mick Jagger solo works...........is weak..........with some exception....never understood why he didn't released stuff he is good in......the blues.

__________________________

OK, possibly. Myself I have always loved and adored "Hard Woman" musically and extra-musically combined. Found that the arrangement suits the song, without actively thinking it. Probably have had the impression that the emotional desperation at giving up the woman of the song, drowns all sweetness in pain.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

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

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

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

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 01:10 by Doxa.

Quote
Witness
OK, possibly. Myself I have always loved and adored "Hard Woman" musically and extra-musically combined. Found that the arrangement suits the song, without actively thinking it. Probably have had the impression that the emotional desperation at giving up the woman of the song, drowns all sweetness in pain.

Haha, me too. Like I later added to my review (probably after you had read it),it is a "guilty pleasure" for me.

- Doxa

Quote
NICOS
Mick Jagger solo works...........is weak..........with some exception....never understood why he didn't released stuff he is good in......the blues.

Didn't he just do it?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NICOS
Mick Jagger solo works...........is weak..........with some exception....never understood why he didn't released stuff he is good in......the blues.

Didn't he just do it?

- Doxa

Is the available album official or a bootleg? I heard one track from it during a visit.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NICOS
Mick Jagger solo works...........is weak..........with some exception....never understood why he didn't released stuff he is good in......the blues.

Didn't he just do it?

- Doxa

Is the available album official or a bootleg? I heard one track from it during a visit.

It is available officially. Called BLUE & LONESOME....

A very good backing band he also has there...

Technically speaking, I think is one and the same for Jagger is he fronting The Stones or The Red Devils. He does the same thing and is calling the shots.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 01:25 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
OK, possibly. Myself I have always loved and adored "Hard Woman" musically and extra-musically combined. Found that the arrangement suits the song, without actively thinking it. Probably have had the impression that the emotional desperation at giving up the woman of the song, drowns all sweetness in pain.

Haha, me too. Like I later added to my review (probably after you had read it),it is a "guilty pleasure" for me.

- Doxa

Now I finally noticed it. For a fanboy like me ( to some extent I still am) those "guilty pleasures" are among the greatest and most genuine pleasures.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Quote
NICOS
Mick Jagger solo works...........is weak..........with some exception....never understood why he didn't released stuff he is good in......the blues.

Didn't he just do it?

- Doxa

Is the available album official or a bootleg? I heard one track from it during a visit.

It is available officially. Called BLUE & LONESOME....

A very good backing band he also has there...

Technically speaking, I think is one and the same for Jagger is he fronting The Stones or The Red Devils. He does the same thing and is calling the shots.

- Doxa

My impression of the one song I listened to a little distractedly and only once, was that only few of the songs of the recent Stones album surpass it. That is how good it seemed.

Actually I am happy that Jagger never relaesed that Red Devils blues record, as Rick Rubin and many others would have wanted, and instead 'saved' it for the Stones. Most likely had he released it, we would never seen the release of BLUE & LONESOME. That card would have been used. Instead of this latter-day statement, by which he and the Stones and, most importantly, blues were topping the charts again, the Red Devils album would have been some kind of marginal oddity in his career, probably similar to the Wingless Angels project by Keith in the long run. Probably adding some artistic integrity, but reaching only some hardcore purist fans.

And personally I think if Jagger wants to do the blues, why not to do it with the guys he has a special chemistry to do it with. I don't know if the Stones is a better blues band than the Devils (or had he collected some all-stars bues band to back him up, like he did in the White House), but I think he just sounds better with the Stones. And I personally also think that Jagger has now a better approach, or even means, to do the blues as he did at the time with the Red Devils. He sounds better (which also could be partly because of the inspiring band).

That said, I think that Red Devils material is very good, but BLUE & LONESOME is still better.

To put it simply: he could have done BLUE & LONESOME with the Red Devils, but he couldn't have done SHE'S THE BOSS with the Stones. That's why a solo career...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 02:05 by Doxa.

Rick Rubin about working with Mick:
"It was probably one of the more difficult works, because I think he very much wanted to make a Mick Jagger solo record that was not like the Stones. And I think there's just a Stonesiness around him that comes naturally. If he writes a song that sounds like it could sound like a Stones song, it wouldn't feel good to change it just for the sake of changing it. I would say it was a little bit of a tug-of-war, that album. But it came out, in my opinion, 70 percent or 75 percent as good as it could have been, which I think is really good. When I listen to it now, I'm really proud of it. I remember there were a lot of disagreements on that one, and there aren't usually"
[www.avclub.com]

...and Mick about Rubin:
"(Rick Rubin and I) had a few rows. I respect his opinions, but when we disagreed I said, It's my record, I'm singing it, and it's my opinion that counts"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 02:17 by KRiffhard.

Thanks KRiffhard for bringing up that that quote! Never seen it before.

