Quote
Redhotcarpet
The video and the lyrics in Following the river sure is a fitting goodbye. Note the sign that says "Thanks we quit" at 2.30. The rooster sign, the crossroads, cottonfields, Mardi Grass, tombstones etc.

I remember Don Woz said in an interview that he heard it(Following The River lyrics) as a farewell to the audience and Keith - very emotional and chilling (I quote from a memory)

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

Why, because it's SO IMPORTANT? It's meaningless. All of it. It means absolutely zero.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary

Quote
letitloose
Bravo. Glad someone has the balls to tell the truth to ProudMary. PM seemed to trawl the worlds press to find a shitty Keith article to post. I love the band -Mick is the greatest frontman, and a hell of a songwriter too. let's stop finding thing that divide us.

CE claims that she is a woman. I do not think that the assumption that she has the balls is sush a great compliment in this case

For some reason you don't understand what it means to be complimented that someone has a spine regardless of gender. Why don't you go paint a ceiling somewhere.

say the woman that she has the balls - this is nonsense.
Muddy Waters have painted all the ceilings so I'll continue to post here

I'll help you understand then - saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT. And one that doesn't become nor resembles you. So go hang out with Keith while he watches Muddy paint ceilings while falling out of a coconut tree.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary

But the article raises issues that I have long felt need to be discussed

Why, because it's SO IMPORTANT? It's meaningless. All of it. It means absolutely zero.

This is your point of view. I think differently.
I don't know if it means zero or not - it's somebody's opinion, this is message board for people to discuss opinions.
10 years (if not more) of the creative inactivity on Richards part, accompanied by his desire to strengthen his own myth and simultaneously to tarnish Jagger's reputation led to what we have now.

saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

My wife always says "She hasn't got the tits (for it)"...................or 'she' has of course.....................



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-20 18:52 by EddieByword.

Quote
Stoneage
If that is right, I'm still wondering why Mick didn't read the book in advance and asked Keith to cut out the worst bits (Brenda and the todger bits). I'm sure he would have if asked to.

In one of interviews, Richards said that Mick asked only to remove the reference to the vocal coach
In another interview Keith said that when Mick read the manuscript he was upset and wanted to change many things ("blue pencil was flying" - I think the exactKR's words). Richards did not agree - "this book is not about your, Mick" - he said.
But the publicity was all about Mick - Brenda and the todger bits and all

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Stoneage
If that is right, I'm still wondering why Mick didn't read the book in advance and asked Keith to cut out the worst bits (Brenda and the todger bits). I'm sure he would have if asked to.

In one of interviews, Richards said that Mick asked only to remove the reference to the vocal coach
In another interview Keith said that when Mick read the manuscript he was upset and wanted to change many things ("blue pencil was flying" - I think the exactKR's words). Richards did not agree - "this book is not about your, Mick" - he said.
But the publicity was all about Mick - Brenda and the todger bits and all

I think PM is 100% correct on this. I just don't happen to think we need to be continously revisiting. It has been analyzed to death.

Quote
proudmary
saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

Sometimes you'll hear someone say 'she's got big ovaries'. It's the same thing.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary
saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

Sometimes you'll hear someone say 'she's got big ovaries'. It's the same thing.

you have ovaries the size of lemons skippy

Quote
EddieByword
My wife always says "She hasn't got the tits (for it)"...................or 'she' has of course.....................

Right.
On the other hand no one say he has got tits or he has got a vagina or the ovaries for it
For some reason men don't think it's a compliment

Quote
proudmary

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary

But the article raises issues that I have long felt need to be discussed

Why, because it's SO IMPORTANT? It's meaningless. All of it. It means absolutely zero.

This is your point of view. I think differently.
I don't know if it means zero or not - it's somebody's opinion, this is message board for people to discuss opinions.
10 years (if not more) of the creative inactivity on Richards part, accompanied by his desire to strengthen his own myth and simultaneously to tarnish Jagger's reputation led to what we have now.

If you stopped all ongoing interest you have in The Rolling Stones and lived your life it wouldn't change a thing in your actual real life. You'd have the music and that would be it. What Mick says or Keith says has no relevance on what they've done. They aren't going to do anything else except release more vault recordings. Keith's lack of creativity? Who cares? So what if he hasn't written x amount of songs in x amount of years. It's not like Mick has written anything fantastic in that same amount of time. What, Keith has to write a Gimme Shelter every year? Mick's not writing Sympathy For The Devil every year. If you want to view it as Mick carry's the weight of the Stones then explain such tripe as Might As Well Get Juiced, Streets Of Love and on and on and on.

It doesn't matter. None of it negates what they did in the 1960s and early 1970s.

It's been done for a while and they're done as a creative force. Why is that a problem? What is there to seriously discuss? Unreleased things, that's what. It's about what they have in the can now - studio and live.

Keith said what he said because...? He knew he was done? Maybe. He knew the Stones were done? Maybe.

Very likely. You don't write a book like that unless you're done with something.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
EddieByword
My wife always says "She hasn't got the tits (for it)"...................or 'she' has of course.....................

