Tell Me :
Talk
My first thought was Boris Becker
__________________________
Jagger has a beautiful and infectious smile...
I wasn't there.
It is on the live album as well
I don't have that.
I was going to say something about being the 'bigger' person and then realized that might not be taken well.
Get it
Now...
I don't completely agree with your statement, but there is an indication of truth in it. I think partly Keith's image, reputation and status is written against Jagger's superstar status, which I think is sort of taken for granted. This was especially true by the early 80's when Keith's significance to the Stones was generally recognized by the big public. By then Jagger had been so famous - and infamous - for so long that I think he turned to too obvious, and people, including the Stones fans started to be tired of him (or to his image). Philip Norman put it nicely in his bio from the times when stated that while Mick is an "idol", Keith is a "hero". While Jagger was so "commercial", "jetset-like", "superstar", "high-profile", "provocative", Keith was something else: a survivor from the drugville, so down-to-earth, down-profile, a "pure" rock and roll guy by his very looks and behaviour. There was something so romantic - robin-hood-like in the whole man - and the recognition of the fact that the music of the Stones did became from his hand (the point that was overmade during the 80's). The Stones were "Keith's band", and he was the real (hidden) hero, the supermind in all that music, not that way too upfront frontman. I remember that era and atmosphere very well because that was the time I got hooked to the band. I think Boris The Mayor belongs to the same generation of Stones fans, since he talks pretty much with the typical tone of those times.
But I think he very well represents a typical fan also in the sense that in the end, we all are just Jagger's disciples... when we see the guy, we cannot take our eyes out of him, and we just scream and shout... we have just taken him too granted, and we haven't been able to see the extraordinarity of him. I think the last years have been very nice for Jagger's status and reputation, and he has gotten the recognition he deserves (and not just our money...). Not even Keith's book - strongly trying to put us back to the atmosphere of the 80's - could not do harm for him.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-10 10:08 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: September 9, 2013 13:14
Don't think it was posted..
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
When Boris Johnson bumped into the Rolling Stones guitarist recently, it was a crowning moment for him. In the first of our exclusive extracts from his book 'Life of London’, he describes how his hero worship of Keith Richards began, and reveals what he said to the wrinkled rock god.
Some time in my late teens I found myself in a student house when someone put on Start Me Up by the Rolling Stones. I am fully aware of what sophisticated people are supposed to think about those first three siren-jangling chords. But the noise that came out of the bashed-up old tape deck seemed to vibrate in my rib cage.
Something in my endocrine system gave a squirt and pow, I could feel myself being transformed from this shy, spotty, swotty nerd who had spent the past hour trying to maintain a conversation with the poor young woman who was sitting next to me…
It was pure Jekyll and Hyde. It was Clark Kent in the phone kiosk. I won’t say that I leapt to my feet and beat my chest and took the girl by the hand.
But I can’t rule it out, because frankly I can’t remember the details, except that it involved us all dancing on some chests of drawers and smashing some chairs.
To this day I have only to hear that opening riff by Keith Richards, and that feeling comes back. That is how it is for billions of human beings. It is these hundreds of snatches of rock/pop music that remain on our mental iPods to intensify our experience and provide the soundtracks of our lives.
I would assert without fear of contradiction that rock/pop was the most important popular art form of the 20th century and continues to occupy that rank today. It has no serious challenger from the visual, plastic, poetic or literary arts, and is far more culturally pervasive than film.
It is therefore one of the greatest triumphs of British culture that rock/pop had its most beautiful and psychedelic flowering in London in the Sixties.
There were at least two flashes, two supernova explosions that were seen around the world. There were the Beatles, the most musically influential group of the past hundred years (OK, OK, they were from Liverpool, but almost all of their songs were recorded in London, and London was where they made their name). And then there were the Beatles’ fractionally more energetic rivals, the Rolling Stones – the biggest and most successful touring act in history.
