Tell Me :
Talk
I know this about Karis - Marsha Hunt was in a bad way financially; I read that she was on welfare and Karis needed some kind of medical treatment. There was no question about her paternity, and yet Mick forced her to take him to court to get him to pay child support.
It bothered me to read that Mick Taylor had to suffer from serious dental problems for years - "black, rotten teeth". It's no doubt true that he squandered the money he made when he was in the RS, but maybe if he was getting the royalty payments due him, he could have had the badly needed dental work.
To me the music should always be separated from the persons playing it. That said I don't mind reading about Brian since I find him and his interaction with Mick, Keith and others interesting.
Still I know I do defend his behaviour a bit because he never got the chance to tell his side of the story.
Do you realy think Charlies wife would "particularly like" Mick if he was such a bad person?
lol, sorry. Chalie said that in his recent interview.
I'm with you on this one. I'm really surprised at the judgmental attitudes from Stones fans towards Mick's well known and consistent sexual 'infidelity'. So far as I have read, Mick Jagger has, since the earliest, days consistently made it clear he does not believe in monogamy. Surely, his belief system must have been equally clear to the women he hooked up with and they chose to live with it. He is no hypocrite ( unlike, perhaps, all his fellow Stones, with the honorable exception of Charlie, who have all been unfaithful to long-term partners but get none of the flak meted out to Jagger ). Equally, he was never legally married to Jerry, any more than Keith was to Anita, so how is he wrong to deny it? I think what infuriates people about Jagger (certainly the press and it would appear some 'fans') is he keeps his own counsel and doesn't answer back when various of his WAGs moan and bitch. I admire that. It's way more respectful to his kids than slagging off their parent.
The problem with this discussion is that you're giving Anderson's 'revelations' too much credibility from the outset, when - based on the excerpts - they appear to be a mixture of rehashes of stuff that's already public knowledge, major exaggeration, supposition based on an inventive imagination and total invention.
Unfortunately the more threads that get started about this book and the more column inches it gets in the media, the more exposure this talentless shitweasel passing himself off as a biographer gets and the richer he becomes.
Gazza
Gazza, Bliss was just segueing into the broader topic of how to reconcile bad behavior/immorality with art and artists we like. I saw the Anderson's mention only as a lead-in, not a commentary on whether what anyone in particular says.
- swiss
N-lust I'm not sure you're saying this, but do you think a person can be either Good or Bad? (i.e., one or the other?). That they make either Good or Bad choices? that because they're stellar in one area (e.g., writing, art, music) they're therefore likely to make stellar moral choices as well?
I think with the exception of Johann Sebastien Bach, truly very few others but Charlie may be one of them, few artists are that consistently closely aligned with the ideal morality....people by our natures are full of contradictions, are imperfect, and often deeply flawed. Some of the best and most profound transformative art arises from the better nature of artists who in other ways may be supremely schmucky
- swiss
Thank you!
well said swiss. And no I don't belive we are either good or bad but we are talking about morailty here. That certainly is easier to take a stand on. You and I both probably have similar view on what is right and wrong. Those kind of realisations are the result of our inherent morality and for a mature person those kind of morals are made out of choice and meditation. How do these affect an artists ability to create?
I really don't know the answer to that question but probably the less we meditate on the art and the more we just let it happen the better it is. The feelings of safety in expression are certainly necessary to provide the sparks of the most creative of art and music. Certainly hard work, openness to collaborate and understanding of common emotions are necessary in 2012 to make much of an impact. I don't know how much being attached to the results has to do with it.
In the end I think character and morality are much more important than the best art and music, but I have grown into that view. It is quite possible art and music can influence and change character and morality. I mean I wanted to BE Mick Taylor at one time, and that kind of thinking has powerful implications.
I still am affected by artists I love, and Charlie and Keith provide more of the affirmation that my decision to hang was "right" more than Mick. peace
I can't see any "scandalous private life" by Mick, it's totally "normal" for me. Mick is a man. I would be shocked, if Mick would be a saint, indeed.
