For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
24FPS
The 1966 interviews with Keith & then Brian illustrate the difference between European and American music journalism at the time. I don't know where you could have read such articles in the States, and I doubt there was much availability of NME or Melody Maker here. (Later they would be imported). We had 16 and Tiger Beat magazines, but I doubt you could find much of any depth there. It really wasn't until Rolling Stone achieved wide distribution in 1969-70, that the idea of discussing the musicianship of rock artists came into being. There might have been some articles in what we called 'Underground' papers but these were all local publications like Atlanta's 'Great Speckled Bird'.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.
Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.
Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.
About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.
Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.
Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.
About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.
Redhotcarpet's bolded point is exactly the thing I had in my mind. I think that kind of 'tell it all' book that is systematically back-throbbing the most important partner in the band is not an act of loyalty to the band. And Keith - if anyone - has been the one asking for a loyalty to the band. It is naive to think that "well this is just my story", and should not be associated with the story of the Rolling Stones, if it is Keith Richards talking there. Like mentioned above (I think by His Majesty) that Keith is the one who most invested of himself to The Rolling Stones. He is the one of whose life and persona is most based on the existence of band; for example, Mick and Brian were kind complete packages from the day one, and Bill and Charlie never needed the stardom and acknowlwedgment to buld up as characters. But the whole KEEF, and his attributes we adore here now, was born during the existence of the band. For example, I have always thought that Keith has very mich more intimate, personal relationship for the band than Jagger, who I think has more pragmatic attitude.
I think Keith broke the code and took the cheap route by telling "it all". The criticism of Mick - the thing the world was, of course, looking for - was purely a hit below the belt, and showed Keith just doesn't care of the fate of the band any longer. When Bill Wyman wrote his "tell it all" STONE ALONE, he was just leaving the group (or just had did it). I had the similar picture of the nature of LIFE. But I never thought Keith would do something similar. I am afraid that the things - Keith's condition, etc - have been much worse behind the curtains since the last tour than we have even dared to speculate here. (Besides, even though the bad relationship between Mick and Keith were not any news, I never thought they were SO terrible as LIFE stated. That almost shocked me.)
My interpration is, like I have argued at the time of its relaese, that with LIFE Keith Richards finally freed himself of The Rolling Stones, and is just Keith Richards - the living legend, A Deppian pirate - from now on. It is statement that he doesn't need the Stones anymore. Or other way to look at it is, like I mentioned earlier, the last thing Keith can do is to tell the story. To my eyes LIFE argues that the old dictum from the late 80's that "The Stones is bigger than both of them, Mick and Keith" (very much pointed out by also Bill in STONE ALONE, and which also seemed to dictate the band and solo activities through the Cohlian yaers) does not hold on any longer, but is replaced by "Keith Richards is bigger than The Stones". I honestly thinks he bullshits all the way when he nowadays talks about The Stones in interviews. His image needs that. Keeping up appearances. But talk is cheap.
- Doxa
Quote
Doxa
Hmmm... you really are Jane Rose, aren't you, DP?
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.
Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.
Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.
About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.
Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.
Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.
About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.
Yeah but he doesnt tell it with warts and all, he sells an image and puts himself above Mick in the hierarchy. His way of doing this was t-gate and the lie about sleeping with Marianne (to get back at the public affair between Mick and Anita, which probably meant Anita really went for the gold and not the silver, one year after Anita left Brian for Keith).
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.
Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.
Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.
About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.
Yeah but he doesnt tell it with warts and all, he sells an image and puts himself above Mick in the hierarchy. His way of doing this was t-gate and the lie about sleeping with Marianne (to get back at the public affair between Mick and Anita, which probably meant Anita really went for the gold and not the silver, one year after Anita left Brian for Keith).
Well, Marianne herself said that Keith was the best lay in the group 30 years before the book came out, so it's hardly a lie, is it?
Exactly where is he putting himself above Mick in the hierarchy? I'm reading that Mick is the frontman, but that he wouldn't have made that on his own without Keith. And that's true, imo.
However, Keith himself would have been even more helpless without Mick.
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.
Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.
Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.
About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.
Yeah but he doesnt tell it with warts and all, he sells an image and puts himself above Mick in the hierarchy. His way of doing this was t-gate and the lie about sleeping with Marianne (to get back at the public affair between Mick and Anita, which probably meant Anita really went for the gold and not the silver, one year after Anita left Brian for Keith).
Well, Marianne herself said that Keith was the best lay in the group 30 years before the book came out, so it's hardly a lie, is it?
Exactly where is he putting himself above Mick in the hierarchy? I'm reading that Mick is the frontman, but that he wouldn't have made that on his own without Keith. And that's true, imo.
However, Keith himself would have been even more helpless without Mick.
