>> 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! <<

... go right ahead and check - but please note that no one said Keith had never been busted.
of course he had been arrested, but at the time of their 1973 Pacific tour
he didn't have any *drug convictions* on his record, which Mick did,
because Keith's 1967 conviction had been overturned on appeal and Mick's wasn't.
sure, by late 1972 Keith had also had some "close encounters" (including a warrant out for him in France)
but his first *conviction* wasn't until the second half of 1973 - when he scored two convictions in quick succession,
to catch up with Mick. :E

>> SO THERE <<

... is that your maturity showing, or your training in journalism? just curious :E
and by the way, in 1967 it was Keith who was sent to Wormwood Scrubbs (for one night);
Mick was sent to Brixton prison (for a couple of nights, since he was tried first).
as a journalist and Mickchick you'll value accuracy in the details, i'm sure.
3 pound 10 please :E

oh and for scottkeef: here's how wikipedia defines "conditional discharge": [en.wikipedia.org]
the section about England & Wales mentions: "In English conditional discharges, a conviction and record of the discharge
becomes part of the offender's criminal record, but does not count as a conviction except for certain purposes
within the criminal justice system (unless the offender is resentenced for reoffending)."

so that'll be another 3 pound 10 please :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-06 12:17 by with sssoul.

And in Brixton prison he wrote, or catched, 2,000 Light tears From Home.

Thanks, with sssoul.

May I use US currency? HEH-HEH.

Getting back to the matter of the thread, my intuition (and that's all it is) is that their relationship is so strained that they deal with each other only when necessary and for not one second longer, treating each other with the kind of restraint English people do so well, that stiff-upper-lip thing. Keith, I believe, says all the bad things he has to say about Mick to the press when he's drunk, thinking he's being funny and knowing it really does irritate Mick. Mick's revenge is that he runs the Stones (with Charlie), and Keith's influence is far less anymore than he'd like us to believe, and that loss of status is a major thorn in Keith's side - all his own fault too. I love Keith but he's cost himself his status in the band. I suspect Keith's jibes bother Mick more than he'd EVER let on, and Jagger's power trip irritates Keith far more than he DOES let on. That's my opinion. Got no inside scoop. That's just the way I see it from the sidelines, having watched, listened to, and read those guys for 30 years now.
Tommy

It does seem as if they have as little to do with each other as possible. Mick buttons his lip in public and Keith trots out the same cheap shots. I love Keith and his legacy is secure, but I do agree that Mick is the one who keeps the show on the road now (which according to some on this board is nothing to applaud!) Both men have their weaknesses and strengths but Keith's alcoholism can't be easy for any of the band to deal with. I do find the comments along the lines that Keith is the more stable, contented character fairly risible. He and Patti deserve credit for preserving their union but to portray Keith as a 'family man' is a bit bizarre given large portions of their time is spent living apart with Keith with his drinking buddies in assorted Carribean locations and at Redlands and Patti in the US. If he is so happy with his lot why does he always have to drink in such industrial quantities? Just my opinion. folks.

Lots of good points to ponder,Lady Jayne. And since I really dont know the man(other than his public image), I wonder if he sometimes pulls a "Dean Martin".
You know, pretending he's ALWAYS soused. Dont get me wrong, I do believe the man drinks. And I dont know how anyone could expect Ronnie to stay sober and hang out around him! I suppose unless one is privy to the private life its hard to know.
Thanks for the stimulating ideas.

Well SCOTTSKEEF, at least Lady Jayne has helped you to " see the light!", even though there was nothing particularly unique in her statement. Whatever it takes! LOL.

Quote
mickschix
Well SCOTTSKEEF, at least Lady Jayne has helped you to " see the light!", even though there was nothing particularly unique in her statement. Whatever it takes! LOL.

I do always strive for persuasive unoriginality, Mickschix, so thanks for the compliment.

You're entirely welcome.

Quote
mickschix
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!!

Nope. They were refused visas to tour Japan solely because of Mick's drug convictions

It would have been a bit hard for the Japanese government to refuse visas due to the conviction record of one band member who didnt have any at the time and another who had been dead for four years.

