Quote
24FPS
The 1966 interviews with Keith & then Brian illustrate the difference between European and American music journalism at the time. I don't know where you could have read such articles in the States, and I doubt there was much availability of NME or Melody Maker here. (Later they would be imported). We had 16 and Tiger Beat magazines, but I doubt you could find much of any depth there. It really wasn't until Rolling Stone achieved wide distribution in 1969-70, that the idea of discussing the musicianship of rock artists came into being. There might have been some articles in what we called 'Underground' papers but these were all local publications like Atlanta's 'Great Speckled Bird'.

I don't think there was any music journalism in '66 in the US..none to be found in 16 or Teen Beat or Tiger Beat or whatever..
it was all about Annette Funicello..

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.

Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.

About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.

Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.

About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.

Redhotcarpet's bolded point is exactly the thing I had in my mind. I think that kind of 'tell it all' book that is systematically back-throbbing the most important partner in the band is not an act of loyalty to the band. And Keith - if anyone - has been the one asking for a loyalty to the band. It is naive to think that "well this is just my story", and should not be associated with the story of the Rolling Stones, if it is Keith Richards talking there. Like mentioned above (I think by His Majesty) that Keith is the one who most invested of himself to The Rolling Stones. He is the one of whose life and persona is most based on the existence of band; for example, Mick and Brian were kind complete packages from the day one, and Bill and Charlie never needed the stardom and acknowlwedgment to buld up as characters. But the whole KEEF, and his attributes we adore here now, was born during the existence of the band. For example, I have always thought that Keith has very mich more intimate, personal relationship for the band than Jagger, who I think has more pragmatic attitude.

I think Keith broke the code and took the cheap route by telling "it all". The criticism of Mick - the thing the world was, of course, looking for - was purely a hit below the belt, and showed Keith just doesn't care of the fate of the band any longer. When Bill Wyman wrote his "tell it all" STONE ALONE, he was just leaving the group (or just had did it). I had the similar picture of the nature of LIFE. But I never thought Keith would do something similar. I am afraid that the things - Keith's condition, etc - have been much worse behind the curtains since the last tour than we have even dared to speculate here. (Besides, even though the bad relationship between Mick and Keith were not any news, I never thought they were SO terrible as LIFE stated. That almost shocked me.)

My interpration is, like I have argued at the time of its relaese, that with LIFE Keith Richards finally freed himself of The Rolling Stones, and is just Keith Richards - the living legend, A Deppian pirate - from now on. It is statement that he doesn't need the Stones anymore. Or other way to look at it is, like I mentioned earlier, the last thing Keith can do is to tell the story. To my eyes LIFE argues that the old dictum from the late 80's that "The Stones is bigger than both of them, Mick and Keith" (very much pointed out by also Bill in STONE ALONE, and which also seemed to dictate the band and solo activities through the Cohlian yaers) does not hold on any longer, but is replaced by "Keith Richards is bigger than The Stones". I honestly thinks he bullshits all the way when he nowadays talks about The Stones in interviews. His image needs that. Keeping up appearances. But talk is cheap.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 11:44 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.

Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.

About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.

Redhotcarpet's bolded point is exactly the thing I had in my mind. I think that kind of 'tell it all' book that is systematically back-throbbing the most important partner in the band is not an act of loyalty to the band. And Keith - if anyone - has been the one asking for a loyalty to the band. It is naive to think that "well this is just my story", and should not be associated with the story of the Rolling Stones, if it is Keith Richards talking there. Like mentioned above (I think by His Majesty) that Keith is the one who most invested of himself to The Rolling Stones. He is the one of whose life and persona is most based on the existence of band; for example, Mick and Brian were kind complete packages from the day one, and Bill and Charlie never needed the stardom and acknowlwedgment to buld up as characters. But the whole KEEF, and his attributes we adore here now, was born during the existence of the band. For example, I have always thought that Keith has very mich more intimate, personal relationship for the band than Jagger, who I think has more pragmatic attitude.

