Quote
71Tele
"Rock Star" is perhaps the most meaningless and empty description or aspiration for someone I can think of. Utterly useless. "Musician", yes, but what is a "rock Star"? Someone who is expected to behave like a spoiled child and an egotistical idiot.

Yes. A rock star is a 'spoiled child', an 'egotistical idiot', a person who lives on the edge, the consummate rebel without a cause. That was Brian Jones, the true definition and embodiment of what a Rolling Stone was supposed to be way back in the 1960's. And he died at 27 to boot, solidifying the image. Is that why Mr. Richards hates Brian so much? Is it cause he could never be the true rebel that Brian was? Does Keith despise the fact that he's survived to a ripe old age depending on corporate sponsorships for his countless stadium tours and extravagant lifestyle? Is there a side of Keith Richards that wishes he were more like Brian Jones, a musician who stayed true to the cause, an uncompromising artist and human being who threw caution to the wind? Yet, many so-called Rolling Stones fans will say that Brian was the jerk and Keith the hero, and my only point is that there's no real difference between the two other than one died and another survived.

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele
"Rock Star" is perhaps the most meaningless and empty description or aspiration for someone I can think of. Utterly useless. "Musician", yes, but what is a "rock Star"? Someone who is expected to behave like a spoiled child and an egotistical idiot.

Yes. A rock star is a 'spoiled child', an 'egotistical idiot', a person who lives on the edge, the consummate rebel without a cause. That was Brian Jones, the true definition and embodiment of what a Rolling Stone was supposed to be way back in the 1960's. And he died at 27 to boot, solidifying the image. Is that why Mr. Richards hates Brian so much? Is it cause he could never be the true rebel that Brian was? Does Keith despise the fact that he's survived to a ripe old age depending on corporate sponsorships for his countless stadium tours and extravagant lifestyle? Is there a side of Keith Richards that wishes he were more like Brian Jones, a musician who stayed true to the cause, an uncompromising artist and human being who threw caution to the wind? Yet, many so-called Rolling Stones fans will say that Brian was the jerk and Keith the hero, and my only point is that there's no real difference between the two other than one died and another survived.

That's a big difference...plus one could write great music and the other couldn't. But I agree with part of your premise. Keith isn't a hero. "Rock stars" aren't heroes. Neither are musicians. Keith was/is(?) a great musician. That's enough. Why people need or expect artists and entertainers to be perfect human beings is beyond me.

I think Keith was actually very well balanced in his assessment of Mick Taylor. Mick Taylor as a guitar player is amongst the very best. The reason for his low profile in comparison with others is simply the fact that he lacks the flamboyance and personality to actually carry off the role of being a rock star, especially where being in the centre of the limelight is concerned. I met Taylor a number of years ago at one of his autograph signing sessions after a concert and stayed behind chatting to him long after all the others had gone. I came away thinking it was a wonder he lasted with the Stones as long as he did, he seemed so delicate and shy, but at the same time very nice. I've met lots of celebrities that are wildly assertive, and can literally bite your head off, but Taylor really is quite the reverse. That's a credit to him in a way, but it's also an indication as to why he perhaps didn't fit into the Stones socially, and with the rock 'n' roll lifestyle generally. I agree with kleermaker wholeheartedly with his assessment of Taylor's quitar skills though - he is such a beautiful player, very subtle and soulful, too, in a way that few other guitar heroes, are in my opinion. What the Stones offered Taylor was a marvellous platform for him to show off his quitar virtuoso skills, and especially live. To hear Taylor playing within the context of some of the greatest ever songs written is a wonderful thing, but hear him playing within songs that are generally more mediocre, isn't quite so appealing, however effective his actual quitar playing may be. However, i think often he's still worth listening to just for that.

