Quote
rollmops
I just read a little bit of the excerpts of "Life" in RollingStoneMagazine. What I read was pretty good. It's well written but not accademic and it sounds like Keith. I read the part where Keith believes that Mick doesn't like when he(keith) has close friends. He argues that Mick is possessive.
Mick and Keith have said that both of them don't really address their relationship. They call it the "English way" I think and that is when friends don't tackle, face to face, issues especially if those issues are very personal and sensitive. They just brush it off and laugh at it. Meanwhile Keith is trying to understand Mick and it seems to me that he comes up with explainations, which are spychological guesses. It would be (have been) better for them to seat down and open up about their misunderstandings. Probably Mick didn't want all the druggies(Sessler and Cie) around because he knew they were potential trouble.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Quote
JJFlash2010
I think that Keith is too hard on himself. Why did he choose to make those two references to Lucifer in the press recently? Jagger/Richards have both helped me in my life.

But I still think Mick wrote the better song with God Gave Me Everything. Let's see who is standing when this place is empty. Let's see what these old guys can do.

Quote
kovach

Quote
JJFlash2010
I think that Keith is too hard on himself. Why did he choose to make those two references to Lucifer in the press recently? Jagger/Richards have both helped me in my life.

But I still think Mick wrote the better song with God Gave Me Everything. Let's see who is standing when this place is empty. Let's see what these old guys can do.

I thought Lenny Kravitz wrote that song?

Quote
Bliss

I agree 100 per cent about Anita. In Sanchez's book, she allègedly says that she could break up the band any time she wanted. She may not have broken up the band, but she did poison it. Worse than Yoko Ono.

Quote
dcba


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)

Quote
skipstone
Ironic, innit? Mick never says anything bad about anyone. Keith is always running his mouth about anyone. Yet they plow on...

Quote
Bliss
As I said in an earlier post, I do not completely demonise Anita. She was the muse and collaborator for some of their very best work. Her pitting Keith and Mick against each other provided the momentum for the creative work.

Quote
Claire_M


Surely they didn't need a woman nor anyone else to pit them against each other. Haven't you noticed, it's how things go: Lennon and McCartney, Page and Plant, Axl and Slash, ad infinitum. The relationship between singer and guitarist is fraught with high-tension love and rivalry.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Claire_M


Surely they didn't need a woman nor anyone else to pit them against each other. Haven't you noticed, it's how things go: Lennon and McCartney, Page and Plant, Axl and Slash, ad infinitum. The relationship between singer and guitarist is fraught with high-tension love and rivalry.

But the power of a strong women can never be denied. I actually admire Anita's ability to control Brian and Keith. My only problem is when she starts demonizing others. And she could be quite dismissive of Shirley, Astrid and some of the other Stones wives, deriding them as "boring and conventional." Marsha Hunt said in her book that the first time Mick took her to meet Keith and Anita, she decided that she would stay away from them. Anita was a cannonball in the early days, plowing through so many male-imposed obstacles in that world. More power to her. I think that's why she resented Bianca, who was as strong as she was and not easily intimidated. By that time, heroin was starting to take its toll and it brought out, I think, the worst in Anita. What was once a strong, confident women, was by 1970, paranoid and insecure. My two favorite Stones women are Anita and Bianca, ironically, for many of the same reasons. One went one way, the other went another way, but both were dominating and difficult, mysterious and insrutable and refused to be subjugated. They are both the least likely to write a book. Ever heard of that book: "In Praise of Difficult Women"? They're fierce and scary to some people, but you don't @#$%& with them. So no, I don't demonize Anita, just some of her pettiness.

Quote
Claire_M

Quote
Bliss
As I said in an earlier post, I do not completely demonise Anita. She was the muse and collaborator for some of their very best work. Her pitting Keith and Mick against each other provided the momentum for the creative work.

Surely they didn't need a woman nor anyone else to pit them against each other. Haven't you noticed, it's how things go: Lennon and McCartney, Page and Plant, Axl and Slash, ad infinitum. The relationship between singer and guitarist is fraught with high-tension love and rivalry.

