A lot is said about the state of Mick and Keith's relationship. My personal opinion is that Mick is fine with everything and has evolved with the times. Keith seems to not have really "matured" much over the years - he still seems to hold tight to the same old vices and attitude.

I mean, I'm 40,married with two kids. I don't go at it like I did when I was 20. I have a good time when I can do it and get the proper rest after I have friends the same age that haven't settled and are still going strong. We are still friends, but I can only take in small doses.

I think for the most part there is mutual appreciation for what the other has done. On a personal level, they probably don't have much in common these days.

Just a ramble.

Keith has gone backwards over the last decade or so.

Keith is happy these days living off of his image rather than be the artist he was even going back to the "Talk is Cheap" era.

Thirty years ago, heck, even ten years ago, I was more of a "Keith guy" than Mick.
Now, I appreciate Mick quite a bit more because I believe he, and Charlie, have done more to keep the Stones rolling in recent years.

Quote
James Kirk
Keith has gone backwards over the last decade or so.

Keith is happy these days living off of his image rather than be the artist he was even going back to the "Talk is Cheap" era.

completely agree!

I think some of you here seem to confuse the persons we know through media - the public personas they promote - and the real persons of whom we really don't know very much. Especially Keith seems to be the person of contradictions. He is the most 'family man' of all the Stones (despite Charlie). He has been happily married for about 25 years, his wife is born-Christian, they have rised two daughters, spends most of his time at his Cincennicut residence; he says that he doesn't even touch the guitar sometimes for months. He is a big reader - and loves to spent holidays in Caribbean, and in his case, the holidays ar longer than for the rest of us 'borgeois' people.

I think the problem with Keith is that he is "grown up" quite a lot from the 'pirate figure' he tries to maintain in public, and that is the reason he tends to exaggarate it. Somehow, he is a victim of his own image, and he can not really control the image anymore. It seem to live its own life, and the result is ridiculous sometimes. (I think Jagger is right when he says that Keith is a very shy person - and that might explains a lot, but that is another psychological story)

But as far as Mick is concerned, I think even though he seems to be so 'mature' and 'self-secure', and 'everything in control', like some British aristocrat, I have always get from his an impression that he is very insecure, and quite lost (or without direction or home - that is what Keith has said about him!); he truely seems to be very 'wandering soul', even though he is said to be great father, etc. Anyway, he is a man of many faces and many games, and yes he perhaps portrays himself better in a public eye than his soul-brother. But Jagger is so goddamn diplomatic and clever, and he sees to sense the climate of th esurroundings, that you don't a shit what is going on in his mind.

What goes for their mutual relationship, well, that is a rocket-science for me! It could be anything from pure love to cold-heart-business-deal - and perhaps it is all of that!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-05 13:59 by Doxa.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-05 13:59 by Doxa.

-

"...he says that he doesn't even touch the guitar sometimes for months."

That's sad to hear but it's part of the explanation why is guitar-playing has gone downhill.

I think after micks not so great solo career he had no choice but to concentrate on the keith relationship and do the best he can with it, from what i hear they almost never see each other unless it is stones related, its not like they holiday together or go out to dinner

Quote
melillo
I think after micks not so great solo career he had no choice but to concentrate on the keith relationship and do the best he can with it, from what i hear they almost never see each other unless it is stones related, its not like they holiday together or go out to dinner

hi!

i think if Mick thought, his solo career was "not so great", i think he would not have continued it. And last year he said, that he is writing songs, whether for a solo record ar a Rolling Stones record he did not know.

mick does the solo thing as a hobby now, surely he must realize that by now, its not like he became sting or clapton as a solo, if that were the case steel wheels would not have ever happened, among other stones projects, mick went solo to try and rid himself of the stones and he failed

mick went solo to try and rid himself of the stones and he failed

many seem to believe that, and i don´t know, why.
i do not think one second that he wanted to rid himself of the stones. he wanted to make a solo record like all the other Stones did. nothing more, nothing less. breathing some fresh air.
and looking at the sales, he did not fail at all. imo.

If sales would be te ultimate measure of success; we'd all be Michael Bolton fans, wont we ?

Quote
Baboon Bro
If sales would be te ultimate measure of success; we'd all be Michael Bolton fans, wont we ?

but would you call Michael Bolton "not successfull" ? I am not a fan of Madonna´s music, but she certainly is everything else but "not successfull"

I don't know. Considering Keith has a strong long lasting marriage and only one long relationship before that including the fact that(as far as we know) he doesnt have children scattered all around the globe by different women, Whose to say Mick is the "mature" one? Just a thought.

And the most successful food is cow's crap........................

Seriously: who cares about Paul Anka these days?

Scootkeith, well everyone has at least one vice or weakness, and if Mick's is pretty women( or women at least, LOL) then so be it. Keith's nasty habits affect the band negatively. He no doubt was very drunk when he fell off that tree limb, or tripped over the tree trunk, or whenever the real story is....again, it affected his playing, affected tour dates etc. In Canada in 1977, that drug bust of his nearly ended the band. Thankfully he was treated with leniency, BIG TIME!! And Mick stood by him, and the band went on. I think his drinking is more of a problem than anyone except family and band members even know! I wish it weren't the case, but it is the truth. Any by the way, how do any of us know if Keith has other kids by other women? To be honest, I believe that the reason that Mick wanted to distance hinself from the band in the 80's and to try to establish a solo career was because he thought Keith would end up being the demise of the band at some point and Mick surely wanted to continue with a career in music; Mick wants to create his own destiny, now he realizes he may as well ride it out with the Stones. Who can blame him? As far as being loyal and supportive to Keith, I don't think there's been anyone that could take Mick's place, at least publicly. I bet we'd all be shocked if we were allowed to see what really goes on in that little " family".

