All I can say is thank God for Ronnie. Because if it wasn't for his daughter getting married,The Faces reunion and his drinking and whoring...We'd really have nothing to talk about.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

I admire Ron Wood for his dedication. Learning to play some of the old licks and solos note-for-note... often having to copy the licks of his famous predecessors, Brian Jones and Mick Taylor.

I'm impressed that he does it, and does it pretty well. It's STUDIOUS -- like his his painting, although he is nowhere near as good a painter as he is a rock musician. (I don't really care for his artwork, not that that matters...) My point is this Ronnie seems to work real hard at copying the masters' artwork carefully, whether he's interpreting Mick Taylor's, Brian Jones's, (or his own) guitar parts. Or less successfully, amateurishly trying to copy Pablo Picasso or some other great artist in his painting.

Sometimes he doesn't come of with the same assured and effortless bravado as Mick Taylor or Pablo Picasso. Nevertheless, I admire Ronnie as a musician and I give him a lot of credit for the Stones' having played on for these last couple of decades...

Perhaps Ronnie's career with the Stones is overshadowed by how much less time Brian and Mick T had with the Stones and the huge impacts they had during their time. Ronnie's been very inventive and tasteful with what he's done. It's just been for much longer and not on their best, overall, work. I'll always be a fan of Ronnies, no matter how screwed up he has been, gets or what he does with his life outside of the Stones - including his home life. He is human.

I'm actually starting to believe the newspaper stories - even though this started in The Sun...
If this is true, I hope someone who really loves the man goes to Ireland and brings him into rehab. Use force, if necessary. He's too great a talent - and too sweet a guy - to be left in the hands of a teenage alcoholic. That's not where he belongs.
Ronnie - please! Think, act and get help. We love you, man!

>> I'm actually starting to believe the newspaper stories <<

... and it doesn't bother anyone that the stories are contradicting one another,
as well as stating things no one would be in a position to know?
just for example: who would know that bandmates were "bombarding Ronnie with phone calls"
that we now "learn" he never answered, and/or that Ronnie has now phoned them back?
"someone close to the guitarist" ... what does that mean, someone on the Sun staff who's close to him in height,
or who happens to live in Richmond, or who was at a concert once?
"last night he was living with" a teenager who either arrived at his place in Ireland last night
or left his place in Ireland last night, and who is using some website to air her fantasies,
and whose "friend" is quoted as saying that Ronnie knows nothing about the supposed "relationship"?

like i said several pages ago, if some of you people who say you are gifted at discerning
what "grains of truth" there are amid all the crap the Sun barfs out could please post
a plausible timeline that fits what these stories are claiming, that might help me
feel a little less dismayed over the apparent lack of critical reading skills - thanks

(my best guess is that the "grain of truth" might be that Ronnie is in Ireland and Jo is in London - maybe -
and maybe some whacko teenage waitress gushed something on a blog site somewhere. maybe.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 13:20 by with sssoul.

While the Sun's taste, spelling, bye-lines are indeed crap, their legal department has been fairly efficient and very active since the disasters of the 80's. That tends to mean in respect of those who can afford to sue they have the sources to back up the story. While the Stones are not particularly litigious about personal failings ( a different matter where breach of copyright or contract is concerned ), my own (educated!) guess is that they would not report the story in the way they have without at least two reasonable sources, one probably from within the family or organisation. That doesn't mean every detail is accurate but the substance is - ie he is drinking heavily and has formed some sort of relationship (the reporting is equivocal as to its nature) which his family are concerned about, and he and Jo are not living in the same place at the moment.

As far as the drinking is concerned, anyone who has actually seen Ronnie recently would I suggest believe the evidence of their own eyes that he is well off the wagon!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 12:49 by Lady Jayne.

Quote
with sssoul
>> I'm actually starting to believe the newspaper stories <<

... and it doesn't bother anyone that the stories are contradicting one another,
as well as stating things no one would be in a position to know?
just for example: who would know that bandmates were "bombarding Ronnie with phone calls"
that we now "learn" he never answered, and/or that Ronnie has now phoned them back?
"someone close to the guitarist" ... what does that mean, someone on the Sun staff who's close to him in height,
or who happens to live in Richmond, or who was at a concert once?
"last night he was living with" a teenager who either arrived at his place in Ireland last night
or left his place in Ireland last night, and who is using some website to air her fantasies,
and whose "friend" is quoted as saying that Ronnie knows nothing about the supposed "relationship"?

like i said several pages ago, if some of you people who say you are gifted at discerning
what "grains of truth" there are amid all the crap the Sun barfs out could please post
a plausible timeline that fits what these stories are claiming, that might help me
feel a little less dismayed over the apparent lack of critical reading skills - thanks

(my best guess is that the "grain of truth" might be that Ronnie is in Ireland
and Jo is in London - maybe -
and maybe some whacko teenage waitress gushed something on a blog site somewhere. maybe.)

