Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4
Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: bustedtrousers ()
Date: December 5, 2010 10:01

Quote
skipstone
“Mick has a genuine disdain for nostalgia,” Lorne Michaels notes.

Did Lorne Michaels see or hear anything about/from the Bigger Bang tour? Obviously not.

These articles are always full of quotes like that, which are just lip service. They aren't based in reality, they're based in an image that the subject wants to present, and which acquaintances are more than happy to help reinforce. Unless Lorne is speaking about Mick's tastes on a personal level which we aren't privy to, you could make a case that statement is an outright lie.

Makes me think the article is a good old-fashioned PR puff piece. After seeing that quote, I don't even want to read it. I pretty much know how it will go, what it will say.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: December 5, 2010 10:34

He brought his own hairdresser from London??

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: swiss ()
Date: December 5, 2010 11:11

Quote
bustedtrousers
Quote
skipstone
“Mick has a genuine disdain for nostalgia,” Lorne Michaels notes.

Did Lorne Michaels see or hear anything about/from the Bigger Bang tour? Obviously not.

These articles are always full of quotes like that, which are just lip service. They aren't based in reality, they're based in an image that the subject wants to present, and which acquaintances are more than happy to help reinforce. Unless Lorne is speaking about Mick's tastes on a personal level which we aren't privy to, you could make a case that statement is an outright lie.

Makes me think the article is a good old-fashioned PR puff piece. After seeing that quote, I don't even want to read it. I pretty much know how it will go, what it will say.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

BustedT, I pasted the article after my post on Page 1 if you wanna glance through it winking smiley It's a bit different from other Mick puff pieces - it's not unworthy of a read. The stuff about not swelling in the past, this time, is a dig at Keith and LIFE. There are other digs in the article, some of which are conveyed by the author, referring to the Stones being at all concerned about social unrest as merely fans' "romantic" notions of the Stones. Stuff like that.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: Turd On The Run ()
Date: December 5, 2010 12:34

sweetcharmedlifesad smileyOn Keith) "Basicly I'd rather he wrote a song instead of a book."

Fantastic. Agreed.

riverrat:

"Strange to me that Mick doesn't differentiate human beings from animals. He puts humans on the same level as animals. He looks to animals for patterns of human behavior. Are you kidding me?? Good Lord....No wonder he's the way he is...At least he's a great entertainer."


My thoughts exactly...for a well-read (and one would assume well-educated) man he sounds utterly shallow and obtuse in his justifications for sticking his tiny dodger wherever he damn well pleases...I mean, he should be able to come up with a more nuanced and intellectually rigorous justification than THAT for his repudiation of monogamy!

Green Lady:

"There's a telling quote about one of the books he's reading (on a Kindle, of course - you can't imagine that Mick wouldn't have one of those, or that Keith would): 'It’s not really my kind of thing, but everyone was talking about it so I thought I’d have a look.' Both the pros and the cons are there: the openmindedness and willingness to learn - and the determination to be visibly 'with it' whether it suits your personal taste or not.


Superb insight.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: December 5, 2010 12:52

Quote
Turd On The Run
sweetcharmedlifesad smileyOn Keith) "Basicly I'd rather he wrote a song instead of a book."

Fantastic. Agreed.

riverrat:

"Strange to me that Mick doesn't differentiate human beings from animals. He puts humans on the same level as animals. He looks to animals for patterns of human behavior. Are you kidding me?? Good Lord....No wonder he's the way he is...At least he's a great entertainer."


My thoughts exactly...for a well-read (and one would assume well-educated) man he sounds utterly shallow and obtuse in his justifications for sticking his tiny dodger wherever he damn well pleases...I mean, he should be able to come up with a more nuanced and intellectually rigorous justification than THAT for his repudiation of monogamy!

Green Lady:

"There's a telling quote about one of the books he's reading (on a Kindle, of course - you can't imagine that Mick wouldn't have one of those, or that Keith would): 'It’s not really my kind of thing, but everyone was talking about it so I thought I’d have a look.' Both the pros and the cons are there: the openmindedness and willingness to learn - and the determination to be visibly 'with it' whether it suits your personal taste or not.


Superb insight.

I imagine Mick knows he's on pretty shaky ground defending his private life. But he's too smooth to ever say, 'That's who I am..take it or leave it'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 12:53 by Bliss.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: elunsi ()
Date: December 5, 2010 13:30

sometimes Mick is joking more than can be captured in an interview, unless we see him talking. I think we don´t really know when he is serious or when not. (hm, that does not sound like good english)
Reading that interview I get the impression that Mick already moved on, completely. He sounds somehow finished with that public talking about his person/persona, not interested at all, only in reading, learning, exploring. He only is committed and willing to tell something when he gets asked about music.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: bustedtrousers ()
Date: December 5, 2010 15:33

Quote
swiss
Quote
bustedtrousers
Quote
skipstone
“Mick has a genuine disdain for nostalgia,” Lorne Michaels notes.

