Quote
Gazza

Quote
Bliss
You all keep trashing Christopher Anderson...but I think that if he couldn't back up his assertions, he would have been sued.

Not really.

How do you disprove someone saying youve slept with xxx number of women or xxx number of men? Or disprove stories about relationships with people who are dead?

The Carla Bruni thing. No one's doubting the (already widely accepted and reported) story that they had a fling in Thailand. Jagger's hardly going to sue him for making up a false allegation that he flew there from London the day after his son was born - when in reality he flew there from Japan six weeks later. He still comes out of it badly, even if he's successful.

More bother than it's worth. You've read some of the excerpts of this book. Surely anyone with a basic knowledge of the subject's history can find it reasonably easy to pick holes in the accuracy of some of the stuff this guy is parroting as 'fact' ?

Gazza, lawsuit or not, I feel compelled to compliment you on this post. It illustrates how embellishing and taking widely known or accepted pieces of information out of context changes them dramatically. As a side point, In the recent book, he cites sources en masse for a few chapters at a time, along with various publications he has consulted, many wthout specific authors, articles or dates.

~"Love is Strong"~

I don't think anyone is claiming Anderson is not a hack or does not embellish or dramatize stories for effect...
but some of us are making the point that Mick really has been a bad boy.
So he traipsed off to wherever with Carla a few weeks after his child was born....not one day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-17 06:24 by stupidguy2.

So Mick whored around -- because he could.
So Jerry kept having babies to hold on.
So Christopher Andersen never got near either of them.

So, sadly, some posters, seem to have personal interest with Viagra. Too much information.

If some of you FREQUENT posters in this thread are so morally perfect, why are you bothering to spending your precious time on this drivel?

I will admit, the sloppiness of Christopher Anderson's reporting of well-known facts surprises me. Why would he leave himself open to a lawsuit over things that could easily be reported accurately? However, I don't think Mick will win much money in court because his school was inaccurately reported.

There seem to be two camps here - those who are intensely interested in the private lives of the artists who create their favourite works and those who think this interest is irrelevant, invasive and/or inappropriate. I think there is room on IORR for both camps, just as there is room for both musicians who delve into the technical aspect of RS music, and those who have no interest in this. Just as the non-technical fans probably do not read or post in the technical threads, those who are not interested in the RS' private lives should skip these clearly labeled threads about them, instead of repeatedly insisting they have no place on IORR, and demonising those who post in them.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. My position, stated earlier in the thread, is that I don't really care where Mick has taken the tiny todger, but I do have issues with what I consider the contemptible way he has treated those who have trusted and depended on him. Yes, this does colour my view of his work.

(And yes, my own moral conduct vis-à-vis my nearest and dearest can indeed withstand scrutiny.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-17 11:32 by Bliss.

Quote
Bliss
I will admit, the sloppiness of Christopher Anderson's reporting of well-known facts surprises me. Why would he leave himself open to a lawsuit over things that could easily be reported accurately? However, I don't think Mick will win much money in court because his school was inaccurately reported.

There seem to be two camps here - those who are intensely interested in the private lives of the artists who create their favourite works and those who think this interest is irrelevant, invasive and/or inappropriate. I think there is room on IORR for both camps, just as there is room for both musicians who delve into the technical aspect of RS music, and those who have no interest in this. Just as the non-technical fans probably do not read or post in the technical threads, those who are not interested in the RS' private lives should skip these clearly labeled threads about them, instead of repeatedly insisting they have no place on IORR, and demonising those who post in them.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. My position, stated earlier in the thread, is that I don't really care where Mick has taken the tiny todger, but I do have issues with what I consider the contemptible way he has treated those who have trusted and depended on him. Yes, this does colour my view of his work.

(And yes, my own moral conduct vis-à-vis my nearest and dearest can indeed withstand scrutiny.)

Damn...and you've always seemed like such a fun 'girl'...... ......................................just kidding.............



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-17 20:58 by EddieByword.

... and why the devil still believes in god?

It's because without a god the evil wouldn't even exist ...

Quote
stonesrule
So Mick whored around -- because he could.
So Jerry kept having babies to hold on.
So Christopher Andersen never got near either of them.

So, sadly, some posters, seem to have personal interest with Viagra. Too much information.

