"trabajaré" = "will work" not "will join"

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Do people really seriously think Mick would let a couple of stupid Keith quotes from a hack ass book,let him decide about a tour? Sure Mick's pissed. But all we know about is the public side of things. Doesn't anybody think that Mick already knew about Keith's main complaints long before they went to the publisher? Or got tipped off at some point as to what was in the book? Remember,solo projects or group efforts. Everything gets run thru the Stones PR machine. Their is absolutely no way Mick didn't know what was going to be in that book ahead of time......And their is no way he will let that get in the way of a final tour. Even more than the money to be made. I think Mick's ego doesn't want that to be his final legacy. That the Stones didn't do a 50th anniversary tour because Keith said he had a small dick?

with regards to your last statement (about legacy)...that point has already been made...by me. So..I think it's valid.

re: the other stuff......very likely that Mick knew...but making it public is a whole new ANIMAL.


IORR............but I like it!

I agree that the current situation has nothing to do with Keith's book. That's ridiculous, things have been bad for decades. Mick may indeed not want to tour with the Stones anymore, but not because of the book.

Let's post more stories like this one from now on: [www.artistdirect.com]

A way more pleasant read Credible? As credible as all the other BS, imo.

Quote
dcba
"trabajaré" = "will work" not "will join"

Exactly.

Spain73:

Would you mind adjusting your thread title? [Using the "Edit" button.]

The tread title

Quote
Jagger: "I don't know if I'll join Keith anymore".

appears a bit misleading in its present form.

ProudMary, I've not always agreed with everything you've written, but I must say your last two posts strike me as positively spot-on.

Doxa expanded on something Mick mentioned in the insightful LA Times piece about being the one to "babysit" the others (particularly Keith). Doxa extrapolated Mick telling Keith (in so many words) to find someone else to take care of him or grow up. While I don't pretend to think the actual exchange occurred, the gist of what was written seems an accurate assessment of the predicament Keith found himself in at that point in the eighties.

The role of caretaker shifted from Mick to Jane Rose with the crucial point that Mick had just fired Jane after the filming of "Blame It On the Night." I don't doubt that without Jane we might not have Keith alive today. I don't doubt that without Jane we wouldn't have had two excellent solo albums from Keith (with hopefully a third on the way), but we also wouldn't have had the growing animosity toward Mick. Jane established as early as 1986 that Keith's media relationship would be as the guy with the guts to air the dirty laundry about Mick.

That has grown more outrageous over the years from a mere annoyance like the knighthood and "Dogshit in the Doorway" (it's interesting that the album Keith bashes most of Mick's was the first one Mick released when Keith was no longer in competition with him as a solo artist) to intolerably personal.

As a sidenote on "Dogshit in the Doorway," I would also remark that Keith has a history of writing off his bandmate's work as "dogshit." UNDERCOVER, in retrospect, seems like the first album where Mick is ready to go solo. While Keith was, at the time, full of praise for most of Mick's work, Ronnie's composition, "Pretty Beat Up" was labelled "Dogshit" in the session log. From accounts of the sessions, Keith locked himself up in the studio to produce the (in my opinion, brilliant) "Feel On, Baby" but the majority of the album was driven by Mick (obvious exceptions are "Wanna Hold You" and at the outset, "Too Tough"). Keith didn't feel comfortable lashing out at Mick's dominance at the time (that would come later), but Ronnie (his former partner in crime and fellow New Barbarian) could be kicked to the ground for writing drivel. Ronnie became the outlet for Keith's frustration with Mick.

It's always interested me that "Pretty Beat Up" sounded like a poor quality demo graced with this wonderful saxophone solo and the song only realized its potential when Ronnie played it on his solo tour a decade later. It rather felt, unlike Ronnie's previous songwriting efforts, that it was never given the same opportunity to develop as a track as it should have. If it sounded anywhere near as polished as Ronnie's live version but with Sanborn's saxophone added, it would probably be regarded as an album highlight today. A strange aside perhaps, but one that I think mirrors the behavior we are discussing at length.

Quote
MartinB
I agree that the current situation has nothing to do with Keith's book. That's ridiculous, things have been bad for decades. Mick may indeed not want to tour with the Stones anymore, but not because of the book.

Yes, it's really Micks attitude and need to be independent and at the same time it's PR. Ticketsales are on once they announce they've made peace.

