Tell Me :
Talk
...and so do a LOT of posters here on IORR; and that doesn't stop them from talking, does it?!
So I'm with you 100%.
"...F*ck the Bozos!" (Jeffrey Goines in '12 Monkeys')
["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]
How do we know this? It might seem like an obvious conclusion to a lot of people that if they were Mick, that's how they would react, but where is the actual evidence that Mick has lost interest in the Stones because he's so fed up with Keith's behaviour, and for no other reason?
That's true. There's really no unpleasantness at all until the "By the mid-80s Mick had started to become unbearable" comment, which doesn't even appear until page 453. What it says about the Stones career that Keith was able to cover the last 25 years in just 100 pages is another story.
Untrue. Just from the very beginning - from the first chapter that is a key to the tone of the whole book - the bitching starts when Keith starts making remarks of Mick's needing all kind stage stuff to hide his "insecurity", and that "they" (rhetoric: Keith Richards seemingly speaks of behalf of he whole band - it s the band against Mick, right?) "needed to pay a big price" for having that phallos on stage in 1975, etc. Then, for example, when they meet James Brown in backstage in '65 or so, the way Brown bossed around and treated people shitly, make seemingly "a big impact on Mick" - jezus hell, what kind of "psychological" observation is that, and what's the point of sharing that? And so on. All those kind of bitchy remarks and rhetorics - not to forget the infamous dick-comment - are just made repear the reader to get to the part where Keith finally lets all his anti-Mick feelings to blossom when we get to his post-junkies days, and seemingly all interesting tales concerning making music or Keith's extraordinary junkie life had been told.
Yeah, there are some nice words about Mick but in the middle of all that dissing they tend to sound artificial - like "I need to give some due to the guy, after all". How pretentuos and meaningless is to say PUBLICLY that "yaeh, the guy could discuss philosophy with Sartre in French" when you reveal "but you know, he has a small dick". You think the 'nice' words comnpansate the amount of dissing ones that are, in fact, belittlening man's manhood, his artistic merits, and, finally a career (of last 20 or 30 years)? Taking the amount of bitching, making nasty remarks, back-throbbing, using other team mates - such as Charlie Watts - to back up own position, I really am happy I don't have "friends" or "business partners" as Keith Richards. I feel sorry for Mick (and also feel empathic for his strong character to deal with big selfish babies as Keith for decades - but I guess that had been up to business, not for friendship - they do good music together). The fact that I agree with some of Keith's criticism of Mick - some of Mick's artistic choices - doesn't change the fact that after reading LIFE I lost most of the respect I once had for Keith Richards as a person, and all of his talk of "loyalty to the band", "The Stones come always first" is such a hypocritic bullshit. The guy that comes out of LIFE is an uncool guy.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 16:44 by Doxa.
I guess what you take for "bitchiness" just seems to me like a guy honestly telling the story of his life the way he remembers it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 17:19 by tatters.
See this is what I mean about an anti Keith vibe and why I check in less than I used to. How can any Stones fan call Keith (or Mick) a bitch?
I just did. It's obvious. Did you read LIFE?
I thought the book was supposed to be about Keith's life, not just The Rolling Stones.
What actually shocked me in the book was to realize that how deep the mutual hatred and ego-play goes within the band, and how far Mick and Keith have grown up from each other. Keith seems still to live in bunkers of the WORLD WAR THREE of the 80's and anything happened since then under the headline of The Rolling Stones is just technical cold-war-like compromises in order to make money. The bloody book confirmed all the negative things I had of the Vegas nature of the post-80's Stones I didn't want to believe. The band and its existence is just a theatre they play public. There hasn't been any band for a long time now. Jagger seemingly doesn't want to do anything with Richards if that can be avoided. And if not, does the minimal to keep the money coming. I don't know who caused and what - who is to blame and exactly when - but what LIFE is a sad testimony what happened to once great rock and roll band. Keith's ego is much bigger than the band he once was so proud of.
It is a tough book to read for a Rolling Stones fan, indeed.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 18:15 by Doxa.
There's a notable scene in the 2001 'Being Mick' documentary where Mick's at the premiere for the 'Enigma' movie, & both Ronnie & Bill are also there. I'm sure Charlie was invited too (& indeed may have even been there), but I somehow imagine that Keith wouldn't even want to be at an event to promote a non-Stones Mick Jagger project, & I strongly suspect that Mick wouldn't invite him...
My interpretation of Keith's account of the Vegas Years is that that particular formula that you hate so much was the only way to keep the Stones rolling, and Keith prefers to have Vegas Stones rather than no Stones at all. So I see it as a very mature compromise the two of them reached.
