Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
Honestman
Jagger has a tiny todger
Keith is a parasite
What the @#$%& ???
These two guys are , were and will stay in my mind as The Glimmer Twins.
The best team of the greatest rock'n'roll band ever.

Yes! FFS, the best team of the rock and roll era and both indispensable to the greatness of the Rolling Stones. As Charlie Watts says, the only two that are indispensable. I love 'em both. This board is so depressing.

And yes, the bitchy and childish behavior of the two of them toward each other has encouraged this stuff.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
SweetThing
While Proud Mary seems not so much a Stones fan to me, but rather a Jagger disciple

First, how it relates to the article?
Second, what makes you think so - all I said on this board boils down to what is written in this article( or in Jagger article in New York Times) and unlike the author I never called him a parasite.
Is is possible to criticize Richards without speaking first about how great he is?
Yes, I believe that by trying to destroy Mick's reputation Richards damaged the Stones legacy
But I do not think it makes me less a fan than you or others.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
We all have strong opinions about the band, their work, and their solo work and outside projects, but seriously, Brue think about what you wrote to ProudMary.

No matter how much you disagree with her opinions of Keith, would you want someone talking to your mom or sister or wife/girlfriend or daughter like that?

In real life, most guys would either deck the jerk who acted that way or look at taking legal action to make sure their loved ones were safe from harm. I know it's only a messageboard and few of us will ever meet each other in real life, but that was way out of line just because you're fed up with a fellow fan's low opinion of Keith. Debate her, but don't debase yourself and offend her in the process. There is a basic standard of respect everyone deserves even when you don't agree. We all have moments where we get too emotional, but show some integrity and apologize for being out of line.

Quote
Justin

Quote
stupidguy2
Yes, and that attitude permeated into the media, became a myth. I'm just amazed that some fans still hold onto those myths.
Much of started because Keith and Anita shoot of their mouths...
Keith has gotten less vitriolic, but he constantly belittled Jagger, way before Mick's solos......
I think Anita instigated a lot of it back in the late 60s, and Keith is gullible, and he was also a junkie in those days...so..
But Mick has never added fuel to any fire.
He's got too much class.

Agreed. I will stand behind any opportunity to hand Mick some well-deserved props but I don't particularly agree with how the author of the article chose to go about it. He could have still made it a point to list Mick's achievements but the author's act of taking away props from Keith was a little snipey--if not driven by emotions. I suppose the writer of an oppinion column can do whatever he pleases but to be the little taddle-tail for no real rhyme or reason is a little sleazy. I suppose this is all some payback for the crap Keith's given Mick in the last few years but I can't recall Keith ever slagging Mick for the work they did...it was all personal bullshit.

Quote
wanderingspirit66

Quote
proudmary

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.

Proudmary - I have been on this board for ~ 7 years and have followed this board for longer. I have a pretty good idea of who the principals on this board are and what their biases are. I love your posts. Ignore the negative comments. I know you already do. You have a tough skin. Your presence on this board is much appreciated.
As opposed to the hundreds of articles about Keith being the “heart and soul’ of the band, there are but ~ 2 articles in the popular press that give Jagger some kudos and slight Richards. There is barely 1 that truly recognizes Jagger's songwriting gifts. And a significant proportion of this board cannot even handle that simply because that proportion of this board works hard at diminishing Jagger as an artist. A significant proportion of this board does not even like Mick Jagger. A whining eddy once remarked that he wished Keith would "sing" instead of Jagger. Another toddy declares that Saint of Me is a great song but has to be brought down a notch because it doesn’t feature Keith.
Jagger has at least another 10 years left in him. As Wenner stated nicely, Jagger, along with Lennon and Dylan is one of the three definitive voices of our time. He will be recognized yet. He is flawed for sure but there is little room on this board to discuss Jagger's strengths without discussing Keith's "even greater" strengths. There is NO room to describe Keith's weaknesses without discussing Jagger's "even greater weaknesses". The position that "'Keef' is the real deal and that Mick is a talentless but lucky and somewhat embarrassingly greedy adjunct" is one that Keith himself has craved. One very esteemed poster here stated that Keith was 80% of the Stones and Jagger was an accountant. As I mentioned earlier, there is a huge "let me take him down syndrome" on this board vis-a-vis Jagger. Over the last 20 years or so, Keith Richards himself, more than anyone else seems to have made this a singular mission. And his sycophants parrot his populist bullshit. As does every journalism major or intern who is asked to write up a piece on any a upcoming Stones related event. But Jagger too has a tough skin. He plays by his own rules. He lets his actions speak louder than words. Any Stones fan should be enjoying Jagger’s recent moments in the sun.

