Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Bärs
It actually is possible that Keith "lied" in the 70's and that the recent account is more balanced. If Keith started emphasizing Stu's role after Stu died, as some say, it's not strange if he, and others, did the same after Brian died. The early accounts might have been influenced by the fact that Brian had died and people involved were "nice" when asked about Brian's role in the early Stones. If Keith would have known in the 70's that everything he says about Brian and Stu would be held against him 40 years later he would perhaps have put his words differently.

I don't know. I simply say that 1. it is POSSIBLE that the official foundation myth needs correction, 2. a "changing story" does not necessarily implies deliberate deception, 3. an early version is not necessarily better or more truthful than a later one in these cases.

Yes, everything is "possible". But again, what Keith says in this book doesn't fit in with what others said - including what he has said himself - about Brian and his role in the band. That makes me question the truth in this book.
I mean it's no news that many believe that Keith has got unresolved issues with Brian and what happend. Guilt, pain, anger...I don't know - but there are rare occassions in interviews where he has shown a more reflective and forgiving side towards Brian.

I don't know how the things said by Keith about Brian in this book can be seen as more balanced compared to what he said in the 70's. I mean Keith isn't eaxctly known to hold things back just to be nice. He say what's on his mind and he wasn't "nice" towards Brian in the 70's but definitely more objective about the whole situation. He didn't just bash him like nowadays.

That's very true. People usually mellow with age, but Keith hasn't as far as Brian is concerned. His 1971 Rolling Stone interview is great. His recollections in Mandy Aftel's book are great. He was forthright and honest. Aftel just walked up to his house in London and rang his doorbell. After a couple of tries later he agreed to be interviewed. She said the first interview was four hours long and that he was extremely polite. Ian Stewart was also interviewed. The comments about Brian by Keith and Stu weren't always great, but they were honest and fair. The same with Stanley Booth's book. I don't believe Keith hated Brian. Keith let Brian stay at Redlands for some peace and quiet after the busts and Brian was concerned about Keith's drug intake at the RnR Circus. Marianne Faithfull has been quoted as saying Keith loved Brian. There was something there that goes beyond a woman and Morocco. Actually the best comments about Brian come from Jagger from a Mojo article in 1999.

Quote
kleermaker
recensie van de Belg Herman Brusselmans

Allez hè, 't is dat 'm altijd zo verduveld komisch is, maar voor de rest kunde onzen Herman toch nie echt helemaal als enne serieuze beschouwen, wel dan ?

Keep On Rolling

Marie
Actually the best comments about Brian come from Jagger from a Mojo article in 1999.


I do remember what Mick sad about Brian in Rolling Stone interview in 1995, but I didn't read this Mojo interview you are talking about. What did he say?

Quote
71Tele

I dislike political correctness, but find his constant need to refer to women as "bitches" juvenile at best. How do the "bitches" here feel about it?

The voice is really Keith, the good and the bad of it. I love the guy, but could use less of the "bitches" and all the macho "shooter", knife and fight anecdotes. These seem like Little Man Syndrome to me, sorry.

Absolutely agree, that is truly irritating. It gets worse in the end, where he presents himself as the know-it-all against Mick on the VL and B2B albums in this tough-talk.

Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bärs
It actually is possible that Keith "lied" in the 70's and that the recent account is more balanced. If Keith started emphasizing Stu's role after Stu died, as some say, it's not strange if he, and others, did the same after Brian died. The early accounts might have been influenced by the fact that Brian had died and people involved were "nice" when asked about Brian's role in the early Stones. If Keith would have known in the 70's that everything he says about Brian and Stu would be held against him 40 years later he would perhaps have put his words differently.

I don't know. I simply say that 1. it is POSSIBLE that the official foundation myth needs correction, 2. a "changing story" does not necessarily implies deliberate deception, 3. an early version is not necessarily better or more truthful than a later one in these cases.

This is a good point, and I agree with it. In '71 Brian's legacy was still very much present, and no one was interest in Stu. But I don't know if after Stu's death, he suddenly started to be more "honest", or how much, for example, Wyman's book and its claims started to bother him, etc. But inconsistencies like these just makes Keith's testimony over-all a bit suspectible. How do you know when he actually is talking "honestly" or without any outer motive?

- Doxa

Well, I have parted with friends 20 years ago because I didn't like some aspects of them. Now 20 years later I think of some of them as absolute bastards or nut cases. People grow and develop.