That said, I do think they had some kind of friendship in the 70s even after Exile. Some sort of bonding in 1977, right before Toronto, and again at Woodstock in the spring of 1978 when Keith tried to quit H again. When he finally quit heroin something must have happened (1980/1981) and maybe that's when Keith did or said something to Mick and vice versa. The ER sessions and before the 1981 tour.

They became business partners with contracts about Keiths solo spot and Mick probably just saw 1981/1982 as marketing for his solo career. He presented them as Mick Jagger and the RS didnt he. Much of the 25x5 video repaired the image of the Glimmer Twins who fight but still love one another dearly. Mick didnt have to crawl back to Keith. I actually believed it back then. You want to, when you are a teen.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Still, as a journalist myself, I find it very interesting how much of this crap (I'm thinking about the huge amount of very thin stories - often pure re-hashing - about the Mick and Keith-war) we actually trust and take as the truth as soon as they appear in the media.

Well, I'm a documentary filmmaker- the field close to journalism - so I see what you mean. But my point was that all that Mick's cock'n'balls BS brought Richards a lot of money. What, in fact, was his main intention. Well, and the opportunity to laugh at the expense of Mick ( the pleasure he has never denied)

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Let's post more stories like this one from now on: [www.artistdirect.com]

A way more pleasant read Credible? As credible as all the other BS, imo.

I'd say it is totally credible...the sound of Keith pedalling backwards.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
ProudMary, I've not always agreed with everything you've written, but I must say your last two posts strike me as positively spot-on.

Doxa expanded on something Mick mentioned in the insightful LA Times piece about being the one to "babysit" the others (particularly Keith). Doxa extrapolated Mick telling Keith (in so many words) to find someone else to take care of him or grow up. While I don't pretend to think the actual exchange occurred, the gist of what was written seems an accurate assessment of the predicament Keith found himself in at that point in the eighties.

The role of caretaker shifted from Mick to Jane Rose with the crucial point that Mick had just fired Jane after the filming of "Blame It On the Night." I don't doubt that without Jane we might not have Keith alive today. I don't doubt that without Jane we wouldn't have had two excellent solo albums from Keith (with hopefully a third on the way), but we also wouldn't have had the growing animosity toward Mick. Jane established as early as 1986 that Keith's media relationship would be as the guy with the guts to air the dirty laundry about Mick.

That has grown more outrageous over the years from a mere annoyance like the knighthood and "Dogshit in the Doorway" (it's interesting that the album Keith bashes most of Mick's was the first one Mick released when Keith was no longer in competition with him as a solo artist) to intolerably personal.

As a sidenote on "Dogshit in the Doorway," I would also remark that Keith has a history of writing off his bandmate's work as "dogshit." UNDERCOVER, in retrospect, seems like the first album where Mick is ready to go solo. While Keith was, at the time, full of praise for most of Mick's work, Ronnie's composition, "Pretty Beat Up" was labelled "Dogshit" in the session log. From accounts of the sessions, Keith locked himself up in the studio to produce the (in my opinion, brilliant) "Feel On, Baby" but the majority of the album was driven by Mick (obvious exceptions are "Wanna Hold You" and at the outset, "Too Tough"). Keith didn't feel comfortable lashing out at Mick's dominance at the time (that would come later), but Ronnie (his former partner in crime and fellow New Barbarian) could be kicked to the ground for writing drivel. Ronnie became the outlet for Keith's frustration with Mick.

It's always interested me that "Pretty Beat Up" sounded like a poor quality demo graced with this wonderful saxophone solo and the song only realized its potential when Ronnie played it on his solo tour a decade later. It rather felt, unlike Ronnie's previous songwriting efforts, that it was never given the same opportunity to develop as a track as it should have. If it sounded anywhere near as polished as Ronnie's live version but with Sanborn's saxophone added, it would probably be regarded as an album highlight today. A strange aside perhaps, but one that I think mirrors the behavior we are discussing at length.

IMO, Pretty Beat Up is awesome. I like Ronnie's versions too, but they don't hold a candle to the studio version. The vocals and the sax + the fantastic bass are lacking.

It's interesting that you know so much about the Undercover sessions. Why did Keith label the song Dogshit, do you know that? Or is that all you know? If the latter, it's a bit of a stretch speculating as you do, imo.

