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
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.

Same here, and I think it's worth to remember what she said about it in an interview she gave to our own roller99:

I see you have a healthy social media presence; do you read any of the posts regarding yourself on iorr.org?

Years ago I did, but it has its highs and lows. I decided it was better to stay mentally and emotionally healthy by not reading it.

[thelosangelesbeat.com]

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.

Probably The Stones is such an unique and strong rock and roll band since almost none of them are really 'rock music' purists. They have a guy on drums who is a jazz freak, and the current bass player, like you said, is not a natural rock musician either. Their singer declared over forty years agothat he is 'bored with rock and roll' and taken what he has done in terms of new music since the late 70's - especially by his own - is probably not that old school rock music stuff, and probably still sees rock music nothing else than one form of pop music and show business (if he even makes the distinction between 'pop' and 'rock'), not to be taken too seriously. Their main guitarist and musical heart surely loves 50's rock and roll, the stuff he get to know as any kid of his generation as a teenager, but seemingly his heart is more strongly rooted in deeper and more 'authentic' blues, soul, country and reggae. Their founder saw rock and roll, as many other blues purists at the time stemming from jazz circles, as a form of pop music he loathed, but was convinced by others that Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley are 'blues' enough. Probably the only 'real and pure' rock and roll guy was their original bass player (before he was educated by the others of the greatness of R&B )...

The 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' - a band that defines rock music - is made of funny, non-obvious materials... A pure soul sister Lisa fitted there beautifully...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-27 01:32 by Doxa.

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
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.

Haha, I wasn't even doubting that... Your post just inspired to me write something about the nature of the 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' in general... From the view of the Stones, she was perfect - actually I recall concerts back in the past I think she was about the most enjoyable part of the show in many ways. But I agree with you - which I think reflects also Lisa's own point of view - that she is more home with in some other musical contexts than that of the Stones. She is much more than what she is able to accomplish within the very limited role (which contains also something else than just singing) she had with the Stones. She was about the world's best back up singer, and a legend of her own in that role, and I think she made a mark of her own to the latter day Stones story (of which the Stones and we fans should be grateful), but I can understand that 26 years is more than enough and time to do something else while one can.

- Doxa

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.

Clearly there is a camp that believes that and you stated your opinion in about as non-offensive manner that I've read.

Quick couple questions on your opinion, if you don't mind.
If your opinion is accurate, how in the world would she be allowed to stay on long after her "sexy young thing" appeal had gone? She was with them until she was 56. Why not replace her at 50? Or 40? etc..? (proud to have been at her first and last handful of concerts including her last).

I think the answer clearly lies with how low of an opinion some have of Mick. Fair enough as well, but does that include believing there must be some kind of conspiracy or non disclosure agreement that would keep her from speaking her truth? She has nothing but lavish praise for Mick and the band, and insists she left on her own accord. Does the conspiracy include calling her own words a lie? Seems it would have to, and of all the things one could say about Lisa, (talented,sweet,sincere,gorgeous et al), liar just doesn't seem to fit.

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.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-27 05:56 by Rocky Dijon.

Wow that was deep Rocky. I write like a pauper next to you.

I don’t think Keith’s absent Father had anything to do with how his ‘Life’ (pun)
turned out.
Pre-destined gift, is how I sum it up.
I don’t give Jane Rose that much power as you wrote, but, I have absolutely no idea, as I said, she’s invisible to me (smart)
Keith is attracted to ‘strong’ women because they are more interesting and intelligent :-)

Just one man's opinion and like most opinions, it says more about the writer than the subject.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Just one man's opinion and like most opinions, it says more about the writer than the subject.

Don’t remind me of that later, and, uh, please don’t ever analyze me

I wouldn't dream of it. I am sorry I never reached out to meet you when I was in South San Francisco for much of last year, but I'm much better to know online than in person so, all in all, it worked out for the best. I think you're a lovely person and I enjoy (generally speaking) that my posts bring reactions from you. It beats being ignored and besides, someone has to keep me in line. Who better than a smart, strong-willed invisible woman?

