For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
elunsiQuote
Stoneage
To defend Keith a bit, I think he's right on one account. He's angry with Mick because he (Mick) broke up the band in the 80s in order to persue a solo career. There his critisim is valid. Mick has had a tendency since the 80s not really wanting to work with the band but to do all sorts of other things (produce films, attend premieres, solo stuff and whatever). The only reason he has come back to the band is, probably, lack of success with his private projects and his business nose (he realizes that there is more money to be made from the Stones than his private projects).
Mick did not break up the band. And not in order to persue a solo career. There were many reasons to make a break from each other and it was discussed here many times. Mick has every right to do whatever he chooses to outside the Stones, he is not a slave to the band or Keith. And he was pretty successful, his films all got good reviews, and his solocareer was more successful than Keith´s. The only reason for continuing (I don´t say coming back) the Stones is, because he loves it.
Quote
71Tele
Keith certainly praises Mick's abilities as a frontman and showman, but Mick is a musician too - something often overlooked even here on this site. Keith was more than once criticized or demeaned Mick's electric guitar playing, for example. What could possibly be the motivation for that? It would be like Mick disparaging Keith's singing.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71Tele
Keith certainly praises Mick's abilities as a frontman and showman, but Mick is a musician too - something often overlooked even here on this site. Keith was more than once criticized or demeaned Mick's electric guitar playing, for example. What could possibly be the motivation for that? It would be like Mick disparaging Keith's singing.
Mick has joked with Keith's singing in several interviews, of course not in a mean way.
Keith is close to Mick, the guitar player - we're not. On Sticky and Exile, it's obvious that Mick learned from Keith. In the 70s and 80s he learned from someone else and played very differently, especially with his right hand (too much on the beat). I reckon that's what Keith is talking about. Mick's rhythm playing after Exile is in a way what the Stones are trying not to become.
Just a guess from my part.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71Tele
Keith certainly praises Mick's abilities as a frontman and showman, but Mick is a musician too - something often overlooked even here on this site. Keith was more than once criticized or demeaned Mick's electric guitar playing, for example. What could possibly be the motivation for that? It would be like Mick disparaging Keith's singing.
Mick has joked with Keith's singing in several interviews, of course not in a mean way.
Keith is close to Mick, the guitar player - we're not. On Sticky and Exile, it's obvious that Mick learned from Keith. In the 70s and 80s he learned from someone else and played very differently, especially with his right hand (too much on the beat). I reckon that's what Keith is talking about. Mick's rhythm playing after Exile is in a way what the Stones are trying not to become.
Just a guess from my part.
Aw, c'mon, DP. Mick doesn't play so much the guitar that he "ruins" Rolling Stones sound - or did he do that to SOME GIRLS? - but for Keith Richards that seems to be so big deal that he needs to comment that in public... another classy act of "loyalty"... But I mean, what could Mick say about Keith's guitar playing of recent yaers if hw would like to be mean...
Anyway, at the time I remeber hearing fisrt time (years ago) Keith's complaint abot Jagger's guitar playing, I think it was just funny, nothing really substantive or serious. But now it starts to sound there is a pattern in his criticism, or a campaign going on, and it not so well intented at all. That damn book gave it all an official, serious nature. The fact that Keith repeated many of his old quotes in the book took it all to different level; it wasn't just passing thoughts going on...
- Doxa
Quote
stonesdan60
Regarding Keith putting down Mick's guitar playing: Yes, he's said some negative things in the past but we'd be amiss not to bring things up to date. After the demo sessions for A Bigger Bang, Keith had much praise for Mick's musicianship. He said that Mick had gotten really good on electric guitar and that was he was a great drummer and bass player as well. I think these more recent comments should override the negative comments of the past.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71Tele
Keith certainly praises Mick's abilities as a frontman and showman, but Mick is a musician too - something often overlooked even here on this site. Keith was more than once criticized or demeaned Mick's electric guitar playing, for example. What could possibly be the motivation for that? It would be like Mick disparaging Keith's singing.
Mick has joked with Keith's singing in several interviews, of course not in a mean way.