They could have done as much money as they did with the Vegas tours if they called it quits in 1989 and capitalized - with the help of MC - on "open the vault" products.
If Jagger truly did not want to have anything to do with Keith, how do you explain the way Bang (in my opinion a bloody good work) was recorded? He could have sent half baked protools demos to Keith for overdubs instad of spending a couple of months with the man in France!
C
I'm only halfway through the book, but it is a tough read...meandering musings of a junkie that has an unbelievable amount of recollection of names, dates, events.
I'm reading out of curiousity, but it hasn't been a 'fun read' to this point.
I agree with your point about the Vegas Concept being probably only way to keep the Stones rolling. It is very interesting detail in JAGGER REMEMBERS RS ยด95 interview where Mck says that the first meeting in 1989 he had with Keith - afer the "war" - was only to discuss the money Cohl could offer them for a tour. Nothing else. That caused them to make "compromise" or "peace". I really would like to have a bootleg from those "Jalta" discussions. Then the future and nature of the band was sealed, and Keith gave up the musical directorship of the band on stage. My hint is that Jagger gave the ultimatum: "do it my way or we don't do it all. This band is no longer driven by drunken guitarists but everything is professional by now". Be it mature or not, I don't know. Maybe calling it quits wouldn't be such an unmature way either. But I think Keith's taste for big numbers is almost as big as Mick's. Even if it needs cutting his balls off.
Naturally, Keith doesn't speak anything of these ever important deals and compromises in LIFE - too "unsexy" for maintaining his image, right?
Your point about A BIGGER BANG is a good one. It goes in to my category of "doing the minimal" - perhaps taking the egos involved, the option to just send the demos for Keith to over-dub was out of question. Or maybe it was actually easier to handle the thing just from face to face - than start sending demos back and worth with angry fax messages... And of course, Mick and Keith know how to work together - they have quite a lot of history - so it is not such a big deal for them to stand each other few weeks once in 8 years or so if there is a motivation (a huge tour with Cohlian numbers). Even Keith says this in LIFE - that when they finally get to do somehing together, it usually works quite fine. They are pros. But that the sessions took place in Mick's place, and Keith was like a quest, sounds more like the thing being done in Mick's terms - probably Keith was there handly present to add his mark and touch to mostly Mick's made songs,and in Mick's "no unnecessary jamming is needed" schedule. But anyway, if there is another "Rolling Stones" album to come, I wouldn't be surprised if your scenario might come true.
Anyway, to my ears A BIGGER BANG sounds awfully half-baked autopilot music, and it was intersting to know that Keith killed the offer to record the stuff properly in a proper studio. Maybe he thought that polishing the crap would not make it any better...
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 19:21 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: March 4, 2011 13:16
I confess I'm getting fed up with what seems to me to be an anti Keith vibe around these parts. I know he talks out of his arse, says things he shouldn't and can't play as well as he once did but he's Keith. Once the coolest man in rock. It's not that I care that other people have different (but equally valid) views on Keef but some of it seems so blinkered.
Life was anti Mick - yes the unpleasantness was covered but there was lots love in there too.
Everything Mick does (Grammies, new album) is a message to Keith. I suspect Mick is doing what he always does which is what seems right for him at the time. Is it selfish? No, he's earned that right. Personally I'd rather Mick focussed on the Stones than do another solo album that I'll buy and not listen to but I wouldn't want him to work with the Stones if he really doesn't want to or it will be half hearted and nobody wants that.
People who are pro Keith are anti Mick. I'm in the Keith camp in that I care more about Keith's solo work than Mick's and I've read more books about Keith than Mick but I've also bought Mick's solos, love what he's done for them, respect the man for his achievements and fully accept that without Mick the Stones would have collapsed years ago.
Keith may be my favourite Stone but it's the band I'm here for and he's a huge part of that even now.
Life was anti Mick - yes the unpleasantness was covered but there was lots love in there too.
Everything Mick does (Grammies, new album) is a message to Keith. I suspect Mick is doing what he always does which is what seems right for him at the time. Is it selfish? No, he's earned that right. Personally I'd rather Mick focussed on the Stones than do another solo album that I'll buy and not listen to but I wouldn't want him to work with the Stones if he really doesn't want to or it will be half hearted and nobody wants that.
People who are pro Keith are anti Mick. I'm in the Keith camp in that I care more about Keith's solo work than Mick's and I've read more books about Keith than Mick but I've also bought Mick's solos, love what he's done for them, respect the man for his achievements and fully accept that without Mick the Stones would have collapsed years ago.
