Yeah, DP, they were on the same boat, Jeff and Keith... What makes me wonder, as I think we have discussed about this before, that how much the 'reinvented' Keith Richards as a guitar player was a result of his own path or will - he just decided to follow the trends and to get 'developed' as a guitar player - or how much his new style was pushed and demanded by Mick. Like "you need to learn some recent tricks if you want to play the guitar for me." I mean in 1989 Keith adopted this "guitar hero" role that was pretty much in contrast to his old philosophy as a guitar player. The difference between TALK IS CHEAP and then on STEEL WHEELS and especially his presence on 1989 tour is quite remarkable. TIC is so archaic and pure Keith Richards the riff master and team player: "I shine when the band shines", but then suddenly we have this solo guitarist with new tricks that very much stands out from the rest of the band. Think of, say, "Hold on Your Hat" (with its way too many notes under the sun) or the spectacular "Sympathy" solos (of which the one dubbed to LIVE AT THE MAX is the most well-known one) or the electric nailon tricks in "Paint It Black" or "Ruby Tuesday" - all of them very pointed out, distinguished, outfront instrumnental parts (like Keith taking some of the Brian Jones or Mick Taylor tasks from the past to his shoulders). Also from then on Ronnie was nothing but a side kick and a gun holder to the guitar hero, and the talk of "ancient art of weaving" mostly just nostalgy talk. Well, fortunately or not Keith abondoned the guitar hero role in VOODOO LOUNGE tour; probably it asked too much...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 11:42 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Yeah, DP, they were on the same boat, Jeff and Keith... What makes me wonder, as I think we have discussed about this before, that how much the 'reinvented' Keith Richards as a guitar player was a result of his own path or will - he just decided to follow the trends and to get 'developed' as a guitar player - or how much his new style was pushed and demanded by Mick. Like "you need to learn some recent tricks if you want to play the guitar for me." I mean in 1989 Keith adopted this "guitar hero" role that was pretty much in contrast to his old philosophy as a guitar player. The difference between TALK IS CHEAP and then on STEEL WHEELS and especially his presence on 1989 tour is quite remarkable. TIC is so archaic and pure Keith Richards the riff master and team player: "I shine when the band shines", but then suddenly we have this solo guitarist with new tricks that very much stands out from the rest of the band. Think of, say, "Hold on Your Hat" (with its way too many notes under he sun) or the spectacular "Sympathy" solos (of which the one dubbed to LIVE AT THE MAX is the most well-known one). Also from then Ronnie was nothing but side kick and gun holder to the guitar hero, and the talk of "ancient art of weaving" nothing but nostalgy talk. Well, fortunately or not Keith abondoned the guitar hero role in VOODOO LOUNGE tour; probably it asked too much...

- Doxa

Yeah, you got a point there.

Still, I think the developing started in the 70s already. You can see traces of Keith the solo guitarist in Live In Texas. In 1981 he played solo even more on stage.

Strangely enough, he went back to playing mainly rhythm on DW (except for Fight, Winning Ugly and Sleep Tonight) and on TIC (a few solos on the album).

However, I agree that Keith came back in 1989 with new guitars (The Silhouette and the nylon-stringed electric guitar), a new sound and something that came across as a desperate urge to play, often contradicting his own idea of solo guitar playing - with far to many notes and flash.

With the Winos in 1992, he was more back on rhythm again. With the Stones, he kept on soloing and focusing less on rhythm, and that has just increased as the years have passed.

I suspect it is easier for Keith playing Berry-licks than holding a steady rhythm playng chords nowadays. That might be the reason, that the arthritis makes it more difficult. Just a theory.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 11:35 by DandelionPowderman.

I tend to think that the "guitar hero role" was all there was left for Keith to do after losing the musical leadership of the band. The Big Deal in 1989. That suited to Keith's ego - a kind of second frontman role - and it secured Mick that musical leadership is not any longer in Keith's shaky and risky shoulders. The new professional concert concept - the one Mick had rehearsed in his solo touring - with all those light tricks and all demanded more secure musical steadiness than Keith and Ronnie's intuitive guitar duetism. On with the show...

