Are they best of friends?Just want to know

they don't really know each other at all

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.

Maybe they are best of pals who keeps fighting with each other

They're like brothers we're always told.

JumpingKentFlash

They take a licking and keep on ticking...

Actually I wonder...

On the Licks documentary, you hear Keith saying "we haven't been together since the last tour" which is... 4 years. They never come together for 4 years? Some band.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're like brothers we're always told.

No. In interviews Keith always tells they're like an old couple with Mick being the wife and Keith being the husband.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I wonder...
>
> On the Licks documentary, you hear Keith saying
> "we haven't been together since the last tour"
> which is... 4 years. They never come together for
> 4 years? Some band.


keith wanted to say that they havent PLAYD together as a band for 4 years...
But they meet each other from time to time btween tours and recording....
though not that much than Mick and Ronny and Charly meet each other, cause they all live in Europe wheras keith spent most of his time in Conneticut, USA.

To sum it up...they have a kind brotherlike relationchip...
Love me---hate me---not with you...not without you.

there was an interview in this months gq with mick and when this question was asked he said they are definately not like brothers. They are friends, business partners and bandmates.

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there was an interview in this months gq with mick
> and when this question was asked he said they are
> definately not like brothers. They are friends,
> business partners and bandmates.


wonder which "Mick" said that?......one time an interviewer asked Ron Wood, "who is Mick Jagger?"....and Mr.Wood answered "which one?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-07 19:44 by Leonard Keringer.

Anita Pallenberg said once that Mick and Keith will eventually give up all women and come to the realization that they will have to marry each other. I wish I could recite her quote exactly -- it was pretty funny.

Here is the definitive summary of their relationship, and I'm sorry that this will offend a bunch of people.

Mick realized in the mid-80's that the Rolling Stones would always be much bigger than he could ever hope to be as a solo star. That fact was proven beyond any reasonable doubt when he released Wandering Spirit, by anyone's definition a classic, and it was not as big as the clearly inferior Voodoo Lounge a few years later.

Therefore, polished, refined, athletic Sir Mick is forced to put up with sloppy, drunk Keith because that is what the fans will pay top dollar for. And even though the partnership has been 80% Mick and 20% Keith since the mid 70's...the Stones are worth much more than a sum of it's parts.

To suggest these guys are best buddies is ridiculous. Keith, in my opinion, should thank his lucky stars every day that Jagger has carried him for 25 years.

Sad but True, Bianca but in spite of the FACT that Mick does indeed carry Keith, as well as the entire band on his narrow shoulders, I believe Mick deep down adores Keith. I just don't think Mick could endure being around someone he loathed for as long as he's been around Keith if he hated him. Keith is actually easier now than when he was a heavy duty druggie! If Mick could stand him THEN, it has to be a piece of cake NOW!

Leonard,

The interview I think you were referring to was...the interviewer asked Ron Wood "How do You Descibe Mick Jagger"...Wood's reply was..."He's a nice bunch of guys".

PECMAN

Pecman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leonard,
>
> The interview I think you were referring to
> was...the interviewer asked Ron Wood "How do You
> Descibe Mick Jagger"...Wood's reply was..."He's a
> nice bunch of guys".
>
> PECMAN


you got it Pecman!....hilarious answer by Mr.wood....i thought i was close...sometimes i've got a rotten memory...best wishes



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-08 02:07 by Leonard Keringer.

>
> Mick realized in the mid-80's that the Rolling
> Stones would always be much bigger than he could
> ever hope to be as a solo star. That fact was
> proven beyond any reasonable doubt when he
> released Wandering Spirit, by anyone's definition
> a classic, and it was not as big as the clearly
> inferior Voodoo Lounge a few years later.


a solo album will never be as big a seller as a band album

The combination of the 4 Stones always has been and always will be greater than the sum of the individual parts

Mick got a rude lesson in that when he figured he had outgrown the band in the mid 80's and devoted more effort to a solo career (which flopped) at the expense of the band. Had Shes The Boss and Primitive Cool been the huge hits he expected them to be, there is no doubt in my mind that the band would not have survived beyond the '80's. The rebirth of the Rolling Stones in the late 80s was a direct result of Jagger coming back to the fold with his tail between his legs.

Regardless of the fact that creatively he has been the dominant force in the band in the last decade. Mick needs the Stones to satisfy his huge ego and insatiable thirst for success.


