Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger.

Quote

"Mick was always the leader, he had the final say and still does. He was very funny, very entertaining, very intelligent"

"I remember Keith getting very upset when we were signing with Atlantic Records after we left Decca. The contract said the Rolling Stones must always consist of Mick Jagger and four others. Didn't mention Keith and he was very put out".

I read it in the Mick Taylor article in The Times today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-26 14:47 by GravityBoy.

[www.iorr.org]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[www.iorr.org]

Yeah.. but I cut to the chase.

Have a look at 25x5.

Charlie states "everything is on Mick's head" or something to that effect.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-26 15:00 by proudmary.

But if this were true we would have 8 more "She's The Boss" s by now.
Someone goes upside Mr. Pop Singer's head at the right times...

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[www.iorr.org]

Yeah.. but I cut to the chase.

You just made a different headline...

mmmmm. and Stones would have been nothin without Jagger....everything is OK then....

I think officially it was the Rolling Stones on the last SNL broadcast.

Foo Fighters are four people?

Seeing as right now we've got Mick & only 3 others I guess it's a good thing the terms of the Atlantic deal no longer apply or when Bill left they'd have had to make either Chuck or Darryl a full member.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
GravityBoy
I think officially it was the Rolling Stones on the last SNL broadcast.

Foo Fighters are four people?

Foo Fighters are Dave Grohl and three people...

8 more "She's The Boss's??"

IF ONLY!!

I suppose at the time - late 60's/early 70's when the deal was done - Mick's star was relatively speaking its brightest compared to "four others". The rest were relatively unknown - Brian's star (and finally) life had gone downhill, and Keith's star was just starting getting recognized, and it would take all the way through the seventies, and numerous dug arrests - that his reputation got its mythical quality.

But Mick was the face of the band more than ever - his film career was just started; when Lennon talked about Stones (for example in the famous ROLLING STONE interview- he only referred to Jagger. Wyman claims that if BEGGARS BANQUET hadn't been succesful, Jagger would have gone to solo or film career altogeher. Jagger simply was the coolest rock star during that time; he made public dylan-like statements with "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy For The Devil", and even the counter-culture digged him. Just check the performances on ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS and STONES IN THE PARK - Jagger was 'on', and everyone else in shadows.

I think all the 'recent' hostality against Mick - Marianne, Anita, Keith; his partners in crime at the time - is somehow related towards this picture of how big Mick was at the time. Of course, Anita wanted him - Keith might been a cool but a shy guy with a monster dick and everything, but Jagger was a shining star everyone wanted. Keith is still paying back of that in LIFE - in many ways. Marianne keeps retelling his part of the story if anyone is interested, and Anita couldn't have come up with any non-bitter comment ever since in regards to Jagger. But it was Jagger who not just had enough of this little celebrity rock and roll ring of theirs, took the band duties in his shoulders and lead the band out of Klein's hands, and gave it a new life and future, while Keith was free-cruising in dopeville, and mastering the lazy spoiled rock star life style, very much made possible by Mick's determination. I think all of his old parners, especially Keith, do know Jagger's real power and ability, and all they can do is to bitch afterwards.

If Jagger wanted to have a convincing solo career, he should have done it during the early 70's. But I think Jagger didn't really need that option since the band was in his hands; in practise the rest all worked for him, under his supervision (for example, Keith made songs and riffs for him to sing). It looks like that not until the late 70's/early 80's when Keith wanted a bigger share of the cake, and got difficult, Jagger started to take the solo career option seriously - when it was too late for him. I think the way Stones worked from the late 60's to late 70's was perfect for Mick and his artistic ambitions. (And seemingly from 1989 on again, without the artistic drive, and even though Keith and Jane Rose do their best in 'shadows' to come up with tabloid stuff.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-26 17:44 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I suppose at the time - late 60's/early 70's when the deal was done - Mick's star was relatively speaking its brightest compared to "four others". The rest were relatively unknown - Brian's star (and finally) life had gone downhill, and Keith's star was just starting getting recognized, and it would take all the way through the seventies, and numerous dug arrests - that his reputation got its mythical quality.

