Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
proudmary
You'd rater advice to your mother

Leave the mothers out of it

I see his post with personal attacks on me you liked, but my answer you informed to bv and it was deleted
I'm not surprised, you incite against me as always



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-31 23:17 by proudmary.

Quote
northernale1


the crap some people spew is ridiculous and makes this forum look like a joke

the best description of your posts

bv posted on other thread

Please post with respect, and please no fights and personal insults. Otherwise I have to take action. And... edit your own post when you understand you have been out of line. Thank you!

Bjornulf
IORR Editor



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-01 00:02 by proudmary.

Quote
proudmary
my answer you informed to bv and it was deleted
I'm not surprised, you incite against me as always

Your post is insulting.
Again you say something you know nothing about.
I did not report anything to Bjornulf.
And I do not incite against you as always, whatever that might mean.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
proudmary
and at the same time you just removed my post - my response to the initial insult - without warning and the post which offends me personaly is still here.

Just pay attention.
Northernale's post is removed too.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
proudmary
my answer you informed to bv and it was deleted
I'm not surprised, you incite against me as always

Your post is insulting.
Again you say something you know nothing about.
I did not report anything to Bjornulf.
And I do not incite against you as always, whatever that might mean.

People can disagree with my opinions, I'm all for respectful debate. But northernale1's post was not just disagreeing - it was personal insult.

This hasn't caused your rejection, quite the contrary, you supported him. And it happens not for the first time, you just like to come after my posts with your sarcastic remarks in my adress

"Again you say something you know nothing about".

What is this?
Again you have nothing to tell on the topic of this thread but can't leave the personal aspect alone

Quote
proudmary
I'm all for respectful debate

Then stick to the facts.
You accused me of reporting to Bjornulf.
And I did no such thing.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

........the Stones would never have lasted this long if they took the posts on this site as personally as some do here.

Quote
proudmary
you just like to come after my posts with your sarcastic remarks in my adress

Total nonsense. It's about time you start proving your silly accusations to my address.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rip This
as personally as some do here.

Well, some posts are quite personal

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Does anybody else feel that Keith's bashing of Mick's musicianship might be far more insulting to Mick than "Todgergate"? In "Life" Keith mentions an incident in the studio where he says to Mick: "There are two guitar players in this band, and you're not one of them". Really? He says this to the man who played guitar on "Sway" and "Stop Breaking Down" (songs where I would argue he out-Keithed Keith). Where was Keith exactly on those sessions (as well as sessions for "Moonlight Mile", "Winter" and several others)? One thing I know about Mick is that he has pride in his musical accomplishments. Rightly so, in my opinion, as there are many. To have his "partner" show such utter contempt for his musical gifts must have galled him far more than a childish comment about his sexual prowess.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-01 08:19 by 71Tele.

Thanks Tele for getting this thread back on topic.
Good question also. I don't know if the incident you mention, really happened the way Keith said in the book. And even if, it might have been just an incident. But in general my answer to your question would be a big YES. Mick has been a great musician, and has proven that in the past 50 years. Insulting his musical skills would of course be a much bigger insult than that "other thing".
But on the other hand I remember many moments in the book where Keith praises Mick and speaks highly about Mick's musical skills.
I think it all depends on which parts in the book one finds important and wants to remember. The good ones or the bad ones. Mick being a professional musician, and let's not forget a famous celebrety for 50 years now, will surely be used to and very capable of handling critics, slaggings and whatever has come over him during his career.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
proudmary
You'd rater advice to your mother

Leave the mothers out of it

I see his post with personal attacks on me you liked, but my answer you informed to bv and it was deleted
I'm not surprised, you incite against me as always

Just so you know, - I - reported it because I thought the way Northernale1 attacked you was way out of line.

Quote
71Tele
Does anybody else feel that Keith's bashing of Mick's musicianship might be far more insulting to Mick than "Todgergate"? In "Life" Keith mentions an incident in the studio where he says to Mick: "There are two guitar players in this band, and you're not one of them". Really? He says this to the man who played guitar on "Sway" and "Stop Breaking Down" (songs where I would argue he out-Keithed Keith). Where was Keith exactly on those sessions (as well as sessions for "Moonlight Mile", "Winter" and several others)? One thing I know about Mick is that he has pride in his musical accomplishments. Rightly so, in my opinion, as there are many. To have his "partner" show such utter contempt for his musical gifts must have galled him far more than a childish comment about his sexual prowess.

