He dabbled with heroin during that period. I think he cant handle someone close to him dying. She survived but he probably realized he maj have to be the adult and i doubt he ever has been that. The man has his demons for sure.

Quote
35love
Not sure why I'm bothering, I've written this before, maybe you call me Polly-Anna,
I like to think I'm a positive, bright gal (most of the time. I try, anyway)

When I read 'Life' the passage about Mick's 'todger' (don't think I've disliked a word more. Word, not meaning ha ha)
It was in a story about
Anita Pallenberg
Anita the trouble maker
Anita had 'been with Mick' while filming 'Performance'
Keith was jealous
Anita comes back at Keith with 'baby you're the big man' references
That's how it read to me.
I can't psychoanalysis these guys any further without meeting them personally,
and if that actually happened,
I'd probably think I died and was in purgatory.

Probably true. Thats why it had to be in the book. Pay back for Anita. Same for the untrue story of him somehow seeing that as some free 60s open thing and sleeping with Marianne (never happened). I think he was hurt real bad, jealous and had to smooth things out with heroin aaddiction. Who knows hos Anita mind f--ked Keith.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
He dabbled with heroin during that period. I think he cant handle someone close to him dying. She survived but he probably realized he maj have to be the adult and i doubt he ever has been that. The man has his demons for sure.

Which period was that? I know in the same article, Keith very casually admitted that he had snorted heroin for the first time in a while on the B2B tour. He made it sound like a one-time thing that he only did out of curiosity because someone else had scored it, but a lot of fans were surprised that he would be so glib about it.

Are you referring to Patti? I didn't know of any reports that he was relapsing when she had cancer.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
35love
Not sure why I'm bothering, I've written this before, maybe you call me Polly-Anna,
I like to think I'm a positive, bright gal (most of the time. I try, anyway)

When I read 'Life' the passage about Mick's 'todger' (don't think I've disliked a word more. Word, not meaning ha ha)
It was in a story about
Anita Pallenberg
Anita the trouble maker
Anita had 'been with Mick' while filming 'Performance'
Keith was jealous
Anita comes back at Keith with 'baby you're the big man' references
That's how it read to me.
I can't psychoanalysis these guys any further without meeting them personally,
and if that actually happened,
I'd probably think I died and was in purgatory.

Probably true. Thats why it had to be in the book. Pay back for Anita. Same for the untrue story of him somehow seeing that as some free 60s open thing and sleeping with Marianne (never happened). I think he was hurt real bad, jealous and had to smooth things out with heroin aaddiction. Who knows hos Anita mind f--ked Keith.

Maybe he just liked getting high and catching a buzz ? we can speculate untill the cows come home but that's all it is .

RE ANITA:
My own view is that the whole Anita/Mick thing has overstated to a tremendous degree.
In the 60s and 70s girl fiends, wives even seemed to 'fair game.'
Except for Mr and Mrs Watts of course.
Performance was filmed around June 1968 and within 6 months
Mick Keith Marianne and Anita went to South America and of course worked on some new material whilst out there.
Not the action of a jealous and insecure person.
Anita and Keith were/are their own persons...part of their mutual attraction to each other.
And over the next few years Mick and Keith had a very productive working partnership.
And around May 1969 Keith and Anita moved into a new pad in Cheyne Park, just down the road from Sir Mick.

Mick & Keith have lived thousands of miles apart for donkey's years.
They move in completely different social circles and only really see each other when they're working with the band.

Exactly what kind of relationship do we expect them to have at this stage in their lives ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-30 14:47 by Spud.

Quote
jlowe
RE ANITA:
My own view is that the whole Anita/Mick thing has overstated to a tremendous degree.
In the 60s and 70s girl fiends, wives even seemed to 'fair game.'
Except for Mr and Mrs Watts of course.
Performance was filmed around June 1968 and within 6 months
Mick Keith Marianne and Anita went to South America and of course worked on some new material whilst out there.
Not the action of a jealous and insecure person.
Anita and Keith were/are their own persons...part of their mutual attraction to each other.
And over the next few years Mick and Keith had a very productive working partnership.
And around May 1969 Keith and Anita moved into a new pad in Cheyne Park, just down the road from Sir Mick.

