Quote
Stoneage

Quote
dcba
sexual ambiguity is what annoys Keith. He's a blue-collar lad when it comes to these things.

Sounds about right. Maybe he wasn't fond of Prince's pimp extravaganza. To deny his talent though is nothing but stupid.

Read Keith comment on another sexually ambiguous pop artist. The following Keith quote is from the same MUSICIAN MAGAZINE interview quoted above. Keith is listening to—and rating—Culture Club's song Time (Clock of the Heart). KEITH RICHARDS: "Boy George, yeah. He's good, real good. He understands how all the parts fit together, too. He deserves an 8½...in the right place."

Quote
crumbling_mice
I wouldn't dismiss Princes musical talent as from what I've seen he has plenty of it (although his guitar solos are often so overdriven my granny could make a similar sound)nut, I'm 100% with Keith in terms of preference. I don't like his sound, his songs, his image and he does look ridiculous on stage. That is purely a personal opinion andeach to his own. I would argue that Prince hasn't made a significant impact on musical history. Keith has!

his sound and image changed with just about every album so how can you say you don't like his sound or image? its not like ac/dc or motorhead who churn out the same thing every album

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
as much as I love the Stones, I would rather spend my money on a Prince show. I've never seen him and I would LOVE to. I hear he puts on one heck of a concert. Prince-bashers, along with Beatles-bashers, have no idea what they're talking about.

You should really go to a Stones show as well...they're really quite good.

HAVING SAID THAT, Prince ROCKED the house in Vancouver last month, excellent show. It was very R & B 60s/70s soul....loved it and wasn't sure I was even going to like it.

As far as Keith is concerned, I have to go with Mick on this...'shut up keith'.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Title5Take1
In a 1983 interview, MUSICIAN MAGAZINE played Keith some current hits and asked him to comment. The last song the interviewer played Keith was Prince's Little Red Corvette.

KEITH RICHARDS: "Prince trying to be Stevie Wonder...[angrily] Take it off. I wish him luck. He's got a problem with his attitude and it comes across on record. Prince has to find out what it means to be a prince. That's the trouble with conferring a title on yourself before you've proved it. That was his attitude when he opened for
us on tour, and it was insulting to our audience. You don't try to knock off the headline like that when you're playing a Stones crowd. You'd be much better off just being yourself and projecting that. He's a prince who thinks he's a king already. Good luck to him."

Shows how much he knows. Prince is his first name.

No wonder Keef is still pissed about the whole 'Sir Mick' thang...it goes WAAAAY back!

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Woody24

Quote
Bliss
Maybe it has to do with the fact that Prince's stage performance is so shamelessly derivative of Mick's....just as Mick's was of little Richard's.

Me thinks he wants to..."Move like Jagger..."

He's a much better dancer than Jagger, in my opinion.

You are correct, as your opinion stands for you...and only you.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
I certainly think Prince, Elton John, and Keith all have lots of musical talent.

Whichever you prefer is cool with me.

I prefer Keith.

Rolling Hansie, is that you in there?

Quote
Gazza
considering Prince was putting out a couple of quality albums per year at the time, ...

Really? Althought a couple songs on Purple Rain are Ok (darling Nikki comes to mind) I have to say this is really just your opinion Gazza. I tend to agree with Keith and generally think any artist with his head so swollen from self admiration as Prince's is....well to use your words, is just plain pathetic and laughable. And his guitar playing lags Keiths by a long shot imho.

And as far as Keith not being a happy person, the only one I've heard that from is Mick and then only directly after he had taken a critical hit to his ego by a reporter quoting Keith about Mick's knighthood. Every interview I've seen including the latest ones (NY Public Library etc.) show Keith to be quite happy and jovial. If I didn't know better I'd think you've got a chip on your shoulder for our man Keith. No worries, I appreciatre your posts none the less. peace.

Quote
dewlover
"compared him to The Monkee's"

I seem to recall Keef being referred to as a "monkey"; Anyone care to guess who said it?

"Arthritic monkey"

- Elton John

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Gazza
considering Prince was putting out a couple of quality albums per year at the time, ...

Really? Althought a couple songs on Purple Rain are Ok (darling Nikki comes to mind) I have to say this is really just your opinion Gazza.

Of course it is! thats why I put my name to it!

'Purple Rain' was 1984. I dont personally consider that to be one of his better albums.