Well thank you, SR, for your eyewitness account.
I had seen accounts of Mick's r'ship with Karis/Marsha like this
[www.people.com]
and from another article by the same author,
'Jagger hadn't always been a conscientious parent. Infatuated with Bianca he had abandoned his first child, Karis, and her mother, Marsha Hunt -- the woman for whom the hit "Brown Sugar" was written -- shortly after the child's birth on Nov. 3, 1970. Three years later, tired of having to pursue Mick for the occasional meager handout, Hunt arranged a bizarre cloak-and-dagger meeting with him on the steps of the Albert Memorial in London's Hyde Park. Together they hammered out the details of a 20,000 pound (about $50,000) trust fund to be put in Karis' name. By the end of the day Jagger had knocked the figure down to 17,000 pounds ($42,000).
It was all academic; after months of waiting for Jagger to sign the trust documents, Hunt filed suit on July 16, 1973. In the whirlwind of publicity that followed, Jagger denied paternity and, in an effort to stall legal proceedings, insisted on a blood test -- thus implying that Marsha was promiscuous. Hunt, meantime, was portrayed as a home-wrecking gold-digger. Mick, stung by what he viewed as Hunt's betrayal, sarcastically suggested that Hunt had gone public merely to hype her own flagging career.
While Hunt literally skipped over rooftops holding Karis to avoid reporters staked out in front of her London house, Jagger's lawyers made a settlement offer: 9 pounds a week to pay for a nanny and a 10,000 pound (roughly $25,000) trust fund once Karis left school. In exchange Hunt would be required to sign a document stating Jagger was not the father. She accepted the deal.'
and Princess Margaret
[articles.baltimoresun.com]
I have never seen a photo of Karis and Mick where Karis was under the age of about 12. It is fair to say that Mick and Margaret were at least close friends on Mustique.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-14 13:25 by Bliss.
...this is an unauthorized bio full of discrepancies and hearsay....just because people say things doesn't make them true...this book reads like it's FOX news...
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
2000man
()
Date: July 11, 2012 20:22
I'm not going to stop enjoying Woody Allen movies
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 11, 2012 21:58
This clip certainly deserves to be posted here...no reason not to love Pink Floyd and specifically Roger Waters except the music now. Of course, from the comfort of his home, it is much easier to talk the talk. I'd say he is speaking from the heart anyway, good enough for me. peace
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: July 11, 2012 22:27
Quote
elunsi
Please Bliss, why do you believe all that what that person writes? As I wrote in the other threat, it was not Mick who wanted that paternity test, it was for the court - this is what Luciana said and in Luciana´s own words he was supportive from the beginning. Maybe he made a mistake with Karis, I don´t know, but someone here said, that he bought them a house. And I am sure Jerry can live with the 12m pounds that she got. What for does she want 50? A ceremony in Bali cannot be divorced, because it IS no marriage.
I know this about Karis - Marsha Hunt was in a bad way financially; I read that she was on welfare and Karis needed some kind of medical treatment. There was no question about her paternity, and yet Mick forced her to take him to court to get him to pay child support.
It bothered me to read that Mick Taylor had to suffer from serious dental problems for years - "black, rotten teeth". It's no doubt true that he squandered the money he made when he was in the RS, but maybe if he was getting the royalty payments due him, he could have had the badly needed dental work.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: July 12, 2012 00:00
Quote
stupidguy2
I could care less. WHat if Mick was a saint? That would be boring. They're Rock Stars, legendary, iconic figures of an iconic time (60s,70s)
They're work speaks for itself. Who cares if the music is good, or if it moves you - their supposed 'sins' is just another facet of their humanity, what makes them real.
And Doxa is right - Mick's peccadilloes are tame in the public arena. He isn't a monster. If an artist makes a racist comment, that would bother me because it speaks to their character. Mick's relationships with women speaks more to his own personal imperfections, hangups etc.....
