I think this guy really hits on a lot of truth as to MJ's experience over the years - Also agree that Keith's soul is more revealed thru his amazing string of ballads over the last 30 years.

Quote
marvpeck
I'm rather pissed at whoever first posted this.
Like an idiot, I started reading the article.
Then I went back to origin of the article which states:
Please Allow Me To Correct a Few Things
Imagine if Mick Jagger responded to Keith Richards about his new autobiography.

I think is was very misleading to not have posted this first.

I hope I won't make the same mistake again

Marv, as stated above, this part was added to the article at the Slate website many hours later:

"Please Allow Me To Correct a Few Things
Imagine if Mick Jagger responded to Keith Richards about his new autobiography."

I too, read it elsewhere, without that, thinking it might be real at first.

A brilliant piece which I hope Keith does read. I wonder if Mick has read it?

Really good article.

I think the very premise of it is the fact Keith lost his incredible talent and creativity during his junkie years - but hasn't been really able to face it. His claim for co-leadership in teh late 70's was horrible scene, because he didn't have the substance - the great songs and ideas - to offer any longer. Just his musical conservatism, limited musical intuitions (that probably were emptied to EXILE), all backed up with his pal Jack Daniels. No wonder Jagger got fed up with him. That almost killed The Stones. Like the writer says Keith is not able distinguish cause and effect.

Keith still loves to talk about having "antennas out" like it was still 1965, 1968 or 1971 and other bullshit, but bloody hell, the antenna's been broken for decades now. EXILE was Keith's last moment of artistic glory. It's been dowhill ever since. Unfortunately The Stones rise and fell with Keith. Jagger was able to rise the Stones to glory again with SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, but that's about it.

- Doxa

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Quote
Doxa
Jagger was able to rise the Stones to glory again with SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, but that's about it.

- Doxa

Whats with Sticky Fingers, Goats Head Soup etc.? Don´t forget Mick Taylor who says Jagger wrote most of the songs.

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Doxa
Jagger was able to rise the Stones to glory again with SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, but that's about it.

- Doxa

Whats with Sticky Fingers, Goats Head Soup etc.? Don´t forget Mick Taylor who says Jagger wrote most of the songs.

Surely not forget. In fact, The two Micks duo formed a great creative weapon with the Stones. To an extent, they filled the rooom left by Keith's absence. Seemingly EXILE was an expection to a rule. Thanks to Nellcote that created an ideal circusmtances for Keith. Bill Wyman has even stated that they decided to mke a record in Keith's home to make sure he will be present.

But as I see it, the Stones do need Keith's vision and touch. Even though the Micks were albe to create some incredible moments of music, they couldn't really lead the band convincingly and maintain the focus they had in Keith's best days. They were best like enrichening the Stones vocabualry (think of, say, "Winter") but not to constitute it. This is very well to be heard in IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL album. Some kind of point or focus or purpose is terribly lacking in that album. The same is with BLACK&BLUE. This was the tiem when Jagger mostly wrote heavy ballads. But with SOME GIRLS Jagger finally showed that the focus can be still found, and even despite Keith's horrible condition - and Mick is the person responsible for that. Disco and punk really inspired Jagger, and he was able to lead the band to its last creative period.

- Doxa

Pure fiction! Too many things Mick would never say evn if true.

Quote
stones78
Mick Jagger would never say that after Tattoo You they "sucked".

Spot on, that is clearly a IORR statement.

Quote
Gazza
For goodness sake, read the comments section in the article. Wyman (the journalist) admits himself it's his own words, not Jagger's.

And as seems to be the case on a daily basis regarding the reaction to Keith's book, a work of fiction is now being widely reported all over the internet as Jagger's official 'reaction' to it.

One born every minute.

PT Barnum was quite wise wasn't he.

If that article were true it would certainly validate what many have stated here. The band would never tour again. However, it is not true so we all get to the continued speculation of the next tour.

CBII

Quote
CBII

If that article were true it would certainly validate what many have stated here. The band would never tour again. However, it is not true so we all get to the continued speculation of the next tour.

Good point there, CBII!

Quote
Doxa

Keith still loves to talk about having "antennas out" like it was still 1965, 1968 or 1971 and other bullshit, but bloody hell, the antenna's been broken for decades now. EXILE was Keith's last moment of artistic glory. It's been dowhill ever since. Unfortunately The Stones rise and fell with Keith. Jagger was able to rise the Stones to glory again with SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, but that's about it.

