Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
exilestones

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's too bad about these Jagger songs; "Danger" or "Highwire". Because they are so blatantly generic. The verses could literally be anything. A backbeat, with four chords that are loosely connected key-wise, and then it opens up into a forced anthemic feel. They are 100% disposable.

Yet - I dont feel for one second, that Jagger is dried up as a writer. IMO he still comes up with top material. But like many rock-gods, he needs someone who can stand up to him, and edit him.

I was listening to the second half of Bigger Bang. And...those songs aren't all that bad. If only they had taken time with them; as a band.

I guess you play guitar? I don't. Maybe I'm a bit music illiterate but it sounds fresh to me. I love Highwire. Love it! I know many Stones fans who love the Mick Taylor era best but they love Highwire.

Bigger Bang, Bremen, stadium tour, whatever. Every tour or album has something great I love. Bigger Bang it's Let Me Down Slow!

One time someone who is a guitar player was complaining about the playing in the Let It Bleed album. I'm glad I don't play guitar. It seems like a perfect album to me. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm bliss!

Sometimes artists need to get things out of their heads to clear the bank, so to speak, so the span of quality is all over the place. If deemed releasable then there is always the critiquing. Which is what naturally happens. So the Danger song, which to me sounds nothing at all like Highwire, is a song that sounds kind of 'by the numbers' in a sense in terms of 'just being a song'. There are plenty of Stones songs like that so it's no surprise that there is a Mick song. Keith has done the same. It's ordinary. No one writes great songs EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WRITE.

They may have times when they do, say... 1968-1972 or whatever but no way is everything always awesome.

Highwire being a leftover from the STEEL WHEELS sessions that they completely revamped - whatever. How many songs have they done that with in the past? A LOT.

So it's not that the song sucks, Rocky...

GasLight, I know very well what you are talking about. No writer is going to hit 'icon' every time they create something. I don't think anyone would even want that. And there is a lot to be said for lower impact pieces, art, books, songs. Maybe they are necessary time to build up momentum and foundation towards the next big chart-topper.
But I do firmly believe that as a writer or artist, one should be aware of what is release worthy, and what is not. There is a difference.
You got to hold yourself to some standard; of not giving in to put out disposable material.

The Stones lost that standard of something being releasable in the 1980s with DIRTY WORK and it's hovered around ever since. Keith is just as much to blame as Mick when it comes to the crap songs they've released but it is more Mick than Keith that is making these things come out. Somewhere there was a pole reversal - Mick (more lyrically than musically) used to come up with some fanfuckingtastic songs (SFTD, Brown Sugar, Sway, etc) but recently he's come up with some awful bad songs (Winning Ugly, Sweet Neo Con, Streets Of Love, MAWGJuiced and etc).

My fave is that the guy that wrote Brown Sugar wrote Let's Work? The guy that wrote SFTD wrote You Got Me Rocking?

It's very strange. But. Part of being an artist is experimenting. So they've done some different things. I happen to think a lot of those different things suck and shouldn't've been released... but I certainly get why they did them.

The main problems may be they're getting older, less creative and they - or at least Jagger - tried to enter the pop train in the 80's which failed. Although I think Winning Ugly is a great, not at all a weak song. I even think Sweet Neo Con is pretty good, just not classic Stones. But yes there was enough trash on all albums since 1989.

By the way, most other top acts have the same problem. Look at Genesis/Collins, Clapton, Springsteen or U2. Genesis became a embarrassing charts act during the 80's, the same with Collins' solo stuff (Face Value was a classic). Most of the Clapton stuff he released within the last 20 years is good, but boring (the duet and Blues albums are great). The same with Springsteen. The last U2 album - I don't know. These are the Joshua Tree guys (but they released more or less great album in the 2000's)?!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-20 12:24 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
exilestones

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's too bad about these Jagger songs; "Danger" or "Highwire". Because they are so blatantly generic. The verses could literally be anything. A backbeat, with four chords that are loosely connected key-wise, and then it opens up into a forced anthemic feel. They are 100% disposable.

Yet - I dont feel for one second, that Jagger is dried up as a writer. IMO he still comes up with top material. But like many rock-gods, he needs someone who can stand up to him, and edit him.

I was listening to the second half of Bigger Bang. And...those songs aren't all that bad. If only they had taken time with them; as a band.

I guess you play guitar? I don't. Maybe I'm a bit music illiterate but it sounds fresh to me. I love Highwire. Love it! I know many Stones fans who love the Mick Taylor era best but they love Highwire.

Bigger Bang, Bremen, stadium tour, whatever. Every tour or album has something great I love. Bigger Bang it's Let Me Down Slow!

