Hello guys,

in the "Appreciation for the 1978 tour" thread, The Greek tells about "the infamous fight that Jagger & Richards had during the mixing for Undercover, when Keith stormed out of the studio and things have never been the same since".

I know there's been some critical times during and after Dirty Work, but didn't know something similar three years before.

Could anybody tell anything more about that?

Thanks a lot
Alex

The fighting was pretty bad about the mixes and track selections for EMOTIONAL RESCUE. During UNDERCOVER they retreated to separate studios much fo the time. They were likewise disconnected during the DIRTY WORK sessions.

I would say it dates back to 1968 when Mick had sex with Anita in 'Performance' whilst Keith sulked in his car outside. And their r/ship suffered another crippling blow when Mick married Bianca, whom Keith despised. And finally, there was serious concern that Anita's second child was fathered by Mick and not Keith.

I do not think they ever got back on track after that.

are you serious?

Quote
duke richardson
are you serious?

about which part? I've never heard the paternity rumors, but I agree that their issues seem to date from around that time, and they don't seem ever to have been as tight as for the first 5 years or so. Their greatest songs done together ("JJF," "HTW," "Rambler," etc.) IMO come at that point, but not after. That's also the point at which keith becomes a heroin user.

they rarely make eye contact on stage throughout the '70s. Of course, that could just be how they are, but they don't look comfortable around each other. Just speculation of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-20 17:46 by cc.

They really stopped interacting on stage at all (sharing a mic for vocals, especially) when they came back for the Steel Wheels tour, and ever since.

there 've been many disagreements and contentious episodes between the Glimmers but I believe the pictures, numerous and quite touching, that show them with their arms around each other. obvious affection. pride in their shared accomplishment
there's a good thread of these photos on IORR somewhere

Wasn't Keith, Mick's best man at his wedding in '71? Also wasn't Mick, Keith's best man at his wedding in 1983? I can see why people may pose as friends on stage to keep up public appearances, but at their own wedding? Doesn't make sense if they hated each other. Undercover had already been released at the time of Keith's wedding so whatever conspired during the recording had obviously been brushed aside by December of that year.

Watching Ladies & Gentlemen last week, I got a sense of genuine affection between the two. Mick smiled at him quite often.

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

Quote
CindyC
Wasn't Keith, Mick's best man at his wedding in '71? Also wasn't Mick, Keith's best man at his wedding in 1983? I can see why people may pose as friends on stage to keep up public appearances, but at their own wedding?

Absolutely right, Cindy.

Pretty normal to have your brother be your best man at your wedding. Yet Mick chose Keith. Not having a brother, Keith chose his closest friend - Mick.

Their relationship has undoubtedly declined since the mid 80s, and the public sniping (mostly by Keith) since then speaks volumes, but as he says himself 'we cant get divorced'.

They're manacled together for eternity, whether they like it or not. Even if they barely see or hear from each other for months at a time.

Quote
71Tele
They really stopped interacting on stage at all (sharing a mic for vocals, especially) when they came back for the Steel Wheels tour, and ever since.

Look at Shie A Light movie - the two them hugging eachother and singing in the same mike.

Look at 4 Flicks DVD - Keith's big appreciation after Mick's two soul ballads: Everybody Needs Somebody to Love and That's How Strong My Love Is.

They do fight a lot but also admire each / respect other. Like two brothers getting older. Lots of fight but lso true love.

Quote
Gazza
They're manacled together for eternity, whether they like it or not.

the good news being their both older than sin now and it won't be long before eternity sets in. it's like i always tell the missus when times are rough - we'll all be dead soon enough.

Quote
CindyC
Wasn't Keith, Mick's best man at his wedding in '71? Also wasn't Mick, Keith's best man at his wedding in 1983? I can see why people may pose as friends on stage to keep up public appearances, but at their own wedding? Doesn't make sense if they hated each other. Undercover had already been released at the time of Keith's wedding so whatever conspired during the recording had obviously been brushed aside by December of that year.

There you go..using logic and common sense again.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
71Tele
They really stopped interacting on stage at all (sharing a mic for vocals, especially) when they came back for the Steel Wheels tour, and ever since.

Look at Shie A Light movie - the two them hugging eachother and singing in the same mike.

i thought the sing together had been "suggested" by Scorsese.

imo no doubt that there's still respect/admiration & business relationship....like a love/hate
brothers relationship...can't deny that things have changed over the decades.

always loved when Mick helped out on HAPPY.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-21 01:37 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con

There you go..using logic and common sense again.

Well hopefully that makes up for my atrocious use of commas in that posting!

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

Quote
cc


about which part? I've never heard the paternity rumors, but I agree that their issues seem to date from around that time, and they don't seem ever to have been as tight as for the first 5 years or so.

That's also the point at which Brian disappears and, with Andrew also gone, there's no-one left to rival their control of the group and no-one against whom to unite.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-20 23:37 by Squiggle.

yeah I don't reckon the two have ever come to fistfighting, like some of these brothers in other bands...

The paternity issue was not a rumor; in Greenfield's recent book on the making of Exile, he reports that Anita was very worried about this, and planning a termination. Marshall Chess backs this up.

Quote
duke richardson
yeah I don't reckon the two have ever come to fistfighting, like some of these brothers in other bands...

But Mick managed to get his big mouth slapped by Charlie.

"Rape, murder, it's just a shot away..."

Quote
cc

Quote
duke richardson
are you serious?

about which part? I've never heard the paternity rumors, but I agree that their issues seem to date from around that time, and they don't seem ever to have been as tight as for the first 5 years or so. Their greatest songs done together ("JJF," "HTW," "Rambler," etc.) IMO come at that point, but not after. That's also the point at which keith becomes a heroin user.

they rarely make eye contact on stage throughout the '70s. Of course, that could just be how they are, but they don't look comfortable around each other. Just speculation of course.

