[www.rollingstone.com]

***********************************************************
"What I'm doing is a sexual thing. I dance and all dancing is a replacement for sex". - Mick Jagger

A great little interview. There's reality there. Life and relationships are complicated. Brian really acted like a spoiled turd, and as much as we appreciate his contribution to the band, he did @#$%& up things. A good person doesn't knock up one girl, get another one pregnant while the first one is still pregnant, and has another girl on the side. Think of all those little Brian clones out there, living testaments to the son of a bitch that was their father. I'm sorry, fatherhood is earned. Brian was a scumbag. That said, he was one of the most spritually resonant musicians I've ever heard.

It might have been posted here already, but this interview with Keith's co-author James Fox is good: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/david-fricke/blogs/DavidFricke_May2010/223584/38726

My favorite of Fox's comments: "I remember saying, `Here's a list of people we might talk to, who I reckon to be your buddies.' He [Keith] looked down and said, `I never realized they all had jail sentences.'"

Comments of excerpts (below) from this interview about Brian...I am a mammoth Keith fan. And have also been known sometimes to be intolerant of and impatient with Brian.

However, something about this excerpt sounds like bullshit. As Dylan says "I don't believe you." There's a sanctimonious patronizing disingenuousness usually reserved for women talking about other women they dislike or are really ambivalent about (I'm a woman and have always avoided women who pull this kind of hostility masked passive-aggressively as faux concern).

"I enjoyed his company, and I tried incredibly hard, in 1966, to pull him back into the group. He was flying off. But my attempts to bring Brian back into focus were a total failure. After that ... [long pause] He did some despicable things. The man was failing. He had been a strong man, but he was wiping himself out. Brian demanded, you have to understand. And in a band like this, you also have to be supportive and giving. Having to deal with his jealousy, with Mick and me writing the songs, when you're working 300-odd days a year — it becomes intolerable, and you can get really nasty about it. I tried to be fair to him. But to be honest, he was a bit of a bastard. And it doesn't surprise me that he came to a sticky end."

Furthermore, I don't even know what the fock he's talking about factually. What was going on with Brian in 1966 to support what Keith says about him "flying off" and "wiping himself out" and needing to be brought "back into focus"? How was Keith trying "incredibly hard to pull Brian "back" into the group? does Keith remember and write about how vulnerable he (Keith) was in 1966? As Linda Keith started to live more in the fast lane, take drugs more heavily, and slip out of his reach? How he (Keith) relied on Brian and Anita to take him in, as a sort of 3rd wheel, hanging out at their apartment when he was feeling out of sorts and lonely without Linda in 1966?

And what arethe so despicable they shall remain unnamed things he's referring to about Brian? Brian's and Anita's disintegration, and increasingly violent dysfunctional relationship? does Keith still at his age, and after himself having been involved with "Vampirella" (as he describes Anita in this interview), have no hindsight? or insight? that whatever was going on with Brian and Anita was very likely mutually despicable? Does he really still have to see himself as a White Knight who rode in and saved helpless Anita from despicable Brian?

And what jealousy is he talking about? why doesn't Keith have any insight into why Brian might have been jealous? or why Keith views both Brian Jones AND Mick Jagger as men jealous of him and his relationships with other men?

Above all, it seems if the above is any indication--that Keith may possess no more of a mature perspective, no more wisdom or evidence of reflection, or owning his part in how his life and relationship and the lives of those around him unfolded, than he did when he was 25 or 35 or 45 or 55.

I don't care whether Keith remembers all the details and anecdotes. What I would want to see is what being alive all these years has revealed or taught him about LIFE (the book title). Where's his humility? his gratitude (not that ya mon One Love shit or thank god for all those old geezer black dudes we got the blues from) but gratitude for having so much fortune and luck and talent as he's had, and gratitude to have known Brian Jones--a gentle, delicate, over-sensitive, charming, driven, determined, erasable, visionary, unbalanced, angry, constitutionally insecure musical cipher? why does he have basically to say--yet again--Brian got what he deserved because he was an @#$%&?

Referring to the founder of the group's death--at age whatever the fock Keith is now at--flippantly as a "sticky end" - really, Keith??