Oh, and Main Offender (and Talk is Cheap for that matter) were better records than BOTH Wandering Spirit and Voodoo Lounge.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-08 04:27 by Gazza.

bianca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is the definitive summary of their
> relationship, and I'm sorry that this will offend
> a bunch of people.
>
> Mick realized in the mid-80's that the Rolling
> Stones would always be much bigger than he could
> ever hope to be as a solo star. That fact was
> proven beyond any reasonable doubt when he
> released Wandering Spirit, by anyone's definition
> a classic, and it was not as big as the clearly
> inferior Voodoo Lounge a few years later.
>
> Therefore, polished, refined, athletic Sir Mick is
> forced to put up with sloppy, drunk Keith because
> that is what the fans will pay top dollar for. And
> even though the partnership has been 80% Mick and
> 20% Keith since the mid 70's...the Stones are
> worth much more than a sum of it's parts.
>
> To suggest these guys are best buddies is
> ridiculous. Keith, in my opinion, should thank his
> lucky stars every day that Jagger has carried him
> for 25 years.

I do think they are friends, although not so "buddy buddy" that they spend a whole lot of time hanging out together off the stage. They obviously have a great deal of respect and admiration for each other deep down, no matter how much they may fight over the day to day stuff.

I do agree that Mick has been carrying Keith since the 70s, although I'd say it's more like 2/3 Mick and 1/3 Keith. But even if Keith isn't contributing as much, his contribution is essential - Mick might write 90% of a song, but it is Keith's 10% that gives the song that edge and makes it really the Stones.

Wandering Spirit was a classic, and much more consistent than Voodoo Lounge and Bridges To Babylon, but there are songs on the last two that I feel are better than anything on Wandering Spirit (Love Is Strong, Thru and Thru, Flip The Switch, Might As Well Get Juiced, etc.). They just suffer because they are there alongside some clunkers.

And Mick's other solo stuff mostly sucks. His last solo album was horrible, but a Bigger Bang is great. The difference? Mick wrote 100% (give or take a few guests) of Goddess, but only 80% or so of A Bigger Bang. So both were mostly Mick, but the playing and contributions of the other Stones made a huge difference - one album is terrible and the other is a classic.

Here's hoping Keith rebounds creatively and takes a much bigger role on their next album.

keith wants to be micks friend more than mick wants to be keiths friend,
mick does it because he has too , keith does it because he wants too,
imho i really think mick does not care much for keith as a freind,
he just puts up with him for the stones sake

You made the wrong motions drank the wrong potion.

You lost the feeling that's so appealing.

Why do you think you have no friends?

Now you want to roll the dice...you already crapped out twice (She's The Boss/Primitive Cool)

It's no longer funny...it's bigger than money.

You Don't Move Me Anymore...

- Keith Richards

THE SONG THAT SAVED THE ROLLING STONES!

PECMAN

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Main Offender (and Talk is Cheap for that
> matter) were better records than BOTH Wandering
> Spirit and Voodoo Lounge.


I agree completely. Better than B2B, VL, and DW in my opinion. And Mr. Jagger wasn't carrying Keith on his shoulders for either TIC of MO.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. In interviews Keith always tells they're like
> an old couple with Mick being the wife and Keith
> being the husband.


Charlie calls them brothers.

JumpingKentFlash

to gazza and camper88,main offender and talk is cheap better than wandering spirit?in what way?the jazzyway maybee not as a rockalbum.in fact this albums is the worst crap i,ve heard in the last thirty years.dreadful.she,s the boss also,very bad album.but when i think of you and some others in this forum.you guys are not a fan of stones,just keith richardsfans,and jagger is your hateobject nr.one.personally i think you guys belongs to another forum,very tired to read you,re stupid nonsens every debate side here

harlem shuffle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to gazza and camper88,main offender and talk is
> cheap better than wandering spirit?in what way?the
> jazzyway maybee not as a rockalbum.in fact this
> albums is the worst crap i,ve heard in the last
> thirty years.dreadful.she,s the boss also,very bad
> album.but when i think of you and some others in
> this forum.you guys are not a fan of stones,just
> keith richardsfans,and jagger is your hateobject
> nr.one.personally i think you guys belongs to
> another forum,very tired to read you,re stupid
> nonsens every debate side here


Harlem,

I was chiefly responding to Bianca's assertion that Bianca puts this way:

> Keith, in my opinion, should thank his lucky stars every day that Jagger has carried him for 25 years.

For me, both of Keith's solo works and live performances show that he doesn't need Jagger to carry him. I've said nothing here to suggest that Jagger is my hate object, and your conclusion in this regard has no merit.

As to what makes his solo work better, in my opinion, it would be the band; the x-pensive winos, vis-a-vis both the Stones during that period that I mention and Jagger's own recording approach which is (to my mind) to get a bunch of individuals to help out on individual songs rather than to approach the album as a whole that's created by a creative collective in the form of a band. Keith would appear to believe more in the band (whether it's the Stones or the Winos) and Mick would appear to believe more in getting the right talent for the right song. Different approaches, not right and wrong approaches. But for me, Richards solo work wins out because of his creation of a tight unit that pplay like they all own the song.

