Tell Me :
Talk
You don't wanna hear music from my boss - that would make you scream for the Johnny Depp-show again
With respect, Dandie, I disagree. I don't "judge" the man doing all those things you describe above, because he doesn't - and not even Jane Rose - make much noise about them in public. What I always have admired in all of the Stones is their low profile attitude on all kinds of "charity" things. It's their private concern, not a part of PR campaign. They are not any bonos or madonnas of this world. That's a classy act.
But what I judge is the person who comes across in public. The public figure, musician, performer, celebrity... That's the target of my critisism (be it good or bad), not the 'real' person behind it. I don't know Keith Richards personally; I am just a fan, and an observator from distance; all I can do is to 'judge' the phenomenen that is offered to me. LIFE - what he chose to write in there - is a very strong piece of public Keith Richards.
Besides, I have in this thread discussed the public profile of Keith Richards - and, for example, its relation to Jagger's and Jones's. What I haven't "judge" is for example, his incredible musical contribution. Of course, that's part of the public Keith as well. But that wasn't the issue here.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 15:32 by Doxa.
Reading that book carefully, as I did, Keith is fairly dismissive of his band mates all the way around. Apart from Watts and Stu getting some acknowledgement, Wyman, Wood, Taylor and Jones are given short shrift, even though they aren't trashed like Jagger. Oh well. I enjoyed reading it for what it was. They say you should never want to "meet" your heroes, and if this book is any clue, the idea probably applies.
In all cases, it's hard for journalists to remain objective. And it all depends on the news angle they wanna present. So that might explain some of the totally different focuses in the stories here.
A more Brian-friendly reporter would probably have focused on the brilliant musicianship on Aftermath, and the fact that Brian created new sounds. Instead, it's all about the lost image.
Thanks for posting, Philip. I enjoyed these clips. Never seen them before.
Rave was a teen girl magazine, Beat Instrumental was for musicians etc, but as if to prove your point....
Beat Instrumental - 1966
I think the Rave - Brian article is right for that particular reporter at that particular time, hence me saying ebbs and flows in my pervious post and what you say matches what i'm thinking.
I think it does reflect the shifts within the band though and it's typical of the total contradictory oddity that is Brian Jones.
I think Bill talks about this article in Stone Alone and says something like it was due to Andrew blocking the press from talking to Brian, Bill etc. That he was fixing things for Mick and Keith. I can't recall the exact wording, but something like that.
Whether what Bill says is true I do not know, but it's interesting in context of mid - late 1966 because following that article there was a spree of Brian interviews in NME and Meldoy Maker.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 17:09 by His Majesty.
Yup! The ethos behind the magazines themselves are total contrasts from one another.
Those Beat Instrumental magazines are great, totally different angle than most if not all of the other stuff written about them from the time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 17:27 by His Majesty.
[www.iorr.org]
Unfortunately, HM, I'm not holding my breath on that one. Besides, don't think there's enough paper in the world to print that one either
It is a beautiful thought though ...
------------------------
"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...
What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"
Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 21, 2012 13:28
LOL!
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 13:46
Quote
KeithNacho
Is DandelionPowderman Jane Rose?????
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 21, 2012 13:53
Unfortunately, just a fan...
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: March 21, 2012 13:56
A big big fan my friend.................just like me...........
Anyway, tell your boss how happy i have been since his music and attitude ruined my life
Tell hi to take care of himself, and tell him to practise a little for the last big performances
Anyway, tell your boss how happy i have been since his music and attitude ruined my life
Tell hi to take care of himself, and tell him to practise a little for the last big performances
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 21, 2012 14:04
Quote
KeithNacho
A big big fan my friend.................just like me...........
Anyway, tell your boss how happy i have been since his music and attitude ruined my life
Tell hi to take care of himself, and tell him to practise a little for the last big performances
You don't wanna hear music from my boss - that would make you scream for the Johnny Depp-show again
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 21, 2012 15:30
Quote
DandelionPowderman
People who know him personally say he's a totally different guy, compared to "Media-Keith". You might say it's stupid to try to keep up being the guy that the fans want to see, but hey, that's what most rock stars do.
People talk very little about carbon touring, saving hospitals, buying guitars to starving black musicians, paying for funerals, letters to fans/fellow musicians who are struggling etc. That would be the "real" Keith Richards, imo.
It's easy to get stuck in "todger gates", drugs, blades, way of speaking etc., but if you must judge, judge the whole man.
With respect, Dandie, I disagree. I don't "judge" the man doing all those things you describe above, because he doesn't - and not even Jane Rose - make much noise about them in public. What I always have admired in all of the Stones is their low profile attitude on all kinds of "charity" things. It's their private concern, not a part of PR campaign. They are not any bonos or madonnas of this world. That's a classy act.
