Tell Me :
Talk
So you didn't see Mick backed by Jimmy and Joe Satriani (at the height of pre-fame, if you knew about "Surfing With The Alien" you knew) and there he was with the coolest guitarist on the planet.
"I remember an unfortunate journalist asking Mick "So what is it like playing with musicians that are better than the Rolling Stones, Mick's head, cock's left, silence, then he say's.... aahhh It's not the same band"
... ahhh it was a stupid question" Mick played in front of 40k plus for 2 1/2 hours, they went Mad, and I mean Looped Out.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 12:38 by SKILLS.
I wasn't there, thankfully. And I knew Satriani well - very well - before he got famous.
I'll have to ask, though, «better» at what? Joey Satriani was never better in this musical genre than any guitarist who have been in the Stones. He lacks the soul, the sound, the understanding of what the songs he played were all about.
But he is very good at what he does, and I certainly respect him as a musician within his field of competence. But he was a stray cat, lead far astray, with Mick, imho.
The charming sounds from Brian, the melodic soulful tone of Taylor, Keith's touch and raggedness and Ronnie's playfulness and funkiness. It was all gone with the Primitive Cool-guys.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 12:37 by DandelionPowderman.
You've obviously got a personal relationship with Joe, so perhaps that impacts your critique, Him playing "Ice 9" at an interlude during the gig drew a massive response from the local crowd. 1987/88/89/90 Joe, I vouch for, "Flying In A Blue Dream" was my high point
Actually maybe "The Extremist"...
Summer Song is an Anthem
- Doxa
Actually, I had a guitar teacher who was a fan of both Satriani AND the Stones – so some of the first stuff he taught me were a (partly incorrect) reading of the Bitch-riff and a way more accurate Surfing With The Alien
Why should Jagger as a solo artist play with the guys who as players resemble his old band members? I think Jagger's plan in his 1988 tour was to update the good old Stones stuff to fit to the recent currents (the horrible 80's that was...). That of having some highly skilled competent players of the day was a part of the plan (and since the withdrawal of old hag Beck, but who also was a pretty different player than any of the Stones guitarists and still back in the 80's pretty 'modern' guitarist by the standards of the day). I undertand that's a capital crime for Stones loyalists, but from an artistic point I can imagine it felt refreshing for him to try the old Stones stuff with some different type of players.
And I think there is a further reason for this experiment. He as an ambitious and forward-looking person knew that he needed to update his game in order to continue his career. He's been there before: knowing very well what worked in the 60's didn't worked in the 70's any longer, and what had worked in the 70's wasn't, especially taken the chaos the band was during the 1981/82 tour, going to work in the 80's anymore. No matter how cool the band sounded at the time, and how nostalgic we are now about the 1981/82 tour ("the last real Stones tour", etc), it was clear that it professonally was a thing of the past as the 80's went further. Some of that solo tour experience (and people) Mick took with him to create a modern Rolling Stones show.
I think the biggest issue with Jagger in the 80's - if we forget all that WW3 crap and look the thing a bit more professionally - was him figuring out would the Stones be able to update their game to fit to the new, changed circumstances. My picture that Jagger was rather pessimistic at one stage.
- Doxa
That makes sense, and I agree totally, although Rip is trying hard to sound like, and look like, Keith. However, if that were true WHY did he load his solo show setlist with Stones-tunes and covers the Stones did? Why did we have to hear Satriani playing Keith's solo on HTW and Brian's blue notes from Little red Rooster. Why would Simon Phillips hammer the last drop of swing out of Tumbling Dice and Gimme Shelter?
I think you said it best: «the horrible 80s that was...».
Personally, I think both Mick's own uncertainty AND the music scene of the 80s were to blame.
That's also one of the reasons why I like Webster Hall much better (even though it was a special promo gig for one album). He trusted his new material.
The El Rey-gig when he promoted GITD was not of the same caliber, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 14:31 by DandelionPowderman.
Even a early/mid-60s icon! His fans had already grown up, and the new fans saw him in a different light than that of the old ones. Much of the explanation lies here, imo.
Even you, me and Doxa had already been fans for at least a decade when WS came out. People who were younger than us didn't necessarily buy the myth or the legend, and judged Mick by his music – not his merits. That certainly brought him new fans, too, but not the same kind of idolation that superstars like Michael Jackson, the Britpop-ers or the grunge bands got in the early 90s.
That awkward stage we all go through ......
"No Anchovies, Please"
Yeah. I think people easily take this slogan of 'Jagger tries to be hip/trendy' a bit too seriously or locate it too narrowly. Or to be more precise: not really seeing through it or what it actually means. In a way that's true, but that's what he's been doing not just in the 80's but about all of his career: he keeps his eye on what's going on and is influenced by changing cirmustances, and tries to update his game to meet the new conditions. Even though he has about never been very radical in any of his actions.
That has lead him to meet some meditation guru and making a psychedelic album, that of him commenting political circumstances and 'going back to roots' when that was the thing, that of him hiring a flashy guitar god when that was needed for a respectable rock band, that of him giving a free festival to a half-million drug-headed hippies when that was considered cool, that of him painting his face with glamour make-up and wearing glittery costumes when needed, that of him writing a disco hit or reducing his band into rock-basics and wearing a wastika t-shirt when that was considered hip... whatever happened during the 80s' and since then belongs to the same agenda. He's the one who took the example of the Beatles and Bob Dylan, his most important contemporaries, seriously. He's the one who took seriously what The Cream and Jimi Hendrix would meant to professional nature of a rock show when people started to follow what the musicians actually do on stage instead that of just screaming. He's the one who understood what Led Zeppelin's example did to a lenght of a rock show. He's the one who took the punk challenge seriosly. He's the one keeping eye on what Pink Floyd and, much later, U2 were up to when creating stadium spectacles.
Some of that might look ridiculous now or even at the time they occured, but quite many constitute some incredible chapters in the history of rock music. Some of us like some of those moves, some other ones, and so on. Some people dislike very much certain moves. But most of all: that's been what has made him and his band as one of the biggest acts in the music history for over 50 years now. Most likely and ironically it is safe to say Mick's mocked drive for 'chasing the trends' has been the 'secret' reason behind Stones' incredible success. He seems to open-minded by nature: interested in new things and curious about them. But that urge seems to be married with his natural, highly competitive Darwinian nature - one needs to keep eye on changing trends in order to survive.
