Quote
Bliss

Quote
Stoneage
Even though he's a sex addict and has peculiar hobbies Bill Wyman is the only one in the band who articulates himself intelligible. Bill said after Mick's first solo record something like this: "What's the point of doing Rolling Stones records as a solo artist. Isn't it better to do that with the Rolling Stones?". Bill often strikes me as the only Stone with a portion of common sense (well, his sex addiction set apart).

What's the point? Having complete autonomy, all the glory, and not having to share the money. Not to mention being free of the ordeal of having a difficult junkie/alcoholic as his creative and business partner.

For starters.

OK, Bliss. But then you can argue he should have had the guts to leave the band for good. But when it comes to Jagger it's all about the money obviously.

Quote
stupidguy2
Cmon Lem, I usually agree with you...
but Mick cares about how he is perceived, he cares about having a certain artistic credibility. He's never going to say that....but he is a competitor, and he is vain. It had to matter to him that he didn't 'set the world on fire'
Because that's the Stones had always done.....in so many terms. Im not talking about Michael Jackson or Prince success....just to be taken seriously. And She's the Boss did not generate the kind of artistic or mainstream acceptance he wanted.
I can't give you a quote...you know that - this is just something we have surmised of Jagger throughout the years..that he wants to be relevant.
He cares. Why the hell else would he work with someone like Rob Thomas?
And you know this is all speculation....except when you have direct quotes, this is not a thesis - its a board where we share opinions.

as long as we're admitting that its all speculation and opinions i'm fine with it.what i don't care for is people projecting thoughts and feelings on someone they have never talked to about the subject and therefore are simply making up shit.

i could just as easily say that i'm sure mick was dying to win an oscar for performance,that he expected it to be a huge box office hit and when it didnt he was forced to go back to his day job as the lead singer for the rolling stones.but to my eyes it looks suspiciously like all of the rest of these things,a side project.throw it against the wall, if it sticks fine,if it doesn't,time to move on.

as far as the 80's i've always maintained that he was gonna be fronting the stones again no matter what.the big question mark was not mick but who was gonna be standing behind him.my opinion,and its just that- it wasnt mick who was leaving,it was a few guys who were really drunk and high that were in danger of getting the brian jones treatment.

Quote
lem motlow
[it was a few guys who were really drunk and high that were in danger of getting the brian jones treatment.

Drowned in their swimming pool? Just kidding, lem. I understand your point. Enough of us were emphasizing its speculation only unless there's a quote, but its easy for these things to take on a life of their own. Sometimes that's half the fun of these threads.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
stupidguy2
Cmon Lem, I usually agree with you...
but Mick cares about how he is perceived, he cares about having a certain artistic credibility. He's never going to say that....but he is a competitor, and he is vain. It had to matter to him that he didn't 'set the world on fire'
Because that's the Stones had always done.....in so many terms. Im not talking about Michael Jackson or Prince success....just to be taken seriously. And She's the Boss did not generate the kind of artistic or mainstream acceptance he wanted.
I can't give you a quote...you know that - this is just something we have surmised of Jagger throughout the years..that he wants to be relevant.
He cares. Why the hell else would he work with someone like Rob Thomas?
And you know this is all speculation....except when you have direct quotes, this is not a thesis - its a board where we share opinions.

as long as we're admitting that its all speculation and opinions i'm fine with it.what i don't care for is people projecting thoughts and feelings on someone they have never talked to about the subject and therefore are simply making up shit.

i could just as easily say that i'm sure mick was dying to win an oscar for performance,that he expected it to be a huge box office hit and when it didnt he was forced to go back to his day job as the lead singer for the rolling stones.but to my eyes it looks suspiciously like all of the rest of these things,a side project.throw it against the wall, if it sticks fine,if it doesn't,time to move on.

as far as the 80's i've always maintained that he was gonna be fronting the stones again no matter what.the big question mark was not mick but who was gonna be standing behind him.my opinion,and its just that- it wasnt mick who was leaving,it was a few guys who were really drunk and high that were in danger of getting the brian jones treatment.

Mick probably did want an Oscar for Running Out of Luck...just kidding.
Part of the fun of the board is pontificating about the Stones based on decades of reading, studying this band. In 1984, I did't have this outlet, and its enjoyable to share and see other perceptions....including yours.
We're all just guessing to a degree.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
mitchflorida1
never heard of it. and I noticed that Womack has been covering a lot of other peoples songs, like California Dreaming, Fly Me to the Moon, and All along the Watchtower.

Why don't you write your own damn songs, Bobby?

After you've composed anything thats 1% as good as this, take a trip to the Clue Store and pick one up...