Right.
On the other hand no one say he has got tits or he has got a vagina or the ovaries for it
For some reason men don't think it's a compliment

You're right...I guess it all just boils down to biology........a man with balls is considered manly because he can (presumably) produce lots of children and in days gone by that was the most important thing a man could do - not so defining now with so many of the catastrophic diseases under control - plague etc - a man with no balls is conversly considered unmanly although I detect a mixing of metaphors there. What has sperm production really got to do with courage ? A man with tits is considered unmanly for ascetic reasons- therefore it's not a compliment - although seeing the number of 'lardarses' round here producing hoardes of mini-thems the biogical angle doesn't apply - on that basis they're very manly. This could get confusing.................
Personally I think any woman that tells you she's got balls is a liar and should get back to Thailand...........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-20 19:38 by EddieByword.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary
saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

Sometimes you'll hear someone say 'she's got big ovaries'. It's the same thing.

you have ovaries the size of lemons skippy

A friend of mine as a green teenager in his first day at his first job was sent to the bakery by the other lads to get half a dozen creamed ovaries.........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-20 19:39 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary
saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

Sometimes you'll hear someone say 'she's got big ovaries'. It's the same thing.

you have ovaries the size of lemons skippy

A friend of mine as a green teenager in his first day at his first job was sent to the bakery by the other lads to get half a dozen creamed ovaries.........

you must be clitoring me

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary
saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

Sometimes you'll hear someone say 'she's got big ovaries'. It's the same thing.

you have ovaries the size of lemons skippy

A friend of mine as a green teenager in his first day at his first job was sent to the bakery by the other lads to get half a dozen creamed ovaries.........

you must be clitoring me

The next day the boss sent him down the stores for a long stand,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-21 14:33 by EddieByword.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary
saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

Sometimes you'll hear someone say 'she's got big ovaries'. It's the same thing.

you have ovaries the size of lemons skippy

Huge lemons, treacle! And it takes a lot of balls to say someone's got ovaries the size of lemons. That's some pair of chutzpah ya got dere.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
proudmary
saying a woman 'has balls' IS A COMPLIMENT

not it is a manifestation of sexism.
I'm not going to snipe anymore

Sometimes you'll hear someone say 'she's got big ovaries'. It's the same thing.

you have ovaries the size of lemons skippy

Huge lemons, treacle! And it takes a lot of balls to say someone's got ovaries the size of lemons. That's some pair of chutzpah ya got dere.

oh dere!

Hmm.. very intersting article and the discussion it has inspired here since I think it reflects - or is a symptom of - something important. Some old myths are finally going to be broke down like the Berlin wall, or Soviet Union. And I would claim we wil se the history and reality of the Stones more clearly as before. It might hurt, and kill some of our deepest romantical beliefs, but shit, that's the cost of truth sometimes.

I think the myth started during the seventies by 'critical' music press (born then), and then during the 80's it reached a greater audience, which just got bigger and bigger during the 90's and 00's. That is the myth of Keith Richards as the soul and heart, and the true and real and only musical genious of the Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger just a frontman, business brains and populist social-climber. According to myth, Keith Richards is the Rolling Stones - the band is just extension of him; proper members to sing and play his music (and add some contingent missing pieces, such as lyrics). I was totally caught by that myth when I felt love to Stones during the early 80's. That was the time when Keith's genious was truely recognized by all (who counted). He was the true darling of music press. Everyone eate from his hand, and ried to find better adjectives to describe his immortality and coolness. And we knew who the 'bitch' was, even before the infamous solo career happend.

Okay, that was 30 years ago. The myth, as we know, has lived nicely through all these years - seemingly no one took Wyman' ("quitter's") STONE ALONE very seriously either, or read that long, boring book carefully - and it has become, as I said, even bigger and bigger, when "Keef" entered to celebrity world by being ass-kicked by Johnny Depp and Walt Disney. And no one seem to recognize the irony there, we diehard fans didn't want to notice the decrease of his muse and playing kills, because 'Keith character' is bigger than life - but was LIFE still too much?

I wrote the following piece some weeks ago to another thread, but I want to rewrite it here because I think it suits to the theme we have here.

Well, what I have perceived or tried to 'sense the air', the negative effect of LIFE can be seen in two contexts.

The first is the hardcore fanbase of the Stones - people like us here at IORR. It is amazing how much the attitude and atmosphere has changed here. Keith has always been almost beyond criticism. Even though people noticed his musical decline during the last decade or so, it was forgiven... "it is Keith, man...". Even Keith's harsh words against Jagger was usually "understood" and not taken too seriously.. "It is Keith, man..." It is actually quite hard to find any "Keith bashing" here at tall; it was beyond reasonable discourse.

But the book changed it quite drastically. What was once funny, turned out to be ugly. The systemic form of non-fact based story-telling, the repeated, childish blade-talk, belittlening the other band members, and especially Jagger('s) so harshly, changed the whole idea of the man, and his role in the whole picture. He crossed some line, and people too their adoring glasses off. Suddenly he was the target of the most criticism. I think the the existence of "Keith apologists" verifies the fact very clearly. Before LIFE there was no any reason such apologists to exist at all.

The second is the public opinion. Keith's book got a lot of publicity, because he talked things people hungry for a scandal want to hear: drugs, drugs, drugs, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger.... as a result of that stupid tiny todger remark he made him and the Stones ridiculous (which of course, is the tip of the ice berg). But the childish remark gave people a right to induce that "yeah, that's how stupid they really are". Sixtysomethings speaking of each other's dicks in public. Keith put himself there next to Ozzy Osbourne as a laughing stock. The Stones, yeah, surely are 'bad boys' but they always had in their 'bad reputation' a bit of dignity. Okay, Keith has his history of stupid remarks, but now instead of occasional drunken interview, there were no excuses, since it was based supposedly on a "serious" reflection (namely that what writing books is all about). With the book he really hurt the band. He sold the band to quick personal profits. I include all those prizes he got from the book also to the latter.

