Quote
Hairball

Quote
harlem shuffle
So Keitsmen why do you Edit you,re post against Jagger? I saw the post last night,and i am shocked.You called Mick Jagger a phedofile pig.So why do you Edit IT?I think that,s you,re personal opinion,so why do you take IT off?

In defense of keithsman, and taking a stance against complete bullshit - WTF are you talking about?
No way, no how, and nowhere did keithsman say anything of the sort - I saw it all before he deleted it as it was a reply to my question.
Why you would want to twist it in anyway is beyond me, and maybe you should take a step back from spreading vicious lies.

________________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, listening to the link of Weep No More posted by retired dog and trying to imagine if Mick could do as good of a job as that young lady in the video.
Something tells me that Keith - once a choirboy - could probably do it some justice, while Mick might not be able to capture the pure emotion.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Hairball

Quote
harlem shuffle
So Keitsmen why do you Edit you,re post against Jagger? I saw the post last night,and i am shocked.You called Mick Jagger a phedofile pig.So why do you Edit IT?I think that,s you,re personal opinion,so why do you take IT off?

In defense of keithsman, and taking a stance against complete bullshit - WTF are you talking about?
No way, no how, and nowhere did keithsman say anything of the sort - I saw it all before he deleted it as it was a reply to my question.
Why you would want to twist it in anyway is beyond me, and maybe you should take a step back from spreading vicious lies.

________________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, listening to the link of Weep No More posted by retired dog and trying to imagine if Mick could do as good of a job as that young lady in the video.
Something tells me that Keith - once a choirboy - could probably do it some justice, while Mick might not be able to capture the pure emotion.

Sure. We all know that if there's somebody in the Rolling Stones who can't sing -at least not with pure emotion- it is this Mick Jagger guy.

Quote
harlem shuffle
Hairball and Keitsmen is the biggestlyers ever on this site,so this answer was expected.As usual complete lies

Quote
Carnaby


Wednesday in the West Village. Wish he would give up the cigarettes.

Quote
Carnaby


Wednesday in the West Village. Wish he would give up the cigarettes.

Quote
Rockman
Who's the chick in the window ???

Quote
MelBelli
[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Quote
Carnaby


Wednesday in the West Village. Wish he would give up the cigarettes.

Quote
MKjan


You were doing fine up to your last sentence.

Quote
harlem shuffle
Problem is that he did post it,because i read it.So what,s you,re problem?

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
harlem shuffle
Problem is that he did post it,because i read it.So what,s you,re problem?

The thing is, whatever he posted, he thought better of it and edited his remark. I've posted dozens, if not hundreds of angry responses and then calmed down and felt like an idiot and removed my offending post before someone quoted it and I was stuck with it. I've also been a smart mouth way too many times (including recently) where I've later thought better of it and changed my post. Message boards and email make it easy to say what's in your head with, if you'll pardon the expression, NO FILTER. Recognizing that vulnerability doesn't mean we should punish someone who had the good sense to change their post. That's exactly what Bjornulf would want if we didn't have the sense to delete before posting in the first place.

Quote
Rockman
Who's the chick in the window ???

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness



However, Doxa, are you not on this occasion presenting too much of a one factor explanation of this band's development through major, medium and minor peaks and relative and sometimes absolute slumps, that is, with a focus on Keith's part of it. From your exposition it is as if, were it not for Keith's drug use, he would have contributed to creativity without any stops. And somehow you have, again on this occasion, abstracted from characterisic points of their development. Especially from what one may call their artistic turn that THEIR SATANIC MAJESTYS REQUEST paved the way for. Also, on the other hand, from the exhaustion that GOATS HEAD SOUP in its lethargy displays from musical innovation during the preceding years, for instance in one of Keith's best Keith sung songs," Coming Down Again". Later on, past their artistic period, there was still music made that instead of 'artistic, may be described as deeply inspirational. I am referring to the Pathe Marconi albums, of which Keith has his share. And when both Keith and Mick after that time period, influenced by their disagreements on material, the two of them do not write quite as good songs as in the past, one ought to be aware that the more reserved reception to their albums from their conservative buying public has contributed to take away incentives to be more active in music making.