Middle-aged Stones fans tend to be either votaries of Mick Jagger (like Tony Blair), or else they think Keef is the really cool one. Since quite a young age I have believed fiercely that Keef was the man.
Someone who claimed to know about it told me at a critical moment in my adolescence that Mick was the frontman, the Orphic show-off, while Keith was the better musician. He did more than his share of creating the aching, plangent, slow stuff: Angie, say, or Fool to Cry.
He was equally adept at the sublime swooshing choral stuff such as You Can’t Always Get What You Want. And he was definitely the go-to man for the volcanic intro, the double-triple crump of chords that make your eyes dilate, your lips go green and your twitching hands reach for a chair to break. Think of the opening artillery of Satisfaction, or Brown Sugar, or Jumping Jack Flash. That’s all Keith. He was a man who knew all about how to start with an earthquake and work up to a climax.
It was Keith I pathetically aimed to emulate at the age of about 16 when I bought a pair of tight purple cords (a sheen of sweat appears on my brow as I write these words) and tried with fat and fumbling fingers to plink out Satisfaction on a borrowed guitar; and my abysmal failure to become a rock star only deepened my hero worship.
Keith has spent decades slurping, shooting and snorting such prodigious quantities of chemicals that he looks as though the stuff has taxidermied his tissues, like some Inca mummy; and all that while he was producing work of such quantity and originality that he changed the face of rock music as decisively as he changed his own physiognomy.
And yet he still fizzes with so much energy – well into his sixties – that Johnny Depp borrowed his camp, be-ringed and bangled style for the blockbusting Pirates of the Caribbean.
At the time of writing he is thinking of yet another tour. If he didn’t look so epically raddled, you might be tempted to say that he was an advertisement for the health-giving properties of very pure heroin and cocaine.
In the course of years of brooding on this subject, I have been all over Richards’s London. I’ve gazed over the dank mud flats towards the cottages and houseboats of Eel Pie Island and imagined one of those magical Sixties evenings when the air was full of the yowling of Keith’s guitar and the scent of dope and patchouli. I have nosed around the chewing-gummed alley off Ealing Broadway where Alexis Korner had his famous club and where 50 years ago – July 12 1962 – Mick and Keith first played with Brian Jones, and the Rolling Stones effectively came into being.
Many times I have cycled up and down Edith Grove in Chelsea, and looked out for number 102, and the kitchen window of the flat that Keith shared in the early days with Brian Jones, a place of such indescribable squalor that in the end they gave up on the kitchen and sealed the door with gaffer tape.
For years I have snuffled on his spoor, but never come across a trace of the man himself; until not so long ago, when fate dealt me the most incredible slice of luck.
I was due to attend a ceremony in Covent Garden, where the objective was to make a short speech in honour of the noble and learned Lord Coe and to give him a prize. When I reached the Royal Opera House, the road was jammed with huge limos, glossy black Bentleys and Maybachs. Within was taking place the most important and mystic rite of the national cult of celebrity. It was the GQ Man of the Year Award.
“I am sorry I am so late,” I apologised to an impossibly tall, thin, and yet somehow curvaceous, hostess who appeared at my side. “When am I on?”
“Not long now,” she said. “You’re speaking after Keith Richards.”
He was there to receive his Writer of the Year award, and his speech was short, droll, modest, and as soon as he had gyrated back to his seat, I knew that this was it. This was my moment. Quickly I did my own turn on stage, and then with some pushfulness, I persuaded Keith’s agent to let me station myself by his side. “Just five minutes, just three,” I pleaded.
At last, Keith came back from having his photo taken and there took place a vicious contest for the honour of sitting next to him.
After decades of hoping, I found myself sitting inches from the kohl-eyed demigod, and I noticed that though his face was as lined as Auden’s, his teeth were American in their whiteness. We began with some small talk about how much I had enjoyed his book Life, and about his grandparents, and what it was like growing up in wartime Dartford, where a doodlebug explosion had lobbed a brick on to his cot.