While I am not saying that Keith feels threatened by Mick's musicianship, my impression is that Keith has always felt insecure and jealous of Mick in general, because of his position as frontman and lead singer. When you look at Keith and the Winos performing - have a look at '93 Orpheum shows - you can see he LOVES being the frontman and the star.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-01 13:08 by Bliss.

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Thanks Tele for getting this thread back on topic.
Good question also. I don't know if the incident you mention, really happened the way Keith said in the book. And even if, it might have been just an incident. But in general my answer to your question would be a big YES. Mick has been a great musician, and has proven that in the past 50 years. Insulting his musical skills would of course be a much bigger insult than that "other thing".
But on the other hand I remember many moments in the book where Keith praises Mick and speaks highly about Mick's musical skills.
I think it all depends on which parts in the book one finds important and wants to remember. The good ones or the bad ones. Mick being a professional musician, and let's not forget a famous celebrety for 50 years now, will surely be used to and very capable of handling critics, slaggings and whatever has come over him during his career.

Right on! It surprises me that people are so selective, just like they want to create a conflict that might not even be there in the first place.

Quote
Bliss
Just so you know, - I - reported it

Thank you very much for clearing that up. I really appreciate that.

Edit: typo

-------------------
Keep On Rolling



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-01 14:30 by Rolling Hansie.

- Todgergate is overrated and blown out of all proportions.
- Keith hasn´t written 95 % of the Stones´s music, nor has he claimed it.
- Keith has never said he´ll give a solo album priority over Stones activity.

I can understand that posters on IORR react on repeatedly posts about the things above.

However, I can NOT understand that people insult other posters because of it.

So, IMO, both camps need to grow up. Why? because it´s ok to have an opinion about something, but it´s not ok repeatedly presenting it as facts, based on your own interpretation only.

Insulting other posters is just silly and dumb behaviour.

To defend Keith a bit, I think he's right on one account. He's angry with Mick because he (Mick) broke up the band in the 80s in order to persue a solo career. There his critisim is valid. Mick has had a tendency since the 80s not really wanting to work with the band but to do all sorts of other things (produce films, attend premieres, solo stuff and whatever). The only reason he has come back to the band is, probably, lack of success with his private projects and his business nose (he realizes that there is more money to be made from the Stones than his private projects).

Quote
71Tele
Does anybody else feel that Keith's bashing of Mick's musicianship might be far more insulting to Mick than "Todgergate"? In "Life" Keith mentions an incident in the studio where he says to Mick: "There are two guitar players in this band, and you're not one of them". Really? He says this to the man who played guitar on "Sway" and "Stop Breaking Down" (songs where I would argue he out-Keithed Keith). Where was Keith exactly on those sessions (as well as sessions for "Moonlight Mile", "Winter" and several others)? One thing I know about Mick is that he has pride in his musical accomplishments. Rightly so, in my opinion, as there are many. To have his "partner" show such utter contempt for his musical gifts must have galled him far more than a childish comment about his sexual prowess.

Most certainly!

Quote
71Tele
Does anybody else feel that Keith's bashing of Mick's musicianship might be far more insulting to Mick than "Todgergate"? In "Life" Keith mentions an incident in the studio where he says to Mick: "There are two guitar players in this band, and you're not one of them". Really? He says this to the man who played guitar on "Sway" and "Stop Breaking Down" (songs where I would argue he out-Keithed Keith). Where was Keith exactly on those sessions (as well as sessions for "Moonlight Mile", "Winter" and several others)? One thing I know about Mick is that he has pride in his musical accomplishments. Rightly so, in my opinion, as there are many. To have his "partner" show such utter contempt for his musical gifts must have galled him far more than a childish comment about his sexual prowess.

