Richards showed up at his publicist's office with a half-gallon of Jack Daniel's and drank tall glasses from it, one after another. (He didn't seem any worse for the wear nearly two hours later.)

Probably tea.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Richards showed up at his publicist's office with a half-gallon of Jack Daniel's and drank tall glasses from it, one after another. (He didn't seem any worse for the wear nearly two hours later.)

Probably tea.

That was Dean Martin.

Keith could've easily pulled that off.

A friend of mine says Keith has always seen the band as a type of gang, and has that mentality about it -- people can't leave, for example, and they stick together no matter what.
And that's how they are marketed. I'm 50 years old and know that's ridiculous but it still has an appeal to me.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
GasLightStreet
Richards showed up at his publicist's office with a half-gallon of Jack Daniel's and drank tall glasses from it, one after another. (He didn't seem any worse for the wear nearly two hours later.)

Probably tea.

That was Dean Martin.

Keith = Dean Martin
Mick = Frank Sinatra (or Jerry Lewis)

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Well Mick had too, he had lost a lot of money and he had to reunite. I gotta add that i dont think Mick is very hateful or bitter at all which probably makes it possible to continue with "uncle Keith" as long as Keith is not in a bad mood. Besides Mick probably did admire Keith for a period in the 60s and early 70s.

Why had Mick lost a lot of money (by 1989) ?
After the Klein debacle (which affected them all) and the Bianca divorce (for which he wasn't exactly generous), his fortune has increased year on year.

I don't know anything about Mick's finances at that time, but it seemed like he had lost a lot of artistic credibility with his solo work. It sold, but it must have been painfully obvious that on his own he would never have that legendary and mythical status - not to mention ticket sales - that he'd have with the Stones. If his ego is as huge as reported, I'm sure those facts made him more than ready to get back with Keith.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Jagger lost money? In the 1970s - but they all did. Up their noses, in their arms...

After the 1981 tour they were probably set for quite a while. Then they laughed all the way to the bank with that deal CBS/Columbia gave them and they shat out a vomitorious Skittles covered excuse for an album.

Of course Mick was most likely drooling at the financial prospects of a Stones tour before he finished PRIMITIVE COOL. He may've purposely shot his solo career down at the time by releasing Let's Work as a single. "That'll get the Stones back together".

DID Mick lose a lot of artistic credibility with his solo work? I ask because the Stones 80s output was already poor. Undercover and Dirty Work sucked for the most part, if not to us definitely to the general public. His solo work just kinda continued that bad music. No one was really taking him seriously at the time anyway. I figured that didn't take a hit on him because the Stones already had.

He lost money in 1987 on the stock marker but even if he got some of it back it probably helped reunite when offered enormous amounts for touring

UNDERCOVER may suck in hindsight but then it was innovative and it got away from the what they had been doing and was seedy in comparison. It was a complete 180 from what they had been doing and it was a pretty big success considering they didn't tour and focused on the videos.

DIRTY WORK, on the other hand, does suck in hindsight and to my stance as a Stones fan they all lost credibility with that album. It blows my mind that they agreed it was releasable.

Jagger's solo albums pre and post DW certainly added to the tied-to-a-cinder-block bottoming out of The Rolling Stones 1985-1988 era.

Read the reviews of DW and it's astounding: those are the same people that slammed EOMS?

Either CBS/Columbia must've used what was left from the Stones record deal to pay those hacks off to say something good about such a pathetic album or they were into the latest crack cocaine or whatever.

The reason STEEL WHEELS was such a big deal (why the critics loved the LP) was it wasn't DIRTY WORK bad.

That says a lot. SW gave them their credibility back.

The Stones had 3 career wise important LP releases in the 1980s: TATTOO YOU, REWIND and STEEL WHEELS.

Quote
RollingFreak
DID Mick lose a lot of artistic credibility with his solo work? I ask because the Stones 80s output was already poor. Undercover and Dirty Work sucked for the most part, if not to us definitely to the general public. His solo work just kinda continued that bad music. No one was really taking him seriously at the time anyway. I figured that didn't take a hit on him because the Stones already had.

I think Mick did lose credibility as an artist. I know he sure did among all my friends that were Stones fans. The last Stones album before he went solo was Undercover, not their greatest but a lot of us liked it and it was sure better than She's The Boss. If Mick thought he could be as good without the Stones he was sure wrong. She's The Boss contained competent pop-rock but it sorely missed the X-factor that happens when guys like Charlie Watts and Keith Richards are creating the grooves behind you; not to mention a bassist like Bill Wyman. That X-factor is a huge part of the Stones success. It's hard to find words to describe or define it but you know it when you hear it. On Mick's solo work, you didn't hear it.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

That may, in fact be as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Thanks, Bliss, for posting that great article.

"Scales fall from Elmo's eyes".....

