Quote
Rocky Dijon
While we're busy pointing out what Mick said in the new issue of RS; Keith compares apologizing to Mick as saying anything to get what you want like lying to your mother in the same interview.

Is the Mick interview online somewhere?

Thanks for clarifying that! That thought did occur to me funily enough & then I though, well what the odds there's more than 1 or an imposter..kind of embarrassing but thanks for clearing that up! (:

Quote
ThatsWhatISay

Quote
Rocky Dijon
While we're busy pointing out what Mick said in the new issue of RS; Keith compares apologizing to Mick as saying anything to get what you want like lying to your mother in the same interview.

Is the Mick interview online somewhere?

that's where

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
How exactly do you guys want Mick and Keith to interact on stage? Do you want to see them blow kisses at each other? Do you want Mick on his knees simulating oral sex while Keith solos? Do you want them to highfive each other after each song?

What do you want?

How about a little brotherly love? How about sharing center stage? How about communicating? How about a leaning on his shoulder to sing a chorus? How about an occasional laugh? How about acting like grown men instead of feuding teenagers? It has become quite annoying to watch lately.

Quote
The Sicilian
How about a leaning on his shoulder to sing a chorus? How about an occasional laugh? How about acting like grown men

Sorry, grown sober men do not lean on each other and sing.

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
How exactly do you guys want Mick and Keith to interact on stage? Do you want to see them blow kisses at each other? Do you want Mick on his knees simulating oral sex while Keith solos? Do you want them to highfive each other after each song?

What do you want?

How about a little brotherly love? How about sharing center stage? How about communicating? How about a leaning on his shoulder to sing a chorus? How about an occasional laugh? How about acting like grown men instead of feuding teenagers? It has become quite annoying to watch lately.

Why do you want all this? So you can stand there and say "awwwwwww, how sweet"? Is that an important part of rock and roll?

Yet again another thread where people think that they know exactly what is going on up on the stage and in the minds of the band. I can not take much more of this. People enjoy the tour it might be the last time you see these guys together on stage or anywhere else. Time Waits For No One and it won't wait for the Rolling Stones.

It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
How exactly do you guys want Mick and Keith to interact on stage? Do you want to see them blow kisses at each other? Do you want Mick on his knees simulating oral sex while Keith solos? Do you want them to highfive each other after each song?

What do you want?

How about a little brotherly love? How about sharing center stage? How about communicating? How about a leaning on his shoulder to sing a chorus? How about an occasional laugh? How about acting like grown men instead of feuding teenagers? It has become quite annoying to watch lately.

Why do you want all this? So you can stand there and say "awwwwwww, how sweet"? Is that an important part of rock and roll?

You sir, are a heartless SOB. Do you have kids? If not, lucky for them!

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-09 07:33 by nightskyman.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

A "good PR move" that Keith was forced to apologize for.

You can't imagine Jagger being too upset? They've known each other for 63 of their 70-odd years, friends from the age of 7--but after all this time, Mick says they are not brothers, are not friends, and have at this point only "a good working relationship."

Keith may be have been able to successfully write Life, but living it successfully, that's another matter.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Quote
RollingFreak
I agree with most. I'd like to see something. Some encouraging "yeah, Keith!"s or some arms around each other. I'm a big Bruce Springsteen fan, and I love how obviously connected you can see the band is. He's smiling, sharing the mic with them, joking around, calling out to them. You knew they genuinely appreciated each other on stage, and its very likely they didn't hang out much off stage. But on stage they enjoyed playing together and know the fans like to see them interact and get a kick out of each other.

I think you can and can't take Jagger's actions personally. Mick NEEDS to run around the stage, and they have a big stage, so he doesn't have much time to stay back with the rest of the guys without soon needing to move around again. With him though, it seems he really doesn't want to be near Keith. He yells "gimme, gimme, gimme" at Keith's guitar, and then as soon as Keith starts moving up closer, Jagger moves away. I don't think its over analyzing to say its kind of noticeable.

And I think what makes it worse, in my eyes, is that Keith WANTS to be a little closer. He wants to put his arm around him on stage, he wants to sing some of the choruses, he wants to feed off Mick's energy. And it seems Mick wants the distance. I don't need or want them to kiss, but they are old and as someone young, I enjoy seeing these old guys who clearly just like to spend time with each other, at least on stage. Even with the Who, you see Pete and Roger joking around and carrying on on stage. Its just the two of them now, and its nice for a fan to see "yeah, they like each other." With the Stones, it really does feel like an obligation for the two to get close and its just a little annoying. I'd like to at least see Jagger give Keith a pat on the back once or twice, or act as jokingly and friendly as he does towards Ronnie and Charlie.

