Hey folks,

this was just published as the RS's covers story on Facebook and it's the best report on the Stones I have read in a long long time:

[www.rollingstone.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-10 03:24 by bv.

That's an INCREDIBLE cover picture!
Thanks for posting it!

I knew it, Mick sees a version of The Stones without Keith.... Now we know why Taylor's around. I wrote this months ago and everybody chuckled... Wood/Taylor

Thanks for the link!
Really good article.

Quote
DoomandGloom
I knew it, Mick sees a version of The Stones without Keith.... Now we know why Taylor's around. I wrote this months ago and everybody chuckled... Wood/Taylor

with all due respect..

no ..never happen ..and i realize you've worked with them..and are a pro.

Wow, what a monster of an article, started the Keith part, will finish it later.

I see where you got the "Stones without Keith" impression but I don't think that's what they really meant in the article...since they immediately go on to explain that there were doubts as to Keith's abilities to play the guitar, doubts everyone one here had as well. I think it would be very, very unlikely for Mick to want to perform as the Rolling Stones without Keith...as with an autobiography he's asked about in the interview, it would be for the money and he clearly doesn't need it.

I wish the interview had pushed a bit more about the possibilities of new music and the future of the Stones in general, he should have known he wasn't going to get any scoop on the Jagger/Richards relationship at this point in time...a missed opportunity.

"Days before, Richards and I had been talking about the Everly Brothers' reunion concert at Royal Albert Hall in London in September 1983. The Everlys are two men who famously did not get along at times and who would not work together, but at one point during this performance – the first time they'd been willing to share a stage in 10 years – while singing a haunting version of "Let It Be Me," face to face at their microphones, Phil Everly leaned back, watching as his brother Don sang beautifully, and gave his sibling a look of unqualified love and reverence. "I know that feeling," Richards told me. "Mick and I can get there, and it usually happens via music. There's moments when you realize, 'God, man, I love you, baby.' That can happen onstage a lot. I watch Mick and I'm still astounded. I have to watch out that I don't become the audience from behind, because when he pours it on, he still amazes me. That's another reason I love to do this."

Wouldn't it be nice if Mick could ever say something that loving about Keith. But no all he can say is they have a working relationship and are not family. What an ass!

Nice bit of airbrushing on the photographs. What's with Jagger's clear, wrinkle-free face?

Quote
Kurt
That's an INCREDIBLE cover picture!
Thanks for posting it!

Yeah, really like that one. I might have to buy a Rolling Stone magazine for the first time since Mick and Keith were on the cover around B2B.

Kind of Beatles-esque to me. I'm sure they didn't invent the two people in front, two in back photograph or anything, it just sort of reminded me of pictures like these...

Quote
Big Al
Nice bit of airbrushing on the photographs. What's with Jagger's clear, wrinkle-free face?

The article isn't air brushed. Great read.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-07 18:13 by bye bye johnny.

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
DoomandGloom
I knew it, Mick sees a version of The Stones without Keith.... Now we know why Taylor's around. I wrote this months ago and everybody chuckled... Wood/Taylor

with all due respect..

no ..never happen ..and i realize you've worked with them..and are a pro.

It's not my idea it appears to be Mick's... It's been decades since I worked with them, I was just a kid, now I am just a fan, my opinion has no more merit than anyone else here. I do have a Marshall autographed by Keith and a picture of me with Mick! I'll post them when I figure out how.

Quote
rambler44
Wouldn't it be nice if Mick could ever say something that loving about Keith. But no all he can say is they have a working relationship and are not family. What an ass!

Not that I don't agree with you, as I do like to think they are brothers that love each other. But just to play devil's advocate, maybe Mick isn't "floored" by Keith anymore. I mean, we all love him, but the guy's abilities have gone downhill and its just sort of nice to see him up there. Keith can look at Mick and think "wow, he's never changed", while Mick can look at Keith and go "well, I'm happy you're still here, but am I supposed to be impressed by something right now?" Just that you can almost see their current relationship as Jagger as the older brother having to constantly bail and drag his little brother Keith out of trouble and do the best he can. Mick has been able to do that on his own, and has been carrying the Stones brand for years, essentially having to put up with Keith because he "has" to be there.

