Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Title5Take1 ()
Date: January 22, 2012 07:31

April 12, 1973

In 1972, ROLLING STONE asked Truman Capote to cover the Rolling Stones’ EXILE ON MAIN ST. tour. But months later, Capote was unable to produce a story. The magazine asked Andy Warhol to interview Capote.

TRUMAN CAPOTE: One thing I’ll say about Mick Jagger. He’s fascinating in the sense that he’s one of the most total actors I’ve ever seen. He has this remarkable quality of being absolutely able to be totally extroverted. Very few people can be entirely, absolutely, altogether extroverted. It’s a rare, delicate, strange thing. Just to pull yourself out and go—WHAMM! This he can do to a remarkable degree. But what makes it more remarkable is that the moment it’s done, it’s over. And he reverts to quite a private, sensible, and a more emotionally mature person than most actors and intellectuals are capable of being. He’s one of the few people I’ve seen who’s able to do that extrovert thing, and then revert into another person almost instantly. And so, in that sense, he’s really an extraordinary actor. And that’s exactly what he is because: (a) he can’t sing; (b) he can’t dance; (c) he doesn’t know a damn thing about music. But he does know about coming on and being a great showman. And putting on a fantastic act, of which the vital element is energy. Well, he can’t sing compared to, say, Billie Holiday. He can’t sing compared to Lee Wiley. He can’t sing compared to...

ANDY WARHOL: Al Green

CAPOTE: He can’t compared to Frank Sinatra. I know you think we’re talking about two different things in separate categories, but we’re not. You know? It’s not that it’s...Sound amplification—rock—is carrying a thing forward. The beat thing. But! It’s got nothing to do with the ability of a vocalist actually carrying the thing. Because Mick does not carry the thing. He carries it as a performer with his energy, drive and thrust.

I listen to the records quite a lot. I’m in no way trying to discredit hims as a performer, because I think he’s an extraordinary performer. But what I thinks amazing about him is that there is no single thing of all the things he does that he’s really good at. He’s not—he really can’t dance, and, in fact, he really can’t move. He’s moving in the most awkward kind of curious parody between an American majorette girl...and Fred Astaire. It’s like he got these two weird people combined together. On the one hand it’s the majorette strut, and on the other hand, it’s got to be a la Astaire. But, somehow, the combination works. Or at least it works for most people....

WARHOL: Did you like traveling with them?

CAPOTE: Oh, I enjoyed it. I just didn’t want to write about it, because it didn’t interest me creatively. You know? But I enjoyed it as an experience. I thought it was amusing...I like the Rolling Stones individually, one by one, but the one thing I didn’t like was that they had—and especially the people around them—had such a disrespect for the audience. That used to really gripe me. It was like, “Who the fcuk cares about them?” Well, these kids have merely stood in line for twenty-seven hours, you know, and what not to go to their concert—they adore them and love them.

I found the REAL backstage people nice. The ones who were really doing work. It’s those little fakes like the press agent whose name...something...who was a great friend of Charles Manson’s, and who recorded three albums of Charlie Manson’s records, and he believed Charlie Manson was Jesus Christ—this was before Charlie Manson was going. HE was a press agent on the rock and roll tour! I mean they had some beauties...Marshal Chess.

WARHOL: Backstage people.

CAPOTE: The only thing I have to say about it is Marshall Chess and all those people have themselves confused as being one of the Stones. I mean, they’re always up on stage sort of edging nearer and nearer into the spotlight. It’s always been conceded that just something BARELY is restraining them from rushing onstage, grabbing the microphone from Mick and starting to really strut...Also, they’re very cantankerous and jealous of each other, and they’re so jealous of their relationship with the Stones, with who’s closer, who’s nearer, who’s more...this sort of thing. I mean it’s really sort of pathetic. Well, not “sort of.” It is pathetic.

WARHOL: Then the next question was, “The Plane Fcuk.”

CAPOTE: “They had this doctor on the plane who was a young doctor from San Francisco, about twenty-eight years old, rather good-looking. He would pass through the plane with a great big plate of pills, every kind you could imagine, everything from vitamin C to vitamin coke...I couldn’t really quite figure out why. He had just started to practice in San Francisco, and this seemed sort of a dramatic thing to be doing, traveling with, uh...I mean, especially since he wasn’t particularly, as I could figure out, a great fan of theirs.

