Tell Me :
Talk
Les Paul I think.
I was at the Sunday 10 PM show (Marky Ramone was there, no Keith) - Keith was at the Monday 8 PM show. I snagged those two shots off the Iridium Facebook page.
One thing I thought was funny was that the half of the block with Iridium's main and loading entrances was crawling with cops, most of whom were surrounding the limo. NYPD on the Charlie beat!
ROFL
From Keith's Life, pp. 460-461: There was a rare moment, in late 1984, of Charlie throwing his drummer's punch--a punch I've seen a couple of times and it's lethal; it carries a lot of balance and timing. He has to be badly provoked. He threw this one at Mick. We were in Amsterdam for a meeting. Mick and I weren't on great terms at the time, but I said, c'mon, let's get out. And I lent him the jacket I got married in. We got back to the hotel about five in the morning and Mick called up Charlie. I said, don't call him, not at this hour. But he did, and said, "Where's my drummer?" No answer. He puts the phone down. Mick and I were still sitting there, pretty pissed--give Mick a couple of glasses, he's gone--when, about twenty minutes later, there was a knock at the door. There was Charlie Watts, Savile Row suit, perfectly dressed, tie, shaved, the whole f*cking bit. I could smell the cologne! I opened the door and he didn't even look at me, he walked straight past me, got hold of Mick and said, "Never call me your drummer again." Then he hauled him up by the lapels of my jacket and gave him a right hook. Mick fell back onto a silver platter of smoked salmon on the table and began to slide towards the open window and the canal below it. And I was thinking, this is a good one, and then I realized it was my wedding jacket. And I grabbed hold of it and caught Mick just before he slid into the Amsterdam canal. It took me twenty-four hours after that to talk Charlie down. I thought I'd done it when I took him up to his room, but twelve hours later, he was saying, "F*ck it, I'm gonna go down and do it again." It takes a lot to wind that man up. "Why did you stop him?" My jacket, Charlie, that's why!
he likes Being There...and he likes to watch...
Fair enough. [Sigh]
Some ugly incident most likely took place, but what is sad is that Charlie has said being very sorry for it, and it accured when he had his trouble with the substances, but Keith "big mouth" Richards has had a field day ever since in 'sharing' the story. It is his ace card in his campaign of bashing Jagger. I feel sorry for both for Mick and Charlie to have a "loyal friend" like that. Actually one disgusting piece in LIFE is that of using 'neutral' and 'ever loyal' Charlie as a weapon in a propaganda war against Jagger. I am sure Charlie - if he read the book - was not pleased at all how he was used as a pawn in Keith's PR game.
Maybe some people will find Keith's story as it is now presented and developed in every little detail in LIFE amusing, but I find it simply disgusting, and reading it again reminded me of the bad vibes the book caused to me.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 13:08 by Doxa.
Just for the record: The bold parts where I am quoted, are not my words. They have been added by lem motlow, probably by accident.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Let's put it this way: I am not a fan of Keith the entertainer. I find that - that also is the voice in LIFE - rather pathetic figure. But fine if all the johnnydepps of this world find him funny.
Anyway, most of the people who know him have described him rather different person than he portrays himself in public to be - Mick Taylor and Charlie Watts just a few days ago - and they don't seem to be fond of the public Keith person, even though I think they truely appreciate and like the man behind the mask. Mick Jagger and Charlie seem to be so mature men that they 'forgive' Keith's public infanciness and idiocy and just try to ignore it. I guess they know him too well and know his natural shyness and insecurity he tries to cover with his pirate image he overplays. But I am not a friend of his or know him personally - to me the act he does in public is just embarrassing these days, and it makes me wonder how on earth I once thought this is the coolest guy on earth. Well, that one actually was.
But that is just my two cents.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 16:19 by Doxa.
But it is Richards's fault that the incident is well-known, and presented in a certain mammer. He is the original deep throat. What is presented in LIFE is just 'most recent' development of the same old story. Of course, mr. Richards does not give a shit if Charlie Watts feels uneasy about it.
- Doxa
I always enjoy your posts and insight, Doxa - but have to disagree on this topic.
In any organization or group there is a dominant personality - and in the case of the Stones this has always been Jagger. Only in the very early days when Brian Jones was the "leader" of the group did Jagger have a real rival for this role.
In my humble opinion the public version of Keith's personality that seems to annoy many - the "pirate image" referred to earlier - is a simply contrived counterbalance intended to keep Jagger's larger than life persona from taking over the band entirely. And, I don't think that's necessarily a bad situation.