I've met Jane a number of times .... She's super cute, eye on the ball
... wild and sassy ......She's done me many a favour so I owe her heaps ....

I remember the first time I spoke to her in the crowded London VIP area 2006....
I said to her "Excuse me is that Jane Rose over there??? as I pointed
to some well dressed lady across the room .... "No she replied ... I am " ...

What could I do but sway a little and laugh ...



ROCKMAN

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.

Great theory, save the "sexy young thing": where is she?


C

Come to think of it; you're right MisterDDD and Liddas. She was replaced rather late and the new one wasn't hired for her looks so to speak.

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.

That's very likely. Lisa didn't really care about a solo career until her mid-50s. Which also - of course - had to do with money. I'm sure she has made millions with the Stones, much much more than they'll ever get from 2016 onwards.

To start or re-start (forgive me Skippy!) a career after 50 is generally doomed if you're not a big name to start with. I guess her connection with the Stones helps her a bit on the way here.
I wonder how many Stones fans she will have in the audience? 3 out of 10, maybe? I have never been a fan of wailing music though...

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.

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
keithsman

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.

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
Rocky Dijon

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.

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.

Brilliant post Rocky, you must be the only guy around here who ever wants to go that little bit deeper, and believe me Keith is deep, no doubt about it, as is Mick.
I agree with almost all you say except for one thing, isn't Keith just that, a nice normal mature well adjusted grandfather and great grandfather ? that's how i see Keith today, Keith is always growing as a human being, the same cannot be said of Mick with his 22 year old girlfriends while cheating in his young pregnant other girlfriend

Also i think Keith has got more out of drink and drugs than they have got out of him, especially since the late 70's. He may have his insecurities but he is a VERY STRONG person, never one to need rehab like Ronnie, and not one to feel the need to hide his extreme drinking etc. He reminds me of Churchill, i think some of Keith's greatest moments have been while under the influence, like with his story telling, you can see that creative genius oozing out of his consciousness with every thought that enters his head. God man you wouldn't want to change any of that would you, maybe if Bert had not left Keith at a young age there would be no Rolling Stones. Here's to Bert Good on ya

Quote
liddas

Quote
keithsman

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.

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
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
liddas

Quote
keithsman

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.

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
liddas

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
liddas

Quote
keithsman

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.

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

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.

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

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Just one man's opinion and like most opinions, it says more about the writer than the subject.

Great post

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 !

Horseshit indeed....do you guys lay awake at night dreaming of bullshit to attribute to either Jagger or KR?....Lisa's the best damn back up singer they've ever had...they know it, and would welcome her back...no indication otherwise ever implied or inferred or anything whatsoever....misogyny?...really?....from the guys that will no longer sing the lyrics to Some Girls? what's next?...anti gay?

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.

...but a wee bit too old to date.

Actually the idea of she going 'solo' now is a bit misleading. More fitting is 'she quitted her job as a back up singer for the Stones, and concentrates completely on her other projects from now on'. One of them, and probably the most important and taking most of time, is her band Grand Baton, which was formed already when she was touring with the Stones. As the article mentions there are other projects as well, like the one with Seattle Symphony. She seems to be a rather busy and wanted person in business.

For her reasons to leave the supposed dream job in business - we are echoing Taylor and Wyman here, right? - the article hints some. She says :“It got to the point where I was running myself ragged, and I felt like I wasn’t giving my best because I was so exhausted."

