Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
Kurt

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash


I don't think they "pretend" to be the Stones at all. They're musicians, not actors.

I'd say you sadly and accidentally hit the nail on the head right there...

They are actors. People pay big money to see them in concert and the expectation is for them to act out their roles on stage.
All FOUR of them.

It's become a gigantic and massive Broadway-type production complete with costumes, cues and a program.

Shit. The thought of these upcoming four over-priced shows, and this thread, are utterly depressing to me.

I know you could be right but I haven't become quite that jaded yet. As I've said before, they live in such a private and insulated world that we may not know the realities of the situation for a very long time, if ever.

Agreed.

And I'm becoming increasingly more jaded this year.
I just need to think back...go back in time...to Buffalo last summer!
Maybe that one was my last.
If so, I'm out on a high note!

it's called deductive reasoning-

and they don't give academy awards out for smiling,nodding and putting your hand on someones shoulder.

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

richards-"we're brothers,brothers fight"

jagger-"keith says that because he's an only child,i have my own brother who i'm very close to"-ouch

if people read more about jagger they'd see it's not cool and it never was cool with him.he doesn't have "rhino skin" that's keiths fantasy way of pretending what he did was ok.
it's in bill germans book,it's in rich cohens book and it's in a thousand interviews.they are there to get P.A.I.D.with the least amount of time together as possible-no writing together,no spending hours going through different or new songs just run through the obvious ones and collect the check.
it's not something new,the eagles did it,aerosmith does it,alot of bands do.you can't be snarling at someone every minute or you'd never get anything done but i think cohen even says it in his book"they're acting" to think they're old buddies out having a good time..c'mon man,get real.

Yeah, but wasn't Cohen's comments about their animosity
from the 1994 (!) tour RS magazine sent him on?
That's a long time ago my friend.
Guess what?
They're 73! 73. My English mother-in-law is 73,
and they love their old mates just because they have this history
to talk about, etc. And talk about, and talk about.
I'm thinking after say, 68 years old,
doesn't your capacity to hate diminish with the meds? LOL.
It's all good. We all made it. Torn and frayed, but here.

Quote
lem motlow
it's called deductive reasoning-

and they don't give academy awards out for smiling,nodding and putting your hand on someones shoulder.

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

richards-"we're brothers,brothers fight"

jagger-"keith says that because he's an only child,i have my own brother who i'm very close to"-ouch

if people read more about jagger they'd see it's not cool and it never was cool with him.he doesn't have "rhino skin" that's keiths fantasy way of pretending what he did was ok.
it's in bill germans book,it's in rich cohens book and it's in a thousand interviews.they are there to get P.A.I.D.with the least amount of time together as possible-no writing together,no spending hours going through different or new songs just run through the obvious ones and collect the check.
it's not something new,the eagles did it,aerosmith does it,alot of bands do.you can't be snarling at someone every minute or you'd never get anything done but i think cohen even says it in his book"they're acting" to think they're old buddies out having a good time..c'mon man,get real.

This is one of the most poignant observations ever on iorr.

Quote
lem motlow

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

True enough, and it goes both ways. One of the saddest things in Keith's book was him remembering all the times he'd heard, 'Shut up, Keith,' when making suggestions or comments. Partly his fault, him being too out of it to put up a fight, but when he got married/got clean/got therapy (?) around 1980 it probably hit him pretty hard realizing the man he thought was his friend didn't really care about him.
I suspect Jagger tried to replace him in the B&B auditions ... maybe the reason Richards famously wouldn't show up to jam with Jeff Beck and why he engineered things to get Ronnie in the band.

Quote
lem motlow
it's called deductive reasoning-

and they don't give academy awards out for smiling,nodding and putting your hand on someones shoulder.

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

richards-"we're brothers,brothers fight"

jagger-"keith says that because he's an only child,i have my own brother who i'm very close to"-ouch

if people read more about jagger they'd see it's not cool and it never was cool with him.he doesn't have "rhino skin" that's keiths fantasy way of pretending what he did was ok.
it's in bill germans book,it's in rich cohens book and it's in a thousand interviews.they are there to get P.A.I.D.with the least amount of time together as possible-no writing together,no spending hours going through different or new songs just run through the obvious ones and collect the check.
it's not something new,the eagles did it,aerosmith does it,alot of bands do.you can't be snarling at someone every minute or you'd never get anything done but i think cohen even says it in his book"they're acting" to think they're old buddies out having a good time..c'mon man,get real.