With the Winos, by contrast, Keith was again the maestro, the musical leader of the band all the rest followed.

But as the years and tears - no sorry: tours - go by, with the Stones Keith started to play less and less (well, NO SECURITY tour might be an expection, Keith's last hurray tour), and 'fool around' more and more. So the 'guitar hero' was not abondened by going back from upfront to the heart or to the core of the band - "to keep that rhythm down-down-down" - but just concentrating more to shownmanship. The point you said about his fingers might have a crucial role here. The result is what we, for example, see in SHINE A LIGHT movie.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 12:06 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I tend to think that the "guitar hero role" was all there was left for Keith to do after losing the musical leadership of the band. The Big Deal in 1989. That suited to Keith's ego - a kind of second frontman role - and it secured Mick that musical leadership is not any longer in Keith's shaky and risky shoulders. The new professional concert concept - the one Mick had rehearsed in his solo touring - with all those light tricks and all demanded more secure musical steadiness than Keith and Ronnie's intuitive guitar duetism. On with the show...

With the Winos, by contrast, Keith was again the maestro, the musical leader of the band all the rest followed.

But as the years and tears - no sorry: tours - go by, with the Stones Keith started to play less and less (well, NO SECURITY tour might be an expection, Keith's last hurray tour), and 'fool around' more and more. So the 'guitar hero' was not abondened by going back from upfront to the heart or to the core of the band - "to keep that rhythm down-down-down" - but just concentrating more to shownmanship. The point you said about his fingers might have a crucial role here. The result is what we, for example, see in SHINE A LIGHT movie.

- Doxa

Yeah, I agree, but there is a huge difference between Keith in 1997/99 (The last tour where he at least had a hand in leading the band) and Shine A Light. In the latter, the showmansship is basically all that is left of Keith (Of course there are exceptions even there: She Was Hot, vocals on Silver, consistant rhythm on Shattered, the acoustic guitar on As Tears Go By etc.). Strangely enough, it is now on the warhorses that Keith plays the worst - he might be bored of them, who knows?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Still, I think the developing started in the 70s already. You can see traces of Keith the solo guitarist in Live In Texas. In 1981 he played solo even more on stage.

That's true but I think teh crucial difference is that wheras in 1978 or 1981 Keith was the musical leader of the band all the rest followed, that wasn't any longer the case in 1989. In a way The Stones from 1978 to 1982 (live) were almost a free-going jazz band. They probably then were the ultimate version of a 'dangerous' rock and roll band; always plyaing with the risky or a total disaster fronting them (Wyman's analysis from the time is spot on), no musical safe belts in the front of, say, 60 000 people. Then Keith was not any longer leading the band from the core (as in Taylor years), by just keeping the rhythm or riff going on, but was much more willing to take riskies, play more lead, more free-going, whatever. And the band was such an incredible unit or organ by then that they they were able to respond to Keith's whatever impulses. But to Jagger's control freak nature that must have been horrible. Always to live and play in a danger. (I tend to think that Jagger liked much more the Taylor era band because it was more controlled band in many ways, each of them having more determinated part in the whole).

So in 1989 Jagger, in order to make anything to happen, simply killed the old working method of the band and took Keith (and the Keith/Ronnie-axis) out of the charge, and gave him the spotlight place to shine by his own (but not messing with the band). My picture is that all happend in 1989 the way Jagger wished them to do. The big question that puzzled me is how much Keith Richards was for it, or did he made some far going compromises in order to get on the road again. But then again, it sounds like all of them - at least what Bill and Ronnie had said - were so excited about the new professionalism. Probaly the old method - and the constant living in a danger - was probably too demanding for the guys reaching seriously their middle age. Most probably Mick didn't have much difficulties in selling the new concept. Backed up with Cohl's offer. But what was Keith's role?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 12:36 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Still, I think the developing started in the 70s already. You can see traces of Keith the solo guitarist in Live In Texas. In 1981 he played solo even more on stage.

