|
|
| F505 |
That question was asked by Sonja Barend who interviewed Mick Jagger (Dutch tv). Not his fans I quess. His latest solo-record is very poor indeed. The songs are very smooth; the musicians don't play well. The rawness is totally gone.
There's not even one good song at the record.
Wandering Spirit is a very good album comparing with this piece of shit! So I'm very disappointed. But no doubt the Stones fans agree Mick has made a great record. That's the tragic of being a fan. |
|
|
| Mathijs |
I totally agrea with this article below. To me, The Stones are and will forever be The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World, their 1968/1972 and 1978/1981 period can't be topped by any other band -but they should have called it quits after 1982, instead of endlesly dragging on with horrible tours as Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge and "80's Power Pop" albums as empty as Goddess in the Doorway. Rest in Peace, and please give the fans (whom have given you everything, Mick) what they want -anthology albums with outtakes from the period it still meant something.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rollling Stones in Review
http://stonesinreview.tiscaliweb.nl/
The Lowdown on the Guitars of Keith Richards
Bootleg Reviews
Brussels Affair 1973
Vinyl Gang Productions / The Swingin' Pig
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tainting the Memory: Mick Jagger
The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band - the Rolling Stones started calling themselves that during their 1969 American tour. Listen to the album they'd just released at the time, the immortal Let It Bleed, and see if you can argue. Or listen to the album that preceded Let It Bleed - the career-defining classic Beggars Banquet, and try to make your case. I submit that, in 1969, the Rolling Stones were inarguably the world's greatest rock band, and I further posit that they remained the world's greatest rock band until well after 1972, the year that their masterpiece - the desperate 4 A.M. party classic Exile on Main Street - was released to lukewarm reviews. Hell, I even think that Goat's Head Soup - the bloated, dated follow-up to Exile that most Stones cognoscenti mark as the beginning of the end for the band - is a pretty bitchin' record. In fact, what's frustrating about the Rolling Stones from a critical standpoint is that their fall from being the world's greatest rock and roll band to becoming perhaps the prototypical Tainters of Memory was so slow as to be agonizing, as the band's ratio of soulless dreck to timeless classics was gradually and irreversibly ratcheted up until the former swallowed the latter forever. 28 years after Goat's Head Soup, the band still refuses to die, with the result being that there are now more terrible Stones songs than there are decent ones in the universe.
Why couldn't the Rolling Stones take a page from the Beatles (the world's greatest pop band and once the group's clean-cut nemeses in a rivalry manufactured by Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham) and Let It Be? Why did they drag their time in the limelight on and on, obscenely past the point of self-mockery? Ultimately, the answer to that question can be found only within the withered and leathery skulls of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, but I do have a pet theory, and it's this: the Stones were never really just "about the music." From Mick's schooling as an economist to the Stones forcing pianist Ian Stewart out of the band because his ample frame detracted from the band's lean bad-boy image, the Stones' self-marketing was shrewd and aggressive from very early on. Even their trademark bad-boy image, as mentioned above, was manufactured by Andrew Loog Oldham and calculated to move units. In fact, if it hadn't been for Oldham's insistence that Mick and Keith write their own songs so as to make much more money (the story goes that Oldham locked the duo in his basement until they came out with some decent original tunes), the Stones would probably still be playing blues covers.
Paradoxically, the compromised commerciality of the Stones' origins in no way kept them from making great music (see this reviewer's insanely hyperbolic claims above). The Stones may have been shrewd and calculating, but their love of music, specifically the gritty delta blues and twangy country of Americana, was pure and sincere. When they returned to that music after a mid-60's detour into psychedelia, it didn't matter that they were a bunch of white kids from London; they owned it. The Stones enriched and resurrected rock by bringing back to it the sweat, the sleaze, the swagger, the ennui, and the sheer joy of American roots music. Young, drugged, oversexed, and arrogant, the Rolling Stones were rock and roll.
These days, Mick, Keith and the boys (scratch that: the elderly men) have a pretty solid claim on being the diametrical opposite of rock and roll, and not because of the Dust-Brothers-aided forays into electronica on their most recent studio release Bridges to Babylon. They're old, complacent, tired, and haggard. They have nothing to say, and the can barely make anyone feel anything. The only substances likely to be found in Mick Jagger's system these days are Viagra and Metamucil. Jokes about Keith Richards being a walking corpse - a musical zombie who couldn't possibly have survived such an extended battery of sex, drugs, and rock and roll - are almost as old as Keith himself (his respectable work as a solo artist, though, caused us to take Keith - and the rest of the tag-along band - off the Tainted Memory hook and skew this piece solely in favor of Jagger).
There's still money to be made from The Rolling Stones Franchise (TM), though, so Mick and company keep slogging through tour after record in dogged pursuit of it. Their formula, engineered around the time of Love You Live and perfected with 1991's Flashpoint, has by now become rote: record a half-hearted collection of formulaic rockers plus a few sleepy nods to whatever's happening stylistically that year, tour the arenas, and then compile performances from that tour for a half-hearted live record (free money with no pesky new songs or elaborate production required). Repeat as necessary.
The question is: how much is necessary? How much money does Mick Jagger feel he has to acquire before he gets his satisfaction? Now that we've started him up, will he ever stop? The answer, I fear, is "no:" this year sees the release (in time for Christmas shopping and an ABC special) of Goddess in the Doorway, Jagger's fourth solo record, a Supernatural-esque affair of attempted career rehabilitation which comes complete with guest appearences by such fame-whores and pipsqeaks (Pete Townshend and Bono aside) as Wyclef Jean, Lenny Kravitz, Joe Perry, Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliot, and the fat guy from Matchbox 20. If, like me, you deeply love the Rolling Stones and think Mick Jagger was once the very Platonic ideal of the Rock Frontman, my advice to you is as follows: don't buy this record. If we all band together and refuse to plunk down the necessary $16.99 for Goddess in the Doorway, we are sending an important message to this fallen king of rock and roll: please, for God's sake, give it up. Once and for all, stop Tainting our Memories.
-Will Robinson Sheff
|
|
|
| marko |
you´re wroooooooooooooong. |
|
|
| hayo |
Altough I don't agree on everything that was said, I must admit he has a point.
If the stones continue to excist as group they better make damn good albums that rock (with a roll)!
And they must give more (music from the archives) to their fans, whom gave so much all these years. |
|
|
| Mother baby |
Sheff????
Who's he?
Never heard of him before....hopefully won't again.
#2 My memory is kind of fuzzy but hasn't this subject come up before....the old "all washed up" gag again, huh? LOL!!!
"Too old to rock n roll, too young to die " Jethro Tull
[Edited by Mother baby] |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]