I am also awere that for some folks the book was a positive surprise of how intelligent, smart, insightful and articulate Keith Richards is. But that surprise is based on people thinking that he actually is such a brainless junkie his public image represents him to be (plus all those idiot 'snorting dad's ashes', comments). Keith seemingly sees this a sort of achievement. But he could have had charm those people of his wit without the nasty tabloid stuff as well. Pyrrhos's win, in any case.

I think a stronger, deeper throgoing-analysis of the history of the Rolling Stones, and the Glimmer Twins, and not just past 10/25 yaers, but just straight from the beginning needs to be constructed. Naturally for keith there is only to lose, since the late 70's the mythology has been so Keith-warm, but Jagger has a LOT to win, in order to catch how incredily important and esssential his contributions in many level has been to the Rolling Stones. And let us not forget Brian Jones either.

So - a positive note - perhaps LIFE's contribution was finally make people - diehard fans that is - to see how shit-deep the myth of KEEF really is, and that it doesn't stand any critical examination. There is reality in it, for sure, but its is loaded with so much crap that is so hard to recognize these days. Maybe the real Keith Richards should be reconstructed, and we might appreciate the man once again for his actual contributions. I happily leave the myth to Johnny Depp, Ozzy Osbourne, and Walt Disney. And the miserable new token of Rolling Stones fan board class called "Keith apologists" will fade away.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-21 13:23 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Hmm.. very intersting article and the discussion it has inspired here since I think it reflects - or is a symptom of - something important. Some old myths are finally going to be broke down like the Berlin wall, or Soviet Union. And I would claim we wil se the history and reality of the Stones more clearly as before. It might hurt, and kill some of our deepest romantical beliefs, but shit, that's the cost of truth sometimes.

I think the myth started during the seventies by 'critical' music press (born then), and then during the 80's it reached a greater audience, which just got bigger and bigger during the 90's and 00's. That is the myth of Keith Richards as the soul and heart, and the true and real and only musical genious of the Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger just a frontman, business brains and populist social-climber. According to myth, Keith Richards is the Rolling Stones - the band is just extension of him; proper members to sing and play his music (and add some contingent missing pieces, such as lyrics). I was totally caught by that myth when I felt love to Stones during the early 80's. That was the time when Keith's genious was truely recognized by all (who counted). He was the true darling of music press. Everyone eate from his hand, and ried to find better adjectives to describe his immortality and coolness. And we knew who the 'bitch' was, even before the infamous solo career happend.

Okay, that was 30 years ago. The myth, as we know, has lived nicely through all these years - seemingly no one took Wyman' ("quitter's") STONE ALONE very seriously either, or read that long, boring book carefully - and it has become, as I said, even bigger and bigger, when "Keef" entered to celebrity world by being ass-kicked by Johnny Depp and Walt Disney. And no one seem to recognize the irony there, we diehard fans didn't want to notice the decrease of his muse and playing kills, because 'Keith character' is bigger than life - but was LIFE still too much?

I wrote the following piece some weeks ago to another thread, but I want to rewrite it here because I think it suits to the theme we have here.

Well, what I have perceived or tried to 'sense the air', the negative effect of LIFE can be seen in two contexts.

The first is the hardcore fanbase of the Stones - people like us here at IORR. It is amazing how much the attitude and atmosphere has changed here. Keith has always been almost beyond criticism. Even though people noticed his musical decline during the last decade or so, it was forgiven... "it is Keith, man...". Even Keith's harsh words against Jagger was usually "understood" and not taken too seriously.. "It is Keith, man..." It is actually quite hard to find any "Keith bashing" here at tall; it was beyond reasonable discourse.

But the book changed it quite drastically. What was once funny, turned out to be ugly. The systemic form of non-fact based story-telling, the repeated, childish blade-talk, belittlening the other band members, and especially Jagger('s) so harshly, changed the whole idea of the man, and his role in the whole picture. He crossed some line, and people too their adoring glasses off. Suddenly he was the target of the most criticism. I think the the existence of "Keith apologists" verifies the fact very clearly. Before LIFE there was no any reason such apologists to exist at all.

The second is the public opinion. Keith's book got a lot of publicity, because he talked things people hungry for a scandal want to hear: drugs, drugs, drugs, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger.... as a result of that stupid tiny todger remark he made him and the Stones ridiculous (which of course, is the tip of the ice berg). But the childish remark gave people a right to induce that "yeah, that's how stupid they really are". Sixtysomethings speaking of each other's dicks in public. Keith put himself there next to Ozzy Osbourne as a laughing stock. The Stones, yeah, surely are 'bad boys' but they always had in their 'bad reputation' a bit of dignity. Okay, Keith has his history of stupid remarks, but now instead of occasional drunken interview, there were no excuses, since it was based supposedly on a "serious" reflection (namely that what writing books is all about). With the book he really hurt the band. He sold the band to quick personal profits. I include all those prizes he got from the book also to the latter.

I am also awere that for some folks the book was a positive surprise of how intelligent, smart, insightful and articulate Keith Richards is. But that surprise is based on people thinking that he actually is such a brainless junkie his public image represents him to be (plus all those idiot 'snorting dad's ashes', comments). Keith seemingly sees this a sort of achievement. But he could have had charm those people of his wit without the nasty tabloid stuff as well. Pyrrhos's win, in any case.

