Tell Me :
Talk
I simply made an observation that "if one are going to slam an artist, one can expect people to support that artist, and should deal with it without getting hyperdefensive". I did not even mention you in that statement.
I make a lot of posts, it is odd that you feel they are all about you.
For anyone catching up and wants to see how full of it this guy is - he says he "did not even mention me in that statement"? - well here's the full statement
"geeezz.... it is amazing the amount of crap this guy posts.... while being so hyper sensitive. He starts whining anytime anyone posts a word which is not gushing about how brilliant he dreams he is. Self esteem issues much? If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do. Get over yourself whiner."
gee, didn't mention me by name - but just who were talking about, max? try to walk it back if you like - or duck like a coward - but those are your words - and they are in clear violation of the board rules against personal attacks.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 07:47 by hbwriter.
Well aw shucks....
Thanks for the compliments Naturalust, they make me feel 100Xgood while
his silly canned internet insults are just that... silly... I always find it amusing
to read someone quoting "boards rules" while breaking them... LOL
UDaManNaturalust
Keith seems to develop more affection for his drug buddies than anyone else, that's always been a curiosity to me. Partners in self-destruction.
I always got the sense that Keith felt disconnected from Mick not because of 'power games', women or his circle of friends, but because Mick really was straight, together.
It always seemed to me that Keith just couldn't keep up. While Keith was nodding off to 'Fool To Cry', in the studio etc... Jagger was hanging out with Lennon, Bowie.....collaborating with Taylor.
Good point. Jagger was practical, he didn't romanticize the 'demon life'. Can you imagine being Jagger, and watching your best friend, collaborator sink deeper into drug addiction? And then comes along all these sycophants trying to get close to Keith's inner sanctum - with drugs being the entrance fee....
Perhaps Mick wasn't jealous of GP, but leery. After all, it was Mick who was going to have to deal with the fallout.
"friendship" (or basic drug buddies, depending on who is telling the story) yeah - those seeds were planted in '68 or so - "collaboration"? To me that is a myth - what did they ever collaborate on?
It's ironic, isn't it? After all those years of demonising Brian, Keith became the weak link. Not only was his productivity severely impaired, he imperiled the band with the numerous resulting drug busts, just as Brian had done. Karma? Or possibly having the very same destructive girlfriend?
Brian was only busted for drugs twice yah know!?
Mick twice as well, atleast during 60's.
* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *
1. it's probably a fun hang
2. to fulfill the considerable myth building that he helped orchestrate
3. i hardly think an appearance at a concert like that speaks to any great association he had with gram
i will admit - a lot of what is fueling my attitude on this right now is the book Twenty Thousand Roads - d. meyer is a wonderful writer i think, honestly, but he encapsulates so much of what annoys me about gram parsons (plus i find much of gram's music tepid and forgettable)
quotes from book - " when gram cleaned up even the slightest bit, he made some of the most exquisite, moving, thoughtful, and soulful music of the century"
"there's no proof that gram directly participated in any songs on Exile, but the influence of his taste and philosophy is everywhere"
this treacle goes on and on - as it does with some here on this board - sorry, in my opinion, stripping away some of the glossy myth of gram parsons is okay for me - and i do think he had a school girl idolization of Jagger that completely influenced his presentation -
That's the hyperbole that grates. 'philosophy' of Exile. Really?
I've read Gram devotees wax romantic about how his 'sprit' is all over Exile, and that he 'wrote' "Wild Horses".....but because Jagger is so jealous, he was never given proper credit.
That, my friends, is myth making at its best.
There is nothing in his catalogue that even hints at what Exile is.
This thread to me has little to with Parsons and his music specifically and more to do with the discourse on this board.
Jagger likely saw the signs of portent in Parsons. Parsons was gone by September 73 - but Richards survived - simply "happy to be here - be anywhere" but the muse was gone. Richards became the weak link – his weaknesses ensured that the Stones would never be the same musically. But Jagger's strengths ensured the band’s survival and the Stones have thrived. This all so obvious narrative seems sadly lost on a fairly large portion of this board. Or perhaps not.....this obvious narrative is what I believe Richards (and Jane Rose) have worked for ~ 3+ decades now trying to counter (might I add somewhat successfully). It was the primary goal of Life - to re-write the story, revise the history of the band and re-authenticate the notion that Richards is somehow the music and Jagger is the business side of the equation. With Life, and Richards claiming the role of the authentic musician, the Jagger-Richards mystique was gone. This is also why many people on this board are sensitive to this Parsons’ thread – there is an even an insinuation in this thread and previous threads that Parsons somehow influenced Exile even more than Mick Jagger – Mick friggin Jagger. Someone suggests that “Jagger was scared that Keith and Gram plan somethin' together” - really - Jagger - Mick friggin Jagger is scared of Gram Parsons – incredulous – and we have Keith aggrandizing this myth in Life - that Mick Jagger may have been the real driver for Parson' departure.