The paternity rumors are not unheard of, but they're likely just that, rumors. I think Bliss may be on the right track. I think it's a lot of smaller incidents that built up over the years that, when Keith's horrid addiction became an issue, caused major problems in their relationship that they have never fully worked out.

Others here have mentioned their being each others best men, and still showing affection onstage as proof things aren't so bad. Just because Keith was Mick's best man doesn't mean he didn't like Bianca. It's pretty well-known that neither of them cared much for each other. And just because they'd had major issues by the time of Keith's wedding doesn't mean Mick couldn't suck it up and be his best man. Isn't that the old English way, to go about your duties as if nothing's wrong?

I also feel that any shows of camaraderie, especially onstage, say little about how things really are between them. They can still get caught up in the excitement of a live show and sing arm in arm at the mic. Or be willing to stage it for the cameras if that was the case for Shine A Light.

My point is, despite all the "clues" showing one side of the equation or the other, we really don't know how and where they stand with each other at any time, including now. It's probably not as bad as we think but not as good as we'd like. I don't think they are particularly close friends like they appeared to be back in the Swinging London period.

If the Stones ever completely stop while they are still alive, does anyone here think Mick and Keith would be close personal friends if they no longer had to see each other for professional reasons?

I don't think so, they stopped being friends like that sometime after the 69 tour, when they no longer lived near each other in London, and it was convenient. There were periods after that when they lived nearby and saw each other (Cheyne Walk in the mid-70's, NYC in the 80's), but once they left England for that 69 tour, their lives had begun to change too much for them to be the social team they were previously, and their friendship changed as a result (and I think Keith's being a junkie also had a lot to do with it).

I think there will always be a bond between them, but they're different people with different lives and interests now, and the less the Stones do, the less contact they will probably have. It doesn't mean they hate each other. They've always loved Charlie, but they've never really palled around with him when the band was inactive.

It's that way with most bands. Fans seem to have this desire that their favorite band's members all be close friends with each other away from the band, especially if that's they way they were at one time, but that's rarely the case over the long-term.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
71Tele
They really stopped interacting on stage at all (sharing a mic for vocals, especially) when they came back for the Steel Wheels tour, and ever since.

Look at Shie A Light movie - the two them hugging eachother and singing in the same mike.

Look at 4 Flicks DVD - Keith's big appreciation after Mick's two soul ballads: Everybody Needs Somebody to Love and That's How Strong My Love Is.

They do fight a lot but also admire each / respect other. Like two brothers getting older. Lots of fight but lso true love.

The family that fights together, stays together. Much as the irritation produces the pearl.If everyone is agreeing, chances are nobody is thinking.

isn't it meant to be in their contract with the promotor that they don't share the mike any more and Mick has to be off stage during Keith's bit ?

Quote
71Tele
They really stopped interacting on stage at all (sharing a mic for vocals, especially) when they came back for the Steel Wheels tour, and ever since.

It was in the contract that Mick had to leave the stage when Keith performed his number already in 1981. On last show in 1982 (Leeds), however, Mick came out to sing harmony with Keith on Little T+A



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-21 14:05 by DandelionPowderman.

Why should the promoter forbid them to share the mikrophone or why should they need such a contract at all? I don´t think there is anything true about that.

It's a fact. It has nothing to do with the promoter. It's Mick and Keith's deal.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's a fact. It has nothing to do with the promoter. It's Mick and Keith's deal.

I'm a true Stones' fan, and passionate about classic rock in general, but these are those things in rock music where you clearly feel (or better, I feel) that the magic of friendship, camerade and mutual support of the early days are lost (and sold) forever.
Call me naive, old fashioned or worse, but I tend to feel this way.

Alex

I agree with you, Alex, although I can understand Keith not wanting to be outshined by Mick during his songs (like on Happy earlier).

What hurts the most as a fan, however, is the fact that Keith's involvement, as far as the setlist goes, is to approve the setlist that Mick and Chuck decide.

IMO, he should be involved way more. Chuck should solely focus on his musical director job - on stage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-09-21 14:42 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I agree with you, Alex, although I can understand Keith not wanting to be outshined by Mick during his songs (like on Happy earlier).

this is, what is hard for me to believe. If he does not want Mick to be on stage during his songs, then he only needs to tell that to Mick. I can´t imagine Mick to sign such a thing.

Quote
elunsi

this is, what is hard for me to believe. If he does not want Mick to be on stage during his songs, then he only needs to tell that to Mick. I can´t imagine Mick to sign such a thing.

I agree. I have never believed this rumor, can't imagine it.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree with you, Alex, although I can understand Keith not wanting to be outshined by Mick during his songs (like on Happy earlier).

What hurts the most as a fan, however, is the fact that Keith's involvement, as far as the setlist goes, is to approve the setlist that Mick and Chuck decide.

IMO, he should be involved way more. Chuck should solely focus on his musical director job - on stage.

Furthermore, as a classic period fan (1964-1978, in my humble opinion and taste) it's almost inacceptable, to me, that Leavell could "dare" to speak his mouth in the band decisions.

Do you agree or consider it a natural "development"?

Alex

The worst fights are always with folks your closest to.
That must tell us something.

The professional and personal bust ups between Mick and Keith down the years would surely have split any partnership that didn't have a solid underlying love and respect as its basis.


I'm sure somebody's going to say that they stay together for the money...but I don't buy that theory.

I do think they're both capable of behaving like big spoiled kids though !
[Which when nobody's said no to you for about 40 years is no real surprise ]