Sorry with sssoul, I think most of your posts are great, but you appear to be in denial over this. The Sun thrives on tittle tattle but what you normally find is that the bare bones of a story will be true. It tends to be the language and tone which is a bit fruity!

Lady Jayne, i recall you saying just after the wedding that Keith didn't look well to you.
if you said that Ronnie looked like he's been drinking heavily i must have missed that.

libel laws are a bit weird in many ways. (i used to work as a journalist, in the US, not the UK - but still).
if the Sun got someone who happens to live "close to the Woods" to say what they reported, they have covered their sorry asses.
if Jo Wood *ever* said "go ahead and drink your guts out" they are covered as well,
even if she said it in a totally different context.

i also remember the 2004 stories about Ronnie biting someone's ankle in a restaurant
(they didn't mention at the time that it was a friend he was biting - which does make a difference).
the main thing i remember about those stories was that - intentionally or not -
they appeared at a perfect time to distract attention from something else that was going on.
so all kinds of blessings and well-being on all the Stones & their tribes, and let the tabloids just fvck off.

ps: >> at least two reasonable sources, one probably from within the family or organisation <<

this really puzzles me, Lady Jayne: if you were an employee either of the Woods or of the Stones -
highly enough placed in the hierarchy to be privy to stuff like who is phoning whom and what for -
what would induce you to risk your job by leaking lurid stories to the Sun?
and when one of your relatives falls off the wagon, is it normal for you to find a garish tabloid to confide in?
maybe some people do that ... but it seems strange to me to assume the rag "must" have sources like that for these stories.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 14:59 by with sssoul.

>> what you normally find is that the bare bones of a story will be true <<

waiting for something that hangs together as a plausible story isn't "denial", letitloose.
i'm not claiming i know it's all untrue, i'm simply pointing out that the "reports" are contradicting one another,
and that i have no way to tell which bits are the "bare bones [that] will be true".
again: if you have a way of discerning the truth from the crap, it would be very helpful if you'd teach us how to do that.
and a clear presentation of the timeline that emerges from these stories would be very helpful too. thanks

hi with sssoul, I know what you mean about the fine details. I wonder though if they have only been omitted from the Sun story because most readers aren't interested in the timeline. Or if - as you assert - the story is a bit ropy. The truth will out. One thing I would not doubt is the validity of his wife's quotes.
I just wonder how many lifes this cat has left. I think If Jo ever left him he would be destroyed.

I am an unreconstructed male, and I quite like the "sex, drugs and rock n roll" stuff. But I feel strangely saddened by Ronnies plight. Thats why I posted the lyrics to that song on here.

damn! this is really sad. I don't belive all the hype from the tabloids but he is drinking heavily again that much is true. I just hope his friends can cut through the haze Ronnie is in.

>> Or if - as you assert - the story is a bit ropy. <<

what i'm asserting is that the reports are contradicting themselves:
when did Ronnie allegedly start "living with" this chick? when did the alleged recent bout of heavy drinking start?
did Ronnie check into the Priory just before Leah's wedding? was that in the middle of this alleged "relationship"?
was it after the SaL premiere that he allegedly met this girl, or after the lunch with Rod last Thursday, or ... ?
when did "bandmates Mick Keith and Rod" start "bombarding the singer [sic] with phone calls"?

>> One thing I would not doubt is the validity of his wife's quotes. <<

which ones - all of them? including the one where she says the chick is a nut case,
but that it wasn't a problem for her that the chick was in Ireland with Ronnie and his art agent?
and: do the stories as reported give you any clear idea of when Jo made the various statements attributed to her?
i don't see anything that clarifies that, and it's part of what puzzles me, so i'd be grateful
if you could point out for me where that's clarified.

again: i'm not denying the stories - i'm simply noting that the stories so far
provide no (0) basis for me to tell what's true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 14:27 by with sssoul.

Quote
with sssoul
Lady Jayne, i recall you saying just after the wedding that Keith didn't look well to you.
if you said that Ronnie looked like he's been drinking heavily i must have missed that.

libel laws are a bit weird in many ways. (i used to work as a journalist, in the US, not the UK - but still).
if the Sun got someone who happens to live "close to the Woods" to say what they reported, they have covered their sorry asses.
if Jo Wood *ever* said "go ahead and drink your guts out" they are covered as well,
even if she said it in a totally different context.

i also remember the 2004 stories about Ronnie biting someone's ankle in a restaurant
(they didn't mention at the time that it was a friend he was biting - which does make a difference).
the main thing i remember about those stories was that - intentionally or not -
they appeared at a perfect time to distract attention from something else that was going on.
so all kinds of blessings and well-being on all the Stones & their tribes, and let the tabloids just fvck off.

ps: >> at least two reasonable sources, one probably from within the family or organisation <<

this really puzzles me, Lady Jayne: if you were an employee either of the Woods or of the Stones -
highly enough placed in the hierarchy to be privy to stuff like who is phoning whom and what for -
what would induce you to risk your job by leaking lurid stories to the Sun?
and when one of your relatives falls off the wagon, is it normal for you to find a garish tabloid to confide in?
maybe some people do that ... but it seems strange to me to assume the rag "must" have sources like that for these stories.

