Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3
Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: keefriffhards ()
Date: January 14, 2025 16:46

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.

Has it occurred to you that you might be annoying and boring?
You seem to be continuously telling people what subjects they shouldn't discuss.
Year in year out, saying the same things to the same people on repeat. , who cares, let people have their say even if you don't care for that topic.

At least Doxa comes up with some interesting theories and insights.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Glimmerest ()
Date: January 14, 2025 17:10

Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 14, 2025 17:15

Quote
keefriffhards
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.

Has it occurred to you that you might be annoying and boring?
You seem to be continuously telling people what subjects they shouldn't discuss.
Year in year out, saying the same things to the same people on repeat. , who cares, let people have their say even if you don't care for that topic.

At least Doxa comes up with some interesting theories and insights.

You seem to self-identify with the description I provided.

Didn't we agree to not engage? I think that is for the best, so my having an opinion needn't concern you.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: January 14, 2025 17:21

Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

Sure, we can speculate about that. But it is a fact that Jagger, unofficially, left the band to pursue a solo career in the mid 80s. The band didn't tour for seven years. That is what we really know.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Glimmerest ()
Date: January 14, 2025 17:27

Quote
Stoneage
Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

Sure, we can speculate about that. But it is a fact that Jagger, unofficially, left the band to pursue a solo career in the mid 80s. The band didn't tour for seven years. That is what we really know.

Yes, I know. Question is what made Mick think that an unproven solo career was a worthwhile option compared to the already massively money making Stones. Sure he has a massive ego, but if that was all it was then he could have gone solo long ago.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: January 14, 2025 17:31

I can't think of the Stones without thinking of their golden age of the 60s.
I really struggle to see them as a band that started with JJF, it means ignoring a significant part of their existing, in addition to the fact that Brian J. was not a supporting actor.
As far as I see it, the Stones have always been good at keeping up with the times, sometimes they did it well, other times not so well, but there is not a bad album in the Stones' discography.
Don't touch ER, because even if it won't be considered a masterpiece of the Stones, it will remain an excellent, fun album for those who like the genre.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Glimmerest ()
Date: January 14, 2025 18:19

Quote
Testify
I can't think of the Stones without thinking of their golden age of the 60s.
I really struggle to see them as a band that started with JJF, it means ignoring a significant part of their existing, in addition to the fact that Brian J. was not a supporting actor.
As far as I see it, the Stones have always been good at keeping up with the times, sometimes they did it well, other times not so well, but there is not a bad album in the Stones' discography.
Don't touch ER, because even if it won't be considered a masterpiece of the Stones, it will remain an excellent, fun album for those who like the genre.

Same. For me the Stones are a quintessential 60s band.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Date: January 14, 2025 18:39

Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

That could be a description of 1971 as well, so I don't think that was the main reason.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Glimmerest ()
Date: January 14, 2025 18:46

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

That could be a description of 1971 as well, so I don't think that was the main reason.

Sure it was probably a combination of a lot of things

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 14, 2025 19:12

Quote
Glimmerest
Quote
Stoneage
Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

Sure, we can speculate about that. But it is a fact that Jagger, unofficially, left the band to pursue a solo career in the mid 80s. The band didn't tour for seven years. That is what we really know.

Yes, I know. Question is what made Mick think that an unproven solo career was a worthwhile option compared to the already massively money making Stones. Sure he has a massive ego, but if that was all it was then he could have gone solo long ago.

Literally the CBS Records Head, whose name escaped me put that in his head, pointing to Michael Jackson and Bowie as memory serves as examples of what he could do with a Mick solo career. So he appealed to Mick's ego for sure and Mick probably thought of it as a "can't lose" in some respects, given what he was constantly "putting up with" in terms of band relations.

He did put out some nice solo stuff (Let's Work notwithstanding) but mercifully it didn't sell in the numbers required to justify striking out alone.

I think the only thing that is regretful is that the two principals didn't get along well enough for much of the time, to release more material since then, as some of their contemporaries have.

Saying that, since 2010 there's been a fair amount if you factor in the expanded reissues, and certainly Hackney and hopefully the soon-to-follow, follow-up album makes up for this a bit.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Glimmerest ()
Date: January 14, 2025 19:15

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Glimmerest
Quote
Stoneage
Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

Sure, we can speculate about that. But it is a fact that Jagger, unofficially, left the band to pursue a solo career in the mid 80s. The band didn't tour for seven years. That is what we really know.

Yes, I know. Question is what made Mick think that an unproven solo career was a worthwhile option compared to the already massively money making Stones. Sure he has a massive ego, but if that was all it was then he could have gone solo long ago.

