RIP Charlie

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:03 am

had one hell of a run, no regrets i bet

Why do all famous people die "surrounded by their family"? The rich and famous always seem to be able to coral their entire family to a hospital bed and then die. How long were they all waiting for? I am sure that in death, as in life, it's all PR bollocks to make them sound better than the little people.

Personally, I can't think of anything more ghoulish than having to look up at my kids, looking down at me, watching me die.

Cynic or what . So other people when hearing that their mum/dad is about to die say "let me know when they have died, leave a message if I am not in" ?

Most people would be at the bedside/in the room/ at the hospital/in the house. We only hear this "expression" about the famous cos its reported

Ghostwriter wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:59 am

Rest well and in peace Mr. Watts. It looks like this tale (above) is probably true, it does show the man to be someone from class.

On that note, may I ask the Londoners and English at large out there how the Stones were viewed initially and how that view evolved with time? How were they received by English people? Was there an understanding amongst English that the Stones were actually rich kids trying to sound and act like thugs? Perhaps not rich and aristocratic class but not working class for sure and aspiring to be more or more like upper middle class?

In the 60s they were viewed by the establishment as "long haired drug addicts" as were many other "pop stars" . Ironically most of the stones came from middle class backgrounds whereas the Beatles who the mum and dads loved" came from working class backgounds.



Mister Marvin middle class is really in a stew
Wondering' what the younger generation's coming to
And the taste of his martini doesn't please his bitter tongue
Blame it on the rolling stones.
Blame it on the stones; blame it on the stones
You'll feel so much better, knowing you don't stand alone
Join the accusation; save the bleeding nation
Get it off your shoulders; blame it on the stones
Mother tells the ladies at the bridge club every day
Of the rising price of tranquilizers she must pay
And she wonders why the children never seem to stay at home
Blame it on the rolling stones.
Blame it on the stones; blame it on the stones
You'll feel so much better, knowing you don't stand alone
Join the accusation; save the bleeding nation
Get it off your shoulders; blame it on the stones
Father's at the office, nightly working all the time
Trying to make the secretary change her little mind
And it bothers him to read about so many broken homes
Blame it on those rolling stones.
Blame it on the stones; blame it on the stones
You'll feel so much better knowing you don't stand alone
Join the accusation; same the bleeding nation
Get it off your shoulders; blame it on the stones
Blame it on the stones, blame it on the stones.

@TUV1, thank you for this, I pride myself on being pretty hip mostly, so, like, I know a fair bit about Kris Kristofferson but this is too early for me and I've never been shy to ask the older kids. This song epitomizes and gives context to my question.

My knowledge of KK, the artist, picks up in Austin, Texas in the early 70's where he gets credited often for the emergence of the "outlaw" country sound.

Another urban myth is when the stones were going through USA customs. They each replied to the question "occupation" musician, when Charlie Watts said it Mick said "no not he's not he's a drummer"

tightenupvolume1 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 4:39 pm Another urban myth is when the stones were going through USA customs. They each replied to the question "occupation" musician, when Charlie Watts said it Mick said "no not he's not he's a drummer"

@TUV1, are you saying that the story about Charlie taking a swipe at Mick is urban myth? Or the customs story in NY is myth?

Kris Kristofferson is no myth, I dare someone out there to even think of maligning Kris K.

Maybe both are urban myths who knows ? A book could be written about the urban myths around the stones maybe titled "Mars Bar"

bossho wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:38 pm
On that note, may I ask the Londoners and English at large out there how the Stones were viewed initially and how that view evolved with time? How were they received by English people? Was there an understanding amongst English that the Stones were actually rich kids trying to sound and act like thugs? Perhaps not rich and aristocratic class but not working class for sure and aspiring to be more or more like upper middle class?

I would say most of the UK older generation were a bit scared by the entire scene when it crashed into our consciousness in 1964. Many older folk (but not all by any means) came around to the Beatles fairly quickly but the Stones seemed to relish being beyond the pale. It was the way they looked mainly. Remember the early Beatles were dressed in smart marching suits and they grinned inanely. It was only their (long but smart) hair that pissed off the oldies. The Stones had messy hair and wild clothes and Jagger gave the camera that look of contempt. Charlie looked like he didn't give a flying fcuk about anything. None of them smiled in fact. But their music was sensationally good.
In school you had to choose, Beatles or the Stones? And everone did, I don't remember anyone trying to say they liked both. It was a fundamental dichotomy as clearcut and irreversible as cavalier or roundhead.
After a while the Pretty Things came along. Their main purpose was to appeal to people who thought the Stones were getting too mainstream.
When I finally got around to seeing the Stomes live in London in 1973, I was amazed that the audience looked so well dressed and straight-laced.