As you've mentioned in the earlier post, Keith's private persona seems to be quieter, more shy, and perhaps somewhat insecure - again, in line with his role during the band's genesis. If that's the case then this fabricated public side has served its purpose well. I think a fair argument could be made that it's the ongoing tension and balance between the Glimmer Twins that has allowed them to, together, create some of the most compelling music by any band over such a long period of time.
Then again - this may all be rubbish and reading between lines that don't really even exist. It all makes for interesting reading, however.
You and a few others, apparently.
Your take on the Mick/Charlie jacket fight is pretty pessimistic. And unncessarily so. Anyone with a sense of humor can see the tactic in his version of the story. It's about Keith redirecting his attention to the jacket instead of the ugliness unfolding. Anyone with proper persepective would have taken in the story, appreciated Keith's twist on it but still noted just how bad it had gotten for Charlie and respected that. I know I did when I heard it ages ago. But for it to be a damning representation of "Evil" Keith spreading his "pirate image" is really out of reach, not to mention overly-dramatic.
Why do I get the feeling that you feel betrayed by Keith, Doxa? It seems that you are really dissapointed that Keith is the way that he is and it took his book (out of all things) to help you "open your eyes" to that? I think the fans who were the most hurt by Keith's book are the ones who were the most devoted to the guy. It almost seems that you were hoping to find that "cool version" of Keith in the book. You wanted that fairytale to continue; not wanting it broken. When the bubble was burst, it ruined your image of the guy. That really does not seem fair since you nor anybody here knew the guy personally. All we had was the music. There is a lot to dissect here on a pyschological level--which I know would be up your alley. I suggest you perhaps look inward as to why that book has caused irrevocable damage on your view on Keith and maybe you can move on with a more positive outlook towards Keith and the rest of the band especially since they will be back (in some form) in the public eye again over the course of the next 12 months and it would be awkward to be such a Debbie Downer during the upcoming "festivities."
Some interesting points, OpenGspot. But we must not forget that Jagger's dominant personality and leadership are there in real life and that his strong personality is one of the main reasons for the Stones success of the 50 years. At the same time Keef as Mick's equal partner and rival exists only on the pages of LIFE and numerous Richards interviews. In reality, not in the virtual world Richards isn't srtrong enough to compete with Jagger.
So this Watts/Jagger story - certainly much exaggerated (I do not believe even that Richards was present at all when it happened) - is necessary to KR to create this imaginary united confrontation with Jagger.
Through this story he sublimates his own desire to show Jagger his place - and his failure to do so. There is one very revealing place in Life - when KR describes how instead of Jagger ("because nobody can do it to Mick" - he writes), he threatened the head of the Rolling Stones Records. This is pathetic.
Besides, I think there is a jealousy - Charlie is much closer to Mick than to Keith and Richards can't live with it
There are still a few around here ...
... don't worry
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
no one but Richards ever told this story and there wasn't any other versions of it. That's his story and one of his fav. regard to the twist - this is the same as in the story of how he slept with Marianne during Performance and forgot his socks, running away from Jagger. These socks are the same trick as the jacket - and these two stories are true to the same extent. In other words it's just a lie
BTW, how do you know what Charlie felt, how do you know what they were arguing about - he ever talked about it?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 21:17 by proudmary.
In "According to The Rolling Stones" ,published 2003, the Amsterdam incident is described as well.
Charlie is listed as consultant publisher.
True, and in several other books and publications as well. Even on IORR Tell Me it has been discussed before
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Thanks for your feedback - really good points you make, and I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.. this is all basically just speculation; just trying to write some facts into comprehesible and coherent story. A lot of interpreation, and use of imagination, is needed.
I very well see the point of Keith's public role as a counterbalance power to Jagger's dominance, but I have some doubts of its actual significance as providing great musical results.
I think the public tension - Peter Pan and Captain Hook - only started having public relevance during the 80's. That is: during the time Stones actually weren't any strong or active musical unit any longer. Keith's pirate image - 'the most elegently wasted human being' - was largely a product of many co-incidencies. I don't think Keith was so much image-conscious during the 70's when the image was created (which was also a product by an adoring music press who wanted their own musical heroes, and not solely those who made bigger media attention, a'la Jagger). I think he cared much more about that the band worked well (and the needed substances to keep him going were provided). And basically, the Stones were a goddamn well-working team and the guys were loyal to each other, each having own role in a well-oiled machine. In public, I can't recall any of them bashing each other. Jagger and Richards were like yin/yang - fulfilling each other. We know the results.
