Tell Me :
Talk
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
Strange how some of us read it and didn't pick up on those aspects you are so down about. I thought the love and respect for Mick shone through the few jabs Keith wrote about. Thought it was nice to get some rather truthful words out of Keith, him being one of the only ones in the world who can get away with such stark discussion of someone like Mick who has remained behind a wall of ambiguity in many respects. I think the publishers and ghost writer were more responsible for the amount of Mick stuff in the book because that's what everyone wanted to hear. Keith even admits he cut a lot of potential dirt out,
As far as his image goes, I also think Keith and his image are less separated than you may think. He IS that guy that everyone thinks he is most of the time. Not the full blown junkie waste case of old but certainly a product of that and not regretful or particularly changed, just no more class A street drugs. His discussions of that period were pretty frank and he was pretty clear he was reduced to really low level by his addictions. Brutally honest and pretty revealing. Anyway, I don't think Keith is capable of putting on a front too far from the reality and staying in character all these years. The only thing I think he may have left out a bit is his heavy drinking stuff, could be because at the time he was still drinking alot, a bit of denial mixed with an rather uncanny ability to hold his liquor...a true professional.
I thought he was pretty clear The Stones were always the most important thing in his life, that Mick was a huge key to their success (the best frontman in the business) and his stories weren't going to change that, especially since they were probably all true.
We don't really know the full story about the divorce. But, in any case, Jerry seems to have not held it against him and he is always spoken of as being a good father.
i'm not interested in an argument about it, as my only point is that no one should be surprised to discover that any of the stones are less than stand-up people, but it's a matter of legal record that there was in fact no divorce, the marriage was declared null and void.
they did reach a financial arrangement; such things always include provisos requiring both parties to only say good things about one another publicly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-04 03:05 by Turner68.
exactly!
Of course the only thing they had in mind was to humiliate Mick Taylor in 2012-14. Usually they let him only do a solo on MR and at several times they even forced him to play on his knees! One or two times they allowed him a solo on CYHMK but only to cut him off after a few bars! But the most important and most obvious humiliation was to force him to play inaudible acoustic guitar on Satifsfaction. I wonder which one of the glimmers had this idea of ultimate humiliatioin. I guess they had a lot of fun in treating him in such ways, because they never forgave him for leaving.
But at the end of the 2014-tour they must have become bored of humiliating him and released him from his pain. They tried to do the same to Bill Wyman, but he didnt need the money and refused to do gigs with them after the London show. Remember, he hadnt even a soundcheck, he didnt know what songs he would have to play until start of the show and finally had him playing on a tune he wasnt even present on the studio-recording. And Mick praised Darryl on stage, while Bill was standing in back watching Darryl play on Miss You. Yes, the glimmers punished their unfaithfull ex-soldiers in the end, they finally let them bleed for leaving the band.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-04 11:31 by HMS.
I am indeed British Olly, yes.
Well, I actually thought he said 'you cock' Certainly, the nature in which he we referring to Brian was somewhat unfriendly and lacked compassion. I do not doubt that 'cock' was once a more chummy way of greeting one another, but the context in which Keith said it seemed different to me. I guess it's open to interpretation!
Mercy - in the 1989 interview when Keith used the phrase he did not say "you cock";
he said "hey, cock, you're fired". He might as well have said "hey pal" or "hey man".
And as has been pointed out already, the 1989 interview was not a verbatim reenactment of the 1969 scenario.
Yes correct. Why do people constantly imagine people are saying something other than what they are actually saying all the time.
Good post!
yeah another great post NL and not to forget Doxa that Keith has said many times that he left a lot of stuff about Mick out of the book
Who knows what a so and so Mick has been over the years.
It looks for now that Mick's dark secrets are safe with Keith
Yes i think some of us Keith camp fans forget that Mick has always shown incredible loyalty towards Keith, and in particular Keith's addictions
Nothing glamorous about the reality of junkies and Mick must have had incredible patience with keith
It could be some kind of subconscious guilt from keith that has caused the awkward distance between them, guilt is a funny thing.