But what I judge is the person who comes across in public. The public figure, musician, performer, celebrity... That's the target of my critisism (be it good or bad), not the 'real' person behind it. I don't know Keith Richards personally; I am just a fan, and an observator from distance; all I can do is to 'judge' the phenomenen that is offered to me. LIFE - what he chose to write in there - is a very strong piece of public Keith Richards.
Besides, I have in this thread discussed the public profile of Keith Richards - and, for example, its relation to Jagger's and Jones's. What I haven't "judge" is for example, his incredible musical contribution. Of course, that's part of the public Keith as well. But that wasn't the issue here.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 15:32 by Doxa.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
gimmelittledrink
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:12
I get it that Keith was pissed by the way Jagger assumed control of the business side of the Stones during a difficult time and it would have been fine for Keith to be critical of that particular issue in his book. But to denigrate his musical partner the way he did was very sad and certainly way beyond the line of decency. It made him look small, petty and vindictive - everything that we hoped he wasn't. And as others have pointed out, he did far more damage to his own reputation than he did to Mick's, who showed real class by declining to respond in public.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:15
The Ealing Club thread made me dig out the 'Our own story by The Rolling Stones as we told it to Pete Goodman' book.
Interesting how so early on the telling of the story is very much centered on Mick and Keith, that the book begins with Mick and Keith... Brian is called the 3rd stone!
The press obviously have a big influence on how the public percieved The Rolling Stones.
Looking through many artciles I have from 1963 - 1969, Keith is interviewed a lot thus I'm not so sure I buy the notion that Brian was more popular, rather in the press I think things ebbed and flowed dependant on activity of the group, the current hot topics etc etc and... who ALO let the press talk to and/or who could be arsed talking to the press.
In the press Brian is percieved as being odd man out quite early on, he looked different, he talks different, he behaves different and it's all mentioned... at same time Keith's status as just a guitar player in The Rolling Stones was quite short.
Cue articles such as this...
Beat Instrumental - 1966
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 16:26 by His Majesty.
Interesting how so early on the telling of the story is very much centered on Mick and Keith, that the book begins with Mick and Keith... Brian is called the 3rd stone!
The press obviously have a big influence on how the public percieved The Rolling Stones.
Looking through many artciles I have from 1963 - 1969, Keith is interviewed a lot thus I'm not so sure I buy the notion that Brian was more popular, rather in the press I think things ebbed and flowed dependant on activity of the group, the current hot topics etc etc and... who ALO let the press talk to and/or who could be arsed talking to the press.
In the press Brian is percieved as being odd man out quite early on, he looked different, he talks different, he behaves different and it's all mentioned... at same time Keith's status as just a guitar player in The Rolling Stones was quite short.
Cue articles such as this...
Beat Instrumental - 1966
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 16:26 by His Majesty.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:16
>>>>>his incredible musical contribution....
...is all that matters to me.
Let's not forget we became fan because we love the music. Of course it is interesting to know
a bit of the background, but mainly because it puts the music in a broader perspective. But let
that be all there is to it. It's not to us to "judge" any member of the band other than for
his contribution to the music. And when it comes to that, I am sure we can be positive about
all of 'em.
Of course the relationship between the members has effected their contributions to the music too.
But it's my impression it worked out for the best most of the time. When Mick and Keith teamed
up to write songs, Brian sought ways to contribute with all sorts of instruments, adding to
the arrangements.
When Mick and Keith had their problems around Anita, it helped Keith to write those off in
a couple of great tunes.
When Keith was having a less creative period because of his drug usage, both Micks teamed
up (with the aid of some others) to write quite a couple of impressive songs.
When Keith wrote about his frustrations with Mick, the latter responded by showing the world
he still has some creativity in his body left and gave us Superheavy.
I know this last example is not receiving a lot of applaus on this board, but that seems to
be a matter of taste.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
...is all that matters to me.
Let's not forget we became fan because we love the music. Of course it is interesting to know
a bit of the background, but mainly because it puts the music in a broader perspective. But let
that be all there is to it. It's not to us to "judge" any member of the band other than for
his contribution to the music. And when it comes to that, I am sure we can be positive about
all of 'em.
Of course the relationship between the members has effected their contributions to the music too.
But it's my impression it worked out for the best most of the time. When Mick and Keith teamed
up to write songs, Brian sought ways to contribute with all sorts of instruments, adding to
the arrangements.
When Mick and Keith had their problems around Anita, it helped Keith to write those off in
a couple of great tunes.
When Keith was having a less creative period because of his drug usage, both Micks teamed
up (with the aid of some others) to write quite a couple of impressive songs.
When Keith wrote about his frustrations with Mick, the latter responded by showing the world
he still has some creativity in his body left and gave us Superheavy.