"See the light"???? I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless its the gracious and non-argumentative way Lady Jayne expressed her OPINIONS. What I stated about the 73 Japanese tour was pure fact. And try to decide how you want to spell my name,please. Maybe the correct way for a change. Whatever it takes!!!

Quote
scottkeef
"See the light"???? I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless its the gracious and non-argumentative way Lady Jayne expressed her OPINIONS. What I stated about the 73 Japanese tour was pure fact. And try to decide how you want to spell my name,please. Maybe the correct way for a change. Whatever it takes!!!

And that really is a lovely compliment - thanks Scottkeef.

You are welcome. "Your servant am I
And will humbly remain" !

Scottkeef, you do know what I mean. So, when I state a fact, you call it arguementative? I think you may be a bit overly sensitive! I laid down a few simple facts, just like Lady Jayne. She's a bit sensitive too I see, because my point about her statement not being unique was also just a simple fact, not a put down.

What fact did you state? Seriously I dont know. I think with sssoul pretty much summed up what the arrest facts were. If someone else found Lady Jayne's statement to be unique, is that a fact or their opinion? I'm being totally frank,I dont understand your point.

Gazza, I know you were right about the convictions because I googled it; at that time, they were denied entry based on Mick's conviction but I still think that the Japanese were sensitive to the fact that Brian was a big druggie, even though he was indeed very dead at the time. It was more about the branding of the entire band that I was referring; the Stones were trouble, in the minds of the Japanese and they were entitled to deny entry to anyone they thought was trouble.

Getting back to the references to Keith's alcoholism. This seems a pretty vital influence in their relationsip - or non-relationship. Anyone who knows an alcoholic or addictive personality knows how difficult it is to keep things on an even /stable keel.
Imagine working with one in a "normal" employment environment- I have and its a headache, I can tell you. Of course unlike the whacky world of show biz most addicts get their marching orders after a while - if they show that they can't function properly (some can of course, Keith has done also, to some degree, lets not forget).
But the strain on a personal level is great - if you are not a drinker (particularly) there is nothing more tedious than being around a drunk - sorry, personal opinion (and I like a drink -in sensible quantities).

I have to say that none of the books on Keith-and the Stones, nor the interviews with him, dwell on his alcoholism to any extent. I don't expect the PR led interviews to cover the topic,but in this more open age it is suprising that it gets so little frank and factual attention.
I mean you wouldn't expect an item on Dylan Thomas et al to exclude his drinking habits - and the way it affected his work and relationships.

The earlier reference to Dean Martin is interesting - I believe others in "The Pack" (Sinatra) distanced themselves from him when his drinking and behaviour was no longer entertaining. The same happened to ?Lawford (the Kennedy connection) - who had a more severe drink problem, I recall.
There may be a parrallel here.

PS Dean Martin ironically ,made some refernces to the Stones - I think on TV- around 1964-when they were certainly seen as less than respectable: no doubt ALO was delighted.

Quote
mickschix
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.

"...no doubt VERY drunk"? Were you there? And falling down and hitting your head -I'm sure it could also happen to someone who was stone cold sober - with the same consequences. Actually, sometimes it's better to be under the influence when involved in an accident because your body is more relaxed.

But in a post that is mostly speculation, you know exactly how drunk he was?

Regarding that whole incident I'm more impressed by how fast he came back - probably too fast - and how they prolonged the tour to make up for the lost dates. This accident was a serious matter - he could actually have died. And you don't have to be drunk for it to happen - we've all had our falls, I guess, sometimes tripping over your boy's toys?

As for cancelled gigs - Jagger was responsible for a few as well, what with his sore throat Now, if he hadn't gargled in cocaine in the 80's - maybe his throat would be stronger today? Or if he had never smoked.

Funny thing, people will complain endlessly if they cancel/postpone - still, they will chide them also if Jagger's voice is not up to scratch or Keef plays a few bad concerts - whatever. And maybe - just maybe - a few of Richards alleged sub-par performances were due to the new drugs he had to take after his accident.

Drugs will influence different people in different ways. I read in a recent interview (Esquire?), that he has given up on cocaine totally now - because of the accident and the medication he is on. So, it is probably also plausible that it could have caused some of the troubles - loss of orientation at some points, which were alleged at the time. (I saw them twice - and he seemed fine and on fire both times. Especially, in Copenhagen, he seemed to be very much on the ball)

But they are all troopers, so he went out on the road as soon as he could - perhaps he should have waited a little longer - that's what some medical experts claimed at the time. But - people would have whined about that too.