I think Keith broke the code and took the cheap route by telling "it all". The criticism of Mick - the thing the world was, of course, looking for - was purely a hit below the belt, and showed Keith just doesn't care of the fate of the band any longer. When Bill Wyman wrote his "tell it all" STONE ALONE, he was just leaving the group (or just had did it). I had the similar picture of the nature of LIFE. But I never thought Keith would do something similar. I am afraid that the things - Keith's condition, etc - have been much worse behind the curtains since the last tour than we have even dared to speculate here. (Besides, even though the bad relationship between Mick and Keith were not any news, I never thought they were SO terrible as LIFE stated. That almost shocked me.)

My interpration is, like I have argued at the time of its relaese, that with LIFE Keith Richards finally freed himself of The Rolling Stones, and is just Keith Richards - the living legend, A Deppian pirate - from now on. It is statement that he doesn't need the Stones anymore. Or other way to look at it is, like I mentioned earlier, the last thing Keith can do is to tell the story. To my eyes LIFE argues that the old dictum from the late 80's that "The Stones is bigger than both of them, Mick and Keith" (very much pointed out by also Bill in STONE ALONE, and which also seemed to dictate the band and solo activities through the Cohlian yaers) does not hold on any longer, but is replaced by "Keith Richards is bigger than The Stones". I honestly thinks he bullshits all the way when he nowadays talks about The Stones in interviews. His image needs that. Keeping up appearances. But talk is cheap.

- Doxa

I think you're putting way, way too much into this.

They have both been slagging eachother in the press for decades prior to this book release, and if you didn't see stuff from the WWIII coming in this book, I think you anticipated a sencored version of Keith's life.

What you don't bring up, is how much Keith also praises Mick, both as a person and as a performer/musician.

That's what I'm talking about when I say "with warts and all"; addressing the problems, as well as giving praise where he thinks it's earned.

This is not being unloyal to the band, imo.

Hmmm... you really are Jane Rose, aren't you, DP?

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Hmmm... you really are Jane Rose, aren't you, DP?

- Doxa

And you really are Mick

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.

Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.

About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.

Yeah but he doesnt tell it with warts and all, he sells an image and puts himself above Mick in the hierarchy. His way of doing this was t-gate and the lie about sleeping with Marianne (to get back at the public affair between Mick and Anita, which probably meant Anita really went for the gold and not the silver, one year after Anita left Brian for Keith).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 12:54 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.

Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.

About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.

Yeah but he doesnt tell it with warts and all, he sells an image and puts himself above Mick in the hierarchy. His way of doing this was t-gate and the lie about sleeping with Marianne (to get back at the public affair between Mick and Anita, which probably meant Anita really went for the gold and not the silver, one year after Anita left Brian for Keith).

Well, Marianne herself said that Keith was the best lay in the group 30 years before the book came out, so it's hardly a lie, is it?

Exactly where is he putting himself above Mick in the hierarchy? I'm reading that Mick is the frontman, but that he wouldn't have made that on his own without Keith. And that's true, imo.

However, Keith himself would have been even more helpless without Mick.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.

Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.

About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.

Yeah but he doesnt tell it with warts and all, he sells an image and puts himself above Mick in the hierarchy. His way of doing this was t-gate and the lie about sleeping with Marianne (to get back at the public affair between Mick and Anita, which probably meant Anita really went for the gold and not the silver, one year after Anita left Brian for Keith).

Well, Marianne herself said that Keith was the best lay in the group 30 years before the book came out, so it's hardly a lie, is it?

Exactly where is he putting himself above Mick in the hierarchy? I'm reading that Mick is the frontman, but that he wouldn't have made that on his own without Keith. And that's true, imo.

However, Keith himself would have been even more helpless without Mick.

