Quote
DandelionPowderman
[Could be, of course, but Keith's statement was from 1985.

Lil Wergilis or Lilly Wenglass, btw, are they the same swedish woman? Wenglass has added Green to her last name now..

It is the same woman. I read an explanation for the variant name fairly recently (I think it was linked here), but I can't recall it now. She was a nanny Anita hired and then became best friends with Jo for a bit.

As for Keith's statement about "All About You" being about Mick stemming from 1985, that bears further comment.

Something happened between the early songwriting sessions when Mick and Keith are playing acoustic guitars and all appears to be well. During the proper recording sessions with Steve Lillywhite, the band (including Mick) were dining together in Paris (haddock allegedly being a frequent choice giving rise to jokes about "Haddock with You"). By summer, it became Keith and, to an extent, Ronnie vs. Mick. Mick was absent (allegedly) or avoiding Keith and showing up in the studio on his own. Maybe it was fallout over Live Aid, but certainly by the time mixing and overdubbing was underway, the reports are relations were more strained than they had been during EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

It is not speculation only to suggest Keith was looking at the Biff Hilter Trio (Steve Jordan, Charley Drayton, Ivan Neville) as a backing band for his next project: a solo album of his own by September 1985. From that perspective, and with Jane's blessing (if not guidance), the narrative changes and becomes Mick as the target, Mick as the figure to blame, Mick as Peter Pan standing in the way of the band growing up or touring.

DIRTY WORK was initially promoted by Keith and certainly Steve Lillywhite as Keith's album, yet now it's thought of as the low-water mark in their career. TALK IS CHEAP carried the narrative further two years later. Keith tells stories of Mick saying he had no songs to offer when they met up in Paris. Since it can't be both ways, Mick messes the Stones up with his misdirection and Mick doesn't contribute creatively which scuppers the results, one has to conclude some of the finger-pointing and bitching serves a greater purpose, namely self-promotion and establishing a new identity (just as the laughing pirate is the next iteration).

For me, it just doesn't add up to accept Keith's word that a song Mick approved for release on a band effort they produced together in 1980 was a poison pen letter to him. If my speculation the "her" is Lil and the "you" is Anita is correct, Patti's feelings (since Keith was still with Lil in their early days together) are another likely reason to keep his private life private and offer up Mick. Seen from that perspective, Keith (and Jane) were simply updating WOULD YOU LET YOUR DAUGHTER MARRY A ROLLING STONE? to WOULD YOU BUY A SOLO ALBUM FROM MICK JAGGER? The answer you're being prompted to give is "No, he needs Keith Richards, the authentic Stone." If I'm correct, it's a brilliant move to rehabilitate the image of a guy who had become fodder for cheap jokes as the poster boy for drug addiction.

Whether such a move is the reason they haven't been in one another's dressing room in decades, don't socialize, aren't friendly if there isn't a camera on them, don't collaborate closely unless forced, etc. is a point Keith likely never asks himself if we accept his public persona as the genuine article.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 20:16 by Rocky Dijon.

Nice bit of info there Rocky, the plot thickens

Don't take this personally, but you seem to slant things in a way that benefits Micks reputation and shows Keith as the instigator of WW3, and then keith cashing in as it were as a consequence . I apologize if i am wrong in this assumption.
Is Keith really as calculating as all that, Keith clearly had problems getting out of bed during these years, i don't see him as being capable of scheming and calculating the way you do. Sure he might have been intolerable to work with and i can understand Mick wanting to break free from Keith. No room for two leaders in this band sort of attitude.

Keith wasn't planning to go solo in 85, he only got the idea for that after working on Hail Hail Rock And Roll.

I think Keith was upset by Mick going solo and finding himself being made redundant at the age of 42. He didn't respond with a solo album until Mick released his second solo album in 87'.

A lot of what Keith spouted in the press was like a knee jerk reaction to Mick not wanting to work with him anymore, i still have newspaper articles with Mick stating in interviews that he could no longer work with Keith.

