The alleged "romance" between Mick and Anita never happened.

Quote
stonesrule
The alleged "romance" between Mick and Anita never happened.

but I would bet a lot of money that that they had sex..........

I'm just starting to read around this forum and the one thing I'm very surprised about is the level of antipathy towards Keith on it especially regarding what he said in Life. Think about it. His best friend not only had a fling with the woman who was clearly the love of his life at that point but did so publicly on a film that plays around the world to this day. And that may not even be the end of it. Anita has talked of how Mick was pursuing her in Brazil that year and there's those rumours about them around the Nellcote period also. For whatever reasons, Keith didn't blow up about it, he carried on with the band, with Anita and with Mick. It seems likely from what people around them have said and when you look at the timing, this was at least one of the reasons he fell into addiction.

And yes, Mick maybe did not understand commitment to a woman having presumably never experienced it, but surely he knew by then that his friend was a very different creature...

And yes Keith had done the same to Brian but with two major differences. Keith was clearly in love with Anita, was Mick? And also Brian was beating her up which was at least part of the story in 67, was Keith mistreating her in 68? I don't think so, from all accounts.

If all he's ever done in retaliation is make a comment like this 40 years later it seems to me Mick got off lightly. Most friendships would not have survived this event. He's extremely lucky Keith continued with the band and with him. It was an appalling betrayal by Mick and Anita, the two people Keith probably loved the most.

Remember Mick said of Keith once something like 'He's extremely loyal. He's loyal to a fault.'

Quote
bigbitch

Quote
sonomastone
i don't think mick wants him writing another book. as keith said about "life" and the controversy --- " you should see what i left OUT".

I think Keith should thank the lord that Mick just does not seem interested in putting his story out there. Could you imagine the frustration that Mick had in the 70s, the headaches, the heartaches, the worry about his songwriting partner on the precipice and the weight of the band falling almost exclusively on his shoulders. All that and then his partner coming out of junkie-dom only to crap all over the guy who held his tongue in private for practically 20 years after the fact.

Yes Keith should consider himself very lucky because the other side of the coin if accurately reflected on by Mick would perhaps be as devastating the picture painted of Keith that Tony Sanchez did in the 70s. It would not be a pretty side of Keith that was whitewashed in his version of events.

Anita and Keith turning people on to junk, Keith's failings, and a rare insight into Mick's state of mind during this absolutely crazy time in the Stones' history would make todger gate look like child's play I would bet.

Nope - Mick thinking of the legacy of the band is best leaving it unsaid....Keith broke his own golden rule about taking the mystery out of the Band...ironically it has been Mick that has kept it by his own evasiveness and own code of keeping a lot of sh!t under the covers as it were.

Agreed. I loved reading Life, but it's very self-aggrandizing and Keith is full of shit. Anyone with half a brain knows that--junkies only care about themselves and it's bad boundaries to go public with a band's dirty laundry, your own 1-sided version of said dirty laundry, too. It was still fun to read the book because it felt like hearing stories from your grandfather who tells great stories even though much of it is clearly fabrication . . . Keith also came off as very petty and jealous of Mick, especially regarding the bitter "while you were having Anita, I was having Maryanne" rant . . . He doesn't come off smelling like a rose during any of those obviously-bitter bits that would've been best left out. Ah well. Fun read all the same, but I agree--the book's utter existence was, and is, a big (BIG) mistake.

Quote
stonesrule
The alleged "romance" between Mick and Anita never happened.

Please, would you tell us more about that?
Who made that up then?

Quote
IGTBA
This was posted on Shidoobee - from May 31 concert. It was a little more than halfway through Satisfaction. Immediately before this, they both had stopped about 15 feet apart, with both looking directly at each other, Mick staring at Keith very intensely for a couple seconds, then Keith started to move towards Mick, Keith said something, Mick broke into a big smile still looking right at Keith (quite rare to see that), Keith tapped Mick on the shoulder - this shot was taken immediately before? or after? that shoulder tap.

Great pic, reminds me of that one I took of that moment at O2/1 when the also met on the catwalk (during SFD I think) :

Some interaction here too : [www.youtube.com] - don't look like guys who hate each other for sure...

Quote
gotdablouse
Some interaction here too : [www.youtube.com] - don't look like guys who hate each other for sure...

Hey, thanks for this gatdablouse! Very nice to see.

Quote
sonomastone
i don't think mick wants him writing another book. as keith said about "life" and the controversy --- " you should see what i left OUT".

he's saving what he left out for volume two: "Death"

They don´t hate each other, but they surly don´t love each other.
Now also Richards says they only work with each other.

