Tell Me :
Talk
You really must be a true admirer. I myself never found any of the members of the Rolling Stones interesting as a person, even not when I was (very) young. But the relations between the members of the band, that has always been something of interest to me. Even intrigueing. But only that.
Kleermaker, you should stick with making clothes and shut up!!!!!
I don't find Mick intriguing as a person, or as an "intellect" (he seems to be a superficial thinker, speaks in generalities, and seems to be at his best when intuiting what's happening in the zeitgeist and reflecting it back impressionistically ).
I'm not curious about Charlie as a person, almost out of respect for his being so private.
Ronnie Wood...I wish I knew less about his personal life.
Always got a creep-vibe from Bill Wyman. Don't wanna know about him as a person.
Never found Brian Jones or Mick Taylor particularly personally.
But Keith...he often says things in interviews that not only I didn't know, but also that surprise and delight me -- and which I never would have thought of in that way. He's insightful, and thoughtful. He has a perspective and point of view that are uniquely his.
He makes elegant unusual connections between his thoughts. He seems to notice stuff, and to think about it. He draws on interesting references -- not in the way Mick does sometimes, for show or to impress, but because he's considered it, and the reference illustrates his point.
He reminds me of one of those people you may know (I do) who's clownish and a "regular guy" who occasionally lets that easygoing social persona drop and says something shockingly incisive that cuts through whatever else is going on -- and you realize how amazing that brain is. That this is a geeked-out genius who also happens to be really cool, is a very physical person, and has great social skills, so they don't have to seem to lead with their brain.
Klee -- I also find the dynamics interesting....sometimes. Keith's alpha male prowess in social interactions is really entertaining, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way. Like the MTV promo that he and Ronnie did, where Ronnie clowns and clowns, and messes up and jokes with the camera guys, and Keith is indulgent and laughs along, til he eventually tires of it and basically swats Ronnie into place like a mama cat or a big brother and pulls the whole thing together himself in 7 seconds flat. And is modest, subtle, and gracious about it.
Or in what his hands do in photos of him with women like Tina Turner who you can tell he just liked -- a benevolent dominance.
Or the stage dynamics between Keith and Buddy Guy in Shine a Light.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-02 09:36 by swiss.
I didn't say he's not intelligent. He may be very intelligent. I said he's an intuitive thinker. He has amazing antenna and instincts. It's a different type of brain than Keith. I'm rarely interested in Mick's "insights" - what he articulates seems studied and not original or spontaneous. As a musician, and as a businessman and a designer, which are his strengths I think he taps into the intuitive part of his brain -- and comes up with great stuff.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-02 09:47 by swiss.
Some weeks ago I read a compilation of quotes about songwriting from Jagger and Richards and I must say that the remarks Richards made were much more interesting to me than the predictable words of Jagger. But to call that a 'sign' of genius goes too far for me. Regarding the history of the band one can put question marks behind the name of Richards as for the social-political behaviour and 'skills' he has showed over many decades. Anyway, we don't know very much about what was and is really going on in the Stones-family and in fact we're already looking back.
A lot of musical genius in one room: David Johansen, Lenny Kaye, Dee Dee Ramone, Patti Smith, Tom Verlaine, John Cale
Oh, and Jagger/Richards IS genius.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 23:16 by MJG196.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: February 2, 2010 02:03
Well, I think Keith's a genius. Not because of his output. I think he's simply, literally, a genius.
I suspect if one were to have the chance to meet Keith and have a conversation with him that's the impression you'd take away. I feel that way watching him in interviews. He's brilliant.
I suspect if one were to have the chance to meet Keith and have a conversation with him that's the impression you'd take away. I feel that way watching him in interviews. He's brilliant.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: February 2, 2010 04:02
Quote
swiss
Well, I think Keith's a genius. Not because of his output. I think he's simply, literally, a genius.
I suspect if one were to have the chance to meet Keith and have a conversation with him that's the impression you'd take away. I feel that way watching him in interviews. He's brilliant.