I think a stronger, deeper throgoing-analysis of the history of the Rolling Stones, and the Glimmer Twins, and not just past 10/25 yaers, but just straight from the beginning needs to be constructed. Naturally for keith there is only to lose, since the late 70's the mythology has been so Keith-warm, but Jagger has a LOT to win, in order to catch how incredily important and esssential his contributions in many level has been to the Rolling Stones. And let us not forget Brian Jones either.

So - a positive note - perhaps LIFE's contribution was finally make people - diehard fans that is - to see how shit-deep the myth of KEEF really is, and that it doesn't stand any critical examination. There is reality in it, for sure, but its is loaded with so much crap that is so hard to recognize these days. Maybe the real Keith Richards should be reconstructed, and we might appreciate the man once again for his actual contributions. I happily leave the myth to Johnny Depp, Ozzy Osbourne, and Walt Disney. And the miserable new token of Rolling Stones fan board class called "Keith apologists" will fade away.

- Doxa

I think it's as simple as Mick appeared more willing to change his musical style in the 80s, and Keith didn't, Doxa. Of course, the survivor-myth of Keith should be mixed into this image somehow.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think it's as simple as Mick appeared more willing to change his musical style in the 80s, and Keith didn't, Doxa. Of course, the survivor-myth of Keith should be mixed into this image somehow.

Yes to both points. During the 80's when everything was turning to crap (to say it mildly), Keith Richards remained faithfull to his old idols and ideas. He refused to change according to the change of the climate, and his adoption of latest trends was rather minimal. Mick did the opposite, and tried to cope with the change of the times, and almost drowned there. So Keith represented 'purity', and the old spirit of rock and roll and this fitted very well to certain willing ears - rock circles - and Keith's fame just got bigger while Jagger came some kind of a laughing stock. Keith was the Last of the Mohicans of the Great Rock and Roll Age, while Jagger a miserable trend follower (as the latter goes, just a decade ago, Keith was similar, but gave up the game by the late 70's/early 80's) But somehow Keith safe and sure conservatism worked imagewise better - even though his criticism of current stars, say, Bruce Springsteen sounded sleazy - than Mick's 'radicalism', and somehow that picture of Keith's 'authenticity' or 'purity' and Mick's 'opportunism'/'open-mindness for not suitable ideas' stuck for good. Until recent developments.

Big part of Keith's myth does derive from the 'survival' - not that he did more drugs - or so - than anyody, and partied hardier than anyone, no drugs would affect on him, and he came out as a winner from his heroic struggle with heroin. That 'superman' aspect is an important part of Keith's tale. Ask Homer Simpson. And LIFE really wrote that part of his life with big enough letters. And by contrast, Jagger had not such one to shere (we thought), since the 'sissy' didn't even have the courage to do the stuff... So, Jagger is not a real 'rock man'...

(Funnily - Keith was so much loved and hyped during the 80's that people didn't notice his creative decline; that he wasn't able to produce anything remarkable music during the decade - just a bunch of recicled riffs and trademark sounds - very lame compared to what he had done in previous decades. But since most of it was written in right style, the lack of inspiration and fresh ideas was over-looked. I am still waiting the next inspired riff a'la "Start Me Up" to born...). But of course, Jagger did the whole thing in 'wrong' style. so whatever he might come up, was doomed by 'circles'.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-21 15:12 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think it's as simple as Mick appeared more willing to change his musical style in the 80s, and Keith didn't, Doxa. Of course, the survivor-myth of Keith should be mixed into this image somehow.

Yes to both points. During the 80's when everything was turning to crap (to say it mildly), Keith Richards remained faithfull to his old idols and ideas. He refused to change according to the change of the climate, and his adoption of latest trends was rather minimal. Mick did the opposite, and tried to cope with the change of the times, and almost drowned there. So Keith represented 'purity', and the old spirit of rock and roll and this fitted very well to certain willing ears - rock circles - and Keith's fame just got bigger while Jagger came some kind of a laughing stock. Keith was the Last of the Mohicans of the Great Rock and Roll Age, while Jagger a miserable trend follower (as the latter goes, just a decade ago, Keith was similar, but gave up the game by the late 70's/early 80's) But somehow Keith safe and sure conservatism worked imagewise better - even though his criticism of current stars, say, Bruce Springsteen sounded sleazy - than Mick's 'radicalism', and somehow that picture of Keith's 'authenticity' or 'purity' and Mick's 'opportunism'/'open-mindness for not suitable ideas' stuck for good. Until recent developments.

Big part of Keith's myth does derive from the 'survival' - not that he did more drugs - or so - than anyody, and partied hardier than anyone, no drugs would affect on him, and he came out as a winner from his heroic struggle with heroin. That 'superman' aspect is an important part of Keith's tale. Ask Homer Simpson. And LIFE really wrote that part of his life with big enough letters. And by contrast, Jagger had not such one to shere (we thought), since the 'sissy' didn't even have the courage to do the stuff... So, Jagger is not a real 'rock man'...

(Funnily - Keith was so much loved and hyped during the 80's that people didn't notice his creative decline; that he wasn't able to produce anything remarkable music during the decade - just a bunch of recicled riffs and trademark sounds - very lame compared to what he had done in previous decades. But since most of it was written in right style, the lack of inspiration and fresh ideas was over-looked. I am still waiting the next inspired riff a'la "Start Me Up" to born...). But of course, Jagger did the whole thing in 'wrong' style. so whatever he might come up, was doomed by 'circles'.)

