For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Quote
Edith Grove
Did you see the Matt Lauer interview?
Keith talked about something that I speculated on just a few days ago, that the junkie reputation was largely overblown.
Quote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Quote
bustedtrousersQuote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Excellent point/question swiss. And regardless of whether or not Edith's theory is the case, Keith did shoot up, quite a bit I think, yet you never see any physical indication like you mention in any photos. How did he achieve that?
Quote
Manofwealthandtaste
Hey Swiss.....enjoy the show at SFAE, should be some fantastic photos on show -
Quote
paulywaulQuote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Because he did not inject intravenously, but intramuscularly ... that's what accounts for the line of atrophied muscle that is clearly visbile on both of his upper arms.
Quote
Green Lady
Keith talks about not mainlining right at the end of the first published extract from his book: it's a l-o-n-g extract and maybe people didn't read past the notorious "tiny todger" bit...
The first time I took heroin
I have no clear recollection of the first time I had heroin. It was probably slipped in with a line of coke, in a speedball – a mixture of coke and smack. If you were around people who were used to doing that in one line, you didn’t know. You found out later on. “That was very interesting last night. What was that? Oh.” That’s how it creeps up on you. Because you don’t remember. That’s the whole point of it. It’s suddenly there.
They don’t call it “heroin” for nothing. It’s a seductress. You can take that stuff for a month or so and stop. Or you can go somewhere where there isn’t any and you’re not really that interested; it’s just something you were taking. And you might feel like you’ve got the flu for a day, but the next day you’re up and about and you feel fine. And then you come into contact again, and you do it some more. And months can pass. And the next time, you’ve got the flu for a couple of days. No big deal, what are they talking about? That’s cold turkey? It was never in the front of my mind until I was truly hooked.
It’s a subtle thing. It grabs you slowly. After the third or fourth time, then you get the message. And then you start to economise by shooting it up. But I’ve never mainlined. No, the whole delicacy of mainlining was never for me. I was never looking for that flash; I was looking for something to keep me going. If you do it in the vein, you get an incredible flash, but then you want more in about two hours.
And also you have tracks, which I couldn’t afford to show off. Furthermore, I could never find a vein. My veins are tight; even doctors can’t find them. So I used to shoot it up in the muscles. I could slap a needle in and not feel a thing. And the spank, the smack, is, if you do it right, more of a shock than the actual injection. Because the recipient reacts to that and meanwhile the needle has come and gone. Especially interesting on the butt. But not politically correct.
Quote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Quote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Quote
swissQuote
bustedtrousersQuote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Excellent point/question swiss. And regardless of whether or not Edith's theory is the case, Keith did shoot up, quite a bit I think, yet you never see any physical indication like you mention in any photos. How did he achieve that?
thanks and hello my friend, BustedT : ) I look forward to any insights here. Will also ask around at the Keith photo exhibition tonight - not a viable conversation-starter at most places, but doable at SFAE, where many knowledgeable hip peeps will be.
The only thing I know almost certainly is Keith didn't shoot up intravenuously. I believe he did skin "pops" (subcutaneous injections) and maybe then graduated to intranmuscular injections? (which I think I read did something really weird to his skin and shoulder muscles - his skin is really puckered or something on his upper arms, I think I read some years ago?) but don't know 100% what that means - but maybe that accounts for no bruising or tracks.
- swiss
Quote
Marie
When did Keith become a heroin addict? In Rock and Roll Circus he looks under the influence, but that would be too early right? 1968? Also, did Anita influence him or vice versa?
Quote
marchbabyQuote
swiss
In anticipation of tonight's San Francisco Art Exchange Keith photo exhibition, I was glancing at images of handsome Keith and realized--admiring his bare sinewy torso and arms--that in photos of him, even at his junkiest, you never see track marks or other evidence of shooting up.
How's that possible?
- swiss
Keith commented on one of the NY Times excerpts of Life that his veins are so small, he injected it into his muscles and butt.
Quote
bustedtrousersQuote
Marie
When did Keith become a heroin addict? In Rock and Roll Circus he looks under the influence, but that would be too early right? 1968? Also, did Anita influence him or vice versa?
I don't know who influenced who, but as far as when it happened, who knows. Based on what I've read, I'm guessing it took Keith at least a couple of years to become a full blown junkie, who could no longer just take it or leave it as he pleased. In Stanley Booth's True Adventures book, Keith got him high on the 69 tour, and Stanley quotes him as saying at that time that he only occasionally did it. I think this is accurate, because his footage in Gimme Shelter, and photographs from then too, show him to be consistently coherent and healthy looking. But by the time of the Marquee farewell show in 71, he looked pretty rough, and I think was showing signs of a problem.
The Season In Hell book, which needs to be taken with a grain of salt, says a go-cart accident, which scraped the shyte out of Keith's back and drove him to seek relief from the pain, started him back on it after a significant break. While that book is full of ridiculous inaccuracies, I still don't think it was until sometime between 71-72 that he got hooked.
Read True Adventures Of The Rolling Stones, Up And Down With The Rolling Stones, and Season In Hell. The last two especially need to be taken with a grain of salt, but they all paint a fairly consistent timeline and story about Keith, which gives you a pretty good idea of when and how he became a junkie.
Also, Victor Bockris's book about Keith too. A lot of people criticize Bockris as just re-hashing articles and interviews, but if that is the case, and if he does so fairly accurately, then his book is a pretty good one stop reference for info on Keith. That's how I took it. Don't believe everything you read, but when you start to see certain consistencies among separate people who write about him, I think you can piece together a reasonably accurate history of Keith.
Of course, only Keith knows the true story, but like anyone, even his version is biased towards his memory. Like any good story, there's the versions of everyone involved, and then there's the truth.
According to Helen Spittal Brian said to her that he had never seen Keith that high on drugs as he had been during the RnR Circus. Brian had been worried because he knew what path it would lead to and he didn't like it at all. It does not say what drug he was on but heroin seem to have been a thing for Lennon/Ono during that time. So it's not unlikely that Keith also had found it by then.Quote
Marie
When did Keith become a heroin addict? In Rock and Roll Circus he looks under the influence, but that would be too early right? 1968? Also, did Anita influence him or vice versa?
Quote
tonterapiAccording to Helen Spittal Brian said to her that he had never seen Keith that high on drugs as he had been during the RnR Circus. Brian had been worried because he knew what path it would lead to and he didn't like it at all. It does not say what drug he was on but heroin seem to have been a thing for Lennon/Ono during that time. So it's not unlikely that Keith also had found it by then.Quote
Marie
When did Keith become a heroin addict? In Rock and Roll Circus he looks under the influence, but that would be too early right? 1968? Also, did Anita influence him or vice versa?
IMHO Keith does look like he is under the influence of something at RNRC. His skin is pale yellow for starters!