How do you think of particular records? For me:

Hackney (Mick)
Bang (Mix)
Bridges (Mick)
Voodoo (Keith)
SW (Mix)
DW (Keith)
UC (Mick)
TY (Mix)
ER (Mick)
SG (Mix)
B&B (Mick)
IORR (Mick)
GHS (Mix)
EOMS (Keith)
SF (Mix)

Personally I wouldn't say I have a bias towards either based on this

Those are all "Rolling Stones" albums.

Quote
Kurt
Those are all "Rolling Stones" albums.

I assume Send It To Me is asserting that either of their influences is more dominant on some of them

I think all of them are "mix" albums, where perhaps the influence on them is maybe skewed more to one or the other. But certainly even "mix" doesn't mean exactly 50/50.

But I assume that's what you meant.

But as Kurt said, they are all Rolling Stones albums.

I had thought this thread was going to compare & contrast solo releases!

Quote
treaclefingers
I think all of them are "mix" albums, where perhaps the influence on them is maybe skewed more to one or the other. But certainly even "mix" doesn't mean exactly 50/50.

But I assume that's what you meant.

But as Kurt said, they are all Rolling Stones albums.

I had thought this thread was going to compare & contrast solo releases!

Yeah I thought so too at first

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
Kurt
Those are all "Rolling Stones" albums.

I assume Send It To Me is asserting that either of their influences is more dominant on some of them

Yes, that's what I meant

These are still Rolling Stones albums. And you don't know what when on in the studio.

click bait...

Those are all glimmer twin ablums...

If you meant solo albums... Keef hands down

You shouldn't take it so hard (yeah)

Quote
Send It To me
How do you think of particular records? For me:

Hackney (Mick)
Bang (Mix)
Bridges (Mick)
Voodoo (Keith)
SW (Mix)
DW (Keith)
UC (Mick)
TY (Mix)
ER (Mick)
SG (Mix)
B&B (Mick)
IORR (Mick)
GHS (Mix)
EOMS (Keith)
SF (Mix)

Some Girls is A Mick album ,if you believe there is such a thing.He wrote all the songs on side1 except the Temptations cover.He also wrote Far Away Eyes and Respectable.And he co-wrote Before They Make Me Run and Beast of Burden and Shattered



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-10 23:35 by Taylor1.

It's about right, I guess. Give some, take some.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-10 23:20 by Stoneage.

I find it interesting that the list does not include any album pre 1971………..which IMHO produced three of their most creative albums, all three of which are superior to any listed………..Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet and Aftermath.

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
I find it interesting that the list does not include any album pre 1971………..which IMHO produced three of their most creative albums, all three of which are superior to any listed………..Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet and Aftermath.

If I'm allowed to guess I'd say earlier albums were excluded because Send It To Me felt they were pre Keith's semi-incapacitation from drugs

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
I find it interesting that the list does not include any album pre 1971………..which IMHO produced three of their most creative albums, all three of which are superior to any listed………..Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet and Aftermath.

Isn't this what the band has taught us for ages that the ABKCO era do not count... It all started with STICKY FINGERS (that is a Jagger album as much HACKNEY DIAMONDS is, by the way)...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-11 01:47 by Doxa.

1. Talk Is Cheap
2. Wandering Spirit
3. Crosseyed Heart
4. Main Offender
5. Primitive Cool/Goddess

Oops

1. Talk is cheap
2. Wandering spirit
3. Godess in the doorway
4. Main offender
5. Crosseyed heart
6. Superheavy
7. Primitive Cool
8. She´s the boss
9. Alfie

Out of Contest: Live at the Hollywood palladium

Solo…Mick any day.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
These are still Rolling Stones albums. And you don't know what when on in the studio.

Only correct answer.

Quote
Koen

Quote
More Hot Rocks
These are still Rolling Stones albums. And you don't know what when on in the studio.

Only correct answer.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-11 21:21 by Stoneage.

SFTD and Brown Sugar and Miss You were written by Mick.

What are they?

Great songs by The Rolling Stones.

Someone has to come up with something. Start Me Up and Shattered and She's A Rainbow are Keith, musically. All great songs by The Rolling Stones.