That's true but I think teh crucial difference is that wheras in 1978 or 1981 Keith was the musical leader of the band all the rest followed, that wasn't any longer the case in 1989. In a way The Stones from 1978 to 1982 (live) were almost a free-going jazz band. They probably then were the ultimate version of a 'dangerous' rock and roll band; always plyaing with the risky or a total disaster fronting them (Wyman's analysis from the time is spot on), no musical safe belts in the front of, say, 60 000 people. Then Keith was not any longer leading the band from the core (as in Taylor years), by just keeping the rhythm or riff going on, but was much more willing to take riskies, play more lead, more free-going, whatever. And the band was such an incredible unit or organ by then that they they were able to respond to Keith's whatever impulses. But to Jagger's control freak nature that must have been horrible. Always to live and play in a danger. (I tend to think that Jagger liked much more the Taylor era band because it was more controlled band in many ways, each of them having more determinated part in the whole).

So in 1989 Jagger, in order to make anything to happen, simply killed the old working method of the band and took Keith (and the Keith/Ronnie-axis) out of the charge, and gave him the spotlight place to shine by his own (but not messing with the band). My picture is that all happend in 1989 the way Jagger wished them to do. The big question that puzzled me is how much Keith Richards was for it, or did he made some far going compromises in order to get on the road again. But then again, it sounds like all of them - at least what Bill and Ronnie had said - were so excited about the new professionalism. Probaly the old method - and the constant living in a danger - was probably too demanding for the guys reaching seriously their middle age. Most probably Mick didn't have much difficulties in selling the new concept. Backed up with Cohl's offer. But what was Keith's role?

- Doxa

You really have it in for the "Vegas Line-up", don't you

IMO, it's not that black and white. But I think Jagger thought that after years of no activity, the boys desperately needed back up to function on the stadium stages.

After that they became a big band - made friends with the other musicians. After all, they had very succesful tours in 1989 and 1990, why change a $-winning team



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 12:44 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You really have it in for the "Vegas Line-up", don't you

IMO, it's not that black and white. But I think Jagger thought that after years of no activity, the boys desperately needed back up to function on the stadium stages.

After that they became a big band - made friends with the other musicians. After all, they had very succesful tours in 1989 and 1990, why change a $-winning team

Nothing wrong with "Vegas Line Up" or that Leavell-lead incarnation of the band, if is taken what it is: a Rolling Stones nostalgy band that salutes the legendary years when the band made musical history. We have been wittnessing the world longest farewell tour for some 25 yaers soon. Like I said, it is nice to be a Rolling Stones fan since we have treated som many occasions to celebrate our beloved band.

But if we go back to the beginning of Vegas Saga, I don't think Jagger thought that the "boys" desperately needed back up. I tend to think that he desperately needed the "boys" to be part of the band he created during his solo career. It is almost shocking how much the band, the music, the sound, the arangements of the songs, in Jagger solo tour 1988 reminded the Stones 1989 AD. Jagger needed to make a huge compromise in order to remain one of the leading figures in the music. He had discovered - one can only think its effect to his "unbearable" ego at the time! - that is not going to be easy if he tries it solo; it's the bloody Stones stigma he is stuck to if he wants to remain big - I mean in traditional Mick Jagger level he has been used to all of his adult life. So I think he partly accepted the easy nostalgy card (that was showing its rising head at the time) and reprogrammed the "boys" to suit to the concept he had created by then. My picture is that the Stones never been so much hands in Mick Jagger as it has been since 1989. To an extent Keith's public whining verifies that. What else he can do? But in the end, it is the Cohlian money that keeps all happy. I think both Mick and Keith understand each other very well in that language. Yeah, why to change a 'winning' team.

Yeah, of course, it is not so black and white, but have to make certain generalations in order to make sense.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 13:25 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You really have it in for the "Vegas Line-up", don't you

IMO, it's not that black and white. But I think Jagger thought that after years of no activity, the boys desperately needed back up to function on the stadium stages.

