Yeah, the rehearsals in NY were being filmed. But will it ever be released, or was it just for the band themselves.......

Jeroen

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I completely disagree. Without the speculation and exaggeration, what exactly are we to do on this forum?

True, but is there a point?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
True, but is there a point?

I don't think I understand your point?!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I completely disagree. Without the speculation and exaggeration, what exactly are we to do on this forum?

Mick Jagger, himself, mentioned that Stones fights / problems are minimal compared to other bands.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
True, but is there a point?

I don't think I understand your point?!

You may have a point...

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I completely disagree. Without the speculation and exaggeration, what exactly are we to do on this forum?

Mick Jagger, himself, mentioned that Stones fights / problems are minimal compared to other bands.

But we don't care for other bands...

But, in the end, their longevity proves that Jagger has a point.

- Doxa

This thread becomes less and less pointless ><

I wish Charlie would weigh in here.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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).

You sound like you were there... I guess Keith's jam session was important indeed for their upcoming activities. Was it clearing the air, Keith showing that he can play the guitar still, each of them being good shape, or whatever... but it wasn't any rehearsal since they were not rehearsing for any purpose yet, since there weren't any concrete plans yet. Like you mentioned it was not a typical thing for them, which also speaks volumes of the state of the band at the time. There wasn't the phone call from a certain member to suggest to start the wheels running... They really started from a point zero, going back-to-basics, to check if there is any chance to make it happen again musically and socio-psychologically. To my eyes it looks like the session was very much a Keith Richards move to show the others - Mick, that is - that he is up to it. This is how Richards promoted the idea in ROLLING STONE:

We're just going to play a little together, because we haven't played for three or four years. You don't necessarily want to rehearse or write anything - you just want to touch bases. That's a good start: me, Charlie and Ronnie. Mick's welcome, and I'm sure he'll turn up, but right now we just want to get our chops down...

The idea is to go in December. I said, Jesus Christ, we haven't played together for a couple of years. We better get our chops together. So it basically is just like that, it's just a jam.... I was going to ask Bill Wyman to come by too. And Mick Taylor. The whole lot. They're all Stones, you know? Why not?

I would suggest a lot of blues in the beginning. That's where the band's roots are. We'll start playing some Jimmy Reed stuff and some Muddy Waters stuff and then things will blossom from there. It might bore Mick to death - and that's the idea. We're just going to go, and you start from Day One. You've got the drums and a couple of guitars and you start hammering away.

We all happen to be in England in December. I don't want to blow it up into anything. There's no golden plan.

To put that on context, two inteesting quotes from Jagger from a bit earlier (September 2011):

[1] I have been writing a lot for the Stones. I mean, when I write, I go, Yeah, that could be a good Stones tune or, That's not really going to work for that.

I did some sessions with Charlie recently where I just played some songs I'd written, and of course I wrote more when he was there. I'd start making them up, so that was good fun, so we had a really good time doing that.

(I've been) writing loads of these 12-bar blues songs, so I'm looking forward to doing something more in that vein. But then last night, I wrote a song and went straight from my version of John Lee Hooker into writing sort of pop songs, so I don't really know.

[2] Well, I really don't see much of (Keith). The rest of us are all (in London) quite a lot, and although he comes here occasionally in the summer, I don't think any of us sees him much. He lives in suburban Connecticut.

From the same month there is also quite telling remark by Mick of the reception of SuperHeavy by the other Stones members, which reveals rather harshly the relationships within the band (and what Mick feels/cares about Keith at the time):

Ronnie’s listened to it. He’s sweet, he’s very supportive. He liked it very much, he liked it all, particularly some of the first tracks we started with. And Charlie liked it. He’s all about the grooves, he’s got a great ear. Charlie and Ronnie both have their own things but they see the bigger picture. Not everyone sees the big picture... I don’t know if Keith really listens to that much. I don’t know what Keith listens to.

So it looks like that it was really up to Keith to make a move, convince the others, after being a bit extranged from the others (LIFE having a a role). That it was organized in London, to make it as easy as possible for others to take part, was a part of it. Remember, this is what he also said at the time:

I hardly played at all for two years. I'm sort of basically recovering from the book, and this is my therapy at the moment. In the process of doing it, my chops are coming back.