- Doxa

I found it very sad, also, during a recent interview when Keith remarked that it was his job to turn Mick on...
He sucks at his job then. 4 albums is 25 years is piss poor.
Keith really does live in the past.

But there have been great moments in the last 25 years. A song here and there, a performance here and there.

It's just incredibly frustring when a lot of artists have done some of their best work in their 50s and 60s. The artist might be different, the art might not be great for the same reasons as the earlier hungrier work but still, a lot of people have made some of their very best at a late age.

Keith has wasted 25 years drunk off his ass and wishing it was 1969.

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Just wondering why in the hell you would waste your time on this board talking about them then? I know that sounds a little incendiary, but I really would like to know why you bother if you find nothing of value in the last quarter century?

Quote
KeefintheNight82
I found it very sad, also, during a recent interview when Keith remarked that it was his job to turn Mick on...
He sucks at his job then. 4 albums is 25 years is piss poor.
Keith really does live in the past.

Don't ask bustedtrousers since The Rolling Stones stopped existing for him in 1986.

I think what this points out, what Keith said about it being his job to turn Mick on is that, as Mick has made it very clear over the past few years, Mick can't be bothered.

So in Keith's view, why bother then. And there you go. When Mick feels like fukcing around, like he did with Voodoo and Bridges and Bang, we get New Faces, Might As Well Get Juiced, Don't Stop, Rain Fall Down, Sweet Neo Con and Streets Of Shit.

When Keith can get Mick going we get Love Is Strong, I Go Wild, Flip The Switch, Lowdown, Out Of Control, Too Tight, Rough Justice, Let Me Down Slow, It Won't Take Long, Dangerous Beauty, She Saw Me Coming, Laugh, I Nearly Died...

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Just wondering why in the hell you would waste your time on this board talking about them then? I know that sounds a little incendiary, but I really would like to know why you bother if you find nothing of value in the last quarter century?

Maybe because he/she finds something very valuable in the quarter century prior that.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 04:34 by Doxa.

Quote
kingkirby
Obviously not real (if only for the fact that we don't say 'grade school' in England), but someone's 'channelled' Mick very well here...

True enough, they've known each other since infants school......Also this bloke talks in dollars when talking about British concert ticket prices...it's all in the detail....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 04:25 by EddieByword.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Just wondering why in the hell you would waste your time on this board talking about them then? I know that sounds a little incendiary, but I really would like to know why you bother if you find nothing of value in the last quarter century?

Maybe because he/she finds something very valuable in the quarter century prior that.

- Doxa

I guess that's fine then, if you are living so far in the past and have nothing better in your life than bitch about the band you liked 25 years ago, that you find utterly worthless now and in your opinion, has had no value in the second 25 years.

I was just curious...seems like he's wasting a lot of time...but then, we probably all are.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
KeefintheNight82
I found it very sad, also, during a recent interview when Keith remarked that it was his job to turn Mick on...
He sucks at his job then. 4 albums is 25 years is piss poor.
Keith really does live in the past.

Don't ask bustedtrousers since The Rolling Stones stopped existing for him in 1986.

I think what this points out, what Keith said about it being his job to turn Mick on is that, as Mick has made it very clear over the past few years, Mick can't be bothered.

So in Keith's view, why bother then. And there you go. When Mick feels like fukcing around, like he did with Voodoo and Bridges and Bang, we get New Faces, Might As Well Get Juiced, Don't Stop, Rain Fall Down, Sweet Neo Con and Streets Of Shit.

When Keith can get Mick going we get Love Is Strong, I Go Wild, Flip The Switch, Lowdown, Out Of Control, Too Tight, Rough Justice, Let Me Down Slow, It Won't Take Long, Dangerous Beauty, She Saw Me Coming, Laugh, I Nearly Died...

And your own personal taste has nothing to do with it?

JumpingKentFlash

I found it to be 100 % pure and total bullshit . Jagger doesn't talk like that and I am sure his response would be his usual shrug of the shoulders. Do you reallyt hink he gives a hit what Keith Richards says about him NOW ? I doubt it

a great essay, not so much for imitating mick--who, as someone else notes, is much more prosaic (for all the claims of how "smart" he is, it's rare that he strings a coherent thought together, in interviews anyway), but for representing his point of view. Also potentially a great way to criticize the press for buying into the myth, as the writer claims was the intent. But I think he went too far overboard to do that, and instead wrote as a music and Stones fan.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Just wondering why in the hell you would waste your time on this board talking about them then? I know that sounds a little incendiary, but I really would like to know why you bother if you find nothing of value in the last quarter century?