The interview was in 1988. Prince had released 'Sign of the times' (a double) in '87 and 'lovesexy' in 1988, and had recorded the Black album in between.

He was probably at his peak around then. And certainly - at that time - putting out better records than any of the Stones (or anyone else) were.

His shows were pretty damn good at that time too.

Quote

And as far as Keith not being a happy person, the only one I've heard that from is Mick and then only directly after he had taken a critical hit to his ego by a reporter quoting Keith about Mick's knighthood. Every interview I've seen including the latest ones (NY Public Library etc.) show Keith to be quite happy and jovial. If I didn't know better I'd think you've got a chip on your shoulder for our man Keith

Thats funny. Only last month I was accused by one poster on here of 'never criticising' him!

Keith makes for a good interview because he's funny, doesnt give a damn and pulls out so many great one-liners that he's a headline writers' wet dream.

Most of the time that's all well and good, but the constant and very predictable bashing of anyone younger (especially if they happen to be popular and/or arent playing the same sort of music as he does) makes him come across as a curmudgeon at times. 'A talentless midget'. I mean, really?

He should be above that.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-06 15:05 by Gazza.

Quote
andrewt
Dude can play the blues for real

That is some lame ass out of tune crap, hardly the blues. His rhythm section tries pretty hard (the drummers got a nice snare) but his guitar work and singing sucks pretty bad here. Ouch. I'll give him credit for trying although. I need to go wash my ears out with some Stones music. peace.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Gazza
considering Prince was putting out a couple of quality albums per year at the time, ...

And as far as Keith not being a happy person, the only one I've heard that from is Mick and then only directly after he had taken a critical hit to his ego by a reporter quoting Keith about Mick's knighthood.
.

You mean Keith constantly bashing Mick for anyone to hear, for about 30 years..Isn't that what you meant?

Quote
Gazza

Keith makes for a good interview because he's funny, doesnt give a damn and pulls out so many great one-liners that he's a headline writers' wet dream.

Most of the time that's all well and good, but the constant and very predictable bashing of anyone younger (especially if they happen to be popular and/or arent playing the same sort of music as he does) makes him come across as a curmudgeon at times. 'A talentless midget'. I mean, really?

He should be above that.

Yeah, that bashing the younger - and very popular - artists started during the 80's. He turned out to be so conservative musicwise then. I remeber that well since that was the first signs of myself thinking that "that is not so cool". It is predicable and 'old fart' kind of thing. Yeah, we all know that no one's like Sam Cooke or other 'real' legend. I remember reading his bashing Bruce Springsteen, and saying something to effect that he could do better things with just a tape recorder. That was the time of DIRTY WORK... (by hindsight, Keith seemed to learn this (tabloid-friendly) habit dissing people in public during the 80's; I don't recall seeing that sort of behaviour earlier. Yeah, he said something nasty about punk music, which was pretty much to do with Anita, but then again, he is very supportive for the new sounds and interest in 'new' people, and seeing the continuity bewtween them and the Stones in CREEM article 1981 (x))

I guess that Prince 'hatred' does derive from the 1981 tour accident. Prince - who was not such a big name yet - somehow hurted Keith's ego, and then wittnessing him making celebrated mass hit albums one after one made it just worse. Back in the 80's Prince was very pretty much heralded as the biggest musical genious of the day; even the 'cool' people who didn't admit liking Michael Jackson, could praise Prince. Like me

- Doxa

(x) HEY MR. HONESTMAN!!!!!! You once put the mentioned article here, but it was gone when you left. Could you possibly copy it again? It is a wonderful interview.

At least Keith says something in the interviews. The minute information you get from interviewing Jagger you have to interpret first because he never says anything straight out. I remember how Mick dismissed Springsteen just by saying something mundane. You have to interpret his face expression to understand what he means.

Quote
Stoneage
At least Keith says something in the interviews. The minute information you get from interviewing Jagger you have to interpret first because he never says anything straight out. I remember how Mick dismissed Springsteen just by saying something mundane. You have to interpret his face expression to understand what he means.

90% of communication is non-verbal....I think Mick 'gets' that.