The band members internal humour and jokes are nothing but that, until proven otherwise, imo.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Still, as a journalist myself, I find it very interesting how much of this crap (I'm thinking about the huge amount of very thin stories - often pure re-hashing - about the Mick and Keith-war) we actually trust and take as the truth as soon as they appear in the media.

Well, I'm a documentary filmmaker- the field close to journalism - so I see what you mean. But my point was that all that Mick's cock'n'balls BS brought Richards a lot of money. What, in fact, was his main intention. Well, and the opportunity to laugh at the expense of Mick ( the pleasure he has never denied)

nor confirmed...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's interesting that you know so much about the Undercover sessions. Why did Keith label the song Dogshit, do you know that? Or is that all you know? If the latter, it's a bit of a stretch speculating as you do, imo. The band members internal humour and jokes are nothing but that, until proven otherwise, imo.

You are correct I am speculating on labelling "Pretty Beat Up" as "Dogshit." At the time, I thought of it as big brother-little brother humor. It wasn't until Keith used the same phrase with GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY that I thought twice about it. That said, like everyone else here (or nearly everyone, at any rate), I don't claim to be an insider. I'm just a fan speculating on what I've read or heard or seen just like everybody else.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's interesting that you know so much about the Undercover sessions. Why did Keith label the song Dogshit, do you know that? Or is that all you know? If the latter, it's a bit of a stretch speculating as you do, imo. The band members internal humour and jokes are nothing but that, until proven otherwise, imo.

You are correct I am speculating on labelling "Pretty Beat Up" as "Dogshit." At the time, I thought of it as big brother-little brother humor. It wasn't until Keith used the same phrase with GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY that I thought twice about it. That said, like everyone else here (or nearly everyone, at any rate), I don't claim to be an insider. I'm just a fan speculating on what I've read or heard or seen just like everybody else.

The big brother - little brother-theory seems very likely to me, but then again what do I know?

So we take a different perspective on it. Regardless, I've always enjoyed your posts and well-stated opinions for the past 14 years or thereabouts. It's sometimes hard to remember how long I've actually been on this board and when I first saw someone's username.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
So we take a different perspective on it. Regardless, I've always enjoyed your posts and well-stated opinions for the past 14 years or thereabouts. It's sometimes hard to remember how long I've actually been on this board and when I first saw someone's username.

Thanks, likewise. I think you're spot on with me anyway. I came here in 1997

As did I under the borrowed alias of a Moroccan percussionist. Although I think I lurked for the first year or so without posting. There are a few people out there who wish I would do so again.

Quote
dead.flowers

Quote
dcba
"trabajaré" = "will work" not "will join"

Exactly.

Spain73:

Would you mind adjusting your thread title? [Using the "Edit" button.]

The tread title

Quote
Jagger: "I don't know if I'll join Keith anymore".

appears a bit misleading in its present form.

DONE. Sorry. I thought "join" or "work with" weren't that different.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
As did I under the borrowed alias of a Moroccan percussionist. Although I think I lurked for the first year or so without posting. There are a few people out there who wish I would do so again.

Good to have you back, R! Have missed your beats

The thing about Jane Rose, Rocky - he is always Rocky Dijon for me - brought in, is a spot on. I never counted 'one plus one' but yeah, it really makes sense. And explains a lot.

Also very insightful and intersting what Rocky says about UNDERCOVER sessions. That album has been a kind of blind spot for me - very hard to try to make sense out of it, unlike, say, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, TATTOO YOU and then DIRTY WORK. If I believe my own 'analysis' (sometimes I don't), the band was after EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and Mick-ruled TATTOO YOU (that I think was done that way to keep the ego conflict out), and socially disaster 1981/82 tour in such a bad condition that making a brandnew Stones album, all them together, sounded a bit anomaly-like. I think Rocky's point of it being a kind of proto album for Jagger's solo career as a good way to look at it. He was testing there new ground, and supposedly for the last time, actually used the Stones as an organ to realize for his own artistic visions. Anyway, for some reason Mick and Keith tolerated quite alright each other then. Maybe Keith felt that if he now starts arguing too much with Mick, that will be the final nail in the coffin. I don't think any of them, including Keith, were so stupid at the time that they didn't know that there was the solo career option for Mick available (it didn't came out of blue). So when that actually happened, the hell broke free - I guess Keith, after 'behaving so well', felt like betrayed. And then we have Jane Rose there to advice him, etc.

