I read wht you read on what would Keith look like today and this time I actually agree with what you wrote. I also think deep down he knows he screwed the band in the late seventies. I think it was Mick and Jerry Hall who really got him somewhat straightened out and helped off heroin after the bust. Wyman also wrote in his book that he was genuinely concerned for Keith and that he went out and bought heroin putting himself at risk because Keith needed it. Keith does not act like he appreciated what they did for him. That said Keith got himself functional and wanted to become Mick's partner again and Mick was reluctant to give up any control. There are so many variables and different sides that go into what has happened with Mick and Keith that you can't lay all blame on just one or the other they are both at fault. They both have tremendously over-sized egos which does not help anything. If you or I were at the top of the entertainment worl for 45-50 years we would have over-sized egos. I just don't like the way you lay all the blame on Keith sure he should take a lot but was it Keith that planted the initial bad seed?? No it was Mick when he screwed Anita on the Performance set and that was probably Anita's fault. She is the biggest parasite in the history of the band. She wrecked Brian and then almost wrecked Keith. Lighten up on him he has been the sould of this band along with Mick. It is not all one or the other. The two of them have tremendous chemistry you can feel it when they are in a small room playing. I watched the I Can't be Satisfied from Biggest Bang last night and it is still there. Neither one is a choir boy.

You mean you read what I wrote...I write negatively about Keith for all of the reasons that I've stated over the past few months( Which I stand behind!) especially since the most unforgivable betrayal, LIFE. I don't like choir boys, that's why I ike the Stones but I do not tolerate deliberate cruelty when it is directed at friends...that's why Keith has earned no respect from me. He has treated Mick, the one who saved his ass repeatedly over the past 45 years and for that he is rewarded with pettiness, jealousy and distain. Not someone I admire. The two of them did not destroy the chemistry, only one of them did that. End of story....ironically, it may indeed be the end.

I .agree with you 100% mickschix

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

Thanks, Saturn. I sometimes feel like I'm speaking Chinese here....I don't get why the majority of Stones fans aren't totally pissed at Keith for creating this situation in the first place. I really do want to just let it go....it is tiring.

I do agree with you, Mickschix, and I have written at length about it. But as I said in a related thread yesterday, if you like someone, you have to accept the whole package, not pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.

Keith is Keith. As great as Mick is, he couldn't achieve the success as a solo performer that he had with the Stones, which of course includes Keith. Imperfect, (self)-destructive Keith. This is not to say that their decades-long tension is in any way a good thing for their work together. They are a classic Dysfunctional Duo.

Quote
mickschix
Thanks, Saturn. I sometimes feel like I'm speaking Chinese here....I don't get why the majority of Stones fans aren't totally pissed at Keith for creating this situation in the first place. I really do want to just let it go....it is tiring.

Keith is Keith and Mick is Mick........I was fed up with some friends in the past (your not always get a long with each other) but real friends never dies and they are real friends

Still got to read LIVE....it's in my bookshelf for a year by now

Mickschix should I read it ....or not !!!!!

__________________________

I also totally agree with Mickschix, sad but true.

Quote
Bliss
I do agree with you, Mickschix, and I have written at length about it. But as I said in a related thread yesterday, if you like someone, you have to accept the whole package, not pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.
.

But that is something Keith obviously has a problem with. He doesn´t like the whole package Mick, he only likes what he wants to like and he despises the rest, that part of Mick´s character that is contrary to his own. Keith always seemd narrow minded in this respect, in my opinion.

..........I sometimes feel like I'm speaking Chinese here...........

The same feeling here...
but it only says that not all the people have the balls to say out loud something that can cause a negative reaction. Not everyone like confrontation and prefer to keep silent. About the book though I think there is a consensus - Richards obviously went too far and damaged not only Mick but the band as a whole and himself

Quote
NICOS

Quote
mickschix
Thanks, Saturn. I sometimes feel like I'm speaking Chinese here....I don't get why the majority of Stones fans aren't totally pissed at Keith for creating this situation in the first place. I really do want to just let it go....it is tiring.

Keith is Keith and Mick is Mick........I was fed up with some friends in the past (your not always get a long with each other) but real friends never dies and they are real friends

Still got to read LIVE....it's in my bookshelf for a year by now

Mickschix should I read it ....or not !!!!!

But if a real friend throws you under the bus, and then through the years keeps backing up and driving over you, at some point, isn't it your obligation to get out of the path of oncoming traffic?

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Bliss
I do agree with you, Mickschix, and I have written at length about it. But as I said in a related thread yesterday, if you like someone, you have to accept the whole package, not pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.
.

But that is something Keith obviously has a problem with. He doesn´t like the whole package Mick, he only likes what he wants to like and he despises the rest, that part of Mick´s character that is contrary to his own. Keith always seemd narrow minded in this respect, in my opinion.

I meant, it's US who have to accept the whole package. Keith is a large part of the RS, and as fans of the group, we have to accept what he does.