She had her motives too because now after Life she said they didnt actually sleep together and then she changed her story again. Maybe she was reminded with a paycheck, who knows, but since Keith probably wanted to kill Mick in 1968 and instead chose the band, loyalty and of course heroin and Marianne probably also wanted to kill Mick in 1968 they could have had this little "story", an understanding. True or not I dont believe they had an affair at all. It doesnt sound true and it doesnt fit Keiths or Marianne's persona.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
angee
What about the book makes you say this, Doxa?:
"And the content of LIFE documented pretty clearly that he doesn't care for The Rolling Stones any longer. It's only the legend of KEEF left."

I don't get that from the book.

I can´t understand that, either.

For me, there were very few surprises in Life, yet I liked it.

He's not loyal to the band so to speak. Today Keith is no stranger to giving interviews, doing tactial PR etc. Of course he seems shy when he does it, probably because he is not built for fame.

Well, it's not a band biography, it's his story.

Autobiographies are imo worthless if you won't tell the story, with warts and all. And it's not like he's only glorifying himself in there either.

About being used to intervies, you can see by the early 70s that Keith is already a pro in interviews.

Yeah but he doesnt tell it with warts and all, he sells an image and puts himself above Mick in the hierarchy. His way of doing this was t-gate and the lie about sleeping with Marianne (to get back at the public affair between Mick and Anita, which probably meant Anita really went for the gold and not the silver, one year after Anita left Brian for Keith).

Well, Marianne herself said that Keith was the best lay in the group 30 years before the book came out, so it's hardly a lie, is it?

Exactly where is he putting himself above Mick in the hierarchy? I'm reading that Mick is the frontman, but that he wouldn't have made that on his own without Keith. And that's true, imo.

However, Keith himself would have been even more helpless without Mick.

She had her motives too because now after Life she said they didnt actually sleep together and then she changed her story again. Maybe she was reminded with a paycheck, who knows, but since Keith probably wanted to kill Mick in 1968 and instead chose the band, loyalty and of course heroin and Marianne probably also wanted to kill Mick in 1968 they could have had this little "story", an understanding. True or not I dont believe they had an affair at all. It doesnt sound true and it doesnt fit Keiths or Marianne's persona.

Well, she has actually said this so many times during the years, drugged or not, that I find no reason whatsoever not to believe it.

Psychoanalysis isn't my bag, but I seem to remember that Keith had fun with both Lilly and Uschi later on, while being with Anita.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[They have both been slagging eachother in the press for decades prior to this book release

I just pick up this claim since I think that is not true. The way Mick and Keith speak of each other in public is no way balanced. I can't really remember any slagging of Keith by Jagger at all - what comes to my mind is the the remark of Keith "being an unhappy person" when Jagger was asked Keith's harsh opinion about Mick's knighthood. Are there any other really where Mick mocks or harsly - or any way - judges Keith? To my eyes the drama between Mick and Keith is pretty much constituted by only one side. Jagger never seems to talk about Richards unless he is really pushed to say something. Even concerning Keith's drug issues, Jagger never - or VERY rarely - moralized in him in public, or complained all the hassle that had for a business (band). Generally the topic of Keith, or Mick's relation to Keith, sounds quite marginal theme in Mick's talk. But for Keith, Mick and their "brotherhood", "marriage" or whatever the relationship is (be it 'good or bad), seems to be a constant theme. Of course, it could be that from Keith are asked more about Mick than they do from Mick about Keith, but still, Keith seems to love to talk about that theme. Maybe a bit too much.

My interpretation is that Mick basically ignores Keith - and has only very professional, business-like relationship to him - which seems to drive Keith mad (or something like that); this makes him sounding like a bitter ex-wife yap-yapping "Mick this, Mick that blah blah blah".... Seemingly for Keith's public significance, Mick's very existence - a kind of counter or reference point - is much much bigger than the other way around. Jagger seems to be doing fine just by himself.

Anyway, the Mick/Keith 'drama' seems to such a darling issue for the media, and surely to the Stones fans, but I think Jagger's point of view - saying basically nothing, and perhaps not caring either - seems to be overseen easily. Jagger seems to be above it all. If I'de been Jagger - like you guessed I'de be - that sort of public bullshit and manufactured, imposed yellow pages drama might sound very stupid.

