Quote
GetYerAngie
Though I enjoy reading the book (Keith is a good storyteller, though not reliable), I really agree with you, Doxa. But I started to get suspicious of this Keith-worshipping (by critics, most new RSfans and Keith himself) somewhere in the nineties.

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 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

Quote
tonterapi
We who like the good sides of Brian are very much beating a dead horse. It's clear that Brian's memory is trashed heavily into a one sided hell hole and the few books that give a balanced view of him only reach the ones who is curious enough to track them down. The only thing we fans got that reached a bigger audience was a movie about Brian that is based on fiction and pure crap. I don't even think Keith would give this movie any good words.
It's Keith's Brian you meet in this book and it's Keith's Brian you meet in most biographies about the Stones. No context or backgrounds - just this envy, nasty and whining drug addict...and as usual nothing on what Keith himself or the Stones may have done wrong towards Brian.
No wonder it's hard to find comments that say something nice about Brian for the general Stones fan! It's like having two kids fighting and only ask one of them why they started to fight.

I've tried to make a point earlier that even though Brian could be a bastard he don't deserve to be remembered as the most horrible person in show buisness ever. I can't remember who said it - but it's from Philip Norman's book about the Stones - that Brian wasn't any worse than the average star back then. But for some reason his negative sides are reapeated over and over and over again. I mean why hasn't he paid for his bad moments when others have? Is it because he is dead so it's ok to piss on him?

Quote
71Tele
To his credit, Keith did admit that they could be very nasty to Brian, mocking him, etc. But if it is true that Brian got more cash behind the others' back for being the "leader" on the early tours and then did not show up for a lot of shows I understand the resentment.

Quote
Doxa

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

Quote
Doxa


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.


- Doxa

Quote
stupidguy2

But Keith seems to have a hard time giving Mick sole credit if it has to do with the compositional, musical aspects and directions of the Stones. Sure, he'll give him credit as a harp player, singer, performer etc...but he can't seem to give Mick his own musical identity as an artist. That's a disgrace.

Quote
Edward Twining

I think Keith is, or at least was, basically a shy person who used drugs as a prop. At the very least they helped him cope with the pressures of touring and the general rigours of fame, which perhaps he was not so well suited to as Jagger. To a degree i think Keith at times does himself an injustice in his biography, with the choice of language he chooses to use. Referring to women as 'bitches', as well as referring to Jagger's 'tiny todger' and 'balls', amongst a host of other things tends to cheapen the times when Keith has something more sincere to say, because without hearing the tone of his spoken voice, it's sometimes difficult to assess when Keith is being serious or not. On the other hand, though, the book does display Keith's personality well, and you do get the feeling that what is written in print is most definitely coming from Keith's lips. I believe Keith is pretty forthright in his views, and although i sense Brian isn't perhaps his favourite person, the notion of Keith writing his book with an agenda, is something i don't especially feel. It's up to the individual reading his book, how they choose to interpret his words. But just like our own interpretations of his book vary so very much, so i'm sure Keith's own recollections are bound to a degree to result in conflicting reactions with those who were present at the time when those events were taking place. Everyone tends to put their own spin on things. However, that doesn't stop me from enjoying Keith's book very very much.

Quote
LeonidP


Or it's possible Keith just doesn't think Mick was that good at that one aspect -- seems like it may be he gives him credit for what he's good at and no BS if he doesn't think he's good at something. That's either a disgrace or just honesty.
.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
LeonidP


Or it's possible Keith just doesn't think Mick was that good at that one aspect -- seems like it may be he gives him credit for what he's good at and no BS if he doesn't think he's good at something. That's either a disgrace or just honesty.
.

And that's the disconnect. Its one thing to trash She's the Boss, but as Doxa pointed out, Keith was mocking Jagger before then.
I think Keith not giving Mick credit for Some Girls is just "claiming rights" to something that is a Stones cornerstone.

Quote
71Tele

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.

Quote
LeonidP

how do any of us know what Keith or Mick wrote then?

Quote
Doxa

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

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
LeonidP

how do any of us know what Keith or Mick wrote then?

Keith had the riff for Beast of Burden, but Jagger wrote the verses and turned it into more than a groove. The others, mostly Jagger. Again, listen to Some Other Girls, Claudine etc...There are shitload of outtakes that establish Jagger as driving force of that album.

Quote
LeonidP


Ok, but you just said Keith wrote it ... and even though not at the Some Girls section of the book, Kieth does mention Beast of Burden as an example of a track that's perfect for him & Ronnie weaving a great mix of rhythm & lead guitars, yet I should take your word (or another source) that it was mostly Mick's groove? Even if true, I don't see any evidence that Keith is trying to take away any credit ... he just says that was a great track to display how he & ronnie interact as players. But whatever, it's become obvious that it doesn't matter what he writes, it is going to come off to you & doxa as disrespectful, not giving credit etc. So don't read it.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Doxa

