Quote
hbwriter

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 -

Quote
hbwriter

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 -

Quote
His Majesty
I don't care about Gram myths or the HB angst in this thread, but these are groovy tunes man...

Quote
His Majesty
I don't care about Gram myths or the HB angst in this thread

Quote
superrevvy
More on this whole Jagger obsession thing, from today's "The Hill", Washington's
most popular blog:

"To understand Sarah Palin it might work best to view the movie “The U.S. v. John
Lennon.” The Nixon administration was unaccountably preoccupied with John Lennon.
One of the commentators said that they had no interest in others like Mick Jagger
and saw him as a flighty, marginal figure. But Nixon, his men and the FBI were
dogged and driven in their obsession with Lennon.

Quote
duke richardson
I never thought Parsons influenced Exile or co wrote with Keith, but there are several interviews in which Keith refers to 'osmosis'

what I take from that is they learned from each other. like musicians will do.

but I don't think his music is 'tepid'...far from it. its not as exciting as the Stones...no, its different, but very soulful
'Brass Buttons'? listen to that sometime

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
duke richardson
I never thought Parsons influenced Exile or co wrote with Keith, but there are several interviews in which Keith refers to 'osmosis'

what I take from that is they learned from each other. like musicians will do.

but I don't think his music is 'tepid'...far from it. its not as exciting as the Stones...no, its different, but very soulful
'Brass Buttons'? listen to that sometime

I think Brass Buttons starts off brilliantly - i want to love it - then, to me, it meanders into the milquetoast gray area where so much of his music lives - vague, forgettable melodies

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
duke richardson
I never thought Parsons influenced Exile or co wrote with Keith, but there are several interviews in which Keith refers to 'osmosis'

what I take from that is they learned from each other. like musicians will do.

but I don't think his music is 'tepid'...far from it. its not as exciting as the Stones...no, its different, but very soulful
'Brass Buttons'? listen to that sometime

I think Brass Buttons starts off brilliantly - i want to love it - then, to me, it meanders into the milquetoast gray area where so much of his music lives - vague, forgettable melodies

dang

How about 'Hot Burrito #2'?

'The New Soft Shoe' ?

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.

Quote
hbwriter
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 -

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?

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?

Quote
Naturalust
This thread is borderlike sickening in it's detail to Gram's influence and friendships with the Stones. Mostly because it is all "opinions" from people who never met either party, haven't a clue about songwriting or musicianship and somehow believe we give a crap about their ability to disect a relationship which happened 40 years ago. Tells much more about the people posting that Gram really.

How about some first hand information. Someone needs to balance all the BS with some cold hard truth here. I'm feeling a bit like a sacraficial lamb but to preserve the ounce of credibility still left on this board, let's recall what Keith friggin Richards said about the man.

1. "when I met Gram () it widened the range of everything I was playing or writing"

2. "Gram was very, very special and I still miss him"

3. "Gram taught me country music" ,"I know I've had a good teacher in that area"

4. "Gram wrote great songs"

5. "I learned the piano from Gram and started writing songs on it"

6. "Whenever we were together we played. We played all the time. We'd write stuff"

7. I absorbed so much from Gram...it came through in the Stones. You can hear it in Dead Flowers, Torn and Frayed, Sweet Virginia, Wild Horses"

I don't know about you but that sounds an awfully lot like collaboration to me. Keith also talks about the Gram/Mick relationship. Says Mick resented Gram as could be expected. But all this complete hogwash about Gram being less that a very talented muscian and songwriter are misinformed and just hot air, imho. If Gram was just a junkie hanger on user I'd hate to think what that makes you hb. Just my opinion (and Keith's) . peace

Quote
Naturalust
This thread is borderlike sickening in it's detail to Gram's influence and friendships with the Stones. Mostly because it is all "opinions" from people who never met either party, haven't a clue about songwriting or musicianship and somehow believe we give a crap about their ability to disect a relationship which happened 40 years ago. Tells much more about the people posting that Gram really.