But the crowd around us was jostling and jabbering ever more insistently, assorted supplicants descended like harpies, begging him to sign their napkins, their £20 notes, their left breasts, etc and I knew that I must blurt it out.
“Er, Keith,” I stumbled.
“Mr Ma-yor”, he said, in his courtly way.
“I’ve got this theory that, er…” and I gasped out the story, as told by Joe Walsh, the god-gifted guitarist of the Eagles: Walsh revealed that he had never even heard Muddy Waters until he went to hear a Stones concert, right?
“That’s right,” said Keith, nodding.
And so, I went on, you could argue that the Stones were critical in the history of rock’n’roll – by now I was half-shouting – because they gave back the blues to America!
“I’ll go with that,” said Keith with infinite affability. And I’ll go with it, too, Keith.
As 19th-century London took in sugar and oranges and sold them back to the world as marmalade, so 20th-century London imported the American blues and re-exported them as rock/pop. It was a great trade.
When Keef was growing up, one of the most important points about rock’n’roll was that it was subversive; it was disapproved of. Melody Maker said it was “one of the most terrifying things to have happened to popular music”.
It is this climate of disapproval that helps to create a counter-culture, where so much of the fun is in the fact of rebellion itself. With his drugs and his women’s clothes, Keith was obviously part of that counter-culture, and a vibrant phenomenon it was – while it lasted.
Today, counter-culture values have been mainstreamed, folded into the lilac-scented bosom of the Establishment and celebrated at awards ceremonies. Where once we had Mary Quant hacking away with her scissors in a bedsit, we now have a London fashion industry worth £21billion. Instead of the debauched figures of William Burroughs and Francis Bacon, we have the “Young British Artists”, charging quite fantastic sums – and getting them – for diamond-studded skulls, and we have Tracey Emin having no shame whatever in telling the world that she is a conservative.
The Colony Room is still going, but it is now supplemented by the Groucho Club and dozens of other venues occupied by people with some sort of creative talent: advertising, media, PR, television, film editing, you name it. There are all sorts of reasons why London is one of the world’s most important centres for these “creative, culture and media” industries.
But there is one art form that serves more than any other to intensify our emotions, and helps to make a city cool, and that is the music; and if the music makes your city likeable, then people from all kinds of vaguely cultural sectors will be confident that it is the hip and jiving place to be.
London has more live music venues – about 400 – than any other city in the world, and there is more happening in London every night than there is anywhere else. In the Sixties, London became the rock/pop capital of the world, and as the driving force behind the Rolling Stones, Keith Richards played a big part in that achievement.
A knighthood? The least the man deserves.
This is an edited extract from Johnson’s Life of London: the People Who Made the City That Made the World, by Boris Johnson, published by Harper Press on Oct 27 at £20. To order a copy for £18 plus £1.25 p&p, call Telegraph Books Direct on 0844 871 1515 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
When Boris Johnson bumped into the Rolling Stones guitarist recently, it was a crowning moment for him. In the first of our exclusive extracts from his book 'Life of London’, he describes how his hero worship of Keith Richards began, and reveals what he said to the wrinkled rock god.
Some time in my late teens I found myself in a student house when someone put on Start Me Up by the Rolling Stones. I am fully aware of what sophisticated people are supposed to think about those first three siren-jangling chords. But the noise that came out of the bashed-up old tape deck seemed to vibrate in my rib cage.
Something in my endocrine system gave a squirt and pow, I could feel myself being transformed from this shy, spotty, swotty nerd who had spent the past hour trying to maintain a conversation with the poor young woman who was sitting next to me…
It was pure Jekyll and Hyde. It was Clark Kent in the phone kiosk. I won’t say that I leapt to my feet and beat my chest and took the girl by the hand.