In other words, Keith's use of drugs and alcohol has had its impact, I don't object, but in a richer context, which I have only alluded to. It is paradox for me to remind you, you know so very much more than me about these subjects. But you seem almost to have been intoxicated (!) by the perspective you chose.

Well, I think the whole story of the (downhill of) creativity of the Stones in general and Keith in particular is much richer and complicated than I described above. Of course. What I did was to just emphasize one factor, and I really don't have any clue if anything I said holds court (or to what extent). It was just one consistent and coherent way (or attempt to that) to explain certain phenomenons we have wittnessed along the years. It was controversial for sure because for once I tried look the case without typical non-natural heroism involved in discussing the topic of Keith and drugs. Just a human, raw and naked perspective (without any glamour and myths) reflecting what drugs and booze does for one's behavior in the long run.

But like I said that's not the way I generally like seeing the Stones. For example, I much rather like to see Mick Jagger not wanting to co-work with Keith because Mick doesn't find Keith 'inspiring' enough (or for some other 'pure' artistic reasons) but not because of Keith's unbearable drunken behavior. The latter just sounds way too harsh, easy and 'naturalistic' explanation. Nor I don't like to see Keith or the Stones losing their true muse and focus after EXILE due to their heavy drugs use. I rather like to see them just running out of fresh ideas, them of completing everything they know and can by EXILE, and thereby having a 'natural' artistic downhill (or, if one likes, just getting old in basically young man's game). Or like with Keith, him by then having gotten about any sensible new idea from the open tuning that was somehow within the reach of his curious mind. Him just running out of bullets. Not that of him shooting most of his creative cells in his brains out. But I am afraid that that of trying to tell everything in pure artistic terms isn't satisfactory enough, and that one needs certain causal, non-musical stories to complete the picture.

I actually hate using the drug card in explaining anything in music, but sometimes I need to admit that it might have a real explanatory role in trying to understand their doings. Both positively and negatively. My story above stemmed out of that. But I hope anyone sees the hypothetical and over-simplifying (and, of course, rhetorical) character my story has. It wasn't written to be taken literally, but just to open up one possible perspective to consider.

- Doxa

Doxa and Witness, I read your discussions with real interest. To some extend there is a lot of truth in them, but, guessing you are both closer to my age than to "youngsters", I like to add an aspect that has nothing to do with drugs. It's the process of aging. How few youngsters from the sixties and on have been creating inspirational music decades later? The process of aging includes "building up" experience. Experience as such is already a thread to spontaneity. In fact experience of "elder" may be useful for "youngsters", but for the "elder" it often becomes a filter that takes away spontaneity. Off course, being surrounded by all those people who look upon you as being "gods" doesn't help either.
Intense contact with "youngsters" is one way of taking away that filter. And it then can result in the return of some of that "ancient" spontaneity ... temporarily. You can see that happen a lot in the music world. And it works both ways! I've never been disappointed in new Stones material over the decades (okay, there is always the odd song) and I look forward to their new album with confidence.
Maybe that other great band, U2, will find new inspiration that way, because ...

Quote
Witness

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness



However, Doxa, are you not on this occasion presenting too much of a one factor explanation of this band's development through major, medium and minor peaks and relative and sometimes absolute slumps, that is, with a focus on Keith's part of it. From your exposition it is as if, were it not for Keith's drug use, he would have contributed to creativity without any stops. And somehow you have, again on this occasion, abstracted from characterisic points of their development. Especially from what one may call their artistic turn that THEIR SATANIC MAJESTYS REQUEST paved the way for. Also, on the other hand, from the exhaustion that GOATS HEAD SOUP in its lethargy displays from musical innovation during the preceding years, for instance in one of Keith's best Keith sung songs," Coming Down Again". Later on, past their artistic period, there was still music made that instead of 'artistic, may be described as deeply inspirational. I am referring to the Pathe Marconi albums, of which Keith has his share. And when both Keith and Mick after that time period, influenced by their disagreements on material, the two of them do not write quite as good songs as in the past, one ought to be aware that the more reserved reception to their albums from their conservative buying public has contributed to take away incentives to be more active in music making.