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 18:28 by Mathijs.

Quote
Mathijs
People grow and develope.

Mathijs

It seems as if Keith has grown and developed in to a bitter, childish old man.

* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *

People grow and develop. No: some people do, others don't.

You can already find couple of signed Life books at ebay

"...life is short, one look and it’s over, it comes as quite a shock, all I’ve got is some memories stuck in an old shoe box"

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Mathijs
People grow and develope.

Mathijs

It seems as if Keith has grown and developed in to a bitter, childish old man.

Seems more to me that he's trying his best to be honest about his feelings - It doesn't really come off that he's just trying to bash Brian. I know people that I think are arseholes so does that mean I am childish for the way I feel about them -- or is it just conveying that info that becomes childish. If Keith did feel that way and didn't write about it, I would have to say I would be disappointed.

In general, any non-fiction book I read, I hope it is as complete & real as possible -- if feelings get hurt, well that's between the writer and his subject, not me.

Quote
LeonidP

Seems more to me that he's trying his best to be honest about his feelings - It doesn't really come off that he's just trying to bash Brian. I know people that I think are arseholes so does that mean I am childish for the way I feel about them -- or is it just conveying that info that becomes childish. If Keith did feel that way and didn't write about it, I would have to say I would be disappointed.

In general, any non-fiction book I read, I hope it is as complete & real as possible -- if feelings get hurt, well that's between the writer and his subject, not me.

He can think, feel and write what he wants, but I think his more childish comments about both Mick and Brian say far more about Keith than they do about his 'targets'.

Very easy to write about difficult people and situations without constantly falling back on childish name calling. He's managed to articulate his negative feelings about Brian better before.

* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 23:10 by His Majesty.

Quote
LeonidP
Seems more to me that he's trying his best to be honest about his feelings - It doesn't really come off that he's just trying to bash Brian. I know people that I think are arseholes so does that mean I am childish for the way I feel about them -- or is it just conveying that info that becomes childish. If Keith did feel that way and didn't write about it, I would have to say I would be disappointed.

He bashes Brian every chance he can get. Then he minimizes Brian's role in the early years of the band. That's called character assassination, plain and simple. It's not a matter of Keith's feelings here, rather his INTENTION to downplay the importance of another person in the band's history. And if he can get away with calling the man a 'whiny bitch' or 'Cheltenham c$nt' or 'ponce', all the better!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 23:23 by neptune.

Indeed, Keith's 2010 newly revised history on the beginnings of the band is the biggest kick in the teeth he could give to Brian.

''Stu's vision'' my arse!

* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *

5pm,tomorrow......... the Underground people are on strike, maybe that will deter people, too worried about getting home. F*ck it, I will go down for 5pm and hope for the best.

SonicD

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
LeonidP

Seems more to me that he's trying his best to be honest about his feelings - It doesn't really come off that he's just trying to bash Brian. I know people that I think are arseholes so does that mean I am childish for the way I feel about them -- or is it just conveying that info that becomes childish. If Keith did feel that way and didn't write about it, I would have to say I would be disappointed.

In general, any non-fiction book I read, I hope it is as complete & real as possible -- if feelings get hurt, well that's between the writer and his subject, not me.

He can think, feel and write what he wants, but I think his more childish comments about both Mick and Brian say far more about Keith than they do about
his 'targets'.


Very easy to write about difficult people and situations without constantly falling back on childish name calling. He's managed to articulate his negative feelings about Brian better before.

As we age the feelings about certain things that took place in our past age with us. This means we can view things differently, with more or less importance,as it pertains to positive or negative memories. This is the way it is for better or worse. Alot of things simply go out of your mind for many years and then come back as if some dusty vault were opened. Semi-buried emotions come back with it. I believe this is how Keith is articulating his feelings about Brian. Some of you guys are "beating a dead horse" on the Brian issue. The book does not go into every day, of every week,of every month that took place as the Stones were forming up. He includes bits and pieces. Could he have elaborated more? Of course, but the fact he didn't should not cause all of this rancor. Could he have included some more endearing stories about Brian? Sure, but he chose not to. Look, I am a huge fan of the Brian era. I love that stuff. Keith never called Brian a lousy musician. Keith had/has issues with Brian's character as it evolved. That is what is has conveyed in the book. Meanwhile I am still enjoying the reading of "Life".

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

I dislike political correctness, but find his constant need to refer to women as "bitches" juvenile at best. How do the "bitches" here feel about it?

