Quote
Rocky Dijon
I think it's something most people do when they admire an aspect of a person. It's why hagiography came to mean an unreliable account of a person's life where the writer is so enamored of the subject they whitewash everything to make them a good person. I've been guilty of it in the past as well.

The thing is, it's rare people are universally detested. Someone's kids and friends or spouse may say wonderful things about them. Former colleagues or lovers or people they crossed may say something quite different. It's true of celebrities as much as each of us.

Fan boards, by nature, will have much more extreme examples, such as making Keith the one with most of the talent and a good and upright man who follows his personal code of honor at all times while painting Mick as the greedy, trend-chasing, skirt-chasing front man who sold out. Both views are over-simplified and never true all of the time. People are more complex than being heroes and villains in a melodrama.

Great Post... which is very rare here.

hagiography, I never heard that term before,
I would have guessed it meant an iography of Sharon Osbourne and/or Kris Jenner (or even Caitlyn Jenner at this point) and/or others of their ilk.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-07 22:11 by Leonioid.

Thanks for the kind words above, Leonioid. We're all jerks to one another some of the time. There is still much that is worth reading and sharing here, happily. I could never run this place. I don't have the temperament for it. I'd get pissed off and close the whole thing down and then regret my decision two weeks later after hearing from one or two of the good folks here I consider genuine friends.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Thanks for the kind words above, Leonioid. We're all jerks to one another some of the time. There is still much that is worth reading and sharing here, happily. I could never run this place. I don't have the temperament for it. I'd get pissed off and close the whole thing down and then regret my decision two weeks later after hearing from one or two of the good folks here I consider genuine friends.

Agreed

Like most things in life, the 10%/90% ratio applies here too...

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I think it's something most people do when they admire an aspect of a person. It's why hagiography came to mean an unreliable account of a person's life where the writer is so enamored of the subject they whitewash everything to make them a good person. I've been guilty of it in the past as well.

The thing is, it's rare people are universally detested. Someone's kids and friends or spouse may say wonderful things about them. Former colleagues or lovers or people they crossed may say something quite different. It's true of celebrities as much as each of us.

Fan boards, by nature, will have much more extreme examples, such as making Keith the one with most of the talent and a good and upright man who follows his personal code of honor at all times while painting Mick as the greedy, trend-chasing, skirt-chasing front man who sold out. Both views are over-simplified and never true all of the time. People are more complex than being heroes and villains in a melodrama.

Hey Rocky nice to have you back .

Well Rocky those examples you give of the two glimmers are not entirely inaccurate, even in Keith's most druggy period he still managed to be a moral man, he's not a sexual deviant and he's not obsessed with teenagers, i'd say he was about as moral as a junkie can be.
Lem motlow, does being an addict alone necessarily make you a bad person ? i mean Clapton just hid away for a few years when he was a junkie, to my knowledge i don't think it made him a monster or a threat to anyone.
Some people when under the influence of drink and drugs can turn into real monsters,( probably why some people don't touch either ) there isn't much information to suggest that Keith did any harm other than to himself.
Keith says it himself, addiction makes you selfish, and yes he was not a responsible parent, but all his children have turned out great as far as we can see.

As for most people thinking Keith has more talent, what can i say, Gimme Shelter alone gives Keith the edge, plus i will stick my neck out and say Keith is mostly responsible for the distinctive sound of those big hitters, i mean obviously Mick shares half the credits but its these distinctive intro's with those killer riffs and that rhythm guitar that sets this band apart from others.
I think most casual fans probably think Mick is the Stones, the leader, the main man, most people may not have even known who Keith Richards was when the Stones were making their their best music, lets face it no one on the planet didn't know who Mick Jagger was, so i really don't go along with your idea of saying most people saying Keith has more talent is a Keith biased based extreme, i'd say Keith has earn't all the respect he gets today.
When i first got into this band in 82' people would say who is Keith Richards, can't blame Keith for putting himself out there more over the past 40 years.
The world knows who he is today and rightly so.
I like to think of Keith as the sound of the Stones and Mick as the voice, what an irresistible combination, they both deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labour as they do today in any extreme

Quote
Leonioid
hagiography, I never heard that term before,

A "Iagography" is when you stab the subject of your work in the back...
(hello to the good folks of Stratford-upon-Avon)

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
dcba


Yeah that's my idea too. "If I ever hear you beat up your old lady I don't know you man". This is the Keith policy and it goes back to Brian Jones.

