After watching the dvd/video portion of " The Very Best Of Mick Jagger" I was left wondering why Mick felt the need to justify, almost apologize, for wanting to create a body of work on his own. I am not about to open up that Pandora's Box regarding the feud between Mick and Keith in the 80's; that's ancient history, but to think that today, in 2007, Mick needed to say that he wanted to create music in a " rather quick fashion" over the years amazes me! He danced around the central issue very nicely, not blaming anyone or anything, keeping to the fact that he needed to create his own music. Was he wondering if Keith was about to come forth with his usual scalding criticism? Does he CARE? I guess he just wanted to clear the air, once and for all, and say that what he created with Keith for the Stones was a different type of music and that his solo material could be more personal. He seemed to be saying that he released this collection for himself, so that he could enjoy having a very orderly, progression of his work to look back on when he felt like it! I think that I've answered my own questions... I have to ad that I enjoyed the dvd immensely; highlites for me were the SNL version of Mick with Peter Tosh doing " Walk and Don't Look Back" and the " Sweet Thing " video which I don't think I'd ever seen. It was great to hear Mick explain how each track came to be, how it was recorded, who helped produce each track and whether or not he worked well with the various producers. This is a very worthwhile package and for those who have enjoyed Mick's solo material, at least in part throughout the years, I hope you get a copy for your collection.

And now back to the real work Mrs. Jagger!

I love you Mick, you know that...

Very interesting view that Mick's solo efforts are an exercise in aesthetic pleasure, his solo tunes are, quite important in that a different view of Mick as an artist in his own right is given. The in depth interview and song by song analysis on the new dvd is a must for any serious Mick and Rolling Stones fan.

I agree one hundred percent...no apology needed

I wrote this post as a sort of catharsis, really, but I am happy to see that SWEET THINGS agrees with me. It actually made me kind of sad when I watched Mick explaining WHY he decided to put out this collection. What other artist do you know that feels the need to clarify WHY he released a cd?? It shows the kind of dynamic that holds this band together. Mick must feel like he's walking on eggs, like being torn by the desire to create and the realization that certain others in the band may be royally pissed off by it! I agree SWEET THING! No need to apologize.

....I've said it before, and I'll say it again.....very interesting that not a peep has been heard from Mr. Richards.

if i know keith he probably doesnt even know about it

He's in a Swiss clinic getting his brain changed.

You heard it here 1st !

sc uk

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if i know keith he probably doesnt even know about
> it


Well, do you? ;-)

I was very pleasantly surprised how much I thoroughly enjoyed the Best of MJ album - some GREAT songs and an interesting DVD interviews.. thanks for music again, Mick!

R&R Rolling Stone - Issue 1036 4 October 2007



ROCKMAN

I don't think thier is anything for Keith to say. Let Mick go out and promote his best of cd and when it's time for the Stones to get back to work Keith will be ready (we hope). At least he isn't trashing Mick in the press or making any shitty comments. I think it is good that Keith is laying low.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

A2 - Melbourne Age 13 October 2007



ROCKMAN

MOJO 168 - November 2007



ROCKMAN

I love that, Rockman! Thanks for posting that. Never heard anyone say Keith carried Mick, at ANY point however. ( Anyone that matters, I mean!).

Reviews - Rolling Stone Issue 1037 18 October 2007



ROCKMAN

Does anybody think that thier is ever a chance they might play Memo From Turner live........Yes I know I'm dreaming.

I agree too... I loved the DVD, it was a wonderful historian of the times through the beginning to now. Hightlights just another night, dancing in the streets and you've got to walk and don't look back. I thought the interview was cool too - loved all the blue accessories to bring out the blue eyes!!

I love the Stones but I love Mick's solo efforts too!

mickschix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love that, Rockman! Thanks for posting that.
> Never heard anyone say Keith carried Mick, at ANY
> point however. ( Anyone that matters, I mean!).

But isn´t that exactly what most Keith Richards-fans think?

Mickchixx, very good points.

The idea of Mick doing his solo stuff for 'aesthetic reasons', to fulfill his own muse, in contrary to The Stones that is like his eight-to-five duty, is, so to say, an interesting interpretation with the fact that his own work has a tendency to follow the trend music from the charts. Or at least, that was the case in the 80's with SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL. After seeing their commercial failure, maybe he understood that his future will be with The Rolling Stones if he wants maintain his super star status. WANDERING SPIRIT and GODDESS albums are more in aline with that 'aesthetic pleasure'-ideology. I don't see neither of them as desparate efforts to stay trendy, but more like "I've Got My Own Album To Do" sort of stuff, expressing his own musical taste and intuition. Now, this BEST OF album has teh same kind of feeling.