- Doxa

I would rather say credibility. He already had the fame.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[I would rather say credibility. He already had the fame.

Yeah, probaly a more accurate trem. But I think over-all 1981/82 tour was "Keith's tour". Then he really was recognized as the hero of the show, and not just "Mick's shadow partner" (70's), or "one of the Rolling Stones" (60's). The modern Keef, equal to Mick Jagger, was born there. The survivor-story had surely affect on that, but there was much more else too (like the punk movement making a rhythm guitar and a team pleayer a hero of the band, etc.). That was the time Keith started to make the lists of greatest rock guitarists. Before that he was just a cool-looking guitarist a'la George Harrison whose strenght was song-writing, but not any instrumnetal excellence. But now he had a recognized signature sound of his own, and his unique timing and rhythm work was cheered up. It all came in he suitable package for Keith. In 1981 he was the winner in many sense - whatever - good or bad - he had done during his career, seem to be appreciated then.

And yeah, the credibility just got stronger during the 80's when the rest screwed up big time... Keith didn't do much, but what he did was cool enough usually. For example, the Chuck Berry tribute was a honourable job against "Let's Work"...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-21 16:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Hmm.. very intersting article and the discussion it has inspired here since I think it reflects - or is a symptom of - something important. Some old myths are finally going to be broke down like the Berlin wall, or Soviet Union. And I would claim we wil se the history and reality of the Stones more clearly as before. It might hurt, and kill some of our deepest romantical beliefs, but shit, that's the cost of truth sometimes.

I think the myth started during the seventies by 'critical' music press (born then), and then during the 80's it reached a greater audience, which just got bigger and bigger during the 90's and 00's. That is the myth of Keith Richards as the soul and heart, and the true and real and only musical genious of the Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger just a frontman, business brains and populist social-climber. According to myth, Keith Richards is the Rolling Stones - the band is just extension of him; proper members to sing and play his music (and add some contingent missing pieces, such as lyrics). I was totally caught by that myth when I felt love to Stones during the early 80's. That was the time when Keith's genious was truely recognized by all (who counted). He was the true darling of music press. Everyone eate from his hand, and ried to find better adjectives to describe his immortality and coolness. And we knew who the 'bitch' was, even before the infamous solo career happend.

Okay, that was 30 years ago. The myth, as we know, has lived nicely through all these years - seemingly no one took Wyman' ("quitter's") STONE ALONE very seriously either, or read that long, boring book carefully - and it has become, as I said, even bigger and bigger, when "Keef" entered to celebrity world by being ass-kicked by Johnny Depp and Walt Disney. And no one seem to recognize the irony there, we diehard fans didn't want to notice the decrease of his muse and playing kills, because 'Keith character' is bigger than life - but was LIFE still too much?

I wrote the following piece some weeks ago to another thread, but I want to rewrite it here because I think it suits to the theme we have here.

Well, what I have perceived or tried to 'sense the air', the negative effect of LIFE can be seen in two contexts.

The first is the hardcore fanbase of the Stones - people like us here at IORR. It is amazing how much the attitude and atmosphere has changed here. Keith has always been almost beyond criticism. Even though people noticed his musical decline during the last decade or so, it was forgiven... "it is Keith, man...". Even Keith's harsh words against Jagger was usually "understood" and not taken too seriously.. "It is Keith, man..." It is actually quite hard to find any "Keith bashing" here at tall; it was beyond reasonable discourse.

But the book changed it quite drastically. What was once funny, turned out to be ugly. The systemic form of non-fact based story-telling, the repeated, childish blade-talk, belittlening the other band members, and especially Jagger('s) so harshly, changed the whole idea of the man, and his role in the whole picture. He crossed some line, and people too their adoring glasses off. Suddenly he was the target of the most criticism. I think the the existence of "Keith apologists" verifies the fact very clearly. Before LIFE there was no any reason such apologists to exist at all.

The second is the public opinion. Keith's book got a lot of publicity, because he talked things people hungry for a scandal want to hear: drugs, drugs, drugs, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger.... as a result of that stupid tiny todger remark he made him and the Stones ridiculous (which of course, is the tip of the ice berg). But the childish remark gave people a right to induce that "yeah, that's how stupid they really are". Sixtysomethings speaking of each other's dicks in public. Keith put himself there next to Ozzy Osbourne as a laughing stock. The Stones, yeah, surely are 'bad boys' but they always had in their 'bad reputation' a bit of dignity. Okay, Keith has his history of stupid remarks, but now instead of occasional drunken interview, there were no excuses, since it was based supposedly on a "serious" reflection (namely that what writing books is all about). With the book he really hurt the band. He sold the band to quick personal profits. I include all those prizes he got from the book also to the latter.

I am also awere that for some folks the book was a positive surprise of how intelligent, smart, insightful and articulate Keith Richards is. But that surprise is based on people thinking that he actually is such a brainless junkie his public image represents him to be (plus all those idiot 'snorting dad's ashes', comments). Keith seemingly sees this a sort of achievement. But he could have had charm those people of his wit without the nasty tabloid stuff as well. Pyrrhos's win, in any case.

