I'm still mulling over the Jane Rose thing. At first I thought..."Who could hold Keith back if he wanted to say something!" Followed shortly by "Well... Since she got fired by Mick (for whatever reason) so was probably pretty sore...but WHAT IF she had heard all manor or nasty things about Keith from Mick and vented all of this when Keith was just pissed off one day and fussing about Mick...Of course surely he would be curious "So... Jane...How does he really feel?"

That's my gossipy conjecture on it...but some of if feels awful right.

Mick fired Jane after his "Blame It On the Night" movie was made. I don't know that it was a question of fault. They were largely dismantling the Rolling Stones Records team at that time as the contract with EMI (Atlantic in the States) was ending and Jane Rose and Art Collins (who succeeded Earl McGrath) lost their jobs at the same time.

Keith immediately made the decision to hire Jane as his personal manager. I could only speculate here that possibly knowing that Mick was launching a solo career with the CBS deal might have made Keith believe he needed someone in his court alone to look after his interests and Jane was a known commodity who he felt he could trust. I would imagine that Prince Rupert was now looked upon as less than trustworthy to Keith since (justifiable or not) he felt terribly threatened by Mick going solo and all of the band's advisors were now viewed as "Mick's people."

That said, by the time DIRTY WORK was released the "Keith Richards Strikes Back" headlines begin in earnest and peak with the media coverage given to TALK IS CHEAP. At the time, it never occurred to me that the title seemed ironic in light of magazine articles like "Keith Richards' Revenge" which I believe was the Musician cover story in 1988. From that perspective LIFE is more of the same. I'm less inclined to accept Marianne Faithfull's theory that it was an editor looking for dirt that brought out the vitroil in the book so much as it was simply the latest round of volleys from the public image of Keith Richards, the guy who gets a Brass Balls Award from Spike TV for having the gaul to talk trash about Mick Jagger. That's really the only claim to rebellion he has left these days since real pirates don't dine with Bill Clinton.

From her interview in '25 x 5', I can see that Jane Rose is pretty intense. Maybe she challenged Mick's authority one too many times.

In vilifying Keith for his big mouth, you have to be fair. In 'Life', Keith states that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings. How disrespectful is that? He is saying that 'nothing you might have to say is of any value whatever'.

I personally do accept Marianne's view that the editor had the knives out for Mick for years. Jerry abandoned her autobiography after doing a lot of work on it because she said all the editors wanted was dirt on Mick.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
The situation between Mick and Keith during the EMOTIONAL RESCUE sessions is open to interpretation. Keith's view has always been that Mick resented him getting off smack and wanting to share the reins again. Mick has never said anything of the sort publicly to my knowledge.

Keith has also stated that he disagreed with the direction Mick was taking the band. Specifically, Keith cited songs like "Emotional Rescue" as an example of this. His criticism of SHE'S THE BOSS at the time of its release and now was that Mick's pursuit of trendy music would reflect poorly on the Stones. Nearly everyone around them at the time talked about the professional (rather than personal) disagreements over mixes that took up so much studio time from 1979 - 1983.

Keith may see the problem as Mick being a control freak, but it must be said that had Keith been enthusiastic about Mick's ideas, their collaboration would likely not have proven so difficult. It is probably equally valid to suggest that when Keith got off smack, he felt like asserting his authority and found fault in Mick's songwriting which did not require as much input from him as it had in the past. Whether one agrees with his criticism of the direction Mick took then (or now) as isn't really the issue so much as it was the fact that Keith became very vocal in his criticism of Mick (eventually going public with that criticism as time wore on) that is the real crux of their falling out.

In LIFE, Keith asks "where did my friend go?" The answer he doesn't want to acknowledge is that he drove him away by saying his work was crap. As much as I'm a fan of Keith's work with the Stones and with the Winos, I can't help but think that Jane Rose encouraging him to air dirty laundry about Mick in interviews starting in 1986 and growing exponentially in the 25 years since did the band a great deal of damage. Seen from that view, the todger line is just the tip of the iceberg.

+1. Interestingly, the first signs of Brian's big rift with Mick and Keith was over Satanic Majesty's, which he felt was detrimental to the Stones' integrity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-17 10:32 by Bliss.

Quote
NICOS

Quote
mickschix
Thanks, Saturn. I sometimes feel like I'm speaking Chinese here....I don't get why the majority of Stones fans aren't totally pissed at Keith for creating this situation in the first place. I really do want to just let it go....it is tiring.