As far as Keith's assessment of Mick is concerned in the eighties (and beyond), i think he makes many very telling remarks, that i, for one, find easy to relate to. Listening to the Stones albums from 'Emotional Rescue' onwards, i think it is quite often at this point the Stones begin to lose their focus. The songs begin to get more sketchy, and start to lack depth and focus, and it can be said that the Stones truly start to lose their muse. What is so fascinating is when Keith describes the cirumstances surrounding the recording of 'Some Girls' (his Toronto drugs bust and fear of imprisonment), and the impetus that gave him to really go out there and prove his worth in contributing to the 'Some Girls' album. Not, of course that he was wholly responsible for the album's success (it was primary Mick's album), but his predicament gave him a greater sense of urgency. Back to the eighties, i remember being very disappointed with the 'Undercover' album on its time of release when the personal relationship between Mick and Keith became more strained, and i thought the songs were fairly sketchy and underdeveloped, and the arrangements were fairly insubstantial. When Jagger released his solo album 'She's The Boss' i felt it sounded as though it had been given a lot more attention to detail and been more meticulously crafted, but 25 years on, how my opinion has changed! 'She's The Boss' is so entrenched in the sounds of the eighties, i find it almost unlistenable. I think it has aged incredibly badly, whereas 'Let It Bleed', 'Exile On Main Street' etc. have hardly aged at all. 'Undercover' may be lacking a little in many ways, but i can also still find it a pleasureable listening experience on occasions. The thing with Keith with regards to Mick's solo career, is he knows Jagger is the only member of the group that is truly irreplaceable. Without Keith, the Stones would certainly not be the Stones as we know them, and especially to the fans of the group who have more than a passing interest, yet it's still conceivable in the eyes of the greater majority they could still survive, if only just. Take away Jagger, though, and the Stones are finished. I think in the eighties, amongst other things, Keith recognised this and he may have been worrying about self preservation, as much as anything else. What is amazing though is the fact that despite Jagger's enormous skills as a performer, he still needed the Stones as much as they needed him. How much this is really only purely down to nostalgia in the eyes of the public, is debateable, because the Stones are pretty much exclusively trading on nostalgia by this point in time. Keith's right though about Jagger's need to be current stifling his natural creativity, and also where Jagger's unnatural dance movements are concerned when he attempts to cover ground on those big stadium shows. Somewhere, something is lost, perhaps the sincerity and naivety, so to speak. Of course, the other side of the coin is one could also say Keith is also no longer the performer he was in his prime, which of course he's not going to broach. In a sense though Keith never really addresses the physical/mental decline with Jagger or the rest of the Stones (with regards to ageing), although i would have thought he would be aware of it by this point in time. Maybe it does not pay to be quite that honest. He's more interested in explaining the Stones perceived shift of emphasis, and how it hasn't altogether been such a good thing. His remarks on the recording technology of today is also of interest. He finds it all unnecessarily overcomplicated, and overproduced, which comes as no surprise! My knowledge of listening to the Stones music over the years, and my points of view etc. pretty much compliments Keith observations well. What he says pretty much confirms how i have felt about the Stones over the years.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-06 07:50 by Edward Twining.

Great insight Neptune and I enjoyed the exchange w 71tele. Twining very interesting too tho I have some differences. I miss Mick's more natural movement in the 60's and early 70's too but I think to do what he does as an athlete covering and targetting a few thousand at a time is probably some deeply choreographed power energy postures and it can be fascinating too. Tho personally I am done with stadiums unless it's a baseball game. VERY good stuff from Neptune and Marie and Mathijs wow great. I get 71tele but I DO IT. i Ascribe a persoonal integrity of mission ammd ethics and heart to artists that have moved me spiritually and emotionally and I'm probably wrong and projecting my own fantasies about what is right and wrong and where an artist stands or quote SHOULD stand. Which is usually not accurate. Tho sometimes with Neil Young or George Harrison or Stevie Wonder or Bruce or Bob you really feel that they are special loving people who in diffferent styles really get in there deep and fragile and strong like Woody G. and fans sort of do fall in love with their artists and just think they walk on water. Music is so personal. I have a cousin who works for a star I Deeply adore from afar and he hates from personal experience. I CAN'T Listen to these stories about this star I love without getting angry and defensive but all I know is the records really.

