Ultimate Classic Rock - 35 Years Ago: Why Mick Jagger Went Solo With 'She's The Boss'

.....

"This is a new thing for me," Jagger told The New York Times in 1985. "Basically, I'd been working really hard on the last Stones album, and I just felt it was time to break the pattern – that before going back in to do another Stones album, I really should do something else."

As expected, this didn't go over well with Richards, who openly groused about She's the Boss. Decades later, Richards insisted that he'd still never listened to the album.

Jagger, and his fans, were unmoved. She's the Boss quickly reached the Top 10 in the U.K. and Australia, and had gone platinum in the U.S. by summer. ("Everybody had a copy," Richards memorably quipped in his autobiography Life, "but nobody listened to it.")

.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-21 13:14 by bv.

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
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.

Same here

"No Anchovies, Please"

The start of WWIII.

Read a little farther along on this page and looky here...a Dirty Work review:

The Rolling Stones, 'Dirty Work'
Opener "One Hit (To the Body)" is one of the best Stones songs of the '80s. But that's about the only good thing to be found on this 1986 dud. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were barely on speaking terms during the making of the record, and that disconnect can be heard in the band's most lifeless set of songs. It was a tough decade for a lot of classic-rock artists trying to stay relevant. 'Dirty Work' isn't embarrassing, it's worse: excessively boring.


Read More: 35 Years Ago: Why Mick Jagger Went Solo With 'She's the Boss' | [ultimateclassicrock.com]

35 years ago I don't and won't believed it

__________________________

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.

I remember it as an okay album at the time; Hard Woman is an even better song than any of the singles.

I also remember people at the time who really hated the album, even though they may have liked some Stones despite not being actual fans of the band.

Trouble was, Mick Jagger solo was easier to knock; suddenly he's out there without all that layered veneer of the legendary bad boys with all the rough edges. The music then seems a bit generic, polished... manufactured, his overall presence even Bon Jovial.

A year or two ago I found online an original issue CD of She's The Boss, which now sits among a stack of CDs in one corner, and I'll get around to listening to it again, someday.

Not a fan of this hodgepodge of mediocrity - not then and not now. It was really the first major major misstep in Stonesland.
The Stones had a few lame tunes here and there over the years (Emotional Rescue as an example), but an entire album of lameness was a tough pill too swallow. And to think his next solo album was even worse....

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

None of em should have done solo albums ...
Woulda been better ta keep it all STONES ....



ROCKMAN

The whole thing was embarrassing, starting with the cover, with the pictures of a 40-year-old Jagger trying to appeal to the 17-year-old girls listening to Wham!

Quote
stone66
I remember it as an okay album at the time; Hard Woman is an even better song than any of the singles.

"Hard Woman" *was* a single, and it wasn't the album version.

[www.youtube.com]

That video was probably state of the art at the time. Wow, now my kids makes more sophisticated videos on an old phone. Crazy.

blah blah blah. Some nice songs and good memories from when it came out.

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).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-21 09:19 by Swayed1967.

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
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
Donnebr
That video was probably state of the art at the time

That's Jagger original sin he got in the early 80's (in concordance with his mid-life crisis?) : he wanted what he made to beup to date. Consequence : what's up to date tend to age badly.

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?

Bjornulf

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?

People just need SOMETHING to complain about.

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.

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
Doxa

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.

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

This is important, imo. And I think both Mick and Keith got lost when they started thinking that way.

For instance, I'm pretty sure this couldn't be further from their minds when they wrote Lady Jane, Back Street Girl, She's A Rainbow, Sympathy For The Devil, Moonlight Mile, Can You Hear The Music or other atypical Stones-tunes.

Firstly, the minute one starts to write, thinking about how the song will be perceived, something also happens with the creativity. Secondly, it might be the atypical song that will turn out to be the classic, as we've seen so many times with Stones-hits like Angie, Miss You, Undercover (Of The Night) and others.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-21 15:10 by DandelionPowderman.

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.

Well, me too (and so does Keith Richards, by the way...). I think that is mostly to do with Mick being a 'Rolling Stone' thru and thru, despite having a desire to do something else. I mean, as a song-writer he is pretty much bounded by his own limitations, very strongly rooted in rhythm'n'blues and whatever stuff he was grown up with in his formative years as a writer. If one studies a bit more closely those solo songs of his, one can see there pretty familiar features and patterns, for example, in the songs you listed. And Jagger in his forties was not any longer such a natural chameleont to master any new trend or being as naturally imaginative as the Jagger in his twenties and thirties (the contrast is even bigger in the case of Keith). And if nothing else, it his voice alone which carries a certain certain distinctive, blues-affected Stonesy tone, and which might not work naturally in whatever context. Especially that voice didn't suit to the sounds of the 80's.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-21 15:31 by 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.

They could have sounded better with Keith, Ronnie, Charlie and Bill, though.

Quite agree ...but, in a way, think that's perhaps missing the point .

Leaving aside some of the deeper stuff discussed above . Mick has always been more inclined to worry about musical "fashions".

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
keithsman

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.

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.

That last sentence make "Let's Work" somehow the most important song since 1981! Mick's incredible fitness at his age.......

"No Anchovies, Please"

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...

He obviously wanted that, but something tells me he didn't dare to go all the way. Maybe he was caught in a crossfire somewhere between the synth pop-bands (Duran Duran, Depeche Mode), the super-popular artists (Michael Jackson, Prince) and the poodle rock bands (Def Leppard etc.). The result might sound like he picked a little here and there.

There is a reggae-ish/island-sound on quite a few of the songs, production-wise, too. It's easy to hear that many producers were involved.

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.

RUNNING OUT OF LUCK is a gazillions times better than the awful solo album.

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).

I had to

YouTube the video
Google the lyrics

I haven't listened to it in years. The production sounds like a kid did it. SHE'S THE BOSS certainly fits into 'the 1980s sucked' mentality. What I've always enjoyed about that is there are good/great albums in the 1980s, just like any other decade, and bad/awful albums in the 1980s. Perhaps the reason the 1980s gets singled out is because of how the production took a gargantuan nosedive in quality: nothing from the mid-1980s in terms of top 40 pushing big production sounds good at all today, which SHE'S THE BOSS fits way too comfortably in.

Quote
keithsman

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.

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.

Well, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, I didn't say that!

You make it sound as if I forgot about:
Streets Of Love
Might At Well Get Juiced
Winning Ugly
New Faces
Gunface
Rock And A Hard Place
Back To Zero
Always Suffering
Already Over Me
Sweet Neo Con
Continental Drift

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?

It's probably a collective frustration:

- Nothing new from the Stones
- A terrible solo album that made the Stones list forever turns 35 this year