Tell Me :
Talk
He plays on it, loud and clear. The lead guitar (not the lead guitar in the ending).
Exactly.
Yeah sure! Man good turned bad by some broad. I was talking about it the other with my buddy Chad... And this chick went to work for the U.N.
The U.N. pfewww!
(it's a tongue-in-cheek comment I make here)
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Fun part is, that in the pictures which really show a penis, you cannot see Mick's(?) face.
[www.nickelinthemachine.com]
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
+1
11 pages now .........Yes,it's appaling .
11 pages à propos de ce que Jagger a entre les jambes ...c'est même plus affigeant que les commentaires de Melle Cynthia
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Mick always does what he thinks is the best...for his bank account (aka "the band").
Well, let's not get too carried away. Did we really need another thread on this?
so true Jerry. I loathe drug users who boast about it, and anyone who thinks it's cool to take drugs is a meathead. Keith was lucky he had cash when he was an addict. Many, many people who are addicts don't have the luxury of millions of $$ to pay for the best care they can get. I'd bet if Mr Keith Richards was a nobody he wouldn't be around to tell his story...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-18 17:14 by Eleanor Rigby.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-18 18:57 by Layladylay.
then we at least know why keith does play on it. mystery finally solved.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 18, 2010 10:40
Quote
T&AQuote
GazzaQuote
turd
He also discloses that he corresponded with former prime minister Tony Blair over the Iraq war, saying: "I wrote him a letter, telling him he had to stick to his guns.
"I got a letter back, saying: 'Thanks for the support'."
What was the point of writing 'Flashpoint' then ? Thought that was anti war.
He wont make many friends by saying stupid things like this.
Presume you mean 'High Wire'.
Written about a different conflict over a decade earlier.
And er...written by Mick.
perhaps, but at least we know now why keith didn't play on it, too. mystery finally solved.
He plays on it, loud and clear. The lead guitar (not the lead guitar in the ending).
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
mr edward
()
Date: October 18, 2010 10:47
Quote
mickschix
STUPIDGUY2, you are right on the money about WHY some of us have righteous anger over Keith's juvenile " revelations". It is not simply a casual remark about Mick's anatomy, it is the culmination of MANY years of nastiness. No matter what the issues are between MIck and Keith, the fact is that Mick would NEVER be that childish, unkind and ill-mannered. You would hope that after 50 years, Keith would want the world to focus on their musical accomplishements, because in reality, THAT is all that matters and THAT is what they will be remembered for.
Exactly.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
skinrichards
()
Date: October 18, 2010 10:58
you guys are all a bunch of whining pussy cats, the stones live in a different realm. So keith put out the book, jagger couldn't even remember enough of the past to write one, it's means nothing. the last tour was fantastic, the missoula montana show and other rural dates were simply beyond belief. It's the Stones, they don't live in your (our) 9-5 world, mick will brush off any negativity and they will tour again. Keith has a right to vent in a book if he wants to, hell he wrote most of it
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: October 18, 2010 11:23
Quote
slew
The worst thing that ever happened to Mick Jagger was Bianca Jagger and her socilaite crap it all rubbed off on Mick in a bad way.
Yeah sure! Man good turned bad by some broad. I was talking about it the other with my buddy Chad... And this chick went to work for the U.N.
The U.N. pfewww!
(it's a tongue-in-cheek comment I make here)
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: October 18, 2010 11:34
Quote
skinrichards
you guys are all a bunch of whining pussy cats
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: October 18, 2010 11:48
Quote
turd
I saw the hazy pics of Micks dick
Fun part is, that in the pictures which really show a penis, you cannot see Mick's(?) face.
[www.nickelinthemachine.com]
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: October 18, 2010 11:49
Quote
mr edwardQuote
mickschix
STUPIDGUY2, you are right on the money about WHY some of us have righteous anger over Keith's juvenile " revelations". It is not simply a casual remark about Mick's anatomy, it is the culmination of MANY years of nastiness. No matter what the issues are between MIck and Keith, the fact is that Mick would NEVER be that childish, unkind and ill-mannered. You would hope that after 50 years, Keith would want the world to focus on their musical accomplishements, because in reality, THAT is all that matters and THAT is what they will be remembered for.