It developed that he had a super-Lolita complex. I mean thirteen-, fourteen-year-old kids. He would arrive at whatever city we would arrive at, and there would always be these hordes of kids outside and he would walk around, you know, like a little super-fukc and say, “You know I’m Mick Jagger’s personal physician. How would you like to see the show from backstage?” And they’d go, “Ooooo! Wigawigawigawa!” He would get quite a collection of them. Backstage, you know, he would have them spread out, and every now and then he would bring one back to the plane. Usually someone slightly older.

The one I remember most was a girl who said she’d come to the Rolling Stones thing to get a story for her high school newspaper, and wasn’t this wonderful how she’d met Dr. Feelgood and got backstage...Anyway, she got on the plane, and she sure got a story, all right [laughs], because they fitted up the back of the plane for this. You know Robert Frank? He was on the tour. Robert Frank got out all of his lights, the plane was flying along and there was Dr. Feelgood screwing this girl in every conceivable position while Robert Frank was filming, and as the plane was flying back to Washington it was flying at some really strange angle. And the stewardess kept saying, “Would you please mind moving forward?” [Laughs] And then the plane landed and they always brought these authorities on board for checkout, and Dr. Feelgood had a terribly hard time getting his trousers on. And in the end he had to come off the plane holding his trousers in his hand...with Robert Frank photographing it all. I mean the whole thing had rather a belle epoque quality.

WARHOL: Well, how long was the fukc?

CAPOTE: It was a very short flight. About thirty-five minutes. Everybody kept switching and changing camera angles. Robert Frank was photographing for a movie he’s making about the tour, and said, “Well, I hope you’re going to leave that in.”

WARHOL: Did the girl know she was being photographed?

CAPOTE: Of course! They had the lights up and everything. She was enjoying it! I said to her, “Well, you came to get a story for your high school newspaper and you’re sure getting one.” She got off at the next stop. I must say they were always nice about these kids.

WARHOL: You mean there were more instances like this?

CAPOTE: Well, it was going on continuously, day and night. And not just girls, but boys. the girls AND the boys, flocks of them went off with...There were, uh...mmm...a lot of people connected with the tour that used to do that. Um, went off with the boys. Very attractive sort of college kids that showed up, they’d get out there, get involved with everything from the electrician to, mmmm, to—They would go with anybody who was connected with the tour. A carpenter. A lightman. Anyone connected with the tour, no matter who it was. They didn’t care. Boys, women, dogs, fire hydrants. I mean, the most extraordinary things you’ve ever seen.

WARHOL: Not in New York:

CAPOTE: The things that went on in Texas. I’ve never seen anything equal to it. There’s sort of all-night partying. One night...in Texas—I mean I never did it, because in my own mind I was working at the moment...But they would come off and be wagged up, and one night about four o’clock in the morning when I was in bed but wasn’t asleep, Keith Richards came and he knocked on my door, and I said, “Yes?” and he said, “It’s Keith,” and I said, “Yes, Keith.” He said, “Oh, come out, we’re having a terrific party upstairs.”

“I’m tired. I’ve had a long day and so have you and I think you should got to bed.”

“Aw, come out and see what a rock group’s really like.”

“I know what a rock group’s really like, Keith. I don’t have to come upstairs to see.” And apparently he had a bottle of ketchup in his hand—he had a hamburger and a bottle of ketchup—and he just threw it all on the door of my room. [Laughs]

WARHOL: It sounds like fun.

CAPOTE: The Rolling Stones are first-rate. I personally prefer them on records to the performances.

WARHOL: Jann wants to know: “What do you see as the predominant themes running through the recent albums.”

CAPOTE: Well, I don’t see any themes running through their songs. It’s just like you—taking Polaroid photographs all night long or...I think when they’re good, it’s really by accident, even though everything about them is rehearsed down to the last degree. The Beatles’ songs very often made SOME sense, but I can’t think of a single Rolling Stones song that, from beginning to end, made absolutely logical sense. It’s all in the sound.

WARHOL: Did you have a good time on the tour?

CAPOTE: Yes. I did. Because I’m a highly curious person. It was a new world—the mechanics of it. The frantic atmosphere in which it was conducted. I really enjoyed it. I wasn’t bored. I had a good time.

[The interview had lots of non-Stones bits not included here.]

