not directed at anyone inparticular

Just reminding 'sweet thing' that he was quoting himself, CharliesSinger....

Another fine call by Erik

sweet things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Keith might be behind most of what is, IMO a
> myth.

Maybe, but I reckon Keith's take on things would be worth more than those of any of the rest of us.

Fact is, Mick cut himself a solo deal on the back of a Stones record contract - behind the backs of the rest of the band.

Its not rocket science to figure out that in the mid 80s with band relationships at an all time low and with Charlie and Ronnie having substance problems, the long term future of the band looked somewhat limited. That, plus the fact that even by that time, the Stones were in uncharted territory re: a rock band's longevity. Classic case of rock star middle age crisis/Peter Pan syndrome.

Mick's songwriting contribution to Dirty Work was minimal. Quite apparent that he was devoting more of his attention to writing for his solo career. That speaks volumes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-29 03:35 by Gazza.

Interesting discussion. I think that, in retrospect, the mid-80s were clearly Jagger's career lowpoint. He has admitted that turning 40 was difficult. Undercover was the first Stones album not to top the charts. And the lure of a solo career, and its subsequent failure, surely took its toll. (Arguably he was in denial after the first solo disc failed, so he tried again, with equally disappointing results).

There are so many subtle signs of how lost Mick was. Compared to today, he was relatively out of shape. His wardrobe sucked. His hair was long but not sexy (I think). His voice, especially on DW, sounded like a barking dog more than anything else.

And then ... he realized it was time to grow up, chuck the solo-career ambitions, and become a professional Rolling Stone. He hit the gym, hired a voice coach, and devoted real effort to the Steel Wheels tour and album. And that has been the template for his behavior ever since. IMO.

Drew

Mick has had a very bad solo career and when Rolling Stones songs like "Blinded By Love" and "Streets of Love" are included on the albums it really destroys what the band was all about. His solo career has caused major damage, especially because of the highly unappealing vibe he brings. Keith calls it "very manneristic" and it's very unnappealing due to the dionysian and genuinly soulful vibe the band long cultivated. I haven't bought an Mick albums since the atrocious "Primitive Cool," but I heard some "Goddess" music in the "Being Mick" TV movie and it was more of the same crap. The people Mick admires like Lenny Kravitz and Rob Thomas - that's pretty embarrassing.

simply put mick would of stayed a solo act and the stones would of hired a new frontman

Mick's comments from NPR interview earlier this year:

While Jagger took on side projects during the '60s and '70s, it wasn't until 1985 that he decided to attempt a solo career, releasing the album She's the Boss. So what was the reaction from the other Stones when he took that leap?

"When you work with people in any creative endeavor, they never like you to do anything else. They just want you to work with them. That's just a sort of a knee-jerk reaction. I mean, you sort of understand it, but personally, I don't mind.

"At the time, the Stones would do one album every three years and that was it. I thought, 'It's just not enough.' I mean, 12 songs at a time? I had far too many songs of my own for The Rolling Stones to record. I could say, 'OK, make more Rolling Stones records,' but they take a long time to make and are quite complicated, and then you go on tour and all those things. I think that was the real driving force of my going solo."

In 1989, with two solo albums and a brief Stones-less tour behind him, Jagger returned to the fold. He continues to create music under his own name, but his front-man role in the group he founded remains his primary commitment. What did he learn that he would not have experienced with the Stones?

"In the end, I'm a singer and I'm just singing. That's what I do, and that's what I do with The Rolling Stones, as well. People say, 'It must be really different!' It's not really that different. You're singing, and no one else is in the studio, it's usually midnight and it doesn't really matter who's playing in the end. As long as it sounds good to you."