I hope the book (i.e., Keith) is a scoatch deeper than this interview. If not, that will be as revealing about this person as any anecdote in the book. And if so, I hope Keith lives another 20 years where he starts to really reflect on the essence of his life. How he lived it, how he regarded and mis-regarded and disregarded others. He keeps quipping these days about going to hell. Well, to draw on that Christian paradigm: how bout save your soul, Keith, and do the hard work of actually looking, with a close eye, at your own life? a fearless and searching moral inventory, as it were---rather than continuing to cast aspersions on people around him in his life.

last word...I see this as the same stale self-aggrandizing disingenuous rhetoric: Keith placing himself as a tireless cheerleader in the middle of this group of people who for some "weird" reason refuse to get to work. No insight or self-awareness about the actual dynamics and what he himself has done and not done to create current conditions and relationships.

There's no point in me saying, "The Stones have gotta go to work" if Mick doesn't feel like it. It's tiring trying to get everyone's enthusiasm up at the same time.

again...hope the book is more honest than this.

Waw, swiss, well done. So many right points here. Can't say it better myself, and not only 'couse my broken English is pretty limited.
And this interview with RS is way better and mature than the one with Times, but the the result is the same.

PS- didn't get a clue you're a woman

Swiss, excellent points. I have really wished that this book will be the moment and place where Keith finally comes to terms with his past and especially with this wonderful strange little figure called Brian Jones "without whom not" - and who haven't had any chance to tell his side of story since 1969. But seemingly the analysis is still the same old one: "an @#$%&". Your point about Brian AND Mick is spot on - there are seemingly same kind of issues with Brian as he has with Mick. Some strange male tension and bulling and name-calling and all that crap. Keith doesn't come through very mature person at all. He sounds like he needs to prove that he is such better person as those two.

(But one does need to be a big Freud to sense the jealousy and insecurity, low self-esteem in the air from Keith's side. I don't know - being an immortal icon and legend and pirate and "Keith Richards" - you name it - would not take off the fact that maybe Jagger is more funcional and has done better than him, and maybe that no matter how "White Knight" - Knight of hearts - he was and did his best perhaps he could have never charm Anita as Brian did. Anita, after all, has noted that Brian the poor little bastard was the "love of her life". And yeah, maybe the chicks really loved Brian more in the early days - a guy who could charm and impress and be friends with people like Bob Dylan, Andy Warhol, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, etc. when a shy person like Keith couldn't even open his mouth in their company. Who knows.)

But let us see what actually there is in the book. The excerpts so far haven't had any indication that Keith is able to change his tune. Perhaps he believes his old reflections and stories and can't look through or beyond them. Perhaps he hasn't the brain cells left to go beyond the old rant.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-20 11:15 by Doxa.

But Brian could be a bully. Brian's the one who consistently beat his girlfriends. He broke his wrist in Morocco when trying to punch Anita, but missed and hit a metal door frame instead. A friend saw Brian fighting with the mother of one of his kids, and in a rage Brian grabbed their baby and dangled it by its ankle out the window, many floors above the street. Brian once told a girl at a party to check out the garage, and she did...where she fell into a big hole cut into the cement. She could have broken a leg, and was furious...but Brian thought it was a hilarious practical joke. All the Stones have their bad sides (even Charlie's jazz snobbery can get on my nerves). But I think Brian was the only outright bully.

Yeah, it is funny that typically when the topic of Brian Jones is discussed, the Rolling Stones fans turn out to be world's biggest moralists (fans of the band that is not best known for a correct behavior). Don't forget that he also used drugs, missed gigs, turned out to be non-functional, etc. Ask Keith more.

I find that funny.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-20 11:34 by Doxa.

Quote
Title5Take1
(even Charlie's jazz snobbery can get on my nerves).

Huh?

very good swiss,i was wondering the same thing.

how can a guy 67 look back on a friend who was just a 24 year old kid when these events took place and not have some kind of perspective that doesnt sound like its coming from a fellow 24 year old? its pathetic.

anita could get physical,does keith mention when she tried to claw his eyes out and he himself punched her in the face in the back of a limo? im sure mr honesty
forgot that little episode.

and mick became "unbearable", what did he do exactly? how bad was it really? we're supposed to just assume jagger turned into @#$%& as soon as keith got off heroin.again,like swiss said-no perspective, humility or self awareness.just ready made stories and one liners spoon- fed to the journalists and public.