I'm not writing for (the Stones) right now. I'm cutting my own stuff with Steve Jordan. There's no point in writing for the Stones until I know that Mick Jagger's in. He could have every song I've ever written. They're all for him. If he doesn't like them - or if he poo-poos them - I take them somewhere else.

Seemingly the London jam session went alright, but nothing was fixed then. It looks like the real activities started to take place in March, when Mick and Keith had a meeting in New York. Most likely from then on, finally, Mick Jagger was "in", and took the charge, and determinate plans were done. First being the sessions that were filmed for CROSSFIRE HURRICANE in early May (like Charlie, I wouldn't call even them as 'rehearsals' yet, but just a random session. But seemingly, according to anyone involved, those went really well). The Stones were rolling again. But go to the initial point, the process to get the wheels rolling again seemed to be a long and difficult one, and LIFE surely didn't help.

- Doxa

P.S. All the quotes are from timeisonourside.com.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-02 19:51 by Doxa.

I'm a little bit confused about it... I don't really know if they're friends or just band partners. In reality, we can't really know if they're friends or not. Maybe they hate each other and they go on tour only for the fans and the band, and they never speak to each other or they never call each other on the phone when they're not on tour. But on another side, maybe they completely love each other and the affection they share on stage is really sincere, and maybe they speak to each other when they're not on tour. As fans, we can't know what they do when they're not on tour and in their private lifes, and it's not only like that for the Stones, it's also the same thing for the other celebrities/bands. We're only fans, we just see the Stones on stage and on TV, not in their private life. We must not rely to interviews, journalists and things like that, because it's not always true... And while interviews, the Stones don't say a lot a things about each other and their personal lives, so we can't base ourselves on what they say.

I think we'll know more deeply what happens between Mick and Keith when one of them will die. I know it's not cool to say, but I think their relationship is a little bit like Lennon/McCartney. Before John die, to my knowledge, Paul never said he loved John... (When the Beatles were separated.) It's only AFTER John's die Paul said he loved him... Maybe it will be the same thing with the glimmers (If they love each other.) or maybe not (If they don't like each other.).

Anyway, I just think we can't really know what happens between them and that there's no need to know what happens between them. After all, it's their personal lifes and it concerns only them.

*Sorry if I wrote errors, English is not my first language.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I completely disagree. Without the speculation and exaggeration, what exactly are we to do on this forum?

Mick Jagger, himself, mentioned that Stones fights / problems are minimal compared to other bands.

But we don't care for other bands...

But, in the end, their longevity proves that Jagger has a point.

- Doxa

>>There's no point in writing for the Stones until I know that Mick Jagger's in. He could have every song I've ever written. They're all for him.

There's something incredibly touching about this statement - I can hear Keith saying it.

That statement is ace indeed, and just as important to the mix as "Todgergate". There are many facets to this, like I've said numerous times.

From 4:19 and on







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-03 00:26 by mtaylor.

....very funny where'd ya hear that ???



ROCKMAN

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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".

I tend to agree with you on this, DP. It's impossible to know for sure, since the writer omits what he, the writer said to Mick right before the quote, on "prerequisite." When Mick says, "you might say?" he may mean "as you put it."

~"Love is Strong"~

Quote
Bliss
>>There's no point in writing for the Stones until I know that Mick Jagger's in. He could have every song I've ever written. They're all for him.

There's something incredibly touching about this statement - I can hear Keith saying it.

I agree. Almost tragical. It reveals a lot, especially how important Keith sees his co-work with Mick and the Stones, which seemingly goes beyond just work partnership. All the rest - solo stuff - is secondary. But it also reveals that the feeling might not be mutual - and I think that might be the reason for many conflicts, bad words etc. during the last decades. What I missed in LIFE - instead of just putting all that anger into one helluva form - was some kind of self-reflection why "he had lost his friend", why Jagger wasn't eager to work very much with him any longer. All we hear is just "Mick is unbearable", Brenda this and Her Majesty that. Because we knew all that by then, it was disapponting for me that he, now having enough time and space to really reflect his life, couldn't go a bit beyond all that.