You really must be a true admirer. I myself never found any of the members of the Rolling Stones interesting as a person, even not when I was (very) young. But the relations between the members of the band, that has always been something of interest to me. Even intrigueing. But only that.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
michel
()
Date: February 2, 2010 08:57
Quote
kleermakerQuote
swiss
Well, I think Keith's a genius. Not because of his output. I think he's simply, literally, a genius.
I suspect if one were to have the chance to meet Keith and have a conversation with him that's the impression you'd take away. I feel that way watching him in interviews. He's brilliant.
You really must be a true admirer. I myself never found any of the members of the Rolling Stones interesting as a person, even not when I was (very) young. But the relations between the members of the band, that has always been something of interest to me. Even intrigueing. But only that.
Kleermaker, you should stick with making clothes and shut up!!!!!
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: February 2, 2010 09:25
Quote
kleermakerQuote
swiss
Well, I think Keith's a genius. Not because of his output. I think he's simply, literally, a genius.
I suspect if one were to have the chance to meet Keith and have a conversation with him that's the impression you'd take away. I feel that way watching him in interviews. He's brilliant.
You really must be a true admirer. I myself never found any of the members of the Rolling Stones interesting as a person, even not when I was (very) young. But the relations between the members of the band, that has always been something of interest to me. Even intrigueing. But only that.
I don't find Mick intriguing as a person, or as an "intellect" (he seems to be a superficial thinker, speaks in generalities, and seems to be at his best when intuiting what's happening in the zeitgeist and reflecting it back impressionistically ).
I'm not curious about Charlie as a person, almost out of respect for his being so private.
Ronnie Wood...I wish I knew less about his personal life.
Always got a creep-vibe from Bill Wyman. Don't wanna know about him as a person.
Never found Brian Jones or Mick Taylor particularly personally.
But Keith...he often says things in interviews that not only I didn't know, but also that surprise and delight me -- and which I never would have thought of in that way. He's insightful, and thoughtful. He has a perspective and point of view that are uniquely his.
He makes elegant unusual connections between his thoughts. He seems to notice stuff, and to think about it. He draws on interesting references -- not in the way Mick does sometimes, for show or to impress, but because he's considered it, and the reference illustrates his point.
He reminds me of one of those people you may know (I do) who's clownish and a "regular guy" who occasionally lets that easygoing social persona drop and says something shockingly incisive that cuts through whatever else is going on -- and you realize how amazing that brain is. That this is a geeked-out genius who also happens to be really cool, is a very physical person, and has great social skills, so they don't have to seem to lead with their brain.
Klee -- I also find the dynamics interesting....sometimes. Keith's alpha male prowess in social interactions is really entertaining, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way. Like the MTV promo that he and Ronnie did, where Ronnie clowns and clowns, and messes up and jokes with the camera guys, and Keith is indulgent and laughs along, til he eventually tires of it and basically swats Ronnie into place like a mama cat or a big brother and pulls the whole thing together himself in 7 seconds flat. And is modest, subtle, and gracious about it.
Or in what his hands do in photos of him with women like Tina Turner who you can tell he just liked -- a benevolent dominance.
Or the stage dynamics between Keith and Buddy Guy in Shine a Light.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-02 09:36 by swiss.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
elunsi
()
Date: February 2, 2010 09:31
Quote
swiss
I don't find Mick intriguing as a person, or as an "intellect" (he seems to be a superficial thinker, speaks in generalities, and seems to be at his best when intuiting what's happening in the zeitgeist and reflecting it back impressionistically ). quote]
then how come that everybody who knows Mick personally says that he is very intelligent?
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: February 2, 2010 09:45
Quote
elunsiQuote
swiss
I don't find Mick intriguing as a person, or as an "intellect" (he seems to be a superficial thinker, speaks in generalities, and seems to be at his best when intuiting what's happening in the zeitgeist and reflecting it back impressionistically ).
then how come that everybody who knows Mick personally says that he is very intelligent?