In other words, Keith's use of drugs and alcohol has had its impact, I don't object, but in a richer context, which I have only alluded to. It is paradox for me to remind you, you know so very much more than me about these subjects. But you seem almost to have been intoxicated (!) by the perspective you chose.

Well, I think the whole story of the (downhill of) creativity of the Stones in general and Keith in particular is much richer and complicated than I described above. Of course. What I did was to just emphasize one factor, and I really don't have any clue if anything I said holds court (or to what extent). It was just one consistent and coherent way (or attempt to that) to explain certain phenomenons we have wittnessed along the years. It was controversial for sure because for once I tried look the case without typical non-natural heroism involved in discussing the topic of Keith and drugs. Just a human, raw and naked perspective (without any glamour and myths) reflecting what drugs and booze does for one's behavior in the long run.

But like I said that's not the way I generally like seeing the Stones. For example, I much rather like to see Mick Jagger not wanting to co-work with Keith because Mick doesn't find Keith 'inspiring' enough (or for some other 'pure' artistic reasons) but not because of Keith's unbearable drunken behavior. The latter just sounds way too harsh, easy and 'naturalistic' explanation. Nor I don't like to see Keith or the Stones losing their true muse and focus after EXILE due to their heavy drugs use. I rather like to see them just running out of fresh ideas, them of completing everything they know and can by EXILE, and thereby having a 'natural' artistic downhill (or, if one likes, just getting old in basically young man's game). Or like with Keith, him by then having gotten about any sensible new idea from the open tuning that was somehow within the reach of his curious mind. Him just running out of bullets. Not that of him shooting most of his creative cells in his brains out. But I am afraid that that of trying to tell everything in pure artistic terms isn't satisfactory enough, and that one needs certain causal, non-musical stories to complete the picture.

I actually hate using the drug card in explaining anything in music, but sometimes I need to admit that it might have a real explanatory role in trying to understand their doings. Both positively and negatively. My story above stemmed out of that. But I hope anyone sees the hypothetical and over-simplifying (and, of course, rhetorical) character my story has. It wasn't written to be taken literally, but just to open up one possible perspective to consider.

- Doxa

Doxa and Witness, I read your discussions with real interest. To some extend there is a lot of truth in them, but, guessing you are both closer to my age than to "youngsters", I like to add an aspect that has nothing to do with drugs. It's the process of aging. How few youngsters from the sixties and on have been creating inspirational music decades later? The process of aging includes "building up" experience. Experience as such is already a thread to spontaneity. In fact experience of "elder" may be useful for "youngsters", but for the "elder" it often becomes a filter that takes away spontaneity. Off course, being surrounded by all those people who look upon you as being "gods" doesn't help either.
Intense contact with "youngsters" is one way of taking away that filter. And it then can result in the return of some of that "ancient" spontaneity ... temporarily. You can see that happen a lot in the music world. And it works both ways! I've never been disappointed in new Stones material over the decades (okay, there is always the odd song) and I look forward to their new album with confidence.
Maybe that other great band, U2, will find new inspiration that way, because ...

A late response. For long I did not know how to answer. ( I can't quote from this and your following post by use of a mobile.)

My impression, georgie48, is that you rather call "aging" what may most of all be something different. I think of belonging to different musical generations. During some years one musical generation was soon followed by another, each defined by their new musical expression and style. In some cases the same bands were able to take on such new expressions. Not only by reforming themselves, but either by getting their fanbase to accept the changed styles, or by renewing their fanbase. Or both. However, at certain turns the necessary changes were to deep to cross in one way or the other. Maybe that really was when a new musical generation proper starts.

At that point many bands remain in their original styles and quite of these again gradually disappear or at least fall behind. But a few bands may be inspired by ideas of new musical generations that they themselves do not belong to. They may thereby receive impulses that make them able to develop within their own horizons, even if the band is outside the centre of the defining contemporary musical scenes. The band from earlier generations and their fanbase may be able to stay survivors.

