Well said filstan. Thank you

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

Quote
filstan
I believe more has been made of this book than is necessary. Obviously, the book proved to be provocative. Coming from Keith is anyone surprised? I thought it was a fun and entertaining read. I can't believe that anyone in band had their feelings seriously hurt by Keith's comments. These guys would not have stayed together this long if they did not form some very deep bonds, and have very tough emotional skins. If they want to form up the band again and do some gigs, good on them. If they were to call it quits for whatever reason, I can honestly say thanks for the ride guys, it was wonderful. This book won't have anything to do with a yes or no to the Stones going back on the road. I'm 58 and these guys have been part of my life since I was a 10 year old boy. Either way you want to argue this book, the music will always sound great up until the day we get our numbers called. Really, that's all that is important anyway.

Filstan - i think that's a great, eloquent sentiment - truly - but i still think that one can't dispel the notion that since no band member had ever done this before - fully pulled back the shower curtain so to speak - that it might have had some residual effect on the future -

Well, Bill hasn't been exactly gentle in some of his sentiments either has he? Heh, let's hear from Jagger. I'm sure he will have his 2 cents in as well. I look forward to his autobiography. Hope he lays it on the line. In all of our lives we experience many things. Some of it we share with others, which I believe is a bonus. The same shared experience can be viewed/remembered differently in some respect as the time passes by. Bottom line, does it really matter in the end? Sure, Keith brought some contentious issues up, and ripped off some scabs, but that's his perspective. Some of the goofy stuff he says, of course you have to shake your head in disbelief. All I can respond to that is to say... that's Keith. Not to say I am being a Keith apologist. I still think his book was great reading.

Quote
filstan
Well, Bill hasn't been exactly gentle in some of his sentiments either has he? Heh, let's hear from Jagger. I'm sure he will have his 2 cents in as well. I look forward to his autobiography. Hope he lays it on the line. In all of our lives we experience many things. Some of it we share with others, which I believe is a bonus. The same shared experience can be viewed/remembered differently in some respect as the time passes by. Bottom line, does it really matter in the end? Sure, Keith brought some contentious issues up, and ripped off some scabs, but that's his perspective. Some of the goofy stuff he says, of course you have to shake your head in disbelief. All I can respond to that is to say... that's Keith. Not to say I am being a Keith apologist. I still think his book was great reading.

Jagger will write an autobiography when he brings Mick Taylor back into the band - ie - never - he considered it once - but thought better obviously

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
filstan
I believe more has been made of this book than is necessary. Obviously, the book proved to be provocative. Coming from Keith is anyone surprised? I thought it was a fun and entertaining read. I can't believe that anyone in band had their feelings seriously hurt by Keith's comments. These guys would not have stayed together this long if they did not form some very deep bonds, and have very tough emotional skins. If they want to form up the band again and do some gigs, good on them. If they were to call it quits for whatever reason, I can honestly say thanks for the ride guys, it was wonderful. This book won't have anything to do with a yes or no to the Stones going back on the road. I'm 58 and these guys have been part of my life since I was a 10 year old boy. Either way you want to argue this book, the music will always sound great up until the day we get our numbers called. Really, that's all that is important anyway.

Filstan - i think that's a great, eloquent sentiment - truly - but i still think that one can't dispel the notion that since no band member had ever done this before - fully pulled back the shower curtain so to speak - that it might have had some residual effect on the future -

Band members don't need to do it. Their have been 100 different writers who have pulled back the curtain on the Stones. Most of whom have been more accurate than Keith.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
filstan
I believe more has been made of this book than is necessary. Obviously, the book proved to be provocative. Coming from Keith is anyone surprised? I thought it was a fun and entertaining read. I can't believe that anyone in band had their feelings seriously hurt by Keith's comments. These guys would not have stayed together this long if they did not form some very deep bonds, and have very tough emotional skins. If they want to form up the band again and do some gigs, good on them. If they were to call it quits for whatever reason, I can honestly say thanks for the ride guys, it was wonderful. This book won't have anything to do with a yes or no to the Stones going back on the road. I'm 58 and these guys have been part of my life since I was a 10 year old boy. Either way you want to argue this book, the music will always sound great up until the day we get our numbers called. Really, that's all that is important anyway.

