Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I somewhat agree. Especially Secrets, probably the only song that would've really worked with the Stones (1/2 A Loaf is too Jeff Becked and ROOLuck is possibly too goofy). If Lucky In Love hadn't've been Jeff Becked it could've turned out better, or perhaps worked as a Stones tune.

I just hummed Lonely At The Top in my head and what popped up was Oh No Not You Again. It's obvious why they didn't finish LATT for whatever album they started it for - it's not good. Mick decided to use that on his first solo album and kick off his first solo album with a Jagger-Richards song?

He used the Rolling Stones logo on his solo albums... I'm sure that made Keith even more happy. "Going solo, eh? Doesn't look like it."

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I somewhat agree. Especially Secrets, probably the only song that would've really worked with the Stones (1/2 A Loaf is too Jeff Becked and ROOLuck is possibly too goofy). If Lucky In Love hadn't've been Jeff Becked it could've turned out better, or perhaps worked as a Stones tune.

I just hummed Lonely At The Top in my head and what popped up was Oh No Not You Again. It's obvious why they didn't finish LATT for whatever album they started it for - it's not good. Mick decided to use that on his first solo album and kick off his first solo album with a Jagger-Richards song?

He used the Rolling Stones logo on his solo albums... I'm sure that made Keith even more happy. "Going solo, eh? Doesn't look like it."

Yeah, Secrets is the most obvious one, along with Hard Woman. But I can hear Keith and Ronnie's riffs and licks making the other ones Stones-worthy as well. Easily.

On Lonely At The Top Pete is already doing his best Keith

There is nothing like a "Jagger solo song" as opposed to a "Stones song".

All songs on Jagger's solo albums could very well have been Stones songs.

This because Jagger didn't go solo because he felt the need to compose different kinds of music to the music he made with the Stones.

In his own words (see 1986 Whistle test special at min 16) very simply after years of working as a "committee", he felt the need to do the job his own way.

The same goes for production.

Jagger is often accused to chase the latest musical trends on his solo albums. So what? All stones albums up until Voodoo Lounge have been produced following the then current trends.

Incidentally, I truly don't even get why so many people are so deeply disturbed by the sounds of the 1980's.

C

Quote
liddas

Incidentally, I truly don't even get why so many people are so deeply disturbed by the sounds of the 1980's.

C

Me neither. Some of the most refreshing things were done in the 8-tees. The footage along with the music often going nowhere.

Quote
wonderboy
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!

I agree, overall an embarrassing release. Still, I can't help but like some of the songs, like Running Out Of Luck, Secrets, Just Another Night - i even like Turn The Girl Loose.

But embarrassing in that it was an obvious attempt at Mick trying too hard to be solo and 'current' w/ the times ... which he pretty much failed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-21 20:56 by LeonidP.

Quote
daspyknows

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.

Keith had his solo projects.
Run Rudolph. New Barbarians. etc.
Keith sounded more like a spoiled "only child" instead of a grown up. Still does.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
daspyknows

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.

Keith had his solo projects.
Run Rudolph. New Barbarians. etc.
Keith sounded more like a spoiled "only child" instead of a grown up. Still does.

The New Barbarians was Ronnie's project, and most of the setlist were Ronnie-songs.

Usless album.

Quote
liddas
There is nothing like a "Jagger solo song" as opposed to a "Stones song".

Let's Work and Brown Sugar.

Quote
liddas
All songs on Jagger's solo albums could very well have been Stones songs.

Fake news. False. Bunk. Not true. No way.

Quote
liddas
This because Jagger didn't go solo because he felt the need to compose different kinds of music to the music he made with the Stones.

Not sure I follow that but... he did compose different kinds of music than he made with the Stones. To say he didn't is being blind, er, deaf.

Quote
liddas
In his own words (see 1986 Whistle test special at min 16) very simply after years of working as a "committee", he felt the need to do the job his own way.

The same goes for production.

What he didn't anticipate was failing, which is what happened by making so many awful songs and some bizarre albums. After STEEL WHEELS he figured out a way to do his solo career within the Stones. Hence why the albums have been less than solid good, basically, overall.

Quote
liddas
Jagger is often accused to chase the latest musical trends on his solo albums. So what? All stones albums up until Voodoo Lounge have been produced following the then current trends.

That's hilariously wrong. It's partially right to a point but not all Stones albums - in fact, hardly any.

Quote
liddas
Incidentally, I truly don't even get why so many people are so deeply disturbed by the sounds of the 1980's.

