|
|
| sirmoonie |
I don't think it was a bad business decision. He got plenty of press and I'm sure only a small amount of people are now avoiding the Stones because of it. And they are all nuts!
<----------- This man would have supported Mick's decision all the way, and thats really all any of you need to know, now isn't it?
Sir Mick - richly deserved title. And they came to Mick, not vice versa. When your country comes to you, esepcially a great country like the United Kingdom, and wants to give you and honor, you'd be an total asshole to refuse it.
And someday if Keith stops acting like a child, he'll get a knighthood too. Sir Keith Oglethorpe Richards, Archdukey of Detox-upon-Smackington. |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
If it's good enough for Winston, it's good enough for Me.
Mack Slugar, Esq. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
I don't think it was a bad business decision. He got plenty of press and I'm sure only a small amount of people are now avoiding the Stones because of it. And they are all nuts!
<----------- This man would have supported Mick's decision all the way, and thats really all any of you need to know, now isn't it?
Sir Mick - richly deserved title. And they came to Mick, not vice versa. When your country comes to you, esepcially a great country like the United Kingdom, and wants to give you and honor, you'd be an total asshole to refuse it.
And someday if Keith stops acting like a child, he'll get a knighthood too. Sir Keith Oglethorpe Richards, Archdukey of Detox-upon-Smackington.
Fair enough and no doubt - but it has obviously given Keith an irritating amount of ammunition and all I'm suggesting is that perhaps had Mick refused the honor it would have gone a long way towards reuniting those two as partners in crime, which would have been good for the band.
Max: Natch is a colloquial abbreviation for "naturally", meaning, in this case, "naturally" Mick has a better perspective on this than I do, because he is a 59 year old man-of-the-world who comes from a country where knighthood is a fathomable and deeply ingrained tradition, because he is a grown-up who can make his own personal decisions based on reasons other than rock and roll, because he is a multi-multi-millionaire who enjoys setting the jet and therefore has social pressures and obligations and desires unknown and foreign to me, and because he is Mick Jagger and can do what he wants. Whereas I am a 32 year old guy sitting in the back room of my record store in a purple Velvet Underground t-shirt unable to work because I went to see Dead Moon in Knoxville last night and I am exhausted. I can do what I want, too, but any shit I talk about Mick, the knighthood, and what "might have happened" had he refused it come from, natch, a pretty, uh, "speculative" perspective on the situation.
Which, when you think about it, is quite an abbreviation! Look at all that stuff it implied before I unpacked it!
I think I copped it from Bob Christgau and I have no idea who he stole it from.
Dead Moon was brilliant, by the way, and you all should go see them again. I know it's been a long long time for most of you.
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| jb |
Mick and Keith, truthfully, have not been friendly since the 78 tour...even tatoo you was mostly older songs...seems the only recent time they really worked together was VL, which incidentally, weas the best selling album in the 90's. |
|
|
| lilavati |
This thread reminds me of a quote by Pascal, "I lay it down as a fact that, if all men knew what others say of them, there would not be four friends in the world."
If Mick refuses to criticize Keith in public, and if we believe that it's Keith's prerogative to say anything he feels to anyone, in their face or not, then I guess you can view it as...a sign of a healthy relationship?  |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
At first, I was angry at Mick for just saying "I don't wanna talk about it", because I thought he was giving in, being his usual "I put on different faces in accordance with who I want to please" self. But I've come to realize that he really did it to avoid fighting.
I repect Mick for just gritting his teeth and saying "Let's not talk about it", especially when Keith really likes to get under his skin. Mick knows that if he snipes back, it'll just be the eighties all over again. Keith likes taking potshots at Mick - it's what keeps him going, knowing that Mick isn't gonna respond means that eventually he'll get over it. If Mick yells back at him, it'll just get down to a shouting match. So a big dose of respect to Mick for being the mature one of the Glimmer Twins - we all knew he was, but for once it works for him rather than against him.
And Keith's just an honest guy - he says what he thinks.
-tSYX --- Steaaaaaaaal your heart away... |
|
|
| stonesmik |
Maybe it's just publicity? There are no Beatles against which the Stones could fight verbally, telling how weak they are. Maybe Keith is obliged to do at least 3 interviews per year in which he bashes Mick. Because there are Mick fans, there are Keith fans, there Stones friends and haters, hey they all want to hear something about the Stones. Mick of course has to bring up at least 3 young girls a year that are not his daughters (he'd tried that, wiseman). Charlie meanwhile has to break at least 3 sets of drumsticks a year on Joey Kramer's ass. Come on, we love it! I wouldn't wanta be a fan of Elvis (who is DEAD) or U2 (who have the Pope as their lead singer) or ... Pink Floyd (who never existed, newswise). Come on, Keith, rip that guy apart! And Mick, tell that other guy the echo at the toilet is so much better than on stage. After all, who wouldn't do anything for some $$$ ? Maybe there is no plan at all and the money just comes in and in and in. The better for them. I'd like it if I were 59. |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Thanks Nasty.
It's a good thing that the education system in the south is still churning out bright young men.
Up here, the liberals have destroyed entire generations of us.