And another cohort has happily in the past insinuated that the Parsons – Richards musical relationship is as or more significant than the Jagger- Richards duo. Parsons-Richards seem to have collaborated on nothing. On the other hand, we have numerous Jagger collaborations with other artists – Ry Cooder, Lennon...
It is the consistent “let me take him down syndrome on this board vis-a-vis Jagger that has made this forum a not so enjoyable place in the last couple of years.
helped write wild horses? good lord - it's all part of people buying into to the beautiful, drug addled icon that parsons became in death - but that he planted the seeds for in life - how many people did he tell "yeah i'm teaching the stones about country - helping them craft their new sound"? LOTS - this book has several key examples - the tribute was in 2005 - and no, he had ZERO to do with wild horses or ANY OTHER Stones records- same goes for the Eagles- people love to say, "oh they ripped Gram off!" No- Frey and Henley wrote a bunch of hit songs, like them or not (i do) because they are talented songwriters- end of story - parsons was a hanger on - a user - a poser - and a self-appointed country music shaman - he wrote a few nice songs - fine - he did not greatly alter the musical landscape (in my opinion)
brilliant comment
Excellent post.
A big component to the GP debate seems to perpetuate the Jagger-is-just-a-businessman myth, and if you visit the GP boards, Mick Jagger is just a glorified front man.
That idea has been promoted for decades by Keith and Anita, and their disciples believe every word.
another really great point - maybe it's what drives my need for balance -
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 13, 2012 07:31
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
geeezz.... it is amazing the amount of crap this guy posts.... while being so hyper sensitive. He starts whining anytime anyone posts a word which is not gushing about how brilliant he dreams he is. Self esteem issues much? If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do. Get over yourself whiner.
'An artist like Gram...'
So he's off-limits to criticism.
I swear, some of you have been overtaken with Gramophilia.
Hmmm... where did I say anyone was off limits?
I simply stated, and I quote.... ""If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do""... unless one is simply intending to stir up trouble and illicit predictable comments in order to start whining, and name calling, when the comments come.
we all see you are just making trouble - read my comments - I do not have thin skin - I merely take issue with people deliberately misrepresenting what I say to fit their own narrative - again - this is your usual - you see that I post something, and then bam - your obsession hits - "must insult chris epting" - anyone can look up how you do this - you are on record multiple times - grow up, dude
LOL, you are really really into yourself, eh?
"into myself"> not at all - im just calling you out for your odd behavior - have you posted in this thread outside of your insults to me? I mean - five pages in - all of a sudden - you don't comment on the topic - as usual - you choose to attack me - weird - and a little creepy. I'm ignoring you from here on out - think you can handle that?
I simply made an observation that "if one are going to slam an artist, one can expect people to support that artist, and should deal with it without getting hyperdefensive". I did not even mention you in that statement.
I make a lot of posts, it is odd that you feel they are all about you.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 07:31
Another example of Gram Parsons aping Mick for all he was worth - the sneer, the limp wrist, the affected boredom, the makeup - amazing how easy Jagger makes being Jagger look - but how silly and exhausting it seems for others - even at this pale level 9but hey, i do love the tune She)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 07:33 by hbwriter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 07:33 by hbwriter.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 13, 2012 07:35
comment for everyone, no one in particular. odd I have to say that, but oh well.
Should we make a thread about the people who have imitated (aped) Mick Jagger over time? I wonder how long that list would be?
Should we make a thread about the people who have imitated (aped) Mick Jagger over time? I wonder how long that list would be?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 13, 2012 07:39
Hmm...The video clip of the Burritos was just them miming their song and having a laugh, and I think it's a stretch to say it advances any particular theory about Parsons, Jagger, or anyone else. As to the "Christine's Song" video it would never have occurred to me that Gram was aping Jagger...As to Gram "writing" with Keith? What did they write, exactly? As someone said, with all that Keith has said about how great Gram was it was interesting that he never recorded with him. Keith seems to form more meaningful bonds with some of his drug buddies than even with members of his own band. If you don't believe that, just read "Life". Freddie Sessler plays a bigger role in that book than Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. No doubt Keith's affection for Gram was real, but his musical influence on the Stones (and others) has been somewhat exaggerated, in my opinion, and his "legend" has been burnished by his untimely death combined with Keith's mythologizing. It IS interesting that feelings on this subject are so strong here, for someone who was basically a bit player in the Stones' story, and who never played a note with them.