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: M4000D ()
Date: January 22, 2012 07:38

Truman use to make me bust up laughing when I use to see him on tv, I had no idea he was always wiped out.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: January 22, 2012 09:16

I remember his comment in the press, "Mick Jagger is about as sexy as a pissing toad". Sounded like he was throwing a tanty at being so unimportant in the RS circle. There is a funny account of Keith yelling though the halls of the hotel, "Princess Radish (Lee Radziwill - Capote's friend, Jacqueline Kennedy's sister), Truby, wake up, you old queen! This is rock and roll!" (Paraphrasing to the best of my memory, it was a LONG time ago.)

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: belld ()
Date: March 3, 2012 23:14

Quote
Bliss
I remember his comment in the press, "Mick Jagger is about as sexy as a pissing toad". Sounded like he was throwing a tanty at being so unimportant in the RS circle. There is a funny account of Keith yelling though the halls of the hotel, "Princess Radish (Lee Radziwill - Capote's friend, Jacqueline Kennedy's sister), Truby, wake up, you old queen! This is rock and roll!" (Paraphrasing to the best of my memory, it was a LONG time ago.)
A wonderful article, two sober citizens indeed.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: March 4, 2012 10:41

in Let It Bleed (the documentary) Stanley Booth does a nice job mimicking Truman Capote whining "There's no story!"

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: March 4, 2012 20:35

Thanks! I recall never reading this before.

Capote's take on things was actually much better that I thought. I also basically remember just that much published "sexy as a pissing toad" quote. His view of Jagger - and a clear affection - is especially interesting, if not even insightful. Seemingly he is wittnessing an phemeoneon that is fascinates him very much but is an oddity to him, and he can't find right constructive words. So he uses negative ones to make the point: "can't sing", "can't dance", "can't move"... If one's criterion of singing is, say, Frank Sinatra or Billie Holiday, of course, he can't. Or if a great dancing is what - Nurejev? or any real dancers - of course, he can't, etc. but still he is "putting a fantastic act, of which the vital element is energy", and carries the show "with his energy, drive and thrust". I think he is hitting something right there.

Also I like the point about Jagger as an "actor" who is "totally extroverted" but then "reverts to quite a private, sensible, and a more emotionally mature person than most actors and intellectuals are capable of being". I think the guy is spot on. I can't recall, say, Keith Richards saying ever anything as reflective or revealing of Jagger - the best is something like "a nice bunch of guys" but in the end, a total mystery to him. In LIFE Keith couldn't make any deeper insight of Jagger's persona, but just talked in terms of nasty bashing and corny flattering. Mick this and Mick that. Capote made this insight of Jagger's emotional maturity already in 1972 - when Jagger supposedly was the in the height of his stardom, the biggest rock star in the world - and if we look Jagger's interviews, his most ego-driven, arrogont and full of himself.

But then Keith, in his most "rock and roll life" ever, and in the dopeville highway, supposedly hated people like Capote, but I can see why Jagger - and Bianca - was leaning more towards that kind of society.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-04 20:39 by Doxa.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: stupidguy2 ()
Date: March 4, 2012 23:57

Quote
M4000D
Truman use to make me bust up laughing when I use to see him on tv, I had no idea he was always wiped out.

Yeah. He was a regular on the talk show circuit before the Charlie Sheens....
Capote was wiped out artistically by the 70s.
Its funny that Keith had such little regard for Capote, like he was just some society queen.. Yet the man wrote what is probably the greatest American true crime book ever written.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: angee ()
Date: March 5, 2012 02:59

Now that Keith has his co-authored book out, I think he might have more respect for
Truman, in retrospect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Love is strong..."


byTeafoe

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: palerider22 ()
Date: March 5, 2012 04:19

CAPOTE: Well, I don’t see any themes running through their songs. It’s just like you—taking Polaroid photographs all night long or...I think when they’re good, it’s really by accident, even though everything about them is rehearsed down to the last degree....but I can’t think of a single Rolling Stones song that, from beginning to end, made absolutely logical sense. It’s all in the sound.

This quote struck me...a neatly phrased comment that's pretty much sums up what I've often thought...but couldn't articulate nearly as well...

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: March 5, 2012 08:23

He's just not tuned into the Stones, period. He can make some interesting outsider observations, but to say that the songs make no logical sense is pure crap. They are some of the best pop and rock songs, ever. But they don't speak to Mr. Capote's generation. There's mystery in the music of the 60s that sometimes only those who were there can quite comprehend. And quite frankly some it is LSD inspired and goes beyond words. I can get high just hearing 'Good Vibrations', but people from another era have no idea what I'm talking about.

I remember the American comedian Dick Shawn making fun of 'You Can't Always Get What You Want', making it seem like an obvious song. I'm sorry, but I've found that to be a deep sentiment in reality. Of course 'She's A Rainbow' makes no sense in a linear fashion. It's the informed listener filling in the meaning around what's been created where the magic happens. Capote's generation wasn't used to such indirect lyrics. They were also slugging down booze and had no idea what the psychedelic experience would do to music.

As much as I like Truman, he seems to have had deep psychological problems that contributed to his alcohol and pill addictions and he let that keep him from writing. He spent most of his time being a writer celebrity than being a writer. A writer needs anonymity to observe and record and he no longer had that. I'm sure someone like Jagger probably found Capote amusing and interesting, with a useful pool of acquaintances. It doesn't appear that Keith could tolerate these kind of people. Maybe Mick got bored with Keith overdoing drugs. You have to get out of the f-ing hotel room at some point.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: March 5, 2012 09:34

Quote
24FPS
He's just not tuned into the Stones, period. He can make some interesting outsider observations, but to say that the songs make no logical sense is pure crap. They are some of the best pop and rock songs, ever. But they don't speak to Mr. Capote's generation. There's mystery in the music of the 60s that sometimes only those who were there can quite comprehend. And quite frankly some it is LSD inspired and goes beyond words. I can get high just hearing 'Good Vibrations', but people from another era have no idea what I'm talking about.

I remember the American comedian Dick Shawn making fun of 'You Can't Always Get What You Want', making it seem like an obvious song. I'm sorry, but I've found that to be a deep sentiment in reality. Of course 'She's A Rainbow' makes no sense in a linear fashion. It's the informed listener filling in the meaning around what's been created where the magic happens. Capote's generation wasn't used to such indirect lyrics. They were also slugging down booze and had no idea what the psychedelic experience would do to music.

As much as I like Truman, he seems to have had deep psychological problems that contributed to his alcohol and pill addictions and he let that keep him from writing. He spent most of his time being a writer celebrity than being a writer. A writer needs anonymity to observe and record and he no longer had that. I'm sure someone like Jagger probably found Capote amusing and interesting, with a useful pool of acquaintances. It doesn't appear that Keith could tolerate these kind of people. Maybe Mick got bored with Keith overdoing drugs. You have to get out of the f-ing hotel room at some point.

I agree with just about all of this. Truman and the 1972 Stones are a pretty strange combination, although of course it derived from Mick and Bianca's involvement with the wealthy Hamptons social scene. Truman was basically an insecure outsider to the social scene he had penetrated, being from a poor Southern background and gay in a time when being out was not universally accepted. Through determination and his own personal qualities, he inserted himself into the highest New York social circles. But he suffered a terrible end - he revealed too much about one of them in his book 'Answered Prayers' and he was ostracised. As Oscar Wilde said, "To be in society is a bore. To be out of it is a tragedy".

>>I remember the American comedian Dick Shawn making fun of 'You Can't Always Get What You Want', making it seem like an obvious song. I'm sorry, but I've found that to be a deep sentiment in reality.

Me too. Somehow you end up where you are supposed to be, with the people you are supposed to be with. It can be a hard pill to swallow, admitting certain things about your own limitations and real needs.

'When Ruthie says come see her
In her honky-tonk lagoon
Where I can watch her waltz for free
'Neath the Panamanian moon
I say, "Oh, come on now
You know, you know about my debutante"
She says, "Your debutante just knows what you need
But I know what you want".'

(Memphis Blues Again - Bob Dylan)

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: March 5, 2012 09:58

Quote
24FPS
I'm sure someone like Jagger probably found Capote amusing and interesting, with a useful pool of acquaintances. It doesn't appear that Keith could tolerate these kind of people. Maybe Mick got bored with Keith overdoing drugs. You have to get out of the f-ing hotel room at some point.

Yeah, the classical romantic story of early 70's is that Jagger - with Bianca - was a social climber, getting to know people like Capote, and Keith - with Anita - remained faithfull to a rock and roll life style. A part of official Stones mythology. It was all rosey during the late 60's when Mick and Marianne and Keith and Anita made this little rock and roll high society. But then Mick betrayed the scene. We all know this, right?

It could be that Jagger basically bored with that kind of circle(s), especially taking what happend in Nellcote, and having all kind of hangers on. Keith, by contrast, seemed to love being in the center of the hurricane, the leader and toughest guy of the party that is. Jagger, if anything, is a restless soul, a curious mind, a guy always seeking new things. I think for him staying in some scene for the rest of life must sound awkward. Perhaps the London scene in where he was a king during the late 60's was a thing of the moment. That was cool and exciting then, but life continued, and he kept on searching new grounds, new people, new circles. But Keith somehow stuck into those premises and went just downhill on dopeville throughtout the 70's. Perhaps getting rid of the hard stuff, and having a real family finally freed himself of that - but not his image - and being a "celebrite" and hanging with any name - read the last chapter of LIFE - is not that hard for him to accept ever since...

What I have always found it funny in that Jagger guy is that he never seems to be very home with a rock and roll crowd. Yeah, he surely is the biggest rock stars ever - the thousands of frontmans adoring him and trying to be like him - but he always make the impression that rock and roll as a sort of life style, a way to dress, or being devoted to it doesn't impress him at all. To my eyes he takes that role only as something like as his claim to fame, something he is very good at, but somehow doesn't devote himself 24/7 to that. I think he is way too smart for that. A bit same impression as Dylan makes - another a song and a dance man - who is gifted in his job, but knows exactly its boundaries. I think Capote's point about Mick's ability to control his own act - being an actor - but then ability to leave it behind, too, is capturing something essential in Jagger, which also might explain some of his achievements and a being a vital star for some 50 years soon. He is not carried away with his own greatness, his own role (so many adores). Like so many others would if given the possibility of being in his shoes. (One could say the same of Dylan, as well.)

This reminds me of Keith's talks from the 90's, during the time Mick and Jerry 'divorced' I think. He said something to the effect that millions people would love to be Mick Jagger, but Jagger does not seems to be happy being himself, and is always in a run, and unable to make lasting relationships, etc. Keith recommended Mick to just relax, and enjoý being Mick Jagger. But to my eyes Keith doesn't seem to get what is so essential in Jagger. Mick doesn't feel like being satisfied with the premises achieved but is always looking for a new thing, new adventures. He still is.

(But before anyone make the correct remark that how do I know anything of 'real' Jagger - well, I obviously don't; I'm just making observations and theories from the base of evidence I know.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-05 10:00 by Doxa.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: March 5, 2012 11:35

Re Doxa: You could say that Mick and Keith were just being themselves. Mick was the bourgeois LSE student - a prestigious school of economics, then and now - who spent his whole childhood studying and planning to be rich. Keith was the poor loner who got chased to school every day and spent his time in art school playing guitar in the men's lavatory.

I have always thought Keith's comment to Mick was a bit rich. Apart from his failure to break away from the Stones, and his regret at having signed away the RS catalogue to Allen Klein, I don't think Mick was ever really unhappy; he is just a driven workaholic. Why did Keith himself have to narcotise himself into oblivion for decades on end? He said it was to cocoon himself against the pressures of fame. But really, what is so hard about being Keith Richards?

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: March 5, 2012 18:50

Quote
Bliss
But really, what is so hard about being Keith Richards?

The early Keith, before he put up the wall, seems a little shy, a little jug eared, a little pimply. Watching the Ed Sullivan shows is startling, to see how hard they all look by 1969, compared to the smiling guys amused by it all in 1964. Although they like to repeat that Brian was poorly constructed for the show business life, it doesn't look like Keith was all that happily adjusted either. Unless you think shooting heroin for ten years is happily adjusted.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: angee ()
Date: March 5, 2012 19:16

Doxa, thanks for another interesting set of speculations. I may not agree with all of them, but I find them fascinating to read.

I completely concur with Capote's observation of Mick as an actor, a master performer. able to leave all of it aside offstage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Love is strong..."


byTeafoe

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: memphiscats ()
Date: March 5, 2012 19:29

Quote
Title5Take1
April 12, 1973

In 1972, ROLLING STONE asked Truman Capote to cover the Rolling Stones’ EXILE ON MAIN ST. tour. But months later, Capote was unable to produce a story. The magazine asked Andy Warhol to interview Capote.



WARHOL: Did you like traveling with them?