But I can’t rule it out, because frankly I can’t remember the details, except that it involved us all dancing on some chests of drawers and smashing some chairs.
To this day I have only to hear that opening riff by Keith Richards, and that feeling comes back. That is how it is for billions of human beings. It is these hundreds of snatches of rock/pop music that remain on our mental iPods to intensify our experience and provide the soundtracks of our lives.
I would assert without fear of contradiction that rock/pop was the most important popular art form of the 20th century and continues to occupy that rank today. It has no serious challenger from the visual, plastic, poetic or literary arts, and is far more culturally pervasive than film.
It is therefore one of the greatest triumphs of British culture that rock/pop had its most beautiful and psychedelic flowering in London in the Sixties.
There were at least two flashes, two supernova explosions that were seen around the world. There were the Beatles, the most musically influential group of the past hundred years (OK, OK, they were from Liverpool, but almost all of their songs were recorded in London, and London was where they made their name). And then there were the Beatles’ fractionally more energetic rivals, the Rolling Stones – the biggest and most successful touring act in history.
Middle-aged Stones fans tend to be either votaries of Mick Jagger (like Tony Blair), or else they think Keef is the really cool one. Since quite a young age I have believed fiercely that Keef was the man.
Someone who claimed to know about it told me at a critical moment in my adolescence that Mick was the frontman, the Orphic show-off, while Keith was the better musician. He did more than his share of creating the aching, plangent, slow stuff: Angie, say, or Fool to Cry.
He was equally adept at the sublime swooshing choral stuff such as You Can’t Always Get What You Want. And he was definitely the go-to man for the volcanic intro, the double-triple crump of chords that make your eyes dilate, your lips go green and your twitching hands reach for a chair to break. Think of the opening artillery of Satisfaction, or Brown Sugar, or Jumping Jack Flash. That’s all Keith. He was a man who knew all about how to start with an earthquake and work up to a climax.
It was Keith I pathetically aimed to emulate at the age of about 16 when I bought a pair of tight purple cords (a sheen of sweat appears on my brow as I write these words) and tried with fat and fumbling fingers to plink out Satisfaction on a borrowed guitar; and my abysmal failure to become a rock star only deepened my hero worship.
Keith has spent decades slurping, shooting and snorting such prodigious quantities of chemicals that he looks as though the stuff has taxidermied his tissues, like some Inca mummy; and all that while he was producing work of such quantity and originality that he changed the face of rock music as decisively as he changed his own physiognomy.
And yet he still fizzes with so much energy – well into his sixties – that Johnny Depp borrowed his camp, be-ringed and bangled style for the blockbusting Pirates of the Caribbean.
At the time of writing he is thinking of yet another tour. If he didn’t look so epically raddled, you might be tempted to say that he was an advertisement for the health-giving properties of very pure heroin and cocaine.
In the course of years of brooding on this subject, I have been all over Richards’s London. I’ve gazed over the dank mud flats towards the cottages and houseboats of Eel Pie Island and imagined one of those magical Sixties evenings when the air was full of the yowling of Keith’s guitar and the scent of dope and patchouli. I have nosed around the chewing-gummed alley off Ealing Broadway where Alexis Korner had his famous club and where 50 years ago – July 12 1962 – Mick and Keith first played with Brian Jones, and the Rolling Stones effectively came into being.
Many times I have cycled up and down Edith Grove in Chelsea, and looked out for number 102, and the kitchen window of the flat that Keith shared in the early days with Brian Jones, a place of such indescribable squalor that in the end they gave up on the kitchen and sealed the door with gaffer tape.
For years I have snuffled on his spoor, but never come across a trace of the man himself; until not so long ago, when fate dealt me the most incredible slice of luck.
I was due to attend a ceremony in Covent Garden, where the objective was to make a short speech in honour of the noble and learned Lord Coe and to give him a prize. When I reached the Royal Opera House, the road was jammed with huge limos, glossy black Bentleys and Maybachs. Within was taking place the most important and mystic rite of the national cult of celebrity. It was the GQ Man of the Year Award.