I was just going to mention Springsteen, and I *DO* love the obvious affection the entire band has for each other...

...but the Stones are SO different. They're not sentimental or precious. They're supposed to be dirty and mean...I know that's a cliche from the '60s, but really...there's still some truth to that.

It'd be nice to see them put their arms around each other every once in a while and sing into the same mic, but I don't want it to be forced for the audience's benefit either.

Seeing them in Boston next month will be personally sentimental for me, but I'm not going to see Mick and Keith have a fake love-in onstage for the benefit of the fans. As long as the playing and singing is top-notch, I'll get my money's worth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-09 08:01 by keefriff99.

I was at the first London show last year. Mick Taylor was on stage and he seemed to be a little out of it. Perhaps just a bit drunk, I don't know, at least looked and acted like that.

He was trying to get close to Jagger while playing the solo and he just kept running away. I could clearly see that, didn't want to have contact. Maybe he just doesn't like guitar players. Maybe he doesn't like to be touched by men. Maybe he's on Antabuse and can't tolerate the smell of alcohol. Who knows.

Quote
Doxa
together, it always looks like a one happy family. Which seemingly is not the case in reality.

Photos can be deceptive, but also quite telling... perhaps.

They are 70...working opposite sides of the room, too vain for glasses, hell they probably can't see each other that's why there's not a lot 0f eye contact.><

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Well said, I like that you at least put it in context.

When these guys are in their 80's (if they make it there) I'd hope they'd resolve their issues.

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

I agree with this. It was just such an unclassy thing to do. No one likes the class snitch or kiss and tell girl, and this aspect of Keith's book was hugely sad and distasteful and, to my way of thinking, reflected really badly on him even if every word is true.

Quote
jimpietryga1
On the tongue in LA.....

Pull my finger!

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Well I would not consider the years bewteen writing a big deal. It's been forever since Rod Stewart wrote any new music but suddenly he got inspired and put out what I consider a pretty strong Album of new material a couple of days ago.

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Well I would not consider the years bewteen writing a big deal. It's been forever since Rod Stewart wrote any new music but suddenly he got inspired and put out what I consider a pretty strong Album of new material a couple of days ago.

OK, I'll be waiting for this new "strong" Stones album...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Well I would not consider the years bewteen writing a big deal. It's been forever since Rod Stewart wrote any new music but suddenly he got inspired and put out what I consider a pretty strong Album of new material a couple of days ago.

OK, I'll be waiting for this new "strong" Stones album...

So I take it you don't think Bridges to Babylon or A Bigger bang were any good?

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Well I would not consider the years bewteen writing a big deal. It's been forever since Rod Stewart wrote any new music but suddenly he got inspired and put out what I consider a pretty strong Album of new material a couple of days ago.

OK, I'll be waiting for this new "strong" Stones album...

So I take it you don't think Bridges to Babylon or A Bigger bang were any good?

Let's not go there...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Well I would not consider the years bewteen writing a big deal. It's been forever since Rod Stewart wrote any new music but suddenly he got inspired and put out what I consider a pretty strong Album of new material a couple of days ago.

OK, I'll be waiting for this new "strong" Stones album...

So I take it you don't think Bridges to Babylon or A Bigger bang were any good?

Let's not go there...

Nothing off A BiggerBang?? Not even Back of MY Hand, Rough Justice, Laugh, I nearly Died, or She Saw me Coming??

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Well I would not consider the years bewteen writing a big deal. It's been forever since Rod Stewart wrote any new music but suddenly he got inspired and put out what I consider a pretty strong Album of new material a couple of days ago.

OK, I'll be waiting for this new "strong" Stones album...

So I take it you don't think Bridges to Babylon or A Bigger bang were any good?

Let's not go there...

Nothing off A BiggerBang?? Not even Back of MY Hand, Rough Justice, Laugh, I nearly Died, or She Saw me Coming??

Let me answer it this way: We've had over 15 years to digest Bridges and 7 for ABB. How many of these songs are they playing now?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
71Tele

Quote
rambler44

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
stonehearted
It is easy to understand why Mick feels betrayed by Keith's portrayal of him in Life, and why this has been so painful for him.

More than any press or magazine interview, Keith, one of the people who knows Mick more thoroughly than anyone else outside of family, has attempted to paint a definitive--and unflattering--personality portrait, whereas Mick likes to keep his public persona on an enigmatic level. Mick feels that his control over his own public identity has been violated by Keith's portrait of him, right down to something he has never once shown in public--the, er, todger.

