While Proud Mary seems not so much a Stones fan to me, but rather a Jagger disciple, this Washington Times piece, along with the Slate's classic "Imagine if Mick Jagger responded to Keith Richards about his new autobiography"
[www.slate.com]

are but two examples of a considerable number of legitimate Stones fans becoming put off by Keef's certainly immature and seemingly bitter, self serving rhetoric. And I don't think many delight in this.

There was a time when Keith Richards would sneer at Bill Wyman writing a book (and so would Jagger). It's not so much Keith's fans that have changed over time (they have of course), as much as Richards has changed.

In the end, Keith wrote a dreadfully disrespectful book. Putting Jagger aside, Ron Wood, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones get very short shrift. What was the point really?

Yes, Keith is still honest at times. He stated that he is an a$$hole and that he no longer considers himself a musician, but rather an "entertainer". And that's the "truth" (straight off the pages of LIFE).

But I can't see where he can be called a parasite. The Stones are his legacy, no matter how much heavy lifting Jagger did over the years. If he wants or has to rest on it, it's his, as much as Jagger's. I think the problem is now that the image he has cultivated is at odds with the real person like never before.

He acknowledges the gap in LIFE but doesn't perceive a problem. But in 2012, after years of bravado about playing until he drops dead on the stage, the fact of the matter is Jagger, Taylor, Wood, Wyman and Watts are still playing and Keith is in retirement (and in a bedroom community likely more populated by Wall Street denizens than bohemians).

The overall situation seems sad at the moment, but Keith *has* softened his rhetoric the last year or so, whether it be sincere or strategic. Perhaps there is still time enough for him to recover his playing to adequate level take his proper place to afford his band the sendoff it deserves.

When all is said and done, and the band long gone, none of this will matter of course. All due credit and respect to Keith Richards will be there. No one can take it away. But in the meantime, Richards brought this ridicule down on himself with the soap opera and his big mouth.

Quote
SweetThing
While Proud Mary seems not so much a Stones fan to me, but rather a Jagger disciple, this Washington Times piece, along with the Slate's classic "Imagine if Mick Jagger responded to Keith Richards about his new autobiography"
[www.slate.com]

are but two examples of a considerable number of legitimate Stones fans becoming put off by Keef's certainly immature and seemingly bitter, self serving rhetoric. And I don't think many delight in this.

There was a time when Keith Richards would sneer at Bill Wyman writing a book (and so would Jagger). It's not so much Keith's fans that have changed over time (they have of course), as much as Richards has changed.

In the end, Keith wrote a dreadfully disrespectful book. Putting Jagger aside, Ron Wood, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones get very short shrift. What was the point really?

Yes, Keith is still honest at times. He stated that he is an a$$hole and that he no longer considers himself a musician, but rather an "entertainer". And that's the "truth" (straight off the pages of LIFE).

But I can't see where he can be called a parasite. The Stones are his legacy, no matter how much heavy lifting Jagger did over the years. If he wants or has to rest on it, it's his, as much as Jagger's. I think the problem is now that the image he has cultivated is at odds with the real person like never before.

He acknowledges the gap in LIFE but doesn't perceive a problem. But in 2012, after years of bravado about playing until he drops dead on the stage, the fact of the matter is Jagger, Taylor, Wood, Wyman and Watts are still playing and Keith is in retirement (and in a bedroom community likely more populated by Wall Street denizens than bohemians).

The overall situation seems sad at the moment, but Keith *has* softened his rhetoric the last year or so, whether it be sincere or strategic. Perhaps there is still time enough for him to recover his playing to adequate level take his proper place to afford his band the sendoff it deserves.

When all is said and done, and the band long gone, none of this will matter of course. All due credit and respect to Keith Richards will be there. No one can take it away. But in the meantime, Richards brought this ridicule down on himself with the soap opera and his big mouth.

I agree, but the so called soap opera won't get any bigger than we allow it to be...

For the persons involved, I'm pretty sure it is close to non-existent.

Mick Jagger: Two cheers for an aging frontman

That is the original title for the article, as some already posted.
At the end of the article the author writes: "It makes me sad to say this, but I fear it’s the truth. Keith Richards isn’t the purist. Lately, he’s more like a parasite".
Making "It’s the truth - Richards is more like a parasite" the title of this thread is indeed misleading and wrong. One can only guess why the poster chose to do so.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Mick Jagger: Two cheers for an aging frontman

That is the original title for the article, as some already posted.
At the end of the article the author writes: "It makes me sad to say this, but I fear it’s the truth. Keith Richards isn’t the purist. Lately, he’s more like a parasite".
Making "It’s the truth - Richards is more like a parasite" the title of this thread is indeed misleading and wrong. One can only guess why the poster chose to do so.