Quote
mockingbird3
Great insight Neptune and I enjoyed the exchange w 71tele. Twining very interesting too tho I have some differences. I miss Mick's more natural movement in the 60's and early 70's too but I think to do what he does as an athlete covering and targetting a few thousand at a time is probably some deeply choreographed power energy postures and it can be fascinating too. Tho personally I am done with stadiums unless it's a baseball game. VERY good stuff from Neptune and Marie and Mathijs wow great. I get 71tele but I DO IT. i Ascribe a persoonal integrity of mission ammd ethics and heart to artists that have moved me spiritually and emotionally and I'm probably wrong and projecting my own fantasies about what is right and wrong and where an artist stands or quote SHOULD stand. Which is usually not accurate. Tho sometimes with Neil Young or George Harrison or Stevie Wonder or Bruce or Bob you really feel that they are special loving people who in diffferent styles really get in there deep and fragile and strong like Woody G. and fans sort of do fall in love with their artists and just think they walk on water. Music is so personal. I have a cousin who works for a star I Deeply adore from afar and he hates from personal experience. I CAN'T Listen to these stories about this star I love without getting angry and defensive but all I know is the records really.

I think those are very good points, mockingbird. I am not so cynical that I can't admit that when I hear Dylan, or the Stones, or Tom Waits - people who move me - I want them to be special people, not just artists. The great ones are, but in different ways than we might understand or desire. It's when we project some sort of moral standard that is not realistic, or worse yet, we hero worship, that we get into trouble. Is Bruce any less a great artist because he used to like to go to strip clubs? Dylan any less great because he treated a lot of people shabbily on his way up? Keith because he fetishes weapons and holds grudges? No, not necessarily. What is the responsibility (if any) of the artist to his or her public, or the public at large? Is there any such responsibility, beyond that of the artist to his art? When Bruce started to become more socially and politically active, I am sure he helped a lot of people, but I'm not sure it's when he made his most compelling music. These artists touch something in the universe that eludes the rest of us. Or rather when they touch it they can wrestle it to earth and turn it into something that speaks to us. That gift - and only that - is what separates them from the rest of us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-06 09:07 by 71Tele.

Quote
TippyToe
Tips from Keith:
- The blade should be used to play for time only.
_ The shooter to make sure you get your point across sometimes.
The one Keith somehow forgot to mention:
- The very expensive, well connected lawyer should be used to get you out of the legal shit you get into from using the blade and the shooter indiscriminately.

Great! One little thing no one has mentioned about Keith's little nuggets of wisdom is that most of the rest of us have to make do without high-priced lawyers running around behind us cleaning up our fires, car crashes, arrests and other altercations and disruptions of the public order.

I have written few critical observations so far. But in those 500+ pages there, of course, are some great insight and points.

One of it is almost an explanation why the rock culture that would change the whole world happened in England. If there is one political decision that would shape the world of rock and roll that took place in 1960 in Britain: stopping military service being obligatory. I have never really thought this contingent sounding co-incidence through and all of its consequences, but Keith's book opened my eyes. Like Keith writes he had mentally repaired for spending two years in army soon. That would end his rebellous teenager years and transform him to "adult". But suddenly that option was taken away, and like Keith writes, he felt like had given two [free years to do what he wants. What a freedom! What an opportunity! And we all know how he used them. But he wasn't the only one. It sounds like the whole generation of British guys felt the same. The results would be heard soon in records all over the world.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-06 14:03 by Doxa.

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele
"Rock Star" is perhaps the most meaningless and empty description or aspiration for someone I can think of. Utterly useless. "Musician", yes, but what is a "rock Star"? Someone who is expected to behave like a spoiled child and an egotistical idiot.