Again, its all just an opposing what if. I do hope they are very close and that Mick doesn't feel that way. They are both amazing guys and I'm genuinely impressed by both of them 50 years on, but I wouldn't be surprised if thats the reason Mick doesn't look at Keith that way but Keith does. Since they got back together in the early 90s, Mick has kept a distance and pretty much implied "Keith, you are the same, and since that is the case I'm going to distance myself because I have changed and need to distance myself to stay at this level."

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
rambler44
Wouldn't it be nice if Mick could ever say something that loving about Keith. But no all he can say is they have a working relationship and are not family. What an ass!

Not that I don't agree with you, as I do like to think they are brothers that love each other. But just to play devil's advocate, maybe Mick isn't "floored" by Keith anymore. I mean, we all love him, but the guy's abilities have gone downhill and its just sort of nice to see him up there. Keith can look at Mick and think "wow, he's never changed", while Mick can look at Keith and go "well, I'm happy you're still here, but am I supposed to be impressed by something right now?" Just that you can almost see their current relationship as Jagger as the older brother having to constantly bail and drag his little brother Keith out of trouble and do the best he can. Mick has been able to do that on his own, and has been carrying the Stones brand for years, essentially having to put up with Keith because he "has" to be there.

Again, its all just an opposing what if. I do hope they are very close and that Mick doesn't feel that way. They are both amazing guys and I'm genuinely impressed by both of them 50 years on, but I wouldn't be surprised if thats the reason Mick doesn't look at Keith that way but Keith does. Since they got back together in the early 90s, Mick has kept a distance and pretty much implied "Keith, you are the same, and since that is the case I'm going to distance myself because I have changed and need to distance myself to stay at this level."

Keith needs tough love or he'll fall apart.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
rambler44
Wouldn't it be nice if Mick could ever say something that loving about Keith. But no all he can say is they have a working relationship and are not family. What an ass!

Not that I don't agree with you, as I do like to think they are brothers that love each other. But just to play devil's advocate, maybe Mick isn't "floored" by Keith anymore. I mean, we all love him, but the guy's abilities have gone downhill and its just sort of nice to see him up there. Keith can look at Mick and think "wow, he's never changed", while Mick can look at Keith and go "well, I'm happy you're still here, but am I supposed to be impressed by something right now?" Just that you can almost see their current relationship as Jagger as the older brother having to constantly bail and drag his little brother Keith out of trouble and do the best he can. Mick has been able to do that on his own, and has been carrying the Stones brand for years, essentially having to put up with Keith because he "has" to be there.

Again, its all just an opposing what if. I do hope they are very close and that Mick doesn't feel that way. They are both amazing guys and I'm genuinely impressed by both of them 50 years on, but I wouldn't be surprised if thats the reason Mick doesn't look at Keith that way but Keith does. Since they got back together in the early 90s, Mick has kept a distance and pretty much implied "Keith, you are the same, and since that is the case I'm going to distance myself because I have changed and need to distance myself to stay at this level."

Yes. I completely understand their relationship, especially as Keith described it in "Life". I had never considered the brother relationship, but as soon as he said that I understood. I have an older, more responsible brother who I still have a rocky relationship with, though we love each other. For the most part we argue, we're just too different. Him the school teacher and football/basketball coach, me the guy who used to drop acid and drive to the Oklahoma border just to piss on the "Welcome To Oklahoma" sign. I'm more responsible as an adult, but still pretty immature and idiotic in his mind. But as much as we argue and are constantly at odds, we can still come together and get along at family functions, or from time to time go to a ball game or movie and keep it civil. The main thing that allows us to do that from time to time is to give each other space, and not spend so much time together that the things which annoy us about each other doesn't become an issue. That's probably the way they are, trying to give each other space. And probably like Mick, if you get me started on my brother, even if it starts out complimentary, I'll eventually start talking some shit. And Mick probably wants to avoid that, at least during the tour.

I think all the Stones - Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie, Bill & Mick T at the end of the day when all is said and done they love each other.

I'd say Bill & Mick especially are very much of that British generation where many things are unsaid, and things are said which are not necessarily meant. It's a very British characteristic of that generation being very reserved to each other and in public, I think many non-Brits don't quite realise how common it is.

That said, although Mick & Keith and Mick, Keith and Bill have had their differences and still do, they are fond of each other deep down, due to their time in the band, although they may not necessarily have a functioning relationship/interaction with each other.

I said on a previous post that I met Bill in 2011 and he had a glint in his eye when he mentioned the Stones, you could tell he was proud of the band and its other members. Equally, Jagger is fond of Richards although he will not directly say it.