LOL!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
LOL

"Laughing Out Loud" or "Lots Of Love" ???
There has been some confusion about this

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

People, it was a good article. What facts did he actually get wrong? He told the unvarnished truth, and it hurts.

By the way, the writer is also an ace guitarist and can play the Stones catalog note for note.

Why does everyone think that if they like one that they must hate the other. I dont' think the article writer knows what he is talking about on several instances, namely, the contributions on Bigger Bang songwriting. I think they are a songwriting team and both should get credit for it. How would the article writer know anything about who did what? The author admits that he is a stranger and yet "knows" all about someone. huh. just because he knows how to play the songs doesn't mean he knows what is really going on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 17:23 by tumbled.

Quote
tumbled
Why does everyone think that if they like one that they must hate the other. I dont' think the article writer knows what he is talking about on several instances, namely, the contributions on Bigger Bang songwriting. I think they are a songwriting team and both should get credit for it. How would the article writer know anything about who did what?

Dismissing Beast Of Burden, Before They Make Me Run and Shattered + Keith's ideas for playing, arranging, as well as his back up vocals IS a major factual error, certainly not worthy of a fan to make, nor of an "ace" guitarist, let alone a "writer/journalist".

And didn't Keith bring songs to ABB? As far as I know he brought Rough Justice (the best single), This Place Is Empty and Infamy + he had a hand in writing Let Me Down Slow, Back Of My Hand and Oh No, Not You Again (according to timeisonourside.com - and not even all of the songs are discussed there, so there could be more song writing from Keith in there).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 17:49 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Zack
People, it was a good article. What facts did he actually get wrong? He told the unvarnished truth, and it hurts.

By the way, the writer is also an ace guitarist and can play the Stones catalog note for note.

He did state the facts, but his view of the world is just his opinion.

A wise man once said, "opinions are like *ssholes, everyone has got one".

I agree with a lot of what he's said, disagree that Richards is a parasite, that is ridiculous, and disagree with PM's choice of title for this thread.

Quite misleading.

Finally, this is not the NY Times, or the Washington Post, it's the Washington Times, whatever the hell that is.

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
The only place where I may admit people bashing the stones is this forum. In the end that bitterness stems from a genuine love for the band.

I think for most part this is very true . .

Quote
Zack


By the way, the writer is also an ace guitarist and can play the Stones catalog note for note.

Not quite, but anyway.

A movie buddy said they got $1m to use the song MM in the movie MM, and they werent allowed to put it on the soundtrack or use it in promos-the writer/director loved the song and had to have it, so the studios stepped up and paid an unheard of amount for a song at the time-

Point here is if MT has writing credit, that would have made him a nice payday, probably something he could use.

Quote
chelskeith
A movie buddy said they got $1m to use the song MM in the movie MM, and they werent allowed to put it on the soundtrack or use it in promos-the writer/director loved the song and had to have it, so the studios stepped up and paid an unheard of amount for a song at the time-

Point here is if MT has writing credit, that would have made him a nice payday, probably something he could use.

He didn't write the song though, Mick Jagger did.

Taylor contributed to the arrangement and was credited accordingly.

Quote
treaclefingers
Finally, this is not the NY Times, or the Washington Post, it's the Washington Times, whatever the hell that is.

That's already been explained in the thread. It's something you wrap fish in, if you want to insult the fish.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tumbled
Why does everyone think that if they like one that they must hate the other. I dont' think the article writer knows what he is talking about on several instances, namely, the contributions on Bigger Bang songwriting. I think they are a songwriting team and both should get credit for it. How would the article writer know anything about who did what?

Dismissing Beast Of Burden, Before They Make Me Run and Shattered + Keith's ideas for playing, arranging, as well as his back up vocals IS a major factual error, certainly not worthy of a fan to make, nor of an "ace" guitarist, let alone a "writer/journalist".

And didn't Keith bring songs to ABB? As far as I know he brought Rough Justice (the best single), This Place Is Empty and Infamy + he had a hand in writing Let Me Down Slow, Back Of My Hand and Oh No, Not You Again (according to timeisonourside.com - and not even all of the songs are discussed there, so there could be more song writing from Keith in there).

Didn´t Keith himself say recently that Mick wrote "a lot of" (I don´t remember his exact words) of Beast of Burden?

"Before They Make Me Run and Beast of Burden were basically collaborations."

Keith Richards.

Firstly: jamesfdouglas will love this article haha!

