Talk is Cheap was a great album. Many of my friends thought his singing sucked though. MJ's first album had promise. Some of the songs worked well - Just Another Night, Throwaway. If he had a rootsier sound it would have been better. Both of these albums were much better than Dirty Work (which barring one or two songs) should have been shelved IMO (the nadir of their recorded output).

Luke33 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if someone tells me otherwise I will be
> amazed....
>
> ..oh I forgot about the heart and soul


I disagree. Mick Jagger has made 4 solo albums (STB, PC, WS and GITD). Keith has made two (TIC and MO - Don't know if the Wingless Angels project counts, and I have yet to hear it unfortunately). The way I see it is this: Mick's first two solo albums are crap. I mean like worse than Dirty Work (Which IMO is The Stones' worst effort). Wandering Spirit is the best of all solo Stones records, but it's also Mick's ONLY good solo effort, as GITD is very bad too IMO (Almost the entire WS is good, but I can't think of a single song that I like from Mick's other records). Keith has made two good ones. Neither of these are as good as WS, but they are way more consistent and they have the pure trademark of Keith. Mick's is more bland in that way, and it works on WS, but nothing more. Overall I'm a Keith man when it comes to solo stuff. I just put Wandering Spirit on way more often, and that happens when I'm off the Stones for a while (And that's not often).

Never heard Charlie's stuff except for a song he played on Letterman or Leno in the nineties with Bernard Fowler on vocals. Ronnie should have a mention too, because he makes some great stuff. Mick Taylor has some nice stuff, but it's not really my style. Bill....... "Si Si (Je Suis Un Rock Star)". Need I say more?

JumpingKentFlash

If Keith restarts writing, then Keith and Mick together are better than anyone else on this planet. Period.

IMO opinion..most of Jagger solo stuff==CRAP...Keef's material is far and away better

Jaggers first two solos are way down in the cut out bin. Godess has one or two really good songs and so much filler. Keith's two solos hold up real well (especially if you liek to play guitar along with them). The wino's have a bity of personality of their own that stand up.

Voodoo Lounge would have been a better (or even great) album if Mick and Keith used some of the better solo songs with the Stones. Imagine this "Wandering Voodoo Offender" line-up. (Wandering Spirit may be the best "stones" material in the '90s. So it's hard to cut out some of Mick's songs.)

You Got Me Rocking
Sweet Thing
Love Is Strong
Don’t Tear Me Up
The Worst (maybe use as a b-side?)
Use Me
Out of Tears
I Go Wild
Eileen
Hate It When You Leave
Moon Is Up
Evening Gown
Blinded By Rainbows
Hang On To Me Tonight
Wicked As It Seems

..............Getting into an argument over who had the better solo material is sensless...........however, this tune if done by the Glimmer Twins instead of as a solo would have been a classic..........

Never could see much value in Keith's stuff, very bland lyrics, boring melodies, nothing new in any of his material. Mick is a FAR superior lyricist, much more talent and you can't get more soulful than a tune like Hard Woman, or Evening Gown! Come on!! Get real!

Keith's solo career was all about competition with Mick. He clearly won with his two albums and the touring that backed it up was very important to Keith too. He showed himself and Mick that he could be the front man too (of course he learned alot from Mick there). But Mick saw that Keith was his equal and that he needed Keith to make great music.
By the time MJ came up with WS, which I think is tied with TIC as the best solo effort, the competition was over. The unfortunate outcome is that this is the last time KR was ever really motivated to create new music whereas Mick still is.

not even close, keith is better simply because he did not pretend to be something he is not

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not even close, keith is better simply because he
> did not pretend to be something he is not


and so the myth continues.