Interview here:
[www.npr.org]

SLIMHARPO, that was a rather harsh assessment of Mick if I might say so myself!! ( Totally off-base as well!) Mick an embarrassment?? Do you really want to go down THAT road in an objective fashion? I'm not about to open up that Pandora's Box, however to say " Streets of Love" DESTROYS the band is ridiculous! ( even for a Keith fan). One ballad that youmay not like hardly impacts how an entire show is viewed, even to those not rabid Stones fans. I happen to think that when Mick does perform SOL, it's a highpoint of the show! You don't see the mass exodus to the beer stands during SOL that you see during a certain other Stones' 2 song set that NEVER VARIES from one night to the next! NUF SAID!

sweet things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> "At the time, the Stones would do one album every
> three years and that was it. I thought, 'It's just
> not enough.' I mean, 12 songs at a time? I had far
> too many songs of my own for The Rolling Stones to
> record.

That really explains him turning up for the Dirty Work sessions, around the time 'Shes The Boss' came out, pretty much bereft of songs then....

It's an opinion. Objectivity is not something I can offer and nor can you. I can point out that on these bulletin boards lots of people hate "streets of Love" quite a bit. It remains my view that people who really "get" what the Stones were all about find it hard to swallow "streets of Love," "Blinded By Love" and any number of his solo songs like "Let's Work," "War Baby" "Brand New Set of Rules." To me and many others, these songs, the arrangements, the vibe, are to stones fans what cryptonite is to superman. It just kills me.

Hugs and kisses,

Harpo




mickschix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SLIMHARPO, that was a rather harsh assessment of
> Mick if I might say so myself!! ( Totally off-base
> as well!) Mick an embarrassment?? Do you really
> want to go down THAT road in an objective fashion?
> I'm not about to open up that Pandora's Box,
> however to say " Streets of Love" DESTROYS the
> band is ridiculous! ( even for a Keith fan). One
> ballad that youmay not like hardly impacts how an
> entire show is viewed, even to those not rabid
> Stones fans. I happen to think that when Mick does
> perform SOL, it's a highpoint of the show! You
> don't see the mass exodus to the beer stands
> during SOL that you see during a certain other
> Stones' 2 song set that NEVER VARIES from one
> night to the next! NUF SAID!

A bit more on the sweet, sweet ballad Streets Of Love. I heard this one twice on the ABB tour. Apparently, others liked it as well:

They played two new songs from "A Bigger Bang," which I think is a fantastic album. I was one of the few that thought so, apparently, as the crowd shifted toward the beer stand when Mick strapped on a guitar for "Streets of Love." Slow ballads generally don’t fit the immense atmosphere of a stadium show, but it came off really well. For "Rough Justice," on the moveable "mini-stage" that rolled to the back of the stadium for four songs, Mick wore an absurd red satin jacket that looked like it had been sitting in his closet since 1979. Still, the new songs seem to bring a sense of freshness and excitement to the band. Plus, they’re good songs and show the Stones aren’t resting on past successes. I would have liked to have heard a few more of the new songs.
[teboone.typepad.com]

LIVE REVIEW: THE ROLLING STONES (with BONNIE RAITT)

BC PLACE STADIUM, VANCOUVER, 6:45 PM, 25 NOVEMBER 2005

RATING: 10

HIGHLIGHTS: STREETS OF LOVE, SHINE A LIGHT, MIDNIGHT RAMBLER, YOU GOT THE SILVER, START ME UP, YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT
[www.iansmusicreviews.com]

Is this not in line with other Stones ballads such as Tears Go By, Sweet Lady Jane and Angie?

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sweet things Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >> "At the time, the Stones would do one album
> every
> > three years and that was it. I thought, 'It's
> just
> > not enough.' I mean, 12 songs at a time? I had
> far
> > too many songs of my own for The Rolling Stones
> to
> > record.
>
> That really explains him turning up for the Dirty
> Work sessions, around the time 'Shes The Boss'
> came out, pretty much bereft of songs then....

I love Dirty Work, The band was in a nasty mood, I always love them extra when they are nasty...LOL!

