ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN

saw him last night in LA, here's the clip


Fanks for that quietbeatle ….
good ta see Stash can the Dylan/Coffin story ….



ROCKMAN

He's fascinating and I read all that Terry posts about him with great interest, but I come away agreeing with Keith's assessment of him in LIFE.

…. Yeah Rocky …
know what ya mean.... .same thoughts …..



ROCKMAN

Quote
dcba

Quote
Stoneage

" Even his own lawyer showed a certain degree of hostility: I was defended by Sir David Napley, who infuriated me by querying: 'But you, Sir, are a gentleman, what on earth are you doing with those chaps?' - the latter term he stressed in a disgusted, contemptuous manner....".

Class war in all its "beauty". You can understand Keith for being mad at Mick for accepting knighthood. Joining the club that so violently fought you...

Equally easy to understand Mick thinking Keith a bit silly for still identifying himself with the grounded working classes when he's effectively been a country gentleman of substantial means for many years.

I suppose Keith's a guy who still likes to keep one foot in the gutter , whereas as Micks just glad to be well out of it.

He was brought up I suppose in a more middle class environment...with all the social aspirations that go with it .

Keith's background and self image tend, conversely, more towards an attitude of reverse snobbery.

Back in the 60s Mick was typically keen to engage his establishment detractors in good natured discussion and debate .
keith's attitude on the other hand was just "f*&^ off!..." as typified by his "...petty morals" comment at the Redlands trial.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-14 18:01 by Spud.

Quote
Spud

Equally easy to understand Mick thinking Keith a bit silly for still identifying himself with the grounded working classes when he's effectively been a country gentleman of substantial means for many years. I suppose Keith's a guy who still likes to keep one foot in the gutter , whereas as Micks just glad to be well out of it. He was brought up I suppose in a more middle class environment...with all the social aspirations that go with it. Keith's background and self image tend, conversely, more towards an attitude of reverse snobbery.

Back in the 60s Mick was typically keen to engage his establishment detractors in good natured discussion and debate. keith's attitude on the other hand was just "f*&^ off!..." as typified by his "...petty morals" comment at the Redlands trial.

I agree in as far as you can ever judge two such seemingly contradictory people as The Glimmer Twins.

As early as 1966, Mick was socializing with Tom Driberg and discussing how his position as a pop star and his background with the LSE might be politically influential. That could be seen as Mick brazenly taking on the establishment as he did after the Redlands bust or cozying up to the establishment as he did by accepting the knighthood. If you view Driberg as transgressive in his day as both a communist and homosexual and for his flirtations with The Process Church and the KGB, then one's judgement of Mick is different than if you condemn him for even allowing himself into an MP's social sphere and decide that, like his mom, Mick was always a bit of a social climber.

Keith and Anita's dismissive attitude towards Bianca is more of the same. Was Bianca too establishment for Mick because of her entry into the upper class social circles or was she likewise a hedonistic, free-loving, coke-snorting Studio 54 habituée? I suspect the answer is both views are accurate at times, but we tend to let Keith's outspoken take on Stones history influence us.

By the same token, those who know Keith socially see him as anything but the rock star caricature still decked out in leather and chains and showing people the blade. They describe him as well-read, articulate man focused on family. In other words, he's not the laughing pirate or the contemptuous street tough he pretends to be in public appearances including, regrettably, much of the narrative voice of his autobiography.

If you love SOME GIRLS, there's a tendency to think it was the last time Mick seemed authentic. It's miles from the guy trying to sing more butch while dressed in "lemon yellow tights" three years later. Keith, however, stayed true. Rock solid Keith, the rebel who never lost his attitude or street cred. He's what we held onto while we grew up, married, raised a family, and "mortgaged up our lives."

Both were just cartoons. Both were just images projected to sell records and concert tickets. The same way we grew up and became fat, bald bankers whose kids treated them like walking ATMs so too Mick and Keith. Just as we made mistakes in overindulging or wrecked our marriages, so their womanizing and drug binges that continue(d) far later in life than they usually pretend. We aren't just one role all the time and neither are they.

Look at Walter Yetnikoff's shock in 1983 to discover the slurring, drug-addled screw-up Keith had as sharp a business mind as Mick and just when he was convinced they despised one another and Keith was just dead weight, he watched Mick and Keith show a united front in negotiating key points in the CBS contract. John Phillips once said if you really knew them, you would think of them as mobsters and not rock stars. Like most incredibly successful people, they both know how and when to turn it on and off. The last thing you can ever do is think you know them by what they reveal in interviews.

They're both cultured men of wealth and taste and old libertines. They're both actors who are quite good at projecting images people believe to be reality. It's doubtful how often the inner circle even sees the real Mick and Keith. Sometimes, it's probably only behind closed doors that the barriers truly come down. You can't hide much when you shared the same sandbox for nearly eight decades.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-14 18:59 by Rocky Dijon.

Interesting article, but I couldn't help thinking...what has he achieved, other than staying alive and having a lot of sex with many women? Most of his 'projects' seem to go nowhere ...perhaps I am being a bit unfair.
In fact, I was probably getting a bit distracted thinking was he trying to do out do Mick in regards to the Stones girls of the time.
There was little reference to Keith, odd considering the 1973 bust.
Oh well, envy will, get the better of me.

He played a mean tambourine.

>He played a mean tambourine.

Ha Ha!

I got the same impression, that he was a major hanger-on whose main talent was being born with a gold spoon in his mouth. Seems his attention span was very short and he always left partners in a lurch when it came down to it. Every project cancelled or otherwise not fulfilled, but lots of talk. Cracked me up some of the stuff in there like how whatever his thing at the moment was, it was immediately sold out or something, but then it never came to fruition in the end.

And his "fashions" remind me of the SAPE of equatorial Africa.

Thanks for posting that Rockman, I never even knew the character was around anymore much less that he could be weighted down with such an ego, despite all the "going nowhere fast" energy.

But yes, a mean tambourine indeed.

jb

Yeah, a ridiculous character. IMDB gives him a few credits as an actor, a couple as a writer and one for a director. All trash.
As notes, as a musician he found his way into some bands but couldn't really play.
I suppose he was fun to be around. He didn't have to get up the next day to work and his drug mules were pretty young men and women.
I'm a bit puzzled to the lawyer saying he was a member of the establishment. He wasn't British and wasn't respectable.
Does he qualify as one of Mick's Studio 54/aristocrat friends, or one of Keith's elegantly wasted parasites?

Keith Richards -- Life ----- pages 222-223



ROCKMAN