One thing's for sure. Full moons don't lie.

If there was affection for Brian from other members of the group, then maybe you could say there's another side to the negative portrayal of Brian. But even Bill, who roomed with Brian on the road, appears to have finally pulled away in the end. Charlie doesn't have anything good to say, and even seems to belittle Brian's musical reputation. For some reason the band members have been reluctant to talk about the specific events that made Brian seem so repugnant to them.

Brian wanted to get rid of Bill. Charlie felt Brian was condescending. Mick seems reluctant to get involved in it all over again. Keith may have had personal reasons, and maybe some guilt about Anita, but that doesn't mean Brian didn't do bad things. And yes, we know Keith went on to do bad things too, but this is about Brian.

Lost in all the Brian talk, is how incredibly young they all were. All of them individually had to deal with the fame and stresses of international fame. No one yet understood how drugs could destroy you. They all had to pull together and Brian was pulling it apart by not cooperating. Look at the group's body language in Rock and Roll Circus; the four of them are as far from Brian as they could get. And it's not about 'moralizing' about Brian. The other four were struggling to keep this thing called 'The Rolling Stones' together. Brian wasn't pulling his weight, or helping his case by being sympathetic. He wouldn't leave the group, but he wouldn't help the group. He supposedly didn't feel he was up to touring the world, which is what the Rolling Stones had to do to survive past 1968. Brian appears to have been his own worst enemy.

From all the Brian stories I've read the general feeling was that he was mean and vindictive . George Harrison even said that all he needed was more love . But he didn't have the albatross around his neck . Brian was absolutely a mental case wqho shouldn't have been taking drugs . But his beautiful playing on Under My Thumb , Ruby Tuesday is what will stand the test of time .

Quote
Title5Take1
But Brian could be a bully. Brian's the one who consistently beat his girlfriends. He broke his wrist in Morocco when trying to punch Anita, but missed and hit a metal door frame instead. A friend saw Brian fighting with the mother of one of his kids, and in a rage Brian grabbed their baby and dangled it by its ankle out the window, many floors above the street. Brian once told a girl at a party to check out the garage, and she did...where she fell into a big hole cut into the cement. She could have broken a leg, and was furious...but Brian thought it was a hilarious practical joke. All the Stones have their bad sides (even Charlie's jazz snobbery can get on my nerves). But I think Brian was the only outright bully.

This isn't about Brian Jones, and whether he could be a rank @#$%&. This is about Keith having 42 years to get some perspective and insight into his life, others, and life in general. We'll see what the book's like, but that excerpt was off-putting for me.

Quote
proudmary
Waw, swiss, well done. So many right points here. Can't say it better myself, and not only 'couse my broken English is pretty limited.
And this interview with RS is way better and mature than the one with Times, but the the result is the same.

PS- didn't get a clue you're a woman

Yes I'm a woman

Quote
lem motlow
very good swiss,i was wondering the same thing.

how can a guy 67 look back on a friend who was just a 24 year old kid when these events took place and not have some kind of perspective that doesnt sound like its coming from a fellow 24 year old? its pathetic.

anita could get physical,does keith mention when she tried to claw his eyes out and he himself punched her in the face in the back of a limo? im sure mr honesty
forgot that little episode.

and mick became "unbearable", what did he do exactly? how bad was it really? we're supposed to just assume jagger turned into @#$%& as soon as keith got off heroin.again,like swiss said-no perspective, humility or self awareness.just ready made stories and one liners spoon- fed to the journalists and public.

lem, I agree completely with what you're saying...disappointing that a 67 yr old would sound like he hadn't gathered much wisdom in the additional 42 years he's been on the planet since he was 25, unlike Brian.

Quote
kittypoo
From all the Brian stories I've read the general feeling was that he was mean and vindictive . George Harrison even said that all he needed was more love . But he didn't have the albatross around his neck . Brian was absolutely a mental case wqho shouldn't have been taking drugs . But his beautiful playing on Under My Thumb , Ruby Tuesday is what will stand the test of time .