Quote
stonesrule
Mary, I understand that you don't necessarily endorse the clips you post. I commend you for posting them.

Opinions about people we don't know personally is one thing. Calling Jagger cheap or a sex fiend or Keith a parasite go beyond "an opinion" when it is not backed up by actual facts from RELIABLE sources. Especially when the gossip or clip is 20 or more years old.

Quote
swiss
(2) The Washington Times is a right-wing publication. They would tend to resonate more with Jagger's
politics (or presumed politics) to Keith's.

author bio: "Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for
House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times."

- swiss

Quote
proudmary
... Unfortunately Richards, and no one else has made the largest contribution to the destruction of the image of Jagger/ Richards creative partnership as the greatest one in the history of pop music.

Quote
Brue

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Green Lady
I disagree with proudmary about many things, but nobody deserves your last two posts, Brue. I'm sure the lady has too much class to respond, so I'll say on her behalf that I have never reported a post and never will but I'm sorely tempted...

Thank you for your sympathy,Green Lady, but I never pay attention to his posts, a man is sick

I ain't the one calling people parasites.

Quote
Brue

Quote
Rocky Dijon
We all have strong opinions about the band, their work, and their solo work and outside projects, but seriously, Brue think about what you wrote to ProudMary.

No matter how much you disagree with her opinions of Keith, would you want someone talking to your mom or sister or wife/girlfriend or daughter like that?

In real life, most guys would either deck the jerk who acted that way or look at taking legal action to make sure their loved ones were safe from harm. I know it's only a messageboard and few of us will ever meet each other in real life, but that was way out of line just because you're fed up with a fellow fan's low opinion of Keith. Debate her, but don't debase yourself and offend her in the process. There is a basic standard of respect everyone deserves even when you don't agree. We all have moments where we get too emotional, but show some integrity and apologize for being out of line.

Could care less. If you can't take a joke, stay out of it. Boy.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
The author of this article is also a regular poster on Rocks Off.

Cool. I didn't know that. But now I am curious who ?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
The author of this article is also a regular poster on Rocks Off.

Cool. I didn't know that. But now I am curious who ?

[rocksoff.org]

Quote
proudmary

Quote
swiss
proudmary - my criticism was your thread title says "Washington Times: It’s the truth..." [emphasis mine].

You say you were quoting directly the article. But nowhere in the article does it say "It’s the truth."
That is your own editorial comment (and I have no problem if that's your opinion). But you have
framed up the discussion --not only in a provocative manner, as you claim-- but in a misleading manner.

"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."

So, you see I am quoting directly the article and this title is much more attracting attention tnan the vague Two cheers for an aging frontman-no one would read the thread with such a title.
But the article raises issues that I have long felt need to be discussed

Quote
TeddyB1018
Mick wrote most of Some Girls? True,if you remove Beast of Burden, Before They Make Me Run and the riff to Shattered, you don't have much left past a disco hit single, a fun country parody and several two chord neo-Pistols songs. Add in Start Me Up from the session and Keith's contributions were invaluable. As we're Mick's, of course. As for not contributing so much lately, Keith clearly lost the battle with Mick. The writer might be correct that he'd prefer a bit of Tom Waits or aging folk blues man approach, for which there is little room. Maybe if Mick would agree to front some of those songs instead of steering clear, the collaboration might prove a bit more fruitful. Mick still has an abundance of talent and drive. I wish he'd spend a bit of it on Keith's taste.