I've never read anyone specifically say EVERYTHING from the 1980s was awful. Go listen to SHE'S THE BOSS or DIRTY WORK and say straight faced that they sound good.

Quote
bv
He just made a record, it is not like he went on and shot somebody.

Not that we know of...

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
bv
He just made a record, it is not like he went on and shot somebody.

Not that we know of...

Well he wouldn't whack someone but he knows a man who could.

It's not hard to understand why Mick went solo. He did not enjoy working with Keith any more. Having a perpetually critical partner who then sits around for hours for weeks on end listening to mixes over and over to make solitary decisions about what works or what is needed was not something he enjoyed then or now. He also had the ego and the yes-men (particularly the record executive courting him) around him telling him he could be even bigger solo.

Have a listen to the 12" single of "Too Much Blood" with Mick squawking about Michael Jackson and Vincent Price and you can see where he wanted to go. Contrast Ahmet Ertegun who never wanted Mick solo with Walter Yetnikoff who had more money to throw around and wanted to build Mick up as a solo star and it's easy to understand why Mick went in the direction he did. On the one hand, I can sympathize with his frustrations with Keith while on the other hand he was like the husband with a midlife crisis deluding himself into believing the hot young gold digger is his soulmate.

While I understand preferring one or the other solo is subjective, by the mid-1980s they were both past their creative primes. The only thing they proved is that as solo artists both could only carve out a fraction of the success they could achieve together. Personally, I'd say they've both had some lovely moments solo that they might not have realized together. They've both also made some really good tracks that would have suited the band better. While I agree with Terry that they would have been better off never going solo, I'd be happier if there were simply more albums these past 30 years. The band would be less wealthy and audiences around the globe would be deprived of some fantastic memories, but that's simply my selfish point of view.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
It's not hard to understand why Mick went solo. He did not enjoy working with Keith any more. Having a perpetually critical partner who then sits around for hours for weeks on end listening to mixes over and over to make solitary decisions about what works or what is needed was not something he enjoyed then or now. He also had the ego and the yes-men (particularly the record executive courting him) around him telling him he could be even bigger solo.

Have a listen to the 12" single of "Too Much Blood" with Mick squawking about Michael Jackson and Vincent Price and you can see where he wanted to go. Contrast Ahmet Ertegun who never wanted Mick solo with Walter Yetnikoff who had more money to throw around and wanted to build Mick up as a solo star and it's easy to understand why Mick went in the direction he did. On the one hand, I can sympathize with his frustrations with Keith while on the other hand he was like the husband with a midlife crisis deluding himself into believing the hot young gold digger is his soulmate.

While I understand preferring one or the other solo is subjective, by the mid-1980s they were both past their creative primes. The only thing they proved is that as solo artists both could only carve out a fraction of the success they could achieve together. Personally, I'd say they've both had some lovely moments solo that they might not have realized together. They've both also made some really good tracks that would have suited the band better. While I agree with Terry that they would have been better off never going solo, I'd be happier if there were simply more albums these past 30 years. The band would be less wealthy and audiences around the globe would be deprived of some fantastic memories, but that's simply my selfish point of view.

It would be interesting understanding why there hasn't been more RS product over the last 30 years. Is it simply they are burnt out creatively, or is it a matter that working together is a slogfest for them, and they can't agree on anything. Maybe a bit of both. Separately whether you like what they do put out or not, they are creative, more so Mick. It's too bad we can't get the albums more often than every 15 years...but the shows are a lovely consolation prize.

Simply put it was Mick’s first attempt at life without Keef. Doomed to fail of course. Other attempts followed all in vain which is how we arrive where we are now.

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.

Keithsman- are you gay? I honestly from the bottom of my heart promise you I don’t mean that in a derogatory way.
I know I’ve criticized you in the past but I’m simply flummoxed by the depth of your devotion to Keith Richards,I’ve just never seen that kind of affection displayed from one man to another in a heterosexual way.
I’m one of the biggest Keith fans on the planet, the first time I saw the band in 75 my main goal was to see Keith play up close.
But even I , as a nearly 50 year fanatic of all things Keith couldn’t imagine assigning the entire Stones sound to him.
Again,instead of criticizing you this time I’m really trying to understand.and believe me, in spite of some of my smartass comments here I would never make a bigoted judgement toward anyone.

did you listen to his(Mick's)solo albums,
doubt much of that would get on a Stones album …..

Love ta hear She's The Boss on a
Stones album with Keith on lead vocals ….esp the rap-out end

You want to what?
Not right now babeeee …. I've got ah headache …….



ROCKMAN

Quote
lem motlow

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.

