Quote
GasLightStreet

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.

Quote
Doxa
Glimmerfest, to start with - Mick, are you listening? - just release a damn definitive deluxe super hyper versions of BEGGARS BANGUET and LET IT BLEED... Then AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and SATANIC the same. The early albums, EPs - making blues popular, etc. Use all material you have and more. There are stories to tell beside Altamont and Mars Bars. And dammit you looked so young and actually cool back then. Try, just for a change, sell people the idea that you not always were like hundred years old, but young and good looking with fresh minds and ideas. And that you actually had a claim for fame. That will always charm people. Jeez, do like you did back then: look what the Beatles are doing and use you imagination with all that material you have, for god's sakes!



- Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

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.

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

And that is the ultimate truth. And I'm not saying that some albums don't lean more heavily towards one or the other, only that I sometimes question the motivation of some posters in posing that question.

Quote
skytrench
If Mick didn't care for making DW, then it was a missed opportunity to improve it and an unloyal action against the group. Let it rot so to speak, band members and all...

Quote
skytrench
If Mick didn't care for making DW, then it was a missed opportunity to improve it and an unloyal action against the group. Let it rot so to speak, band members and all...

Quote
skytrench
I love Mick and all that he's done, but he probably works not 'for them' but 'for himself'. Yes, if he didn't care for DW, then it was disloyal to the band. After the 80's Mick seemed to take a different approach.

Quote
Rockman

Quote
skytrench
I love Mick and all that he's done, but he probably works not 'for them' but 'for himself'. Yes, if he didn't care for DW, then it was disloyal to the band. After the 80's Mick seemed to take a different approach.

Quote
Rip This
people forget one very important element here....KR was a drug addict for the better part of 2 decades. Has anyone here ever lived with one let alone worked with one? Tough task...yet somehow Jagger not only persevered he kept the whole thing together even if there was a slight break....how many of you would have stuck around?

Quote
Rip This
people forget one very important element here....KR was a drug addict for the better part of 2 decades. Has anyone here ever lived with one let alone worked with one? Tough task...yet somehow Jagger not only persevered he kept the whole thing together even if there was a slight break....how many of you would have stuck around?

Quote
treaclefingers
So this is what I was referring to, the conversation devolving into a Mick vs. Keith debate, who is more important, who cares more about the band, who is disloyal etc.

Ridiculous.

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers
So this is what I was referring to, the conversation devolving into a Mick vs. Keith debate, who is more important, who cares more about the band, who is disloyal etc.

Ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous to have opinions on their working relationship

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers
So this is what I was referring to, the conversation devolving into a Mick vs. Keith debate, who is more important, who cares more about the band, who is disloyal etc.

Ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous to have opinions on their working relationship

I think you should probably read what you quoted, before expanding what you think I said.

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers
So this is what I was referring to, the conversation devolving into a Mick vs. Keith debate, who is more important, who cares more about the band, who is disloyal etc.

Ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous to have opinions on their working relationship

I think you should probably read what you quoted, before expanding what you think I said.

Thier personalities, actions, personal relationship etc is not possible to divorce from their working relationship, they're artists not just coworkers

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers
So this is what I was referring to, the conversation devolving into a Mick vs. Keith debate, who is more important, who cares more about the band, who is disloyal etc.

Ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous to have opinions on their working relationship

I think you should probably read what you quoted, before expanding what you think I said.

Thier personalities, actions, personal relationship etc is not possible to divorce from their working relationship, they're artists not just coworkers

I reiterate my previous point and am dismayed by your attempt to broaden it to fit your narrative.

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
treaclefingers
So this is what I was referring to, the conversation devolving into a Mick vs. Keith debate, who is more important, who cares more about the band, who is disloyal etc.

Ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous to have opinions on their working relationship

I think you should probably read what you quoted, before expanding what you think I said.

Thier personalities, actions, personal relationship etc is not possible to divorce from their working relationship, they're artists not just coworkers

I reiterate my previous point and am dismayed by your attempt to broaden it to fit your narrative.

Well that's too bad

Quote
skytrench
Well, this is a "Mick vs Keith album" thread after all ? Dirty Work had to get released as they had to move on with their record contract obligations. It wasn't shelved or postponed until there was enough quality. In that sense they cared less about artistic value. When is a product good enough ? Why should we not speculate in what they cared about at the time when trying to understand the product ?

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
skytrench
Well, this is a "Mick vs Keith album" thread after all ? Dirty Work had to get released as they had to move on with their record contract obligations. It wasn't shelved or postponed until there was enough quality. In that sense they cared less about artistic value. When is a product good enough ? Why should we not speculate in what they cared about at the time when trying to understand the product ?

This

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
skytrench
Well, this is a "Mick vs Keith album" thread after all ? Dirty Work had to get released as they had to move on with their record contract obligations. It wasn't shelved or postponed until there was enough quality. In that sense they cared less about artistic value. When is a product good enough ? Why should we not speculate in what they cared about at the time when trying to understand the product ?

This

Yep, I remember something about that. DW was, maybe, the last record on the record deal? I remember reading something about that the record company didn't want to
release because they though it was below standard or something.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Glimmerest

Quote
skytrench
Well, this is a "Mick vs Keith album" thread after all ? Dirty Work had to get released as they had to move on with their record contract obligations. It wasn't shelved or postponed until there was enough quality. In that sense they cared less about artistic value. When is a product good enough ? Why should we not speculate in what they cared about at the time when trying to understand the product ?

This

Yep, I remember something about that. DW was, maybe, the last record on the record deal? I remember reading something about that the record company didn't want to
release because they though it was below standard or something.