CAPOTE: Oh, I enjoyed it. I just didn’t want to write about it, because it didn’t interest me creatively. You know? But I enjoyed it as an experience. I thought it was amusing...I like the Rolling Stones individually, one by one, but the one thing I didn’t like was that they had—and especially the people around them—had such a disrespect for the audience. That used to really gripe me. It was like, “Who the fcuk cares about them?” Well, these kids have merely stood in line for twenty-seven hours, you know, and what not to go to their concert—they adore them and love them.
I've read this article a couple of times before and this part always disturbed me. Maybe I'm naive - but my impression of the Stones was they were loyal to their music and their fans. I never felt like they were shitting on their fans. Does anyone agree with what Truman said? Or am I misreading it and perhaps he's talking about the "entourage" not appreciating the fans.
Muddled in Memphis...smoking smiley

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: March 5, 2012 19:42

Quote
memphiscats
Does anyone agree with what Truman said? Or am I misreading it and perhaps he's talking about the "entourage" not appreciating the fans. Muddled in Memphis...smoking smiley

it's hard to agree or disagree when i don't know what he's talking about!
maybe he's talking about things like shows starting hours late
and/or the fact that at most shows the Stones didn't do encores -
which are indeed not signs of great courtesy towards the audience ...
but i don't know that the Stones' audience was expecting great courtesy

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: stonesrule ()
Date: March 5, 2012 21:23

The entourage was pretty messy, to put it politely, at tht time.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: March 5, 2012 22:05

I think he was talking about Them going on stage late when He was talking about the disregard for the audience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-05 22:06 by ryanpow.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: stupidguy2 ()
Date: March 5, 2012 23:46

Quote
Doxa
Quote
24FPS
I'm sure someone like Jagger probably found Capote amusing and interesting, with a useful pool of acquaintances. It doesn't appear that Keith could tolerate these kind of people. Maybe Mick got bored with Keith overdoing drugs. You have to get out of the f-ing hotel room at some point.

Yeah, the classical romantic story of early 70's is that Jagger - with Bianca - was a social climber, getting to know people like Capote, and Keith - with Anita - remained faithfull to a rock and roll life style. A part of official Stones mythology. It was all rosey during the late 60's when Mick and Marianne and Keith and Anita made this little rock and roll high society. But then Mick betrayed the scene. We all know this, right?

It could be that Jagger basically bored with that kind of circle(s), especially taking what happend in Nellcote, and having all kind of hangers on. Keith, by contrast, seemed to love being in the center of the hurricane, the leader and toughest guy of the party that is. Jagger, if anything, is a restless soul, a curious mind, a guy always seeking new things. I think for him staying in some scene for the rest of life must sound awkward. Perhaps the London scene in where he was a king during the late 60's was a thing of the moment. That was cool and exciting then, but life continued, and he kept on searching new grounds, new people, new circles. But Keith somehow stuck into those premises and went just downhill on dopeville throughtout the 70's. Perhaps getting rid of the hard stuff, and having a real family finally freed himself of that - but not his image - and being a "celebrite" and hanging with any name - read the last chapter of LIFE - is not that hard for him to accept ever since...

What I have always found it funny in that Jagger guy is that he never seems to be very home with a rock and roll crowd. Yeah, he surely is the biggest rock stars ever - the thousands of frontmans adoring him and trying to be like him - but he always make the impression that rock and roll as a sort of life style, a way to dress, or being devoted to it doesn't impress him at all. To my eyes he takes that role only as something like as his claim to fame, something he is very good at, but somehow doesn't devote himself 24/7 to that. I think he is way too smart for that. A bit same impression as Dylan makes - another a song and a dance man - who is gifted in his job, but knows exactly its boundaries. I think Capote's point about Mick's ability to control his own act - being an actor - but then ability to leave it behind, too, is capturing something essential in Jagger, which also might explain some of his achievements and a being a vital star for some 50 years soon. He is not carried away with his own greatness, his own role (so many adores). Like so many others would if given the possibility of being in his shoes. (One could say the same of Dylan, as well.)

This reminds me of Keith's talks from the 90's, during the time Mick and Jerry 'divorced' I think. He said something to the effect that millions people would love to be Mick Jagger, but Jagger does not seems to be happy being himself, and is always in a run, and unable to make lasting relationships, etc. Keith recommended Mick to just relax, and enjoý being Mick Jagger. But to my eyes Keith doesn't seem to get what is so essential in Jagger. Mick doesn't feel like being satisfied with the premises achieved but is always looking for a new thing, new adventures. He still is.

(But before anyone make the correct remark that how do I know anything of 'real' Jagger - well, I obviously don't; I'm just making observations and theories from the base of evidence I know.)