Just my observation. I am not "bashing" Gram - I like a lot of his stuff - I just find the myth-making a bit much at times. The truth is more complicated than the legend, but still preferrable.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 17:25 by 71Tele.
Just my observation. I am not "bashing" Gram - I like a lot of his stuff - I just find the myth-making a bit much at times. The truth is more complicated than the legend, but still preferrable.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 17:25 by 71Tele.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 07:41
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
geeezz.... it is amazing the amount of crap this guy posts.... while being so hyper sensitive. He starts whining anytime anyone posts a word which is not gushing about how brilliant he dreams he is. Self esteem issues much? If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do. Get over yourself whiner.
'An artist like Gram...'
So he's off-limits to criticism.
I swear, some of you have been overtaken with Gramophilia.
Hmmm... where did I say anyone was off limits?
I simply stated, and I quote.... ""If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do""... unless one is simply intending to stir up trouble and illicit predictable comments in order to start whining, and name calling, when the comments come.
we all see you are just making trouble - read my comments - I do not have thin skin - I merely take issue with people deliberately misrepresenting what I say to fit their own narrative - again - this is your usual - you see that I post something, and then bam - your obsession hits - "must insult chris epting" - anyone can look up how you do this - you are on record multiple times - grow up, dude
LOL, you are really really into yourself, eh?
"into myself"> not at all - im just calling you out for your odd behavior - have you posted in this thread outside of your insults to me? I mean - five pages in - all of a sudden - you don't comment on the topic - as usual - you choose to attack me - weird - and a little creepy. I'm ignoring you from here on out - think you can handle that?
I simply made an observation that "if one are going to slam an artist, one can expect people to support that artist, and should deal with it without getting hyperdefensive". I did not even mention you in that statement.
I make a lot of posts, it is odd that you feel they are all about you.
For anyone catching up and wants to see how full of it this guy is - he says he "did not even mention me in that statement"? - well here's the full statement
"geeezz.... it is amazing the amount of crap this guy posts.... while being so hyper sensitive. He starts whining anytime anyone posts a word which is not gushing about how brilliant he dreams he is. Self esteem issues much? If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do. Get over yourself whiner."
gee, didn't mention me by name - but just who were talking about, max? try to walk it back if you like - or duck like a coward - but those are your words - and they are in clear violation of the board rules against personal attacks.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 07:47 by hbwriter.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 13, 2012 07:46
uh,,,, werent you were going to start ignoring my comments... ready set go... ignore.
Nope, no whining going on there... at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 08:16 by Max'sKansasCity.
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
geeezz.... it is amazing the amount of crap this guy posts.... while being so hyper sensitive. He starts whining anytime anyone posts a word which is not gushing about how brilliant he dreams he is. Self esteem issues much? If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do. Get over yourself whiner.
'An artist like Gram...'
So he's off-limits to criticism.
I swear, some of you have been overtaken with Gramophilia.
Hmmm... where did I say anyone was off limits?
I simply stated, and I quote.... ""If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do""... unless one is simply intending to stir up trouble and illicit predictable comments in order to start whining, and name calling, when the comments come.
we all see you are just making trouble - read my comments - I do not have thin skin - I merely take issue with people deliberately misrepresenting what I say to fit their own narrative - again - this is your usual - you see that I post something, and then bam - your obsession hits - "must insult chris epting" - anyone can look up how you do this - you are on record multiple times - grow up, dude
LOL, you are really really into yourself, eh?
"into myself"> not at all - im just calling you out for your odd behavior - have you posted in this thread outside of your insults to me? I mean - five pages in - all of a sudden - you don't comment on the topic - as usual - you choose to attack me - weird - and a little creepy. I'm ignoring you from here on out - think you can handle that?
I simply made an observation that "if one are going to slam an artist, one can expect people to support that artist, and should deal with it without getting hyperdefensive". I did not even mention you in that statement.
I make a lot of posts, it is odd that you feel they are all about you.
For anyone catching up and wants to see how full of it this guy is - he says he "did not even mention me in that statement"? - well here's the full statement
"geeezz.... it is amazing the amount of crap this guy posts.... while being so hyper sensitive. He starts whining anytime anyone posts a word which is not gushing about how brilliant he dreams he is. Self esteem issues much? If one is going to bash an artist like Gram, then one should expect some people to defend him and one should not be so hyper defensive and start whining when they do. Get over yourself whiner."
gee, didn't mention me by name - but just who were talking about, max? try to walk it back if you like - or duck like a coward - but those are your words - and they are in clear violation of the board rules against personal attacks.