Keith is close to Mick, the guitar player - we're not. On Sticky and Exile, it's obvious that Mick learned from Keith. In the 70s and 80s he learned from someone else and played very differently, especially with his right hand (too much on the beat). I reckon that's what Keith is talking about. Mick's rhythm playing after Exile is in a way what the Stones are trying not to become.
Just a guess from my part.
Aw, c'mon, DP. Mick doesn't play so much the guitar that he "ruins" Rolling Stones sound - or did he do that to SOME GIRLS? - but for Keith Richards that seems to be so big deal that he needs to comment that in public... another classy act of "loyalty"... But I mean, what could Mick say about Keith's guitar playing of recent yaers if hw would like to be mean...
Anyway, at the time I remeber hearing fisrt time (years ago) Keith's complaint abot Jagger's guitar playing, I think it was just funny, nothing really substantive or serious. But now it starts to sound there is a pattern in his criticism, or a campaign going on, and it not so well intented at all. That damn book gave it all an official, serious nature. The fact that Keith repeated many of his old quotes in the book took it all to different level; it wasn't just passing thoughts going on...
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The first time I heard "complaints" about Mick's playing was during the SW/UJ-tour.
My guess is that Mick wanted to play way more than he did, and that might have pissed Keith a bit off...
Quote
DandelionPowderman
If you don't think he does, I expect that HighWire, Sad, Sad, Sad, Rock And A Hard Place and live renditions of Miss You and Undercover are on heavy rotation on your iPod
That straight on-the-beat-playing does something with the Stones-sound for sure, like it or not.
The difference with Some Girls was that Jagger never dominated the tracks with his guitar playing, like he does rhythm-wise on the tracks I mentioned.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
If you don't think he does, I expect that HighWire, Sad, Sad, Sad, Rock And A Hard Place and live renditions of Miss You and Undercover are on heavy rotation on your iPod
That straight on-the-beat-playing does something with the Stones-sound for sure, like it or not.
The difference with Some Girls was that Jagger never dominated the tracks with his guitar playing, like he does rhythm-wise on the tracks I mentioned.
Well, honestly the thing that "destroys" those Stones tracks and especially the live versions of "Miss You" or "Undercover of The Night" is not Jagger's guitar. Damn that Jagger - he should have continued his solo career and leave the "authentic" Rolling Stones sound alone...
I am surprised DP - I wouldn't think even Jane Rose to came up with that point!><
- Doxa
Quote
Stoneage
Isn't it just as simple as that Mick had improved his guitarplaying and that Keith, therefore, wanted to put him down because he felt intimidated by it?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stonesdan60
Regarding Keith putting down Mick's guitar playing: Yes, he's said some negative things in the past but we'd be amiss not to bring things up to date. After the demo sessions for A Bigger Bang, Keith had much praise for Mick's musicianship. He said that Mick had gotten really good on electric guitar and that was he was a great drummer and bass player as well. I think these more recent comments should override the negative comments of the past.
I wonder why people always neglect these kind of comments from Keith. Ah yeah, there wouldn't be a conflict then!
Quote
Doxa
But 71Tele's point reminds me of Philip Norman's early 80's book where the writer claims that Jagger has been always "insecure" about his musicianship. That he wants to be a real musician like Keith Richards always have been. If that's true - I really don't know but none of us never been in Jagger's shoes, and what do we lesser mortals know about the vanity a superman like that might have!- making public fun of that side of him can be a hit below the belt - I guess Keith knows Mick's weak spots and where to hit if he wants to (musicianship, manhood)...
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Please, no more cock-talk, awright?
And, yeah, Keith is full of contradictions and has a rough jargon, but go to the core of what he says, and you'll find a different stance than the one you think he has.
Quote
proudmaryQuote
DandelionPowderman
Please, no more cock-talk, awright?
And, yeah, Keith is full of contradictions and has a rough jargon, but go to the core of what he says, and you'll find a different stance than the one you think he has.
1. It's totally up to Keith
2.Is not a binomial theorem. We all understand what lies at the "core" of all he says about Mick - all his anger and bitterness caused by the fact that Jagger has long gone from him.