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

Yeah, I remember that. It was indeed a cutting article. A lot of it strikes me as true, but some of it (the Brian stuff, for example, seems unfair.)
I think it gets two out of the three things right about Keith (first his talent for making records, which lessened over the years; second his addictions, which created chaos) but the third thing is that there is something likeable, something generous and good about him that that the writer ignores. Maybe I am still sentimentalizing him, but I think he's a good and decent man.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

That may, in fact be as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get.

Mick is far too private and classy to ever go there, but Keith really does deserve in a good (figurative) smack in the mouth, and I say that as someone who always idolized Keith and, while also loving Mick, thought of him as a somewhat humorless, stodgy taskmaster.

My opinion has definitely shifted in recent years. All the good stuff we've gotten from the Stones over the last almost 27 years has been almost entirely due to Mick's drive and organization.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

That may, in fact be as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get.

Mick is far too private and classy to ever go there, but Keith really does deserve in a good (figurative) smack in the mouth, and I say that as someone who always idolized Keith and, while also loving Mick, thought of him as a somewhat humorless, stodgy taskmaster.

My opinion has definitely shifted in recent years. All the good stuff we've gotten from the Stones over the last almost 27 years has been almost entirely due to Mick's drive and organization.

True, and it does seem that an awful lot of the better rockers in the modern era have been Mick songs.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

That may, in fact be as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get.

Mick is far too private and classy to ever go there, but Keith really does deserve in a good (figurative) smack in the mouth, and I say that as someone who always idolized Keith and, while also loving Mick, thought of him as a somewhat humorless, stodgy taskmaster.

My opinion has definitely shifted in recent years. All the good stuff we've gotten from the Stones over the last almost 27 years has been almost entirely due to Mick's drive and organization.

True, and it does seem that an awful lot of the better rockers in the modern era have been Mick songs.

I don't even mean just the songs (although that's true too): the tours, the archive material, the public profile of the band in general, etc. I know plenty of people bemoan the "Vegas" era, but without Mick, the band would have completely fallen into drunken, coked-out inactivity.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

That may, in fact be as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get.

Boring, I call BS

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Bliss
This article might shed some light..

Goddamn...that's a great (and brutal) article.

That may, in fact be as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get.

Boring, I call BS

Probably some BS but enough elements of truth to make you think. Imagine being Mick and wanting to maintain the legendary image of the Rolling Stones with a principle member addicted to heroin, same member kicking heroin but being chronically drunk and coked out, 2nd String guitarist, much the same and then developing a freebase habit at the time of a major tour, and the once solid-as-a-rock drummer falling into heroin in later years. It had to be very hard to make all that work!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote

but the third thing is that there is something likeable, something generous and good about him that that the writer ignores. Maybe I am still sentimentalizing him, but I think he's a good and decent man.

Yes, this is very true. Also, Keith is much warmer and more emotional than Mick, and cares that they are no longer friends. Mick was burned out and moved on several decades ago.

Side note - on another board, a guy who has worked concert security for many years was asked about Mick and Keith. He had worked on the 50 and Counting tour. He mentioned that Mick's proclivity for under-25 year old girls was still alive and well, that they both 'powdered their noses,' and had nothing to do with each other backstage.

Quote
Bliss
Side note - on another board, a guy who has worked concert security for many years was asked about Mick and Keith. He had worked on the 50 and Counting tour. He mentioned that Mick's proclivity for under-25 year old girls was still alive and well, that they both 'powdered their noses,' and had nothing to do with each other backstage.

everybody who ever worked a hotdog stand at a stones show wants to sound important.the guy is full of shit,in this day and age there is no way mick or keith would let some low level security guard see them doing blow,even if they were.mick likes young women?,i'm speechless-this is gonna send shockwaves through stonesworld.

the guy in the article pretty much said what alot of us have been thinking for years.as much as i love keith,there isn't a rock and roll icon exception to the absolute destruction drug and alchohol addiction causes.
after taking every word keith said as gospel for years it dawned on me one day that he was no different from my old friends who had ruined their lives and that of their families and alienated those closest to them.
as i grew up one thing i noticed,somebody always has to pick up the slack.well, who picked up the slack for my main man?-that was the day i started looking at jagger in a completely different light.
i'm not trying to make one the good guy and one the bad guy because the lesson is we're all human and even our heroes sometimes take a fall.it just gave me a certain amount of sympathy for one of the old devils that wasn't there before, and it needs to be said.

Just saw a pic of Mick and Matt Clifford on the rehearsal thread, and I remember seeing them together at the Euro Cup, and several times before that as well. Mick & Keith: What happened? When they were having their WWIII in the '80s, Mick found a younger (and in his opinion) classier guy to hang out with and cut demos with. And they're still together. Just the opinion of some Keef girl.



"Nice bit of silk, Em."

Quote
wonderboy

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
keefriff99
But then when you watch that recent YouTube clip of them discussing their Edith Grove apartment...they genuinely seem at least at ease with each other. That's some A+ acting if they truly can't stand each other.

[www.youtube.com]

They play their parts, they get a load of money, It's a nice scene, they just have to stand each other for an hour. Mick seems to behave like his slightly embarrassed nephew or something.