Do you know I can put a condom on sixteen different fruits and vegetables?
But I still do not know what [sic] or Natch means. That is until now, my great Record Store Pal. Do you have any openings in your Rolling Stones department? Wall St. is getting scary!
"Prop open my ass with a chop stick and pour 15 gallons of shrimp and lobster sauce into my colon and call the Joy Luck Club, Ronnie!"
(There it goes, into monument park!) |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
I concur.
"Drown me in sushi-flavored soy smack and play Pokeman with my balloon knot, Ronnie!" |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Yup!
"Remove my testicles and replace them with two fried wontons and let two rabid Jack Russell Terriers nibble through my scrotum while I listen to Hang Fire, Ronald!" |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
I hear ya.
"Baste me in Au Jus sauce and whip my nipples with raw cod fillets while I listen to Bitch from the Sydney poopdeck, Ronnie!" |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
You are a DELIGHT!
Raw cod filets! Really now!! |
|
|
| glencar |
Natch = "naturally" |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
I watched Ladies and Gentlemen this weekend, too, and was nearly moved to tears while they played "Dead Flowers". Sharing a mic, obviously having a blast singing that great song and having it sound so hot and good, on stage w/yr. best buds being the best there is what could be better. Broke my heart to think about their total lack of chemistry and collaboration onstage or in the studio anymore. 30 years of too much money too much ego and too much blood has turned that great friendship into what comes across in the music as nothing more than a great business partnership.
i've just caught this post nasty and am sorry to read it
it would seem charlie is holding the band together on more than just a musical level
the question then, why do they keep doing it? - for the money i hear you say - well i don't know about ronnie (or any of them really - like you i speculate) but i suspect that the original trio's fortunes would be well secured
i know, it is a business like any other and cash flow is always of paramount importance - but like any other it can always be wound down
ego? - could neither mick or keith tolerate any reduction in popularity or stature (indeed mystique) that would follow if they went their separate ways
what's that line about a marriage "three months of fire - fifty years of ashes" well that's a bit unkind but there's more than a bit of that in their relationship
i dunno... your right, it is sad - right down to tears and a broken heart - but it's also just the way things go
to try and put a more positive spin on it maybe all those that complain the stones don't do anything for their fans anymore should remember that, at this stage of proceedings, while they will charge us for the pleasure, they go through quite a bit of "stuff" to get it together to play for us
anyway, by all reports, including yours, it seems they are enjoying it for the music, pure and simple, notwithstanding certain "tensions" personality wise
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Did that blimp pin ever get there? |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
nanker, indeed it did - safe and sound and all hands on deck -
thanks for putting us on the route - apologies for not notifying you of it's arrival immediately but now we have your land position a "real" response (in one form or another) is contemplated
thanks again, for now i am at least five months ahead of my time
m
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Cool -- wear it proudly!! |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Sometimes, when an old man can't take to the sea anymore, he is happy to walk out behind the barn and fish in the pond. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
^
|
|
|
Maxy, you are as deep as the stage is wide.
SIA'y -
Another positive spin could be that playing in the Rolling Stones is such a freakin' pleasure, point of pride, and powerful experience that it overcomes the crap. Even if they don't have a lot of affection for each other - there might be love there but there does not seem to be a lot of fondness - they can still play together, and even if there is a certain lack of chemistry between front man and rhythm guitarist, front man and rhythm guitarist can get into their own "thing" pretty completely and that a) makes for pretty good rock and roll, and b) might be satisfaction enough.
Has Mick been yelling at Keith on stage elsewhere as much as he did in Philadelphia? It seemed like at almost every show he shouted something in Keith's general direction w/a pretty pissed off look on his face. I think Mick's working this shit out on stage and Keith is working it out in interviews. I prefer Mick's method.
All this is wild speculation - natch. What goes on behind the scenes might be an entirely different story. But I doubt it.
As George Clinton once said:
"God father? God Mother! Let's take it to the stage!"
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
|
|
| Highwire Rob |
I know Keith goes on about Mick's subpar solo stuff. But couldn't they each pull out some solo works for their modern tours?
Maybe there's an unwritten rule about this? It'd be cool to hear keith firing the axe on "Don't Tear Me Up" (Jagger's Wandering Spirit album) or Mick contributing vocals to "Eileen" (Richard's reggae-laden Main Offender).
Perhaps they'd have a better appreciation of each other's solo efforts. Plus it'd drive the fans bonkers. |
|
|
| KeepRigidsLawyer |
Oh my word.
I misread this topic as 'I don't want to talk about Keep'. |
|
|
| sammy davis jr. |
Without each other Mick and Keith are just "rock legends" who have no real relevence in the business these days, and I think they know it, albeit grudgingly. Look at "Goddess" for instance. It sold respectably for say a mid-major type of act, but for Mick it had to be a disappointment. Same with Keith's solo stuff- what maybe 150,000 copies sold?Together, Mick and Keith are the Rolling Stones, and as the Rolling Stones they carry ten times more weight, even if they can't stand each other personally any more. I don't think at this point in their lives either one of them could bear to be thought of as just another touring musician. As Keith himself has said "It's bigger than the both of us". |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]