That free love thing doest sound true at all when it comes to Keith. He was jealous and got hooked - and came up with Gimme Shelter. He didnt sleep with Marianne he used instead. Mick and Keith had some fight about this in the 90s. I dont think Keith is the forgiving guy.

The more you go back and read different things you see how Keith has very little capacity to tell the truth about even the smallest things.

Just reading that bit deltics posted from the rolling stone magazine article you find everything from-Mick saying "it never happened that way" and that Charlie just shoved him during their supposed "fight",[Keith had this cartoon where Charlie was popeye and Mick almost flew out a window from a huge punch]
-to Keith saying he hasn't had his hair cut professionaly since he was 14-from the 80's perm to the haircuts he and Jagger had in the 1970's that showed sculpted layering that are the mark of a top notch cosmetologist,i mean,c'mon man..and that's just on ONE PAGE..

even the story he told about seeing Mick dancing to his solo album when he came back from the bathroom was made up.it's really mindblowing,as if he just lives his own reality.

a psychiatrist should do a study on it-how doing drugs for years and having the money to live by your own rules could lead one to create their own world irrespective of actual events.makes you wonder,is it bullshit or does he really believe these things.

Is Keith a forgiving guy? Well, concerning business affairs he seems to be.
He was the prime mover in the Klein appointment and then many years later after it all went pear shaped he put it down to 'the price if an education'. He has also been pretty balanced about the benefits of having Klein manage them at that point in their careers.
Compare that to Mick's reaction who seems to have never got over the loss of copyrights, control and dosh.
Keith has also been on more affable terms with another 60's nemesis, one Andrew Oldham. Mick has never forgiven him either.

Perhaps its more an attitude to money issue.

Quote
jlowe
Is Keith a forgiving guy? Well, concerning business affairs he seems to be.
He was the prime mover in the Klein appointment and then many years later after it all went pear shaped he put it down to 'the price if an education'. He has also been pretty balanced about the benefits of having Klein manage them at that point in their careers.
Compare that to Mick's reaction who seems to have never got over the loss of copyrights, control and dosh.
Keith has also been on more affable terms with another 60's nemesis, one Andrew Oldham. Mick has never forgiven him either.

Perhaps its more an attitude to money issue.

it's easy to have that attitude when your partner learned the game and got you all your money back...
i'm not saying these things to put Keith down,i love the guy to death.i just can't believe how fckng crazy he is.it's fascinating how he's almost childlike,as in jlowes post above.

He was complaining about Jagger hanging out and talking with these business type people,managers,record company guys,promoters etc and he said something that i couldn't believe didn't come from a 14yr olds mouth..
something to the effect that they should remain in shadows and "bring out the big gun at the end,when we signed our first deal we all just stood there wearing sunglasses and said nothing and signed the deal"

As an adult he still believed that five skinny little twentysomethings trying to look tough were somehow intimidating to these new york lawyers.it's like his ego wouldn't let him realise those guys saw them as idiots,not suprising the kids got robbed.the LESSON is getting ripped off,the "price of an education" is the time spent learning how to not let it happen again.
NOBODY gets burned in a business deal like that[the stones entire 60's catalogue publishing] and doesn't feel the sting.of course having your partner cut a bunch of deals to make you rich again might make it hurt alot less..

Quote
lem motlow
The more you go back and read different things you see how Keith has very little capacity to tell the truth about even the smallest things.

This is the reason I never bothered reading Life. By the time it came out I had already realized that Keith was almost entirely unreliable. I've even read that what he says about how songs were recorded and how his guitar was tuned doesn't jibe with what you actually hear on the records. There's just no point in listening to anything the guy has to say about anything, not even his own music.

Quote
jlowe
Is Keith a forgiving guy? Well, concerning business affairs he seems to be.
He was the prime mover in the Klein appointment and then many years later after it all went pear shaped he put it down to 'the price if an education'. He has also been pretty balanced about the benefits of having Klein manage them at that point in their careers.
Compare that to Mick's reaction who seems to have never got over the loss of copyrights, control and dosh.
Keith has also been on more affable terms with another 60's nemesis, one Andrew Oldham. Mick has never forgiven him either.