Rubin's comment speaks volumes, and very much goes in a par that I have reflected by listening and following Jagger's doings. Especially this one:

I think he very much wanted to make a Mick Jagger solo record that was not like the Stones. And I think there's just a Stonesiness around him that comes naturally. If he writes a song that sounds like it could sound like a Stones song, it wouldn't feel good to change it just for the sake of changing it.

It states clearly that Jagger wants to do something different by his own, something he feels like he is not able to do with the Stones. Which pretty much 'justifies' the point of doing solo records altogether. But like I tried to argue in one of my long posts above, Jagger himself is bounded by his own limitations ("Stonesiness"), no matter how hard he tries to enrich his musical vocabulary. It just doesn't happen 'naturally'. (Like I tried to argue, the musical scene just changed so radically during the 80's, or after the punk/disco phase in the late 70's, that it went above his 'musical training' including his way and ability to write songs.) I think this kind of tension - the guy and the musical context are not quite in the same page - can be heard all through his solo records. The least in WANDERING SPIRIT, probably pretty much thanks to Rubin for doing what competent producers supposed to do: to kick out the best out of their artists.

Anyway, if Mick would have as demanding, stubborn producers like Rubin in every record, we probably might have more Stones-friendly albums, but probably not so interesting ones (by being different in compared to the Stones)... Or maybe the whole solo career initially at all...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 02:59 by Doxa.

Let's face it, outside of Stones fans circles the solo "careers" of Mick and Keith hardly exist as anymore than almost forgotten footnotes and their most memorable moments were "Wandering Spirit" and "Talk Is Cheap". Personally, I find some more (not all too many) memorable moments here and there on any of their solo albums, but basically it's these two albums that really stand out. For Keith I feel that not releasing the 1977 Toronto session was a missed opportunity because it was recorded at a time when his voice was not shot yet. Somehow strange that some of their best tracks ("Run Rudolph Run", "The Harder They Come", "Blue", "Hard Woman (single version" are not even availabe on their "Best Of"-samplers.

Quote
retired_dog
Let's face it, outside of Stones fans circles the solo "careers" of Mick and Keith hardly exist as anymore than almost forgotten footnotes and their most memorable moments were "Wandering Spirit" and "Talk Is Cheap". Personally, I find some more (not all too many) memorable moments here and there on any of their solo albums, but basically it's these two albums that really stand out. For Keith I feel that not releasing the 1977 Toronto session was a missed opportunity because it was recorded at a time when his voice was not shot yet. Somehow strange that some of their best tracks ("Run Rudolph Run", "The Harder They Come", "Blue", "Hard Woman (single version" are not even availabe on their "Best Of"-samplers.

Ouch! The Hooters took what was left of soul and heart out of the track, imo. Mick sings it poorer as well.

Love the album version, though.

And I don't think any of those songs you mentioned is up there with their best solo work.

A 1977 Toronto-sessions release (aka Hard Luck?) would have been fantastic indeed!

Quote
retired_dog
Let's face it, outside of Stones fans circles the solo "careers" of Mick and Keith hardly exist as anymore than almost forgotten footnotes and their most memorable moments were "Wandering Spirit" and "Talk Is Cheap". Personally, I find some more (not all too many) memorable moments here and there on any of their solo albums, but basically it's these two albums that really stand out. For Keith I feel that not releasing the 1977 Toronto session was a missed opportunity because it was recorded at a time when his voice was not shot yet. Somehow strange that some of their best tracks ("Run Rudolph Run", "The Harder They Come", "Blue", "Hard Woman (single version" are not even availabe on their "Best Of"-samplers.

retire-dog say. "For Keith I feel that not releasing the 1977 Toronto session was a missed opportunity because it was recorded at a time when his voice was not shot yet".

That's funny because i think Keith's voice is much better and more versatile than it was in 77' Not so high in pitch these days but much richer and thicker.
Agreed not releasing or re singing the Toronto sessions was indeed a missed opportunity.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
retired_dog
Let's face it, outside of Stones fans circles the solo "careers" of Mick and Keith hardly exist as anymore than almost forgotten footnotes and their most memorable moments were "Wandering Spirit" and "Talk Is Cheap". Personally, I find some more (not all too many) memorable moments here and there on any of their solo albums, but basically it's these two albums that really stand out. For Keith I feel that not releasing the 1977 Toronto session was a missed opportunity because it was recorded at a time when his voice was not shot yet. Somehow strange that some of their best tracks ("Run Rudolph Run", "The Harder They Come", "Blue", "Hard Woman (single version" are not even availabe on their "Best Of"-samplers.

Ouch! The Hooters took what was left of soul and heart out of the track, imo. Mick sings it poorer as well.

Love the album version, though.

And I don't think any of those songs you mentioned is up there with their best solo work.

A 1977 Toronto-sessions release (aka Hard Luck?) would have been fantastic indeed!

I hate it when you disagree with me, but must admit that in the case of "Hard Woman", it's probably my fault because every once in a while, I have a weak spot for Kitsch.