Literally the CBS Records Head, whose name escaped me put that in his head, pointing to Michael Jackson and Bowie as memory serves as examples of what he could do with a Mick solo career. So he appealed to Mick's ego for sure and Mick probably thought of it as a "can't lose" in some respects, given what he was constantly "putting up with" in terms of band relations.

He did put out some nice solo stuff (Let's Work notwithstanding) but mercifully it didn't sell in the numbers required to justify striking out alone.

I think the only thing that is regretful is that the two principals didn't get along well enough for much of the time, to release more material since then, as some of their contemporaries have.

Saying that, since 2010 there's been a fair amount if you factor in the expanded reissues, and certainly Hackney and hopefully the soon-to-follow, follow-up album makes up for this a bit.

Really hope the follow up album isn't just hot air and come out soon enough, it's been so much fun to listen to and discuss HD + it's tours

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: January 14, 2025 19:26

Quote
treaclefingers
Literally the CBS Records Head, whose name escaped me put that in his head, pointing to Michael Jackson and Bowie as memory serves as examples of what he could do with a Mick solo career. So he appealed to Mick's ego for sure and Mick probably thought of it as a "can't lose" in some respects, given what he was constantly "putting up with" in terms of band relations.

Walter Yetnikoff

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 14, 2025 19:54

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
Literally the CBS Records Head, whose name escaped me put that in his head, pointing to Michael Jackson and Bowie as memory serves as examples of what he could do with a Mick solo career. So he appealed to Mick's ego for sure and Mick probably thought of it as a "can't lose" in some respects, given what he was constantly "putting up with" in terms of band relations.

Walter Yetnikoff

Dat's him! I think they paid the band quite a lot of money for that package of new albums...they must have recouped it. Steel Wheels did really well.

So for a 4 album deal, what were RS releases? Dirty Work, Steel Wheels and Flashpoint were 3, what was the the 4th? By Voodoo Lounge they'd moved to Virgin.

I don't think Mick's solo albums were ever specifically a part of that 4 album deal, were they?

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: January 15, 2025 00:02

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
Literally the CBS Records Head, whose name escaped me put that in his head, pointing to Michael Jackson and Bowie as memory serves as examples of what he could do with a Mick solo career. So he appealed to Mick's ego for sure and Mick probably thought of it as a "can't lose" in some respects, given what he was constantly "putting up with" in terms of band relations.

Walter Yetnikoff

Dat's him! I think they paid the band quite a lot of money for that package of new albums...they must have recouped it. Steel Wheels did really well.

So for a 4 album deal, what were RS releases? Dirty Work, Steel Wheels and Flashpoint were 3, what was the the 4th? By Voodoo Lounge they'd moved to Virgin.

I don't think Mick's solo albums were ever specifically a part of that 4 album deal, were they?

No. The CBS deal, with Columbia distributing, was strictly for four Rolling Stones studio albums, valued at $6 million per album with a 25% royalty rate! I did read that it was for "the right to" four studio albums so the Stones only got $ for each album they worked on, not a lump sum (why anyone would do that makes no sense).

Reading the language of "for the right to four studio albums" that means the Stones didn't have to give them four studio albums. Haven't been able to find any information in regard to FLASHPOINT counting as part of the deal or if there was something else in the deal about live releases, which was never said in anything I've ever seen. Perhaps + COLLECTIBLES counted as the fourth "studio" album. Maybe Sony/CBS didn't care because they got to reissue the 1971-1984 catalog (I would love to get a copy of the Atlantic Records REWIND on CD).

Mick's solo deal was different even though it was through Rolling Stones Records. He could've had a deal just with Columbia and no Stones logo but for some reason it was via RSR.

Which Keith could've done with MAIN OFFENDER since the Stones were signed with Virgin at that point even though RSR was now defunct.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 15, 2025 01:45

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
Literally the CBS Records Head, whose name escaped me put that in his head, pointing to Michael Jackson and Bowie as memory serves as examples of what he could do with a Mick solo career. So he appealed to Mick's ego for sure and Mick probably thought of it as a "can't lose" in some respects, given what he was constantly "putting up with" in terms of band relations.

Walter Yetnikoff

Dat's him! I think they paid the band quite a lot of money for that package of new albums...they must have recouped it. Steel Wheels did really well.

So for a 4 album deal, what were RS releases? Dirty Work, Steel Wheels and Flashpoint were 3, what was the the 4th? By Voodoo Lounge they'd moved to Virgin.

I don't think Mick's solo albums were ever specifically a part of that 4 album deal, were they?