Quote
24FPS
If there was affection for Brian from other members of the group, then maybe you could say there's another side to the negative portrayal of Brian. But even Bill, who roomed with Brian on the road, appears to have finally pulled away in the end. Charlie doesn't have anything good to say, and even seems to belittle Brian's musical reputation. For some reason the band members have been reluctant to talk about the specific events that made Brian seem so repugnant to them.

Brian wanted to get rid of Bill. Charlie felt Brian was condescending. Mick seems reluctant to get involved in it all over again. Keith may have had personal reasons, and maybe some guilt about Anita, but that doesn't mean Brian didn't do bad things. And yes, we know Keith went on to do bad things too, but this is about Brian.

Lost in all the Brian talk, is how incredibly young they all were. All of them individually had to deal with the fame and stresses of international fame. No one yet understood how drugs could destroy you. They all had to pull together and Brian was pulling it apart by not cooperating. Look at the group's body language in Rock and Roll Circus; the four of them are as far from Brian as they could get. And it's not about 'moralizing' about Brian. The other four were struggling to keep this thing called 'The Rolling Stones' together. Brian wasn't pulling his weight, or helping his case by being sympathetic. He wouldn't leave the group, but he wouldn't help the group. He supposedly didn't feel he was up to touring the world, which is what the Rolling Stones had to do to survive past 1968. Brian appears to have been his own worst enemy.

Some really good point. Tho to me it's not a question of whether or how much Brian was a dick. It's what does Keith have to say that's at all interesting or insightful.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-21 06:43 by swiss.

Quote
lem motlow
and mick became "unbearable", what did he do exactly? how bad was it really?

Here's my take anyway: Mick kept The Rolling Stones in the public eye with releasing three huge singles - Miss You, Emotional Rescue and Start Me Up (granted, as much as the songs are questionable in the overall sense of rock'n'roll and how some people don't care for them now or never did etc; they were brilliant singles regardless - and huge hits), going to great lengths and headaches to make sure the albums came out with lots of hype and, oh my, they were all number one albums, Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You; the 'edgy' videos of Undercover Of The Night and Too Much Blood are a good place to start. Pushing the boundaries a bit, doing something different and new. Etc.

Mick made the success of The Rolling Stones continue and grow. Keith has never once complained about the money he made. He's just a little boy it seems. Funny he gave Mick such shit about having a Peter Pan complex when Keith is the one who seemingly never grew up.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
lem motlow
and mick became "unbearable", what did he do exactly? how bad was it really?

Here's my take anyway: Mick kept The Rolling Stones in the public eye with releasing three huge singles - Miss You, Emotional Rescue and Start Me Up (granted, as much as the songs are questionable in the overall sense of rock'n'roll and how some people don't care for them now or never did etc; they were brilliant singles regardless - and huge hits), going to great lengths and headaches to make sure the albums came out with lots of hype and, oh my, they were all number one albums, Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You; the 'edgy' videos of Undercover Of The Night and Too Much Blood are a good place to start. Pushing the boundaries a bit, doing something different and new. Etc.

Mick made the success of The Rolling Stones continue and grow. Keith has never once complained about the money he made. He's just a little boy it seems. Funny he gave Mick such shit about having a Peter Pan complex when Keith is the one who seemingly never grew up.

Damn good points. Lately I have really gone through the Pathe Marconi era as a kind of hint to the 80's and Mick and Keith's tension. It was Jagger who pushed the band into new sound - Keith clicked well to Mick's punk fantasies and refreshed his chuck berry riffs. But the miracle of SOME GIRLS - taking the fact Keith was still much in dopeville - was Jagger's final claim to musical leasdership of the Stones. Then Keith cleaned up. And jesus christ - came unbearable if anyone ever. The sessions for EMOTIONAL RESCUE were the worst ever - just fighting, fighting, fighting over every goddan nuance. And it was seemingly Keith bullying or acting like a little child mostly there. Trying to fight over command of the band. Seemingly he didn't like at all of the direction - and the success - Jagger was leading the band - was it punk or disco or whatever. His point - all he had - was musical conservatism. He couldn't any longer to cope with latest trends but just wanted to stay in his safe and sure old riffland with "All Down The Line" and Chuck, Muddy and Gram Parsons. Since the late-seventies - after reggae-influence - all Keith has been doing is to mock the latest artists and trends, starting from the punk movement, including almost anyone anytime ever, even Bruce Springsteen. He started to sound like an old bitter woman, actually. That kind of bitterness or bitchness - plus the conservatism - is usually a sign of lack of personal inspiration and ideas.

