Judging from the extracts, there shouldn't be anything to be furious about, imo.

The idea of a financial advisor, writing his memoirs about his time with the band, is a bit over the top principally, though...

Jo Bergman wrote a book?

Quote
Redhotcarpet
I have to get the book

Exactly what the Prince was betting on. When does it come out?

I can't imagine, the book is actually supported by Mick with him just pretending to be angry to increase sales for Prince Rupert, as some suggested here. Because though, according to the Daily Mail's excerpt, Prince Rupert has lots of praise for Mick (as well as for Keith and the band members in general), why should Mick want to support and be happy about statements like these ones:


"I was as impressed by Keith Richards (pictured right with Mick Jagger) as I had been with Mick, though in a completely different way. I saw that Keith was – and I hesitate to say this – the most intelligent mind of the band."


"Alas! Keith is right and that is the problem. Mick has no real career aside from his vast talent as a rock performer with Keith."


"There was one embarrassing time when Mick wanted to have extra remuneration on everything because, in his view, he was the quasi-manager. I had a call from Keith a couple of hours later. He said: ‘Rupert, do you think Mick’s interventions in the things that you do make us money or lose us money?’ I reassured him: ‘I know what you mean – it won’t happen.’
But that proved to me that Keith knew what it was about, and could deal with issues rationally."


"Unaccounted-for cash delivered in a paper bag to the band and their management was the norm.

Bands were only too delighted to receive parcels of money, but failed to realise they were participating in a huge tax fraud.

Slowly but surely we were able to alter how tours operated, but even on the tour that took place in 1978 at the time of Some Girls, somebody, an accountant or one of the tour personnel, asked me: ‘What do we do with the $50,000 in this paper bag?’ I replied: ‘You give it straight to the auditors.’

I summoned the Stones and told them: ‘A tax fraud in the United States could really halt your career, so I am afraid the paper bag of dollar bills will have to go back into your taxable income.’"

It might very well be, that the Daily Mail - especially in the blue box, which displays a Mick/Keith opposition - intentionally picked the most controversial aspects of the book, but they are nevertheless part of the book and Mick probably doesn't like them. And we don't even know, which other details about financial deals or personal affairs there are maybe described. I don't get the impression at least, that Prince Rupert wanted to provide a lurid, sensational story, but tried to be objective and honest. But it contains parts, Mick probably doesn't approve. And if he in fact said what is quoted, I think he said it because of real diasappointment/anger.

I think everybody would be angry if a "friend" claims that another person is more intelligent. Becuase he can "deal with issues rationally". lol.

If Mick made them more money or not - that was Rupert´s job, Mick did the most work. If that justifies more money, I don´t know, but every manager gets money for what he does. But it was obviously ok for Mick to not get paid for it, because I don´t think that Rupert was in the position to decide that.

Well, it would have been the rest of the band AND prince Rupert on the other side, wouldn't it? I'm not so sure Mick would have tried to pave that way...

I think we'd have a livid Mick right now if the Prince was able to provide corroboration on the todger thing.

No money in it treacle... or was it the other way round?

Seems to me that this book is a complete betrayal of fiduciary duties and accompanying confidentiality. Not to mention an "ego trip" for Prince Rupert.

But then he was the man who preferred to make his daughter the author of a book about the Rolling Stones and to dynamite Marilou Regan and her book featuring numerous fans and their thoughts and feelings about the band.

Quote
His Majesty
The story about Mick being involved in trying to set up a UK Rolling Stone etc is true, here's a photo of Jan and Mick at Rolling Stones HQ circa spring 1969.

Spot on .
Jann S. Wenner and Mick Jagger signing a contract establishing a British edition of Rolling Stone . London, 1969.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
stonesrule
Seems to me that this book is a complete betrayal of fiduciary duties and accompanying confidentiality. Not to mention an "ego trip" for Prince Rupert.

But then he was the man who preferred to make his daughter the author of a book about the Rolling Stones and to dynamite Marilou Regan and her book featuring numerous fans and their thoughts and feelings about the band.

surely you are right. ...that he wrote this makes me think Rupert has some sort of feud going with Jagger...he obviously isn't involved with them at all anymore, therefore can't be subject to litigation..

this book on the face of it sure seems like a way to irritate Jagger, and make some money..