Filstan - i think that's a great, eloquent sentiment - truly - but i still think that one can't dispel the notion that since no band member had ever done this before - fully pulled back the shower curtain so to speak - that it might have had some residual effect on the future -

Band members don't need to do it. Their have been 100 different writers who have pulled back the curtain on the Stones. Most of whom have been more accurate than Keith.

yeah - maybe - but that's to be expected - an inside job is different - that violates the code

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
filstan
I believe more has been made of this book than is necessary. Obviously, the book proved to be provocative. Coming from Keith is anyone surprised? I thought it was a fun and entertaining read. I can't believe that anyone in band had their feelings seriously hurt by Keith's comments. These guys would not have stayed together this long if they did not form some very deep bonds, and have very tough emotional skins. If they want to form up the band again and do some gigs, good on them. If they were to call it quits for whatever reason, I can honestly say thanks for the ride guys, it was wonderful. This book won't have anything to do with a yes or no to the Stones going back on the road. I'm 58 and these guys have been part of my life since I was a 10 year old boy. Either way you want to argue this book, the music will always sound great up until the day we get our numbers called. Really, that's all that is important anyway.

Filstan - i think that's a great, eloquent sentiment - truly - but i still think that one can't dispel the notion that since no band member had ever done this before - fully pulled back the shower curtain so to speak - that it might have had some residual effect on the future -

Band members don't need to do it. Their have been 100 different writers who have pulled back the curtain on the Stones. Most of whom have been more accurate than Keith.

yeah - maybe - but that's to be expected - an inside job is different - that violates the code

Code or not. You want the inside scoop. The worst thing to do is ask somebody who's a part of it. They have the worst perspesctive. You tell me Chris. Do you think the people you interview can offer a better.more honest perspective than you can on the subject you interview them about?

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
filstan
I believe more has been made of this book than is necessary. Obviously, the book proved to be provocative. Coming from Keith is anyone surprised? I thought it was a fun and entertaining read. I can't believe that anyone in band had their feelings seriously hurt by Keith's comments. These guys would not have stayed together this long if they did not form some very deep bonds, and have very tough emotional skins. If they want to form up the band again and do some gigs, good on them. If they were to call it quits for whatever reason, I can honestly say thanks for the ride guys, it was wonderful. This book won't have anything to do with a yes or no to the Stones going back on the road. I'm 58 and these guys have been part of my life since I was a 10 year old boy. Either way you want to argue this book, the music will always sound great up until the day we get our numbers called. Really, that's all that is important anyway.

Filstan - i think that's a great, eloquent sentiment - truly - but i still think that one can't dispel the notion that since no band member had ever done this before - fully pulled back the shower curtain so to speak - that it might have had some residual effect on the future -

Band members don't need to do it. Their have been 100 different writers who have pulled back the curtain on the Stones. Most of whom have been more accurate than Keith.

yeah - maybe - but that's to be expected - an inside job is different - that violates the code

Code or not. You want the inside scoop. The worst thing to do is ask somebody who's a part of it. They have the worst perspesctive. You tell me Chris. Do you think the people you interview can offer a better.more honest perspective than you can on the subject you interview them about?

it's a good question - and it probably varies depending on the artist - but, artists in general (to your point i think) are notoriously...artistic -and thus far less reliable when it comes to facts etc. (i remember asking jackson browne a question that began with a set of lead facts to frame the question - he stopped me and said - "that's all true?") BUT - accurate or not, i think the mere act of Keith putting the book out then doing a lot of flagrant, wiseguy PR had a good chance of getting under the skin and upsetting the balance in the complex RS power structure - just my opinion



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-17 08:48 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
filstan
I believe more has been made of this book than is necessary. Obviously, the book proved to be provocative. Coming from Keith is anyone surprised? I thought it was a fun and entertaining read. I can't believe that anyone in band had their feelings seriously hurt by Keith's comments. These guys would not have stayed together this long if they did not form some very deep bonds, and have very tough emotional skins. If they want to form up the band again and do some gigs, good on them. If they were to call it quits for whatever reason, I can honestly say thanks for the ride guys, it was wonderful. This book won't have anything to do with a yes or no to the Stones going back on the road. I'm 58 and these guys have been part of my life since I was a 10 year old boy. Either way you want to argue this book, the music will always sound great up until the day we get our numbers called. Really, that's all that is important anyway.

Filstan - i think that's a great, eloquent sentiment - truly - but i still think that one can't dispel the notion that since no band member had ever done this before - fully pulled back the shower curtain so to speak - that it might have had some residual effect on the future -

Band members don't need to do it. Their have been 100 different writers who have pulled back the curtain on the Stones. Most of whom have been more accurate than Keith.

yeah - maybe - but that's to be expected - an inside job is different - that violates the code

Code or not. You want the inside scoop. The worst thing to do is ask somebody who's a part of it. They have the worst perspesctive. You tell me Chris. Do you think the people you interview can offer a better.more honest perspective than you can on the subject you interview them about?

it's a good question - and it probably varies depending on the artist - but, artists in general (to your point i think) are notoriously...artistic -and thus far less reliable when it comes to facts etc. (i remember asking jackson browne a question that began with a set of lead facts to frame the question - he stopped me and said - "that's all true?") BUT - accurate or not, i think the mere act of Keith putting the book out then doing a lot of flagrant, wiseguy PR had a good chance of getting under the skin and upsetting the balance in the complex RS power structure - just my opinion

Keith burned the 'bridges to babylon' so to speak. He wanted to damage Jagger IMO, in the process damaging the delicate relationship they had engineered for the last 20 years or so, and certainly his own credibility and reputation.

hbwriter..Good to see ya' back mate

colonial, l don't think hb is back,bv, went on deletion mode and deleted a few of his threads,for no good reason, in my opinion.
Political correctness at its worst,but is his house....