Anyway, the background of that particular statement is the rather cold year - the one after the release of LIFE - they (Mick and Keith) had gone/were going through. Reading the comments from 2010 to 2011, Keith, Ronnie and even Charlie all seem to have positive vibes about future activities. That they will play live soon, especially when the 50th Anniversary was about to come. Jagger not (even though he diplomatically sounded leaving the options open; in one he stated, rather tellingly, "it is up to God and me"). During 2011 Jagger did the SOME GIRLS over-dubs at his home in France alone (Keith did his in America), SuperHeavy, all kinds of celebrational things for 2012 (document, book, archive things, etc), but actually starting to play and make music with the band (and Keith) seemed to be the last one in his list. Insterestingly, he did play with Charlie during the summer and made blues-type of songs for the Stones to play (and that was around the time Keith was making music with Jordan)

My guess is that Richards, like the rest, assumed that the Anniversary thing is such a big deal that they cannot miss it - they need to do something together. Now the book out of his hands, Richards supposedly believed that 'yeah, now it is the time for the Stones to act - to be ready for the big year 2012. Jagger can't refuse, because there is too much on the table. One stupid book cannot really do harm'. His comments just after the release of LIFE sounds like he would take Mick's commitment to the Stones for granted. But for much of the year 2011, if all, Jagger was reluctant. Even silent, it looks like. It was in the very last minute, Richards - not having heard the phone ringing and that call to come - needed to do something by himself. Then we had the London 'get-together' jam session. And little by little the wheels started to roll, even though they almost missed the big year. My guess is that the actual plans what they will do during the year were not done until in March 2012.

I cannot help thinking but that LIFE actually created a real problem between the two principals, which needed to be sorted out before Jagger was willing to work with Keith again. According to Keith, it took them for a year to discuss the matter, and each of them have admitted that Keith had apogolized. Since no details are given (good), the "apology" could refer to all those discussions they had gone through, or was done within the course of them. Even though people here seem to speculate about the statement of Jagger's, I think Keith's one speaks more volumes: the one in which he would lie to his mother for the sake of getting the band going, is a damn straight confession what he needed actually to do.

So, to go back to the original quote/statement we started with - it reflects very well the sentiments of frustration Keith was going through at the late 2011. The phone just refused to ring.

Well, that was one way to interpret the hints their public statements offer...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-03 03:53 by Doxa.

That all sounds in the ballpark. I think Keith was a bit on tenterhooks. He knows it's all up to Mick. I also think their getting back together and subsequent gigs went so well that they felt better about each other than they had in a while. Incidentally, I think Mick is a bit too optimistic about Charlie's opinion of Superheavy. I'll have the soup...

Quote
TeddyB1018
That all sounds in the ballpark. I think Keith was a bit on tenterhooks. He knows it's all up to Mick. I also think their getting back together and subsequent gigs went so well that they felt better about each other than they had in a while. Incidentally, I think Mick is a bit too optimistic about Charlie's opinion of Superheavy. I'll have the soup...

soup is a meal BTW.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I completely disagree. Without the speculation and exaggeration, what exactly are we to do on this forum?

Yeah, what exactly are we to do on this forum? I mean, elsewhere there was a lot of speculation about the life and tragical death of Princess Di, but in the end, what does it affect me? What really touches me is their music, not their personal relationships. If at all, it only interests me if the relationships between band members had any effect on the creative decline of the band. I still consider 4 band albums in 25 years a waste of talent that's unparalleled for musicians of their status. Add to that the fact that only in recent years they started to open the vaults (much too late to generate sizable income by doing so due to the sad state of recorded music sales) and there you go with sufficient stuff for speculation, exaggeration and serious discussion.

Quote
alimente

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman

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.

I completely disagree. Without the speculation and exaggeration, what exactly are we to do on this forum?

Yeah, what exactly are we to do on this forum? I mean, elsewhere there was a lot of speculation about the life and tragical death of Princess Di, but in the end, what does it affect me? What really touches me is their music, not their personal relationships. If at all, it only interests me if the relationships between band members had any effect on the creative decline of the band. I still consider 4 band albums in 25 years a waste of talent that's unparalleled for musicians of their status. Add to that the fact that only in recent years they started to open the vaults (much too late to generate sizable income by doing so due to the sad state of recorded music sales) and there you go with sufficient stuff for speculation, exaggeration and serious discussion.

I share your sentiment about the only thing being interesting in their relationship is its effect to the doings of the Rolling Stones. But what is noteworthy that the whole melodrama and speculation over their 'marriage'/'brotherhood'/'friendship'/'partnership' is very much due to public assertions of Keith Richards. That's the stuff we are used to since the 80's, LIFE being its swan song. Without Keith making that sort of talk so public and general, we most likely would not speculate and ask that kind of questions, like 'are they friends any longer/again?'. These days some sharp-eyed fans seem to make whatever kind of conclusions of their relationship, say, from the way Mick and Keith 'interact' on stage. Did people do that during the 60's or the 70's? Did that - how 'close' they supposedly were - really matter back then?

Jagger seems to be very private person, who doesn't want to share any personal things in public, and even during the times when he called Keith as "his brother" that seemed to be just another PR band gesture, a metaphor to show loyalty to his bandmate/song-writer partner, and promote the cause of Glimmer Twins ideal. Now that kind of talk seems to run out of significance, and it seems to actually bother him when Keith keeps repeating it again and again (usually in a connection to bash him firstly, then to 'balance' things). And Mick's habit of protecting privacy, whatever happens 'behind the screen', goes way back. I recall Marianne writing in his first book that what he most hated in being with Mick was that of always keeping one's cool - no matter what happens, never revealing anything personal in public (and the guy was consistent - just go and check the careless interview Mick gives to press in Australia, while Marianne was in a choma at hospital).

Anyway, still I think that the very reason why Richards has decided to make their 'relationship' so public - including saying whatever things about Jagger he feels like - is also based on musical reasons, and most likely, on the fate and concern over the Rolling Stones. So it is based more on business than on personal matters. That's at least is the reason I think it all started initially back in the 80's; Keith seemingly has just carried the habit ever since, probably going over the top sometimes (or like creating a discourse of its own). Probably it is a part of his public persona to say and 'reveal' things like that. It is a part of being "Keef", so 'genuine' and 'honest'.

So my point for this 'pointless speculation' is that we have the master Richards himself to thank for that... He gave us a topic to talk about, and have kept us rather busy... So who can blame us?

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-03 12:02 by Doxa.

I wonder how much jane rose has to do with the way keith presents himself

"Anyway, still I think that the very reason why Richards has decided to make their 'relationship' so public - including saying whatever things about Jagger he feels like - is also based on musical reasons, and most likely, on the fate and concern over the Rolling Stones. So it is based more on business than on personal matters. That's at least is the reason I think it all started initially back in the 80's; Keith seemingly has just carried the habit ever since, probably going over the top sometimes (or like creating a discourse of its own). Probably it is a part of his public persona to say and 'reveal' things like that. It is a part of being "Keef", so 'genuine' and 'honest'.

So my point for this 'pointless speculation' is that we have the master Richards himself to thank for that... He gave us a topic to talk about, and have kept us rather busy... So who can blame us?grinning"


I am probably naive but from all I have ever heard and read from Keith it seems to me that for him the "personal and business" is one and the same - music and the Stones are vitally important for him. Without Stones, he would not have much left. This makes understandable why he has acted as he did.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bliss
>>There's no point in writing for the Stones until I know that Mick Jagger's in. He could have every song I've ever written. They're all for him.

There's something incredibly touching about this statement - I can hear Keith saying it.

I agree. Almost tragical. It reveals a lot, especially how important Keith sees his co-work with Mick and the Stones, which seemingly goes beyond just work partnership. All the rest - solo stuff - is secondary. But it also reveals that the feeling might not be mutual - and I think that might be the reason for many conflicts, bad words etc. during the last decades. What I missed in LIFE - instead of just putting all that anger into one helluva form - was some kind of self-reflection why "he had lost his friend", why Jagger wasn't eager to work very much with him any longer. All we hear is just "Mick is unbearable", Brenda this and Her Majesty that. Because we knew all that by then, it was disapponting for me that he, now having enough time and space to really reflect his life, couldn't go a bit beyond all that.

