Quote
Stoneage
It seems that Keith never could stomach the fact that Mick was the main star or the leader of the band. It's the usual lead singer and lead guitarist trauma. It's even down to such details as who's entering the stage first or last.

Quote
Stoneage

It seems that Keith never could stomach the fact that Mick was the main star or the leader of the band. It's the usual lead singer and lead guitarist trauma. It's even down to such details as who's entering the stage first or last.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage

It seems that Keith never could stomach the fact that Mick was the main star or the leader of the band. It's the usual lead singer and lead guitarist trauma. It's even down to such details as who's entering the stage first or last.

I hink tah is something to do in the history of The Rolling Stones that of any of them Keith's ego has changed the most during the yaers. He seems to be the only member in the band whose persona and, most importantly, role has most changed during the years. Rememeber, he was there in the band only because Mick wanted him to be. He was Mick's pal, and Mick insisted to Keith get as wll if he was going to join to Brian's band. And his position wasn't any fixed at all; Keith mom said that Keith didn't miss any gig or rehearsal, no matter how sick he was, because he was afraid that he would be replaced with someone else. And after the band stareed to get name, Keith was teh middle man betwwn teh two shining stars of the group - Mick and Brian - and the less profilic "backing nand" (Bill, Charlie, Stu). Of course, when ALO kicked Mck and Keith to write, and Keith turned to be the composer of the group, his simprtance within the group started to increase dramatically. And this very much co-incidented with Brian's decline. By the end of teh 60's Keith role as teh second most importnat meer of the group was esablished among fans, and to a degree in medua, but it wold take until the early 80's that he would gain such a status Brian used to have, actually challenging Jagger's place in the spotlight. And Keith seemed to have enjoyed every drop of fame and appraisal, and as the years go by, it has just gotten worse. LIFE was a logical move in that progression - he rwrote the history of the band, especially is early days and foundation, and of course, used the chance to mock and belittle teh two big guys that were always above of him. To me eyes , in readong the recollections of LIFE, there is very small person and little boy in Keith "boy scout" Richards who is damn insecure, bitter and jealous for the actual big guys. It must have been a hell for him to stand in the shadow of these two strong characters.

Personally, I used to admire "Keith's story" within the history of The Rolling Stones as a story of progress - how one starts from zero and develops during the years, and takes his deserved place in the sun, etc. but it has developed to a stage that it has turned to be ugly. Keith Richards is seemingly the member of the Rolling Stones into whose head the fame has most affected. In many ways he resembles Brian Jones - the biggest victim of his mocking during the years. But like I said, it took some twenty years for him to actualy take Brian's original role within the band, and challenge Mick Jagger. (The analagy of Keith to Brian could make even furher, but I won't go to that now.)

So in this way, Keith's take on "Little Red Rooster" in Sumlin gig is funny to reflect - there he is doing both parts - the slide and the vocals - those two guys in front of him played so inceredibly well back in the day that it took the number to the top of British single charts.... Now all the spotlight is on him...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Chris, I don't trust my insticts concerning the tour, or some selected dates, at all. My opinion changes daily. When I read LIFE I was certain that The Rolling Stones will never perform again. I took the book as Keith's last contribution he could ever do - just tell the story; I was almost shocked how little loyalty he had for the band and was able to broke the "code". Well, there was not much newsworthy in the sense of mocking Jagger, but in the context of work that took to write some two years, that sounded like a reflected statement - not a drunken comment in a the euphoria of interview. My impression was that if he still would have been a functional memeber of the group, he would never had the book relaesed.

But then, the hype over 50th Anniversary started, and naturally the rumours and hints about possible reunion spread. And I was certain that there will a tour in some sense of the word; some very reliable sources and factors seemed indicating that. But at the moment it doesn't look very promising though. It is just Richards talking of possible 2013 performances, while Jagger remains silent. No, I don't think any claim of LIFE stand in a way for re-union. They (Mick) are professional and thick-skinned enough if there is a million or two to pick up. I think what is is the real issue (problem) is the actual healthiness and condition of Keith (or any other memer of the group). What you, Chris, said about Keith's pics - and clips - that does not offer much hope. I also wish Keith the best, but there is a sadden part in me reflecting that is this only "keeping up appearances" what Keith does nowadays in public, and the reality - his actual condition as a musician - might as bad as many of us here are afraid of. And LIFE actually was Keith's way of saying good bye to The Rolling Stones.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage

It seems that Keith never could stomach the fact that Mick was the main star or the leader of the band. It's the usual lead singer and lead guitarist trauma. It's even down to such details as who's entering the stage first or last.