If some of you FREQUENT posters in this thread are so morally perfect, why are you bothering to spending your precious time on this drivel?

But Stonesrule - we're just discussing it...
I already knew most of this shit....doesn't change a thing for me.
Its fascinating to discuss for some of us because its part of who Jagger is. The whole point of the thread is whether you can separate personal behavior from an artist. I mean, its a Stones message board, not church. We're just offering theories about behavior we've been reading about for decades. Most of us still love Mick Jagger.....we just admit he's a randy little bastard. When people are bothered with criticism of their favorite artists...makes me think they take things too personally and seriously.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-17 18:54 by stupidguy2.

Quote
Bliss
I will admit, the sloppiness of Christopher Anderson's reporting of well-known facts surprises me. Why would he leave himself open to a lawsuit over things that could easily be reported accurately? However, I don't think Mick will win much money in court because his school was inaccurately reported.

There seem to be two camps here - those who are intensely interested in the private lives of the artists who create their favourite works and those who think this interest is irrelevant, invasive and/or inappropriate. I think there is room on IORR for both camps, just as there is room for both musicians who delve into the technical aspect of RS music, and those who have no interest in this. Just as the non-technical fans probably do not read or post in the technical threads, those who are not interested in the RS' private lives should skip these clearly labeled threads about them, instead of repeatedly insisting they have no place on IORR, and demonising those who post in them.

We're all entitled to our own opinions. My position, stated earlier in the thread, is that I don't really care where Mick has taken the tiny todger, but I do have issues with what I consider the contemptible way he has treated those who have trusted and depended on him. Yes, this does colour my view of his work.

(And yes, my own moral conduct vis-à-vis my nearest and dearest can indeed withstand scrutiny.)

Exactly. Although Jagger's behavior doesn't affect my enjoyment of his music, but it does inform it. That's the key for me: those who feign disinterest in the silly drama of the Stones' lives are missing the point. These are artists - they live, breath through their music.....Jagger alludes to his own imperfections in his music.
I mean, we're being accused of being prudish or judgmental....
But who are the prudes? If you can't discuss an artists' personal flaws...damn - why so uptight? I notice that male fans are less likely to engage in these discussions while female fans are more analytical.
That should be a thread question Bliss....why are male Stones fans so uptight with "todger' and 'sex' topics?

Quote
stupidguy2
... why are male Stones fans so uptight with "todger' and 'sex' topics?

Are we?

I'm male for over 61 years now and I don't feel uptight with sex topics.
But ok, I'm an unholy atheist, too.

You don't have to worry about Mick Jagger's character and morals. He doesn't have any. But he is an excellent singer.

Quote
mitchflorida1
You don't have to worry about Mick Jagger's character and morals. He doesn't have any. But he is an excellent singer.

Mick Jagger has his character and his morals, for sure. But some people without don't like them ...

Bliss, on this camp: "those who are intensely interested in the private lives of the artists who create their favourite works":

I and I think some others of us who are part of this camp are still concerned with finding out about the accuracy of what is written and reported, whenever possible. Not your original topic, I know.

~"Love is Strong"~

Anderson is making a pile of money from this piece of trash, and now he's on the radio talk show circuit; on my way to work today, I caught the tail end of his interview on WPYX, Albany, New York and the two DJ's were discussing how shocked they were to hear Mick and Clapton were lovers in the 60's-70's. Well, I thought I'd heard all the trash but this piece of news I have never heard. I use the word " news" lightly because it may be totally fabricated. Is this common knowledge, have ALL of you heard this rumor, or do you think it's an add-on, just for shock value? If it's made up, won't Clapton try to sue for such slander---or maybe he'll just get a kick out of it and let it go.....like all of us should do, I suppose!

I mean, we're being accused of being prudish or judgmental....
But who are the prudes? If you can't discuss an artists' personal flaws...damn - why so uptight? I notice that male fans are less likely to engage in these discussions while female fans are more analytical.
That should be a thread question Bliss....why are male Stones fans so uptight with "todger' and 'sex' topics?[/quote]

I don't think it breaks down along gender lines, I've known plenty of men who are just as interested in this stuff as women. I do believe though that many men, particularly from an older generation, are conditioned to think they shouldn't be interested. For the record, I don't judge an artist's work based on their personal proclivities, but I do find it fascinating as I think it does tell us something about where their art comes from. Plus, if we are all honest, it's fun!