Another thing i for one forget about Mick is that publicly he never puts keith down, on the other hand he rarely sings his praises either
You need to stop. Your prescription ran out. Now as usual as you are about DIRTY WORK you're just babbling and making zero - that's ZERO - sense.
Lol...that's quite an imagination you have HMS.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
lmfao. Indeed a healthy dose of wtf are you talking about there. Either HMS is more than a tad bit imaginitive or that's one of the most hilarious dry humor posts I've read here in a while. Ya never know cause you can't see his face when he typed it.
The flip side is Mick made them very happy while it lasted. Happy being with him and happy being part of Mick's scene with the parties, socializing with the rich and famous, trips to exotic locales...
My guess is that even the unhappy ones looked back fondly at the adventure of a lifetime they had.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-05 05:11 by triceratops.
Keith wrote in LIFE about how he couldn't get a girl to even look at him until became famous, then they were all over him. Mick's always seemed supremely confident with women, but I wonder if underneath all that bravado, he must have occasionally thought the same as Keith. That, if it were not for his fame and wealth, he'd be that skinny guy at the bar jumping around while the girls shooed him off.
Naw....
Hard to say about Mick, but no doubt it's hard to separate him fame from his success in attracting partners. Money, success, fame and power are certainly one of the strongest attractants and all that plus the connection to rock music....the strongest of all. Thought I read about either Keith or Mick actually choosing the profession after watching the girls react to Elvis and his ilk. Motivated many a musician to choose the profession.
But Bill, now that's one practical Englishman. He damn well knew he was not going to draw the numbers and quality without his rock star status and took great advantage of it. He must be either a nice chap or embarrassingly horrid ....because we have very few stories of women telling tales of time with Bill.
True about Bill. I wonder what happened to Astrid Lundstrom, his longtime girlfriend. He was with her for years before the Mandy Smith disaster.
+1
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 4, 2015 02:17
Quote
blivetQuote
Turner68
Indeed, I am surprised that anyone would be surprised to learn in this decade (i.e., Keith's book) that the Stones aren't pillars of maturity and kindness.
I'm not sure how what Keith said about Mick in Life is any different or worse than Mick claiming that he and Jerry Hall were never married. Indeed, while Life contained insults, denying to your family that there was ever a marriage is a different ball game altogether.
I agree. The whole "rock and roll bad boy" fun and games is one thing, but it seems as though Jagger actually perpetrated some kind of fraud on Jerry Hall. If I understand correctly, he led her to believe that their wedding ceremony was legally binding when it was not. A con game isn't something that can be written off as naughty behavior indulged in while caught up in the excitement of the moment. When I found out about that one I was pretty much done with being a "fan".
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 4, 2015 02:29
Quote
Doxa
But I guess the only thing that really "got me ballistic" was Keith's LIFE. It was a kind of shocking to realize how damn much he was lost in his image, to see the size of ego and smallness of his mind, and to realize how little loyalty any longer he had for The Stones, treating his most important 'partner in crime' so small-mindedly. For me the book was a kind of 'the end' of The Rolling Stones - not because of how Jagger would react, but because of Keith leaving the impression 'couldn't care less any longer' - it's only his own legacy he seems to care.
- Doxa
Strange how some of us read it and didn't pick up on those aspects you are so down about. I thought the love and respect for Mick shone through the few jabs Keith wrote about. Thought it was nice to get some rather truthful words out of Keith, him being one of the only ones in the world who can get away with such stark discussion of someone like Mick who has remained behind a wall of ambiguity in many respects. I think the publishers and ghost writer were more responsible for the amount of Mick stuff in the book because that's what everyone wanted to hear. Keith even admits he cut a lot of potential dirt out,
As far as his image goes, I also think Keith and his image are less separated than you may think. He IS that guy that everyone thinks he is most of the time. Not the full blown junkie waste case of old but certainly a product of that and not regretful or particularly changed, just no more class A street drugs. His discussions of that period were pretty frank and he was pretty clear he was reduced to really low level by his addictions. Brutally honest and pretty revealing. Anyway, I don't think Keith is capable of putting on a front too far from the reality and staying in character all these years. The only thing I think he may have left out a bit is his heavy drinking stuff, could be because at the time he was still drinking alot, a bit of denial mixed with an rather uncanny ability to hold his liquor...a true professional.