But it all changed during the 80's. Suddenly Keith, being awere of his legendary fame by then, started to bash Jagger in public, and act more and more according to a certain image. Jagger and Richards were not any more like a pruductive team but like opposite sides of public power struggle. And it has been like that ever since. Yeah, they do things under the name of The Rolling Stones, but that is mostly theatre (where is the good new music?). I thought that the things might have gotten calmer by the years, when the guys were reaching their seniour years but hell no: LIFE brought it all back louder than ever. I don't know what to think this stupid Mick/Keith drama that Richards - and solely him - love to continue in public. Some people seem to think that has happened all the time, and Keith being like that always. No, it hadn't, and no, he hasn't.
I think The Stones has been dominated and lead by Jagger ever since the mid-60's and that was/has been okay to all concerned, including Keith. But something happened to Keith during the late 70's/early 80's and he started challenge Jagger's leadership and that meant in practise: he got difficult. This I think drove Jagger away, and Jagger lost his interest in babying him and using The Rolling Stones as his main artistic expression. My simple interpretation is that Keith's personal fame - he was the coolest rock star then (we all adored him then) - simply just went to his head, and he couldn't handle his ego any longer. And then he had manager Jane Rose to make it all more worse - soon Richards was a celebrity of larger media attention, a'la Jagger.
Of course, it took years until we fans, rock media etc. realized what actually happened during the 80's since we all were so awe of Keith. He was the darling boy of the rock media, and the always distant, arrogant sounding Jagger the superstar was so easy target of criticism. We didn't realize that Richards pretty soon as he got a chance loved the attention, adoration, the high-class media attention, being one of jet set, and meeting all the other celebrities, at least as much Jagger did that back in the 70's when we despised that. Luckily we know little better now. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with that - being a celebrity - but I think the means Richards uses in tryng to catch the attention are rather cheap, and personally I think the pirate image he tries to maintain - act Keith Richards - is simply ridiculous. Aesthetically speaking I just don't like it. Is he still something else - or is he really lost in his own image, I don't know. But I still adore the Keith Richards of the 60's and 70's.
I could go on - there is much more to tell (I have other theories for what happened to Keith) but I better stop now.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 22:51 by Doxa.
More than enough for me that Mick tells stories and can be funny in his lyrics - I do not need one-liners or kiss-and-tell books from him.
Besides, I do not consider gossip and jokes at the expense of others being funny
I guess that Richards lyes in this case because this is what he usually does - he lies. Or as Mick put it diplomatically - "I'd advise you be careful with Keith's stories , he can be very invetive in a good day"
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
toomuchforme
()
Date: July 4, 2012 14:28
who's the guy on t shirt ?
"we know it's a bit late but we hope you don't mind if we stay"
"we know it's a bit late but we hope you don't mind if we stay"
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Phil Good
()
Date: July 4, 2012 14:44
Quote
toomuchforme
who's the guy on t shirt ?
Les Paul I think.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Floorbird
()
Date: July 4, 2012 15:03
What's spilt on the guys t shirt?
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: July 4, 2012 16:51
Juan, was that picture from before the show? Nice!
~"Love is Strong"~
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
JuanTCB
()
Date: July 4, 2012 17:11
Quote
angee
Juan, was that picture from before the show? Nice!
I was at the Sunday 10 PM show (Marky Ramone was there, no Keith) - Keith was at the Monday 8 PM show. I snagged those two shots off the Iridium Facebook page.
One thing I thought was funny was that the half of the block with Iridium's main and loading entrances was crawling with cops, most of whom were surrounding the limo. NYPD on the Charlie beat!
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: July 5, 2012 21:38
Quote
kleermakerQuote
hbwriterQuote
DoxaQuote
hbwriter
to me the keith/charlie bond, in a sense, is the most sacred in the band - seems like just tons of trust and respect there with no egos involved - just music
I agree. And I think it is more than just music there. I remember Philip Norman claiming his book that the reason why Charlie finally joined in permanently, was that he 'clicked' with Keith so well. A similar dry sense of humour or something, and neither being too extrovert. We have to remember that Keith was a really shy boy at the time - especially compared to naturally born stars like Brian and Mick - and I think Charlie was one of the first people who saw the potentiality Keith has, and he has respected him ever since. And the respect is surely mutual. They might not socialize too much these days, but that's suits to them and to their English mentality - when they do it, it is that funnier.
It is heart warming to listen Charlie describing Keith's way to work in STONES IN EXILE, making analogies to jazz musicians. And that is that high compliment I think one can get from Charlie Watts. Bll Wyman might cpmplain of Keith's junkie time and all that, but Charlie recognize there somethng that surpasses all those kind of mortal issues - the love for music and to right 'feel' no matter how much it takes and by anything... Those intuitions are beyond time and space.
- Doxa
I think i really noticed it in L&G - the way those two lock in during YCAGWYW, Love in Vain and several others - no rock star poses - just two hard working men in synch with each other and the business of what they are doing - radar signals bouncing around, developed over then-10 years worth of clubs, theaters and arenas - two very serious men pushing each other toward one goal
How romantic.
ROFLRe: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
JumpinJeppeFlash
()
Date: July 5, 2012 22:33
Keith looks fine, i think it's good for him with a few extra kilos. Still doubt he will be able to play a full set though.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: July 5, 2012 23:11
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
marquess
What happened in Amsterdam in 1989?
In short, from Wikipedia:
A famous anecdote[in other words some of keiths bullshit] relates that during the mid-1980s, an intoxicated Jagger phoned Watts' hotel room in the middle of the night asking "Where's my drummer?". Watts reportedly got up, shaved, dressed in a suit, put on a tie and freshly shined shoes, descended the stairs, and[in keiths drug addled mind] punched Jagger in the face [even though according to charlie and mick he only shoved jagger]saying: "Don't ever call me your drummer again. You're my @#$%& singer!"
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
cowboytoast
()
Date: July 5, 2012 23:20
one thing that makes him look a little more odd in these pictures is that he's not borrowing his wife's eyeliner...he's just out on the town and didn't expect to have his picture snapped...
but yeah he makes Charlie look like a High School kid...
but yeah he makes Charlie look like a High School kid...
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: July 5, 2012 23:36
Quote
lem motlowQuote
Rolling HansieQuote
marquess
What happened in Amsterdam in 1989?
In short, from Wikipedia:
A famous anecdote[in other words some of keiths bullshit] relates that during the mid-1980s, an intoxicated Jagger phoned Watts' hotel room in the middle of the night asking "Where's my drummer?". Watts reportedly got up, shaved, dressed in a suit, put on a tie and freshly shined shoes, descended the stairs, and[in keiths drug addled mind] punched Jagger in the face [even though according to charlie and mick he only shoved jagger]saying: "Don't ever call me your drummer again. You're my @#$%& singer!"
From Keith's Life, pp. 460-461: There was a rare moment, in late 1984, of Charlie throwing his drummer's punch--a punch I've seen a couple of times and it's lethal; it carries a lot of balance and timing. He has to be badly provoked. He threw this one at Mick. We were in Amsterdam for a meeting. Mick and I weren't on great terms at the time, but I said, c'mon, let's get out. And I lent him the jacket I got married in. We got back to the hotel about five in the morning and Mick called up Charlie. I said, don't call him, not at this hour. But he did, and said, "Where's my drummer?" No answer. He puts the phone down. Mick and I were still sitting there, pretty pissed--give Mick a couple of glasses, he's gone--when, about twenty minutes later, there was a knock at the door. There was Charlie Watts, Savile Row suit, perfectly dressed, tie, shaved, the whole f*cking bit. I could smell the cologne! I opened the door and he didn't even look at me, he walked straight past me, got hold of Mick and said, "Never call me your drummer again." Then he hauled him up by the lapels of my jacket and gave him a right hook. Mick fell back onto a silver platter of smoked salmon on the table and began to slide towards the open window and the canal below it. And I was thinking, this is a good one, and then I realized it was my wedding jacket. And I grabbed hold of it and caught Mick just before he slid into the Amsterdam canal. It took me twenty-four hours after that to talk Charlie down. I thought I'd done it when I took him up to his room, but twelve hours later, he was saying, "F*ck it, I'm gonna go down and do it again." It takes a lot to wind that man up. "Why did you stop him?" My jacket, Charlie, that's why!
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
SomeTorontoGirl
()
Date: July 6, 2012 01:32
Keith looks good I'm glad to see. I just wish that "Keith News" was about playing, not just showing up to watch. Again.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: July 6, 2012 01:42
Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
Keith looks good I'm glad to see. I just wish that "Keith News" was about playing, not just showing up to watch. Again.
he likes Being There...and he likes to watch...
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
SomeTorontoGirl
()
Date: July 6, 2012 02:35
Quote
StonesTodQuote
SomeTorontoGirl
Keith looks good I'm glad to see. I just wish that "Keith News" was about playing, not just showing up to watch. Again.
he likes Being There...and he likes to watch...
Fair enough. [Sigh]
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 6, 2012 13:02
Quote
stonesnowQuote
lem motlowQuote
Rolling HansieQuote
marquess
What happened in Amsterdam in 1989?