One time someone who is a guitar player was complaining about the playing in the Let It Bleed album. I'm glad I don't play guitar. It seems like a perfect album to me. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm bliss!

Sometimes artists need to get things out of their heads to clear the bank, so to speak, so the span of quality is all over the place. If deemed releasable then there is always the critiquing. Which is what naturally happens. So the Danger song, which to me sounds nothing at all like Highwire, is a song that sounds kind of 'by the numbers' in a sense in terms of 'just being a song'. There are plenty of Stones songs like that so it's no surprise that there is a Mick song. Keith has done the same. It's ordinary. No one writes great songs EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WRITE.

They may have times when they do, say... 1968-1972 or whatever but no way is everything always awesome.

Highwire being a leftover from the STEEL WHEELS sessions that they completely revamped - whatever. How many songs have they done that with in the past? A LOT.

So it's not that the song sucks, Rocky...

GasLight, I know very well what you are talking about. No writer is going to hit 'icon' every time they create something. I don't think anyone would even want that. And there is a lot to be said for lower impact pieces, art, books, songs. Maybe they are necessary time to build up momentum and foundation towards the next big chart-topper.
But I do firmly believe that as a writer or artist, one should be aware of what is release worthy, and what is not. There is a difference.
You got to hold yourself to some standard; of not giving in to put out disposable material.

The Stones lost that standard of something being releasable in the 1980s with DIRTY WORK and it's hovered around ever since. Keith is just as much to blame as Mick when it comes to the crap songs they've released but it is more Mick than Keith that is making these things come out. Somewhere there was a pole reversal - Mick (more lyrically than musically) used to come up with some fanfuckingtastic songs (SFTD, Brown Sugar, Sway, etc) but recently he's come up with some awful bad songs (Winning Ugly, Sweet Neo Con, Streets Of Love, MAWGJuiced and etc).

My fave is that the guy that wrote Brown Sugar wrote Let's Work? The guy that wrote SFTD wrote You Got Me Rocking?

It's very strange. But. Part of being an artist is experimenting. So they've done some different things. I happen to think a lot of those different things suck and shouldn't've been released... but I certainly get why they did them.

The main problems may be they're getting older, less creative and they - or at least Jagger - tried to enter the pop train in the 80's which failed. Although I think Winning Ugly is a great, not at all a weak song. I even think Sweet Neo Con is pretty good, just not classic Stones. But yes there was enough trash on all albums since 1989.

By the way, most other top acts have the same problem. Look at Genesis/Collins, Clapton, Springsteen or U2. Genesis became a embarrassing charts act during the 80's, the same with Collins' solo stuff (Face Value was a classic). Most of the Clapton stuff he released within the last 20 years is good, but boring (the duet and Blues albums are great). The same with Springsteen. The last U2 album - I don't know. These are the Joshua Tree guys (but they released more or less great album in the 2000's)?!

It is such an interesting phenomenon: why artists slow down. I think there are several different scenarios.
One - they just flat out run out of ideas. Elton himself has stated that he believes an artist is granted his window of hyper creativity and vision for a limited number of years. You maximize that, and live off it for the duration.
Two - you get old and misguided; start to follow trends; start trying to hard. You still see it, but you can't reach it anymore.
Three - you've taken too many drugs, and it is self explanatory.
Four - you become fat and lazy, complacent. You don't listen to your real friends and critics anymore. You don't even want to put out new material.

Personally I believe that an artists can overcome all these trappings. It might take more thought, and extra processing, but IMO there is no reason why a writer's output should take a dive, or dry up.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
exilestones

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's too bad about these Jagger songs; "Danger" or "Highwire". Because they are so blatantly generic. The verses could literally be anything. A backbeat, with four chords that are loosely connected key-wise, and then it opens up into a forced anthemic feel. They are 100% disposable.

Yet - I dont feel for one second, that Jagger is dried up as a writer. IMO he still comes up with top material. But like many rock-gods, he needs someone who can stand up to him, and edit him.

I was listening to the second half of Bigger Bang. And...those songs aren't all that bad. If only they had taken time with them; as a band.

I guess you play guitar? I don't. Maybe I'm a bit music illiterate but it sounds fresh to me. I love Highwire. Love it! I know many Stones fans who love the Mick Taylor era best but they love Highwire.

Bigger Bang, Bremen, stadium tour, whatever. Every tour or album has something great I love. Bigger Bang it's Let Me Down Slow!

One time someone who is a guitar player was complaining about the playing in the Let It Bleed album. I'm glad I don't play guitar. It seems like a perfect album to me. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm bliss!