Well - I got a little bit rambling there - maybe my new medicine - but the main point, I was trying to make: Let us not state as facts what we do not know 100% to be facts.

>> Let us not state as facts what we do not know 100% to be facts. <<

thanks for getting that said, mofur

And how do you determine that something is a fact? Forgive a sceptic...

i have it on good authority that i don't know anything for sure about Keith's drinking habits.

No, but what I meant is that if we can´t write anything on this board that is not 100% a fact, then it will be very few comments in the future. I think we must have the right to speculate about things we´re interested in. After all, this is a discussion board, not a dictionary.

I find Keith a bit embarrassing at times nowadays. Especially on press conferences and occasions like the Berlinale. He has lost most of his former coolness. He acts like a caricature of his former self and I agree with the one who said that he is trapped in his own image. Not to speak of his guitar playing that is laughable sometimes. Poor Keith.

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
I find Keith a bit embarrassing at times nowadays. Especially on press conferences and occasions like the Berlinale. He has lost most of his former coolness. He acts like a caricature of his former self and I agree with the one who said that he is trapped in his own image. Not to speak of his guitar playing that is laughable sometimes. Poor Keith.

I really hope these are facts, or else you´re in trouble.

Quote
mickschix
Gazza, I know you were right about the convictions because I googled it; at that time, they were denied entry based on Mick's conviction but I still think that the Japanese were sensitive to the fact that Brian was a big druggie, even though he was indeed very dead at the time. It was more about the branding of the entire band that I was referring; the Stones were trouble, in the minds of the Japanese and they were entitled to deny entry to anyone they thought was trouble.

yep..and that 'anyone' was Mick Jagger. As he was the only band member to have a drug conviction, he was the only one refused a visa. They couldnt have refused someone a visa because of a non existent criminal record.

Oddly enough, I seem to recall Mick had trouble getting in to Japan in the early 90s (I think he was doing some promo work for At The Max, or something) due to that same conviction. Even though he had toured Japan in 1988 and 1990.

>> if we can´t write anything on this board that is not 100% a fact ... <<

no one has said that. what mofur is suggesting and i'm supporting is:
when we're speculating, let's make it clear that we're speculating.
as in "i bet he was drunk" rather than "he was drunk".

what most are doing is taking their press personas and projecting them on to some bizarre domestic scene. this isn't stella street.

Mick and keith have a fine relationship- They dont need to spend every waking hour together to satisfy anyones curiosity about secret hatreds.

Theyre both entirely different than most here imagine them to be behind closed doors.

this really is such a non-issue

OLDKR

Quote
with sssoul
i have it on good authority that i don't know anything for sure about Keith's drinking habits.

We don't for sure - and that IS a fact.
I don't suppose the autobiography, due out in 2010 will reveal all either, only a Glimmer.
But you never know.

What is suprising, especially after all his time in the fame game is that there is anything much left to speculate about. In the music industry drink and drugs almost go with the territory - why keep anything secret for goodness sake,what's to hide? Most people couldn't care less anyway. Better to be open than have it all come out after they have departed the scene - then its open season (lawyers largely being impotent to withold) and loads of exaggeration.

Witness the cottage industry of John Lennon books - whose image was supposed to be "honest John" but who (probably listening to advice and his own sense of PR) was still very selective about what the public were made aware of.

Quote
oldkr
what most are doing is taking their press personas and projecting them on to some bizarre domestic scene. this isn't stella street.

Mick and keith have a fine relationship- They dont need to spend every waking hour together to satisfy anyones curiosity about secret hatreds.

Theyre both entirely different than most here imagine them to be behind closed doors.

this really is such a non-issue

OLDKR

You're talking like you know them personally, Keith.....

I wouldn't say that Keith's drinking (or health) is a non-issue, especially if they affect his playing.
If one is saying it's a "private matter" then why do most interviews make a reference to what his tipple is -at the start of many interviews.(which will have no doubt been given a final proof by the RS PR Dept).
Not counting the scores of photos of Keith with bottle in hand!