Quote
matxil

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Doxa

I am afraid that the troubles of creativity started the day when the guys started thinking that 'hey, this song would suit for the Stones, and I'll keep this one for my solo doings'. The outcome of this thinking is that the Stones music is sort of fixed deal and by definition any 'new' material must be some kind of variation of their older doings, thereby not the one inspiring creativity and originality. Instead of challenging each other, kicking each other's butt, Mick and Keith meet in a compromise safe zone created by both of them in their long past, both trying one's best to not upset each other by too radical suggestions.

While I agree with you here, I don't think that this is the entire truth. It's one ingredient, sure. Imo other factors that play a role are

a) the growing personal and even local separation between the two since the early 70's and development of increasingly different personal musical interests, more or less resulting in
b) Mick trying to integrate new musical trends into the Stones sound to keep them "current", even "significant" in contrast to Keith developing a more conservative approach and, last but not least
c) the fact that the Stones simply were not creatively challenged by the outside world anymore after 1989 - commercially they stayed on top of the business due to massive touring.

Doxa certainly pinned something down - "Oh I'll keep this one for the Stones".

Uh huh. Because...? EXACTLY. It's safe. It "sounds" like The Stones. Which ties into C in bold - Sad Sad Sad was the clang of 'We're still here, actually'; Mixed Emotions was 'See? We can do better than that excuse of a last album'; Almost Hear You Sigh was 'See? We've still got that tender side to us' and Break The Spell was 'See? We're still doing blues'. Etc. Although I wouldn't consider STEEL WHEELS' music as being creatively challenged by the outside world. In fact, if it weren't for their legacy at the time to get above the shambles of SHE'S THE BOSS/DIRTY WORK/PRIMITIVE COOL I'd say there was no challenge at all.

I agree. One might say "Terrifying" or "Contentintal Drift" or "Rock and a Hard Place" are "experimental" (in the sense of not typical or obvious) but still way too safe compared to experiments made by other bands at that time, or even experiments made by them previously ("Heaven", "See His Face").
I know you not gonna like this but if there's one merit to Dirty Work, is that at least they tried to do something different, they went out there and reached for something new. Admittedly, they fell flat on their face, but I wonder if that's not preferable to the long list of "Sad Sad Sad", "I Go Wild" and "Too Tight" by-the-numbers fillers we have gotten since.

Although Skippy (GasLightStreet) is around, let me also give some credit to DIRTY WORK. Of that 'tried to do something different' attitude one brief, but telling sample is Keith's description of "Had It With You" - they didn't want to make it sound a 'just another typical Rolling Stones plays rhythm'n'blues-number', that's why they tried somethind different - leaving the bass out. FRom STEEL WHEELS on, it started to sound that they indeed wanted to sound like 'typical whatever Rolling Stones number' - the closer they are resemblaing classical Rolling Stones 'sound' the better. I think VOODOO LOUNGE is an extreme example of this attitude.

A good question indeed you put: which is better - the Stones sounding 'safe and sure' (generic, repitive) but totally forgettable or 'fell flat on their face' when trying something going out of their safety zone? Doing more voodoolounges and abiggerbangs or satanicmajesties and dirtyworks? I have a tendency to prefer the latter, but it's not all that clear in many cases.

But that said, it could be that making an album like STEEL WHEELS was exactly the right choice careerwise at the time - making a statement, like Skippy put it, 'see, we still can sound like the Stones', after all that 'hassle' during the 80's. I guess for many ears (mine included) it felt like a relief to hear the simple, straight-forward, classical sounds of "Sad Sad Sad" or "Mixed Emotions" - no more undercoverofthenights or onehittothebodys The Stones 'trying to be contemporary' (not to forget all those backtozeros and toomuchbloods if we dig a bit deeper)... Probably today STEEL WHEELS sounds like a typical 80's over-produced album but at the time it sounded like a perfect match between contemporary sounds and classical Stones - a 'come back' album as it was described at the time.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-19 12:41 by Doxa.

In my opinion the Stones should do what they want to do now and not look at what fans want. After all I think Mick and Keitk have shared the choices made in their recent album, Keith has signed up every single song.

Quote
Testify
In my opinion the Stones should do what they want to do now and not look at what fans want. After all I think Mick and Keitk have shared the choices made in their recent album, Keith has signed up every single song.