Keith is Keith and Mick is Mick........I was fed up with some friends in the past (your not always get a long with each other) but real friends never dies and they are real friends

Still got to read LIVE....it's in my bookshelf for a year by now

Mickschix should I read it ....or not !!!!!

Hey Nic!! I read half of it!

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
I'm never sure I agree that things were as simple as saying Keith checked out during the worst of the junkie years. His creative processes were slowed considerably. He was seriously unreliable. That translated into a lot of sessions where everyone was waiting around for Keith to get it together, but he's all over the seventies albums.

He was still contributing riffs and toplines to give Mick the bare bones of songs. He was still heavily involved in arranging the tracks. He was certainly involved in production with Mick. The difference was he let Mick do the heavy lifting much of the time while he coasted. I don't think he was arguing too much provided he had another fix near at hand.

That's the change with the ER sessions. Suddenly, he's much more coherent and aggressive and very opinionated which likely caused culture shock for everyone, particularly Mick. Over time, that tension grew and grew until the CBS deal when suddenly you've got this weird love-hate relationship.

DIRTY WORK is the other weird one because for all the talk of Keith and Woody writing 80% of the songs and Mick not being in the studio at the same time or using a separate studio, there were times where they clicked. You can hear it on the acoustic songwriting demos from the start of the sessions and during mixing Ivan Neville talks about Mick and Keith dancing around the console when he overdubbed the bass lines on "Hold Back." Mick and Keith were also in the studio at the same time for at least some of the sessions with Bobby Womack. If you dig you'll find refernce to Mick praising Keith's lead guitar on "Winning Ugly." It wasn't all ugly all the time even though that became the way it's presented to the media. The push was to call DW Keith's album even though most of the final lyrics were Mick's. It's just one of those myths that becomes history because it's repeated enough.

true

Quote
Bliss
From her interview in '25 x 5', I can see that Jane Rose is pretty intense. Maybe she challenged Mick's authority one too many times.

In vilifying Keith for his big mouth, you have to be fair. In 'Life', Keith states that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings. How disrespectful is that? He is saying that 'nothing you might have to say is of any value whatever'.

I personally do accept Marianne's view that the editor had the knives out for Mick for years. Jerry abandoned her autobiography after doing a lot of work on it because she said all the editors wanted was dirt on Mick.

That is awful...however 1. We have to take Keith at his word and 2. He actually won't shut up, so telling him to do so is fruitless.

You see some of it in the press junket for DIRTY WORK. Mick, Keith, and Ronnie are doing an interview. Mick answers a question and Keith chimes in with "What I always say is..." and Mick snaps, "What is it, Keith?" really bitchy. Keith sort of half-laughs and feels stupid. Ronnie looks nervous and then Mick finally smiles while Keith answers. The fact that they really weren't getting along all the time is fairly evident.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Bliss
From her interview in '25 x 5', I can see that Jane Rose is pretty intense. Maybe she challenged Mick's authority one too many times.

In vilifying Keith for his big mouth, you have to be fair. In 'Life', Keith states that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings. How disrespectful is that? He is saying that 'nothing you might have to say is of any value whatever'.

I personally do accept Marianne's view that the editor had the knives out for Mick for years. Jerry abandoned her autobiography after doing a lot of work on it because she said all the editors wanted was dirt on Mick.

That is awful...however 1. We have to take Keith at his word and 2. He actually won't shut up, so telling him to do so is fruitless.

1. Yes, it could be that Keith's claim that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings might be false. Along with his claim that he screwed Marianne during Perfomance, and that he saw Muddy painting the ceiling at Chess Records.

2. But even if he wouldn't shut up, the discussions would have continued without anyone taking any notice of him, once Mick had told him to shut up.

I'm sure that they used to take swipes at each other in public, just like an old married couple but the time finally came when Mick reached his limit. The silence and lack of response to Keith's comments in LIFE spoke volumes! And that's not to say that the $$ won't get the best of Mick and he decides he can stand Keith one more time for one more tour. It would benefit all of us if this turns out to be true....but there's a part of me that wants Mick to say " I don't need the money that bad, buddy and unless you apologize publicly AND privately, I'm calling it a day!". That would show who really controls the band.

It takes two to tango - One can see that Mick thinks he shits ice cream!

Quote
Bliss

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Bliss
From her interview in '25 x 5', I can see that Jane Rose is pretty intense. Maybe she challenged Mick's authority one too many times.