“I am sorry I am so late,” I apologised to an impossibly tall, thin, and yet somehow curvaceous, hostess who appeared at my side. “When am I on?”
“Not long now,” she said. “You’re speaking after Keith Richards.”
He was there to receive his Writer of the Year award, and his speech was short, droll, modest, and as soon as he had gyrated back to his seat, I knew that this was it. This was my moment. Quickly I did my own turn on stage, and then with some pushfulness, I persuaded Keith’s agent to let me station myself by his side. “Just five minutes, just three,” I pleaded.
At last, Keith came back from having his photo taken and there took place a vicious contest for the honour of sitting next to him.
After decades of hoping, I found myself sitting inches from the kohl-eyed demigod, and I noticed that though his face was as lined as Auden’s, his teeth were American in their whiteness. We began with some small talk about how much I had enjoyed his book Life, and about his grandparents, and what it was like growing up in wartime Dartford, where a doodlebug explosion had lobbed a brick on to his cot.
But the crowd around us was jostling and jabbering ever more insistently, assorted supplicants descended like harpies, begging him to sign their napkins, their £20 notes, their left breasts, etc and I knew that I must blurt it out.
“Er, Keith,” I stumbled.
“Mr Ma-yor”, he said, in his courtly way.
“I’ve got this theory that, er…” and I gasped out the story, as told by Joe Walsh, the god-gifted guitarist of the Eagles: Walsh revealed that he had never even heard Muddy Waters until he went to hear a Stones concert, right?
“That’s right,” said Keith, nodding.
And so, I went on, you could argue that the Stones were critical in the history of rock’n’roll – by now I was half-shouting – because they gave back the blues to America!
“I’ll go with that,” said Keith with infinite affability. And I’ll go with it, too, Keith.
As 19th-century London took in sugar and oranges and sold them back to the world as marmalade, so 20th-century London imported the American blues and re-exported them as rock/pop. It was a great trade.
When Keef was growing up, one of the most important points about rock’n’roll was that it was subversive; it was disapproved of. Melody Maker said it was “one of the most terrifying things to have happened to popular music”.
It is this climate of disapproval that helps to create a counter-culture, where so much of the fun is in the fact of rebellion itself. With his drugs and his women’s clothes, Keith was obviously part of that counter-culture, and a vibrant phenomenon it was – while it lasted.
Today, counter-culture values have been mainstreamed, folded into the lilac-scented bosom of the Establishment and celebrated at awards ceremonies. Where once we had Mary Quant hacking away with her scissors in a bedsit, we now have a London fashion industry worth £21billion. Instead of the debauched figures of William Burroughs and Francis Bacon, we have the “Young British Artists”, charging quite fantastic sums – and getting them – for diamond-studded skulls, and we have Tracey Emin having no shame whatever in telling the world that she is a conservative.
The Colony Room is still going, but it is now supplemented by the Groucho Club and dozens of other venues occupied by people with some sort of creative talent: advertising, media, PR, television, film editing, you name it. There are all sorts of reasons why London is one of the world’s most important centres for these “creative, culture and media” industries.
But there is one art form that serves more than any other to intensify our emotions, and helps to make a city cool, and that is the music; and if the music makes your city likeable, then people from all kinds of vaguely cultural sectors will be confident that it is the hip and jiving place to be.
London has more live music venues – about 400 – than any other city in the world, and there is more happening in London every night than there is anywhere else. In the Sixties, London became the rock/pop capital of the world, and as the driving force behind the Rolling Stones, Keith Richards played a big part in that achievement.
A knighthood? The least the man deserves.
