Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3
Keith New Yorker Nov. 2010 article
Posted by: Maindefender ()
Date: December 20, 2017 18:32

Sorry if already posted

[www.newyorker.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-26 08:17 by bv.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: spikenyc ()
Date: December 20, 2017 19:03

Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: Maindefender ()
Date: December 20, 2017 23:06

true

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: December 21, 2017 00:53

Quote
spikenyc
Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

So the quote....'have nor written a song of any consequence for over 30 years...'
Should now read 37 YEARS.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Date: December 21, 2017 01:11

Quote
jlowe
Quote
spikenyc
Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

So the quote....'have nor written a song of any consequence for over 30 years...'
Should now read 37 YEARS.

Crosseyed Heart..

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: December 21, 2017 01:29

Thanks, I don't recall reading this - lots of good stuff in there, and lots has happened since then!

"The distinctiveness of the Stones was due less to Jagger’s vocals than to Richards’s capacity to ingest the blues-guitar styles of Chuck Berry and Jimmy Reed and create something new.
There were far better technicians than Richards, far better soloists, but his sense of rhythm and riff and taste, his signature sustained chords and open spaces, gave the band its sound".


thumbs up

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: Koen ()
Date: December 21, 2017 02:43

Quote
spikenyc
Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

Hence the “sorry if already posted, (but I am too damn lazy to look it up)”

smoking smiley

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: bitusa2012 ()
Date: December 21, 2017 03:40

I, for one, am glad this was posted. I have never read this piece before. Thanks MainDefender!

Rod

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: Maindefender ()
Date: December 21, 2017 05:54

Quote
Koen
Quote
spikenyc
Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

Hence the “sorry if already posted, (but I am too damn lazy to look it up)”

smoking smiley

Lol.....

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: December 21, 2017 07:00

This article does a pretty devastating job breaking down how blissfully unscathed Keith has glided through life, with an almost sociopathic lack of accountability.

I love the guy, but there's a real dark, disturbing streak through his entire life.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: December 21, 2017 07:55

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
jlowe
Quote
spikenyc
Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

So the quote....'have nor written a song of any consequence for over 30 years...'
Should now read 37 YEARS.

Crosseyed Heart..

Released in 2015... but written when?

And what was of consequence of it? What is the Rolling Stones fandom endlessly talking about from this release, specifically, that adds to the canon?

What is there that makes it... a classic?

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: December 21, 2017 11:57

Quote
keefriff99
I love the guy, but there's a real dark, disturbing streak through his entire life.

Yeah that's the very definition of an artist... winking smiley An artist is a sociopath, an artist is an outsider, an artist is not compelled to like the society he lives in, an artist has a "Guy Fawkes" side to him (as in "let's blow up this sh!tty world").

Keith Richards is an artist. Mick is an extremely talented songwriter and an amazingly talented performer.

I'm always amazed by the sight of people going to museums to wathc the works of dead artists. Have they got any idea they look at the work of people who were deeply depressed, clinically mad, at war with their times/disgusted by the society they lived in, etc etc...?

People who queue en masse at teh entrance of museums probably don't realize that, do they? winking smiley



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-21 12:40 by dcba.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Date: December 21, 2017 12:09

Quote
stonehearted
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Quote
jlowe
Quote
spikenyc
Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

So the quote....'have nor written a song of any consequence for over 30 years...'
Should now read 37 YEARS.

Crosseyed Heart..

Released in 2015... but written when?

And what was of consequence of it? What is the Rolling Stones fandom endlessly talking about from this release, specifically, that adds to the canon?

What is there that makes it... a classic?

Most of the material was fresh. A couple of songs (Trouble and Nothing On Me date back from the Licks-era).

Lover's Plea, Suspicious, Amnesia, Robbed Blind, Blues In The Morning (I could go on and on) all add to the canon. Compared with the latter day-output from the Stones, these songs certainly hold their own.

One may dislike CH, but there is no way around the album being a vast collection of music that Stones fans love (some may have a beef with the excecution of it, though). We haven't really gotten that since Tattoo You, except for Talk Is Cheap and Wandering Spirit, imo.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: December 21, 2017 17:08

keefriff99
This article does a pretty devastating job breaking down how blissfully unscathed Keith has glided through life, with an almost sociopathic lack of accountability.