After that they became a big band - made friends with the other musicians. After all, they had very succesful tours in 1989 and 1990, why change a $-winning team

Nothing wrong with "Vegas Line Up" or that Leavell-lead incarnation of the band, if is taken what it is: a Rolling Stones nostalgy band that salutes the legendary years when the band made musical history. We have been wittnessing the world longest farewell tour for some 25 yaers soon. Like I said, it is nice to be a Rolling Stones fan since we have treated som many occasions to celebrate our beloved band.

But if we go back to the beginning of Vegas Saga, I don't think Jagger thought that the "boys" desperately needed back up. I tend to think that he desperately needed the "boys" to be part of the band he created during his solo career. It is almost shocking how much the band, the music, the sound, the arangements of the songs, in Jagger solo tour 1988 reminded the Stones 1989 AD. Jagger needed to make a huge compromise in order to remain one of the leading figures in the music. He had discovered - one can only think its effect to his "unbearable" ego at the time! - that is not going to be easy if he tries it solo; it's the bloody Stones stigma he is stuck to if he wants to remain big - I mean in traditional Mick Jagger level he has been used to all of his adult life. So I think he partly accepted the easy nostalgy card (that was showing its rising head at the time) and reprogrammed the "boys" to suit to the concept he had created by then. My picture is that the Stones never been so much hands in Mick Jagger as it has been since 1989. To an extent Keith's public whining verifies that. What else he can do? But in the end, it is the Cohlian money that keeps all happy. I think both Mick and Keith understand each other very well in that language. Yeah, why to change a 'winning' team.

Yeah, of course, it is not so black and white, but have to make certain generalations in order to make sense.

- Doxa

Visually, yes. Musically, nah.

One huge difference: The sound.

No matter how hard you polish, you'll never get Keith Richards to sound like Joey Satriani. The same goes for Charlie Watts and Simon Phillips.

However, the concept was very, very similar. But I think that mainly goes for the "circus-show" and not so much about the music.

This can't be recreated with flashy musicians:





This can:

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You really have it in for the "Vegas Line-up", don't you

IMO, it's not that black and white. But I think Jagger thought that after years of no activity, the boys desperately needed back up to function on the stadium stages.

After that they became a big band - made friends with the other musicians. After all, they had very succesful tours in 1989 and 1990, why change a $-winning team

Nothing wrong with "Vegas Line Up" or that Leavell-lead incarnation of the band, if is taken what it is: a Rolling Stones nostalgy band that salutes the legendary years when the band made musical history. We have been wittnessing the world longest farewell tour for some 25 yaers soon. Like I said, it is nice to be a Rolling Stones fan since we have treated som many occasions to celebrate our beloved band.

But if we go back to the beginning of Vegas Saga, I don't think Jagger thought that the "boys" desperately needed back up. I tend to think that he desperately needed the "boys" to be part of the band he created during his solo career. It is almost shocking how much the band, the music, the sound, the arangements of the songs, in Jagger solo tour 1988 reminded the Stones 1989 AD. Jagger needed to make a huge compromise in order to remain one of the leading figures in the music. He had discovered - one can only think its effect to his "unbearable" ego at the time! - that is not going to be easy if he tries it solo; it's the bloody Stones stigma he is stuck to if he wants to remain big - I mean in traditional Mick Jagger level he has been used to all of his adult life. So I think he partly accepted the easy nostalgy card (that was showing its rising head at the time) and reprogrammed the "boys" to suit to the concept he had created by then. My picture is that the Stones never been so much hands in Mick Jagger as it has been since 1989. To an extent Keith's public whining verifies that. What else he can do? But in the end, it is the Cohlian money that keeps all happy. I think both Mick and Keith understand each other very well in that language. Yeah, why to change a 'winning' team.

Yeah, of course, it is not so black and white, but have to make certain generalations in order to make sense.