You've nailed it

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
lem motlow

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

True enough, and it goes both ways. One of the saddest things in Keith's book was him remembering all the times he'd heard, 'Shut up, Keith,' when making suggestions or comments. Partly his fault, him being too out of it to put up a fight, but when he got married/got clean/got therapy (?) around 1980 it probably hit him pretty hard realizing the man he thought was his friend didn't really care about him.
I suspect Jagger tried to replace him in the B&B auditions ... maybe the reason Richards famously wouldn't show up to jam with Jeff Beck and why he engineered things to get Ronnie in the band.

I don't think any of those three theories are true?

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
lem motlow

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

True enough, and it goes both ways. One of the saddest things in Keith's book was him remembering all the times he'd heard, 'Shut up, Keith,' when making suggestions or comments. Partly his fault, him being too out of it to put up a fight, but when he got married/got clean/got therapy (?) around 1980 it probably hit him pretty hard realizing the man he thought was his friend didn't really care about him.
I suspect Jagger tried to replace him in the B&B auditions ... maybe the reason Richards famously wouldn't up to jam with Jeff Beck and why he engineered things to get Ronnie in the band.

Keith stormed out when Mick recorded with Ry and he had some sort of fight with Taylor during the iorr sessions.

The "brothers" aspect of their relationship isn't something only Keith remarks about ...

Mick has made similar comments, he said once in an interview "Keith was born my brother by different parents "..

Jagger has also made similar remarks about family and feuding within it ...

Maybe the fact that they have different personalities has something to do with it? Sir Michael is more outgoing, social and
really enjoys the perks of being a celebrity while Keith is basically shy and has integrity as thick as the crust of a Shepherd's Pie...

this question will be interesting/relevant again once the new blues cover CD is released in Dec...and then.... eventually the new tunes that come out in 2017...

Quote
lem motlow
it's called deductive reasoning-

and they don't give academy awards out for smiling,nodding and putting your hand on someones shoulder.

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

richards-"we're brothers,brothers fight"

jagger-"keith says that because he's an only child,i have my own brother who i'm very close to"-ouch

if people read more about jagger they'd see it's not cool and it never was cool with him.he doesn't have "rhino skin" that's keiths fantasy way of pretending what he did was ok.
it's in bill germans book,it's in rich cohens book and it's in a thousand interviews.they are there to get P.A.I.D.with the least amount of time together as possible-no writing together,no spending hours going through different or new songs just run through the obvious ones and collect the check.
it's not something new,the eagles did it,aerosmith does it,alot of bands do.you can't be snarling at someone every minute or you'd never get anything done but i think cohen even says it in his book"they're acting" to think they're old buddies out having a good time..c'mon man,get real.

Although I do acknowledge that Keith probably did those things out of hurt, it's definitely nice to see someone acknowledge that Keith did some not-so-nice things that weren't really warranted instead of just blaming Mick for the whole thing.

That's all I have to say about that; this debate/discussion will probably go on well past the end of time...

The brother thing is interesting and I think lem is mostly right in what he says. Although I think it could also be that, despite Keith being an only child, they have different ideas for "brothers". I have a brother and we used to fight a lot. Now we don't, except on rare occasions, but he isn't like, my closest friend. We talk, but he's not the first person I go to, or even the person I go to ever about a lot of things. Its just that kind of relationship. But I have friends who are much closer with their brothers, and think its weird I don't talk to mine as much (even though our relationship is absolutely fine).

I think Keith might see it more the way my relationship with my brother is and Mick might see it more as how my friends are with their brother. With Keith, he gets that fighting is part of it. I get that I'll have arguments with my brother but no matter what I say he's still my brother. Yet with Mick they probably don't fight, similar to how I don't know if I've heard of an instance with some of my friends fighting with their brother.

Just thinking out loud, and it could be totally off. I do think they consider themselves "brothers", despite what Mick says. But I think they both just have a different sense of what that word means. Keith means it in an actual blood way where they truly are family, where Mick sees it more as a partnership but not actually the same as with his true brother in the family. If that makes sense.