A simple but also very wise advice! The discussion here clearly shows how difficult it must be for them to come up with a great album that could work as a final, fitting last word to an almost unparalleled, more than 50 years lasting career. Add to that the sheer weight of their recorded output from the golden years and the decision to record a new and most likely final album of original songs appears even more to be a very, very brave move.

All theorizing about how it should sound (classic Stones or experimental/"different") aside, for me it all starts with the question if the song material is any good and ends with the right choice of good songs to give the album a natural flow.

It's a monumental task, and the fact alone that they decided to do this may indicate that they indeed have material of real substance or at least are convinced of having promising material to start with.

How it turns out in the end remains to be seen. As there's no outside pressure to do this (no record contract requiring an album of new original songs, no need to come up with new material in order to sell concert tickets) and as it appears that the decision is based solely on their own will, I would not be surprised if the project gets scrapped altogether if they're not 100% happy with the final outcome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-19 22:31 by retired_dog.

To anyone's knowledge, have the Stones ever road tested potential Album songs to studio execs before in order to get some form of "approval" or "affirmation"?

Rod

Quote
bitusa2012
To anyone's knowledge, have the Stones ever road tested potential Album songs to studio execs before in order to get some form of "approval" or "affirmation"?

_____________________________


When you say 'road tested' I am assuming you mean play the songs live in some fashion before a group of execs somewhere in some private setting?

The answer is definitely <not>. The Stones have been a huge act for so long no record company in the world could think about asking them for a private, intimate concert in order to get approval on new material for an album.

*That is not how it goes down anyway. The record company gets a list of songs / or a slightly rough mix of the album to listen to .. not any sort of live show by an act.

The concept was never at hand.... and thank goodness for that. I even think the Stones would sneeze at that notion (that's asking a hell of a lot).

Now ... Have The Stones ever played a few songs on a tour that has started before a record was released ..yes.. a in few select instances .. However.. at that point the record was completed and just about to come out in a couple of weeks anyway (it had nothing to do with execs / A&R or any record company party).

The Stones don't..and never have performed songs live to test out or audition them or play into the hand of a record company..


Have The Stones played (meaning already recorded songs on tape / disc) tentative songs / tentative albums prior to releasing it for execs to gather their thoughts / gain a bit of the nod to release it...>> Yes .. to a degree they do that ...though not nearly as much as other acts are obligated to.

It is more of a 'see what we have done this time for a probable album' ... as opposed to "Can we put this out / does it pass?' type of thing .......

(with a little of sway and say by the record company of course. They are not irrelevant to the decision .. just much less influential and of an authority than other acts being as they are The Stones. The record company still has 'some' say as to whether and when a product gets released though ..just not as much as most other acts).


Ian



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 03:37 by IanBillen.

I remember a story of Mick presenting Emotional Rescue to EMI as a 2 track album with Jah is Not Dead filling one side (I forget the other) as a wind up.


sc uk

Quote
straycatuk
I remember a story of Mick presenting Emotional Rescue to EMI as a 2 track album with Jah is Not Dead filling one side (I forget the other) as a wind up.


sc uk

_________________________________


Yep ...Sure.. they take in or send or have someone present a recorded product or project. This still happens ... even for The Stones. They have to get 'some' clearance and OK. If the record label is going to put their name on it and promote / distribute / sell it on a bands behalf... they gotta hear it .. or at least hear a mostly finished example of it before they give their <ok>



However there is no live presentation... nor is there a live presentation by other acts. Execs / A & R get played something on a stereo for bands.. not a small live set of any sort....and certainly not for The Stones.


Not saying that is what you are insinuating or anything.. I am just clarifying dats all.


Ian



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 05:22 by IanBillen.