- Doxa

Visually, yes. Musically, nah.

One huge difference: The sound.

No matter how hard you polish, you'll never get Keith Richards to sound like Joey Satriani. The same goes for Charlie Watts and Simon Phillips.

However, the concept was very, very similar. But I think that mainly goes for the "circus-show" and not so much about the music.

This can't be recreated with flashy musicians:





This can:

I really do think you can get Satriani to sound like Keith if you pay him.
Polishing Keith to make him sound like Satriani? I'am sorry DP.

By the way, I like Keith more than Satriani.

Quote
Amsterdamned
I really do think you can get Satriani to sound like Keith if you pay him.
Polishing Keith to make him sound like Satriani? I'am sorry DP.

By the way, I like Keith more than Satriani.

Well, even though I think Keith owns 'knowledge' no other guitarist does, I agree that it is easier for technically skilfull guitarist to approximate the sound of very idionsyncratic guitarist than the other way around... But then, one could argue that the technical excellency is only a matter of practise, but that of idiosyncracy something you cannot really learn by simply practising...you need to have specific intuition or something...

Yeah, Keith Richards is my favourite rock and roll guitarist. And John Lee Hooker my favourite all-time blues guitarist (and all those Satrianis and Claptons can kiss my ass...), so I guess that says where I stand.

But I'm sure that if Jagger could have really chosen he would rather had Satriani as his his guitarist than Keith. Or Beck if wouldn't be so damn expensive. I think those guys could better accomplish the ideas Jagger has in his mind. But he is stuck to Keith and Ronnie...><

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 17:00 by Doxa.

Keith Richards is a guitar hero for hundreds of thousands all over the world.

How many guitar players are able to sound like him?

I guess the same can be said about Satriani. Then answer the same question as above.

My guess: There are more guitar players out there sounding like Satriani - and there are reasons for that:

- It's very hard for a technical player to play with Keith's sound
- It's very hard for a technical player to limit himself to what Keith does
- It's very hard for any guitar player to sound like Keith Richards

Heck guys, there is a reason why we're digging the Stones!

PS: Amsterdamned, I think you misunderstood my post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-19 17:06 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned
I really do think you can get Satriani to sound like Keith if you pay him.
Polishing Keith to make him sound like Satriani? I'am sorry DP.

By the way, I like Keith more than Satriani.

Well, even though I think Keith owns 'knowledge' no other guitarist does, I agree that it is easier for technically skilfull guitarist to approximate the sound of very idionsyncratic guitarist than the other way around... But then, one could argue that the technical excellency is only a matter of practise, but that of idiosyncracy something you cannot really learn by simply practising...you need to have specific intuition or something...

Yeah, Keith Richards is my favourite rock and roll guitarist. And John Lee Hooker my favourite all-time blues guitarist (and all those Satrianis and Claptons can kiss my ass...), so I guess that says where I stand.

But I'm sure that if Jagger could have really chosen he would rather had Satriani as his his guitarist than Keith. Or Beck if wouldn't be so damn expensive. I think those guys could better accomplish the ideas Jagger has in his mind. But he is stuck to Keith and Ronnie...><

- Doxa

In general, perhaps. But in Keith's case I don't think so.

You would never have gotten all the rotten versions of Stones-songs with Jagger solo if it were that simple. To me, Jimmy Rip is nowhere near Keith here, and Simon Phillips? Well, he's just at the wrong place, imo.

In contrary to many musicians Keith's skills has diminished, quite heavily, through the years. Keith 2007 was a shadow of Keith 1972. And I have never quite bought the next to iconical admiration for Keith's guitar skills. I'm not so sure other guitarists are that subservient about his "greatness". Ask Bill Wyman for a starter...

But I'm sure that if Jagger could have really chosen he would rather had Satriani as his his guitarist than Keith. Or Beck if wouldn't be so damn expensive. I think those guys could better accomplish the ideas Jagger has in his mind. But he is stuck to Keith and Ronnie...