But as I mentioned earlier, and which I think is important: his 'experentialism' with recent currents never been that radical. Musically he has never drifted very far from the premises of his youthful iconic days. It is the basic R&B-based intuitions he created with Keith in their creative peak that form the basis of his songs. He just ices those with a bit flirting with some novel ideas, many times just with current producing ideals (those features easily are over-exaggarated by puristic Stones fans). The same goes for his image: it is very basic 60's Jagger image he uses as a platform to a bit update to recent fashions.
The crucial times were indeed the 80's when the iconic but bounded-by-past Jagger simply just couldn't convincingly update himself to the recent currents. The mix of iconic Jagger and contemporary fashion and scene, which, for example, had still worked rather well previously, especially in the time of SOME GIRLS (The Stones were flexible enough to adapt to the times), just didn't work very well any longer. The gap started to be too big. Time waits for no one... (This is my descripton of the observation you guys, Stoneage and Dandie, did). But it looks like Jagger learned his lesson there: since then he has been very moderate in 'chasing the trends'; musically almost nothing, most of his 'trend-chasing' energy has been keeping their concert show as current and competitive as possible. Imagewise and as a performer he has been the biggest conservative of his generation: he tries as best as possible to keep his own iconic presence, familiar from the 60's, as pure and unchangable as possible. That works damn well in a rock nostalgia era of wealthy old rock generationals (which, alone, is a kind of recent current). Our slightly mocked, but still admired "Peter Pan" means "the iconic Jagger of the past". Even the kids, if get to see a glimpse of him, might be impressed of this 8th Wonder of the World, which despite being old as hell still 'Moves Like Jagger'.
The thing is that he was an 'old fart' already in 1973 when the next generation of rock stars started seriously pop up. He wasn't any David Bowie then nor any Johnny Rotten in 1977 the cool kids were digging at. And I am sure the 70's altogether were Mick's toughest years as a rock star - him painfully starting to be awere of that he, despite being the biggest rock star of the world, wasn't 'hip' any longer, but just a 60's icon, belonging to the incredibly famous, but irrelevant class of old guard like the 50's icon Elvis Presley (it would take more time, and the whole new genre of youth music, rap & hiphop, to arise until he was kicked to the totally irrelevant class of Frank Sinatra in terms of his own generation). He somehow survived the 80's (which was confusing, even horrible times for the old guard stars like him) and since then the return of more classical rock friendly atmosphere and with that, or following that, the nostalgia age saved his status as a super star. If he just does his thing and gives us an eternal manisfestation of this iconic 60's self. And keeps The Stones rolling.
The only time, like you guys said, he was a 'hip' was during the 60's, and I am sure he, having an ear for those things, is more awere of that than anybody else. One can only imagine what it was like being Mick Jagger those days... But I guess it has not been that bad being Mick Jagger even since then...
Sorry I sound like lecturing, but this topic fascinates me...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 20:48 by Doxa.
Nice thoughts, and very interesting indeed.
But I'm not so sure if Mick was alone by letting himself be influenced by contemporary music. I think they all did, up to a point. And that point was perhaps the 80s. That was when they talked about not being young anymore, and that there was no point in pretending etc.
That said, this is a double-edged sword. Mick certainly has saved the Stones many times with this ear open for trends, and there is no doubt that he has been the one most tuned in on doing so in latter-day years.
But some of the music he tried to incorporate into the Stones's sound in the 80s and 90s was more off the band's sound than what he (or Keith) had picked up earlier. So, when synthesisers and sequencers start to make a racket on She's The Boss, or when the techno-synths make the Stones sound like The Prodigy on B2B, time will perhaps tell that it may have been a funny experiment, but also a major decrease in judgement for Mick.
All bands want new and younger fans, and Mick was no exception. I'm thinking now – when they're in their late 70s, and they have an old fan base – it would be wise not to experiment too much, and rely on your chops and musicality. But all the reports so far tell me that they are willing to experiment (Carl Falk!!!).
Mick's attitude reminds me of Miles Davis, and how he made the album which his fans hate the most; «doo-bop». Miles was sitting on the window sill, listening to some sounds coming from the streets. He listened, paid attention and then rang Marcus Miller (I think). «We need to make an album with sounds like those», Miles said. And he went and made it: A hiphop-album - an album I love dearly. One of the reasons I think it's great is because he went in and did it all the way, not partially. The rapping and the sound is amateurish and dated today. But the joy of discovering and exploring something new is there.
But I disgress. Just some rambling thoughts
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-30 11:01 by DandelionPowderman.
ROCKMAN
I have the Sweet Thing-single on cassette as well, Rockee
Skills; rollmops are good, my friend. If you think Jagger is a fraud that is fine with me. I do believe that he likes the music he makes. If I thought Jagger was a fraud I would not listen to his music.When he Patbonnishes his shit,me don't like it.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Is it me, or am I the only one that loathes Paul Schaffer ? I saw him on a Fats Domino at 60 TV Special, with Ronnie, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Ray Charles, and thought he had delusions of Herbert Van Karajan in a rock sense. Conducting the band - oh puhleeze !!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 29, 2019 10:47
I never read anything about this band being «pathetic». What I did read (and agreed with) was that the band Mick had on his Primitive Cool-tour was awful.
These guys at Webster Hall (Yes, I know Jimmy did the PC-tour as well) were cooking. Mick could have chosen more exciting guitar players, sure, but the sound of the Webster Hall-gig overshadowed the 80s glitz of Satriani, Phillips & Co.
As someone said above, the WS-songs came to life in concert. The album is not as strong today as I once thought it was. That said, Evening Gown, Don't Tear Me Up and Sweet Thing (+ perhaps WS) still are very enjoyable.
Mother Of A Man is awful.
These guys at Webster Hall (Yes, I know Jimmy did the PC-tour as well) were cooking. Mick could have chosen more exciting guitar players, sure, but the sound of the Webster Hall-gig overshadowed the 80s glitz of Satriani, Phillips & Co.
As someone said above, the WS-songs came to life in concert. The album is not as strong today as I once thought it was. That said, Evening Gown, Don't Tear Me Up and Sweet Thing (+ perhaps WS) still are very enjoyable.
Mother Of A Man is awful.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
SKILLS
()
Date: January 29, 2019 12:28
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I never read anything about this band being «pathetic». What I did read (and agreed with) was that the band Mick had on his Primitive Cool-tour was awful.
These guys at Webster Hall (Yes, I know Jimmy did the PC-tour as well) were cooking. Mick could have chosen more exciting guitar players, sure, but the sound of the Webster Hall-gig overshadowed the 80s glitz of Satriani, Phillips & Co.