It's disappointing, absolutely, but it doesn't deserve universal condemnation. I think you can expect WAY worse revelations to come, actually, if Keith continues to be candid. As we all know, Keith's junkie days were littered with a trail of corpses of people he was involved with, and Stanley Booth and Bill German describe in some detail how treacherous Keith could be when it came to his drug supply.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Tantekäthe
()
Date: October 18, 2010 12:08
In a few words:
There is no way to defend him spreading cheap gossip about his long term bandmate, just for a moment in the limelight and some extra $$$. It is a particularly revealing detail that he picks on Mick because of that vocal coach; hell, some serious issues could possibly be resolved if he only took some guitar lessons himself now and then but no, he can not be bothered because music is obviously not what he is into.
Here is somebody who has been in denial for a long time and who considered Keith Richards the loyal "heart and soul" of our beloved band.
Enough is enough.
The man has gradually turned into a walking embarrassment and a serious liability for the Rolling Stones. Get rid of him already.
There is no way to defend him spreading cheap gossip about his long term bandmate, just for a moment in the limelight and some extra $$$. It is a particularly revealing detail that he picks on Mick because of that vocal coach; hell, some serious issues could possibly be resolved if he only took some guitar lessons himself now and then but no, he can not be bothered because music is obviously not what he is into.
Here is somebody who has been in denial for a long time and who considered Keith Richards the loyal "heart and soul" of our beloved band.
Enough is enough.
The man has gradually turned into a walking embarrassment and a serious liability for the Rolling Stones. Get rid of him already.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 18, 2010 12:47
LOL!
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
BrianJones1969
()
Date: October 18, 2010 12:51
Seeing this "Brenda" reference (as Keith sometimes calls Mick), this reminds me of Elton John and all his girlish nicknames for his fellow male rockers: like calling Rod Stewart "Sharon."
But, has one male rocker ever called another one "Natasha"?
~Ben
But, has one male rocker ever called another one "Natasha"?
~Ben
Re: Keith is a jerk. Now it's official
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: October 18, 2010 13:18
Quote
aprilfool
A 7 pages thread about that. Wonderful guys, it's a litte bit pathetic(in french: litte bit(e) = petite dick).
+1
11 pages now .........Yes,it's appaling .
11 pages à propos de ce que Jagger a entre les jambes ...c'est même plus affigeant que les commentaires de Melle Cynthia
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: October 18, 2010 13:25
Keith has penis envy
JERRY HALL has denied KEITH RICHARDS' comments about the inadequacy of the ROLLING STONES frontman's manhood, insisting there's not "an ounce of truth" in the rumour.
She says, "Keith has penis envy. There's not an ounce of truth in it. They're always s**gging each other off. They're like adolescents. It was particularly marked when Mick and I first got together because Mick gave up drugs for me and Keith hated that. But they need each other."
And Hall admits Richards' boasts about drug-taking have always annoyed her, adding, "They (the band) always welcomed me. What annoys me about Keith is the way he glorifies drugs. He always says, 'Look at me and how I survived because of the great quality drugs I took.' Well, look at him - he's not exactly a great advert for how drugs don't ravage you.
JERRY HALL has denied KEITH RICHARDS' comments about the inadequacy of the ROLLING STONES frontman's manhood, insisting there's not "an ounce of truth" in the rumour.
She says, "Keith has penis envy. There's not an ounce of truth in it. They're always s**gging each other off. They're like adolescents. It was particularly marked when Mick and I first got together because Mick gave up drugs for me and Keith hated that. But they need each other."
And Hall admits Richards' boasts about drug-taking have always annoyed her, adding, "They (the band) always welcomed me. What annoys me about Keith is the way he glorifies drugs. He always says, 'Look at me and how I survived because of the great quality drugs I took.' Well, look at him - he's not exactly a great advert for how drugs don't ravage you.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: October 18, 2010 13:30
Sorry 24, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, so to speak. I must have misread your post, guess it wasn't a Lennon quote after all. This is a very interesting thread, seeing those defending Keith and those pissed off at him! I wish BV would set it up so we didn't have to scroll to the very bottom every time...maybe some numbers..2, 3 etc that we can click on .
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Massimo68
()
Date: October 18, 2010 13:44
Quote
elunsi
That´s interesting. Mick does everything to hold the band together, but he gets called egoistical. Charlie once said that Mick always does what he thinks is the best for the band. Even if it means to remain quiet over Keith´s insults. What exactly does he do wrong?