Besides, the way Mick talks about Keith's infamous claims in LIFE is basically just a business partner talk, seeing it nothing "personal" but just a complaint of not having enough say in band's business. That's all; couldn't less to care to talk about private matters in public. A cool, pro guy that Jagger guy is! Surely not a drama queen. I think even the biggest Richards worshippers should realize the nature of their relationship these days, and Keith's active role in this supposed old melodrama. The time to 'blame it all on Jagger' is past on. It is not anymore the 80's.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 14:00 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[They have both been slagging eachother in the press for decades prior to this book release

I just pick up this claim since I think that is not true. The way Mick and Keith speak of each other in public is no way balanced. I can't really remember any slagging of Keith by Jagger at all - what comes to my mind is the the remark of Keith "being an unhappy person" when Jagger was asked Keith's harsh opinion about Mick's knighthood. Are there any other really where Mick mocks or harsly - or any way - judges Keith? To my eyes the drama between Mick and Keith is pretty much constituted by only one side. Jagger never seems to talk about Richards unless he is really pushed to say something. Even concerning Keith's drug issues, Jagger never - or VERY rarely - moralized in him in public, or complained all the hassle that had for a business (band). Generally the topic of Keith, or Mick's relation to Keith, sounds quite marginal theme in Mick's talk. But for Keith, Mick and their "brotherhood", "marriage" or whatever the relationship is (be it 'good or bad), seems to be a constant theme. Of course, it could be that from Keith are asked more about Mick than they do from Mick about Keith, but still, Keith seems to love to talk about that theme. Maybe a bit too much.

My interpretation is that Mick basically ignores Keith - and has only very professional, business-like relationship to him - which seems to drive Keith mad (or something like that); this makes him sounding like a bitter ex-wife yip-yapping this and that; Mick this, Mick that blah lah blah.... Seemingly for Keith's public significance Mick's existence - a kind of counter por reference point - is much much bigger than the other way around. Jagger seems to be doing fine just by himself.

Anyway, the Mick/Keith drama seems to such a darling issue for the media, and surely to Stones fans, but I think Jagger's point of view - saying basically nothing, and perhaps not caring either - seems to be overseen easily. Jagger seems to above it all. If I'de been Jagger - like you guessed I'de be - that sort of public bullshit and manufactured, imposed yellow pages drama might sound very stupid.

Besides, the way Mick talks about Keith's infamous claims in LIFE is basically just a business partner talk, seeing it nothing "personal" but just a complaint of not having enough say in band's business. That's all; couldn't less to care to talk about private matters in public. A cool pro guy that Jagger guy is. Not a drama queen. I think even the biggest Richards worshippers shpuld realize the nature of their relationship, and Keith's active role in this supposed old melodrama. The time to 'blame it all on Jagger' is past on.

- Doxa

Micks' slagging is of course much more subtle and psychological than that of Keith. Very often with subtle hits to his personality and upbringing:

The trouble is Keith wants to run the band single-handed... Keith and I disagree about almost everything. I could see it ending in a fight between us onstage in front of thousands.
- Mick Jagger, 1987

I respect (Keith), and I feel a lot of affection for him, and I feel protective. He's the kind of person who... well, he has a certain vulnerability. He's had a lot of hard times. He's had a lot of GOOD times (laughs). We've had a lot of fun and a lot of heartache together... I think everyone in the Stones is going to benefit from the fact that we're all doing different things for a while. And it won't be quite so insidiously incestuous...
- Mick Jagger, 1987

Keith and I have a very complicated relationship. I don't pretend to understand it. I find it quite tricky. He is a very inward person and he was always a very quiet and meditative type of person, so to bring out what he really wants to say is, I think, quite a problem for him sometimes. I'm a very outgoing person and very gregarious. Keith isn't, really, although he's learned to be somewhat more gregarious than he used to be.
- Mick Jagger, 2003

We haven't really had any arguments lately. I could dig some up from the past, but that's a bit boring, really.
- Mick Jagger, 2008

I was sure you would come up with some counter-examples but I think all of those are VERY lame in order to say Mick bashes Keith in public. You can't be so Richards-driven that those come even close to all the crap Keith has said during the years! C'mon! The 'worst' are from 1987 when Jagger seemingly couldn't care less about Keith/Stones (to my eyes that is not a sin).