But Mick was the face of the band more than ever - his film career was just started; when Lennon talked about Stones (for example in the famous ROLLING STONE interview- he only referred to Jagger. Wyman claims that if BEGGARS BANQUET hadn't been succesful, Jagger would have gone to solo or film career altogeher. Jagger simply was the coolest rock star during that time; he made public dylan-like statements with "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy For The Devil", and even the counter-culture digged him. Just check the performances on ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS and STONES IN THE PARK - Jagger was 'on', and everyone else in shadows.

I think all the 'recent' hostality against Mick - Marianne, Anita, Keith; his partners in crime at the time - is somehow related towards this picture of how big Mick was at the time. Of course, Anita wanted him - Keith might been a cool but a shy guy with a monster dick and everything, but Jagger was a shining star everyone wanted. Keith is still paying back of that in LIFE - in many ways. Marianne keeps retelling his part of the story if anyone is interested, and Anita couldn't have come up with any non-bitter comment ever since in regards to Jagger. But it was Jagger who not just had enough of this little celebrity rock and roll ring of theirs, took the band duties in his shoulders and lead the band out of Klein's hands, and gave it a new life and future, while Keith was free-cruising in dopeville, and mastering the lazy spoiled rock star life style, very much made possible by Mick's determination. I think all of his old parners, especially Keith, do know Jagger's real power and ability, and all they can do is to bitch afterwards.

If Jagger wanted to have a convincing solo career, he should have done it during the early 70's. But I think Jagger didn't really need that option since the band was in his hands; in practise the rest all worked for him, under his supervision (for example, Keith made songs and riffs for him to sing). It looks like that not until the late 70's/early 80's when Keith wanted a bigger share of the cake, and got difficult, Jagger started to take the solo career option seriously - when it was too late for him. I think the way Stones worked from the late 60's to late 70's was perfect for Mick and his artistic ambitions. (And seemingly from 1989 on again, without the artistic drive, and even though Keith and Jane Rose do their best in 'shadows' to come up with tabloid stuff.)

- Doxa

I quite agree with your discription. I think you are judging the post 89 output too harshly though. I think it would be possible to make a convincing compilation (including solo work) from these years. More so than from latterday Dylan-, Cohen-, McCartney-, Reed-oeuvres.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-27 12:48 by GetYerAngie.

I think you are judging the post 89 output too harshly though. I think I would it be possible to make a convincing compilation (including solo work) from these years. More so than from latterday Dylan-, Cohen-, McCartney-, Reed-oeuvres.[/quote]

Don't include Dylan in that group. His star has been on the rise in the studio since the late 90s. You can pick out a few songs on the 3 Stones albums since 1989, but Dylan's albums themselves are beautiful. They are challenging, and they are not retro in the sense of repeating onself, something the Stones can no longer claim.

Quote
24FPS
I think you are judging the post 89 output too harshly though. I think I would it be possible to make a convincing compilation (including solo work) from these years. More so than from latterday Dylan-, Cohen-, McCartney-, Reed-oeuvres.

Don't include Dylan in that group. His star has been on the rise in the studio since the late 90s. You can pick out a few songs on the 3 Stones albums since 1989, but Dylan's albums themselves are beautiful. They are challenging, and they are not retro in the sense of repeating onself, something the Stones can no longer claim.[/quote]


Back Of My Hand took us back to the early American 20th century.
Thats good retro!

Quote
24FPS
I think you are judging the post 89 output too harshly though. I think I would it be possible to make a convincing compilation (including solo work) from these years. More so than from latterday Dylan-, Cohen-, McCartney-, Reed-oeuvres.

Don't include Dylan in that group. His star has been on the rise in the studio since the late 90s. You can pick out a few songs on the 3 Stones albums since 1989, but Dylan's albums themselves are beautiful. They are challenging, and they are not retro in the sense of repeating onself, something the Stones can no longer claim.[/quote]

Time Out Of Mind is a true masterpiece. His other latterday contributions are vastly overrated. The odd thing about those records is that one likes to read about the cd's, but feel so cheated when one bring the "masterpiece" to ones house, put it on and listen carefully. You claim they are challenging, 24FPS. If it is challenging to publish dinnertable music, well then I o.k for me. I seek other challenges.