I thought he was pretty clear The Stones were always the most important thing in his life, that Mick was a huge key to their success (the best frontman in the business) and his stories weren't going to change that, especially since they were probably all true.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: October 4, 2015 02:44
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
blivetQuote
Turner68
Indeed, I am surprised that anyone would be surprised to learn in this decade (i.e., Keith's book) that the Stones aren't pillars of maturity and kindness.
I'm not sure how what Keith said about Mick in Life is any different or worse than Mick claiming that he and Jerry Hall were never married. Indeed, while Life contained insults, denying to your family that there was ever a marriage is a different ball game altogether.
I agree. The whole "rock and roll bad boy" fun and games is one thing, but it seems as though Jagger actually perpetrated some kind of fraud on Jerry Hall. If I understand correctly, he led her to believe that their wedding ceremony was legally binding when it was not. A con game isn't something that can be written off as naughty behavior indulged in while caught up in the excitement of the moment. When I found out about that one I was pretty much done with being a "fan".
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
We don't really know the full story about the divorce. But, in any case, Jerry seems to have not held it against him and he is always spoken of as being a good father.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 4, 2015 03:02
Quote
latebloomerQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
blivetQuote
Turner68
Indeed, I am surprised that anyone would be surprised to learn in this decade (i.e., Keith's book) that the Stones aren't pillars of maturity and kindness.
I'm not sure how what Keith said about Mick in Life is any different or worse than Mick claiming that he and Jerry Hall were never married. Indeed, while Life contained insults, denying to your family that there was ever a marriage is a different ball game altogether.
I agree. The whole "rock and roll bad boy" fun and games is one thing, but it seems as though Jagger actually perpetrated some kind of fraud on Jerry Hall. If I understand correctly, he led her to believe that their wedding ceremony was legally binding when it was not. A con game isn't something that can be written off as naughty behavior indulged in while caught up in the excitement of the moment. When I found out about that one I was pretty much done with being a "fan".
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
We don't really know the full story about the divorce. But, in any case, Jerry seems to have not held it against him and he is always spoken of as being a good father.
i'm not interested in an argument about it, as my only point is that no one should be surprised to discover that any of the stones are less than stand-up people, but it's a matter of legal record that there was in fact no divorce, the marriage was declared null and void.
they did reach a financial arrangement; such things always include provisos requiring both parties to only say good things about one another publicly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-04 03:05 by Turner68.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: October 4, 2015 03:04
He who has not sinned cast the first Rolling Stone
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 4, 2015 03:05
Quote
Rockman
He who has not sinned cast the first Rolling Stone
exactly!
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 4, 2015 11:00
Its very PC on here. Not very Rock and Roll.
The Stones have become the Elite. Untouchable. Everything they started out against lol
What goes round comes round. Mick singing with TS is a sort of showing of that.
Like it or not the Stones are successful now because they have become the establishment. They get great press and media coverage, so they Kind of are the illuminati ( i hate that word ) along with the Beyoncey's and the Madonna's
Not many on here will agree, i realise that
You could say they sold out, incredible success and not a studio album release in over ten years proves my point.
I still love the Music, but i'm not so sure about what Mick and co have become over the years. I guess Charlie Keith and Ronnie enjoy going along for the ride and who can blame them. Its a shame none of these topics can be up for discussion because who these people are, and what makes them tick, is as fascinating as the music they have produced IMHO
The Stones have become the Elite. Untouchable. Everything they started out against lol
What goes round comes round. Mick singing with TS is a sort of showing of that.