And Jagger has never been fond of airing out his dirty laundry and always seems to have tried to keep his personal life personal....
His exes to do that for him. He doesn't claim to be a saint.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: July 12, 2012 13:30
bliss - this is a great question.
Some of the most interesting, brilliant, sensitive, insightful, and creative people are also frequently rank azzholes in particular aspects of their lives (personal relationships as one example, and ruthless business dealings as another). It's one of the most profoundly confounding contradictions of life, one of those instances where we're challenged to grapple with ambiguity and hold in our minds simultaneously two or more separate, distinct, contradictory realities, and realize they will never gel into one neat "truth."
The same is true for people who we see as leading with their azzhole or "bad person" card. It is hard to reconcile the fact that a criminal who can walk into a room and, say, gun down innocent people also might be a very tender father, loyal friend, and loving romantic partner. But such is the human animal.
As an early teenager I heard that rumor that the Stones' organization had arranged for Brian Jones to be killed. At that time I didn't think the Stones were that interesting anyway, so didn't care very much---plus it seemed pretty "punk" to me that they might do that--but when I started to get back into them I had to revisit this possibility, and decided that I could live with the possibility that the Stones might be, in fact, capable of anything that would further their careers, or doing pretty much whatever they felt without moral compunction.
I have no theories at all about Brian Jones' death -- who may have known what when, etc. However, I still am able to hold those dichotomous views of the Stones in my head simultaneously: i.e., I love their music; find Charlie, Mick, and Keith very compelling and interesting and brilliant [and to some extent Brian Jones and Mick T], and see their role in late 20th Century cultural/social/musical history as completely fascinating.
AND also, I believe it's possible some of the members of the Rolling Stones may be utterly amoral...
If they're not, all the better! But if they are....such is the complex [possibly tragic] reality of human beings and their vast potential either/both to live with the angels and carouse with the devils--to achieve our highest best and our lowest worst. All in the same person.
For me, when people such as artists do not feel obligated to subscribe to "petty morals," it's extremely interesting to see what kind of morality or moral code they choose to adhere to.
-swiss
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-12 13:36 by swiss.
Some of the most interesting, brilliant, sensitive, insightful, and creative people are also frequently rank azzholes in particular aspects of their lives (personal relationships as one example, and ruthless business dealings as another). It's one of the most profoundly confounding contradictions of life, one of those instances where we're challenged to grapple with ambiguity and hold in our minds simultaneously two or more separate, distinct, contradictory realities, and realize they will never gel into one neat "truth."
The same is true for people who we see as leading with their azzhole or "bad person" card. It is hard to reconcile the fact that a criminal who can walk into a room and, say, gun down innocent people also might be a very tender father, loyal friend, and loving romantic partner. But such is the human animal.
As an early teenager I heard that rumor that the Stones' organization had arranged for Brian Jones to be killed. At that time I didn't think the Stones were that interesting anyway, so didn't care very much---plus it seemed pretty "punk" to me that they might do that--but when I started to get back into them I had to revisit this possibility, and decided that I could live with the possibility that the Stones might be, in fact, capable of anything that would further their careers, or doing pretty much whatever they felt without moral compunction.
I have no theories at all about Brian Jones' death -- who may have known what when, etc. However, I still am able to hold those dichotomous views of the Stones in my head simultaneously: i.e., I love their music; find Charlie, Mick, and Keith very compelling and interesting and brilliant [and to some extent Brian Jones and Mick T], and see their role in late 20th Century cultural/social/musical history as completely fascinating.
AND also, I believe it's possible some of the members of the Rolling Stones may be utterly amoral...
If they're not, all the better! But if they are....such is the complex [possibly tragic] reality of human beings and their vast potential either/both to live with the angels and carouse with the devils--to achieve our highest best and our lowest worst. All in the same person.