However, sure, the gist of some albums are one individual's push and some aspects are obvious (Dirty Work vs Undercover). Just because BLACK AND BLUE has two ballads on it doesn't mean it's a Mick album. Regardless of who wrote what the albums are 50-50 from AFTERMATH through TATTOO YOU, a couple that weren't, and then STEEL WHEELS - HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
I find it interesting that the list does not include any album pre 1971………..which IMHO produced three of their most creative albums, all three of which are superior to any listed………..Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet and Aftermath.

Isn't this what the band has taught us for ages that the ABKCO era do not count... It all started with STICKY FINGERS (that is a Jagger album as much HACKNEY DIAMONDS is, by the way)...

- Doxa

Doxa I can’t believe what you wrote.
If your opinion carries any weight why is it that at the last full concert the Stones played on July 21st 2024, of the 20 songs performed 12 (twelve) were pre Sticky Fingers and all 12 under ABKCO ???

Of course you could just be winding me up.

Think I’ll just put Beggars Banquet on and turn up the volume…………..you can have Dirty Work or Emotional Rescue.

Kingbeebuzz, all of STICKY FINGERS is ABKCO era songs: look at the publishing. Don't let the record label fool ya.

5 on EXILE.

Quote
GasLightStreet
SFTD and Brown Sugar and Miss You were written by Mick.

What are they?

Great songs by The Rolling Stones.

Someone has to come up with something. Start Me Up and Shattered and She's A Rainbow are Keith, musically. All great songs by The Rolling Stones.


However, sure, the gist of some albums are one individual's push and some aspects are obvious (Dirty Work vs Undercover). Just because BLACK AND BLUE has two ballads on it doesn't mean it's a Mick album. Regardless of who wrote what the albums are 50-50 from AFTERMATH through TATTOO YOU, a couple that weren't, and then STEEL WHEELS - HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

Do you ever get the feeling that the people that start these sort of conversations are passive-aggressive Keithists that are trying to subtly elicit a response that would validate their contention that Mick contributes virtually nothing musically?

I find it annoying but mostly I find it boring.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
SFTD and Brown Sugar and Miss You were written by Mick.

What are they?

Great songs by The Rolling Stones.

Someone has to come up with something. Start Me Up and Shattered and She's A Rainbow are Keith, musically. All great songs by The Rolling Stones.


However, sure, the gist of some albums are one individual's push and some aspects are obvious (Dirty Work vs Undercover). Just because BLACK AND BLUE has two ballads on it doesn't mean it's a Mick album. Regardless of who wrote what the albums are 50-50 from AFTERMATH through TATTOO YOU, a couple that weren't, and then STEEL WHEELS - HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

Do you ever get the feeling that the people that start these sort of conversations are passive-aggressive Keithists that are trying to subtly elicit a response that would validate their contention that Mick contributes virtually nothing musically?

I find it annoying but mostly I find it boring.

As Keith put it in the late 80's on the subject of he and Mick's fall out and subsequent solo albums.

"once you perceive something as a power struggle, you have a power struggle."

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
SFTD and Brown Sugar and Miss You were written by Mick.

What are they?

Great songs by The Rolling Stones.

Someone has to come up with something. Start Me Up and Shattered and She's A Rainbow are Keith, musically. All great songs by The Rolling Stones.


However, sure, the gist of some albums are one individual's push and some aspects are obvious (Dirty Work vs Undercover). Just because BLACK AND BLUE has two ballads on it doesn't mean it's a Mick album. Regardless of who wrote what the albums are 50-50 from AFTERMATH through TATTOO YOU, a couple that weren't, and then STEEL WHEELS - HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

Do you ever get the feeling that the people that start these sort of conversations are passive-aggressive Keithists that are trying to subtly elicit a response that would validate their contention that Mick contributes virtually nothing musically?

I find it annoying but mostly I find it boring.

I certainly didn't get that impression personally. I like the so called Mick albums listed here.

Quote
GasLightStreet
SFTD and Brown Sugar and Miss You were written by Mick.

What are they?

Great songs by The Rolling Stones.

Someone has to come up with something. Start Me Up and Shattered and She's A Rainbow are Keith, musically. All great songs by The Rolling Stones.