Like it or not the Stones are successful now because they have become the establishment. They get great press and media coverage, so they Kind of are the illuminati ( i hate that word ) along with the Beyoncey's and the Madonna's
Not many on here will agree, i realise that
You could say they sold out, incredible success and not a studio album release in over ten years proves my point.
I still love the Music, but i'm not so sure about what Mick and co have become over the years. I guess Charlie Keith and Ronnie enjoy going along for the ride and who can blame them. Its a shame none of these topics can be up for discussion because who these people are, and what makes them tick, is as fascinating as the music they have produced IMHO
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: October 4, 2015 11:29
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMSQuote
TheGreek
That would be my ultimate to have all three living guitarist in the band for the whole concert !!!
The ivitation of Taylor in 2012-14 was all about punishing and humiliating him night after night for leaving the band in the 70s. In 2015 they seem to have lost interest in humiliating him, the pleasure they derived in humiliating him paled obviously and they decided to drop him for once and forever.
HMS, do you have a prescription of absurdity? Because what you said is absurdity at its best. Holy crap what a twisted invention in your mind.
In what sense if any would they have had Taylor play on every song?
None.
They didn't "lose interest in humiliating him" in 2015 because they didn't humiliate him from 2012-2014. It was strictly for that part of the deal for the 50 years. They were clear about that.
It's the fans that have an issue with him not continuing on with the ZIP CODE tour, which he was never going to be a part of even though it would've made sense regarding STICKY FINGERS.
But then even that was pointless after all, wasn't it.
Of course the only thing they had in mind was to humiliate Mick Taylor in 2012-14. Usually they let him only do a solo on MR and at several times they even forced him to play on his knees! One or two times they allowed him a solo on CYHMK but only to cut him off after a few bars! But the most important and most obvious humiliation was to force him to play inaudible acoustic guitar on Satifsfaction. I wonder which one of the glimmers had this idea of ultimate humiliatioin. I guess they had a lot of fun in treating him in such ways, because they never forgave him for leaving.
But at the end of the 2014-tour they must have become bored of humiliating him and released him from his pain. They tried to do the same to Bill Wyman, but he didnt need the money and refused to do gigs with them after the London show. Remember, he hadnt even a soundcheck, he didnt know what songs he would have to play until start of the show and finally had him playing on a tune he wasnt even present on the studio-recording. And Mick praised Darryl on stage, while Bill was standing in back watching Darryl play on Miss You. Yes, the glimmers punished their unfaithfull ex-soldiers in the end, they finally let them bleed for leaving the band.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-04 11:31 by HMS.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: October 4, 2015 12:20
That is D-ranged 
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: October 4, 2015 17:45
Quote
Olly
[
You're British aren't you, Al?
I believe Richards said 'cock' as opposed to 'you cock'. He means 'Hey pal' or 'Hey mate':
noun
British informal
a friendly form of address among men.
"please yourself, cock"
I am indeed British Olly, yes.
Well, I actually thought he said 'you cock' Certainly, the nature in which he we referring to Brian was somewhat unfriendly and lacked compassion. I do not doubt that 'cock' was once a more chummy way of greeting one another, but the context in which Keith said it seemed different to me. I guess it's open to interpretation!
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: October 4, 2015 18:29
Quote
Big Al
Well, I actually thought he said 'you cock'
Mercy - in the 1989 interview when Keith used the phrase he did not say "you cock";
he said "hey, cock, you're fired". He might as well have said "hey pal" or "hey man".
And as has been pointed out already, the 1989 interview was not a verbatim reenactment of the 1969 scenario.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 4, 2015 19:43
Quote
with sssoulQuote
Big Al
Well, I actually thought he said 'you cock'
Mercy - in the 1989 interview when Keith used the phrase he did not say "you cock";
he said "hey, cock, you're fired". He might as well have said "hey pal" or "hey man".
And as has been pointed out already, the 1989 interview was not a verbatim reenactment of the 1969 scenario.