Check it out !

Quote from snc:



Re: Jann Wenner Stones Content

Posted by: sweet neo con ()

Date: December 3, 2009 12:48


i posted this a while ago...snapped it while touring R&R Hall in Cleveland.
Mick...having fun with Jann.



[www.iorr.org]



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
stonesrule
Seems to me that this book is a complete betrayal of fiduciary duties and accompanying confidentiality. Not to mention an "ego trip" for Prince Rupert.

But then he was the man who preferred to make his daughter the author of a book about the Rolling Stones and to dynamite Marilou Regan and her book featuring numerous fans and their thoughts and feelings about the band.

It seems most comments, mine included, do seem to agree with this...but in fairness, we are looking at only the excerpts, which may not have the full context.
I do plan to read the book to see what it's really about. I wonder if Mick's comments are based on the excerpts or if he's gotten an advance copy?

quick take...

mick as band leader and mr. london school of economics businessman identity is being threatened when
rupert implies keith is smarter and has the talent. and the whole todger thing (keiths book) diminished mick's sexual reputation.

these have been the cornerstones of mick's image...and now prominent people on the inside are chipping away at this facade.

disloyalty is a bitch....especially when it reaffirms ones own insecurities.


IORR............but I like it!

>>when
rupert implies keith is smarter and has the talent. and the whole todger thing (keiths book) diminished mick's sexual reputation<<

trivial sniping and neither are true. what is it with people and these books nowadays? everybody has a book!

Quote
sweet neo con
quick take...rupert implies keith is smarter and has the talent.

I'm not sure that we should infer this from the limited extracts we've seen. It may be much more balanced.

Quote
duke richardson
>>when
rupert implies keith is smarter and has the talent. and the whole todger thing (keiths book) diminished mick's sexual reputation<<

trivial sniping and neither are true. what is it with people and these books nowadays? everybody has a book!

first hand knowledge?

anyway...no matter what is true...mick's attempt at dismissing it as a product of "bad manners" is probably
the best way to go. doubt that he wants to snipe back too much as it would only give it more attention.
i guess i don't worship these guys as men (& businessmen) enough to blindly defend them.
in the end we know very little about what makes them tick....however, as a spectator, i enjoy the
soap opera aspect of it.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
Braincapers

Quote
sweet neo con
quick take...rupert implies keith is smarter and has the talent.

I'm not sure that we should infer this from the limited extracts we've seen. It may be much more balanced.

oh..believe me, i realize these are out of context excerpts etc..... and just because keith may have
asked one pointed question (whether mick's involvement in business was making or losing $$) doesn't
really mean anything....especially if the author has an axe to grind. don't know if he does...and don't
really care that much....although is always interesting to learn new insights.


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
duke richardson
>>when
rupert implies keith is smarter and has the talent. and the whole todger thing (keiths book) diminished mick's sexual reputation<<

trivial sniping and neither are true. what is it with people and these books nowadays? everybody has a book!

first hand knowledge?

anyway...no matter what is true...mick's attempt at dismissing it as a product of "bad manners" is probably
the best way to go. doubt that he wants to snipe back too much as it would only give it more attention.
i guess i don't worship these guys as men (& businessmen) enough to blindly defend them.
in the end we know very little about what makes them tick....however, as a spectator, i enjoy the
soap opera aspect of it.

only pointing out absurdity when i see it...

and i'm not defending either of them but am saying that the 'Keith is smarter than Mick' thing won't stand scrutiny and is petty sniping...same for the 'tiny todger' crap which is certainly petty sniping..

who's next with a book? that ol' Pope?

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
duke richardson
>>when
rupert implies keith is smarter and has the talent. and the whole todger thing (keiths book) diminished mick's sexual reputation<<

trivial sniping and neither are true. what is it with people and these books nowadays? everybody has a book!

first hand knowledge?

anyway...no matter what is true...mick's attempt at dismissing it as a product of "bad manners" is probably
the best way to go. doubt that he wants to snipe back too much as it would only give it more attention.
i guess i don't worship these guys as men (& businessmen) enough to blindly defend them.
in the end we know very little about what makes them tick....however, as a spectator, i enjoy the
soap opera aspect of it.

only pointing out absurdity when i see it...

and i'm not defending either of them but am saying that the 'Keith is smarter than Mick' thing won't stand scrutiny and is petty sniping...same for the 'tiny todger' crap which is certainly petty sniping..

who's next with a book? that ol' Pope?

ok.

and i was just taking the excerpts at face value and giving an opinion
relevant to the topic of this thread...that mick was "furious".
in other words....that if mick is "furious" it might be because he's
been a victim of endless sniping....and that it might really impact him if
it hit too close to home (factually) or tarnished his image.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-11 21:50 by sweet neo con.

