Quote
lem motlow
PROUDMARY-"I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all - not to the press manipulation, not to Richads' rewriting the history, not to the ridicule...
Why?
He did not care? He's too stupid to understand what it is for him to lose? Too arrogant to pay attention to Richards and Rose?"



i dont know mick,i've never met him.but one thing i've learned in life is that if you want to understand a person and their actions put yourself in their position.

what mick sees is that when people approach him they are still in awe,they ask for autograghs, they want to speak with him,they want his attention.
when he plays live, huge amounts of people show up to see him and when he leaves the stage during keiths set a great deal of these people simply step out for a smoke,a drink or a trip to the bathroom,that says a great deal.

he's also wealthy and a father and as such knows quite well how to deal with spoiled children.so to put it bluntly,he doesnt give a shit.

Quote
stupidguy2
Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that ProudMary is ...what?
A fan of Mick Jagger.
We're all on this board Hansie, everyday, posting comments...
Like you. Whenever some of you try to mock Mary for her passion - I'm amused.
We're all here, defending either Mick, Keith, the Stones.....offering opinions, theories....
funny that when people defend Mick - some of you get your panties in a wad and pretend you are too cool.
Then what are you doing here?

Quote
proudmary

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary

Quote
lem motlow

maybe jagger shouldnt have fired jane rose after all, shes seems pretty good at what she doeas.

I think Mick fired her because she started to promote her agenda while she was still working for the Stones.
By her agenda I mean "Keith's legend" - Keith is the musical genius behind Stones who single-handedly wrote all the great music, he is the heart and the soul of the band, the keeper of the spirit etc, etc... In her opinion this could not be achieved without destroying the image of Jagger - following Lenin, who famously said: "Destroy the Old to Build the New!"
So Richards/Rose team enthusiastically worked on this goal for the past 25 years. And I have to say, they've succeeded in all their endeavors.
While Richards' motives are clear, I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all - not to the press manipulation, not to Richads' rewriting the history, not to the ridicule...
Why?
He did not care? He's too stupid to understand what it is for him to lose? Too arrogant to pay attention to Richards and Rose?

At the same time Mick did not stop to deal with the Stones and their legacy. The latest example of this attention - it's Exile reissue in 2010 when the Stones were at the center of attention,media began to talk about them seriously - as a cultural phenomenon, and their impact.
And then there was this damn book. I don't want to talk about what it had done for the Jagger \ Richards myth which was one of the foundations of the Stones charm and for their real working relationship.
In my eyes, its main drawback is that it completely trivialized the Stones once and for all placing them to the usual field - drugs,drugs, more drugs, debauchery, drinking, tensions with Jagger, groupies, more Jagger bashing...
I think that Jagger gave up after that

I think Mick knew perfectly well that there were even bigger things to come after the Exile-release: A 50th anniversary - and that is bigger than the both of them, right?

Yes, we definitely see a lot of activity concerning the 50th anniversary

Quote
Rocky Dijon
More than a Jagger/Richards polarity, I think its the wider issue of most of us take the band, their music, and legacy too seriously. Let's face it, most of the millions who love this band don't spend their time on a message board. Since it means so much to us, we all have set ways of viewing the band's history and viewing them as people. When others disagree with our views or post something we don't like, some of us become rude and do our best to discredit or mock or intimidate so that our view prevails. It happens a lot on messageboards. On rare occasions, I've been the victim of this childish behavior. I've also been guilty of taking part in it as well. About the only thing you can do is own up and try not to do it again.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rocky Dijon
More than a Jagger/Richards polarity, I think its the wider issue of most of us take the band, their music, and legacy too seriously. Let's face it, most of the millions who love this band don't spend their time on a message board. Since it means so much to us, we all have set ways of viewing the band's history and viewing them as people. When others disagree with our views or post something we don't like, some of us become rude and do our best to discredit or mock or intimidate so that our view prevails. It happens a lot on messageboards. On rare occasions, I've been the victim of this childish behavior. I've also been guilty of taking part in it as well. About the only thing you can do is own up and try not to do it again.

This is the kind of posts this message board needs, imo!

We are really only a few people in a hardcore fan-bubble here,

The average Joe Blow doesn't give a hoot about either Life or any supposedly ongoing conflict between band members. They care about the outcome - the music!

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Rocky Dijon
More than a Jagger/Richards polarity, I think its the wider issue of most of us take the band, their music, and legacy too seriously. Let's face it, most of the millions who love this band don't spend their time on a message board. Since it means so much to us, we all have set ways of viewing the band's history and viewing them as people. When others disagree with our views or post something we don't like, some of us become rude and do our best to discredit or mock or intimidate so that our view prevails. It happens a lot on messageboards. On rare occasions, I've been the victim of this childish behavior. I've also been guilty of taking part in it as well. About the only thing you can do is own up and try not to do it again.