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
24FPS
I think you are judging the post 89 output too harshly though. I think I would it be possible to make a convincing compilation (including solo work) from these years. More so than from latterday Dylan-, Cohen-, McCartney-, Reed-oeuvres.

Don't include Dylan in that group. His star has been on the rise in the studio since the late 90s. You can pick out a few songs on the 3 Stones albums since 1989, but Dylan's albums themselves are beautiful. They are challenging, and they are not retro in the sense of repeating onself, something the Stones can no longer claim.

Time Out Of Mind is a true masterpiece. His other latterday contributions are vastly overrated. The odd thing about those records is that one likes to read about the cd's, but feel so cheated when one bring the "masterpiece" to ones house, put it on and listen carefully. You claim they are challenging, 24FPS. If it is challenging to publish dinnertable music, well then I o.k for me. I seek other challenges.[/quote]


No one surpasses Dylan as a songwriter and artist who changed everything.
But to the likes of ROlling Stone Magazine etc, he can do no wrong and so yes, his latter-day output tends to be overrated and exalted by the sheer power of his reputation. He's DYLAN, .....its become a catch word for anyone who wants to sound important.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-26 21:11 by stupidguy2.

Quote
Doxa
I suppose at the time - late 60's/early 70's when the deal was done - Mick's star was relatively speaking its brightest compared to "four others". The rest were relatively unknown - Brian's star (and finally) life had gone downhill, and Keith's star was just starting getting recognized, and it would take all the way through the seventies, and numerous dug arrests - that his reputation got its mythical quality.

But Mick was the face of the band more than ever - his film career was just started; when Lennon talked about Stones (for example in the famous ROLLING STONE interview- he only referred to Jagger. Wyman claims that if BEGGARS BANQUET hadn't been succesful, Jagger would have gone to solo or film career altogeher. Jagger simply was the coolest rock star during that time; he made public dylan-like statements with "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy For The Devil", and even the counter-culture digged him. Just check the performances on ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS and STONES IN THE PARK - Jagger was 'on', and everyone else in shadows.

I think all the 'recent' hostality against Mick - Marianne, Anita, Keith; his partners in crime at the time - is somehow related towards this picture of how big Mick was at the time. Of course, Anita wanted him - Keith might been a cool but a shy guy with a monster dick and everything, but Jagger was a shining star everyone wanted. Keith is still paying back of that in LIFE - in many ways. Marianne keeps retelling his part of the story if anyone is interested, and Anita couldn't have come up with any non-bitter comment ever since in regards to Jagger. But it was Jagger who not just had enough of this little celebrity rock and roll ring of theirs, took the band duties in his shoulders and lead the band out of Klein's hands, and gave it a new life and future, while Keith was free-cruising in dopeville, and mastering the lazy spoiled rock star life style, very much made possible by Mick's determination. I think all of his old parners, especially Keith, do know Jagger's real power and ability, and all they can do is to bitch afterwards.

If Jagger wanted to have a convincing solo career, he should have done it during the early 70's. But I think Jagger didn't really need that option since the band was in his hands; in practise the rest all worked for him, under his supervision (for example, Keith made songs and riffs for him to sing). It looks like that not until the late 70's/early 80's when Keith wanted a bigger share of the cake, and got difficult, Jagger started to take the solo career option seriously - when it was too late for him. I think the way Stones worked from the late 60's to late 70's was perfect for Mick and his artistic ambitions. (And seemingly from 1989 on again, without the artistic drive, and even though Keith and Jane Rose do their best in 'shadows' to come up with tabloid stuff.)

- Doxa

Perfect post. Keith's latter day mythology is a fairly new thing. And its somewhat overshadowed the fact that it was Mick Jagger who defined Rock Star throughout the 60s and 70s. I can remember in 1978, it was Jagger with the smirk, the snarky one-liners, with the F***You attitude...and the condescending sneer. Those qualities informed much of the Stones music. Keith was the druggie. Mick was the badass.

