..How do you like them apples ?

...They're great ...but just check out these oranges !

In contrast to most posters:

Worried About You 6/10
Tops ÷1/10 (yes, confirmed, it is a minus one)
Heaven 6,5/10
No Use In Crying 8,5/10
Waiting On A Friend 10/10

How I Wish 8,5/10
Rockawhile 9/10
Whip It Up 8/10
Locked Away 9/10
It Means A Lot 8/10

A fairer comparison for TATTOO YOU I regard for instance STEEL WHEELS to be.

Later added: I consider TALK IS CHEAP as the best Rolling Stones solo album. Does that necessarily make me a Keith Richards diehard?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-01 10:59 by Witness.

Quote
Witness



I consider TALK IS CHEAP as the best Rolling Stones solo album. Does that necessarily make me a Keith Richards diehard?

Haha, I guess not, but then again: aren't we all some kind of Keith Richards diehards here, even though we might not always love every farth he does?

To me TALK IS CHEAP is an album that had a point in a context, but that context have diseppeared, like most of 80's stuff, a long ago. I used to love (I rarely use that word, but I do now) the album so much back then, as an album it stood out, especially compared to Jagger's latest, just being Keith's first solo album had a charm in itself, played it to death and all that shit. But I don't think Father Time has been very kind to it. That's at least the observation I made when re-listened it more closely at the time of its new reissue a while ago.

I think there are two actually great songs in it: "Take it So Hard" and "Make No Mistake" - but even those would not be that outstanding in a proper Stones album (not probably even in DIRTY WORK) - but let's say making the spot of "now Keith Richards sings for you" the Stones albums are doomed to have. The rest of it is basically filler stuff, some occasional signs of brilliance here and there. "You Don't Move Me" has potential, but damn that's recorded awfully and the song just drags. It tries to move, but never gets anywhere. "Big Enough" and "Struggle" are just awful - forget the weak and almost embarrassing vocals (and lyrics), what's the point of trying to be funky if one's stuff doesn't make your ass move? What's left there on A-side? Yeah, that pastishe rock and roll number Keith or anyone can do in while sleeping (in which Taylor does his best not to stand out anyway). So, that's the A-side, and it clearly stronger side than B-side, of which I better say nothing...

Over-all, I think TALK IS CHEAP is critically over-rated. I think that's due to more historical and non-musical factors than of its real musical content.

But still, TALK IS CHEAP is also in my rating among best Rolling Stones solo efforts, but shining there doesn't really ask too much...

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-01 14:31 by Doxa.

Well, well, but in my view it is the other album in the comparison here that I find , if I may use your words, critically overrated and TALK IS CHEAP not. And my attitude to that former album really has never changed from the days when I wondered after its release if it was sadly all over. At least, I later obtained UNDERCOVER as an album of greatness in my estimation.

Doxa now please give us your opinion on MO!
(and I'd really like to read it).

Quote
Doxa
Are you joking? Compare one of the most perfect and legendary album sides of world's greatest rock band at their prime to some secondary side product of one Rolling Stone? Or is there some kind of 'Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones' presuppostion in the question?

There is a difference between a show highlight and a piss break, and that's the difference in quality between TATTOO YOU and TALK IS CHEAP B-sides (or whatever sides). In TATTOU YOU any bloody note, word, sound, nuance is nothing but a perfection, The Stones in their very top form, but the b-side of TALK IS CHEAP is basically a bunch of simple children songs both in lyrically and melodically put through sloppy jamming with the hopeful idea if the output might turn up be something like unique. Sure there is a keithrichardsian 'feel' the True Beliveres with their acquired taste might recognice, but for the the rest of the people - with some sort of reasonable taste and judgment - it all will be 'what a fvck this boring shit is?'... None of Jaggerian focus, or wit or swagger or sex, nor wattsian minimalism, precise and swing, or any of keithrichardsian actual genious in melodies or riffs is present ... just listen all that tasteless noisy drumming, weak guitar sounds, non-finished song sketches, half-baked riffs, lousy vocals, over-all laziness, terrible production... huh!

But like I said there must be some sort of metaphyhysical rule that 'Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones' to get the comparison in some sort of acceptable level (the rule I never have grasped).