Quote
IanBillen

Hi Ian,

Wondering what you're thoughts are on the delayed Stones album, and the fact that Mick has stepped to the front of the line about to release 'Getta Grip'.
Someone in the other thread had mentioned that Keith didn't like 'Getta Grip', and I was thinking it may have been part of the 'Hit the Wall' sessions last year.
Do you think the new Mick single will cause any more setbacks as far as recording sessions for the Stones are concerned?
Or maybe it's a good thing for Mick to get that stuff off his chest before he works with the Stones in a more collaborative fashion?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I've been hunting around for a link and could use some help:

Did Keith actually say that line about 'he may have 40 crappy demos but I've got 3 killer riffs' or is that apocryphal and/or the product of speculation/rumor/etc?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Hi Ian,

Wondering what you're thoughts are on the delayed Stones album, and the fact that Mick has stepped to the front of the line about to release 'Getta Grip'.
Someone in the other thread had mentioned that Keith didn't like 'Getta Grip', and I was thinking it may have been part of the 'Hit the Wall' sessions last year.
Do you think the new Mick single will cause any more setbacks as far as recording sessions for the Stones are concerned?
Or maybe it's a good thing for Mick to get that stuff off his chest before he works with the Stones in a more collaborative fashion?

_______________________________________


Hi Buddy.

Well to me I think it is a good thing. I actually think it may of been a sort of compromise or way of making it all work. The Stones / Keith agree that perhaps there are a few songs that while good .. will not fly as The Rolling Stones in 2017. Sure .. Bridges to Babylon had a small hand full of songs that were very different production wise and a sort of different in their writing / the way they worked but ...that was then .. this is now.

Now they may experiment .. but in a different way in my opinion. The experimentation myst be musical .. stylistic ... not so much experimentation production wise and it can't be quite as <trendy> sounding as Anybody Seen My Baby etc. So in order for Mick to get a few strong songs (or songs that at least he thinks are strong) out that may benefit from such production and fulfilled but have no real spot on the next Stone album they / Mick . Universal are taking the long way around route.

I think they agreed it was cool to let him put out a single .. and a B side in between the Stones album session recording 'going on's'. Keith has let that be these days .. without having a problem with it where as in the early to mid eighties it would of been another all out war Lol. It is for the 'better' down the road for them and I think Keith (and the band) acknowledge that is how to go about it now-a-days.

So in the end Micks sufficed for a while. The band is ok with it. The next album is still cohesive and not thrown off track by a few songs Mick really likes but have no spot (Mick himself most likely agrees they have no spot on a Stones album at this age / point). However we as fans need to wait yet AGAIN Lol .. BUT still I think by next summer .. we will have the best possible Stones album that we could get... at least at this juncture ion their career.

It is my opinion.. as well as BV and Heinz that The Stones want this one as strong and with the best possible outcome even if it means taking another year to work it out and see how it comes to fruition. I think they looked over all options and are sticking with the direction / results that are proving the strongest in taking their good old time ...versus simply taking the results and keeping them because a tour and / or deadline is also in the cards.

I think the delay .. at this point ..no matter how good or how bad Micks two songs are....is for the better of The Stones product that hopefully comes out next year (provided they all stay healthy etc.).

Am I happy with the delay? Well .. yes and no. I'm happy they are most likely doing it / planning for the best possible outcome / high standard on the next Stones album .. Sorry it has been 12 years since their last and that we had to wait another friggin year lol.


Mind you .. that is my take .. none of it is based on any inside knowledge (I wish it were lol).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 07:28 by IanBillen.

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I've been hunting around for a link and could use some help:

Did Keith actually say that line about 'he may have 40 crappy demos but I've got 3 killer riffs' or is that apocryphal and/or the product of speculation/rumor/etc?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

______________________________


Keith said he isn't interested in being 'prolific' like Mick is and while Jagger may have 40 possible song ideas .. hes got three songs (full songs) that are in his words "dynamite".


He wasn't knocking the material Jagger had .. but he was saying he had three puppies <in the bag> that were <awesome> .. versus / against 40 possible song 'ideas'. He was saying or pointing out that is how the two differ when writing on their own to bring things to the table for the Stones. That was the gist of it is all it was.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 07:34 by IanBillen.

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I've been hunting around for a link and could use some help:

Did Keith actually say that line about 'he may have 40 crappy demos but I've got 3 killer riffs' or is that apocryphal and/or the product of speculation/rumor/etc?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

______________________________


Keith said he isn't interested in being 'prolific' like Mick is and while Jagger may have 40 possible song ideas .. hes got three songs (full songs) that are in his words "dynamite".