Can't really blame Keith for being upset or angry even, he loved Mick and must have felt hurt.

I doubt very much that Keith thought the Stones would get back together when he too finally went solo, i remember Keith in an interview saying that when he was getting over the upset and disappointment of the Stones splitting up, and was touring with the Winos, only for Mick to call him up and say he wants to get the Stones back together.
Keith retorted with what are you trying to do , screw me up.

There were no winners here, i honestly think even today that Keith's loyalty is always to the Stones, he has let Mick take charge of the band and seems happy in his new role as second in command to Mick. Keith is probably too old and too tired to put up a fight against Micks control.
I'm not knocking Mick but as seen from others who have worked with him, he is the commanda, its the only way it can work with Mick.

Not offended at all. No, I don't think it's a one-sided story. I would agree that Mick put his solo career in front of the band and if he had been fantastically successful as a recording artist, the band would have finished for good. I think it's also correct to say that in the current century, Mick has treated the Stones largely like his solo career and prefers operating with something approaching total autonomy under the pretense that too much collaboration with Keith is unnecessarily time-consuming, counter-productive, fraught with arguments, creatively stultifying, closed to new ways of working/arranging/recording. The guy who is frustrated Charlie doesn't have a cell phone, won't be patient with fax machines or Keith's way of composing and recording. Their very brief meet-ups one-on-one for the long-gestating new album illustrate this: a short period of time is booked in the studio to go over what the other has done separately and see if it gels.

Most fans accept the one-sided story that it's all Mick's fault. I don't. I think Keith's behavior has been equally destructive and I didn't even touch on drug use, drunken remarks to the press ("alcoholic tongues like knives" the line once went), the exaggerations, the "no filter" attitude of "I'm telling it like it is." They've both hurt their friendship, their partnership, and the band. That's my perspective.

Do I think Keith thirty-odd years ago was the mess he appeared to be? Sometimes, sure, not always. He was a highly-functioning alcoholic and junkie. The perception he was brain-damaged, permanently muddled, incoherent isn't accurate. Jane saw that and needed the world to see it if her client was going to be considered viable for a solo career on anything other than an indie label. Removing toxic people from his sphere was part of that plan and was executed over many years (initially with Mick's full support, if not direct instigation). Mick is Peter Pan and Keith is Captain Hook (as someone here cleverly pointed out recently). If you know the story, you realize both are Lost Boys who live in Never-Never Land. Pretending one is the "goodie" and one is the "baddie" is naive. They're both compelling figures who will pull anyone down who gets too close to the tidal wave generated in their wake.

As for Keith not thinking of going solo until HAIL HAIL in October 1986, there's a quote on [timeisonourside.com] from February 1986 before DIRTY WORK was released:

Keith Richards (February 1986): A solo album?
"Something's been forming up in my mind over the last three months. Stuff I've been thinking of doing for years. It's sort of coming together. But I'm waiting for the little internal clock in me that says, Now!, you know. I may well do something when this Stones thing is on its way - after the record and the tour - I may do something later this year. Make a start of it anyway."

If you think him finding three-quarters of the Winos during those sessions and recording loads of lead vocal tracks isn't indicative of a solo album being the next step, I likely can't say anything to change your mind. HAIL HAIL and Aretha's single before it (both of which showcased the new Keith - coherent, cool, and vital) were the necessary steps to establish demonstrable viability before hitting out for a solo deal. By early 1987 when Keith began talking with labels, he was suddenly the genius behind the flamboyant front man and not his wasted partner in crime stuck in the past.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 21:59 by Rocky Dijon.

Cheers Rocky i couldn't agree more with all the above.

I think when Keith came off Smack and replaced it with Cocaine and Jack Daniels he probably became unbearable as far as Mick was concerned, he must have seemed like a completely different person to be around and work with.