Because, as Doxa said, they did so much of value in the quarter century prior. Isn't that obvious?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-11 07:19 by bustedtrousers.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Just wondering why in the hell you would waste your time on this board talking about them then? I know that sounds a little incendiary, but I really would like to know why you bother if you find nothing of value in the last quarter century?

Maybe because he/she finds something very valuable in the quarter century prior that.

- Doxa

I guess that's fine then, if you are living so far in the past and have nothing better in your life than bitch about the band you liked 25 years ago, that you find utterly worthless now and in your opinion, has had no value in the second 25 years.

I was just curious...seems like he's wasting a lot of time...but then, we probably all are.

Don't be so simple about it, you know that's not how it is. I enjoy talking about all the history of the Rolling Stones, good and bad. Just because I see the last half of their history as more bad than good, doesn't mean I'm stuck in the past, and that I don't like them at all. I like a lot of current music/music of the past 25 years, just not by the Stones. And the Stones aren't the only long-running band I like that have stopped making music that appeals to me.

As you somewhat suggested, how is anything on here not a waste of time to some degree? Just because some people write nothing but sycophantic, positive opinions, that makes their time on here completely worthy? And the less positive are automatically bitter time-wasters who live in the past?

I don't think so.

Whoever wrote is spot on in my opinion.

Who is this Bill Wyman journalist? Clearly know Stones history, and is insightful. His Slate piece is dark, funny and true.

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Just wondering why in the hell you would waste your time on this board talking about them then? I know that sounds a little incendiary, but I really would like to know why you bother if you find nothing of value in the last quarter century?

Maybe because he/she finds something very valuable in the quarter century prior that.

- Doxa

I guess that's fine then, if you are living so far in the past and have nothing better in your life than bitch about the band you liked 25 years ago, that you find utterly worthless now and in your opinion, has had no value in the second 25 years.

I was just curious...seems like he's wasting a lot of time...but then, we probably all are.

Don't be so simple about it, you know that's not how it is. I enjoy talking about all the history of the Rolling Stones, good and bad. Just because I see the last half of their history as more bad than good, doesn't mean I'm stuck in the past, and that I don't like them at all. I like a lot of current music/music of the past 25 years, just not by the Stones. And the Stones aren't the only long-running band I like that have stopped making music that appeals to me.

As you somewhat suggested, how is anything on here not a waste of time to some degree? Just because some people write nothing but sycophantic, positive opinions, that makes their time on here completely worthy? And the less positive are automatically bitter time-wasters who live in the past?

I don't think so.

Well...I do agree with you..., now. It just seems like you're better articulating the 'shades of grey' sentiment now...you were fairly 'black and white' in the previous statement, which may not be how you meant it, but for me at least, was how it was read. There is obviously no comparing the first 24 years, with the last 24 years.
HOWEVER...they are freakin' OLD and RICH, seen EVERYTHING...what the hell can we expect from them? I will still enjoy buying the new album when it comes out...even if it is worse than ABB (which I liked).

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Nikolai

Quote
Bliss
A very lucid, beautifully written article, by someone with comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Stones and their music.

I take issue with him when he says that nothing of value has been produced since the 80s. I find much to love in SW, VL and B to B, as well as the solo material.

You and I are in complete agreement. The piece prompted me to listen to How Can I Stop? again.

It made me want to listen to it for the first time ever, so I did. Wished I hadn't. I truly don't care for anything they have done from Dirty Work on. I understand that people have musical heroes, and accept everything they put out as at least ok, but I just see the Stones output of the last 25 years as utter crap. None of it appeals to me.

Just wondering why in the hell you would waste your time on this board talking about them then? I know that sounds a little incendiary, but I really would like to know why you bother if you find nothing of value in the last quarter century?

Maybe because he/she finds something very valuable in the quarter century prior that.

- Doxa

I guess that's fine then, if you are living so far in the past and have nothing better in your life than bitch about the band you liked 25 years ago, that you find utterly worthless now and in your opinion, has had no value in the second 25 years.

I was just curious...seems like he's wasting a lot of time...but then, we probably all are.