Quote
Doxa
I suppose at the time - late 60's/early 70's when the deal was done - Mick's star was relatively speaking its brightest compared to "four others". The rest were relatively unknown - Brian's star (and finally) life had gone downhill, and Keith's star was just starting getting recognized, and it would take all the way through the seventies, and numerous dug arrests - that his reputation got its mythical quality.

But Mick was the face of the band more than ever - his film career was just started; when Lennon talked about Stones (for example in the famous ROLLING STONE interview- he only referred to Jagger. Wyman claims that if BEGGARS BANQUET hadn't been succesful, Jagger would have gone to solo or film career altogeher. Jagger simply was the coolest rock star during that time; he made public dylan-like statements with "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy For The Devil", and even the counter-culture digged him. Just check the performances on ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS and STONES IN THE PARK - Jagger was 'on', and everyone else in shadows.

I think all the 'recent' hostality against Mick - Marianne, Anita, Keith; his partners in crime at the time - is somehow related towards this picture of how big Mick was at the time. Of course, Anita wanted him - Keith might been a cool but a shy guy with a monster dick and everything, but Jagger was a shining star everyone wanted. Keith is still paying back of that in LIFE - in many ways. Marianne keeps retelling his part of the story if anyone is interested, and Anita couldn't have come up with any non-bitter comment ever since in regards to Jagger. But it was Jagger who not just had enough of this little celebrity rock and roll ring of theirs, took the band duties in his shoulders and lead the band out of Klein's hands, and gave it a new life and future, while Keith was free-cruising in dopeville, and mastering the lazy spoiled rock star life style, very much made possible by Mick's determination. I think all of his old parners, especially Keith, do know Jagger's real power and ability, and all they can do is to bitch afterwards.

If Jagger wanted to have a convincing solo career, he should have done it during the early 70's. But I think Jagger didn't really need that option since the band was in his hands; in practise the rest all worked for him, under his supervision (for example, Keith made songs and riffs for him to sing). It looks like that not until the late 70's/early 80's when Keith wanted a bigger share of the cake, and got difficult, Jagger started to take the solo career option seriously - when it was too late for him. I think the way Stones worked from the late 60's to late 70's was perfect for Mick and his artistic ambitions. (And seemingly from 1989 on again, without the artistic drive, and even though Keith and Jane Rose do their best in 'shadows' to come up with tabloid stuff.)

- Doxa

Perfect!

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
24FPS
I think you are judging the post 89 output too harshly though. I think I would it be possible to make a convincing compilation (including solo work) from these years. More so than from latterday Dylan-, Cohen-, McCartney-, Reed-oeuvres.

Don't include Dylan in that group. His star has been on the rise in the studio since the late 90s. You can pick out a few songs on the 3 Stones albums since 1989, but Dylan's albums themselves are beautiful. They are challenging, and they are not retro in the sense of repeating onself, something the Stones can no longer claim.

Time Out Of Mind is a true masterpiece. His other latterday contributions are vastly overrated. The odd thing about those records is that one likes to read about the cd's, but feel so cheated when one bring the "masterpiece" to ones house, put it on and listen carefully. You claim they are challenging, 24FPS. If it is challenging to publish dinnertable music, well then I o.k for me. I seek other challenges.[/quote]

You need to have another listen to "Love and Theft." I think it's one of the best albums of its entire decade. I love Time Out of Mind, but the Lanois production is a bit much for me in retrospect.

T@3

Quote
Doxa
Keith might been a cool but a shy guy with a monster dick and everything,

Mick Taylor says no... "and I should know".

Quote
Doxa
I suppose at the time - late 60's/early 70's when the deal was done - Mick's star was relatively speaking its brightest compared to "four others". The rest were relatively unknown - Brian's star (and finally) life had gone downhill, and Keith's star was just starting getting recognized, and it would take all the way through the seventies, and numerous dug arrests - that his reputation got its mythical quality.