[www.express.co.uk]

"It´s not thar we would seek each other out for fun or company..."

Thanks for that, elunsi,
Keith also says right after that, "...but we could definitely sit down and go, 'Let's go in the back room... I've got this song'.

"I've always found working with Mick is like a joy, it's a real pleasure. It's outside of the realm of work is where we tend to disagree."

~"Love is Strong"~

Funny, Keith says in article it's the other 10% people hear about. Could that maybe come from writing books??

Well it's been like since...the early 80s right, so I doubt the book changed all that much at the end of the day, apart from being deemed "inappropriate" by Mick.

Quote
angee
Thanks for that, elunsi,
Keith also says right after that, "...but we could definitely sit down and go, 'Let's go in the back room... I've got this song'.

"I've always found working with Mick is like a joy, it's a real pleasure. It's outside of the realm of work is where we tend to disagree."

Yes, they get along when they WORK. So when he talks about the 10%/90% he means that 90% of their relationship consists of working, the rest is 10% and here they "disagree", which means that there is nothing outside the studio. That is, at least, my interpretation , and it goes with what Mick said about their "working relationship".
So I think every post which says, look, Mick looked at Keith so you see that they are best friends, is wishful thinking and nostalgia.
We should accept that they drifted apart a long time ago and the book cemented it, and that it is obviously not necessary to be "friends" to keep the band going. Well, I did, and I don´t care.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-13 18:58 by elunsi.

The UK Express quotes are taken from a Men's Journal article about Keith.

[www.mensjournal.com]

Keith gives some interesting thoughts on the book feud with Mick, along with where the current relationship is at. I think it's a good article and Keith looks great in the pic.

Ah, the link at last to the original interview, I just saw another reference to it on rollingstone.com, it was getting annoying, thanks!

Quote
latebloomer
The UK Express quotes are taken from a Men's Journal article about Keith.

[www.mensjournal.com]

Keith gives some interesting thoughts on the book feud with Mick, along with where the current relationship is at. I think it's a good article and Keith looks great in the pic.

Thank you, latebloomer, I didn´t realize that these quotes come from the same article.

Quote
bigbitch

Quote
stonesrule
The alleged "romance" between Mick and Anita never happened.

but I would bet a lot of money that that they had sex..........

Oh come on now!!
It's not like there's any proof of this.
It's not like they had real sex in front of a camera.
In 1968.
Directed by Donald Cammell.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
bigbitch

Quote
stonesrule
The alleged "romance" between Mick and Anita never happened.

but I would bet a lot of money that that they had sex..........

Oh come on now!!
It's not like there's any proof of this.
It's not like they had real sex in front of a camera.
In 1968.
Directed by Donald Cammell.

Yep, it's just a reason that Richards invented in the late 70's ( when he dumped Anita btw) to justify his envy and resentment towards Mick, like it all his fault, he started it in the first place, he slept with my wife

Quote
sonomastone
i don't think mick wants him writing another book. as keith said about "life" and the controversy --- " you should see what i left OUT".

Do you think Keith will release a deluxe version of Life with outtakes? I'd buy it!

I think Keith's book also documented that they haven't been close in a long, long time.

OTOH, there may be some space between never look at each other onstage or interact at all, and have a really warm friendly relationship in all respects.

It *is* interesting that Keith's quotes are coming to resemble Mick's more now. He still expresses
more feeling about the whole thing though, whether anger or sadness, or joy at how good it
is to work with Mick.

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
bigbitch

Quote
sonomastone
Yes, it's somewhat ironic that for so many years (the 80s in particular) Keith seemed the one most concerned with their legacy, whereas now it's clearly Mick.

Mick is in a tough spot on slamming Keith because anything he says can be dismissed with a "yeah, i was a junkie, you already knew that, and what do you expect from a junkie". in any case, as you say, you have to respect someone who keeps a respectful silence. i've never been a big mick fan but i've always respected that about him, along with his self-deprecating humor...

I went full circle on the Mick-Keith axis....of course your first impression is Mick almost impossible not to....as you dig into the Band of course all sorts of facets emerge....and I was hugely in Keith's camp when the 80's rolled around and felt angry as a fan that Mick was boviously missing the picture of a solo career versus the Stones. I bought Keith's version for a long long time until about 94-95 and I started to notice that Keith was continually recycling the same story's anecdotes, and what appears to be outright myths. And along I would remember that even during the worst Mick almost NEVER said a really bad thing about Keith or that was not at least in retort to some outre barbby Keith at Mick.

