Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-30 21:56 by marlau.

They are friends of course, but as in all relationships, you have your times. I am sure its difficult to maintain when egos are as huge as they are and distances are what they are. I don't see what crepe hanging is good for when one does not know anything beyond speculation. why create problems where none are known?

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Hahaha yeah! But I just wanted to show that Mick and Keith were still friends, because I don't think Mick would touch Keith if he hated him.

Quote
marlau

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Hahaha yeah! But I just wanted to show that Mick and Keith were still friends, because I don't think Mick would touch Keith if he hated him.

But maybe he think its Ronnies shoulder. Next picture goes: Mick: ouch i thought it was Ronnies shoulder then Keith goes: put those dirty hands of my shoulder Mick or i show you the blade

I really don't know how it is the personal relationship - in terms of friendness - between Mick and Keith, but from time after time I see the claim that the supposed - public - argument between those two is nothing but a PR trick to keep the public interest in them. What is to say: keep people buyng their stuff, coming to their concerts, etc.

And that is a claim I find nothing but the most ridiculous ever speculatively made about them. Like they are so damn clever that they even would do that to keep their business going on...

Anyway, I have also made the observation that the people who are promoting this idea are usually pretty full of Keith Richards sympathy, but also lacking a serious Mick Jagger empathy. Which is to say: people on the other hand don't want to accept that Keith Richards actually is talking such an emberrassing and childish stuff about his most important 'partner in crime' - so it must be just bluffing. And on the other hand, they want to think that Mick Jagger has such a thick skin of rhino's, and being such a heartless business man, that even though he is ridiculed in public by his supposed 'brother', it all is going according to his pre-thought plan, that is. to serve the Stones and his incredible income.

Total bullshit. Anyone thinking in any of those lines lives in a fantasy world, with no any sense of human reality.

- Doxa

Quote
marlau

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Hahaha yeah! But I just wanted to show that Mick and Keith were still friends, because I don't think Mick would touch Keith if he hated him.

He don't touch him, he's holding him back so he doesn't walk in front of the stage and get all attention

__________________________

Quote
NICOS

Quote
marlau

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Hahaha yeah! But I just wanted to show that Mick and Keith were still friends, because I don't think Mick would touch Keith if he hated him.

He don't touch him, he's holding him back so he doesn't walk in front of the stage and get all attention

I guess Ron Jeremy must love all the people he have touched.... Actually, he has damn many good friends if we count all his public appearances...

- Doxa

Quote
NICOS

Quote
marlau

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Hahaha yeah! But I just wanted to show that Mick and Keith were still friends, because I don't think Mick would touch Keith if he hated him.

He don't touch him, he's holding him back so he doesn't walk in front of the stage and get all attention

But what about Ronnie. He"s about to give Mick a bitch slap in the back of his head. I thought they were friends

Quote
Doxa
I really don't know how it is the personal relationship - in terms of friendness - between Mick and Keith, but from time after time I see the claim that the supposed - public - argument between those two is nothing but a PR trick to keep the public interest in them. What is to say: keep people buyng their stuff, coming to their concerts, etc.

And that is a claim I find nothing but the most ridiculous ever speculatively made about them. Like they are so damn clever that they even would do that to keep their business going on...

Anyway, I have also made the observation that the people who are promoting this idea are usually pretty full of Keith Richards sympathy, but also lacking a serious Mick Jagger empathy. Which is to say: people on the other hand don't want to accept that Keith Richards actually is talking such an emberrassing and childish stuff about his most important 'partner in crime' - so it must be just bluffing. And on the other hand, they want to think that Mick Jagger has such a thick skin of rhino's, and being such a heartless business man, that even though he is ridiculed in public by his supposed 'brother', it all is going according to his pre-thought plan, that is. to serve the Stones and his incredible income.

Total bullshit. Anyone thinking in any of those lines lives in a fantasy world, with no any sense of human reality.