For me, when people such as artists do not feel obligated to subscribe to "petty morals," it's extremely interesting to see what kind of morality or moral code they choose to adhere to.
-swiss
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-12 13:36 by swiss.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: July 12, 2012 13:51
As a fan of Brian Jones I love Brian - the musician. Brian as the abusive drug addict who couldn't pull out his prick in time is not behaviour I excuse.Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
To me the music should always be separated from the persons playing it. That said I don't mind reading about Brian since I find him and his interaction with Mick, Keith and others interesting.
Still I know I do defend his behaviour a bit because he never got the chance to tell his side of the story.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
elunsi
()
Date: July 12, 2012 14:14
Quote
tonterapiAs a fan of Brian Jones I love Brian - the musician. Brian as the abusive drug addict who couldn't pull out his prick in time is not behaviour I excuse.Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
To me the music should always be separated from the persons playing it. That said I don't mind reading about Brian since I find him and his interaction with Mick, Keith and others interesting.
Still I know I do defend his behaviour a bit because he never got the chance to tell his side of the story.
Do you realy think Charlies wife would "particularly like" Mick if he was such a bad person?
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: July 12, 2012 14:15
???Quote
elunsiQuote
tonterapiAs a fan of Brian Jones I love Brian - the musician. Brian as the abusive drug addict who couldn't pull out his prick in time is not behaviour I excuse.Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
To me the music should always be separated from the persons playing it. That said I don't mind reading about Brian since I find him and his interaction with Mick, Keith and others interesting.
Still I know I do defend his behaviour a bit because he never got the chance to tell his side of the story.
Do you realy think Charlies wife would "particularly like" Mick if he was such a bad person?
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
elunsi
()
Date: July 12, 2012 14:17
Quote
tonterapi???Quote
elunsiQuote
tonterapiAs a fan of Brian Jones I love Brian - the musician. Brian as the abusive drug addict who couldn't pull out his prick in time is not behaviour I excuse.Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
To me the music should always be separated from the persons playing it. That said I don't mind reading about Brian since I find him and his interaction with Mick, Keith and others interesting.
Still I know I do defend his behaviour a bit because he never got the chance to tell his side of the story.
Do you realy think Charlies wife would "particularly like" Mick if he was such a bad person?
lol, sorry. Chalie said that in his recent interview.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
TrulyMicks
()
Date: July 12, 2012 15:37
What about an author's character and morals? Christopher Anderson is making my stomach turn. It's sickening to think someone can make a living off of writing such gossip and passing it off as fact.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 12, 2012 20:52
Morality and personal code of ethics is all we have in the end really. This is the stuff that moves and ispires me as an artist, way more important than most here make it out to be. I think we have a pretty high sense of it here on IORR, probably why I choose to spend any time here at all.
I think the most important thing is just choosing to have a sense of morality at all. We are lucky to be comfortable enough to be able to make such choices and if we are wise enough to choose one,good or bad, our outside world becomes a reflection of that.
The seemingly opposite aspects of it that swiss talks of are certainly common enough but I think people who choose to operate at those levels are somewhat unaware of the ramifications. Of course inner conflict and turmoil can create univerally understood good Rock and Roll and Blues and listening to one mans battle (musically speaking) can be enough to satisfy the darker aspects of my morality. Oh yeah, that's what emotional pain sounds like......peace
I think the most important thing is just choosing to have a sense of morality at all. We are lucky to be comfortable enough to be able to make such choices and if we are wise enough to choose one,good or bad, our outside world becomes a reflection of that.
The seemingly opposite aspects of it that swiss talks of are certainly common enough but I think people who choose to operate at those levels are somewhat unaware of the ramifications. Of course inner conflict and turmoil can create univerally understood good Rock and Roll and Blues and listening to one mans battle (musically speaking) can be enough to satisfy the darker aspects of my morality. Oh yeah, that's what emotional pain sounds like......peace
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Lady Jayne
()
Date: July 12, 2012 22:25
Quote
TrulyMicks
What about an author's character and morals? Christopher Anderson is making my stomach turn. It's sickening to think someone can make a living off of writing such gossip and passing it off as fact.
I'm with you on this one. I'm really surprised at the judgmental attitudes from Stones fans towards Mick's well known and consistent sexual 'infidelity'. So far as I have read, Mick Jagger has, since the earliest, days consistently made it clear he does not believe in monogamy. Surely, his belief system must have been equally clear to the women he hooked up with and they chose to live with it. He is no hypocrite ( unlike, perhaps, all his fellow Stones, with the honorable exception of Charlie, who have all been unfaithful to long-term partners but get none of the flak meted out to Jagger ). Equally, he was never legally married to Jerry, any more than Keith was to Anita, so how is he wrong to deny it? I think what infuriates people about Jagger (certainly the press and it would appear some 'fans') is he keeps his own counsel and doesn't answer back when various of his WAGs moan and bitch. I admire that. It's way more respectful to his kids than slagging off their parent.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
James Kirk
()
Date: July 12, 2012 22:45
We don't know these people or if any of this tabloid information is correct to begin with. I have enough issues in my own private life to know or care what these strangers are doing with theirs...I just like their music. Anybody who truly cares about a celebrities life is somewhat pathetic.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: July 12, 2012 22:54
"Bono is a poet. He's a philosopher. And last night, I think I saw him walking on water too."
- Mick Jagger (1999)
- Mick Jagger (1999)
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: July 12, 2012 23:06
Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
The problem with this discussion is that you're giving Anderson's 'revelations' too much credibility from the outset, when - based on the excerpts - they appear to be a mixture of rehashes of stuff that's already public knowledge, major exaggeration, supposition based on an inventive imagination and total invention.
Unfortunately the more threads that get started about this book and the more column inches it gets in the media, the more exposure this talentless shitweasel passing himself off as a biographer gets and the richer he becomes.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: July 12, 2012 23:13
Quote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
The problem with this discussion is that you're giving Anderson's 'revelations' too much credibility from the outset, when - based on the excerpts - they appear to be a mixture of rehashes of stuff that's already public knowledge, major exaggeration, supposition based on an inventive imagination and total invention.
Unfortunately the more threads that get started about this book and the more column inches it gets in the media, the more exposure this talentless shitweasel passing himself off as a biographer gets and the richer he becomes.
Gazza
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: July 13, 2012 00:31
Quote
GazzaQuote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
The problem with this discussion is that you're giving Anderson's 'revelations' too much credibility from the outset, when - based on the excerpts - they appear to be a mixture of rehashes of stuff that's already public knowledge, major exaggeration, supposition based on an inventive imagination and total invention.
Unfortunately the more threads that get started about this book and the more column inches it gets in the media, the more exposure this talentless shitweasel passing himself off as a biographer gets and the richer he becomes.
Gazza, Bliss was just segueing into the broader topic of how to reconcile bad behavior/immorality with art and artists we like. I saw the Anderson's mention only as a lead-in, not a commentary on whether what anyone in particular says.
- swiss
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: July 13, 2012 00:38
Okay!
.......Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's ALLEGEDLY scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
.......Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's ALLEGEDLY scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: July 13, 2012 00:39
Quote
Naturalust
Morality and personal code of ethics is all we have in the end really. This is the stuff that moves and ispires me as an artist, way more important than most here make it out to be. I think we have a pretty high sense of it here on IORR, probably why I choose to spend any time here at all.
I think the most important thing is just choosing to have a sense of morality at all. We are lucky to be comfortable enough to be able to make such choices and if we are wise enough to choose one,good or bad, our outside world becomes a reflection of that.
The seemingly opposite aspects of it that swiss talks of are certainly common enough but I think people who choose to operate at those levels are somewhat unaware of the ramifications. Of course inner conflict and turmoil can create univerally understood good Rock and Roll and Blues and listening to one mans battle (musically speaking) can be enough to satisfy the darker aspects of my morality. Oh yeah, that's what emotional pain sounds like......peace
N-lust I'm not sure you're saying this, but do you think a person can be either Good or Bad? (i.e., one or the other?). That they make either Good or Bad choices? that because they're stellar in one area (e.g., writing, art, music) they're therefore likely to make stellar moral choices as well?
I think with the exception of Johann Sebastien Bach, truly very few others but Charlie may be one of them, few artists are that consistently closely aligned with the ideal morality....people by our natures are full of contradictions, are imperfect, and often deeply flawed. Some of the best and most profound transformative art arises from the better nature of artists who in other ways may be supremely schmucky
- swiss
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
elunsi
()
Date: July 13, 2012 01:04
Quote
Lady JayneQuote
TrulyMicks
What about an author's character and morals? Christopher Anderson is making my stomach turn. It's sickening to think someone can make a living off of writing such gossip and passing it off as fact.
I'm with you on this one. I'm really surprised at the judgmental attitudes from Stones fans towards Mick's well known and consistent sexual 'infidelity'. So far as I have read, Mick Jagger has, since the earliest, days consistently made it clear he does not believe in monogamy. Surely, his belief system must have been equally clear to the women he hooked up with and they chose to live with it. He is no hypocrite ( unlike, perhaps, all his fellow Stones, with the honorable exception of Charlie, who have all been unfaithful to long-term partners but get none of the flak meted out to Jagger ). Equally, he was never legally married to Jerry, any more than Keith was to Anita, so how is he wrong to deny it? I think what infuriates people about Jagger (certainly the press and it would appear some 'fans') is he keeps his own counsel and doesn't answer back when various of his WAGs moan and bitch. I admire that. It's way more respectful to his kids than slagging off their parent.
Thank you!
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: July 13, 2012 01:39
Quote
swissQuote
Naturalust
Morality and personal code of ethics is all we have in the end really. This is the stuff that moves and ispires me as an artist, way more important than most here make it out to be. I think we have a pretty high sense of it here on IORR, probably why I choose to spend any time here at all.
I think the most important thing is just choosing to have a sense of morality at all. We are lucky to be comfortable enough to be able to make such choices and if we are wise enough to choose one,good or bad, our outside world becomes a reflection of that.
The seemingly opposite aspects of it that swiss talks of are certainly common enough but I think people who choose to operate at those levels are somewhat unaware of the ramifications. Of course inner conflict and turmoil can create univerally understood good Rock and Roll and Blues and listening to one mans battle (musically speaking) can be enough to satisfy the darker aspects of my morality. Oh yeah, that's what emotional pain sounds like......peace
N-lust I'm not sure you're saying this, but do you think a person can be either Good or Bad? (i.e., one or the other?). That they make either Good or Bad choices? that because they're stellar in one area (e.g., writing, art, music) they're therefore likely to make stellar moral choices as well?
I think with the exception of Johann Sebastien Bach, truly very few others but Charlie may be one of them, few artists are that consistently closely aligned with the ideal morality....people by our natures are full of contradictions, are imperfect, and often deeply flawed. Some of the best and most profound transformative art arises from the better nature of artists who in other ways may be supremely schmucky
- swiss
well said swiss. And no I don't belive we are either good or bad but we are talking about morailty here. That certainly is easier to take a stand on. You and I both probably have similar view on what is right and wrong. Those kind of realisations are the result of our inherent morality and for a mature person those kind of morals are made out of choice and meditation. How do these affect an artists ability to create?
I really don't know the answer to that question but probably the less we meditate on the art and the more we just let it happen the better it is. The feelings of safety in expression are certainly necessary to provide the sparks of the most creative of art and music. Certainly hard work, openness to collaborate and understanding of common emotions are necessary in 2012 to make much of an impact. I don't know how much being attached to the results has to do with it.