And, hey, if you're very tired to read any poster's comments on here, I suggest two things that might help your condition: stop reading the posts that you don't like--no one's asking you to read anyone's post, or alternatively, you better get some sleep tonight. Either way, to suggest that I'm not or Gazza's not a Stones fan, is a sign that you're not thinking right.

TALK IS CHEAP AND MAIN OFFENDER both STINK and GODDESS is a great solo effort on MIck's part! IMO none of Keith's solo stuff is worth a thing, not A PLUG NICKEL! I think Primitive Cool and Wandering Spirit plus Goddess in The Doorway have some truly fabulous lines( both melodic and poetic). Keith has been down right rude in his treatment of Mick during their periods ofconflict and Mick remained the gentleman, tight-lipped and not willing to air their dirty laundry...NOT SO WITH KEITH, especially with his bitching to the press about Mick being Knighted! Keith is LUCKY, DAMN LUCKY that Mick has anything to do with him, money or not!

LoFL!


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Harlem,

I'm waiting for your note addressed to debra who seems to hold Keith as her hate object and thus can't be a real Stones fan, by your logic. She's saying that all of his solo projects stink (not just that Mick's are better, but that each one of Keith's actually stinks), and she's saying that Keith's lucky that Mick carried him on his back these past twenty-five years.

I'm guessing that according to you she can't be a real Stones fan and that you're sick of posts like hers, and I'm guessing that you'll be telling her that really soon.

Right?

I guess not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-09 08:24 by camper88.

take it so hard is the best non stones stones song ever

well camper what songs on both keith richards albums is memorable?in my opinion none.i,ve read this sites because of interest of the stones.not for your,s sake.i was very dissapointed of kr,s soloworks and think they both are really bad.on jagger,s soloalbums you find many really good songs.hard woman,party doll,wired all night,sweet thing,out of focus,don,t tear me up,put me in the trash,evening gown,mother of a man,wandering spirit.these are probably the best,but it,s others too.and i never said jagger had to carry keith.and you said stop reading the debates on this forum,well as a see it ,i can,t read anything here then,in all debates here if jaggers name turned up,then comes all his enemies,you and other socalled stonesfans in just to bash jagger,for almost everything he has done in his 42 years in rockmusic,i now you isn,t the worst person,but i think it,s too much to swallow.

I'll say it again for those who don't understand...

If there was no TALK IS CHEAP...there would be no STONES since 1989.,,There would be no Steel Wheels, No Voodoo Lounge, No Bridges, No ABB...and no tours. Mick was dragged through the mud for his solo efforts and the worldwide press gave Keith's TALK IS CHEAP a big thumbs up which saved the Stones.

TALK IS CHEAP blows away SHE'S THE BOSS and PRIMITIVE COOL...by Miles...

However, I absolutely love Wandering Spirit which I think is a timeless record thanks to Rick Rubin...and despite all the bad publicity for Goddess...I love most of Goddess except for the twin cousin of Streets of Love "Brand New Set of Rules".

PECMAN

harlem shuffle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>,i can,t read anything here
> then,in all debates here if jaggers name turned
> up,then comes all his enemies,you and other
> socalled stonesfans in just to bash jagger,for
> almost everything he has done in his 42 years in
> rockmusic

Find one instance on this board or any other where I bashed Jagger (or any Stone, for that matter), just one. Actually, let me save you the trouble: you can't, because I haven't and I never would. You on the other hand have nothing good to say about Keith's albums, not one good word. Get some help, and stop calling yourself a Stones fan, because according to your own definition you're not.

You're interpreting my preference of Keith's albums over Mick's as bashing? Seek counselling at your convenience, because that's not bashing, that's preference. It's akin to saying because I like EOMS more than BB that I'm bashing BB. Hardly, I love BB, I just like EOMS more than I like BB.

By the way, it's interesting that in your own defense of Jagger you never speak of the album but only of individual songs, and similarly when you say that Keith's solo work is really bad (something I NEVER say about Jagger, by the way), you only speak about individual songs. Try to remember that I spoke about the album as a whole, not as individual songs, and I spoke about the tightness of the Winos as a group that helped create the album's success, and its wholeness.

You have no argument against that because there's nothing like a band or group approach to Mick's solo albums, and that's his choice, he's truly a solo artist on his solo projects. On the other hand, I admire Keith's ability to form a group that plays well together and realizes that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. He's done it with the Stones and he's done it with the Winos.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-09 08:27 by camper88.