- Doxa

Once you've spent some time inside the Stones bubble, you realize that each and every thing that goes "public" is well thought out, calculated and even staged. They play the roles that suit them best and what the public, the fans expect from them. To know how they really are, if and how they are different to their roles in public, you have to be very, very close to them. What I don't understand is why some people find it so important to know details about their personal relationships. Does it really matter as long as you find enjoyment in their music? In the end, like you, Doxa, already pointed out, they are human beings - just like you and me. No more. No less.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-31 19:06 by marlau.

Quote
NICOS

Quote
marlau

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Hahaha yeah! But I just wanted to show that Mick and Keith were still friends, because I don't think Mick would touch Keith if he hated him.

He don't touch him, he's holding him back so he doesn't walk in front of the stage and get all attention

Hahaha maybe it's that!

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
NICOS

Quote
marlau

Quote
DoctorFreddie

Quote
marlau

Quote
marlau
Last time that I try to put this pic...:

Yeah! I managed!

But Keith rather be Charlies friend ahhhhhh

Hahaha yeah! But I just wanted to show that Mick and Keith were still friends, because I don't think Mick would touch Keith if he hated him.

He don't touch him, he's holding him back so he doesn't walk in front of the stage and get all attention

But what about Ronnie. He"s about to give Mick a bitch slap in the back of his head. I thought they were friends

HAHAHAHA!!! I've never noticed that before!

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Doxa
I really don't know how it is the personal relationship - in terms of friendness - between Mick and Keith, but from time after time I see the claim that the supposed - public - argument between those two is nothing but a PR trick to keep the public interest in them. What is to say: keep people buyng their stuff, coming to their concerts, etc.

And that is a claim I find nothing but the most ridiculous ever speculatively made about them. Like they are so damn clever that they even would do that to keep their business going on...

Anyway, I have also made the observation that the people who are promoting this idea are usually pretty full of Keith Richards sympathy, but also lacking a serious Mick Jagger empathy. Which is to say: people on the other hand don't want to accept that Keith Richards actually is talking such an emberrassing and childish stuff about his most important 'partner in crime' - so it must be just bluffing. And on the other hand, they want to think that Mick Jagger has such a thick skin of rhino's, and being such a heartless business man, that even though he is ridiculed in public by his supposed 'brother', it all is going according to his pre-thought plan, that is. to serve the Stones and his incredible income.

Total bullshit. Anyone thinking in any of those lines lives in a fantasy world, with no any sense of human reality.

- Doxa

Once you've spent some time inside the Stones bubble, you realize that each and every thing that goes "public" is well thought out, calculated and even staged. They play the roles that suit them best and what the public, the fans expect from them. To know how they really are, if and how they are different to their roles in public, you have to be very, very close to them. What I don't understand is why some people find it so important to know details about their personal relationships. Does it really matter as long as you find enjoyment in their music? In the end, like you, Doxa, already pointed out, they are human beings - just like you and me. No more. No less.

You're right!There are moments that we want to know too many things about their personal lifes... Sometimes, we judge celebrities too fast. It's not because they act of a certain way in public that they are really like that in real life...

I will never believe that Keith's taunts in Life eg, the tiny todger and his putative liaison with Marianne, were a PR stunt.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Doxa
I really don't know how it is the personal relationship - in terms of friendness - between Mick and Keith, but from time after time I see the claim that the supposed - public - argument between those two is nothing but a PR trick to keep the public interest in them. What is to say: keep people buyng their stuff, coming to their concerts, etc.

And that is a claim I find nothing but the most ridiculous ever speculatively made about them. Like they are so damn clever that they even would do that to keep their business going on...

Anyway, I have also made the observation that the people who are promoting this idea are usually pretty full of Keith Richards sympathy, but also lacking a serious Mick Jagger empathy. Which is to say: people on the other hand don't want to accept that Keith Richards actually is talking such an emberrassing and childish stuff about his most important 'partner in crime' - so it must be just bluffing. And on the other hand, they want to think that Mick Jagger has such a thick skin of rhino's, and being such a heartless business man, that even though he is ridiculed in public by his supposed 'brother', it all is going according to his pre-thought plan, that is. to serve the Stones and his incredible income.

Total bullshit. Anyone thinking in any of those lines lives in a fantasy world, with no any sense of human reality.

- Doxa

Once you've spent some time inside the Stones bubble, you realize that each and every thing that goes "public" is well thought out, calculated and even staged. They play the roles that suit them best and what the public, the fans expect from them. To know how they really are, if and how they are different to their roles in public, you have to be very, very close to them. What I don't understand is why some people find it so important to know details about their personal relationships. Does it really matter as long as you find enjoyment in their music? In the end, like you, Doxa, already pointed out, they are human beings - just like you and me. No more. No less.

There seems to be two issues involved - whatever they do in "public" - performances, interviews, books - and then whatever they do 'behind the screen', that is, in their privacy. I think the Stones are such strong and old professionals that they do understand the logic of "public", and they are pretty good to handle it. That is to say, that they are adult persons who trust the judgement and ability of the others to do their own public stuff. They most likely not just trust each other, but know also that whatever they say in public does not really matter, if it somehow remains within the realms of sensible talk. The problem seems to occur when the individual PR - to promote one's personal projects; records, books, restaurants, etc. - goes beyond the interest of the band, that is, one uses the others, by whatever means, to promote one's personal projects. The biggest problem lately in that front has been Keith Richards (but seemingly Mick and Bill had their own contribution there as well in the past). Sometimes selling the brand of "Keef" seemed to have gone beyond the interest that of the Stones, which, for example, reflecting from outside, does not look so good. Richards used some not so noble means to promote his autobiography, which, even though sure helped making his book making headlines and selling loads of copies, surely did not too good for the Stones (or his closest bandmates). If any of the reports 'inside' hold true, the book actually caused a lot of tension within the band, even though Jagger, as usually, did not say much in public.

Anyway, if we take the private/public distinction into consideration, it would be interesting to ask did Jagger got hurt because what Keith said an sich, or, because he said that in public, in a well-promoted book? The apology occurred in the realm of private (of which Keith 'keeping the appearances' Richards made publicly fun afterwards!), but however, I think the reason was the public attention of Keith's stupid remarks. So I guess it was more public Jagger than private Jagger who was actually hurt...

Anyway, I don't think the controversationality of LIFE had anything to do with promoting the cause of the Rolling Stones, but only that of selling the book as much as possible. And I am sure both Mick and Keith, old pros, were awere of that. But probably Keith crossed a bit the line there, which had a brief (?) problem for their co-operation in Rolling Stones projects.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-31 01:16 by Doxa.

Quote
Bliss
I will never believe that Keith's taunts in Life eg, the tiny todger and his putative liaison with Marianne, were a PR stunt.

Only for himself. What is promoted in that book is the person - and myth - of Keith Richards, which is much more important than the Rolling Stones. Keith sounded like sacrifying the band for his own benefit.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-12-31 01:14 by Doxa.

They're like an aristocratic married couple with mistresses. Certain public behavior crosses the line. This has happened on both "sides." They're also very proud of what they've accomplished.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bliss
I will never believe that Keith's taunts in Life eg, the tiny todger and his putative liaison with Marianne, were a PR stunt.

Only for himself. What is promoted in that book is the person - and myth - of Keith Richards, which is much more important than the Rolling Stones. Keith sounded like sacrifying the band for his own benefit.

- Doxa

yeah it was curious he'd take that approach, and then be surprised that MJ would have a problem with it. if we remember back a couple of years, before they started the 50th tour things were a bit tenuous at that point.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bliss
I will never believe that Keith's taunts in Life eg, the tiny todger and his putative liaison with Marianne, were a PR stunt.

Only for himself. What is promoted in that book is the person - and myth - of Keith Richards, which is much more important than the Rolling Stones. Keith sounded like sacrifying the band for his own benefit.

- Doxa

I did not have that impression when I read the book or watched the circus around its launch.

I have a lot of respect for Jagger, and I do not think the tiny todger stuff can seriously offend anybody. Another thing is Keith's bitternes and his lack of acceptance that he was the main cause of Jagger's behaviour - but I guess that was nothing new for anybody either. So I the book, IMO, is not so important in this matter.