Yes correct. Why do people constantly imagine people are saying something other than what they are actually saying all the time.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: October 4, 2015 19:46
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Doxa
But I guess the only thing that really "got me ballistic" was Keith's LIFE. It was a kind of shocking to realize how damn much he was lost in his image, to see the size of ego and smallness of his mind, and to realize how little loyalty any longer he had for The Stones, treating his most important 'partner in crime' so small-mindedly. For me the book was a kind of 'the end' of The Rolling Stones - not because of how Jagger would react, but because of Keith leaving the impression 'couldn't care less any longer' - it's only his own legacy he seems to care.
- Doxa
Strange how some of us read it and didn't pick up on those aspects you are so down about. I thought the love and respect for Mick shone through the few jabs Keith wrote about. Thought it was nice to get some rather truthful words out of Keith, him being one of the only ones in the world who can get away with such stark discussion of someone like Mick who has remained behind a wall of ambiguity in many respects. I think the publishers and ghost writer were more responsible for the amount of Mick stuff in the book because that's what everyone wanted to hear. Keith even admits he cut a lot of potential dirt out,
As far as his image goes, I also think Keith and his image are less separated than you may think. He IS that guy that everyone thinks he is most of the time. Not the full blown junkie waste case of old but certainly a product of that and not regretful or particularly changed, just no more class A street drugs. His discussions of that period were pretty frank and he was pretty clear he was reduced to really low level by his addictions. Brutally honest and pretty revealing. Anyway, I don't think Keith is capable of putting on a front too far from the reality and staying in character all these years. The only thing I think he may have left out a bit is his heavy drinking stuff, could be because at the time he was still drinking alot, a bit of denial mixed with an rather uncanny ability to hold his liquor...a true professional.
I thought he was pretty clear The Stones were always the most important thing in his life, that Mick was a huge key to their success (the best frontman in the business) and his stories weren't going to change that, especially since they were probably all true.
Good post!
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 4, 2015 20:46
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NaturalustQuote
Doxa
But I guess the only thing that really "got me ballistic" was Keith's LIFE. It was a kind of shocking to realize how damn much he was lost in his image, to see the size of ego and smallness of his mind, and to realize how little loyalty any longer he had for The Stones, treating his most important 'partner in crime' so small-mindedly. For me the book was a kind of 'the end' of The Rolling Stones - not because of how Jagger would react, but because of Keith leaving the impression 'couldn't care less any longer' - it's only his own legacy he seems to care.
- Doxa
Strange how some of us read it and didn't pick up on those aspects you are so down about. I thought the love and respect for Mick shone through the few jabs Keith wrote about. Thought it was nice to get some rather truthful words out of Keith, him being one of the only ones in the world who can get away with such stark discussion of someone like Mick who has remained behind a wall of ambiguity in many respects. I think the publishers and ghost writer were more responsible for the amount of Mick stuff in the book because that's what everyone wanted to hear. Keith even admits he cut a lot of potential dirt out,
As far as his image goes, I also think Keith and his image are less separated than you may think. He IS that guy that everyone thinks he is most of the time. Not the full blown junkie waste case of old but certainly a product of that and not regretful or particularly changed, just no more class A street drugs. His discussions of that period were pretty frank and he was pretty clear he was reduced to really low level by his addictions. Brutally honest and pretty revealing. Anyway, I don't think Keith is capable of putting on a front too far from the reality and staying in character all these years. The only thing I think he may have left out a bit is his heavy drinking stuff, could be because at the time he was still drinking alot, a bit of denial mixed with an rather uncanny ability to hold his liquor...a true professional.
I thought he was pretty clear The Stones were always the most important thing in his life, that Mick was a huge key to their success (the best frontman in the business) and his stories weren't going to change that, especially since they were probably all true.
Good post!
yeah another great post NL and not to forget Doxa that Keith has said many times that he left a lot of stuff about Mick out of the book
Who knows what a so and so Mick has been over the years.
