Tell Me :
Talk
...................................................................................... Beautiful cat
ROCKMAN
Nesmith had the same Nudie hat, around the same time, too.
Can't argue with any of that. If you think about it, Anita's star was highest when she was making Performance with Mick. Tony Sanchez, admittedly not the most reliable source, quotes her as saying something like "I could break up the band any time I wanted". By then, she had conquered Brian, Keith and Mick. But whether Mick was turned off by her drug use or she was just too skanky for him - Cecil Beaton wrote about how dirty and unkempt she was in Morocco in 1967 - or maybe, just because no woman has been able to control Mick - Mick moved on, and from there, Anita's star began to sink.
That 'live with me period' was fairly brief, and in part, it was a result of Marianne's friendship with Anita which was cemented by their mutual heroin use. But later Mick reverted to type - aspirational bourgeois - and you can see it in all the choices he made. Keith remained in the outlaw stance, and this, to my mind, is the real cause of the rift between them, not sexual jealousy over Anita.
brilliantly said !
as i mentioned earlier, I'm surprised people dont like much of Gram's music when some of the Stones tunes on Exile are inspired by Gram's sound. For instance, the harmonies and music on Torn & Frayed, Loving Cup etc.. are no doubt the influence of Gram.
nuf said
Agree. Although on Anita's part, I always suspected there was some resentments, jealousies. Mick was the lead singer, the focal point of the group, and was, in a say, the most unattainable. Anita had never failed in her seductions. She got him once, but Mick moved on. And you mention Sanchez. lol....
In a way, he is the most derided, contemptible source, and yet - some of his accounts ring very true.
Well, he would only really qualify as a 'troll' if this were indeed a Gram Parsons Appreciation Society board, which it is not. Its a Stones site, and he made an observation about GP in relation to the Stones.
I know you're referring to HB,
But you're classy Naturalist, and I enjoy your posts. We're not always going to agree on everything, but I always worry that my own lack of tact distorts my respect for others.......and I always respect your POV and the manner in which you express it.
Peace.
I've read that, as I've read everything about Gram and Keith from different sources.
I still think his 'influence' is overrated. Gram was apparently a very seductive guy, an anomaly: a southern guy in the midst of all these Brits and Europeans. Sounds like they were all in love with the long-haired guy with the southern pedigree.
And it also seemed they all projected that onto Mick. "Well, Mick must be jealous: 'Gram is so beautiful, so romantic .....'"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 18:47 by stupidguy2.
I guess you didn't read mine. I started a similar thread last year. I had been reading reviews of Stones in Exile and ended up on one of the many GP message boards and they all but were outraged that Gram did not get a mention. They believed it was a conspiracy by Jagger to leave out any mention of GP because he was still so jealous...that's what initially irked. As if Gram deserved more credit than Jagger.
That's the kind of lopsided fanaticism among Gramophiles that set me off.
You made the leap from "they were unhappy that Gram did not get a mention in Stones in Exile" to deciding that must meant that they thought Gram deserved MORE credit than Jagger? really? and that infuriated you so much that you felt compelled to write about it? Why? to put a dead man in his proper place? That was your objective?
Well, there were pages of hyperbole regarding that '@#$%& Jagger' ...and scenarios of Nellcote where Mick was 'lucky' enough to have met Keith Richard etc....you know the myth Max.
lol
but yeah, as a Stone fan, it set me off.
I didn't get nearly the heat as HB has though. The GP fans must have missed it then.
I bet you did not get as much heat becasue you do not tend to over react if/when someone disagrees with you, which is cool.... and keeps things cool.
Throw in some "wuuwhoo wuuuu-whooos" and it will be a best seller... LOL
But I think that's part of the original point: the lack of balance among many GP fans. And I was referring to the shit I read on the GP boards. I think GP is overrated, not that he doesn't have some merit. I like his work with Emmylou Harris, I just think his 'hold' over Exile is vastly overstated.
That idea seems to ruffle some GP fans feathers quite a bit.
And its all cool with me too. I don't upset at disagreement - I like debate, but when the accusations fly, the name-calling, that's just tacky.
That's the thing about these boards: I never get too worked up when someone disagrees, because I know that I very well may be agreeing with that same poster on another topic. A little healthy debate is not bad.
Peace.
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:
tatters
()
Date: March 14, 2012 05:42
"You sing songs about brass buttons, and shiny silver shoes .... "
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 06:20 by tatters.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 06:20 by tatters.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: March 14, 2012 06:48
...................................................................................... Beautiful cat
ROCKMANRe: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: March 14, 2012 06:54
yes, he had an amazing look - i doubt anyone will deny that -
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: March 14, 2012 07:13
Quote
hbwriter
yes, he had an amazing look - i doubt anyone will deny that -
Nesmith had the same Nudie hat, around the same time, too.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: March 14, 2012 12:18
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
proudmary
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.
