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

I do enjoy a lot of Mick's 'dance' stuff and remixes of Stones' tracks. I can imagine him in the clubs getting down and thinking himself hip still. I just don't often like the dance stuff in the context of the Stones, a rock band. That's really what his solo career should be for - exploring all those varied genres.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

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?

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
treaclefingers

Quote
VoodooLounge13

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?

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".

I always dug the beat to it. I really don't think Keef has done a bad song.

There are some great post 1981 Keith songs, just none on his solo albums

Wow. That's pretty harsh! Locked Away - especially the live version - is one of his best. I love Wicked As It Seems as well - the not-too-distant cousin of LIS. Demon, Illusion, 999, Running Too Deep, Will But You Won't, Robbed Blind, Nothing On Me - all phenomenal tracks IMO.

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.

Some great comments in here.
I thought about this in the context of the Andy Summers documentary about The Police, which I saw this week. From watching footage throughout their careers, it was clear the band members a) didn't really like each other ... my wife said they actually seem to disdain each other, and b) they were full of their own self-importance.
At some level, the Stones have generally seemed to like each other, except for a few times. And despite their considerable egos, they do seem to realize they're just a rock and roll outfit. There is a kind of humility there. Certainly Charlie never puts on airs. But Mick doesn't talk about their music as if he's an artiste, and Keith at least acts down to earth ('five strings, one @#$%&.')

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?

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
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-19 12:42 by Rocktiludrop.

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
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.

Rubbish, bollocks and (now) stupid

..something happened in that Dartford
sand-pit and it raised its ugly head again ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
..something happened in that Dartford
sand-pit and it raised its ugly head again ....

Was it Keith's or Mick's mom who once told a story of her son destroying all the other kids' sandcastles on the beach..?

Quote
GasLightStreet

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?

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.

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 opinion



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-19 16:05 by Taylor1.

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
GasLightStreet

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?

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.

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 opinion

I am one who like Mick's adventurous attitude. I did like both sides of the single that came about in Mick's name as a Keith reject. But, after all, I want some kind of balance for the band, though. Allergorically, I have written before that for the band I would prefer a 65 against 35 per cent weight between Mick's and Keith's attitudes. That is, 35 for Keith's inclination to work within the boundaries of Stones music that he himself formerly so essentially has contributed to define, 65 for Mick's continued wish to expand those boundaries. I might revise that kind of weight to 70 against 30. Let that revision be an effect of what Keith's third solo album became to me. ( I have to admit that I was somewhat bored. Controversial not to you, but to quite many others.)

"Hate It When You Leave" is one golden example of what Keith may supply also after 1983, (that year, I would say, who consider UNDERCOVER to be the latest great Stones album). And that song to me is comparable to "If You Really Wants to Be My Friend", which I am delighted in.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-19 19:59 by Witness.

Quote
Rocktiludrop

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.

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
Mariuana

Quote
Rocktiludrop

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.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-08-20 00:26 by Rocktiludrop.

Quote
Rocktiludrop

Quote
Mariuana

Quote
Rocktiludrop

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.

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
Mariuana

Quote
Rocktiludrop

Quote
Mariuana

Quote
Rocktiludrop

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.

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?

Once again you have me all wrong, i love Mick, think he's the best performer ever, and what he continues to do at his age on stage is a phenomenon, i was just embarrassed by his early solo stuff, sorry about that, and if you want my source, i know of no man or women who has studied Mick and Keith as much as me.
Fine if you have, good luck to you, its just that i don't know of a book writer who knows what makes Mick and Keith tick, they seem to have it all wrong, thats my opinion, and my study goes back way further than the Internet, i have total recall of old interviews etc.
Can you please leave me alone now with my opinions.

no....Mariuana has your number. Nothing really much to add to that.

Quote
Rip This
no....Mariuana has your number. Nothing really much to add to that.

Oh sorry i was unaware i was having a conversation with you, do you have anything to add or do you just agree or disagree without comments.

lol Rocktilyoudrop... people on here have studied the Stones and read books too, can you imagine. Just a reminder it was you who replied to my comment with rude message, not otherwise. I personally can not care less about your opinions. Bye.

succinct and to the point. Well said.

Quote
Rip This
succinct and to the point. Well said.

Haha, keep campaigning Rip This , you can be the pied piper

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
GasLightStreet

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?

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.

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 opinion

I had to look back at what I was referring to in regard to what you said, which was in response to what Dande said... so the context was missing.

Obviously the beauty/greatness/etc of a song is upon the listener. Some of Mick's solo tunes, for me, are outstanding, regardless of popular or unpopular opinion, like Ruthless People, but I've never considered comparing them to Stones songs.

Even when his solo songs sound like Stones songs.

HAHAHAHAAAAAA perhaps... until now.

Is Let's Work better than... well, no, it's not. It belongs on DIRTY WORK for all I care, right after the disaster that is Winning Ugly.

Is Throwaway better than... yes, it's considerably better than most of what's on DW and STEEL WHEELS.

Is there anything on SHE'S THE BOSS better than anything on UNDERCOVER?

No.

DW? Yes. Secrets is the best song on STB, followed by Half A Loaf and, bizarrely, Running Out Of Luck, and all three of those... ehhhhhh, I dunno, well, sure, better than a majority of DW.

Jeff Beck rurnt STB, though.

My view of Mick's solo albums is they're fried food whereas Keith's solo albums are an from a boil pot or grille to be put into an iron skillet to be seasoned.