I also think the reason they split is simply because thats what happens in life. Some people stay together forever. In a band sense, Alex Lifeson and Geddy Lee are a perfect example. They have been together for over 40 years and still seem to love each other's company and hang all the time. I believe they even live close to each other. Then there's the other side. I have a very close friend, been a friend of mine for probably 20 years. We are nowhere near as close as we used to be, but there's still certain things only we remember or have a history of. But if I were to hang out with him all the time, I'd hate him. Thats how it seemed to be in the Stones. They obviously had their moment in the trenches where they were together all the time, then one or both of them down the line realized "I need to spend time with other people or I'll kill this guy." I'm like that with many of my friends. They keep a distance to stay in a band together.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-22 08:22 by RollingFreak.

I dont think they have much in common apart from the huge thing the do have in common which is the Stones. When Keith was smacked up he was probably cool and easy and still good at least at times productive partner (crucial onstage of course). Still I wonder if Mick and Keith are not the equivalent of John and George, not Paul. Or maybe Paul and George. ????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-22 10:15 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
lem motlow
it's called deductive reasoning-

and they don't give academy awards out for smiling,nodding and putting your hand on someones shoulder.

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

richards-"we're brothers,brothers fight"

jagger-"keith says that because he's an only child,i have my own brother who i'm very close to"-ouch

if people read more about jagger they'd see it's not cool and it never was cool with him.he doesn't have "rhino skin" that's keiths fantasy way of pretending what he did was ok.
it's in bill germans book,it's in rich cohens book and it's in a thousand interviews.they are there to get P.A.I.D.with the least amount of time together as possible-no writing together,no spending hours going through different or new songs just run through the obvious ones and collect the check.
it's not something new,the eagles did it,aerosmith does it,alot of bands do.you can't be snarling at someone every minute or you'd never get anything done but i think cohen even says it in his book"they're acting" to think they're old buddies out having a good time..c'mon man,get real.

This is one of the most poignant observations ever on iorr.

I think everybody knows this, hence it's common knowledge.

How much of it one would take seriously, however, depends on how far you wanna stray from the real world.

The Stones are masters at PR, and the Mick/Keith-feud has been what kept them in the news for decades - even when they didn't bother to write or release anything.

So, suck it up, if you wanna believe it. That's exactly what they want

I dont think there is a feud on Micks part at all. He doesnt bother. Keith on the other hand blows his top every now and then and follows up with "were brothers, I miss him, i just want to go back to the studio, when we work together".

Quote
Redhotcarpet
I dont think there is a feud on Micks part at all. He doesnt bother. Keith on the other hand blows his top every now and then and follows up with "were brothers, I miss him, i just want to go back to the studio, when we work together".

I think at this stage there's no feud at all. They're not brothers or best friends, but they found some kind of peace when they got back together in 2012.

They're old, Keith is fragile. Seemingly, they put their energy into stuff they can influence, and they do that together. That works.

<The Stones are masters at PR, and the Mick/Keith-feud has been what kept them in the news for decades - even when they didn't bother to write or release anything.>

I have often wondered myself, if the whole feud thing was a complete fabrication, whipped up to keep people interested and make everyone salivate all the more at the thought of buying tickets to see them when they came back from a long break in 1989. They are indeed masters of PR, so perhaps this is plausible. Same thing with Keith's book. The tales of calling Mick Brenda and disparaging the size of Mick's manhood - all made up to make people even more amazed and enthralled when the Stones regrouped in 2012 to sell even more high-priced tickets. I almost could buy this theory easier than I can buy the one that the Stones are great actors onstage. The moments of smiling, laughing and affection look genuine. I wish I could find it, but back at the height of WWIII, I saw a picture in the newspaper of Mick and Keith coming out of a club after Ian Stewart had died, with their arms around each other and big smiles on their faces. I thought to myself, these don't look like two guys who hate each other. Granted, they no longer hang out like best friends but maybe all that rage and bad blood was a brilliant PR ploy. I suppose we may never really know...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
<The Stones are masters at PR, and the Mick/Keith-feud has been what kept them in the news for decades - even when they didn't bother to write or release anything.>