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

Well, Doxa, maybe if you hadn't put Keith on such a high pedestal in the first place, you wouldn't feel prone to feeling so bitterly disappointed now. Your expectations would not be so immeasurably high. I think Keith is just as human as the next guy with the same human frailties (jealousies, insecurities, etc), alongside some marvellously talented musical faculties. I think the image of Keith appearing 'cool' is just a fantasy, anyway. It's hard to be cool loaded up with that many drugs. I think Keith is, or at least was, basically a shy person who used drugs as a prop. At the very least they helped him cope with the pressures of touring and the general rigours of fame, which perhaps he was not so well suited to as Jagger. To a degree i think Keith at times does himself an injustice in his biography, with the choice of language he chooses to use. Referring to women as 'bitches', as well as referring to Jagger's 'tiny todger' and 'balls', amongst a host of other things tends to cheapen the times when Keith has something more sincere to say, because without hearing the tone of his spoken voice, it's sometimes difficult to assess when Keith is being serious or not. On the other hand, though, the book does display Keith's personality well, and you do get the feeling that what is written in print is most definitely coming from Keith's lips. I believe Keith is pretty forthright in his views, and although i sense Brian isn't perhaps his favourite person, the notion of Keith writing his book with an agenda, is something i don't especially feel. It's up to the individual reading his book, how they choose to interpret his words. But just like our own interpretations of his book vary so very much, so i'm sure Keith's own recollections are bound to a degree to result in conflicting reactions with those who were present at the time when those events were taking place. Everyone tends to put their own spin on things. However, that doesn't stop me from enjoying Keith's book very very much.

Quote
Mathijs


There's one line in the book that’s prove of this: Keith mentions (when the book arrives somewhere in ’78) that Mick doesn't need all the big stages, the props, the moves and whatever, and all the forays into disco and what-more as Jagger forever ‘could sing “I Am a Man” on a table top and still be famous and earn money’. And that is the biggest misconception of Keith, and probably his biggest jealousy towards Mick. Keith likes to see the Stones as a Chicago blues band, and he likes to see himself as the de facto leader as he is the main songwriter, whereas Jagger is the lead singer of the band and hence the most important man for most of the audience, and Jagger is the one whom keeps his foot in modern times, adjusting the band to remain modern and relevant, or even a money making machine from ’89.

When Keith cleaned up in ’78 he wanted to do “I am a Man’, while Jagger came with ‘Miss You’. Instead of being grateful towards Jagger, he keeps slagging him.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

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.

Well, the Preston story is a surprise to me, but the escaping drug dealer story is a more well known stroy, I believe both Wood and Bobby Keys has told stories of the sort.

But the ending of the book puts it all in big perspective -Keith writes in the same words and slang, the same macho, juvenile lingo about how he prepares Bangers & Mash (I ain't kidding ya) and how he chased a guy with two swords because he hid Keith's spring unions for a joke....

Yeah, a true outlaw, our latter day Keith!

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

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

Well, here I agree with you. As I stated before, I don't understand that Keith doesn't see that they survived the 70's due to Mick, and their 'comeback' with Some Girls and especially Tattoo You and the '81 tour was a true tour de force of Mick mostly. Then, Jagger's decision not to tour with three junkie band members and a so-so received album.

There's one line in the book that’s prove of this: Keith mentions (when the book arrives somewhere in ’78) that Mick doesn't need all the big stages, the props, the moves and whatever, and all the forays into disco and what-more as Jagger forever ‘could sing “I Am a Man” on a table top and still be famous and earn money’. And that is the biggest misconception of Keith, and probably his biggest jealousy towards Mick. Keith likes to see the Stones as a Chicago blues band, and he likes to see himself as the de facto leader as he is the main songwriter, whereas Jagger is the lead singer of the band and hence the most important man for most of the audience, and Jagger is the one whom keeps his foot in modern times, adjusting the band to remain modern and relevant, or even a money making machine from ’89.

When Keith cleaned up in ’78 he wanted to do “I am a Man’, while Jagger came with ‘Miss You’. Instead of being grateful towards Jagger, he keeps slagging him.

Mathijs

Quote
LeonidP

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?

Quote
proudmary
I really can't imagine how Mick works with him.

Yeah, it's a big question. What, Jagger is some kind of saint? I don't think so. So what is it then?

Quote
Marie

Quote
LeonidP

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?

It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
LeonidP


Ok, but you just said Keith wrote it ... and even though not at the Some Girls section of the book, Kieth does mention Beast of Burden as an example of a track that's perfect for him & Ronnie weaving a great mix of rhythm & lead guitars, yet I should take your word (or another source) that it was mostly Mick's groove? Even if true, I don't see any evidence that Keith is trying to take away any credit ... he just says that was a great track to display how he & ronnie interact as players. But whatever, it's become obvious that it doesn't matter what he writes, it is going to come off to you & doxa as disrespectful, not giving credit etc. So don't read it.

No, I stated that Keith had the basic riff, the groove, but that Jagger turned it into a great song. - there is a difference. I happen to think Beast is the perfect example of Jagger/Richards, both taking a piece of something the other had and making magic. It might be my favorite Keith riff and one of my favorite Stones songs of all time. I'm not not diminishing Keith's input on that song. I was referring more to Keith mocking Jagger's input with terms like "disco boy" and referring to SOme Girls in general.
(Besides, CHarlie has said that both he and Jagger were listening alot to disco music at that time, so Keith was just out of the loop, listening to Chuck Berry)
Jagger's fingerprints are all over SOme Girls, while Keith is a third party on most of it. Keith is the one, and Keith's desiples, have always bought into the myth of Keith as "soul" of the Stones. Its just that, a myth. I hate that Keith is perpetuating that myth because there are those who don't know any better and believe every word out of Keith's smirking mouth. It's been disrectful to minimize Jagger's impact on the Stones music, and many Keith fans have been doing that for years.