Perhaps its more an attitude to money issue.

Refresh my memory, why hasn't Mick forgiven ALO?

I recall an interview where Mick said he still wakes up at 3 am writhing over the memory of having lost the 1960s catalogue to ABK.

Mick hasn't forgiven Oldham because essentially he sold his share of the copyrights without the band having the opportunity to buy.
It was also Oldham who was a prime mover in getting Klein /ABKCO appointed to handle their affairs in 1965.
So, in Mick's eyes, Oldham and Klein come from the same camp.
And of course, Oldham dropped out soon after the Redlands bust, just at the point when (even) Mick and Keith could have done with a supportive Manager.
At least , for all his faults, Klein seemed to be around doing whatever he could.

Quote
blivet

This is the reason I never bothered reading Life. By the time it came out I had already realized that Keith was almost entirely unreliable. I've even read that what he says about how songs were recorded and how his guitar was tuned doesn't jibe with what you actually hear on the records. There's just no point in listening to anything the guy has to say about anything, not even his own music.

"I'm no John McLaughlin and I'll never be, but I know what I'm good at". That's one of his best I do remember. Keith is a bit sour towards good players every now and then.

Quote
jlowe
Mick hasn't forgiven Oldham because essentially he sold his share of the copyrights without the band having the opportunity to buy.
It was also Oldham who was a prime mover in getting Klein /ABKCO appointed to handle their affairs in 1965.
So, in Mick's eyes, Oldham and Klein come from the same camp.
And of course, Oldham dropped out soon after the Redlands bust, just at the point when (even) Mick and Keith could have done with a supportive Manager.
At least , for all his faults, Klein seemed to be around doing whatever he could.

Thank you. Did he drop out? I thought I read that they just started ignoring him, edged him out, and so he left.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
jlowe
Mick hasn't forgiven Oldham because essentially he sold his share of the copyrights without the band having the opportunity to buy.
It was also Oldham who was a prime mover in getting Klein /ABKCO appointed to handle their affairs in 1965.
So, in Mick's eyes, Oldham and Klein come from the same camp.
And of course, Oldham dropped out soon after the Redlands bust, just at the point when (even) Mick and Keith could have done with a supportive Manager.
At least , for all his faults, Klein seemed to be around doing whatever he could.

Thank you. Did he drop out? I thought I read that they just started ignoring him, edged him out, and so he left.

Well I didn't quite mean drop out in the literal sense, but there were similarities to the Brian situation.
Oldham certainly had drug and other health issues; he was probably getting bored with Stones management responsibilities;they were becoming more confident at looking after the creative side; his defeciences as a record producer were more apparant.
And so on.
But it was (as with Brian) a gradual thing...not till the back end of 1967 in fact.
There are photos around of ALO and Brian in Monterey in the summer of love, but it was not good times for either of them.

Quote
lem motlow

even the story he told about seeing Mick dancing to his solo album when he came back from the bathroom was made up.it's really mindblowing,as if he just lives his own reality.

a psychiatrist should do a study on it-how doing drugs for years and having the money to live by your own rules could lead one to create their own world irrespective of actual events.makes you wonder,is it bullshit or does he really believe these things.

I think that he really does live in his own reality. I think it's part of his personality andd it was always like this to some extend. One can only assume if, and when, how much drugs and alcohol triggered that.

I was one of the biggest Keith supporters in the 70s and 80s. But over the years and with more and more info one is able to get his hands on in these days, you realize that a lot of his stories are plain bullshit. Made up crap to make the Stones history and his own more interesting. Keith has this tendency to dramatize and/or exaggerate things and I have a feeling it becomes worse with every year that goes by.

Over the last 30 years or so he became his own caricature. He acts, talks and behaves exactly the way the public expect it from him. Unfortunately his ability to play his instrument and to write songs subsided to a dramatic low in that period as well. But I can't take him serious anymore. He's the loyal goofy type of guy hanging on Mick's arse. Without Mick he would have been bankrupt or even dead since a looooong time. Mick saved his ass. Several times.

Quote
Kurt
..."trumped up" promotion probably wasn't the term I was looking for.

But the constant fawning over an album that was chock full of songs that had been languishing in the can for years seems a tad bit hypocritical.