I didn't say he's not intelligent. He may be very intelligent. I said he's an intuitive thinker. He has amazing antenna and instincts. It's a different type of brain than Keith. I'm rarely interested in Mick's "insights" - what he articulates seems studied and not original or spontaneous. As a musician, and as a businessman and a designer, which are his strengths I think he taps into the intuitive part of his brain -- and comes up with great stuff.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-02 09:47 by swiss.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: February 2, 2010 10:53
Keith is quite the enigma. He married into a large, close, religious family, and from all accounts is much loved by them.
Read this:
[pierresetparoles.blogspot.com]
[articles.orlandosentinel.com]
He's stayed on good terms wth his ex-g/f Anita, and she has never once spoken a bad word against him.
He got close to his own father after a long separation.
His girls say that their most preferred people in the world are their parents.
Considering how he has chosen to live his life, and considering that he has been a huge celebrity for 45 years, it's quite an achievement to be so beloved by his entire family.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-02 11:13 by Bliss.
Read this:
[pierresetparoles.blogspot.com]
[articles.orlandosentinel.com]
He's stayed on good terms wth his ex-g/f Anita, and she has never once spoken a bad word against him.
He got close to his own father after a long separation.
His girls say that their most preferred people in the world are their parents.
Considering how he has chosen to live his life, and considering that he has been a huge celebrity for 45 years, it's quite an achievement to be so beloved by his entire family.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-02 11:13 by Bliss.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
Alef
()
Date: February 2, 2010 11:19
In their playing field they are in the same league as Mozart, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc. How many bands have produced such an amount of good songs - appreciated by a huge population - over such a long period of time? How many people are able to do that on a total of 6 billion living on this planet? If you want to call such a unique ability genius, then yes, they are geniuses.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: February 2, 2010 17:12
Quote
swissQuote
kleermakerQuote
swiss
Well, I think Keith's a genius. Not because of his output. I think he's simply, literally, a genius.
I suspect if one were to have the chance to meet Keith and have a conversation with him that's the impression you'd take away. I feel that way watching him in interviews. He's brilliant.
You really must be a true admirer. I myself never found any of the members of the Rolling Stones interesting as a person, even not when I was (very) young. But the relations between the members of the band, that has always been something of interest to me. Even intrigueing. But only that.
I don't find Mick intriguing as a person, or as an "intellect" (he seems to be a superficial thinker, speaks in generalities, and seems to be at his best when intuiting what's happening in the zeitgeist and reflecting it back impressionistically ).
I'm not curious about Charlie as a person, almost out of respect for his being so private.
Ronnie Wood...I wish I knew less about his personal life.
Always got a creep-vibe from Bill Wyman. Don't wanna know about him as a person.
Never found Brian Jones or Mick Taylor particularly personally.
But Keith...he often says things in interviews that not only I didn't know, but also that surprise and delight me -- and which I never would have thought of in that way. He's insightful, and thoughtful. He has a perspective and point of view that are uniquely his.
He makes elegant unusual connections between his thoughts. He seems to notice stuff, and to think about it. He draws on interesting references -- not in the way Mick does sometimes, for show or to impress, but because he's considered it, and the reference illustrates his point.
He reminds me of one of those people you may know (I do) who's clownish and a "regular guy" who occasionally lets that easygoing social persona drop and says something shockingly incisive that cuts through whatever else is going on -- and you realize how amazing that brain is. That this is a geeked-out genius who also happens to be really cool, is a very physical person, and has great social skills, so they don't have to seem to lead with their brain.
Klee -- I also find the dynamics interesting....sometimes. Keith's alpha male prowess in social interactions is really entertaining, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way. Like the MTV promo that he and Ronnie did, where Ronnie clowns and clowns, and messes up and jokes with the camera guys, and Keith is indulgent and laughs along, til he eventually tires of it and basically swats Ronnie into place like a mama cat or a big brother and pulls the whole thing together himself in 7 seconds flat. And is modest, subtle, and gracious about it.