Yes. A rock star is a 'spoiled child', an 'egotistical idiot', a person who lives on the edge, the consummate rebel without a cause. That was Brian Jones, the true definition and embodiment of what a Rolling Stone was supposed to be way back in the 1960's. And he died at 27 to boot, solidifying the image. Is that why Mr. Richards hates Brian so much? Is it cause he could never be the true rebel that Brian was? Does Keith despise the fact that he's survived to a ripe old age depending on corporate sponsorships for his countless stadium tours and extravagant lifestyle? Is there a side of Keith Richards that wishes he were more like Brian Jones, a musician who stayed true to the cause, an uncompromising artist and human being who threw caution to the wind? Yet, many so-called Rolling Stones fans will say that Brian was the jerk and Keith the hero, and my only point is that there's no real difference between the two other than one died and another survived.

I think actually what you describe here more accounts Keith's feelings toward Mick, not Brian. I think Keith just hates Brian's guts is the whole Anita/Jones thing Keith describes in his book. It seems that before this Keith and Jones tried to be friends at certain points, and Keith did seem to admire Brian's musicianship. Keith writes that he is not a 'jealous kind of guy', but meanwhile is holds grudges for years against Jagger and Jones that can only derive from some childish form of jealousy.

Mathijs

Quote
Doxa
I have written few critical observations so far. But in those 500+ pages there, of course, are some great insight and points.

One of it is almost an explanation why the rock culture that would change the whole world happened in England. If there is one political decision that would shape the world of rock and roll that took place in 1960 in Britain: stopping military service being obligatory. I have never really thought this contingent sounding co-incidence through and all of its consequences, but Keith's book opened my eyes. Like Keith writes he had mentally repaired for spending two years in army soon. That would end his rebellous teenager years and transform him to "adult". But suddenly that option was taken away, and like Keith writes, he felt like had given two [free years to do what he wants. What a freedom! What an opportunity! And we all know how he used them. But he wasn't the only one. It sounds like the whole generation of British guys felt the same. The results would be heard soon in records all over the world.

- Doxa

Doxa, excellent point. The counterpart in the US was not ending the draft, which happened later on (1973), but in sending the young men off to Vietnam. The protests started in the early 60s and grew to the point that President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for a second term. Keith refers to the Vietnam War when discussing the situation in the States.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-06 17:32 by angee.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele
"Rock Star" is perhaps the most meaningless and empty description or aspiration for someone I can think of. Utterly useless. "Musician", yes, but what is a "rock Star"? Someone who is expected to behave like a spoiled child and an egotistical idiot.

Yes. A rock star is a 'spoiled child', an 'egotistical idiot', a person who lives on the edge, the consummate rebel without a cause. That was Brian Jones, the true definition and embodiment of what a Rolling Stone was supposed to be way back in the 1960's. And he died at 27 to boot, solidifying the image. Is that why Mr. Richards hates Brian so much? Is it cause he could never be the true rebel that Brian was? Does Keith despise the fact that he's survived to a ripe old age depending on corporate sponsorships for his countless stadium tours and extravagant lifestyle? Is there a side of Keith Richards that wishes he were more like Brian Jones, a musician who stayed true to the cause, an uncompromising artist and human being who threw caution to the wind? Yet, many so-called Rolling Stones fans will say that Brian was the jerk and Keith the hero, and my only point is that there's no real difference between the two other than one died and another survived.

That's a big difference...plus one could write great music and the other couldn't. But I agree with part of your premise. Keith isn't a hero. "Rock stars" aren't heroes. Neither are musicians. Keith was/is(?) a great musician. That's enough. Why people need or expect artists and entertainers to be perfect human beings is beyond me.

Easy to explain Tele. Because they identify themselves with their 'perfect hero'. That way they too become a bit 'perfect' and 'hero'. That's the psychological base of being a 'fan'. We want to be as 'cool' as our 'hero', because it's wonderful to be 'cool'.

Quote
71Tele
plus one could write great music and the other couldn't.

Brian could write music. His soundtrack for "A Degree of Murder" is there to prove it. But he couldn't write songs - just bits and pieces as Keith once put it.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
71Tele
plus one could write great music and the other couldn't.

Brian could write music. His soundtrack for "A Degree of Murder" is there to prove it. But he couldn't write songs - just bits and pieces as Keith once put it.