As someone said above, the WS-songs came to life in concert. The album is not as strong today as I once thought it was. That said, Evening Gown, Don't Tear Me Up and Sweet Thing (+ perhaps WS) still are very enjoyable.
Mother Of A Man is awful.
So you didn't see Mick backed by Jimmy and Joe Satriani (at the height of pre-fame, if you knew about "Surfing With The Alien" you knew) and there he was with the coolest guitarist on the planet.
"I remember an unfortunate journalist asking Mick "So what is it like playing with musicians that are better than the Rolling Stones, Mick's head, cock's left, silence, then he say's.... aahhh It's not the same band"
... ahhh it was a stupid question" Mick played in front of 40k plus for 2 1/2 hours, they went Mad, and I mean Looped Out.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 12:38 by SKILLS.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 29, 2019 12:37
Quote
SKILLSQuote
DandelionPowderman
I never read anything about this band being «pathetic». What I did read (and agreed with) was that the band Mick had on his Primitive Cool-tour was awful.
These guys at Webster Hall (Yes, I know Jimmy did the PC-tour as well) were cooking. Mick could have chosen more exciting guitar players, sure, but the sound of the Webster Hall-gig overshadowed the 80s glitz of Satriani, Phillips & Co.
As someone said above, the WS-songs came to life in concert. The album is not as strong today as I once thought it was. That said, Evening Gown, Don't Tear Me Up and Sweet Thing (+ perhaps WS) still are very enjoyable.
Mother Of A Man is awful.
So you didn't see Mick backed by Jimmy and Joe Satriani (at the height of pre-fame, if you knew about "Surfing With The Alien" you knew) and there he was with the coolest guitarist on the planet, "I remember an unfortunate journalist asking Mick "So what is it like playing with musicians that are better than the Rolling Stones, Mick's head, cock's left, silence, then he say's.... aahhh it's quite different'... ahhh it was, atupid question" Mick played in front of 40k plus for 2 1/2 hours
I wasn't there, thankfully. And I knew Satriani well - very well - before he got famous.
I'll have to ask, though, «better» at what? Joey Satriani was never better in this musical genre than any guitarist who have been in the Stones. He lacks the soul, the sound, the understanding of what the songs he played were all about.
But he is very good at what he does, and I certainly respect him as a musician within his field of competence. But he was a stray cat, lead far astray, with Mick, imho.
The charming sounds from Brian, the melodic soulful tone of Taylor, Keith's touch and raggedness and Ronnie's playfulness and funkiness. It was all gone with the Primitive Cool-guys.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 12:37 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
SKILLS
()
Date: January 29, 2019 12:48
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
SKILLSQuote
DandelionPowderman
I never read anything about this band being «pathetic». What I did read (and agreed with) was that the band Mick had on his Primitive Cool-tour was awful.
These guys at Webster Hall (Yes, I know Jimmy did the PC-tour as well) were cooking. Mick could have chosen more exciting guitar players, sure, but the sound of the Webster Hall-gig overshadowed the 80s glitz of Satriani, Phillips & Co.
As someone said above, the WS-songs came to life in concert. The album is not as strong today as I once thought it was. That said, Evening Gown, Don't Tear Me Up and Sweet Thing (+ perhaps WS) still are very enjoyable.
Mother Of A Man is awful.
So you didn't see Mick backed by Jimmy and Joe Satriani (at the height of pre-fame, if you knew about "Surfing With The Alien" you knew) and there he was with the coolest guitarist on the planet, "I remember an unfortunate journalist asking Mick "So what is it like playing with musicians that are better than the Rolling Stones, Mick's head, cock's left, silence, then he say's.... aahhh it's quite different'... ahhh it was, atupid question" Mick played in front of 40k plus for 2 1/2 hours
I wasn't there, thankfully. And I knew Satriani well - very well - before he got famous.
I'll have to ask, though, «better» at what? Joey Satriani was never better in this musical genre than any guitarist who have been in the Stones. He lacks the soul, the sound, the understanding of what the songs he played were all about.
But he is very good at what he does, and I certainly respect him as a musician within his field of competence. But he was a stray cat, lead far astray, with Mick, imho.
The charming sounds from Brian, the melodic soulful tone of Taylor, Keith's touch and raggedness and Ronnie's playfulness and funkiness. It was all gone with the Primitive Cool-guys.
You've obviously got a personal relationship with Joe, so perhaps that impacts your critique, Him playing "Ice 9" at an interlude during the gig drew a massive response from the local crowd. 1987/88/89/90 Joe, I vouch for, "Flying In A Blue Dream" was my high point
Actually maybe "The Extremist"...
Summer Song is an Anthem
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 29, 2019 12:55
Yeah, he could have played, but I think playing a few Stones numbers as an encore was more like a reward for the people who had been 'forced' to listen his new album all the way through... But instead of giving them "Miss You" or "Brown Sugar", Jagger's choice of songs was rather interesting, like digging up some almost forgotten gems. None of those three songs were any Shones show regulars. He had played "Rip This Joint" during his 1988 solo tour, but the Stones not since, what, 1975/76? "Live With Me" wasn't played since, well, 1971? And "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby" since 1966 or 1967? Two first two mentioned tunes did find their way to Stones sets since then. It could be also that Jagger used this oppurtunity testing these old Stones tunes for further use with his 'proper' band. Like how would he feel like performing them, etc.Quote
GasLightStreet
Well, instead of playing those Stones songs at the end he could've done Just Another Night, Lucky In Love and Throwaway. He didn't need to do any Stones songs - no one paid to get in.
- Doxa
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: January 29, 2019 13:20
for me Webster Hall show sounds like SNL or similar kinds of show band.
that sax going to that stereotypical high wail...prolly the same cat.
all that'w missing is Paul Schafer, television's Chuck Leavell.
oh my.
good players incuding horns but sounds very contrived to me.
maybe like those 'distressed' jeans. not really 'distressed' but manufactured to appear so.
that being said the stand-out tracks on WS will vary with personal taste.
very hard to argue about Don't Tear Me Up cause it's a really good single choie imo.
i prefer the studio cuts. the concert has never held me as other
than some cool highlights and a curiosity.
He's in competetion with himself stylistically
as he came from such a unique crew of players and personalities.
I've never spent all that much time with any of their solo works,
except Faces (haha)....
....a LOT of time with Faces.
...
maybe it's his best i dunno.