Bravo, wanderingspirit66! Great post! You said what I was trying to say, but you did a lot better
Anita started all this myth about Parson being the main musical partner of Richards. I remember her quote (I'm paraphrasing from memory) how Jagger with his narrow businessman mind could never understand why Keith needed to bond with a real musician like GP. Keith could not be inspired by Jagger and his talk of business.
She invented this Jagger jealousy of Parson
In fact, Richards(and Anita) were jealous of Bianca, he even claimed that she prevented them from working together. I think the whole Parson incident - not counting the drugs of course - was raffled to annoy Jagger, take revenge on him for marrying Bianca and having new and interesting friends. No accident that when Mick finally went to Paris (before the birth of his daughter), Keith and Anita immediately kicked Parson out of Nellcote.
ProudMary, those are excellent points, and it also opens up a whole new can of worms.
I think Bianca became a scapegoat in many ways. And I will always believe (just my opinion) that Anita resented Mick for ultimately rejecting her. Keith (again, my opinion) resented Jagger for moving on from the druggie/'bohemian' lifestyle of the "Live With Me" Mick/Marianne/Anita/Keith era.
Mick simply moved on from all that. Marsha Hunt talked about how she stayed away from Anita and Keith because it was a destructive scene. Chris O'Dell said the same thing. It could have been Bianca, it could have been anybody.....Mick is just too restless a character to be stagnant in that kind of lifestyle.
Keith and Anita got stuck in that world and got hooked on heroin. Mick had other things to do.....
Keith, I believe, truly loves Mick and has become a little more generous except when he's trying to be funny and cute...
but to this day, Anita derides "Jagger".
Can't argue with any of that. If you think about it, Anita's star was highest when she was making Performance with Mick. Tony Sanchez, admittedly not the most reliable source, quotes her as saying something like "I could break up the band any time I wanted". By then, she had conquered Brian, Keith and Mick. But whether Mick was turned off by her drug use or she was just too skanky for him - Cecil Beaton wrote about how dirty and unkempt she was in Morocco in 1967 - or maybe, just because no woman has been able to control Mick - Mick moved on, and from there, Anita's star began to sink.
That 'live with me period' was fairly brief, and in part, it was a result of Marianne's friendship with Anita which was cemented by their mutual heroin use. But later Mick reverted to type - aspirational bourgeois - and you can see it in all the choices he made. Keith remained in the outlaw stance, and this, to my mind, is the real cause of the rift between them, not sexual jealousy over Anita.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: March 14, 2012 12:35
<<Mick friggin Jagger is scared of Gram Parsons <<
I don't see Jagger being scared of anybody but well ....
I guess the following article has already been posted but in case
[theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com]
During that time, Keith Richards & Gram Parsons were close friends– with Gram feeding Richards a steady diet of country music influence. They both were pretty wrecked most of the time on anything from marijuana, cocaine, heroine, you name it, to plain ol’ booze. Keith Richards recalls–....
Mick and Gram never really clicked, mainly because the Stones are such a tribal thing. At the same time, Mick was listening to what Gram was doing. Mick’s got ears. Sometimes, while we were making Exile on Main Street in France, the three of us would be plonking away on Hank Williams songs while waiting for the rest of the band to arrive. Gram had the biggest repertoire of country songs you could imagine. He was never short of a song.”
“The drugs and drinking — he was no better or worse than the rest of us. He just made that one fatal mistake — taking that one hit after he cleaned up, still thinking he could take the same amount. And it was too f*cking much. But he didn’t get into dope because of us. He knew his stuff before he met us
.....
Author A. E. Hotchner has this to say about Anita Pallenberg’s influence on the development and presentation of The Rolling Stones from the late 1960s and through the 1970s– She played an unusual role in the male-dominated world of rock music in the late 1960s, acting as much more than just a groupie or partner of a band member. Mick Jagger apparently respected her opinion enough that tracks on Beggars Banquet were remixed when Pallenberg criticised them
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
I don't see Jagger being scared of anybody but well ....
I guess the following article has already been posted but in case
[theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com]
During that time, Keith Richards & Gram Parsons were close friends– with Gram feeding Richards a steady diet of country music influence. They both were pretty wrecked most of the time on anything from marijuana, cocaine, heroine, you name it, to plain ol’ booze. Keith Richards recalls–....