Is the next comparing the c-side of EXILE to b-side of MONKEY GRIP or GODDESS IN DOORWAY or something?

- Doxa

A bit tweaked, eh? Would it be better if it was DIRTY WORK vs Side 3 of EOMS or are you just a Keith Richards hater? Kinds looks that way. Obviously there's some lack of light winds aloft while everyone else can have a bit of fun with it.

Quote
Doxa
Are you joking? Compare one of the most perfect and legendary album sides of world's greatest rock band at their prime ...

Seriously?

Talk is Cheap has aged gracefully and will always be amongst my favorite Stones-related albums.
No doubt in my mind it's better than any Stones album from Dirty Work forward, and is arguably better than Undercover as a whole, though that's a close call when breaking it all down.
Doesn't compare to Tattoo You in any way though - the last great Stones album will always win no matter how you compare or break it down.

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Obviously, the Stones didn't think so, as they released a single the year after that was suspiciously similar (Mixed Emotions).

Yes, but ten times better, by a much better group and vocalist.

Quote
Witness
Well, well, but in my view it is the other album in the comparison here that I find , if I may use your words, critically overrated and TALK IS CHEAP not. And my attitude to that former album really has never changed from the days when I wondered after its release if it was sadly all over. At least, I later obtained UNDERCOVER as an album of greatness in my estimation.

Yeah, I was actually about to write that what I say of TALK IS CHEAP is most likely something you would say of TATTOO YOU, Witness. That's what you have been saying for years, and I do appreciate your well-argued point there.

For me judging TATTOO YOU has been always a tough one, since it has had such a huge impact on me. It was the album I, as a young kid, get to know the band as and I still would say it is my favourite Stones album of all-time, even though I wouldn't say it is their best, or even close to that. Too much subjective value to really compare it fairly to any other Stones album. Anyway, all I can say is that it never lost its charm on me. Quite the opposite: I think as the years go by, and albums come and go, it just feels like an ageless masterpiece. This is totally different with any other Stones or Stones-related (Mick or Keith) album since then. No matter how much I once without any hesitation loved UNDERCOVER, SHE'S THE BOSS, DIRTY WORK, PRIMITIVE COOL, TALK IS CHEAP, STEEL WHEELS, all of those have lost their appeal along the years, some very quickly, some many years after (for the latter, TALK IS CHEAP, almost shockingly for me, is among them). I think there is a huge gap in quality between TATTOO YOU and anything the big boys have released since then - and like I said, it feels like the gap just getting bigger as teh years go by - TATTOO YOU just feels stronger and all the rest since then more and more mediocre.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-02 12:26 by Doxa.

Quote
dcba
Doxa now please give us your opinion on MO!
(and I'd really like to read it).

Playing devil's advocate here?

I haven't much discussed about Keith's post-prime doings lately here, because I have tried to follow BV's maxim that 'if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say anything'. But since I already revealed my feelings about TALK IS CHEAP (inspired by the - unfair - comparison to TATTOO YOU), why not to do the same for MAIN OFFENDER as well at the same token.

Unlike TALK IS CHEAP, I have never really liked MAIN OFFENDER that much. It was actually the first new Stones-related album (means Stones or Jagger & Richards solo, the others don't count) failed to charm me. I, as a loyal fan still back then, tried and tried to listen the album, but no matter how much I tried, it just didn't click on me. I haven't really listened the album for decades now, except a couple of tunes occasionally, so my opinion is mostly based on recollection.

I think if tehre is one album that should given a subtitle 'For Hardcore Keith Richards Fans Only' this is the one. That's its strenght and weakness. If TALK IS CHEAP was as much a Rolling Stones type album as possible - its appeal I think pretty much was at the time that of giving as a reminder of good old Stones in the middle of 80's chaos - MAIN OFFENDER is more a deeper study to Keith Richards component in the Rolling Stones. It is the riffmaster there, the songs being more and more unfinished templates, creating a jam-based atmosphere. An angel in me says that it was an artistic choice and aim, but a cynic in me says that the man is running out of focus and fresh ideas.

