I am trying to find the poetry and beauty that I find in Jagger's older lyrics in the newer songs as well. In another post nikkibong writes that Jagger " seemingly has lost the ability to write non literal" lyrics. I thought this was a good true statement. I know a writer must grow and change; Jagger has done this but he has also gotten a tad...dry. he has the gift of turning phrases.
there is great beauty in "Wild Horses" and "Winter". But he was superb on "Exile". Half of the power of "exile" comes from those timeless trashy lines.
Another great great side of Jagger has always been his sense of humor. One of the reasons I always thoight "Some Girls" suceeded the way it did was because of the humor. the words of the songs have told the story of the Stones. We give much credit to Keith for the rock'n roll, but just as vital were all the tiltes and lyrics. He was wise before his time. Some of these lines that we quote today, were written by a 23 year old youngster.
Today his stuff doesn't hit hard any more. has he run out of stories? His turns of phrase are lame I have to admit. "Neocon" ?? I mean, come on..
The sexual innuendos are tired. Maybe Jagger is tired. Even when he tries hard; on "Goddess", "Visions of Paradise" etc. these are not the big statements he promised.
I want to stop because I could go on but it doesn't feel right. What do you think?


"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

while i like "Bang" alot.....i can see your point...Jagger's lyrics lack depth, humour, poetic justice and conviction...they seem like a front for what he's really feeling, whereas his prime work (understand the words or not) give me a feeling that Mick is behind his words 100%....as a comparison i'll use Dylan's "Time Out Of Mind".....same age catagory as Mick but Zimmy's lyrics come off as straight from the heart, an honest account of his dealings with life and mortality...whereas Micks only shows hints of this in his writing.........with the obligitory imo



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-12 02:42 by Leonard Keringer.

I don't know, maybe he is trying to do his best to hard, when you 23 or something it just flips out of your pen, write it down sing it and release it.
Don't forget he write a lot af song back then.


Why don't we ask him HE MICK MAN !!! WAT'S UP

__________________________

I'm not sure I agree 100%. I think there are some good lyrics on A Bigger Bang. The lyrics to Laugh are quite good. "I went to Africa, looking for my soul, but I feel like an actor, looking for a role." I think most of this song is inspired writing.

Also, I think there are some funny moments as well. On Biggest Mistake ".... I'm becoming a grouch, I just watch the TV and I drink on the couch." There are several more good examples on the entire album.

I do agree that Mick is not in the same place as he was before, but I enjoy the new material and accept it as the Stones in 2005, rather than them trying to relive '72.

Maybe Mick is not as hungry as he was in the past. Maybe in the late 60's and early 70's they needed the music to survive and that's not the case now. Whatever, I like where the Stones are musically. I think it would be sad if they were constantly re-creating Exile on every album. One of things that make them great to me is they are constantly evolving as I hope we all are.

2000 Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The lyrics to Laugh are quite good. "I went to Africa, looking for my
> soul, but I feel like an actor, looking for a
> role."

It's funny. I like that song pretty well, but that's exactly the line where I wince. I mean, it's an OK idea in some vague way--he's got something about hollowness and desperation out there--but the words are absolutely leaden. They just come off as a cheap rhyme.

When I listen to that, there isn't anything evocative or universal about it at all; I can only imagine Sir Mick Jagger jetting off to Africa in a bout of confusion and soul-searching. Great, but that's--at best--mere autobiography, with nothing artistic in sight. Again, it bothers me because I think highly of the track as a whole.

The drama of "Back Of My Hand" seems to me to be the lyrical high point of the record. I have this theory that Jagger has a deeper reverence for the blues than he does for pop or rock material. Seems like he really rose to it this time around, anyway.

I totally agree with Chelsea Durgstore. I mean look at something like 'Casino Boogie'. I still don't know what the hell it's about, but the way he jumbles those lines together is great. "Left shoe shuffle"...that line alone would never find its way into a modern Stones track. Not that it's some extraordinary line, but I just think the creativity to come up with lines like that is lacking. I'm not a basher and I love the new album, I'm just calling it as I see it.

Lyrics seem less important to me in Stones songs compared to other bands. Some other bands/peope have a reputation for writing important lyrics - or at least they want you to believe that..so you listen more closely to the words.

I've always felt Jagger's lyrics were more another instrument in the song than words you needed to understand.

undermythumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lyrics seem less important to me in Stones songs
> compared to other bands. Some other bands/peope
> have a reputation for writing important lyrics -
> or at least they want you to believe that..so you
> listen more closely to the words.
>
> I've always felt Jagger's lyrics were more another
> instrument in the song than words you needed to
> understand.

Awwwwww...

Either you're underappreciating Jagger's words then--or letting him off easy now. I wish his words were as memorable and interesting as in times past, but they usually aren't.

Think about something as kinetic and raunchy as "Brown Sugar." Sure, you're meant to be shakin' your ass so much that the words are secondary. But just think about how many great ideas there are floating around in those words: from the basic scandal and sleaze--and humor--of them all the way up to the idea that song is really a spoof of the Stones' own exploitation of African-American culture. Or is it a heroin song in the end? Having those dimensions helps make it stand up thirty-five years later.

In the end though, it doesn't really have to work on any level other than how much fun I have barking out "I'm no schoolboy, I know what I like!" in the middle of a crowd in Madison Square Garden. I mean, how great a rock'n'roll boast is that?