I have often wondered myself, if the whole feud thing was a complete fabrication, whipped up to keep people interested and make everyone salivate all the more at the thought of buying tickets to see them when they came back from a long break in 1989. They are indeed masters of PR, so perhaps this is plausible. Same thing with Keith's book. The tales of calling Mick Brenda and disparaging the size of Mick's manhood - all made up to make people even more amazed and enthralled when the Stones regrouped in 2012 to sell even more high-priced tickets. I almost could buy this theory easier than I can buy the one that the Stones are great actors onstage. The moments of smiling, laughing and affection look genuine. I wish I could find it, but back at the height of WWIII, I saw a picture in the newspaper of Mick and Keith coming out of a club after Ian Stewart had died, with their arms around each other and big smiles on their faces. I thought to myself, these don't look like two guys who hate each other. Granted, they no longer hang out like best friends but maybe all that rage and bad blood was a brilliant PR ploy. I suppose we may never really know...

Like I said, it's never as black and white as lem is advocating for here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-22 11:30 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
<The Stones are masters at PR, and the Mick/Keith-feud has been what kept them in the news for decades - even when they didn't bother to write or release anything.>

I have often wondered myself, if the whole feud thing was a complete fabrication, whipped up to keep people interested and make everyone salivate all the more at the thought of buying tickets to see them when they came back from a long break in 1989. They are indeed masters of PR, so perhaps this is plausible. Same thing with Keith's book. The tales of calling Mick Brenda and disparaging the size of Mick's manhood - all made up to make people even more amazed and enthralled when the Stones regrouped in 2012 to sell even more high-priced tickets. I almost could buy this theory easier than I can buy the one that the Stones are great actors onstage. The moments of smiling, laughing and affection look genuine. I wish I could find it, but back at the height of WWIII, I saw a picture in the newspaper of Mick and Keith coming out of a club after Ian Stewart had died, with their arms around each other and big smiles on their faces. I thought to myself, these don't look like two guys who hate each other. Granted, they no longer hang out like best friends but maybe all that rage and bad blood was a brilliant PR ploy. I suppose we may never really know...

Like I said, it's never as black and white as lem is advocating for here.

Nothing ever is my friend, nothing ever is........All I do know is that the Stones grabbed me at a very young age and I've never been the same since! And for that, I'll always loved them. I was only 5 when I first heard Satisfaction. I knew nothing of sex or drugs... but I knew rock and roll was something moving and powerful.....Then at age 10, Ya Ya's really hooked me...corrupted me for life! There was no turning back.....Whatever Mick and Keith's real story is, I'll be eternally grateful for a literal lifetime of great music!....And maybe that's the only element of the Mick and Keith's story that I really care about - the music.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-22 11:38 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
<The Stones are masters at PR, and the Mick/Keith-feud has been what kept them in the news for decades - even when they didn't bother to write or release anything.>

I have often wondered myself, if the whole feud thing was a complete fabrication, whipped up to keep people interested and make everyone salivate all the more at the thought of buying tickets to see them when they came back from a long break in 1989. They are indeed masters of PR, so perhaps this is plausible. Same thing with Keith's book. The tales of calling Mick Brenda and disparaging the size of Mick's manhood - all made up to make people even more amazed and enthralled when the Stones regrouped in 2012 to sell even more high-priced tickets. I almost could buy this theory easier than I can buy the one that the Stones are great actors onstage. The moments of smiling, laughing and affection look genuine. I wish I could find it, but back at the height of WWIII, I saw a picture in the newspaper of Mick and Keith coming out of a club after Ian Stewart had died, with their arms around each other and big smiles on their faces. I thought to myself, these don't look like two guys who hate each other. Granted, they no longer hang out like best friends but maybe all that rage and bad blood was a brilliant PR ploy. I suppose we may never really know...

I was keeping close tabs at that time and that was actually BEFORE so called WWIII, the Ian Stewart concert was on February 23rd 1986 and the Grammy prize a couple of days later on the 25th : [www.youtube.com]

I think WW III officially started when Mick faxed the Stones' office sometime in the spring to say he wouldn't be touring with the band in 1986 or in the foreseeable future. Sure there was tension during the DW sessions but by all accounts the band were often seen together and had dinner together each evening at the Val d'Isère across from the Warwick off the Champs-Elysees before heading off to the studio. The next time they spent significant time in Paris was in 2012 and there were no reports of them having dinner together ;-)

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-22 11:55 by gotdablouse.