How about some first hand information. Someone needs to balance all the BS with some cold hard truth here. I'm feeling a bit like a sacraficial lamb but to preserve the ounce of credibility still left on this board, let's recall what Keith friggin Richards said about the man.

1. "when I met Gram () it widened the range of everything I was playing or writing"

2. "Gram was very, very special and I still miss him"

3. "Gram taught me country music" ,"I know I've had a good teacher in that area"

4. "Gram wrote great songs"

5. "I learned the piano from Gram and started writing songs on it"

6. "Whenever we were together we played. We played all the time. We'd write stuff"

7. I absorbed so much from Gram...it came through in the Stones. You can hear it in Dead Flowers, Torn and Frayed, Sweet Virginia, Wild Horses"

I don't know about you but that sounds an awfully lot like collaboration to me. Keith also talks about the Gram/Mick relationship. Says Mick resented Gram as could be expected. But all this complete hogwash about Gram being less that a very talented muscian and songwriter are misinformed and just hot air, imho. If Gram was just a junkie hanger on user I'd hate to think what that makes you hb. Just my opinion (and Keith's) . peace

Quote
Naturalust
This thread is borderlike sickening in it's detail to Gram's influence and friendships with the Stones. Mostly because it is all "opinions" from people who never met either party, haven't a clue about songwriting or musicianship and somehow believe we give a crap about their ability to disect a relationship which happened 40 years ago. Tells much more about the people posting that Gram really.

How about some first hand information. Someone needs to balance all the BS with some cold hard truth here. I'm feeling a bit like a sacraficial lamb but to preserve the ounce of credibility still left on this board, let's recall what Keith friggin Richards said about the man.

1. "when I met Gram () it widened the range of everything I was playing or writing"

2. "Gram was very, very special and I still miss him"

3. "Gram taught me country music" ,"I know I've had a good teacher in that area"

4. "Gram wrote great songs"

5. "I learned the piano from Gram and started writing songs on it"

6. "Whenever we were together we played. We played all the time. We'd write stuff"

7. I absorbed so much from Gram...it came through in the Stones. You can hear it in Dead Flowers, Torn and Frayed, Sweet Virginia, Wild Horses"

I don't know about you but that sounds an awfully lot like collaboration to me. Keith also talks about the Gram/Mick relationship. Says Mick resented Gram as could be expected. But all this complete hogwash about Gram being less that a very talented muscian and songwriter are misinformed and just hot air, imho. If Gram was just a junkie hanger on user I'd hate to think what that makes you hb. Just my opinion (and Keith's) . peace

Quote
Naturalust
If Gram was just a junkie hanger on user I'd hate to think what that makes you hb. Just my opinion (and Keith's) . peace

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.

Quote
loog droog

Quote
Naturalust
If Gram was just a junkie hanger on user I'd hate to think what that makes you hb. Just my opinion (and Keith's) . peace

When it follows a snarky jab, your habitual "peace" sign-off not only sounds insincere, but it reads like a thinly veiled "F-You."

IMO

Quote
memphiscats
Reading this thread is like watching a rock fight. What's with all of the slagging?

I don't know that much about Gram's music other than "Love Hurts," but why do people shit on him because he came from money? Do you know that his father blew his brains out when Gram was 12? That his mother died as an alcoholic when he was in high school. How much does someone have to suffer to wipe out the "benefits" of inherited wealth? As stated before - everyone is entitled to his or her opinion about his music, but to shit on someone because he came from money does not level the playing field.

Come on...this is crazy. Good people who post great things on IORR are getting shat upon.

I'm seeing signs of the ever-widening gulf between the Mick people VS. Keith people. Don't we all love the Stones? Enjoy Gram's music - or don't. Have a healthy debate about it if you like - but stop all the jealous infighting.
It's like reality TV...it sucks.

People, what are we fighting for?
PEACE, LOVE & THE ROLLING STONES!