Quote
Doxa

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

Quote
Doxa

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

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
Doxa

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

'Is everything o.k. in the critic section?' Mick asked in El Mocambo on LYL. No it definately hasn't been. Of course not in the tabloids, but not in the 'serious' press either. This critical lazyness has contributed to the decline of Keith's muse. In this perspective it is interesting to remember that the troublesome ER was followed by TY, which Jagger put together and made shine.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

"Agree, but then again Keith arranged the great sessions for Dirty Work, which could have been a great album (judging by the bootlegs), if id hadn't been for a horrendous production and Jagger's minimal participation.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

"Agree, but then again Keith arranged the great sessions for Dirty Work, which could have been a great album (judging by the bootlegs), if id hadn't been for a horrendous production and Jagger's minimal participation.

so mick bailed out and turned the reins over to keith who was ready to assert himself once again and he came up with friggin dirty work...

but this was now micks fault for not doing enough and the producers fault because...what? keith didnt listen to the final product or he was tricked in some way and they released another record without him knowing it or ...how does that work exactly?

if it was great it was a classic keith record that he saw through when mick wasnt there but it sucked so it was because mick wasnt there..and the producer messed it up-ooook.i get it now,its not like the producer is working for the band, right?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Agree, but then again Keith arranged the great sessions for Dirty Work, which could have been a great album (judging by the bootlegs), if id hadn't been for a horrendous production and Jagger's minimal participation.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

"Agree, but then again Keith arranged the great sessions for Dirty Work, which could have been a great album (judging by the bootlegs), if id hadn't been for a horrendous production and Jagger's minimal participation.

so mick bailed out and turned the reins over to keith who was ready to assert himself once again and he came up with friggin dirty work...

but this was now micks fault for not doing enough and the producers fault because...what? keith didnt listen to the final product or he was tricked in some way and they released another record without him knowing it or ...how does that work exactly?

if it was great it was a classic keith record that he saw through when mick wasnt there but it sucked so it was because mick wasnt there..and the producer messed it up-ooook.i get it now,its not like the producer is working for the band, right?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

"Agree, but then again Keith arranged the great sessions for Dirty Work, which could have been a great album (judging by the bootlegs), if id hadn't been for a horrendous production and Jagger's minimal participation.

so mick bailed out and turned the reins over to keith who was ready to assert himself once again and he came up with friggin dirty work...

but this was now micks fault for not doing enough and the producers fault because...what? keith didnt listen to the final product or he was tricked in some way and they released another record without him knowing it or ...how does that work exactly?

if it was great it was a classic keith record that he saw through when mick wasnt there but it sucked so it was because mick wasnt there..and the producer messed it up-ooook.i get it now,its not like the producer is working for the band, right?

Have you considered the possibility that Keith needed Mick to pick the best songs, and to finalise this album?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
DandelionPowderman

"Agree, but then again Keith arranged the great sessions for Dirty Work, which could have been a great album (judging by the bootlegs), if id hadn't been for a horrendous production and Jagger's minimal participation.

so mick bailed out and turned the reins over to keith who was ready to assert himself once again and he came up with friggin dirty work...

but this was now micks fault for not doing enough and the producers fault because...what? keith didnt listen to the final product or he was tricked in some way and they released another record without him knowing it or ...how does that work exactly?

if it was great it was a classic keith record that he saw through when mick wasnt there but it sucked so it was because mick wasnt there..and the producer messed it up-ooook.i get it now,its not like the producer is working for the band, right?

Have you considered the possibility that Keith needed Mick to pick the best songs, and to finalise this album?

I think that is more than a possibility, given the outcome. But now you're inadvertently placing the whole blame on Keith, because you're saying he couldn't pick a good tune if his life depended on it.

We all know where the true blame lies...Chuck and his writing contribution on Back to Zero.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Remember that the working title on the album was "Back To Zero". I think they thought they had a hit back then

Honestly, all I'm saying is that Mick and Keith need eachother to bring out the best stuff. I think their solo albums prove that. The good stuff for TY was already there, apart from Mick's great vocals.

Chris Kimsey's wonderful contributions shouldn't be under rated here, either. He really was a master, both in providing the right sound as well as edit the long jams down to perfect songs...