Quote
latebloomer
I do believe though that many men, particularly from an older generation, are conditioned to think they shouldn't be interested. For the record, I don't judge an artist's work based on their personal proclivities, but I do find it fascinating as I think it does tell us something about where their art comes from. Plus, if we are all honest, it's fun!

I agree,
especially the 'fun' part.

I think this is kind of a silly article, but I thought it went well with this thread. So there you have it, someone who thinks Mick holds the answer "to some of lifes biggest questions."



My Own Personal Love Gurus? The Rolling Stones
Posted: 07/17/2012 3:04 pm

Last week, the Rolling Stones celebrated the 50th anniversary of their first gig. Now in their late 60s and early 70s, Jagger, Richards, Ronnie Wood and Charlie Watts show no sign of quitting. Smash hits come and go, and we all know about the one-hit wonder. But the music that really endures usually does so because it hits some kind of universal truth. Sure, it's that catchy riff, their charismatic personalities, those Jagger moves. But the messages in the songs of the Rolling Stones have long resonated with me.

Their anniversary got me thinking about some of those classics, how they stand the test of time and still speak to me. And I think they can speak to us all as reminders of what a healthy relationship should look like... those lessons we all need to learn (sometimes again and again!) in matters of love and life! Here are some of my favourites:

1. You Can't Always Get What You Want (1969)

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you might find
You get what you need

This means so much to me! We're often so busy chasing after the things we want that we don't get those things we need. I blogged before about needs versus wants and this pretty much sums it all up. Often the things we want aren't the things that are really good for us... what you need is what nurtures your soul... what you want is sometimes a fancy distraction along the way!

2. Beast of Burden (1978)

I'll never be your beast of burden
My back is broad but it's a' hurting
All I want is for you to make love to me
I'll never be your beast of burden

I love this song! What are we prepared to do (and to take) for love? Mick is drawing the line... he wants to be loved, but not enough to be a beast of burden, to carry all the weight of the relationship. That's not what love is about. I think we've all found ourselves in those relationships when we gave too much, where we did all the heavy lifting. And of course, sometimes all relationships sometimes need you to be the strong one, while the other person struggles. But it's about give and take -- there should be an overall balance.

3. Waiting on a Friend (1981)

A smile relieves a heart that grieves
Remember what I said
I'm not waiting on a lady
I'm just waiting on a friend

Waiting on a Friend signifies the importance of friendship in romantic relationships. It's all about falling in love with a person who is also your friend, who cares for you like a friend and knows you well enough to read your eyes, your smile and know what you're truly feeling. I especially love this when I consider what it must be like for Mick and the boys to find love as successful rockstars. In many ways, love comes easy when you're rich and famous and there are fake friends around every corner. In these lyrics, I hear yearning for something with greater depth and sincerity, for those deeper emotional binds of friendship and true affection. And I think that's something we can all relate to (rockstar or not!).

4. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (1965)

When I'm drivin' in my car
And the man comes on the radio
He's tellin' me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to drive my imagination

A classic for that throwaway three-note opening riff alone, this song obviously refers to sexual frustration. But it's also about commercialization and the constant state of unfulfilled product-lust many of us live in. It's sometimes true that the more you have, the more you find yourself wanting... satisfaction, contentment can be elusive things. This song reminds me to strike a balance between wanting and being grateful.

5. Under My Thumb (1966)

Under my thumb
The girl who once had me down
Under my thumb
The girl who once pushed me around

This song has been criticized for being anti-feminist, as it essentially talks about a man putting a strong woman under his thumb. But, for me, the lyrics speak of the power struggle that exists between men and women. That struggle can be on either side, with both trying to stake out their claim and change the other. But while some relationships are about the struggle between two people, the best kinds are when we work together -- trying to find balance and harmony in our relationships, to each have our needs met in a way that's respectful and nurturing.