Mick and Gram never really clicked, mainly because the Stones are such a tribal thing. At the same time, Mick was listening to what Gram was doing. Mick’s got ears. Sometimes, while we were making Exile on Main Street in France, the three of us would be plonking away on Hank Williams songs while waiting for the rest of the band to arrive. Gram had the biggest repertoire of country songs you could imagine. He was never short of a song.”
“The drugs and drinking — he was no better or worse than the rest of us. He just made that one fatal mistake — taking that one hit after he cleaned up, still thinking he could take the same amount. And it was too f*cking much. But he didn’t get into dope because of us. He knew his stuff before he met us
.....
Author A. E. Hotchner has this to say about Anita Pallenberg’s influence on the development and presentation of The Rolling Stones from the late 1960s and through the 1970s– She played an unusual role in the male-dominated world of rock music in the late 1960s, acting as much more than just a groupie or partner of a band member. Mick Jagger apparently respected her opinion enough that tracks on Beggars Banquet were remixed when Pallenberg criticised them
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: March 14, 2012 13:44
The Observer previews Stones in Exile, the new documentary about the making of Exile on Main Street. It’s a great write-up, pulling lots of great quotes from Keith and the rest of the gang. This part in particular piqued my interest:
Interestingly, the Stones in Exile documentary does not even mention Parsons, whose closeness to Richards rattled the possessive Jagger. “Keith and Gram were intimate like brothers,” says [photographer Dominique] Tarle, “especially musically. The idea was floating around that Gram would produce a Gram Parsons album for the newly formed Rolling Stones Records. Mick, I think, was a little afraid because that would mean that Gram and Keith might even tour together to promote it. And if there is no room for Mick, there is no room also for the Rolling Stones. So, yes, there was tension. You could feel it and I captured it on Mick’s face in some of my pictures.”
Sure, it’s just the interpretation of of events by a photographer who hung out with the band for a while, but still. What if, what if, what if…
Interestingly, the Stones in Exile documentary does not even mention Parsons, whose closeness to Richards rattled the possessive Jagger. “Keith and Gram were intimate like brothers,” says [photographer Dominique] Tarle, “especially musically. The idea was floating around that Gram would produce a Gram Parsons album for the newly formed Rolling Stones Records. Mick, I think, was a little afraid because that would mean that Gram and Keith might even tour together to promote it. And if there is no room for Mick, there is no room also for the Rolling Stones. So, yes, there was tension. You could feel it and I captured it on Mick’s face in some of my pictures.”
Sure, it’s just the interpretation of of events by a photographer who hung out with the band for a while, but still. What if, what if, what if…
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: March 14, 2012 13:47
Quote
andrewm
Honestly,I could care less whether people like or dislike Gram Parsons' music. You hear a weak voice, I hear a heartwrenching one. You hear songs that are tepid and forgettable, I hear...man, where to begin: $1000 Wedding, Brass Buttons, New Soft Shoe, Luxury Liner, Hickory Wind, Return of the Grievous Angel, many of my favourite songs...ever. I dunno, maybe you have to be a bit of a drama queen to dig the man's music. Certainly seems like he was a bit of one. But I gotta wonder why the whole subject seems to bother some of you so much. hbwriter, you did cover this subject exhaustively in a thread a ways back that I believe you started about cult artists you felt were overrated and you're back on it now. It's like the guy slept with your girlfriend or something. I'm guessing he was a pretty flawed human being, not unlike many other artistic types, but since I won't be hanging with him any time soon, I don't really mind. It's that voice and those songs I'm interested in.
And michschix, you should probably contact the Parsons estate about getting a refund for the cd anthology you bought and hated. It has clearly stuck in your craw.
brilliantly said !
as i mentioned earlier, I'm surprised people dont like much of Gram's music when some of the Stones tunes on Exile are inspired by Gram's sound. For instance, the harmonies and music on Torn & Frayed, Loving Cup etc.. are no doubt the influence of Gram.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: March 14, 2012 14:29
Gram seems both overrated and underrated!
Underrated in that the average person on the street doesn't know who he is due to a lack of hit records. This is a shame and their loss.
Overrated by being given most (if not all) the credit for country-rock. Many others were working the same area - Nesmith, Nelson, etc.
One who seems to be overlooked (due to his later image, I guess) is Kenny Rogers. The First Edition had some really good songs (Ruby Don't TaKe Your Love To Town, You Know I Love You, etc.). Also, Kenny was responsible for bringing Don Henley's band Shiloh to California.
Underrated in that the average person on the street doesn't know who he is due to a lack of hit records. This is a shame and their loss.
Overrated by being given most (if not all) the credit for country-rock. Many others were working the same area - Nesmith, Nelson, etc.