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
filstan
Well, Bill hasn't been exactly gentle in some of his sentiments either has he? Heh, let's hear from Jagger. I'm sure he will have his 2 cents in as well. I look forward to his autobiography. Hope he lays it on the line. In all of our lives we experience many things. Some of it we share with others, which I believe is a bonus. The same shared experience can be viewed/remembered differently in some respect as the time passes by. Bottom line, does it really matter in the end? Sure, Keith brought some contentious issues up, and ripped off some scabs, but that's his perspective. Some of the goofy stuff he says, of course you have to shake your head in disbelief. All I can respond to that is to say... that's Keith. Not to say I am being a Keith apologist. I still think his book was great reading.

Jagger will write an autobiography when he brings Mick Taylor back into the band - ie - never - he considered it once - but thought better obviously

He already did bring Mick Taylor back into the band.

By recording a guitar track?

Quote
treaclefingers
Keith burned the 'bridges to babylon' so to speak. He wanted to damage Jagger IMO, in the process damaging the delicate relationship they had engineered for the last 20 years or so, and certainly his own credibility and reputation.

I agree with some comments here by one of the less popular posters, that Keith may deliberatly want to blow up the Stones instead of admitting that he can't play anymore (putting the blame with some one else). The Stones can't do anything wit Keith's worsening physics, nor can they do anything without him because of the contract between the Glimmers. There is only one way out; waite untill the 50th anniversary (June 2012) has past, officialy split up after that date, and than some months later Mick, Charlie and Ron can anounce a temporarily reunion hopefully with Bill, Taylor and even one of the first Stones Dick Taylor to make a final goodbye album and Euro tour, but without incapable Keith. Because the band had split up earlier officially, all the binding old contracts no longer hold sway. Though Keith could make it a legal court case that they could not play his compositions during that tour using this band name (like the also earlier mentioned Roger Waters case against the remaining Pink Floyd where he won the case that Floyd was not allowed to play his songs like the Wall under the name Pink Floyd without him any longer), I'm sure there is enough good Stones cover material and new songs to overcome that problem. The Stones ending without a final album and tour would be like a good movie abruptly ending just before the climax.

Quote
thabo

Quote
treaclefingers
Keith burned the 'bridges to babylon' so to speak. He wanted to damage Jagger IMO, in the process damaging the delicate relationship they had engineered for the last 20 years or so, and certainly his own credibility and reputation.

I agree with some comments here by one of the less popular posters, that Keith may deliberatly want to blow up the Stones instead of admitting that he can't play anymore (putting the blame with some one else). The Stones can't do anything wit Keith's worsening physics, nor can they do anything without him because of the contract between the Glimmers. There is only one way out; waite untill the 50th anniversary (June 2012) has past, officialy split up after that date, and than some months later Mick, Charlie and Ron can anounce a temporarily reunion hopefully with Bill, Taylor and even one of the first Stones Dick Taylor to make a final goodbye album and Euro tour, but without incapable Keith. Because the band had split up earlier officially, all the binding old contracts no longer hold sway. Though Keith could make it a legal court case that they could not play his compositions during that tour using this band name (like the also earlier mentioned Roger Waters case against the remaining Pink Floyd where he won the case that Floyd was not allowed to play his songs like the Wall under the name Pink Floyd without him any longer), I'm sure there is enough good Stones cover material and new songs to overcome that problem. The Stones ending without a final album and tour would be like a good movie abruptly ending just before the climax.

I think keith might have had something to do with the Kennedy assassination as well

Quote
thabo

Quote
treaclefingers
Keith burned the 'bridges to babylon' so to speak. He wanted to damage Jagger IMO, in the process damaging the delicate relationship they had engineered for the last 20 years or so, and certainly his own credibility and reputation.