No. The CBS deal, with Columbia distributing, was strictly for four Rolling Stones studio albums, valued at $6 million per album with a 25% royalty rate! I did read that it was for "the right to" four studio albums so the Stones only got $ for each album they worked on, not a lump sum (why anyone would do that makes no sense).

Reading the language of "for the right to four studio albums" that means the Stones didn't have to give them four studio albums. Haven't been able to find any information in regard to FLASHPOINT counting as part of the deal or if there was something else in the deal about live releases, which was never said in anything I've ever seen. Perhaps + COLLECTIBLES counted as the fourth "studio" album. Maybe Sony/CBS didn't care because they got to reissue the 1971-1984 catalog (I would love to get a copy of the Atlantic Records REWIND on CD).

Mick's solo deal was different even though it was through Rolling Stones Records. He could've had a deal just with Columbia and no Stones logo but for some reason it was via RSR.

Which Keith could've done with MAIN OFFENDER since the Stones were signed with Virgin at that point even though RSR was now defunct.
\

OK, you just made me strain myself reaching around behind to grab a copy of She's The Boss because I swear it was a red Columbia label, which it is. There is however a red Stones tongue on the back of the album cover.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: matxil ()
Date: January 15, 2025 10:53

Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

Keith was un reliable junkie through the 70s, so Mick J. had to take charge. When Keith kicked the habit (more or less around Some Girls), the music input got better but it also meant Keith wanted to be in on the decision taking. I can imagine Mick J. being a bit annoyed by that. All these years he had managed on his own and now Keith, who in many ways is not very realistic, wanted to have a say too. In a solo career, Mick could do whatever he wanted. However, it turned out that what he wanted wasn't very succesful.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 15, 2025 16:40

Quote
matxil
Quote
Glimmerest
Personally I think one thing that probably contributed to tensions in the 80s between Mick and Keith is that Mick was hanging out with a lot of other people, and Keith probably missed him to some extent which made him pissed. It's pretty well attested that both Mick and Keith don't like it when other people get between their duo.

Keith was un reliable junkie through the 70s, so Mick J. had to take charge. When Keith kicked the habit (more or less around Some Girls), the music input got better but it also meant Keith wanted to be in on the decision taking. I can imagine Mick J. being a bit annoyed by that. All these years he had managed on his own and now Keith, who in many ways is not very realistic, wanted to have a say too. In a solo career, Mick could do whatever he wanted. However, it turned out that what he wanted wasn't very succesful.

That must have been a hard truth and tough pill to swallow.

But ever the pragmatist he realized he could achieve other creative pursuits outside the band while still staying within the band.

I think what you see in the 1989 detent, was Mick giving it another go but under the proviso that the show be modernized and made professional - we get what amounts to "Vegas Stones", which I know has been derided but I would argue was necessary to have the band function this long and into old age.

The previous shambolic stage show, though loveable had to be a thing of the past because it wasn't going to be sustainable as they got older.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: rogerriffin ()
Date: January 15, 2025 17:24
































Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: January 16, 2025 10:26

Quote
treaclefingers

...I think what you see in the 1989 detent, was Mick giving it another go but under the proviso that the show be modernized and made professional - we get what amounts to "Vegas Stones", which I know has been derided but I would argue was necessary to have the band function this long and into old age.

The previous shambolic stage show, though loveable had to be a thing of the past because it wasn't going to be sustainable as they got older.

thumbs up In so far as we can ever really know what goes on...

I think Treacle probably nails it here.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: January 16, 2025 21:34

Quote
Spud
Quote
treaclefingers

...I think what you see in the 1989 detent, was Mick giving it another go but under the proviso that the show be modernized and made professional - we get what amounts to "Vegas Stones", which I know has been derided but I would argue was necessary to have the band function this long and into old age.

The previous shambolic stage show, though loveable had to be a thing of the past because it wasn't going to be sustainable as they got older.

thumbs up In so far as we can ever really know what goes on...

I think Treacle probably nails it here.
The guitar playing live this century has been pretty shambolic despite not taking many solos or playing jams.But it was tight and great in1989-1990zKeith especially was fantastic on that tour



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-16 21:44 by Taylor1.

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: January 17, 2025 10:33

Both Keith and Ronnie have had many great moments since then too...Keith was pretty hot for much of the B2B related tours ...

That said, for better or worse, the modern era arrangements have allowed those two old scallywags to get away with murder... and to often spend more time posing and clowning about than playing the bloody guitar !grinning smiley

Re: "Mick albums" vs. "Keith albums"
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: January 17, 2025 13:22

I can’t think of many great guitar moments this century

Goto Page: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1321
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home