I think that is something to do in the history of The Rolling Stones that of any of them Keith's ego has changed the most during the yaers. He seems to be the member in the band whose persona and, most importantly, role within the band has most changed during the years. Remember, he was there in the band only because Mick wanted him to be. He was Mick's pal, and Mick insisted to have Keith as well if he was going to join to Brian's band. And his position wasn't any fixed at all; Keith's mom said that Keith didn't miss any gig or rehearsal, no matter how sick he was, because he was afraid that he would be replaced with someone else. And after the band started to get name, Keith was the middle man between teh two shining stars of the group - Mick and Brian - on one hand and the less profilic "backing nand" (Bill, Charlie, Stu) on the other. Of course, when ALO kicked the asses of Mick and Keith to write, and Keith turned to be the composer of the group, his importance within the group started to increase dramatically. And this very much co-incidented with Brian's decline. By the end of the 60's, Keith role as the second most important member of the group was esablished among fans, and to a degree in media, but it would take until the early 80's that he would gain such a status Brian used to have, actually challenging Jagger's place in the spotlight. And Keith seemed to have enjoyed every drop of fame and appraisal, and as the years go by, it has just gotten worse. LIFE was a logical move in that 'progression' - he rewrote the history of the band, especially its early days and foundation, and of course, used the chance to mock and belittle the two big guys that were always above of him. To me eyes, in reading the recollections of LIFE, there is very small person and little boy in Keith "boy scout" Richards who is damn insecure, bitter and jealous for the actual big guys. It must have been a hell for him to stand in the shadow of these two strong characters.

Personally, I used to admire "Keith's story" within the history of The Rolling Stones as a story of progress - how one starts from zero and develops during the years, and takes his deserved place in the sun, etc. but it has developed to a stage that it has turned to be ugly. Keith Richards is seemingly the member of the Rolling Stones into whose head the fame has most affected. In many ways he resembles Brian Jones - the biggest victim of his mocking during the years. But like I said, it took some twenty years for him to actually take Brian's original position within the band, and challenge Mick Jagger. (The analagy of Keith to Brian could make even furher, but I won't go to that now.)

So in this way, Keith's take on "Little Red Rooster" in Sumlin gig is funny to reflect - there he is doing both parts - the slide and the vocals - those two guys in front of him played so inceredibly well back in the day that it took the number to the top of British single charts.... Now all the spotlight is on him...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
When I read LIFE I was certain that The Rolling Stones will never perform again.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker
O, reading the thread title I thought he apologized to Mick Taylor. But perhaps he does so later. Who knows.

What does he have to apologise to Taylor about?

Besides a few public less than complimentary cuts I would think some money and songwriting credit matters could be content for such. But then again one-on-one relationships fall under a different set of rules when both people are famous. One good smile and a heartfelt hug, in front of say 300,000 people would probably do the trick. peace

Song writing credits? Lol.

No man, naturalust is right. Taylor got royally ripped off for his great input. He was more than a bit part player during his tenure. It wouldn't have broken Keith's bank to cut Taylor in on the copyright of a few songs he helped shape up.

Quote
24FPS
By the end of the 60's, Keith role as the second most important member of the group was esablished among fans, and to a degree in media, but it would take until the early 80's that he would gain such a status Brian used to have, actually challenging Jagger's place in the spotlight. - Doxa

I don't agree with this at all. Keith's status was firmly fixed by the early 70s as the dark bad boy of the group. Brian never had the status Keith had, at least not in the States. Brian was more of a European phenomena. At the time of his death it was confusing as to exactly who he was. Keith was always the one on stage playing the rocking leads. He's the one we saw play the fuzzbox guitar on Satisfaction. Remember that Brian's tour de force, Little Red Rooster, was not the hit in America that it was in the U.K. By the early 70s Keith was on the top of the list of Next Rock Star to Die. He was the epitome of wasted rock debauchery. While Brian was rarely mentioned as a rock casualty in the realm of Hendrix and the others of the early 70s. Keith may not have been interviewed much at that time, but that made him all the more decadent and mysterious. And his bust in '77 certainly reinforced the international image he'd already cultivated with the iconic 1972 photo A DRUG FREE AMERICA COMES FIRST.