This is the kind of posts this message board needs, imo!

We are really only a few people in a hardcore fan-bubble here,

The average Joe Blow doesn't give a hoot about either Life or any supposedly ongoing conflict between band members. They care about the outcome - the music!

Apparently, several thousand Joe Blow's did care about Life as the book topped The NY Times non-fiction bestseller list as soon as it debuted.

Quote
proudmary
Richards intentionally and very publicly mocked his creative partner and bandmate - and did so with two goals:
First - for the money.
All the publicity for the book was based on the discussion of this very moment (which is why he talked about this in the very first interview, J.Rose then not removed anything form the article and then it gone viral)
Second - to destroy Jagger's image.
Richards humiliated both Mick's artistic and personal reputation. Not only KR attributed all the credit for the music, for the direction and for the image of band to himself, but he also ridiculed Mick's sex appeal(arguing that Mick having small penis is the cause of his lack of confidence - and hence the result - his womanizing)

Whether the "controversy over the todger remark and other quotes from the book" drew attention of numerous Stones fans - it is irrelevant. Richards did it, it's the fact - so if no one has seen or heard it, we'll sweep it under the rug as if it never existed?
But I do not agree in principle that average fan couldn't care less about LIFE million readers bought the book and even more people read the interviews and excerpts from it and the majority took it all as a fact. Richards - he's the Rolling Stones. Jagger - he's a tiny todger with the superiority complex.
Average fans don't care about Stones music anymore- no one paid attention to the Some Girls bonus disk or archival releases with the beautiful music.As Pete Townshend put it: "But why would you want to buy something by Mick? Actually what we really want is to observe him going through the agony of being on stage with Keith Richards on a bad night.” Bingo!

The only thing that important at this stage of their career is the Stones legacy. And Keith caused the irreparable damage to it. He has long ceased to be a musician, so he turned the Stones into a cheap soap opera - because he's sure only that can bring some interest to them (to him at least).
Of course in a big perspective it is all nonsense. In 10-20 years all this stuff will be forgotten. Who remembers now about the conflict between McCartney and Lennon - but it took 30 years to forget it. But to be perfectly honest, the Stones are not the Beatles - and the music itself has never been their main and the only attractive element.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary
Richards intentionally and very publicly mocked his creative partner and bandmate - and did so with two goals:
First - for the money.
All the publicity for the book was based on the discussion of this very moment (which is why he talked about this in the very first interview, J.Rose then not removed anything form the article and then it gone viral)
Second - to destroy Jagger's image.
Richards humiliated both Mick's artistic and personal reputation. Not only KR attributed all the credit for the music, for the direction and for the image of band to himself, but he also ridiculed Mick's sex appeal(arguing that Mick having small penis is the cause of his lack of confidence - and hence the result - his womanizing)

Whether the "controversy over the todger remark and other quotes from the book" drew attention of numerous Stones fans - it is irrelevant. Richards did it, it's the fact - so if no one has seen or heard it, we'll sweep it under the rug as if it never existed?
But I do not agree in principle that average fan couldn't care less about LIFE million readers bought the book and even more people read the interviews and excerpts from it and the majority took it all as a fact. Richards - he's the Rolling Stones. Jagger - he's a tiny todger with the superiority complex.
Average fans don't care about Stones music anymore- no one paid attention to the Some Girls bonus disk or archival releases with the beautiful music.As Pete Townshend put it: "But why would you want to buy something by Mick? Actually what we really want is to observe him going through the agony of being on stage with Keith Richards on a bad night.” Bingo!

The only thing that important at this stage of their career is the Stones legacy. And Keith caused the irreparable damage to it. He has long ceased to be a musician, so he turned the Stones into a cheap soap opera - because he's sure only that can bring some interest to them (to him at least).
Of course in a big perspective it is all nonsense. In 10-20 years all this stuff will be forgotten. Who remembers now about the conflict between McCartney and Lennon - but it took 30 years to forget it. But to be perfectly honest, the Stones are not the Beatles - and the music itself has never been their main and the only attractive element.

It IS forgotten. They are doing videos together now, have been rehearsing for three weeks and there is plenty more to come.

Can't you please lay this one to rest, proudmary?