The Washington Times. That's like being lauded by Pravda or Der Angriff. You'd prefer they criticized you. With friends like that...

Quote
swiss


I have my opinion about why The Washington Times would post this. Maybe I'll administer a confidential
survey on iorr to gather some data about this to see whether my hunch is right about that---i.e., it seems
to me many people most into drawing these ferocious battle lines between Keith and Mick (which I don't
-- I love them both and am grateful to what they have created and contributed, as well as hopeful
about what they might do next) may also be the most politically polarized people posting here.
Meaning, some people's intense identification with Mick or Keith and what they appear to represent
[MICK: savvy, successful, sophisticated, reasonable, mature, conservative OR greedy, cold, calculating,
shallow, empty, desperately self-conscious -- KEITH: free-spirited, seasoned, independent, real, honest,
heart/soul of Stones, OR sloppy, pathetic, parasitic, immature, mean-spirited] may align with people's
political/social/economic class beliefs. So it seems natural to me that the Washington Times (which
really isn't as disreputable as many of you-all are saying here--when I lived in DC I'd sometimes read
it to get an idea of some of the views of a certain stripe of conservatives, and it's not like
off-the-rails crazy) would publish an article showing Mick in this particular type of favorable light.

I'm glad there are articles looking more closely at the stones---but am sad that they sometimes seem to have to be so polarizing.

-swiss



I don´t think Mick is shown in such a favorable light. The author repeats all the old myths through the entire article that make Mick look very bad. The "insists to release commercial products", "limelightseeking", the concerts for the evil bankers were all Mick´s and so on. Basically the author just adds that Mick gets not enogh credit as a songwriter, wich is true but nothing extra positiv and that he is the hard worker of the band, plus Keith and his motives get questioned (if that is the right word). So I think only Keith is not presented as positiv as usual but therefore Mick is not presented in a very favorable light.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
At least the myth of his "fall from a tree" continues to persist...like a parasite.

Quote
His Majesty
[rocksoff.org]

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
His Majesty
[rocksoff.org]

Thanks

Quote
Stoneage
Sounds like gossip to me. How can a major newspaper publish second rate material like this?

Quote
stonesdan60
Cut to the chase: The world would never have had the greatness known as The Rolling Stones without both Jagger and Richards. They BOTH deserve props. But it's the way they balanced each other out musically that made for the Stones magic. Let's not even get into their personal feuds. Their solo albums prove the point. Mick needs Keith to bring some grit to Mick's penchant for the slick and commercial vibe. Keith's solo work has a more Stonesey vibe but it's when you put the two of them together that you get the magic. There are exceptions but for the most part it's true. Even if Mick wrote certain songs by himself, I'm sure they would sound very different simply without Keith's prescence in the recording process, adding his unique style to the riffs, tempos, etc... And vice versa. Keith has said that sometimes if Mick writes a song, Keith's job is to sprinkle the magic dust on it; come up with a way of playing the riff that turns it into a true Stones tune. I'm also sure it's Mick's influence that has kept Keith's tunes from being too raw and unfocused to make great recordings. Too much trashing of both men here from various quarters. They are both brilliant artists and when they work together you get that awesome aural elexir known as The Rolling Stones! "Gimme a little drink!"

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
His Majesty
[rocksoff.org]

Thanks

this is amazing - I visited the RO page and there is a calm discussion of this article with the author himself, the person who wrote it.They don't insult him, do not call him names, not accuse of anything, do not offer him to suck dick - not matter what words he chose to describe Richards.
I posted the article here and got the eruption of hatred with a strong misogynistic tone

may be stupidguy2 is right, and it's all about misogyny

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
His Majesty
[rocksoff.org]

Thanks

this is amazing - I visited the RO page and there is a calm discussion of this article with the author himself, the person who wrote it.They don't insult him, do not call him names, not accuse of anything, do not offer him to suck dick - not matter what words he chose to describe Richards.
I posted the article here and got the eruption of hatred with a strong misogynistic tone

may be stupidguy2 is right, and it's all about misogyny