I came to empathize for what Mick had to endure - while not totally absolving him of course - but to have someone that had been once like a blood brother and that you had carried for a decade and to be crapped on both inside and outside of the Stones had to be a bitter, bitter pill to swallow. And even worse I am sure from Mick's perspective the public was siding with Keith's worldview.

Like I said somewhere the switch went off - Keith was causing more problems than Mick and I think Mick must have been hurt by the betrayal. The Band was bigger than both true but Keith tactically lost the "war" and its Mick's band almost exclusively. When a delicate balance of what they once were was compromised then the music was too - they have never recovered as a studio force since imo though there have been moments.

+1

Yeah, but Keith was right. Mick had gone off the rails in terms of the music business by the time of the Walter Yetnikoff deal. His formerly great instincts had abandoned him. He could never be Elton, or Michael Jackson. Trying to abandon the Stones just wasn't feasible. At best, he would be Rod Stewart, a formerly credible artist whose womanizing became less of a plus with age, but who could basically still bring it live. On the other hand, Keith did win the battle but lost the war, or maybe he won the war but lost all the battles. The Stones have never really been a full band since the '89 reunion.

Meanwhile, Mick has been fantastic on this tour and Keith has done as good a job with the band as we could have hoped for. IMO.

Quote
TeddyB1018
Yeah, but Keith was right. Mick had gone off the rails in terms of the music business by the time of the Walter Yetnikoff deal. His formerly great instincts had abandoned him. He could never be Elton, or Michael Jackson. Trying to abandon the Stones just wasn't feasible. At best, he would be Rod Stewart, a formerly credible artist whose womanizing became less of a plus with age, but who could basically still bring it live. On the other hand, Keith did win the battle but lost the war, or maybe he won the war but lost all the battles. The Stones have never really been a full band since the '89 reunion.

Meanwhile, Mick has been fantastic on this tour and Keith has done as good a job with the band as we could have hoped for. IMO.

Well put and I did see some very credible posting on Keith's perspective about Mick bedding Anita and how that really was a huge event in the timeline for the Stones - Keith starting heavily self-medicating (was it because of this episode or simply sympomatic of where he felt he had to go anyway?) - we got "Gimme Shelter" out of it - and probably the tearing of the fabric of their partnership from that point on though they both kept it going strong until at least 73 and then some moments of brilliance until Tatoo You.

Reading Tony Sanchez' book which despite its claims of mythology has been even acknowledged by Keith as largely true - made it very clear that by 1976 Keith and Mick were practically at war...and that on Mick's birthday party in 1973 that Anita made a spectacle of herself and her jealousy of Bianca at that point also served - to my memory - as a seminal moment of separation between the two. Remember I was reading this real time when the book came out in 1979 and a lot this stuff was titillating as well as shocking even to big time fans of the band - particularly since information was so damn impossible to get in those days. Frankly after reading it - both Mick and Keith came out in less than flattering light as basic people - of which of course neither was at that point.

It's obviously been a focal point of the embedded romanticism of the Rolling Stones - the state of the principal songwriting team's relationship. For years that sanctity of the band's process and ultimate togetherness - particularly Mick's and Keith's bond was almost religously believed and propogated to the masses.

I always love what Astrid Lundstrom said about the Rolling Stones something to the effect: "For supposedly as loose as a group as the Rolling Stones are...you have never met 5 more uptight people."

I really think Performance was the turning point. It didn't seem so for years because Keith didn't show his real feelings about it, I guess fearful he'd lose everything if he had: the band, Anita, Mick...Instead as you say he seems to have blocked things out with heroin. I'd guess there were other reasons for that too: he was shy and found fame a struggle, Brian's death was the biggie probably (I don't believe for a second that he didn't/doesn't feel guilty over that) but it does seem to be around the Performance time that he first started with heroin. Marianne in her book even talks about Mick's 'homoerotic desire' for him being a factor and that this disturbed him greatly, something she thinks was at the heart of all the incestuous relationships between them all. Who knows? But Marianne was there at the time unlike the rest of us.

It really struck and surprised me in Life when Keith talked about that row in the studio in the late 90s with Mick, that started over something silly and escalated to be about 'Anita and everything'. Funny that the only thing he mentioned specifically was Anita - 30 YEARS after the event. And even when he was talking about Performance in the book, almost 40 years later, you get all the denial, the 'I couldn't care less' and then the stuff about writing Gimme Shelter (a song that resembles a personal apocalypse) and that's when the tiny todger comments come in etc etc. It sounds like real trauma even all these years later.

