Quote
Naturalust

Whew. Thanks for tackling this stonehearted because I didn't want to touch it, lest I be told again how Stones fans think.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Bliss
How did this pertinent and interesting discussion about the status of Mick and Keith's current r'ship deteriorate into yet another tedious discussion about the Beatles?

I hope BV closes it.

No playground politics please. I'd say how did it take so long for this tedious discussion of Mick and Keith's relationship to start including more interesting topics.

I mean how much more can anyone who doesn't know these guys say about it? Let's summarize 12 long pages of discussion.

1. Yes they are friends
2. No they have grown apart and are no longer friends, never socialize together.
3. They are only business partners and appear to be friends on stage.
4. They are brothers who sometimes are close and sometimes not.
5. Their (perceived) relationship problems are good for business

In the end it is really none of our business and as long as they are still playing together I could care less whether they are thick as thieves.

peace

Quote
Freejack
Keith tends to say these callous things, and doesn't do a great job of being PC about it. I mean that's one of his Keef qualities, he isn't always there verbally, like saying "it's good to be here..." 1000 times, he's not really opening up about what he is thinking at the moment.
Except through his guitar, where he plays exactly what he is feeling... And he is playing very lovingly off of Micks vocals. That level of care is a mark of true friendship for a musician. They are amazing friends, and love each other, and sometimes are over each other too. Mick sings off of Keith's cues too.

It's a musical friendship man. I've been in a band for 30 years with a guy who drove me nuts, but we played so well together we always had a great time making music. But never really socialized for 20 years. But when you are recording or touring, you hang out, you are friendly, you are mates.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Naturalust

Whew. Thanks for tackling this stonehearted because I didn't want to touch it, lest I be told again how Stones fans think.

peace

but he didnt tackle it-he completely ignored half of what i said which was naming hit albums and TOURS.

he crapped himself listing #1 record after #1 record and completely disregarded the live aspect of rock and roll which is what you beatleheads do every damn time.

live is everything-making a hit album and incorporating the songs into your live set for the tour.your band HAD NO LIVE ACT-

playing a bunch of bars and nightclubs in germany and then doing the teenybopper circuit to a bunch of screaming girls isnt big time rock and roll -
when you rattle off all those hit records this is what i see-

the backstreet boys were far more important to music than jimi hendrix-look it up. hendrix sold 30 million records to the boys 37 million. hendrix never had a number one single the backstreet boys had many.
the public prefers the backstreet boys every time-

which is why this thread means something to the fans-if mick and keith are getting along they write new music for us to hear live.is it really that hard to understand?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
dcba

Quote
jlowe
Possibly of some relevance:
JOHN LENNON PLAYBOY INTERVIEW SEPT 1980.

Lennon was a bitter jealous old man with questionable tastes in women, period.
Had he lived till the new millenium he'd be some sort of Ginger Baker with a Hummingbird guitar...

seriously-he was a joke then.what was his alternative? sitting home for five years and forcing his crazy,talentless wife on his fans.

lennon sucked live,that elephant band at msg was a mess.nah,sorry johnny boy i'll take the guys who cant grow up any day and the $1 billion worth of tickets sold says alot of people agree with me.

sad truth is the beatles in the 70's were thought of as a pop group from the past decade,it was music your older brothers and sisters listened to from the old days and that made lennon bitter.the rolling stones on the other hand were even more relevant than ever before ,decadent,glam,druggie,and playing their asses off.

the beatles could never pull any of that off-thats why lennon keeps talking about "fag dancing"[how enlightened of him] and "evil black eye makeup" being a "joke in the future"- since here in 2015 the rolling stones are pretty much universaly considered the best rock and roll band ever and every other rap or hip hop song you hear drops micks name i'd say the guy doing the "fag dancing" and the guitar player with the" evil black eye make-up" won out.so,no i wouldnt think words from a guy in a band that broke up in 1970 would have any relevance to mick and keith in 2015.

