With Keith's and Micks albums put together I think the answer is a definitely yes and you?

They should of never gone solo.

Of course they could have.

The choice whether to work together or apart was theirs' to make.

There is no question that when those fellows made music together, magic things happened.

The whole greater than the sum of the parts type of thing.

If they had only done it once, different calculation.
But they did it several times.
Repeatedly.
Over and over and over again.

I have no doubt, even today, that they could put something out that would blow all of us away.

They just continue to choose not to.

steel driving hammer wrote on Jan 29^th, 2015 at 6:00pm:



Wandering Spirit, Talk is Cheap and Main Offender are very good records in their own right

But they were made in the late 80s/early 90's. And as the only genuine classic record the Stones have made post-Exile is Some Girls (and, at a push, Tattoo You - an album of leftovers which was moulded into a minor classic by Chris Kimsey and Mick), then its a bit optimistic IMO to think that they could have produced something on a similar level had they concentrated on a band album instead of solo ventures.  The two albums they did record with the Stones around that time frame provide more accurate analysis of what they were and weren't capable of - uneven but with a few very good songs and a couple of gems.

Most creative artists have a muse which peaks for a limited time and then never really comes back.  Mick and Keith's was that period from about 1965-72 - with Mick having a bit of an Indian summer as a writer around 1977-78.

Very few get it back on a level where it was at their peak. Dylan in the mid 70s is one of the very few I can think of. Van Morrison and Bruce Springsteen are two that come close (and probably Lucinda Williams, based on her recent album, which is IMO the best thing shes ever done, despite the fact that she was about 61 when she wrote it). When it does happen its usually just flickering and sporadic.

The Stones havent really been artistically driven since the early 80s when Mick started looking for an alternative career to prolong his musical longevity. Throw in Ian Stewart dying in 1985 and you can really divide the Stones' career into two parts. The first 20-22 years or so when they were a creative band trying to develop and then (after they took about three years off trying to figure out if they had a future or not) the period to date when theyve really been riding on the coat tails of what they'd achieved in their first two decades.

They havent really been a full time band in the creative sense since Undercover. In the 31 years since there have been five Rolling Stones studio albums - but significantly there have been five Mick Jagger solo albums. even more significantly, they dont have a contractual commitment to release any new material and havent had one for almost a decade - yet Keith has one as a solo act and I presume Mick still has as well.

Recording wise, the Stones have been a side project of Mick and Keith for some time. The band primarily exists first and foremost as a touring behemoth and a merchandise machine.

" Can you feel and understand me here ? "


<  ---------- Babe  .  I's need's to's knows !!!!  .... that is right .

Weeding ?!

Hashishin' ............ ?!


Are You Hashishin' ?!   ..... Weeding Today ?!

" Hit Me Ronnie !!!! "

JJJJJJJJJJJacky Cakes ®

andrews27 wrote on Jan 31^st, 2015 at 9:22am:

Talk is Cheap is a classic in my opinion.  Exile, no, but Exile was a product of the times and circumstances as well.  The bands' lives are completely different than they were in those days.  There is no way they are going to write something like that again.

What they could do, and I wish they would do, is write an introspective record from the perspective of life they have now.  That would be a great record.  Getting Mick and Keith to work together long enough and be that open with each other is another story entirely.

No. SheRat said it nicely.

Tumbling Dijs wrote on Feb 1^st, 2015 at 3:11pm:


This is so interesting, really, just in terms of band lifecycles generally. And certainly, this is applicable with, say, Guns n' Roses. That first record hit it so huge that they then stopped *having* to live/work/party together and then, well, we know what happened next. Maybe that's what bands should do is just *know* that it's time to break up when they no longer, out of necessity, have to live/work/party together. Maybe that's why, as Gazza said, in another thread, people who are solo artists are better able to keep "the muse" around (Dylan, Springsteen, and apparently Lucinda). It's just too hard to keep the juju going with so many people.

I like Angie's idea (hi angie!), about Keith and Mick being open with each other, that counts for something too, I suppose, but then, do we think Exile or any of the Big 4's songs are the result of emotional vulnerability between Keith and Mick? It's an interesting idea....I cannot abide Mick's lyrics anymore. They're painful. And maybe the process of songwriting is also to blame....does it happen anymore that Keith comes up with the riff/chorus/song structure and Mick fleshes it out? I think even if that's happening, Mick phones it in lyric-wise. He seriously should be hit over the head with a frying pan for subjecting people, much less us, his fans, to the crap he's writing lately. Sweet Neo-Con? WTF was that?

OMG, I was working at GoPro cameras when that last song came out and the "music/entertainment" guy was in the cube next to mine and he was always muttering about being backstage at Coachella or whatever the fuck and then I guess he went to London for those November '12 shows so he was always saying "The Stones" really loudly, and when that horrible "Doom and Gloom" was released, I literally had to ask him to stop playing it so much because it was painful for me.   

Taylor (and Wyman) doing work on Sticky Fingers Deluxe, fair enough. But why fanny around with the central guitar line-up on any future ditties after almost 40 years spent honing the KR-RW Weaveyness and short, witty and vibrant solos?

SheRat wrote on Jan 29^th, 2015 at 8:52pm:


Words of wisdom SheRat!

Most of the great rock classics were created by hungry young folks who had nothing to lose and laid it all on the line. Once popular and rich the desire and mindset differ and the creative juices suffer. The Stones tried to maintain popularity by recording the sound of the day whether it be Reggae or Disco. Had they stayed true to their blues roots we might be talking about one or two more classics in their career.

The bands next three albums are, while shorter than 'Exile', every bit as delicious, and in the same spirit of experimentation with the sounds of the day visa vis older American musical forms. And the exact same can be said for their proceeding three albums.

Exile's great, obviously, but a whole myth has grown up around it since probably the early '90s which gives it this iconic status which it certainly didn't have 'til then, and tries to overshadow their other work of that era and shortly after. Myths always contain both truth and bollocks.

'Beggars Banquet' to 'Black and Blue' are ALL indispensible in my book, and for the same - MUSICAL - reasons, and to the same ends.

SheRat wrote on Feb 7^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Exile, to me, essentially sounds like an expanded album of Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers outtakes. Which it largely was.
Still wonderful, but hardly a unique progression stylistically for the Stones at the time. There's just more of it. Probably why it wasn't well received at the time.

It's certainly no stylistic leap like London Calling was.