In that context to draw on cooperation with musicians from outside may give vital injections as you held forth, georgie48.

A quite early example of that, may have been Sugar Blue. Much older than I thought, looking him up. Apparently born in 1949. Still functionning to the Stones in such a way.

This perspective I think has less to do with biological aging as such.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Witness

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness



However, Doxa, are you not on this occasion presenting too much of a one factor explanation of this band's development through major, medium and minor peaks and relative and sometimes absolute slumps, that is, with a focus on Keith's part of it. From your exposition it is as if, were it not for Keith's drug use, he would have contributed to creativity without any stops. And somehow you have, again on this occasion, abstracted from characterisic points of their development. Especially from what one may call their artistic turn that THEIR SATANIC MAJESTYS REQUEST paved the way for. Also, on the other hand, from the exhaustion that GOATS HEAD SOUP in its lethargy displays from musical innovation during the preceding years, for instance in one of Keith's best Keith sung songs," Coming Down Again". Later on, past their artistic period, there was still music made that instead of 'artistic, may be described as deeply inspirational. I am referring to the Pathe Marconi albums, of which Keith has his share. And when both Keith and Mick after that time period, influenced by their disagreements on material, the two of them do not write quite as good songs as in the past, one ought to be aware that the more reserved reception to their albums from their conservative buying public has contributed to take away incentives to be more active in music making.

In other words, Keith's use of drugs and alcohol has had its impact, I don't object, but in a richer context, which I have only alluded to. It is paradox for me to remind you, you know so very much more than me about these subjects. But you seem almost to have been intoxicated (!) by the perspective you chose.

Well, I think the whole story of the (downhill of) creativity of the Stones in general and Keith in particular is much richer and complicated than I described above. Of course. What I did was to just emphasize one factor, and I really don't have any clue if anything I said holds court (or to what extent). It was just one consistent and coherent way (or attempt to that) to explain certain phenomenons we have wittnessed along the years. It was controversial for sure because for once I tried look the case without typical non-natural heroism involved in discussing the topic of Keith and drugs. Just a human, raw and naked perspective (without any glamour and myths) reflecting what drugs and booze does for one's behavior in the long run.

But like I said that's not the way I generally like seeing the Stones. For example, I much rather like to see Mick Jagger not wanting to co-work with Keith because Mick doesn't find Keith 'inspiring' enough (or for some other 'pure' artistic reasons) but not because of Keith's unbearable drunken behavior. The latter just sounds way too harsh, easy and 'naturalistic' explanation. Nor I don't like to see Keith or the Stones losing their true muse and focus after EXILE due to their heavy drugs use. I rather like to see them just running out of fresh ideas, them of completing everything they know and can by EXILE, and thereby having a 'natural' artistic downhill (or, if one likes, just getting old in basically young man's game). Or like with Keith, him by then having gotten about any sensible new idea from the open tuning that was somehow within the reach of his curious mind. Him just running out of bullets. Not that of him shooting most of his creative cells in his brains out. But I am afraid that that of trying to tell everything in pure artistic terms isn't satisfactory enough, and that one needs certain causal, non-musical stories to complete the picture.

I actually hate using the drug card in explaining anything in music, but sometimes I need to admit that it might have a real explanatory role in trying to understand their doings. Both positively and negatively. My story above stemmed out of that. But I hope anyone sees the hypothetical and over-simplifying (and, of course, rhetorical) character my story has. It wasn't written to be taken literally, but just to open up one possible perspective to consider.

- Doxa

Doxa and Witness, I read your discussions with real interest. To some extend there is a lot of truth in them, but, guessing you are both closer to my age than to "youngsters", I like to add an aspect that has nothing to do with drugs. It's the process of aging. How few youngsters from the sixties and on have been creating inspirational music decades later? The process of aging includes "building up" experience. Experience as such is already a thread to spontaneity. In fact experience of "elder" may be useful for "youngsters", but for the "elder" it often becomes a filter that takes away spontaneity. Off course, being surrounded by all those people who look upon you as being "gods" doesn't help either.
Intense contact with "youngsters" is one way of taking away that filter. And it then can result in the return of some of that "ancient" spontaneity ... temporarily. You can see that happen a lot in the music world. And it works both ways! I've never been disappointed in new Stones material over the decades (okay, there is always the odd song) and I look forward to their new album with confidence.
Maybe that other great band, U2, will find new inspiration that way, because ...