Don't be so simple about it, you know that's not how it is. I enjoy talking about all the history of the Rolling Stones, good and bad. Just because I see the last half of their history as more bad than good, doesn't mean I'm stuck in the past, and that I don't like them at all. I like a lot of current music/music of the past 25 years, just not by the Stones. And the Stones aren't the only long-running band I like that have stopped making music that appeals to me.

As you somewhat suggested, how is anything on here not a waste of time to some degree? Just because some people write nothing but sycophantic, positive opinions, that makes their time on here completely worthy? And the less positive are automatically bitter time-wasters who live in the past?

I don't think so.

Well...I do agree with you..., now. It just seems like you're better articulating the 'shades of grey' sentiment now...you were fairly 'black and white' in the previous statement, which may not be how you meant it, but for me at least, was how it was read. There is obviously no comparing the first 24 years, with the last 24 years.
HOWEVER...they are freakin' OLD and RICH, seen EVERYTHING...what the hell can we expect from them? I will still enjoy buying the new album when it comes out...even if it is worse than ABB (which I liked).

Treacle, I went back and read my original post after replying to you, and your right, I did make it pretty black and white, only to turn around and make it gray. For that I apologize.

But I honestly do still like them, and talking about them. I do think they were better once upon a time, but I also accept that those days are obviously gone. I don't think I've ever said things like, "They were never better then they were in...", or, "They were at their peak in...", or, "I wish they/we would/could go back to when...", because I think it's usually irrelevant to do so. We all know they were great at one time, and MOST concede that now is not that time. But I'm not stuck in the past, wishing they would do another Some Girls or Sticky Fingers, or tour like in '72. They aren't those guys anymore.

Your right, what more can we expect from them? They've done it all, arguably better than any band in history. No one has had a run like them. What can we expect them to do, when there ain't no more to do. What's left, being the first rock band to survive into their 70's? I know they've said they are entering uncharted territory in that respect, and Keith at least has made comments that he/they would like to see it through. But I'm just not interested in that.

They've done enough for me, given me enough, and I'm very grateful. They can stop now. Please.

They've done enough for me, given me enough, and I'm very grateful. They can stop now. Please.

I don't understand this logic. You have enough, so they can stop? why don't you stop to listen to their new records or go to their shows in the opposite? There are plenty people who want them, so why not? once I liked Murakami, now I think he writes the same book each time. Ijust stopped to buy his new books, but it's ridiculous to pleed "Haruki, please stop writhing! I love so much Norvegian wood and the Wind-up Bird, there is no place for one more book of yours"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 15:57 by proudmary.

Quote
Bingo
Whoever wrote is spot on in my opinion.

Fiction can be true too!

Quote
Doxa
Really good article.

I think the very premise of it is the fact Keith lost his incredible talent and creativity during his junkie years - but hasn't been really able to face it. His claim for co-leadership in teh late 70's was horrible scene, because he didn't have the substance - the great songs and ideas - to offer any longer. Just his musical conservatism, limited musical intuitions (that probably were emptied to EXILE), all backed up with his pal Jack Daniels. No wonder Jagger got fed up with him. That almost killed The Stones. Like the writer says Keith is not able distinguish cause and effect.

Keith still loves to talk about having "antennas out" like it was still 1965, 1968 or 1971 and other bullshit, but bloody hell, the antenna's been broken for decades now. EXILE was Keith's last moment of artistic glory. It's been dowhill ever since. Unfortunately The Stones rise and fell with Keith. Jagger was able to rise the Stones to glory again with SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, but that's about it.

- Doxa

.....I can buy some of what you say but i think you need to give KR the benefit of the doubt. I mean he has admitedly stopped taking illegal drugs since his accident in 2007. I would say that this is perhaps the first time in 40 years that he is sober. Things happen to people when they become sober and especially when they face dramatic consequences as he did from his own health problems and that of his wife. I refuse to count him out till the next record...that's one of the positives I took from his autobiography....all the same Jagger may have already counted him out which makes it all mute anyway.

<<Keith’s disappeared. Keith’s asleep backstage and can’t be roused for the show. No one will wake him because he keeps a loaded gun under his pillow and grabs it and points when riled. Keith fell asleep in the studio again. No, Keith isn’t mixing the album. He flew off to Jamaica, and, no, we don’t know when he will be back. Keith’s asleep. Keith’s asleep. Keith’s asleep.<<



So true in some ways,wasn't it ?
But Jagger wouldn't put it this way .



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .