Mick was very disdainful of the Beatles bickering that continued long after the split. Said the Stones would never get like that!
At least the fall out has only been between The Glimmers.
I have the impression that the most substantial and mature relationship is between Bill and Charlie and I cant see anything breaking that. Not even Bills dalliances with Mandy etc etc.

Quote
jlowe
Mick was very disdainful of the Beatles bickering that continued long after the split. Said the Stones would never get like that!
At least the fall out has only been between The Glimmers.
I have the impression that the most substantial and mature relationship is between Bill and Charlie and I cant see anything breaking that. Not even Bills dalliances with Mandy etc etc.

MJ and Charlie seem to have become rock solid as well.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jlowe
Mick was very disdainful of the Beatles bickering that continued long after the split. Said the Stones would never get like that!
At least the fall out has only been between The Glimmers.
I have the impression that the most substantial and mature relationship is between Bill and Charlie and I cant see anything breaking that. Not even Bills dalliances with Mandy etc etc.

MJ and Charlie seem to have become rock solid as well.

Yeah, it's true. But I think that the problem between Mick and Keith is the immaturity...

As for Mick not being offended by Keith's words about him in Life, I distinctly recall that being given as the reason for lack of RS activity following the publication. And I also recall an interview where Mick said that an apology to him had to be made.

Quote
Bliss
Mick said that an apology to him had to be made.

Maybe he didn't like the fact that Keef constantly bites the hand that feeds him.

I mean Mick propels the band makes the juicy deals and maeks sure the band is treated like royalty 24/7.
What does Keef do since the 1989 comeback? Shows up for gigs on time (yeah!), mugs for photographers, comes with a handful of embryos of songs for each recording sessions (while Mick comes with 30 or 40 finished demos).

So I can understand the fact Mick resents being attacked by Keef every other day...

Quote
Bliss
As for Mick not being offended by Keith's words about him in Life, I distinctly recall that being given as the reason for lack of RS activity following the publication. And I also recall an interview where Mick said that an apology to him had to be made.

He said he got an apology, not that it had to be made.

And, as we all know, there was Stones activity relatively shortly after the book release (The Keith initiated rehearsals).

I can't recall the exact interview, but I am pretty sure that an apology was a condition for Mick participating in RS activities.

Nowhere was that stated. Then we only have the speculation left, as usual...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nowhere was that stated. Then we only have the speculation left, as usual...

You say it, "we only have the speculation left". But why speculate at all? Are we talking about a living, breathing band that's on the edge of breaking up due to personal differences between band members?

For me, the proof is in the pudding: Four albums with new music since their 1989 comeback, that's four albums in 25 years. Their last one, A Bigger Bang, is nearly 10 years old news. That's more than a strong indicator that their creative spark is long gone. What we have now is a group of musicians that gets together every once in a while to play a handful of their greatest songs in relatively short outbursts of touring activities. Do they really need to be "friends" to do this? What does it matter?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nowhere was that stated. Then we only have the speculation left, as usual...

Mick stated in several published interviews that an apology happenned and was a "prerequisite" for playing together again.
Eg [ultimateclassicrock.com]

It's true that they don't have to be friends to do what they do now, but I think that to go on tour for about a year or two, you need to appreciate the guys with who you are... If I must go on tour with people that I hate, I don't think that I would want to do that...

Quote
marlau
It's true that they don't have to be friends to do what they do now, but I think that to go on tour for about a year or two, you need to appreciate the guys with who you are... If I must go on tour with people that I hate, I don't think that I would want to do that...

For a few hundred million bucks I would go on tour with my worst enemy if the amenities were what the Stones enjoy. It's not as if they are crammed in a van together and sleeping on people's floors. There is no need for any undesired interaction beyond spending a couple of hours onstage playing music a few days a week for a couple of months, with a couple of months break before doing it again. Not that bad a deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-01 19:23 by blivet.

Quote
EJM

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nowhere was that stated. Then we only have the speculation left, as usual...

Mick stated in several published interviews that an apology happenned and was a "prerequisite" for playing together again.
Eg [ultimateclassicrock.com]

Mick said it was a good thing. It was the reporter who wrote it was a prerequisite. I'm a journalist myself, this is pretty obvious.