Did Lorne Michaels see or hear anything about/from the Bigger Bang tour? Obviously not.

These articles are always full of quotes like that, which are just lip service. They aren't based in reality, they're based in an image that the subject wants to present, and which acquaintances are more than happy to help reinforce. Unless Lorne is speaking about Mick's tastes on a personal level which we aren't privy to, you could make a case that statement is an outright lie.

Makes me think the article is a good old-fashioned PR puff piece. After seeing that quote, I don't even want to read it. I pretty much know how it will go, what it will say.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

BustedT, I pasted the article after my post on Page 1 if you wanna glance through it winking smiley It's a bit different from other Mick puff pieces - it's not unworthy of a read. The stuff about not swelling in the past, this time, is a dig at Keith and LIFE. There are other digs in the article, some of which are conveyed by the author, referring to the Stones being at all concerned about social unrest as merely fans' "romantic" notions of the Stones. Stuff like that.

Swiss, out of respect for you, I'll take a look at it. But I really am turned off by quotes like Lorne's, when you know they're just bullshit, especially if you feel the opposite is true. Maybe Mick has an obvious disdain for nostalgia in his life. But so far, from what I understand, and read on here, not in his business. Which I think is fine. I just don't like the lip-service from celebrity friends.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: Rip This ()
Date: December 5, 2010 17:21

...Mick's a very smart guy...the sales of the re issue of Exile and stellar reviews and sales of Ladies & Gentlemen has surely not gone unoticed...so he's neck deep in nostalgia...

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: December 5, 2010 17:26

That is a huge - HUGE! - irony of Mick doing what he does and being who he is - the front man/lead singer for a rock'n'roll band that has its anchor in the 1960s.

If the 1978 Stones were to meet the 2005 Stones I bet Mick would be disgusted.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: sweetcharmedlife ()
Date: December 5, 2010 20:01

Quote
Green Lady
There's a telling quote about one of the books he's reading (on a Kindle, of course - you can't imagine that Mick wouldn't have one of those, or that Keith would):

"It’s not really my kind of thing, but everyone was talking about it so I thought I’d have a look."

Both the pros and the cons are there: the openmindedness and willingness to learn - and the determination to be visibly "with it" whether it suits your personal taste or not.
Yeah he's openminded. Except when it come to playing different material live.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: proudmary ()
Date: December 5, 2010 21:17



That's his first public appearance after 2 months ridicule and all he has to say - 'Personally I think its really quite tedious raking over the past. Mostly, people only do it for money.'
It seems there is nothing Keith can do to break this heart of stone

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: hbwriter ()
Date: December 5, 2010 21:22

Even if the interview was the usual phantom-esque, shadow boxing with this elusive master -- still very entertaining. Nobody makes saying nothing as interesting as Jagger.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: December 5, 2010 21:34

It occurs to me after reading Mick's comments on marriage and dating that perhaps he is the true bohemian, rather than Keith, at least on this issue. Keith has become a married Suburban Gentleman, while Mick describes a nine-year relationship as "kind of dating" and still adheres to his view that marriage isn't for him.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: Rip This ()
Date: December 5, 2010 22:49

Quote
proudmary
That's his first public appearance after 2 months ridicule and all he has to say - 'Personally I think its really quite tedious raking over the past. Mostly, people only do it for money.'
It seems there is nothing Keith can do to break this heart of stone


I find it hard to believe that the 2 are as rosey and peachy as Keith says they are and that it's "all good" behind the scenes...Mick's first salvo was to have the Stones PR machine officially deny any tour or recording....this articles is part 2...let's see what comes next

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: duke richardson ()
Date: December 6, 2010 00:56

as much disdain as Jagger might have for nostalgia, that is pretty much what the Stones tours are about, but its really good nostalgia!

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: mickschix ()
Date: December 6, 2010 01:27

Sorry to disagree so strongly with whoever said MIck wasn't a GIFT....he has been a gift to me, especially when most other things in my life have disintegrated to pure CRAP! I've been able to return to my favorite memories of concerts and other favorite Mick moments and it really has helped me to turn off those other damaging thoughts. I can always " turn the channel" and go to my Stones network. So, yeah, he is a gift alright!

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: TrulyMicks ()
Date: December 6, 2010 02:46

Quote
Bliss
[I imagine Mick knows he's on pretty shaky ground defending his private life. But he's too smooth to ever say, 'That's who I am..take it or leave it'.

Why does he need to defend his private life?

I liked how this article portrays Mick as the renaissance man that he is. Nice photos too!

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: boston2006 ()
Date: December 6, 2010 02:49

I collect this kind of stuff . Has anyone a copy that they'd be willing to part with ?