Keith may be my favourite Stone but it's the band I'm here for and he's a huge part of that even now.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Roadster32
()
Date: March 4, 2011 13:27
"Once the coolest man in rock"
He still is!!!
Concerning Keith&Mick "There's no rock without roll"
He still is!!!
Concerning Keith&Mick "There's no rock without roll"
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
MississippiBullfrog
()
Date: March 4, 2011 13:58
Quote
Braincapers
I know he talks out of his arse
...and so do a LOT of posters here on IORR; and that doesn't stop them from talking, does it?!
So I'm with you 100%.
"...F*ck the Bozos!" (Jeffrey Goines in '12 Monkeys')
["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: March 4, 2011 14:18
A lot of the disenchantment with Keith I feel is because his disparagement of Mick is so destructive to the Stones as an entity. For the Stones to exist, function and thrive, it is necessary for Mick and Keith to at least have a good working r'ship. Keith has seriously jeopardised that, and naturally people feel disappointed, angry and betrayed.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: March 4, 2011 15:19
Love Keith BUT........ Charlie Watts is the coolest man in rock and roll.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
lsbz
()
Date: March 4, 2011 15:19
I've seen the Keith Richards cult come into existence in the seventies, and thought that was generally cool. But I think it has grown a little too big. I'm not in favor of any kind of personal fanship anyway; it's the music that should count.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 15:20 by lsbz.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 15:20 by lsbz.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: March 4, 2011 15:21
Quote
Bliss
A lot of the disenchantment with Keith I feel is because his disparagement of Mick is so destructive to the Stones as an entity. For the Stones to exist, function and thrive, it is necessary for Mick and Keith to at least have a good working r'ship. Keith has seriously jeopardised that, and naturally people feel disappointed, angry and betrayed.
How do we know this? It might seem like an obvious conclusion to a lot of people that if they were Mick, that's how they would react, but where is the actual evidence that Mick has lost interest in the Stones because he's so fed up with Keith's behaviour, and for no other reason?
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: March 4, 2011 15:33
Quote
Braincapers
Life was anti Mick - yes the unpleasantness was covered but there was lots love in there too.
That's true. There's really no unpleasantness at all until the "By the mid-80s Mick had started to become unbearable" comment, which doesn't even appear until page 453. What it says about the Stones career that Keith was able to cover the last 25 years in just 100 pages is another story.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: March 4, 2011 16:01
I'd have liked more pages about the last 25 years to but (at risk of sound like a Keith apologist) 64-80 18 albums (roughly) and the last 30 years 7.
7
7
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 4, 2011 16:37
Quote
tattersQuote
Braincapers
Life was anti Mick - yes the unpleasantness was covered but there was lots love in there too.
That's true. There's really no unpleasantness at all until the "By the mid-80s Mick had started to become unbearable" comment, which doesn't even appear until page 453. What it says about the Stones career that Keith was able to cover the last 25 years in just 100 pages is another story.
Untrue. Just from the very beginning - from the first chapter that is a key to the tone of the whole book - the bitching starts when Keith starts making remarks of Mick's needing all kind stage stuff to hide his "insecurity", and that "they" (rhetoric: Keith Richards seemingly speaks of behalf of he whole band - it s the band against Mick, right?) "needed to pay a big price" for having that phallos on stage in 1975, etc. Then, for example, when they meet James Brown in backstage in '65 or so, the way Brown bossed around and treated people shitly, make seemingly "a big impact on Mick" - jezus hell, what kind of "psychological" observation is that, and what's the point of sharing that? And so on. All those kind of bitchy remarks and rhetorics - not to forget the infamous dick-comment - are just made repear the reader to get to the part where Keith finally lets all his anti-Mick feelings to blossom when we get to his post-junkies days, and seemingly all interesting tales concerning making music or Keith's extraordinary junkie life had been told.
