For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Taylor1
Keith’ssolo and Stones music since 1981 pales in comparison to his earlier great music.His solo work is boring , uninventive recycled r&bmusic.There are no Jumping Jack Flash or Gimme Shelter on any of them.At least Mick tried to be more adventurous even if he falls on his face a lot
Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
Taylor1
Tell me which of those songs is on the level of Gimme Shelter, Flash, Moonlight Mile, Rocks Off, Satisfaction, Heartbreaker, Shine A Light, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Angie, Street Fighting Man?
I’ll take any of em over Angie. But you don’t talk about his Stones’ contributions since 81. Sleep Tonight, Love Is Strong, Slipping Away, Thru & Thru, How Can I Stop, Infamy.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
VoodooLounge13Quote
Taylor1
Tell me which of those songs is on the level of Gimme Shelter, Flash, Moonlight Mile, Rocks Off, Satisfaction, Heartbreaker, Shine A Light, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Angie, Street Fighting Man?
I’ll take any of em over Angie. But you don’t talk about his Stones’ contributions since 81. Sleep Tonight, Love Is Strong, Slipping Away, Thru & Thru, How Can I Stop, Infamy.
Infamy is Keith's, "Let's Work".
Quote
Taylor1
Tell me which of those songs is on the level of Gimme Shelter, Flash, Moonlight Mile, Rocks Off, Satisfaction, Heartbreaker, Shine A Light, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Angie, Street Fighting Man?
Quote
Mariuana
I think people are free to like or not to like Keith or Mick's solo. Personally, I don't dig Keith's solo that much either. I like some of Mick's efforts though. and I think he had his right to try something new with some different musicians. That did not mean he thought he did not need his bandmates any longer. He just wanted to try different. That's the whole fight was about. Mick wanted some freedom and he thought he deserved it, after more than decade of working hard and dealing with his extremely troubled junk-soaked partner, running the band alone. It was a necessity and started with them re-establishing themselves, going tax exciles, leaving home country, lack of money, visa troubles. Add Keith's heroin addiction rapidly growing at that time and you'll see why and how Mick had to take over. I bet it was not easy, especially when the band could not work, could not tour properly stuck in those drug troubles, arrests and visa restrictions.
In his book, Keith did not give Mick enough credit for that. Instead, his focus was rather to show how selfish and @#$%& up Mick was when decided to do solo. I read his book twice and I found it was really odd how he turned it into blaming Mick all the way. He made it seem like Mick was almost hated and a laughing stock for his bandmates. But I read what Charlie used to say in his interviews about that period: he never took sides, neither did Stu.
I think some people tend to simplify what happened between Mick and Keith in the 80s. Remember, the WWIII was taking root in the 70s, you need to put things into perspective and listen to both sides to make fair judgement.
Quote
Stoneage
Listen, it's mostly personal opinions and speculation. Why call other people's opinions rubbish and bollocks? Seems a bit arrogant to me. Stupid even.
Quote
Rockman
..something happened in that Dartford
sand-pit and it raised its ugly head again ....
I don’t think any of his solo songs are as good as All Down the Line, If You Really Want to be My Friend or the other songs you quoted.I personally like Micks solo music because it’s more adventurous and interesting.I find his solo music unadventurous.I don’t find it interesting. But I reaspect your opinionQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Taylor1
Tell me which of those songs is on the level of Gimme Shelter, Flash, Moonlight Mile, Rocks Off, Satisfaction, Heartbreaker, Shine A Light, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Angie, Street Fighting Man?
You're just being difficult on purpose.
How long is a piece of string?
You CAN'T COMPARE songs from a different year in terms of quality of songs from a previous - or future - song.
How could could you (ha ha, I get it, but go with me) compare Gimme Shelter to All The Way Down? Both are brilliant!
They don't SOUND the same.
There is NO comparison.
That's existence.
For example, a brilliant song like She's So Cold, or She Was Hot, imagine one of them on EXILE. The reality is, Rocks Off and All Down The Line... or whatever, I love Turd.
You're drawing a warhorses line. THEY'RE JUST WARHORSES.
Ever seen a girl ooze over Memory Motel or If You Really Want To Be My Friend?
If you haven't, well, there you go. Point is, there are others that are liked and loved just as much, perhaps more.
So rip your mailbox off, hop on a pontoon boat and finds you a bar that only serves beer and find a way to have a good time.