Nope, no whining going on there... at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 08:16 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 13, 2012 09:08
hb time to quit acting like a hypocrite jerk here.
You make such a fuss calling Gram unprofessional, a poser, THE most overrated musician in history, a pathetic mime, glorified bit player, hanger on junkie the THEN have the gall to call people obnoxious idiots and incest products? No wonder Max (one of the best and funniest posters on this board) was taken to post about your comments. Strong words bring strong feelings you should be very aware of that. What did you expect?
I thought you were the professional here , esteemed author and rock critic. The contempt you show for someone who was infactuated with the Stones is not lost on this group of Stone's infactuated people. peace
You make such a fuss calling Gram unprofessional, a poser, THE most overrated musician in history, a pathetic mime, glorified bit player, hanger on junkie the THEN have the gall to call people obnoxious idiots and incest products? No wonder Max (one of the best and funniest posters on this board) was taken to post about your comments. Strong words bring strong feelings you should be very aware of that. What did you expect?
I thought you were the professional here , esteemed author and rock critic. The contempt you show for someone who was infactuated with the Stones is not lost on this group of Stone's infactuated people. peace
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
andrewm
()
Date: March 13, 2012 09:18
Didn't this whole Gram debate also occur a year or so ago when someone who thought Gram was really overrated suggested people only claimed to like him because of the mythology surrounding him? And then someone else chimed in with "I bought a best-of and it really sucked!". It baffles me that someone like Gram elicits that much of a negative response. I mean, I can understand indifference but it seems like a weird choice to go out of your way to trash his work. And that Christine's Tune video? I've loved it for years and never has it struck me that he's aping Jagger in it.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 13, 2012 09:30
Quote
Naturalust
... (one of the best and funniest posters on this board)....
Well aw shucks....
Thanks for the compliments Naturalust, they make me feel 100Xgood while
his silly canned internet insults are just that... silly... I always find it amusing
to read someone quoting "boards rules" while breaking them... LOL
UDaManNaturalust
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: March 13, 2012 17:52
Some people's personality come across as annoying because their lust for stardom is greater than their talent. Jim Morrison, Brian Jones and Gram Parsons might belong in that category. However, even though GP doesn't interest me the slightest I'd still like to know where to "rock" part in his music is. I don't hear it.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 13, 2012 19:27
Quote
71Tele
Hmm...The video clip of the Burritos was just them miming their song and having a laugh, and I think it's a stretch to say it advances any particular theory about Parsons, Jagger, or anyone else. As to the "Christine's Song" video it would never have occurred to me that Gram was aping Jagger...As to Gram "writing" with Keith? What did they write, exactly? As someone said, with all that Keith has said about how great Gram was it was interesting that he never recorded with him. Keith seems to form more meaningful bonds with some of his drug buddies than even with members of his own band. If you don't believe that, just read "Life". Freddie Sessler plays a bigger role in that book than Bill Wyman or Mick Taylor. No doubt Keith's affection for Gram was real, but his musical influence on the Stones (and others) has been somewhat exaggerated, in my opinion, and his "legend" has been burnished by his untimely death combined with Keith's mythologizing. It IS interesting that feelings on this subject are so strong here, for someone who was basically a bit player in the Stones' story, and who never played a note with them.
Just my observation. I am not "bashing" Gram - I like a lot of his stuff - I just find the myth-making a bit much at times. The truth is more complicated than the legend, but still preferrable.
Keith seems to develop more affection for his drug buddies than anyone else, that's always been a curiosity to me. Partners in self-destruction.
I always got the sense that Keith felt disconnected from Mick not because of 'power games', women or his circle of friends, but because Mick really was straight, together.
It always seemed to me that Keith just couldn't keep up. While Keith was nodding off to 'Fool To Cry', in the studio etc... Jagger was hanging out with Lennon, Bowie.....collaborating with Taylor.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 13, 2012 19:33
Quote
Bliss
[
Read 'A Season in Hell' to get a feel for what was happening in Nellcote. Despite the purple prose and several errors, Greenfield does a good job. Things had really started to unravel. Bianca, the end of Keith's honeymoon with smack and descent into full-on addiction, the move away from Britain, the bizarre entourage including the local cowboys, etc etc.