Bianca is so right! In the 80's Keith and his nasty ways, temper tantrums, not willing to kiss and make up cost Stones fans at least 2 tours and who knows how many cds, how much great music! So, if this topic is going to continue to be a Mick vs Keith thing, at least the Keith folks have to acknowledge a few facts! First, Mick wanted to continue touring with the Stones, he could not DRAG Keith into the studio to record, he wanted to make music, it's what he does! Mick decided to continue making music alone if Keith wouldn't SPEAK to him, let alone regroup! Keith got even more pissed, starting calling Mick names etc when MIck put out a solo cd. Now, I will be the first to admit, Let's Work is NOT a masterpiece however the rest of his solo work is excellent! How can you argue that Wandering Spirit and much of Primitive Cool is just plain great solid music. NO SOUL? EVENING GOWN has NO SOUL! HARD WOMAN has no soul?? REALLY? Are you wearing ear plugs when you listen to this or are no just NO listening and faking it? I bet the ones who are bashing Mick's music have not heard most of it! I at least own TALK IS CHEAP and MAIN OFFENDER and I have played them and in my opinion, both are pretty lame.The Stones really DID almost dissintegrate, because of KEITH, not Mick! Stones History 101, not made up, not just my defending Jagger. Prove me wrong with facts. Keith came right out and said he hated Mick's friends, the socialites Mick entertained and hung out with so alot of his problems with Mick had nothing to do with music! He was not man enough, at that time, to get past some of these other issues and sit down, write STONES MUSIC and get on with the show! Mick was trying, Keith was not.

This is getting positively surreal. I don't care who likes which solo album better, but let's stick to facts. Where has Mick ever said he wanted to tour the Stones, but Keith wouldn't go along? Mick went solo when they signed with CBS. Don't you recall his infamous line about not needing a bunch of old farts holding him back? Go read Gazza's post on Page One. Go pick up any Stones bio. If you prefer Mick solo to Keith solo, terrific...but let's not rewrite history here. Keith went solo to avoid early retirement, Mick went solo because he thought he didn't need The Stones anymore. You want facts? The video interview with She's the Boss and Dirty Work recording engineer Dave Jerden and Bill German's March/April 1984 issue of Beggars Banquet both bear out the same story: the Stones were supposed to start work on a new album in early 1984 (their first in a new deal) when Mick unexpectedly decided to make it a solo album. Keith wasn't writing Stones songs in 1984? That's where most of Dirty Work came from. Keith and Woody settled in Jamaica and started writing songs. The band came together for business meetings several times (one of which giving rise to the apocryphal Charlie knocking Mick out the window story) and each time, Mick kept pushing the recording sessions back. He spent nine months on She's the Boss and then the rest of the year shooting Running Out of Luck. He showed up at the hopelessly delayed Paris sessions in 1985 and declared he had no songs. Tensions were high and Mick's endless interruptions for video shoots and interviews only added to it. By the time the band agreed not to play Live Aid and then Mick signs on as a solo act in the middle of mixing Dirty Work, it's a wonder they didn't split then and there. Keith told everyone how badly he wanted to tour in 1986. Mick pulled the plug. November 1986 would see Mick's press statement that he was starting his second solo album, planning a solo world tour, and planned to make a movie with David Bowie. Mick effectively broke up the band. Bill Wyman said those very words to the press. Ronnie went on MTV to try to smooth things over. Keith, who spent his downtime producing Aretha Franklin and Chuck Berry, had no choice but to sign a solo deal or roll up and die because Mick wouldn't work with the Stones. In all my years of being a Stones fan, I can't believe I've had to spend time trying to explain things that are well documented and not disputed by either Glimmer Twin. For Pete's sake, I'd rather be discussing how Brian wrote Honky Tonk Women before Ry Cooder wrote Honky Tonk Women before Mick Taylor wrote Honky Tonk Women.

Again, it may be HOW events are interpretted, depending of which Stone's story we defend; I am totally aware that Mick was doing his own thing in the 80's but it was my understanding that the reason was Keith's pissiness with Mick, his reluctance to communicate that kept Mick dancing in a different direction. I was there when Mick sang with Tina, not the Stones at LIVE AID and who was it that decided to sing with DYLAN??? In my heart I have always felt that they should have resolved their differences privately but from what I have read, Keith was determined to air their " dirty laundry" publicly, VERY publicly. That's when I started to feel Keith was the more childish one, the one who kept fueling the fire instead of trying to patch it up. Yes, Mick did take advantage of media attention to his solo efforts, but was that not a reaction to the surliness of Keith? I do believe that much of this is documented right along side of the incidents you mentioned. It has truthfully ONLY been of late that Keith has given Mick much credit for his musical abilities, saying what a great harp player Mick is! That floored me! At last, a kind word! To further drive my point home, if you recall the Ed Bradley interview with the Stones when Ed asked Keith about Mick and their difficulties, Keith got a few nasty jabs in but when Ed asked Mick, he was the gentleman and deferred, would not toss Keith under the bus. Hey, they're like a married couple! They have not always LIKED each other but Keith even called Mick his old lady and has admitted that they do love each other. GO FIGURE!

so how come mick never says he loves keith

DE VULLUSBAND Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick Jagger solo better than KEITH: NO.
YES indeed. In fact they both are SHIT solo, because they are better TOGETHER to put it mildly.