I think Goddess is a better deal for me from the 3 solo albums.
just because it does not seem such an obvious 'cop' on The Stones.
tho that is arguable track to track i guess.
glad he's made each of them. Goddess has great singing and production.
if you're gonna go 'slick,' then don't ape the world's greatest rock and roll band legacy.
of course it's been said a hundred times here but
take a few great song from each of the glims solo LPs...
and bring them to The Rolling Stones.
prolly in the futura some label person will put out a cool double album
of Stones solo cuts from the extracurricula activities of Ron, Keith, Mick, Mick Taylor, Willie O' Perkins and etc...who's left?
yeh a Brian track too. he was the first to venture a solo effort.
webster encores were rtj and Live With Me.
here's where even the guitar playing is obviously solid but it all sounds
like the canned studio musician affair that it is.
that awful snl sax squeaking that shit is a total no go. unpleasant and off.
Mick's in great shape but it does not matter in this context to me personally as a listener...
...let me take it off the speakers, hold on...
it's a sacrilige listening to this fake 'wildness' square and awful band. lead sax; get this out of here...awful.
---------
i like some of the tracks on each of his solo efforts tho.
some of it is really super great and appreciated.
it's good that they're here and i enjoy selected songs very much...
have you seen your mother encore is hard to suss.
on one hand, it's the most amazing song and a thrill that he's brought it out!!!
then that awful awful sax. who is that dude?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 13:29 by hopkins.
that sax going to that stereotypical high wail...prolly the same cat.
all that'w missing is Paul Schafer, television's Chuck Leavell.
oh my.
good players incuding horns but sounds very contrived to me.
maybe like those 'distressed' jeans. not really 'distressed' but manufactured to appear so.
that being said the stand-out tracks on WS will vary with personal taste.
very hard to argue about Don't Tear Me Up cause it's a really good single choie imo.
i prefer the studio cuts. the concert has never held me as other
than some cool highlights and a curiosity.
He's in competetion with himself stylistically
as he came from such a unique crew of players and personalities.
I've never spent all that much time with any of their solo works,
except Faces (haha)....
....a LOT of time with Faces.
...
maybe it's his best i dunno.
I think Goddess is a better deal for me from the 3 solo albums.
just because it does not seem such an obvious 'cop' on The Stones.
tho that is arguable track to track i guess.
glad he's made each of them. Goddess has great singing and production.
if you're gonna go 'slick,' then don't ape the world's greatest rock and roll band legacy.
of course it's been said a hundred times here but
take a few great song from each of the glims solo LPs...
and bring them to The Rolling Stones.
prolly in the futura some label person will put out a cool double album
of Stones solo cuts from the extracurricula activities of Ron, Keith, Mick, Mick Taylor, Willie O' Perkins and etc...who's left?
yeh a Brian track too. he was the first to venture a solo effort.
webster encores were rtj and Live With Me.
here's where even the guitar playing is obviously solid but it all sounds
like the canned studio musician affair that it is.
that awful snl sax squeaking that shit is a total no go. unpleasant and off.
Mick's in great shape but it does not matter in this context to me personally as a listener...
...let me take it off the speakers, hold on...
it's a sacrilige listening to this fake 'wildness' square and awful band. lead sax; get this out of here...awful.
---------
i like some of the tracks on each of his solo efforts tho.
some of it is really super great and appreciated.
it's good that they're here and i enjoy selected songs very much...
have you seen your mother encore is hard to suss.
on one hand, it's the most amazing song and a thrill that he's brought it out!!!
then that awful awful sax. who is that dude?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 13:29 by hopkins.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 29, 2019 14:07
Quote
SKILLSQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
SKILLSQuote
DandelionPowderman
I never read anything about this band being «pathetic». What I did read (and agreed with) was that the band Mick had on his Primitive Cool-tour was awful.
These guys at Webster Hall (Yes, I know Jimmy did the PC-tour as well) were cooking. Mick could have chosen more exciting guitar players, sure, but the sound of the Webster Hall-gig overshadowed the 80s glitz of Satriani, Phillips & Co.
As someone said above, the WS-songs came to life in concert. The album is not as strong today as I once thought it was. That said, Evening Gown, Don't Tear Me Up and Sweet Thing (+ perhaps WS) still are very enjoyable.
Mother Of A Man is awful.
So you didn't see Mick backed by Jimmy and Joe Satriani (at the height of pre-fame, if you knew about "Surfing With The Alien" you knew) and there he was with the coolest guitarist on the planet, "I remember an unfortunate journalist asking Mick "So what is it like playing with musicians that are better than the Rolling Stones, Mick's head, cock's left, silence, then he say's.... aahhh it's quite different'... ahhh it was, atupid question" Mick played in front of 40k plus for 2 1/2 hours
I wasn't there, thankfully. And I knew Satriani well - very well - before he got famous.
I'll have to ask, though, «better» at what? Joey Satriani was never better in this musical genre than any guitarist who have been in the Stones. He lacks the soul, the sound, the understanding of what the songs he played were all about.
But he is very good at what he does, and I certainly respect him as a musician within his field of competence. But he was a stray cat, lead far astray, with Mick, imho.
The charming sounds from Brian, the melodic soulful tone of Taylor, Keith's touch and raggedness and Ronnie's playfulness and funkiness. It was all gone with the Primitive Cool-guys.
You've obviously got a personal relationship with Joe, so perhaps that impacts your critique, Him playing "Ice 9" at an interlude during the gig drew a massive response from the local crowd. 1987/88/89/90 Joe, I vouch for, "Flying In A Blue Dream" was my high point
Actually maybe "The Extremist"...
Summer Song is an Anthem
Actually, I had a guitar teacher who was a fan of both Satriani AND the Stones – so some of the first stuff he taught me were a (partly incorrect) reading of the Bitch-riff and a way more accurate Surfing With The Alien
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 29, 2019 14:14
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The charming sounds from Brian, the melodic soulful tone of Taylor, Keith's touch and raggedness and Ronnie's playfulness and funkiness. It was all gone with the Primitive Cool-guys.
Why should Jagger as a solo artist play with the guys who as players resemble his old band members? I think Jagger's plan in his 1988 tour was to update the good old Stones stuff to fit to the recent currents (the horrible 80's that was...). That of having some highly skilled competent players of the day was a part of the plan (and since the withdrawal of old hag Beck, but who also was a pretty different player than any of the Stones guitarists and still back in the 80's pretty 'modern' guitarist by the standards of the day). I undertand that's a capital crime for Stones loyalists, but from an artistic point I can imagine it felt refreshing for him to try the old Stones stuff with some different type of players.