In vilifying Keith for his big mouth, you have to be fair. In 'Life', Keith states that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings. How disrespectful is that? He is saying that 'nothing you might have to say is of any value whatever'.

I personally do accept Marianne's view that the editor had the knives out for Mick for years. Jerry abandoned her autobiography after doing a lot of work on it because she said all the editors wanted was dirt on Mick.

That is awful...however 1. We have to take Keith at his word and 2. He actually won't shut up, so telling him to do so is fruitless.

1. Yes, it could be that Keith's claim that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings might be false. Along with his claim that he screwed Marianne during Perfomance, and that he saw Muddy painting the ceiling at Chess Records.

2. But even if he wouldn't shut up, the discussions would have continued without anyone taking any notice of him, once Mick had told him to shut up.

Bit presumptuous of you with respect to item number 2, in that you're assuming that anyone was actually paying attention in the first place.

" SHITS ICE CREAM"???? Is that GOOD or BAD? I guess if the ice cream comes out of mick, it's good! !! I think Mick has wisely decided to sit out this TANGO!

Mickschix - I like Mick too he just bugs me with his arrogance sometimes

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Bliss

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Bliss
From her interview in '25 x 5', I can see that Jane Rose is pretty intense. Maybe she challenged Mick's authority one too many times.

In vilifying Keith for his big mouth, you have to be fair. In 'Life', Keith states that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings. How disrespectful is that? He is saying that 'nothing you might have to say is of any value whatever'.

I personally do accept Marianne's view that the editor had the knives out for Mick for years. Jerry abandoned her autobiography after doing a lot of work on it because she said all the editors wanted was dirt on Mick.

That is awful...however 1. We have to take Keith at his word and 2. He actually won't shut up, so telling him to do so is fruitless.

1. Yes, it could be that Keith's claim that Mick constantly told him to shut up in meetings might be false. Along with his claim that he screwed Marianne during Perfomance, and that he saw Muddy painting the ceiling at Chess Records.

2. But even if he wouldn't shut up, the discussions would have continued without anyone taking any notice of him, once Mick had told him to shut up.

Bit presumptuous of you with respect to item number 2, in that you're assuming that anyone was actually paying attention in the first place.

The point is, Sticky Fingers, that Keith claims that Mick discounted him publicly, ie, in front of others, repeatedly, undermining his value and credibility in front of people he worked with and who were on his payroll. That's a pretty serious accusation.

"Yeah, I think he went from his mom, to Anita, to Jane Rose, three very powerful tough women in his life"

That's precisely sth Mick never let happen (Mick ditched the "woman of his life" as soon she becomes an annoyance). Keith is and always will be a Mom's boy.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Mick fired Jane after his "Blame It On the Night" movie was made. I don't know that it was a question of fault. They were largely dismantling the Rolling Stones Records team at that time as the contract with EMI (Atlantic in the States) was ending and Jane Rose and Art Collins (who succeeded Earl McGrath) lost their jobs at the same time.

Keith immediately made the decision to hire Jane as his personal manager. I could only speculate here that possibly knowing that Mick was launching a solo career with the CBS deal might have made Keith believe he needed someone in his court alone to look after his interests and Jane was a known commodity who he felt he could trust. I would imagine that Prince Rupert was now looked upon as less than trustworthy to Keith since (justifiable or not) he felt terribly threatened by Mick going solo and all of the band's advisors were now viewed as "Mick's people."

That said, by the time DIRTY WORK was released the "Keith Richards Strikes Back" headlines begin in earnest and peak with the media coverage given to TALK IS CHEAP. At the time, it never occurred to me that the title seemed ironic in light of magazine articles like "Keith Richards' Revenge" which I believe was the Musician cover story in 1988. From that perspective LIFE is more of the same. I'm less inclined to accept Marianne Faithfull's theory that it was an editor looking for dirt that brought out the vitroil in the book so much as it was simply the latest round of volleys from the public image of Keith Richards, the guy who gets a Brass Balls Award from Spike TV for having the gaul to talk trash about Mick Jagger. That's really the only claim to rebellion he has left these days since real pirates don't dine with Bill Clinton.