She had her motives too because now after Life she said they didnt actually sleep together and then she changed her story again. Maybe she was reminded with a paycheck, who knows, but since Keith probably wanted to kill Mick in 1968 and instead chose the band, loyalty and of course heroin and Marianne probably also wanted to kill Mick in 1968 they could have had this little "story", an understanding. True or not I dont believe they had an affair at all. It doesnt sound true and it doesnt fit Keiths or Marianne's persona.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
[They have both been slagging eachother in the press for decades prior to this book release
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
[They have both been slagging eachother in the press for decades prior to this book release
I just pick up this claim since I think that is not true. The way Mick and Keith speak of each other in public is no way balanced. I can't really remember any slagging of Keith by Jagger at all - what comes to my mind is the the remark of Keith "being an unhappy person" when Jagger was asked Keith's harsh opinion about Mick's knighthood. Are there any other really where Mick mocks or harsly - or any way - judges Keith? To my eyes the drama between Mick and Keith is pretty much constituted by only one side. Jagger never seems to talk about Richards unless he is really pushed to say something. Even concerning Keith's drug issues, Jagger never - or VERY rarely - moralized in him in public, or complained all the hassle that had for a business (band). Generally the topic of Keith, or Mick's relation to Keith, sounds quite marginal theme in Mick's talk. But for Keith, Mick and their "brotherhood", "marriage" or whatever the relationship is (be it 'good or bad), seems to be a constant theme. Of course, it could be that from Keith are asked more about Mick than they do from Mick about Keith, but still, Keith seems to love to talk about that theme. Maybe a bit too much.
My interpretation is that Mick basically ignores Keith - and has only very professional, business-like relationship to him - which seems to drive Keith mad (or something like that); this makes him sounding like a bitter ex-wife yip-yapping this and that; Mick this, Mick that blah lah blah.... Seemingly for Keith's public significance Mick's existence - a kind of counter por reference point - is much much bigger than the other way around. Jagger seems to be doing fine just by himself.
Anyway, the Mick/Keith drama seems to such a darling issue for the media, and surely to Stones fans, but I think Jagger's point of view - saying basically nothing, and perhaps not caring either - seems to be overseen easily. Jagger seems to above it all. If I'de been Jagger - like you guessed I'de be - that sort of public bullshit and manufactured, imposed yellow pages drama might sound very stupid.
Besides, the way Mick talks about Keith's infamous claims in LIFE is basically just a business partner talk, seeing it nothing "personal" but just a complaint of not having enough say in band's business. That's all; couldn't less to care to talk about private matters in public. A cool pro guy that Jagger guy is. Not a drama queen. I think even the biggest Richards worshippers shpuld realize the nature of their relationship, and Keith's active role in this supposed old melodrama. The time to 'blame it all on Jagger' is past on.
- Doxa
Quote
Doxa
I was sure you would come up with some counter-examples but I think all of those are VERY lame in order to say Mick bashes Keith in public. You can't be so Richards-driven that those come even close to all the crap Keith has said during the years! C'mon! The 'worst' are from 1987 when Jagger seemingly couldn't care less about Keith/Stones (to my eyes that is not a sin).
Besides, Jagger's comments sound not just subtle but also reasonable, don't you think?
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
[They have both been slagging eachother in the press for decades prior to this book release
I just pick up this claim since I think that is not true. The way Mick and Keith speak of each other in public is no way balanced. I can't really remember any slagging of Keith by Jagger at all - what comes to my mind is the the remark of Keith "being an unhappy person" when Jagger was asked Keith's harsh opinion about Mick's knighthood. Are there any other really where Mick mocks or harsly - or any way - judges Keith? To my eyes the drama between Mick and Keith is pretty much constituted by only one side. Jagger never seems to talk about Richards unless he is really pushed to say something. Even concerning Keith's drug issues, Jagger never - or VERY rarely - moralized in him in public, or complained all the hassle that had for a business (band). Generally the topic of Keith, or Mick's relation to Keith, sounds quite marginal theme in Mick's talk. But for Keith, Mick and their "brotherhood", "marriage" or whatever the relationship is (be it 'good or bad), seems to be a constant theme. Of course, it could be that from Keith are asked more about Mick than they do from Mick about Keith, but still, Keith seems to love to talk about that theme. Maybe a bit too much.
My interpretation is that Mick basically ignores Keith - and has only very professional, business-like relationship to him - which seems to drive Keith mad (or something like that); this makes him sounding like a bitter ex-wife yip-yapping this and that; Mick this, Mick that blah lah blah.... Seemingly for Keith's public significance Mick's existence - a kind of counter por reference point - is much much bigger than the other way around. Jagger seems to be doing fine just by himself.
