Wall street journal article today, pg D7...talks about Mick's new album...Mentions that he had recovered from the tour and he's back to writing songs...whether for his solo stuff or the stones he does not say...he saw Keith and Charlie the other day and everyone is WELL.....

thanks to mboston on shidoobee for the link to the article:
[online.wsj.com]

This sounds promising:

Does he ever think about doing an album of blues standards? "I do indeed," he replied. "But I always think I have to do things with a twist. Maybe I should throw away the twist."

...especially about the line about throwing away the twist ;-)

Sounds Great...i hope keith wants to come back and work? i think after the tour they could put out a GREAT album...

btw--i really dig jaggers new album....just think how much better if you add Keith to the mix?

Thank ya for report.

I am always astonished when folks are surprised that Mick's solo material holds together so well, that it really stands alone in a strong way. I do think it's because they hear the name " Mick Jagger" and they automatically expect Stones, and that's a good thing except when it pigeon-holes him and all of his efforts to be respected an an artist unto himself go down the drain. I do hope he comes out with his own blues album; I imagine he'll play lots of harp, slide and hire a kick ass band. The Red Devils would do just fine!

good news

wonder why he didn't admire Sonny Boy Williamson?

Mick and blues: a perfect combination of course. But that being said I like Mick's interpretation of the blues in the 60s and early 70s better than his latter days efforts.
This is really amazing, because you'd expect life's experience to lead to more blues. Mick in his 20s and young 30s sang the blues more hauntingly yet with a lot of sex appeal than some of the old masters. Nowadays Mick sings the blues more with some soul kind of melody to it, which takes away most of the character of the songs. Just compare "Back of my hand" to "Confessin' the blues" or "The Storm" to "Little red rooster" and you'll hear what I mean.
And thinking of it, maybe that's why I never really got into the live versions of "Sway" or "No expectations" from the last tours. Mick somewhere along the road lost his ability to sing about desperation.
(I think maybe that's what the money has done to him.)

I think he is still more than capable when the mood fits him. How can anyone dispute THATS HOW STRONG MY LOVE IS from FOUR FLICKS. Even non-fans I've shown it to were blown away.

THSMLI from from flicks is amazing. I rememeber hearing it a Roseland & not being to familiar w/ the song ..but blown away by how well Jagger (as well as the band) worked it.

Love Jaggers playing & singing on the rehearsal of Just can't be Satisfied. A little unplolished, but that is offen when they stones sound great imo. Not so "Stones on ice" to paraphrase Townsend.

smile: yeah THSMLI is mighty fine! (i think he overdoes the instructions to the band a bit, but ... that's okay.)
i don't think marcovandereijk was saying he finds Mick lacking as a soul singer, though -
just that his blues singing doesn't seem to him as fraught as it once did.

Thank you, sister Sssoul.

Yeah, Mick is showing his craftsmanship on "That's how strong my love is" and yes, he is still the best front man in RnR. But I was indeed referring to the blues and the blues only (THSMLI is soul in my opinion, not blues). I do not know if "Sway" can be considered Blues, but the matter of the fact is that I am missing something in those songs of loneliness, broken hearts, poverty, etc. etc. etc. that was there in the young Mick but somewhere along the road got lost.

Mmmm,
I think we could start a very long thread about what is and what isn't the Blues ;^)

Bashlets, you took the words right out of my finger! The example that you gave, THSMLI, is the song that came to my mind immediately. I also think that the repetitiveness of Mick singing the songs so often may influence the edginess of the delivery, and certainly on a great night, no one does it better than Mick. Imagine singing the same tune 4 nights each week! Hard for me to imagine singing with the same intensity each evening.

>> I think we could start a very long thread about what is and what isn't the Blues <<

i'd enjoy that! meanwhile, i too would call THSMLI a soul number.

>> Imagine singing the same tune 4 nights each week! Hard for me to imagine
singing with the same intensity each evening. <<

smile: more like maximum 3 nights ... and it's his job to deliver the songs with intensity,
and mainly his choice of songs. i'm not complaining, mind you - i'm just sayin :E



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-16 21:29 by with sssoul.

I enjoyed his energy on "That's How Strong My Love Is," but it was more of an athletic performance than a musical one. Almost like something from American Idol.

I'm just surprised that someone who admires the music as much as mick clearly does wouldn't groove all over Sonny Boy Williamson, who just by the sound of his wily voice charms me instantly.

That's How Strong My Love Is is not a blues.

Actually, there is (or was, at one time) a pretty concrete definition of blues as a musical form, but over time people have come to describe anything "bluesy" as blues. Whether or not this common usage has actually resulted in a changed definition, I don't know..

By the way, I'm not one that thinks Mick is actually a better singer these days. In fact, I think he is not.

But, "Back of My Hand," live and in the studio, smokes...Personally, I think he sings it better than he ever sang "Little Red Rooster." I think he channels the power of those masters like Muddy and Robert Johnson much better in this original than he did in some of the early covers.

Ain't it great that we all hear things so differently?

smile: Back of My Hand grooves me just fine too -
but i never had any complaints about Little Red Rooster either, so ... what do i know. :E

And me, I don't complain about Back of my Hand either.
At least, I think I'm not complaining. I do like the song, but the instrumental parts are the real treat and on stage I would have preferred Mick to play harmonica instead of guitar. This still ain't no complaint, but just a matter of taste. And tastes do tend to differ and even change over time. So no big deal to discuss too much about it. I'm not too fond of oisters too.

I didn't much like Back of My Hand as a Stones track, except for Charlies drumming.
The track seems contrived, and without sincerity, like a tribute band of the Stones doing a blues tune.
Corny lyrics, and bad vocals to top it off.

With that said, it was great live, and is better than 99% of the stuff the Stones have released in the last 25 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-19 17:03 by Hairball.