P.S One more bit of Stones History that is often overlooked by Keith defenders is the heroin trafficking conviction that faced Keith in 1977 in Canada.I believe it was heroin and cocaine possession that he was charged with but the trafficking charges were dropped, luckily and he did do probation and some voluntary work, includng a concert for the blind. Had those trafficking charges stuck, that would have been the end of the band. He would have done serious jail time. Mick and the Stones stayed by Keith's side. " Sweethearts Together" indeed. Think about how different life would have been if the Stones had disbanded in 1977....no solo cds for Keith, and would the band have replaced him? That should be a separate post.

P.S.#2 Just for YOU Rocky! I DO know all of that about Mick's DEAR STONES letter to the band, calling them old farts but what presipitated that was far more important! Ian Stewart had just died of a heart attack, devastating the band! ( As a matter of fact, after a tribute to Stu at the 100 Club in London lots of all-stars showed up to play for Stu's tribute. It was reported that Mick and Keith left that tribute party arm in arm so perhaps their battles are far less severe than the ones fans have arguing over which Stone is BEST!! Anyway, the real reason Mick did not want to tour in 1986, behind Dirty Work was that Mick had the sense to recognize that the tour would have been a disaster! Charlie was on smack, they were still mourning Stu, the album SUCKED and even Mick admitted it, and as you know timing is everything. Mick understood that the time was not right to tour! Keith was oblivious to most of the warning signs and wanted to throw caution to the wind and just tour! Mick knew that would have ended up costing them $$. Their pride was on the line and rather than embarrass themselves, Mick stood his ground and said NO TOUR! This is real Stones history, check it out.

Oh and Charlie did smack Mick, knocking him clear out a window because Mick got really drunk one night and called Charlie's room at 4am, asking " Is this MY DRUMMER!?? " Charlie was livid, went up to Mick's room and said Mick was HIS SINGER and he was no one's drummer! More evidence that they were really not a BAND, just a bunch of bickering old ladies! As I said, you can interpret WHY Keith was mad at Mick and why Mick was so mad he needed space from Keith, but the bottom line we can all agree on! The band is way superior to any of it's parts when on their own. One more thing. Charlie even took off and played with a jazz band because he was so disgusted with the vibe! He said he hated rock n' roll! One thing I'll always remember is Ian Stewart saying how upset he was at the band falling apart and it was this stress that may have contributed to his death. Imagine the guilt Mick and Keith must have felt over that! Stewart was set to put finishng touches on Dirty Work when he died right in his doctors office.

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bianca is so right! In the 80's Keith and his
> nasty ways, temper tantrums, not willing to kiss
> and make up cost Stones fans at least 2 tours and
> who knows how many cds, how much great music! So,
> if this topic is going to continue to be a Mick vs
> Keith thing, at least the Keith folks have to
> acknowledge a few facts! First, Mick wanted to
> continue touring with the Stones, he could not
> DRAG Keith into the studio to record, he wanted to
> make music, it's what he does! Mick decided to
> continue making music alone if Keith wouldn't
> SPEAK to him, let alone regroup! Keith got even
> more pissed, starting calling Mick names etc when
> MIck put out a solo cd. Now, I will be the first
> to admit, Let's Work is NOT a masterpiece however
> the rest of his solo work is excellent! How can
> you argue that Wandering Spirit and much of
> Primitive Cool is just plain great solid music. NO
> SOUL? EVENING GOWN has NO SOUL! HARD WOMAN has no
> soul?? REALLY? Are you wearing ear plugs when you
> listen to this or are no just NO listening and
> faking it? I bet the ones who are bashing Mick's
> music have not heard most of it! I at least own
> TALK IS CHEAP and MAIN OFFENDER and I have played
> them and in my opinion, both are pretty lame.The
> Stones really DID almost dissintegrate, because of
> KEITH, not Mick! Stones History 101, not made up,
> not just my defending Jagger. Prove me wrong with
> facts. Keith came right out and said he hated
> Mick's friends, the socialites Mick entertained
> and hung out with so alot of his problems with
> Mick had nothing to do with music! He was not man
> enough, at that time, to get past some of these
> other issues and sit down, write STONES MUSIC and
> get on with the show! Mick was trying, Keith was
> not.