G
So, Keith doesn't know himself then? Or many of his musical heroes?

Don’t even bother His Majesty ,the keithettes have invented an alternate reality where Keith is a stand up guy that never punched Anita in the face in the back of a limo and never fell asleep with a loaded gun near an 8 year old or left plates of dangerous drugs near his kid.
The made up quote above is laughable,I mean I’m a huge Keith fan but I went into it knowing the guy was a friggin dirtbag.

You think of yourself as a true fan but you can't even remember the complete Keef quote about BJ and Anita. It goes like "sure he'd hit her but he'd take double in return". So I don't think Keef would ever think of hitting Anita he'd have ended up at the wrong side of a (loaded) gun.

And yes you can be a dirtbag (I am one) but not a wife beater. Is that so difficult to understand? You can live outside of the Law and still respect the woman you love. Is that so difficult to understand?
Don't mistake Keef for a sleazeball US musician who could have been shot at by his abused GF. The Stones are above that.

Quote
keithsman
Hey Rocky nice to have you back .

Well Rocky those examples you give of the two glimmers are not entirely inaccurate, even in Keith's most druggy period he still managed to be a moral man, he's not a sexual deviant and he's not obsessed with teenagers, i'd say he was about as moral as a junkie can be.

Thanks for the welcome, keithsman. Again, I'm not saying the stereotypes have no truth in them, just that no one is just this quality or just that quality. There are people who knew Keith who would say terrible things about him. I'm less concerned than what you or I think as fans than with the reality of people who are or were part of their lives. Even then it will vary based on experience.

Mick is a great example because many people have different experiences of him -- amazingly focused and serious business mogul vs. unrepentant womanizer or health-conscious control freak vs. guy who still gets stoned with Lenny Kravitz. Whatever people see, that's who the celebrity becomes in their eyes all the time. It happens to us regular people, too.

My kids adore me and I have colleagues who would still hire me or want to work for me in a heartbeat. Other people from the same project view me as someone they had reason to blacklist or who they actively detest. Our experience of people colors our perception. No one is all good and all bad all the time. As Brian said, "Let all the world say what they may, speak of me as you find."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-08 19:11 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
dcba
The Stones are above that.

They really aren't.

Ps: For what it's worth, one of the sources re Keith hitting Anita is Stu.

I don't care that much if they are or were arseholes or not, my thoughts mean nothing and change nothing. Any iffy crap is the business of those affected directly. It's their shit to deal with.

Everything, good and bad, influences the music. Change them as people and the music changes too. The extremes, obvious talent, personal failings and hypocrisy etc of them as people is all part of what makes them so compelling.

The Rolling Stones story is ridiculous.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-08 17:32 by His Majesty.

When I first read this quote from Stu, I had an entirely different impression of what he meant by "punching":

Anita was the most formidable 'rock chick' ever, with a swagger and presence that all the Stones found hard to handle. 'They looked at me like I was some kind of threat,' she recalled. 'Jagger really tried to put me down, but there was no way some crude, lippy guy was going to do a number on me. 'I was always able to squelch him. I found out that, if you stand up to Mick, he crumbles.' Richards has always been rather more combative, and although famously sweetnatured towards women, he sometimes reacted fiercely to Pallenberg's provocations. Stones pianist and roadie Ian Stewart had to keep a list of airlines unwilling to let the guitarist aboard, and he later revealed that Richards was banned by Alitalia 'for staying in the restroom from Rome to London, punching that crazy Anita'. Similar outbursts would recur throughout the couple's 12-year relationship.