Well, as it turns out I seem to have been right, as the Woods' publicist has now gone 'on record' confirming a) Ronnie has been on a three month bender b) he has left his family and c) is with this Russian chick, who he met on 2.4 in a sleazy club in London - Daily Mail and other press today [my summary - it's a very long article]. Jo has also given an 'exclusive' to the Star which I haven't read. The terms of the publicists' quotes to the Mail are so similar to the Sun's original unattributed quotes as to make pretty clear one of their original sources.
There are all sorts of reasons why celebs own PR people leak to the press, usually to do with publicity. They go via the unnamed source method, later substantially confirmed by their own PR so that it doesn't look as calculated. I am surprised that you haven't come across the practice in your time as a journalist, although my experience is largely in the UK and Europe so things may work a little diffently in the US. The general rule of thumb to assess where the story is coming from is, the more lurid the story (and therefore likely to attract damages) the more likely the press have a cast iron source, usually the celeb themselves. Why would the Woods leak this one? Two possible reasons - 1) they knew it would inevitably come out (it seems to have been going on for months and some of it - the drinking, pretty public) and therefore prefer to control the story by initiating it or 2) they feel publicity may 'shame' Ronnie into doing something about the problem or at least give Mick the ammo to stomp round demanding he goes into rehab before it damages future earning power!
I join with you in wishing peace and health to Ronnie and his family but I do loathe the way the press are accused of making things up when the truth is that their 'victims' are usually far more implicated in the more sordid press practices.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 15:38 by Lady Jayne.

TIll I hear more, I consider these false rumours.

I support Ronnie.

Quote
with sssoul
i also remember the 2004 stories about Ronnie biting someone's ankle in a restaurant
(they didn't mention at the time that it was a friend he was biting - which does make a difference).

It was Kate Moss's ankle he was reported to have bitten. The incident took place at her birthday party.

Today's Independent broadsheet newspaper has reported on the issue. If the serious and reliable papers are interested, then this is obviously something that is gaining a very wide interest. Usually, these rags stay well clear of the usual Sun headlines.

I may have or may not have stated my opinion here, but I personally do not believe that Ronnie is sleeping with this Russian girl. I suspect she is a fantasist.

What is the issue however, is that Ronnie is supposedly drinking very heavily again. Surely, that is the key thing here and the one true cause for concern.

>> Well, as it turns out I seem to have been right as the Woods' publicist has now gone on record <<

all right, i'll be glad to take those reports on board, Lady Jayne -
if they present a more coherent story than what the Sun first wrote that will be enlightening.
do you have links to the stories in the Daily Mail and/or the Star, by any chance?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 15:43 by with sssoul.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Well, as it turns out I seem to have been right as the Woods' publicist has now gone on record <<

all right, i'll be glad to take those reports on board, Lady Jayne -
do you have links to the stories in the Daily Mail and/or the Star, by any chance?

I wouldn't trust The Star!!!!!!!

Haven't read that per since I was about 11. The Daily Mail should be reliable though.

How long before an IORRean seriously suggests that Mick Taylor takes his place?

Oppps. Sorry - somebody already has!!

Already done like a dinner....



ROCKMAN

What's Jeff Beck doin these days?

Whackin' some KLG's in a HEMI.....

AND When I mash down on your starter....Your spark plug will give me fire



ROCKMAN

Why not David Stewart - he is a good friend with Mick J and plays guitar very well

BRING BACK MICK!! JUSTIFY THOSE TICKET PRICES!!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 03:36 by hbwriter.

yeah!!!!!!! just have plenty of fish n chips on stage

Let's petition!

...and here's to a setlist that has Winter and Time Waits For No One as well as decent versions of Sway and CYHMK.

Quote
hbwriter
BRING BACK MICK!! JUSTIFY THOSE TICKET PRICES!!

yeah, that'll fix everything.....

maybe not everything--but A LOT

No it wont. Different era, different band, different style of playing, different style of performing (Taylor isnt someone who's cut out for playing to a crowd in stadiums) - plus its not 1973 for Taylor either. He's not exactly Mr Reliable himself these days either.

It was a great era, but its long gone. Time to move on.

To suggest replacing a guy just because he has fallen off the wagon at a time when the band arent even working and probably wont be for another year is simply preposterous.

There was actually a stronger argument, using that logic, for jettisoning Keith when he was doing even more unreliable things like falling out of trees or getting busted. And anyone suggesting that would have been laughed at



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-07-12 03:10 by Gazza.