I know this last example is not receiving a lot of applaus on this board, but that seems to
be a matter of taste.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:20
Quote
gimmelittledrink
I get it that Keith was pissed by the way Jagger assumed control of the business side of the Stones during a difficult time and it would have been fine for Keith to be critical of that particular issue in his book. But to denigrate his musical partner the way he did was very sad and certainly way beyond the line of decency. It made him look small, petty and vindictive - everything that we hoped he wasn't. And as others have pointed out, he did far more damage to his own reputation than he did to Mick's, who showed real class by declining to respond in public.
Reading that book carefully, as I did, Keith is fairly dismissive of his band mates all the way around. Apart from Watts and Stu getting some acknowledgement, Wyman, Wood, Taylor and Jones are given short shrift, even though they aren't trashed like Jagger. Oh well. I enjoyed reading it for what it was. They say you should never want to "meet" your heroes, and if this book is any clue, the idea probably applies.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:20
Quote
His Majesty
The Ealing Club thread made me dig out the 'Our own story by The Rolling Stones as we told it to Pete Goodman' book.
Interesting how so early on the telling of the story is very much centered on Mick and Keith, that the book begins with Mick and Keith... Brian is called the 3rd stone!
The press obviously have a big influence on how the public percieved The Rolling Stones.
Looking through many artciles I have from 1963 - 1969, Keith is interviewed a lot thus I'm not so sure I buy the notion that Brian was more popular, rather in the press I think things ebbed and flowed dependant on activity of the group, the current hot topics etc etc and... who could be arsed talking to the press.
In the press Brian is percieved as being odd man out quite early on, he looked different, he talks different, he behaves different and it's all mentioned... at same time Keith's status as just a guitar player in The Rolling Stones was quite short.
Cue articles such as this...
Beat Instrumental - 1966
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:29
Quite a contrast bewteen this and the above Keith article...
Rave - 1966
Rave - 1966
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:45
Quote
His Majesty
Quite a contrast bewteen this and the above Keith article...
Rave - 1966
In all cases, it's hard for journalists to remain objective. And it all depends on the news angle they wanna present. So that might explain some of the totally different focuses in the stories here.
A more Brian-friendly reporter would probably have focused on the brilliant musicianship on Aftermath, and the fact that Brian created new sounds. Instead, it's all about the lost image.
Thanks for posting, Philip. I enjoyed these clips. Never seen them before.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 21, 2012 16:55
Thanks, His Majesty! Wonderful examples!
I think those two articles pretty much represent the public interest concerning the subjects. One needs to pay attenion to the presuppositions of the articles.
Keith's article is almost apogologist; it starts by saying "In fact, Keith does not get as much credit as he deserves for being the music brains behind so many hits". The whole tone of the article is like introduction to the significance of not so well-known figure. This injustice needs to corrected. It is almost news-like point of the article. I guess it was around that time when the merits of Richards as a song-writer started little by little to be seen, and approciated. But the thing who actually writes the material was/is not so essential for a pop star. Keith's importance and genious in that field - and the point of whole field of writing own material - was just started to be seen during that time. But that needed to be especially point out, "educate" the reader.
But Brian's article, after pointing out - that is: presupposing - that everyone surely knows who is, almost shockingly now declares: "Brian Jones seemed to have disappeared from the public eye!" (note the exclamation mark). That seems to be the 'news', the whole point of that article. A bit like "Is Paul McCartney dead?"
The way the articles talk about their subject, and what they presuppose of the familiarity of them, is pretty far from each other. They are seemingly celebrities of different caliber.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 17:20 by Doxa.
I think those two articles pretty much represent the public interest concerning the subjects. One needs to pay attenion to the presuppositions of the articles.
Keith's article is almost apogologist; it starts by saying "In fact, Keith does not get as much credit as he deserves for being the music brains behind so many hits". The whole tone of the article is like introduction to the significance of not so well-known figure. This injustice needs to corrected. It is almost news-like point of the article. I guess it was around that time when the merits of Richards as a song-writer started little by little to be seen, and approciated. But the thing who actually writes the material was/is not so essential for a pop star. Keith's importance and genious in that field - and the point of whole field of writing own material - was just started to be seen during that time. But that needed to be especially point out, "educate" the reader.
But Brian's article, after pointing out - that is: presupposing - that everyone surely knows who is, almost shockingly now declares: "Brian Jones seemed to have disappeared from the public eye!" (note the exclamation mark). That seems to be the 'news', the whole point of that article. A bit like "Is Paul McCartney dead?"
The way the articles talk about their subject, and what they presuppose of the familiarity of them, is pretty far from each other. They are seemingly celebrities of different caliber.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 17:20 by Doxa.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 17:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
In all cases, it's hard for journalists to remain objective. And it all depends on the news angle they wanna present. So that might explain some of the totally different focuses in the stories here.
A more Brian-friendly reporter would probably have focused on the brilliant musicianship on Aftermath, and the fact that Brian created new sounds. Instead, it's all about the lost image.