Yeah, there are some nice words about Mick but in the middle of all that dissing they tend to sound artificial - like "I need to give some due to the guy, after all". How pretentuos and meaningless is to say PUBLICLY that "yaeh, the guy could discuss philosophy with Sartre in French" when you reveal "but you know, he has a small dick". You think the 'nice' words comnpansate the amount of dissing ones that are, in fact, belittlening man's manhood, his artistic merits, and, finally a career (of last 20 or 30 years)? Taking the amount of bitching, making nasty remarks, back-throbbing, using other team mates - such as Charlie Watts - to back up own position, I really am happy I don't have "friends" or "business partners" as Keith Richards. I feel sorry for Mick (and also feel empathic for his strong character to deal with big selfish babies as Keith for decades - but I guess that had been up to business, not for friendship - they do good music together). The fact that I agree with some of Keith's criticism of Mick - some of Mick's artistic choices - doesn't change the fact that after reading LIFE I lost most of the respect I once had for Keith Richards as a person, and all of his talk of "loyalty to the band", "The Stones come always first" is such a hypocritic bullshit. The guy that comes out of LIFE is an uncool guy.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 16:44 by Doxa.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: March 4, 2011 16:55
Quote
DoxaQuote
tattersQuote
Braincapers
Life was anti Mick - yes the unpleasantness was covered but there was lots love in there too.
That's true. There's really no unpleasantness at all until the "By the mid-80s Mick had started to become unbearable" comment, which doesn't even appear until page 453. What it says about the Stones career that Keith was able to cover the last 25 years in just 100 pages is another story.
Untrue. Just from the very beginning - from the first chapter that is a key to the tone of the whole book - the bitching starts when Keith starts making remarks of Mick's needing all kind stage stuff to hide his "insecurity", and that "they" (rhetoric: Keith Richards seemingly speaks of behalf of he whole band - it s the band against Mick, right?) "needed to pay a big price" for having that phallos on stage in 1975, etc. Then, for example, when they meet James Brown in backstage in '65 or so, the way Brown bossed around and treated people shitly, make seemingly "a big impact on Mick" - jezus hell, what kind of "psychological" observation is that, and what's the point of sharing that? And so on. All those kind of bitchy remarks and rhetorics - not to forget the infamous dick-comment - are just made repear the reader to get to the part where Keith finally lets all his anti-Mick feelings to blossom when we get to his post-junkies days, and seemingly all interesting tales concerning making music or Keith's extraordinary junkie life had been told.
Yeah, there are some nice words about Mick but in the middle of all that dissing they tend to sound artificial - like "I need to give some due to the guy, after all". How pretentuos and meaningless is to say PUBLICLY that "yaeh, the guy could discuss philosophy with Sartre in French" when you reveal "but you know, he has a small dick". You think the 'nice' words comnpansate the amount of dissing ones that are, in fact, belittlening man's manhood, his artistic merits, and, finally a career (of last 20 or 30 years)? Taking the amount of bitching, making nasty remarks, back-throbbing, using other team mates - such as Charlie Watts - to back up own position, I really am happy I don't have "friends" or "business partners" as Keith Richards. I feel sorry for Mick (and also feel empathic for his strong character to deal with big selfish babies as Keith for decades - but I guess that had been up to business, not for friendship - they do good music together). The fact that I agree with some of Keith's criticism of Mick - some of Mick's artistic choices - doesn't change the fact that after reading LIFE I lost most of the respect I once had for Keith Richards as a person, and all of his talk of "loyalty to the band", "The Stones come always first" is such a hypocritic bullshit. The guy that comes out of LIFE is an uncool guy.
- Doxa
I guess what you take for "bitchiness" just seems to me like a guy honestly telling the story of his life the way he remembers it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 17:19 by tatters.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: March 4, 2011 17:28
The way one remembers things has nothing to do with the fact that one can be and is a little bitch. How Keith "remembers" his life does not change the fact that he's a scared little boy who does nothing but complains and runs his mouth in derogatory and destructive ways. Who's the bitch? Keith.
Why do you think he's been loaded for all these years?
Why do you think he's been loaded for all these years?
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: March 4, 2011 17:31
Quote
skipstone
Who's the bitch? Keith.
Why do you think he's been loaded for all these years?
See this is what I mean about an anti Keith vibe and why I check in less than I used to. How can any Stones fan call Keith (or Mick) a bitch?
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 4, 2011 17:32
Tatters, I can see your point but as far as the topic of Mick goes, the tone Keith has tends to sound like that of a bitter old ex-wife, just next to Marianne, Jerry, in Jagger saga. That's the nature of "bitchiness" with its tabloid friendly remarks to my ears. Maybe that's "honest" but just fore the sake of his own, I hope it is not. It looks like Mick actually left the poor guy a long ago. And Mick - that cold-hearted bastard - doesn't give a shit of him and of his actions any longer. Publicly - the forum the celebrities of their caliber seem to communicate - Mick is not even willing to talk about Keith anymore or The Glimmer Twins as he is of Marianne, or Bianca or Jerry. So here the supposed "melodrama" is only played by one side. Anyway, what mostly disappointed me in the book that Keith is not able to see any reason in his own behavior in reflecting (a word does not belong to vocabulary of LIFE) his big question "where did his friend go?" . I guess Mick did what any sensible person might have done.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 17:33 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 17:33 by Doxa.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
kater-v
()
Date: March 4, 2011 17:35
I agree with you, Braincapers.