The rock n' roll lifestyle may not be a role model for healthy living, but songwriters have a way of striking core truths in their music that often eludes them in real life. I think that's one of the fascinating things about artists... with all their creative insight and awareness, finding that happiness in life is something that seems difficult for them. Mick and the boys may have had their share of sex, drugs, rock n' roll. But, at the same time, their music strikes simpler, more fundamental truths... lessons that I think we can all learn.

So, when you're on your next road trip and your listening to music, think of the lyrics and how they perhaps can hold some answers to some of our lifes biggest questions! What tunes do you listen to over and over that hold essential meaning and lessons for you? I'd love to know!

Follow Natasha Koifman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/natashankpr

It's unbelievable how Andersen advertises his book - he has even TV shows.
Anybody remember, then in the 90s when this book was published for the first time - it made the same noise or it gone unnoticed? I thought that no one will pay the attention these days on a book about Jagger - obviously he was more popular in the mid-90s than now.
As far as I can remember the last time Bowie denied everything. This time he is silent. Why do not they sue?


Author dishes on new Mick Jagger book
[www.myfoxdetroit.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-23 21:46 by proudmary.

I spent about an hour at the bookstore a few days ago looking through Andersen's book. It really is as awful as everyone here has said, I couldn't believe some of the inaccuracies, he even repeats the Marianne mars bar story, even though everyone who was there has said it's a lie. As for the TV shows, it may have more to do with the fact that cable TV brings so many more opportunities for hacks like him to get air time then in the past.

Quote
latebloomer
I spent about an hour at the bookstore a few days ago looking through Andersen's book. It really is as awful as everyone here has said, I couldn't believe some of the inaccuracies, he even repeats the Marianne mars bar story, even though everyone who was there has said it's a lie. As for the TV shows, it may have more to do with the fact that cable TV brings so many more opportunities for hacks like him to get air time then in the past.

CBS and FOX are cable or national? I'm not that familiar with American TV

Quote
proudmary

Quote
latebloomer
I spent about an hour at the bookstore a few days ago looking through Andersen's book. It really is as awful as everyone here has said, I couldn't believe some of the inaccuracies, he even repeats the Marianne mars bar story, even though everyone who was there has said it's a lie. As for the TV shows, it may have more to do with the fact that cable TV brings so many more opportunities for hacks like him to get air time then in the past.

CBS and FOX are cable or national? I'm not that familiar with American TV

They're both national broadcasters.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
proudmary

Quote
latebloomer
I spent about an hour at the bookstore a few days ago looking through Andersen's book. It really is as awful as everyone here has said, I couldn't believe some of the inaccuracies, he even repeats the Marianne mars bar story, even though everyone who was there has said it's a lie. As for the TV shows, it may have more to do with the fact that cable TV brings so many more opportunities for hacks like him to get air time then in the past.

CBS and FOX are cable or national? I'm not that familiar with American TV

They're both national broadcasters.

Yes they are, but Fox has both a national show and a cable outlet. It's there cable channel that people are most familiar with. As far as I know, CBS does not have a cable channel anymore, just the evening news, Face the Nation, and 60 minutes.

But still how it was in the 90s? Was it all over the press?
Or for those 20 years society has become much more puritanical and all the echoes of '60s scare people more than before?

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
proudmary

Quote
latebloomer
I spent about an hour at the bookstore a few days ago looking through Andersen's book. It really is as awful as everyone here has said, I couldn't believe some of the inaccuracies, he even repeats the Marianne mars bar story, even though everyone who was there has said it's a lie. As for the TV shows, it may have more to do with the fact that cable TV brings so many more opportunities for hacks like him to get air time then in the past.

CBS and FOX are cable or national? I'm not that familiar with American TV

They're both national broadcasters.

Yes they are, but Fox has both a national show and a cable outlet. It's there cable channel that people are most familiar with. As far as I know, CBS does not have a cable channel anymore, just the evening news, Face the Nation, and 60 minutes.

Yes, I think 'Fox News Channel' is the cable outlet.

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?

Luciana Gimenez did justice to the words of Christopher Anderson to his person

[]

Quote
HighwireC

Mick Jagger has his character and his morals, for sure. But some people without don't like them ...

Christopher Anderson seems to have very little character and morals.

Quote
TrulyMicks
Christopher Anderson seems to have very little character and morals.

You got that one right

-------------------
Keep On Rolling