The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beelyboy,
>
> The thread was a tribute to Anita not the band.
> Nothing sexist implied with my response. My
> opinion of her influence thru my eyes.
>
> Do I think any of the band members are positive
> influences on how to conduct ones life? Absolutely
> not. I don't emilate their lifestyles. I love
> their music, their stage presence, and enjoy
> reading about their antics. So you see that is
> where you separate fantasy from reality. This has
> absolutely nothing to do with censorship. You are
> way overboard.
>
> Beyond the money, fame and fortune they are all
> people just like you and I. They are who they are.
> I don't have to put people on pedestals because
> their famous. I won't bow and wave a palm leaf on
> her because she was Keith's "girl".

yeh i understand of course, sicilian, and i totally agree with your last paragraph, i feel the same way too about much of your response...but i think she's got more going for her than just being 'keith's girl'...
...and i thought judging her in a demeaning fashion needed to be balanced out a bit by a comparison with the boyz general personal behaviours...
we don't know these people personally; i don't anyway. but i would assume that from her interviews and some of her film work, and her great love for soulful music, that there must be something more to her than junkie/whore/skank paradigm...i think she's interesting and i like her...and i'm glad she's still alive and well and coherent and lucid and articulate...
her history with the stones, her presence at the eoms sessions etc...shows her to be more than a typical groupie that they would use and throw back outside the door...
anyway, since the thread is an 'appreciation' thread...i do appreciate her.

and she had a viable career without needing the stones, unlike the sterotypical 'groupie'...

do i think people should be committed and abolutely dedicated good parents?
yep...certainly so, it's vital...and i respect your concerns in this regard as i've raised children, and have always known intuitively that kids deserve a lot of attention and care and emotional security and loving guidance...on a priority basis...totally with you there...
i have changed thousands of diapers in my time, and walked 'em to school and done their homework with them, and driven them here and there and spent a fortune on 'em...and i was making money with a hammer in my hand, not too glamorous...and i wasn't the bio-pop of these children, but it didn't matter to me in terms of the love and work and endless dedication it takes to be a loving parent...and i'm still really close to that little baby girl, now 19 and a great singer/songwriter with an enormously good spirit...

by excusing whatever parental, or lack of parental presence and care that a child gets from it's father, or father figure, is almost like putting the male partner up on a 'pedastal' in a way...sorta. ya know?

i just can't get too judgemental about a lot of personal stuff i don't really have inside knowledge on, and have many blind spots myself i'm sure, and am not even putting myself on a parental pedastal, tho if it sounds like it, please excuse me...many here are active parents and give give give give all the time to their little ones.

and jeezum, i'm the last person to put someone on a pedestal just because of relative 'fame'...some of my friends here know that...i don't care about relative fame or popularity...that stuff destroys art as much as it distributes and shares it with folks...peace bro.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-16 19:36 by Beelyboy.

Enough of the talk, lets get more pics up!!!

anita with director cammell during performance shoot

Beelyboy,

Well said and I yield the floor to you.

I think Patti's cuter.

Horniest chick ever

Interesting debate this thread has sparked.

I've always thought that Keith looks really handsome in this photo.

August 1967...Venice, Italy:


-photo courtesy of RexFeatures

Another ex-girlfriend of Brian Jones', ZouZou, with Keith & Anita, 1967:


-photo courtesy of British Vogue

Vacationing in Brazil, December 1968:


-photo courtesy of RexFeatures

Looks like Mick is checking out Anita's legs...Marianne said Mick flirted with Anita during the South American trip, which was during or after they filmed "Performance."

Kin'a skanky, in't she.

Ah - Look at Keith in that last photo! So beautiful. Anita too. Thanks Gypsy!!!

Way cooooooool wrap-round shades Anita...



ROCKMAN

Mick n' Keith were so cool back then.

I dont think that's in brazil though. It looks earlier in the year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-17 00:24 by His Majesty.

Postcard signed by Anita
Sici

Brian...Anita arriving back from Munich 3 December 1966 - Daily Mirror



ROCKMAN

>> Marianne said Mick flirted with Anita during the South American trip,
which was during or after they filmed "Performance." <<

after. Performance was filmed in september/october 68;
the trip to Brazil was in december 68/january 69.

i wonder (with HM) if that shot's for sure from Brazil, though.
but whenever it's from, it's great - thank you for all of these, Gypsy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-17 02:00 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Marianne said Mick flirted with Anita during
> the South American trip,
> which was during or after they filmed
> "Performance." <<
>
> after. Performance was filmed in
> september/october 68;
> the trip to Brazil was in december 68/january 69.
>
> i wonder (with HM) if that shot's for sure from
> Brazil, though.
> but whenever it's from, it's great - thank you for
> all of these, Gypsy.


You're welcome, with sssoul!

I knew they started filming Performance in the fall of 1968...but I wasn't sure when filming wrapped. For some reason, I thought it took longer.

Here are two photos from December 18, 1968...taken right before they left for Brazil. Looks like Keith's sideburns and hair are the same length as the above photo...and Anita's hair looks the same length as well. Also, the wraparound sunglasses seem to be in style.


-photo courtesy of Getty Images



-photo courtesy of Getty Images

gypsy thank you so much for this thread and all the pix...just wonderful.

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gypsy thank you so much for this thread and all
> the pix...just wonderful.

Thanks. You're welcome. I hope the pics aren't too obnoxiously big and that no one is offended.

smile: i love those insectoid shades Keith's got in those departure shots.
and indeed the shot on the steps might be Brazil ... at any rate i don't have any better theory.
i will happily ponder it, though! thanks again for posting these.