I love the guy, but there's a real dark, disturbing streak through his entire life.





I agree Keefriff99 and for me personally that's part of Keith's charm.

If he were like Paul McCartney for instance, whiter than white, ( although actually Paul is not ) i don't think Keith would receive as much love, affection and fanatical devotion from fans.

Keith has flaws in his nature, he shows vulnerability, Jealousy and selfishness, while at the same time he doesn't attempt to hide it, he's not afraid to say what he really thinks or do an interview drunk or high because he always remains aware and present. He just is what he is warts and all, and he's not going to be apologetic about what he is, or about his behavior in the past. This is unusual and refreshing from such a high profile A list legend, i can't think of another man quite like Keith.
The attention and awe that surrounds Keith is no big surprise in this respect, he strolls effortlessly through life like the world is his stage, had he only penned a couple of hit songs in his life i'm sure his personality and devilish charm would have taken him a long way regardless.

Keith seems to have a way of carefully crafting and plotting his way through life as if he actually were the devil lol, everything he does seems to turn to gold, it's as though everything he does is for a reason while at the same time giving the impression of being carefree and spontaneous, its a clever trick (or is it.) Just as it appears to be a miracle that Keith is still with us, sometimes Keith gives us a clue as to why he is still alive and kicking, its of no surprise to the man himself, he says he is never a pig in anything he does, and that's the trick. Keith doesn't try to get higher than high, he's just happy with high. He doesn't try to hard to be anything, he just is.

He's a bit like you and i in some ways, you get the feeling he's one of us, still the fan, he himself still can't believe he is Keith Richards the legendary rock star, he never gets tired of it and its etched all over his face when he cracks that larger than life smile that fills the stadium. He's real, authentic, accessible, he doesn't avoid awkward questions, he's deliriously inappropriate, Ok recently he's toned it down a bit and learned to be a bit more PC, probably because he doesn't want to cause unnecessary embarrassment to his family, but i firmly believe that Keith is still the original badass at heart..

He does however love to be loved, that's clear from all those times he almost encourages the standing ovation he often gets when Mick introduces him to the audience.

I think Keith's light far outweighs his darkness, but as the lyrics suggest on the last track on Main Offender , Demon , he sings "There's a demon in me and i can't live without it"

Its as though he gave up trying to rid himself of his demons, he's made a deal with them, they with live with him in harmony now, Keith these days looks to have found the perfect combination of lightness and darkness. One love.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: exilestones ()
Date: December 21, 2017 17:37

Quote
spikenyc
Thx for posting but this is from 7 years ago.

That is what is so great about the Rolling Stones; a rich history and many things that we've never seen before. Being a Stones fan can easily last a life time. IS that your point too?

Thanks for posting.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: December 21, 2017 18:28

Quote
stone4ever
He's real, authentic, accessible, he doesn't avoid awkward questions, he's deliriously inappropriate,

"Q - do you remember the 1st time you took heroin?

KR - yeah I threw up."

I've always loved that one!

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: keefriff99 ()
Date: December 21, 2017 18:36

Hey, I never read the article upon it's release, and it was fantastic, so thanks for the post, 7 years old or not.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: December 21, 2017 20:23

Quote
dcba
Quote
keefriff99
I love the guy, but there's a real dark, disturbing streak through his entire life.

Yeah that's the very definition of an artist... winking smiley An artist is a sociopath, an artist is an outsider, an artist is not compelled to like the society he lives in, an artist has a "Guy Fawkes" side to him (as in "let's blow up this sh!tty world").

Keith Richards is an artist. Mick is an extremely talented songwriter and an amazingly talented performer.

I'm always amazed by the sight of people going to museums to wathc the works of dead artists. Have they got any idea they look at the work of people who were deeply depressed, clinically mad, at war with their times/disgusted by the society they lived in, etc etc...?

People who queue en masse at teh entrance of museums probably don't realize that, do they? winking smiley

If you're going to put it like that, there's not much difference in people listening to old records from dead artists. Or paying to hear an orchestra performing Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, etc.