In the end I think character and morality are much more important than the best art and music, but I have grown into that view. It is quite possible art and music can influence and change character and morality. I mean I wanted to BE Mick Taylor at one time, and that kind of thinking has powerful implications.
I still am affected by artists I love, and Charlie and Keith provide more of the affirmation that my decision to hang was "right" more than Mick. peace
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
TrulyMicks
()
Date: July 13, 2012 03:33
Yes, thanks LJ, well said!Quote
elunsiQuote
Lady JayneQuote
TrulyMicks
What about an author's character and morals? Christopher Anderson is making my stomach turn. It's sickening to think someone can make a living off of writing such gossip and passing it off as fact.
I'm with you on this one. I'm really surprised at the judgmental attitudes from Stones fans towards Mick's well known and consistent sexual 'infidelity'. So far as I have read, Mick Jagger has, since the earliest, days consistently made it clear he does not believe in monogamy. Surely, his belief system must have been equally clear to the women he hooked up with and they chose to live with it. He is no hypocrite ( unlike, perhaps, all his fellow Stones, with the honorable exception of Charlie, who have all been unfaithful to long-term partners but get none of the flak meted out to Jagger ). Equally, he was never legally married to Jerry, any more than Keith was to Anita, so how is he wrong to deny it? I think what infuriates people about Jagger (certainly the press and it would appear some 'fans') is he keeps his own counsel and doesn't answer back when various of his WAGs moan and bitch. I admire that. It's way more respectful to his kids than slagging off their parent.
Thank you!
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
TrulyMicks
()
Date: July 13, 2012 15:54
To answer the original question, for me it is difficult to admire someone's work if I don't agree with their personal life. Mick doesn't make it hard at all to admire him. The relationship with Ms. Hall was obviously problematic in many ways and since I wasn't part of their relationship, I really don't have much of an opinion. From what I have read, and based on what is actually true, I think they both made mistakes. Overall, I think Mick has strong values and morals.
Luckily for me, I don't follow the personal lives of many artists, so I can enjoy just about anything! But, unfortunately, I can't really separate the personal and professional lives...John Mayer is like this for me. I love his work, but quite awhile ago I read some really offensive things he said, and I couldn't listen to him anymore. It's been more than a year and now I have forgotten exactly what he had said and am starting to listen to him again. Tom Cruise is another...I can't watch any of his movies.
Luckily for me, I don't follow the personal lives of many artists, so I can enjoy just about anything! But, unfortunately, I can't really separate the personal and professional lives...John Mayer is like this for me. I love his work, but quite awhile ago I read some really offensive things he said, and I couldn't listen to him anymore. It's been more than a year and now I have forgotten exactly what he had said and am starting to listen to him again. Tom Cruise is another...I can't watch any of his movies.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
HighwireC
()
Date: July 13, 2012 16:05
Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
I can't see any "scandalous private life" by Mick, it's totally "normal" for me. Mick is a man. I would be shocked, if Mick would be a saint, indeed.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: July 13, 2012 16:11
An artist's morals and his art are two different things that one should not mix up.-
On the Clapton clip: Clapton was drunk, talked rubbish and excused himself a day later. Loading up this video fourty years after the incident happened is much filthier than Clapton's faux-pas.
On the Clapton clip: Clapton was drunk, talked rubbish and excused himself a day later. Loading up this video fourty years after the incident happened is much filthier than Clapton's faux-pas.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: July 14, 2012 02:12
Bliss, while I commend you on initiating this worthwhile thread, I feel I have to say that your comments about Marsha Hunt, Karis, and separately, regarding Princess Margaret, are not accurate.
To keep it brief, Marsha has always been rather a manipulator, she and Karis were not peniless and I recall Karis, at approximately age 5, detailing to me what she thought about seeing The Rolling Stones, especially "my daddy," in concert. I know of no serious medical maladies to her health, and Marsha's long-suffering mother in California sent her frequent checks.