However, sure, the gist of some albums are one individual's push and some aspects are obvious (Dirty Work vs Undercover). Just because BLACK AND BLUE has two ballads on it doesn't mean it's a Mick album. Regardless of who wrote what the albums are 50-50 from AFTERMATH through TATTOO YOU, a couple that weren't, and then STEEL WHEELS - HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

Mick wrote as many great songs as Keith.You could add You Can’t Always Get What You Want, Salt of the Earth, Shine a Light, Moonlight Mile, Dead Flowers,100YearsAgo,Winter,Sweet Sounds of Heaven and others.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
SFTD and Brown Sugar and Miss You were written by Mick.

What are they?

Great songs by The Rolling Stones.

Someone has to come up with something. Start Me Up and Shattered and She's A Rainbow are Keith, musically. All great songs by The Rolling Stones.


However, sure, the gist of some albums are one individual's push and some aspects are obvious (Dirty Work vs Undercover). Just because BLACK AND BLUE has two ballads on it doesn't mean it's a Mick album. Regardless of who wrote what the albums are 50-50 from AFTERMATH through TATTOO YOU, a couple that weren't, and then STEEL WHEELS - HACKNEY DIAMONDS.

Do you ever get the feeling that the people that start these sort of conversations are passive-aggressive Keithists that are trying to subtly elicit a response that would validate their contention that Mick contributes virtually nothing musically?

I find it annoying but mostly I find it boring.

Not necessarily. While I can not recall any press etc saying 'Oh this is a Mick album' people certainly seem to go there, fans, because of 4 songs on whatever album etc. I don't recall ever seeing any Beatles fans stating such a thing, though, although of course many less albums in comparison.

What's possibly interesting, strictly in the aspect of who brought (wrote) what is it wasn't clearly noticeable until Fool To Cry and Memory Motel. From then onward there are the obvious, like Miss You, Emotional Rescue, Too Much Blood and quite a few others, that are obviously Mick songs that Keith did whatever he did on. And of course vice versa. And apparently, at least lately (1989-2023), very few that are true collaborations (just speculating but Rough Justice, Mixed Emotions, Get Close and a decent amount of others). We know who came up with Rock And A Hard Place and Angry and Saint Of Me. I would think the bridges, like in Shattered and RIAHP, for example, are Keith's input more than Mick's and that's the whole 'well I have this bit here' they do when working on the other's song.

One thing to remember is they record a lot of songs for every album; what gets finished and then what makes the album is less than 50% of what was recorded. Of course it is - 40 something songs for SG and ER and only 9 tracks on SG and 10 on ER.

Similar with U and DW - a lot of leftovers.

Looking at the 1971-2023 discography, in this one, anyway, and thinking Mick or Keith or mix, ehhh, probably just an attempt to get the temperature of the album and not say Mick contributes nothing etc. Which is absurd because it seems to lean towards the other way in regard to who does less.

The responses of 'It's The Rolling Stones' is correct. Of course AC/DC is always going to be Malcolm, right, and Led Zeppelin is Page, as far as the music aspect, so those are different. I can understand the curiosity of it in regard to The Rolling Stones but it doesn't determine anything, really. STICKY FINGERS is (whatever) and most people agree it's a fantastic Rolling Stones album. Yet the first two of nine songs are Mick songs - and then Bitch, Dead Flowers, Sister Morphine and Moonlight Mile as well.

So in terms of initial songwriting, well, SF is a Mick album. Was what was held over for EXILE the same? I haven't looked into it. One of Keith's greatest talents is taking Mick's songs and out comes The Rolling Stones.

When we were doing Bitch, Keith was very late. Jagger and Mick Taylor had been playing the song without him and it didn't sound very good. I walked out of the kitchen and he was sitting on the floor with no shoes, eating a bowl of cereal. Suddenly he said, Oi, Andy! Give me that guitar. I handed him his clear Dan Armstrong Plexiglass guitar, he put it on, kicked the song up in tempo, and just put the vibe right on it. Instantly, it went from being this laconic mess into a real groove. And I thought, Wow. THAT'S what he does.

- Andy Johns, 2007

[timeisonourside.com]

There's nothing to argue about who contributed what because they're all songs and albums by The Rolling Stones.

Imho people can argue if they want to

Quote
Kingbeebuzz

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
I find it interesting that the list does not include any album pre 1971………..which IMHO produced three of their most creative albums, all three of which are superior to any listed………..Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet and Aftermath.