Anyway, the album starts with three or so similar-sounding riff-templates, and that's the test most people I guess fail to pass. There true Richards fans are to be separated from more casual ones. Which is a shame, because then one might miss some true gems the album has. For me there is two of them: "Hate It When You Leave" and "Words of Wonder". The first-mentioned, well-crafted tune belongs to the best soulful Richards ballads ever, and the latter is clearly the best reggae tune the Stones or a Rolling Stone ever have done. Stronger stuff than I think Keith numbers on Stones albums typically are (since the golden days of TATTOO YOU).

But the rest of it... My memory escapes to distinguish between them... an endless strain of riff excercises, random phrases, jams... Sonically it is better than TALK IS CHEAP, with meaner guitars, Keith's vocals probably a bit stronger (but not enough to carry a whole album), but too much is too much for me. Without a trained ear, if one hears one, one has heard all of them. I would pick up "Yap Yap", which has all the 'faults' I hear in latter day's Keith's way of writing, but it somehow works on me. Another thing, which prevents me of liking the outcome that much, is just I probably have never liked that much X-Winos as a band. I am sure they were a helluva concert act if witnessed live (unfortunately I haven't), but on a record I find them rather boring and one-dimensional.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-02 12:15 by Doxa.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa
Are you joking? Compare one of the most perfect and legendary album sides of world's greatest rock band at their prime to some secondary side product of one Rolling Stone? Or is there some kind of 'Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones' presuppostion in the question?

There is a difference between a show highlight and a piss break, and that's the difference in quality between TATTOO YOU and TALK IS CHEAP B-sides (or whatever sides). In TATTOU YOU any bloody note, word, sound, nuance is nothing but a perfection, The Stones in their very top form, but the b-side of TALK IS CHEAP is basically a bunch of simple children songs both in lyrically and melodically put through sloppy jamming with the hopeful idea if the output might turn up be something like unique. Sure there is a keithrichardsian 'feel' the True Beliveres with their acquired taste might recognice, but for the the rest of the people - with some sort of reasonable taste and judgment - it all will be 'what a fvck this boring shit is?'... None of Jaggerian focus, or wit or swagger or sex, nor wattsian minimalism, precise and swing, or any of keithrichardsian actual genious in melodies or riffs is present ... just listen all that tasteless noisy drumming, weak guitar sounds, non-finished song sketches, half-baked riffs, lousy vocals, over-all laziness, terrible production... huh!

But like I said there must be some sort of metaphyhysical rule that 'Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones' to get the comparison in some sort of acceptable level (the rule I never have grasped).

Is the next comparing the c-side of EXILE to b-side of MONKEY GRIP or GODDESS IN DOORWAY or something?

- Doxa

A bit tweaked, eh? Would it be better if it was DIRTY WORK vs Side 3 of EOMS or are you just a Keith Richards hater? Kinds looks that way. Obviously there's some lack of light winds aloft while everyone else can have a bit of fun with it.

C'mon, Skippy, I probably forgot to put enough of smiling/winkling/laughing faces or something there. Of course, I am a Keith Richards hater in today's vocabulary. You either 'love' or 'hate' these days, no grey areas or room for another concepts.

- Doxa

Nothing beats the second side of Tattoo You, period..
But the whole of Crosseyed Heart comes close.
Talk Is Cheap not so much.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
Well, well, but in my view it is the other album in the comparison here that I find , if I may use your words, critically overrated and TALK IS CHEAP not. And my attitude to that former album really has never changed from the days when I wondered after its release if it was sadly all over. At least, I later obtained UNDERCOVER as an album of greatness in my estimation.

Yeah, I was actually about to write that what I say of TALK IS CHEAP is most likely something you would say of TATTOO YOU, Witness. That's what you have been saying for years, and I do appreciate your well-argued point there.

