|
|
| CS |
1:28pm (UK)
Rolling Stone Attacks Bandmate Jagger over Knighthood
By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Correspondent, PA News
Rolling Stones star Keith Richards has launched a scathing attack on Mick Jagger for accepting a knighthood.
Richards dismissed the honour as �paltry� and said his friend�s decision to accept it was �ludicrous�.
Jagger is due to collect his knighthood from the Queen at Buckingham Palace on Friday December 12, nearly 18 months after it was first announced.
But Richards told Uncut magazine: �I thought it was ludicrous to take one of those gongs from the Establishment when they did their very best to throw us in jail.
�Just as we were about to start a new tour, I thought it sent out the wrong message. It�s not what the Stones is about, is it?�
He went on: �I don�t want to step out on stage with someone wearing a f***ing coronet and sporting the old ermine. I told Mick, �It�s a f***ing paltry honour�.
�He defended himself by saying that Tony Blair insisted that he took the knighthood. Like that�s an excuse. Like you can�t turn down anything. Like it doesn�t depend how you feel about it.�
His comments echo a tirade last year in which Richards threatened to pull out of the band�s tour in a row over the knighthood.
Then he accused his bandmate of more than four decades of �blind stupidity� in agreeing to accept the honour.
The guitarist, once imprisoned in Wormwood Scrubs after a conviction � later quashed � for allowing cannabis to be smoked at his home, said in September last year: �I doubt they thought of offering me one.
�Because they know what I would�ve said. The idea that I�d take something from the people At Whose Pleasure I was banged up � they knew I�d tell them where they could put it.�
Jagger is finally attending his investiture after taking months to fix a date.
He was due to accept the knighthood on December 10 but pulled out because it was the same day as England rugby hero Jonny Wilkinson was being presented with his MBE.
Jagger will be accompanied to the Palace by his 90-year-old father, Joe |
|
|
| glencar |
I love Keith when he gets so feisty! |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Keith. LOL. Well he can always become an American. We took care of it all in 1776. |
|
|
| Gazza |
If it pissed him off that much, why didnt he either leave the band or insist Mick did or why didnt he put his money where his mouth was and pull out of the tour as Mick had departed too far from the original idea of what the Stones were about?
I bet that outrage at Mick ruining the Stones' image didnt bother him too much when he was party to charging people up to $1000 a ticket. Hypocrite. |
|
|
| glencar |
Did Keith set the ticket prices? Of course not. And why can't he tell Mick what-for without tearing apart 40 years of partnership. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
The irony of all of this is that Mick responded to the situation by giving his best performances in probably two decades and Keith . . . didn't.
|
|
|
| jb |
Agree 100% with Gazza....Keith always gets credit with being the "heart and soul" of the Stones...I think Mick proved this last tour he is the one still on top of his game while our dear Keith, for the most part, struggled to play consistantly. Indeed, my source indicated to me that it was Jagger who really wanted to tour this time and not necessarily Keith...surprise, surprise... |
|
|
| glencar |
I've always been more partial to Mick myself & I think he outdid himself this time around but Keith has a point. |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
What ARE the Stones about? Look, Mick is going to take it. Keith is making far too much of this...it's like those who got so upset about Justin...its really nothing. As the Great Frank Zappa said IT'S ALL A BIG JOKE...GET IT? |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Damn right, 10,000, but don't forget, according to the same source, the most common element in the universe is niot hydrogen but STUPIDITY, so what are you going to do? |
|
|
| jb |
Thank god for thong underwear!!! |
|
|
| telecaster |
Isn't this a reprint of when this first started?
Old news being rehashed
[Edited by telecaster] |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
Damn right, 10,000, but don't forget, according to the same source, the most common element in the universe is not hydrogen but STUPIDITY, so what are you going to do?
Quit breathing. |
|
|
| glencar |
Join in the stupidity? |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Did Keith set the ticket prices? Of course not.
Mick did. But with respect, if Keith is the "man of the people" or "heart and soul of the band" or "the Stone the fans relate to" that everyone makes him out to be, then there comes a time where you can say to your business partner - "look, we're ripping the arse out of this,this shit belongs in Vegas and its not what we're about as a rock n roll band"..he's more concerned with how the band's reputation looks by Mick accepting a relatively meaningless "paltry" honour than going along with charging loyal fans four figures for a two hour show? Pah! Lousy sense of priorities, if you ask me.
to borrow that line hes fond of trotting out - theres a difference between scratching your arse and tearing it to pieces....
|
|
|
| glencar |
Mick set the prices? I thought M. Cohl did. I will never understand why they had such cheap prices for the small shows & $300 for seats at the far end of the arena. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Mick admitted to it in the interview in the appropriately named "Fortune" magazine..