I don`t think LIFE praises Keith while critisizing Mick. He speaks about himself sometimes with interest, often with humour,not as about some Great Man.
I don`t think LIFE praises Keith while critisizing Mick. He speaks about himself sometimes with interest, often with humour,not as about some Great Man.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: March 4, 2011 17:41
Quote
BraincapersQuote
skipstone
Who's the bitch? Keith.
Why do you think he's been loaded for all these years?
See this is what I mean about an anti Keith vibe and why I check in less than I used to. How can any Stones fan call Keith (or Mick) a bitch?
I just did. It's obvious. Did you read LIFE?
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
kingkirby
()
Date: March 4, 2011 17:47
I'm with Doxa on this one - Mick's 'wandering spirit' has left a lot of broken hearts in his wake, and Keith sounds like he's one of them.
It's understandable really - you can mourn a lost friendship just as intensely as a lost relationship sometimes...
It's understandable really - you can mourn a lost friendship just as intensely as a lost relationship sometimes...
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Shott
()
Date: March 4, 2011 17:59
The problem with Life is that Keith went way over the top in running down Mick. Rather than make his point about how Mick can be challenging in a graceful and restrained way, Keith was a petty dick about it, probably to sell books like Angela Bowie. It made him seem insecure and if I was Mick I would not take his calls for quite a while.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:07
I reckon 'Life' is 'death' for the Stones...
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:09
Quote
Braincapers
I'd have liked more pages about the last 25 years to but (at risk of sound like a Keith apologist) 64-80 18 albums (roughly) and the last 30 years 7.
7
I thought the book was supposed to be about Keith's life, not just The Rolling Stones.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:10
Quote
Green LadyQuote
Bliss
A lot of the disenchantment with Keith I feel is because his disparagement of Mick is so destructive to the Stones as an entity. For the Stones to exist, function and thrive, it is necessary for Mick and Keith to at least have a good working r'ship. Keith has seriously jeopardised that, and naturally people feel disappointed, angry and betrayed.
How do we know this? It might seem like an obvious conclusion to a lot of people that if they were Mick, that's how they would react, but where is the actual evidence that Mick has lost interest in the Stones because he's so fed up with Keith's behaviour, and for no other reason?
What actually shocked me in the book was to realize that how deep the mutual hatred and ego-play goes within the band, and how far Mick and Keith have grown up from each other. Keith seems still to live in bunkers of the WORLD WAR THREE of the 80's and anything happened since then under the headline of The Rolling Stones is just technical cold-war-like compromises in order to make money. The bloody book confirmed all the negative things I had of the Vegas nature of the post-80's Stones I didn't want to believe. The band and its existence is just a theatre they play public. There hasn't been any band for a long time now. Jagger seemingly doesn't want to do anything with Richards if that can be avoided. And if not, does the minimal to keep the money coming. I don't know who caused and what - who is to blame and exactly when - but what LIFE is a sad testimony what happened to once great rock and roll band. Keith's ego is much bigger than the band he once was so proud of.
It is a tough book to read for a Rolling Stones fan, indeed.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 18:15 by Doxa.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:11
I'd hate to have to deal with either Mick or Keith in a working relationship (for far different reasons - well known to all).
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:11
True, there is a curious (I wouldn't say annoying) anti Keith vibe here since a while.
The arguments are quite trite by now.
The anti-mick sentiment in Life. Once again, I truly don't see it at all. Quite the opposite. For what matters, I read the book when the Life thread was already at page 7 or 8 and I was expecting something truly mean and awful, I ended up enjoying greatly the read, and scratching my head trying to understand why so many people hated it.
Guitar skills. Sure, his "bum-notes" ratio has grown during the years. But also his "fu*king-great-note" ratio. I know I am quite alone here, but who cares. His playing has a complexity and a depth now that was not there in the 70's. It doesn't have the raw power of those years any more, but people happen to grow!
Artistic relevance. He does his thing the way he likes it. His solo records, Wingless Angels, place is empty, Thief and How can I stop are - for me - clear evidence that the man walked a long long way in his artistic since the "golden years".
C
The arguments are quite trite by now.