Huh.

Well then I guess you'd better never listen to TATTOO YOU again.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
One thing that keeps getting mentioned in this thread is what a disaster Dirty Work was. While I don't cherish it the way regular poster HMS does, it is not without it's appeal. The guitar work is hot and nasty and it's loaded with pent-up angst and aggression.

It's still the worst thing they've ever done. You can spray as much gold on shit as you want, it's still shit.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
And as I often say, the Stones inferior work still pleases me so much more than a lot of other popular band's best work.

That's beyond subjective. It's a falsehood. A fallacy that keeps getting repeated. It's not even as good as the pathetic 'lesser of two evils'. The Stones' worst album is more pleasing than any other band's best work?

That's ridiculous.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
I found it quite amusing to see on the "magazine articles" thread here on IORR a review that heaped no small amount of praise on it. With Mick's relative uninvolvement apart from laying down his vocals, I enjoying the heavy Keith influence on DW. It gives a tantalizing foretaste of what Keith would do on Talk Is Cheap. So, again - sub-par for the Stones but still some compelling rock and roll.

Fortunately the first chord of Take It So Hard completely negated DIRTY WORK. There is nothing compelling on DW. How anyone can hear that needs help - professional help!

The "Harlem Shuffle" / "Had It With You" 45 was a great release. "Too Rude" and "Sleep Tonight" gave an idea of where Keith would go as a solo artist. The rest of it um, doesn't work. At all.

We can say four of the other six songs have great guitar work or that the bridge in "Back to Zero" is catchy, but that's grasping at straws when the lyrics, vocals, and drumming are dreadful. Heck, Chuck Leavell's organ work is one of the album's highlights. Ditto Ivan Neville's bass solo on "Hold Back."

The biggest fallacy with it is that Mick wasn't involved. The bootlegs show Mick was heavily involved in writing "One Hit" with Keith. While "Sleep Tonight" made the grade, there were two other ballads set to pinch-hit for it (one of Keith's and one of Mick's - which were essentially the same song). Mick clearly wrote most of the lyrics to "Hold Back" and certainly all of "Winning Ugly" and "Back to Zero." I'm fairly certain Mick contributed to the lyrics of "Fight," "Dirty Work," and "Had It With You" as well.

Now sadly they didn't release "Strictly Memphis" (possibly Bobby Womack came out of his coke binge long enough to point out Memphis is in Tennessee as Chuck Berry claimed and not "down in New Orleans") as that would have made a great substitute for "Harlem Shuffle."

There are more 1985 songs where we can hear Mick and Keith working closely together writing songs. Crushed Pearl.

Quote
Hansman

Quote
lem motlow

even the story he told about seeing Mick dancing to his solo album when he came back from the bathroom was made up.it's really mindblowing,as if he just lives his own reality.

a psychiatrist should do a study on it-how doing drugs for years and having the money to live by your own rules could lead one to create their own world irrespective of actual events.makes you wonder,is it bullshit or does he really believe these things.

I think that he really does live in his own reality. I think it's part of his personality andd it was always like this to some extend. One can only assume if, and when, how much drugs and alcohol triggered that.

I was one of the biggest Keith supporters in the 70s and 80s. But over the years and with more and more info one is able to get his hands on in these days, you realize that a lot of his stories are plain bullshit. Made up crap to make the Stones history and his own more interesting. Keith has this tendency to dramatize and/or exaggerate things and I have a feeling it becomes worse with every year that goes by.

Over the last 30 years or so he became his own caricature. He acts, talks and behaves exactly the way the public expect it from him. Unfortunately his ability to play his instrument and to write songs subsided to a dramatic low in that period as well. But I can't take him serious anymore. He's the loyal goofy type of guy hanging on Mick's arse. Without Mick he would have been bankrupt or even dead since a looooong time. Mick saved his ass. Several times.

SPOT ON.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Bliss

Quote
jlowe
Mick hasn't forgiven Oldham because essentially he sold his share of the copyrights without the band having the opportunity to buy.
It was also Oldham who was a prime mover in getting Klein /ABKCO appointed to handle their affairs in 1965.
So, in Mick's eyes, Oldham and Klein come from the same camp.
And of course, Oldham dropped out soon after the Redlands bust, just at the point when (even) Mick and Keith could have done with a supportive Manager.
At least , for all his faults, Klein seemed to be around doing whatever he could.