This is a great song. I have the soundtrack to Jackie Brown - good stuff.

It needs to be said... and Bill German backs it up in his book: Mick was doing quite a bit of blow in the mid '80s. He was not quite the sober voice of reason that some here are making him out to be at the time.

Blame it all on coke/ego. There was definitely enough of it to go around, that's for damn sure.

______________________________________________________________________________________
[borntorockandroll.com]

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The entire relationship with Keith and Jane Rose interests me. In spite of Keith's tough guy persona, he seemed to need someone to fulfill Anita's role of mothering and directing him and informing his opinions of others. That role fell to Jane. She definitely excels at what she does, but her own agenda has definitely had a huge impact on the past few decades of the band.

Absolutely. And the results of her work we're experiencing right now

Jane Rose is an interesting factor. Anybody know the history there, and how she became committed to primarily Keith?

I don't know the details of why Mick fired her, although seeing her on 25 x 5 shows it was probably an ego clash with Mick, as she is quite dominant. Also unknown is whether Keith re-hired her because he felt sorry for her, or just to annoy Mick. In Life, Keith recounts how Mick refused to tour if Jane Rose came as well. Apparently he lost that battle.

It's seems likely that the rift between MJ and KR has deepened due to her influence on Keith.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Stoneage
Even though he's a sex addict and has peculiar hobbies Bill Wyman is the only one in the band who articulates himself intelligible. Bill said after Mick's first solo record something like this: "What's the point of doing Rolling Stones records as a solo artist. Isn't it better to do that with the Rolling Stones?". Bill often strikes me as the only Stone with a portion of common sense (well, his sex addiction set apart).

What's the point? Having complete autonomy, all the glory, and not having to share the money. Not to mention being free of the ordeal of having a difficult junkie/alcoholic as his creative and business partner.

For starters.

OK, Bliss. But then you can argue he should have had the guts to leave the band for good. But when it comes to Jagger it's all about the money obviously.

I think it's his nature to be cautious and to hedge his bets. He kept Carla Bruni as his mistress for 8 years, rather than break up his r'ship with Jerry.

Quote
Bliss
I don't know the details of why Mick fired her, although seeing her on 25 x 5 shows it was probably an ego clash with Mick, as she is quite dominant. Also unknown is whether Keith re-hired her because he felt sorry for her, or just to annoy Mick. In Life, Keith recounts how Mick refused to tour if Jane Rose came as well. Apparently he lost that battle.

It's seems likely that the rift between MJ and KR has deepened due to her influence on Keith.

Can anyone elaborate on this?

Quote
lem motlow

maybe jagger shouldnt have fired jane rose after all, shes seems pretty good at what she doeas.

I think Mick fired her because she started to promote her agenda while she was still working for the Stones.
By her agenda I mean "Keith's legend" - Keith is the musical genius behind Stones who single-handedly wrote all the great music, he is the heart and the soul of the band, the keeper of the spirit etc, etc... In her opinion this could not be achieved without destroying the image of Jagger - following Lenin, who famously said: "Destroy the Old to Build the New!"
So Richards/Rose team enthusiastically worked on this goal for the past 25 years. And I have to say, they've succeeded in all their endeavors.
While Richards' motives are clear, I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all - not to the press manipulation, not to Richads' rewriting the history, not to the ridicule...
Why?
He did not care? He's too stupid to understand what it is for him to lose? Too arrogant to pay attention to Richards and Rose?

At the same time Mick did not stop to deal with the Stones and their legacy. The latest example of this attention - it's Exile reissue in 2010 when the Stones were at the center of attention,media began to talk about them seriously - as a cultural phenomenon, and their impact.
And then there was this damn book. I don't want to talk about what it had done for the Jagger \ Richards myth which was one of the foundations of the Stones charm and for their real working relationship.
In my eyes, its main drawback is that it completely trivialized the Stones once and for all placing them to the usual field - drugs,drugs, more drugs, debauchery, drinking, tensions with Jagger, groupies, more Jagger bashing...
I think that Jagger gave up after that

Quote
proudmary
While Richards' motives are clear, I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all

Why should Mick respond ? He's got you to do it for him, which I am sure off, he truly appreciates.

Keep On Rolling

It's a strange phenomenon - in any normal scenario, where there is a team of any kind - work, family, marriage, club - associates present a united front to the world and keep their internecine quarrels hidden. But within the Stones, or more specifically, in Keith's mind - their own personal status can only be aggrandised by diminishing the other members. Bur such a 'scorched earth' approach can never succeed; everyone is harmed by it.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
proudmary
While Richards' motives are clear, I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all

Why should Mick respond ? He's got you to do it for him, which I am sure off, he truly appreciates.

Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that ProudMary is ...what?
A fan of Mick Jagger.
We're all on this board Hansie, everyday, posting comments...
Like you. Whenever some of you try to mock Mary for her passion - I'm amused.
We're all here, defending either Mick, Keith, the Stones.....offering opinions, theories....
funny that when people defend Mick - some of you get your panties in a wad and pretend you are too cool.
Then what are you doing here?

I don't wear panties. And I am not here to defend anyone. I am here to have a good time. And I really would love to see the Stones live on stage again.

Keep On Rolling

PROUDMARY-"I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all - not to the press manipulation, not to Richads' rewriting the history, not to the ridicule...
Why?
He did not care? He's too stupid to understand what it is for him to lose? Too arrogant to pay attention to Richards and Rose?"



i dont know mick,i've never met him.but one thing i've learned in life is that if you want to understand a person and their actions put yourself in their position.

what mick sees is that when people approach him they are still in awe,they ask for autograghs, they want to speak with him,they want his attention.
when he plays live, huge amounts of people show up to see him and when he leaves the stage during keiths set a great deal of these people simply step out for a smoke,a drink or a trip to the bathroom,that says a great deal.

he's also wealthy and a father and as such knows quite well how to deal with spoiled children.so to put it bluntly,he doesnt give a shit.

You're all going to flame me but I have a source who partied in Keith's apartment at the time when Jane went from working for the Stones to working for Keith. Mick seduced Jane, they had a brief affair, then he wanted her gone. Keith didn't want her gone. Mick fired her then Keith hired her.

Quote
From4tilLate
You're all going to flame me but I have a source who partied in Keith's apartment at the time when Jane went from working for the Stones to working for Keith. Mick seduced Jane, they had a brief affair, then he wanted her gone. Keith didn't want her gone. Mick fired her then Keith hired her.

More details please.........

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
From4tilLate
You're all going to flame me but I have a source who partied in Keith's apartment at the time when Jane went from working for the Stones to working for Keith. Mick seduced Jane, they had a brief affair, then he wanted her gone. Keith didn't want her gone. Mick fired her then Keith hired her.

More details please.........

There are no more details, really. My source partied with Keith in his Manhattan apartment and said "he and Mick weren't speaking because Mick f****d Jane Rose and then fired her and then Keith was furious and had just hired her to work for him."

The only other thing she told me is that she heard some interesting cassette bootlegs there, including an early version of 'Satisfaction'.

Quote
From4tilLate

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
From4tilLate
You're all going to flame me but I have a source who partied in Keith's apartment at the time when Jane went from working for the Stones to working for Keith. Mick seduced Jane, they had a brief affair, then he wanted her gone. Keith didn't want her gone. Mick fired her then Keith hired her.

More details please.........

There are no more details, really. My source partied with Keith in his Manhattan apartment and said "he and Mick weren't speaking because Mick f****d Jane Rose and then fired her and then Keith was furious and had just hired her to work for him."

The only other thing she told me is that she heard some interesting cassette bootlegs there, including an early version of 'Satisfaction'.

Sweet, thanks mate.

Quote
From4tilLate
You're all going to flame me but I have a source who partied in Keith's apartment at the time when Jane went from working for the Stones to working for Keith. Mick seduced Jane, they had a brief affair, then he wanted her gone. Keith didn't want her gone. Mick fired her then Keith hired her.

Well, that's not an unlikely scenario ..
but Mick has 'seduced' many a Stones 'assistant' throughout the years...
Doesn't explain why Mick then turned against her...

[
but Mick has 'seduced' many a Stones 'assistant' throughout the years...
Doesn't explain why Mick then turned against her...[/quote]

Name one.

who cares what that a hole thinks

When they got nuffin' better ta say people always can the Stones
But hey ... been like that since day one...somethings just never change

ROCKMAN

Quote
From4tilLate

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
From4tilLate
You're all going to flame me but I have a source who partied in Keith's apartment at the time when Jane went from working for the Stones to working for Keith. Mick seduced Jane, they had a brief affair, then he wanted her gone. Keith didn't want her gone. Mick fired her then Keith hired her.

More details please.........

There are no more details, really. My source partied with Keith in his Manhattan apartment and said "he and Mick weren't speaking because Mick f****d Jane Rose and then fired her and then Keith was furious and had just hired her to work for him."

The only other thing she told me is that she heard some interesting cassette bootlegs there, including an early version of 'Satisfaction'.