Hmmm.. as far as Jagger and bashing the colleagues go, Mick and Keith seemed to change the roles during the 80's. It was Mick who was famous for nasty comments in the past. He made even Lennon mad (the reaction can be haerd in the 1970 ROLLING STONE interview), but especially during the 70's when Mick was confronted with younger competitors, his reaction was that of making nasty remarks (Patti Smith, New York Dolls, etc.). Part of that was surely self-defence. He needed to mark out that David Bowie or Marc Bolan are only few years younger than him (no real 'gap' there). Typical is Mick's reaction in he 1972 interview relaesed in LADIES AND GENTLEMEN additional material about Marc Bolan. The interviewer clearly points out that Jagger is now belonging to older generation and there is new generaion of pop stars now in the charge. Jagger seemingly looks bothered, and starts to explain that Marc Bolan being not anything novel at all, it is still "all Chuck Berry", etc.

So, Jagger wasn't so "diplomatic" at all in his younger days, and some of his old one liners sound really stupid and phony these days. But he has changed a lot in that sense, and it is very hard to get any negative comments from him these days (not of even about Keith, even he should have every justified reason to do that). Some might call it maturation.

With the case of Keith I think that's something resulting of fame coming to his head during the early 80's, and enjoying all the fruits of his pirate character. Besides being an alcoholic. It all resulted in "Well, I can go away with anything; and they love it anyway hahahhah!". Before that Keith had been mostly a kind of shy, polite person, who very much thought twice what he said in public. No matter how doped was. It could be also that Keith had problem with his own muse - and band - at the time (mid-80's), and reflected it publicly quite aggressive manner. But as a result of that Keih learned the figure that is a dream come true to all interviewers. He gives them exactly the kind of stuff they need to dig from the others. Almost Keith's brand he sells these days. To an extent LIFE was a extension of that.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-06 18:09 by Doxa.

Quote
Stoneage
At least Keith says something in the interviews. The minute information you get from interviewing Jagger you have to interpret first because he never says anything straight out. I remember how Mick dismissed Springsteen just by saying something mundane. You have to interpret his face expression to understand what he means.

Yes ,at least he has the balls, in this politically correct world, to say waht he likes and what he doesn't. I don't think it has anything to do with Prince being younger and more musically productive. Mostly because I am young and musically productive and I can't stand the nameless little Prince who thinks he is a King either.

Let's just take Keith at face value here and assume when he gives us an opinion it is truly just that. No underlying jealouse motives or bitter fruit. His colorful description (talentless midget) may not be the classiest answer but what do you expect from a guy from working class England who probably had a blood alcohol content in the double digits at the time.

I find it refreshing that he doesn't give the usual polite nod to anyone in the business just to "be nice" and politically saavy.

Interestingly, he was smitten by Chuck Berry more than once, plenty of ammo for him to bash the man in print but he seemed to rise above that and continue to honor the man, likely because he really likes his work. peace.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Stoneage
At least Keith says something in the interviews. The minute information you get from interviewing Jagger you have to interpret first because he never says anything straight out. I remember how Mick dismissed Springsteen just by saying something mundane. You have to interpret his face expression to understand what he means.

90% of communication is non-verbal....I think Mick 'gets' that.

Sure. But I think the bottom line is that Mick is much more calculating and aware of himself than Keith. Therefore also less honest.

Quote
Doxa
Hmmm.. as far as Jagger and bashing the colleagues go, Mick and Keith seemed to change the roles during the 80's. It was Mick who was famous for nasty comments in the past. He made even Lennon mad (the reaction can be haerd in the 1970 ROLLING STONE interview), but especially during the 70's when Mick was confronted with younger competitors, his reaction was that of making nasty remarks (Patti Smith, New York Dolls, etc.). Part of that was surely self-defence. He needed to mark out that David Bowie or Marc Bolan are only few years younger than him (no real 'gap' there). Typical is Mick's reaction in he 1972 interview relaesed in LADIES AND GENTLEMEN additional material about Marc Bolan. The interviewer clearly points out that Jagger is now belonging to older generation and there is new generaion of pop stars now in the charge. Jagger seemingly looks bothered, and starts to explain that Marc Bolan being not anything novel at all, it is still "all Chuck Berry", etc.

So, Jagger wasn't so "diplomatic" at all in his younger days, and some of his old one liners sound really stupid and phony these days. But he has changed a lot in that sense, and it is very hard to get any negative comments from him these days (not of even about Keith, even he should have every justified reason to do that). Some might call it maturation.