In short, from Wikipedia:
A famous anecdote[in other words some of keiths bullshit] relates that during the mid-1980s, an intoxicated Jagger phoned Watts' hotel room in the middle of the night asking "Where's my drummer?". Watts reportedly got up, shaved, dressed in a suit, put on a tie and freshly shined shoes, descended the stairs, and[in keiths drug addled mind] punched Jagger in the face [even though according to charlie and mick he only shoved jagger]saying: "Don't ever call me your drummer again. You're my @#$%& singer!"
From Keith's Life, pp. 460-461: There was a rare moment, in late 1984, of Charlie throwing his drummer's punch--a punch I've seen a couple of times and it's lethal; it carries a lot of balance and timing. He has to be badly provoked. He threw this one at Mick. We were in Amsterdam for a meeting. Mick and I weren't on great terms at the time, but I said, c'mon, let's get out. And I lent him the jacket I got married in. We got back to the hotel about five in the morning and Mick called up Charlie. I said, don't call him, not at this hour. But he did, and said, "Where's my drummer?" No answer. He puts the phone down. Mick and I were still sitting there, pretty pissed--give Mick a couple of glasses, he's gone--when, about twenty minutes later, there was a knock at the door. There was Charlie Watts, Savile Row suit, perfectly dressed, tie, shaved, the whole f*cking bit. I could smell the cologne! I opened the door and he didn't even look at me, he walked straight past me, got hold of Mick and said, "Never call me your drummer again." Then he hauled him up by the lapels of my jacket and gave him a right hook. Mick fell back onto a silver platter of smoked salmon on the table and began to slide towards the open window and the canal below it. And I was thinking, this is a good one, and then I realized it was my wedding jacket. And I grabbed hold of it and caught Mick just before he slid into the Amsterdam canal. It took me twenty-four hours after that to talk Charlie down. I thought I'd done it when I took him up to his room, but twelve hours later, he was saying, "F*ck it, I'm gonna go down and do it again." It takes a lot to wind that man up. "Why did you stop him?" My jacket, Charlie, that's why!
Some ugly incident most likely took place, but what is sad is that Charlie has said being very sorry for it, and it accured when he had his trouble with the substances, but Keith "big mouth" Richards has had a field day ever since in 'sharing' the story. It is his ace card in his campaign of bashing Jagger. I feel sorry for both for Mick and Charlie to have a "loyal friend" like that. Actually one disgusting piece in LIFE is that of using 'neutral' and 'ever loyal' Charlie as a weapon in a propaganda war against Jagger. I am sure Charlie - if he read the book - was not pleased at all how he was used as a pawn in Keith's PR game.
Maybe some people will find Keith's story as it is now presented and developed in every little detail in LIFE amusing, but I find it simply disgusting, and reading it again reminded me of the bad vibes the book caused to me.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 13:08 by Doxa.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: July 6, 2012 14:46
Come on, Doxa: probably yes, there is some fiction in the account, but it was funny!
C
C
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: July 6, 2012 15:31
The Watts-Jagger incident was well known many years previously to "Life "release. Everything in this world is not Richard's fault
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: July 6, 2012 15:59
Quote
lem motlowQuote
Rolling HansieQuote
marquess
What happened in Amsterdam in 1989?
In short, from Wikipedia:
A famous anecdote[in other words some of keiths bullshit] relates that during the mid-1980s, an intoxicated Jagger phoned Watts' hotel room in the middle of the night asking "Where's my drummer?". Watts reportedly got up, shaved, dressed in a suit, put on a tie and freshly shined shoes, descended the stairs, and[in keiths drug addled mind] punched Jagger in the face [even though according to charlie and mick he only shoved jagger]saying: "Don't ever call me your drummer again. You're my @#$%& singer!"
Just for the record: The bold parts where I am quoted, are not my words. They have been added by lem motlow, probably by accident.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 6, 2012 16:07
Quote
liddas
Come on, Doxa: probably yes, there is some fiction in the account, but it was funny!
C
Let's put it this way: I am not a fan of Keith the entertainer. I find that - that also is the voice in LIFE - rather pathetic figure. But fine if all the johnnydepps of this world find him funny.
Anyway, most of the people who know him have described him rather different person than he portrays himself in public to be - Mick Taylor and Charlie Watts just a few days ago - and they don't seem to be fond of the public Keith person, even though I think they truely appreciate and like the man behind the mask. Mick Jagger and Charlie seem to be so mature men that they 'forgive' Keith's public infanciness and idiocy and just try to ignore it. I guess they know him too well and know his natural shyness and insecurity he tries to cover with his pirate image he overplays. But I am not a friend of his or know him personally - to me the act he does in public is just embarrassing these days, and it makes me wonder how on earth I once thought this is the coolest guy on earth. Well, that one actually was.
