Quote
klrkcr
David Schneiderman.

BINGO !

Who can be more controversial than a two-faced rat?

Keith's "blind angel"

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Come On
Anita controversial? Every chick hangin around rock-stars at 1967 would have done the same...

Shirley didn't...

Charlie and Shirley look so happy and normal here.

Quote
stupidguy2
Anita. FOr all her legion of fan-girls, this woman was a toxic component to the Jagger/Richards dynamic, starting way before Bianca came into the picture - Bianca just became an easy, available and convenient target. (she also kept her life separate and didn't interfere with the Stones despite the myths)
Anita began the rivarlies, the resentments, the chasms between Mick vs Keith and Brian and then MIck and Keith vs Brian and then Mick vs Keith. She thrived on it, got off on it.
I don't care if she was a muse, she had too much power over both Brian and Keith, always more gullible than Jagger. She was also the main instigator in the 'who-can-handle-smack-better' contests with Keith.

+1....make that +100.

Frank Thorogood?

Bill Clinton and his mother in law, Dorothy.

Johnny Depp?

A. Klein

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
klrkcr
David Schneiderman.

BINGO !

Who can be more controversial than a two-faced rat?

Who is he? Never heard of him.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
klrkcr
David Schneiderman.

BINGO !

Who can be more controversial than a two-faced rat?

Who is he? Never heard of him.

The "Acid King." The guy that ratted out Mick & Keith at Redlands.

If you really want to talk controversial.....Prince Rupert Lowenstein.

In terms of what the RS represented, what they had produced before they met him, their image, their fanbase...he was the most incongruous person to join the mix.

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
klrkcr
David Schneiderman.

BINGO !

Who can be more controversial than a two-faced rat?

Who is he? Never heard of him.

The "Acid King." The guy that ratted out Mick & Keith at Redlands.

Right,I looked it up. Thanks.

Prince Rupert Lowenstein brought intelligence and experience and honesty regarding money into the Stones camp. Don't see him as "incongruous," based on spending a couple of hours in his company.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-09 02:24 by stonesrule.

Can you imagine Keith without Jagger and Lowenstein?

What about David Litvinoff then?

Quote
stonesrule
Prince Rupert Lowenstein brought intelligence and experience and honesty regarding money into the Stones camp. Don't see him as "incongruous,"...

Thank you, spot on.

So...you think Prince Rupert, with his three piece bespoke Savile Row suits, his gold pince-nez, his Oxford education, background in elite merchant banking, and his aristocratic clientele is a natural choice and logical member of the Rolling Stones inner circle, circa 1969?

Yes, obviously.

Sadly, "natural and logical" in that time meant that a lot of the greats got ripped off by so-called friends, relatives and inexperienced management.

Quote
Bliss
So...you think Prince Rupert, with his three piece bespoke Savile Row suits, his gold pince-nez, his Oxford education, background in elite merchant banking, and his aristocratic clientele is a natural choice and logical member of the Rolling Stones inner circle, circa 1969?

Yes, obviously.

Yes. A perfect choice. And thanks go to Mick on that one.
Without the Prince straightening out their financial affairs, the band isn't healthy rolling into the 70's.
Another huge Mick contribution to the staying power of the band. And often over looked.

For @#$%&'s sake...no one's disputing Prince Rupert's integrity or value. I'm simply stating the most obvious fact - that the very large differences between him and the 1969 Stones in terms of image, background, education and taste - make him an unexpected choice as a financial manager.

DON WAS!

Probably the worst career move the band ever did. Can you imagine what things would have been if around 1993 the band had picked Rick Rubin instead...

Quote
Bliss
no one's disputing Prince Rupert's integrity or value. I'm simply stating the most obvious fact - that the very large differences between him and the 1969 Stones in terms of image, background, education and taste - make him an unexpected choice as a financial manager.

Absolutely Bliss. I get what you mean.

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

I understand Bliss.
Mick was a young but somewhat educated fellow with two intelligent parents.
The free management fell to him because he believed in the Stones future and the other members didn't think much more than month to month. They were really hurting for money and top professional financial advice after several rip off situations. The immensely high British income tax of that time was a serious problem...and why they HAD to move to France.

Mick and Keith had their profitable publishing monies but Wyman, Watts and Taylor did not. It is accurate to say that Mick looked after them all as a fair and decent person who wanted his "big old band" to progress worldwide.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-10 23:48 by stonesrule.

I don't think Mick likes Bobby Keyes but Anita was the worst.

I add
John Belushi
John Phillips
gram parsons
stanley booth
nobody mentioned sister morphine

James Phelge

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Michael Cohl

Michael Cohl was far more harmful to us fans than he was to the Stones..........

Forget David Schneiderman, we dont know what he did and did not, he could easily have been part of the News of the world or something. Big deal, they needed the media and the media needed them.

Anita is by far the most controversial, just look at the death of Scott Cantrell. Yeah, she sure mindfxcked Brian and Keith. And no, Keith didnt resque her, she could and would have left Brian anytime if she wanted. She wasnt a housewife stuck in the suburbs.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Forget David Schneiderman, we dont know what he did and did not, he could easily have been part of the News of the world or something. Big deal, they needed the media and the media needed them.

The Glimmers had plenty of media publicity before the bust, and I doubt they were looking for more when they were facing prison time.

Probably should reconsider Tom Keylock.

[www.timesonline.co.uk]