Mick always does what he thinks is the best...for his bank account (aka "the band").
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
turd
()
Date: October 18, 2010 14:04
It is widely accepted a man's penis size and virility is linked to his choice of car, ie; the bigger the car the smaller the penis.
So, using this theory lets look at the Rolling Stones.
Mick Jagger - Aston Martin, average size sports car, but high performance.
Keith Richard - Bentley Continental, large sized car with lumbering performance.
Bill Wyman - Citroen Maserati, average to large sized car, lots of performance and swiveling headlights, (say's everything about Bill).
Charlie Watts only has sheep dogs.
Brian Jones at one time owned a double decker bus - make your own mind up on that one.
So, using this theory lets look at the Rolling Stones.
Mick Jagger - Aston Martin, average size sports car, but high performance.
Keith Richard - Bentley Continental, large sized car with lumbering performance.
Bill Wyman - Citroen Maserati, average to large sized car, lots of performance and swiveling headlights, (say's everything about Bill).
Charlie Watts only has sheep dogs.
Brian Jones at one time owned a double decker bus - make your own mind up on that one.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
jjflash73
()
Date: October 18, 2010 14:21
Keith can write what he wants but Mick has been his close friend, bandmate and business partner forever. I wish he would of kept that bond sacred and presented the united front of Jagger/Richards.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: October 18, 2010 15:03
Has anyone actually read this book yet? I suggest that if one has not fully read the book to reserve judgment until they have. I believe it will be a good read for the fans, and really look forward to seeing what Keith's commentary is about what has been a fascinating life. Does it sound like some petty sniping will be inclusive? Absolutely, it has been going on for years. I would expect a book from Keith to be provocative and nothing less.
I am waiting.
I am waiting.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 18, 2010 15:46
I agree that judging the book should be left until one has read it but to get some idea what we might have in our hands soon, there are two relatively revealing articles of its contents here: [www.iorr.org]
Both of them (THE TIMES, ROLLING STONE) are discussed indirectly already in this thread but as far as I know no direct link is yet offered. Make up your own mind. ROLLING STONE says things like that Richards thinks of his died baby Tara weekly, and that Mick is still his friend, which is good to hear. THE TIMES has interesting take by claiming that the book's implicit theme is Keith's relationship to two persons, Mick Jagger and Anita Pallenberg - both kind of mysteries he doesn't quite understand but tries to cope with. Our Addicted has commented that Keith and Patti Hansen's love story is well emphasized but seemingly this is not the side the commentaries so far have found much to point out. But it has almost 600 pages - so that covers quite a lot of things I guess.
But from the base I have read about it so far, it seemingly is a collection of Keith Richards recollections and stories. So the factual accuracy is not its best values - such as "As Tears Go By" was not the first song Mick and Keith composed and it didn't immediately made a number one in charts, etc. But perhaps getting thngs like that right - if it is importnat - is a job of serious 'nerd' histories and not of autobiographies. Here is more important how the subject of the book sees and feels the things surrounding his life. So I guess Muddy is still painting the ceiling...
- Doxa
Both of them (THE TIMES, ROLLING STONE) are discussed indirectly already in this thread but as far as I know no direct link is yet offered. Make up your own mind. ROLLING STONE says things like that Richards thinks of his died baby Tara weekly, and that Mick is still his friend, which is good to hear. THE TIMES has interesting take by claiming that the book's implicit theme is Keith's relationship to two persons, Mick Jagger and Anita Pallenberg - both kind of mysteries he doesn't quite understand but tries to cope with. Our Addicted has commented that Keith and Patti Hansen's love story is well emphasized but seemingly this is not the side the commentaries so far have found much to point out. But it has almost 600 pages - so that covers quite a lot of things I guess.
But from the base I have read about it so far, it seemingly is a collection of Keith Richards recollections and stories. So the factual accuracy is not its best values - such as "As Tears Go By" was not the first song Mick and Keith composed and it didn't immediately made a number one in charts, etc. But perhaps getting thngs like that right - if it is importnat - is a job of serious 'nerd' histories and not of autobiographies. Here is more important how the subject of the book sees and feels the things surrounding his life. So I guess Muddy is still painting the ceiling...
- Doxa
Defending Keith's book
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: October 18, 2010 10:38
Given the recent outpouring of outrage in this forum about things that have been revealed in the excerpts from Keith's memoirs, I think it's time to step back and reconsider...