I don't think Keith ever challenged Mick for the spotlight. Keith simply had a little more of his own spotlight. He proved to be a more interesting interview, no matter how dotty the info might be. Mick's individual musical stardom has only grown, especially with his high profile shots at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th Anniversary, the 2011 Grammys and recently at the White House Blues Tribute. Keith's musical profile has dissipated. He's now known as Jack Sparrow's gargoyle dad in Disney movies.

And now Keith finds himself in the odd position of being the Stone who now has to prove himself musically.

Quote
24FPS
By the end of the 60's, Keith role as the second most important member of the group was esablished among fans, and to a degree in media, but it would take until the early 80's that he would gain such a status Brian used to have, actually challenging Jagger's place in the spotlight. - Doxa

I don't agree with this at all. Keith's status was firmly fixed by the early 70s as the dark bad boy of the group. Brian never had the status Keith had, at least not in the States. Brian was more of a European phenomena. At the time of his death it was confusing as to exactly who he was. Keith was always the one on stage playing the rocking leads. He's the one we saw play the fuzzbox guitar on Satisfaction. Remember that Brian's tour de force, Little Red Rooster, was not the hit in America that it was in the U.K. By the early 70s Keith was on the top of the list of Next Rock Star to Die. He was the epitome of wasted rock debauchery. While Brian was rarely mentioned as a rock casualty in the realm of Hendrix and the others of the early 70s. Keith may not have been interviewed much at that time, but that made him all the more decadent and mysterious. And his bust in '77 certainly reinforced the international image he'd already cultivated with the iconic 1972 photo A DRUG FREE AMERICA COMES FIRST.

I don't think Keith ever challenged Mick for the spotlight. Keith simply had a little more of his own spotlight. He proved to be a more interesting interview, no matter how dotty the info might be. Mick's individual musical stardom has only grown, especially with his high profile shots at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th Anniversary, the 2011 Grammys and recently at the White House Blues Tribute. Keith's musical profile has dissipated. He's now known as Jack Sparrow's gargoyle dad in Disney movies.

And now Keith finds himself in the odd position of being the Stone who now has to prove himself musically.

Quote
Braincapers
I didn't start liking the Stones until the 70s (Brown Sugar was probably my first Stones record and Sticky Fingers on cassette) but by then Keith was already the cool one. It's a bit of an over simplification but I think Keith was the most popular Stone in the music press while Mick was in the mainstream press.

Keith may have his brain addled a bit by drink, drugs, age and the fall but I can't forget his contribution to my musical life. He's still the man! However, as I've said before being pro Keith doesn't make me anti Mick, after all I'm a fan of the Stones.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Braincapers
However, as I've said before being pro Keith doesn't make me anti Mick, after all I'm a fan of the Stones.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

I believe that image wise, the Richards side of the Jagger/Richards icon template, as opposed to the whole group as "bad boys", really launched for the wider audience, with the Jumping Jack Flash film. Cemented once and for all, in Ladies and Gentlemen. And it wen from there.

And, interestingly, it was very nearly challenged by Taylor's rising star on the his last European tour with the group. But that went by in the blink of an eye.

But back to the Glimmers, once really established, on the non-visual side, part of that "cool" image rested Keith not opening up his mouth too much. To my interpretation, not terribly dissimilar from Doxa's or Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, Keith's image built throughout "the 70s", (even if we put that back to 68/59), and reached critical mass in the mid 80s. He was the celebrity that didn't die at that point. "The coolest man on the planet" etc. And, then, with the fallout with Jagger's solo career, we launch into a whole different Keith Richards that see to this day.

Brian Jones was a big deal, even post Satisfaction, to the many (majority?) of fans following to the point of his dismissal and death.

Think back to the album covers now, not the actual songwriting. It's not until Goats Head Soup we get this Mick/Keith cover thing going on, reprized again on Tattoo You.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

I believe that image wise, the Richards side of the Jagger/Richards icon template, as opposed to the whole group as "bad boys", really launched for the wider audience, with the Jumping Jack Flash film. Cemented once and for all, in Ladies and Gentlemen. And it wen from there.