Thank you. Did he drop out? I thought I read that they just started ignoring him, edged him out, and so he left.

Well I didn't quite mean drop out in the literal sense, but there were similarities to the Brian situation.
Oldham certainly had drug and other health issues; he was probably getting bored with Stones management responsibilities;they were becoming more confident at looking after the creative side; his defeciences as a record producer were more apparant.
And so on.
But it was (as with Brian) a gradual thing...not till the back end of 1967 in fact.
There are photos around of ALO and Brian in Monterey in the summer of love, but it was not good times for either of them.

I see, thank you. I wonder if they will bury the hatchet, now that so much time has passed. They are an important part of each other's past.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The "Harlem Shuffle" / "Had It With You" 45 was a great release. "Too Rude" and "Sleep Tonight" gave an idea of where Keith would go as a solo artist. The rest of it um, doesn't work. At all.

We can say four of the other six songs have great guitar work or that the bridge in "Back to Zero" is catchy, but that's grasping at straws when the lyrics, vocals, and drumming are dreadful. Heck, Chuck Leavell's organ work is one of the album's highlights. Ditto Ivan Neville's bass solo on "Hold Back."

The biggest fallacy with it is that Mick wasn't involved. The bootlegs show Mick was heavily involved in writing "One Hit" with Keith. While "Sleep Tonight" made the grade, there were two other ballads set to pinch-hit for it (one of Keith's and one of Mick's - which were essentially the same song). Mick clearly wrote most of the lyrics to "Hold Back" and certainly all of "Winning Ugly" and "Back to Zero." I'm fairly certain Mick contributed to the lyrics of "Fight," "Dirty Work," and "Had It With You" as well.

Now sadly they didn't release "Strictly Memphis" (possibly Bobby Womack came out of his coke binge long enough to point out Memphis is in Tennessee as Chuck Berry claimed and not "down in New Orleans") as that would have made a great substitute for "Harlem Shuffle."

I like Stricktly Memphis but it is clearly Slave part II. Keith plays the exact same (fantastic underrated) riff (second half of the song/outro).

Life = Keith in cranky old man mode, but also shows he really loves and feels music deeply.

Enjoyable read or not, it is one of the essential stones books.

Bill's Stone Alone, another essential stones book, is similarly cranky.

As Bill's girlfriend Astrid noted, they were (maybe still are) a very uptight bunch.

I bet their music would be a lot duller were they more easy going.

I bet their music would be a lot duller were they more easy going.







.................................................................................................................... XFX



ROCKMAN

Quote
jlowe


Well I didn't quite mean drop out in the literal sense, but there were similarities to the Brian situation.
Oldham certainly had drug and other health issues; he was probably getting bored with Stones management responsibilities;they were becoming more confident at looking after the creative side; his defeciences as a record producer were more apparant.
And so on.
But it was (as with Brian) a gradual thing...not till the back end of 1967 in fact.
There are photos around of ALO and Brian in Monterey in the summer of love, but it was not good times for either of them.

ALO has talked about this, he did kind of abandon them during the heat of the Redlands bust, he say's because he had ensure he was able to travel freely in order to keep things going etc etc. That a busted stones manager would not be good for business.

I'm a bit hmmmm about that reason because it's clear that Klein was really their manager by then.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Kurt
..."trumped up" promotion probably wasn't the term I was looking for.

But the constant fawning over an album that was chock full of songs that had been languishing in the can for years seems a tad bit hypocritical.

Huh.

Well then I guess you'd better never listen to TATTOO YOU again.

C'mon GasLight. You're better than that.
Don't quote me out of context. We shouldn't be picking on each other here.

I'm not sure why I even find it necessary to defend myself BUT here's what I wrote:


"But the constant fawning over an album that was chock full of songs that had been languishing in the can for years seems a tad bit hypocritical. Especially with the high-praise coming from people that find it hip to now criticize 'Tattoo You' for the same approach. It was officially a new release. An album of songs. It just wasn't that great."