Keithsman- are you gay? I honestly from the bottom of my heart promise you I don’t mean that in a derogatory way.
I know I’ve criticized you in the past but I’m simply flummoxed by the depth of your devotion to Keith Richards,I’ve just never seen that kind of affection displayed from one man to another in a heterosexual way.
I’m one of the biggest Keith fans on the planet, the first time I saw the band in 75 my main goal was to see Keith play up close.
But even I , as a nearly 50 year fanatic of all things Keith couldn’t imagine assigning the entire Stones sound to him.
Again,instead of criticizing you this time I’m really trying to understand.and believe me, in spite of some of my smartass comments here I would never make a bigoted judgement toward anyone.

Err no, I'm not gay. Hope this helps.

As for the sound Keith makes on the guitar it's the missing ingredient on Mick's solo albums.
I was astonished when She's The Boss came out, I thought Mick was coming out as bisexual at the time, the most effeminate singing I'd heard from Mick, i thought to myself there's no way Stones fans want this and I was right.


About the other thing, can't i love a man without wanting to stick my penis in his bum ?, i just wondered if you'd given it any thought Lem.
You know brothers and best friends sort of thing, Keith even, is it OK to love someone the same sex without being gay you moron.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-24 14:52 by keithsman.

While admittedly taken aback by lem's question, keithsman's indignation would go a lot further if you hadn't decided the million-selling SHE'S THE BOSS was rejected by Stones fans because Mick sang so effeminately you thought he was coming out as bisexual.

Man, you can't make this stuff up if you tried.

Somebody get Mike Love's brother in here to conduct sensitivity training.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
While admittedly taken aback by lem's question, keithsman's indignation would go a lot further if you hadn't decided the million-selling SHE'S THE BOSS was rejected by Stones fans because Mick sang so effeminately you thought he was coming out as bisexual.

Man, you can't make this stuff up if you tried.

Somebody get Mike Love's brother in here to conduct sensitivity training.

Haha Rocky, you missed my dry sence of humour pointed towards Lem there, meaning if he sings like that then he must be gay lol.
Obviously that's not necessarily the case, STB is a little sissy sounding vocally comparred to Undercover but clearly it doesn't make him bisexual.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
liddas
There is nothing like a "Jagger solo song" as opposed to a "Stones song".

Let's Work and Brown Sugar.

For what matters we could also say Hard Woman and Sweethearts Together …

In any case my point was that Jagger's solo songs, if recorded by the Stones, could have worked perfectly well as Stones songs.

Let's work? Sure no Brown Sugar, but probably something better than Sad Sad Sad or Don't Stop

On the other hand, had Jagger released a hip-hop album, well yes, hard to fancy Keith singing "Yo" and Charlie with a Roland 808 ...

C

England Lost is pretty hiphoppy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Go listen to SHE'S THE BOSS or DIRTY WORK and say straight faced that they sound good.

They both sound very good!

You may not like those sounds, but they were very well recorded

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
liddas
There is nothing like a "Jagger solo song" as opposed to a "Stones song".

Let's Work and Brown Sugar.

For what matters we could also say Hard Woman and Sweethearts Together …

In any case my point was that Jagger's solo songs, if recorded by the Stones, could have worked perfectly well as Stones songs.

Let's work? Sure no Brown Sugar, but probably something better than Sad Sad Sad or Don't Stop

On the other hand, had Jagger released a hip-hop album, well yes, hard to fancy Keith singing "Yo" and Charlie with a Roland 808 ...

C

LOL! Let's Work better than Sad Sad Sad or Don't Stop?

There's no way any/all of Mick's solo songs could've worked at Stones songs. There are plenty of Mick songs as Stones songs that give obvious clues as to why it wouldn't work: Might As Well Get Juiced and Streets Of Love are two of man perfect examples. The Stones cut tons of blues tracks - but because Mick got the Dust Brothers involved on a boring pedestrian bland blues song that a garage band of 12 year olds could do better, MAWGJ is some modern daring sonic adventure for the Stones? Keith laid a guitar track on it - it's a high end demo.

Keith about The Dust Brothers: Actually, I had very little to do with (the Dust Brothers). I'm like, What do you want me to do? And they're like, Oh, just do what you always do. I'm thinking, That's PRODUCING?

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Quote
Rocky Dijon
While admittedly taken aback by lem's question, keithsman's indignation would go a lot further if you hadn't decided the million-selling SHE'S THE BOSS was rejected by Stones fans because Mick sang so effeminately you thought he was coming out as bisexual.

Man, you can't make this stuff up if you tried.

