Quote
rollmops
Just heard Andrew Loog Oldham on his radio show doing like us, speculating about the future of his former band. Andrew said that although Mick and Keith have had difficulties between them in the past, it was always about the relationship which eventually they had been able to manage like other "married couples". But Andrew said that this time it's about the babies, meaning the songs and that is more difficult to overcome. Oldham didn't mention any facts that made him say those things. For him what Keith said about the writing of the songs may have ended the songwriting partnership between Mick and Keith.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Hello. Imo, if Mick is pissed at Keith, it's more to do with this than Keith's comments about his anatomy. I think Mick's confidence and reputation as a lady's man is enough for readers to take those comments with a grain of salt, but I'm not so sure about the songwriting credits. A lot of people will probably believe Keith's perspective since they have nothing else to go on (except for a very telling interview with M.Taylor, which I can't find right now!)

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Bingo
The death of The Stones will not be centered around a dick.....Both Mick and Keith have no balls. Maybe if they had balls and tried something musically different, then they would have some life to them.

Mick's solo stuff has plenty of life...it may not be everyones 'cup of tea' musically but it's definitely IMO bright.....and often experimental ...for better or worse................

Not wishing to be provocative here, and I'll agree it is often 'bright', but which songs would you define as 'experimental', in the MJ solo catalogue?

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Bingo
The death of The Stones will not be centered around a dick.....Both Mick and Keith have no balls. Maybe if they had balls and tried something musically different, then they would have some life to them.

Mick's solo stuff has plenty of life...it may not be everyones 'cup of tea' musically but it's definitely IMO bright.....and often experimental ...for better or worse................

I should have said...Musically different with their (Rolling Stones) live shows.

Quote
Bingo

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Bingo
The death of The Stones will not be centered around a dick.....Both Mick and Keith have no balls. Maybe if they had balls and tried something musically different, then they would have some life to them.

Mick's solo stuff has plenty of life...it may not be everyones 'cup of tea' musically but it's definitely IMO bright.....and often experimental ...for better or worse................

I should have said...Musically different with their (Rolling Stones) live shows.

Ahh yeah, fair enough, good point, right with you on that...Pretty beat up, Let it loose, Silver Train..........a long Hey Negrita......and on and on and on........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Quote
hbwriter
The more I look back through "Life" and all that it exposed, the more it seems that it may also have been the final straw/deathknell blow to, if not the Stones, then Jagger's interest in future projects.

Think about how close to the vest Jagger has always played everything - as has the rest of the band.

And think about how much "Life" dishes - the gossip - Keith's versions of stories behind the songs - it's a huge violation of band privacy.

"Life" seems like it may have been the code-violation of the ages - the book all magicians hate - the one that spoils all of the illusions.

This is just my opinion, mind you - no more, no less.

I have (somewhat reluctantly) come to the conclusion that "Life" did indeed deliver the fatal blow that brought down the mighty Rolling Stones. Any chance they were gonna continue was shot out of the sky with a few swift strokes of Keith's mighty pen. Does that mean I harbor bitterness towards Keith? Absolutely not. I love both Mick and Keith for who they are as individuals but let's face it, they haven't been close in decades and really don't like each other all that much, if at all. Do they have a love for one another? Probably, however, as most of us know you can love a family member (or even a friend) but that doesn't mean you can stand to be around them for any significant length of time. Could they continue? Of course anything is possible, but I am afraid this time around there will be no reconciliation.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
hbwriter
The more I look back through "Life" and all that it exposed, the more it seems that it may also have been the final straw/deathknell blow to, if not the Stones, then Jagger's interest in future projects.

Think about how close to the vest Jagger has always played everything - as has the rest of the band.

And think about how much "Life" dishes - the gossip - Keith's versions of stories behind the songs - it's a huge violation of band privacy.

"Life" seems like it may have been the code-violation of the ages - the book all magicians hate - the one that spoils all of the illusions.

This is just my opinion, mind you - no more, no less.

I have (somewhat reluctantly) come to the conclusion that "Life" did indeed deliver the fatal blow that brought down the mighty Rolling Stones. Any chance they were gonna continue was shot out of the sky with a few swift strokes of Keith's mighty pen. Does that mean I harbor bitterness towards Keith? Absolutely not. I love both Mick and Keith for who they are as individuals but let's face it, they haven't been close in decades and really don't like each other all that much, if at all. Do they have a love for one another? Probably, however, as most of us know you can love a family member (or even a friend) but that doesn't mean you can stand to be around them for any significant length of time. Could they continue? Of course anything is possible, but I am afraid this time around there will be no reconciliation.

Unless of course there is a reconciliation!

It's just a book.

Quote
Baxter Thwaites
It's just a book.

><

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Baxter Thwaites
It's just a book.

it's not the book. it's the attitude behind the book.

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
Baxter Thwaites
It's just a book.

it's not the book. it's the attitude behind the book.

