For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
proudmaryQuote
CindyCQuote
TrulyMicksQuote
nightskyman
C'mon, of course it's kitsch. Aren't all posed celebrity photo shoots?
Clearly these are not to be taken seriously
To a point, but the posing here is just OTT imo. It's funny to me.
It is really strange that Keith would suddenly take to posing. He would never do something like that when he was with the Rolling Stones. All of their photos were completely impromtu, like this one here where they just decided they would hold hands. Guys do that all the time, right?
It's one thing when you posing for the camera as part of your job as a pop star. It is clear that the show business is impossible without pictures, without displaying the image. It's totally different to pose for the magazine as "a family" - in borrowed clothes, including young children and "portray" a happy family following the director's instructions
Staged scenes from family life - it's SO tasteless
And yes, it's ironic - Richards for so many years blamed Mick for constant showing off, for his efforts to be in the spotlight at any cost,that Jagger forgot who he was - and now he does it himself. Nothing wrong with it(exept for poor taste but Mick never was tasteless) but I can't help asking - what was the REAL reason for Keith's criticism and all this judging and pointing finger pose?
Page 312 in "According To The Rolling Stones",the picture taken by Mario Testino in 2000 with Jagger,Jerry Hall and the kids...how would you call that ?
Tasteless or just a family shot for whatever reason ?
Quote
proudmaryQuote
shortfatfannyQuote
proudmaryQuote
CindyCQuote
TrulyMicksQuote
nightskyman
C'mon, of course it's kitsch. Aren't all posed celebrity photo shoots?
Clearly these are not to be taken seriously
To a point, but the posing here is just OTT imo. It's funny to me.
It is really strange that Keith would suddenly take to posing. He would never do something like that when he was with the Rolling Stones. All of their photos were completely impromtu, like this one here where they just decided they would hold hands. Guys do that all the time, right?
It's one thing when you posing for the camera as part of your job as a pop star. It is clear that the show business is impossible without pictures, without displaying the image. It's totally different to pose for the magazine as "a family" - in borrowed clothes, including young children and "portray" a happy family following the director's instructions
Staged scenes from family life - it's SO tasteless
And yes, it's ironic - Richards for so many years blamed Mick for constant showing off, for his efforts to be in the spotlight at any cost,that Jagger forgot who he was - and now he does it himself. Nothing wrong with it(exept for poor taste but Mick never was tasteless) but I can't help asking - what was the REAL reason for Keith's criticism and all this judging and pointing finger pose?
Page 312 in "According To The Rolling Stones",the picture taken by Mario Testino in 2000 with Jagger,Jerry Hall and the kids...how would you call that ?
Tasteless or just a family shot for whatever reason ?
Dunno, but if this is a single picture, not done for the glossy magazine (Testino is a personal friend of Jerry), then more likely it is a family picture. I think that in 2000 Mick was more open to any Jerry's suggestion - he wanted to get his family back
My point is that there is nothing terrible in to pose for photos if you're a public person - preferably without children(but this is my point of view). Why argue with the obvious - the person who's leading the photographer to his house and willing to shoot his entire family is full of vanity.But there should be no double standards - Jagger for all of these pictures was considered a poseur for ages.
Apropos Jagger - recently here was a thread about Jagger's apartment in Paris - and there were plenty of comments about how all this was bourgeois and of bad taste and no single guitar in sight. No one was doing personal attacks against other posters, it was all very friendly. Hope we are able to keep the same approach here
Quote
shortfatfannyQuote
proudmaryQuote
CindyCQuote
TrulyMicksQuote
nightskyman
C'mon, of course it's kitsch. Aren't all posed celebrity photo shoots?
Clearly these are not to be taken seriously
To a point, but the posing here is just OTT imo. It's funny to me.
It is really strange that Keith would suddenly take to posing. He would never do something like that when he was with the Rolling Stones. All of their photos were completely impromtu, like this one here where they just decided they would hold hands. Guys do that all the time, right?
It's one thing when you posing for the camera as part of your job as a pop star. It is clear that the show business is impossible without pictures, without displaying the image. It's totally different to pose for the magazine as "a family" - in borrowed clothes, including young children and "portray" a happy family following the director's instructions
Staged scenes from family life - it's SO tasteless
And yes, it's ironic - Richards for so many years blamed Mick for constant showing off, for his efforts to be in the spotlight at any cost,that Jagger forgot who he was - and now he does it himself. Nothing wrong with it(exept for poor taste but Mick never was tasteless) but I can't help asking - what was the REAL reason for Keith's criticism and all this judging and pointing finger pose?
Page 312 in "According To The Rolling Stones",the picture taken by Mario Testino in 2000 with Jagger,Jerry Hall and the kids...how would you call that ?
Tasteless or just a family shot for whatever reason ?
Quote
nightskyman
Page 312 in "According To The Rolling Stones",the picture taken by Mario Testino in 2000 with Jagger,Jerry Hall and the kids...how would you call that ?
Tasteless or just a family shot for whatever reason ?
Quote
elunsi
And OF COURSE they do not read Keith´s book to a child.
Quote
TrulyMicksQuote
elunsi
And OF COURSE they do not read Keith´s book to a child.
Not sure if you are rolling your eyes at me or the picture but just wanted to comment that of course I know, I was being sarcastic about it.
Quote
elunsiQuote
TrulyMicksQuote
elunsi
And OF COURSE they do not read Keith´s book to a child.
Not sure if you are rolling your eyes at me or the picture but just wanted to comment that of course I know, I was being sarcastic about it.
I apologize for the rolling eyes, TrulyMicks. I did not read the whole thread again, I just remembered that somebody said that about the book. To be honest I thought it was somebody else, not you I misunderstood, that it was meant sarcastically.
But Keith was an acquisitive snob even before the Stones. From LIFE, p. 35: "But Mum and Dad loved the council flat house. I had no choice but to bite my tongue. As a semidetached goes, it was new and well built, but it wasn't ours! I thought we deserved better. And it made me bitter. I thought of us as a noble family in exile."Quote
dcba
Imho these pix are a bigger offense to the band's name than Mick's knighthood...
Quote
Rockman
Marlon Richards appears in a number of shots with Kate Moss
in the latest edition of LOVE magazine#8.............photos by Tim Walker [beforeyoukillusall.blogspot.com.au]