The voice is really Keith, the good and the bad of it. I love the guy, but could use less of the "bitches" and all the macho "shooter", knife and fight anecdotes. These seem like Little Man Syndrome to me, sorry.

Absolutely agree, that is truly irritating. It gets worse in the end, where he presents himself as the know-it-all against Mick on the VL and B2B albums in this tough-talk.

Mathijs

Mathjis, what do you think of the veracity of the story where he says he showed Billy Preston "the blade" backstage on the '73 tour? I also found the story of him supposedly shooting out the lights to escape drug dealers a bit much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-03 00:41 by 71Tele.

Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.

Quote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.

True, but that's life (no pun intended). It is an individual's responsibility to get a variety sources and make up one's own mind based on good information. If one only has read Spanish Tony's book, for example, one would get a really distorted view of Keith, even though many of those stories are true. Context is everything.

I'm not a big book reader but the few times I do read one they are usually autobiographies or non-fiction.And this book of Keiths its a good book and im really enjoying it.I'll give it a 10/10

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.

True, but that's life (no pun intended). It is an individual's responsibility to get a variety sources and make up one's own mind based on good information. If one only has read Spanish Tony's book, for example, one would get a really distorted view of Keith, even though many of those stories are true. Context is everything.

You're right. Unfortunately, most people won't do that...Oh well. I read Spanish Tony's book when I was very young. I've been told to take it with a grain of salt, but just curious, if many of the stories are true, how or why would I get a distorted picture of Keith?

Quote
Marie

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.

True, but that's life (no pun intended). It is an individual's responsibility to get a variety sources and make up one's own mind based on good information. If one only has read Spanish Tony's book, for example, one would get a really distorted view of Keith, even though many of those stories are true. Context is everything.

You're right. Unfortunately, most people won't do that...Oh well. I read Spanish Tony's book when I was very young. I've been told to take it with a grain of salt, but just curious, if many of the stories are true, how or why would I get a distorted picture of Keith?

Well, what if a book was written about you that only described the stupidest or most inconsiderate things you have ever done and very little else? I would hate to have such a book written about me.

Life debuts at #3 in UK with 28,213 copies sold:


Keef, Katie Price, Chris Evans and the Meerkat hit top 50
02.11.10 | Philip Stone

Four celebrity memoirs début in the Official UK Top 50 this week, bringing the total number of celeb-mems in the chart to 12. This is a significant improvement on the same week last year when just three made the Official UK Top 50.

Three of the débuting four take positions in the top 10, led by Rolling Stones legend Keith Richards' Life (Weidenfeld), which sold 28,213 copies in its opening week in bookshops. It takes third position in the Official UK Top 50, behind the latest edition of Guinness World Records (in second) and Jamie Oliver's Jamie's 30-minute Meals (Michael Joseph) which sold a phenomenal 78,606 copies at UK booksellers last week—the strongest ever October weekly sale since records began.

Katie Price's fourth memoir in just over six years, You Only Live Once (Century) sold 17,752 copies in its opening week in shops, and takes seventh position overall, while TV star Aleksandr Orlov's A Simples Life (Ebury) débuts in ninth place. Chris Evans' tales of his wilderness years, Memoirs of a Fruitcake (HarperCollins), is the fourth celebrity entry into the top 50, selling 10,671 copies last week. It takes 24th place.

Kate Mosse's The Winter Ghosts (Orion), the fifth most popular purchase at UK bookshops last week, débuts in pole position in this week's mass-market fiction chart thanks to a Waterstone's "link-save"-boosted 20,743 sale, while new books by three of the biggest names in fiction join the Original Fiction Top 20. John Grisham's The Confession (Century) and Patricia Cornwell's Port Mortuary (Little, Brown) take second and third place respectively, while Danielle Steel's Legacy (Bantam Press) charts in eighth.

Also new into the Original Fiction list is comedienne Dawn French's first novel, A Tiny Bit Marvellous (Michael Joseph), which sold 4,182 copies in its first week in shops.

This week's Top 20 Paperback Non-fiction chart welcomes two new entries—feline books from the en-vogue pet memoir genre. Helen Brown's Cleo (Hodder) charts in 11th place, while Denis O'Connor's Paw Tracks at Owl Cottage (Constable), the follow-up to the surprise, tear-inducing 2009 hit Paw Tracks in the Moonlight, sneaks in at number 19.