Anyway, the point I have argued in several of my posts is that it was during the time frame from EMOTIONAL RESCUE session to the (planning?) of 1981 tour when Mick had enough of Keith, and made the decision - consciously or not - of the non-Keith-dependent future, and once made, there was no coming back. Jagger, if anyone, seems to be the kind of guy who does not look back or 'rethink' decisions. You once lost him, you will lost him for good. It is like he sings in the first composition he made solely by himself, "Who wants Yesterday's Papers, Who wants yesterday's girl?"...

If one wants to cynical, Keith can be considered one of those people Mick once found 'useful' for his career, but who, after the use running out, was thrown away. Gomelsky, Oldham, Brian Jones... I don't think the reality is so cruel or simple but I think that by the end of the 70's - especially having had a huge success with SOME GIRLS that was very much Mick's brain child artistically, and then having finished another huge seller, TATTOO YOU, just by himself - he felt strong or independent enough to make a career without Keith (that is, actually, Stones). Or it could be also that Mick didn't respect Keith's intuitions and musical compass any longer, and he had seen how much damage the dope had made to this once incredibly creative guy. He didn't artistically needed Keith any longer (I think the reason why Keith was so much tolareted during the early-mid 70's was that he, in the end, was the musical heart of the band, and the others, including Mick, needed him for that. It wasn't any charity. But by the early 80's the things had dramatically changed.)

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-05 18:29 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
The thing about Jane Rose, Rocky - he is always Rocky Dijon for me - brought in, is a spot on. I never counted 'one plus one' but yeah, it really makes sense. And explains a lot.

Also very insightful and intersting what Rocky says about UNDERCOVER sessions. That album has been a kind of blind spot for me - very hard to try to make sense out of it, unlike, say, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, TATTOO YOU and then DIRTY WORK. If I believe my own 'analysis' (sometimes I don't), the band was after EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and Mick-ruled TATTOO YOU (that I think was done that way to keep the ego conflict out), and socially disaster 1981/82 tour in such a bad condition that making a brandnew Stones album, all them together, sounded a bit anomaly-like. I think Rocky's point of it being a kind of proto album for Jagger's solo career as a good way to look at it. He was testing there new ground, and supposedly for the last time, actually used the Stones as an organ to realize for his own artistic visions. Anyway, for some reason Mick and Keith tolerated quite alright each other then. Maybe Keith felt that if he now starts arguing too much with Mick, that will be the final nail in the coffin. I don't think any of them, including Keith, were so stupid at the time that they didn't know that there was the solo career option for Mick available (it didn't came out of blue). So when that actually happened, the hell broke free - I guess Keith, after 'behaving so well', felt like betrayed. And then we have Jane Rose there to advice him, etc.

Anyway, the point I have argued in several of my posts is that it was during the time frame from EMOTIONAL RESCUE session to the (planning?) of 1981 tour when Mick had enough of Keith, and made the decision - consciously or not - of the non-Keith-dependent future, and once made, there was no coming back. Jagger, if anyone, seems to be the kind of guy who does not look back or 'rethink' decisions. You once lost him, you will lost him for good. It is like he sings in the first composition he made solely by himself, "Who wants Yesterday's Papers, Who wants yesterday's girl?"...

If one wants to cynical, Keith can be considered one of those people Mick once found 'useful' for his career, but who, after the use running out, was thrown away. Gomelsky, Oldham, Brian Jones... I don't think the reality is so cruel or simple but I think that by the end of the 70's - especially having had a huge success with SOME GIRLS that was very much Mick's brain child artistically, and then having finished another huge seller, TATTOO YOU, just by himself - he felt strong or independent enough to make a career without Keith (that is, actually, Stones). Or it could be also that Mick didn't respect Keith's intuitions and musical compass any longer, and he had seen how much damage the dope had made to this once incredibly creative guy. He didn't artistically needed Keith any longer (I think the reason why Keith was so much tolareted during the early-mid 70's was that he, in the end, was the musical heart of the band, and the others, including Mick, needed him for that. It wasn't any charity. But by the early 80's the things had dramatically changed.)

- Doxa

I remember your theory about ER and agree about this too. Mick is a utilizer, Keith liked to hang on the veranda at Nellcote strung out on smack. And it worked. Mick had to reinvent himself, which is good, it's a key to their success. I think Mick told Keith in 1980 that he wanted to go solo. This would explain the chemistry of the 1981 tour. Mick got his billboard and Keith had his solo spot.