I'm a Beatles aficionado and I completely agree with you.

Regardless of Lennon's comments, I'd love to hear what he would be doing in 2015. I've got a feeling he would have grown musically, created a considerable body of recorded material since 1980, separated from Yoko, and probably guested with the Stones on their latest tour! His talent and songwriting skills are unimpeachable, he would have continued to be successful.

His comments on the Stones were probably shared by many people and seemed pretty spot on at the time. As much as I love the Stones I'm often surprised they get away with playing 30-40 year old music to sold out crowds who pay big bucks for the opportunity....until I see a concert.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

I'd love to hear what he would be doing in 2015. I've got a feeling he would have grown musically, created a considerable body of recorded material since 1980, separated from Yoko, and probably guested with the Stones on their latest tour! His talent and songwriting skills are unimpeachable, he would have continued to be successful.

Quote
marlau

Quote
Freejack
Keith tends to say these callous things, and doesn't do a great job of being PC about it. I mean that's one of his Keef qualities, he isn't always there verbally, like saying "it's good to be here..." 1000 times, he's not really opening up about what he is thinking at the moment.
Except through his guitar, where he plays exactly what he is feeling... And he is playing very lovingly off of Micks vocals. That level of care is a mark of true friendship for a musician. They are amazing friends, and love each other, and sometimes are over each other too. Mick sings off of Keith's cues too.

It's a musical friendship man. I've been in a band for 30 years with a guy who drove me nuts, but we played so well together we always had a great time making music. But never really socialized for 20 years. But when you are recording or touring, you hang out, you are friendly, you are mates.

Quote
Freejack
Keith tends to say these callous things, and doesn't do a great job of being PC about it. I mean that's one of his Keef qualities, he isn't always there verbally, like saying "it's good to be here..." 1000 times, he's not really opening up about what he is thinking at the moment.
Except through his guitar, where he plays exactly what he is feeling... And he is playing very lovingly off of Micks vocals. That level of care is a mark of true friendship for a musician. They are amazing friends, and love each other, and sometimes are over each other too. Mick sings off of Keith's cues too....

Quote
dcba

Quote
Naturalust

I'd love to hear what he would be doing in 2015. I've got a feeling he would have grown musically, created a considerable body of recorded material since 1980, separated from Yoko, and probably guested with the Stones on their latest tour! His talent and songwriting skills are unimpeachable, he would have continued to be successful.

Knowing the guy I think Lennon would have gone bombastic on :

- the New Romantics movement 1983
("hairdressers making music")

- the Rap trend 1985 or so ("Black guys who don't know their roots")

- the Techno movement 1989 ("bloody music made with bloody machines")

- the Grunge movement 1991 ("silly lads with dirty clothes")

- Napster ("bloody thieves with computers")

etc etc etc. ><
So with all the ranting that would have left very little time to record and release music.

And I'm not even mentioning extra-musical events (like the 2000 election of Bush-43) that would have ignited John's ire...

Quote
angee

Quote
Freejack

Except through his guitar, where he plays exactly what he is feeling... And he is playing very lovingly off of Micks vocals. That level of care is a mark of true friendship for a musician. They are amazing friends, and love each other, and sometimes are over each other too. Mick sings off of Keith's cues too....

Quote
angee


Okay, if you say so. It made some sense to me, subtly, from watching them up close and listening during
the last round or two. There seemed more connections between the two, more of a flow, no breaks, with
a physical interplay too, moving closer together, facing each other more.

Quote
angee
Hey, Naturalust, I and others have looked at the body language and interplay between songs.

This was just another suggested dimension, about the cues, the musical interplay.

Okay, if you say so. It made some sense to me, subtly, from watching them up close and listening during
the last round or two. There seemed more connections between the two, more of a flow, no breaks, with
a physical interplay too, moving closer together, facing each other more.

I'm not a musician. Perhaps you should talk to Freejack about this, who posted the idea.