This is an edited extract from Johnson’s Life of London: the People Who Made the City That Made the World, by Boris Johnson, published by Harper Press on Oct 27 at £20. To order a copy for £18 plus £1.25 p&p, call Telegraph Books Direct on 0844 871 1515 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: September 9, 2013 14:01
Very enjoyable with my coffee this morning, thanks much The Joker.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: September 9, 2013 15:36
No idea who this Boris is, but thanks for sharing 
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: September 9, 2013 15:39
...Mayor .... Mayor of London ...
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 9, 2013 15:40
The Mayor of London... You know, the guy that Mick was referring to in Hyde Park; who should get a tree-house up on the stage there to live in 
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
MrsEdithGrove
()
Date: September 9, 2013 15:58
He was at the first Hyde Park show - saw him in tier one at the end.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: September 9, 2013 16:03
Quote
Koen
No idea who this Boris is, but thanks for sharing
My first thought was Boris Becker
__________________________
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 9, 2013 16:10
an entertaining read
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
crawdaddy
()
Date: September 9, 2013 16:14
I've always thought of him as the blonde buffoon,usually putting his foot in it.
He knows his stuff about The Stones and is obviously a fan.
See another side to the guy now.
He knows his stuff about The Stones and is obviously a fan.
See another side to the guy now.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: September 9, 2013 16:30
NYT - I particularly enjoyed the chapter about your preference for Keith Richards over Mick Jagger. You describe Keith as a virtual advertisement “for the health-giving properties of very pure heroin and cocaine.”
BJ- Not something I can offer any personal comment on myself, I hasten to say. But I feel embarrassed about that now, because I just received the highest accolade in my career, which is an e-mail from Sir Mick congratulating me on my re-election. Never in my life did I think I would be congratulated by Mick Jagger for achieving anything.
NYT - The chapter’s not particularly kind to Mick, I have to say.
BJ - I think it’s very important that we don’t draw attention to this unfortunate point.
[www.nytimes.com]
There was another interview where Boris expressed regret about this passage and said he thinks Mick is magnificent.
But still I wonder why people who are votaries of Mick Jagger can talk about it without any put downs to Richards while Richards fans almost always feel the need to say something derogatory about Jagger?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-09 16:32 by proudmary.
BJ- Not something I can offer any personal comment on myself, I hasten to say. But I feel embarrassed about that now, because I just received the highest accolade in my career, which is an e-mail from Sir Mick congratulating me on my re-election. Never in my life did I think I would be congratulated by Mick Jagger for achieving anything.
NYT - The chapter’s not particularly kind to Mick, I have to say.
BJ - I think it’s very important that we don’t draw attention to this unfortunate point.
[www.nytimes.com]
There was another interview where Boris expressed regret about this passage and said he thinks Mick is magnificent.
But still I wonder why people who are votaries of Mick Jagger can talk about it without any put downs to Richards while Richards fans almost always feel the need to say something derogatory about Jagger?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-09 16:32 by proudmary.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 9, 2013 17:14
Where are all these "Richards-fans" who always say something bad about Jagger? I haven't seen them...
Love Mick, Love Keith. That's how it should be if you're a Stones fan.
Love Mick, Love Keith. That's how it should be if you're a Stones fan.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: September 9, 2013 17:19
Quote
proudmary
NYT - I particularly enjoyed the chapter about your preference for Keith Richards over Mick Jagger. You describe Keith as a virtual advertisement “for the health-giving properties of very pure heroin and cocaine.”
BJ- Not something I can offer any personal comment on myself, I hasten to say. But I feel embarrassed about that now, because I just received the highest accolade in my career, which is an e-mail from Sir Mick congratulating me on my re-election. Never in my life did I think I would be congratulated by Mick Jagger for achieving anything.
NYT - The chapter’s not particularly kind to Mick, I have to say.
BJ - I think it’s very important that we don’t draw attention to this unfortunate point.
[www.nytimes.com]
There was another interview where Boris expressed regret about this passage and said he thinks Mick is magnificent.