But that is just my two cents.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 16:19 by Doxa.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 6, 2012 16:15
Quote
KeithNacho
The Watts-Jagger incident was well known many years previously to "Life "release. Everything in this world is not Richard's fault
But it is Richards's fault that the incident is well-known, and presented in a certain mammer. He is the original deep throat. What is presented in LIFE is just 'most recent' development of the same old story. Of course, mr. Richards does not give a shit if Charlie Watts feels uneasy about it.
- Doxa
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
OpenGspot
()
Date: July 6, 2012 19:45
Quote
DoxaQuote
KeithNacho
The Watts-Jagger incident was well known many years previously to "Life "release. Everything in this world is not Richard's fault
But it is Richards's fault that the incident is well-known, and presented in a certain mammer. He is the original deep throat. What is presented in LIFE is just 'most recent' development of the same old story. Of course, mr. Richards does not give a shit if Charlie Watts feels uneasy about it.
- Doxa
I always enjoy your posts and insight, Doxa - but have to disagree on this topic.
In any organization or group there is a dominant personality - and in the case of the Stones this has always been Jagger. Only in the very early days when Brian Jones was the "leader" of the group did Jagger have a real rival for this role.
In my humble opinion the public version of Keith's personality that seems to annoy many - the "pirate image" referred to earlier - is a simply contrived counterbalance intended to keep Jagger's larger than life persona from taking over the band entirely. And, I don't think that's necessarily a bad situation.
As you've mentioned in the earlier post, Keith's private persona seems to be quieter, more shy, and perhaps somewhat insecure - again, in line with his role during the band's genesis. If that's the case then this fabricated public side has served its purpose well. I think a fair argument could be made that it's the ongoing tension and balance between the Glimmer Twins that has allowed them to, together, create some of the most compelling music by any band over such a long period of time.
Then again - this may all be rubbish and reading between lines that don't really even exist. It all makes for interesting reading, however.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: July 6, 2012 20:44
Quote
Doxa
I find it simply disgusting, and reading it again reminded me of the bad vibes the book caused to me.
You and a few others, apparently.
Your take on the Mick/Charlie jacket fight is pretty pessimistic. And unncessarily so. Anyone with a sense of humor can see the tactic in his version of the story. It's about Keith redirecting his attention to the jacket instead of the ugliness unfolding. Anyone with proper persepective would have taken in the story, appreciated Keith's twist on it but still noted just how bad it had gotten for Charlie and respected that. I know I did when I heard it ages ago. But for it to be a damning representation of "Evil" Keith spreading his "pirate image" is really out of reach, not to mention overly-dramatic.
Why do I get the feeling that you feel betrayed by Keith, Doxa? It seems that you are really dissapointed that Keith is the way that he is and it took his book (out of all things) to help you "open your eyes" to that? I think the fans who were the most hurt by Keith's book are the ones who were the most devoted to the guy. It almost seems that you were hoping to find that "cool version" of Keith in the book. You wanted that fairytale to continue; not wanting it broken. When the bubble was burst, it ruined your image of the guy. That really does not seem fair since you nor anybody here knew the guy personally. All we had was the music. There is a lot to dissect here on a pyschological level--which I know would be up your alley. I suggest you perhaps look inward as to why that book has caused irrevocable damage on your view on Keith and maybe you can move on with a more positive outlook towards Keith and the rest of the band especially since they will be back (in some form) in the public eye again over the course of the next 12 months and it would be awkward to be such a Debbie Downer during the upcoming "festivities."
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: July 6, 2012 21:00
Quote
OpenGspotQuote
DoxaQuote
KeithNacho
The Watts-Jagger incident was well known many years previously to "Life "release. Everything in this world is not Richard's fault
But it is Richards's fault that the incident is well-known, and presented in a certain mammer. He is the original deep throat. What is presented in LIFE is just 'most recent' development of the same old story. Of course, mr. Richards does not give a shit if Charlie Watts feels uneasy about it.
- Doxa
I always enjoy your posts and insight, Doxa - but have to disagree on this topic.
In any organization or group there is a dominant personality - and in the case of the Stones this has always been Jagger. Only in the very early days when Brian Jones was the "leader" of the group did Jagger have a real rival for this role.
In my humble opinion the public version of Keith's personality that seems to annoy many - the "pirate image" referred to earlier - is a simply contrived counterbalance intended to keep Jagger's larger than life persona from taking over the band entirely. And, I don't think that's necessarily a bad situation.
As you've mentioned in the earlier post, Keith's private persona seems to be quieter, more shy, and perhaps somewhat insecure - again, in line with his role during the band's genesis. If that's the case then this fabricated public side has served its purpose well. I think a fair argument could be made that it's the ongoing tension and balance between the Glimmer Twins that has allowed them to, together, create some of the most compelling music by any band over such a long period of time.