The anti-mick sentiment in Life. Once again, I truly don't see it at all. Quite the opposite. For what matters, I read the book when the Life thread was already at page 7 or 8 and I was expecting something truly mean and awful, I ended up enjoying greatly the read, and scratching my head trying to understand why so many people hated it.
Guitar skills. Sure, his "bum-notes" ratio has grown during the years. But also his "fu*king-great-note" ratio. I know I am quite alone here, but who cares. His playing has a complexity and a depth now that was not there in the 70's. It doesn't have the raw power of those years any more, but people happen to grow!
Artistic relevance. He does his thing the way he likes it. His solo records, Wingless Angels, place is empty, Thief and How can I stop are - for me - clear evidence that the man walked a long long way in his artistic since the "golden years".
C
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:25
Quote
DoxaQuote
Green LadyQuote
Bliss
A lot of the disenchantment with Keith I feel is because his disparagement of Mick is so destructive to the Stones as an entity. For the Stones to exist, function and thrive, it is necessary for Mick and Keith to at least have a good working r'ship. Keith has seriously jeopardised that, and naturally people feel disappointed, angry and betrayed.
How do we know this? It might seem like an obvious conclusion to a lot of people that if they were Mick, that's how they would react, but where is the actual evidence that Mick has lost interest in the Stones because he's so fed up with Keith's behaviour, and for no other reason?
What actually shocked me in the book was to realize that how deep the mutual hatred and ego-play goes within the band, and how far Mick and Keith have grown up from each other. Keith seems still to live in bunkers of the WORLD WAR THREE of the 80's and anything happened since then under the headline of The Rolling Stones is just technical cold-war-like compromises in order to make money. The bloody book confirmed all the negative things I had of the Vegas nature of the post-80's Stones I didn't want to believe. The band and its existence is just a theatre they play public. There hasn't been any band for a long time now. Jagger seemingly doesn't want to do anything with Richards if that can be avoided. And if not, does the minimal to keep the money coming. I don't know who caused and what - who is to blame and exactly when - but what LIFE is a sad testimony what happened to once great rock and roll band. Keith's ego is much bigger than the band he once was so proud of.
It is a tough book to read for a Rolling Stones fan, indeed.
- Doxa
There's a notable scene in the 2001 'Being Mick' documentary where Mick's at the premiere for the 'Enigma' movie, & both Ronnie & Bill are also there. I'm sure Charlie was invited too (& indeed may have even been there), but I somehow imagine that Keith wouldn't even want to be at an event to promote a non-Stones Mick Jagger project, & I strongly suspect that Mick wouldn't invite him...
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:25
Quote
lsbz
I've seen the Keith Richards cult come into existence in the seventies, and thought that was generally cool. But I think it has grown a little too big. I'm not in favor of any kind of personal fanship anyway; it's the music that should count.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:26
Quote
Doxa
What actually shocked me in the book was to realize that how deep the mutual hatred and ego-play goes within the band is, and how far Mick and Keith have grown up from each other. Keith seems still to live in bunkers of the WORLD WAR THREE of the 80's and anything happened since then under the headline of The Rolling Stones is just technical cold-war-like compromises in order to make money. The bloody book confirmed all the negative things I had of the Vegas nature of the post-80's Stones I didn't want to believe. The band and its existence is just a theatre they play public. There hasn't been any band for a long time now. Jagger seemingly doesn't want to do anything with Richards if that can be avoided. And if not, does the minimal to keep the money coming. I don't know who caused and what - who is to blame and exactly when - but what LIFE is a sad testimony what happened to once great rock and roll band. Keith's ego is much bigger than the band he once was so proud of.
It is a tough book to read for a Rolling Stones fan, indeed.
- Doxa
My interpretation of Keith's account of the Vegas Years is that that particular formula that you hate so much was the only way to keep the Stones rolling, and Keith prefers to have Vegas Stones rather than no Stones at all. So I see it as a very mature compromise the two of them reached.
They could have done as much money as they did with the Vegas tours if they called it quits in 1989 and capitalized - with the help of MC - on "open the vault" products.
If Jagger truly did not want to have anything to do with Keith, how do you explain the way Bang (in my opinion a bloody good work) was recorded? He could have sent half baked protools demos to Keith for overdubs instad of spending a couple of months with the man in France!
C
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 4, 2011 18:28
Quote
DoxaQuote
Green LadyQuote
Bliss
A lot of the disenchantment with Keith I feel is because his disparagement of Mick is so destructive to the Stones as an entity. For the Stones to exist, function and thrive, it is necessary for Mick and Keith to at least have a good working r'ship. Keith has seriously jeopardised that, and naturally people feel disappointed, angry and betrayed.