Quote
Taylor1I don’t think any of his solo songs are as good as All Down the Line, If You Really Want to be My Friend or the other songs you quoted.I personally like Micks solo music because it’s more adventurous and interesting.I find his solo music unadventurous.I don’t find it interesting. But I reaspect your opinionQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Taylor1
Tell me which of those songs is on the level of Gimme Shelter, Flash, Moonlight Mile, Rocks Off, Satisfaction, Heartbreaker, Shine A Light, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Angie, Street Fighting Man?
You're just being difficult on purpose.
How long is a piece of string?
You CAN'T COMPARE songs from a different year in terms of quality of songs from a previous - or future - song.
How could could you (ha ha, I get it, but go with me) compare Gimme Shelter to All The Way Down? Both are brilliant!
They don't SOUND the same.
There is NO comparison.
That's existence.
For example, a brilliant song like She's So Cold, or She Was Hot, imagine one of them on EXILE. The reality is, Rocks Off and All Down The Line... or whatever, I love Turd.
You're drawing a warhorses line. THEY'RE JUST WARHORSES.
Ever seen a girl ooze over Memory Motel or If You Really Want To Be My Friend?
If you haven't, well, there you go. Point is, there are others that are liked and loved just as much, perhaps more.
So rip your mailbox off, hop on a pontoon boat and finds you a bar that only serves beer and find a way to have a good time.
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
Mariuana
I think people are free to like or not to like Keith or Mick's solo. Personally, I don't dig Keith's solo that much either. I like some of Mick's efforts though. and I think he had his right to try something new with some different musicians. That did not mean he thought he did not need his bandmates any longer. He just wanted to try different. That's the whole fight was about. Mick wanted some freedom and he thought he deserved it, after more than decade of working hard and dealing with his extremely troubled junk-soaked partner, running the band alone. It was a necessity and started with them re-establishing themselves, going tax exciles, leaving home country, lack of money, visa troubles. Add Keith's heroin addiction rapidly growing at that time and you'll see why and how Mick had to take over. I bet it was not easy, especially when the band could not work, could not tour properly stuck in those drug troubles, arrests and visa restrictions.
In his book, Keith did not give Mick enough credit for that. Instead, his focus was rather to show how selfish and @#$%& up Mick was when decided to do solo. I read his book twice and I found it was really odd how he turned it into blaming Mick all the way. He made it seem like Mick was almost hated and a laughing stock for his bandmates. But I read what Charlie used to say in his interviews about that period: he never took sides, neither did Stu.
I think some people tend to simplify what happened between Mick and Keith in the 80s. Remember, the WWIII was taking root in the 70s, you need to put things into perspective and listen to both sides to make fair judgement.
All this rubbish about when keith was messed up on herion and worked ridiculous hours doesn't really hold any clout , just look at the music that came out of Keith during that period, clearly the mix of Keith and herion created the best music, between 69 to 77 was without a doubt their best period, so don't give me all the Keith was @#$%& up and caused delays and poor moral bolloocks, if it takes a bit longer to create an album like Exile then that's how long it takes, yeah you can make She's The Boss running 4 hours a day eating lettuce leaves and drinking your own piss in 2 weeks but its a pile of crap.
Quote
MariuanaQuote
RocktiludropQuote
Mariuana
I think people are free to like or not to like Keith or Mick's solo. Personally, I don't dig Keith's solo that much either. I like some of Mick's efforts though. and I think he had his right to try something new with some different musicians. That did not mean he thought he did not need his bandmates any longer. He just wanted to try different. That's the whole fight was about. Mick wanted some freedom and he thought he deserved it, after more than decade of working hard and dealing with his extremely troubled junk-soaked partner, running the band alone. It was a necessity and started with them re-establishing themselves, going tax exciles, leaving home country, lack of money, visa troubles. Add Keith's heroin addiction rapidly growing at that time and you'll see why and how Mick had to take over. I bet it was not easy, especially when the band could not work, could not tour properly stuck in those drug troubles, arrests and visa restrictions.
In his book, Keith did not give Mick enough credit for that. Instead, his focus was rather to show how selfish and @#$%& up Mick was when decided to do solo. I read his book twice and I found it was really odd how he turned it into blaming Mick all the way. He made it seem like Mick was almost hated and a laughing stock for his bandmates. But I read what Charlie used to say in his interviews about that period: he never took sides, neither did Stu.
I think some people tend to simplify what happened between Mick and Keith in the 80s. Remember, the WWIII was taking root in the 70s, you need to put things into perspective and listen to both sides to make fair judgement.