A distinction without a difference, as far as the Rolling Stones are concerned, but yes you are right.

I've read most of it there's one thing that really ANNOYS me : throughout the book Keith feels the need to judge and assess other people like an old female schoolteacher giving marks to a class of 8 y.o. juniors.
This one : 9 out 10. This other : one 3 out of 10. Etc etc and it goes on for 500 pages.

It's quite appaling that a man who spent most of his life trying to get away from judges suddenly starts to talk like one.

Plus on the subject of Donald Cammell he goes totally berserk, claiming the guy was so evil (sic) he finally killed himself. And because he was so twisted he alledgelly filmed his own suicide. Pure bollocks!
It seems obvious Keith hates the guy because he blames him for pushing Anita in Mick's arms on the set of "Performance" but hey a bit of sanity doesn't hurt...

Quote
dcba
I've read most of it there's one thing that really ANNOYS me : throughout the book Keith feels the need to judge and assess other people like an old female schoolteacher giving marks to a class of 8 y.o. juniors.
This one : 9 out 10. This other : one 3 out of 10. Etc etc and it goes on for 500 pages.

It's quite appaling that a man who spent most of his life trying to get away from judges suddenly starts to talk like one.

Plus on the subject of Donald Cammell he goes totally berserk, claiming the guy was so evil (sic) he finally killed himself. And because he was so twisted he alledgelly filmed his own suicide. Pure bollocks!
It seems obvious Keith hates the guy because he blames him for pushing Anita in Mick's arms on the set of "Performance" but hey a bit of sanity doesn't hurt...

I wondered about that...whether Cammell filmed his own suicide. You would think there would be some basic fact-checking to avoid putting things like that in there if they aren't true. He surely reserves a special dislike for the guy.

Plus after reading the book I ironically felt a lot of sympathy for... Mick!

Having to put up with Keith's diktats, like keeping freebasing Ronnie in the band no matter what must be painful to the nth degree.
Ron did great from 75 to 82. After that he became a dead weight, and he should have been fired. If this had happened I bectha the 89-now era would have been much better.
But no Keith covered Ron's ass...

Mathijs :
"And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material."

"Shattered" offers an example of the way they work(ed?) : Mick once said Keith came up with the oepning 3-notes riff and the word "Shattered". Just that. Then it was up to Mick to find a chord progresion for all the parts of the tune (verse chorus bridge) and then write this sexy ode to NYC.

So who wrote the song? Jagger without a doubt!

Keith will have many more years to go, and when he has 93 years old he will die, and Mick will be 102 years old. So, please do wait with biographies. Also, I am not really interested in 'facts', I just want to read about feelings, about doubts, not just only 'tough' and 'funny' stories....

Don't know if this is posted before....................

Start at 16.25 great Dutch interview ....... different then other interviews

[dewerelddraaitdoor.vara.nl]





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 17:31 by NICOS.

Keith's comments on the Performance film and Cammell show him at his most venal and corrupt. Perhaps even just plain old fashioned stupid! And infantile. Performance an excellent exciting masterful independent film with intriguing themes and a perfectly beautiful job by Mick and James Fox. Genuinely frightening and outrageously beautiful in ways that are indelible and post contemporary even over 40 years later. Mick is stunningly great here. He DID make a truly GREAT and important feature in a co leading role! Something Keith will NEVER do. Oh just shut up about pirate pete on the Carribean. Plus...Memo for Turner is singularly GREAT stupendous record. Awesome awesome track. The guitar work almost a template that Keith was very quick to assume in the coming golder than golden era. And you know who isn't on it, never mind not giving the idea to Mick for Jaggers typical 1/5th co write, as Keith bitterly whines in relation to the Stones catalog. That's bullshit too. Here Keith is at his ugliest and most vicious and he should just be ashamed of how little and inconsequential he has made himself with this destructive childish whining.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-07 18:02 by mockingbird3.

...finished the book this morning....I think the book both elevates KR and his song writing partner but mainly diminishes both.