In fact, not only that. Richards downplays Mick's talents - as a songwriter, a guitar player, a singer. Yes, he praises his harmonica playing but only to say right away that Mick doesn't sing as well as he blows harp.
Keith mentions that yes Mick is a great showman - and so casually, in two words, as though it has little meaning. But what is really important, Jagger a musician appears only when he plays harmonica.
It's amazing but throughout the book there is nothing about Jagger's stage presence, his talent as perfomer and how his showmanship singled out the Stones from the the other groups. Keith nostalgically recalls the earliest years, and how the small stage suited Mick best.
"Mick's artistry was on display in these small venues - more so than it ever was later" "Give Mick a stage a size of a table and he'd work it better than anybody exept James Brown"
So he belittles the value of Mick's contribution as a performer to Stones legacy( I mean, he tells us Mick was his best at 1963 when he was not frontman but part of the band, and from there it all went downhill)
"Because it's not an act. Whatever Mick Jagger thinks" - summarizing Richards.

But even this is not that important. Most surprising is that cold tone, complete lack of sympathy to Jagger and constant jabs at any mention of him. Richards actually did not even dedicated a whole page to him (I'm not talking about 80s chapter) as opposed to say, Parsons

about Todgergate
I'm sure Jagger dosn't give a fvck about what Richards can think or say about his "sexual prowess".
But to become an object of ridicule in virtually all world media at 68 - no one can be indifferent to this. Come on, his kids read it. Dreadfull...
and it is not the book itself - it is a publicity of this book which was all built on this very scoop. Very consciously and cynically.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-01 18:12 by proudmary.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
71Tele
Does anybody else feel that Keith's bashing of Mick's musicianship might be far more insulting to Mick than "Todgergate"? In "Life" Keith mentions an incident in the studio where he says to Mick: "There are two guitar players in this band, and you're not one of them". Really? He says this to the man who played guitar on "Sway" and "Stop Breaking Down" (songs where I would argue he out-Keithed Keith). Where was Keith exactly on those sessions (as well as sessions for "Moonlight Mile", "Winter" and several others)? One thing I know about Mick is that he has pride in his musical accomplishments. Rightly so, in my opinion, as there are many. To have his "partner" show such utter contempt for his musical gifts must have galled him far more than a childish comment about his sexual prowess.

In fact, not only that. Richards downplays Mick's talents - as a songwriter, a guitar player, a singer. Yes, he praises his harmonica playing but only to say right away that Mick doesn't sing as well as he blows harp.
Keith mentions that yes Mick is a great showman - and so casually, in two words, as though it has little meaning. But what is really important, Jagger a musician appears only when he plays harmonica.
It's amazing but throughout the book there is nothing about Jagger's stage presence, his talent as perfomer and how his showmanship singled out the Stones from the the other groups. Keith nostalgically recalls the earliest years, and how the small stage suited Mick best.
"Mick's artistry was on display in these small venues - more so than it ever was later" "Give Mick a stage a size of a table and he'd work it better than anybody exept James Brown"
So he belittles the value of Mick's contribution as a performer to Stones legacy( I mean, he tells us Mick was his best at 1963 when he was not frontman but part of the band, and from there it all went downhill)
"Because it's not an act. Whatever Mick Jagger thinks" - summarizing Richards.

But even this is not that important. Most surprising is that cold tone, complete lack of sympathy to Jagger and constant jabs at any mention of him. Richards actually did not even dedicated a whole page to him (I'm not talking about 80s chapter) as opposed to say, Parsons

You misunderstood this passage, as Keith here gave credit to Mick for being an excellent performer, who could rock up even the smallest stage, unlike other frontmen apart from James Brown.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-01 18:13 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
- Todgergate is overrated and blown out of all proportions.
- Keith hasn´t written 95 % of the Stones´s music, nor has he claimed it.
- Keith has never said he´ll give a solo album priority over Stones activity.

"I'd say on general scale I'd come up with the song and the basic idea and Mick would do all the work of filling it in....It's not that you can say in one phrase he wrote that and he did that. But the musical riffis coming from me. I's the riff master. The onle one I missed and that Mick Jagger got was Brown Sugar"
Keith Richards, Life p.178

Pretty much he says he wrote 95% of the Stones´s music

Quote
proudmary

Quote
DandelionPowderman
- Todgergate is overrated and blown out of all proportions.
- Keith hasn´t written 95 % of the Stones´s music, nor has he claimed it.
- Keith has never said he´ll give a solo album priority over Stones activity.