It looks for now that Mick's dark secrets are safe with Keith
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 4, 2015 22:33
yes, good post naturalist. the period of time when i read life was when i was not reading this board. i was shocked when i came back here and read negative comments about "Life". I felt incredibly lucky that Keith shared his story with us, and as mentioned above, I was not surprised to find out that he was a less-than-standup guy. the things he said about Mick in the book don't come close to some of the more reprehensible things he has done during what we talk about as the "golden" period.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 5, 2015 00:18
Quote
Turner68
yes, good post naturalist. the period of time when i read life was when i was not reading this board. i was shocked when i came back here and read negative comments about "Life". I felt incredibly lucky that Keith shared his story with us, and as mentioned above, I was not surprised to find out that he was a less-than-standup guy. the things he said about Mick in the book don't come close to some of the more reprehensible things he has done during what we talk about as the "golden" period.[/quot[/u]e]
Sorry Turner i'm not following what you mean here. Can you clarify what reprehensible things who did or said to who in the golden period for me please
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 5, 2015 00:21
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Turner68
yes, good post naturalist. the period of time when i read life was when i was not reading this board. i was shocked when i came back here and read negative comments about "Life". I felt incredibly lucky that Keith shared his story with us, and as mentioned above, I was not surprised to find out that he was a less-than-standup guy. the things he said about Mick in the book don't come close to some of the more reprehensible things he has done during what we talk about as the "golden" period.[/quot[/u]e]
Sorry Turner i'm not following what you mean here. Can you clarify what reprehensible things who did or said to who in the golden period for me please
ah i don't see the need to go into all the details here, we know them all, it's just my reaction to doxa being surprised when he read "life" that keith didn't act like a tactful diplomat. keith talks about it all in "life".
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 5, 2015 00:38
Quote
Turner68Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Turner68
yes, good post naturalist. the period of time when i read life was when i was not reading this board. i was shocked when i came back here and read negative comments about "Life". I felt incredibly lucky that Keith shared his story with us, and as mentioned above, I was not surprised to find out that he was a less-than-standup guy. the things he said about Mick in the book don't come close to some of the more reprehensible things he has done during what we talk about as the "golden" period.[/quot[/u]e]
Sorry Turner i'm not following what you mean here. Can you clarify what reprehensible things who did or said to who in the golden period for me please
ah i don't see the need to go into all the details here, we know them all, it's just my reaction to doxa being surprised when he read "life" that keith didn't act like a tactful diplomat. keith talks about it all in "life".
No need for details i just was unsure what you meant that's all
I still think Mick got off lightly in Life, i mean there is obviously some deep resentment between the Glimmers that is hard for any of us to understand
I am just interested in what makes these geniuses tick, and why for instance everything from Mick towards Keith seems to be motivated by winning or getting his way at the expense of overall creativity. This is the crusts of why they have failed to deliver the goods we all crave from them for the last 38 years.
The Glimmer twins created their best results from harmony together not competition.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-05 00:39 by keefriffhards.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: October 5, 2015 00:43
sorry i screwed up all the quotes in the thread..
if i was stating the case for mick, i think i would say that he got tired of covering up for and saving the butt of a junkie for 10 years, and perhaps he resents that and the fact that keith hasn't seemed particularly grateful for that.
there is no question if you look at how mick and keith interacted in the 70s that mick was being extremely loyal to his at times completely non functioning partner.
if i was stating the case for mick, i think i would say that he got tired of covering up for and saving the butt of a junkie for 10 years, and perhaps he resents that and the fact that keith hasn't seemed particularly grateful for that.
there is no question if you look at how mick and keith interacted in the 70s that mick was being extremely loyal to his at times completely non functioning partner.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: October 5, 2015 01:04
Quote
Turner68
sorry i screwed up all the quotes in the thread..
if i was stating the case for mick, i think i would say that he got tired of covering up for and saving the butt of a junkie for 10 years, and perhaps he resents that and the fact that keith hasn't seemed particularly grateful for that.
there is no question if you look at how mick and keith interacted in the 70s that mick was being extremely loyal to his at times completely non functioning partner.