Bianca and you are WRONG. Because when Keith was addicted to heroin in the 70's, Mick was having a grand time, because not only was he enjoying his jetsetting lifestyle, he was in complete control of the band. When Keith kicked his addiction, he started fighting with Mick over the music, trying to get his creative input in because Mick was not ready to give up his power. In the late '70's and early 80's, that's pretty much all Keith got mad at him for. Then when he got his solo career, Mick in fact did not want to tour with the Stones. It's been well-documented that all Rolling Stones wanted to tour behind DW....except Mick. Mick wanted to tour behind his solo album. Hey, I'd be pissed off too, if my lead singer decided to ditch my band and not help with the upcoming album to tour behind some mediocre piece of shit album like Primitive Cool. And don't go telling me than anything off of Primitive Cool. You'll just make yourself look stupid. And soul or no soul, that does not change the fact that Evening Gown and the album version of Hard Woman are both crappy, lame songs. Granted, Mick has recorded some excellent songs during his solo career and Wandering Spirit is excellent, but he was the one that almost brought the Stones down because he wanted to be bigger than the Stones, not Keith.

how do you know charlie really smacked mick, maybe thats just one of those keith myths, were you there, of course not so we will never know for sure

take EVERY single Jagger solo track, and combined they wouldn't be as good as Take It So Hard

Mr Jagger cannot do solo without sounding crap. he tries too hard to be something he's not.

JumpingKentFlash wrote: "Don't know if the Wingless Angels project counts, and I have yet to hear it unfortunately"
************************

don't bother. i love keith's solo stuff and i love reggae........this was
a disappointment to me. like someone accidently left a $20 tape recorder running in their jamaican backyard.

Can't remember that jagger ever did a solo, except on his harmonica of course.

;0)

__________________________

Sorry but I totally disagree about WHY Mick didn't care to tour behind DIRTY WORK and I STATED WHY! IT WAS A PIECE OF CRAP! It was Keith's jealousy that created much of the tension in the band in the 80's and I DO KNOW that Mick did want to stretch his wings and do solo material but Mick was NEVER angry with Keith's Winos or Barbarian projects. Keith was the one who felt very threatened and yes, maybe because he did NOT want the band to break up. I don't believe Mick wanted to disband the Stones but he did have a need to experiment on his own AND THAT does NOT make Mick a bad guy! There can only be ONE leader in a band like the Stones and sorry to have to be the bearer of BAD NEWS but it will ALWAYS be MICK until he is no longer on the planet and the reasons are many. Primarily, when Keith was rolling around on the ground, grovelling with his many addictions, it was MICK that you can thank for keeping the band alive! Who the HELL do you think keep thew machinery moving at that time!? NOT KEITH! THESE ARE THE FACTS, if you care to put a different spin on them, great but the facts remain.

"Yo, THanks for sticking up for me, Debra"

YO, Eric, exactly what point was I defending you on?

Debra, Mick said it, I'm just the messanger....merely a joke.

Oh I get it!! Very funny, I guess.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Yo, THanks for sticking up for me, Debra"
>
> [i96.photobucket.com]
> -21feb-maybe.jpg


Is that video where Mick has that mask on avalibale? Never saw it.

I was under the impression that the Charlie smacks Mick incident happened sometime during the SW tour.

JumpingKentFlash

Debra, I know you are a Mick-Chick and I respect that. But the facts from the 80's are just what they are: jagger inked the solo deal and tried to go solo. This was because he wnated a solo career and was tired of the Stones. There is no stroy of him wanting to tour but Keith not coming along. After DW the rest of the band wanted to tour but Jagger was not available. because he was trying to promote his (at that point) lousy solo albums.
Re. the thread topic I think one reason Keith came out looking so much better than Jagger was the touring. Keith put a band together - a real band. And he put himself and gis rep on the line right where it counts. In USA, and Europe's prime markets. Not like Jagger who literally hid in the Far east. Keith's got better for the solo move, Jagger got humble. So you can say that thye both grew in areas that they needed.

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