Keith appeared almost overnight to change from this shy introverted relaxed individual, into this larger than life overpowering character that wants to say everything do everything and share the burden with Mick.

Keith said himself when you perceive something as a power struggle you have a power struggle, and when Keith came out of his drug stupor Mick saw it as a challenge.

But as we all know Mick wasn't prepared to share the load with keith and as you just explained Mick does everything now, he arranges the tours down to the last detail, says when and where they are touring, he decides the songs they play and pics the musicians that accompany them.
This is Micks band now. Sure Keith still makes a few contributions on the albums but as you said they are mostly Mick solo albums. It pains me to admit this BTW.

Keith either chooses to ignore this or it goes over his head, i think the problem they may be having in finishing this new album is Keith finally trying to put his foot down and demand some sort of collaborating with Mick and also maybe insisting on the albums direction, but i suspect Micks having none of it lol.
This might be why its not going to get finished, its Micks way or no way.

This is of course all speculation on my part and sorry to have gone off topic.

PS. I think i owe you an apology Rocky, just seen your edit after i sent my post with what looks like a strong hint of Keith wanting to do a solo album. That is (was) news to me, makes me think that maybe all this fuss about WW3 was made by design.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-09 21:33 by keithsman.

No apology needed. You and I don't know them personally and even if we did, we weren't there to see it happen. I'm just doing my jigsaw puzzle before it rains any more.

Meantime, Keith already gave us a tune on this very topic:


Oh, you know you've got it in for me
I knew it right from the start
I'm still learning my lines baby
Since you've rewritten my part

Quote
Rocky Dijon
No apology needed. You and I don't know them personally and even if we did, we weren't there to see it happen. I'm just doing my jigsaw puzzle before it rains any more.

Meantime, Keith already gave us a tune on this very topic:


Oh, you know you've got it in for me
I knew it right from the start
I'm still learning my lines baby
Since you've rewritten my part

Its all there in the lyrics, its the subconscious at work, it filters through and they may not even be aware of what they have written at the time.

That's right we don't know them personally, but in studying them for decades we get to know them, little things that are given away in tiny instances give the game away.
There is this tiny snippet from one of their documentary's with the Stones coming out of a lift to go onstage, maybe in 02' 03' well Keith goes to come out of the lift first (posing as he does) when he senses Micks disapproval, Mick sort of looks annoyed behind him, Keith can't see Mick behind him but like using telepathy Keith instantly backs off and Micks sways past him to come out of the lift first with the cameras rolling.

There is this other instance when Mick is being interviewed and he gets asked a question about Keith, and Mick snaps back is a very harsh manner and says "look i don't want to talk about Keith, i want to talk about me" lol.

It was just so revealing, to me anyway.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[Could be, of course, but Keith's statement was from 1985.

Lil Wergilis or Lilly Wenglass, btw, are they the same swedish woman? Wenglass has added Green to her last name now..

It is the same woman. I read an explanation for the variant name fairly recently (I think it was linked here), but I can't recall it now. She was a nanny Anita hired and then became best friends with Jo for a bit.

As for Keith's statement about "All About You" being about Mick stemming from 1985, that bears further comment.

Something happened between the early songwriting sessions when Mick and Keith are playing acoustic guitars and all appears to be well. During the proper recording sessions with Steve Lillywhite, the band (including Mick) were dining together in Paris (haddock allegedly being a frequent choice giving rise to jokes about "Haddock with You"). By summer, it became Keith and, to an extent, Ronnie vs. Mick. Mick was absent (allegedly) or avoiding Keith and showing up in the studio on his own. Maybe it was fallout over Live Aid, but certainly by the time mixing and overdubbing was underway, the reports are relations were more strained than they had been during EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

It is not speculation only to suggest Keith was looking at the Biff Hilter Trio (Steve Jordan, Charley Drayton, Ivan Neville) as a backing band for his next project: a solo album of his own by September 1985. From that perspective, and with Jane's blessing (if not guidance), the narrative changes and becomes Mick as the target, Mick as the figure to blame, Mick as Peter Pan standing in the way of the band growing up or touring.