Besides, Jagger's comments sound not just subtle but also reasonable, don't you think?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 14:07 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I was sure you would come up with some counter-examples but I think all of those are VERY lame in order to say Mick bashes Keith in public. You can't be so Richards-driven that those come even close to all the crap Keith has said during the years! C'mon! The 'worst' are from 1987 when Jagger seemingly couldn't care less about Keith/Stones (to my eyes that is not a sin).

Besides, Jagger's comments sound not just subtle but also reasonable, don't you think?

- Doxa

The "he is a troubled soul, I feel sorry for him"-stance Mick took on might have triggered Keith just as much as the stupid "I'll slit his throat"-statements did with Mick.

I'm not taking sides here, I love the Stones, and I love Mick just as much as I love Keith. The reason for the counter-examples is that I find your analysis of WWIII, and especially the damage Life supposedly should have caused, dead wrong.

The worst thing Mick did to Keith must be the telegram he sent via his secretary in 1986. Phrased something like this:

"Tell Keith that I won't be touring with the Stones this year - or ever again" (reported by newspapers all over the world at the time).

I think it was after this telegram Keith sort of lost it in the press.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 14:30 by DandelionPowderman.

Doxa is making a good case for the 'Keith ends the Stones with "LIFE" ' argument.

I totally agree he goes on and on about Mick, good and bad, through the years, while Jagger just doesn't go there like Keith does. No, he just takes care of business.

Keith's contributions to popular music are so great. Wish he hadn't dissed Mick in his book so much.
Its worth remembering that its edited...

LIFE to me was a tedious read.

Doxa, are you Sir MJ?? DandelionPowderman are you JR? (or even KR?)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[They have both been slagging eachother in the press for decades prior to this book release

I just pick up this claim since I think that is not true. The way Mick and Keith speak of each other in public is no way balanced. I can't really remember any slagging of Keith by Jagger at all - what comes to my mind is the the remark of Keith "being an unhappy person" when Jagger was asked Keith's harsh opinion about Mick's knighthood. Are there any other really where Mick mocks or harsly - or any way - judges Keith? To my eyes the drama between Mick and Keith is pretty much constituted by only one side. Jagger never seems to talk about Richards unless he is really pushed to say something. Even concerning Keith's drug issues, Jagger never - or VERY rarely - moralized in him in public, or complained all the hassle that had for a business (band). Generally the topic of Keith, or Mick's relation to Keith, sounds quite marginal theme in Mick's talk. But for Keith, Mick and their "brotherhood", "marriage" or whatever the relationship is (be it 'good or bad), seems to be a constant theme. Of course, it could be that from Keith are asked more about Mick than they do from Mick about Keith, but still, Keith seems to love to talk about that theme. Maybe a bit too much.

My interpretation is that Mick basically ignores Keith - and has only very professional, business-like relationship to him - which seems to drive Keith mad (or something like that); this makes him sounding like a bitter ex-wife yip-yapping this and that; Mick this, Mick that blah lah blah.... Seemingly for Keith's public significance Mick's existence - a kind of counter por reference point - is much much bigger than the other way around. Jagger seems to be doing fine just by himself.

Anyway, the Mick/Keith drama seems to such a darling issue for the media, and surely to Stones fans, but I think Jagger's point of view - saying basically nothing, and perhaps not caring either - seems to be overseen easily. Jagger seems to above it all. If I'de been Jagger - like you guessed I'de be - that sort of public bullshit and manufactured, imposed yellow pages drama might sound very stupid.