But still I wonder why people who are votaries of Mick Jagger can talk about it without any put downs to Richards while Richards fans almost always feel the need to say something derogatory about Jagger?
Jagger has a beautiful and infectious smile...
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: September 9, 2013 17:24
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Mayor of London... You know, the guy that Mick was referring to in Hyde Park; who should get a tree-house up on the stage there to live in
I wasn't there.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
leteyer
()
Date: September 9, 2013 17:59
Love London, but "the city that made the world"? A tad pretentious.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: September 9, 2013 19:11
Thanks for posting!
For a minute there, I was afraid it would be...Boris Yeltsin!
Too bad this was the rare event Ronnie missed. Probably busy at a supermarket opening.
For a minute there, I was afraid it would be...Boris Yeltsin!
Too bad this was the rare event Ronnie missed. Probably busy at a supermarket opening.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 9, 2013 19:17
Quote
KoenQuote
DandelionPowderman
The Mayor of London... You know, the guy that Mick was referring to in Hyde Park; who should get a tree-house up on the stage there to live in
I wasn't there.
It is on the live album as well
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: September 9, 2013 20:08
Bumbling upper-class Tory fool. However, he's likable enough.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Welsh Stone
()
Date: September 9, 2013 20:25
Damn, hate it when it turns out that I have a lot in common with people I don't like! Boris loves his rugby too and is a big fan of Adam Jones!
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: September 9, 2013 20:27
I thought it was going to be Boris Yeltsin, too! But I have a sneaking affection for Boris J (whom I also saw at HP1), and he's a very engaging writer--he should receive another award just for inventing the word "pushfulness."
But I have a sneaking affection for Boris J (whom I also saw at HP1), and he's a very engaging writer--he should receive another award just for inventing the word "pushfulness."Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
guitarbastard
()
Date: September 9, 2013 20:51
my name is also boris and i'm praising keith for the last 30 years at least! ;-)
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: September 9, 2013 21:29
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
KoenQuote
DandelionPowderman
The Mayor of London... You know, the guy that Mick was referring to in Hyde Park; who should get a tree-house up on the stage there to live in
I wasn't there.
It is on the live album as well
I don't have that.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: September 9, 2013 23:15
Boris Jeltsin - they were drinking pals. Boris Jeltsin could have been a real good Stones conductor. A real statesman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-09 23:15 by mtaylor.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-09 23:15 by mtaylor.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 10, 2013 00:06
Quote
proudmary
NYT - I particularly enjoyed the chapter about your preference for Keith Richards over Mick Jagger. You describe Keith as a virtual advertisement “for the health-giving properties of very pure heroin and cocaine.”
BJ- Not something I can offer any personal comment on myself, I hasten to say. But I feel embarrassed about that now, because I just received the highest accolade in my career, which is an e-mail from Sir Mick congratulating me on my re-election. Never in my life did I think I would be congratulated by Mick Jagger for achieving anything.
NYT - The chapter’s not particularly kind to Mick, I have to say.
BJ - I think it’s very important that we don’t draw attention to this unfortunate point.
[www.nytimes.com]
There was another interview where Boris expressed regret about this passage and said he thinks Mick is magnificent.
But still I wonder why people who are votaries of Mick Jagger can talk about it without any put downs to Richards while Richards fans almost always feel the need to say something derogatory about Jagger?
I was going to say something about being the 'bigger' person and then realized that might not be taken well.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 10, 2013 02:41
Quote
KoenQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
KoenQuote
DandelionPowderman
The Mayor of London... You know, the guy that Mick was referring to in Hyde Park; who should get a tree-house up on the stage there to live in
I wasn't there.
It is on the live album as well
I don't have that.
Get it
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: September 10, 2013 02:42
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
KoenQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
KoenQuote
DandelionPowderman
The Mayor of London... You know, the guy that Mick was referring to in Hyde Park; who should get a tree-house up on the stage there to live in
I wasn't there.