He wasn't knocking the material Jagger had .. but he was saying he had three puppies that were .. versus / against 40 possible song 'ideas'. He was saying or pointing out that is how the two differ when writing on their own to bring things to the table for the Stones. That was the gist of it is all it was.

Thx, Ian. Do you recall where/when he said this so I can track down the context/conversation?

EDIT: found the quote. From an interview in Uncut. The interviewer says "Don Was tells me Mick's got 40 new songs." Keith replies: "Being prolific don't mean shit."

LOL. Meow!

Jagger's such a pussy for not stickin a jab into that geezer's nose!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 08:06 by LongBeachArena72.

I can't find the exact quote right now, but Keith said something along the lines that:

"40 demos don't mean shIt...I've got three dynamite riffs ready".

The way I understood it was he wasn't necessarily knocking Mick's demos, but more of a mocking. In other words quality over quantity.



edit: ahhh see you found the quote Longbeach.

__________________________________________________________________

Found this article from November, 2016:

Keith Richards takes swipe at Sir Mick Jagger

Keith vs. Mick

Keith Richards has taken a swipe at Sir Mick Jagger's songwriting skills.

The 72-year-old rocker doesn't care that his Rolling Stones bandmate has already penned 40 new tracks for a potential new record as he would rather do something "really interesting" than be as "prolific" as the singer.

He told Uncut magazine of Mick's 40 songs: "Being prolific don't mean s**t.

"I've got three songs and they're dynamite. I don't want to make any decisions about this until the record comes out because I think it might change Mick's attitude, it might change mine.

"I want to see the fallout from this record before I decide whether I want to record 40 of Mick's songs or whether he wants to sit down with me and record some songs together. That's my thing. That's my ball there.

"I've got a few songs on the back burner and so does Mick - he writes a lot. I don't.

"I tend to concentrate on two or three really interesting riffs or ideas, rather than being prolific."

And after returning to their roots with upcoming blues covers album 'Blue & Lonesome', Sir Mick is now keen to take the band in a new direction.

He said: "I was writing last night at the end of the baseball match.

"I sat watching the World Series, playing my guitar. But I think it would be nice to do new songs and go in a new direction with them."

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 08:16 by Hairball.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I've been hunting around for a link and could use some help:

Did Keith actually say that line about 'he may have 40 crappy demos but I've got 3 killer riffs' or is that apocryphal and/or the product of speculation/rumor/etc?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

______________________________


Keith said he isn't interested in being 'prolific' like Mick is and while Jagger may have 40 possible song ideas .. hes got three songs (full songs) that are in his words "dynamite".


He wasn't knocking the material Jagger had .. but he was saying he had three puppies that were .. versus / against 40 possible song 'ideas'. He was saying or pointing out that is how the two differ when writing on their own to bring things to the table for the Stones. That was the gist of it is all it was.

Thx, Ian. Do you recall where/when he said this so I can track down the context/conversation?

EDIT: found the quote. From an interview in Uncut. The interviewer says "Don Was tells me Mick's got 40 new songs." Keith replies: "Being prolific don't mean shit."

LOL. Meow!

Jagger's such a pussy for not stickin a jab into that geezer's nose!

Go Keith go.....

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I've been hunting around for a link and could use some help:

Did Keith actually say that line about 'he may have 40 crappy demos but I've got 3 killer riffs' or is that apocryphal and/or the product of speculation/rumor/etc?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

______________________________


Keith said he isn't interested in being 'prolific' like Mick is and while Jagger may have 40 possible song ideas .. hes got three songs (full songs) that are in his words "dynamite".


He wasn't knocking the material Jagger had .. but he was saying he had three puppies that were .. versus / against 40 possible song 'ideas'. He was saying or pointing out that is how the two differ when writing on their own to bring things to the table for the Stones. That was the gist of it is all it was.

Thx, Ian. Do you recall where/when he said this so I can track down the context/conversation?

EDIT: found the quote. From an interview in Uncut. The interviewer says "Don Was tells me Mick's got 40 new songs." Keith replies: "Being prolific don't mean shit."

LOL. Meow!

Jagger's such a pussy for not stickin a jab into that geezer's nose!

Go Keith go.....

It's amazing what a 'competition' it seems to be, isn't it? It always seems to be about who can get the nastiest zinger in about the other.