With the case of Keith I think that's something resulting of fame coming to his head during the early 80's, and enjoying all the fruits of his pirate character. Besides being an alcoholic. It all resulted in "Well, I can go away with anything; and they love it anyway hahahhah!". Before that Keith had been mostly a kind of shy, polite person, who very much thought twice what he said in public. No matter how doped was. It could be also that Keith had problem with his own muse - and band - at the time (mid-80's), and reflected it publicly quite aggressive manner. But as a result of that Keih learned the figure that is a dream come true to all interviewers. He gives them exactly the kind of stuff they need to dig from the others. Almost Keith's brand he sells these days. To an extent LIFE was a extension of that.

- Doxa

I liked Mick's interviews when he did bash other people. At that time they were asking Mick about people that were putting out music that wans't even close to the Stones. Why would Mick be impressed?

With Keith he hasn't done anything decent in years and it seems silly that he is bashing other people. Don't put together Dirty Work and then bash Springsteen who just put out Born in the USA and Tunnel of Love. Seems pathetitc.

An advantage that Prince, and Bob Dylan, have as solo artists is that they've never been tied down to a particular sound. Dylan now makes albums with Tex-Mex sounds and all kinds of interesting grooves. I saw Prince in L.A. in 2005 and he had the most incredible band with him, none of which were from the Revolution days. It's too bad that the Stones are so set in their ways that can't jack it up a notch with some top flight side players. They seem to be in this holding pattern on stage and studio since 1989. They don't need to bring in producers like they did on BTB, but they really could use some inspired side guys to get away from repeating themselves over and over.

I agree with Keith on this one. ya, Prince (or whatever he calls himself these days or whatever stupid unpronounceable symbol he uses) can play a zillion instruments; whatever; he's not a blues player or blues musician. generally, I am repulsed by anybody that uses 'words' like 'U' (you) and '2' (two) in a song title. just use the real goddamn words already. i'm not real big on guys that wear assless pants, either. and why is he always sucking in his cheeks like he's eating invisible spaghetti? and he should probly quit suing his fans because it just makes him look like an a$$hole. gimme Marvin Gaye any freaken' time, man



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-06 18:57 by pinkfloydthebarber.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
I agree with Keith on this one. ya, Prince (or whatever he calls himself these days or whatever stupid unpronounceable symbol he uses) can play a zillion instruments; whatever; he's not a blues player or blues musician. generally, I am repulsed by anybody that uses 'words' like 'U' (you) and '2' (two) in a song title. just use the real goddamn words already. i'm not real big on guys that wear assless pants, either. and why is he always sucking in his cheeks like he's eating invisible spaghetti? and he should probly quit suing his fans because it just makes him look like an a$$hole. gimme Marvin Gaye any freaken' time, man

Whoo Hoo! flmfao! I agree , especially on the assless pants part. peace.

Rule #12 of being in a rock n roll band - slag off all your competitors and anyone newer than you.

The Sex Pistols went the other way and slagged off their idols and influences.

It's just entertainment and image and I wouldn't read too much into it. Maybe Keith was annoyed at Prince due to the tour incident and I can understand that - but he also has to live up to his image.

That is some lame ass out of tune crap, hardly the blues. His rhythm section tries pretty hard (the drummers got a nice snare) but his guitar work and singing sucks pretty bad here. Ouch. I'll give him credit for trying although. I need to go wash my ears out with some Stones music. peace.[/quote]

Well I'm no musician. Is this any better?

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
i'm not real big on guys that wear assless pants, either.

So, not real big, but how big? Like Axl Rose in assless pants at the L.A. Coliseum 1989 big? ;^)

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
andrewt
That is some lame ass out of tune crap, hardly the blues. His rhythm section tries pretty hard (the drummers got a nice snare) but his guitar work and singing sucks pretty bad here. Ouch. I'll give him credit for trying although. I need to go wash my ears out with some Stones music. peace.

Well I'm no musician. Is this any better?



