On November 20, Mick Jagger’s solo “Goddess in the Doorway” is scheduled to hit the racks. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (the Rolling Stone for the financial set) by Anna Wilde Mathews, “Virgin [Records] is counting on the Web to help Jagger reach out to a new generation of fans in Gen Y, a marketing-savvy and Internet-focused group responsible for fueling the success of acts like Britney Spears and ‘N Sync.”
This isn’t about pointing fingers, but. . .
“Goddess” is the fourth solo album from the grandfather of rock and roll, a man who can comparatively still remember the folks who used to reside on Mount Olympus. The 58-year-old has accumulated other relics (Townshend) and near-relics (Bono; Joe Perry) to accompany him on this outing. Interestingly enough, Rolling Stone magazine’s founder, editor and publisher Jann Wenner, has written a glowing review of Mick’s album, something that I suspect that Wenner doesn’t do too often (write reviews, that is; “glowing reviews” and that publication are achieving a certain synonymous sound). According to Wenner’s biography on the R.S. website, “Wenner himself conducted many of the magazine’s major interviews in its early years, including lengthy session with Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, Bob Dylan and Phil Spector.” Any names sound familiar?
Meanwhile, it seems that the Stones (as in the band) are in negotiations about the possibility of going out next year on their 40th Anniversary tour. (What do you get someone for their 40th? Geritol?)
All of this brings to mind a phrase from Samuel Johnson: “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” I’m surprised that Jagger hasn’t discovered that the time for him to make recordings for the kids is long past.
Man, how did it come to this? One of the coolest & baddest of the rock & roll rebels, the Stones of the 60’s not only survived their time but far outlasted it. Jagger should have died in a freak airplane accident or something. We all know Keith Richards should’ve OD’d a long time ago. What happened? They were so cool about circa 1969. Why didn’t they stop in the 70’s when they still had a few shreds of credibility left? Too bad-they’re like a Simpson’s parody of themselves now. Man, they were making jokes about the ‘Steel Wheelchair’ tour years ago-this is getting pathetic.Totally off-topic, but has anyone else gotten the Criterion version of ‘Gimme Shelter’ on DVD? That’s a damn fine disc.
They were great well into the seventies. Sticky Fingers was 1971, Exile was 1972, and Goats Head Soup was 1973. Those are all great. It’s Only Rock and Roll was 1974, and that’s not awful. A lot of people say Some Girls is good and that was 1978. So if we’re going to kill them off, let’s have them die on the dancefloor of Studio 54 right after they released “Emotional Rescue,” a song I love even though it’s awful.
Well, 1978 is pushing it, but I can go along with that. I think we can all agree that ‘Some Girls’ should have been the last Stones album. Ideally, I think they should have left ’em wanting more and quit after ‘Exile On Main Street’. Then 2 years later they reunite for one last session which is ‘Goats’ Head’. Then they all spontaneously combust.
You know, I get depressed when bands break up like the Replacemtns or when there are rumors that Wilco may break up…but then I think of the Stones and think maybe breaking up isn’t so bad.
It’s so sad. I really want to not hate Mick. I really want to not put him in the same category as Sting and Aerosmith. And if he and the rest of the Stones just kept touring, playing all the old hits, I think I could still draw that line. Hell, I had a great time at the Steel Wheels tour. But this is too far. Mick has been neither good nor relevant as a solo artist. To attempt to revive a solo career that never was now is embarassing. When a friend told me that this was happening, I asked eagerly, “Is the new album electronica?” in the vain hope that at least we might get to see Mick in his Freejack garb.