Thanks for posting, Philip. I enjoyed these clips. Never seen them before.
Rave was a teen girl magazine, Beat Instrumental was for musicians etc, but as if to prove your point....
Beat Instrumental - 1966
I think the Rave - Brian article is right for that particular reporter at that particular time, hence me saying ebbs and flows in my pervious post and what you say matches what i'm thinking.
I think it does reflect the shifts within the band though and it's typical of the total contradictory oddity that is Brian Jones.
I think Bill talks about this article in Stone Alone and says something like it was due to Andrew blocking the press from talking to Brian, Bill etc. That he was fixing things for Mick and Keith. I can't recall the exact wording, but something like that.
Whether what Bill says is true I do not know, but it's interesting in context of mid - late 1966 because following that article there was a spree of Brian interviews in NME and Meldoy Maker.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 17:09 by His Majesty.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 21, 2012 17:03
Not to mention that Keith gets ONE page and Brian gets TWO pages. 
Keef, whatchu whatchu doin'?
Keef, whatchu whatchu doin'?
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: March 21, 2012 17:07
Great to see those old articles. Pieces of history. Thanks
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: March 21, 2012 17:11
Music journalism as we now know it didn't really exist in 1966 - it was nearly all aimed at what the editors of those magazines thought teenagers were interested in. Don't forget who the intended readers of that RAVE article were - teenage girls who were assumed not to be all that interested in the music, but only in Brian's personal life and whether he was still "available" as a fantasy boyfriend. The Beat Instrumental article is pretty unusual for its time.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 17:23
Quote
Green Lady
Music journalism as we now know it didn't really exist in 1966 - it was nearly all aimed at what the editors of those magazines thought teenagers were interested in. Don't forget who the intended readers of that RAVE article were - teenage girls who were assumed not to be all that interested in the music, but only in Brian's personal life and whether he was still "available" as a fantasy boyfriend. The Beat Instrumental article is pretty unusual for its time.
Yup! The ethos behind the magazines themselves are total contrasts from one another.
Those Beat Instrumental magazines are great, totally different angle than most if not all of the other stuff written about them from the time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-21 17:27 by His Majesty.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 17:44
Nice lil early Keith article...
New Musical Express - 8th May 1964
New Musical Express - 8th May 1964
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 21, 2012 18:03
Wow! keep 'em coming, His Majesty!
By the way, I think you should open a thread of its own to all these gems. They will be lost to all the bullshit we are doing here...
- Doxa
By the way, I think you should open a thread of its own to all these gems. They will be lost to all the bullshit we are doing here...
- Doxa
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 18:28
Quote
Doxa
Wow! keep 'em coming, His Majesty!
By the way, I think you should open a thread of its own to all these gems. They will be lost to all the bullshit we are doing here...
- Doxa
[www.iorr.org]
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
MissNBrian
()
Date: March 21, 2012 19:39
Quote
His Majesty
Good, now he can make peace with the original Rolling Stone.
Unfortunately, HM, I'm not holding my breath on that one. Besides, don't think there's enough paper in the world to print that one either
It is a beautiful thought though ...
------------------------
"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...
What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"
Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: March 21, 2012 20:30
Although I enjoyed last year's Bob Seger show very much, one could see the slow down from just a few years earlier. I really don't know if I want to see this with the Stones.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: March 21, 2012 20:51
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
~"Love is Strong"~
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: March 21, 2012 21:00
angee,
How's your writing project coming?
How's your writing project coming?
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 21, 2012 21:17
Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."
I don't get that from the book.
I can´t understand that, either.
For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2012 21:53
I think the cover with Keith doing a face palm pretty much sums up his book Life.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 21, 2012 21:54
The 1966 interviews with Keith & then Brian illustrate the difference between European and American music journalism at the time. I don't know where you could have read such articles in the States, and I doubt there was much availability of NME or Melody Maker here. (Later they would be imported). We had 16 and Tiger Beat magazines, but I doubt you could find much of any depth there. It really wasn't until Rolling Stone achieved wide distribution in 1969-70, that the idea of discussing the musicianship of rock artists came into being. There might have been some articles in what we called 'Underground' papers but these were all local publications like Atlanta's 'Great Speckled Bird'.
Re: Rolling Stone: Keith Apologies to Mick
Posted by:
roundnround
()
Date: March 21, 2012 22:05
Brian seems to have had an amazing amount of formal musical knowledge judging by this article... Diatonic scales etc... Also interesting that Keith said "I want to retire gracefully before I fade out"... This was in 1966!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bashlets , Big Al , crholmstrom , DandelionPowderman , django , Fernandobsas , marcovandereijk , NathanLaze , peoplewitheyes , rockdriguez67 , Rosto , Spud , Topi
Guests:
1745
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10