It is on the live album as well
I don't have that.
Get it
Now...
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: September 10, 2013 08:41
Of course Boris is a Tory twat but he seems to be very popular. Which is a bit what being a mayor is about. And he's not doing crack like that Toronto mayor...
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 10, 2013 10:01
Quote
proudmary
But still I wonder why people who are votaries of Mick Jagger can talk about it without any put downs to Richards while Richards fans almost always feel the need to say something derogatory about Jagger?
I don't completely agree with your statement, but there is an indication of truth in it. I think partly Keith's image, reputation and status is written against Jagger's superstar status, which I think is sort of taken for granted. This was especially true by the early 80's when Keith's significance to the Stones was generally recognized by the big public. By then Jagger had been so famous - and infamous - for so long that I think he turned to too obvious, and people, including the Stones fans started to be tired of him (or to his image). Philip Norman put it nicely in his bio from the times when stated that while Mick is an "idol", Keith is a "hero". While Jagger was so "commercial", "jetset-like", "superstar", "high-profile", "provocative", Keith was something else: a survivor from the drugville, so down-to-earth, down-profile, a "pure" rock and roll guy by his very looks and behaviour. There was something so romantic - robin-hood-like in the whole man - and the recognition of the fact that the music of the Stones did became from his hand (the point that was overmade during the 80's). The Stones were "Keith's band", and he was the real (hidden) hero, the supermind in all that music, not that way too upfront frontman. I remember that era and atmosphere very well because that was the time I got hooked to the band. I think Boris The Mayor belongs to the same generation of Stones fans, since he talks pretty much with the typical tone of those times.
But I think he very well represents a typical fan also in the sense that in the end, we all are just Jagger's disciples... when we see the guy, we cannot take our eyes out of him, and we just scream and shout... we have just taken him too granted, and we haven't been able to see the extraordinarity of him. I think the last years have been very nice for Jagger's status and reputation, and he has gotten the recognition he deserves (and not just our money...). Not even Keith's book - strongly trying to put us back to the atmosphere of the 80's - could not do harm for him.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-10 10:08 by Doxa.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 10, 2013 10:11
<Not even Keith's book - strongly trying to put us back to the atmosphere of the 80's - could not do harm for him.>
Did anyone actually think it would? Mostly, he is praising Mick in his book, when it comes to his role in the Rolling Stones.
The criticism is on a personal level in the book (something that indeed should belong to the story of Keith Richards' life), and I think every reader understands that this is indeed personal, and therefore there is no reason for any fan to view Mick in a poorer light because of an earlier feud between two band members.
When talking about business, music, abilities and leadership, Mick gets the best approval from Keith.
Whether it was clever of Keith doing it this way is another story, but these things need to be separated, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-10 10:12 by DandelionPowderman.
Did anyone actually think it would? Mostly, he is praising Mick in his book, when it comes to his role in the Rolling Stones.
The criticism is on a personal level in the book (something that indeed should belong to the story of Keith Richards' life), and I think every reader understands that this is indeed personal, and therefore there is no reason for any fan to view Mick in a poorer light because of an earlier feud between two band members.
When talking about business, music, abilities and leadership, Mick gets the best approval from Keith.
Whether it was clever of Keith doing it this way is another story, but these things need to be separated, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-10 10:12 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Boris praising Keith
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 10, 2013 10:17
You have read a different book than I did, Dandie. BUt I don't want to talk about the book more than that, since I don't like to dislike Keith.
- Doxa
- Doxa
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
Captainchaos , DiegoGlimmerStones , Doxa , fdajef , FeelslikeaGhost , grzegorz67 , hot stuff , IGTBA , J-J-Flash , JMoisica , jp.M , MisterDDDD , no stone unturned , perkmo , rocknola , RollingFreak , SimonN , sister , stoned52 , tinnitus , Topi , TW2019 , van hall larenstein , waterrats
Guests:
1299
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10