Quote
blivet

Quote
marlau
It's true that they don't have to be friends to do what they do now, but I think that to go on tour for about a year or two, you need to appreciate the guys with who you are... If I must go on tour with people that I hate, I don't think that I would want to do that...

For a few hundred million bucks I would go on tour with my worst enemy if the amenities were what the Stones enjoy. It's not as if they are crammed in a van together and sleeping on people's floors. There is no need for any undesired interaction beyond spending a couple of hours onstage playing music a few days a week for a couple of months, with a couple of months break before doing it again. Not that bad a deal.

Yeah, in that point of view, you're right...

Wellhttp://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-rolling-stones-soul-survivors-20130507?page=2

I don't know why I am pursuing this one, but I guess all fans can be a bit ridiculously trains spottery.

As a journalist, DP, you would know better but the interview here does seem to suggest clearly that it was Mick who chose the word " a prerequisite" ( with a tight smile ) and prerequisite is quite a Mickish sort of word....

I remember hearing somewhere that Ronnie was 'the glue' that held Mick & Keith's friendship together in the mid-to-late eighties. I think it was Ronnie that mentioned being their messenger to & from one another back then, so maybe he's busy being the glue again.

That's ok, EJM, but as the article says: "the details are private"

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bliss
As for Mick not being offended by Keith's words about him in Life, I distinctly recall that being given as the reason for lack of RS activity following the publication. And I also recall an interview where Mick said that an apology to him had to be made.

He said he got an apology, not that it had to be made.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick said it was a good thing. It was the reporter who wrote it was a prerequisite. I'm a journalist myself, this is pretty obvious.

From Mikal Gilmore's interview in Rolling Stone, May 2013:

About Keith Richards, and what he wrote in Life, I ask Jagger if an apology from Richards was . . .

"A prerequisite, you might say?" Jagger offers, with a tight smile. "Well, I think it was a good thing he got together with me and said that. I don't really want to talk about it apart from that, but I think it's good that he said it, and yes, it was a prerequisite, really. You have to put those things to one side; you can't leave them unspoken. It's very tempting – English people like to do that quite a lot. They don't like to face up to these things. Sometimes it's easy to push them out of the way, but I think it's good that we had that conversation."

Nonetheless, were there things that Jagger liked about Richards' book? Did he find it an overall accurate rendition of the band's early history and musical formations?

"Accurate . . ." He repeats the word with a bitter laugh. "I don't really want to talk about Keith's book."

[www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And, as we all know, there was Stones activity relatively shortly after the book release (The Keith initiated rehearsals).

The London rehearsals were in December 2011, more than a year after Life was published.

Quote
EJM
Wellhttp://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-rolling-stones-soul-survivors-20130507?page=2

I don't know why I am pursuing this one, but I guess all fans can be a bit ridiculously trains spottery.

As a journalist, DP, you would know better but the interview here does seem to suggest clearly that it was Mick who chose the word " a prerequisite" ( with a tight smile ) and prerequisite is quite a Mickish sort of word....

Did Richards feel the band was in jeopardy at that point?

"No, not at all. No. I thought it was a very interesting little prick – a little shot of adrenaline."

interesting turn of phrase I thought, from Keith.

Mick is more tolerant of human frailty since L'Wren's death and this extends to Keith. So now they get along a bit better. I am sure others have made the same observation.

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bliss
As for Mick not being offended by Keith's words about him in Life, I distinctly recall that being given as the reason for lack of RS activity following the publication. And I also recall an interview where Mick said that an apology to him had to be made.

He said he got an apology, not that it had to be made.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick said it was a good thing. It was the reporter who wrote it was a prerequisite. I'm a journalist myself, this is pretty obvious.

From Mikal Gilmore's interview in Rolling Stone, May 2013:

About Keith Richards, and what he wrote in Life, I ask Jagger if an apology from Richards was . . .

"A prerequisite, you might say?" Jagger offers, with a tight smile. "Well, I think it was a good thing he got together with me and said that. I don't really want to talk about it apart from that, but I think it's good that he said it, and yes, it was a prerequisite, really. You have to put those things to one side; you can't leave them unspoken. It's very tempting – English people like to do that quite a lot. They don't like to face up to these things. Sometimes it's easy to push them out of the way, but I think it's good that we had that conversation."

Nonetheless, were there things that Jagger liked about Richards' book? Did he find it an overall accurate rendition of the band's early history and musical formations?