I agree that we dont know for sure. Thats why I said "as far as we know". But his longevity with his wife is an indication of something. But its just conjecture. His habits have hurt the band from time to time but there also would not be a Stones w/o him-just like Mick. And Mick was the reason the band could not tour Japan in the early 70s(drug conviction). I do think that after Micks solo career in the 80s totally tanked(along with Keiths enormous success with the Winos) it didnt take Mick long to see what was best for the band and himself.I'm just not sure Mick's business sense(which he has alot of) necessarily is a sign of maturity from a personal standpoint. IMO.

i don´t think we can jugde Mick´s or Keith´s maturity by their behaviour from 20 years ago. if Mick´s weakness were women, than Keith´s weakness were drugs and alcohol. (i personally don´t find Keith´s sense of humor very mature).

i would like to add something to Mick´s so called "insecurity": i don´t know, where you see that. he does not seem insecure to me, not on stage, not during interviews, not in press-conferences.
people get happy in different ways; and when Mick gets happy with travelling around the world, and Keith gets happy with lieing (-i´m not sure about the spelling, it looks somehow wrong..) on the beach, than it´s fine.
Mick seems very calm and relaxed and happy to me, maybe because of L´wren.


some think, he is insecure because of the "failure" of his solo career. i repeat myself, but his solo career was much more successful than Keith´s.
when we talk about insecurity because of that, than i see it maybe more on Keith´s side. He stopped his solocareer after his second album was a failure ;-)

i think Mick knows very well, that he can work succsessfully without Keith, or with other people. winning a golden globe is also not bad for ones self-confidence ;-)

Excatly right, ilikemick, and I do not believe Scotkeef is remembering the drug sentences of the 70's correctly; it was not JUST Mick's convictions from the 60's that prevented a Japanese tour, it was both of our boys arrests!! And to some degree, the Japanesegovenment was lumping Brians' multiple arrests in there as well!! And the Winos tour did OK, but certainly not on the scale of a Stones tour either!!

>> it was both of our boys arrests! <<

Keith didn't have any drug convictions on his record until after the 1973 Pacific tour -
his Redlands conviction was overturned for lack of evidence. Mick's wasn't -
it was changed to a conditional discharge, and then he was busted again in 68.
and obviously Brian's busts had nothing to do with the band's visa situation in the 70s.
it's possible that the Japanese authorities reviewed the visa applications in alphabetical order
and simply got no further than Jagger - but in any case it was Mick's very own convictions
that were given as the reason for denying the Stones Japanese visas for the january/february 73 tour.

meanwhile, Main Offender wasn't a "failure"; and the present participle of to lie is spelt lying.

3 pound 10 please :E



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-05 21:35 by with sssoul.

I think you must be refering to someone else's post about Mick's "insecurity" because I never mentioned it. But in IORR(Karnbach and Beanson) that is quoted extensively on this site as being one of the best authorities, pp 143.
"Six sold-out performances had to be cancelled when the Japanese denied Mick Jagger an entry visa, ostensibly because of his 1967 conviction on drug charges."
Of course the rest of the band was looked on unfavorably but this WAS the reason used.But I dont understand how Brian's arrests would enter into it since he was no longer with the band in 1973(being dead nearly 4 years will do that to you!)
Also I'll just say the Winos didnt have to cancel any US dates because of low ticket sales? Mick?? Hmmm.
Sorry,with sssoul guess we were posting at same time!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-05 21:38 by scottkeef.

meanwhile, Main Offender wasn't a "failure"; and the present participle of to lie is spelt lying.

3 pound 10 please :E[/quote]

thank you, i will remember - lying.
hm, 3 pound 10

yes, 3 pound 10 please.
it's an obscure Stones allusion that amuses me, but if a translation is needed: that's the fee for services rendered.

"scuse me but the Japenese are all about protocol and by the book so I was saying that Brian's arrests colored the authorities' opinions of the entire band! And YES, I know Brian was dead by 1973. I have some arrest research to do fellows! Not sure Keith was never busted before '73. If so, why was it that He and Mick spent an over night in Wormswood prison? That was certainly the 60's. Did they both get off then? I'll check! That whole thing about " Breaking a butterfly on the wheel" and " We Love You" was 60's....

With sssoul-kinda off subject but(for us dummies in the states)what exactly is "conditional discharge"? Love how Long John Baldrey says it in "Dont Try To Lay No Boogie Woogie...". Is it kinda like "defered adjudication" here where if one stays out of trouble for a set time theres no record of the offense?

with sssoul has a US origin. But since its 1:16 in Central Europe now,
I reckon she is asleep.

Yup, the '67 conviction was overturned BUT the fact is the Japanese were aware of Mick and Keith's drug troubles, LOL, SO THERE!

Whatever makes you feel better.

Quote
with sssoul
yes, 3 pound 10 please.
it's an obscure Stones allusion that amuses me, but if a translation is needed: that's the fee for services rendered.

oh, how silly, now the penny dropped...:-)