A wonderful analysis. I think you really hit some deep truth here. To understand this day - 2011 - you really need to see what happened during the 80's; nothing has really changed in Keith Richards's life ever since. That's the very thing I learned from LIFE - it really stood out! That they - Mick and Keith, and especially the latter parasitic-like - still are in the same very barricades as they then were (and the modern Stones actually is like a theatre they act in without much heart or purpose - other than money and celebrityness). Anyway, it is almost funny how 'fooled' we fans were by the media and they, actually, by Keith's people (Rose), at the time (the 80's). It almost makes laugh to think how stupid or ignorant I was then (and seemingly on the Keith side of the story). But then again: how could I have known better?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-20 11:24 by Doxa.

Wonderful posts. Thanks. Another grit in the two black pearls of Keith is Jagger not taking Keiths sound more seriously. Which is the Stones sound.
It could be that Keith, the guitar player found something in 1968/1969 (listen to Gimme Shelter), a tone, his bent blues note. Because everytime he plays a solo to this day, still in 2007, you can hear that tone, that "false" bending blues note. Like he does it on purpose because now it doesnt mix very well with Jaggers style of delievering their old hits. Almost as if Jagger does what Jaggers feels like and Keiths happy to be invited on tour but he has to shut up, behave and let Mick do the PR and arrange the songs. Jagger, the social worker directing Keiths dysfunctional rock n roll family.

Quote
dcba
"Yeah, I think he went from his mom, to Anita, to Jane Rose, three very powerful tough women in his life"

That's precisely sth Mick never let happen (Mick ditched the "woman of his life" as soon she becomes an annoyance). Keith is and always will be a Mom's boy.

Keith said, "At home I do as I'm told, like any guy".

No mickschix you are defenitly not alone, apart from the "Life" saga I do not believe Keith can play anymore anyway, at least not decently or longer than a minute in one go. For aal those reasons I've advocated the idea for a final brand new studio album and concert WITHOUT Keith for the Rolling Stones (see my earlier posts for details).

Richards is now a recognized expert of Mick's cock.
Is not this hilarious?

Keith Richards Has Never Actually Seen Mick Jagger's 'Tiny Todger'
"I've only heard," Richards admits in this month's GQ. So, to update the Mick Jagger Todger Files: That's one secondhand vote for "tiny," and three, reportedly firsthand votes (from Pete Townshend, Jerry Hall, and a groupie) for "acceptable." Can we call it in Mick's favor at this point? Also, in case you're wondering, questioning the size of your buddy's manhood in a public forum is not a friendship-ending act, if you're in the Rolling Stones. "I really don't want to go into it anymore, because what is in the book is in the book, and the fact is that Mick and I still talk and are still working together," Keith says. "So maybe that was another balance that needed to be sorted out. Mick and me, two guys divided by love." Group hug.
[nymag.com]

Keith Richards On Mick’s Manhood
[abcnews.go.com]

Keith Richards talks about Mick Jagger penis
[www.examiner.com]

Breaking: Keith Richards On Jagger's "Tiny Todger"
[exclaim.ca]

I just searched for that part, too. I am not sure if I understand it right, when he says: " ..another balance that needed to be sorted out". Does that mean that he needed one more final bashing to get the right balance between him and Mick?
However, I don´t think that it is Keith who is thinking about an end of the band. Last year he said something like looking forward to June (this year) when asked about damages caused by his book. I think he is very surprised that this time Mick does not only roll his eyes keeps on as usual. And Keith does certainly not regret anything he has written, he still says that he only wrote the truth, and this is how brothers are, bla, bla.
I think it is Mick who is thinking about how to bring the baby to bed with dignity. I think the book caused the end of their friendship (the rest of what was there) and that Mick, at this age, prefers to work with people who appreciate him and his work, and does not want to repeat the 80ies.

Quote
proudmary
Richards is now a recognized expert of Mick's cock.
Is not this hilarious?

Keith Richards Has Never Actually Seen Mick Jagger's 'Tiny Todger'
"I've only heard," Richards admits in this month's GQ. So, to update the Mick Jagger Todger Files: That's one secondhand vote for "tiny," and three, reportedly firsthand votes (from Pete Townshend, Jerry Hall, and a groupie) for "acceptable." Can we call it in Mick's favor at this point? Also, in case you're wondering, questioning the size of your buddy's manhood in a public forum is not a friendship-ending act, if you're in the Rolling Stones. "I really don't want to go into it anymore, because what is in the book is in the book, and the fact is that Mick and I still talk and are still working together," Keith says. "So maybe that was another balance that needed to be sorted out. Mick and me, two guys divided by love." Group hug.
[nymag.com]

Keith Richards On Mick’s Manhood
[abcnews.go.com]

Keith Richards talks about Mick Jagger penis
[www.examiner.com]

Breaking: Keith Richards On Jagger's "Tiny Todger"
[exclaim.ca]

Good think Keith isn't actually on a bicycle or all the backpedalling he's doing now would have him crash.