I wonder what you'd get if you tallied up over the past 30 years catty remarks made by each Glimmer about the other. It seems like Keith would win, hands-down ... but does Mick always take the high road? He must have made shitty remarks about Keith's songs, too, over the years, no?

I guess at the end of the day, they're both just addicted to the cash and stuck in a crappy marriage that most of the time is typified by jealousy and resentment. Now that's an environment that fosters creativity!

The new album will be fun to dissect and the band interviews will tangible for a change. 51 days until the tour starts!!

quote:
"Jagger's such a pussy for not stickin a jab into that geezer's nose!"


Er, maybe the new singles release? Quick collaborations, or well thought advanced and planned?

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I've been hunting around for a link and could use some help:

Did Keith actually say that line about 'he may have 40 crappy demos but I've got 3 killer riffs' or is that apocryphal and/or the product of speculation/rumor/etc?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

______________________________


Keith said he isn't interested in being 'prolific' like Mick is and while Jagger may have 40 possible song ideas .. hes got three songs (full songs) that are in his words "dynamite".


He wasn't knocking the material Jagger had .. but he was saying he had three puppies that were .. versus / against 40 possible song 'ideas'. He was saying or pointing out that is how the two differ when writing on their own to bring things to the table for the Stones. That was the gist of it is all it was.

Thx, Ian. Do you recall where/when he said this so I can track down the context/conversation?

EDIT: found the quote. From an interview in Uncut. The interviewer says "Don Was tells me Mick's got 40 new songs." Keith replies: "Being prolific don't mean shit."

LOL. Meow!

Jagger's such a pussy for not stickin a jab into that geezer's nose!

Go Keith go.....

It's amazing what a 'competition' it seems to be, isn't it? It always seems to be about who can get the nastiest zinger in about the other.

I wonder what you'd get if you tallied up over the past 30 years catty remarks made by each Glimmer about the other. It seems like Keith would win, hands-down ... but does Mick always take the high road? He must have made shitty remarks about Keith's songs, too, over the years, no?

I guess at the end of the day, they're both just addicted to the cash and stuck in a crappy marriage that most of the time is typified by jealousy and resentment. Now that's an environment that fosters creativity!

Have you ever met Keith and looked into those eyes of his, he doesn't strike me as a man you want to cross the line with.

Actually once again longbeach you are very selective with the facts or you just don't listen much to keith's interviews. Over the last 30 years Keith's tally of things he has said that are supportive of Mick outnumber the supportive things Mick has said about Keith. I can't actually recall Mick praising Keith.
keith will tell you he has the best singer in the world, that he can dance and rock a small table let alone a stadium. He says he and Mick can write music like nobody's business. He has said countless times that he loves Mick and thinks of him as a Brother, only for Mick to come back with i already have a real Brother, keith is not my brother.

Its a shame people on here don't see the softer side to keith's character, he is a spiritual moral man, i see him these days like a sort of Budda, within all his Rock and Roll decadence and excess is a sort of purity, you really need to look under the surface guys, otherwise you come across as shallow, a bit, well i don't know, a bit like Mick.

Quote
stone4ever

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Maindefender

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I've been hunting around for a link and could use some help:

Did Keith actually say that line about 'he may have 40 crappy demos but I've got 3 killer riffs' or is that apocryphal and/or the product of speculation/rumor/etc?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

______________________________


Keith said he isn't interested in being 'prolific' like Mick is and while Jagger may have 40 possible song ideas .. hes got three songs (full songs) that are in his words "dynamite".


He wasn't knocking the material Jagger had .. but he was saying he had three puppies that were .. versus / against 40 possible song 'ideas'. He was saying or pointing out that is how the two differ when writing on their own to bring things to the table for the Stones. That was the gist of it is all it was.

Thx, Ian. Do you recall where/when he said this so I can track down the context/conversation?

EDIT: found the quote. From an interview in Uncut. The interviewer says "Don Was tells me Mick's got 40 new songs." Keith replies: "Being prolific don't mean shit."

LOL. Meow!

Jagger's such a pussy for not stickin a jab into that geezer's nose!

Go Keith go.....

It's amazing what a 'competition' it seems to be, isn't it? It always seems to be about who can get the nastiest zinger in about the other.