Ones an e'fin bitch who can be nice to no end and the other is a prick that can be nice to no end.

Both are capable of incredible insincerity and cruelty towards the other and both are ruthless with and without each other. The brothers "shtick" works only as a measure to keep a professional and respectful relationship on some kind of workable level.....but whatever works I guess.....

In all it demystifies the legends which in a way makes them more real...but shit Keith if you felt/feel/were/are betrayed by your professional partner what would you call this book? still love the music and maybe there is some magic left but boy am I listening and watching from another perspective.

An enjoyable book with lots of insite into his personal life but I would have liked a lot more information on making each album rather than pages and pages of drug escapades. I know some drug busts / use are an important part of the Stones history but pages of getting stoned in toilets etc are not preferable as to the influences behind each album. Very brief mention of some albums, Exile gets a lot, but not indepth. Still, I suppose it is about him and not a Stones bio.

Quote
dcba
Mathijs :
"And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material."

"Shattered" offers an example of the way they work(ed?) : Mick once said Keith came up with the oepning 3-notes riff and the word "Shattered". Just that. Then it was up to Mick to find a chord progresion for all the parts of the tune (verse chorus bridge) and then write this sexy ode to NYC.

So who wrote the song? Jagger without a doubt!

Very unlikely it was written like that. Outtakes seem to confirm the riff, melody and structure where there before any of the lyrics where written.

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
dcba
Mathijs :
"And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material."

"Shattered" offers an example of the way they work(ed?) : Mick once said Keith came up with the oepning 3-notes riff and the word "Shattered". Just that. Then it was up to Mick to find a chord progresion for all the parts of the tune (verse chorus bridge) and then write this sexy ode to NYC.

So who wrote the song? Jagger without a doubt!

Very unlikely it was written like that. Outtakes seem to confirm the riff, melody and structure where there before any of the lyrics where written.

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Mathijs

Shattered, how I remember it, is Keith had the riff and this line, sha-doo-bie, and I came up with all the melody and the lyrics, all that stuff about New York, after the track was cut.

- Mick Jagger, 2002

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
dcba
Mathijs :
"And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material."

"Shattered" offers an example of the way they work(ed?) : Mick once said Keith came up with the oepning 3-notes riff and the word "Shattered". Just that. Then it was up to Mick to find a chord progresion for all the parts of the tune (verse chorus bridge) and then write this sexy ode to NYC.

So who wrote the song? Jagger without a doubt!

Very unlikely it was written like that. Outtakes seem to confirm the riff, melody and structure where there before any of the lyrics where written.

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Mathijs

Shattered, how I remember it, is Keith had the riff and this line, sha-doo-bie, and I came up with all the melody and the lyrics, all that stuff about New York, after the track was cut.

- Mick Jagger, 2002

Well, that confirms what I said: they recorded the entire song, and Mick later wrote the vocal melody and lyrics.

Mathijs

For the Stones the vocal melody is the only melody mostly. That's what makes the song. Therefore I think all the arguments about the credits are irrelevant

Yes. How would writing ALL the lyrics AND the melody translate into to one fifth contribution? Even if the riffs and chord changes were cut by Keith and Ron? Strictly speaking the riff and whatever progression are not even copyrightable. Methinks Richards would be lucky to cash in on his 50 per cent and shut his overcompensating hugely ungrateful store-bought toothed pie hole.

Richards and his die hard fans on this board need a lot more fibre in their diets



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 03:21 by wanderingspirit66.

I think this is the way most of the Stones songs originate like this

Keith make the basis
&
Mick finished them

Mick's rock, I'm roll.

Half way through and it reads like a transribed interview. Does the co-author actually know any thing about the Stones either?

The period 65-7 shoots by, one mention of Rock N Roll Circus, a page on Brians dismissal and death, a paragraph on Hyde Park. Remember being electrocuted in Sacremento or how about Shindig with Howlin Wolf?

There's the odd tidbit where there's a little depth but it's rare.

So far: Good but disappoiting.