...and the publicly delivered attitude, and total humiliation of a friend of 60 years.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
Baxter Thwaites
It's just a book.

it's not the book. it's the attitude behind the book.

...and the publicly delivered attitude, and total humiliation of a friend of 60 years.

and seeming disregard for the respect of the band as a unit - isolating one's part like he did, for any band, seems like it would cause a few problems

look- this is all speculation, obviously - just the opinions of we fans - but I'd offer that, in my opinion, when the final history of this band is written, decades from now - that book will be more than a footnote - it will represent a critical watermark in band history because there had been nothing like it in this band up until now - a tell all - now some can say it poisoned the band - some can say it was simply time for Keith to cut loose and so it's like a natural progression in the band for better or worse - but to act like it is "just a book" and had no effect on the arc of the band - sorry - i just don't buy that - i don't know just what the effects are obviously - but there ARE effects - there almost have to be in a band this old, complex and businesslike -



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-03 19:16 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter
look- this is all speculation, obviously - just the opinions of we fans - but I'd offer that, in my opinion, when the final history of this band is written, decades from now - that book will be more than a footnote - it will represent a critical watermark in band history because there had been nothing like it in this band up until now - a tell all - now some can say it poisoned the band - some can say it was simply time for Keith to cut loose and so it's like a natural progression in the band for better or worse - but to act like it is "just a book" and had no effect on the arc of the band - sorry - i just don't buy that - i don't know just what the effects are obviously - but there ARE effects - there almost have to be in a band this old, complex and businesslike -

Keith perhaps 'needed' to write the book, as a way to finally release all the bottled up resentment that he had. He achieved some additional notoriety, did the book tour and maybe even exorcised his 'demons'.

Unfortunately, I believe that it also will ultimately show that it caused major damage to what he loves most, the band, and maybe even ended it a bit prematurely.

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
Baxter Thwaites
It's just a book.

it's not the book. it's the attitude behind the book.

It is just a book. After more than 40 years together mick and keith have been through a lot more than a snarky book. If this is the end of the Rolling Stones,it's simply because the time has come. Both of thier lives have evolved in different dircetions and it just doesn't include the Rolling Stones anymore. It's not because keith said mick has a small dick.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
It's not because keith said mick has a small dick.

This has been said many times, and I agree. But it seems the majority doesn't agree. Oh, well

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
Baxter Thwaites
It's just a book.

it's not the book. it's the attitude behind the book.

It is just a book. After more than 40 years together mick and keith have been through a lot more than a snarky book. If this is the end of the Rolling Stones,it's simply because the time has come. Both of thier lives have evolved in different dircetions and it just doesn't include the Rolling Stones anymore. It's not because keith said mick has a small dick.

SCL - i agree it's not about that comment - but i do think it's more about the balls it took to go public and demystify so much of the legend - that's the stones' bread and butter - and while it certainly may not be the entire cause - i look at it more like the final straw

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
hbwriter
The more I look back through "Life" and all that it exposed, the more it seems that it may also have been the final straw/deathknell blow to, if not the Stones, then Jagger's interest in future projects.

Think about how close to the vest Jagger has always played everything - as has the rest of the band.

And think about how much "Life" dishes - the gossip - Keith's versions of stories behind the songs - it's a huge violation of band privacy.

"Life" seems like it may have been the code-violation of the ages - the book all magicians hate - the one that spoils all of the illusions.

This is just my opinion, mind you - no more, no less.

I have (somewhat reluctantly) come to the conclusion that "Life" did indeed deliver the fatal blow that brought down the mighty Rolling Stones. Any chance they were gonna continue was shot out of the sky with a few swift strokes of Keith's mighty pen. Does that mean I harbor bitterness towards Keith? Absolutely not. I love both Mick and Keith for who they are as individuals but let's face it, they haven't been close in decades and really don't like each other all that much, if at all. Do they have a love for one another? Probably, however, as most of us know you can love a family member (or even a friend) but that doesn't mean you can stand to be around them for any significant length of time. Could they continue? Of course anything is possible, but I am afraid this time around there will be no reconciliation.

Unless of course there is a reconciliation!

Which of course there will be!

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
hbwriter
The more I look back through "Life" and all that it exposed, the more it seems that it may also have been the final straw/deathknell blow to, if not the Stones, then Jagger's interest in future projects.

Think about how close to the vest Jagger has always played everything - as has the rest of the band.

And think about how much "Life" dishes - the gossip - Keith's versions of stories behind the songs - it's a huge violation of band privacy.

"Life" seems like it may have been the code-violation of the ages - the book all magicians hate - the one that spoils all of the illusions.

This is just my opinion, mind you - no more, no less.