As to Gram using Keith as a stepping stone to Mick..I think it's too far a stretch. Mick was a frontman, a huge star. But the only aspect of Gram that interested Mick was Gram's wife, a very young former Playboy bunny.
Good point. Jagger was practical, he didn't romanticize the 'demon life'. Can you imagine being Jagger, and watching your best friend, collaborator sink deeper into drug addiction? And then comes along all these sycophants trying to get close to Keith's inner sanctum - with drugs being the entrance fee....
Perhaps Mick wasn't jealous of GP, but leery. After all, it was Mick who was going to have to deal with the fallout.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 13, 2012 20:12
but didn't Keith and Gram's friendship/collaboration go back a few years? I mean, he didn't just show up in France...
they'd been hanging out, playing music and getting high, Mick included,, since '68..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 20:14 by duke richardson.
they'd been hanging out, playing music and getting high, Mick included,, since '68..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 20:14 by duke richardson.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 20:31
Quote
duke richardson
but didn't Keith and Gram's friendship/collaboration go back a few years? I mean, he didn't just show up in France...
they'd been hanging out, playing music and getting high, Mick included,, since '68..
"friendship" (or basic drug buddies, depending on who is telling the story) yeah - those seeds were planted in '68 or so - "collaboration"? To me that is a myth - what did they ever collaborate on?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: March 13, 2012 20:37
What did they ever collaborate on? Wild Horses?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 20:45
they collaborated on nothing - not one recorded or written note between them - a huge myth -
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 20:55 by hbwriter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-13 20:55 by hbwriter.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 13, 2012 20:46
yeah I reckon collaboration is the wrong word.
as much as Keith has said GP taught him and Mick lots about country music styles, singing, etc,
how much can we believe of that...
as much as Keith has said GP taught him and Mick lots about country music styles, singing, etc,
how much can we believe of that...
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: March 13, 2012 20:53
Quote
stupidguy2
[Good point. Jagger was practical, he didn't romanticize the 'demon life'. Can you imagine being Jagger, and watching your best friend, collaborator sink deeper into drug addiction? And then comes along all these sycophants trying to get close to Keith's inner sanctum - with drugs being the entrance fee....
Perhaps Mick wasn't jealous of GP, but leery. After all, it was Mick who was going to have to deal with the fallout.
It's ironic, isn't it? After all those years of demonising Brian, Keith became the weak link. Not only was his productivity severely impaired, he imperiled the band with the numerous resulting drug busts, just as Brian had done. Karma? Or possibly having the very same destructive girlfriend?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 21:05
and if one reads all the books it becomes clear - Gram was the one that perpetrated the myths on how much he "educated" the Stones- Keith, Mick - they're hardly on record as saying that he played any sort of part in their lives - yet they never seemed to mind giving it up for the blues guys -
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: March 13, 2012 21:12
If Parsons didn't play a part in Keith's life then why was Keith at the Parsons tribute?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 13, 2012 21:20
Quote
Bliss
It's ironic, isn't it? After all those years of demonising Brian, Keith became the weak link. Not only was his productivity severely impaired, he imperiled the band with the numerous resulting drug busts, just as Brian had done. Karma? Or possibly having the very same destructive girlfriend?
Brian was only busted for drugs twice yah know!?
Mick twice as well, atleast during 60's.
* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 21:48
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
If Parsons didn't play a part in Keith's life then why was Keith at the Parsons tribute?
1. it's probably a fun hang
2. to fulfill the considerable myth building that he helped orchestrate
3. i hardly think an appearance at a concert like that speaks to any great association he had with gram
i will admit - a lot of what is fueling my attitude on this right now is the book Twenty Thousand Roads - d. meyer is a wonderful writer i think, honestly, but he encapsulates so much of what annoys me about gram parsons (plus i find much of gram's music tepid and forgettable)
quotes from book - " when gram cleaned up even the slightest bit, he made some of the most exquisite, moving, thoughtful, and soulful music of the century"
"there's no proof that gram directly participated in any songs on Exile, but the influence of his taste and philosophy is everywhere"
this treacle goes on and on - as it does with some here on this board - sorry, in my opinion, stripping away some of the glossy myth of gram parsons is okay for me - and i do think he had a school girl idolization of Jagger that completely influenced his presentation -
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:03
I couldn't agree more with you, HB, and it seems that the more evidence presented to reveal any sort of truth on the subject of GP, the more irritated people get. I am a bit miffed that I bought into this myth and bought the double cd, I think it was Wingless Angels, and to say I was disappointed is an understatement of GIGANTIC proportions. So, tell me from your perspective, how it came to be that folks think he helped write " Wild Horses"....did he help with this track? I love the word TEPID, it beautifully describes his music. And when was the tribute concert to GP that Keith attended?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
idiot
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:04
hb and stonesrule are so full of themselves.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:09
Quote
hbwriter
Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
If Parsons didn't play a part in Keith's life then why was Keith at the Parsons tribute?