Can't WAIT for this to arrive in my mailbox. Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like a great article.

wow--Great read...Thank you.

Kind of looks like they all posed for separate photos and then photoshopped them together.

Now that you mention it...Keith does look like he's been photoshopped in, they could have done a better job with the lighting on his face that's pretty similar on the three other guys.

Quote
DoomandGloom
I knew it, Mick sees a version of The Stones without Keith.... Now we know why Taylor's around. I wrote this months ago and everybody chuckled... Wood/Taylor

Where in the article does Jagger say this, or which quote in here do you interoret as Jagger thinking this?

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
rambler44
Wouldn't it be nice if Mick could ever say something that loving about Keith. But no all he can say is they have a working relationship and are not family. What an ass!

Not that I don't agree with you, as I do like to think they are brothers that love each other. But just to play devil's advocate, maybe Mick isn't "floored" by Keith anymore. I mean, we all love him, but the guy's abilities have gone downhill and its just sort of nice to see him up there. Keith can look at Mick and think "wow, he's never changed", while Mick can look at Keith and go "well, I'm happy you're still here, but am I supposed to be impressed by something right now?" Just that you can almost see their current relationship as Jagger as the older brother having to constantly bail and drag his little brother Keith out of trouble and do the best he can. Mick has been able to do that on his own, and has been carrying the Stones brand for years, essentially having to put up with Keith because he "has" to be there.

Again, its all just an opposing what if. I do hope they are very close and that Mick doesn't feel that way. They are both amazing guys and I'm genuinely impressed by both of them 50 years on, but I wouldn't be surprised if thats the reason Mick doesn't look at Keith that way but Keith does. Since they got back together in the early 90s, Mick has kept a distance and pretty much implied "Keith, you are the same, and since that is the case I'm going to distance myself because I have changed and need to distance myself to stay at this level."

Keith needs tough love or he'll fall apart.

Well knowing that you have worked with them in the past I would love to have you elaborate on this. Give us some insider info.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
DoomandGloom
I knew it, Mick sees a version of The Stones without Keith.... Now we know why Taylor's around. I wrote this months ago and everybody chuckled... Wood/Taylor

Where in the article does Jagger say this, or which quote in here do you interoret as Jagger thinking this?

He doesn't, it's a "rumor"...

Quote

There was even a rumor that Richards' position as the Rolling Stones' rhythm guitarist might be in peril. Some thought he was having trouble playing – that perhaps his hands were growing afflicted with arthritis or that his steady intake of alcohol affected his musical agility

In other words BS, other than the fact that everyone had their doubts about Keith's abilities.

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
DoomandGloom
I knew it, Mick sees a version of The Stones without Keith.... Now we know why Taylor's around. I wrote this months ago and everybody chuckled... Wood/Taylor

Where in the article does Jagger say this, or which quote in here do you interoret as Jagger thinking this?

He doesn't, it's a "rumor"...

Quote

There was even a rumor that Richards' position as the Rolling Stones' rhythm guitarist might be in peril. Some thought he was having trouble playing – that perhaps his hands were growing afflicted with arthritis or that his steady intake of alcohol affected his musical agility

In other words BS, other than the fact that everyone had their doubts about Keith's abilities.

Well, I guess the Stones (so far at least) have proven Keith is alright playing wise.

Yeah, that's taken care of. That" rumor" is the second weak point of the article (zero interest in the future/new music).

in this article Mick goes on about 'I've got a brother. Keith is not my brother, it's not like family, not the same thing."

paraphrasing..but i clearly remember an interview (it might have also been with Mikal Gilmore) in which Jagger stated " Keith was born my brother by different parents."

Here's a "behind the scenes" video of the cover shooting: [www.rollingstone.com]

Thanks for the link. Video dispels any notion that they weren't together for the shoot with Terry Richardson.

Another photo:

Normally a Rolling Stone (magazine)cover story only gets teased with a brief excerpt, telling you go pick up the issue for complete article on such and such a date. Wenner remains a good friend and faithful fan here.

Quote
shakeydeal
Normally a Rolling Stone (magazine)cover story only gets teased with a brief excerpt, telling you go pick up the issue for complete article on such and such a date. Wenner remains a good friend and faithful fan here.

That's what I thought when I was reading the story. I was expecting to read just a brief excerpt.