Sometimes artists need to get things out of their heads to clear the bank, so to speak, so the span of quality is all over the place. If deemed releasable then there is always the critiquing. Which is what naturally happens. So the Danger song, which to me sounds nothing at all like Highwire, is a song that sounds kind of 'by the numbers' in a sense in terms of 'just being a song'. There are plenty of Stones songs like that so it's no surprise that there is a Mick song. Keith has done the same. It's ordinary. No one writes great songs EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WRITE.

They may have times when they do, say... 1968-1972 or whatever but no way is everything always awesome.

Highwire being a leftover from the STEEL WHEELS sessions that they completely revamped - whatever. How many songs have they done that with in the past? A LOT.

So it's not that the song sucks, Rocky...

GasLight, I know very well what you are talking about. No writer is going to hit 'icon' every time they create something. I don't think anyone would even want that. And there is a lot to be said for lower impact pieces, art, books, songs. Maybe they are necessary time to build up momentum and foundation towards the next big chart-topper.
But I do firmly believe that as a writer or artist, one should be aware of what is release worthy, and what is not. There is a difference.
You got to hold yourself to some standard; of not giving in to put out disposable material.

The Stones lost that standard of something being releasable in the 1980s with DIRTY WORK and it's hovered around ever since. Keith is just as much to blame as Mick when it comes to the crap songs they've released but it is more Mick than Keith that is making these things come out. Somewhere there was a pole reversal - Mick (more lyrically than musically) used to come up with some fanfuckingtastic songs (SFTD, Brown Sugar, Sway, etc) but recently he's come up with some awful bad songs (Winning Ugly, Sweet Neo Con, Streets Of Love, MAWGJuiced and etc).

My fave is that the guy that wrote Brown Sugar wrote Let's Work? The guy that wrote SFTD wrote You Got Me Rocking?

It's very strange. But. Part of being an artist is experimenting. So they've done some different things. I happen to think a lot of those different things suck and shouldn't've been released... but I certainly get why they did them.

The main problems may be they're getting older, less creative and they - or at least Jagger - tried to enter the pop train in the 80's which failed. Although I think Winning Ugly is a great, not at all a weak song. I even think Sweet Neo Con is pretty good, just not classic Stones. But yes there was enough trash on all albums since 1989.

By the way, most other top acts have the same problem. Look at Genesis/Collins, Clapton, Springsteen or U2. Genesis became a embarrassing charts act during the 80's, the same with Collins' solo stuff (Face Value was a classic). Most of the Clapton stuff he released within the last 20 years is good, but boring (the duet and Blues albums are great). The same with Springsteen. The last U2 album - I don't know. These are the Joshua Tree guys (but they released more or less great album in the 2000's)?!

I don't 100% agree with the assessment you gave of the bands you posted

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

It is such an interesting phenomenon: why artists slow down. I think there are several different scenarios.

One - they just flat out run out of ideas. Elton himself has stated that he believes an artist is granted his window of hyper creativity and vision for a limited number of years. You maximize that, and live off it for the duration.

Two - you get old and misguided; start to follow trends; start trying to hard. You still see it, but you can't reach it anymore.

Three - you've taken too many drugs, and it is self explanatory.

Four - you become fat and lazy, complacent. You don't listen to your real friends and critics anymore. You don't even want to put out new material.

Five - being creative is what you do when you finally have the time for it : after you have taken care of the wife, the kids, the friends, the business, the media black hole.
Eventually you have the time to be alone with a guitar or a piano and start writing songs. If you're in your 40's and you have "creative moments" 10 times less often than when you were 25, your output will suffer (both in quantity and quality).

Quote
dcba

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

It is such an interesting phenomenon: why artists slow down. I think there are several different scenarios.

One - they just flat out run out of ideas. Elton himself has stated that he believes an artist is granted his window of hyper creativity and vision for a limited number of years. You maximize that, and live off it for the duration.

Two - you get old and misguided; start to follow trends; start trying to hard. You still see it, but you can't reach it anymore.

Three - you've taken too many drugs, and it is self explanatory.

Four - you become fat and lazy, complacent. You don't listen to your real friends and critics anymore. You don't even want to put out new material.

Five - being creative is what you do when you finally have the time for it : after you have taken care of the wife, the kids, the friends, the business, the media black hole.
Eventually you have the time to be alone with a guitar or a piano and start writing songs. If you're in your 40's and you have "creative moments" 10 times less often than when you were 25, your output will suffer (both in quantity and quality).

Great point. Your "room" for art/creation diminishes. and to make it even worse: let us assume you have reached a pinnacle of stardom and fame; you have family, social obligations etc., and now you have to make room for writing. You actually have to schedule writing sessions. When you finally do make it to that appointment - it's "pfff..' Nobody can come up with brilliance on the spot. Inspiration hits when it decides to. you are on it's schedule, not the other way around.