I think a stronger, deeper throgoing-analysis of the history of the Rolling Stones, and the Glimmer Twins, and not just past 10/25 yaers, but just straight from the beginning needs to be constructed. Naturally for keith there is only to lose, since the late 70's the mythology has been so Keith-warm, but Jagger has a LOT to win, in order to catch how incredily important and esssential his contributions in many level has been to the Rolling Stones. And let us not forget Brian Jones either.

So - a positive note - perhaps LIFE's contribution was finally make people - diehard fans that is - to see how shit-deep the myth of KEEF really is, and that it doesn't stand any critical examination. There is reality in it, for sure, but its is loaded with so much crap that is so hard to recognize these days. Maybe the real Keith Richards should be reconstructed, and we might appreciate the man once again for his actual contributions. I happily leave the myth to Johnny Depp, Ozzy Osbourne, and Walt Disney. And the miserable new token of Rolling Stones fan board class called "Keith apologists" will fade away.

- Doxa

Yes, this is really true. The influence of the critics were so massive. I think this Keith-following became manifest at the arrest and trial in '77, where the critics began to wonder what would become of the Stones without KR. And of course the interview in Rolling Stone magzine '71 was the the first glimpse of Keith as the soul of RS. In the '80's I might have been influenced of this view my self, but have always considered Jagger's vocals and phrasing and dealing with the rythm and duetting with gutars and other instruments the main topic in RS, so I was never alltogether convinced by the "experts". And when Wandering Spirit was released I realized that those experts just was caught by the cool image of KR. And maybe by som anger at MJ, because he somehow lost interest in dealing with journalists around 1970.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa
Hmm.. very intersting article and the discussion it has inspired here since I think it reflects - or is a symptom of - something important. Some old myths are finally going to be broke down like the Berlin wall, or Soviet Union. And I would claim we wil se the history and reality of the Stones more clearly as before. It might hurt, and kill some of our deepest romantical beliefs, but shit, that's the cost of truth sometimes.

I think the myth started during the seventies by 'critical' music press (born then), and then during the 80's it reached a greater audience, which just got bigger and bigger during the 90's and 00's. That is the myth of Keith Richards as the soul and heart, and the true and real and only musical genious of the Rolling Stones, and Mick Jagger just a frontman, business brains and populist social-climber. According to myth, Keith Richards is the Rolling Stones - the band is just extension of him; proper members to sing and play his music (and add some contingent missing pieces, such as lyrics). I was totally caught by that myth when I felt love to Stones during the early 80's. That was the time when Keith's genious was truely recognized by all (who counted). He was the true darling of music press. Everyone eate from his hand, and ried to find better adjectives to describe his immortality and coolness. And we knew who the 'bitch' was, even before the infamous solo career happend.

Okay, that was 30 years ago. The myth, as we know, has lived nicely through all these years - seemingly no one took Wyman' ("quitter's") STONE ALONE very seriously either, or read that long, boring book carefully - and it has become, as I said, even bigger and bigger, when "Keef" entered to celebrity world by being ass-kicked by Johnny Depp and Walt Disney. And no one seem to recognize the irony there, we diehard fans didn't want to notice the decrease of his muse and playing kills, because 'Keith character' is bigger than life - but was LIFE still too much?

I wrote the following piece some weeks ago to another thread, but I want to rewrite it here because I think it suits to the theme we have here.

Well, what I have perceived or tried to 'sense the air', the negative effect of LIFE can be seen in two contexts.

The first is the hardcore fanbase of the Stones - people like us here at IORR. It is amazing how much the attitude and atmosphere has changed here. Keith has always been almost beyond criticism. Even though people noticed his musical decline during the last decade or so, it was forgiven... "it is Keith, man...". Even Keith's harsh words against Jagger was usually "understood" and not taken too seriously.. "It is Keith, man..." It is actually quite hard to find any "Keith bashing" here at tall; it was beyond reasonable discourse.

But the book changed it quite drastically. What was once funny, turned out to be ugly. The systemic form of non-fact based story-telling, the repeated, childish blade-talk, belittlening the other band members, and especially Jagger('s) so harshly, changed the whole idea of the man, and his role in the whole picture. He crossed some line, and people too their adoring glasses off. Suddenly he was the target of the most criticism. I think the the existence of "Keith apologists" verifies the fact very clearly. Before LIFE there was no any reason such apologists to exist at all.

The second is the public opinion. Keith's book got a lot of publicity, because he talked things people hungry for a scandal want to hear: drugs, drugs, drugs, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger, bashing Jagger.... as a result of that stupid tiny todger remark he made him and the Stones ridiculous (which of course, is the tip of the ice berg). But the childish remark gave people a right to induce that "yeah, that's how stupid they really are". Sixtysomethings speaking of each other's dicks in public. Keith put himself there next to Ozzy Osbourne as a laughing stock. The Stones, yeah, surely are 'bad boys' but they always had in their 'bad reputation' a bit of dignity. Okay, Keith has his history of stupid remarks, but now instead of occasional drunken interview, there were no excuses, since it was based supposedly on a "serious" reflection (namely that what writing books is all about). With the book he really hurt the band. He sold the band to quick personal profits. I include all those prizes he got from the book also to the latter.

I am also awere that for some folks the book was a positive surprise of how intelligent, smart, insightful and articulate Keith Richards is. But that surprise is based on people thinking that he actually is such a brainless junkie his public image represents him to be (plus all those idiot 'snorting dad's ashes', comments). Keith seemingly sees this a sort of achievement. But he could have had charm those people of his wit without the nasty tabloid stuff as well. Pyrrhos's win, in any case.