One who seems to be overlooked (due to his later image, I guess) is Kenny Rogers. The First Edition had some really good songs (Ruby Don't TaKe Your Love To Town, You Know I Love You, etc.). Also, Kenny was responsible for bringing Don Henley's band Shiloh to California.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 14, 2012 17:05
hb my apologies for the less than complimentary comments. I somehow felt the scales needed to be balanced a bit more concerning Gram. Your words about a guy who has been dead nearly 40 years seemed unnecessary and brutal. I have always tried to stand up to bullies and it appeared that you were bullying the matter such that most would have been intimidated to counter your claims.
Chris Hillman may have spoken to you plenty about Gram's addictions but to what end? We all know junkies have one thing that dominates their lives while they are addicted. We could take any junkie and bust him over the rails with words, not too many will stand up and look at the human inside.
I will contend that Gram probably would have cleaned up, likely long before Keith. He could have just as easily become something MUCH MUCH greater than you make him out to be. The guy was good even as a junkie, imagine what a clean and sober Gram could have done. To continue to call people junkies and focus on their actions while they were sick just didn't (doesn't) sit right with me. Addiction is a disease and who can earnestly kick a sick person while they are down? Also it seems to need mentioning that Mick took copius amounts of drugs well into the 1980's, albiet different one's than Keith and more privately.
But this post is mainly to apologize for my rather cutting remarks, it really wasn't right for me to join in the fray using the same weapons of words when that is really what seemed wrong about this thread. Yes of course I quoted Keith's Life when referring to Gram, what better source exists? I doubt he was making up stories about him and I choose to believe his words and general take on Gram the man, the musician, the innovator and country enthusiast.
btw: That video you posted in the beginning seemed pretty damn cool to me. Especially for the time it was released. That guitar solo is sweet! It appeared to me they were just having a good time, tongue in cheek a bit. Hardly something to take issue with Gram's alledged infactuation with Mick. Again, my apologies. peace
Chris Hillman may have spoken to you plenty about Gram's addictions but to what end? We all know junkies have one thing that dominates their lives while they are addicted. We could take any junkie and bust him over the rails with words, not too many will stand up and look at the human inside.
I will contend that Gram probably would have cleaned up, likely long before Keith. He could have just as easily become something MUCH MUCH greater than you make him out to be. The guy was good even as a junkie, imagine what a clean and sober Gram could have done. To continue to call people junkies and focus on their actions while they were sick just didn't (doesn't) sit right with me. Addiction is a disease and who can earnestly kick a sick person while they are down? Also it seems to need mentioning that Mick took copius amounts of drugs well into the 1980's, albiet different one's than Keith and more privately.
But this post is mainly to apologize for my rather cutting remarks, it really wasn't right for me to join in the fray using the same weapons of words when that is really what seemed wrong about this thread. Yes of course I quoted Keith's Life when referring to Gram, what better source exists? I doubt he was making up stories about him and I choose to believe his words and general take on Gram the man, the musician, the innovator and country enthusiast.
btw: That video you posted in the beginning seemed pretty damn cool to me. Especially for the time it was released. That guitar solo is sweet! It appeared to me they were just having a good time, tongue in cheek a bit. Hardly something to take issue with Gram's alledged infactuation with Mick. Again, my apologies. peace
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 14, 2012 17:25
I never read a word you posted that needed an apology Naturalust, of course it is your business to do what you want, but I thought you were were fair, and fairly responded only when halfbakedwriter got nasty, which is his style. If/when anyone ever says a word that does not gushingly agree with him, he starts lashing out in the most unneeded nasty manner. That is his style.
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:02
Hbwriter succeeded in his quest as a troll. Nuf said?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:19
Quote
filstan
Hbwriter succeeded in his quest as a troll. Nuf said?
nuf saidRe: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:32
But aren't you trolling him now by calling him "halfbakedwriter"? Your post will only get a rise out of him and he'll respond in a not-so-friendly manner now. If you want the trolling to cease, then don't do it yourself.Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I never read a word you posted that needed an apology Naturalust, of course it is your business to do what you want, but I thought you were were fair, and fairly responded only when halfbakedwriter got nasty, which is his style. If/when anyone ever says a word that does not gushingly agree with him, he starts lashing out in the most unneeded nasty manner. That is his style.
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:32
Quote
Bliss
Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
proudmary
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.
Bravo, wanderingspirit66! Great post! You said what I was trying to say, but you did a lot better
Anita started all this myth about Parson being the main musical partner of Richards. I remember her quote (I'm paraphrasing from memory) how Jagger with his narrow businessman mind could never understand why Keith needed to bond with a real musician like GP. Keith could not be inspired by Jagger and his talk of business.