It's as plausible an explanation as any, as Jerry said that Mick invariably seduced all the employées, although as I said, seeing Jane Rose on the 25 x 5 documentary, it isn't hard to imagine Jane Rose clashing with Mick, as she clearly has a very dominant personality. As to being romantically or sexually involved with Mick, I have read that while he treats you very well during the sexual or romantic encounter, once he is finished with you, "he treats you like a used tampon".

once he is finished with you, "he treats you like a used tampon".

Yep Dracula is about the only guy who has a use for them ...

ROCKMAN

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I think that last statement ProudMary made is accurate in as much non-insiders like most of us can ever reasonably agree. The rest is speculation based on available information.

I know we went off-topic, Rolling Hansie, but it is still rooted in Bobby Womack and what was going on in and around the time of the DIRTY WORK sessions. Besides, threads take on a life of their own with conversation staying to the Stones and individuals actually treating each other with respect is a good thing and was becoming all too rare around here of late.

WOW - even viewed upon as speculation and going off-topic, your well-deduced reflections and conclusions about the CBS deal and Micks's/Keith's behavior make for an intriguing theory, and a convincing one at that. Thank you (and of course some other contributors like Doxa and Dandelion Powderman) for turning another hyped-up "quote"-thread into one of the most interesting reads on here in months!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-08 15:24 by Greenblues.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
lem motlow

maybe jagger shouldnt have fired jane rose after all, shes seems pretty good at what she doeas.

I think Mick fired her because she started to promote her agenda while she was still working for the Stones.
By her agenda I mean "Keith's legend" - Keith is the musical genius behind Stones who single-handedly wrote all the great music, he is the heart and the soul of the band, the keeper of the spirit etc, etc... In her opinion this could not be achieved without destroying the image of Jagger - following Lenin, who famously said: "Destroy the Old to Build the New!"
So Richards/Rose team enthusiastically worked on this goal for the past 25 years. And I have to say, they've succeeded in all their endeavors.
While Richards' motives are clear, I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all - not to the press manipulation, not to Richads' rewriting the history, not to the ridicule...
Why?
He did not care? He's too stupid to understand what it is for him to lose? Too arrogant to pay attention to Richards and Rose?

At the same time Mick did not stop to deal with the Stones and their legacy. The latest example of this attention - it's Exile reissue in 2010 when the Stones were at the center of attention,media began to talk about them seriously - as a cultural phenomenon, and their impact.
And then there was this damn book. I don't want to talk about what it had done for the Jagger \ Richards myth which was one of the foundations of the Stones charm and for their real working relationship.
In my eyes, its main drawback is that it completely trivialized the Stones once and for all placing them to the usual field - drugs,drugs, more drugs, debauchery, drinking, tensions with Jagger, groupies, more Jagger bashing...
I think that Jagger gave up after that

I think Mick knew perfectly well that there were even bigger things to come after the Exile-release: A 50th anniversary - and that is bigger than the both of them, right?

----------------------------------------------------
[www.facebook.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
proudmary

Quote
lem motlow

maybe jagger shouldnt have fired jane rose after all, shes seems pretty good at what she doeas.

I think Mick fired her because she started to promote her agenda while she was still working for the Stones.
By her agenda I mean "Keith's legend" - Keith is the musical genius behind Stones who single-handedly wrote all the great music, he is the heart and the soul of the band, the keeper of the spirit etc, etc... In her opinion this could not be achieved without destroying the image of Jagger - following Lenin, who famously said: "Destroy the Old to Build the New!"
So Richards/Rose team enthusiastically worked on this goal for the past 25 years. And I have to say, they've succeeded in all their endeavors.
While Richards' motives are clear, I really can not understand Jagger's attitude towards it. For all these years he did not react at all - not to the press manipulation, not to Richads' rewriting the history, not to the ridicule...
Why?
He did not care? He's too stupid to understand what it is for him to lose? Too arrogant to pay attention to Richards and Rose?

At the same time Mick did not stop to deal with the Stones and their legacy. The latest example of this attention - it's Exile reissue in 2010 when the Stones were at the center of attention,media began to talk about them seriously - as a cultural phenomenon, and their impact.
And then there was this damn book. I don't want to talk about what it had done for the Jagger \ Richards myth which was one of the foundations of the Stones charm and for their real working relationship.
In my eyes, its main drawback is that it completely trivialized the Stones once and for all placing them to the usual field - drugs,drugs, more drugs, debauchery, drinking, tensions with Jagger, groupies, more Jagger bashing...
I think that Jagger gave up after that

I think Mick knew perfectly well that there were even bigger things to come after the Exile-release: A 50th anniversary - and that is bigger than the both of them, right?

Yes, we definitely see a lot of activity concerning the 50th anniversary