Quote
proudmary

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary
Richards intentionally and very publicly mocked his creative partner and bandmate - and did so with two goals:
First - for the money.
All the publicity for the book was based on the discussion of this very moment (which is why he talked about this in the very first interview, J.Rose then not removed anything form the article and then it gone viral)
Second - to destroy Jagger's image.
Richards humiliated both Mick's artistic and personal reputation. Not only KR attributed all the credit for the music, for the direction and for the image of band to himself, but he also ridiculed Mick's sex appeal(arguing that Mick having small penis is the cause of his lack of confidence - and hence the result - his womanizing)

Whether the "controversy over the todger remark and other quotes from the book" drew attention of numerous Stones fans - it is irrelevant. Richards did it, it's the fact - so if no one has seen or heard it, we'll sweep it under the rug as if it never existed?
But I do not agree in principle that average fan couldn't care less about LIFE million readers bought the book and even more people read the interviews and excerpts from it and the majority took it all as a fact. Richards - he's the Rolling Stones. Jagger - he's a tiny todger with the superiority complex.
Average fans don't care about Stones music anymore- no one paid attention to the Some Girls bonus disk or archival releases with the beautiful music.As Pete Townshend put it: "But why would you want to buy something by Mick? Actually what we really want is to observe him going through the agony of being on stage with Keith Richards on a bad night.” Bingo!

The only thing that important at this stage of their career is the Stones legacy. And Keith caused the irreparable damage to it. He has long ceased to be a musician, so he turned the Stones into a cheap soap opera - because he's sure only that can bring some interest to them (to him at least).
Of course in a big perspective it is all nonsense. In 10-20 years all this stuff will be forgotten. Who remembers now about the conflict between McCartney and Lennon - but it took 30 years to forget it. But to be perfectly honest, the Stones are not the Beatles - and the music itself has never been their main and the only attractive element.

It IS forgotten. They are doing videos together now, have been rehearsing for three weeks and there is plenty more to come.

Can't you please lay this one to rest, proudmary?

I've not heard anything about it - is it some new information?
They were at the studio for the week in May - mostly for a documentary - and in fact this movie is the only thing to come to mark the anniversary.

It ISN'T forgotten but I swear I will not say another word about it

Quote
proudmary

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary
Richards intentionally and very publicly mocked his creative partner and bandmate - and did so with two goals:
First - for the money.
All the publicity for the book was based on the discussion of this very moment (which is why he talked about this in the very first interview, J.Rose then not removed anything form the article and then it gone viral)
Second - to destroy Jagger's image.
Richards humiliated both Mick's artistic and personal reputation. Not only KR attributed all the credit for the music, for the direction and for the image of band to himself, but he also ridiculed Mick's sex appeal(arguing that Mick having small penis is the cause of his lack of confidence - and hence the result - his womanizing)

Whether the "controversy over the todger remark and other quotes from the book" drew attention of numerous Stones fans - it is irrelevant. Richards did it, it's the fact - so if no one has seen or heard it, we'll sweep it under the rug as if it never existed?
But I do not agree in principle that average fan couldn't care less about LIFE million readers bought the book and even more people read the interviews and excerpts from it and the majority took it all as a fact. Richards - he's the Rolling Stones. Jagger - he's a tiny todger with the superiority complex.
Average fans don't care about Stones music anymore- no one paid attention to the Some Girls bonus disk or archival releases with the beautiful music.As Pete Townshend put it: "But why would you want to buy something by Mick? Actually what we really want is to observe him going through the agony of being on stage with Keith Richards on a bad night.” Bingo!

The only thing that important at this stage of their career is the Stones legacy. And Keith caused the irreparable damage to it. He has long ceased to be a musician, so he turned the Stones into a cheap soap opera - because he's sure only that can bring some interest to them (to him at least).
Of course in a big perspective it is all nonsense. In 10-20 years all this stuff will be forgotten. Who remembers now about the conflict between McCartney and Lennon - but it took 30 years to forget it. But to be perfectly honest, the Stones are not the Beatles - and the music itself has never been their main and the only attractive element.

It IS forgotten. They are doing videos together now, have been rehearsing for three weeks and there is plenty more to come.

Can't you please lay this one to rest, proudmary?

I've not heard anything about it - is it some new information?
They were at the studio for the week in May - mostly for a documentary - and in fact this movie is the only thing to come to mark the anniversary.

It ISN'T forgotten but I swear I will not say another word about it

Quote
proudmary
DandelionPowderman

1. I have not sources close to the band. But Rolling Stone(and all of fan boards with their sourses) talked about one week and thare was an interview with Chuck L where he also said "1 week". And everyone was talking about the documentary and shooting footage for it.

Well, it was more. There were no cameras present at all on the first part of the rehearsals, that's why I'm asking.

2.I do not understand how the fact that Jagger agreed to end his career with dignity in spite of the demential Richards may cancel 20+ years long bashing. Why can not we talk about that in some cases Richads just lies?