Quote
Layladylay

Quote
Claire_M

Quote
Bliss
As I said in an earlier post, I do not completely demonise Anita. She was the muse and collaborator for some of their very best work. Her pitting Keith and Mick against each other provided the momentum for the creative work.

I`m like everyone else mostly. 1964 to 1980 with beautiful beautiful work after Taylor left into 80ish. Exactly rising and falling with their mutual respect, reliance and working affection for each other personally. The proof is in the grooves.

True,
Though I will give credit to a few gems here and there post-81 (like moments on Undercover) that period is the Stones for me. I doubt we'll see any revisonist contemplations - ala Rock and Roll Circus, Ya Yas, Exile, Ladies and Gentlemen, or expressed affectionate fondness for Goats and IORR etc - for latter day Stones.
It just ain't going to happen with Dirty Work, Steel Wheels and beyond, no matter how many years go by. Not to be cynical, but the Stones stopped being the Stones around 1980, 81.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-20 00:41 by stupidguy2.

Quote
TrulyMicks

Quote
kovach

Quote
JJFlash2010
I think that Keith is too hard on himself. Why did he choose to make those two references to Lucifer in the press recently? Jagger/Richards have both helped me in my life.

But I still think Mick wrote the better song with God Gave Me Everything. Let's see who is standing when this place is empty. Let's see what these old guys can do.

I thought Lenny Kravitz wrote that song?

It was Jagger/Kravitz. The Being Mick video films the recording of this, and I think Kravitz said that Mick pretty much had it all down before he got to the studio.

Quote
Bliss
I must be lucky. Of the new material, I find a lot to love in Voodoo Lounge, Steel Wheels and Bridges to Babylon, as well as in Mick and Keith's solo albums.

Quote
Doxa
Yes you are if that is anything to do with luck. I know a guy who is lucky to love Bon Jovi. Since TATTOO YOU I find only the solo albums and STRIPPED somehow interesting. In every Stones album since UNDERCOVER there is some nice songs but mostly it is way too obvious, mediocre, muse-free and uninspired music to really pay attention to. Jagger's WANDERING SPIRIT (and to an extent PRIMITIVE COOL) and Keith's TALK IS CHEAP are creatively almost masterpieces compared to post-TATTOO Stones albums. I would even claim that much bashed - for a reason - GODDESSS album is way more rewarding listening experience than no any creative brain cells used pastishe album called A BIGGER BANG.

I think the most important thing to notice is that both Mick and Keith are able to do more interesting and challenging music alone than together. I think that speaks volumes of their creative co-work since the late 70's.

- Doxa

Quote
liddas

Quote
Doxa
Yes you are if that is anything to do with luck. I know a guy who is lucky to love Bon Jovi. Since TATTOO YOU I find only the solo albums and STRIPPED somehow interesting. In every Stones album since UNDERCOVER there is some nice songs but mostly it is way too obvious, mediocre, muse-free and uninspired music to really pay attention to. Jagger's WANDERING SPIRIT (and to an extent PRIMITIVE COOL) and Keith's TALK IS CHEAP are creatively almost masterpieces compared to post-TATTOO Stones albums. I would even claim that much bashed - for a reason - GODDESSS album is way more rewarding listening experience than no any creative brain cells used pastishe album called A BIGGER BANG.

I think the most important thing to notice is that both Mick and Keith are able to do more interesting and challenging music alone than together. I think that speaks volumes of their creative co-work since the late 70's.

- Doxa

Tastes are tastes. On my book Talk and Offender are great albums, Boss is a good one, Spirit, Cool and Goddess match perfectly your definition of ABB. Voodoo, just like Spirit, sounds cool but doesn't get me. B2B and Abb are no masterpieces but, just like Ronnie's latest, they are both very good albums (on the long run ABB is better). So my point is, if you like Cool more than Bang, fine. But there is no objectiveness in saying that one is inspired and the other is a turd!

C

Quote
Bliss
Yes, Doxa, I do feel fortunate that I am able to see the beauty in and derive pleasure from the Stones' output post-1971.