Most of the 80's music sucks especially the mid 80's.What I don't like about the 80's music is the sound of the drums. That splashy shitty sound that @#$%& like Phil collins "invented" and for whatever reason became hip for a while. Mick's 2 first albums were made to be commercial successes and he embraced that 80's sound (Collins, madonna, Prince, P Gabriel). I hate that shit. Vh1 "We love the 80's" drives me mad.
Rock and roll,
Mops

Harpo darling, I think Sweet things just about took care of your assumption that most fans don't like Mick's ballads, especially SOL. That's way too broad a statement to be legit and as far as staying " true" to the REAL STONES SOUND, well, as Sweet Things also said, some of the greatest moments during recent shows are some of these ballads. Remember, the audience is not 100% male, testosterone driven folks who only love the hard, edgier sounding songs. What is the true Stones sound anyway? Is it not a combination of all genres, not just rock or blues. THe Stones are primarily a R&B, rock band but even Zeppelin or Aerosmith for example have had success with ballads. Just for the record, I HATE " Let's Work"!! I hate it a lot! I don't hate the entire cd however and I love " Brand New Set Of Rules". Peace to you and to all who express their unique opinions about Mick and his solo material; I happen to be a staunch defender of his solo catalog because I enjoy it, but to each his own.

I'm with sweet things re "Dirty Work" - it's a powerful record, angry, unlike anything they'f done before, and it captures both the times and the mid-life-crisis the band was in - a pretty dark album. The production flourishes I could do without, but where "Steel Wheels" I rarely listen to, though the band sounds hot, because digital sound is so oppressive and airless, whereas DW's basic power and honesty shines through. And unlike most I think all the songs are very good. I've been listening to ABB recently, too, and it's a terrific record, but out of the 19 new songs the RS issued in '05, SOL is the only one that I still can't get into. I never heard it live, -- but when I saw them they were still doing 4 ABB tracks (I assumed as the tour progressed they'd add another couple, get to maybe 5 or 6 per show - alas...). And someone should tell Mick Back Of My Hand, This Place Is Empty, Rain Fall Down, and Rough Justice all went over really well with the crowds...(Infamy seemed underdeveloped early in the tour).

Infamy live could have been a lot better; I heard it many times live and it dragged! It just did not GO anywhere. John, I would bet that you'd love SOL live. The emotion evoked was impressive.

Well, I think SHE'S THE BOSS is much more exciting and listenable album nowadays than DIRTY WORK, namely, there are better songs in it, and both PRIMITIVE COOL and TALK IS CHEAP are way much better than STEEL WHEELS that sounds more like a easy compromise without the real spark of the Twins.

To be honest, I have always loved PRIMITIVE COOL. Never mind its horrible 80's production, it is full of great songs into which Jagger has put much more energy and thought than any of the songs he has done with the Stones ever since. That's the last time Jagger tried something one would call new and creative. One could call this as my confession..

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-30 01:18 by Doxa.

sweet things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > sweet things Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >> "At the time, the Stones would do one album
> > every
> > > three years and that was it. I thought, 'It's
> > just
> > > not enough.' I mean, 12 songs at a time? I
> had
> > far
> > > too many songs of my own for The Rolling
> Stones
> > to
> > > record.
> >
> > That really explains him turning up for the
> Dirty
> > Work sessions, around the time 'Shes The Boss'
> > came out, pretty much bereft of songs then....
>
> I love Dirty Work, The band was in a nasty mood, I
> always love them extra when they are nasty...LOL!


Thats not the issue, though. The vast majority of songs on that album were written by Keith, either alone or with Ronnie. Mick's songwriting contribution was pretty minimal. So much for him having ample material for BOTH his Stones and solo projects, as claimed in the interview you've quoted.

mickschix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harpo darling, I think Sweet things just about
> took care of your assumption that most fans don't
> like Mick's ballads, especially SOL. That's way
> too broad a statement to be legit and as far as
> staying " true" to the REAL STONES SOUND, well, as
> Sweet Things also said, some of the greatest
> moments during recent shows are some of these
> ballads. Remember, the audience is not 100% male,
> testosterone driven folks who only love the hard,
> edgier sounding songs. What is the true Stones
> sound anyway? Is it not a combination of all
> genres, not just rock or blues. THe Stones are
> primarily a R&B, rock band but even Zeppelin or
> Aerosmith for example have had success with
> ballads. Just for the record, I HATE " Let's
> Work"!! I hate it a lot! I don't hate the entire
> cd however and I love " Brand New Set Of Rules".
> Peace to you and to all who express their unique
> opinions about Mick and his solo material; I
> happen to be a staunch defender of his solo
> catalog because I enjoy it, but to each his own.


