For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
LeonidP
Not great, but not that bad an album. I played it to death when it came out. I actually haven't listened to it in years, I'll have to change that.
Quote
stone66
I remember it as an okay album at the time; Hard Woman is an even better song than any of the singles.
Quote
GasLightStreet
And it can be argued that the quality of Stones albums has dwindled considerably ever since, with Mick (and Keith, to a lesser extend it seems) writing songs for solo albums and having the "I'll save this one for the Stones" moments that, not that I have any numbers, doesn't seem to have worked out very well.
That aside, I liked it when it came out. It was certainly different. But it's pretty bad. It makes the trendiness on UNDERCOVER sound like EOMS in comparison.
Quote
Donnebr
That video was probably state of the art at the time
Quote
bv
I can't really understand why people are so upset by the Mick Jagger solo projects. He just made a record, it is not like he went on and shot somebody. Those who loved the solo record were happy. Those who thought he cheated on the Stones had something to get grumpy about. Further, 35 years on, The Rolling Stones are still alive and kicking, touring, working on new material, so what is the problem?
Quote
GasLightStreet
And it can be argued that the quality of Stones albums has dwindled considerably ever since, with Mick (and Keith, to a lesser extend it seems) writing songs for solo albums and having the "I'll save this one for the Stones" moments that, not that I have any numbers, doesn't seem to have worked out very well.
Quote
DoxaQuote
GasLightStreet
And it can be argued that the quality of Stones albums has dwindled considerably ever since, with Mick (and Keith, to a lesser extend it seems) writing songs for solo albums and having the "I'll save this one for the Stones" moments that, not that I have any numbers, doesn't seem to have worked out very well.
I pretty much agree with that - since Jagger started to think that some songs fitting for the Stones and some others to different projects, that was an indication that the Stones were a rather closed box creatively for him. That is to say, he didn't see any longer see the Stones as his main creative medium by which he could manifest his ideas. The result I believe is a 'Stones-by-numbers' type of songs.
But I think the creative colloboration between Mick and Keith had already started to dry by the time Jagger started his solo career. I think the latter is a symptom of the former, not the other way around, like many seem to suggest (a big problem was that of him and Keith not any longer agreeing on music as they did before). Jagger had realized that the magic of The Glimmer Twins had gone, and in order to kick his own ass, he wanted to have different people from whom to get inspiration. That didn't quite succeed, which might have been more a sign of him not having the creative spark or ability any longer. When the muse lefts the town, it does - there is no one to blame for that. But I don't think had he just bite his tongue and had continued to work with the Stones and Keith, and no solo records, the results would have been any more inspired or better. Probably the opposite.
Whatever Mick or Keith alone or together have done since the early 80's is just a cruel reminder that those two guys had already realized about all of their potentiality in quality back in the 60's and 70's. Probably for lesser mortals even those latter-day records might have been a reason to celebrate, but not for them. Their high is much higher than almost anyone's in the history of rock music. It's pretty rough to be creative against that kind of legacy. They know it too: all one needs to do is to go and see them in concert.
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
And I'm amongst those who find She's The Boss a pretty Stonesy album, especially after what they were experimenting with on Undercover. There are no reasons, imo, for songs like Lonely At The Top, 1/2 A Loaf, Running Out Of Luck, Hard Woman, Just Another Night or Secrets not to be on a Stones album. They practically are Stones tunes, structurally and attitude-wise.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
...And I'm amongst those who find She's The Boss a pretty Stonesy album, especially after what they were experimenting with on Undercover. There are no reasons, imo, for songs like Lonely At The Top, 1/2 A Loaf, Running Out Of Luck, Hard Woman, Just Another Night or Secrets not to be on a Stones album. They practically are Stones tunes, structurally and attitude-wise.
They could have sounded better with Keith, Ronnie, Charlie and Bill, though.