I think a stronger, deeper throgoing-analysis of the history of the Rolling Stones, and the Glimmer Twins, and not just past 10/25 yaers, but just straight from the beginning needs to be constructed. Naturally for keith there is only to lose, since the late 70's the mythology has been so Keith-warm, but Jagger has a LOT to win, in order to catch how incredily important and esssential his contributions in many level has been to the Rolling Stones. And let us not forget Brian Jones either.

So - a positive note - perhaps LIFE's contribution was finally make people - diehard fans that is - to see how shit-deep the myth of KEEF really is, and that it doesn't stand any critical examination. There is reality in it, for sure, but its is loaded with so much crap that is so hard to recognize these days. Maybe the real Keith Richards should be reconstructed, and we might appreciate the man once again for his actual contributions. I happily leave the myth to Johnny Depp, Ozzy Osbourne, and Walt Disney. And the miserable new token of Rolling Stones fan board class called "Keith apologists" will fade away.

- Doxa

Yes, this is really true. The influence of the critics were so massive. I think this Keith-following became manifest at the arrest and trial in '77, where the critics began to wonder what would become of the Stones without KR. And of course the interview in Rolling Stone magzine '71 was the the first glimpse of Keith as the soul of RS. In the '80's I might have been influenced of this view my self, but have always considered Jagger's vocals and phrasing and dealing with the rythm and duetting with gutars and other instruments the main topic in RS, so I was never alltogether convinced by the "experts". And when Wandering Spirit was released I realized that those experts just was caught by the cool image of KR. And maybe by som anger at MJ, because he somehow lost interest in dealing with journalists around 1970.

I remember being caught up in the Keith hype of the 80s. It was easy to drink the kool aid when Mick was coming up with She's the Boss and Let's Work...I even blamed him for Dirty Work.

When Keith came out with his first solo album, and it was great, I thought that all the hype was right. But over time Keith's mind really started frying (dead Blondes jokes, snorting father's ashes, to name but two examples) the wheels started coming off the cart.

No one is perfect. MJ is the leader of the Stones, and without his creativity and leadership, they would not have existed past 1983.

Quote
GetYerAngie
And maybe by som anger at MJ, because he somehow lost interest in dealing with journalists around 1970.

Mark Spitz, in his book "Jagger" also says that one of the reasons for the decline of Mick's reputation - his bad relations with journalists, especially music writers and their hatred for him

Quote
proudmary

Quote
GetYerAngie
And maybe by som anger at MJ, because he somehow lost interest in dealing with journalists around 1970.

Mark Spitz, in his book "Jagger" also says that one of the reasons for the decline of Mick's reputation - his bad relations with journalists, especially music writers and their hatred for him

I remember the summer of 1978 in Britain - Radio 1 - relentless slagging off of Mick....just nonstop bile...............those DJs really had the CS Blues for the punks..........

As the double A-side of Miss you & Faraway Eyes was so brilliant and for me the sound of that hazy summer it put me off listening to the radio and I still don't..........



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-21 20:47 by EddieByword.

i've been following the stones long enough to tell you exactly when all of this happened-
-keith came into his own on the 75 tour. his reputation just built from there.i remember it perfectly because i was such a huge fan of his anyway and i was happy to see people begin to recognise how great he was instead of it always being"mick jagger and the rolling stones"

the problem was keith started getting really,really drunk after he kicked the smack and it changed him.instead of the ultimate cool,understated keith this sort of angry guy started coming out.

fans still debate this and i've been over it a hundred times on this board and elsewhere but the whole feud/blowup in the 80s was all keith and heres why-

we all know the story-mick solo etc but why keith was totally out of his mind and the entire feud looked suspiciously like coke paranoia was that all he had to do if he was so upset was-

1.not sign the cbs contract.the "sneaking in "a solo record by mick is batshit crazy sounding.didnt keith read the thing? his lawyers?
2.it was just a record-the old keith,the keith i was a fan of wouldve just said"yeah,micks doing his thing,its not my kinda music but hey,thats what he wants to do" the stones will go on,we're just taking some time off....

but noooo..he loses his mind-publicly,very publicly -and begins attacking mick in the media.in his deluted brain the guy is his brother,wife,best friend and he can say anything he wants about him. mick has"rhino skin"-no the guys human and you destroyed your songwriting partnership with him and almost ended the band.
it took years for people to figure this out i guess and i'm sure some of the "blame mick" crowd are still hanging on but its pretty simple-drug and alcohol addiction ruins lives.even the lives of people who the media try to make into superman.

Quote
lem motlow
i've been following the stones long enough to tell you exactly when all of this happened-
-keith came into his own on the 75 tour. his reputation just built from there.i remember it perfectly because i was such a huge fan of his anyway and i was happy to see people begin to recognise how great he was instead of it always being"mick jagger and the rolling stones"

the problem was keith started getting really,really drunk after he kicked the smack and it changed him.instead of the ultimate cool,understated keith this sort of angry guy started coming out.

fans still debate this and i've been over it a hundred times on this board and elsewhere but the whole feud/blowup in the 80s was all keith and heres why-

we all know the story-mick solo etc but why keith was totally out of his mind and the entire feud looked suspiciously like coke paranoia was that all he had to do if he was so upset was-

1.not sign the cbs contract.the "sneaking in "a solo record by mick is batshit crazy sounding.didnt keith read the thing? his lawyers?
2.it was just a record-the old keith,the keith i was a fan of wouldve just said"yeah,micks doing his thing,its not my kinda music but hey,thats what he wants to do" the stones will go on,we're just taking some time off....

but noooo..he loses his mind-publicly,very publicly -and begins attacking mick in the media.in his deluted brain the guy is his brother,wife,best friend and he can say anything he wants about him. mick has"rhino skin"-no the guys human and you destroyed your songwriting partnership with him and almost ended the band.
it took years for people to figure this out i guess and i'm sure some of the "blame mick" crowd are still hanging on but its pretty simple-drug and alcohol addiction ruins lives.even the lives of people who the media try to make into superman.