1. it's probably a fun hang
2. to fulfill the considerable myth building that he helped orchestrate
3. i hardly think an appearance at a concert like that speaks to any great association he had with gram
i will admit - a lot of what is fueling my attitude on this right now is the book Twenty Thousand Roads - d. meyer is a wonderful writer i think, honestly, but he encapsulates so much of what annoys me about gram parsons (plus i find much of gram's music tepid and forgettable)
quotes from book - " when gram cleaned up even the slightest bit, he made some of the most exquisite, moving, thoughtful, and soulful music of the century"
"there's no proof that gram directly participated in any songs on Exile, but the influence of his taste and philosophy is everywhere"
this treacle goes on and on - as it does with some here on this board - sorry, in my opinion, stripping away some of the glossy myth of gram parsons is okay for me - and i do think he had a school girl idolization of Jagger that completely influenced his presentation -
That's the hyperbole that grates. 'philosophy' of Exile. Really?
I've read Gram devotees wax romantic about how his 'sprit' is all over Exile, and that he 'wrote' "Wild Horses".....but because Jagger is so jealous, he was never given proper credit.
That, my friends, is myth making at its best.
There is nothing in his catalogue that even hints at what Exile is.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:10
Quote
Bliss
Quote
stupidguy2
[Good point. Jagger was practical, he didn't romanticize the 'demon life'. Can you imagine being Jagger, and watching your best friend, collaborator sink deeper into drug addiction? And then comes along all these sycophants trying to get close to Keith's inner sanctum - with drugs being the entrance fee....
Perhaps Mick wasn't jealous of GP, but leery. After all, it was Mick who was going to have to deal with the fallout.
It's ironic, isn't it? After all those years of demonising Brian, Keith became the weak link. Not only was his productivity severely impaired, he imperiled the band with the numerous resulting drug busts, just as Brian had done. Karma? Or possibly having the very same destructive girlfriend?
This thread to me has little to with Parsons and his music specifically and more to do with the discourse on this board.
Jagger likely saw the signs of portent in Parsons. Parsons was gone by September 73 - but Richards survived - simply "happy to be here - be anywhere" but the muse was gone. Richards became the weak link – his weaknesses ensured that the Stones would never be the same musically. But Jagger's strengths ensured the band’s survival and the Stones have thrived. This all so obvious narrative seems sadly lost on a fairly large portion of this board. Or perhaps not.....this obvious narrative is what I believe Richards (and Jane Rose) have worked for ~ 3+ decades now trying to counter (might I add somewhat successfully). It was the primary goal of Life - to re-write the story, revise the history of the band and re-authenticate the notion that Richards is somehow the music and Jagger is the business side of the equation. With Life, and Richards claiming the role of the authentic musician, the Jagger-Richards mystique was gone. This is also why many people on this board are sensitive to this Parsons’ thread – there is an even an insinuation in this thread and previous threads that Parsons somehow influenced Exile even more than Mick Jagger – Mick friggin Jagger. Someone suggests that “Jagger was scared that Keith and Gram plan somethin' together” - really - Jagger - Mick friggin Jagger is scared of Gram Parsons – incredulous – and we have Keith aggrandizing this myth in Life - that Mick Jagger may have been the real driver for Parson' departure.
And another cohort has happily in the past insinuated that the Parsons – Richards musical relationship is as or more significant than the Jagger- Richards duo. Parsons-Richards seem to have collaborated on nothing. On the other hand, we have numerous Jagger collaborations with other artists – Ry Cooder, Lennon...
It is the consistent “let me take him down syndrome on this board vis-a-vis Jagger that has made this forum a not so enjoyable place in the last couple of years.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:11
Quote
mickschix
I couldn't agree more with you, HB, and it seems that the more evidence presented to reveal any sort of truth on the subject of GP, the more irritated people get. I am a bit miffed that I bought into this myth and bought the double cd, I think it was Wingless Angels, and to say I was disappointed is an understatement of GIGANTIC proportions. So, tell me from your perspective, how it came to be that folks think he helped write " Wild Horses"....did he help with this track? I love the word TEPID, it beautifully describes his music. And when was the tribute concert to GP that Keith attended?