Besides, the way Mick talks about Keith's infamous claims in LIFE is basically just a business partner talk, seeing it nothing "personal" but just a complaint of not having enough say in band's business. That's all; couldn't less to care to talk about private matters in public. A cool pro guy that Jagger guy is. Not a drama queen. I think even the biggest Richards worshippers shpuld realize the nature of their relationship, and Keith's active role in this supposed old melodrama. The time to 'blame it all on Jagger' is past on.

- Doxa

Micks' slagging is of course much more subtle and psychological than that of Keith. Very often with subtle hits to his personality and upbringing:

The trouble is Keith wants to run the band single-handed... Keith and I disagree about almost everything. I could see it ending in a fight between us onstage in front of thousands.
- Mick Jagger, 1987

I respect (Keith), and I feel a lot of affection for him, and I feel protective. He's the kind of person who... well, he has a certain vulnerability. He's had a lot of hard times. He's had a lot of GOOD times (laughs). We've had a lot of fun and a lot of heartache together... I think everyone in the Stones is going to benefit from the fact that we're all doing different things for a while. And it won't be quite so insidiously incestuous...
- Mick Jagger, 1987

Keith and I have a very complicated relationship. I don't pretend to understand it. I find it quite tricky. He is a very inward person and he was always a very quiet and meditative type of person, so to bring out what he really wants to say is, I think, quite a problem for him sometimes. I'm a very outgoing person and very gregarious. Keith isn't, really, although he's learned to be somewhat more gregarious than he used to be.
- Mick Jagger, 2003

We haven't really had any arguments lately. I could dig some up from the past, but that's a bit boring, really.
- Mick Jagger, 2008

Do these really sound like "slagging" to you? The subtlety and nuance is exactly what distinguishes Jagger's balanced perspective from Keith's bursts which sound in contrast like verbal diarrhea as a result of a fried brain. It is precisely that balance that Jagger brought to the band and the music - sometimes to a fault but almost certainly out of necessity

There were a couple of counterpoints from Jagger as a response to "Life" that you seem to have missed

‘I don’t know if Keith really listens to that much. I don’t know what Keith listens to.’

I tell him Keith is usually quoted as saying he listens to Chuck Berry.

Jagger shrugs: ‘Yeah, that is what he says. I wonder if it is actually true.’

Personally, I think it’s really quite tedious raking over the past. Mostly, people only do it for the money"

Apart from this quote, there was a quote ~ around 1978 if I remember right when Jagger said something to the effect that Keith hasn't written a complete song a long long time. Jagger was right.

Other than these, I don't recall Jagger slagging Keith or any Stone - and why would he - does it not diminish the Stones brand that he cares so much about?

One one of His Majesties" scanned articles from the 60"s, Keith said that he was bound for a career in advertising. I am happier that he became a musician - but his knack for advertising has only been honed and refined over the years (perhaps with Jane Rose's assistance). He has done a pretty good job of placing his own brand above and on top of of the Stones brand

Life revealed something quite clearly - Richards has little identity, personal or musical other than being the anti-Jagger.

DP, I might be "dead wrong" in my interpration of LIFE, but to my eyes you are stuck to the scenes that took place during the 80's, and like the press and most of the Stones/rock fans at the time, blindly took the side of Keith in the suppsosed 'argument'. And everyone is blaming Jagger for what Keith Richards - not Mick Jagger - calls "WW3". What "Brenda" then did - you are here talking about some private matters, of sending faxes perhaps told by some "witness" who then reported of it in public, right? - was so bad (behind the curtains), that Keith rightfully was so 'hurt' and therey anything he does afterwards is for that reason justified. Like he behaves idiot-like in public, or that decades after writes books about Jagger's faults, including the size of his manhood (or was he 'hurt' by Mick supposedly 'doing' Anita?) My take it that some of Keith's stupid public actions and moves can be explained by reacting to some Jagger's actions but not justified.

To put my cards on the table - - what I don't like me is the freepass given by press and VERY many Stones fans to Keith in this sense. It is simply not fair. I also was blinded by this for years. But finally I realized that the truth is not that simple. Then I started trying to understand Jagger's side of things, which is rather diffucult because a typical fan propaganda - Stonesian mythology - supported by media, takes so clearly the side of Richards. Richards is a moral winner and the real hero in the band (that sort of picture, created in 70's/80's seemed to stuck very much).