... I would also add the fans, who getting old just want old things that remember their youth! But obviously they don't say it ...

[iorr.org]

Quote
Testify
... I would also add the fans, who getting old just want old things that remember their youth! But obviously they don't say it ...

There is something about essence - it's why TATTOO YOU and Start Me Up was such a fantastic success and their last huge LP: it had something.

UNDERCOVER was completely different - too different, in fact, for what Stones fans were used to. It wasn't way out in left field - it was in an entirely different stadium.

DIRTY WORK put them in a whole so deep with the being modern crap of Back To Zero and Winning Ugly that the songs that sounded like the Stones, One Hit and, uh, well... which is why STEEL WHEELS was such a "triumph" - it had some songs that sounded like the Stones; it was a pretty good band-aid.

They've not had that since. Whatever they've done to do different things never achieved the essence of what they sound like in terms of what their true sound is, which goes back to why TATTOO YOU is so well respected.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Testify
... I would also add the fans, who getting old just want old things that remember their youth! But obviously they don't say it ...

There is something about essence - it's why TATTOO YOU and Start Me Up was such a fantastic success and their last huge LP: it had something.

UNDERCOVER was completely different - too different, in fact, for what Stones fans were used to. It wasn't way out in left field - it was in an entirely different stadium.

DIRTY WORK put them in a whole so deep with the being modern crap of Back To Zero and Winning Ugly that the songs that sounded like the Stones, One Hit and, uh, well... which is why STEEL WHEELS was such a "triumph" - it had some songs that sounded like the Stones; it was a pretty good band-aid.

They've not had that since. Whatever they've done to do different things never achieved the essence of what they sound like in terms of what their true sound is, which goes back to why TATTOO YOU is so well respected.

\
Again, this is a very fascinating point in a fascinating subject. The whole issue of age introduces a new unknown factor. It's value is not fixed. It is shifting. This arche type Stones sound changes, I think.
A fan can deem a certain song "The Stones Sound", but years later decide that it is a completely different type song, which exemplifies the band. Or maybe it is still the same song, but it is for different reason.
"JJF" is the real Stones song because of the tough lyrics. "Then "JJF is the real Stones sound because the acoustic guitars introduce a tender element".
And the band itself is growing older, so in their minds, they are about something new now.
There is something ouroboros-like in all this, because I just realized, that I myself never would have said all this years ago.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It is such an interesting phenomenon: why artists slow down. I think there are several different scenarios.
One - they just flat out run out of ideas. Elton himself has stated that he believes an artist is granted his window of hyper creativity and vision for a limited number of years. You maximize that, and live off it for the duration.
Two - you get old and misguided; start to follow trends; start trying to hard. You still see it, but you can't reach it anymore.
Three - you've taken too many drugs, and it is self explanatory.
Four - you become fat and lazy, complacent. You don't listen to your real friends and critics anymore. You don't even want to put out new material.

While I have found plenty of songs that give me a great deal of pleasure since TATTOO YOU, I understand completely that is when they stopped mattering as popular artists. Regardless of the success they achieved, none of it has staying power outside of diehard fans like us.

What Palace Revolution writes above is one of the best things I've ever read on this site. It's rare I read something on iorr aloud to my wife. This was one of them.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Testify
... I would also add the fans, who getting old just want old things that remember their youth! But obviously they don't say it ...

There is something about essence - it's why TATTOO YOU and Start Me Up was such a fantastic success and their last huge LP: it had something.

UNDERCOVER was completely different - too different, in fact, for what Stones fans were used to. It wasn't way out in left field - it was in an entirely different stadium.

DIRTY WORK put them in a whole so deep with the being modern crap of Back To Zero and Winning Ugly that the songs that sounded like the Stones, One Hit and, uh, well... which is why STEEL WHEELS was such a "triumph" - it had some songs that sounded like the Stones; it was a pretty good band-aid.

They've not had that since. Whatever they've done to do different things never achieved the essence of what they sound like in terms of what their true sound is, which goes back to why TATTOO YOU is so well respected.

\
Again, this is a very fascinating point in a fascinating subject. The whole issue of age introduces a new unknown factor. It's value is not fixed. It is shifting. This arche type Stones sound changes, I think.
A fan can deem a certain song "The Stones Sound", but years later decide that it is a completely different type song, which exemplifies the band. Or maybe it is still the same song, but it is for different reason.
"JJF" is the real Stones song because of the tough lyrics. "Then "JJF is the real Stones sound because the acoustic guitars introduce a tender element".
And the band itself is growing older, so in their minds, they are about something new now.
There is something ouroboros-like in all this, because I just realized, that I myself never would have said all this years ago.