<Doxa>


Life s*cks sometimes..

Is that Lisa Fischer on backing vocals in Tumbling Dice? Notice how Mick gets in on the wrong note in TD. You got to hand it to the musicians here: You can't complain an iota about their skills. However perfect they are though, someone is always going to tell that the original is better.

PS: Amsterdamned, I think you misunderstood my post.<DP>


All I want to say is that it's almost impossible to be an exact copie of any player.

Even if you can play and sound like any (famous) player -something that requires a tremendous empathic skill, you're always second best: the fans just won't take it.

Besides, what's the fun? Inspiration? Ok, but IMO it's always best to grow your own.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Gazza

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Gazza

Mick very rarely writes openly about his domestic life. It's usually hidden in opaque references. Mick and Keith writing songs about their relationship and dressing up as a song about a woman isnt that uncommon (All About You, Worried about You, Sweethearts Together etc)

I remember an interview where Mick was asked if Sweethearts Together was about Keith and him, Mick laughed a little and then said no.

of course he would. You'd expect him to say yes?

Have they ever 'revealed' these kind of matters? That they make songs of each other? I can only think of "You Don't Move Me" Keith admitting that to be the case (and to a part "Beast of Burden", "All About You" and "Mixed Emotions"). But I pretty much admire their artistic choice to not start explaining or explicate the 'meanings' of their songs. Let the listeners to do that. When they - especially Mick who is responsible of most of the lyrics - do that it is mostly done tongue-in-cheek and is more or less obscure or something very general that says nothing. I think Jagger, as a good writer, knows that it is better to leave some of the mystery there.

- Doxa

Keith - yes.

Mick - no.

I find the mystery of it all interesting too. Mick implied that Miss You was about Keith recently, I always thought that one was about a woman. Who knows maybe it was at one point or was about both?

Read somewhere the Miss You lyrics were about Jerry whle Mick was stuck with Bianca. Bianca thought it was about her.

To me, Jimmy Rip is nowhere near Keith here, <DP>

IMO he's different, comes close enough on HTW, and is always second best. Keith's hardcore fans just won't take that. This band sounds better than the post RS Taylor era to me - guitarwise.

Quote
Amsterdamned
PS: Amsterdamned, I think you misunderstood my post.<DP>


All I want to say is that it's almost impossible to be an exact copie of any player.

Even if you can play and sound like any (famous) player -something that requires a tremendous empathic skill, you're always second best: the fans just won't take it.

Besides, what's the fun? Inspiration? Ok, but IMO it's always best to grow your own.

There we agree

Quote
Stoneage
In contrary to many musicians Keith's skills has diminished, quite heavily, through the years. Keith 2007 was a shadow of Keith 1972. And I have never quite bought the next to iconical admiration for Keith's guitar skills. I'm not so sure other guitarists are that subservient about his "greatness". Ask Bill Wyman for a starter...

Yep, no doubt Keith´s skills have diminished.

I don´t think the "iconical admiration" for Keith is specifically related to his technical skills, it´s more about the sounds and the style he has created.

Bill Wyman said in an interview that he regarded Keith as the best rhythm guitar player in the world. That should be it

Quote
TrulyMicks
[I find the mystery of it all interesting too. Mick implied that Miss You was about Keith recently, I always thought that one was about a woman. Who knows maybe it was at one point or was about both?

Miss You and Sweethearts Together about Keith? I really don´t think that they love each other that much!
They haven´t been close friends for 4 decades now, so I am sure Mick does not write lovesongs about Keith.

Quote
Amsterdamned
To me, Jimmy Rip is nowhere near Keith here, <DP>

IMO he's different, comes close enough on HTW, and is always second best. Keith's hardcore fans just won't take that. This band sounds better than the post RS Taylor era to me - guitarwise.

Better than what? Live In Texas?

Of course they´re more skilled, but as a band it sounds nowhere near a swinging band, imo.