Then again - this may all be rubbish and reading between lines that don't really even exist. It all makes for interesting reading, however.
Some interesting points, OpenGspot. But we must not forget that Jagger's dominant personality and leadership are there in real life and that his strong personality is one of the main reasons for the Stones success of the 50 years. At the same time Keef as Mick's equal partner and rival exists only on the pages of LIFE and numerous Richards interviews. In reality, not in the virtual world Richards isn't srtrong enough to compete with Jagger.
So this Watts/Jagger story - certainly much exaggerated (I do not believe even that Richards was present at all when it happened) - is necessary to KR to create this imaginary united confrontation with Jagger.
Through this story he sublimates his own desire to show Jagger his place - and his failure to do so. There is one very revealing place in Life - when KR describes how instead of Jagger ("because nobody can do it to Mick" - he writes), he threatened the head of the Rolling Stones Records. This is pathetic.
Besides, I think there is a jealousy - Charlie is much closer to Mick than to Keith and Richards can't live with it
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: July 6, 2012 21:09
Quote
Justin
Anyone with a sense of humor ...
There are still a few around here ...
... don't worry-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: July 6, 2012 21:13
Quote
JustinQuote
Doxa
I find it simply disgusting, and reading it again reminded me of the bad vibes the book caused to me.
You and a few others, apparently.
Your take on the Mick/Charlie jacket fight is pretty pessimistic. And unncessarily so. Anyone with a sense of humor can see the tactic in his version of the story. It's about Keith redirecting his attention to the jacket instead of the ugliness unfolding. Anyone with proper persepective would have taken in the story, appreciated Keith's twist on it but still noted just how bad it had gotten for Charlie and respected that. "
no one but Richards ever told this story and there wasn't any other versions of it. That's his story and one of his fav. regard to the twist - this is the same as in the story of how he slept with Marianne during Performance and forgot his socks, running away from Jagger. These socks are the same trick as the jacket - and these two stories are true to the same extent. In other words it's just a lie
BTW, how do you know what Charlie felt, how do you know what they were arguing about - he ever talked about it?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 21:17 by proudmary.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
letitloose
()
Date: July 6, 2012 21:34
How do you know it's a lie ProudMary. You say Keith wasn't there. Were you? Anyway, it is a funny story, and by the way Keith is a fantastic raconteur. Mick has never told a funny story in his life.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 6, 2012 21:44
What a misleading thread title. Someone looking for attention, I guess they got it. peace
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: July 6, 2012 22:28
Quote
proudmaryQuote
JustinQuote
Doxa
I find it simply disgusting, and reading it again reminded me of the bad vibes the book caused to me.
You and a few others, apparently.
Your take on the Mick/Charlie jacket fight is pretty pessimistic. And unncessarily so. Anyone with a sense of humor can see the tactic in his version of the story. It's about Keith redirecting his attention to the jacket instead of the ugliness unfolding. Anyone with proper persepective would have taken in the story, appreciated Keith's twist on it but still noted just how bad it had gotten for Charlie and respected that. "
no one but Richards ever told this story and there wasn't any other versions of it. That's his story and one of his fav. regard to the twist - this is the same as in the story of how he slept with Marianne during Performance and forgot his socks, running away from Jagger. These socks are the same trick as the jacket - and these two stories are true to the same extent. In other words it's just a lie
BTW, how do you know what Charlie felt, how do you know what they were arguing about - he ever talked about it?
In "According to The Rolling Stones" ,published 2003, the Amsterdam incident is described as well.
Charlie is listed as consultant publisher.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: July 6, 2012 22:41
Quote
shortfatfanny
In "According to The Rolling Stones" ,published 2003, the Amsterdam incident is described as well.
True, and in several other books and publications as well. Even on IORR Tell Me it has been discussed before
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 6, 2012 22:44
Quote
OpenGspotQuote
DoxaQuote
KeithNacho
The Watts-Jagger incident was well known many years previously to "Life "release. Everything in this world is not Richard's fault
But it is Richards's fault that the incident is well-known, and presented in a certain mammer. He is the original deep throat. What is presented in LIFE is just 'most recent' development of the same old story. Of course, mr. Richards does not give a shit if Charlie Watts feels uneasy about it.
- Doxa
I always enjoy your posts and insight, Doxa - but have to disagree on this topic.
In any organization or group there is a dominant personality - and in the case of the Stones this has always been Jagger. Only in the very early days when Brian Jones was the "leader" of the group did Jagger have a real rival for this role.