For me judging TATTOO YOU has been always a tough one, since it has had such a huge impact on me. It was the album I, as a young kid, get to know the band as and I still would say it is my favourite Stones album of all-time, even though I wouldn't say it is their best, or even close to that. Too much subjective value to really compare it fairly to any other Stones album. Anyway, all I can say is that it never lost its charm on me. Quite the opposite: I think as the years go by, and albums come and go, it just feels like an ageless masterpiece. This is totally different with any other Stones or Stones-related (Mick or Keith) album since then. No matter how much I once without any hesitation loved UNDERCOVER, SHE'S THE BOSS, DIRTY WORK, PRIMITIVE COOL, TALK IS CHEAP, STEEL WHEELS, all of those have lost their appeal along the years, some very quickly, some many years after (for the latter, TALK IS CHEAP, almost shockingly for me, is among them). I think there is a huge gap in quality between TATTOO YOU and anything the big boys have released since then - and like I said, it feels like the gap just getting bigger as teh years go by - TATTOO YOU just feels stronger and all the rest since then more and more mediocre.

- Doxa

I think ageless is a good observation. That album still 'sounds' fresh which I think you can give Bob Clearmountain a fair amount of credit for.

It really was the perfect 'latter day' stones masterpiece, a mid-career peak.

I only disagree with you on Take it So Hard and Make No Mistake being of poorer quality than Dirty Work. As a 'Stones album' I'd rate Talk Is Cheap a 6.5/10 whereas Tattoo You 9.5/10 (Neighbours drags it down a bit).

Talk is Cheap is on par with a slimmed down version of Voodoo Lounge, or MAYBE Steel Wheels.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Obviously, the Stones didn't think so, as they released a single the year after that was suspiciously similar (Mixed Emotions).

Yes, but ten times better, by a much better group and vocalist.

I prefer Take It So Hard, but I like both tunes.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Obviously, the Stones didn't think so, as they released a single the year after that was suspiciously similar (Mixed Emotions).

Yes, but ten times better, by a much better group and vocalist.

I prefer Take It So Hard, but I like both tunes.

I also think Take It So Hard is better...my problem with Mixed Emotions, is that I think it leads to Don't Stop, which is completely generic stones by numbers. I think we see evidence of that beginning with Mixed Emotions.

Actually, why stick to the B-sides of those albums only? The difference in quality between side 1 and side 2 on Talk Is Cheap is huge (side 2 is better obviously) whereas with Tattoo You both sides are fantastic but so different from each other (and also here, side 2 is better).
Of course, the valuations are relative for each album. A 10 for TY has more overal worth than a 10 for TiC, because TY is the Himalaya and TiC is the Lake District.


"Start Me Up" 10/10
"Hang Fire" 3/10
"Slave" 10/10
"Little T&A" 9/10
"Black Limousine" 10/10
"Neighbours" 10/10

"Worried About You" 10/10
"Tops" 10/10
"Heaven" 10/10
"No Use in Crying" 10/10
"Waiting on a Friend" 10/10


"Big Enough" 1/10
"Take It So Hard" 10/10
"Struggle" 5/10
"I Could Have Stood You Up" 5/10
"Make No Mistake" 10/10
"You Don't Move Me" 10/10

"How I Wish" 10/10
"Rockawhile" 10/10
"Whip It Up" 7/10
"Locked Away" 10/10
"It Means a Lot" 10/10

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Obviously, the Stones didn't think so, as they released a single the year after that was suspiciously similar (Mixed Emotions).

Yes, but ten times better, by a much better group and vocalist.

I prefer Take It So Hard, but I like both tunes.

I also think Take It So Hard is better...my problem with Mixed Emotions, is that I think it leads to Don't Stop, which is completely generic stones by numbers. I think we see evidence of that beginning with Mixed Emotions.

I agree that Take it So Hard is better, and how Mixed Emotions eventually lead to mediocre/generic soft pop rock Don't Stop.

Additionally, I think the production of Talk is Cheap is part of what helps it defy the aging process - no weirdness that makes it sound dated.
One may or may not like some of the songs on Talk is Cheap (I love them all), but no denying the production was pure and simple - same with Main Offender and Crosseyed Heart.