I wonder what you'd get if you tallied up over the past 30 years catty remarks made by each Glimmer about the other. It seems like Keith would win, hands-down ... but does Mick always take the high road? He must have made shitty remarks about Keith's songs, too, over the years, no?

I guess at the end of the day, they're both just addicted to the cash and stuck in a crappy marriage that most of the time is typified by jealousy and resentment. Now that's an environment that fosters creativity!

Have you ever met Keith and looked into those eyes of his, he doesn't strike me as a man you want to cross the line with.

Actually once again longbeach you are very selective with the facts or you just don't listen much to keith's interviews. Over the last 30 years Keith's tally of things he has said that are supportive of Mick outnumber the supportive things Mick has said about Keith. I can't actually recall Mick praising Keith.
keith will tell you he has the best singer in the world, that he can dance and rock a small table let alone a stadium. He says he and Mick can write music like nobody's business. He has said countless times that he loves Mick and thinks of him as a Brother, only for Mick to come back with i already have a real Brother, keith is not my brother.

Its a shame people on here don't see the softer side to keith's character, he is a spiritual moral man, i see him these days like a sort of Budda, within all his Rock and Roll decadence and excess is a sort of purity, you really need to look under the surface guys, otherwise you come across as shallow, a bit, well i don't know, a bit like Mick.

Very Well put. Could have said it meself. Thanks for this.
Jeroen

I think generally speaking; and obviously can only speak to my own personal experience with rock stars and product and press and the like....
...but I do think that Keith has always been seen as a senstive guy; a really tender guy on the inside; he himself like to put up that protective 'tough guy' thing; probably sort of believes it as he's been thru a lot of things every day that most people wouldn't have to deal with ever....i mean i never thought him a tough cat or anything; and i've been the total fan; i mean felt really blessed and inspired by them time and time again when I was most impessionable; and also sort of really connected, as kids sometimes are, with what was 'real' and speaking to them from any writers pen in any genre...
...past the personalities and projections that are so much fun, and also the fount of a lot of chatter not really keyed-in, as i am not; to the actual emo dynamics of his marriage and fatherhood these last times around. I mean who cares past a point; do your job if that's what you are doing; write some shit and get it down. With the band. I mean I DO feel emo connected; actually love those guys a lot; really do. I think a couple of lame failure LPs that were in the groove and showed a functioning band; well, they've had them; it's no big deal in the long run; we basically are only wanting music from a band; OK they are way seniors; ok they have ten or fifteeen years of incredible word-shaking, probably never to be equalled in that genre again.

I'm of the opinion that even ONE great song would garner respect and affection and norariety; a few like amazing; dozens out of the question box; they are super great. that was long ago; they are sill them; they don't like each other much it's true. No one is on the level of the original three and one of them is not really privvy to much aside from being a great rock and roll drummer with distinction and an overwhelming history of accomplishment...and durability...which is no little thang...

...so of the two left they have this crazy relationship; i think it was rocky dijon that REALLy got into those dynamics in a brilliant post somewhere this thread or a related one....it's kooky and tenuous;l and fiercely protective of their individual selves; and even each other if it actually came to that. that's been pretty much proven too. so...interesting; not as interesting as listening to; moving to; enjoying and being inspired by music. so i'm gonna listen now. ty for reading.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 22:01 by hopkins.

Agree with Stone4ever, above. I have the impression that Mick has slagged Keith plenty behind the scenes. And as it's known that Keith would do anything to keep the band together, Mick has used that against him.

Just came to mind that keith has said a few times that he can disrespect Mick but watch out if someone else disrespects Mick in front of keith. He is still supportive of Mick, make no mistake, these guys go back a long way and when it really matters i believe they are always there for each other.
On one level they might resent each other and almost hate each other, but on another level its maybe a bit like my relationship with my Brother, we argue and fight all the time but if anyone steps in to take sides we side against them. No amount of fighting takes the love away and i suspect Mick keith Ronnie and Charlie are that way towards each other after all these years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-20 22:47 by stone4ever.

