For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
I’m sorry Lisa is gone, and sad about the grumbling here. She has a tremendous voice, added a lot over the years, and is lovely in every way. She was close enough to the Stones to sing at L’Wren’s memorial at Mick’s request, and Keith clearly adores her too. No disrespect to Sasha, but I miss her.
Quote
Stoneage
Rock and roll never was her forte. Albeit Chuck Berry rock and roll is mainly a white business these days. Lisa is essentially a soul or R&B singer. Like Darryl is a soul/jazz/fusion guitarist.
I guess what she is doing now is more close to her roots. The Rolling Stones were never a soul band even if Keith Richards seems to think so.
Quote
Stoneage
Sure Doxa, I hear you. I still think Lisa fitted in better with Luther Vandross than the Rolling Stones though. And I do know the roots of rock and roll. Believe me.
Quote
theimposter
I hate to say it, but I am firmly in the camp that think it was Mick's decision to replace her with a "sexy young thing". I don't, however, think it's misogyny on his part, just business. Crass, shallow business, but business nonetheless. All the same, I am happy for Lisa and wish her and her band the best. Regardless of how it actually played out, I don't doubt that she'd rather spend the second half of her musical career being center stage instead of the side.
Quote
35love
Rocky, are you saying the invisible Jane Rose has been the catalyst for the Keith and Mick WW3 and the ‘Sir’ bit, etc. / feeding poison in Keith’s ear,
she still carry’s a torch for Jagger whom *whisper whisper she once worked for?
LOL LOL
As for this topic, not touching w/ a 10 foot pole. I like both ladies, a lot.
S’all good.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Just one man's opinion and like most opinions, it says more about the writer than the subject.
Quote
theimposter
I hate to say it, but I am firmly in the camp that think it was Mick's decision to replace her with a "sexy young thing". I don't, however, think it's misogyny on his part, just business. Crass, shallow business, but business nonetheless. All the same, I am happy for Lisa and wish her and her band the best. Regardless of how it actually played out, I don't doubt that she'd rather spend the second half of her musical career being center stage instead of the side.
Quote
theimposter
I hate to say it, but I am firmly in the camp that think it was Mick's decision to replace her with a "sexy young thing". I don't, however, think it's misogyny on his part, just business. Crass, shallow business, but business nonetheless. All the same, I am happy for Lisa and wish her and her band the best. Regardless of how it actually played out, I don't doubt that she'd rather spend the second half of her musical career being center stage instead of the side.
Quote
Spodlumt
Sorry - but saying she quit because their live performance demands left her little time for a solo career sounds like complete BS to me. They are not on the road that much and the exposure for her when they are is publicity she can't generate or buy on her own. Hate to say it but I think this story is an effort to save face after aging out of Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness.
Quote
keithsmanQuote
Spodlumt
Sorry - but saying she quit because their live performance demands left her little time for a solo career sounds like complete BS to me. They are not on the road that much and the exposure for her when they are is publicity she can't generate or buy on her own. Hate to say it but I think this story is an effort to save face after aging out of Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness.
I have to totally agree with you Spodlumt, saying she doesn't have time to tour because of the Stones dates makes no sense at all.
What months do Stones tours cover inc rehearsals ?? 2 or 3 months this year, possibly the same the year before, ( plus 2 gigs in the desert and one in Vegas the year before that, leaves plenty of time for Lisa to do some solo dates.
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
35love
Rocky, are you saying the invisible Jane Rose has been the catalyst for the Keith and Mick WW3 and the ‘Sir’ bit, etc. / feeding poison in Keith’s ear,
she still carry’s a torch for Jagger whom *whisper whisper she once worked for?
LOL LOL
As for this topic, not touching w/ a 10 foot pole. I like both ladies, a lot.
S’all good.
Just saw this, 35love. No, I wouldn't go that far nor would I psychoanalyze Jane Rose. While Keith's mouth is very much Keith, I do believe Jane Rose understood that to rehabilitate Keith's image starting in the mid-1980s, the public perception of the brain-damaged junkie had to be replaced. He became very accessible as the heart and soul of the band who lived and breathed authenticity of roots music.
He was critical of Mick publicly. Look back on all the cover stories for TALK IS CHEAP and you'll see headlines like KEITH RICHARD'S REVENGE. Look back on the promotion of HAIL HAIL and you'll see the "more headaches than Mick Jagger" clip emphasized, sneer and all. It continued all the way through the promotion of LIFE.
Jane Rose is very good at her job. If her client was marginalized by his drug use and reputation, then her job was to fix that image. Since Keith Richards wasn't going to be topping the charts with music videos in heavy rotation on MTV in 1988, the best way to ensure he was noticed was to draw a line in the sand and say Mick is on one side and Keith was on the other. It may have reflected reality, but Jane definitely saw the value in trading off Mick's level of celebrity and giving a new twist to Andrew Oldham's bad publicity is good publicity playbook.