I always thought that stair photo was somewhere in Europe, maybe Italy earlier on in 1968, perhaps when they wrote Midnight Rambler and Monkey Man.

Keith's hair looks much longer at the airport imo and in other pics of them in Brazil.

But if Getty Images says it's Brazil, I guess it probaby is.

gypsy Wrote:

I hope the pics aren't too
> obnoxiously big and that no one is offended.

No, we love them!!!

His Majesty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always thought that stair photo was somewhere in
> Europe, maybe Italy earlier on in 1968, perhaps
> when they wrote Midnight Rambler and Monkey Man.
>
> Keith's hair looks much longer at the airport imo
> and in other pics of them in Brazil.
>
> But if Getty Images says it's Brazil, I guess it
> probaby is.
>
>

I was just comparing the pic to other Brazil pics - and you're right - Keith's hair was longer when he was in Brazil. I had always thought it was 1967 or 1968, but a couple of people told me that it was from Brazil and I took their word for it. It definitely looks like it was taken around the same time as this one of Keith visiting Anita in Italy while she filmed "Barbarella."

September 1967:


-Photo courtesy of Alamy

>> I always thought that stair photo was somewhere in Europe,
maybe Italy earlier on in 1968, perhaps when they wrote Midnight Rambler <<

the trip to Positano was in april 69, though, wasn't it? and the shot on the steps isn't from that late.
it does look European, but i know nothing of Brazilian urban design so it's hard to guess on that basis.
it doesn't really look like Keith's Italy 67 Look to me either, but maybe that's just because
i haven't seen enough Italy 67 shots. i'll keep pondering it happily. :E

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> I always thought that stair photo was somewhere
> in Europe,
> maybe Italy earlier on in 1968, perhaps when they
> wrote Midnight Rambler <<
>
> the trip to Positano was in april 69, though,
> wasn't it? and the shot on the steps isn't from
> that late.
> it does look European, but i know nothing of
> Brazilian urban design so it's hard to guess on
> that basis.
> it doesn't really look like Keith's Italy 67 Look
> to me either, but maybe that's just because
> i haven't seen enough Italy 67 shots. i'll keep
> pondering it happily. :E

Hah, these things are always fun.

I'm not sure when the Italian Monkey Ramblin' visit was, but if it was April 1969, things must have moved fast as Brian(inaudibley to me) plays on Rambler!?

My only point of referance was the mid 90's Mick interview for, Rolling Stone?

To my eyes their look for the alleged Brazilian photo is similar to how they appear circa June-July 1968.

PS: Interesting to see Keith's rotten tooth appearing as early as 1967!

Gypsy, your September 1967 photo (Keith and Anita walking) was used by Massimo Bonnano (The Rolling Stones Chronicle, The First Thirty Years) to illustrate their visit to Italy in April 1969.
I guess the stairs picture is from the south of France era. The architecture, Mick's jacket and shoes (where have I seen those before???) look more like 70s then 60s. His haircut is like the one at his wedding, isn't it?

JJHMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gypsy, your September 1967 photo (Keith and Anita
> walking) was used by Massimo Bonnano (The Rolling
> Stones Chronicle, The First Thirty Years) to
> illustrate their visit to Italy in April 1969.
> I guess the stairs picture is from the south of
> France era. The architecture, Mick's jacket and
> shoes (where have I seen those before???) look
> more like 70s then 60s. His haircut is like the
> one at his wedding, isn't it?

Nah, it's definitely in 1968, the photo that is.

PS: to all... Where has it been mentioned when they visited Italy and wrote those two songs?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-17 17:37 by His Majesty.

JJHMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I guess the stairs picture is from the south of France era. The architecture, Mick's jacket and shoes (where have I seen those before???) look more like 70s then 60s. His haircut is like the one at his wedding, isn't it?

No, I would say it's not the south of France era. Anita's hair was very long then, and not as blonde. Marianne wasn't really around for that phase either, Mick was with Bianca.

Cindy: No, I would say it's not the south of France era. / Marianne wasn't really around for that phase either ... yes, Cindy, of course, but this isn't Marianne in the back?!?!?! (certainly, those windows might be south of Italy as well as south of France).
To HM: Hard to find: But I think we all have Mick in mind (using words like) "wondering" why Keith and him wrote such "grim" songs during a "pleasant trip to Italy.
Martin Elliott, Dieter Hoffmann and Felix Äppli have March 10 and 11 as dates of recording Midnight Rambler. So why not March instead of April?

HM, if you check the "chronicles" section of timeisonourside.com, there's a reference to
the trip to Positano taking place in april 69. i don't know what he's basing this on, though.
i do see what JJHMick means about the Twins looking early-70s-ish - except Keith's scarf and jewelry
are a lot more like 68; and as Cindy notes Anita was lookin pretty different from that in the early 70s.
so i'm tending toward HM's mid-68-ish theory, although more by default than because i feel real convinced.
those shoes of Mick's ... damn, is it that famous shot where he's sitting in a very "formal pose"
with his hands folded and tons of make-up? who took that, and when?? let me see if i can locate it ...

nope! false alarm - he's got "saddle shoes" on in that one, like in the Montreux rehearsal footage.
close but no cigar ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-17 18:56 by with sssoul.

JJHMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
but this isn't Marianne in the back?!?!?!


Actually, I do believe this is Marianne. I've seen other photos of her with a very similar smile, she has somewhat distinctive teeth back then.