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
<The Stones are masters at PR, and the Mick/Keith-feud has been what kept them in the news for decades - even when they didn't bother to write or release anything.>

I have often wondered myself, if the whole feud thing was a complete fabrication, whipped up to keep people interested and make everyone salivate all the more at the thought of buying tickets to see them when they came back from a long break in 1989. They are indeed masters of PR, so perhaps this is plausible. Same thing with Keith's book. The tales of calling Mick Brenda and disparaging the size of Mick's manhood - all made up to make people even more amazed and enthralled when the Stones regrouped in 2012 to sell even more high-priced tickets. I almost could buy this theory easier than I can buy the one that the Stones are great actors onstage. The moments of smiling, laughing and affection look genuine. I wish I could find it, but back at the height of WWIII, I saw a picture in the newspaper of Mick and Keith coming out of a club after Ian Stewart had died, with their arms around each other and big smiles on their faces. I thought to myself, these don't look like two guys who hate each other. Granted, they no longer hang out like best friends but maybe all that rage and bad blood was a brilliant PR ploy. I suppose we may never really know...

I was keeping close tabs at that time and that was actually BEFORE so called WWIII, the Ian Stewart concert was on February 23rd 1986 and the Grammy prize a couple of days later on the 25th : [www.youtube.com]

I think WW III officially started when Mick faxed the Stones' office sometime in the spring to say he wouldn't be touring with the band in 1986 or in the foreseeable future. Sure there was tension during the DW sessions but by all accounts the band were often seen together and had dinner together each evening at the Val d'Isère across from the Warwick off the Champs-Elysees before heading off to the studio. The next time they spent significant time in Paris was in 2012 and there were no reports of them having dinner together ;-)

OK - Thanks for the clarification! But I'm guessed the foreboding rumblings of the coming WWIII were well in place during the DW sessions, with Mick dividing his time between those sessions and those for his solo albums, which Keith was allegedly very pissed about.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
<The Stones are masters at PR, and the Mick/Keith-feud has been what kept them in the news for decades - even when they didn't bother to write or release anything.>

I have often wondered myself, if the whole feud thing was a complete fabrication, whipped up to keep people interested and make everyone salivate all the more at the thought of buying tickets to see them when they came back from a long break in 1989. They are indeed masters of PR, so perhaps this is plausible. Same thing with Keith's book. The tales of calling Mick Brenda and disparaging the size of Mick's manhood - all made up to make people even more amazed and enthralled when the Stones regrouped in 2012 to sell even more high-priced tickets. I almost could buy this theory easier than I can buy the one that the Stones are great actors onstage. The moments of smiling, laughing and affection look genuine. I wish I could find it, but back at the height of WWIII, I saw a picture in the newspaper of Mick and Keith coming out of a club after Ian Stewart had died, with their arms around each other and big smiles on their faces. I thought to myself, these don't look like two guys who hate each other. Granted, they no longer hang out like best friends but maybe all that rage and bad blood was a brilliant PR ploy. I suppose we may never really know...

I was keeping close tabs at that time and that was actually BEFORE so called WWIII, the Ian Stewart concert was on February 23rd 1986 and the Grammy prize a couple of days later on the 25th : [www.youtube.com]

I think WW III officially started when Mick faxed the Stones' office sometime in the spring to say he wouldn't be touring with the band in 1986 or in the foreseeable future. Sure there was tension during the DW sessions but by all accounts the band were often seen together and had dinner together each evening at the Val d'Isère across from the Warwick off the Champs-Elysees before heading off to the studio. The next time they spent significant time in Paris was in 2012 and there were no reports of them having dinner together ;-)

I think Mick wrote that he wouldn't be working with The Stones in the foreseeable future. That's a double-punch, and probably went down pretty bad with Keith.

At least, that's what the news reported here back then..

