Quote
elunsi

Quote
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.

Of course Mick can do whatever he wants, Elunsi. That is pretty much what he has done also. But i insist that he was the one who took the first stone out of the Rolling Stones wall. By focusing primarily on his solo albums he, to use another stone anology, threw a stone in the Rolling Stones machinery. As Bill Wyman said, The Rolling Stones didn't play a live concert for seven years in the 80s (1982-1989). And I don't agree on you second and third account either. His filmprojects weren't that successful and I don't think he came back to the Stones because "he loves it". Lack of real success in his solo projects and v-e-r-y big paychecks for an upcoming Stones tour (the 89-90 tour) were, probably, the real reasons.

at least some parts and posts in this thread reminds me of...

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.

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.

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
DandelionPowderman

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.

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

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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

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
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!

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
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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

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
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...

Damn if that's the only complaint Keith Richards has for a modern (Vegas) sound of the Stones, well.....

But hey, its the "best Stones yet" as the master says!

- Doxa

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.

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

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
Doxa

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.

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

I don't like the straight rhythm playing on SSS and Highwire and similar songs Mick plays on, it's no more than that. Shouldn't be very surprising

Then again, I love his more syncopated stuff, like on Stop Breakin' Down and Sway.

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?

I wish it was that simple, but it's not.

The reason? Today, Mick is a better guitar player than ever, and what do Keith say? He has tamed the beast, he's a really good guitar player now

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I wonder why people always neglect these kind of comments from Keith. Ah yeah, there wouldn't be a conflict then!

Yes, Keith said that while recording ABB, he even said that being with Jagger in the same room one realizes how really cool he is. But it seems he later bitterly regretted everything good he said
At the day of the first gig of Bigger Bang tour he said "his cock on the end of his nose, and very small one on this". Really strange that it has received more publicity than his stories about Mick's good guitar playing
after that there was the whole bunch os SAL interviews in which Keith when asked about Mick's guitar playing said something like "Excuse me while I laugh. He's a bit vain, let's put it like that"
I clearly remember an exchange of remarks in one of those interview -
Interviewer - You say Mick is not a great musician, he can not play the guitar, he is not much of dancer and an awful actor. Is that anything he is doing well?

KR - Mick is best being Mick Jagger. But he full of piss blah blah blah

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
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

''You realize, Mick, that you've got five songs in the same key.'' But this is a musical thing, and Mick is not very musical! [Laughs] - KR, 2008

It's a constant theme in many of KR's interviews. Somebody on this board has posted an 81' Richards interview in which he said that Mick was always underrated as a musician, that he must prove each time in the studio to other musicians that he is a real musician.
But except for Richards no one of many musicians Mick worked with had never doubted his musical abilities

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.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-02 14:15 by proudmary.

Quote
proudmary

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.

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
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary

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.

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.

Unfortunately the negative outweighs the positive things - by expression and number of pages. One has to seek out some positive thing he has to say about his "beloved songwriting-companion" grain by grain.
I'm not sure it is a joke - he repeats it too often. And it seems to coincides with his whole concept of Jagger as " vanity band can hold over there while doing music"

You don't agreee with my analysis but what do you really mean then when you say
"go to the core of what he says, and you'll find a different stance than the one you think he has"
What the core of what he says according to you?

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

Long ago they were close friends and shared their inner thoughts with each other - as friends do. Now Richards pulls it out for all to see. For money

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
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]

Okay, I understand you. I'll check the article later

Quote
Bliss

Just so you know, - I - reported it because I thought the way Northernale1 attacked you was way out of line.

Thanks,Bliss. I understand you reported Northernale1's post not mine

>>>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

That's really the heart of it...where he says, "Where has my friend gone?" Mick moved on from this friendship years ago. But he stays connected for business purposes, which must be rather an ordeal for Keith, since Mick's indifference would not be well-concealed. Imagine enduring that for 35+ years.

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]

Hmm.. the writer uses his the claims of his own book as the basis in his "analysis". Or to put it other way: tries to read LIFE to fit to his theories, or confirming them.

I don't know. Maybe he is right. But the problem is that when discusing their supposed "friendship" (a) he takes Keith's talk at face value; (b) doesn't have the point of view of the other half available 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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-02 16:20 by Doxa.

Quote
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]

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

No, he doesn't, hence balanced.

I don't know if those are his theories, or if it's an analysis using well-known psychological methods.

Anyways, it's bound to be more balanced than proudmary's and my own banter

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't know if those are his theories, or if it's an analysis using well-known psychological methods.

Don't know me either but he refers to the results of his recent book "Buddy System: Understanding Male Friendships", and, as is told, it is based on interviews with more than 400 men and 122 women.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

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

In Ronnie's book, it is recounted that Keith goes absolutely nuts when Wood walks in with a saxophone. Ian Stewart has to settle Keith down.

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

Much like most and/or all Rolling Stones books, some parts of Life are straight copy and paste from past interviews.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-02 16:43 by His Majesty.