All this rubbish about when keith was messed up on herion and worked ridiculous hours doesn't really hold any clout , just look at the music that came out of Keith during that period, clearly the mix of Keith and herion created the best music, between 69 to 77 was without a doubt their best period, so don't give me all the Keith was @#$%& up and caused delays and poor moral bolloocks, if it takes a bit longer to create an album like Exile then that's how long it takes, yeah you can make She's The Boss running 4 hours a day eating lettuce leaves and drinking your own piss in 2 weeks but its a pile of crap.
No one here said Keith was making bad music then. But he was in the band and due to his addiction he was very hard to communicate with. Also his busts got the band into troubles.
While your opinion is clearly black and white for me, I don't care much about it. But you should re-consider your way of expressing your thoughts, even if you have some point, it still a meh because of your tone and manners. Read some books maybe.
Quote
RocktiludropQuote
MariuanaQuote
RocktiludropQuote
Mariuana
I think people are free to like or not to like Keith or Mick's solo. Personally, I don't dig Keith's solo that much either. I like some of Mick's efforts though. and I think he had his right to try something new with some different musicians. That did not mean he thought he did not need his bandmates any longer. He just wanted to try different. That's the whole fight was about. Mick wanted some freedom and he thought he deserved it, after more than decade of working hard and dealing with his extremely troubled junk-soaked partner, running the band alone. It was a necessity and started with them re-establishing themselves, going tax exciles, leaving home country, lack of money, visa troubles. Add Keith's heroin addiction rapidly growing at that time and you'll see why and how Mick had to take over. I bet it was not easy, especially when the band could not work, could not tour properly stuck in those drug troubles, arrests and visa restrictions.
In his book, Keith did not give Mick enough credit for that. Instead, his focus was rather to show how selfish and @#$%& up Mick was when decided to do solo. I read his book twice and I found it was really odd how he turned it into blaming Mick all the way. He made it seem like Mick was almost hated and a laughing stock for his bandmates. But I read what Charlie used to say in his interviews about that period: he never took sides, neither did Stu.
I think some people tend to simplify what happened between Mick and Keith in the 80s. Remember, the WWIII was taking root in the 70s, you need to put things into perspective and listen to both sides to make fair judgement.
All this rubbish about when keith was messed up on herion and worked ridiculous hours doesn't really hold any clout , just look at the music that came out of Keith during that period, clearly the mix of Keith and herion created the best music, between 69 to 77 was without a doubt their best period, so don't give me all the Keith was @#$%& up and caused delays and poor moral bolloocks, if it takes a bit longer to create an album like Exile then that's how long it takes, yeah you can make She's The Boss running 4 hours a day eating lettuce leaves and drinking your own piss in 2 weeks but its a pile of crap.
No one here said Keith was making bad music then. But he was in the band and due to his addiction he was very hard to communicate with. Also his busts got the band into troubles.
While your opinion is clearly black and white for me, I don't care much about it. But you should re-consider your way of expressing your thoughts, even if you have some point, it still a meh because of your tone and manners. Read some books maybe.
I wasn't referring to your post personally, im trying to touch on the general consensus that Mick went solo because Keith was out if it, or drunk or drugged up, he was clearly on his game during the making of Some Girls, the tour that followed, then on to Tattoo You and the tour that followed, so it doesn't hold any weight to give Keith's excesses as the reason Mick went solo, on the contrary, Mick left Keith because he was very much ON HIS GAME, so much so that Mick felt threatened by it.
I might add that Keith was great on Undercover but when Keith thought the album was finished and he went back to Mexico, Mick did the dirty on Keith and messed about with its final mixing, Keith clearly wasn't happy and Mick kind of did a runner and refused to tour, i think Mick whimped out and started to make plans for a solo album and career.
I don't think there was this fight that people refer to that caused WW3, reading between the lines i think Mick was threatened by Keith both creatively and physically, Mick was more likely running scared than anything else, i honestly think the control freak in him just couldn't handle being unable to handle his glimmer twin.
Subsequently Mick seems to have worked out a way to keep Keith firmly in his place since they got back together in 89' Keith just finally settling for a quiet life, a bit sad really.
Quote
MariuanaQuote
RocktiludropQuote
MariuanaQuote
RocktiludropQuote
Mariuana
I think people are free to like or not to like Keith or Mick's solo. Personally, I don't dig Keith's solo that much either. I like some of Mick's efforts though. and I think he had his right to try something new with some different musicians. That did not mean he thought he did not need his bandmates any longer. He just wanted to try different. That's the whole fight was about. Mick wanted some freedom and he thought he deserved it, after more than decade of working hard and dealing with his extremely troubled junk-soaked partner, running the band alone. It was a necessity and started with them re-establishing themselves, going tax exciles, leaving home country, lack of money, visa troubles. Add Keith's heroin addiction rapidly growing at that time and you'll see why and how Mick had to take over. I bet it was not easy, especially when the band could not work, could not tour properly stuck in those drug troubles, arrests and visa restrictions.