She invented this Jagger jealousy of Parson
In fact, Richards(and Anita) were jealous of Bianca, he even claimed that she prevented them from working together. I think the whole Parson incident - not counting the drugs of course - was raffled to annoy Jagger, take revenge on him for marrying Bianca and having new and interesting friends. No accident that when Mick finally went to Paris (before the birth of his daughter), Keith and Anita immediately kicked Parson out of Nellcote.
ProudMary, those are excellent points, and it also opens up a whole new can of worms.
I think Bianca became a scapegoat in many ways. And I will always believe (just my opinion) that Anita resented Mick for ultimately rejecting her. Keith (again, my opinion) resented Jagger for moving on from the druggie/'bohemian' lifestyle of the "Live With Me" Mick/Marianne/Anita/Keith era.
Mick simply moved on from all that. Marsha Hunt talked about how she stayed away from Anita and Keith because it was a destructive scene. Chris O'Dell said the same thing. It could have been Bianca, it could have been anybody.....Mick is just too restless a character to be stagnant in that kind of lifestyle.
Keith and Anita got stuck in that world and got hooked on heroin. Mick had other things to do.....
Keith, I believe, truly loves Mick and has become a little more generous except when he's trying to be funny and cute...
but to this day, Anita derides "Jagger".
Can't argue with any of that. If you think about it, Anita's star was highest when she was making Performance with Mick. Tony Sanchez, admittedly not the most reliable source, quotes her as saying something like "I could break up the band any time I wanted". By then, she had conquered Brian, Keith and Mick. But whether Mick was turned off by her drug use or she was just too skanky for him - Cecil Beaton wrote about how dirty and unkempt she was in Morocco in 1967 - or maybe, just because no woman has been able to control Mick - Mick moved on, and from there, Anita's star began to sink.
That 'live with me period' was fairly brief, and in part, it was a result of Marianne's friendship with Anita which was cemented by their mutual heroin use. But later Mick reverted to type - aspirational bourgeois - and you can see it in all the choices he made. Keith remained in the outlaw stance, and this, to my mind, is the real cause of the rift between them, not sexual jealousy over Anita.
Agree. Although on Anita's part, I always suspected there was some resentments, jealousies. Mick was the lead singer, the focal point of the group, and was, in a say, the most unattainable. Anita had never failed in her seductions. She got him once, but Mick moved on. And you mention Sanchez. lol....
In a way, he is the most derided, contemptible source, and yet - some of his accounts ring very true.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:34
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Quote
filstan
Hbwriter succeeded in his quest as a troll. Nuf said?
Well, he would only really qualify as a 'troll' if this were indeed a Gram Parsons Appreciation Society board, which it is not. Its a Stones site, and he made an observation about GP in relation to the Stones.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:40
Quote
Naturalust
hb my apologies for the less than complimentary comments. I somehow felt the scales needed to be balanced a bit more concerning Gram. Your words about a guy who has been dead nearly 40 years seemed unnecessary and brutal. I have always tried to stand up to bullies and it appeared that you were bullying the matter such that most would have been intimidated to counter your claims.
Chris Hillman may have spoken to you plenty about Gram's addictions but to what end? We all know junkies have one thing that dominates their lives while they are addicted. We could take any junkie and bust him over the rails with words, not too many will stand up and look at the human inside.
I will contend that Gram probably would have cleaned up, likely long before Keith. He could have just as easily become something MUCH MUCH greater than you make him out to be. The guy was good even as a junkie, imagine what a clean and sober Gram could have done. To continue to call people junkies and focus on their actions while they were sick just didn't (doesn't) sit right with me. Addiction is a disease and who can earnestly kick a sick person while they are down? Also it seems to need mentioning that Mick took copius amounts of drugs well into the 1980's, albiet different one's than Keith and more privately.
But this post is mainly to apologize for my rather cutting remarks, it really wasn't right for me to join in the fray using the same weapons of words when that is really what seemed wrong about this thread. Yes of course I quoted Keith's Life when referring to Gram, what better source exists? I doubt he was making up stories about him and I choose to believe his words and general take on Gram the man, the musician, the innovator and country enthusiast.
btw: That video you posted in the beginning seemed pretty damn cool to me. Especially for the time it was released. That guitar solo is sweet! It appeared to me they were just having a good time, tongue in cheek a bit. Hardly something to take issue with Gram's alledged infactuation with Mick. Again, my apologies. peace
I know you're referring to HB,
But you're classy Naturalist, and I enjoy your posts. We're not always going to agree on everything, but I always worry that my own lack of tact distorts my respect for others.......and I always respect your POV and the manner in which you express it.