Yes i think some of us Keith camp fans forget that Mick has always shown incredible loyalty towards Keith, and in particular Keith's addictions
Nothing glamorous about the reality of junkies and Mick must have had incredible patience with keith
It could be some kind of subconscious guilt from keith that has caused the awkward distance between them, guilt is a funny thing.
Another thing i for one forget about Mick is that publicly he never puts keith down, on the other hand he rarely sings his praises either
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: October 5, 2015 02:18
Quote
HMSQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
HMSQuote
TheGreek
That would be my ultimate to have all three living guitarist in the band for the whole concert !!!
The ivitation of Taylor in 2012-14 was all about punishing and humiliating him night after night for leaving the band in the 70s. In 2015 they seem to have lost interest in humiliating him, the pleasure they derived in humiliating him paled obviously and they decided to drop him for once and forever.
HMS, do you have a prescription of absurdity? Because what you said is absurdity at its best. Holy crap what a twisted invention in your mind.
In what sense if any would they have had Taylor play on every song?
None.
They didn't "lose interest in humiliating him" in 2015 because they didn't humiliate him from 2012-2014. It was strictly for that part of the deal for the 50 years. They were clear about that.
It's the fans that have an issue with him not continuing on with the ZIP CODE tour, which he was never going to be a part of even though it would've made sense regarding STICKY FINGERS.
But then even that was pointless after all, wasn't it.
Of course the only thing they had in mind was to humiliate Mick Taylor in 2012-14. Usually they let him only do a solo on MR and at several times they even forced him to play on his knees! One or two times they allowed him a solo on CYHMK but only to cut him off after a few bars! But the most important and most obvious humiliation was to force him to play inaudible acoustic guitar on Satifsfaction. I wonder which one of the glimmers had this idea of ultimate humiliatioin. I guess they had a lot of fun in treating him in such ways, because they never forgave him for leaving.
But at the end of the 2014-tour they must have become bored of humiliating him and released him from his pain. They tried to do the same to Bill Wyman, but he didnt need the money and refused to do gigs with them after the London show. Remember, he hadnt even a soundcheck, he didnt know what songs he would have to play until start of the show and finally had him playing on a tune he wasnt even present on the studio-recording. And Mick praised Darryl on stage, while Bill was standing in back watching Darryl play on Miss You. Yes, the glimmers punished their unfaithfull ex-soldiers in the end, they finally let them bleed for leaving the band.
You need to stop. Your prescription ran out. Now as usual as you are about DIRTY WORK you're just babbling and making zero - that's ZERO - sense.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: October 5, 2015 02:39
Quote
HMS
Usually they let him only do a solo on MR and at several times they even forced him to play on his knees!
Lol...that's quite an imagination you have HMS.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 5, 2015 03:46
Quote
HairballQuote
HMS
Usually they let him only do a solo on MR and at several times they even forced him to play on his knees!
Lol...that's quite an imagination you have HMS.
lmfao. Indeed a healthy dose of wtf are you talking about there. Either HMS is more than a tad bit imaginitive or that's one of the most hilarious dry humor posts I've read here in a while. Ya never know cause you can't see his face when he typed it.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: October 5, 2015 05:11
Quote
keefriffhards
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
The flip side is Mick made them very happy while it lasted. Happy being with him and happy being part of Mick's scene with the parties, socializing with the rich and famous, trips to exotic locales...
My guess is that even the unhappy ones looked back fondly at the adventure of a lifetime they had.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-10-05 05:11 by triceratops.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: October 5, 2015 05:37
Quote
triceratopsQuote
keefriffhards
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
The flip side is Mick made them very happy while it lasted. Happy being with him and happy being part of Mick's scene with the parties, socializing with the rich and famous, trips to exotic locales...
My guess is that even the unhappy ones looked back fondly at the adventure of a lifetime they had.
Keith wrote in LIFE about how he couldn't get a girl to even look at him until became famous, then they were all over him. Mick's always seemed supremely confident with women, but I wonder if underneath all that bravado, he must have occasionally thought the same as Keith. That, if it were not for his fame and wealth, he'd be that skinny guy at the bar jumping around while the girls shooed him off.