Or in what his hands do in photos of him with women like Tina Turner who you can tell he just liked -- a benevolent dominance.
Or the stage dynamics between Keith and Buddy Guy in Shine a Light.
Some weeks ago I read a compilation of quotes about songwriting from Jagger and Richards and I must say that the remarks Richards made were much more interesting to me than the predictable words of Jagger. But to call that a 'sign' of genius goes too far for me. Regarding the history of the band one can put question marks behind the name of Richards as for the social-political behaviour and 'skills' he has showed over many decades. Anyway, we don't know very much about what was and is really going on in the Stones-family and in fact we're already looking back.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: February 2, 2010 17:27
Geniusses in the Albert Einstein way? No. Geniusses in the David Bowie or Lennon/McCartney way? No. The Stones are the prime example that you do not need to be a genius to make the best music ever.
JumpingKentFlash
JumpingKentFlash
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
TrulyMicks
()
Date: February 2, 2010 18:37
Mick is the most intriguing, intelligent and interesting one of them all. No one comes close.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
pmk251
()
Date: February 9, 2010 19:05
I've been thinking about this thread for a few days. It's all in how you want define "genius," of course, but I think in the early days and particularly by '69 there was a certain amount of genius in Keith's playing, his uncanny sense of rhythm, his variations, his opening riffs that blend into the song. He made rhythm guitar playing sexy. And like anything considered genius, he tapped into what came before and put his stamp on it. As I watched him play in '69 I thought how simple he made it look (another trait of genius). He did not have to perform. It looked like his body was made to do this. Music came out of every joint in his body. I think there is a certain amount of genuis in music that in its simplicity changes the world. A Mozart melody can sound so simple. The music of Chuck Berry or the Beatles can sound so simple it sounds like it already existed and only needed the artist to channel its creation, but once you hear it you cannot imagine the world without it. Keith had it. He may have worked at it, but you have the sense he was born with it. And that is the gift of genius.
Compare Keith's rhythm playing with Ron Wood's. Wood is very much a Keith clone, but no one is going to confuse one's playing for the other. One had the gift, the other's playing is at best derivitive. Big difference. A player like Wood makes you appreciate Keith even more.
Compare Keith's rhythm playing with Ron Wood's. Wood is very much a Keith clone, but no one is going to confuse one's playing for the other. One had the gift, the other's playing is at best derivitive. Big difference. A player like Wood makes you appreciate Keith even more.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
bernardanderson
()
Date: February 9, 2010 19:31
It's so easy for people here to label Mick and Keith geniuses because you all love them. Your opinion is slightly biased. What is the best album cover? Who is the greatest drummer? Who has the best rock and roll hair? The answers will no doubt involve the Rolling Stones because we are on a Stones messageboard and some of us are fanatics to the extreme. But to label Mick and/or Keith as a "genius" is a bit over the top, in my opinion. Sure, they write great songs, but who doesn't? Sure Keith is a great guitarist, but who isn't? Sure, they've been around a long time, but who hasn't? To give a musician the title of a genius is tossed around too much, and usually it's based on your level of fanaticism of that artist. To me, Bach was a genius. Frank Zappa was a genius because he wrote such complex music WITHOUT the assistance of drugs. Glenn Gould was a genius. Brian Wilson was a genius. No offense to you hardcore Stones fans, but Mick and Keith are not even close to be included in that list.
"A genius is a person, a body of work, or a singular achievement of surpassing excellence." the Stones are a fantastic rock and roll band but there's nothing about them that "surpasses excellence", in my opinion. I love their albums but are they a work of genius? No. They just rock.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 19:32 by bernardanderson.
"A genius is a person, a body of work, or a singular achievement of surpassing excellence." the Stones are a fantastic rock and roll band but there's nothing about them that "surpasses excellence", in my opinion. I love their albums but are they a work of genius? No. They just rock.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 19:32 by bernardanderson.