But I think if you really don't want to take sides here - I think you are now biased in not seeing the difference between, which is a way to accept Richardsian rhetorics - you should also try to leave the 80's 'propaganda' behind that seem to blind the judgment. Just to be just to Jagger. Time to move on. It is not the 80's any more, and we should forget the impressions people had at the time, no matter how much LIFE tries to drive us back those premises.

Anyway, I am not the only one who has opened the eyes. If we look just five/seven years back here in IORR, it is rather hard to find any comment that was critical towards Richards. He as like a holy cow. But Jagger, of course, was a laughing stock. Now at least that is more equal now...><

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 15:27 by Doxa.

Laugh (or cry) now, but I can easily imagine a "reality TV show" with Keith in the future.

Quote
Doxa
DP, I might be "dead wrong" in my interpration of LIFE, but to my eyes you are stuck to the scenes that took place during the 80's, and like the press and most of the Stones/rock fans rat the time, really and blindly took the side of Keith in teh 'argument' during that time. And everyone is blaming Jagger of the supposed argument that Keith Richards - not Mick Jagger - calls "WW3". What "Brenda" then did - you are here talking about some private matters, of sending faxes perhaps told by some "witness" who then reported of it in public, right? - so since Keith is so 'hurt' (behind the curtains), anything he does afterwards is somehow justified. Like he behaves idiot-like in public, or that decades after writes books about Jagger's faults, including the size of his manhood (or was he 'hurt' by Mick supposedly 'doing' Anita?) My take it that some of Keith's stupid public actions and moves can be explained by reacting to some Jagger's actions but not justified.

To put my cards on the table - - what I don't like me is the freepass given by press and VERY many Stones fans to Keith in this sense. It is simply not fair. I also was blinded by this for years. But finally I realized that the truth is not at all that simple. Then I started to understand Jagger's side of things, which is rather diffucult because a typical fan propaganda - Stonesian mythology - supported by media, sides so clearly to the side of Richards. Richards is a moral winner and the real hero in the band (that sort of picture, created in 70's/80's seemed to stuck very much).

But I think if you really don't want to take sides here - I think you are now biased in not seeing the difference between, which is a way to accept Richardsian rhetorics - you should also try to leave the 80's 'propaganda' behind that seem to blind the judgment. Just to be just to Jagger. Time to move on. It is not the 80's any more, and the impression people had at the time, no matter how much LIFE tries to drive us back those premises.

Anyway, I am not the only one who has opened the eyes. If we look just five/seven years back here in IORR, it is rather hard to find any comment that was critical towards Richards. He as like a holy cow. But Jagger, of course, was a laughing stock. Now at least that is more equal now...><

- Doxa

Like I said, I'm not taking sides. Keith has always been known for his childish and idiotic rethorics.

What surprises me is that Stones fans on this board seemingly are trying to re-create WWIII or pretend there is a big feud today between the two of them after having read Life.

What exactly is new in that book, regarding the feud between Mick and Keith? Nothing!

(personally I think "I'll slit his throat" is way worse than "She had no fun with his tiny todger", but seemingly that isn't the case with many on this board...)

That's why I think you're wrong on the effect of Keith's remarks.

Wanderingspirit66:

I didn't miss the Jagger remarks, and they are just as belittling in a psychological way as the other comments were towards Keith. It might not be slagging, but it sure ain't something Keith would have appreciated either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 15:31 by DandelionPowderman.

Regarding Marianne and Keith...

It's the timing of their bonk that's the key, according to Marianne it happened in late 1966 before Mick and Marianne were an item, not in 1968/69. But Keith's ego saving revisionist version is that he did it as some kinda revenge for Mick bonking Anita on the set of Performance.

Anyway, regardless of when and where, it's all nonsense really cos it's not like any of them were in anyway faithfull to their partners.