And I think there is a further reason for this experiment. He as an ambitious and forward-looking person knew that he needed to update his game in order to continue his career. He's been there before: knowing very well what worked in the 60's didn't worked in the 70's any longer, and what had worked in the 70's wasn't, especially taken the chaos the band was during the 1981/82 tour, going to work in the 80's anymore. No matter how cool the band sounded at the time, and how nostalgic we are now about the 1981/82 tour ("the last real Stones tour", etc), it was clear that it professonally was a thing of the past as the 80's went further. Some of that solo tour experience (and people) Mick took with him to create a modern Rolling Stones show.
I think the biggest issue with Jagger in the 80's - if we forget all that WW3 crap and look the thing a bit more professionally - was him figuring out would the Stones be able to update their game to fit to the new, changed circumstances. My picture that Jagger was rather pessimistic at one stage.
- Doxa
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 29, 2019 14:24
For the Stones to renew themselves is in a way as difficult as it was for Sinatra to adapt to rock and roll. They are (were) both stuck in a format. They are both children of their times.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 14:26 by Stoneage.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 14:26 by Stoneage.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 29, 2019 14:29
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
The charming sounds from Brian, the melodic soulful tone of Taylor, Keith's touch and raggedness and Ronnie's playfulness and funkiness. It was all gone with the Primitive Cool-guys.
Why should Jagger as a solo artist play with the guys who as players resemble his old band members? I think Jagger's plan in his 1988 tour was to update the good old Stones stuff to fit to the recent currents (the horrible 80's that was...). That of having some highly skilled competent players of the day was a part of the plan (and since the withdrawal of old hag Beck, but who also was a pretty different player than any of the Stones guitarists and still back in the 80's pretty 'modern' guitarist by the standards of the day). I undertand that's a capital crime for Stones loyalists, but from an artistic point I can imagine it felt refreshing for him to try the old Stones stuff with some different type of players.
And I think there is a further reason for this experiment. He as an ambitious and forward-looking person knew that he needed to update his game in order to continue his career. He's been there before: knowing very well what worked in the 60's didn't worked in the 70's any longer, and what had worked in the 70's wasn't, especially taken the chaos the band was during the 1981/82 tour, going to work in the 80's anymore. No matter how cool the band sounded at the time, and how nostalgic we are now about the 1981/82 tour ("the last real Stones tour", etc), it was clear that it professonally was a thing of the past as the 80's went further. Some of that solo tour experience (and people) Mick took with him to create a modern Rolling Stones show.
I think the biggest issue with Jagger in the 80's - if we forget all that WW3 crap and look the thing a bit more professionally - was him figuring out would the Stones be able to update their game to fit to the new, changed circumstances. My picture that Jagger was rather pessimistic at one stage.
- Doxa
That makes sense, and I agree totally, although Rip is trying hard to sound like, and look like, Keith. However, if that were true WHY did he load his solo show setlist with Stones-tunes and covers the Stones did? Why did we have to hear Satriani playing Keith's solo on HTW and Brian's blue notes from Little red Rooster. Why would Simon Phillips hammer the last drop of swing out of Tumbling Dice and Gimme Shelter?
I think you said it best: «the horrible 80s that was...».
Personally, I think both Mick's own uncertainty AND the music scene of the 80s were to blame.
That's also one of the reasons why I like Webster Hall much better (even though it was a special promo gig for one album). He trusted his new material.
The El Rey-gig when he promoted GITD was not of the same caliber, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 14:31 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 29, 2019 14:32
What I was trying to say is that Jagger tried to be hip in the 80s and 90s - but he never could be. He wasn't George Michael or Michael Jackson. He wasn't hip hop. He is a late 60s icon, nothing else.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 29, 2019 14:41
Quote
Stoneage
What I was trying to say is that Jagger tried to be hip in the 80s and 90s - but he never could be. He wasn't George Michael or Michael Jackson. He wasn't hip hop. He is a late 60s icon, nothing else.
Even a early/mid-60s icon! His fans had already grown up, and the new fans saw him in a different light than that of the old ones. Much of the explanation lies here, imo.
Even you, me and Doxa had already been fans for at least a decade when WS came out. People who were younger than us didn't necessarily buy the myth or the legend, and judged Mick by his music – not his merits. That certainly brought him new fans, too, but not the same kind of idolation that superstars like Michael Jackson, the Britpop-ers or the grunge bands got in the early 90s.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 29, 2019 15:14
Agree, Dandy. That window was never really open for him.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: January 29, 2019 15:21
Quote
Stoneage
What I was trying to say is that Jagger tried to be hip in the 80s and 90s - but he never could be. He wasn't George Michael or Michael Jackson. He wasn't hip hop. He is a late 60s icon, nothing else.
That awkward stage we all go through ......
"No Anchovies, Please"
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: January 29, 2019 15:26
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
... People who were younger than us didn't necessarily buy the myth or the legend, and judged Mick by his music – not his merits. That certainly brought him new fans, too, but not the same kind of idolation that superstars like Michael Jackson, the Britpop-ers or the grunge bands got in the early 90s.
That kind of adulation, it might be argued, is reserved only for the young by the even younger ...
...But I'm not quite sure where that leaves some of we old buggers around here
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: January 29, 2019 20:47
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
What I was trying to say is that Jagger tried to be hip in the 80s and 90s - but he never could be. He wasn't George Michael or Michael Jackson. He wasn't hip hop. He is a late 60s icon, nothing else.
Even a early/mid-60s icon! His fans had already grown up, and the new fans saw him in a different light than that of the old ones. Much of the explanation lies here, imo.
Even you, me and Doxa had already been fans for at least a decade when WS came out. People who were younger than us didn't necessarily buy the myth or the legend, and judged Mick by his music – not his merits. That certainly brought him new fans, too, but not the same kind of idolation that superstars like Michael Jackson, the Britpop-ers or the grunge bands got in the early 90s.
Yeah. I think people easily take this slogan of 'Jagger tries to be hip/trendy' a bit too seriously or locate it too narrowly. Or to be more precise: not really seeing through it or what it actually means. In a way that's true, but that's what he's been doing not just in the 80's but about all of his career: he keeps his eye on what's going on and is influenced by changing cirmustances, and tries to update his game to meet the new conditions. Even though he has about never been very radical in any of his actions.