Quote
keithsmanQuote
GasLightStreet
And it can be argued that the quality of Stones albums has dwindled considerably ever since, with Mick (and Keith, to a lesser extend it seems) writing songs for solo albums and having the "I'll save this one for the Stones" moments that, not that I have any numbers, doesn't seem to have worked out very well.
That aside, I liked it when it came out. It was certainly different. But it's pretty bad. It makes the trendiness on UNDERCOVER sound like EOMS in comparison.
It's a bit of a stretch to say Mick saved his best Stones album material for his solo albums, did you listen to his solo albums , doubt much of that would get on a Stones album. Although he did make one passable album that comes close to material you might identify with as Stones album filler.
I think Mick going solo shocked many of us, we know Mick worked very hard on them and enrolled some top notch musicians, but all it served to prove was that musically Keith is the main songwriter in the Stones and clearly the sound of the Stones is Keith's alone.
Mick has realised this and has turned a negative into a positive, he had the intelligence to know the only way he can earn some real coin was to get back with Keith and tour with the Stones and milk it for all its worth, Mick's talent is a physical one since WW3 in extending his career as a performer by staying incredibly fit. At almost 77 years of age suspiciously fit i might add.
Quote
Spud
He wanted to do something with that 80s slickness , with fancy musicians and different from that Stones rough n ready sound and style.
At least he got some of it out of his system...
Quote
IrelandCalling4
There's something charming about it; it's not a great album of course but something charming, perhaps nostalgia. The way Beck's guitar slides over a very Nile Rodgers-esque opening on the title track - moments like those I do really like. Some good tracks - Secrets, Just Another Night, Hard Woman, She's the Boss.
Campy though it is, I loved the film, Running out of Luck. Saw it same time as McCartneys Broad Street; Jaggers seemed much better. Campy, silly, but fun. Saw it recently and it's as fun as ever.
Quote
Swayed1967
You can tell Mick really cared about this project by the ungodly amount of makeup he wore in the Just Another Night video. (And I just adore the campy way he sings 'And I never thought you'd keep our rendezvous' - only Mick could get away with that.)
The cover of the album, where he’s lazing on a bed in his undershirt, belies the relentless pace Mick maintains for most of the record – coke-fueled songwriting perhaps? At any rate, if you were 18 and a Stones fan when She’s The Boss came like I was this was an irresistible record. Sure, it was the antithesis of ‘Classic Stones’ but as a disciple you blindly followed Mick in whatever direction he chose. (I got a job after 'Let's Work' came out.)
Unlistenable crap today of course (though I always maintain this is his best solo release).
Quote
keithsmanQuote
GasLightStreet
And it can be argued that the quality of Stones albums has dwindled considerably ever since, with Mick (and Keith, to a lesser extend it seems) writing songs for solo albums and having the "I'll save this one for the Stones" moments that, not that I have any numbers, doesn't seem to have worked out very well.
That aside, I liked it when it came out. It was certainly different. But it's pretty bad. It makes the trendiness on UNDERCOVER sound like EOMS in comparison.
It's a bit of a stretch to say Mick saved his best Stones album material for his solo albums, did you listen to his solo albums , doubt much of that would get on a Stones album. Although he did make one passable album that comes close to material you might identify with as Stones album filler.
I think Mick going solo shocked many of us, we know Mick worked very hard on them and enrolled some top notch musicians, but all it served to prove was that musically Keith is the main songwriter in the Stones and clearly the sound of the Stones is Keith's alone.
Mick has realised this and has turned a negative into a positive, he had the intelligence to know the only way he can earn some real coin was to get back with Keith and tour with the Stones and milk it for all its worth, Mick's talent is a physical one since WW3 in extending his career as a performer by staying incredibly fit. At almost 77 years of age suspiciously fit i might add.
Quote
bv
I can't really understand why people are so upset by the Mick Jagger solo projects. He just made a record, it is not like he went on and shot somebody. Those who loved the solo record were happy. Those who thought he cheated on the Stones had something to get grumpy about. Further, 35 years on, The Rolling Stones are still alive and kicking, touring, working on new material, so what is the problem?