- Doxa

Excellent post Doxa.
I always thought it was interesting that while Mick/Bianca were derided by Keith/Anita et al....for their 'society' affliations in the 70s...one could make the argument that the whole London scene in the mid-60s in which Keith/Anita/Marianne/Mick/Brian perched quite comfortable with the 'pretty young things' of London high society - lord and lady this and that etc - was not exactly down and dirty rock and roll. I always thought it was a bit hypocrital to slag Mick for hanging out with Gore Vidal in the 70s when Keith's buddies were the Orsmby-Gores, Guinnesses....
Apparently. the difference for Keith was that those London 'society' heirs did alot of drugs and kissed the young Rock God's asses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-05 23:48 by stupidguy2.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Title5Take1 ()
Date: March 6, 2012 00:07

Quote
stupidguy2
I always thought it was a bit hypocrital to slag Mick for hanging out with Gore Vidal in the 70s when Keith's buddies were the Orsmby-Gores, Guinnesses....

Makes me think of Keith in LIFE on 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."

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 6, 2012 00:33

Quote
Title5Take1
Quote
stupidguy2
I always thought it was a bit hypocrital to slag Mick for hanging out with Gore Vidal in the 70s when Keith's buddies were the Orsmby-Gores, Guinnesses....

Makes me think of Keith in LIFE on 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."

Hypocrisy is a big part of Keith's life. grinning smiley

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: swiss ()
Date: March 6, 2012 12:14

hi - thanks so much for posting that!

fwiw...a couple past threads containing content about Stones/Capote
[www.iorr.org]
[www.iorr.org]

- swiss

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Bliss ()
Date: March 6, 2012 13:45

>>I always thought it was a bit hypocrital to slag Mick for hanging out with Gore Vidal in the 70s when Keith's buddies were the Orsmby-Gores, Guinnesses....

Apparently. the difference for Keith was that those London 'society' heirs did alot of drugs and kissed the young Rock God's asses.

I think the difference was that the aristos that Mick and Keith hung out with in the 60s - Christopher Gibb, Robert Fraser,, Ormsby-Gores, Tennants, Guinnesses - were entering the RS' world, as it was seen by them as more exciting and vibrant than their own. They were choosing to take a step down, and of course, drugs and music were the glue. The NY upper class/intelligentsia - Andy Warhol, Gore Vidal, Dick Cavett, Truman Capote, Lee Radziwill - was a different story. They were on their own turf and the RS, or rather Mick and Bianca, were joining them. Not that drug use wasn't prevalent, but there wasn't the camaraderie of outlaw druggies. It's hard to even imagine these people at a RS concert.

In any case, by the time Mick was associating with them, it was the 70s, and the Swinging Sixties were long over.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: stupidguy2 ()
Date: March 6, 2012 17:29

Quote
Bliss
>>I always thought it was a bit hypocrital to slag Mick for hanging out with Gore Vidal in the 70s when Keith's buddies were the Orsmby-Gores, Guinnesses....

Apparently. the difference for Keith was that those London 'society' heirs did alot of drugs and kissed the young Rock God's asses.

I think the difference was that the aristos that Mick and Keith hung out with in the 60s - Christopher Gibb, Robert Fraser,, Ormsby-Gores, Tennants, Guinnesses - were entering the RS' world, as it was seen by them as more exciting and vibrant than their own. They were choosing to take a step down, and of course, drugs and music were the glue. The NY upper class/intelligentsia - Andy Warhol, Gore Vidal, Dick Cavett, Truman Capote, Lee Radziwill - was a different story. They were on their own turf and the RS, or rather Mick and Bianca, were joining them. Not that drug use wasn't prevalent, but there wasn't the camaraderie of outlaw druggies. It's hard to even imagine these people at a RS concert.

In any case, by the time Mick was associating with them, it was the 70s, and the Swinging Sixties were long over.

True, but lords and ladies nevertheless......I mean, Vidal was an artist as well, and Warhol had his thing. It was a different era, and for all their supposed bohemia, the Ormsby-Gores, Guinesses remained very much a part of high society.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Redhotcarpet ()
Date: March 6, 2012 17:42

Quote
24FPS
Quote
Bliss
But really, what is so hard about being Keith Richards?

The early Keith, before he put up the wall, seems a little shy, a little jug eared, a little pimply. Watching the Ed Sullivan shows is startling, to see how hard they all look by 1969, compared to the smiling guys amused by it all in 1964. Although they like to repeat that Brian was poorly constructed for the show business life, it doesn't look like Keith was all that happily adjusted either. Unless you think shooting heroin for ten years is happily adjusted.

I find that comment about Brian not being fit for fame really disgusting. Talk about patting him on the head. Self righteous crap.