Meanwhile, in children's, annuals are slowly climbing the charts ahead of Christmas. The Beano remains the bestseller, with Peppa Pig and Doctor Who close behind in sales terms.

In total, £35.9m was spent at UK booksellers last week, up 4.5% week-on-week but down 0.4% on the same week last year when Guinness World Records topped the chart for the first time in 2009.

Quote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.

How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?

The thing is though everything you ever read is based on someone's point of view, or an assumption. In 69 Brian said he was leaving the Stones because he didn't see eye to eye with the discs they were cutting, which wasn't really true. The Stones were trying to edge him out of the group with the minimum of fuss. It was a very different era in some respects than today, where there was still an element of maintaining a level of privacy. My opinion is over the years, and after a very long time since Brian's death, Keith has decided to come clean. Tom Keylock in recent years described Brian as a bastard, and anyone who saw the film 'Stoned' would know Brian was portrayed as rather an unpleasant character. I have heard so many accounts about Brian's behaviour over the years, and the bandage from Anita's beatings is evident on the Stones performance of 'Lady Jane' off the Ed Sullivan show, just take a look at Brian's wrist. I think it is arguable that Brian's negative points may have clouded Keith's judgements on Brian's strengths just a little, perhaps, although Keith does give him praise in those early days for his musical ability, and as an aid in getting the group started. However, it is evident when Keith thinks of Brian it isn't necessarily fondly. Without being there in on the action in the sense of being heavily involved with the Stones, it is very hard for any of us to pass judgement, as again we are just relying on speculation and hearsay. Keith's fondness for Ian Stewart is understandable, because of his reliability, and his continued dedication to the group, despite no longer being an official member. Keith speaks very highly of Jagger, also, in those early years. The songwriting duties between them which he describes is fascinating, with him coming up with many of the basic riffs and choruses and Jagger filling in all the details, the lyrics and verses etc. He speaks highly of Jagger's prolific songwriting in this period. He also gives very high praise for Jagger's singing and stage presence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-03 09:25 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
The thing is though everything you ever read is based on someone's point of view, or an assumption. In 69 Brian said he was leaving the Stones because he didn't see eye to eye with the discs they were cutting, which wasn't really true. The Stones were trying to edge him out of the group with the minimum of fuss. It was a very different era in some respects than today, where there was still an element of maintaining a level of privacy. My opinion is over the years, and after a very long time since Brian's death, Keith has decided to come clean. Tom Keylock in recent years described Brian as a bastard, and anyone who saw the film 'Stoned' would know Brian was portrayed as rather an unpleasant character. I have heard so many accounts about Brian's behaviour over the years, and the bandage from Anita's beatings is evident on the Stones performance of 'Lady Jane' off the Ed Sullivan show, just take a look at Brian's wrist. I think it is arguable that Brian's negative points may have clouded Keith's judgements on Brian's strengths just a little, perhaps, although Keith does give him praise in those early days for his musical ability, and as an aid in getting the group started. However, it is evident when Keith thinks of Brian it isn't necessarily fondly. Without being there in on the action in the sense of being heavily involved with the Stones, it is very hard for any of us to pass judgement, as again we are just relying on speculation and hearsay. Keith's fondness for Ian Stewart is understandable, because of his reliability, and his continued dedication to the group, despite no longer being an official member. Keith speaks very highly of Jagger, also, in those early years. The songwriting duties between them which he describes is fascinating, with him coming up with many of the basic riffs and choruses and Jagger filling in all the details, the lyrics and verses etc. He speaks highly of Jagger's prolific songwriting in this period. He also gives very high praise for Jagger's singing and stage presence.

Hmm... reading again perhaps different book again...yeah, there are two or three sentences where Keith says something nice of Brian's musical technical contributions, but at least to my ears they come like formal - or politically correct - ones before the bitching, neglecting and belittlening starts. He doesn't give any sign of Brian's importance in larger terms, say, giving a purpose or idea of the band. Best Brian did, was to play guitar with him: and of it Keith takes, of course, the half pride.

As fas Jagger's contribution in writing songs go, Keith's account is truely disgusting. There is nothing but an agenda. Yeah, he praises Jagger in the very early days when Jagger was basically just his secretary - finishing the small things the master has left unfinished. Keith even praises Mick for good lyrics - but this has the implicit moral: that's where Jagger should stick to. The way they worked in the early days seems to be the ideal - and perhaps the only - way how Keith sees their co-work really doing fine.