What a goof.

I'd be happier if they didn't mention the subject any longer...obviously KR is trying to make amends in the press. Just makes him look like an idiot.

It's done, let's move on.

Quote
treaclefingers
It's done, let's move on.

Wishfull thinking

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

Quote
mickschix
I'm sure that they used to take swipes at each other in public, just like an old married couple but the time finally came when Mick reached his limit. The silence and lack of response to Keith's comments in LIFE spoke volumes! And that's not to say that the $$ won't get the best of Mick and he decides he can stand Keith one more time for one more tour. It would benefit all of us if this turns out to be true....but there's a part of me that wants Mick to say " I don't need the money that bad, buddy and unless you apologize publicly AND privately, I'm calling it a day!". That would show who really controls the band.

I don't sense that Mick actually does control the band -- he seems to control the business, but there's a difference.

Deb, if you're seeing this though, let me say I think Mick was awesome in the Live in Texas film -- just a riveting performance. He was fully engaged, powerful and a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

Well, it's a Pandora's box situation. I think Keith handled it as well as could be expected with GQ, but it's going to keep being The Question every journalist wants to ask either of them much to their chagrin. Imagine what a tour press conference would be like where they can't control the questions being asked.

That said, I still think what's happening now (or not happening) has been in the cards since at least the time of SHINE A LIGHT. Look back on what the UMG contract is about - exploiting the back catalog. The way forward was Deluxe Editions.

For various reasons (some of which we may never know) the plan was to break the pattern of studio album and world tour that had been routine since 1989. Patti's illness may have been the major reason all along for how this situation developed with the Deluxe Editions and Keith's decision to write a book (or at least follow through with it). Look back to 2008, shortly after the release of SHINE A LIGHT where was Mick? In the studio starting the SuperHeavy project. Nothing has changed over the past few years. When A BIGGER BANG finally wrapped, they went into a different mode. The trouble is we're so accustomed to the studio album and world tour routine, we look to the controversy caused by Keith's book in 2010 as an answer to why the pattern was broken two years earlier.

Prince Rupert's departure and the breakdown in the relationship with Michael Cohl are both huge factors that shouldn't be discounted. As much as Stu was treated by Keith as the glue that was missing in the mid-eighties, having Keith (via Jane) aligned with William Morris (The PIRATES sequels, LIFE, and the various awards - generally unknown job of publicists with aging celebrity clients is to transition them to awards when other work becomes scarce because of age or health) and having Mick aligned with Irving Azoff is a further wedge between them. Contrast that with the twenty years before it where Prince Rupert and Cohl were both always eager to package another world tour so much so that Mick and Keith both jettisoned solo albums in 1996 because the rest of the band agreed to follow Prince Rupert and Cohl's advice that 1997 wasn't too soon to head back on the road. STEEL WHEELS was the cash cow reunion tour and amazingly they repeated the same trick (with nearly identical set lists and results) four more times. Going the high-priced nostalgia route made them phenomenally wealthier, but it also robbed them of their muse and their confidence in presenting new material before the public. Had they continued to truly function as a band in the studio after VOODOO LOUNGE, the results might have been different.

IMHO, the blame is probable about equal (like most marriages, divorces, businesses gone bad, etc.).

It would have to be a real pain in the ass to work with either of these egos. Much less for 50 years. They are both starting to act like Eltonesque Prima Donnas.

Hope they forgive one more time and go out with "The Biggest Bang" -in other words, a great album to finish a (mostly) stellar career.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-20 21:45 by Elmo Lewis.

THABO, it's great to be in such great company with fans who share my views on this very worn out topic.....I'm not so sure we'll ever see a new Stones cd with NEW material written by Mick and Keith. How would they be able to put it all aside and actually write together? I do wonder what Keith really thinks now, after thedust has settled....as he sits alone and has time to think how things might be different if he'd chosen his words more wisely...or perhaps he really has NO regrets at all.

Quote
mickschix
How would they be able to put it all aside and actually write together?

Easy. You shouldn't take it so hard




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

Eltonesque Prima Donnas.

Now that's funny