But Mick was the face of the band more than ever - his film career was just started; when Lennon talked about Stones (for example in the famous ROLLING STONE interview- he only referred to Jagger. Wyman claims that if BEGGARS BANQUET hadn't been succesful, Jagger would have gone to solo or film career altogeher. Jagger simply was the coolest rock star during that time; he made public dylan-like statements with "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy For The Devil", and even the counter-culture digged him. Just check the performances on ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS and STONES IN THE PARK - Jagger was 'on', and everyone else in shadows.

I think all the 'recent' hostality against Mick - Marianne, Anita, Keith; his partners in crime at the time - is somehow related towards this picture of how big Mick was at the time. Of course, Anita wanted him - Keith might been a cool but a shy guy with a monster dick and everything, but Jagger was a shining star everyone wanted. Keith is still paying back of that in LIFE - in many ways. Marianne keeps retelling his part of the story if anyone is interested, and Anita couldn't have come up with any non-bitter comment ever since in regards to Jagger. But it was Jagger who not just had enough of this little celebrity rock and roll ring of theirs, took the band duties in his shoulders and lead the band out of Klein's hands, and gave it a new life and future, while Keith was free-cruising in dopeville, and mastering the lazy spoiled rock star life style, very much made possible by Mick's determination. I think all of his old parners, especially Keith, do know Jagger's real power and ability, and all they can do is to bitch afterwards.

If Jagger wanted to have a convincing solo career, he should have done it during the early 70's. But I think Jagger didn't really need that option since the band was in his hands; in practise the rest all worked for him, under his supervision (for example, Keith made songs and riffs for him to sing). It looks like that not until the late 70's/early 80's when Keith wanted a bigger share of the cake, and got difficult, Jagger started to take the solo career option seriously - when it was too late for him. I think the way Stones worked from the late 60's to late 70's was perfect for Mick and his artistic ambitions. (And seemingly from 1989 on again, without the artistic drive, and even though Keith and Jane Rose do their best in 'shadows' to come up with tabloid stuff.)

- Doxa

Yes, that about says it. Its stunning to realize, after his "#1"New York Times Best Seller, and being featured in the most successful movie of all time, Kieth's resentment at seemingly not be the epicenter of Mick Jagger's world, can probably never be satiated, no matter what happens.

Hmmm... If Mick Jagger ever believed this, I think he stopped believing it after he made the mistake of calling for "my drummer." Yeah, Charlie set him straight after that. Contract, schmontract! Mick is Charlie's singer!

"I remember Keith getting very upset when we were signing with Atlantic Records after we left Decca. The contract said the Rolling Stones must always consist of Mick Jagger and four others. Didn't mention Keith and he was very put out".[/quote]

Well, I wouldn't want to see a group calling itself The Rolling Stones if it were just Mick and "four others." I can understand why either Keith or Charlie would be upset about seeing that in a contract.

micks solo career was a flop, hence steel wheels through the present , case closed

OK, ok, it's like Plastic Bertrand, it was not him who sung on his own songs but it was not not him who danced too! >< (Coluche)

Quote
latebloomer
"I remember Keith getting very upset when we were signing with Atlantic Records after we left Decca. The contract said the Rolling Stones must always consist of Mick Jagger and four others. Didn't mention Keith and he was very put out".

Well, I wouldn't want to see a group calling itself The Rolling Stones if it were just Mick and "four others." I can understand why either Keith or Charlie would be upset about seeing that in a contract.[/quote]

Interesting that Keith didn't mention these contract-matters in Life. But understandable of course, because it would have weakened his argument if the 80's deal actually was quite similar to a deal more than ten years earlier.

Quote
aprilfool
OK, ok, it's like Plastic Bertrand, it was not him who sung on his own songs but it was not not him who danced too! >< (Coluche)

A line up of Mick Jagger + Plastic Bertrand, Gary Glitter, Jonathan King and Sid Vicious could have been the Rolling Stones in the 70s.

What a supergroup that would have been.

Quote
melillo
micks solo career was a flop, hence steel wheels through the present , case closed

Jagger solo in 1971 would have been different to Jagger solo in 1985.