"I'd say on general scale I'd come up with the song and the basic idea and Mick would do all the work of filling it in....It's not that you can say in one phrase he wrote that and he did that. But the musical riffis coming from me. I's the riff master. The onle one I missed and that Mick Jagger got was Brown Sugar"
Keith Richards, Life p.178

Pretty much he says he wrote 95% of the Stones´s music

No, he does not, and it´s quite clear that he is talking about the riff-basedsongs (read open-G) here.

He also says on general scale.

I know Keith is very sloppy in his communication, we all know that.

The problem arises when people take Keith literally. Then there is Muddy painting the ceiling, snorting ashes and all that shit.

A good advice: Go for the core message in what Keith says, not every detail.

Keith certainly praises Mick's abilities as a frontman and showman, but Mick is a musician too - something often overlooked even here on this site. Keith was more than once criticized or demeaned Mick's electric guitar playing, for example. What could possibly be the motivation for that? It would be like Mick disparaging Keith's singing.

On and around page 178 Keith begins by talking about the development of Satisfaction. Then comes the paragraph proudmary quotes, which begins "Satisfaction was a typical collaboration between Mick and me at the time. I'd say on general scale..." etc. etc. So do you interpret what follows as referring to songwriting in the 60s (up to and including at least Brown Sugar) or do you believe Keith is intending to claim that all "Jagger/Richards" songs ever composed, from the earliest times to the present day, were written that way? I'd say at least that either interpretation is possible, and as Keith here is talking about the 60s, personally I'll go with the former. As time went on the balance shifted, and Mick's share of the music-writing increased, while lyrics ("all the hard work" says Keith) were always his strength (as Keith acknowledges).

no question...Keiths biggest mistake was in going after the babies....

Many publishers will pay more for authors who include as much sexual, "personal" and tabloid-oriented "stuff" as possible.

Two incidents with my editor on the Hendrix book: he was thrilled when I mentioned JH and I occasionally discussed our acne-related concerns about our faces. "EXPAND. THIS IS FABULOUS," he noted on the manuscript. I had to laugh when I read his scribbles. I IGNORED HIM. Then he said to me on the phone, "We need an ORGY."

I laughed. "It's true that numerous musicians of that free and easy time participated on occasion," I said. "However, there will be no orgy in this book since Hendrix never discussed anything like this with me."

"Get creative!" my editor replied. Once again I ignored him.

What I have learned from IORR is that many posts involving anything remotely sexual or kinky are very popular so I guess my editor was right.

It's not about being puritanical. I've seen it all! But I felt that Keith let himself down by listening to poor advice. He came off as tacky as opposed to troubled.

Just my opinion.

Quote
71Tele
Does anybody else feel that Keith's bashing of Mick's musicianship might be far more insulting to Mick than "Todgergate"? In "Life" Keith mentions an incident in the studio where he says to Mick: "There are two guitar players in this band, and you're not one of them". Really? He says this to the man who played guitar on "Sway" and "Stop Breaking Down" (songs where I would argue he out-Keithed Keith). Where was Keith exactly on those sessions (as well as sessions for "Moonlight Mile", "Winter" and several others)? One thing I know about Mick is that he has pride in his musical accomplishments. Rightly so, in my opinion, as there are many. To have his "partner" show such utter contempt for his musical gifts must have galled him far more than a childish comment about his sexual prowess.

yes.
As a musician and, even more, as a songwriter. Like he said in the book, and also in the past, he often gives Mick only credit for "filling in".
I think the quote that proudmary posted, from p.178, is a very good example.

Quote
Stoneage
To defend Keith a bit, I think he's right on one account. He's angry with Mick because he (Mick) broke up the band in the 80s in order to persue a solo career. There his critisim is valid. Mick has had a tendency since the 80s not really wanting to work with the band but to do all sorts of other things (produce films, attend premieres, solo stuff and whatever). The only reason he has come back to the band is, probably, lack of success with his private projects and his business nose (he realizes that there is more money to be made from the Stones than his private projects).

Mick did not break up the band. And not in order to persue a solo career. There were many reasons to make a break from each other and it was discussed here many times. Mick has every right to do whatever he chooses to outside the Stones, he is not a slave to the band or Keith. And he was pretty successful, his films all got good reviews, and his solocareer was more successful than Keith´s. The only reason for continuing (I don´t say coming back) the Stones is, because he loves it.