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: December 6, 2010 06:29

Quote
boston2006
I collect this kind of stuff . Has anyone a copy that they'd be willing to part with ?

You can have mine. Let me know where to send it.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: colonial ()
Date: December 6, 2010 07:15

Quote
proudmary


proudmary..Thats a good photo of Mick..ya' know something what an inspiration Mick Jagger is to people of all ages with his outlook on life and his youthfulness..smoking smiley

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: cc ()
Date: December 6, 2010 08:30

Quote
71Tele
It occurs to me after reading Mick's comments on marriage and dating that perhaps he is the true bohemian, rather than Keith, at least on this issue. Keith has become a married Suburban Gentleman, while Mick describes a nine-year relationship as "kind of dating" and still adheres to his view that marriage isn't for him.

yes, and "Keef" worshipers will somehow turn this into a coherent "rock 'n' roll" lifestyle statement to keith's advantage.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: hbwriter ()
Date: December 6, 2010 08:41

Quote
cc
Quote
71Tele
It occurs to me after reading Mick's comments on marriage and dating that perhaps he is the true bohemian, rather than Keith, at least on this issue. Keith has become a married Suburban Gentleman, while Mick describes a nine-year relationship as "kind of dating" and still adheres to his view that marriage isn't for him.

yes, and "Keef" worshipers will somehow turn this into a coherent "rock 'n' roll" lifestyle statement to keith's advantage.

great line

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: December 6, 2010 08:47

... why would anyone consider having a solid family life to be to Keith's disadvantage??

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: cc ()
Date: December 6, 2010 09:12

no, I just mean that certain subscribers to the "Keef" myth are likely to view his (eventually, and allegedly) solid family life as consistent with his rock-and-roll persona and that, for these people, mick's vagrancy vis a vis women will somehow not register as an echt rock-and-roll trait. I wasn't saying anything about the reality for either one of them, just the perception, or one popular version of it.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: December 6, 2010 09:20

... oh. well anyway, thanks for explaining

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: December 6, 2010 09:30

Quote
TrulyMicks
Quote
Bliss
[I imagine Mick knows he's on pretty shaky ground defending his private life. But he's too smooth to ever say, 'That's who I am..take it or leave it'.

Why does he need to defend his private life?

I liked how this article portrays Mick as the renaissance man that he is. Nice photos too![/quote

>>]Why does he need to defend his private life?

Because the interviewer put him on the spot. He doesn't need to, of course; he chose to.

As for the nice photos..I imagine the hand-picked, no doubt top stylist and hairdresser brought from London might have something to do with that.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: TrulyMicks ()
Date: December 6, 2010 14:16

Quote
Bliss
Why does he need to defend his private life?

Because the interviewer put him on the spot. He doesn't need to, of course; he chose to.

As for the nice photos..I imagine the hand-picked, no doubt top stylist and hairdresser brought from London might have something to do with that.

I am tired of people insinuating that his private life isn't up to their standards and that he needs to defend himself. There's nothing to defend.
Yes, I'm sure the professionals helped make those photos so spectacular, but nevertheless they are nice photos!

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: December 6, 2010 16:44

Quote
TrulyMicks
Quote
Bliss
Why does he need to defend his private life?

Because the interviewer put him on the spot. He doesn't need to, of course; he chose to.

>>I am tired of people insinuating that his private life isn't up to their standards and that he needs to defend himself. There's nothing to defend.

I agree with you. I think he should not lower himself to explain or defend anything, that he should have said 'That's who I am...take it or leave it'. But reporters largely deal in clichés, eg, 'Mick the libertine', and 'Keith the druggie' and Mick seems to feel he has to 'splain himself.

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: sweetcharmedlife ()
Date: December 6, 2010 20:29

Quote
cc
Quote
71Tele
It occurs to me after reading Mick's comments on marriage and dating that perhaps he is the true bohemian, rather than Keith, at least on this issue. Keith has become a married Suburban Gentleman, while Mick describes a nine-year relationship as "kind of dating" and still adheres to his view that marriage isn't for him.

yes, and "Keef" worshipers will somehow turn this into a coherent "rock 'n' roll" lifestyle statement to keith's advantage.
And the Keith demonizers will use it to make him out to be satan.eye rolling smiley

Re: Sir Mick on Cover Of NY Times Style This Sunday
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: December 6, 2010 21:46

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Quote
cc
yes, and "Keef" worshipers will somehow turn this into a coherent "rock 'n' roll" lifestyle statement to keith's advantage.
And the Keith demonizers will use it to make him out to be satan.eye rolling smiley

yeah and there are people who take tv-commercial characters as role models -
but there are way more interesting viewpoints to ponder, aren't there :E
have some popcorn

oh yeah and regarding the Mick's private life:
he did actually say "that's just the way i am" in an interview a couple of years ago, and good on him

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2702
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home