Peace.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:42
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 18:43 by Max'sKansasCity.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 18:43 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:45
Quote
SwayStones
The Observer previews Stones in Exile, the new documentary about the making of Exile on Main Street. It’s a great write-up, pulling lots of great quotes from Keith and the rest of the gang. This part in particular piqued my interest:
Interestingly, the Stones in Exile documentary does not even mention Parsons, whose closeness to Richards rattled the possessive Jagger. “Keith and Gram were intimate like brothers,” says [photographer Dominique] Tarle, “especially musically. The idea was floating around that Gram would produce a Gram Parsons album for the newly formed Rolling Stones Records. Mick, I think, was a little afraid because that would mean that Gram and Keith might even tour together to promote it. And if there is no room for Mick, there is no room also for the Rolling Stones. So, yes, there was tension. You could feel it and I captured it on Mick’s face in some of my pictures.”
Sure, it’s just the interpretation of of events by a photographer who hung out with the band for a while, but still. What if, what if, what if…
I've read that, as I've read everything about Gram and Keith from different sources.
I still think his 'influence' is overrated. Gram was apparently a very seductive guy, an anomaly: a southern guy in the midst of all these Brits and Europeans. Sounds like they were all in love with the long-haired guy with the southern pedigree.
And it also seemed they all projected that onto Mick. "Well, Mick must be jealous: 'Gram is so beautiful, so romantic .....'"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 18:47 by stupidguy2.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 18:50
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I never read a word you posted that needed an apology Naturalust, of course it is your business to do what you want, but I thought you were were fair, and fairly responded only when halfbakedwriter got nasty, which is his style. If/when anyone ever says a word that does not gushingly agree with him, he starts lashing out in the most unneeded nasty manner. That is his style.
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
I guess you didn't read mine. I started a similar thread last year. I had been reading reviews of Stones in Exile and ended up on one of the many GP message boards and they all but were outraged that Gram did not get a mention. They believed it was a conspiracy by Jagger to leave out any mention of GP because he was still so jealous...that's what initially irked. As if Gram deserved more credit than Jagger.
That's the kind of lopsided fanaticism among Gramophiles that set me off.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 14, 2012 19:09
Just set you off, eh?Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I never read a word you posted that needed an apology Naturalust, of course it is your business to do what you want, but I thought you were were fair, and fairly responded only when halfbakedwriter got nasty, which is his style. If/when anyone ever says a word that does not gushingly agree with him, he starts lashing out in the most unneeded nasty manner. That is his style.
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
I guess you didn't read mine. I started a similar thread last year. I had been reading reviews of Stones in Exile and ended up on one of the many GP message boards and they all but were outraged that Gram did not get a mention. They believed it was a conspiracy by Jagger to leave out any mention of GP because he was still so jealous...that's what initially irked. As if Gram deserved more credit than Jagger.
That's the kind of lopsided fanaticism among Gramophiles that set me off.
You made the leap from "they were unhappy that Gram did not get a mention in Stones in Exile" to deciding that must meant that they thought Gram deserved MORE credit than Jagger? really? and that infuriated you so much that you felt compelled to write about it? Why? to put a dead man in his proper place? That was your objective?
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 19:18
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Just set you off, eh?Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I never read a word you posted that needed an apology Naturalust, of course it is your business to do what you want, but I thought you were were fair, and fairly responded only when halfbakedwriter got nasty, which is his style. If/when anyone ever says a word that does not gushingly agree with him, he starts lashing out in the most unneeded nasty manner. That is his style.
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
I guess you didn't read mine. I started a similar thread last year. I had been reading reviews of Stones in Exile and ended up on one of the many GP message boards and they all but were outraged that Gram did not get a mention. They believed it was a conspiracy by Jagger to leave out any mention of GP because he was still so jealous...that's what initially irked. As if Gram deserved more credit than Jagger.
That's the kind of lopsided fanaticism among Gramophiles that set me off.
You made the leap from "they were unhappy that Gram did not get a mention in Stones in Exile" to deciding that must meant that they thought Gram deserved MORE credit than Jagger? really? and that infuriated you so much that you felt compelled to write about it? Why? to put a dead man in his proper place? That was your objective?
Well, there were pages of hyperbole regarding that '@#$%& Jagger' ...and scenarios of Nellcote where Mick was 'lucky' enough to have met Keith Richard etc....you know the myth Max.
lol
but yeah, as a Stone fan, it set me off.