And by the way, your stereotyping of all artists is funny, yet as a visual artist myself there are some grains of truth in there.winking smiley

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: December 21, 2017 21:43

Quote
keefriff99
This article does a pretty devastating job breaking down how blissfully unscathed Keith has glided through life, with an almost sociopathic lack of accountability.

I love the guy, but there's a real dark, disturbing streak through his entire life.

This is very true and a side to his personality that had not been explored by the biographers.
It's been said before that at least half of CEO's could be diagnosed as having serious personality disorders. Sometimes when you hear Keith talk the 'bubble' in his gilded life is still very apparant and of course Addicts (of which Keith has been and may still be in terms of alcohol) are very selfish by nature.
Of course, most people can never be pigeon holed quite so easily. (check out books on Brian Jones and Charlie Parker, for example).

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: December 22, 2017 14:02

I often think its a shame Keith doesn't have a more active song writing partner in the Stones over the last decade or so to push him on. Its clear from Crosseyed Heart ( whether you like it or not, weather you like Keith singing or not ) that Keith still has his musical genius in tact, but Keith is lazy and Mick is disinterested in working with him ( probably due to Micks writers block ), i feel its a terrible waste of talent that Keith has not made more music and collaborations recently.
Crosseyed Heart surprised me, its as good as anything Keith has written since Tattoo You and i'm sure he has lots left in the can. Perhaps Keith should give Steve Jordan another ring sometime soon. This new Stones album is taking an eternity to finish for some reason. Probably down to Mick imho.
Its time for Keith to move on now, Mick's dried up creatively, it has to be said.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Date: December 22, 2017 14:23

Quote
stone4ever
I often think its a shame Keith doesn't have a more active song writing partner in the Stones over the last decade or so to push him on. Its clear from Crosseyed Heart ( whether you like it or not, weather you like Keith singing or not ) that Keith still has his musical genius in tact, but Keith is lazy and Mick is disinterested in working with him ( probably due to Micks writers block ), i feel its a terrible waste of talent that Keith has not made more music and collaborations recently.
Crosseyed Heart surprised me, its as good as anything Keith has written since Tattoo You and i'm sure he has lots left in the can. Perhaps Keith should give Steve Jordan another ring sometime soon. This new Stones album is taking an eternity to finish for some reason. Probably down to Mick imho.
Its time for Keith to move on now, Mick's dried up creatively, it has to be said.

I think Keith has done work with both Steve Jordan and Don Was for the forthcoming Stones album.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: December 22, 2017 16:37

Further proof that Mick is no longer a viable co writer for Keith. MICK'S RUNNING FROM KEITH. Mick prabably knows he's washed up creatively and doesn't want Keith to witness it in such a raw state. It's sad for Mick to end such a creative career this way but it happens to most artists this late in life. Keith is the exception along with people like Dylan.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: December 22, 2017 18:21

Howdy stone4ever - good to see you back. thumbs up

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: MisterDDDD ()
Date: December 22, 2017 18:33

Quote
stone4ever
Further proof that Mick is no longer a viable co writer for Keith. MICK'S RUNNING FROM KEITH. Mick prabably knows he's washed up creatively and doesn't want Keith to witness it in such a raw state. It's sad for Mick to end such a creative career this way but it happens to most artists this late in life. Keith is the exception along with people like Dylan.

Sure, but I bet he can spell "probably". cool smiley
#Troll

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: December 22, 2017 18:47

Quote
Hairball
Howdy stone4ever - good to see you back. thumbs up

Cheers Hairball, it's good to be back.
I see MisterDDDD forgot we were friends again. I think it's right to comment on Mick being able to write just three or four below par songs in 11 years. Hardly troll like behaviour, it's a concern for a diehard fan like me. Hope Mick proves me wrong though, can't wait for the new album if it ever gets finished.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: MisterDDDD ()
Date: December 22, 2017 19:36

Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Hairball
Howdy stone4ever - good to see you back. thumbs up

Cheers Hairball, it's good to be back.
I see MisterDDDD forgot we were friends again. I think it's right to comment on Mick being able to write just three or four below par songs in 11 years. Hardly troll like behaviour, it's a concern for a diehard fan like me. Hope Mick proves me wrong though, can't wait for the new album if it ever gets finished.