On the plus side, I understand that his new album is going to include multimedia work by some of the best, brightest, and baddest designers in the biz, including the guys who did the accompanying multimedia piece for Bjork’s Pagan Poetry Video(presstube.com, pitaru.com, insertsilence.com). So i guess there’ll at least be pretty shapes and shifting colors to look at…
I dunno about the assessment that some girls “should’ve been the last stones album.”I picked up Voodoo Lounge a little while back and I can honestly say hand on heart that ballads like “Blinded By Rainbows” are just as good as “Wild Horses” or “Angie”.”Love Is Strong” rocks as does “You Got Me Rocking”.Also just because Mick has decided to release a solo album, it doesnt automatically mean hes launching a corporate takeover of the world.It might be the case that he’d written some songs that he wouldve liked to see access to given to his fans.I appreciate that it is extremely unfashionable to give credit to an artists later releases, what with rock n roll being for the kids and all, but its a dangerous policy when you consider Dylans last 2 albums are really great.
Re: Dylan’s last two albums. Yes, they’re good, especially when compared to everything he’s done since about 1979 (some would say even earlier). But the problem with old dudes who fade out and make a lot of crappy albums is that usually the comeback fails to create anything that stands up to the earlier work that made them stars to begin with. I would say that no one thinks Time Out of Mind compares with Blood On the Tracks, for instance.Neil Young, as always, is the exception to the rule.
Re: Mick & the Corporate Takeover of the World Later Releases of VetsDon’t forget that the first band to have a corporate sponsor for a tour (Jovan) was. . .the Stones.There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making music at whatever age (although early Osmonds was fundamentally annoying, but a young Michael Jackson was far more genuine that the current version); the problem is the deliberate strategy of trying to get the kids to buy into it: That’s just pathetic.
Let’s not forget Mick’s unlistenable single “Let’s Work.” Now that is noise pollution.GSV’s right about making music at any age. I do have a problem when older artists TRY to stay relevant instead of doing what makes them great. This will get me in hot water with at least two GLONO team members, but Neil’s misadventure in electronic music brought us Trans, a thoroughly annoying album. It was an album that distorted Neil’s voice to the point of near static and tied him to sterile synth beats, obliterating his strongest assets: lyrics and melody.I haven’t heard Mick’s new album but I am skeptical given his solo track record.
I like Trans, but I don’t listen to it very frequently. What does that say?Anyway, the ultimate coincidence is that on this very day, the same one that sees Mick’s new album released, we also get a live album from Sting, music from his Brand New Day tour. Ugh! If that doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what does. But wait, there’s more! Jann Wenner gave it 5 stars! What the fuck is the old rich loser publisher doing writing album reviews? Talk about a sellout. Someone bust Wenner in the chops if they ever see him get out of a limo somewhere.
I like the IDEA of Trans more than I like the album itself. “Any girl in the world could have easily known me better. She said, “You’re strange, don’t change,” and I let her… Is it strange I should change? I don’t know, why don’t you ask her?” Point being: change itself is a good and worthwhile exercise even if the resulting work is not the artist’s greatest stuff. Without that 80’s craziness, today Neil would probably be considered just another dinosaur who can’t let go of the sixties. Instead, we never know what to expect with each new album. Is it going to be another Harvest, a Crazy Horse rocker, or something a whole lot weirder than anything we’ve heard him do? I don’t know what his next album will be, and neither does that girl from “Mr. Soul.” Why don’t you ask her?
Oh, I agree. I’m not saying people shouldn’t change and grow, but to consciously TRY to stay relevant and hip is when it’s over. And yes, true artists fail from time to time because they take risks and push things beyond their limits, but when they push things in a decidedly commercial or marketable wasy, that ain’t art.
The thing that concerns me most about the report in the WSJ about Jagger’s new disc is that there is a deliberate move on behalf of Virgin Records to try to parlay the product into something that it probably isn’t–for the company it is all about ROI. We can debate the merits of Mick. But what is annoying is the corporate manipulation to make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow’s ear (even if it is a damn good ear, there is something fundamentally wrong).
Isn’t this album all about the cover? I just want to look at Mick Jagger. I would pay money to look at Mick Jagger. Why worry about the music, Mick doesn’t!