A late response. For long I did not know how to answer. ( I can't quote from this and your following post by use of a mobile.)

My impression, georgie48, is that you rather call "aging" what may most of all be something different. I think of belonging to different musical generations. During some years one musical generation was soon followed by another, each defined by their new musical expression and style. In some cases the same bands were able to take on such new expressions. Not only by reforming themselves, but either by getting their fanbase to accept the changed styles, or by renewing their fanbase. Or both. However, at certain turns the necessary changes were to deep to cross in one way or the other. Maybe that really was when a new musical generation proper starts.

At that point many bands remain in their original styles and quite of these again gradually disappear or at least fall behind. But a few bands may be inspired by ideas of new musical generations that they themselves do not belong to. They may thereby receive impulses that make them able to develop within their own horizons, even if the band is outside the centre of the defining contemporary musical scenes. The band from earlier generations and their fanbase may be able to stay survivors.

In that context to draw on cooperation with musicians from outside may give vital injections as you held forth, georgie48.

A quite early example of that, may have been Sugar Blue. Much older than I thought, looking him up. Apparently born in 1949. Still functionning to the Stones in such a way.

This perspective I think has less to do with biological aging as such.

Hi Witness,
I am in line with you about both young musicians finding their own ways (but like almost everybody in life there is a link with the past=older misicians or whatever; I think f.i. the whole rap movement isn't new at all, because I heard (and saw old films) of pre-WW2 rappers) as well as aging people/musicians who can look both back in time (Stones f.i.looking at/listening to their blues heros) and forward in time (finding inspiration from younger people, like I mentioned in my earlier mail. Not looking at all to me means "fading away" and that (among other reasons like fights, death, etc) caused so many bands (more than individual artists) to disappear. I think that the latter has a lot to do with biological aging. But surprises are always there ... Phil Collins out of retirement ?!?

Quote
georgie48

Quote
Hairball

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Hairball
"I'm the Boss" -

Welcome back keithsman - been a long time, but it seems like only yesterday!

Quote
georgie48
Intense contact with "youngsters" is one way of taking away that filter. And it then can result in the return of some of that "ancient" spontaneity ... temporarily.

How do you think this applies to Mick? He has an intense interest with "youngsters" - not only musicians, but girlfriends too.
As for the music aspect, do you think his interest and intense contact with youngsters has helped with the music he creates? Whether solo or with the Stones?
Surely it gives him alot of vigor to go out to clubs and stay up to date with the latest trends, but when he tries to channel that youthful vibe musically- especially at his age now - doesn't seem to come off very well imo.

Sorry Hairball but the quote you have from Keithsman isn't my quote, not a quote from Keithsman

Oops sorry keithsman - my mistake - fixed it.
But now that you're here, wondering what you're thoughts are on this?

And it's always nice to hear from georgie48 - maybe he can chime in as well!
Mick and the Fountain of Youth...might be a good name for his new band if the Stones ever call it quits.

Hi Hairball,
Yeah, Mick. Well, for one thing I think "Miss You" could be an example of Mick "going young". How about "Anybody seen my baby"? His "Super Heavy" project was quite interesting too. At least he tries out some unexplored musical areas with the help of "youngsters". So far the impact on "his" Stones music is not spectacular, but I think he tries to find ways to do so. And somehow (occasional Instagram input) I get the feeling his new life with the ballet dancer may have some influence on the forthcoming new Stones album. But it may be wishful thinking from my part
I always thought that his "Hard Woman" should have been tackled by Keith and the other Stones. Some modifications here and there and it could have been another "Angie". Having said that, I personally prefer the rougher Stones.
Marry Christmas, everybody!