"Accurate . . ." He repeats the word with a bitter laugh. "I don't really want to talk about Keith's book."

[www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And, as we all know, there was Stones activity relatively shortly after the book release (The Keith initiated rehearsals).

The London rehearsals were in December 2011, more than a year after Life was published.

Thanks bbj - for clearing that up. Indeed..a "prerequisite" as per Jagger...not the writer.

One can imagine how far Jagger got pushed ..once again. Jagger makes it a point the issue had to be addressed. Its clearly his voice here.. mentioning how it would be tempting to just let it all go unspoken..something Jagger had said happened, at the time, in 1989, when he last had to suffer Keith's vitriol.

As much as I love Keith, he does seem to have a severe chip on his shoulder with regards to Jagger. I don't recall Mick ever saying anything nasty about Keith. Richards on the other hand can't seem to stop himself. Who knows why? Jealousy maybe? Mick is the driving force of the band. The boss so to speak! Maybe Keith resents this, or maybe he's just pissed off with all the embarassing guests Jagger gets up on stage with the band?

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And, as we all know, there was Stones activity relatively shortly after the book release (The Keith initiated rehearsals).

The London rehearsals were in December 2011, more than a year after Life was published.

Yeah, a great timeisonourside.com is a great place to check these things. I did that, and here are some observations based on that.

LIFE was published in October 2010, and the three-day jam that took place in London, December 2011, was not exactly a "rehearsal" or even "Stones activity", but a thing Keith organized with Charlie and Woodie, and also invited Jagger (and Wyman and Taylor) to take part. Jagger did, on the last day. Which was, according to Keith "a real joy. Because I set it up really as a magnet".

Ronnie commented the troubled situation in November 2011 (before the jam, but over a year after the release of LIFE):

I think there's a healing process waiting to take place. I think it's happening now as we speak, but it has to be resolved. Something has to be resolved there. They have to come to terms with going on a working basis, which Charlie and I will help make happen. Wish me luck.

Some months later, in March 2012, Keith said:

(Mick) and I have had conversations over the last year of a kind we have not had for an extremely long time and that has been incredibly important to me. As far as the book (Life) goes, it was my story and it was very raw, as I meant it to be, but I know that some parts of it and some of the publicity really offended Mick and I regret that.

The actual Stones activities started really not until early May 2012 in New York rehearsals ("we've been playing, not rehearsing", Charlie commented), which were filmed.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-02 05:31 by Doxa.

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bliss
As for Mick not being offended by Keith's words about him in Life, I distinctly recall that being given as the reason for lack of RS activity following the publication. And I also recall an interview where Mick said that an apology to him had to be made.

He said he got an apology, not that it had to be made.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick said it was a good thing. It was the reporter who wrote it was a prerequisite. I'm a journalist myself, this is pretty obvious.

From Mikal Gilmore's interview in Rolling Stone, May 2013:

About Keith Richards, and what he wrote in Life, I ask Jagger if an apology from Richards was . . .

"A prerequisite, you might say?" Jagger offers, with a tight smile. "Well, I think it was a good thing he got together with me and said that. I don't really want to talk about it apart from that, but I think it's good that he said it, and yes, it was a prerequisite, really. You have to put those things to one side; you can't leave them unspoken. It's very tempting – English people like to do that quite a lot. They don't like to face up to these things. Sometimes it's easy to push them out of the way, but I think it's good that we had that conversation."

Nonetheless, were there things that Jagger liked about Richards' book? Did he find it an overall accurate rendition of the band's early history and musical formations?

"Accurate . . ." He repeats the word with a bitter laugh. "I don't really want to talk about Keith's book."

[www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And, as we all know, there was Stones activity relatively shortly after the book release (The Keith initiated rehearsals).

The London rehearsals were in December 2011, more than a year after Life was published.

I know, and in Stones terms a year is "relatively shortly after", as I wrote.

Right?

Quote
alimente

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Nowhere was that stated. Then we only have the speculation left, as usual...

You say it, "we only have the speculation left". But why speculate at all? Are we talking about a living, breathing band that's on the edge of breaking up due to personal differences between band members?