Many--maybe most--of us have been fascinated with Mick and Keith's private lives, as they are linked with their artistic output. Dozens of books and articles have been written, by primary, secondary and tertiary sources, of wildly varying quality and value. Now Keith has written his memoirs; not some flimsy book of less than 200 pages but a huge book of 520+ pages. Furthermore, it is not some whitewashed, boring book that glosses over the events in his life with the aim of distorting the truth. He is frank and disclosive, although like any autobiography, it is told from his point of view.
And not all of us like everything we have read so far. We have learned that there is a decades-old thread of competitiveness and sexual jealousy running through his r/ship with Mick. We deride this very common human weakness in him and loudly express our disapproval and contempt. I think this is the wrong way to go, and this is why:
This is a valuable book. You will never see an autobiography from Mick, at least not a candid one. You are unlikely to ever see one from Anita Pallenberg. Whether or not you like or respect what Keith has revealed, it's clear he is not holding back on how he really feels or sees things. From what I have read, this memoir is funny and enjoyable, just like Keith's interviews. I feel I can hear his voice telling the stories. This book will fill in many missing pieces to the puzzle. So I suggest everyone get a copy and enjoy it for what it is, without expectations or judgements.
Many--maybe most--of us have been fascinated with Mick and Keith's private lives, as they are linked with their artistic output. Dozens of books and articles have been written, by primary, secondary and tertiary sources, of wildly varying quality and value. Now Keith has written his memoirs; not some flimsy book of less than 200 pages but a huge book of 520+ pages. Furthermore, it is not some whitewashed, boring book that glosses over the events in his life with the aim of distorting the truth. He is frank and disclosive, although like any autobiography, it is told from his point of view.
And not all of us like everything we have read so far. We have learned that there is a decades-old thread of competitiveness and sexual jealousy running through his r/ship with Mick. We deride this very common human weakness in him and loudly express our disapproval and contempt. I think this is the wrong way to go, and this is why:
This is a valuable book. You will never see an autobiography from Mick, at least not a candid one. You are unlikely to ever see one from Anita Pallenberg. Whether or not you like or respect what Keith has revealed, it's clear he is not holding back on how he really feels or sees things. From what I have read, this memoir is funny and enjoyable, just like Keith's interviews. I feel I can hear his voice telling the stories. This book will fill in many missing pieces to the puzzle. So I suggest everyone get a copy and enjoy it for what it is, without expectations or judgements.
Re: Defending Keith's book
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: October 18, 2010 10:45
Very well said Bliss.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Defending Keith's book
Posted by:
JJFlash2010
()
Date: October 18, 2010 10:50
Quote
Bliss
Many--maybe most--of us have been fascinated with Mick and Keith's privates.
Well, let's not get too carried away. Did we really need another thread on this?
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: October 18, 2010 17:13
Quote
proudmary
And Hall admits Richards' boasts about drug-taking have always annoyed her, adding, "They (the band) always welcomed me. What annoys me about Keith is the way he glorifies drugs. He always says, 'Look at me and how I survived because of the great quality drugs I took.' Well, look at him - he's not exactly a great advert for how drugs don't ravage you.
so true Jerry. I loathe drug users who boast about it, and anyone who thinks it's cool to take drugs is a meathead. Keith was lucky he had cash when he was an addict. Many, many people who are addicts don't have the luxury of millions of $$ to pay for the best care they can get. I'd bet if Mr Keith Richards was a nobody he wouldn't be around to tell his story...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-18 17:14 by Eleanor Rigby.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Layladylay
()
Date: October 18, 2010 18:17
I lost a huge deal respect for him and just about all the affection. i do appreciate his honesty about how all the early Beatlemaniac era screamers were screaming for anyone with Invasion hair and a guitar at Stone concerts. Also him admitting he plays along with the iconography created around the image and that he intentionally exploits it was refreshing in the face of those who idealize him and make endless bows to this idealized claims of him being so nice smart well read caring sensitive guy. might be. I ido not. give him those credits any more personally.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 18, 2010 18:21
Many of us have seen the situation where a person close to us drugs or drinks, or both, excessively. We may have our own level we feel comfortable with, and their excessiveness makes us look purer than we are. Not that we were looking to be seen as pure. By contrast the excessive user thinks we're being holier than thou, when we're only trying to be moderate and keep our shit together. Some people remember that drugs are supposed to be a recreational escape, not a full time job. (Full time jobs are a drag). And God forbid, the more moderate one should decide to quit drinking or drugs entirely. This sets off the excessive one who feels that the cleaner person is looking down on them.