helped write wild horses? good lord - it's all part of people buying into to the beautiful, drug addled icon that parsons became in death - but that he planted the seeds for in life - how many people did he tell "yeah i'm teaching the stones about country - helping them craft their new sound"? LOTS - this book has several key examples - the tribute was in 2005 - and no, he had ZERO to do with wild horses or ANY OTHER Stones records- same goes for the Eagles- people love to say, "oh they ripped Gram off!" No- Frey and Henley wrote a bunch of hit songs, like them or not (i do) because they are talented songwriters- end of story - parsons was a hanger on - a user - a poser - and a self-appointed country music shaman - he wrote a few nice songs - fine - he did not greatly alter the musical landscape (in my opinion)
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:13
Quote
wanderingspirit66
Quote
Bliss
Quote
stupidguy2
[Good point. Jagger was practical, he didn't romanticize the 'demon life'. Can you imagine being Jagger, and watching your best friend, collaborator sink deeper into drug addiction? And then comes along all these sycophants trying to get close to Keith's inner sanctum - with drugs being the entrance fee....
Perhaps Mick wasn't jealous of GP, but leery. After all, it was Mick who was going to have to deal with the fallout.
It's ironic, isn't it? After all those years of demonising Brian, Keith became the weak link. Not only was his productivity severely impaired, he imperiled the band with the numerous resulting drug busts, just as Brian had done. Karma? Or possibly having the very same destructive girlfriend?
This thread to me has little to with Parsons and his music specifically and more to do with the discourse on this board.
Jagger likely saw the signs of portent in Parsons. Parsons was gone by September 73 - but Richards survived - simply "happy to be here - be anywhere" but the muse was gone. Richards became the weak link – his weaknesses ensured that the Stones would never be the same musically. But Jagger's strengths ensured the band’s survival and the Stones have thrived. This all so obvious narrative seems sadly lost on a fairly large portion of this board. Or perhaps not.....this obvious narrative is what I believe Richards (and Jane Rose) have worked for ~ 3+ decades now trying to counter (might I add somewhat successfully). It was the primary goal of Life - to re-write the story, revise the history of the band and re-authenticate the notion that Richards is somehow the music and Jagger is the business side of the equation. With Life, and Richards claiming the role of the authentic musician, the Jagger-Richards mystique was gone. This is also why many people on this board are sensitive to this Parsons’ thread – there is an even an insinuation in this thread and previous threads that Parsons somehow influenced Exile even more than Mick Jagger – Mick friggin Jagger. Someone suggests that “Jagger was scared that Keith and Gram plan somethin' together” - really - Jagger - Mick friggin Jagger is scared of Gram Parsons – incredulous – and we have Keith aggrandizing this myth in Life - that Mick Jagger may have been the real driver for Parson' departure.
And another cohort has happily in the past insinuated that the Parsons – Richards musical relationship is as or more significant than the Jagger- Richards duo. Parsons-Richards seem to have collaborated on nothing. On the other hand, we have numerous Jagger collaborations with other artists – Ry Cooder, Lennon...
It is the consistent “let me take him down syndrome on this board vis-a-vis Jagger that has made this forum a not so enjoyable place in the last couple of years.
brilliant comment
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:14
Quote
wanderingspirit66
Quote
Bliss
Quote
stupidguy2
[Good point. Jagger was practical, he didn't romanticize the 'demon life'. Can you imagine being Jagger, and watching your best friend, collaborator sink deeper into drug addiction? And then comes along all these sycophants trying to get close to Keith's inner sanctum - with drugs being the entrance fee....
Perhaps Mick wasn't jealous of GP, but leery. After all, it was Mick who was going to have to deal with the fallout.
It's ironic, isn't it? After all those years of demonising Brian, Keith became the weak link. Not only was his productivity severely impaired, he imperiled the band with the numerous resulting drug busts, just as Brian had done. Karma? Or possibly having the very same destructive girlfriend?
This thread to me has little to with Parsons and his music specifically and more to do with the discourse on this board.