And, interestingly, it was very nearly challenged by Taylor's rising star on the his last European tour with the group. But that went by in the blink of an eye.

But back to the Glimmers, once really established, on the non-visual side, part of that "cool" image rested Keith not opening up his mouth too much. To my interpretation, not terribly dissimilar from Doxa's or Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, Keith's image built throughout "the 70s", (even if we put that back to 68/59), and reached critical mass in the mid 80s. He was the celebrity that didn't die at that point. "The coolest man on the planet" etc. And, then, with the fallout with Jagger's solo career, we launch into a whole different Keith Richards that see to this day.

Brian Jones was a big deal, even post Satisfaction, to the many (majority?) of fans following to the point of his dismissal and death.

Think back to the album covers now, not the actual songwriting. It's not until Goats Head Soup we get this Mick/Keith cover thing going on, reprized again on Tattoo You.

I've never head that before. Do you have any links to articles on that, or was that fan buzz at the time? Unfortunately, I was to young back then...

Quote
duke richardson

Brian's contributions point the way to what would have been a great career as a solo performer IF he hadn't been so self destructive

can you imagine a 'Brian Jones Band', had he gotten himself together?

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

I believe that image wise, the Richards side of the Jagger/Richards icon template, as opposed to the whole group as "bad boys", really launched for the wider audience, with the Jumping Jack Flash film. Cemented once and for all, in Ladies and Gentlemen. And it wen from there.

And, interestingly, it was very nearly challenged by Taylor's rising star on the his last European tour with the group. But that went by in the blink of an eye.

But back to the Glimmers, once really established, on the non-visual side, part of that "cool" image rested Keith not opening up his mouth too much. To my interpretation, not terribly dissimilar from Doxa's or Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, Keith's image built throughout "the 70s", (even if we put that back to 68/59), and reached critical mass in the mid 80s. He was the celebrity that didn't die at that point. "The coolest man on the planet" etc. And, then, with the fallout with Jagger's solo career, we launch into a whole different Keith Richards that see to this day.

Brian Jones was a big deal, even post Satisfaction, to the many (majority?) of fans following to the point of his dismissal and death.

Think back to the album covers now, not the actual songwriting. It's not until Goats Head Soup we get this Mick/Keith cover thing going on, reprized again on Tattoo You.

I've never head that before. Do you have any links to articles on that, or was that fan buzz at the time? Unfortunately, I was to young back then...

Oh no DPM, definitely not. I'm in the same boat as you, too young for that (well not quite technically, but didn't really become a Stones fanatic until 1978).

I should have rephrased a bit perhaps - it was a tangent to begin with and I was mildly surprised to read of it myself, despite being a Taylor fan. The Taylor bit in 73 (Brussels right?) was gleaned from a few comments I believe I read here in the last year or so, or one of the other boards. I recall at least one link (I don't have it), but apparently he was causing a stir in some fan press and among some of the attendees.

It had caught my attention at the time because it suggested Taylor being a draw in the context of Taylor shining up there with Jagger. It wasn't a reference to Taylor in relation to Richards. Which in itself is sort of telling.

Even going back to Taylor's own quotes which i do recall pretty well, in responding to why he did NOT have more stage presence/act he suggested he should not take the spotlight off Jagger (no mention of Richards in Taylor's response there).

As it happens, I doubt Taylor would ever be different than we've ever seen him (with the Stones, Blues Breakers, Dylan, solo etc), but in his mind it was Jagger in the spotlight, and not Jagger/Richards, and ditto for whatever the source was for Taylor taking a cut of the spotlight on that European leg. But yeah, how long was that leg? Not too long. And, yes, we do see Richards front and center in L&G (earlier than Brussels).

I do also recall a Stones review back in the mid 70s, could've been Rolling Stone or Village Voice, but anyway, more or less "mainstream", wherein the reviewer cited "Can't you Hear me Knocking" as showing the way for the Stones to go in "the future" as a mature band. With the benefit of hindsight, probably nearly all of us are glad the Stones didn't get sucked into long extended musical noodlings or lead guitar hero stuff, or watered down jazz pretensions (can you imagine?), but the sentiment probably reflected the thoughts of others as well.