When Keith gave up heroin, it's interesting that he was also obliged to have psychotherapy. I wonder if that explains why it was after he cleaned up that the real problems with Mick started. You can imagine a therapist may well have said to him a) leave Anita if she won't clean up with you b) start to talk and stand up to Mick about all the things you haven't over the years and claim your half of the Stones. Suddenly I'm thinking of that saying that if people had therapists you wouldn't have half the great art in the world! Might have sorted out Keith's life but the Stones started to have their worst problems from that point.

Quote
gotthasilva
I'm just starting to read around this forum and the one thing I'm very surprised about is the level of antipathy towards Keith on it especially regarding what he said in Life. Think about it. His best friend not only had a fling with the woman who was clearly the love of his life at that point but did so publicly on a film that plays around the world to this day. And that may not even be the end of it. Anita has talked of how Mick was pursuing her in Brazil that year and there's those rumours about them around the Nellcote period also. For whatever reasons, Keith didn't blow up about it, he carried on with the band, with Anita and with Mick. It seems likely from what people around them have said and when you look at the timing, this was at least one of the reasons he fell into addiction.

And yes, Mick maybe did not understand commitment to a woman having presumably never experienced it, but surely he knew by then that his friend was a very different creature...

And yes Keith had done the same to Brian but with two major differences. Keith was clearly in love with Anita, was Mick? And also Brian was beating her up which was at least part of the story in 67, was Keith mistreating her in 68? I don't think so, from all accounts.

If all he's ever done in retaliation is make a comment like this 40 years later it seems to me Mick got off lightly. Most friendships would not have survived this event. He's extremely lucky Keith continued with the band and with him. It was an appalling betrayal by Mick and Anita, the two people Keith probably loved the most.

Remember Mick said of Keith once something like 'He's extremely loyal. He's loyal to a fault.'

Not only that, but at Nellcôte Anita had even arranged an abortion in Paris, so worried was she that her unborn child had been fathered by Mick (the child's paternity was discussed in Greenfield's book, from an interview with Marshall Chess, and the abortion was discussed in her book by June Shelley, the PA who organised it and the journey to Paris). From all accounts, Mick and Anita were very sexual people; at that time, Keith not so much. Keith was allègedly quite upset by the rumours of Mick and Anita's on-set behaviour, to the extent that he sat outside for hours in his car. But the reason the band survived is that English people typically do not discuss such things; they just let them fester, and then years later they come out in passive-aggressive ways, like Keith's memoirs.

>>You can imagine a therapist may well have said to him a) leave Anita if she won't clean up with you

Keith has said that it was the lawyers who pressured him to leave Anita due to her unwillingness to clean up.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-14 13:12 by Bliss.

Not sure it's really just about being English though I know what you mean, stiff upper lip and all that (I AM English, I don't know if you are!)

Trying to put myself in a similar situation, I think if a friend had a fling with a man of mine I would confront that. However, if that friend was my absolute closest oldest friend and that man was the most important of my life, and in addition, that old friend was my business/artistic partner in a career that was everything I'd ever known, well that might well be different. I might well find the prospect of confrontation terrifying due to the possibility of losing such a huge part of my life. Pretending either not to know or care could well seem the best option, especially if one or both of the individuals involved were partly playing for a reaction from me.

Keith also had the example of Brian disintegrating right in front of him at the time, which must have been a clear warning not to 'lose it' and try to keep control.

Quote
gotdablouse

...couple of really sticky fingers waving high, here...

Would that be in the pit?!
In that case - boy, am I happy to just have nosebleed seats.

>>Trying to put myself in a similar situation, I think if a friend had a fling with a man of mine I would confront that.

Yes, but you were probably born in the 60s-70s-80s, not the early 1940s; also you are evidently a woman.
One or both of them said that they had never discussed issues between them, I think in reference to Todgergate.

Keith has also said that the affair between Anita and Mick was pretty much a product of the times, and something like Anita was so desirable, no man could resist her (words to that effect). I think she was a pretty toxic and destructive presence.

Again, Keith was the first one who betrayed his "best friend". He started an affair with Marianne knowing very well that his friend was in love with her, long before any Mick-Anita thing. According to stonesrule, who seems to also have been there and/or knows them personally, this never happened.