It's true he couldnt cope with the ALO power trio within the band and he couldnt handle losing Anita to Keith and on top of that he had the busts. He was perfectly built for fame and showbiz, in fact he was the only one in the band who was up until he lost Anita which is when he falls head first to the ground. It's really obvious when you look at those clips of late 66 early 67 Brian compared to those later in 1967. He died that summer more or less.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Title5Take1 ()
Date: March 6, 2012 19:40

The blending of the rock world with the aristocrats reminds me of the 2009 memoir MISS O'DELL By Chris O'Dell, that's about her working intimately with the Beatles and the Stones (she's the blonde woman on the EXILE cover). She married the son of an English baron. When her fiancé told his father-the-baron on the phone he was marrying O'Dell, his father said, "Just a moment" and put his phone down. And the baron never came back to the phone! That was his answer to his son marrying this rock chick.

Chris O'Dell




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-06 23:52 by Title5Take1.

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: swiss ()
Date: March 6, 2012 22:54

Quote
Title5Take1
The blending of the rock world with the aristocrats reminds me of the 2009 memoir MISS O'DELL By Chris O'Dell, that's about her working intimately with the Beatles and the Stones (she's the blonde woman on the EXILE cover). She married the son of an English baron. When her fiancee told his father-the-baron on the phone he was marrying O'Dell, his father said, "Just a moment" and put his phone down. And the baron never came back to the phone! That was his answer to his son marrying this rock chick.

Title5Take1
InSANE story. So perfectly captures the aristocratic response to unpleasantness.
- swiss

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: swiss ()
Date: March 6, 2012 23:08

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Quote
24FPS
Quote
Bliss
But really, what is so hard about being Keith Richards?

The early Keith, before he put up the wall, seems a little shy, a little jug eared, a little pimply. Watching the Ed Sullivan shows is startling, to see how hard they all look by 1969, compared to the smiling guys amused by it all in 1964. Although they like to repeat that Brian was poorly constructed for the show business life, it doesn't look like Keith was all that happily adjusted either. Unless you think shooting heroin for ten years is happily adjusted.

I find that comment about Brian not being fit for fame really disgusting. Talk about patting him on the head. Self righteous crap.

It's true he couldnt cope with the ALO power trio within the band and he couldnt handle losing Anita to Keith and on top of that he had the busts. He was perfectly built for fame and showbiz, in fact he was the only one in the band who was up until he lost Anita which is when he falls head first to the ground. It's really obvious when you look at those clips of late 66 early 67 Brian compared to those later in 1967. He died that summer more or less.

Redhotcarpet - well...you bring up very good points. And that's a super interesting assertion that Brian died that summer. I can see what you mean. And I think what you say in general deserves serious attention - to what degree is Brian's fragility a self-serving myth of the Rolling Stones? My hunch is that there is indeed truth to the myth---that, yes, Brian did have a lot of heavy blows to contend with, and they did leave him reeling, as they would anyone---but also that he was probably less constitutionally hardy than others in "show biz." Maybe the others' defenses were also flawed (they were), but Brian, and this is said by many who knew him and even were fond of him, gave the impression to those who knew and encountered him that he was a little too thin-skinned to withstand the blows, or didn't have the needed defenses to fend off the slings and arrows. I mean, many people in "show biz" don't. Brian--most certainly--was an artist, first and foremost. I think Keith, Mick, and Charlie are too, but in a very different way. Brian is SO open and so vulnerable, and that's part of what made his art so goddamn gorgeous and transportive...could take you to another very creative place. And I tip my "hippie card" in also mentioning Brian is a Pisces, and very classically so. He was hypersensitive to everything around him, mutable, and dreamy. If he had a better support system around him he would have been protected from some of the intensity of being in "show biz." But, you know the story, right? Even the night he and Anita met he was literally in tears because Keith and Mick had been "mean" to him that night--and this was in 1964. On top of all that, he was physically sickly a lot, and the defenses he did have were often off-putting to other people. He was like a wound up cock-rooster looking to pick fights, and could be mean-spirited, super obnoxious, and bitchy in a way not even Mick could hold a candle to--sort of petty. So that didn't endear him to people very much who might have rallied around when times got tough.

- swiss

Re: Truman Capote on being on the Stones' 1972 American tour (from ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE)
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 7, 2012 01:46



.................................................................................. "Truman Capote" - Andy Warhol 1979

ROCKMAN

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 607
Record Number of Users: 161 on September 12, 2017 22:55
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home