There's lot of truth in this quote. The Stones has never been any simple hard rocking rock band made of simple one-track mind rock musicians a'la Status Quo or AC/DC. Like Ronnie Wood says in IN ACCORDING TO THE ROLLING STONES the even the early Stones gigs were the ones where one could find great chicks... and that's the part of the story; I think Mick Jagger - and Brian Jones - has always been reflected as performers and musivcians as personas that are not easy to categorize, and perhaps because of that, have always attracted the best girls (and women) especially. The rock icon, guitar hero Keith is the simple case for the guys to relate. Jagger has always left the guys confused, like it has been many times said... All of that complexion is nicely reflected in the music of the Stones. It's the SEX SEX SEX...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-30 02:43 by Doxa.

mickschix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harpo darling, I think Sweet things just about
> took care of your assumption that most fans don't
> like Mick's ballads, especially SOL. That's way
> too broad a statement to be legit and as far as
> staying " true" to the REAL STONES SOUND, well, as
> Sweet Things also said, some of the greatest
> moments during recent shows are some of these
> ballads. Remember, the audience is not 100% male,
> testosterone driven folks who only love the hard,
> edgier sounding songs. What is the true Stones
> sound anyway? Is it not a combination of all
> genres, not just rock or blues. THe Stones are
> primarily a R&B, rock band but even Zeppelin or
> Aerosmith for example have had success with
> ballads. Just for the record, I HATE " Let's
> Work"!! I hate it a lot! I don't hate the entire
> cd however and I love " Brand New Set Of Rules".
> Peace to you and to all who express their unique
> opinions about Mick and his solo material; I
> happen to be a staunch defender of his solo
> catalog because I enjoy it, but to each his own.



What Sweet Thing = most Stones fans? What about John R? He can't get into into SOL. Examples of cool ballads by the stones or solo would be "Beast of Burden" "Waiting on a Friend" "Hate it When You Leave" "Make No Mistake" "Sleep Tonight." Streets of Love" and those other Mick ballads are not at all cool. Just really embarrassing. If most Stones fans like "Streets Of Love" then that would confirm I am living in hell.

I hope you can stand the heat DOWN THERE, SLIM!!

P.S. SLIM: That's WHY the Stones have so many fans with such diverse taste in music! They appeal to a cross section of music fans that encompass R&B lovers, blues fanatics, rockers, even some lovers of pop( GOD FORBID THEY SIT NEXT TO ME AT A SHOW!). Even my Godchild likes some of the Stones catalog and she basicly loves Korn and alternative rock and grunge. My Mom's favorite Stones song is " Under My Thumb" which she can sing in it's entirety...pretty scarey, hey?

Yeah well I like Mick's solo stuff but he should have left them for the Stones
talk about "gems' with keith putting his input in it they would have been GREAT
stones albums. That's where all the creativity went to the solo efforts. why can't they bring this creative energy in the stones camp. It would be wonderful.
It is like Mick and Keith are playing tug of war at each other by seeing who can do better. why not they just be a team like they used to be and just write great songs for the stones, unless they just don't care about us fans anymore. I may be wrong for what i am saying here but if you think about itdon't you all think it makes some sense? Happy New Year all...

drummer_dude

i think it was in a way naturual and in way inevitable that mick wanted to try something different, and in the long run and into retroperspective everybody did profite from it - the stones as a band, absorbing new influences, and the fans too. We got not only more albums (in any case more than when they only had recorded stones albums), but also some solo albums of high quality (WS, TIC). And for me on every album of mick there have been some at least listenable songs, and i also admit that i do like even "let´s work", which has a nice and happy atmosphere about it, which is very "un-stony" but in a way fun (though i admit there is a large ideological gap between the "message" of Hang fire and let´s work, and i think Let´s work faces also so much refuse among us because of its "neo-liberal" content, which is not very popular here).

I consider myself a liberal and not a neo liberal! I've been a liberal all of my life but I don't see that as a reason for not liking " Let's Work"....I just think it's lousy!