Secondly, while the article is written extremely well, I don't like the idea that the author completely airs out what is essentially OUR (meaning, all Stones fans') dirty laundry. It's no surprise that he gets to the heart of the matter so succinctly since he himself is from the Stones boards. I won't out him here but any reader of all the Stones boards could recognize who this is based on his own description of himself in the article.

With that in mind, I feel a little uncomfortable that all the hatred for Keith that we all have kept tightly within the confines of these boards is now out there for all to see. I always thought it was okay for US to talk about Keith in that way or or this way because we sort of had a special license to do so...we're all nerdy fan boys. The outside world, so to speak, still has that preserved image of Keith and few knew of all the ins and outs of the last few years to put two and two together to come to the conclusion that this author presents to us so (unfortunately) perfectly.

I'm not sure how much traction this story will get amongst music fans online but it has the potential to be that "one article" that people refer to where they'lll say "Did you read that article in the Times about Keith totally being out of the loop about Mick taylor doing those overdubs? It's a great article...go find it!"

In the end, I felt the article was a public printing of our collective "diaries" so to speak. The article will certainly be an eye opener for the casual Stones fan out there who doesn't do the boards but that's what makes me not dig this. All this Keith crap was sort of our little "step-child" issue that we kept to here...we don't need the rest of the world to turn on him too. What's the point?

Congratulations to the author for a well written piece and one that is sure to get him some notable attention and ad to his Stones "cred" on the internet but thorwing the curtain back to reveal the crap going on backstage...bad form.

Quote
elunsi

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tumbled
Why does everyone think that if they like one that they must hate the other. I dont' think the article writer knows what he is talking about on several instances, namely, the contributions on Bigger Bang songwriting. I think they are a songwriting team and both should get credit for it. How would the article writer know anything about who did what?

Dismissing Beast Of Burden, Before They Make Me Run and Shattered + Keith's ideas for playing, arranging, as well as his back up vocals IS a major factual error, certainly not worthy of a fan to make, nor of an "ace" guitarist, let alone a "writer/journalist".

And didn't Keith bring songs to ABB? As far as I know he brought Rough Justice (the best single), This Place Is Empty and Infamy + he had a hand in writing Let Me Down Slow, Back Of My Hand and Oh No, Not You Again (according to timeisonourside.com - and not even all of the songs are discussed there, so there could be more song writing from Keith in there).

Didn´t Keith himself say recently that Mick wrote "a lot of" (I don´t remember his exact words) of Beast of Burden?

Beast of Burden is the perfect example of when Jagger and Richards were so joined at the hip that it was hard to distinguish between the two. Even they can't really separate out the relative contribution.

This song is why I have always loved Jagger/Richards the song writing team. I have never considered isolating them until this board started ascribing "most of the music" to Richards

THE list of quotes from Jagger and Richards regarding Beast of Burden are below - judge for your selves.

TrackTalk from TIMEISONOURSIDE

That's more like Keith's song. I wrote lyrics.
- Mick Jagger, 1995


Before They Make Me Run and Beast of Burden were basically collaborations.
- Keith Richards, Life (2010)


Mick wrote a lot of it but I laid the original idea on him.
- Keith Richards, 2011


Beast of Burden, I had no idea how that was going to turn out. To me, it was just a soul song that came out – a part of my heritage. There’s a little bit of blues in there. All I did was throw out the phrase beast of burden to Mick, and I played him the music, and then he took it off by himself and did a beautiful job on it.
- Keith Richards, 2011


It just cropped up in the studio. It started kind of faster and funkier and more shouted and became - when everybody else started playing, we decided to cut it "relax" and it came down to what it is in just one take. That was it.
- Keith Richards, 1982


This was another one where Mick just filled in the verses. With the Stones, you take along a song, play it and see if there are any takers. Sometimes they ignore it, sometimes they grab it and record it. After all the faster numbers on Some Girls, everybody settled down and enjoyed the slow one.
- Keith Richards, 1993


How it works on a tune like Beast of Burden is Keith would set up a chord sequence and maybe one or two lines, and then you've got to extemporize on that, and come up with these melody lines and lyrics. We just ran the chord sequence through a lot of times - we were open-ended in the studio, so we just tried lots of different ways of doing the beats and arrangements. The actual chord sequences are the same, but the stuff in there that makes the sections different is the different vocal lines. I would just scat the thing and come up with pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty girl and all the little talk sequences - I hesitate to use the word rap - and after all this the song is different melodically from the actual original.
- Mick Jagger, 2002