Quote
proudmary

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary
Richards intentionally and very publicly mocked his creative partner and bandmate - and did so with two goals:
First - for the money.
All the publicity for the book was based on the discussion of this very moment (which is why he talked about this in the very first interview, J.Rose then not removed anything form the article and then it gone viral)
Second - to destroy Jagger's image.
Richards humiliated both Mick's artistic and personal reputation. Not only KR attributed all the credit for the music, for the direction and for the image of band to himself, but he also ridiculed Mick's sex appeal(arguing that Mick having small penis is the cause of his lack of confidence - and hence the result - his womanizing)

Whether the "controversy over the todger remark and other quotes from the book" drew attention of numerous Stones fans - it is irrelevant. Richards did it, it's the fact - so if no one has seen or heard it, we'll sweep it under the rug as if it never existed?
But I do not agree in principle that average fan couldn't care less about LIFE million readers bought the book and even more people read the interviews and excerpts from it and the majority took it all as a fact. Richards - he's the Rolling Stones. Jagger - he's a tiny todger with the superiority complex.
Average fans don't care about Stones music anymore- no one paid attention to the Some Girls bonus disk or archival releases with the beautiful music.As Pete Townshend put it: "But why would you want to buy something by Mick? Actually what we really want is to observe him going through the agony of being on stage with Keith Richards on a bad night.” Bingo!

The only thing that important at this stage of their career is the Stones legacy. And Keith caused the irreparable damage to it. He has long ceased to be a musician, so he turned the Stones into a cheap soap opera - because he's sure only that can bring some interest to them (to him at least).
Of course in a big perspective it is all nonsense. In 10-20 years all this stuff will be forgotten. Who remembers now about the conflict between McCartney and Lennon - but it took 30 years to forget it. But to be perfectly honest, the Stones are not the Beatles - and the music itself has never been their main and the only attractive element.

It IS forgotten. They are doing videos together now, have been rehearsing for three weeks and there is plenty more to come.

Can't you please lay this one to rest, proudmary?

I've not heard anything about it - is it some new information?
They were at the studio for the week in May - mostly for a documentary - and in fact this movie is the only thing to come to mark the anniversary.

It ISN'T forgotten but I swear I will not say another word about this book

I do not understand how the fact that Jagger agreed to end his career with dignity in spite of the demential Richards may cancel 20+ years long bashing Why can not we talk about that in some cases Richads just lies?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Can't you please lay this one to rest, proudmary?

Quote
latebloomer
Far be it for me to defend what someone terms indefensible, but I do want to give my perspective. I consider myself pretty close to what proudmary calls "an average fan", that is I love their music, but was never really that familiar with their catalogue beyond the hits. I loved the Stones when I was a teen but didn't have access to record stores where I grew up so didn't really start buying albums until I went to college. By then I had moved on to other bands and only had a few Stones albums for a long time. I certainly wasn't familiar with the band personalties other than Jagger was the star and Richards was the badass drug addict. Fast forward about 25 years and one of my kids got me Life for my birthday two years ago. I thought it was a fascinating window into that era, the man himself, the band, but most importantly, the music. So, I started listening to the Stones again, bought all their CD's, started reading more books about them and here I am. In essence, Richards book made me fall in love with the band all over again. I don't think I am alone in this, I have some much younger friends who now love the Stones after reading Life. So, it may seem to some here that the book was the worst thing that ever happened, but there are some of us who don't feel that way.
As to the whole todger thing, I agree with Greenblues, I didn't think it was that big a deal when I read it. It seemed to me that Richards was writing about it as if he were in the moment, and I could understand his hurt and sense of betrayal. There were other things that made me really cringe, like his introducing John Phillips to smack and his refusal to take responsiblity for almost killing Marlon in a car crash. After reading the book I didn't view Keith Richards as a hero at all, but I also don't think he is so awful either. The book is his version of the truth, which is probably 90% crap, but I think most everyone's version of the truth of their own lives is about the same. He's the one who has to live with what he's put down on paper, I really don't think Mick Jagger cares. I still like the guy and his book. He's often full of shit, but so what? I still like what I know of the man, I like all the band members, but mostly I like the music.

Quote
Rolling Hansie
And welcome to the board latebloomer.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Rolling Hansie
And welcome to the board latebloomer.

I can only repeat myself.

Quote
latebloomer
give me some time and I am sure I will screw up and piss some of you off

Quote
Bliss
It's a strange phenomenon - in any normal scenario, where there is a team of any kind - work, family, marriage, club - associates present a united front to the world and keep their internecine quarrels hidden. But within the Stones, or more specifically, in Keith's mind - their own personal status can only be aggrandised by diminishing the other members. Bur such a 'scorched earth' approach can never succeed; everyone is harmed by it.