Anyway, the background of that particular statement is the rather cold year - the one after the release of LIFE - they (Mick and Keith) had gone/were going through. Reading the comments from 2010 to 2011, Keith, Ronnie and even Charlie all seem to have positive vibes about future activities. That they will play live soon, especially when the 50th Anniversary was about to come. Jagger not (even though he diplomatically sounded leaving the options open; in one he stated, rather tellingly, "it is up to God and me"). During 2011 Jagger did the SOME GIRLS over-dubs at his home in France alone (Keith did his in America), SuperHeavy, all kinds of celebrational things for 2012 (document, book, archive things, etc), but actually starting to play and make music with the band (and Keith) seemed to be the last one in his list. Insterestingly, he did play with Charlie during the summer and made blues-type of songs for the Stones to play (and that was around the time Keith was making music with Jordan)

My guess is that Richards, like the rest, assumed that the Anniversary thing is such a big deal that they cannot miss it - they need to do something together. Now the book out of his hands, Richards supposedly believed that 'yeah, now it is the time for the Stones to act - to be ready for the big year 2012. Jagger can't refuse, because there is too much on the table. One stupid book cannot really do harm'. His comments just after the release of LIFE sounds like he would take Mick's commitment to the Stones for granted. But for much of the year 2011, if all, Jagger was reluctant. Even silent, it looks like. It was in the very last minute, Richards - not having heard the phone ringing and that call to come - needed to do something by himself. Then we had the London 'get-together' jam session. And little by little the wheels started to roll, even though they almost missed the big year. My guess is that the actual plans what they will do during the year were not done until in March 2012.

I cannot help thinking but that LIFE actually created a real problem between the two principals, which needed to be sorted out before Jagger was willing to work with Keith again. According to Keith, it took them for a year to discuss the matter, and each of them have admitted that Keith had apogolized. Since no details are given (good), the "apology" could refer to all those discussions they had gone through, or was done within the course of them. Even though people here seem to speculate about the statement of Jagger's, I think Keith's one speaks more volumes: the one in which he would lie to his mother for the sake of getting the band going, is a damn straight confession what he needed actually to do.

So, to go back to the original quote/statement we started with - it reflects very well the sentiments of frustration Keith was going through at the late 2011. The phone just refused to ring.

Well, that was one way to interpret the hints their public statements offer...

- Doxa

To me it's all pathos and rhetoric. Maybe he's in some sort of panic (the touching part but still his own stupid fault) but most important to him is he doesn't want to loose his cool so by this statement he's letting the audience know it's all in MJ's hands now and it would be ridiculous ("They're all for him" ) if MJ wouldn't do anything...
So if they don't tour it's MJ's bad and if they don't record it's MJ's bad, that's the message.

Since "I would do anything even lie to my mother" what's the value of his words? Because of things like that I find it hard to believe everything he ever said about MJ since the late eighties or early nineties.

If you see and read all those interviews again chronologically you see a pathetic pattern that would fit a 13 year old character from a big fat gypsy wedding.
Who made all that up about Brenda and stuff like that? And why? And why again and agian and again and even in LIFE??
The absolute #1 Drama Queen of the band is KRenda. Or Kathy Ruffles.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-03 15:42 by Dreamer.

Quote
triceratops
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.

Well this viewpoint has some merit, but it is a bit of an indicement on both of them if it takes something like that to happen. Especially given their respective ages and what has happened in the past.
Of course, the more critical of their biographers do paint pictures of emotional retards (KR in particular), though adding that living in the gilded cage for all their adult lives its not alltogether suprising.
Just look at most Monarchs and their families to get my point.

Anita Pallenburg commented in one of her interviews that heroin addiction keeps you child like and you come out of it with the emotional age of a teenager.

Since Patti's illness, Life and having grandchildren, Keith has commented about his need to finally grow up and of all the stones he seems to have the least problem with the concept of ageing.

Charlie often says that Keith's private and public personna are surprisingly different and much of his public personna has been constructed from interviews we conducted at the wrong end of a bottle of Jack Daniels

Realistically, keith says himself that too much water has passed under the bridge,for him to be "mates" with Mick and although he calls it a brotherhood (and so does Charlie) that view is not currently recognised by Mick.