>the Ian Stewart concert was on February 23rd 1986 and the Grammy prize a couple of days later on the 25th :>

I remember seeing the Grammy thing on TV...Perhaps this was the period when Charlie wasn't...um...doing well? I remember him looking uncharacteristically wasted. He was mumbling something incomprehensible about the grammy plaque, like it looked like a skateboard, and "It hasn't got any wheels!" Or maybe I was wasted when I watched it!...

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
AlmostHearYouSigh
Take a look at the video for Neighbors. Keith's hate for Mick is so obvious. Thanks to this cheaply made video (no retakes-keep the camera rolling) you can see Keith's public contempt started in 1981. Mick became a person Keith can't accept. Telling video - Mick wants to play the part of room-mates and friends and Keith is like f off I don't act.

you are kidding...right? [www.youtube.com]

Just watched the video and i agree with you that this is standard on stage personas for the Glimmers . Reading thru this thread i had this thought that we will be forever guessing about all of this because there relationship is so COMPLEX .All we really can do is guess because there are probably so many layers to the many dynamics .We do know all about the stuff that has been reported in the media but really that is just one side of it , i bet Charlie, Bill and Ronnie could shed some light but they wont and that would only be there perspective from there view.I could go on and on.

Quote
lem motlow
it's called deductive reasoning-

and they don't give academy awards out for smiling,nodding and putting your hand on someones shoulder.

try this-take one of your friends and start calling him brenda or her majesty behind his back.then tell everyone how unbearable they are,call their work dogshit and after that run around and tell anyone who will listen that your friend has a small dick.and make sure you tell enough people that you're sure it will get back to him.
do this for a few years-at the end see how your friend feels about you.
if you work together your friend probably won't quit his job because of it and might even say hi and share a laugh with you but he's not your friend anymore.if you think he is you're delusional.

richards-"we're brothers,brothers fight"

jagger-"keith says that because he's an only child,i have my own brother who i'm very close to"-ouch

if people read more about jagger they'd see it's not cool and it never was cool with him.he doesn't have "rhino skin" that's keiths fantasy way of pretending what he did was ok.
it's in bill germans book,it's in rich cohens book and it's in a thousand interviews.they are there to get P.A.I.D.with the least amount of time together as possible-no writing together,no spending hours going through different or new songs just run through the obvious ones and collect the check.
it's not something new,the eagles did it,aerosmith does it,alot of bands do.you can't be snarling at someone every minute or you'd never get anything done but i think cohen even says it in his book"they're acting" to think they're old buddies out having a good time..c'mon man,get real.

This is what i really think is REAL and TRUE .They are there to get P.A.I.D. nothing wrong with that because i would do the same thing it is called life and is not exclusive to the music industry it happens in real life even between married couples .You have a wife that is unhappy and is not paid attention to and she stays with the husband because he provides her a certain comfortable lifestyle that she enjoys the perks from but is it really true love ?

Quote
TheGreek
You have a wife that is unhappy and is not paid attention to and she stays with the husband because he provides her a certain comfortable lifestyle that she enjoys the perks from but is it really true love ?

When there are difficulties in a marriage it could be a sign of true love that they stick together to try/in hope that things will get better again.

I doubt its all fabricated, although maybe some of it is. Mainly, I don't think Keith wrote about Mick's thing and they are like "this'll be great to keep those flames alive." Unless Mick is insane, he'd never let that out there, true or not. I'm convinced he had no knowledge of that before the book came out or else he would have insisted it not be included. Thats too far to be a joke.

Also, I see nothing in the Neighbours video that proves they don't like each other.

yeah it's all p.r. -

so here's the challenge i drop every time and no one has passed the test yet-

show me a picture of mick and keith in a social setting,it has to be non-work related.like the picture of ronnie by the pool with keith or mick and charlie having dinner.-i''ll give you a 25 year time span this time.25 years..

maybe they've just plotted such an elaborate p.r. stunt that they're not seen together at a movie premiere,dinner,a party,in an airport,in each others homes,at an awards show,hanging on vacation etc so as to not blow the cover.that way if they never see each other,never hang out and never write songs together anymore we won't catch on to the old planned fake feud stunt....yeah,that's it-i've cracked the case.

Lot of good opinions, but the 'fake feud' thing is silly.
No marketing or publicity person in his or her right mind would think that's a good way to sell a band.