Now stop following me around!! LOL |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Gazza...you're attacking the messenger instead of the message. Keith is human. To me I don't care...a tempest in a teapot. Take the thing and move on. Let Keith spout off...it's probably pre-scripted anyway. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Uh..actually I'm agreeing with what you said earlier in the thread, ie Mick accepting it isnt a big deal. So theres nothing for me to move on TO as I'm not the one who's bothered about the whole thing. I just think Keith, on this occasion, is talking out of his arse. |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
The Stones have not been anti-establishment in decades, Keith included .
Keith generates these myths about the band and himself and then believes his own BS as if it were truth! |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Keith generates these myths about the band and himself and then believes his own BS as if it were truth!
Cmon. I doubt he atually beleives anything. I just think you're being a bit too hard on him. But than he IS the one who has to swallow. What I don't know. Maybe he should be happy for his partner for a change. Life's too short to be petty. |
|
|
| Wheel of Fortune |
Agreed.
 |
|
|
| Pattie |
I hate to say it. I truly hate to say it but here goes:
I actually agree with Keith
there I said it, to accept anything those royal idiots offer is subordinate and Mick is soooooo much better than them. HE should give out the knighthoods. Isn't it about time we got rid of Kings and Queens?
|
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Pattie wrote:
Isn't it about time we got rid of Kings and Queens?
Yeah...but we've always said that. We tried in 1776. They are a leeching lot though. It seems there is no escape. They still own it all. Legally. All nice and legal. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>there I said it, to accept anything those royal idiots offer is subordinate and Mick is soooooo much better than them. HE should give out the knighthoods. Isn't it about time we got rid of Kings and Queens?
Slight flaw in your argument. The Queen only performs the knighting ceremony. She and her family have nothing to do with Mick Jagger being awarded a knighthood. Tony Blair awarded him the honour. The fact is that anyone can get an honour of some sort, which is generally for services to the community or charity work based on a recommendation to the government made by a citizen who thinks they have earned it.
As Tony Blair was actually responsible for dispensing this award, your logic dictates we should get rid of governments as well.
All a knighthood is is a pat on the back from the government. Its no different than a milkman getting an OBE, which also occasionally happens. Nothing more,nothing less. Hardly worth getting wound up about IMO.
|
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
This constant harping of Keith over Mick's knightship is getting ridiculous. OK, he may not like it, but it's not the end of the world! As for being a "paltry" honor... In fact, in a country with a monarchic tradition, it's a gesture of respect. Someone might not like the establishment or the system or whatever but still appreciate that the said establishment honors a rock singer.
I hope the article is just a rehashing of old interviews, but it's a probability that some journalist just went to Keith and asked him again what he thought about Mick's knightship, and Keith responded as expected. 
Keith should listen to what he says, sometimes. He said once about Mick and other lead singers that they surrounded themselves with admirers and yes-men and ended up thinking they're semi-divine. But he himself seems at times to think he's always right! The malady is not a privilege of lead singers, obviously...
|
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
Mick's answer is ironic but as always, more restrained:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/showbiz/articles/7983809?source=Evening%20Standard
"By way of response, Jagger wades into Richards over such band loyalty.
He said it was 'endearing' but Richards carried it to extreme and sometimes it�s 'over and beyond reason, and that can be very irritating'.
Endearing!  |
|
|
| Boomy |
I'm sure most people that go to Stones shows could care less that this is happening. The same people that go to 20 Stones shows and pay $1000's on one tour will do the same thing next tour--maybe even pay more!!!
Keith talks out of his ass, a lot...especially the last year or two. I mean, he even said that the STones are a big business....he loves the money, who wouldn't? But for him to act like the STones are just this "hard-working, blue-collar band" is just ridiculous. These guys are rock "royalty".
They had to work their asses of when they were young...now they got it made. The fact that they don't record albums frequently shows that they can do whatever the hell they want. The tours keep them up for years, so who needs a fuckin' album, right? |
|
|
| tessa |
i think we all take keith's point--especially mick. he hasn't exactly been eager to go through with it, has he? let's all give our beleagered Sir a break...
besides, knights are by definition courteous, no? well, refusing would have been very bad manners, thus proving the honor undeserved. we couldn't have that, now could we? i think mick is a lovely gentleman, and no doubt it will be a very proud day for his dad. :-) |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Keith reasons like a 10 year old. What a twit. |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]