Quote
jlowe
Possibly of some relevance:
JOHN LENNON PLAYBOY INTERVIEW SEPT 1980.
"You know they are congratulating the Stones on being together 112 years. Whooopee! At least Charlie and Bill still got their families. In the (19)80s they will be asking "Why are these guys still together? Cant they hang it on their own? Why do they have to be surrounded by a gang? Is the little leader scared someones gonna knife him in the back?" Thats gonna be the question! They are going to look back at the Beatles and the Stones and all those guys as relics. The days when all those guys were just men will be on the news reels, you know. They will show pictures of the guy with lipstick wriggling his ass and the four guys with the evil black make up trying to look raunchy. Thats gonna be the joke in the future, not a couple siging together or living and working together. Its alright when you are 16,17,18 to have male companions and idols. OK? Its tribal and its gang and its fine. But when it continues and you sre stll doing it when you are 40, that means you are stll 16 in your head."

Quote
lem motlow
...he was bono before there was a bono and he wouldve been been bono deluxe,a guy who thinks everything he does and says is twice as important as it really is,except he wpuld be fat, bald and twice as annoying-his opinions on the stones meant nothing then and they still dont.

Quote
stonehearted
^ Looks to be around the time of Shine A Light. Keith still has his old teeth, and not the new super-long pearly whites.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Welcome back, latebloomer!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
dcba

Quote
Naturalust

I'd love to hear what he would be doing in 2015. I've got a feeling he would have grown musically, created a considerable body of recorded material since 1980, separated from Yoko, and probably guested with the Stones on their latest tour! His talent and songwriting skills are unimpeachable, he would have continued to be successful.

Knowing the guy I think Lennon would have gone bombastic on :

- the New Romantics movement 1983
("hairdressers making music")

- the Rap trend 1985 or so ("Black guys who don't know their roots")

- the Techno movement 1989 ("bloody music made with bloody machines")

- the Grunge movement 1991 ("silly lads with dirty clothes")

- Napster ("bloody thieves with computers")

etc etc etc. ><
So with all the ranting that would have left very little time to record and release music.

And I'm not even mentioning extra-musical events (like the 2000 election of Bush-43) that would have ignited John's ire...

Then they're'd'av been that book he wrote in 2010, called "Imagine Life" where he'd have called Paul "Debbie" and screeched on about Paul's "Puny Pepper".

It would have been ugly for about a year or so, but they'd have regrouped for their 50th Anniversary Tour, with Dhani standing in for George.

Quote
onestep
WhipMSGHBO

There is so much going on here, that it shows relationships, live.

Brilliant performance, Keith thinks Mick is too loud, tries do get
Charlie's attention, Charlie looks away, because he is concentrating, Keith screams a Mick to turn down, Mick sticks out his tongue...song continues, Mick turns down...Keith takes over his guitar part, which is pure Stones...Mick vocals are perfect....Mick ENDS the song. Just look and listen to who is doing what, it's a pleasure for us!

Gotta look more than once, don't you? Just to hear it right. Of course, why else would anyone take the time to post thousands of opinions on this site?

It's clear Mick and Keith are in charge....which pretty much sums up
how their relationship works, I think! YING YANG....I mean, what does anyone really know if they are "friends again?", cept Mick and Keith anyway. You can take all the videos and interviews in the world and not be able to figure out exactly what their relationship is...I think Keith is more right, they are like brothers through life and business. Mick will be the first one to point out they aren't blood...Keith will then point out they know each other better than blood....goes on and on...

Quote
jlowe
One assumes The Stones Group of Companies, based in Amsterdam, hold Annual meetings to which the main Directors might be expected to attend.
With the Beatles Apple, reps (Business Managers/Widows/Legal Advisers) might represent the Artists.
With the Stones, their " Advisers"seem to be more background figures . Nor have their wives ever been known to get involved in business matters.
I am sure that Mick makes regular low key trips to Amsterdam however.