In the old days, The Stones never wrote books about each other, and they never complained about each other to the media. They kept to their own little social microcosm, and they regarded each other as their own best friends. If they ever had personal issues with Brian Jones or if Keith felt betrayed by Mick's dalliance with Anita during the shooting of Performance, then no one would have been the wiser. The only way such things would come to be known would be courtesy of the Spanish Tonys or the unauthorized book-writing hacks. Perhaps Mick feels that Keith pulled a Spanish Tony or a Victor Bockris or a Philip Norman, when he should have instead just been playing his guitar and writing more songs.

It's easy for Mick to shrug off tomes like Philip Norman's or Christopher Anderson's attempts at biography--these people don't know Mick Jagger, have no personal relationship with the man. But when a similarly chilling personality appraisal comes from someone you've known since you were in grade school and had even lived with in the fraternal early days of your musical collaboration, then it must be very painful indeed.

Perhaps, in the end, Keith shouldn't have traded heroin for alcohol--at least then he would have kept his mouth shut and left the book-writing to the journalistic hacks who are more suited to the trade.

As much as I like Keith he really blew it by writing about Mick so negatively in his book. And he really didn't have to go there because the book was going to be a national best seller no matter what. I have no idea what was going on inside his head. He must have thought the Stones were over after ABB.

I tend to disagree. I think Keith's book was good PR move for the band's potential '50th' tour, however unpleasant some of his remarks on Jagger were.
At least, maybe that was his thinking. I can't imagine Jagger being too upset by anything in the book (especially if true).

In the beginning I thought it was exactly that. I even went so far as to say that the book was part of some master plan scripted by Mick Jagger to keep the Stones in the news while they "killed time" awaiting the 50th anniversary. Today, I don't see it that way. I think there is some real unresolved issues between these gentlemen that probably won't get worked out in this lifetime barring some miracle. The good news is that they have a working relationship that is working at the moment, but may not carry over into the studio - that's the bad news. So we wait and hope, but if this is it, then we still should be thankful. It may not be the perfect ending, but it's still a damn good one. They are performing magnificently. What more can a fan ask for within the context of a live performance. They are still the greatest show on earth!

Great thought. Mick's reaction to the comments in Life made me realize that there are serious issues and hurt feelings on both sides here. I am a huge fan of Keith's that goes beyond music. His attitude and way he goes about life has been an inspiration for me to overcome and stand up to being bullied as a teenager and to confront and meet head on some things in my life. But I was bitterly disappointed with his comments about Mick in the book mostly because Mick has always protected Keith.

Mick always stood by Keith and never publicly bashed him during his 10 year crippling Heroin addiction that nearly blew up the band (this also did give Mick the opportunity to seize control of the Stones which became a bone of contention when Keith emerged from his addiction). And Keith has always said nothing would ever jeopardize the Stones which is why he finally kicked the Heroin addiction. SO it is more puzzling why he said what he did in Life, which was going to be a huge hit without those comments.

But sadly as JumpingJack says this may jeopardize any future new music. And that will be a shame because maybe many don't agree but I think Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & A Bigger Bang are quite good. With a Bigger Bang having some of their best work in years. I know Keith wants to make new music and maybe he doesn't feel it now but I think Mick will come around. No matter what it does seem that whatever happens between these two men, there is a connection and a calling that somehow always brings them together. And yes Mick, that sounds a lot like family to me!

The only thing that jeopardizes new music is the lack of inspiration from the two songwriters. In seven years they produced exactly two new songs - both culled from solo demos that were of middling quality, to put it generously (though no doubt some here think Gloom and Doom is the new Brown Sugar - ok). People who need to write songs want to get those songs recorded and performed.

Well I would not consider the years bewteen writing a big deal. It's been forever since Rod Stewart wrote any new music but suddenly he got inspired and put out what I consider a pretty strong Album of new material a couple of days ago.

OK, I'll be waiting for this new "strong" Stones album...

So I take it you don't think Bridges to Babylon or A Bigger bang were any good?

Let's not go there...

Nothing off A BiggerBang?? Not even Back of MY Hand, Rough Justice, Laugh, I nearly Died, or She Saw me Coming??

Let me answer it this way: We've had over 15 years to digest Bridges and 7 for ABB.

digest? you mean recover from, right?

My opinion is that if Jagger and Keith would read many of the above this they would be angry to be the last two to know, and then laugh.

To me the interaction between the Glimmer Twins is just like i think persons who have loved each other and known for a long time is plus i like them.