That has lead him to meet some meditation guru and making a psychedelic album, that of him commenting political circumstances and 'going back to roots' when that was the thing, that of him hiring a flashy guitar god when that was needed for a respectable rock band, that of him giving a free festival to a half-million drug-headed hippies when that was considered cool, that of him painting his face with glamour make-up and wearing glittery costumes when needed, that of him writing a disco hit or reducing his band into rock-basics and wearing a wastika t-shirt when that was considered hip... whatever happened during the 80s' and since then belongs to the same agenda. He's the one who took the example of the Beatles and Bob Dylan, his most important contemporaries, seriously. He's the one who took seriously what The Cream and Jimi Hendrix would meant to professional nature of a rock show when people started to follow what the musicians actually do on stage instead that of just screaming. He's the one who understood what Led Zeppelin's example did to a lenght of a rock show. He's the one who took the punk challenge seriosly. He's the one keeping eye on what Pink Floyd and, much later, U2 were up to when creating stadium spectacles.
Some of that might look ridiculous now or even at the time they occured, but quite many constitute some incredible chapters in the history of rock music. Some of us like some of those moves, some other ones, and so on. Some people dislike very much certain moves. But most of all: that's been what has made him and his band as one of the biggest acts in the music history for over 50 years now. Most likely and ironically it is safe to say Mick's mocked drive for 'chasing the trends' has been the 'secret' reason behind Stones' incredible success. He seems to open-minded by nature: interested in new things and curious about them. But that urge seems to be married with his natural, highly competitive Darwinian nature - one needs to keep eye on changing trends in order to survive.
But as I mentioned earlier, and which I think is important: his 'experentialism' with recent currents never been that radical. Musically he has never drifted very far from the premises of his youthful iconic days. It is the basic R&B-based intuitions he created with Keith in their creative peak that form the basis of his songs. He just ices those with a bit flirting with some novel ideas, many times just with current producing ideals (those features easily are over-exaggarated by puristic Stones fans). The same goes for his image: it is very basic 60's Jagger image he uses as a platform to a bit update to recent fashions.
The crucial times were indeed the 80's when the iconic but bounded-by-past Jagger simply just couldn't convincingly update himself to the recent currents. The mix of iconic Jagger and contemporary fashion and scene, which, for example, had still worked rather well previously, especially in the time of SOME GIRLS (The Stones were flexible enough to adapt to the times), just didn't work very well any longer. The gap started to be too big. Time waits for no one... (This is my descripton of the observation you guys, Stoneage and Dandie, did). But it looks like Jagger learned his lesson there: since then he has been very moderate in 'chasing the trends'; musically almost nothing, most of his 'trend-chasing' energy has been keeping their concert show as current and competitive as possible. Imagewise and as a performer he has been the biggest conservative of his generation: he tries as best as possible to keep his own iconic presence, familiar from the 60's, as pure and unchangable as possible. That works damn well in a rock nostalgia era of wealthy old rock generationals (which, alone, is a kind of recent current). Our slightly mocked, but still admired "Peter Pan" means "the iconic Jagger of the past". Even the kids, if get to see a glimpse of him, might be impressed of this 8th Wonder of the World, which despite being old as hell still 'Moves Like Jagger'.
The thing is that he was an 'old fart' already in 1973 when the next generation of rock stars started seriously pop up. He wasn't any David Bowie then nor any Johnny Rotten in 1977 the cool kids were digging at. And I am sure the 70's altogether were Mick's toughest years as a rock star - him painfully starting to be awere of that he, despite being the biggest rock star of the world, wasn't 'hip' any longer, but just a 60's icon, belonging to the incredibly famous, but irrelevant class of old guard like the 50's icon Elvis Presley (it would take more time, and the whole new genre of youth music, rap & hiphop, to arise until he was kicked to the totally irrelevant class of Frank Sinatra in terms of his own generation). He somehow survived the 80's (which was confusing, even horrible times for the old guard stars like him) and since then the return of more classical rock friendly atmosphere and with that, or following that, the nostalgia age saved his status as a super star. If he just does his thing and gives us an eternal manisfestation of this iconic 60's self. And keeps The Stones rolling.
The only time, like you guys said, he was a 'hip' was during the 60's, and I am sure he, having an ear for those things, is more awere of that than anybody else. One can only imagine what it was like being Mick Jagger those days... But I guess it has not been that bad being Mick Jagger even since then...
Sorry I sound like lecturing, but this topic fascinates me...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-29 20:48 by Doxa.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 29, 2019 21:38
Okey, I'm trying to keep it short here. I think the record company wanted Jagger to be a star on his own. Leaving the band behind him. They, probably, wanted a new Michael Jackson or George Michael.
But in Jagger's case it was too late. And the music he opted for was too close to the one he was already doing with the Stones. And by no means setting, or even following, the contemporary trends in the 80s and 90s.
He didn't get a new audience (except for the hired models upfront...) but rather the same following (who was really waiting for him to team up with the Stones again).
So, to quote Mr Perks Jr (or close to it): "What's the point doing an album of your own when it's the same music you're already doing with the band...".
But in Jagger's case it was too late. And the music he opted for was too close to the one he was already doing with the Stones. And by no means setting, or even following, the contemporary trends in the 80s and 90s.
He didn't get a new audience (except for the hired models upfront...) but rather the same following (who was really waiting for him to team up with the Stones again).
So, to quote Mr Perks Jr (or close to it): "What's the point doing an album of your own when it's the same music you're already doing with the band...".
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: January 30, 2019 07:22
What is hard for the fans to grasp is that there wasn’t a Rolling Stones for Mick to “ leave and take a shot at a solo career”-the Rolling Stones broke up, the band was finished by the time Dirty Work wrapped up in 1985.
What allowed them to sell this myth that they’ve been going for 50 years or whatever is neither Mick or Keith wanted to say it publicly for fear of being blamed for ending the Stones in the public’s eye.
In the 80s it wasn’t Keith getting drunk and spouting off and Mick ignoring it,they were going at it big time.
You can find the videos-one of the more telling is Jagger saying”I would suggest to Keith if he ever wants to get the Stones back together he button his lip”
Another from around 87 he’s asked if it’s over he says “who cares,who gives a shit if the Stones are broke up or not”
It was over, his records meant nothing just like voodoo lounge and bigger bang meant nothing,he was going to play live with a backing band and each tour would be centered around the Stones catalogue.
Think of how they reunited,it wasn’t because Patti called Jerry Hall and arranged a dinner, it wasn’t Ronnie or Charlie it was Michael Cohl offering them more money than any band had ever seen at that point.
What allowed them to sell this myth that they’ve been going for 50 years or whatever is neither Mick or Keith wanted to say it publicly for fear of being blamed for ending the Stones in the public’s eye.
In the 80s it wasn’t Keith getting drunk and spouting off and Mick ignoring it,they were going at it big time.