[forums.thefashionspot.com]

Actually, I've always felt that Jerry Hall and Bianca were far more formidable than Anita.
As we all know she spent many decades in an alcohol/drugs stupor and was unable to care for her second child.
And was provided for, financially by Keith for most of her adult life.
Not in my opinion a strong or independent woman.

What about Patti ?top model who gave it up for old fashioned keith, She has survived a really horrible cancer and has kept going through thick and thin and shirly - sculpter, artist , too horse breeder. Both pretty amazing women

Quote
EJM
What about Patti ?top model who gave it up for old fashioned keith, She has survived a really horrible cancer and has kept going through thick and thin and shirly - sculpter, artist , too horse breeder. Both pretty amazing women

Couldn't agree more!

Quote
bye bye johnny
Halfway done? Depp wrapped filming on "Happy" 5 years ago...

[www.express.co.uk]

If there is one person that could write a book about Keith, it's Jane Rose. All the rest is for own purpose !!!

Quote
latcho

Quote
bye bye johnny
Halfway done? Depp wrapped filming on "Happy" 5 years ago...

[www.express.co.uk]

If there is one person that could write a book about Keith, it's Jane Rose. All the rest is for own purpose !!!

Not likely as almost certainly she will have signed a Confidentiality Agreement.

Herald Sun -- 11 July 2018



ROCKMAN

For a 100 thousand Dollars i would have punched him back, in fact i would have done it for free

Quote
keithsman
For a 100 thousand Dollars i would have punched him back, in fact i would have done it for free

HA! I was just thinking that too!! Then I would sue him for my sore knuckles!!

Quote
diverseharmonics

Quote
keithsman
For a 100 thousand Dollars i would have punched him back, in fact i would have done it for free

HA! I was just thinking that too!! Then I would sue him for my sore knuckles!!

No $ left :-(
People saying he was ‘set up by Rolling Stone magazine reporter’
no way. Reporter had all access as written, and reported the story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-12 13:45 by 35love.

Set up in the sense that the journalist was given access because Depp trusted him to tell Depp's side of the story. That isn't the tone of the piece at all. He spends more space telling everyone what a reckless and debauched life Johnny is living and paints him as someone who is both out of touch and dangerously close to the edge. When a celebrity extends hospitality to a journalist he trusts, he doesn't expect to be rewarded in this fashion. Put yourself in his shoes. Additionally, if the journalist is correct and Johnny is one headline away from the obituary columns; it was both an unethical and irresponsible move to publish the piece and push him further into paranoia with another betrayal. This wasn't an intervention to save a friend's life. This was headline-grabbing. That's why many people felt it was below the belt.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Set up in the sense that the journalist was given access because Depp trusted him to tell Depp's side of the story. That isn't the tone of the piece at all. He spends more space telling everyone what a reckless and debauched life Johnny is living and paints him as someone who is both out of touch and dangerously close to the edge. When a celebrity extends hospitality to a journalist he trusts, he doesn't expect to be rewarded in this fashion. Put yourself in his shoes. Additionally, if the journalist is correct and Johnny is one headline away from the obituary columns; it was both an unethical and irresponsible move to publish the piece and push him further into paranoia with another betrayal. This wasn't an intervention to save a friend's life. This was headline-grabbing. That's why many people felt it was below the belt.

Yes it was a scummy move by the reporter.

But when Johnny reads it, maybe he'll see things in himself that others do and seek help of some kind.
Like "wow, am I really that weird and screwed up"?

Either that, or he'll spiral out of control even further than he already has.

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

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Set up in the sense that the journalist was given access because Depp trusted him to tell Depp's side of the story. That isn't the tone of the piece at all. He spends more space telling everyone what a reckless and debauched life Johnny is living and paints him as someone who is both out of touch and dangerously close to the edge. When a celebrity extends hospitality to a journalist he trusts, he doesn't expect to be rewarded in this fashion. Put yourself in his shoes. Additionally, if the journalist is correct and Johnny is one headline away from the obituary columns; it was both an unethical and irresponsible move to publish the piece and push him further into paranoia with another betrayal. This wasn't an intervention to save a friend's life. This was headline-grabbing. That's why many people felt it was below the belt.