In his book, Keith did not give Mick enough credit for that. Instead, his focus was rather to show how selfish and @#$%& up Mick was when decided to do solo. I read his book twice and I found it was really odd how he turned it into blaming Mick all the way. He made it seem like Mick was almost hated and a laughing stock for his bandmates. But I read what Charlie used to say in his interviews about that period: he never took sides, neither did Stu.
I think some people tend to simplify what happened between Mick and Keith in the 80s. Remember, the WWIII was taking root in the 70s, you need to put things into perspective and listen to both sides to make fair judgement.
All this rubbish about when keith was messed up on herion and worked ridiculous hours doesn't really hold any clout , just look at the music that came out of Keith during that period, clearly the mix of Keith and herion created the best music, between 69 to 77 was without a doubt their best period, so don't give me all the Keith was @#$%& up and caused delays and poor moral bolloocks, if it takes a bit longer to create an album like Exile then that's how long it takes, yeah you can make She's The Boss running 4 hours a day eating lettuce leaves and drinking your own piss in 2 weeks but its a pile of crap.
No one here said Keith was making bad music then. But he was in the band and due to his addiction he was very hard to communicate with. Also his busts got the band into troubles.
While your opinion is clearly black and white for me, I don't care much about it. But you should re-consider your way of expressing your thoughts, even if you have some point, it still a meh because of your tone and manners. Read some books maybe.
I wasn't referring to your post personally, im trying to touch on the general consensus that Mick went solo because Keith was out if it, or drunk or drugged up, he was clearly on his game during the making of Some Girls, the tour that followed, then on to Tattoo You and the tour that followed, so it doesn't hold any weight to give Keith's excesses as the reason Mick went solo, on the contrary, Mick left Keith because he was very much ON HIS GAME, so much so that Mick felt threatened by it.
I might add that Keith was great on Undercover but when Keith thought the album was finished and he went back to Mexico, Mick did the dirty on Keith and messed about with its final mixing, Keith clearly wasn't happy and Mick kind of did a runner and refused to tour, i think Mick whimped out and started to make plans for a solo album and career.
I don't think there was this fight that people refer to that caused WW3, reading between the lines i think Mick was threatened by Keith both creatively and physically, Mick was more likely running scared than anything else, i honestly think the control freak in him just couldn't handle being unable to handle his glimmer twin.
Subsequently Mick seems to have worked out a way to keep Keith firmly in his place since they got back together in 89' Keith just finally settling for a quiet life, a bit sad really.
Your disdain for Jagger is obvious because of rhetoric you chose. Mediocre Mick was threatened by the great Keith and was running scared? What are you talking about and what your sources are?
Quote
Rip This
no....Mariuana has your number. Nothing really much to add to that.
Quote
Rip This
succinct and to the point. Well said.
Quote
Taylor1I don’t think any of his solo songs are as good as All Down the Line, If You Really Want to be My Friend or the other songs you quoted.I personally like Micks solo music because it’s more adventurous and interesting.I find his solo music unadventurous.I don’t find it interesting. But I reaspect your opinionQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Taylor1
Tell me which of those songs is on the level of Gimme Shelter, Flash, Moonlight Mile, Rocks Off, Satisfaction, Heartbreaker, Shine A Light, Tumbling Dice, Happy, Angie, Street Fighting Man?
You're just being difficult on purpose.
How long is a piece of string?
You CAN'T COMPARE songs from a different year in terms of quality of songs from a previous - or future - song.
How could could you (ha ha, I get it, but go with me) compare Gimme Shelter to All The Way Down? Both are brilliant!
They don't SOUND the same.
There is NO comparison.
That's existence.
For example, a brilliant song like She's So Cold, or She Was Hot, imagine one of them on EXILE. The reality is, Rocks Off and All Down The Line... or whatever, I love Turd.
You're drawing a warhorses line. THEY'RE JUST WARHORSES.
Ever seen a girl ooze over Memory Motel or If You Really Want To Be My Friend?
If you haven't, well, there you go. Point is, there are others that are liked and loved just as much, perhaps more.
So rip your mailbox off, hop on a pontoon boat and finds you a bar that only serves beer and find a way to have a good time.