Naw....
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: October 5, 2015 07:38
Quote
latebloomerQuote
triceratopsQuote
keefriffhards
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
The flip side is Mick made them very happy while it lasted. Happy being with him and happy being part of Mick's scene with the parties, socializing with the rich and famous, trips to exotic locales...
My guess is that even the unhappy ones looked back fondly at the adventure of a lifetime they had.
Keith wrote in LIFE about how he couldn't get a girl to even look at him until became famous, then they were all over him. Mick's always seemed supremely confident with women, but I wonder if underneath all that bravado, he must have occasionally thought the same as Keith. That, if it were not for his fame and wealth, he'd be that skinny guy at the bar jumping around while the girls shooed him off.
Naw....
Hard to say about Mick, but no doubt it's hard to separate him fame from his success in attracting partners. Money, success, fame and power are certainly one of the strongest attractants and all that plus the connection to rock music....the strongest of all. Thought I read about either Keith or Mick actually choosing the profession after watching the girls react to Elvis and his ilk. Motivated many a musician to choose the profession.
But Bill, now that's one practical Englishman. He damn well knew he was not going to draw the numbers and quality without his rock star status and took great advantage of it. He must be either a nice chap or embarrassingly horrid ....because we have very few stories of women telling tales of time with Bill.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: October 5, 2015 13:59
Quote
NaturalustQuote
latebloomerQuote
triceratopsQuote
keefriffhards
Mick has indeed left a lot of women unhappy over the years
The flip side is Mick made them very happy while it lasted. Happy being with him and happy being part of Mick's scene with the parties, socializing with the rich and famous, trips to exotic locales...
My guess is that even the unhappy ones looked back fondly at the adventure of a lifetime they had.
Keith wrote in LIFE about how he couldn't get a girl to even look at him until became famous, then they were all over him. Mick's always seemed supremely confident with women, but I wonder if underneath all that bravado, he must have occasionally thought the same as Keith. That, if it were not for his fame and wealth, he'd be that skinny guy at the bar jumping around while the girls shooed him off.
Naw....
Hard to say about Mick, but no doubt it's hard to separate him fame from his success in attracting partners. Money, success, fame and power are certainly one of the strongest attractants and all that plus the connection to rock music....the strongest of all. Thought I read about either Keith or Mick actually choosing the profession after watching the girls react to Elvis and his ilk. Motivated many a musician to choose the profession.
But Bill, now that's one practical Englishman. He damn well knew he was not going to draw the numbers and quality without his rock star status and took great advantage of it. He must be either a nice chap or embarrassingly horrid ....because we have very few stories of women telling tales of time with Bill.
True about Bill. I wonder what happened to Astrid Lundstrom, his longtime girlfriend. He was with her for years before the Mandy Smith disaster.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Tops
()
Date: October 5, 2015 14:33
Quote
HMS
Wearing awful costumes at Steel-Wheels/Urban-Jungle-tour.
+1
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Tops
()
Date: October 5, 2015 14:44
To involve Mick T in 2012-2014 and not performing either Winter or TWFNO in Concert. A wasted opportunity.
Re: things the rolling stones did that really, really, really got you ballistic
Posted by:
Chris Fountain
()
Date: October 5, 2015 14:48
My main beef with the Stones is their unattention to concert seating arrangements. They put efffort to stage detail without considering sitelnes from a fan's standpoint. How in the hell can you have a stage where the screens obscure or block the view of half the band?
This is simple geometry and it makes me sick.
This is simple geometry and it makes me sick.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
babyblue , fan989 , Glimmerest , Heart for Stones , keef62 , kwoznica , morio66 , OldMan59 , philrock90 , Racca1962 , spunky , Steinschlag , StonesSmeth99 , WelshEdge1 , welshphil , yearsinthemaking , yorkshirestone , zowie
Guests:
1349
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10