hi all,

I just finished Victor Bokris' book about Keith. It was generally a really enjoyable read. I thought the addendum/update on the Bokris book wasn't totally at the same level of quality and depth as the first 400 or whatever pages, but that's ok. I'd read Chris Needs Keith bio right before that. Have also read Stanley Booth (both Keith bio and True Adventures of RS) as well as thumbed through Spanish Tony's Up & Down online.

I don't know anyone in real life who cares about the Rolling Stones enough to read books about them. And so I don't know what "our community" generally thinks of these and other books?

Or what do you consider the best or favorite books about the Stones? Keith? Mick? (I feel like I need to balance out my Keith reading with Mick's side of things --- Bockris and Needs are certainly not impartial --- and I started feeling sorry for Mick after awhile, feeling like he's so not cool at this point and used to be one of the coolest human beings on the face of the planet ) How do the most recent book stack up to these older ones?

Sorry if this thread is unoriginal - I searched for a general thread on books and didn't find anything. Final question....is there like a online bibliography of Stones books somewhere (other than arguably Amazon)? where we-all can rate Stones' books, write reviews and opinions? discuss em? I don't mean a separate board...and I certainly don't wanna talk about Stones' books every day...but a standing resource people can refer to.

I'm a librarian and researcher by education and proclivity (plus I design web and digital interactive "experiences" for a living) so probably that's why a place to see all books in one place (and be able to rate etc) sounds good to me

thanks,
swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-19 22:31 by swiss.

I enjoyed Bokris's book but only because it's deliciously salacious. It's actually a pretty bad book. Bokris did little more than copy-paste old magazine articles and he has no credibility whatsoever. He cited Spanish Tony and Nick Kent as sources and repeats their false anecdotes as fact. It's enjoyable for it's decadence, but poorly written and often wrong.

Tommy

Tommy -- thanks! this is the kind of insights/opinions I wanna hear. I do think Victor Bockris interviewed a fair number of people directly but he also does acknowledge drawing from many existing sources. I thought Chris Needs book came out after Bokris? There is a lot of Bokris in Needs and vice versa, in any case

Bockris seems very thorough, but he doesn't communicate what moves him about the subject very well, does he.
and yeah, as From4tilLate noted, he copied a lot of mistakes from earlier writers -
but so did most people who wrote about the Stones before "the digital revolution"
put so much source material within such easy reach.

Kris Needs doesn't have that excuse, and his book is so full of glaring errors that it's plain embarrassing.
he does have a nicely enthusiastic writing style, though.

Stanley Booth's True Adventures and Chet Flippo's On the Road with the Rolling Stones
are my favourite Stones reading books (as opposed to photo books, i mean), with James Phelge's Nankering With the Stones
close on their heels.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-19 23:41 by with sssoul.

Booth and Flippo are head and shoulders above the rest of stones authors.

The Bockris classic performance is the frantic - rappin'- rave at the tail end of Let It Bleed ....



ROCKMAN

Whilst Bokris is undoubtedly passionate, I found his outbursts featured on the Let It Bleed documentary, to be rather disturbing.

Christopher Sandfords ‘Satisfaction’ is a Keith-bio and a very good read.

>> the tail end of Let It Bleed <<

i'll say! it was such a surprise to me to see him all worked up like that -
from his writing i wouldn't have thought he had it in him.
and i love what he's trying to say in that rant - too bad he didn't quite manage to articulate it :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-19 23:41 by with sssoul.

disturbing.

Exactly Al .... that's what it's designed ta do ....



ROCKMAN

I can compare Bokris`s book only with many biograpfies I`ve read recently (of poets and novellists most)), but not with other Stones biograpfical books, `cause have read only Ronnie`s book and it`s autobio, completely different genre(and Tony Sanchez`s, just more different).
I`ve finished this lately,too, and I think it`s rather good, and made with reason and love. For me, not knowing much about Keith before, it was loads of information. The same - about life in Europe of 60s,70s - as a foreigner,I know little about it.
Its division by years is handy.
Sometimes the conclusions seemed rather naive). I missed commentaries in the end - about people and works of art mentioned.
So - to my mind - more pro than contra

Stanley Booth is a fine writer, his Stones book "The True Adventures..', and his book 'Keith' are really good. Also check out his 'Rhythm Oil' and if you can find it, a hilarious Playboy interview with Keith, from 1988..

why he's been so inactive recently, I'd like to know..

My favorites:

1. Up and Down with the Rolling Stones--Tony Sanchez
2. Keith Richards--Barbara Charone
3. Death of a Rolling Stone--Mandy Aftel
4. the Rolling Stones Off the Record--Mark Paytress

I like Symphony for the Devil by Philip Norman and Blown Away by A E Hotchner.

Least favorite: anything by Stanley Booth or Laura Jackson.

Here is a complete list: [www.pitt.edu]

hmmm ...