I think that what Testify alluded to, is one vital aspect. Because it refers to the band's dependence on reception to its creation. There GasLightStreet's description of the difference between TATTOO YOU and UNDERCOVER has its impact. The former was somewhat backwardlooking, whereas the latter was much more forward oriented in a Rolling Stones horizon. I have for long thought that with another reception to UNDERCOVER, we could have obtained a band much more active in the making of new studio albums (with varying innovativeness) in the years to follow. In case, that may be the major loss of all Stones fans of the later decades, all the music we could have received. Instead there followed "WW III" and almost disbandment.

What lies behind a more reserved reception to UNDERCOVER, possibly also relates to a whole set of other factors. (Those have been discussed before.) It concerns the band's difficulty on this occasion in the gradual renewal of its fanbase and being able to do that with a studio album, which was not backwardlooking, as more or less during the 1981-82's tours. That difficulty may have been related to the arrival of MTV and the MTV generation. Maybe approximately at this time, MTV contributed to an increased split between a commercialized "overground" and an innovative "underground" of geographically separate independent scenes, where groups and bands developed some kinds of exclusivity for its fans. For these scenes, being an established or even a major band, could only be a disadvantage. All this constituted a much more difficult context for the Stones to do once again what they had achieved before. That was to renew their fanbase. Besides, it may present a background that may make it understandable that Mick Jagger tried to have solo career, and not only to condemn it.

If the Stones ever managed to renew their fanbase at large later on, I doubt, even if individuals have become fans. And what ever the answer to that question, then it was a Rolling Stones that had lost its link of continuity to the band they had been, and who had come back from a state of breaking up. Instead the Stones faced the prospect of playing venues in the size of arenas and the kind of mass audiences this would imply. What kind of song material this may comprise, the ambition of recreation live of studio originale, more coreographed shows etc.

All in all, my views is that factors that belong to context are important for explanation of what happened in the '80s.

There's certainly a lot of truth in that, but before UNDERCOVER was even released, Mick had signed the CBS deal with its option for two Jagger solo albums in August 1983. He had already completed a songwriting session in Paris that same month with Carlos Alomar and would conduct a brief demo session at Compass Point with The All-Stars later that Autumn. The reason I mention this is even before the album fizzled commercially, the reaction was one of retreat and distance on Mick's part. That speaks of some frustration obviously even if he didn't often use the press to communicate that as Keith soon would.

I think it's also important to note, from that perspective, that the pressures of working together on UNDERCOVER were a continuation and possibly an intensification of the experience on EMOTIONAL RESCUE. Not that it was always negative. Keith was initially very complimentary about Mick's lyrics comparing them to their late 1960s social-political relevance. After the fact, he would claim to never like these same songs and consider them weak. What started as pride in the work when promoting it became refusal to accept responsibility for what he would portray as Mick's misdirection. That was hugely damaging and likely not completely accurate when one listens to the demos and outtakes. It appears they both wanted a 1983 sounding album, but when it fizzled, it was time to lay blame.

The pressures between them were much worse at times during DIRTY WORK. As fans, we tend to believe DIRTY WORK was no communication between Mick and Keith. While that was sometimes true; at other times, they worked harmoniously and still experienced the joy of clicking with each other. You hear it in the demos and songwriting session that leaked. The change seemed to be post-Live Aid and after CBS sent them back to "do better." Then the finger-pointing begins in earnest.

When creative partners lock horns, they tend to paint the impression that the whole experience was negative when it wasn't the case. It's just like a marriage that fails. Embittered ex-husbands often claim it was hell after the honeymoon and how horrible the wife was to them. Conveniently forgetting all the wonderful times, the laughter, the harmony that every couple experiences. It is the same with creative partners. The reality is the chink in the armor that seems to have started during LET IT BLEED grew to a gaping hole by EMOTIONAL RESCUE and since then has been difficult to patch. What we as fans think should be easy to heal becomes harder and harder with age in spite of all that is right between them much of the time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-22 16:06 by Rocky Dijon.

Besides middle aged misdirection, the dramatic decrease in good sounding songs coincides with the digitization of the studio. The organic, imperfect and rigid analog tape recordings have delivered so well. Does Keith still spend hours perfecting a track, when the process has become so sterile?

In my post that Rocky Dijon commented on, I ought to have written that what followed UNDERCOVER was a deepening of WW III, I acknowledge that.