I didn't get nearly the heat as HB has though. The GP fans must have missed it then.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
andrewm
()
Date: March 14, 2012 19:21
Okay, but it seems you're suggesting that there's no middle ground at all: you're either a fanatical "Gramophile" or you think he's vastly overrated, like yourself, hbwriter, etc. I'm well aware the man was clearly very flawed and probably had too high an opinion of himself, etc. but I do love his music and I don't think it's "overrated". I've never been to a Gram message board and I don't obsess over the man. You'd think he was in the Black Crowes (whom I also really like) or something because that's the only other act I've seen raked over the coals so much on here. And in those cases I'd be thinking the same thing as I'm thinking here: okay, you don't dig it, but why the vitriol? It's not like they're egregious, like, I dunno, Nickelback or Motley Crue or something.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 14, 2012 19:23
I am really not that big of a fan of GP, I just generally let the dead rest without bashing on them too hard, I am not sure what good can come from that... but everyone has their own thoughts and opinions, and that is cool.Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Just set you off, eh?Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I never read a word you posted that needed an apology Naturalust, of course it is your business to do what you want, but I thought you were were fair, and fairly responded only when halfbakedwriter got nasty, which is his style. If/when anyone ever says a word that does not gushingly agree with him, he starts lashing out in the most unneeded nasty manner. That is his style.
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
I guess you didn't read mine. I started a similar thread last year. I had been reading reviews of Stones in Exile and ended up on one of the many GP message boards and they all but were outraged that Gram did not get a mention. They believed it was a conspiracy by Jagger to leave out any mention of GP because he was still so jealous...that's what initially irked. As if Gram deserved more credit than Jagger.
That's the kind of lopsided fanaticism among Gramophiles that set me off.
You made the leap from "they were unhappy that Gram did not get a mention in Stones in Exile" to deciding that must meant that they thought Gram deserved MORE credit than Jagger? really? and that infuriated you so much that you felt compelled to write about it? Why? to put a dead man in his proper place? That was your objective?
Well, there were pages of hyperbole regarding that '@#$%& Jagger' ...and scenarios of Nellcote where Mick was 'lucky' enough to have met Keith Richard etc....you know the myth Max.
lol
but yeah, as a Stone fan, it set me off.
I didn't get nearly the heat as HB has though. The GP fans must have missed it then.
I bet you did not get as much heat becasue you do not tend to over react if/when someone disagrees with you, which is cool.... and keeps things cool.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: March 14, 2012 19:35
Max'sKansasCity wrote:
I bet you did not get as much heat because you do not tend to over react if/when someone disagrees with you, which is cool.... and keeps things cool.
Those would be some good Stones lyrics, Max!
Keep Things Cool (Jagger/Richards/City/Lewis)
When It Gets Too Hot
You Keep Things Cool
When We're All Fried
You Don't Act The Fool
I Bet You Did Not Get As Much Heat
Didn't Overreact, You're So Cool
But There's Fever In The Funkhouse Now
And You're Keeping It Cool, I Don't Know How....
Yadayadayada
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 19:37 by Elmo Lewis.
I bet you did not get as much heat because you do not tend to over react if/when someone disagrees with you, which is cool.... and keeps things cool.
Those would be some good Stones lyrics, Max!
Keep Things Cool (Jagger/Richards/City/Lewis)
When It Gets Too Hot
You Keep Things Cool
When We're All Fried
You Don't Act The Fool
I Bet You Did Not Get As Much Heat
Didn't Overreact, You're So Cool
But There's Fever In The Funkhouse Now
And You're Keeping It Cool, I Don't Know How....
Yadayadayada
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 19:37 by Elmo Lewis.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: March 14, 2012 19:43
lolQuote
Elmo Lewis
Max'sKansasCity wrote:
I bet you did not get as much heat because you do not tend to over react if/when someone disagrees with you, which is cool.... and keeps things cool.
Those would be some good Stones lyrics, Max!
Keep Things Cool (Jagger/Richards/City/Lewis)
When It Gets Too Hot
You Keep Things Cool
When We're All Fried
You Don't Act The Fool
I Bet You Did Not Get As Much Heat
Didn't Overreact, You're So Cool
But There's Fever In The Funkhouse Now
And You're Keeping It Cool, I Don't Know How....
Yadayadayada
Throw in some "wuuwhoo wuuuu-whooos" and it will be a best seller... LOL
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 20:18
Quote
andrewm
Okay, but it seems you're suggesting that there's no middle ground at all: you're either a fanatical "Gramophile" or you think he's vastly overrated, like yourself, hbwriter, etc. I'm well aware the man was clearly very flawed and probably had too high an opinion of himself, etc. but I do love his music and I don't think it's "overrated". I've never been to a Gram message board and I don't obsess over the man. You'd think he was in the Black Crowes (whom I also really like) or something because that's the only other act I've seen raked over the coals so much on here. And in those cases I'd be thinking the same thing as I'm thinking here: okay, you don't dig it, but why the vitriol? It's not like they're egregious, like, I dunno, Nickelback or Motley Crue or something.