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

Funny how we fans can differ. I prefer Mixed Emotions over Take It So Hard because the melody is better, the drumming is better, Keith's singing doesn't come close to Mick's, the sound is better: mainly the drums are awful on Take It and the guitars on Mixed have a nice, subtle ring to them, plus there's no silly keyboard part (talk about dated!). Having said that, Take It is one of the better tracks on the album.
Main Offender in my opinion was an improvement soundwise, plus a number of songs were more balanced as compositions (some others were still senseless 'jams' trying to convey the notion: I'm Keith and I am the Stones, not Mick, which many fans fell for until Wandering Spirit showed us otherwise).
For me, Talk Is Cheap was the album that we had to do with as there was no Stones at the time, but pretty soon it went out of date for me and I only ever play it when it is 'due' when I'm bingeplaying my Stones collection as it were.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa
Are you joking? Compare one of the most perfect and legendary album sides of world's greatest rock band at their prime to some secondary side product of one Rolling Stone? Or is there some kind of 'Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones' presuppostion in the question?

There is a difference between a show highlight and a piss break, and that's the difference in quality between TATTOO YOU and TALK IS CHEAP B-sides (or whatever sides). In TATTOU YOU any bloody note, word, sound, nuance is nothing but a perfection, The Stones in their very top form, but the b-side of TALK IS CHEAP is basically a bunch of simple children songs both in lyrically and melodically put through sloppy jamming with the hopeful idea if the output might turn up be something like unique. Sure there is a keithrichardsian 'feel' the True Beliveres with their acquired taste might recognice, but for the the rest of the people - with some sort of reasonable taste and judgment - it all will be 'what a fvck this boring shit is?'... None of Jaggerian focus, or wit or swagger or sex, nor wattsian minimalism, precise and swing, or any of keithrichardsian actual genious in melodies or riffs is present ... just listen all that tasteless noisy drumming, weak guitar sounds, non-finished song sketches, half-baked riffs, lousy vocals, over-all laziness, terrible production... huh!

But like I said there must be some sort of metaphyhysical rule that 'Keith Richards is The Rolling Stones' to get the comparison in some sort of acceptable level (the rule I never have grasped).

Is the next comparing the c-side of EXILE to b-side of MONKEY GRIP or GODDESS IN DOORWAY or something?

- Doxa

A bit tweaked, eh? Would it be better if it was DIRTY WORK vs Side 3 of EOMS or are you just a Keith Richards hater? Kinds looks that way. Obviously there's some lack of light winds aloft while everyone else can have a bit of fun with it.

C'mon, Skippy, I probably forgot to put enough of smiling/winkling/laughing faces or something there. Of course, I am a Keith Richards hater in today's vocabulary. You either 'love' or 'hate' these days, no grey areas or room for another concepts.

- Doxa

Ehhhhhhhh, alright. Just seemed a bit over the top heavy handed - as in, unnecessary.

I love and hate Keith and Mick - there's always room for grey areas. It may be a little mind rattling - the dude that wrote SFTD, Wild Horses and Brown Sugar wrote Let's Work, She's The Boss, Might As Well Get Juiced and Streets Of Love (among a ton of other shit songs)? The guy that came up with Gimme Shelter wrote It Means A Lot, Yap Yap and Body Talks?

It is astounding sometimes.

Tattoo You has Waiting on A Friend which makes it the winner right there,

Quote
SomeGuy
Funny how we fans can differ. I prefer Mixed Emotions over Take It So Hard because the melody is better, the drumming is better, Keith's singing doesn't come close to Mick's, the sound is better: mainly the drums are awful on Take It and the guitars on Mixed have a nice, subtle ring to them, plus there's no silly keyboard part (talk about dated!). Having said that, Take It is one of the better tracks on the album.

Take It So Hard is the best new Stones song of the 1980s.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Obviously, the Stones didn't think so, as they released a single the year after that was suspiciously similar (Mixed Emotions).

Yes, but ten times better, by a much better group and vocalist.

I prefer Take It So Hard, but I like both tunes.

I also think Take It So Hard is better...my problem with Mixed Emotions, is that I think it leads to Don't Stop, which is completely generic stones by numbers. I think we see evidence of that beginning with Mixed Emotions.

I agree that Take it So Hard is better, and how Mixed Emotions eventually lead to mediocre/generic soft pop rock Don't Stop.