But when Jagger starts to be more independent and starts making music, Keith's bitching starts. Seemingly anything Mick does is worth nothing. Even a masterpiece like "Sympathy For he Devil" is mocked as "Mick's song". The description of SOME GIRLS - an album everybody knows is one of Jagger's strongest contributions ever - is analogical to belittlening Brian's contributions in the early days: Keith is so proud of the album - who can debate with sales? - but is incapable to give any respect to the master mind behind it. No, all he does is in pejorative terms. "The Whip Comes Down" is described "oh shit, Jagger is finally written a rock'n'roll" song; "Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable. No any mention of three-guitar attack, Jagger's pushing the band to rock faster, to react to punk, etc - Jagger's contribution is ignored under the anonomy of "we" - which, as the reader by then knows, is synonymous to "Keith's command and vision". There Keith is inconsistent, once again: first he says that everything starts from a scratch, and then he says that scene went usually that Mick came with a song, and then he (Keith) would say what to do with. (Then the junkie scenes: the 'master' taking 45 minutes pause to spend in toilet did just good for the songs because he had time to "think" there...)

And this is all before the horrible and ugly 80's scene. Of course, Jagger's solo career failure is a field day for Keith, and he surely uses that card - he sometimes sounds like having an orgasm in bashing Mick. But not saying that it sucks musically and conceptually, he claims, for example, that Mick steals melodies. (All this should be read as Mick is not able to do without him anything worthy musically, or even: Mick is an impotent composing songs).

As I read it, Keith's nostalgy drive for old days - when describing the sixties scenes - he mentions few times "oh Mick was so different then". It was not just the behavior but seemingly also the way to write songs (and thereby, lead musically the band): Keith the master mind and Mick the secretary.

A quick analysis. Keith's only claim for leadership and significance within the Stones was due his song-writing: he was the guy who did the music. That made HIM special. That was the reason to step to front behind Brian's shadow - a move I think he would ever could have done without his song-writing skills. But according to Keith, the Jagger-Richards team work had a clear divison of work, and seemingly when Jagger started composing songs by his own, and thereby started to be not musically dependent of Keith - seems to be a hard case for Keith. And the 70's scenes - in Keith's dopeville years - Mick took the musical leadership of the Stones- a progression that fulfilled in SOME GIRLS. By then Jagger was totally on his own as a song writer, and he had the visions and ideas how to lead the band - Keith was HIS guitarist, the "riff-master" who worked under and according to his vision. The success of SOME GIRLS was a mark that Jagger was in a right track: he was able to give the band a new life. This, if anything, pissed Keith off. Especially when he "cleaned out". This all happened before the 80's scene. Like said, Keith had a field day thanks to Mick's solo career failure, and my god he really uses that card in defining the earlier and ever since happenings.

But what happened after the 80's World War Three - since Mick "came to his senses" - Keith is not able to give any reasonable or insightful account of the happenings of The Rolling Stones or their creative work. Just stupid studio bullying or how he was able to great such a masterpieces as "Flip the Switch" or "You Don't Have to Mean It". And no bloody ANY critical word for his own creative downhill or the nature of The Rolling Stones (as a Vegas act who is kissing sponsors ass). Totally lost his judgment (like comparing his 8 kilometers - with a heavy guitar - to Mick's 15 kilometers on stage...). But thanks for the sausage receipt.


- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-03 12:57 by Doxa.

Quote
71Tele
what if a book was written about you that only described the stupidest or most inconsiderate things you have ever done

LOL, now that would be a hoot. I am affraid though that nobody would buy it because it would be over 1500 pages

Keep On Rolling

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
71Tele
what if a book was written about you that only described the stupidest or most inconsiderate things you have ever done

LOL, now that would be a hoot. I am affraid though that nobody would buy it because it would be over 1500 pages