It worked very well until LIFE I would say. Since then it has been reined in considerably right up to the recent public apology before anyone had a chance to even call Keith's "time for the snip" remark a "story."
Since you stirred me up a bit, I will indulge in armchair analysis of Keith. Abandoned by Bert, raised by Doris - he always needs a strong woman to guide him though he has his moments of rebellion and rejection of them. The first replacement for Doris in his adult life was Anita, the second was Jane Rose. Not talking sex at all, merely who is the woman he trusts to give him what was missing in his relationship with his Dad. Without the absent father wound, you have no junkie rebel and no latter-day laughing pirate. He would be a nice, normal, well-adjusted great-grandfather without the scars and the need to mine his creativity to shape a better world artistically than the one he grew up in. Keith's storytelling is part of his creativity. He is often reshaping the world to suit his needs rather than holding up a mirror to it. This is not atypical. The need to hide insecurities and pain behind alcohol and drugs is more of the same. Underneath it all, he's a good and decent man. Give him years of abuse and he's sometimes a right prick. That's true whether you're a billionaire or a local layabout at the corner of the pub.
Quote
liddasQuote
keithsmanQuote
Spodlumt
Sorry - but saying she quit because their live performance demands left her little time for a solo career sounds like complete BS to me. They are not on the road that much and the exposure for her when they are is publicity she can't generate or buy on her own. Hate to say it but I think this story is an effort to save face after aging out of Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness.
I have to totally agree with you Spodlumt, saying she doesn't have time to tour because of the Stones dates makes no sense at all.
What months do Stones tours cover inc rehearsals ?? 2 or 3 months this year, possibly the same the year before, ( plus 2 gigs in the desert and one in Vegas the year before that, leaves plenty of time for Lisa to do some solo dates.
The point about not having time is not quoted in the interview. Who knows what Lisa exactly said.
At the time I think she explained that she had plans already arranged for her solo tour when she received the call from the stones.
What truly is embarrassing is to read Spodlumt's remark about "Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness".
Ever seen a photo of the Stones' touring band?
C
Quote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
liddasQuote
keithsmanQuote
Spodlumt
Sorry - but saying she quit because their live performance demands left her little time for a solo career sounds like complete BS to me. They are not on the road that much and the exposure for her when they are is publicity she can't generate or buy on her own. Hate to say it but I think this story is an effort to save face after aging out of Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness.
I have to totally agree with you Spodlumt, saying she doesn't have time to tour because of the Stones dates makes no sense at all.
What months do Stones tours cover inc rehearsals ?? 2 or 3 months this year, possibly the same the year before, ( plus 2 gigs in the desert and one in Vegas the year before that, leaves plenty of time for Lisa to do some solo dates.
The point about not having time is not quoted in the interview. Who knows what Lisa exactly said.
At the time I think she explained that she had plans already arranged for her solo tour when she received the call from the stones.
What truly is embarrassing is to read Spodlumt's remark about "Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness".
Ever seen a photo of the Stones' touring band?
C
The youngest members - apart from Sasha - are ca. 57, right?
Quote
liddasQuote
Monsoon RagoonQuote
liddasQuote
keithsmanQuote
Spodlumt
Sorry - but saying she quit because their live performance demands left her little time for a solo career sounds like complete BS to me. They are not on the road that much and the exposure for her when they are is publicity she can't generate or buy on her own. Hate to say it but I think this story is an effort to save face after aging out of Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness.
I have to totally agree with you Spodlumt, saying she doesn't have time to tour because of the Stones dates makes no sense at all.
What months do Stones tours cover inc rehearsals ?? 2 or 3 months this year, possibly the same the year before, ( plus 2 gigs in the desert and one in Vegas the year before that, leaves plenty of time for Lisa to do some solo dates.
The point about not having time is not quoted in the interview. Who knows what Lisa exactly said.
At the time I think she explained that she had plans already arranged for her solo tour when she received the call from the stones.
What truly is embarrassing is to read Spodlumt's remark about "Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness".
Ever seen a photo of the Stones' touring band?
C
The youngest members - apart from Sasha - are ca. 57, right?
Right ...
So much for demand for youthfulness!
C
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Just one man's opinion and like most opinions, it says more about the writer than the subject.
Quote
paulywaul
<<< aging out of Mick's misogynistic and never-ending demands for youthfulness >>>
Bang on target ! Cruel, but highly likely to be much closer to the truth !
Quote
Hairball
...It's all relative really ...when the core members are a ripe old average age of 74 yrs. old, 57 yrs. olds would seem like spring chickens to them.
And Sasha - being in her mid-30s (?) is young enough to be their Granddaughter.
Quote
keithsman
Lisa is a class act and she will keep the reason or reasons why she left, or was asked to leave to herself.