For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Quote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Quote
LeonidP
So have you even read the book, or are you making assumptions? Because now I just got to the Some Girls section, and here's what Keith writes about Mick:
===================================
Mick looked after me with great sweetness, never complaining. He ran things; he did the work and marshaled the forces that saved me. Mick looked after me like a brother...
===================================
So you guys are just spouting off that Keith isn't giving Mick credit for any of Some Girls and now I just read this and see he gives him loads of credit. Jesus Christ!
Quote
RickHolland
Never hit ON a girl in his life, that's what I meant!!
Quote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Seriously? You don't even know what you're talking about. You said 'distortion' over the fact that Keith gives Stu credit & bashes Brian. I am saying this is his 'feelings' and it doesn't have to do with lies, truths, or distortions. You brought up that word based on others' posts and don't even know what the book days. Wow!
Quote
kleermaker
So I'm very special too?
Quote
Marie
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information.
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
Marie
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information.
Well, then that's the opinion of Someone Earlier
But now tell me, did you read Keith's book or not ?
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
kleermaker
So I'm very special too?
LOL kleermaker, of course you are very special too
BTW hitting ON a girl is not the same as hitting a girl.
Quote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Seriously? You don't even know what you're talking about. You said 'distortion' over the fact that Keith gives Stu credit & bashes Brian. I am saying this is his 'feelings' and it doesn't have to do with lies, truths, or distortions. You brought up that word based on others' posts and don't even know what the book days. Wow!
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information. I've made up my own mind. I've read several sources, Stones biographies and Brian biographies. And, while Stu is an important part of the Stones early history, he is not given credit for being the Stones leader in those biographies. In interviews, as late as 2002, Anita has referred to Stu as Keith's "Man Friday" , his go to guy when he needed him. That is a huge step down if he was once the leader.
Quote
DoxaQuote
LeonidP
So have you even read the book, or are you making assumptions? Because now I just got to the Some Girls section, and here's what Keith writes about Mick:
===================================
Mick looked after me with great sweetness, never complaining. He ran things; he did the work and marshaled the forces that saved me. Mick looked after me like a brother...
===================================
So you guys are just spouting off that Keith isn't giving Mick credit for any of Some Girls and now I just read this and see he gives him loads of credit. Jesus Christ!
With respect, but that quote has nothing to do with (a) SOME GIRLS, (b) music over-all. It is a great - one of the greatest in the whole book - and Keith gives open credits for Mick saving his ass through the 70's. He admits that without Mich he would have been in jail.
But how Keith shows his gratefulness? You read the bloody next passage, and Keith immediately starts bittching about co-working with Mick (LOVE YOU LIVE). And it continues and continues for the rest of the book - Mick this and Mick that...
It is interesting that Keith makes so clear distinction between music and everything else. He gives Mick credit for non-musical contexts, and talks even, like we saw, brotherhood kind of behavior. But leadership over the music and its direction of the band is apparantly totally different issue. No mercy for Mick there.
Anyway, Keith is not not the only one making this distinction - for example, in his books Bill Wyman bitches a lot of Jagger dictorship over the band dealings, but admits that Mick is very empathic person and for example, supported very much Bill when his father died during 1990 (?) tour. Seemingly, Mick takes care of people.
- Doxa
Quote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
Quote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
Doxa
But when Jagger starts to be more independent and starts making music, Keith's bitching starts. Seemingly anything Mick does is worth nothing. Even a masterpiece like "Sympathy For he Devil" is mocked as "Mick's song". The description of SOME GIRLS - an album everybody knows is one of Jagger's strongest contributions ever - is analogical to belittlening Brian's contributions in the early days: Keith is so proud of the album - who can debate with sales? - but is incapable to give any respect to the master mind behind it. No, all he does is in pejorative terms. "The Whip Comes Down" is described "oh shit, Jagger is finally written a rock'n'roll" song; "Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable. No any mention of three-guitar attack, Jagger's pushing the band to rock faster, to react to punk, etc - Jagger's contribution is ignored under the anonomy of "we" - which, as the reader by then knows, is synonymous to "Keith's command and vision". There Keith is inconsistent, once again: first he says that everything starts from a scratch, and then he says that scene went usually that Mick came with a song, and then he (Keith) would say what to do with. (Then the junkie scenes: the 'master' taking 45 minutes pause to spend in toilet did just good for the songs because he had time to "think" there...)