[/quote]

Well it is a step in the right direction but no great feat of musicianship. He puts all that delay on his guitar to make is sound cool to you and that he is playing alot more notes.Hard for me to even listen to although I did since you asked. Here is what your boy Prince was trying to pull off. Listen closely this is the real damn deal, recorded live at Albert Hall some 40 plus years ago! peace.

for the life of me i will never understand why the latter day keith takes the bait on these questions.

if jane rose had half a brain she would have pulled him aside and said"listen,you're the great keith richards,you're one half of the greatest songwriting team in the history of rock and roll,you don't need to comment on prince and elton john"

but he steps in it every time and is always wrong-of course prince should put on the best show he can when opening for the stones and of course elton john should write a song about his dear friend.

but off he goes, hurling insults and carrying on.and the macho thing,ugh.when you've posed in drag and spent most of your career in eyeliner you might wanna just drop that.what the hell happened to this guy?

That was cool that Prince's take on Hendrix tune.. a nice version; he put his own stance on it. I don't think Prince tried to "pull of" anything. I see that more like an inspired tribute.

Besides, I find it a bit odd the argument that Prince have no "blues" etc. There are (puristic) arguments according to which Hendrix didn't have no "real" blues but just messsing the thing with his guitar skills and latest sound experiments and pop influences, including Jagger-like showmanship. Yeah, he surely had no 'pure' blues attitude as, say, Clapton or Peter Green or Mick Taylor has... you know those serious minded guys who learned the blues from records note by note, not to forget the real authentic heroes from Chicago and Delta, etc.

In a way I see a lot in Prince that there is in Jimi Hendrix. Both of the guys had in them almost the whole heritage of black music so far and they transmit it in their stuff, but most of all, were/are always looking for new challenges, and finding new ways of expression by the means of the day. Both are incredibly talented in doing so. When I say hat I see in Prince the 'black heritage', I mean I can see and hear there Hendrix as I can see and hear there James Brown, or, even The Stones, and many else, who knows, even Robert Johnson if you like. And he mixed it all with the latest dance music and trends - of which he was very very much creating then (the 'Minneapolis' sound, etc.) He was not looking back but going forward (as he still probably is); that's as Hendrixique as it can be. I always - now talking about 80's - heard more multi-talented Hendrix in Prince than I heard in Stevie Ray Vaughan - who was very much heralded the "new Hendrix", the latest guitar-hero in blues rock scene. I loved Stevie Ray but I always found the Hendrix comparison very odd (and Stevie Ray unfortunately took it too seriously and made note to note version of "Voodoo Chile".) I thought: "don't you get the whole point of Hendrix and the power his expression at all !!!" The point in both Hendrix and Prince is that they both exploded the whole scene big time. Seemingly for many who had decided that the standards of good music - especially for white audiences concerning the standards of good 'black music' - were cemented during the seventies, or 60's, or 50's, or 40's, etc. Prince was not easy to get. I hear that in Keith's comment and in many other comments here. Yeah, it wonderful to remember the golden days of Motown, or Chess, or even the cotton fields, but hey, the music - as the art of self-expression - didn't stopped there. What I have always found so impressive within black Amerucan artists is their contemporary touch; they really don't cry for nostalgia. In this sense, I think Mick Jagger might be the "blackest" guy of the whole British R&B scene... (by the way, Jagger even tried absorb Prince - of course, being the hottest thing at the time - to his solo stuff but that was out of his reach).

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-07 00:52 by Doxa.

I think Prince made a great album in Around The World In a Day: it had a psychedelic vibe to it.

However, Prince does have a degree of hubris not seen since Greek Tragedy. He had the cheek to attempt to cut tracks with Miles Davis, which are so awful that they've never seen the light of day. The album Prince did with Mavis Staples was awful: I much prefer Ry Cooder's and Jeff Tweedy's efforts with Mavis. I think Keith may have felt that Prince is an overrated egotist that needed a put-down, or too.

Quote
lem motlow
for the life of me i will never understand why the latter day keith takes the bait on these questions.

if jane rose had half a brain she would have pulled him aside and said"listen,you're the great keith richards,you're one half of the greatest songwriting team in the history of rock and roll,you don't need to comment on prince and elton john"

but he steps in it every time and is always wrong-of course prince should put on the best show he can when opening for the stones and of course elton john should write a song about his dear friend.

but off he goes, hurling insults and carrying on.and the macho thing,ugyou've posed in drag and spent most of your career in eyeliner you might wanna just drop that.what the hell happened to this guy?

He never became a card carrying @#$%& that's what. Take him as he is or get off the Bloody bus! He doesn't need Jane Rose to advise him. He says it like he sees it. oh, and he has always been sweet to ACDC . So he he does tip his hat where deserved.