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: February 9, 2010 23:07
Interesting subject, is also actual in the this thread: [www.iorr.org]
Kingkirby said there: "Mickschix, I like this game and often have this debate with my friends, who are all music lovers but not neccessarily as Rock-influenced as my taste: who will be remembered as the real musical geniuses of this era in a hundred or two hundred years? By that we mean, the ones who changed the course of popular (not pop) music and created new forms of music,as opposed to excelling in existing musical genres."
I doubt if that's true. Mozart was the top of classical music in it's strict sense, but he wasn't a true innovator, so to speak. He did something with that music form so that it became something 'on its own'. He used (as all great composers, in any musical genre) the techniques of his predecessors (Bach, Haydn), but he added something unique and almost indescribable to it which made him the first Romantic composer, though he isn't considered as one.
So using different forms and techniques and thus creating something unique (without creating a whole new 'genre' or form like, maybe, Zappa did) and thus coming to some sort of synthesis of already existing forms is also a treat of genius. Seeming simplicity is another. You have to say: Well, that sounds so simple! But in reality it can be very complex. I won't give an example of dense counterpoint of Mozart which is very difficult but sounds natural and accessible at the same time, but can't let to present you an example of simple but brilliant and moving music.
PS: As for the Stones there are are at least two main problems:
1. They were/are composers and performers at the same time. I mean: they didn't produce written compositions that others can play like the 'old' composers did.
2. They are not constant enough. There's to much difference of opinion of the quality of their songs during the time. Many of us can't appreciate their latest works very much. And that's not a question of 'lack of understanding' the music as was the case in the last years of Mozart.
Finally I would say: the Stones have made some of the best 'pop'/'rock'/'blues'/whatever you call it music, because their best (live) work never ever bores. That's a mark of the highest quality. But if it is also genius? With a pistol pointed at my breast I would say: NO, but it comes close!
Kingkirby said there: "Mickschix, I like this game and often have this debate with my friends, who are all music lovers but not neccessarily as Rock-influenced as my taste: who will be remembered as the real musical geniuses of this era in a hundred or two hundred years? By that we mean, the ones who changed the course of popular (not pop) music and created new forms of music,as opposed to excelling in existing musical genres."
I doubt if that's true. Mozart was the top of classical music in it's strict sense, but he wasn't a true innovator, so to speak. He did something with that music form so that it became something 'on its own'. He used (as all great composers, in any musical genre) the techniques of his predecessors (Bach, Haydn), but he added something unique and almost indescribable to it which made him the first Romantic composer, though he isn't considered as one.
So using different forms and techniques and thus creating something unique (without creating a whole new 'genre' or form like, maybe, Zappa did) and thus coming to some sort of synthesis of already existing forms is also a treat of genius. Seeming simplicity is another. You have to say: Well, that sounds so simple! But in reality it can be very complex. I won't give an example of dense counterpoint of Mozart which is very difficult but sounds natural and accessible at the same time, but can't let to present you an example of simple but brilliant and moving music.
PS: As for the Stones there are are at least two main problems:
1. They were/are composers and performers at the same time. I mean: they didn't produce written compositions that others can play like the 'old' composers did.
2. They are not constant enough. There's to much difference of opinion of the quality of their songs during the time. Many of us can't appreciate their latest works very much. And that's not a question of 'lack of understanding' the music as was the case in the last years of Mozart.
Finally I would say: the Stones have made some of the best 'pop'/'rock'/'blues'/whatever you call it music, because their best (live) work never ever bores. That's a mark of the highest quality. But if it is also genius? With a pistol pointed at my breast I would say: NO, but it comes close!
Re: genius...? (a) Keith Richards (b) Mick Jagger (c) both (d) neither
Posted by:
MJG196
()
Date: February 9, 2010 23:15
A lot of musical genius in one room: David Johansen, Lenny Kaye, Dee Dee Ramone, Patti Smith, Tom Verlaine, John Cale
Oh, and Jagger/Richards IS genius.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 23:16 by MJG196.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1953
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10