A multi-volume edition, in my case

Quote
71Tele
A multi-volume edition, in my case

Oh, Come On. Stop bragging eh LOL

Keep On Rolling

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining
The thing is though everything you ever read is based on someone's point of view, or an assumption. In 69 Brian said he was leaving the Stones because he didn't see eye to eye with the discs they were cutting, which wasn't really true. The Stones were trying to edge him out of the group with the minimum of fuss. It was a very different era in some respects than today, where there was still an element of maintaining a level of privacy. My opinion is over the years, and after a very long time since Brian's death, Keith has decided to come clean. Tom Keylock in recent years described Brian as a bastard, and anyone who saw the film 'Stoned' would know Brian was portrayed as rather an unpleasant character. I have heard so many accounts about Brian's behaviour over the years, and the bandage from Anita's beatings is evident on the Stones performance of 'Lady Jane' off the Ed Sullivan show, just take a look at Brian's wrist. I think it is arguable that Brian's negative points may have clouded Keith's judgements on Brian's strengths just a little, perhaps, although Keith does give him praise in those early days for his musical ability, and as an aid in getting the group started. However, it is evident when Keith thinks of Brian it isn't necessarily fondly. Without being there in on the action in the sense of being heavily involved with the Stones, it is very hard for any of us to pass judgement, as again we are just relying on speculation and hearsay. Keith's fondness for Ian Stewart is understandable, because of his reliability, and his continued dedication to the group, despite no longer being an official member. Keith speaks very highly of Jagger, also, in those early years. The songwriting duties between them which he describes is fascinating, with him coming up with many of the basic riffs and choruses and Jagger filling in all the details, the lyrics and verses etc. He speaks highly of Jagger's prolific songwriting in this period. He also gives very high praise for Jagger's singing and stage presence.

Hmm... reading again perhaps different book again...yeah, there are two or three sentences where Keith says something nice of Brian's musical technical contributions, but at aleast to my ears they come like formal - or politically correct - ones before the bitching, neglecting and belitlening starts. He doesn't give any sign of Brian's importance in larger terms, say, giving a purpose or idea of the band. Best Brian did, was to play guitar with him: and of it Keith takes, of course, the half pride.

As fas Jagger's contribution in writing songs go, Keith's account is truely disgusting. There is nothing but an agenda. Yeah, he praises Jagger in the very early days when Jagger was basically just his secretary - finishing the small things the master has left unfinished. Keith even praises Mick for good lyrics - but this has the implicit moral: that's where Jagger should stick to. The way they worked in the early days seems to be the ideal - and perhaps the only - way how Keith sees their co-work really doing fine.

But when Jagger starts to be more independent and starts making music, Keith's bitching starts. Seemingly anything Mick does is worth nothing. Even a masterpiece like "Sympathy For he Devil" is mocked as "Mick's song". The description of SOME GIRLS - an album everybody knows is one of Jagger's strongest contributions ever - is analogical to belittlening Brian's contributions in the early days: Keith is so proud of the album - who can debate with sales? - but is incapable to give any respect to the master mind behind it. No, all he does is in pejorative terms. "The Whip Comes Down" is described "oh shit, Jagger is finally written a rock'n'roll" song; "Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable. No any mention of three-guitar attack, Jagger's pushing the band to rock faster, to react to punk, etc - Jagger's contribution is ignored under the anonomy of "we" - which, as the reader by then knows, is synonymous to "Keith's command and vision". There Keith is inconsistent, once again: first he says that everything starts from a scratch, and then he says that scene went usually that Mick came with a song, and then he (Keith) would say what to do with. (Then the junkie scenes: the 'master' taking 45 minutes pause to spend in toilet did just good for the songs because he had time to "think" there...)

And this is all before the horrible and ugly 80's scene. Of course, Jagger's solo career failure is a field day for Keith, and he surely uses that card - he somtimes sounds like having an orgasm in bashing Mick. But not saying that it barely sucks musically and conceptually, he claims, for example, that Mick steals melodies. (All this should be read as Mick is not able to do without him anything worthy musically).

As I read it, Keith's nostalgy drive for old days - when descrining teh sixties scenes he mentions few times "oh Mick was so different then". It was not the behavior but seemingly also way to write songs (and thereby, lead musically the band)- Keith the master mind and Mick the secretary.

A quick analysis. Keith's only claim for leadership and significance within the Stones was due his song-writing: he was the guy who did the music. That made HIM special. That was the reason to step to front behind Brian's shadow - a move I think he would ever could have done without his song-writing skills. But according to Keith, the Jagger-Richards team work had a clear divison of work, and seemingly when Jagger started composing songs by his own, and thereby started to be not musically dependent of Keith - seems to be a hard case for Keith. And the 70's scenes - in Keith's dopeville years - Mick took the musical leadership of the Stones- a progression that fulfilled in SOME GIRLS. By then Jagger was totally on his own as a song writer, and he had the visions and ideas how to lead the band - Keith was HIS guitarist, the "riff-master" who worked under and according to his vision. The success of SOME GIRLS was a mark that Jagger was in a right track: he was able to give the band a new life. This, if anything, pissed Keith off. Especially when he "cleaned out". This all happened before the 80's scene. Like said, Keith had a field day thanks to Mick's solo career failure, and my god he really uses that card in defining the earlier and ever since happenings.