Somebody get Mike Love's brother in here to conduct sensitivity training.

Of course, there's this:

Quote
liddas

Quote
GasLightStreet

Go listen to SHE'S THE BOSS or DIRTY WORK and say straight faced that they sound good.

They both sound very good!

You may not like those sounds, but they were very well recorded

C

That's no different than saying That's a great bad picture on that HD-TV!

I listened to a bit of Just Another Night recently and was terrified at how awful it was produced. And just like DIRTY WORK, you're right - they were very well recorded... with horrific production and incredibly horrendous results.

Quote
GasLightStreet

There's no way any/all of Mick's solo songs could've worked at Stones songs. There are plenty of Mick songs as Stones songs that give obvious clues as to why it wouldn't work: Might As Well Get Juiced and Streets Of Love are two of man perfect examples. The Stones cut tons of blues tracks - but because Mick got the Dust Brothers involved on a boring pedestrian bland blues song that a garage band of 12 year olds could do better, MAWGJ is some modern daring sonic adventure for the Stones? Keith laid a guitar track on it - it's a high end demo.

Keith about The Dust Brothers: Actually, I had very little to do with (the Dust Brothers). I'm like, What do you want me to do? And they're like, Oh, just do what you always do. I'm thinking, That's PRODUCING?

[www.timeisonourside.com]

For what matters, Stones LPs are mostly made of "jagger songs" since GHS. Can't say with bad results.

Let's Work. Take an acoustic guitar strum the chords and hum the melody. There is something to save. Not much, but there is something.

Sad, Sad, Sad, and Don't stop I have to scratch the barrel deeper!

Juice. I see it as an experiment. Dust Bros didn't do a bad job. If you give it a listen with proper amp and speakers, it sounds great. It is in the context of the album that it doesn't work well. Should have been a remix on one of those singles. The song itself is not that lame either. Sort of Ventilator Blues - a blues structured verse, with a cool progression under the chorus.


C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-27 14:47 by liddas.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
liddas

Quote
GasLightStreet

Go listen to SHE'S THE BOSS or DIRTY WORK and say straight faced that they sound good.

They both sound very good!

You may not like those sounds, but they were very well recorded

C

That's no different than saying That's a great bad picture on that HD-TV!

I listened to a bit of Just Another Night recently and was terrified at how awful it was produced. And just like DIRTY WORK, you're right - they were very well recorded... with horrific production and incredibly horrendous results.

Just another night is perfect as it is.

Dirty Work, you are so exposed with your hate for that album, that you could never publicly admit that you like it. But deep down you know that it is a good album!

C

Some people just don't allow for subjectivity.....I 'recognised' "Just another night" as a Stones song as soon as I heard it on the radio - EVEN THOUGH I WAS WRONG - 'She's the boss' was a breath of self deprecating fresh air in a world rock egos - ironic really - coming from the supposed "worst of them" - great swing/grooves and a large dash of tongue in cheek humour - Excellent - MORE!

Dirty work is a brilliant "work out album" - get into those grooves (and they are there for the discerning ear) and you will sheds some pounds no doubt.............

Quote
liddas

Quote
GasLightStreet

There's no way any/all of Mick's solo songs could've worked at Stones songs. There are plenty of Mick songs as Stones songs that give obvious clues as to why it wouldn't work: Might As Well Get Juiced and Streets Of Love are two of man perfect examples. The Stones cut tons of blues tracks - but because Mick got the Dust Brothers involved on a boring pedestrian bland blues song that a garage band of 12 year olds could do better, MAWGJ is some modern daring sonic adventure for the Stones? Keith laid a guitar track on it - it's a high end demo.

Keith about The Dust Brothers: Actually, I had very little to do with (the Dust Brothers). I'm like, What do you want me to do? And they're like, Oh, just do what you always do. I'm thinking, That's PRODUCING?

[www.timeisonourside.com]

For what matters, Stones LPs are mostly made of "jagger songs" since GHS. Can't say with bad results.

Let's Work. Take an acoustic guitar strum the chords and hum the melody. There is something to save. Not much, but there is something.

Sad, Sad, Sad, and Don't stop I have to scratch the barrel deeper!

Juice. I see it as an experiment. Dust Bros didn't do a bad job. If you give it a listen with proper amp and speakers, it sounds great. It is in the context of the album that it doesn't work well. Should have been a remix on one of those singles. The song itself is not that lame either. Sort of Ventilator Blues - a blues structured verse, with a cool progression under the chorus.


C

LOL your bits about Let's Work leads me to believe you've never listened to the song.