Any acknowledgement of a residual bond always pleases fans and there may be some hope, as there was a time when Mick could not bear to be near Keith which seems to have improved on this tour.

Quote
EJM
Any acknowledgement of a residual bond always pleases fans and there may be some hope, as there was a time when Mick could not bear to be near Keith which seems to have improved on this tour.

I can see that, and of course I understand the logic that if all is well between them, it theoretically increases the possibility that we fans will also benefit: Great shows, new music, whatever.

Bill Wyman once stated the he left the band at a time when all was said and done really - after the 1989/1990 world tour. Didn't history prove him right in a way? As I see it, Life is just the result of Keith's frustration with the development of the band after their promising "comeback" with Steel Wheels (album and world tour). All the money they - including, of course, Keith - made in the meantime aside, it seems clear that Keith blames Mick for this development ("Mick could have had every song I have ever written") - focussing on money-generating world tours, but losing the focus on the actual music the band was playing. So in a way, Keith maybe shares my own frustration with the band - except that I don't blame any individual band members for the loss of the creative spark to create new music over the years. It seems such a huge waste of talent that musicians of their calibre are reduced to reproduce decade-old songs live on stage, but maybe there's more truth in Bill Wyman's statement than we all, and Keith in particular, dare to acknowledge.

Quote
alimente

Quote
EJM
Any acknowledgement of a residual bond always pleases fans and there may be some hope, as there was a time when Mick could not bear to be near Keith which seems to have improved on this tour.

I can see that, and of course I understand the logic that if all is well between them, it theoretically increases the possibility that we fans will also benefit: Great shows, new music, whatever.

Bill Wyman once stated the he left the band at a time when all was said and done really - after the 1989/1990 world tour. Didn't history prove him right in a way? As I see it, Life is just the result of Keith's frustration with the development of the band after their promising "comeback" with Steel Wheels (album and world tour). All the money they - including, of course, Keith - made in the meantime aside, it seems clear that Keith blames Mick for this development ("Mick could have had every song I have ever written") - focussing on money-generating world tours, but losing the focus on the actual music the band was playing. So in a way, Keith maybe shares my own frustration with the band - except that I don't blame any individual band members for the loss of the creative spark to create new music over the years. It seems such a huge waste of talent that musicians of their calibre are reduced to reproduce decade-old songs live on stage, but maybe there's more truth in Bill Wyman's statement than we all, and Keith in particular, dare to acknowledge.

Yes there's a lot of frustration in Weston CT.
And of course BW was right but the funny thing is that at this moment he's touring and playing decade-old songs live on stage...

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
alimente

Quote
EJM
Any acknowledgement of a residual bond always pleases fans and there may be some hope, as there was a time when Mick could not bear to be near Keith which seems to have improved on this tour.

I can see that, and of course I understand the logic that if all is well between them, it theoretically increases the possibility that we fans will also benefit: Great shows, new music, whatever.

Bill Wyman once stated the he left the band at a time when all was said and done really - after the 1989/1990 world tour. Didn't history prove him right in a way? As I see it, Life is just the result of Keith's frustration with the development of the band after their promising "comeback" with Steel Wheels (album and world tour). All the money they - including, of course, Keith - made in the meantime aside, it seems clear that Keith blames Mick for this development ("Mick could have had every song I have ever written") - focussing on money-generating world tours, but losing the focus on the actual music the band was playing. So in a way, Keith maybe shares my own frustration with the band - except that I don't blame any individual band members for the loss of the creative spark to create new music over the years. It seems such a huge waste of talent that musicians of their calibre are reduced to reproduce decade-old songs live on stage, but maybe there's more truth in Bill Wyman's statement than we all, and Keith in particular, dare to acknowledge.

Yes there's a lot of frustration in Weston CT.
And of course BW was right but the funny thing is that at this moment he's touring and playing decade-old songs live on stage...

I don't think there is much frustration in Weston CT, I think there is a happy man, thanking his luck in having a healthy wife,against all expectation , getting a return of a little of his skill and having one more shot to play with the stones