I have (somewhat reluctantly) come to the conclusion that "Life" did indeed deliver the fatal blow that brought down the mighty Rolling Stones. Any chance they were gonna continue was shot out of the sky with a few swift strokes of Keith's mighty pen. Does that mean I harbor bitterness towards Keith? Absolutely not. I love both Mick and Keith for who they are as individuals but let's face it, they haven't been close in decades and really don't like each other all that much, if at all. Do they have a love for one another? Probably, however, as most of us know you can love a family member (or even a friend) but that doesn't mean you can stand to be around them for any significant length of time. Could they continue? Of course anything is possible, but I am afraid this time around there will be no reconciliation.

Unless of course there is a reconciliation!

Which of course there will be!

My head is spinning, Stonescrow. Did you go to the psychic again? The death of the Stones will be from the death of A Stone. Touring depends on their health and ability to perform and to agree upon a deal. JMO--without any psychic intervention...

It takes more to end the Stones story than a book. A friend of mine played in a band that was quite famous for a couple of years, and he left because he could not go along anymore with one of his fellow musicians who, as years went by, supposedly developed into a "total @#$%&". At first,my friend stayed in the band for monetary reasons. Then came the time when, as he put it, "enough was enough" and claimed that no money in the world could have changed his mind not to leave. Not that he did not need the income, though!

With the Stones, money is obviously no more a concern. So why on earth should they do something together when there's absolutely no motivation anymore? For us fans? Gimme a break! It's their lives, and their precious time.

I can imagine that even Charlie sometimes misses the energy level of a packed stadium when they bang out one of their greatest hits. But after a handful of gigs, it's business as usual.

A little game : who are the owners of these t-shirts ?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-03 21:29 by Massimo68.

I just think the Stones haven't really been a "band" since 1984-85...I was looking at my according to the rolling stones and it had a picture of keith marrying patti in 83 and mick was his best man! obviously things went downhilll shortly after and i don't think they recovered.. i think they made a truce in the interests of the stones corporation but that is all... i don't think they really see eye to eye... so it comes down to: do they want the money/glory enough to continue to deal with each others crap..

i have to believe so..

how about an "I'm With Tiny Todger, Stupid" ?

wonder if this book will be on sale at the merch booth if there is a tour

Quote
hbwriter
wonder if this book will be on sale at the merch booth if there is a tour

I think we'd likelier see Goddess in the Doorway CD's, than KR's book.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
hbwriter
wonder if this book will be on sale at the merch booth if there is a tour

I think we'd likelier see Goddess in the Doorway CD's, than KR's book.

LOL, I am not sure about this. Keith's book would probably sell better and make more money

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

I really dont think Mick is as sensitive to things as people think he is.
Plus he is all about freedom of expression., Don't you think he is
used to being ribbed by Keith by now?

Quote
TrulyMicks

Quote
rollmops
Just heard Andrew Loog Oldham on his radio show doing like us, speculating about the future of his former band. Andrew said that although Mick and Keith have had difficulties between them in the past, it was always about the relationship which eventually they had been able to manage like other "married couples". But Andrew said that this time it's about the babies, meaning the songs and that is more difficult to overcome. Oldham didn't mention any facts that made him say those things. For him what Keith said about the writing of the songs may have ended the songwriting partnership between Mick and Keith.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Hello. Imo, if Mick is pissed at Keith, it's more to do with this than Keith's comments about his anatomy. I think Mick's confidence and reputation as a lady's man is enough for readers to take those comments with a grain of salt, but I'm not so sure about the songwriting credits. A lot of people will probably believe Keith's perspective since they have nothing else to go on (except for a very telling interview with M.Taylor, which I can't find right now!)

MT is my fav era of the stones, would love to read up on this. anyone got a link?

Quote
tumbled
I really dont think Mick is as sensitive to things as people think he is.
Plus he is all about freedom of expression., Don't you think he is
used to being ribbed by Keith by now?

Yes.

did someone say keith "needed to write a book to get rid of all his bottled up resentment"?-
the jagger bashing interviews keith has done in the last 30 years are countless

they all follow the same pattern-interviewer throws a leading question to keith about his partner hoping to get some good copy.
a half drunk keith takes the bait and spews forth a ton of resentment and anger.

if you notice the "we're a married couple,we fight", "we're like brothers" and "mick has rhino skin" lines almost always come from keith.
truth is keith is that annoying loudmouth guy at work you put up with to get your job done.smart people ignore them and just go about their business.

if you look past his rockstar image you'll see what is just another substance abuser.they lash out at those close to them and steadfastly refuse to take any blame for anything.

from the start-jagger put his solo record in the stones record contract.that was keiths big issue.

welll...maybe you man the f/ck up and refuse to sign the thing.tell them to rewrite it for just the band instead of using drug addict logic- take the money and lay the blame on jagger,this way i get paid all the while looking like the spokesman for integrity....and on and on it goes....a 12 step program would help.

I still don't really see what exactly is demystified in the book. Surely, most people know anything
Keith writes is from his point of view.

If Mick takes offense at anything, it would be Keith's words about him in the last so many pages.

I would think Mick had heard it all by now, but maybe he really is hurt by Keith writing that he lost his
friend Mick. I know they hadn't been all that close for a good long time.