But if "Run Rudolph Run" and "The Harder They Come" are not amongst the Stones (band and solo) best Rock'n'Roll and Reggae performances, I don't know what. Seriously!

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
retired_dog
Let's face it, outside of Stones fans circles the solo "careers" of Mick and Keith hardly exist as anymore than almost forgotten footnotes and their most memorable moments were "Wandering Spirit" and "Talk Is Cheap". Personally, I find some more (not all too many) memorable moments here and there on any of their solo albums, but basically it's these two albums that really stand out. For Keith I feel that not releasing the 1977 Toronto session was a missed opportunity because it was recorded at a time when his voice was not shot yet. Somehow strange that some of their best tracks ("Run Rudolph Run", "The Harder They Come", "Blue", "Hard Woman (single version" are not even availabe on their "Best Of"-samplers.

Ouch! The Hooters took what was left of soul and heart out of the track, imo. Mick sings it poorer as well.

Love the album version, though.

And I don't think any of those songs you mentioned is up there with their best solo work.

A 1977 Toronto-sessions release (aka Hard Luck?) would have been fantastic indeed!

I hate it when you disagree with me, but must admit that in the case of "Hard Woman", it's probably my fault because every once in a while, I have a weak spot for Kitsch.

But if "Run Rudolph Run" and "The Harder They Come" are not amongst the Stones (band and solo) best Rock'n'Roll and Reggae performances, I don't know what. Seriously!

Hehe, it's only music

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

I prefer Take It So Hard and Too Rude (even Words Of Wonder), though. It might be contractual issues by not including the 70s numbers, but I reckon Keith preferred the newer songs as well.

There is plently of kitsch on the album version of HW as well, so you're not alone

Quote
retired_dog
Let's face it, outside of Stones fans circles the solo "careers" of Mick and Keith hardly exist as anymore than almost forgotten footnotes and their most memorable moments were "Wandering Spirit" and "Talk Is Cheap".

Exactly. I think even initially their potential audience was basically their own fanbase, that is, the Rolling Stones fans, with very little interest from outside. In the case of Mick, he supposedly tried to 'reach out', to charm new audiences (like he had done with, say, "Miss You" earlier), but there was no much response. Most probably the die-hards, people like us here in IORR, do not much matter here, since we will buy anything these guys release. But it is the so called 'casual fans' which make the difference.

Jagger's first album SHE'S THE BOSS sold some 2.5 million copies, most of buyers most likely being curious what the frontman of the Stones is up to. By comparison, the previous Stones album (UNDERCOVER) had sold 3.4 m, and the next one (DIRTY WORK) would sell 3.85 m. Probably many of them were not too impressed, since his second album PRIMITIVE COOL sold only 800-850k copies, which was a terrible number in 1987 for a star of his status.

In the case of Keith, his first solo album TALK IS CHEAP sold almost a million copies; the people supposedly being as curious how the legendaric Rolling Stones guitarist might sound like first time on his own. But as what happened with Jagger, his second album MAIN OFFENDER commercially flopped, selling only 400-500k copies (peaking a very poor #99 at Billboard). Probably quite many of the casual fans had concluded that 'one will do'. No wonder Keith was not eager to release another solo album for many years to come.

I think those numbers rather nicely reflect how much Mick and Keith individually attract a potential (casual) Rolling Stones audience. Mick covering around 70-75% of them at his best and Keith around 20-25% at his best.

Jagger, however, won some of his credibility back with the Stones-sounding WANDERING SPIRIT with its respectable 2.2-2.3 m sales, but still compared to what the Stones sold at the time - STEEL WHEELS 5.6 m and VOODOO LOUNGE 6.4 m - that's not that impressive. (Of course, The Stones albums were promoted by huge tours)

Of their later albums, Jagger's GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY sold moderate 1.3 m copies, generally considered as a flop, but still "Dogshit" sold clearly better than Keith's supposed 'hit album' TALK IS CHEAP (and about the same as Keith's both albums put together). It could be that since there had not been a new Stones-related studio album for some years then, there was more demand for a high-profile Rolling Stone solo album. Probably similar can be said of Keith's CROSSEYED HEART with no new Stones-related studio album for a decade. If memory serves (no statistics available now), it has sold around 300-400k copies by now, which actually is a rather nice number considering the dramatic decrease of record sales maket (not much less than MAIN OFFENDER 23 years earlier). Relatively speaking, it is his most popular solo album actually. But then again, that's chicken shit compared to the massive sales of BLUE & LONESOME (almost 2 m soon). Funnily, the sales are related to each other about equally as TALK IS CHEAP and STEEL WHEELS were at the time.

What can we conclude? Salewise The Rolling Stones is much more than the sum of its parts, at least if we take those parts to be Mick & Keith as solo artists... No matter how good records they do... (Is, say, DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS so much better records than TALK IS CHEAP as the sales say... Or VOODOO LOUNGE as WANDERING SPIRIT...)

I hope georgelicks will correct me if there is something wrong with my numbers.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-04 10:52 by Doxa.