As to the background for Mick Jagger's solo career plans, I thought most of all about that split between "overground" and "underground" that he himself must have noticed as also a keen observer. I don't really know anything to what extent for Mick a solo career was intended as a supplement or as an alternative to his Stones career. Neither do I know if that degree changed following the procedure of events, among them the comparatively reserved reception to UNDERCOVER. ( For all I know, not too much, maybe it can be contested as well whether that reception was comparatively reserved, not thereby meaning sales though.)

Quote
skytrench
Does Keith still spend hours perfecting a track?

The obvious answer is "no" but it has nothing to do with digital recording.

Quote
dcba

Quote
skytrench
Does Keith still spend hours perfecting a track?

The obvious answer is "no" but it has nothing to do with digital recording.

True, only his own will can stop him from that.

Going to digital has forced artists to produce differently, which could impede an artist who is an expert in obsolete analog production processes. On tape, its much harder to edit, so a cohesive group performance is vital. I feel analog sound is sweeter, despite it's imperfections.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The change seemed to be post-Live Aid and after CBS sent them back to "do better." Then the finger-pointing begins in earnest.

The real change was after Mick's refusal to tour behind Dirty Work, which according to Keith was perceived as breaking up the band. In the end Mick was right though, they had made a horrible album, Watts and Wood were junkie's, Wyman had withdrawn just about completely, and Ian Stewart had died just a couple of months earlier.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
The real change was after Mick's refusal to tour behind Dirty Work, which according to Keith was perceived as breaking up the band. In the end Mick was right though, they had made a horrible album, Watts and Wood were junkie's, Wyman had withdrawn just about completely, and Ian Stewart had died just a couple of months earlier.

Mathijs

As you note, they were already a shambles when it was time to do Dirty Work. I feel they were already losing their way during the Undercover period and then took a longish break before DW.

Quote
skytrench

Quote
Mathijs
The real change was after Mick's refusal to tour behind Dirty Work, which according to Keith was perceived as breaking up the band. In the end Mick was right though, they had made a horrible album, Watts and Wood were junkie's, Wyman had withdrawn just about completely, and Ian Stewart had died just a couple of months earlier.

Mathijs

As you note, they were already a shambles when it was time to do Dirty Work. I feel they were already losing their way during the Undercover period and then took a longish break before DW.

Why were they losing their way?

Not trying to answer for skytrench, but Mick once said "success colors everything" and words to the effect that if you have a lot of success, you think the album is wonderful and if you don't, you pick it apart. That's UNDERCOVER to me.

I think it's a brilliant album that I love, but it was a relative disappointment. Sure it's the sort of disappointment The Kinks or even The Who would have loved to have had, but following SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and TATTOO YOU - it was a disappointment for the Stones. Since the songs haven't become radio staples and only one song was a Top Ten hit with nothing else reaching the Top Forty, it's easy to conclude they lost their way. Whereas The Kinks release WORD OF MOUTH after STATE OF CONFUSION and Kinks fans have no problem considering it a strong album that failed to find an audience. Stones fans don't do that. The Stones have monster classics and the rest are failures.

And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist. Oh and Ian Stewart meant everything to him even though you could fit most of his contribution to albums on the head of a pin after 1965.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why were they losing their way?

I see Palace, Rocky and the other fine poster-s in this thread have dipped into that. Getting older, jaded and having other priorities. Spending less creative time together.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Not trying to answer for skytrench, but Mick once said "success colors everything" and words to the effect that if you have a lot of success, you think the album is wonderful and if you don't, you pick it apart. That's UNDERCOVER to me.

I think it's a brilliant album that I love, but it was a relative disappointment. Sure it's the sort of disappointment The Kinks or even The Who would have loved to have had, but following SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and TATTOO YOU - it was a disappointment for the Stones. Since the songs haven't become radio staples and only one song was a Top Ten hit with nothing else reaching the Top Forty, it's easy to conclude they lost their way. Whereas The Kinks release WORD OF MOUTH after STATE OF CONFUSION and Kinks fans have no problem considering it a strong album that failed to find an audience. Stones fans don't do that. The Stones have monster classics and the rest are failures.

And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist. Oh and Ian Stewart meant everything to him even though you could fit most of his contribution to albums on the head of a pin after 1965.

Notwithstanding a relatively commercial failure, if it was, which I don't know, I belong to a probably quite large minority, who, opposing a narrow majority(?), thinks that UNDERCOVER was a great album, and many of which minority, who also thinks, the latest (hopefully not the last) great Rolling Stones studio album. (Maybe you as well.)

On the other hand, it seems that I am almost alone here to regard the preceding studio album, TATTOO YOU, as not great, although a commercial success. Sadly, I wondered at that time, is it all over? I did so, until the second of two concerts that I attended in Gothenburg in 1982, the second, in contrast to the first, that gave promise of the greatness of UNDERCOVER.