It will be interesting to see how Keith finds a way to irritate Mick with his sobriety now; attacking sobriety with the same fervor he horned pharmaceutical coke and shot junk with. Mick probably has his own demons. I can imagine him shaking his head at the sight of Ron and Keith partying together. They put him in a bad spot.
It will be interesting to see how Keith finds a way to irritate Mick with his sobriety now; attacking sobriety with the same fervor he horned pharmaceutical coke and shot junk with. Mick probably has his own demons. I can imagine him shaking his head at the sight of Ron and Keith partying together. They put him in a bad spot.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Georges
()
Date: October 18, 2010 18:34
The books written by Bill Wyman, “Stone Alone” and “Rolling With The Stones”, are real historical works. They reveal lots of information. Bill is a methodical and meticulous historian. Keith is not like that.
I am not sure that Keith’s book reveals all about the Stones.
I am not sure that Keith’s book reveals all about the Stones.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: October 18, 2010 18:46
swiss ()
Funny about Mick, he always seems to win. Now here we all are gathered around talking about his penis.
Not only we are here, now Mick's penis is a trendy theme in the world press and Internet. First wave was Keith's statement about Mick' tiny manhood, now Jerry's about Mick' big manhood. And there are publications on this topic not only in tabloids like Sun or Daily Mirrow, but in Telegraph, Times or ABC News.
It's quite crazy, isn't it?
Funny about Mick, he always seems to win. Now here we all are gathered around talking about his penis.
Not only we are here, now Mick's penis is a trendy theme in the world press and Internet. First wave was Keith's statement about Mick' tiny manhood, now Jerry's about Mick' big manhood. And there are publications on this topic not only in tabloids like Sun or Daily Mirrow, but in Telegraph, Times or ABC News.
It's quite crazy, isn't it?
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 18, 2010 18:46
I don't know, I enjoyed the excerpts I read in Rolling Stone magazine. Bill can only reveal his side of it, and Bill mostly absented himself from the social lives of Keith, Brian and Mick. From what I've read so far it's much, much, much, better than Ron Wood's book. Can we at least reserve judgment until we've seen the book?
Re: Keith is a jerk. Now it's official
Posted by:
Layladylay
()
Date: October 18, 2010 18:48
Funny stuff! You're sort of the cool comic here I love it! Every time I've seen you on the board it's a real laugh. Thank you. And some cool pop philosophy too in a goofy way. Just like Keith! Interesting people here too. Good to see. Whats that accent? Are you from Austin? Anyway thanks.Quote
Rockman
....For years I thought it was Leo Sayer ....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-18 18:57 by Layladylay.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: October 18, 2010 18:55
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
T&AQuote
GazzaQuote
turd
He also discloses that he corresponded with former prime minister Tony Blair over the Iraq war, saying: "I wrote him a letter, telling him he had to stick to his guns.
"I got a letter back, saying: 'Thanks for the support'."
What was the point of writing 'Flashpoint' then ? Thought that was anti war.
He wont make many friends by saying stupid things like this.
Presume you mean 'High Wire'.
Written about a different conflict over a decade earlier.
And er...written by Mick.
perhaps, but at least we know now why keith didn't play on it, too. mystery finally solved.
He plays on it, loud and clear. The lead guitar (not the lead guitar in the ending).
then we at least know why keith does play on it. mystery finally solved.
Re: Keith Richards Reveals All About Mick Jagger And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
cirrhosis
()
Date: October 18, 2010 20:18
This is similar to when my autobiography was released, and spent much of its running time belittling my own artful dodger. I regret such candor now and suspect Keith may eventually do the same.
Edit: I just realized Keith's comments were directed towards Mick. In that case, I guess the two situations are not so similar after all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-18 20:20 by cirrhosis.
Edit: I just realized Keith's comments were directed towards Mick. In that case, I guess the two situations are not so similar after all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-18 20:20 by cirrhosis.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Dan , ds1984 , gagiwh , intinublado , littlevillage , makustone , micha063 , MonkeyMan2000 , RollstoDRSC , Stonesfan2146 , stoneskid , The Sicilian , tommycharles
Guests:
1738
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10