But Mick's solo career and the style of it weren't exactly surprising musically. "Miss You", "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover Of the Night" were essentially Mick's solo songs, and musically related to stuff like "Just Another Night" and "Let's Work". It's the same guy following the trends in them. And in fact, that is what Jagger's always been doing with the Stones; keeping the sound of the band current. Keith was similar trend spotter for years, but somewhere during the 70's Keith turned conservative, and so it was up to Jagger to keep the band relevant. Remeber, it was Jagger ho wanted to turn to punk in SOME GIRLS (maybe the first solo album of Jagger, really...). I think the twist between 'modern' or 'opportunist' Mick and 'conservative' Keith went worse as the years go by. As Keith has said Jagger was running the band in the late 70's, and was not willing to share the charge with Keith anymore, after Keith had cleaned his act. It is understable that Jagger didn't want to do compromises or share the responsibilities because he had used to do everything by himself (look at the Ian Stewart Interview from 1975 to confirm this). The Stones had been more or less Mick's background band from 'Rock and Roll Circus' on. Perhaps the huge popularity of Keith in the early 80's (he was the real hero of my generation of Stones fans) together with Keith's own desires to lead the band was something Jagger couldn't cope with anymore. Keith had always been in Mick's shadow, and worked for Mick, really, as some kind of musical heart of the band. But in the early 80's the significance of Keith was recognized also in public - and from that on, there have been two superstars - and nowadays, frontmen - in the band. And for sure, Keith made his own importance to be seen. So my guess is that in the 80's Jagger really tried to get rid of Keith and the rest, and continue just by on his own, but - better or worse - failed. But I think in every Stones album since STEEL WHEELS one can hear that the real spark is not there anymore. The Stones albums are more results of compromises, mostly recicling the old 'safe' ideas. Jagger even don't try to kick the Stones forward anymore, and accepts the nostalgic status of the band. Maybe Keith is happy with it, but I don't think Mick is, but I guess he secretly smiles in his way to bank...

- Doxa

I want a apology for not doing''Out of time'' on tour!!!!

For not doing a Chuck Berry song on tour!!

Interesting, Doxa. I did not like the punk influence found in " Some Girls " by the way, but I agree. Mick was staying with the trends for that time. I also think, as you said, Mick has never approached his writing in a desperate way. He writes when the muses move him, and according to Mick, he is inspired quite alot! The way he writes so quickly amazes me! I write poetry and I know at times it seems the words tumble out, almost like automatic writing. It's good to hear that the creative juices have not dried up!

Very sharp analysis doxa.

I kinda wish that Keith WOULD emerge to say something/anything about ANY topic, even if it were just a wee little Mick bashing. It's been a good couple of months since he's said anything incendiary in the press. How very unlike him not to have something to say -- probably just mumbling to himself, doing some heavy-duty sun bathing in Jamaica. Of course, Mick's people have him tied up in that hammock and have removed all communications devices!

Not even Al Gore has made a comment about Mick's cd. Just what IS going on?

It would be a good thing from a PR standpoint to muzzle Keith on this topic because after awhile, it just looks BAD for the band; it would appear that Mick and Keith are NOT friendly with each other off stage and I don't think that's the case. Their playfulness on stage during ABB went a long way in promtoting a sense of goodwill and comraderie and I personally like that! Maybe Keith appreciates the support that he received from Mick during his recovery and the fact that on his " off-nights" he didn't feel like a scolded child.

Rip This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....I've said it before, and I'll say it
> again.....very interesting that not a peep has
> been heard from Mr. Richards.


Not really. Its a compilation after all and whats the point of commenting again on songs you bitched about when they came out first time around.

not sure why everyone is expecting a comment from keith...as gazza said - it's
not new material....and isn't currently taking away from anything the Stones were doing.

i viewed the MJ dvd last week.....I didn't memorize it..so forgive me if
i misquote him but i thought it was interesting when mick justified his
solo efforts by saying something like "well...the Stones weren't working
together or touring at the time so....." (paraphrasing from memory)

seems to me that the Stones would've (could've) been recording & touring
if Mick had not been doing solo stuff. wasn't THAT keith's gripe?
Keith wanted to make a Stones album and tour...Mick didn't.
Mick makes it sound like he was just keeping busy while the Stones
were taking a break.

I wish he'd just say..."keith and I weren't getting along....we didn't
know the fate of the stones....and i wanted to release a collection of
my own dancier tunes....and a lame long-form video (Running Out of Luck)".


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-15 18:43 by sweet neo con.

I think in terms of diplomacy, it's best that Mick not be totally truthful about why he wanted to do solo material in the 80's. Why stir the pot all over again, you know the theory about letting sleeping dogs lie!?

The reasons were quite obvious. However, in the end, it all worked out OK. Maybe if they didnt go through all that crap in the 80's the Stones would have split up for good by the end of the decade and we wouldnt be talking about them as a 'current' band like we're able to now.

In the end, it took that period of tension and Mick's projected solo career not taking off in the way he'd hoped it would to make all of them realise that the what they have together is much greater than the sum of the collective parts.

All's well that ends well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-15 19:21 by Gazza.