You can find the videos-one of the more telling is Jagger saying”I would suggest to Keith if he ever wants to get the Stones back together he button his lip”
Another from around 87 he’s asked if it’s over he says “who cares,who gives a shit if the Stones are broke up or not”
It was over, his records meant nothing just like voodoo lounge and bigger bang meant nothing,he was going to play live with a backing band and each tour would be centered around the Stones catalogue.
Think of how they reunited,it wasn’t because Patti called Jerry Hall and arranged a dinner, it wasn’t Ronnie or Charlie it was Michael Cohl offering them more money than any band had ever seen at that point.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 30, 2019 10:58
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Stoneage
What I was trying to say is that Jagger tried to be hip in the 80s and 90s - but he never could be. He wasn't George Michael or Michael Jackson. He wasn't hip hop. He is a late 60s icon, nothing else.
Even a early/mid-60s icon! His fans had already grown up, and the new fans saw him in a different light than that of the old ones. Much of the explanation lies here, imo.
Even you, me and Doxa had already been fans for at least a decade when WS came out. People who were younger than us didn't necessarily buy the myth or the legend, and judged Mick by his music – not his merits. That certainly brought him new fans, too, but not the same kind of idolation that superstars like Michael Jackson, the Britpop-ers or the grunge bands got in the early 90s.
Yeah. I think people easily take this slogan of 'Jagger tries to be hip/trendy' a bit too seriously or locate it too narrowly. Or to be more precise: not really seeing through it or what it actually means. In a way that's true, but that's what he's been doing not just in the 80's but about all of his career: he keeps his eye on what's going on and is influenced by changing cirmustances, and tries to update his game to meet the new conditions. Even though he has about never been very radical in any of his actions.
That has lead him to meet some meditation guru and making a psychedelic album, that of him commenting political circumstances and 'going back to roots' when that was the thing, that of him hiring a flashy guitar god when that was needed for a respectable rock band, that of him giving a free festival to a half-million drug-headed hippies when that was considered cool, that of him painting his face with glamour make-up and wearing glittery costumes when needed, that of him writing a disco hit or reducing his band into rock-basics and wearing a wastika t-shirt when that was considered hip... whatever happened during the 80s' and since then belongs to the same agenda. He's the one who took the example of the Beatles and Bob Dylan, his most important contemporaries, seriously. He's the one who took seriously what The Cream and Jimi Hendrix would meant to professional nature of a rock show when people started to follow what the musicians actually do on stage instead that of just screaming. He's the one who understood what Led Zeppelin's example did to a lenght of a rock show. He's the one who took the punk challenge seriosly. He's the one keeping eye on what Pink Floyd and, much later, U2 were up to when creating stadium spectacles.
Some of that might look ridiculous now or even at the time they occured, but quite many constitute some incredible chapters in the history of rock music. Some of us like some of those moves, some other ones, and so on. Some people dislike very much certain moves. But most of all: that's been what has made him and his band as one of the biggest acts in the music history for over 50 years now. Most likely and ironically it is safe to say Mick's mocked drive for 'chasing the trends' has been the 'secret' reason behind Stones' incredible success. He seems to open-minded by nature: interested in new things and curious about them. But that urge seems to be married with his natural, highly competitive Darwinian nature - one needs to keep eye on changing trends in order to survive.
But as I mentioned earlier, and which I think is important: his 'experentialism' with recent currents never been that radical. Musically he has never drifted very far from the premises of his youthful iconic days. It is the basic R&B-based intuitions he created with Keith in their creative peak that form the basis of his songs. He just ices those with a bit flirting with some novel ideas, many times just with current producing ideals (those features easily are over-exaggarated by puristic Stones fans). The same goes for his image: it is very basic 60's Jagger image he uses as a platform to a bit update to recent fashions.
The crucial times were indeed the 80's when the iconic but bounded-by-past Jagger simply just couldn't convincingly update himself to the recent currents. The mix of iconic Jagger and contemporary fashion and scene, which, for example, had still worked rather well previously, especially in the time of SOME GIRLS (The Stones were flexible enough to adapt to the times), just didn't work very well any longer. The gap started to be too big. Time waits for no one... (This is my descripton of the observation you guys, Stoneage and Dandie, did). But it looks like Jagger learned his lesson there: since then he has been very moderate in 'chasing the trends'; musically almost nothing, most of his 'trend-chasing' energy has been keeping their concert show as current and competitive as possible. Imagewise and as a performer he has been the biggest conservative of his generation: he tries as best as possible to keep his own iconic presence, familiar from the 60's, as pure and unchangable as possible. That works damn well in a rock nostalgia era of wealthy old rock generationals (which, alone, is a kind of recent current). Our slightly mocked, but still admired "Peter Pan" means "the iconic Jagger of the past". Even the kids, if get to see a glimpse of him, might be impressed of this 8th Wonder of the World, which despite being old as hell still 'Moves Like Jagger'.
The thing is that he was an 'old fart' already in 1973 when the next generation of rock stars started seriously pop up. He wasn't any David Bowie then nor any Johnny Rotten in 1977 the cool kids were digging at. And I am sure the 70's altogether were Mick's toughest years as a rock star - him painfully starting to be awere of that he, despite being the biggest rock star of the world, wasn't 'hip' any longer, but just a 60's icon, belonging to the incredibly famous, but irrelevant class of old guard like the 50's icon Elvis Presley (it would take more time, and the whole new genre of youth music, rap & hiphop, to arise until he was kicked to the totally irrelevant class of Frank Sinatra in terms of his own generation). He somehow survived the 80's (which was confusing, even horrible times for the old guard stars like him) and since then the return of more classical rock friendly atmosphere and with that, or following that, the nostalgia age saved his status as a super star. If he just does his thing and gives us an eternal manisfestation of this iconic 60's self. And keeps The Stones rolling.
The only time, like you guys said, he was a 'hip' was during the 60's, and I am sure he, having an ear for those things, is more awere of that than anybody else. One can only imagine what it was like being Mick Jagger those days... But I guess it has not been that bad being Mick Jagger even since then...
Sorry I sound like lecturing, but this topic fascinates me...
- Doxa
Nice thoughts, and very interesting indeed.
But I'm not so sure if Mick was alone by letting himself be influenced by contemporary music. I think they all did, up to a point. And that point was perhaps the 80s. That was when they talked about not being young anymore, and that there was no point in pretending etc.
That said, this is a double-edged sword. Mick certainly has saved the Stones many times with this ear open for trends, and there is no doubt that he has been the one most tuned in on doing so in latter-day years.