Yeah, Mick seems impatient, like he just wants to get it over with.

That's just Mick. He's still hyper at 73.

Quote
AlmostHearYouSigh

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DandelionPowderman
«prerequisite»

Here's the interview

Cool...Thanks!

I always found Keith's follow up to Mick's comment regarding the apology disturbing:

"I'd say anything to get the band together, you know? I'd lie to my mother."

Yes, but it's true. Keith knew the band was hanging together by a thread and did several things he had to do to get Mick back on board. All he's doing in the quote above is telling the truth. What could he have done anyway? Gone on television and said no, I lied, Mick does have a huge penis?

Quote
Bliss

Quote

but the third thing is that there is something likeable, something generous and good about him that that the writer ignores. Maybe I am still sentimentalizing him, but I think he's a good and decent man.

Yes, this is very true. Also, Keith is much warmer and more emotional than Mick, and cares that they are no longer friends. Mick was burned out and moved on several decades ago.

Side note - on another board, a guy who has worked concert security for many years was asked about Mick and Keith. He had worked on the 50 and Counting tour. He mentioned that Mick's proclivity for under-25 year old girls was still alive and well, that they both 'powdered their noses,' and had nothing to do with each other backstage.

I just don't buy that framing. Keith can be a NASTY BASTARD...I'm not saying he's a bad guy but he's done some horrible things to people over the years.

And yes, Mick can be very cold, distant and protective of his emotions, but he's not a cyborg. The truth is that neither one is the caricature that you portray.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Bliss
Side note - on another board, a guy who has worked concert security for many years was asked about Mick and Keith. He had worked on the 50 and Counting tour. He mentioned that Mick's proclivity for under-25 year old girls was still alive and well, that they both 'powdered their noses,' and had nothing to do with each other backstage.

everybody who ever worked a hotdog stand at a stones show wants to sound important.the guy is full of shit,in this day and age there is no way mick or keith would let some low level security guard see them doing blow,even if they were.mick likes young women?,i'm speechless-this is gonna send shockwaves through stonesworld.

the guy in the article pretty much said what alot of us have been thinking for years.as much as i love keith,there isn't a rock and roll icon exception to the absolute destruction drug and alchohol addiction causes.
after taking every word keith said as gospel for years it dawned on me one day that he was no different from my old friends who had ruined their lives and that of their families and alienated those closest to them.
as i grew up one thing i noticed,somebody always has to pick up the slack.well, who picked up the slack for my main man?-that was the day i started looking at jagger in a completely different light.
i'm not trying to make one the good guy and one the bad guy because the lesson is we're all human and even our heroes sometimes take a fall.it just gave me a certain amount of sympathy for one of the old devils that wasn't there before, and it needs to be said.

Agreed. This is someone trying to puff up his credentials. Whether or not either one still indulges is almost beside the point.

I can sympathise with both of the glimmers and like them both so I am going to try and be as objective as I possibly can here.

On one hand, Mick had to deal with a junkie and all of the issues that accompany having one as a key member of your band - the hangers on, legal issues, lateness/not turning up to sessions and declining contributions for beginners. Then imagine covering for him and all the issues and management you have had to take on and then all of a sudden he says "okay I'm clean I want to help" but again we don't know in what capacity Keith meant by that.
If you were in Jagger's position, why would you want a guy who has mismanaged just about everything at this point to have a major say in business affairs?

Also, it shouldn't have to be justified from Mick that of course he would want to have a friendship group that isn't full of drug users/dealers/hangers on and people of that background and instead had aspirations to meet people of more similar social interests or who just weren't drug users.
Now imagine putting up with Keith unpredictable temperament for years and covering and supporting him all that time - wouldn't you eventually tire of it too?

But on the other hand, we don't know from an outsiders perspective how much Mick was using drugs and how much he was involved in that culture too.
Stu, Bill and Charlie would be the only people who would have had a proper first hand perspective I feel. It also wouldn't be fair to say that Mick is without sin as well as the CBS deal where he apparently built in the clause for his solo albums seems like a very cheap maneuver for the outside. But again, we don't know exactly how it all went down.
Also, I am sure I am forgetting some of Mick's missteps which may have alienated Keith from him but I seem to be able to understand Mick more than Keith.


I am a fan of both of the glimmer twins and I like both of them a lot and neither of them are entirely innocent and we still don't know entirely who truthful many of these accounts are regarding what happened. I also take Keith's account of things with a hint of skepticism too as we all know drug users accounts of events or interpretation/perception of what happened can't always be entirely trusted.

Side note: I don't see what Keith stood to gain from releasing his book where he made many remarks about Jagger (whether justified or not). What did he or the band stand to gain?

Edit: Forgot to mention that we also only see the character of Mick and Keith that they want the public to see not their actual selves, for all we know Keith speaks coherently in private so perhaps that is something else to consider as well



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-27 05:21 by woodyweaving.