Getting back to the TAMI show, it is always interesting for me to watch. I agree with what you see there DPM concerning Richards already rising, at that early date, but it's also a bit of a Rorschach test to watch it. I've seen it referenced and posted by the Brian Jones faithful, to show him holding his own at that time.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.

I believe that image wise, the Richards side of the Jagger/Richards icon template, as opposed to the whole group as "bad boys", really launched for the wider audience, with the Jumping Jack Flash film. Cemented once and for all, in Ladies and Gentlemen. And it wen from there.

And, interestingly, it was very nearly challenged by Taylor's rising star on the his last European tour with the group. But that went by in the blink of an eye.

But back to the Glimmers, once really established, on the non-visual side, part of that "cool" image rested Keith not opening up his mouth too much. To my interpretation, not terribly dissimilar from Doxa's or Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, Keith's image built throughout "the 70s", (even if we put that back to 68/59), and reached critical mass in the mid 80s. He was the celebrity that didn't die at that point. "The coolest man on the planet" etc. And, then, with the fallout with Jagger's solo career, we launch into a whole different Keith Richards that see to this day.

Brian Jones was a big deal, even post Satisfaction, to the many (majority?) of fans following to the point of his dismissal and death.

Think back to the album covers now, not the actual songwriting. It's not until Goats Head Soup we get this Mick/Keith cover thing going on, reprized again on Tattoo You.

I've never head that before. Do you have any links to articles on that, or was that fan buzz at the time? Unfortunately, I was to young back then...

Oh no DPM, definitely not. I'm in the same boat as you, too young for that (well not quite technically, but didn't really become a Stones fanatic until 1978).

I should have rephrased a bit perhaps - it was a tangent to begin with and I was mildly surprised to read of it myself, despite being a Taylor fan. The Taylor bit in 73 (Brussels right?) was gleaned from a few comments I believe I read here in the last year or so, or one of the other boards. I recall at least one link (I don't have it), but apparently he was causing a stir in some fan press and among some of the attendees.

It had caught my attention at the time because it suggested Taylor being a draw in the context of Taylor shining up there with Jagger. It wasn't a reference to Taylor in relation to Richards. Which in itself is sort of telling.

Even going back to Taylor's own quotes which i do recall pretty well, in responding to why he did NOT have more stage presence/act he suggested he should not take the spotlight off Jagger (no mention of Richards in Taylor's response there).

As it happens, I doubt Taylor would ever be different than we've ever seen him (with the Stones, Blues Breakers, Dylan, solo etc), but in his mind it was Jagger in the spotlight, and not Jagger/Richards, and ditto for whatever the source was for Taylor taking a cut of the spotlight on that European leg. But yeah, how long was that leg? Not too long. And, yes, we do see Richards front and center in L&G (earlier than Brussels).

I do also recall a Stones review back in the mid 70s, could've been Rolling Stone or Village Voice, but anyway, more or less "mainstream", wherein the reviewer cited "Can't you Hear me Knocking" as showing the way for the Stones to go in "the future" as a mature band. With the benefit of hindsight, probably nearly all of us are glad the Stones didn't get sucked into long extended musical noodlings or lead guitar hero stuff, or watered down jazz pretensions (can you imagine?), but the sentiment probably reflected the thoughts of others as well.

Getting back to the TAMI show, it is always interesting for me to watch. I agree with what you see there DPM concerning Richards already rising, at that early date, but it's also a bit of a Rorschach test to watch it. I've seen it referenced and posted by the Brian Jones faithful, to show him holding his own at that time.

Some great analysis in there, man. Thanks.

I agree with you on Taylor not wanting to steal the limelight from Jagger, but something tells me he wouldn't have done it anyway. Some people have that frontman-thing in them as soon as they enter a stage. Mick and Keith are people like that, even though Keith developed a more "visual" style as the years passed. On the TAMI-show it's the real deal - always a pleasure to watch.

Quote
backstreetboy1
its all good in the hood.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, I think you're putting to much into Brian's "front man-status". If he was, that would be only in the beginning of their career. By Satisfaction, the Jagger/Richard-team was well-established, musically, image-wise and visually on and off stage. By the early 70s, The Glimmer Twins could be seen as two frontmen in the media.

With Keith's drugbusts etc. he got the extra attention during the 70s, and when he kicked hard drugs, he became a favorite by the press, something that heightened his status to the public, imo.