Additionally, I think the production of Talk is Cheap is part of what helps it defy the aging process - no weirdness that makes it sound dated.
One may or may not like some of the songs on Talk is Cheap (I love them all), but no denying the production was pure and simple - same with Main Offender and Crosseyed Heart.

Agreed, the production isn't typical 80s polish, makes it less dated now.

Quote
GasLightStreet


Take It So Hard is the best new Stones song of the 1980s.

Truly, all hope is gone then.

Quote
slew
Tattoo You has Waiting on A Friend which makes it the winner right there,

...and Slave, and Worried About You, Tops, Ain't No Use, Little T&A...not a duff track in there.

Another classic IORR thread -discussing whether a bunch of Keith demos done with hack studio musicians is as good as a side of one of the best albums ever released by the greatest rock and roll band ever.
How many of you actually saw the fckng New Barbarians? I’m guessing not many.
I went to high school with a guy who played drums in bars on the weekend that was a better drummer than Steve Jordan.
Yeah,this is classic stuff- when I think of the greats it’s always Beck, Page , Clapton,Hendrix, Van Halen ,,, Wachtel.
Absolutely needs to be mentioned in the same breath as one of rocks greatest albums.

Quote
Doxa
. I would pick up "Yap Yap", which has all the 'faults' I hear in latter day's Keith's way of writing, but it somehow works on me. Another thing, which prevents me of liking the outcome that much, is just I probably have never liked that much X-Winos as a band. I am sure they were a helluva concert act if witnessed live (unfortunately I haven't), but on a record I find them rather boring and one-dimensional.

- Doxa

Yap Yap was a track that I didn't pay much attention to when Main Offender was released ...but it's grown on me...and it's a track which you could easily imagine being on Cross Eyed Heart nearly 30 years later.

When Keith made TIC and MO he was a little conflicted between his natural inclinations and feeling he needed to put out the kind of stuff that folks expected from "Keef Richards".

He since seems to have become bit more comfortable with himself... whilst for our part...maybe some of our tastes have mellowed a little, with a bit more appreciation for the less rawkus stuff .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-04 10:12 by Spud.

Quote
lem motlow
Another classic IORR thread -discussing whether a bunch of Keith demos done with hack studio musicians is as good as a side of one of the best albums ever released by the greatest rock and roll band ever.
How many of you actually saw the fckng New Barbarians? I’m guessing not many.
I went to high school with a guy who played drums in bars on the weekend that was a better drummer than Steve Jordan.
Yeah,this is classic stuff- when I think of the greats it’s always Beck, Page , Clapton,Hendrix, Van Halen ,,, Wachtel.
Absolutely needs to be mentioned in the same breath as one of rocks greatest albums.

I saw the New Barbarians - and started this thread.

"No Anchovies, Please"

I loved the New Barbarians ...

...But it was the Rolling Stones that paved the way for the Barbarians to get away with making such a glorious but shambolic racket !

Regard to "Take It So Hard" vs. "Mixed Emotions" controversy here, I think I give my vote to Keith's solo song. I haven't really never thought those two songs as similar, but yeah, there is a structural resemblance there I admit. But the outcome and 'feel' is so different that I tend to see them as incommonsurable. Someone suggested here - rightly I think - that there is a trait of latter-day 'Stones-by-numbers' in "Mixed Emotions", and I think for that reason the song is a rather forgettable song in their catalogue. But it sounded appropriate and relevant at the time, like a manifestation of all that buddy-buddy re-union feel in 1989.

But "Take It So Hard" might be the best singular Keith solo song ever released. I think it is perfect what it is, and probably also says about all Keith solo number can say (and I think most, if not all, of his solo 'rockers' are just lesser variants of it, never reaching the target as it does). It actually belongs to the level of best Stones 'Keith numbers' of all time. I see it as a proper follower of "Happy", "Before They Make Me Run" and "Little T&A" - those great mid-tempo Keef rockers. Altogether after disappointing "Wanna Hold You" (and also "Too Rude" and "Sleep Tonight"), that song was Keith back in form. In a way it is sad that Keith 'wasted' it by realeasing it solo - it could have been a great show number in Stones concerts, played instead, say, "Happy" or "Before They Make Me Run", him I think easily nailing it even today.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-04 19:59 by Doxa.