In my humble opinion the public version of Keith's personality that seems to annoy many - the "pirate image" referred to earlier - is a simply contrived counterbalance intended to keep Jagger's larger than life persona from taking over the band entirely. And, I don't think that's necessarily a bad situation.
As you've mentioned in the earlier post, Keith's private persona seems to be quieter, more shy, and perhaps somewhat insecure - again, in line with his role during the band's genesis. If that's the case then this fabricated public side has served its purpose well. I think a fair argument could be made that it's the ongoing tension and balance between the Glimmer Twins that has allowed them to, together, create some of the most compelling music by any band over such a long period of time.
Then again - this may all be rubbish and reading between lines that don't really even exist. It all makes for interesting reading, however.
Thanks for your feedback - really good points you make, and I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.. this is all basically just speculation; just trying to write some facts into comprehesible and coherent story. A lot of interpreation, and use of imagination, is needed.
I very well see the point of Keith's public role as a counterbalance power to Jagger's dominance, but I have some doubts of its actual significance as providing great musical results.
I think the public tension - Peter Pan and Captain Hook - only started having public relevance during the 80's. That is: during the time Stones actually weren't any strong or active musical unit any longer. Keith's pirate image - 'the most elegently wasted human being' - was largely a product of many co-incidencies. I don't think Keith was so much image-conscious during the 70's when the image was created (which was also a product by an adoring music press who wanted their own musical heroes, and not solely those who made bigger media attention, a'la Jagger). I think he cared much more about that the band worked well (and the needed substances to keep him going were provided). And basically, the Stones were a goddamn well-working team and the guys were loyal to each other, each having own role in a well-oiled machine. In public, I can't recall any of them bashing each other. Jagger and Richards were like yin/yang - fulfilling each other. We know the results.
But it all changed during the 80's. Suddenly Keith, being awere of his legendary fame by then, started to bash Jagger in public, and act more and more according to a certain image. Jagger and Richards were not any more like a pruductive team but like opposite sides of public power struggle. And it has been like that ever since. Yeah, they do things under the name of The Rolling Stones, but that is mostly theatre (where is the good new music?). I thought that the things might have gotten calmer by the years, when the guys were reaching their seniour years but hell no: LIFE brought it all back louder than ever. I don't know what to think this stupid Mick/Keith drama that Richards - and solely him - love to continue in public. Some people seem to think that has happened all the time, and Keith being like that always. No, it hadn't, and no, he hasn't.
I think The Stones has been dominated and lead by Jagger ever since the mid-60's and that was/has been okay to all concerned, including Keith. But something happened to Keith during the late 70's/early 80's and he started challenge Jagger's leadership and that meant in practise: he got difficult. This I think drove Jagger away, and Jagger lost his interest in babying him and using The Rolling Stones as his main artistic expression. My simple interpretation is that Keith's personal fame - he was the coolest rock star then (we all adored him then) - simply just went to his head, and he couldn't handle his ego any longer. And then he had manager Jane Rose to make it all more worse - soon Richards was a celebrity of larger media attention, a'la Jagger.
Of course, it took years until we fans, rock media etc. realized what actually happened during the 80's since we all were so awe of Keith. He was the darling boy of the rock media, and the always distant, arrogant sounding Jagger the superstar was so easy target of criticism. We didn't realize that Richards pretty soon as he got a chance loved the attention, adoration, the high-class media attention, being one of jet set, and meeting all the other celebrities, at least as much Jagger did that back in the 70's when we despised that. Luckily we know little better now. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with that - being a celebrity - but I think the means Richards uses in tryng to catch the attention are rather cheap, and personally I think the pirate image he tries to maintain - act Keith Richards - is simply ridiculous. Aesthetically speaking I just don't like it. Is he still something else - or is he really lost in his own image, I don't know. But I still adore the Keith Richards of the 60's and 70's.
I could go on - there is much more to tell (I have other theories for what happened to Keith) but I better stop now.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-06 22:51 by Doxa.
Re: Tonight at the Iridium... Keith
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: July 6, 2012 23:12
Quote
letitloose
How do you know it's a lie ProudMary. You say Keith wasn't there. Were you? Anyway, it is a funny story, and by the way Keith is a fantastic raconteur. Mick has never told a funny story in his life.
More than enough for me that Mick tells stories and can be funny in his lyrics - I do not need one-liners or kiss-and-tell books from him.
Besides, I do not consider gossip and jokes at the expense of others being funny
I guess that Richards lyes in this case because this is what he usually does - he lies. Or as Mick put it diplomatically - "I'd advise you be careful with Keith's stories , he can be very invetive in a good day"
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1543
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10