It makes sense now. And it's easier to understand Keiths remarks.

Leave if you want to!
Leave in peace!
I won't miss you but I'll certainly miss the greatest rock and roll band on earth!

But Mick you aint never gonna be bigger than the Rolling Stones!

So leave in peace!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Quote
Fan Since 1964
Leave if you want to!
Leave in peace!
I won't miss you but I'll certainly miss the greatest rock and roll band on earth!

But Mick you aint never gonna be bigger than the Rolling Stones!

So leave in peace!

Ok!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-05 19:04 by Redhotcarpet.

I've been feeling much the same about Mick's attitude while listening to Super Heavy, and hearing how much Mick is clearly enjoying himself. Mick has always listened to all the new stuff, and being the brilliant mimic that he is, if he likes something, he thinks "I'd like to have a go at doing that..." And he does - all the way from singing La Bamba in mock-Spanish as a teenager to rapping in Sanskrit as a pensioner. And enjoys it very much - until the next new thing comes along that he'd like to try.

This has been very good for the Stones over the years - but it does mean that "yesterday's papers" get left behind, unless they are so commercially successful that they can't be ignored. For a long time, it was the music he and Keith made with the Stones that inspired him - and so they have been one of the most stylistically varied and innovative bands ever. But Mick seems to have come to regard working with the Stones as a kind of musical strait-jacket - a profitable one, but not really more than a tolerable way of earning the money to fund his newer but less commercial musical adventures like SuperHeavy and his film projects. The Stones have nothing new to offer him now, and Mick lives for the new.

This won't stop. Sooner or later the next big thing after SuperHeavy will come along, and SH will land in the Yesterdays Papers bin.

Re: Jagger: "I don't know if I'll join Keith anymore". Posted by: filstan ()
Date: October 5, 2011 04:12


Quote
headly123
I just finished keith's book and to be honest with you if I were jagger I wouldn't want to work with the prick either. What an arrognat squat Richard's turned out to be. My take on his book was if it weren't for him nothing would have happened with the Stones. He wrote all the songs and had some lines and turned them over to Mick ? WOW. According to Richards it was RICHARDS/jagger.
I don't believe a word he says about playing with Mick Taylor. He called the guy a nothing personality wise and from what I have seen on video of them playing he looked pretty jealous of Taylor's playing. Keith may have come up with some riffs but Taylor could play them better . He dumped all over Bill Wyman. The only half way decent thing he could say about him was looking back he was a pretty good bass player and he got me some herion while he was locked up and strung out.

I don't know what happneed to this guy but if the rest of the band never played with him again I can't say that I would blame any of them

You people are out of your minds reading anything into this BS line in the press. Who please can confirm that Mick actually said this, or that Mick was in way being serious? headly123, your take on Keith's book suggests you did not read it, but are just piling on since it obviously has become fashionable on this board to pound on Keith. Keith says so much more positive in the book about Jagger in his book than negative. Not even close. If you had really read the book you would know the difference. While I respect the right of others to air opinions I found your post to be distasteful. It also suggests you actually know little about this band based on the comments you have made.


Actually I could care less what you find distasteful. I know a lot about this band and if you want to stick up for Keith that is your right . I just didn't care for the tone or for a lot of things he said in it. That's my right. I read it. And I know what I read.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Still, as a journalist myself, I find it very interesting how much of this crap (I'm thinking about the huge amount of very thin stories - often pure re-hashing - about the Mick and Keith-war) we actually trust and take as the truth as soon as they appear in the media.

Well, I'm a documentary filmmaker- the field close to journalism - so I see what you mean. But my point was that all that Mick's cock'n'balls BS brought Richards a lot of money. What, in fact, was his main intention. Well, and the opportunity to laugh at the expense of Mick ( the pleasure he has never denied)

Your obsession with that 1 quote is nothing short of amazing. Why don't you do a documentary on the size of Mick's penis.

Great Thoughts Doxa. You articulated many things that I haven't been able to get out for a while now.

In regards specifically to this thread and it's new title and reflecting on what Doxa just posted (as well as what others have referred to in other posts regarding a potential ultimatum from Mick to Keith sometime around 1989), has Mick really worked with Keith all that much since the time of Steel Wheels or possibly Voodoo Lounge?