How do we know this? It might seem like an obvious conclusion to a lot of people that if they were Mick, that's how they would react, but where is the actual evidence that Mick has lost interest in the Stones because he's so fed up with Keith's behaviour, and for no other reason?
What actually shocked me in the book was to realize that how deep the mutual hatred and ego-play goes within the band, and how far Mick and Keith have grown up from each other. Keith seems still to live in bunkers of the WORLD WAR THREE of the 80's and anything happened since then under the headline of The Rolling Stones is just technical cold-war-like compromises in order to make money. The bloody book confirmed all the negative things I had of the Vegas nature of the post-80's Stones I didn't want to believe. The band and its existence is just a theatre they play public. There hasn't been any band for a long time now. Jagger seemingly doesn't want to do anything with Richards if that can be avoided. And if not, does the minimal to keep the money coming. I don't know who caused and what - who is to blame and exactly when - but what LIFE is a sad testimony what happened to once great rock and roll band. Keith's ego is much bigger than the band he once was so proud of.
It is a tough book to read for a Rolling Stones fan, indeed.
- Doxa
I'm only halfway through the book, but it is a tough read...meandering musings of a junkie that has an unbelievable amount of recollection of names, dates, events.
I'm reading out of curiousity, but it hasn't been a 'fun read' to this point.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 4, 2011 19:12
Quote
liddasQuote
Doxa
What actually shocked me in the book was to realize that how deep the mutual hatred and ego-play goes within the band is, and how far Mick and Keith have grown up from each other. Keith seems still to live in bunkers of the WORLD WAR THREE of the 80's and anything happened since then under the headline of The Rolling Stones is just technical cold-war-like compromises in order to make money. The bloody book confirmed all the negative things I had of the Vegas nature of the post-80's Stones I didn't want to believe. The band and its existence is just a theatre they play public. There hasn't been any band for a long time now. Jagger seemingly doesn't want to do anything with Richards if that can be avoided. And if not, does the minimal to keep the money coming. I don't know who caused and what - who is to blame and exactly when - but what LIFE is a sad testimony what happened to once great rock and roll band. Keith's ego is much bigger than the band he once was so proud of.
It is a tough book to read for a Rolling Stones fan, indeed.
- Doxa
My interpretation of Keith's account of the Vegas Years is that that particular formula that you hate so much was the only way to keep the Stones rolling, and Keith prefers to have Vegas Stones rather than no Stones at all. So I see it as a very mature compromise the two of them reached.
They could have done as much money as they did with the Vegas tours if they called it quits in 1989 and capitalized - with the help of MC - on "open the vault" products.
If Jagger truly did not want to have anything to do with Keith, how do you explain the way Bang (in my opinion a bloody good work) was recorded? He could have sent half baked protools demos to Keith for overdubs instad of spending a couple of months with the man in France!
C
I agree with your point about the Vegas Concept being probably only way to keep the Stones rolling. It is very interesting detail in JAGGER REMEMBERS RS ยด95 interview where Mck says that the first meeting in 1989 he had with Keith - afer the "war" - was only to discuss the money Cohl could offer them for a tour. Nothing else. That caused them to make "compromise" or "peace". I really would like to have a bootleg from those "Jalta" discussions. Then the future and nature of the band was sealed, and Keith gave up the musical directorship of the band on stage. My hint is that Jagger gave the ultimatum: "do it my way or we don't do it all. This band is no longer driven by drunken guitarists but everything is professional by now". Be it mature or not, I don't know. Maybe calling it quits wouldn't be such an unmature way either. But I think Keith's taste for big numbers is almost as big as Mick's. Even if it needs cutting his balls off.
Naturally, Keith doesn't speak anything of these ever important deals and compromises in LIFE - too "unsexy" for maintaining his image, right?
Your point about A BIGGER BANG is a good one. It goes in to my category of "doing the minimal" - perhaps taking the egos involved, the option to just send the demos for Keith to over-dub was out of question. Or maybe it was actually easier to handle the thing just from face to face - than start sending demos back and worth with angry fax messages... And of course, Mick and Keith know how to work together - they have quite a lot of history - so it is not such a big deal for them to stand each other few weeks once in 8 years or so if there is a motivation (a huge tour with Cohlian numbers). Even Keith says this in LIFE - that when they finally get to do somehing together, it usually works quite fine. They are pros. But that the sessions took place in Mick's place, and Keith was like a quest, sounds more like the thing being done in Mick's terms - probably Keith was there handly present to add his mark and touch to mostly Mick's made songs,and in Mick's "no unnecessary jamming is needed" schedule. But anyway, if there is another "Rolling Stones" album to come, I wouldn't be surprised if your scenario might come true.