For me, the proof is in the pudding: Four albums with new music since their 1989 comeback, that's four albums in 25 years. Their last one, A Bigger Bang, is nearly 10 years old news. That's more than a strong indicator that their creative spark is long gone. What we have now is a group of musicians that gets together every once in a while to play a handful of their greatest songs in relatively short outbursts of touring activities. Do they really need to be "friends" to do this? What does it matter?

That's another story, and I agree totally. In a way, that was my point - the speculation and exaggaration about this is pointless.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Bliss
As for Mick not being offended by Keith's words about him in Life, I distinctly recall that being given as the reason for lack of RS activity following the publication. And I also recall an interview where Mick said that an apology to him had to be made.

He said he got an apology, not that it had to be made.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick said it was a good thing. It was the reporter who wrote it was a prerequisite. I'm a journalist myself, this is pretty obvious.

From Mikal Gilmore's interview in Rolling Stone, May 2013:

About Keith Richards, and what he wrote in Life, I ask Jagger if an apology from Richards was . . .

"A prerequisite, you might say?" Jagger offers, with a tight smile. "Well, I think it was a good thing he got together with me and said that. I don't really want to talk about it apart from that, but I think it's good that he said it, and yes, it was a prerequisite, really. You have to put those things to one side; you can't leave them unspoken. It's very tempting – English people like to do that quite a lot. They don't like to face up to these things. Sometimes it's easy to push them out of the way, but I think it's good that we had that conversation."

Nonetheless, were there things that Jagger liked about Richards' book? Did he find it an overall accurate rendition of the band's early history and musical formations?

"Accurate . . ." He repeats the word with a bitter laugh. "I don't really want to talk about Keith's book."

[www.rollingstone.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And, as we all know, there was Stones activity relatively shortly after the book release (The Keith initiated rehearsals).

The London rehearsals were in December 2011, more than a year after Life was published.

Thanks bbj - for clearing that up. Indeed..a "prerequisite" as per Jagger...not the writer.

One can imagine how far Jagger got pushed ..once again. Jagger makes it a point the issue had to be addressed. Its clearly his voice here.. mentioning how it would be tempting to just let it all go unspoken..something Jagger had said happened, at the time, in 1989, when he last had to suffer Keith's vitriol.

The journalist put the words into Mick's mouth, if you read more closely. Hadn't the word been used, Mick would have said "it was good that he did that".

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bye bye johnny

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And, as we all know, there was Stones activity relatively shortly after the book release (The Keith initiated rehearsals).

The London rehearsals were in December 2011, more than a year after Life was published.

Yeah, a great timeisonourside.com is a great place to check these things. I did that, and here are some observations based on that.

LIFE was published in October 2010, and the three-day jam that took place in London, December 2011, was not exactly a "rehearsal" or even "Stones activity", but a thing Keith organized with Charlie and Woodie, and also invited Jagger (and Wyman and Taylor) to take part. Jagger did, on the last day. Which was, according to Keith "a real joy. Because I set it up really as a magnet".

Ronnie commented the troubled situation in November 2011 (before the jam, but over a year after the release of LIFE):

I think there's a healing process waiting to take place. I think it's happening now as we speak, but it has to be resolved. Something has to be resolved there. They have to come to terms with going on a working basis, which Charlie and I will help make happen. Wish me luck.

Some months later, in March 2012, Keith said:

(Mick) and I have had conversations over the last year of a kind we have not had for an extremely long time and that has been incredibly important to me. As far as the book (Life) goes, it was my story and it was very raw, as I meant it to be, but I know that some parts of it and some of the publicity really offended Mick and I regret that.

The actual Stones activities started really not until early May 2012 in New York rehearsals ("we've been playing, not rehearsing", Charlie commented), which were filmed.

- Doxa

Those rehearsalS were extremely impportant for the Stones's decision to go on tour. It was Stones activity indeed, and a very new form of it, too. Perhaps for the first time in decades, the band members met up without a ton of equipment, sidemen and managers to work things out.

The air was cleared, and there were rehearsals in the US later (according to insiders here Bill was also present there, although that seem very strange to me).

From the interview, I think what Mick was saying is that, although he didn't demand an apology, it was necessary for Keith to make it for them to get back on track.

Quote
Bliss
From the interview, I think what Mick was saying is that, although he didn't demand an apology, it was necessary for Keith to make it for them to get back on track.

Exactly, but only after being encouraged to say so. That was my point. He's private indeed, and didn't like to speak openly about this.