But some of the music he tried to incorporate into the Stones's sound in the 80s and 90s was more off the band's sound than what he (or Keith) had picked up earlier. So, when synthesisers and sequencers start to make a racket on She's The Boss, or when the techno-synths make the Stones sound like The Prodigy on B2B, time will perhaps tell that it may have been a funny experiment, but also a major decrease in judgement for Mick.
All bands want new and younger fans, and Mick was no exception. I'm thinking now – when they're in their late 70s, and they have an old fan base – it would be wise not to experiment too much, and rely on your chops and musicality. But all the reports so far tell me that they are willing to experiment (Carl Falk!!!).
Mick's attitude reminds me of Miles Davis, and how he made the album which his fans hate the most; «doo-bop». Miles was sitting on the window sill, listening to some sounds coming from the streets. He listened, paid attention and then rang Marcus Miller (I think). «We need to make an album with sounds like those», Miles said. And he went and made it: A hiphop-album - an album I love dearly. One of the reasons I think it's great is because he went in and did it all the way, not partially. The rapping and the sound is amateurish and dated today. But the joy of discovering and exploring something new is there.
But I disgress. Just some rambling thoughts
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-01-30 11:01 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
SKILLS
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:29
So he wanted to sell records, in the record business... duh
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:30
ROCKMAN
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
SKILLS
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:31
ahh when you trying to earn money for Walter Yetnikoff, your trying to earn money
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
SKILLS
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:32
Rewind that Tape Rock, keep it taut
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:32
Mick has said that when he makes music the first thing is that the music has to please him, then his close partners(musicians, collegues) and then the public. If we believe Mick each time he releases new music it is music that is first meaningful to him. I believe him but sometimes I don't agree with his musical tastes.
Rockandroll,
Mops
Rockandroll,
Mops
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:37
Quote
Rockman
I have the Sweet Thing-single on cassette as well, Rockee
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
SKILLS
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:41
My good friend introduced me to RollMops, hilarious way of eating fish.
Jagger is a capitalist since he got paid my friend, poor musicians make honest sounds in their vein, once you have a patch to protect, children to feed, you'll make a Muppets v (Add whoever) album after time, dam, Elvis would have sung in the cantina scene in Star Wars had The Colonel still been in charge.
Jagger is a capitalist since he got paid my friend, poor musicians make honest sounds in their vein, once you have a patch to protect, children to feed, you'll make a Muppets v (Add whoever) album after time, dam, Elvis would have sung in the cantina scene in Star Wars had The Colonel still been in charge.
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:48
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:52
Quote
SKILLS
My good friend introduced me to RollMops, hilarious way of eating fish.
Jagger is a capitalist since he got paid my friend, poor musicians make honest sounds in their vein, once you have a patch to protect, children to feed, you'll make a Muppets v (Add whoever) album after time, dam, Elvis would have sung in the cantina scene in Star Wars had The Colonel still been in charge.
Skills; rollmops are good, my friend. If you think Jagger is a fraud that is fine with me. I do believe that he likes the music he makes. If I thought Jagger was a fraud I would not listen to his music.When he Patbonnishes his shit,me don't like it.
Rock and roll,
Mops
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:54
Quote
hopkins
for me Webster Hall show sounds like SNL or similar kinds of show band.
that sax going to that stereotypical high wail...prolly the same cat.
all that'w missing is Paul Schafer, television's Chuck Leavell.
oh my.
good players incuding horns but sounds very contrived to me.
maybe like those 'distressed' jeans. not really 'distressed' but manufactured to appear so.
that being said the stand-out tracks on WS will vary with personal taste.
very hard to argue about Don't Tear Me Up cause it's a really good single choie imo.
i prefer the studio cuts. the concert has never held me as other
than some cool highlights and a curiosity.
He's in competetion with himself stylistically
as he came from such a unique crew of players and personalities.
I've never spent all that much time with any of their solo works,
except Faces (haha)....
....a LOT of time with Faces.
...
maybe it's his best i dunno.
I think Goddess is a better deal for me from the 3 solo albums.
just because it does not seem such an obvious 'cop' on The Stones.
tho that is arguable track to track i guess.
glad he's made each of them. Goddess has great singing and production.
if you're gonna go 'slick,' then don't ape the world's greatest rock and roll band legacy.
of course it's been said a hundred times here but
take a few great song from each of the glims solo LPs...
and bring them to The Rolling Stones.
prolly in the futura some label person will put out a cool double album
of Stones solo cuts from the extracurricula activities of Ron, Keith, Mick, Mick Taylor, Willie O' Perkins and etc...who's left?
yeh a Brian track too. he was the first to venture a solo effort.
webster encores were rtj and Live With Me.
here's where even the guitar playing is obviously solid but it all sounds
like the canned studio musician affair that it is.
that awful snl sax squeaking that shit is a total no go. unpleasant and off.
Mick's in great shape but it does not matter in this context to me personally as a listener...
...let me take it off the speakers, hold on...
it's a sacrilige listening to this fake 'wildness' square and awful band. lead sax; get this out of here...awful.
---------
i like some of the tracks on each of his solo efforts tho.
some of it is really super great and appreciated.
it's good that they're here and i enjoy selected songs very much...
have you seen your mother encore is hard to suss.
on one hand, it's the most amazing song and a thrill that he's brought it out!!!
then that awful awful sax. who is that dude?
Is it me, or am I the only one that loathes Paul Schaffer ? I saw him on a Fats Domino at 60 TV Special, with Ronnie, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Ray Charles, and thought he had delusions of Herbert Van Karajan in a rock sense. Conducting the band - oh puhleeze !!
Re: Is "Wandering Spirit" Mick's best Solo album: Inspired by Rockman discussing "Sweet Thing"
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 30, 2019 12:57
The only way the album could be considered a failure was if Jagger's primary goal was to once again avoid clashing with his lead collaborator, in this case producer Rick Rubin. The pair apparently bumped heads more than once during the recording process. As Rubin told the Los Angeles Times, "At one point while we were making the record, Mick pulled me out of the control room and talked to me in the hallway ... one of the things he told me in that conversation was I was worse than Keith. I took that as a compliment. That was the nature of the relationship, and I definitely think good things came out of it."
[ultimateclassicrock.com]
ROCKMAN
[ultimateclassicrock.com]
ROCKMAN
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
2004Man , Domonkos , Doxa , fan989 , frankotero , MadMetaphoricalMax , matatu , mattstones , RG , Rosto , Slop , stone3009 , Taylor1 , wupperstein
Guests:
1779
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10