My interpretation is that after EMTIONAL RESCUE Jagger decided "no ever again". And he has kept his word. Keith was left out of TATTOO YOU (as he was later with EXILE extra material). I suppose that after the catastrophe of EMOIONAL RESCUE Mick gave a kind of ultimatum to Keith to not be anyway involved in the new album, or he somehow tricked Keith by the nature of teh new album. The result was album made and mixed without Keith plus very efficiently and quickly - and the album was much much better than the previous one. But seemingly during the sessions for the next album, the old tensions between Mick and Keith started to blossom again. By DIRTY WORK Mick - a solo career in his mind - willingly gave the command to Keith and "do what you want; I won't be bothered" - and the result was the worst Stones album ever.

From the base I have tried to figure the scene in the late-seventies/early 80's I have come to the conclusion that it is Keith that came "unbearable" if anyone did. From a hindsight it looks like that from the mid-seventies on - perhaps even few yaers earlier - he was the one who did the best to finish the story of the band. But Jagger kept it on track. And when suddenly Keith turned out to be a kind of icon and 'rock super hero' by the early 80's - my god it went to his head. He really was the winner in PR section during those years. And he used it mighty fine - as he still does (or does he?).

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-21 10:19 by Doxa.

Quote
swiss

Quote
lem motlow
very good swiss,i was wondering the same thing.

how can a guy 67 look back on a friend who was just a 24 year old kid when these events took place and not have some kind of perspective that doesnt sound like its coming from a fellow 24 year old? its pathetic.

anita could get physical,does keith mention when she tried to claw his eyes out and he himself punched her in the face in the back of a limo? im sure mr honesty
forgot that little episode.

and mick became "unbearable", what did he do exactly? how bad was it really? we're supposed to just assume jagger turned into @#$%& as soon as keith got off heroin.again,like swiss said-no perspective, humility or self awareness.just ready made stories and one liners spoon- fed to the journalists and public.

lem, I agree completely with what you're saying...disappointing that a 67 yr old would sound like he hadn't gathered much wisdom in the additional 42 years he's been on the planet since he was 25, unlike Brian.

I share the sentiments for a disappointment. The closest to really understanding the time in terms its own that should not be any longer judged with the sentiments one then had - the wisdom based on age and life experience - has been from Charlie's mouth. And even that came just by accident I guess. In 25 by 5 film he describes him and his wife watching other day the funeral of Brian and realizing "He was so young when he died. We all were so young then." Unfortunately Charlie hasn't used this insight any longer when he chooses to discuss Brian Jones.

What I find interesting - but which I dislike - in the portions (so far I've seen) is Keith describing the scenes in his past - in his VERY past - like he was still living and involved there - like his image or fame or manhood or whatever is still in some how under suspicion and he needs to justify his actions and prove how 'small' (literally...) some other, very much involved people are. That's really strange for a sixty-five/seven year old man reflecting his own life.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-21 10:40 by Doxa.

From the base I have tried to figure the scene in the late-seventies/early 80's I have come to the conclusion that it is Keith that came "unbearable" if anyone did. From a hindsight it looks like that from the mid-seventies on - perhaps even few yaers earlier - he was the one who did the best to finish the story of the band. But Jagger kept it on track. And when suddenly Keith turned out to be a kind of icon and 'rock super hero' by the early 80's - my god it went to his head. He really was the winner in PR section during those years. And he used it mighty fine - as he still does (or does he?).