And this is all before the horrible and ugly 80's scene. Of course, Jagger's solo career failure is a field day for Keith, and he surely uses that card - he sometimes sounds like having an orgasm in bashing Mick. But not saying that it sucks musically and conceptually, he claims, for example, that Mick steals melodies. (All this should be read as Mick is not able to do without him anything worthy musically, or even: Mick is an impotent composing songs).
As I read it, Keith's nostalgy drive for old days - when describing the sixties scenes - he mentions few times "oh Mick was so different then". It was not just the behavior but seemingly also the way to write songs (and thereby, lead musically the band): Keith the master mind and Mick the secretary.
A quick analysis. Keith's only claim for leadership and significance within the Stones was due his song-writing: he was the guy who did the music. That made HIM special. That was the reason to step to front behind Brian's shadow - a move I think he would ever could have done without his song-writing skills. But according to Keith, the Jagger-Richards team work had a clear divison of work, and seemingly when Jagger started composing songs by his own, and thereby started to be not musically dependent of Keith - seems to be a hard case for Keith. And the 70's scenes - in Keith's dopeville years - Mick took the musical leadership of the Stones- a progression that fulfilled in SOME GIRLS. By then Jagger was totally on his own as a song writer, and he had the visions and ideas how to lead the band - Keith was HIS guitarist, the "riff-master" who worked under and according to his vision. The success of SOME GIRLS was a mark that Jagger was in a right track: he was able to give the band a new life. This, if anything, pissed Keith off. Especially when he "cleaned out". This all happened before the 80's scene. Like said, Keith had a field day thanks to Mick's solo career failure, and my god he really uses that card in defining the earlier and ever since happenings.
But what happened after the 80's World War Three - since Mick "came to his senses" - Keith is not able to give any reasonable or insightful account of the happenings of The Rolling Stones or their creative work. Just stupid studio bullying or how he was able to great such a masterpieces as "Flip the Switch" or "You Don't Have to Mean It". And no bloody ANY critical word for his own creative downhill or the nature of The Rolling Stones (as a Vegas act who is kissing sponsors ass). Totally lost his judgment (like comparing his 8 kilometers - with a heavy guitar - to Mick's 15 kilometers on stage...). But thanks for the sausage receipt.
- Doxa
Well, here I agree with you. As I stated before, I don't understand that Keith doesn't see that they survived the 70's due to Mick, and their 'comeback' with Some Girls and especially Tattoo You and the '81 tour was a true tour de force of Mick mostly. Then, Jagger's decision not to tour with three junkie band members and a so-so received album.
There's one line in the book that’s prove of this: Keith mentions (when the book arrives somewhere in ’78) that Mick doesn't need all the big stages, the props, the moves and whatever, and all the forays into disco and what-more as Jagger forever ‘could sing “I Am a Man” on a table top and still be famous and earn money’. And that is the biggest misconception of Keith, and probably his biggest jealousy towards Mick. Keith likes to see the Stones as a Chicago blues band, and he likes to see himself as the de facto leader as he is the main songwriter, whereas Jagger is the lead singer of the band and hence the most important man for most of the audience, and Jagger is the one whom keeps his foot in modern times, adjusting the band to remain modern and relevant, or even a money making machine from ’89.
When Keith cleaned up in ’78 he wanted to do “I am a Man’, while Jagger came with ‘Miss You’. Instead of being grateful towards Jagger, he keeps slagging him.
Mathijs
I totally agree with you here, Mathjis...People who can't understand why Jagger refused to tour behind Dirty Work are not perhaps aware of the fact that no fewer than three band members were a mess at this point (yes, hard to think of our Charlie that way, but he was out of control). What's not clear to me is Keith was supposedly "clean" by then. Did he have a relapse around this time, or was it only that his coke and alcohol use were so out of control? He does not admit to any relapse in his book, he says several times that it has been 30 years since he was a junkie.