DIRTY WORK was initially promoted by Keith and certainly Steve Lillywhite as Keith's album, yet now it's thought of as the low-water mark in their career. TALK IS CHEAP carried the narrative further two years later. Keith tells stories of Mick saying he had no songs to offer when they met up in Paris. Since it can't be both ways, Mick messes the Stones up with his misdirection and Mick doesn't contribute creatively which scuppers the results, one has to conclude some of the finger-pointing and bitching serves a greater purpose, namely self-promotion and establishing a new identity (just as the laughing pirate is the next iteration).

For me, it just doesn't add up to accept Keith's word that a song Mick approved for release on a band effort they produced together in 1980 was a poison pen letter to him. If my speculation the "her" is Lil and the "you" is Anita is correct, Patti's feelings (since Keith was still with Lil in their early days together) are another likely reason to keep his private life private and offer up Mick. Seen from that perspective, Keith (and Jane) were simply updating WOULD YOU LET YOUR DAUGHTER MARRY A ROLLING STONE? to WOULD YOU BUY A SOLO ALBUM FROM MICK JAGGER? The answer you're being prompted to give is "No, he needs Keith Richards, the authentic Stone." If I'm correct, it's a brilliant move to rehabilitate the image of a guy who had become fodder for cheap jokes as the poster boy for drug addiction.

Whether such a move is the reason they haven't been in one another's dressing room in decades, don't socialize, aren't friendly if there isn't a camera on them, don't collaborate closely unless forced, etc. is a point Keith likely never asks himself if we accept his public persona as the genuine article.

Well done Rocky! Spot on.

”The laughing pirate”

Thank you kindly, but I'm dominating the conversation too much. I need to shut up for a good long bit and just read quietly without moving my lips.

By the end of the year, 1982, the band had signed a new four-album recording deal with a new label, CBS Records, for a reported $50 million, then the biggest record deal in history.[196]
*which included Jagger solo albums, which apparently Keith Richards was unaware.

Jagger released his first solo albums, She's the Boss and Primitive Cool, in 1985 and 1987 respectively, through a newly conceived partnership between Rolling Stones Records and CBS Records (now Sony Music).
*Thus the trademark Rolling Stones logo was affixed to each record and the label "Rolling Stones Records" was also printed on each new release, which angered Keith Richards


*lastly, I say ‘All About You’ is about ANITA. That man’s torment and pain are about their relationship ending/ the darkness it went thru/ the drug addiction/ the lowlifes it brings you down to and become.
JMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-10 03:21 by 35love.

Also, I read Walter Yetnikoff, head of CBS Records during its heyday in the 1980s, autobiography ‘Howling At the Moon’

He was selling in Mick’s ear solo solo solo
that’s where the money is
look at all your contemporaries
quite slimy and obviously drug fueled ego driven
the 80’s!

I do not judge either Keith nor Mick during this time period,
just relieved we’re all here
35 years later!

Quote
35love
By the end of the year, 1982, the band had signed a new four-album recording deal with a new label, CBS Records, for a reported $50 million, then the biggest record deal in history.[196]
*which included Jagger solo albums, which apparently Keith Richards was unaware.

Jagger released his first solo albums, She's the Boss and Primitive Cool, in 1985 and 1987 respectively, through a newly conceived partnership between Rolling Stones Records and CBS Records (now Sony Music).
*Thus the trademark Rolling Stones logo was affixed to each record and the label "Rolling Stones Records" was also printed on each new release, which angered Keith Richards


*lastly, I say ‘All About You’ is about ANITA. That man’s torment and pain are about their relationship ending/ the darkness it went thru/ the drug addiction/ the lowlifes it brings you down to and become.
JMO.

Nice posts 35love i totally agree.