Keith meanwhile does nothing <rebelrebel>

Imo he did more than enough: The man is a (retired) living legend.
He owes us nothing.

Really? What does he do for the band?

Quote
Amsterdamned
Keith meanwhile does nothing <rebelrebel>

Imo he did more than enough: The man is a (retired) living legend.
He owes us nothing.

I agree he doesn't owe us anything, but it's ludicrous that so many people on here are bashing Mick for doing something while praising Keith for sitting around waiting for everyone else.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Really? What does he do for the band?

1963-2007, that's 44 years of duty, bringing joy and he inspired zillions of people.
Besides he was a great guitarist /songwriter.


That's enough to me.

They're all doing what they want to do. Nothing new, it's always been this way.

Mick's doing SH
Keith raising lemons and doing nothing else
Charlie's going for his horses and somtimes ABC&D
Ronnie is playing whith every one who pulls him on stage.

With me that's fine, thinking they're all in their late 60's.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Really? What does he do for the band?

1963-2007, that's 44 years of duty, bringing joy and he inspired zillions of people.
Besides he was a great guitarist /songwriter.


That's enough to me.

That's not what I mean. If this is Keith's band he is the leader. So why doesn't he lead. Did he ever do a set list? And it's his band? Don't make me laugh

Quote
Amsterdamned
Keith meanwhile does nothing <rebelrebel>

Imo he did more than enough: The man is a (retired) living legend.
He owes us nothing.

Quite. Did, not does.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Really? What does he do for the band?

1963-2007, that's 44 years of duty, bringing joy and he inspired zillions of people.
Besides he was a great guitarist /songwriter.


That's enough to me.

That's not what I mean. If this is Keith's band he is the leader. So why doesn't he lead. Did he ever do a set list? And it's his band? Don't make me laugh

He does lead....them into retirement

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Really? What does he do for the band?

1963-2007, that's 44 years of duty, bringing joy and he inspired zillions of people.
Besides he was a great guitarist /songwriter.


That's enough to me.

That's not what I mean. If this is Keith's band he is the leader. So why doesn't he lead. Did he ever do a set list? And it's his band? Don't make me laugh

Maybe he had enough, I cannot help it.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Fan Since 1964

Quote
stonesrule
Do you think that Keith is the person the mass audience remembers? As opposed to Mick?

There was a time when many people thought of Mick and Keith as "the glimmer twins" but that was when Keith was really playing.

Yes I believe the masses will remember Keith far more and longer than Mick!
Because Keith stayed authentic in his role as a rock and roll star.
Jagger has become a opportunist celebraty that will be forgotten soon after the Rolling Stones has broke up! Keith on the other hand will keep his reputation as a true rock and roller!

Been stoned since 1964 and still not grown up? Come on, all these stereotypes like Keith - authentic Rock'n'Roller and Mick - businessman and opportunist celeb belong in teen music mags. Keith accepts every buck of income from the Stones just as wholeheartedly as Mick or the other band members.

The one that is doing it for the money is exclusively Mick Jagger! He won't do anything without earning loads of bucks. Yes he (MJ) is a business man and only that nothing else. He has forgotten all about rock and roll and what the Stones once started from!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Jagger and Richards are certainly partners, but they are hardly equals. Jagger has been the driving force for the recent tours, album restorations, etc. Richards appears to be along for the road - at worse, he's the classic back-seat driver. The idea that the Stones are Keith's band - Stu's band - romantic nonsense.

Quote
Fan Since 1964
The one that is doing it for the money is exclusively Mick Jagger! He won't do anything without earning loads of bucks. Yes he (MJ) is a business man and only that nothing else. He has forgotten all about rock and roll and what the Stones once started from!

So would you be happy if Mick went solo & played smaller venues like Bill's doing?

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Fan Since 1964
The one that is doing it for the money is exclusively Mick Jagger! He won't do anything without earning loads of bucks. Yes he (MJ) is a business man and only that nothing else. He has forgotten all about rock and roll and what the Stones once started from!

So would you be happy if Mick went solo & played smaller venues like Bill's doing?

I would be happy if the Stones put it together for one more trip around the world.
I sincerely hope they would do both stadiums and smaller venues!
What Mick does besides the Stones is nothing of interest from me. Especially not the latest sidekick band he has been forming.

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Quote
Fan Since 1964

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Fan Since 1964

Quote
stonesrule
Do you think that Keith is the person the mass audience remembers? As opposed to Mick?

There was a time when many people thought of Mick and Keith as "the glimmer twins" but that was when Keith was really playing.

Yes I believe the masses will remember Keith far more and longer than Mick!
Because Keith stayed authentic in his role as a rock and roll star.
Jagger has become a opportunist celebraty that will be forgotten soon after the Rolling Stones has broke up! Keith on the other hand will keep his reputation as a true rock and roller!

Been stoned since 1964 and still not grown up? Come on, all these stereotypes like Keith - authentic Rock'n'Roller and Mick - businessman and opportunist celeb belong in teen music mags. Keith accepts every buck of income from the Stones just as wholeheartedly as Mick or the other band members.

The one that is doing it for the money is exclusively Mick Jagger! He won't do anything without earning loads of bucks. Yes he (MJ) is a business man and only that nothing else. He has forgotten all about rock and roll and what the Stones once started from!

rock n roll isn't what is was "once started from" anymore.

Why on earth are always these arguments/threads popping up whether the Rolling Stones are Mick's or Keith's band?
Since a long time ago, such arrangements whether they will go on the road or not or what they will and should do are being thoroughly planned by the lawyers of each band member, at least Mick and Keith. And when it would be time to run the show again and they are healthy enough to roll out then they might do it.