Anyway, the Mick/Keith drama seems to such a darling issue for the media, and surely to Stones fans, but I think Jagger's point of view - saying basically nothing, and perhaps not caring either - seems to be overseen easily. Jagger seems to above it all. If I'de been Jagger - like you guessed I'de be - that sort of public bullshit and manufactured, imposed yellow pages drama might sound very stupid.
Besides, the way Mick talks about Keith's infamous claims in LIFE is basically just a business partner talk, seeing it nothing "personal" but just a complaint of not having enough say in band's business. That's all; couldn't less to care to talk about private matters in public. A cool pro guy that Jagger guy is. Not a drama queen. I think even the biggest Richards worshippers shpuld realize the nature of their relationship, and Keith's active role in this supposed old melodrama. The time to 'blame it all on Jagger' is past on.
- Doxa
Micks' slagging is of course much more subtle and psychological than that of Keith. Very often with subtle hits to his personality and upbringing:
The trouble is Keith wants to run the band single-handed... Keith and I disagree about almost everything. I could see it ending in a fight between us onstage in front of thousands.
- Mick Jagger, 1987
I respect (Keith), and I feel a lot of affection for him, and I feel protective. He's the kind of person who... well, he has a certain vulnerability. He's had a lot of hard times. He's had a lot of GOOD times (laughs). We've had a lot of fun and a lot of heartache together... I think everyone in the Stones is going to benefit from the fact that we're all doing different things for a while. And it won't be quite so insidiously incestuous...
- Mick Jagger, 1987
Keith and I have a very complicated relationship. I don't pretend to understand it. I find it quite tricky. He is a very inward person and he was always a very quiet and meditative type of person, so to bring out what he really wants to say is, I think, quite a problem for him sometimes. I'm a very outgoing person and very gregarious. Keith isn't, really, although he's learned to be somewhat more gregarious than he used to be.
- Mick Jagger, 2003
We haven't really had any arguments lately. I could dig some up from the past, but that's a bit boring, really.
- Mick Jagger, 2008
Quote
Doxa
DP, I might be "dead wrong" in my interpration of LIFE, but to my eyes you are stuck to the scenes that took place during the 80's, and like the press and most of the Stones/rock fans rat the time, really and blindly took the side of Keith in teh 'argument' during that time. And everyone is blaming Jagger of the supposed argument that Keith Richards - not Mick Jagger - calls "WW3". What "Brenda" then did - you are here talking about some private matters, of sending faxes perhaps told by some "witness" who then reported of it in public, right? - so since Keith is so 'hurt' (behind the curtains), anything he does afterwards is somehow justified. Like he behaves idiot-like in public, or that decades after writes books about Jagger's faults, including the size of his manhood (or was he 'hurt' by Mick supposedly 'doing' Anita?) My take it that some of Keith's stupid public actions and moves can be explained by reacting to some Jagger's actions but not justified.
To put my cards on the table - - what I don't like me is the freepass given by press and VERY many Stones fans to Keith in this sense. It is simply not fair. I also was blinded by this for years. But finally I realized that the truth is not at all that simple. Then I started to understand Jagger's side of things, which is rather diffucult because a typical fan propaganda - Stonesian mythology - supported by media, sides so clearly to the side of Richards. Richards is a moral winner and the real hero in the band (that sort of picture, created in 70's/80's seemed to stuck very much).
But I think if you really don't want to take sides here - I think you are now biased in not seeing the difference between, which is a way to accept Richardsian rhetorics - you should also try to leave the 80's 'propaganda' behind that seem to blind the judgment. Just to be just to Jagger. Time to move on. It is not the 80's any more, and the impression people had at the time, no matter how much LIFE tries to drive us back those premises.
Anyway, I am not the only one who has opened the eyes. If we look just five/seven years back here in IORR, it is rather hard to find any comment that was critical towards Richards. He as like a holy cow. But Jagger, of course, was a laughing stock. Now at least that is more equal now...><
- Doxa
Quote
His Majesty
Regarding Marianne and Keith...
It's the timing of their bonk that's the key, according to Marianne it happened in late 1966 before Mick and Marianne were an item, not in 1968/69. But Keith's ego saving revisionist version is that he did it as some kinda revenge for Mick bonking Anita on the set of Performance.
Anyway, regardless of when and where, it's all nonsense really cos it's not like any of them were in anyway faithfull to their partners.
Who'd pass up on the chance to bonk Anita slinky hips or Marianne super tits at that time!? Not me! ><
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's why I think you're wrong on the effect of Keith's remarks.
[r.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
This is cynical editing from the publishing company, just to leave that doubt hanging in the air. That I'm dead sure on.
aQuote
DandelionPowderman
[
What exactly is new in that book, regarding the feud between Mick and Keith? Nothing!
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Wanderingspirit66:
I didn't miss the Jagger remarks, and they are just as belittling in a psychological way as the other comments were towards Keith. It might not be slagging, but it sure ain't something Keith would have appreciated either.