Let's face it, aside from whatever merits they might or might not have it's more "fashionable" to praise Keith over Mick, maybe just `cause even non-Stones fans know who Mick is, but not everybody (in my experience) knows who Keith is, so you sound more "inside" if you praise Keith. As Michael Lewis said, "Snobbery has a logic all its own."

Quote
Title5Take1
Let's face it, aside from whatever merits they might or might not have it's more "fashionable" to praise Keith over Mick, maybe just `cause even non-Stones fans know who Mick is, but not everybody (in my experience) knows who Keith is, so you sound more "inside" if you praise Keith. As Michael Lewis said, "Snobbery has a logic all its own."

Maybe so, but I don't see your logic at all, Title5Take1. Rupert's quotes in the article are excerpts, the full book may tell a different story. He may be very critical of Keith in other parts of the book, we just don't know yet. I think the newspaper picked the most sensational quotes to rachet up the readership and get a response from Mick. In any case, I really doubt that Prince Rupert would be interested in praising Keith because it makes him sound like an insider, he was an insider.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Title5Take1
Let's face it, aside from whatever merits they might or might not have it's more "fashionable" to praise Keith over Mick, maybe just `cause even non-Stones fans know who Mick is, but not everybody (in my experience) knows who Keith is, so you sound more "inside" if you praise Keith. As Michael Lewis said, "Snobbery has a logic all its own."

Maybe so, but I don't see your logic at all, Title5Take1. Rupert's quotes in the article are excerpts, the full book may tell a different story. He may be very critical of Keith in other parts of the book, we just don't know yet. I think the newspaper picked the most sensational quotes to rachet up the readership and get a response from Mick. In any case, I really doubt that Prince Rupert would be interested in praising Keith because it makes him sound like an insider, he was an insider.

The full book may tell a different story? The fact that it was written at all shows Rupert's moral code is out of whack. Whatever Rupert's intent, that inverted snobbery does exist among some Stones fans. Like William Goldman (screenwriter of some of the top films in the 70's) says some film snobs love to say that Orson Welles's best film was The Magnificent Ambersons when it was obviously Citizen Caine, or that Hithcock's best film was Vertigo, when he made obvoiusly better ones. It just sounds cooler to name the unobvious.

What is it with people not giving Jagger his due? Who found Rupert in the first place? Who kept the band together while Keith was shooting half of Afghanistan into his arm? Just because Keith seems more approachable, and we know he can be as phony as anyone, Mick gets cut down. Mick has the right to keep employees like Lowenstein at arms length.

Quote
24FPS
What is it with people not giving Jagger his due? Who found Rupert in the first place? Who kept the band together while Keith was shooting half of Afghanistan into his arm? Just because Keith seems more approachable, and we know he can be as phony as anyone, Mick gets cut down. Mick has the right to keep employees like Lowenstein at arms length.

I agree. There's plenty to snipe at, but the fact is that Jagger has shouldered most of the burden of keeping the band going for the past 30 years or so. If I were him I'd be getting plenty fed up with my closest associates (and in the case of Richards supposedly my oldest friend) making money by insulting me in public.

I've been playing Stones music all day and I had a great time.

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

...first Bowie's secret album....now this book...Jagger has got to be second guessing some things right about now...and what next?.

If YOU were Mick Jagger, I think it's likely that many of you would be MAD AS HELL to think that Prince Rupert apparently has nothing more to do these days than write this book.

The Prince made plenty of money for his services.

If he was YOUR financial advisor, would YOU think it was justified?

Mick is just pissed because the Prince rightly points out that the Stones were really all about Keef....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-12 07:33 by Woz.

Quote
stonesrule
If YOU were Mick Jagger...

... I would be LMAO because of why some people get so excited

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