But I think that's part of the original point: the lack of balance among many GP fans. And I was referring to the shit I read on the GP boards. I think GP is overrated, not that he doesn't have some merit. I like his work with Emmylou Harris, I just think his 'hold' over Exile is vastly overstated.
That idea seems to ruffle some GP fans feathers quite a bit.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: March 14, 2012 20:21
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I am really not that big of a fan of GP, I just generally let the dead rest without bashing on them too hard, I am not sure what good can come from that... but everyone has their own thoughts and opinions, and that is cool.Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Just set you off, eh?Quote
stupidguy2
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
I never read a word you posted that needed an apology Naturalust, of course it is your business to do what you want, but I thought you were were fair, and fairly responded only when halfbakedwriter got nasty, which is his style. If/when anyone ever says a word that does not gushingly agree with him, he starts lashing out in the most unneeded nasty manner. That is his style.
Facts be known there was no need for this thread to even be started.... why bash a man who is 40 years dead? Why? what is the objective? to sell an upcoming story halfbaked is writing?? Does he have nothing better to write about? nothing more positive to write about?
I guess you didn't read mine. I started a similar thread last year. I had been reading reviews of Stones in Exile and ended up on one of the many GP message boards and they all but were outraged that Gram did not get a mention. They believed it was a conspiracy by Jagger to leave out any mention of GP because he was still so jealous...that's what initially irked. As if Gram deserved more credit than Jagger.
That's the kind of lopsided fanaticism among Gramophiles that set me off.
You made the leap from "they were unhappy that Gram did not get a mention in Stones in Exile" to deciding that must meant that they thought Gram deserved MORE credit than Jagger? really? and that infuriated you so much that you felt compelled to write about it? Why? to put a dead man in his proper place? That was your objective?
Well, there were pages of hyperbole regarding that '@#$%& Jagger' ...and scenarios of Nellcote where Mick was 'lucky' enough to have met Keith Richard etc....you know the myth Max.
lol
but yeah, as a Stone fan, it set me off.
I didn't get nearly the heat as HB has though. The GP fans must have missed it then.
I bet you did not get as much heat becasue you do not tend to over react if/when someone disagrees with you, which is cool.... and keeps things cool.
And its all cool with me too. I don't upset at disagreement - I like debate, but when the accusations fly, the name-calling, that's just tacky.
That's the thing about these boards: I never get too worked up when someone disagrees, because I know that I very well may be agreeing with that same poster on another topic. A little healthy debate is not bad.
Peace.
Re: Keith? No - Gram was obsessed with Mick
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 14, 2012 20:30
Sigh...why does everything have to be all or nothing here? Where is nuance? These things are rarely black & white. Gram was neither a genius nor a worthless idiot. It is possible (even common) for someone to be both extremely talented and personally difficult. Why do we have to line up on one side or another? Jagger's motives for keeping Gram at arm's length are probably complicated and multi-faceted.
I don't agree with much of hb's thesis about Parsons and Jagger, but he has the right to post it and shouldn't be called a "troll" for doing so, or personally attacked.
As for "letting the dead rest": We have the right to discuss people who happen to be dead, whether it be Gram, Brian, Tony Sanchez or anyone else. Death does not exempt someone from critical judgment, and I do not understand this hyper-sensitivity to discussing a person who happens to be dead. Their achievements are not enhanced by their death and their shortcomings are not erased by it either. By this mentality we shouldn't be able to discuss any historical figure that is no longer living, which is just silly.
Why does this subject bring out such emotional responses in people?
I don't agree with much of hb's thesis about Parsons and Jagger, but he has the right to post it and shouldn't be called a "troll" for doing so, or personally attacked.
As for "letting the dead rest": We have the right to discuss people who happen to be dead, whether it be Gram, Brian, Tony Sanchez or anyone else. Death does not exempt someone from critical judgment, and I do not understand this hyper-sensitivity to discussing a person who happens to be dead. Their achievements are not enhanced by their death and their shortcomings are not erased by it either. By this mentality we shouldn't be able to discuss any historical figure that is no longer living, which is just silly.
Why does this subject bring out such emotional responses in people?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexs , AllAboutYours , crholmstrom , davebates , dcba , Domonkos , GravityBoy , greenriver , Harm , hummingbird , JimmyShelter , Keef1966 , kowalski , mailexile67 , matsumoto33 , piet , Scooby , SimonN , stonemac , voodoochild , whitem8 , Wild Slivovitz
Guests:
191
Record Number of Users:
56
on May 17, 2013 21:31
Record Number of Guests:
253
on May 18, 2013 00:29