Quote
elunsi

Quote
TrulyMicks
[I find the mystery of it all interesting too. Mick implied that Miss You was about Keith recently, I always thought that one was about a woman. Who knows maybe it was at one point or was about both?

Miss You and Sweethearts Together about Keith? I really don´t think that they love each other that much!
They haven´t been close friends for 4 decades now, so I am sure Mick does not write lovesongs about Keith.

That's what I thought also. Maybe I misunderstood Mick in the interview. (I've only seen it once and there were distractions). You have piqued my curiosity...I will just have to watch it again .

Mick implied that Miss You was about Keith recently,

.......please Truely which Mick interview was this??



ROCKMAN

Quote
elunsi

Quote
TrulyMicks
[I find the mystery of it all interesting too. Mick implied that Miss You was about Keith recently, I always thought that one was about a woman. Who knows maybe it was at one point or was about both?

Miss You and Sweethearts Together about Keith? I really don´t think that they love each other that much!
They haven´t been close friends for 4 decades now, so I am sure Mick does not write lovesongs about Keith.

I tend to agree....
Keith may, because he's obsessed and now he says he thinks All About You is probably about Mick, not Anita. Huh? Keith likes to think that Mick is obsessed with him, possesive, but it seems the other way around. When Steel Wheels came out, Mick was asked if Mixed Emotions was about Keith (Because Keith had publically suggested it), he laughed and said, 'No, its about a girl I know...' probably meaning Jerry, and if you listen to the lyrics, it fits.
Elunsi, I think male Stones fans like the idea of Mick and Keith writing songs about each other....ala Lennon/Macca.
I just don't think that's the case with Mick, not 'love songs' anyway.

party doll is great,

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Read somewhere the Miss You lyrics were about Jerry whle Mick was stuck with Bianca. Bianca thought it was about her.

Bianca has never publically claimed any song was about her. Jerry Hall does that, ad nauseum. In the Andy Warhol Diaries, Jerry Hall told everybody that Mick told her he wrote it while she was away for a week on a modeling assignment.
(What else would do you tell your 21-year old girlfriend?)

Throughout the 90s in interviews, Jerry kept repeating that and it was reported over and over until it became fact. But most people, at the time of its release, assumed it was about Bianca, and that still makes the most sense.
Mick and Bianca had been living apart through most of 77, and in an unsually candid interview with journalist Lisa Robinson (who was also a friend, so maybe that's why he was so open) in late 77, Mick suggested that Bianca had wanted to live apart for awhile to "make a name for herself"..(this was when Bianca had acting aspirations) He implied that the situation was not his choice:
'I suppose it does give me a bit more freedom, but you know, I really don't think of it that way..'.
Mick also expressed similar sentiments during some of Chet Flippo's articles in 78. (particularly implying that tabloid gossip of an affair with Margaret Trudeau had pissed Bianca off)
Because Mick and BIanca are private, we never knew this...and that's why its so easy to take everything Jerry Hall says at face value. And at some point, Mick started living with Jerry Hall, because guys do that when their wives are estranged.
I remember an interview with Mick in Q Magazine in 92, they asked him pointblank who the song was about and Mick evaded it.
Jerry had already claimed it was about her, but Mick kept his mouth shut....
The likely truth? The song was written, according to Mick, Wyman and Billy Preston, during the El Mocambo rehearsals in early 77, long before Jerry entered the picture. Since the 1995 RS interview, Jagger has repeatedly said this. Maybe it was his way of saying it wasn't about Jerry Hall without actually saying it.
Most recently though, Jerry, perhaps a bit older and wiser, expressed doubts that it was about her.
I love this topic.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-20 00:53 by stupidguy2.

To me it's totaly negligent which former wife or lover Mick is alluding to in his lyrics. Who cares? We are not talking John Keates here are we?

Quote
Stoneage
To me it's totaly negligent which former wife or lover Mick is alluding to in his lyrics. Who cares? We are not talking John Keates here are we?

You mean you don't care if Layla was really about Patti Boyd?
That's no fun!