But what happened after the 80's World War Three - since Mick "came to his senses" - Keith is not able to give any reasonable or insightful account of the happenings of The Rolling Stones or their creative work. Just stupid studio bullying or how he was able to great such a masterpieces as "Flip the Switch" or "You Don't Have to Mean It". And no bloody ANY critical word for his own creative downhill or the nature of The Rolling Stones (as a Vegas act who is kissing sponsors ass). Totally lost his judgment (like comparing his 8 kilometers - with a heavy guitar - to Mick's 15 kilometers on stage...). But thanks for the sausage receipt.


- Doxa

Jesus Doxa did this book ruin your life? I have never heard such bitterness.

Quote
Edward Twining
The thing is though everything you ever read is based on someone's point of view, or an assumption. In 69 Brian said he was leaving the Stones because he didn't see eye to eye with the discs they were cutting, which wasn't really true. The Stones were trying to edge him out of the group with the minimum of fuss. It was a very different era in some respects than today, where there was still an element of maintaining a level of privacy. My opinion is over the years, and after a very long time since Brian's death, Keith has decided to come clean. Tom Keylock in recent years described Brian as a bastard, and anyone who saw the film 'Stoned' would know Brian was portrayed as rather an unpleasant character. I have heard so many accounts about Brian's behaviour over the years, and the bandage from Anita's beatings is evident on the Stones performance of 'Lady Jane' off the Ed Sullivan show, just take a look at Brian's wrist. I think it is arguable that Brian's negative points may have clouded Keith's judgements on Brian's strengths just a little, perhaps, although Keith does give him praise in those early days for his musical ability, and as an aid in getting the group started. However, it is evident when Keith thinks of Brian it isn't necessarily fondly. Without being there in on the action in the sense of being heavily involved with the Stones, it is very hard for any of us to pass judgement, as again we are just relying on speculation and hearsay. Keith's fondness for Ian Stewart is understandable, because of his reliability, and his continued dedication to the group, despite no longer being an official member. Keith speaks very highly of Jagger, also, in those early years. The songwriting duties between them which he describes is fascinating, with him coming up with many of the basic riffs and choruses and Jagger filling in all the details, the lyrics and verses etc. He speaks highly of Jagger's prolific songwriting in this period. He also gives very high praise for Jagger's singing and stage presence.

Agreed, and plaudits to Keith for writing it as he lived it and feels it. Brian Jones placed an ad in a paper, he could play various instruments, especially slide. When Keith and Mick came along they insisted on Chuck Berry et al so the vision was a shared formation that eventually led to the golden era, in which Brian wasn't a part of, save for a little bit of Beggars Banquet. There are many accounts of Brian being a bastard, and so Keith's take offers a balanced view that just doesn't bode well for those who want to overstate Brian's importance. Funny to watch some with too much time and an agenda try to convince themselves that they're right.

Quote
Ket
Jesus Doxa did this book ruin your life? I have never heard such bitterness.

No, but it really made me rethink what I think of Keith Richards. It never occured to my mind that he is such a small person. I used to think he is the coolest person on earth. So knowing the truth somehow hurts. But I think I can survive.

I have tried to read the book between the lines and skipping the obvious small-mindness of the book by thinking "this is just another Keith Richards performance - one more Captain Hook act, keeping up appearances to get the attention and big money" - but I am afraid that that there actually is 'honest' Keith talking along the lines. I think he actually revails something of his personality, and what I find I don't like at all (unability to refect own actions, immaturity, hypocricy, lies, gossips, agendas, bullying, preteding to be a 'tough guy',calling names and belittlening others, etc.), Part of me thinks that I've been 'betrayed' all these years - especially during the 80's - but finally seeing my hero naked behind his (once) cool image, is actually a rewarding experience. For me he now looks like a rock and roll version of Michael Jackson who lives in his little fantasy world.

But I still love the guy's music though. Even I don't think his contribution to The Rolling Stones is not so huge than he - or many people here - seem to think.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-03 12:58 by Doxa.