To claim that Mick and Princess Margaret had an affair is again not quite how it was.
To keep it brief, Marsha has always been rather a manipulator, she and Karis were not peniless and I recall Karis, at approximately age 5, detailing to me what she thought about seeing The Rolling Stones, especially "my daddy," in concert. I know of no serious medical maladies to her health, and Marsha's long-suffering mother in California sent her frequent checks.
To claim that Mick and Princess Margaret had an affair is again not quite how it was.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: July 14, 2012 08:06
Quote
stonesrule
Bliss, while I commend you on initiating this worthwhile thread, I feel I have to say that your comments about Marsha Hunt, Karis, and separately, regarding Princess Margaret, are not accurate.
To keep it brief, Marsha has always been rather a manipulator, she and Karis were not peniless and I recall Karis, at approximately age 5, detailing to me what she thought about seeing The Rolling Stones, especially "my daddy," in concert. I know of no serious medical maladies to her health, and Marsha's long-suffering mother in California sent her frequent checks.
To claim that Mick and Princess Margaret had an affair is again not quite how it was.
Well thank you, SR, for your eyewitness account.
I had seen accounts of Mick's r'ship with Karis/Marsha like this
[www.people.com]
and from another article by the same author,
'Jagger hadn't always been a conscientious parent. Infatuated with Bianca he had abandoned his first child, Karis, and her mother, Marsha Hunt -- the woman for whom the hit "Brown Sugar" was written -- shortly after the child's birth on Nov. 3, 1970. Three years later, tired of having to pursue Mick for the occasional meager handout, Hunt arranged a bizarre cloak-and-dagger meeting with him on the steps of the Albert Memorial in London's Hyde Park. Together they hammered out the details of a 20,000 pound (about $50,000) trust fund to be put in Karis' name. By the end of the day Jagger had knocked the figure down to 17,000 pounds ($42,000).
It was all academic; after months of waiting for Jagger to sign the trust documents, Hunt filed suit on July 16, 1973. In the whirlwind of publicity that followed, Jagger denied paternity and, in an effort to stall legal proceedings, insisted on a blood test -- thus implying that Marsha was promiscuous. Hunt, meantime, was portrayed as a home-wrecking gold-digger. Mick, stung by what he viewed as Hunt's betrayal, sarcastically suggested that Hunt had gone public merely to hype her own flagging career.
While Hunt literally skipped over rooftops holding Karis to avoid reporters staked out in front of her London house, Jagger's lawyers made a settlement offer: 9 pounds a week to pay for a nanny and a 10,000 pound (roughly $25,000) trust fund once Karis left school. In exchange Hunt would be required to sign a document stating Jagger was not the father. She accepted the deal.'
and Princess Margaret
[articles.baltimoresun.com]
I have never seen a photo of Karis and Mick where Karis was under the age of about 12. It is fair to say that Mick and Margaret were at least close friends on Mustique.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-14 13:25 by Bliss.
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: July 14, 2012 19:18
Oh when will I learn that if you read it in a magazine or newspaper that it is 100 per cent true?
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: July 14, 2012 19:41
Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.
Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?
...this is an unauthorized bio full of discrepancies and hearsay....just because people say things doesn't make them true...this book reads like it's FOX news...
Re: An artist's character and morals
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: July 14, 2012 22:15
You all keep trashing Christopher Anderson...but I think that if he couldn't back up his assertions, he would have been sued.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
daisybenito , Dan , daspyknows , EddieByword , gagiwh , geoffc , GJB , Halup , IsakSun , Jbeckerfan , keef62 , lickskeith , madrid82 , P@py , rogerriffin , Rokyfan , RollingStonesFan , rovalle , silkcut1978_ , Sjouke , snorton , StonyRoad , TW2019 , wupperstein
Guests:
1674
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10