And in my oppinion the book Life of Keith didn't change that much of any attitude either. At least if you read it really he even admitted that he was not even able to take any lead on the band during the seventies into very early eightees. If Mick and Charly and also Ronnie and Bill wouldn't have been there to keep that thing going it would have been gone before Some Girls.

Understand correctly Keith has been a great and valuable guitar player to rock and roll and blues and he did invent music differently. But without Mick he would play in a lonesome pub boozed in Richmond while Mick would be successfull in economics. So if the pull was there. Keith was pulled by Mick and not vice versa.

They are not Keith's nor Brian's or Stu's but our band man! Now having said that, the Stones are a band after all, the collective elements of which make for a cohesive (most of the time) and unique sound. Remove any one element and the dynamic changes, sometimes not for the better.

Quote
Stones62
They are not Keith's nor Brian's or Stu's but our band man! Now having said that, the Stones are a band after all, the collective elements of which make for a cohesive (most of the time) and unique sound. Remove any one element and the dynamic changes, sometimes not for the better.

"A band that doesn't tour isn't a band"
Keith Richards

In that case I still believe they'll be a band at some point next year ;^)

Quote
Spud
In that case I still believe they'll be a band at some point next year ;^)

..and I believe in Father Christmas...

Quote
Roadster32

Quote
Spud
In that case I still believe they'll be a band at some point next year ;^)

..and I believe in Father Christmas...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-27 19:46 by Sleepy City.

Me too [he's bringing me an orange & shiny new penny this year as usual]

Not interested in all the speculation and second guessing. I just think there's a lot of b*llocks been talked by folks on both sides of the "will they, won't they" debate.

I think it more likely that they'll do someting than not.

Quote
stonesrule
Do you think that Keith is the person the mass audience remembers? As opposed to Mick?

There was a time when many people thought of Mick and Keith as "the glimmer twins" but that was when Keith was really playing.

+ 1

Quote
Spud
Me too [he's bringing me an orange & shiny new penny this year as usual]

Not interested in all the speculation and second guessing. I just think there's a lot of b*llocks been talked by folks on both sides of the "will they, won't they" debate.

I think it more likely that they'll do someting than not.

Pretty sure they'll so something, but together???

Quote
Roadster32

Quote
Spud
Me too [he's bringing me an orange & shiny new penny this year as usual]

Not interested in all the speculation and second guessing. I just think there's a lot of b*llocks been talked by folks on both sides of the "will they, won't they" debate.

I think it more likely that they'll do someting than not.

Pretty sure they'll so something, but together???

I'm a long standing Keith fan but the fact of the matter has always been that, to the casual punter, that there Mick Jagger is the Rolling Stones ;^)

Quote
Roadster32

Quote
Stones62
They are not Keith's nor Brian's or Stu's but our band man! Now having said that, the Stones are a band after all, the collective elements of which make for a cohesive (most of the time) and unique sound. Remove any one element and the dynamic changes, sometimes not for the better.

"A band that doesn't tour isn't a band"
Keith Richards

More to the point, a band that doesn't play together isn't a band.

Quote
Stones62

Quote
Roadster32

Quote
Stones62
They are not Keith's nor Brian's or Stu's but our band man! Now having said that, the Stones are a band after all, the collective elements of which make for a cohesive (most of the time) and unique sound. Remove any one element and the dynamic changes, sometimes not for the better.

"A band that doesn't tour isn't a band"
Keith Richards

More to the point, a band that doesn't play together isn't a band.

What about if it has one member overdubbing songs from 30 or 40 years ago?

Everybody loves Keith but I have never known of him ever being the go too guy when things were bad. The guy that would say "follow me" like a captain of a sports team. Yes, Keith is a showman, a great songwriter and guitarist. But when it come down to someone to lead the band through dark times it has always been Mick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-27 21:22 by More Hot Rocks.

I think "The Rolling Stones" are Keith's band and Mick's business venture. At least currently.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I think Keith was the heart and soul of this band - not so much recently though.

Many more people know who Mick is than will ever know who Keith is.

I can hardly remember what I read in Keith's book.
It turned me off in many ways. Because Keith is an intelligent person and he doesn't need the money or the ego trip.

He's also a reader and he wouldn't put up with a book like this written by someone else. Clearly, he doesn't remember many of the tours. I thought the best truths were those delivered by Marlon, and he was definitely helping out Dad whether he wanted to or not.

As the numerous writers in the IORR forum know, you have to be COMPELLED to write a book. The money is seldom great unless you're willing to exaggerate and offer plenty of dirt. Writing eight hours a day, more or less, is what it takes and if you're dedicated, you write and re-write a lot to capture precisely what it is you want to convey to give a true sense of the person you're writing about. And of the times as things kept changing. Worst of all, you have to read all those chapters over and over.

I was sincerely happy for Keith that his book has been a major success; after all, when publishers pay millions they also spend plenty to promote. These days, if there is not a huge promotion budget, it's an act of God for it to be a success.

But can't believe in his heart of hearts he feels his is a great book.

Keith has health issues and the fire in his belly just isn't there and hasn't been for quite some time to play for love of playing. Mick has covered for him so many times -- on stage and off and in the actual songwriting.

But Mick is a grown up and he's come through a hell of a lot. Keith has been coddled and enabled for more than 40 years.

I wept when I was told that Keith was going to be operated on after the Fiji incident. I said little prayers for him and his family. I recalled the best of Keith as a person and musician and I will always wish him well.

But please less Mick vs. Keith posts. Great music is not about competition. It's about being an ensemble.

I am now removing myself from my soapbox for at least an hour.