That's pretty much the scientific approach if you want anything close to "truth" no matter the subject.Quote
Rolling Hansie
Well, then that's the opinion of Someone Earlier
Quote
Edward Twining
I think you're spot on, LeonidP. I think Doxa has pre-conceived notions with regards to the Stones and their history from his years spent studying them, which actually makes him one of the most interesting and articulate writers on this forum. This forum just would not be the same without him.
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Edward Twining
I think you're spot on, LeonidP. I think Doxa has pre-conceived notions with regards to the Stones and their history from his years spent studying them, which actually makes him one of the most interesting and articulate writers on this forum. This forum just would not be the same without him.
Good point, he obviously knows a lot about them -- either way, I'm tired of arguing about it. I'm now at the Undercover part of the book (chapter 11) and getting close to the end. It's definitely my favorite Stones book, no doubt about it. I am both listening, and reading it whenever I have a chance, I expect to finish tomorrow or Sat.
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Language question from a Dutch guy:
When Keith writes about shooting up heroin he speaks about "mainlining", and that he never did that. He used to shoot up in the muscles. Does "mainlining" mean shooting up in the veins ?
Quote
kleermaker
Yes, right in the (major) veins
Quote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?
Interesting that he mentions Mozart. I knew already that Keith admires Mozart's music very much. But I can't explain what Keith means by that. It would be more interesting if he had mentioned some (parts of) compositions as examples. Even more interesting if he had compared some of his own work with some of Mozart's and Vivaldi's work.
BTW: The fact that I love both the Stones' (especially with Taylor) and Mozart's music so much (Keith is the main Stones 'composer' in my eyes) is proof to me that they have something in common. It undoubtedly has something to do with feelings and emotions translated into music in a certain way. I'm also convinced that Keith at a musical level loved working with Taylor. Both Keith and Taylor were at their best when playing together. Like Taylor said in his 2001 interview the Stones (especially Keith, Mick and Taylor) communicated about the music without words. I can image why Keith said he misses Taylor a lot. I think it's also the other way around. They understood each other through music, using it as a language.
Quote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Thanks Mr DJA, but the story on Wikipedia is also very complicated to me.
Keith specifically refers to the 5 string open tuning, starting at page 241.
Quote
DoxaQuote
LeonidPQuote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
I didn't speak what Keith - or "we" - thinks about the song; the point is how to see Mick's contribution in it. Keith claims that Mick just came with "that beat, that four on he floor", and asked the others - read: Keith - to "add the melody". Basically he just says that Mick had an idea of a disco song in his mind - a beat - thanks to his nights in Studio 54, and the rest - guess who? - builded up a song around Mick's wish "to keep the man happy".
Well, this is what the "disco boy" says of its origin:
I got that together with Billy Preston, actually. Yeah, Billy had shown me the four-on-the-floor bass-drum part, and I would just play the guitar. I remember playing that in the El Mocambo club when Keith was on trial in Toronto for whatever he was doing. We were supposed to be there making this live record... I was still writing it, actually. We were just in rehearsal.
- Mick Jagger, 1995
During the rehearsal of the El Mocambo gig I wrote the song Miss You. So I remember that 'cause I was waiting for everyone in the band to turn up and I was with Billy Preston, and Billy Preston was playing the kick drum and I was always playing the guitar and I wrote Miss You on that so I remember that moment very well.
- Mick Jagger, 2001
Everyone is free to make own interpretations.
- Doxa
P.S. I haven't yet discussed of the "we" anonym Keith loves to use rhetorically in the book, and on some really specific moments uses the authority of 'neutral' Charlie Watts to back up Keith's claims or opinions which I find a bit disgusting, too (maybe I will talk it some day...), but here is one quote relevant here:
A lot of those songs like Miss You on Some Girls... were heavily influenced by going to the discos. You can hear it in a lot of those four on the floor rhythms and the Philadelphia-style drumming. Mick and I used to go to discos a lot... It was a great period. I remember being in Munich and coming back from a club with Mick singing one of the Village People songs - YMCA, I think it was - and Keith went mad, but it sounded great on the dance floor.
- Charlie Watts, 2003