- Doxa

100% true!
Keith in 20 last years does only 1 thing - tries his best to finish the story of the band. God, I can now imagine what it was to him to stand there and watch all the eyes going to Mick with love and exitment.
For him the desire to humiliate Mick(and to prove that he has the biggest dick in the Universe) is more important then integrity and future of RS

keith was burned out and he didnt even know it.he woke up and thought it was still 1971 and he threw his weight around as if jagger was keeping him from putting out another let it bleed.

the truth was he didnt have the skill set of 10 years before,time had moved on.mick had written at least 3 huge hits with others or by himself and put keiths name on them without saying a word[iorr,miss you,emotional rescue]all number 1s.if someone just handed you that much money how would you act toward them? yeah, real "unbearable"

as doxa said,when mick finally gave up and gave keith full control we got dirty work.

he would be on t.v. mumbling about mick wanting to "wear yellow tights again and be prince or michael jackson" as a fan i was thinking "what the hell are you saying?" the 81 tour clothes? prince? WTF..this is the stones and mick never repeats himself for one thing and his songs sound nothing like those people.it just got weird,still is.

one more thing i always ask-can anyone show me one qoute,hint or even slight suggestion coming from jaggers own mouth where he said he was ever leaving the stones?

The story about Brian and the girl in the garage was refutted by the lady herself Kathy Etchingham in a later book. That story appeared in the Mandy Aftel biography from 1974 Everybody's Lucifer. Bill put it in his first book but I strongly disagree that Bill disliked or dislikes Brian. He in his second book gives him a "free pardon". In fact in the seventies when Keith had more brain cells he talked very nicely about Brian. Charlie did too. Mick even has at times.

Since 1980 Keith had gotten bitchy about Mick and Brian and it's sad and old. Brian didn't do anything Keith and Mick haven't done. Hitting girls, knocking them up, getting loaded and blowing off a performance. Brian was a kid messed up in the head who had a drug problem. It seems that he had a very kind side and he certainly had intelect and talent.

I don't excuse how he was but I don't excuse Mick, Keith, Anita etc. for what they do either. Charlie's put downs of Brian's music are kind of surprising but hell at least he doesn't claim credit for Brian's work like Keith has. Don't get me wrong I love Keith in his pre 1979 persona (check out his great singing and playing at Ronnies 1974 gig) but ever since he got off in Torronto he became pretty much a character of himself and a bitchy one. What happened to his face suddenly after the 1978 tour? I mean he even looked like a different guy all of a sudden.

after all this time we are looking at Keith in new ways. His book will get a lot of people making the same old comments about Keith. If anyone needs any reminder of what a good storyteller he is, its all there in his book.

His father, Bert, is interesting to me. the reconnecting after 20 years ...then the ashes thing..
Keith talks about his mother and grandfather a lot. I wonder where his dad went. did he remarry? did he leave Keith and Doris, when Keith was a boy?

Quote
duke richardson
after all this time we are looking at Keith in new ways. His book will get a lot of people making the same old comments about Keith. If anyone needs any reminder of what a good storyteller he is, its all there in his book.

His father, Bert, is interesting to me. the reconnecting after 20 years ...then the ashes thing..
Keith talks about his mother and grandfather a lot. I wonder where his dad went. did he remarry? did he leave Keith and Doris, when Keith was a boy?

In one of these book articles - was is the TIMES one? - there was said something to the effect that Keith's mother left his husband (Bert) for a younger man. That's all I know. But that happened after Keith's stardom I guess.

- Doxa

Keith giving Mick grief about the lemon yellow tights is one of the funnier things. That was, well, one tour (two actually) for one album. And he didn't always wear those U.S. football pants. He did look silly - but at least people could see him.

After all, Keith was highly fashionable himself, with those "shirts" he was wearing that looked like rags. Talk about making fun of punk music and musicians - he was certainly looking like one. Not very blues or rock'n'roll if you ask me.

Can anyone imagine the Stones playing in 1981 with the way Mick dresses now? It's kind of strange how Mick's energy matched his clothes for that tour - totally whack, very agitated, very excited, very bouncy - and the band sounds like it as well.

Better yet, can anyone imagine the Stones NOW with how Keith looked in 1981? Oh my, that would be...that would be really really bad. The headlines would never stop screaming!

Quote
Doxa
Don't forget that he also used drugs, missed gigs, turned out to be non-functional, etc. Ask Keith more.

He's obviously biased. They probably threw him out because they thought it would be easier. "non-functional" is very relative; it would depend on what it was worth to them to have him in the band.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-22 22:41 by Doxa.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-22 22:41 by Doxa.