And to reach back towards the theme of the thread, when Palace Revolution 2000 said in part of his answer to Exilestones that labeling Highwire as generic was a personal choice, I may myself declare that I for one, growing up with the '60s singles, might have said the same about "Start Me Up", even if I never found that wording for my experience. If I remember correctly, I once called it the "mother of all 'Stones-by-numbers' ". "Highwire", on the other hand, I feel has got something of the classic old Rolling Stones singles about it, but without any of the said generic.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Not trying to answer for skytrench, but Mick once said "success colors everything" and words to the effect that if you have a lot of success, you think the album is wonderful and if you don't, you pick it apart. That's UNDERCOVER to me.

I think it's a brilliant album that I love, but it was a relative disappointment. Sure it's the sort of disappointment The Kinks or even The Who would have loved to have had, but following SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and TATTOO YOU - it was a disappointment for the Stones. Since the songs haven't become radio staples and only one song was a Top Ten hit with nothing else reaching the Top Forty, it's easy to conclude they lost their way. Whereas The Kinks release WORD OF MOUTH after STATE OF CONFUSION and Kinks fans have no problem considering it a strong album that failed to find an audience. Stones fans don't do that. The Stones have monster classics and the rest are failures.

And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist. Oh and Ian Stewart meant everything to him even though you could fit most of his contribution to albums on the head of a pin after 1965.

It's a tough business. They got a top 10-hit. There was a lot of publicity for the daring - and in some ways inventing - videos. Many reviewers also considered Undercover a brave and innovative album by the Stones.

In reality it was a pretty normal Stones-album, albeit spiced up with two modern-sounding singles and one reggae-ish ballad with some unusual sounds. The rest of it is classic-sounding Stones.

Following up three mega-selling albums like SG, ER and TY was tough, though. However, they were in an even worse position after BAB, but succeeded in reaching a new audience with all of those three albums.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-23 18:57 by DandelionPowderman.

However, in the way EXILE ON MAIN STREET is less easily approachable than, say, LET IT BLEED, that rest of songs of UNDERCOVER, which in reality are quite within classic Stones boundaries, might still be seen as quite demanding as to their approachability. And this comes on top of the modern-sounding Stones elements, that many must have been unfamiliar with.

So GasLightStreet's description in his comparison with TATTOO YOU above gives a very adequate indication of how UNDERCOVER probably must have been experienced by many listeners. Leading to the divided, almost polarized, opinions concerning that album.

And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist.

Heck yeah Bill … that one has been raging for years …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
skytrench

Quote
dcba

Quote
skytrench
Does Keith still spend hours perfecting a track?

The obvious answer is "no" but it has nothing to do with digital recording.

True, only his own will can stop him from that.

Going to digital has forced artists to produce differently, which could impede an artist who is an expert in obsolete analog production processes. On tape, its much harder to edit, so a cohesive group performance is vital. I feel analog sound is sweeter, despite it's imperfections.

You're coloring your perception of digital recording with quality recording from an artist - they're nowhere near the same category.

Digital recording doesn't stop an artist from doing 70 takes of a song to get it right. It hasn't "forced artists to produce differently". Perhaps you don't understand what editing means with recording an album but it's got zero to do with what the artist is doing for the recording.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Not trying to answer for skytrench, but Mick once said "success colors everything" and words to the effect that if you have a lot of success, you think the album is wonderful and if you don't, you pick it apart. That's UNDERCOVER to me.

I think it's a brilliant album that I love, but it was a relative disappointment. Sure it's the sort of disappointment The Kinks or even The Who would have loved to have had, but following SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and TATTOO YOU - it was a disappointment for the Stones. Since the songs haven't become radio staples and only one song was a Top Ten hit with nothing else reaching the Top Forty, it's easy to conclude they lost their way. Whereas The Kinks release WORD OF MOUTH after STATE OF CONFUSION and Kinks fans have no problem considering it a strong album that failed to find an audience. Stones fans don't do that. The Stones have monster classics and the rest are failures.

And (cough) if they're failures, it's all Mick's fault, Keith's the purist. Oh and Ian Stewart meant everything to him even though you could fit most of his contribution to albums on the head of a pin after 1965.

Mick and his sales.


Mick: Nahhhhh, we're not gonna tour UNDERCOVER. We just did a big tour. Oh you know we just did the videos, there's no need. I feel that this record is very different, you know, The Rolling Stones in 1983 or whatever year it is. You know, it's very now, much like SOME GIRLS was. Besides, there's a greatest hits comp coming out after so why bother.