And of course the envy of the fact that Jagger enjoyes greater fame than he does, and always gets more attention
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
proudmaryQuote
DandelionPowderman
Please, no more cock-talk, awright?
And, yeah, Keith is full of contradictions and has a rough jargon, but go to the core of what he says, and you'll find a different stance than the one you think he has.
1. It's totally up to Keith
2.Is not a binomial theorem. We all understand what lies at the "core" of all he says about Mick - all his anger and bitterness caused by the fact that Jagger has long gone from him.
And of course the envy of the fact that Jagger enjoyes greater fame than he does, and always gets more attention
Who are "we"? I don't share your analysis, and I think you constantly skip the positive things he says about Mick. Those things belong to the picture you try to paint here, too.
The "Mick's not a musical person"-quote is obviously a joke. Do you really believe that Keith regards his beloved songwriting-companion for a frickin' lifetime a non-musical person? Of course it's a joke.
Quote
Doxa
But 71Tele's point reminds me of Philip Norman's early 80's book where the writer claims that Jagger has been always "insecure" about his musicianship. That he wants to be a real musician like Keith Richards always have been. If that's true - I really don't know but none of us never been in Jagger's shoes, and what do we lesser mortals know about the vanity a superman like that might have!- making public fun of that side of him can be a hit below the belt - I guess Keith knows Mick's weak spots and where to hit if he wants to (musicianship, manhood)...
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't wanna discuss this anymore, but here is a psychological analysis of the matter that I found interesting, and a bit more balanced
[www.psychologytoday.com]
Quote
Bliss
Just so you know, - I - reported it because I thought the way Northernale1 attacked you was way out of line.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't wanna discuss this anymore, but here is a psychological analysis of the matter that I found interesting, and a bit more balanced
[www.psychologytoday.com]
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I don't wanna discuss this anymore, but here is a psychological analysis of the matter that I found interesting, and a bit more balanced
[www.psychologytoday.com]
Hmm.. the writer uses his the claims of his own ook in his "analysis". Or to pu it other way: tries to raed LIFE to fit to his theories.
I don't know. Maybe he right. But the problem is that when discusiing their supposed "friendship" is (a) he takes Keith's talk at face value; (b) doesn't have the point of view of the other half at all.
So, I'm not very impressed. "Balanced"? Actually I think he doesn't say much at all. To me it looks like that he just uses Keith's book as a tempting case to apply his own theories. A kind of populist move.
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't know if those are his theories, or if it's an analysis using well-known psychological methods.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71Tele
Keith certainly praises Mick's abilities as a frontman and showman, but Mick is a musician too - something often overlooked even here on this site. Keith was more than once criticized or demeaned Mick's electric guitar playing, for example. What could possibly be the motivation for that? It would be like Mick disparaging Keith's singing.
Mick has joked with Keith's singing in several interviews, of course not in a mean way.
Keith is close to Mick, the guitar player - we're not. On Sticky and Exile, it's obvious that Mick learned from Keith. In the 70s and 80s he learned from someone else and played very differently, especially with his right hand (too much on the beat). I reckon that's what Keith is talking about. Mick's rhythm playing after Exile is in a way what the Stones are trying not to become.
Just a guess from my part.
Aw, c'mon, DP. Mick doesn't play so much the guitar that he "ruins" Rolling Stones sound - or did he do that to SOME GIRLS? - but for Keith Richards that seems to be so big deal that he needs to comment that in public... another classy act of "loyalty"... But I mean, what could Mick say about Keith's guitar playing of recent yaers if hw would like to be mean...
Anyway, at the time I remeber hearing fisrt time (years ago) Keith's complaint abot Jagger's guitar playing, I think it was just funny, nothing really substantive or serious. But now it starts to sound there is a pattern in his criticism, or a campaign going on, and it not so well intented at all. That damn book gave it all an official, serious nature. The fact that Keith repeated many of his old quotes in the book took it all to different level; it wasn't just passing thoughts going on...
- Doxa
Quote
Doxa
The fact that Keith repeated many of his old quotes in the book took it all to different level; it wasn't just passing thoughts going on...
- Doxa