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT? THEY ARE NOT FRIENDS..THEY HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP & ARE ALONE IN THE FACT THAT THEY DID'NT BREAK UP OVER THEIR OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES.THEY MAKE IT WORK.

Quote
MartinB

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bliss
I will never believe that Keith's taunts in Life eg, the tiny todger and his putative liaison with Marianne, were a PR stunt.

Only for himself. What is promoted in that book is the person - and myth - of Keith Richards, which is much more important than the Rolling Stones. Keith sounded like sacrifying the band for his own benefit.

- Doxa

I did not have that impression when I read the book or watched the circus around its launch.

I have a lot of respect for Jagger, and I do not think the tiny todger stuff can seriously offend anybody. Another thing is Keith's bitternes and his lack of acceptance that he was the main cause of Jagger's behaviour - but I guess that was nothing new for anybody either. So I the book, IMO, is not so important in this matter.

I don't think the Jagger bashing - even the todger thing - was anything new for anyone who have followed and read Keith's interviews during the years, but what was different now was the volume of that stuff - all the angst and bitter feelings from the past reprinted into a form of a full-scale, highly commercial book. That was a strong public statement, actually as strong as anyone ever can do. It was 'serious' stuff now, since it was also the substance to sell an individual project, a book. That is to say, using stuff of their private life and relationships - something Jagger, for example, is damn careful to keep hidden from a public eye - as its selling article.

My initial reaction after reading the book was that of: the story of the Stones is now finito. Not because of Richards offending Jagger too much, but because of him deciding to release something like that. To me that looked like that he had given up any hope for the future of the band, and not feeling need to be loyal to them any longer. It was like 'look, I don't care any longer. I am on my own from now on'.

Anyway, now it looks like LIFE was 'just' a thing he needed to do at the time, and probably it was good for him to get all that crap out of his system, taking that he was also going a painful period in his private life as well (Patti), and even giving up playing the guitar for a while. Thankfully, it is a thing of the past now, and him and the Stones are doing now better than for ages.

- Doxa

Ya should try readin' Gene Simmons' ME Inc .... it puts LIFE up there with the classics



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Ya should try readin' Gene Simmons' ME Inc .... it puts LIFE up there with the classics

I once watched one episode of his reality show... will that do?

- Doxa

will that do? ..... Even that's probably way too much



ROCKMAN

Yeah, I thought so, Rockie... Besides I think Gene still owns me that an hour for wasting my time...

- Doxa

Quote
BILLPERKS
WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT? THEY ARE NOT FRIENDS..THEY HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP & ARE ALONE IN THE FACT THAT THEY DID'NT BREAK UP OVER THEIR OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES.THEY MAKE IT WORK.

No reason to SHOUT, Perks.

As you probably know, that is the implicite meaning/ correct interpretation of using 'all caps' in typed text.
And surely you're aware that such a thing is considered offensive (and rightfully so)?!

But maybe you use, like, a pre-1974 keyboard...
...Or perhaps you're in the military?

Anyway: happy 2015!

My initial reaction after reading the book was that of: the story of the Stones is now finito. Not because of Richards offending Jagger too much, but because of him deciding to release something like that. To me that looked like that he had given up any hope for the future of the band, and not feeling need to be loyal to them any longer. It was like 'look, I don't care any longer. I am on my own from now on'.

Anyway, now it looks like LIFE was 'just' a thing he needed to do at the time, and probably it was good for him to get all that crap out of his system, taking that he was also going a painful period in his private life as well (Patti), and even giving up playing the guitar for a while. Thankfully, it is a thing of the past now, and him and the Stones are doing now better than for ages.

- Doxa[/quote] Totally agree with Doxa on this point.

video: [www.youtube.com]

keith words says it all from 9.50 to around 10.15
How much they seem to hate each other it only depends on that they truly care about each other. Keith and Micks friendship is something we all dream about but very few experience

Quote
frysberg
video: [www.youtube.com]

keith words says it all from 9.50 to around 10.15
How much they seem to hate each other it only depends on that they truly care about each other. Keith and Micks friendship is something we all dream about but very few experience

I agree with you.