Quote
stone4ever
Just came to mind that keith has said a few times that he can disrespect Mick but watch out if someone else disrespects Mick in front of keith. He is still supportive of Mick, make no mistake, these guys go back a long way and when it really matters i believe they are always there for each other.
On one level they might resent each other and almost hate each other, but on another level its maybe a bit like my relationship with my Brother, we argue and fight all the time but if anyone steps in to take sides we side against them. No amount of fighting takes the love away and i suspect Mick keith Ronnie and Charlie are that way towards each other after all these years.

Many, many years ago, when I was young, on a train ride in England, I listened to two elderly ladies talking about... THE ROYAL FAMILY! And you know what? This all sounds quite similar. Making thoughts about people as if you know them personally, but in fact do not.

If you ever meet Keith personally, don't treat him like your personal Buddah, because if you do, you will be lost. Treat him like a normal human being, like someone whose shit looks, smells and probably even tastes exactly (...well, maybe a bit depending on the kind of meal you had before!) like yours. You may be in for a treat if you follow my advice. And then tell me about the look in his eyes afterwards.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-21 09:12 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog
If you ever meet Keith personally, don't treat him like your personal Buddah, because if you do, you will be lost. Treat him like a normal human being, like someone who's shit looks, smells and probably even tastes exactly (...well, maybe a bit depending on the kind of meal you had before!) like yours. You may be in for a treat if you follow my advice. And then tell me about the look in his eyes afterwards.

Bill German did that and the result was an excellent book.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
stone4ever
Just came to mind that keith has said a few times that he can disrespect Mick but watch out if someone else disrespects Mick in front of keith. He is still supportive of Mick, make no mistake, these guys go back a long way and when it really matters i believe they are always there for each other.
On one level they might resent each other and almost hate each other, but on another level its maybe a bit like my relationship with my Brother, we argue and fight all the time but if anyone steps in to take sides we side against them. No amount of fighting takes the love away and i suspect Mick keith Ronnie and Charlie are that way towards each other after all these years.

Many, many years ago, when I was young, on a train ride in England, I listened to two elderly ladies talking about... THE ROYAL FAMILY! And you know what? This all sounds quite similar. Making thoughts about people as if you know them personally, but in fact do not.

If you ever meet Keith personally, don't treat him like your personal Buddah, because if you do, you will be lost. Treat him like a normal human being, like someone whose shit looks, smells and probably even tastes exactly (...well, maybe a bit depending on the kind of meal you had before!) like yours. You may be in for a treat if you follow my advice. And then tell me about the look in his eyes afterwards.

Yep that's sound advice, actually the general consensus is that you should never meet your heroes / idols, but in the case of Keith its been said by many that have met him that he was better ( charming, funny, engaging, alert, entertaining etc ) than they expected.

I met Keith briefly in Stockholm, Sweden.
He smiled and said something unintelligible to me, I smiled back and looked him in the eye trying not to act confused. I shook his hand and thanked him as if he had just bought me a pint.
He said something else and smiled (could have been "gold rings on ya" ), I smiled, we said goodbye, and that was it.
I never mentioned the Stones, never asked for an autograph, never asked for guitar advice, just a simple hello how are you, thank you very much, and goodbye.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

[www.keithrichards.com]

Could be in 2019 as well...

Quote
mtaylor
[www.keithrichards.com]

Could be in 2019 as well...

Nice! Thanks for sharing.

So what was the answer to Keith's question, I don't see it. Did he say 2019 lol. Have they fallen out over Mick's new single do you think.
This tour could be funny, Keith refuses to sign the song sheet before they go on stage, Keith says I'm not playing Miss You again. Mick starts crying, Keith says I still not playing it . Mick says right Keef that does it, Mick threatens to replace Chuck with Matt as musical director , Keith goes Oh alright then I'll play it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-21 21:57 by stone4ever.

Quote
stone4ever
So what was the answer to Keith's question, I don't see it. Did he say 2019 lol. Have they fallen out over Mick's new single do you think.
This tour could be funny, Keith refuses to sign the song sheet before they go on stage, Keith says I'm not playing Miss You again. Mick starts crying, Keith says I still not playing it . Mick says right Keef that does it, Mick threatens to replace Chuck with Matt as musical director , Keith goes Oh alright then I'll play it.

You nailed it.
He also said they were completely done now because Mick's such a effing baby.

Damn, what will we all do now?
I mean sure.. you've always got the Kiss army, but what about the rest of us?

Good luck!