Actually, if anything, I was trying to say sorry to Mick for passing on the weight of running this band. We were at the stage where we were getting bigger. The whole music business was getting bigger, and I was basically trying to say to Mick: You don't have to do it on your own... No(, he didn't listen). He very rarely does. That's why I love him.... At the time Mick was getting used to running the band. Charlie was just the drummer. I was just the other guitar player. I was trying to say, OK, I'm back, so let's share a bit more of this power, share the weight, brother.
- Keith Richards, 2011


Beast of Burden is a combination (of a real girl and a fantasy).
- Mick Jagger, 1978


Ah, I see, I'm not integrating (the nice and bad women in my songs) properly. Maybe not. Maybe Beast of Burden is integrated slightly: I don't want a beast of burden, I don't want the kind of woman who's going to drudge for me. The song says: I don't need a beast of burden, and I'm not going to be your beast of burden, either. Any woman can see that that's like my saying that I don't want a woman to be on her knees for me. I mean, I get accused of being very anitigirl, right? But people really don't listen, they get it all wrong: they hear Beast of Burden and say Argggh!
- Mick Jagger, 1978


No, (it's not about Keith's heroin situation). I think that's just made up (laughs). I think that's rubbish. But you know, it's so long ago. People, they like to make up stories and whatever, what you believe happened at the time. I could tell you, I could make up all sorts of stuff about how Far Away Eyes was written - it wouldn't be correct, I'm sure, but it might sound good (laughs).
- Mick Jagger, 2011


(On the pretty pretty part), I wasn't thinking of Buddy Holly at all; it's a completely unconscious thing.
- Mick Jagger, 1978


Lyrically this wasn't particulary heartfelt in a personal way. It's a soul begging song, an attitude song. It was one of those where you get one melodic lick, break it down and work it up, there are two parts here which are basically the same.
- Mick Jagger, 1993


(T)hat's a really good song. It's really like a soul song, you know what I mean? I find that's a really great song to sing... It's a song you can kind of emote to and it's just very repetitive, around around around, so you can just do what you like to it. And then people say It's a punk record and I'm going [sarcastically] Yeah, right. But the thing about this record is that it's just got that feeling, that even in Beast of Burden, it's got that attitude but it's really a soul song, so that's kind of interesting.
- Mick Jagger, 2011


When I returned to the fold after closing down the laboratory, I came back into the studio with Mick... to say, Thanks, man, for shouldering the burden - that's why I wrote Beast of Burden for him, I realise in retrospect - and the weird thing was that he didn't want to share the burden any more.
- Keith Richards, 2003


I quite like it, but I didn't expect anyone to really go for it, certainly not as much as you. It's surprising.
- Mick Jagger, 1978

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Mick Jagger: Two cheers for an aging frontman

That is the original title for the article, as some already posted.
At the end of the article the author writes: "It makes me sad to say this, but I fear it’s the truth. Keith Richards isn’t the purist. Lately, he’s more like a parasite".
Making "It’s the truth - Richards is more like a parasite" the title of this thread is indeed misleading and wrong. One can only guess why the poster chose to do so.

Because it's Proud Mary and that's what she does. Pushes her own agenda,while pushing the facts aside......BTW,for those who don't know. The author of this article is also a regular poster on Rocks Off.

Say what you will about the article, (whatever the author's personal feelings are), it IS well written and MOST importantly, he successfully avoided including that overused and almost meaningless word 'iconic' which seems to be mandatory these days in any written piece about anyone who is even remotely recognizable...
Bravo for that!

Quote
swiss
proudmary - with all due respect, your thread title is misleading.

swiss, I posted a complete article with it's original title and gave a link to it. Anyone can read and agree or disagree with the author(not me in this case)
I took the concluding words of the text, which define the essence of this article - on my opinion. I realized that it was provocative and was ready for the next portion of the personal attacks om me.
But I think that this article shows that the discussions that we have here on the board are gradually moving in the field of conventional media, outside of our bubble. And there is a topic for discussion - public perception of Jagger and Richards in recent years - not what I feel about Richards or whether I am a real Stones fan or Jagger's groupie.

Quote
Justin
Firstly: jamesfdouglas will love this article haha!

Secondly, while the article is written extremely well, I don't like the idea that the author completely airs out what is essentially OUR (meaning, all Stones fans') dirty laundry. It's no surprise that he gets to the heart of the matter so succinctly since he himself is from the Stones boards. I won't out him here but any reader of all the Stones boards could recognize who this is based on his own description of himself in the article.

With that in mind, I feel a little uncomfortable that all the hatred for Keith that we all have kept tightly within the confines of these boards is now out there for all to see. I always thought it was okay for US to talk about Keith in that way or or this way because we sort of had a special license to do so...we're all nerdy fan boys. The outside world, so to speak, still has that preserved image of Keith and few knew of all the ins and outs of the last few years to put two and two together to come to the conclusion that this author presents to us so (unfortunately) perfectly.

