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

That say's it all really.

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

Quote
wanderingspirit66

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

That say's it all really.

You mean Jagger said it all really...

Quote
treaclefingers

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

that's never a good sign...was he at least funny?

Quote
wanderingspirit66

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.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It takes two to tango...

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

Quote
His Majesty

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
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty

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.

Yup. I dont believe he slept with her. No way. Sounds like a retroactive c-ckblock and as we all know that's pointless. Mick already slept with Marianne.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty

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.

Yup. I dont believe he slept with her. No way. Sounds like a retroactive c-ckblock and as we all know that's pointless. Mick already slept with Marianne.

I think Keith and Marianne did bonk, just as Brian only fondled her tits, but this was all in late 1966.

She's basically said Keith is talking crap about it happening circa Performance, but where has she denied that it happened at all?

Jeez, what a classy discussion we got going here!

Quote
His Majesty
In her first book she says Brian was incapable of real sex, atleast for that time, and he just fondled her boobies.

Quote
His Majesty
In her first book she says Brian was incapable of real sex, atleast for that time, and he just fondled her boobies.

Quote
His Majesty
In her first book she says Brian was incapable of real sex, atleast for that time, and he just fondled her boobies.

Quote
filstan
While I don't want to imply this applies to all posters here,there are many people with opinions who seem to suggest they were not only present at the time, but were actual friends with the guys in the band.....WTF? Always easy I guess to recreate history based on personal agendas and dislike for certain band members.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
filstan
While I don't want to imply this applies to all posters here,there are many people with opinions who seem to suggest they were not only present at the time, but were actual friends with the guys in the band.....WTF? Always easy I guess to recreate history based on personal agendas and dislike for certain band members.

I don't think many on this board know band members personally. However, there are lots of members here with profound knowledge (beyond comprehension, really) about the Stones.

Here in Norway, I'm considered a Stones-freak, but I don't know half of what some people here do.

Quote
His Majesty
Another thing, why do these journalists keep mentioning the todger thing in relation to Marianne, in the book it's said in relation to Mick bonking Anita.

How does Keith know she had no fun with it? Did Anita tell him!?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
filstan
While I don't want to imply this applies to all posters here,there are many people with opinions who seem to suggest they were not only present at the time, but were actual friends with the guys in the band.....WTF? Always easy I guess to recreate history based on personal agendas and dislike for certain band members.

I don't think many on this board know band members personally. However, there are lots of members here with profound knowledge (beyond comprehension, really) about the Stones.

Here in Norway, I'm considered a Stones-freak, but I don't know half of what some people here do.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
His Majesty
Another thing, why do these journalists keep mentioning the todger thing in relation to Marianne, in the book it's said in relation to Mick bonking Anita.

How does Keith know she had no fun with it? Did Anita tell him!?

Poor thing Marianne! She has no luck with the Stones. There was the Mars bar story in the beginning, and now this todger incident. In fact, her name appeared in this regard after Richards' unbelievable interview with the Times.
It was the first interview in the book's publicity campaign, in one of the most respected British newspapers and from this interview all the other media reprinted this story.
I believe that J.Rose (and maybe Richards himself) read the article before the publication and they decided not to correct anything. That was exactly what they wanted to sell the book. That is why they have chosen as the interviewer not the music journalist but celebrities gossips columnist. She did her job.

"I pause for a minute. I clear my throat.
“So he didn’t ask you to take out the bit about how small his cock is, then?” I ask, in a rather prim voice.
“Hey — I was only told that by others,” Richards says, with a wolfish smile and a shrug.
This is the height of disingenuousness, because the “other” to whom Richards is referring is Faithfull — Jagger’s girlfriend at the time — and a story that is one of the key “Oh, my God!” moments of the book.
... Richards then goes about bedding Faithfull. Despite the undeniable dark, fratricidal overtones of screwing Jagger’s girlfriend, Richards’s account of it in Life is recounted in pirate tavern mode, concluding with his joy at having “my head nestled between those two beautiful jugs”...
As a final stab, 40 years later, Richards adds: “[Marianne] had no fun with [Mick’s] tiny todger. I know he’s got an enormous pair of balls — but it doesn’t quite fill the gap.”
For a Stones fan, it’s a real double-or-quits moment. On the one hand, as a description of what it’s like to be inside a legendary song as it make landfall, Richards’s recollections of writing Gimme Shelter are without parallel. On the other hand, there is the massive risk that — after reading the chapter — every subsequent listening of the song will be haunted by the image of Jagger’s allegedly tiny todger nestled on a pair of gigantic testicles.
It’s one of those side-effects of rock’n’roll that no one ever warns you about.
“Well, I did say he had enormous balls,” Richards says now, generously. “I’m sure he’s had worse thrown at him by women. I mean, Jerry Hall pretty much decimated him anyway.”
[www.thetimes.co.uk]


What can I say? Classy act, indeed

Quote
Doxa
SORRY!!!! ><

- Doxa

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
proudmary

Quote
His Majesty
Another thing, why do these journalists keep mentioning the todger thing in relation to Marianne, in the book it's said in relation to Mick bonking Anita.

How does Keith know she had no fun with it? Did Anita tell him!?

Poor thing Marianne! She has no luck with the Stones. There was the Mars bar story in the beginning, and now this todger incident. In fact, her name appeared in this regard after Richards' unbelievable interview with the Times.
It was the first interview in the book's publicity campaign, in one of the most respected British newspapers and from this interview all the other media reprinted this story.
I believe that J.Rose (and maybe Richards himself) read the article before the publication and they decided not to correct anything. That was exactly what they wanted to sell the book. That is why they have chosen as the interviewer not the music journalist but celebrities gossips columnist. She did her job.

"I pause for a minute. I clear my throat.
“So he didn’t ask you to take out the bit about how small his cock is, then?” I ask, in a rather prim voice.
“Hey — I was only told that by others,” Richards says, with a wolfish smile and a shrug.
This is the height of disingenuousness, because the “other” to whom Richards is referring is Faithfull — Jagger’s girlfriend at the time — and a story that is one of the key “Oh, my God!” moments of the book.
... Richards then goes about bedding Faithfull. Despite the undeniable dark, fratricidal overtones of screwing Jagger’s girlfriend, Richards’s account of it in Life is recounted in pirate tavern mode, concluding with his joy at having “my head nestled between those two beautiful jugs”...
As a final stab, 40 years later, Richards adds: “[Marianne] had no fun with [Mick’s] tiny todger. I know he’s got an enormous pair of balls — but it doesn’t quite fill the gap.”
For a Stones fan, it’s a real double-or-quits moment. On the one hand, as a description of what it’s like to be inside a legendary song as it make landfall, Richards’s recollections of writing Gimme Shelter are without parallel. On the other hand, there is the massive risk that — after reading the chapter — every subsequent listening of the song will be haunted by the image of Jagger’s allegedly tiny todger nestled on a pair of gigantic testicles.
It’s one of those side-effects of rock’n’roll that no one ever warns you about.
“Well, I did say he had enormous balls,” Richards says now, generously. “I’m sure he’s had worse thrown at him by women. I mean, Jerry Hall pretty much decimated him anyway.”
[www.thetimes.co.uk]


What can I say? Classy act, indeed

It will all make more sense to you some day, dear. They have co-authored the greatest soap opera in history. Things are not always exactly what they seem in the magical and mysterious world of the Rolling Stones.

Quote
Deltics
[i417.photobucket.com]