I'm friendly with lots of trolls, stone4..


Merry Xmas/Happy Holidays to you and yours.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-22 19:41 by MisterDDDD.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: December 22, 2017 22:01

Quote
MisterDDDD
Quote
stone4ever
Quote
Hairball
Howdy stone4ever - good to see you back. thumbs up

Cheers Hairball, it's good to be back.
I see MisterDDDD forgot we were friends again. I think it's right to comment on Mick being able to write just three or four below par songs in 11 years. Hardly troll like behaviour, it's a concern for a diehard fan like me. Hope Mick proves me wrong though, can't wait for the new album if it ever gets finished.

I'm friendly with lots of trolls, stone4..


Merry Xmas/Happy Holidays to you and yours.

Haha Misterddd that's cool. Happy Christmas and New Year to you too my friend.smiling smileysmileys with beer

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: December 22, 2017 22:54

There are some comments above about how Keith still has it creatively, but Mick doesn't. I don't get that.

Keith's solo album Crosseyed Heart, in fact all his solo albums, wouldn't even have been possible without Steve Jordan. And Mick's recent single was Jagger/Clifford.

Perhaps these guys are just used to being band members so much and for so long that they really can't write solo material on their own. I don't know, does Bob Dylan work that way? Either you're a songwriter, or you're a doodler whose ideas can never be complete without someone else to add the finishing touches.

Jagger and Richards used to work that way together, each being the other's quality control so to speak.

But the new Stones album -- which has been new for so long it'll be old before it's even released -- will never truly be a Rolling Stones album, but more of a self-tribute album instead.

The songs that are brought in will be Jagger/Clifford and Richards/Jordan. If you have to order out to cook up the house menu, then it's no longer the classic hamburger joint you ate at as a kid -- it's McDonald's.

Enjoy your new order of re-heated Rolling McStones.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: stone4ever ()
Date: December 23, 2017 00:48

Quote
stonehearted
There are some comments above about how Keith still has it creatively, but Mick doesn't. I don't get that.

Keith's solo album Crosseyed Heart, in fact all his solo albums, wouldn't even have been possible without Steve Jordan. And Mick's recent single was Jagger/Clifford.

Perhaps these guys are just used to being band members so much and for so long that they really can't write solo material on their own. I don't know, does Bob Dylan work that way? Either you're a songwriter, or you're a doodler whose ideas can never be complete without someone else to add the finishing touches.

Jagger and Richards used to work that way together, each being the other's quality control so to speak.

But the new Stones album -- which has been new for so long it'll be old before it's even released -- will never truly be a Rolling Stones album, but more of a self-tribute album instead.

The songs that are brought in will be Jagger/Clifford and Richards/Jordan. If you have to order out to cook up the house menu, then it's no longer the classic hamburger joint you ate at as a kid -- it's McDonald's.

Enjoy your new order of re-heated Rolling McStones.

Hi Stonehearted, just one question for you.
What did Steve Jordan ever write without Keith that stands alongside anything Keith wrote himself, or Keith with Steve, or Keith with Mick or anyone else ?
Mick and Keith are two of the greatest Rock Pop artists, writers the world has ever seen. Sure Keith likes to collaborate with Steve, they are good friends and Jordan is a great producer, musician, but he's not a particularly great writer in his own right. I could be wrong, enlighten me.
I think Keith needs to bounce off someone and drummers are great to bounce off.
To suggest that Keith wasn't or isn't capable of making solo material without Steve Jordan is odd. Sure Keith and Jordan are a fantastic team and we have three great solo albums from Keith to prove it, but come on, Keith is the creative force at work here, Keith's signature is all over his solo work with Jordan, this music doesn't sound distinctively different to what Keith achieves with Mick other than Keith's vocals are all over it. Maybe Steve brings out the best in Keith and i'm very happy about that, and long may it continue into another solo album or two from Keith.

Re: Keith New Yorker article
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: December 23, 2017 01:05

Quote
stone4ever
Maybe Steve brings out the best in Keith and i'm very happy about that, and long may it continue into another solo album or two from Keith.

Thats probably it. thumbs up

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Goto Page: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1602
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home