I agree with some comments here by one of the less popular posters, that Keith may deliberatly want to blow up the Stones instead of admitting that he can't play anymore (putting the blame with some one else). The Stones can't do anything wit Keith's worsening physics, nor can they do anything without him because of the contract between the Glimmers. There is only one way out; waite untill the 50th anniversary (June 2012) has past, officialy split up after that date, and than some months later Mick, Charlie and Ron can anounce a temporarily reunion hopefully with Bill, Taylor and even one of the first Stones Dick Taylor to make a final goodbye album and Euro tour, but without incapable Keith. Because the band had split up earlier officially, all the binding old contracts no longer hold sway. Though Keith could make it a legal court case that they could not play his compositions during that tour using this band name (like the also earlier mentioned Roger Waters case against the remaining Pink Floyd where he won the case that Floyd was not allowed to play his songs like the Wall under the name Pink Floyd without him any longer), I'm sure there is enough good Stones cover material and new songs to overcome that problem. The Stones ending without a final album and tour would be like a good movie abruptly ending just before the climax.

Honestly, I think The Stones ending without Keith Richards onboard would be a good movie with a very bad ending, and leaving anyone involved a bad taste in mouth when leaving the cinema.

But I am inclined a bit to think along the lines - I have speculated with this before - that LIFE is Keith's way to say goodbye to the Stones without showing his immortality (like forced to enter the stage finally unable to play, and he was on the edge last time around). If not being totally awere of it, but latently, I think. Like argued or guessed in the thread originally, Keith might crossed over the line in revealing too much of the nature of their game, namely, what happens behind the curtains and Jagger/Richards-craftwork. A bit like Wyman did with STONE ALONE. LIFE have such a tone in it that "well, this is what I finally have to do or say. There you have it. The secrets of the band and my infamous life - and of course, of what is to work with Mick Jagger". I think Keith will never say in public that he is no in a physical condition to play or anything like that (a bit "rusty" sometimes but that's nothing...). The immortal Keith Richards - never! Better to fade away with a 'good' public fight or something like that. More Stonesy and masculine...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Better to fade away with a 'good' public fight or something like that. More Stonesy and masculine...

- Doxa

No surprise that Keith might like to take the more immature of the avalable options...

A book full of low blows. Whadda guy!

Quote
thabo

Quote
treaclefingers
Keith burned the 'bridges to babylon' so to speak. He wanted to damage Jagger IMO, in the process damaging the delicate relationship they had engineered for the last 20 years or so, and certainly his own credibility and reputation.

I agree with some comments here by one of the less popular posters, that Keith may deliberatly want to blow up the Stones instead of admitting that he can't play anymore (putting the blame with some one else). The Stones can't do anything wit Keith's worsening physics, nor can they do anything without him because of the contract between the Glimmers. There is only one way out; waite untill the 50th anniversary (June 2012) has past, officialy split up after that date, and than some months later Mick, Charlie and Ron can anounce a temporarily reunion hopefully with Bill, Taylor and even one of the first Stones Dick Taylor to make a final goodbye album and Euro tour, but without incapable Keith. Because the band had split up earlier officially, all the binding old contracts no longer hold sway. Though Keith could make it a legal court case that they could not play his compositions during that tour using this band name (like the also earlier mentioned Roger Waters case against the remaining Pink Floyd where he won the case that Floyd was not allowed to play his songs like the Wall under the name Pink Floyd without him any longer), I'm sure there is enough good Stones cover material and new songs to overcome that problem. The Stones ending without a final album and tour would be like a good movie abruptly ending just before the climax.

Thabo: You have been here less than a year, and have posted only 45 times...and you feel free to evaluate the popularity of longtime members?

Quote
Rip This
...At least Keith didn't go on Oprah and discuss the book there.....that might of been the end of the Rolling Stones.

If those lemon-yellow tights of 1981/82 didn't kill the Stones image-wise, that certainly would have!

Naaah ... I don't buy for one second that "Life" burned bridges irreparably. Keith stated repeatedly he "wanted his friend back".

Jagger simply likes to do different things, and that's healthy. Lookit Charlie and Bill, they do their own thing too when uninvolved. Keith's got one heckavuh band in The Winos, so all isn't lost. Frankly, The Winos was good for Keith as well as The Stones, kept him in shape.

Don't forget the Superheavy project had been kicking around for three years, so it's not as if that band killed The Stones.

Woody, for his part, is enjoying the reconstructed Faces.

Net: Enjoy what these geezers do in whatever configuration they play. Time ain't on their side.

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Naaah ... I don't buy for one second that "Life" burned bridges irreparably. Keith stated repeatedly he "wanted his friend back".


Net: Enjoy what these geezers do in whatever configuration they play. Time ain't on their side.

The intimation, is that Mick should change 'back' for Keith...that Mick is 'the problem'. I don't think Mick would agree with that.

I do agree with you on your 'Net' position....there is plenty to still enjoy, even if they don't reform for a last hurrah.