I think it is French, a saying:
your enemies stab you in the back, your friends stab you in the front.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Bliss
I do agree with you, Mickschix, and I have written at length about it. But as I said in a related thread yesterday, if you like someone, you have to accept the whole package, not pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.
.

But that is something Keith obviously has a problem with. He doesn´t like the whole package Mick, he only likes what he wants to like and he despises the rest, that part of Mick´s character that is contrary to his own. Keith always seemd narrow minded in this respect, in my opinion.

I meant, it's US who have to accept the whole package. Keith is a large part of the RS, and as fans of the group, we have to accept what he does.

I had no problems with KR - I took his drug addiction, alcoholism, stupid pirate pose, the constant assaults on Jagger. The music and the Rolling Stones were more important. This was part of his image and the image of the band. But with this book, Richards allowed himself to sell this image.
He is not a fool, and he knew what he was doing - but the temptation was too great, a check too big to pass up. The editor demanded details about Mick's anatomy and sexual life - please, you get it. In addition, since the book was not written by Richards himself, but by another person (James Fox), the usual assaults on Jagger at his hands got quite a different character. There is nothing friendly or humorous here.
Mick Jagger is no longer the biggest star in show business, and there are many who want to kick him in the balls.
It's a shame that the first in the queue is Keith Richards

"But there was an off guard moment during our long nights in LA, after a video and a photo shoot focussed on his skull rings and snakes head cane, when the hullabaloo had died down, and he whispered something totally unexpected. “I get real sick of the skulls and shit,” he said, with a resigned sigh. “The image thing is a ball and chain. There’s nobody like Keith Richards that would ever be alive. No way. But you can’t buck the image. As long as I don’t have to be that guy all the time, or with my friends. I guess the Keith Richards hard man is something that gives me the room to be who I really am.("[www.telegraph.co.uk])

but in the end what we got from the book was "Keith Richards hard man". We still don't know who he really is. Like he said it himself "you can’t buck the image"
and to maintain this @#$%& image he destroyed the band

P.S. and after all this, now Richards is making his solo album.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-16 21:58 by proudmary.

Quote
proudmary
I had no problems with KR - I took his drug addiction, alcoholism, stupid pirate pose, the constant assaults on Jagger. The music and the Rolling Stones were more important. This was part of his image and the image of the band. But with this book, Richards allowed himself to sell this image.
He is not a fool, and he knew what he was doing - but the temptation was too great, a check too big to pass up. The editor demanded details about Mick's anatomy and sexual life - please, you get it. In addition, since the book was not written by Richards himself, but by another person (James Fox), the usual assaults on Jagger at his hands got quite a different character. There is nothing friendly or humorous here.
Mick Jagger is no longer the biggest star in show business, and there are many who want to kick him in the balls.
It's a shame that the first in the queue is Keith Richards

P.S. and after all this, now Richards is making his solo album.

yeah, we heard you the first 452 times you said the exact same thing.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
proudmary
I had no problems with KR - I took his drug addiction, alcoholism, stupid pirate pose, the constant assaults on Jagger. The music and the Rolling Stones were more important. This was part of his image and the image of the band. But with this book, Richards allowed himself to sell this image.
He is not a fool, and he knew what he was doing - but the temptation was too great, a check too big to pass up. The editor demanded details about Mick's anatomy and sexual life - please, you get it. In addition, since the book was not written by Richards himself, but by another person (James Fox), the usual assaults on Jagger at his hands got quite a different character. There is nothing friendly or humorous here.
Mick Jagger is no longer the biggest star in show business, and there are many who want to kick him in the balls.
It's a shame that the first in the queue is Keith Richards

P.S. and after all this, now Richards is making his solo album.

yeah, we heard you the first 452 times you said the exact same thing.

So what? you're chewing the same mental cud for 5 years ( to be precise 2,893 times) and no one listens to you

Quote
proudmary
So what?

so what? maybe try saying something different.

and I was being polite, but if you wanna get personal and nasty, we can do that.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
and I was being polite, but if you wanna get personal and nasty, we can do that.

why spoil other people's fun with our squabble. just ignore my posts - from your side it would be most politely.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Bliss
I do agree with you, Mickschix, and I have written at length about it. But as I said in a related thread yesterday, if you like someone, you have to accept the whole package, not pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.
.

But that is something Keith obviously has a problem with. He doesn´t like the whole package Mick, he only likes what he wants to like and he despises the rest, that part of Mick´s character that is contrary to his own. Keith always seemd narrow minded in this respect, in my opinion.

I meant, it's US who have to accept the whole package. Keith is a large part of the RS, and as fans of the group, we have to accept what he does.

yes, that´s why I only quoted the first part of your post. I meant that this is also valid for Keith. Mick is just "different" in many aspects and Keith has problems to accept that.

The situation between Mick and Keith during the EMOTIONAL RESCUE sessions is open to interpretation. Keith's view has always been that Mick resented him getting off smack and wanting to share the reins again. Mick has never said anything of the sort publicly to my knowledge.