You should add that Mick sent a telegram, via his secretary, telling Keith that he wouldn´t be working with the Stones for a number of years - without telling him face to face. This was around Mick´s recording for She´s The Boss already...

I don´t necessarily disagree with you here, though.

Quote
lem motlow
i've been following the stones long enough to tell you exactly when all of this happened-
-keith came into his own on the 75 tour. his reputation just built from there.i remember it perfectly because i was such a huge fan of his anyway and i was happy to see people begin to recognise how great he was instead of it always being"mick jagger and the rolling stones"

the problem was keith started getting really,really drunk after he kicked the smack and it changed him.instead of the ultimate cool,understated keith this sort of angry guy started coming out.

fans still debate this and i've been over it a hundred times on this board and elsewhere but the whole feud/blowup in the 80s was all keith and heres why-

we all know the story-mick solo etc but why keith was totally out of his mind and the entire feud looked suspiciously like coke paranoia was that all he had to do if he was so upset was-

1.not sign the cbs contract.the "sneaking in "a solo record by mick is batshit crazy sounding.didnt keith read the thing? his lawyers?
2.it was just a record-the old keith,the keith i was a fan of wouldve just said"yeah,micks doing his thing,its not my kinda music but hey,thats what he wants to do" the stones will go on,we're just taking some time off....

but noooo..he loses his mind-publicly,very publicly -and begins attacking mick in the media.in his deluted brain the guy is his brother,wife,best friend and he can say anything he wants about him. mick has"rhino skin"-no the guys human and you destroyed your songwriting partnership with him and almost ended the band.
it took years for people to figure this out i guess and i'm sure some of the "blame mick" crowd are still hanging on but its pretty simple-drug and alcohol addiction ruins lives.even the lives of people who the media try to make into superman.

My picture of the route that led to 80's feud is pretty much the same you described here. I most believe Bill Wyman's accounts on the happenings behind the scene that took place especially during making EMOTIONAL RESCUE. That and then was stopped Mick and Keith's active creative co-work, and probably friendship (whatever of it was left) for good. I blame mostly Keith - or to say it other words: I can't really see what 'wrong' Mick did at the time (expect trusting his own muse in some musical differences, plus being so pragmatic, effective and hard working). Keith and his writers and PR agents have paint this peculiar period with rosey words - Keith cleaned up and get back to form and to take his co-lead "back" , but that evil, control-freak Mick refused to give Keith's 'justified' share, and then he even dared to try a solo career blah blah blah - that is pretty much part of official Keithology. But what is not told in those tales is that Keith basically drunk his brains out at the time, and became, to use the very word, "unbearable". Damn aggressive and selfish. Musically stubborn,which partly co-incidented with decreasing creativity. But claiming to be the boss the others should now trust on. I think it is good to read the 'facts' from the great timeisonourside.com from starting making EMOTIONAL RESCUE to the starting of 1981 tour, and reflect Keith doings - and especially not showings up - during the time. His behavior was so child-like selfish and stupid. That at the same he turned out to be such a hero everyone in rock business praised, especially during 1981/82 tour, didn't do much help to make his ego easier to cope with (and to add Jane Rose later to that scenario,...)

It is during this time I believe Jagger decided "no more. This needs to be end or to be changed radically." As it did - and Jagger got his wish through, no matter what we think of the 80's war generally. Ever since Jagger hasn't accepted Richardsian terms in making records, plans or whatever. That has been the nature of The Rolling Stones since "re-union" of 1989. If they once lived Keith's junkie/drunk time, since 1989 they lived nothing but Jaggerian time. Keith can bully, tell juicy stories to reporters, mock Mick, and show his blade as much as he pleases, but when it goes to serious work, it is Mick Jagger who is the boss. And Keith better to have his telephone not off the hook.

But yeah, Keith has been the darling of the press - the older rock critics still adore their old hero, and tabloids love his big mouth and one liners, so his myth still lives among us, and LIFE being an top of the ice berg in trying to maintain the myth. But for some reason Jagger, despite being the target of the "blame it all Mick" and whatever campaign against his womanizing (remember that constant theme - long time no hear!), greed or whatever, doesn't seem to care of this tabloid PR war against Richards, that pretty much still kept alive still in modern, nostalgic 'classic rock' journalism, presented in such 'serious' magazines as MOJO and UNCUT. He seems to somehow - perhaps like always - being above of that. He just seem to keep the band in control and lead the ship to new adventures. He probably gets his satisfaction there. Actually finding faults in Mick seems to get harder and harder as the yaers go by, especially recently. Keith's "todger" bit was almost an expection. Taking the recent glory (Maroon 5, etc.), Jagger's star also seems to rise in PR section as well. And I am sure Jagger's appearance in SNL didn't hurt his reputation at all.

That Jagger actually is quite a cool guy...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-22 01:21 by Doxa.