This refers mostly to the schedule thing, which might have some truth in it - like liddas remarked - her tour with Grand Baton was already scheduled when the 'call' came. It could be that any non-star caliber musician might re-change one's plans in a sec when the Biggest Boys of The Business needs you, but I can easily understand this particular and concrete situation might have been the very moment she was concluding that 'yeah, now I need to make the decision - do I always need to skip my other plans when the Stones suddenly need me'. She isn't exactly any Keith Richards who can devote his entire life to wait for that call, having nothing else to sacrify than his semi/full-retired, relaxed and well-gained grandfather life (who, seemingly, only does something else when is totally bored with waiting for that call...). But I am rather sure that kind of decision doesn't come suddenly out of the blue. There must have been something not-so-enjoyable in the 'dream job' any longer that it wasn't so unthinkable or insane to give it up. Like said there: the pluses stopped outweighing the minuses (and still, as Lisa said, it was a painful decision). I gave my speculations about the 'minuses' above.

Generally, I don't mind people seeing Jagger typically as some kind of ruthless monster here (I understand the reasons for it), but what I don't like is Lisa treated as someone not having a mind of her own - that it is out of question that she actually could have made that decision. But surprise surprise: people can leave the Stones without being sacked (seemingly happens only once every two decades though...). I understand why Rolling Stones fans might see that unthinkable and insane. But it is not. There is a life outside The Rolling Stones.

To my eyes the departure had no any drama. The both parties seem to respect each other and the decision without any bad feelings. Like it should be.


- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-27 21:12 by Doxa.

Did anyone else notice that Lisa, bless her, started one of the last tours with her hair short, and i thought good for you girl, its lovely for her to just be natural and feel comfortable with it.

But surprise surprise the next show she had a wig on, i wondered at the time whether she had been asked to wear one for the image or whatever. Maybe that sort of thing upset her, we will never know, i'm sure they are all still great friends as she said.
I hope i'm right in thinking Lisa said at the time, the reason she left was because she wanted more time to pursue her solo career, i know she didn't say that in the above interview but still. I think Lisa has plenty of time for a solo career and also do 15 shows a year with the Stones if that's the real reason she left.
I also don't buy that the amount of shows she does with the Stones were too exhausting, if 75 year old's can easily do it ( Keith said at the end of the last tour he had just warmed up and wanted to do more dates ) then i'm sure she could if she wanted to.

A thought that entered my head just this second, i thought Lisa's nose looked out of joint when Mick got a guest singer every show to sing Gimme Shelter, i saw that as an insult to her to be honest, i mean none of the guest appearances held a candle to dear Lisa on that particular song, she's in another League, not even Sasha attempts to go to the heights of Lisa and she sure as hell can't dance as well as Lisa.

Lisa is a class act and she will keep the reason or reasons why she left, or was asked to leave to herself. That's commendable i think, we don't see too much of that in this business.

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.

Err...
"During her years with the group, she fitted in Grand Baton tours when she could, including a date in Victoria weeks before she left the Stones, but eventually the pluses stopped outweighing the minuses.
After a quarter-century, she figured it was time to venture out on her own.

“It got to the point where I was running myself ragged, and I felt like I wasn’t giving my best because I was so exhausted.
“It was a scary time for me, so I finally had to make a decision. I cried when I made that phone call.”
"“I think 20 Feet From Stardom opened the doors for my more complete self, after years of doing different things in different arenas,” Fischer said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-27 21:18 by MisterDDDD.

keithsman, I also actually thought of those two things you mentioned - the wig (plus other costume things) and the 'losing' "Gimme Shelter" spot - as probably one of those things that she might not have felt very comfortable any longer. Actually at the time when all those pop star chicks tried to do their second-class versions of "Gimme Shelter" I remember thinking 'hmm, how might Lisa think about it, since that's her number, her spotlight'. Well, she got her song back, but I get the impression that she had some problems throughout the tours when trying to re-invent her magical performance of "Shelter". She was good, but not that exceptional any longer. It wasn't any longer as natural as it was earlier, almost like she couldn't find a suitable 'role' for it. I have called her new 'persona' as a 'soul diva' act.

I get the feeling that she was awere of the supposed, non-articulated demands she was not any longer to meet, and her role within a band was not something easy to mature up with (the wig thing seems to have a direct indication of that). It doesn't need to be some outer, direct order, but like reading the signs in the air. A smart person can do that - and make her own conclusions.

- Doxa