EMOTIONAL RESCUE US sales - 2 million - without a tour.

UNDERCOVER US sales - 1 million - without a tour.

DIRTY WORK US sales - 1 million - without a tour.

STEEL WHEELS US sales - 2 million - with a tour.

Mick: All of our 1980s albums were failures. I mean, well, you know, aside from TATTOOOO YOUUUU. Obviously when you tour, you know, I mean, well, STEEL WHEELS, STALE WHALES was a huge success, the tour was, right. You know, I mean, you've got this big masssssive stage, right. We did a lot on that tour, really. I had all these donces that I did, all choreographed. The dolls, the dogs. It was very up, a lot of energy. Bigger than ever. I mean, youknowwhutImean, the record did pretty good, it wasn't number one but, you know, pfffft, we've done all that, right. For once the tour took longer than making the record. Silly on that one, right.


Yeah, I liked (Undercover). It didn't sell perhaps as much as I would have liked, though it sold over 2 million copies - I shouldn't really complain. There was plenty of stuff on it that was mine: Undercover, She Was Hot. Keith contributed to all that stuff. Some was completely his. But it wasn't like I was frustrated with it because it wasn't my material.
- Mick Jagger, 1984

(It's a reflection of today). That was my immediate reaction to the thing. Look out your front door. Look at the news. You tell me. I'm sure Mick or I or anybody else would be happy not to be bombarded with some of these images, but we are supposedly living in a real world, after all. In a way, this album is a brother to Gimmee Shelter and maybe Beggars Banquet, or a mixture of those 2 records.
- Keith Richards, 1983

I think Mick has done an incredible job. I think he's taken quite a leap forward, lyric-wise, on this album.
- Keith Richards, 1983

Obviously, I think it's pretty good and it's the best we could make right now. I'm pretty happy with it.
- Keith Richards, 1983


I thought it was a little busy. It didn't hang together, although some of the individual tracks I enjoyed very much. Some albums, you can have some of the best tracks in the world, and they just don't hang together, track by track by track. It's the hardest bit to do sometimes because you have to choose the tracks when you just don't know anymore, because you're at the end of the whole process of making a record. If it sounds cohesive that's always a bit of luck.
- Keith Richards, late 1980s/90s

Not a very special record.
- Mick Jagger, 1995


[www.timeisonourside.com]

I think Dirty Work is a great record but, I mean, there are other things to do in life (besides go on tour).
- Mick Jagger, March 1986

The album wasn't that good. It was OKAY. It certainly wasn't a great Rolling Stones album. The feeling inside the band was very bad, too. The relationships were terrible. The health was diabolical. I wasn't in particularly good shape. The rest of the band, they couldn't walk across the Champs Elysées, much less go on the road.
- Mick Jagger, 1989


(It's n)ot special.
- Mick Jagger, 1995

(The '80s was a d)ifficult period... There's a couple of good things on Dirty Work.
- Keith Richards, July 2002

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Steel Wheels was a damn good album.
- Keith Richards, 2018

[www.timeisonourside.com]

I don't know if Steel Wheels is better than Voodoo Lounge, actually. I don't think there's a huge difference of quality between the two albums. I wish there was, but I'm afraid, in the end, I don't think there is... Perhaps if the Voodoo Lounge album had been more successful commercially, I might have agreed (that Voodoo Lounge was better), because commercial success changes everything. It colors your opinions. If it had sold 5 million albums, I'd be saying to you, It's definitely better than Steel Wheels.
- Mick Jagger, 1995

[www.timeisonourside.com]

One day soon, when I retire, I'll know GasLight will be there to do my job better than I can.

Except for "Honest Man."

He still needs me to stick around for that one.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
One day soon, when I retire, I'll know GasLight will be there to do my job better than I can.

Except for "Honest Man."

He still needs me to stick around for that one.

There's really no need for you to continue to go on about Mick's follow up to the magnificiently pathetic and horrendous Let's Work follow up, the audio version of a million balloons falling into the ocean, choking turtles, fish and cetaceans. It's very unbecoming and in high regard for zero couth.

Quote
GasLightStreet
You're coloring your perception of digital recording with quality recording from an artist - they're nowhere near the same category.

Digital recording doesn't stop an artist from doing 70 takes of a song to get it right. It hasn't "forced artists to produce differently". Perhaps you don't understand what editing means with recording an album but it's got zero to do with what the artist is doing for the recording.

It hasn't forced artists, but seduced them with the hope of results from less effort. It has become less important to create that optimal 88th take, when you can 'correct' the 8th one in software. You can even upload your part from another continent. The whole process has changed and that is bound to affect the artists output.