Honestly, you have no idea this is true. For example, another angle might be
Rolling Stone magazine says ‘hmmm no one wants to read vanilla, say we pay,’
See? C’mon. Poor Johnny Depp the victim? Hope not/ and it’s a tough sell.
Hope RS magazine paid him cash on the side, who knows, maybe a movie studio cooked this up, maybe his advisors.

I wish Mr. Depp all the best, sincerely. I know nothing about nothing. Just trying to point out how others may see it?

Take care.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-13 00:48 by 35love.

….maybe Johnny's just getting into the character of some debauched whacked out cat in a new up-coming movie …. The "Dude" meets Turner



ROCKMAN

The Australian / Herald Sun --- 18 July 2018



ROCKMAN

Both parties are "pleased"...maybe original suit by Depp and countersuit by former management were both dropped.
Whatever the results, time for Johnny to move on...move on up...walk and don't look back.

Oh yeah, the there's the pending lawsuit filed by Greg Brooks against Depp - I predict a $ettlement.

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

a $ettlement ….most likely



ROCKMAN

Looking at all the pics of these Vampires (etc.), I can't help but thinkin': boy, these LA dudes look ridiculous... Never éver liked that 'scene' style over there.

On that Keef doco: I think Depp shelved it, for 'later'... when Keith (oh, the Blasphemy) won't be around anymore. (Although, each at their own rate, it def looks like Keith will outlive this one too.)

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
Looking at all the pics of these Vampires (etc.), I can't help but thinkin': boy, these LA dudes look ridiculous... Never éver liked that 'scene' style over there.

On that Keef doco: I think Depp shelved it, for 'later'... when Keith (oh, the Blasphemy) won't be around anymore. (Although, each at their own rate, it def looks like Keith will outlive this one too.)

1.) Northern CA is VERY different than Southern CA
2.) I do not believe the Richards family would let this product or alleged film
merely sit somewhere only to be exposed or released on a whim.
I’ll go further. Surely, someone of Keith’s fame and stature and 56 years of a successful business built from ground up (the RS) will not let a film of perhaps an embarrassing quality/ perhaps on 2nd view is mortifying ‘sit in someone’s garage’.
3.) My earlier wish had been Mr. Richards attorney acquire said ‘garage film’
and bury it.

Quote
35love

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
Looking at all the pics of these Vampires (etc.), I can't help but thinkin': boy, these LA dudes look ridiculous... Never éver liked that 'scene' style over there.

On that Keef doco: I think Depp shelved it, for 'later'... when Keith (oh, the Blasphemy) won't be around anymore. (Although, each at their own rate, it def looks like Keith will outlive this one too.)

1.) Northern CA is VERY different than Southern CA
2.) I do not believe the Richards family would let this product or alleged film
merely sit somewhere only to be exposed or released on a whim.
I’ll go further. Surely, someone of Keith’s fame and stature and 56 years of a successful business built from ground up (the RS) will not let a film of perhaps an embarrassing quality/ perhaps on 2nd view is mortifying ‘sit in someone’s garage’.
3.) My earlier wish had been Mr. Richards attorney acquire said ‘garage film’
and bury it.

You may be right. I'm not acquainted enough with laws concerning autorisation etc. - can't imagine, though, that the producer (c.q. Depp) has some rights/ some say in it as well, based on the mere fact of Keith's colaboration? I mean: he gave some sort of interview/-s, right? But, as said: dunno. really.

And about CA: forgive me (truely) - I'm sure I was overly generalising, there.
(It's what you get when a lonesome country boy from one of the smallest nations on mainland EU bases his opinios on perception - on what he sees on television & in magazines. )

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
keithsman
You will never see Depp's documentary on Keith because they fell out years ago, this is old news, we have has this discussion on here many times.

Keith's revenge on Johnny was Under The influence, who needs Johnny.

___________________________________________


Is there a reason or did anyone hear why or what caused their falling out?

I think I read somewhere that Keith got tired of Depp continually bugging him about when the Stones were going to get back in the studio and record an album of new material.