I've heard stories about Mick & Keith going away to write before Steel Wheels. There are stories of the entire band being together during the recording of Voodoo. After that we hear of two separate camps producing the Bridges album. I can't remember if there were full band sessions for the Licks tracks. For Bigger Bang am I correct in remembering that, when Keith showed up at Mick's house, Mick basically said, here's what I've got, you can add your parts, we don't need a studio, we can just do it on the computer.

We've heard many times that Mick plans the tours. Mick and Charlie work on the "design" aspects of Merchandise & Tour. Chuck L & Mick make out set lists that Keith approves. Mick (w/ Keith's approval/tolerance) has made Chuck L the onstage musical director.

Realistically speaking, when was the last time that Mick & Keith actually "worked together" in the past 20+ years? Up until the late 70's or early 80's, it seems the Rolling Stones were a band that, artistically, were led by the partnership of Jagger/Richards w/ the other band members as active participants contributing to the end result. Beginning in the late 70s/early 80s, for many well founded reasons, we seem to have had, except for possibly a few moments, a band that has been led on all fronts by the wants and desires of Mick Jagger w/ the rest of the band, Keith included, as components in the machine, so to speak.

Assuming any or all of this is true, I don't really want to find fault with or blame either Keith or Mick (or any of the others for that mater). It is what it is. Left w/ the 70s model of the Stones, we wouldn't be here now. However, for those of us who want another great album or a musically stimulating show/tour, I really believe that Mick & Keith should consider working with each other, as opposed to just simply playing the roles they've assigned/assumed for themselves over these last couple of decades.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Green Lady
I've been feeling much the same about Mick's attitude while listening to Super Heavy, and hearing how much Mick is clearly enjoying himself. Mick has always listened to all the new stuff, and being the brilliant mimic that he is, if he likes something, he thinks "I'd like to have a go at doing that..." And he does - all the way from singing La Bamba in mock-Spanish as a teenager to rapping in Sanskrit as a pensioner. And enjoys it very much - until the next new thing comes along that he'd like to try.

This has been very good for the Stones over the years - but it does mean that "yesterday's papers" get left behind, unless they are so commercially successful that they can't be ignored. For a long time, it was the music he and Keith made with the Stones that inspired him - and so they have been one of the most stylistically varied and innovative bands ever. But Mick seems to have come to regard working with the Stones as a kind of musical strait-jacket - a profitable one, but not really more than a tolerable way of earning the money to fund his

newer but less commercial musical adventures like SuperHeavy and his film projects. The Stones have nothing new to offer him now, and Mick lives for the new.

This won't stop. Sooner or later the next big thing after SuperHeavy will come along, and SH will land in the Yesterdays Papers bin.

Yes! He's become a mimic! Wow that is a surprise!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

>>The Stone (Ronnie), now 64, said the band were looking forward to next year’s anniversary – and dismissed suggestions of a permanent rift between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

He said: “We are all looking forward to it; we do not know what it is. I said to them we owe it to ourselves and the people to do something. We are just... whatever, we will find a way.

“I wish I could say. Anyway We had a great meeting the other week and we all got on great.”

[www.birminghammail.net]

[www.iorr.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-05 20:48 by open-g.

Quote
open-g
>>The Stone (Ronnie), now 64, said the band were looking forward to next year’s anniversary – and dismissed suggestions of a permanent rift between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

He said: “We are all looking forward to it; we do not know what it is. I said to them we owe it to ourselves and the people to do something. We are just... whatever, we will find a way.

“I wish I could say. We had a great meeting the other week and we all got on great.”

[www.birminghammail.net]

[www.iorr.org]

In the video he says - "anyway" and not "I wish I could say". There's a huge difference.

Quote
open-g
>>The Stone (Ronnie), now 64, said the band were looking forward to next year’s anniversary – and dismissed suggestions of a permanent rift between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

He said: “We are all looking forward to it; we do not know what it is. I said to them we owe it to ourselves and the people to do something. We are just... whatever, we will find a way.

“I wish I could say. We had a great meeting the other week and we all got on great.”

[www.birminghammail.net]

[www.iorr.org]

Hmmm... a bit different impression what Mick and Charlie have revealed of the nature of the meeting... but the info is the same: they will do something, but they don't know yet what, now just rosed with Ronnie's usual good temper optimism. I guess we will soon hear Keith's version of the meeting.

- Doxa