Keith has also stated that he disagreed with the direction Mick was taking the band. Specifically, Keith cited songs like "Emotional Rescue" as an example of this. His criticism of SHE'S THE BOSS at the time of its release and now was that Mick's pursuit of trendy music would reflect poorly on the Stones. Nearly everyone around them at the time talked about the professional (rather than personal) disagreements over mixes that took up so much studio time from 1979 - 1983.

Keith may see the problem as Mick being a control freak, but it must be said that had Keith been enthusiastic about Mick's ideas, their collaboration would likely not have proven so difficult. It is probably equally valid to suggest that when Keith got off smack, he felt like asserting his authority and found fault in Mick's songwriting which did not require as much input from him as it had in the past. Whether one agrees with his criticism of the direction Mick took then (or now) as isn't really the issue so much as it was the fact that Keith became very vocal in his criticism of Mick (eventually going public with that criticism as time wore on) that is the real crux of their falling out.

In LIFE, Keith asks "where did my friend go?" The answer he doesn't want to acknowledge is that he drove him away by saying his work was crap. As much as I'm a fan of Keith's work with the Stones and with the Winos, I can't help but think that Jane Rose encouraging him to air dirty laundry about Mick in interviews starting in 1986 and growing exponentially in the 25 years since did the band a great deal of damage. Seen from that view, the todger line is just the tip of the iceberg.

"I can't help but think that Jane Rose encouraging him to air dirty laundry about Mick in interviews starting in 1986 and growing exponentially in the 25 years since did the band a great deal of damage".

Spot on

Quote
proudmary
"I can't help but think that Jane Rose encouraging him to air dirty laundry about Mick in interviews starting in 1986 and growing exponentially in the 25 years since did the band a great deal of damage".

Spot on

Yeah, I think he went from his mom, to Anita, to Jane Rose, three very powerful tough women in his life.

I think for all the talk, (the blade, gimme a break), the women exercise the control over his life and lead him to do the things he does. A little oversimplistic I'll acknowledge, but I'll bet there is a lot of truth to this.

Quote
treaclefingers
Yeah, I think he went from his mom, to Anita, to Jane Rose, three very powerful tough women in his life.
I think for all the talk, (the blade, gimme a break), the women exercise the control over his life and lead him to do the things he does. A little oversimplistic I'll acknowledge, but I'll bet there is a lot of truth to this.

What about Patti ?

Quote
shortfatfanny
What about Patti ?

She is a wonderful lady

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
shortfatfanny
What about Patti ?

She is a wonderful lady

I guess she is...just asking because of treaclefingers analysis....

NICOS, you must read the book so that you develope your own opinion. It is a real snapshot of how Keith really thinks and how jealousy can be so detrimental. His pettiness is astonishing. OK, enough! Read the book and then tell us what you think. I also agree that Jane Rose caused some real problems by egging Keith on!! It's also true that when Keith decided that he should control the band because he was off smack, it speaks volumes about his mean spirit. If I'd been Mick, I think I'd have smacked him to the curb, a little reminder that Keith had been ABSENT, had checked out of the band for years, while he had his head in the fog!! I guess his addictions really confused reality!
I'm happy to hear from so many here who agree with me. I didn't speak up to rally the troops, so to speak. I just couldn't be silent. But, I'm happy to hear from the " troops!".

OK, enough! Read the book and then tell us what you think

I will do................

__________________________

Quote
mickschix
Thanks, Saturn. I sometimes feel like I'm speaking Chinese here....

Ni hao ma mickschix!

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
shortfatfanny
What about Patti ?

She is a wonderful lady

I guess she is...just asking because of treaclefingers analysis....

Left her out of the armchair analysis!

I'm never sure I agree that things were as simple as saying Keith checked out during the worst of the junkie years. His creative processes were slowed considerably. He was seriously unreliable. That translated into a lot of sessions where everyone was waiting around for Keith to get it together, but he's all over the seventies albums.

He was still contributing riffs and toplines to give Mick the bare bones of songs. He was still heavily involved in arranging the tracks. He was certainly involved in production with Mick. The difference was he let Mick do the heavy lifting much of the time while he coasted. I don't think he was arguing too much provided he had another fix near at hand.

That's the change with the ER sessions. Suddenly, he's much more coherent and aggressive and very opinionated which likely caused culture shock for everyone, particularly Mick. Over time, that tension grew and grew until the CBS deal when suddenly you've got this weird love-hate relationship.

DIRTY WORK is the other weird one because for all the talk of Keith and Woody writing 80% of the songs and Mick not being in the studio at the same time or using a separate studio, there were times where they clicked. You can hear it on the acoustic songwriting demos from the start of the sessions and during mixing Ivan Neville talks about Mick and Keith dancing around the console when he overdubbed the bass lines on "Hold Back." Mick and Keith were also in the studio at the same time for at least some of the sessions with Bobby Womack. If you dig you'll find refernce to Mick praising Keith's lead guitar on "Winning Ugly." It wasn't all ugly all the time even though that became the way it's presented to the media. The push was to call DW Keith's album even though most of the final lyrics were Mick's. It's just one of those myths that becomes history because it's repeated enough.