Who'd pass up on the chance to bonk Anita slinky hips or Marianne super tits at that time!? Not me! ><

Quote
His Majesty
Regarding Marianne and Keith...

It's the timing of their bonk that's the key, according to Marianne it happened in late 1966 before Mick and Marianne were an item, not in 1968/69. But Keith's ego saving revisionist version is that he did it as some kinda revenge for Mick bonking Anita on the set of Performance.

Anyway, regardless of when and where, it's all nonsense really cos it's not like any of them were in anyway faithfull to their partners.

Who'd pass up on the chance to bonk Anita slinky hips or Marianne super tits at that time!? Not me! ><

This is cynical editing from the publishing company, just to leave that doubt hanging in the air. That I'm dead sure on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 15:33 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's why I think you're wrong on the effect of Keith's remarks.

[r.

Hey, let's make this clear: I am not talking about the effects of the book - what I have talked about LIFE is seeing it an effect caused by some other things - say, what drove Keith to write such stuff. The book is not standing in the way of future Stones activities (tour) - no way: Jagger is beyond that! It is rather that the book is a statement that there would be no further Stones activities. A functional - or a "loyal" - member of the group wouldn't have 'written' it. That's my interpretation.

Amd one can say that the recent musical performances of Keith doesn't really support the rosy Stones future either.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 15:41 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This is cynical editing from the publishing company, just to leave that doubt hanging in the air. That I'm dead sure on.

There's no doubt about when it happened in each book, but they both contradict each other. Hard to know who to believe because both Keith and Marianne are notorious for talking bullshite.

Marianne called Life "Keith's truth."

I personally think Keith is the one lying with regard to this shicht.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
[
What exactly is new in that book, regarding the feud between Mick and Keith? Nothing!

a
Well, there is huge difference between given some careless - probably drunken - impulsive remark in a passing interview than spending some two yaers alone with a ghostwriter writing a book. Then the careless remark turns out to be a reflected statement, which also to be judged by a media with much more attention. As it did. This can't be so hard to see.

- Doxa

Fook sake, I cannot escape Keith's damn book, all this talk makes me want to read it again...

His Majesty begins his 11th read of Life.

I don't see it as being some kind of reflected final statement, rather, I think it's another piece in a very big ongoing puzzle. Like the rest of us, Keith is a continual work in progress. He has issues that need sorting, we get glimpses of some of those in the book.

My perception of Life is that it is Keith going over his past, throwing rekindled thoughts in the air, ruffling some feathers, opening old wounds and seeing what happens.

The problem with the book is that it condences a lot of his angst regarding quite a few things and people in to one place, which, depending on the reader, can give an overly negative feel to the whole thing. I think the book is balanced by his interviews during the promotion for the book. He comes across less mean spirited in those than in the book, even though it's about the same stuff.

Life should come with a DVD featuring one of the British TV specials on Keith.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-22 16:20 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Wanderingspirit66:

I didn't miss the Jagger remarks, and they are just as belittling in a psychological way as the other comments were towards Keith. It might not be slagging, but it sure ain't something Keith would have appreciated either.

There is one more that I recall - Jagger laughing and saying something like "Oh..all those songs that Keith supposedly wrote on a 5 string Tele"

But this is precisely the difference - the proportionality of the qualititave nature of these remarks - Keith slags - Jagger somehwat deprecates if you read hard between the lines. Keith, the guy who was bound for an "advertising career" communicates better in the sound bite world and his self agrandizing message gets through. But if you don't drink cool-aid, then what Jagger says is more relevant and has more substance. Not necessarily for the first 8 years but certainly over their 50 year career, I see this difference reflected in their song writing partnership as well.

More importantly though, to me, Keith seems to be saying "My actions are appropriate, because I believe they are" while Jagger is pointing out that people frequently disagree over what is the most appropriate course of action"

If you think that these views are the really the same, then that postion to me is not particularly coherent.

"... and the guitar players look damaged, they've been outcasts all their lives."

That say's it all really.

fwiw- Keiths apology made Leno's monologue last night.