Isn't this what the band has taught us for ages that the ABKCO era do not count... It all started with STICKY FINGERS (that is a Jagger album as much HACKNEY DIAMONDS is, by the way)...

- Doxa

Doxa I can’t believe what you wrote.
If your opinion carries any weight why is it that at the last full concert the Stones played on July 21st 2024, of the 20 songs performed 12 (twelve) were pre Sticky Fingers and all 12 under ABKCO ???

Of course you could just be winding me up.

Think I’ll just put Beggars Banquet on and turn up the volume…………..you can have Dirty Work or Emotional Rescue.

Just being sarcastic there. I think it is both sad that

(a) the Stones output has this dual existence, and the band is mostly just bounded to make the post ABKCO era, starting with STICKY FINGERS, the base of their legacy, and cruelly neglecting the era when they changed the world (yeah, they play live songs from it since those tunes happen to be, ironically, their most well-known songs, but that's about it).

(b) so many hardcore fans actually do think that their existence started around "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or Taylor joining in or when there started to be decent live bootleg recordings. So for most of the fans the Stones actually are a 70's guitar rock band with the aesthetics and standards fitting to that decade - the band that competed against acts like Led Zeppelin, not the Beatles. The natural reason is that this was the time when they as kids started to dig the band (the current version of it then, fitting to the contemporary scene and its standards). I think the bulk of their fan base - especially hardcore and to an extent casual - derives from the early 70's to early 80's - from the times the Stones still somehow were 'current' or 'relevant', not just a relic from the past.

Sad thing is that that version of the band does not seem to gather new fans. No matter how great they then were, at least according to us, I don't think this image of them (pretty well manifested in the video of "Angry"), and the music to go with it, will age well in future. When we are gone, nobody cares. No matter how hard they try I don't think albums like BLACK AND BLUE or EMOTIONAL RESCUE will inspire or impress any fresh ears in future (they hardly did that even in their hey-day). People will prefer, like most already do, bands like Zep or AC/DC if they want to listen 70's blues-based guitar rock.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-12 02:06 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Kingbeebuzz

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Kingbeebuzz
I find it interesting that the list does not include any album pre 1971………..which IMHO produced three of their most creative albums, all three of which are superior to any listed………..Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet and Aftermath.

Isn't this what the band has taught us for ages that the ABKCO era do not count... It all started with STICKY FINGERS (that is a Jagger album as much HACKNEY DIAMONDS is, by the way)...

- Doxa

Doxa I can’t believe what you wrote.
If your opinion carries any weight why is it that at the last full concert the Stones played on July 21st 2024, of the 20 songs performed 12 (twelve) were pre Sticky Fingers and all 12 under ABKCO ???

Of course you could just be winding me up.

Think I’ll just put Beggars Banquet on and turn up the volume…………..you can have Dirty Work or Emotional Rescue.

Just being sarcastic there. I think it is both sad that

(a) the Stones output has this dual existence, and the band is mostly just bounded to make the post ABKCO era, starting with STICKY FINGERS, the base of their legacy, and cruelly neglecting the era when they changed the world (yeah, they play live songs from it since those tunes happen to be, ironically, their most well-known songs, but that's about it).

(b) so many hardcore fans actually do think that their existence started around "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or Taylor joining in or when there started to be decent live bootleg recordings. So for most of the fans the Stones actually are a 70's guitar rock band with the aesthetics and standards fitting to that decade - the band that competed against acts like Led Zeppelin, not the Beatles. The natural reason is that this was the time when they as kids started to dig the band (the current version of it then, fitting to the contemporary scene and its standards). I think the bulk of their fan base - especially hardcore and to an extent casual - derives from the early 70's to early 80's.

Sad thing is that that version of the band does not seem to gather new fans. No matter how great they then were, at least according to us, I don't think this image of them (pretty well manifested in the video of "Angry"), and the music to go with it, will age well in future. When we are gone, nobody cares. No matter how hard they try I don't think albums like BLACK AND BLUE or EMOTIONAL RESCUE will inspire or impress any fresh ears in future (they hardly did that even in their hey-day). People will prefer, like most already do, bands like Zep or AC/DC if they want to listen 70's blues-based guitar rock.

- Doxa

But what are they supposed to do with the songs besides play them live and talk about them in interviews when asked?