Anyway, to my ears A BIGGER BANG sounds awfully half-baked autopilot music, and it was intersting to know that Keith killed the offer to record the stuff properly in a proper studio. Maybe he thought that polishing the crap would not make it any better...
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 19:21 by Doxa.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: March 4, 2011 19:39
I see Mick and Keith coming together for the ABB sessions as them forcing themselves to put aside whatever crap they usually deal with-- just to get a record written. Both of them knew that it was time to sit with the other and write the songs...it had been 8 years since any kind of formal songwriting sessions had taken place. If anything, guilt made them come together.
There are a lot of compromises on both ends. Keith, most likely, compromises a lot for "Brenda" and Mick will compromise for Keith. Keith will probably tone down his "ass-hole" attitude if he knows that he's got to work with this guy for most of the day. Mick will probably not run away with the fairies with the pop/synthesizer stuff because Keith wouldn't respond to that.
The problem I see with the recent songwriting of the past few albums is that the songwriters are becoming less and less themselves in their songs. They are simply accommodating for the other--sacrificing what they really want to write. I think that's why we've gotten such mediocre songs. These are not the songs that Mick and Keith really want to write anymore. Seems to me that Keith would rather prefer writing slow grooves and "after hours club" songs ("This Place Is Empty") while Mick would rather prefer writing more dance related tunes with a whole different production value (Goddess In The Doorway). They come together and write "Stones" songs...and sort of push aside their real urges for songs to the side. They're writing more and more Stones songs and less and less Mick Jagger and Keith Richards songs. Maybe that's why B2B worked so well (or NOT well for some?) because it felt like 2 solo albums together. They still are some strong songs--no doubt about it.
They wrote such immaculate songs during their hayday because Mick and Keith were on the same level as songwriters. They both were interested in writing the same kind of music (blues, country, reggae etc). Sure Mick still loves all that stuff...but I don't believe he wants to write it anymore. Keith may still love that old stuff too but his recent output (You Don't Have To Mean It, Thief In The Night, How Can I Stop, Losing My Touch, This Place Is Empty, Infamy) say something else about where his mind is.
There are a lot of compromises on both ends. Keith, most likely, compromises a lot for "Brenda" and Mick will compromise for Keith. Keith will probably tone down his "ass-hole" attitude if he knows that he's got to work with this guy for most of the day. Mick will probably not run away with the fairies with the pop/synthesizer stuff because Keith wouldn't respond to that.
The problem I see with the recent songwriting of the past few albums is that the songwriters are becoming less and less themselves in their songs. They are simply accommodating for the other--sacrificing what they really want to write. I think that's why we've gotten such mediocre songs. These are not the songs that Mick and Keith really want to write anymore. Seems to me that Keith would rather prefer writing slow grooves and "after hours club" songs ("This Place Is Empty") while Mick would rather prefer writing more dance related tunes with a whole different production value (Goddess In The Doorway). They come together and write "Stones" songs...and sort of push aside their real urges for songs to the side. They're writing more and more Stones songs and less and less Mick Jagger and Keith Richards songs. Maybe that's why B2B worked so well (or NOT well for some?) because it felt like 2 solo albums together. They still are some strong songs--no doubt about it.
They wrote such immaculate songs during their hayday because Mick and Keith were on the same level as songwriters. They both were interested in writing the same kind of music (blues, country, reggae etc). Sure Mick still loves all that stuff...but I don't believe he wants to write it anymore. Keith may still love that old stuff too but his recent output (You Don't Have To Mean It, Thief In The Night, How Can I Stop, Losing My Touch, This Place Is Empty, Infamy) say something else about where his mind is.
Re: Anti Keith vibe
Posted by:
AngieBlue
()
Date: March 4, 2011 19:51
Are you a Mod or a Rocker?
Beatles or the Stones?
Do you love Mick more or Keith more?
The rock n' roll argument du jour.
Beatles or the Stones?
Do you love Mick more or Keith more?
The rock n' roll argument du jour.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
andrews27 , BeastyBurdeny , bengigan , ChrisL , DaveyJMusician , gagiwh , GJV , grzegorz67 , josepi , keef62 , loochie , NICOS , Paddy , quarkie , RSbestbandever , schwonek , sonnystitt , steffialicia , tangerinegaz , TornAndFried , TumblinDice76 , welshphil
Guests:
1921
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10