Jagger likely saw the signs of portent in Parsons. Parsons was gone by September 73 - but Richards survived - simply "happy to be here - be anywhere" but the muse was gone. Richards became the weak link – his weaknesses ensured that the Stones would never be the same musically. But Jagger's strengths ensured the band’s survival and the Stones have thrived. This all so obvious narrative seems sadly lost on a fairly large portion of this board. Or perhaps not.....this obvious narrative is what I believe Richards (and Jane Rose) have worked for ~ 3+ decades now trying to counter (might I add somewhat successfully). It was the primary goal of Life - to re-write the story, revise the history of the band and re-authenticate the notion that Richards is somehow the music and Jagger is the business side of the equation. With Life, and Richards claiming the role of the authentic musician, the Jagger-Richards mystique was gone. This is also why many people on this board are sensitive to this Parsons’ thread – there is an even an insinuation in this thread and previous threads that Parsons somehow influenced Exile even more than Mick Jagger – Mick friggin Jagger. Someone suggests that “Jagger was scared that Keith and Gram plan somethin' together” - really - Jagger - Mick friggin Jagger is scared of Gram Parsons – incredulous – and we have Keith aggrandizing this myth in Life - that Mick Jagger may have been the real driver for Parson' departure.
And another cohort has happily in the past insinuated that the Parsons – Richards musical relationship is as or more significant than the Jagger- Richards duo. Parsons-Richards seem to have collaborated on nothing. On the other hand, we have numerous Jagger collaborations with other artists – Ry Cooder, Lennon...
It is the consistent “let me take him down syndrome on this board vis-a-vis Jagger that has made this forum a not so enjoyable place in the last couple of years.
Excellent post.
A big component to the GP debate seems to perpetuate the Jagger-is-just-a-businessman myth, and if you visit the GP boards, Mick Jagger is just a glorified front man.
That idea has been promoted for decades by Keith and Anita, and their disciples believe every word.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 13, 2012 22:17
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
wanderingspirit66
Quote
Bliss
Quote
stupidguy2
[Good point. Jagger was practical, he didn't romanticize the 'demon life'. Can you imagine being Jagger, and watching your best friend, collaborator sink deeper into drug addiction? And then comes along all these sycophants trying to get close to Keith's inner sanctum - with drugs being the entrance fee....
Perhaps Mick wasn't jealous of GP, but leery. After all, it was Mick who was going to have to deal with the fallout.
It's ironic, isn't it? After all those years of demonising Brian, Keith became the weak link. Not only was his productivity severely impaired, he imperiled the band with the numerous resulting drug busts, just as Brian had done. Karma? Or possibly having the very same destructive girlfriend?
This thread to me has little to with Parsons and his music specifically and more to do with the discourse on this board.
Jagger likely saw the signs of portent in Parsons. Parsons was gone by September 73 - but Richards survived - simply "happy to be here - be anywhere" but the muse was gone. Richards became the weak link – his weaknesses ensured that the Stones would never be the same musically. But Jagger's strengths ensured the band’s survival and the Stones have thrived. This all so obvious narrative seems sadly lost on a fairly large portion of this board. Or perhaps not.....this obvious narrative is what I believe Richards (and Jane Rose) have worked for ~ 3+ decades now trying to counter (might I add somewhat successfully). It was the primary goal of Life - to re-write the story, revise the history of the band and re-authenticate the notion that Richards is somehow the music and Jagger is the business side of the equation. With Life, and Richards claiming the role of the authentic musician, the Jagger-Richards mystique was gone. This is also why many people on this board are sensitive to this Parsons’ thread – there is an even an insinuation in this thread and previous threads that Parsons somehow influenced Exile even more than Mick Jagger – Mick friggin Jagger. Someone suggests that “Jagger was scared that Keith and Gram plan somethin' together” - really - Jagger - Mick friggin Jagger is scared of Gram Parsons – incredulous – and we have Keith aggrandizing this myth in Life - that Mick Jagger may have been the real driver for Parson' departure.
And another cohort has happily in the past insinuated that the Parsons – Richards musical relationship is as or more significant than the Jagger- Richards duo. Parsons-Richards seem to have collaborated on nothing. On the other hand, we have numerous Jagger collaborations with other artists – Ry Cooder, Lennon...
It is the consistent “let me take him down syndrome on this board vis-a-vis Jagger that has made this forum a not so enjoyable place in the last couple of years.
Excellent post.
A big component to the GP debate seems to perpetuate the Jagger-is-just-a-businessman myth, and if you visit the GP boards, Mick Jagger is just a glorified front man.
That idea has been promoted for decades by Keith and Anita, and their disciples believe every word.
another really great point - maybe it's what drives my need for balance -
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
24FPS , basti , clance65 , Deathgod , Doxa , Glam Descendant , hbwriter , JJackFl , JohnnyBGoode , keefriffhard4life , ldsa257jk , LERIFFHUMAIN , Marhsall , novica , OneHit , rollingrichard , TE , thetiger , Thrylan , tiffjagger
Guests:
140
Record Number of Users:
59
on May 20, 2013 00:52
Record Number of Guests:
253
on May 20, 2013 00:20