I'm not sure how much traction this story will get amongst music fans online but it has the potential to be that "one article" that people refer to where they'lll say "Did you read that article in the Times about Keith totally being out of the loop about Mick taylor doing those overdubs? It's a great article...go find it!"

In the end, I felt the article was a public printing of our collective "diaries" so to speak. The article will certainly be an eye opener for the casual Stones fan out there who doesn't do the boards but that's what makes me not dig this. All this Keith crap was sort of our little "step-child" issue that we kept to here...we don't need the rest of the world to turn on him too. What's the point?

Congratulations to the author for a well written piece and one that is sure to get him some notable attention and ad to his Stones "cred" on the internet but thorwing the curtain back to reveal the crap going on backstage...bad form.

It is time that it goes out there (I don´t think that it does, btw). there is a lot of public critisism on Mick, mainly due to Richards´ very loud mouth, as you can see in this article Mick gets bashed by basically repeating the old stories without thinking about them too much. But public critisism would be a good lesson for Keith, in my opinion

I suppose. But at this stage in the game when the lights are obviously dimming on the Stones circus and Keith is obviously at the end of his line, I'm not sure a whiny article from a diehard Stones fan (representing other die hard fans) is really going to rev up Keith's engines. It doesn't add anything to the mix...but rather takes away. It's too early to tell, of course, just how noticed this article will be (hardly at all in the grand scheme of things) but I don't think it represents Keith very well. It gives Mick some well-deserved props and evens the scales a bit but a little restraint in this article would have gone a long way.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-19 20:16 by Max'sKansasCity.

ProudMary, I generally enjoy your posts and your fab collection of news clips.
I whizzed through the article and wasn't quite sure just how the writer came up with the conclusion that Keith is a parasite.

But then I also wonder about the various posters here who've never seen or met any of the Rolling Stones and also have strong opinions about how wonderful or terrible they are.

Quote
theimposter
I actually happen to agree with most of this article. The writer clearly loves both of them and thinks Mick has gotten a bad rap these last few years while people continue to fall over themselves to glorify Keith (as the posts in this thread prove). Mick is the greatest frontman that ever lived and, like it or not, rock's greatest business man. Without him, we wouldn't have had nearly the amount of Stones output that we've received the last 20 years. For all his talk about "showing the blade", "Muddy painting the ceiling", "you've got the sun/moon/stars/Stones", "I haven't written my greatest riff yet" , etc. etc., it is Mick, not Keith, that has been the driving force of the Rolling Stones the last 2 decades. Even if it has only been to serve his own self interest, he's still been the one doing the majority of the "dirty work".

Thank you. The writer's POV reflects what many Stones fans have felt over the years. He's basically giving Mick props after years and years and years of mythology.
Its always amazing to me how Keith's disciples are fine with all the years of him bashing Mick, but can't deal with someone countering those sentiments. And Mick did drive most of SG. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Where exactly does Mick get a bad rap?

Have you no been reading the mags, press for the last ....oh, 25 years?

Mick and Keith's mortal sin was to bring Ronnie Wood into the Stones.

For that , there can be no forgiveness. An elephant never forgets.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-18 21:17 by mitchflorida1.

Quote
elunsi


It is time that it goes out there (I don´t think that it does, btw). there is a lot of public critisism on Mick, mainly due to Richards´ very loud mouth, as you can see in this article Mick gets bashed by basically repeating the old stories without thinking about them too much. But public critisism would be a good lesson for Keith, in my opinion

Amen. I read Barbara Charone's bio of Keith in 1980, 81 - I was a kid, and I remember being disappointed at the level of disrespect toward Jagger on the part of the Keith/Anita camp. It was more than bitterness, it was downright dismissive.
And for those who bitch about "Mick's fans" at anyone defending Jagger -
I will say that I've always believed that Keith/Anita fans (as opposed to Stones fans) were less fans of the band, but of an image Keith and Anita perpetuated.
Go visit an Anita P. fan site - they don't care about the Stones - it's all Keith and Anita and how Mick Jagger was a bitch.
Stones fans, Stones fans love both these guys and get pissed when the respect is unbalanced.
I';; defend Keith as much as I'll defend Mick when ignorant comments are made. They're brothers who are two halves of a great artistic marriage...
The difference is that Keith is immature and often lashes out, ala Lennon bashing Macca....which is similar - because it created a John vs Paul debate among Beatle fans.
This happens when one partners is an immature punk.
Remember, Mick has never said anything to denigrate Keith, or Anita. EVER.
That speaks volumes.

To the lovely, dried up proudmary