LEAST favorite? Anything by Stanley Booth??!! LEAST!??
oh my God, you poor child.

Quote
Bliss
My favorites:

1. Up and Down with the Rolling Stones--Tony Sanchez
2. Keith Richards--Barbara Charone
3. Death of a Rolling Stone--Mandy Aftel
4. the Rolling Stones Off the Record--Mark Paytress

I like Symphony for the Devil by Philip Norman and Blown Away by A E Hotchner.

Least favorite: anything by Stanley Booth or Laura Jackson.

Here is a complete list: [www.pitt.edu]

Some bizarre choices. Norman's book is merely ok, and his cash-in 'updates' that he trots out every time the Stones tour are poorly researched and read like they were cobbled together during his coffee break. Hotchner's book isnt much to write home about (I think I might be right in saying that Marianne Faithfull complained bitterly about the way she'd been quoted out of context). Sanchez' book is entertaining but a bit of a joke considering its pretty much ghost written. Charone's is a very good read but she's clearly in so much awe of the 'legend' it comes across as more of a love letter than a bio. Each to their own I guess, although at least you didnt include the dreadful 'Old Gods almost Dead' as one of the better ones.

Booth's 'True adventures' Stones book is excellent - the Keith one was OK, but a bit underwhelming, considering the expectations which would have been there after his first book.

sssoul's synopsis earlier in this thread pretty much matches my own.

Flippo
Booth
Bockris
Wyman

A note to my critics:

I can't stand Stanley Booth. He forgets that he is a biographer and inserts his own experiences and opinions over and over. The last thing I want to know about is his sex life.

Sanchez's book might have inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies but e is a primary source and for getting a flavor of what it was really like to be in the Stones milieu at that time, it is the best.

Yes, apparently Hotchner gave Marianne line after line of coke and she just spilled her guts to him.

Charone was apparently in love with Keith, but she had full access and again, her book gives a clear picture of what Keith and Anita's life was like at that time.

But there is no need at all for consensus on these books, and I'm perfectly happy to not have my choices validated. I have a big library of Stones books containing all of those mentioned so far and numerous others, and feel as confident of my choices, as I do of my taste in music.

Of course, the very best book has not yet been written, and probably never will be. That would be Anita's book. But for various reasons, such a book will most likely never see the light of day.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-20 04:30 by Bliss.

Anita was the source of a fair quantity of the wrong information that writers keep regurgitating as if it were fact.
it may be that she was doing it on purpose, to mock the gormless interviewers

Nick Kent is another one who's done serious damage to the historical record

(and swiss ... just for the record: you've misspelled Bockris's name in the title of the thread.
if you could go back to your first post and edit the title that would be great - thanks!)

Bill German's recent book is superb, I think. Keith and Ronnie come out of it brilliantly, and you get a good idea of what they're like to be around. Jagger comes out of it badly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-20 10:15 by Nikolai.

Booth's "Till I Roll Over Dead" (Keith) is also full of mistakes. The Bockris book is ok. Most enjoyable would be Sanchez, because he describes things so closely, that you almost feel you are there yourself Although we'll never know what's real or fantasy in there...

>> Booth's "Till I Roll Over Dead" (Keith) is also full of mistakes <<

well ... "full of" is overstating it a bit, but yeah there are a couple of big ones -
most notably when he misidentifies which album Ruby Tuesday came out on - and overall the book reads like a rough draft.
it was indeed a disappointment after The True Adventures - but i keep hoping he'll go back to it someday.
Stanley gets it, and (when he wants to) he writes just like ringing a bell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-20 10:55 by with sssoul.

I prefer Christopher Sandford's book; But right now I'm re-reading Bockris,
it was released in Swedish in 2006. Translation aint convincing; will
review it here afterwards.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-20 12:26 by Baboon Bro.

Bliss is totally right about Booth. Booth mixes the Stones biography with his own, he is bringing in his political oppinions. That spoils everything.

Quote
with sssoul
Anita was the source of a fair quantity of the wrong information that writers keep regurgitating as if it were fact.
it may be that she was doing it on purpose, to mock the gormless interviewers

Some of the stuff Anita comes up with is so incredulous it would be hard to take any book she would write seriously. When interviewed by John Perry for his book on 'Exile' in the late 90s she even claimed that Nellcote was no longer there as it had been destroyed in a fire. Which is utter nonsense - although when I was in Villefranche about three months later, I actually didnt go looking for the place simply because I took what she had said at face value . Grrr.

Quote
windmelody
Bliss is totally right about Booth. Booth mixes the Stones biography with his own, he is bringing in his political oppinions. That spoils everything.

no he wrote more about Brian and Mick and Keith and became very good friends with Keith...he followed that '69 tour pretty close. I'd think a lot of Stones fans would be glad to read his work. He also wrote a lot about the milieu at the time, yes..

also Robert Greenfield's STP is good..

Biographies:

Victor Bockris on Keith was the first Keith bio I read and at the time I enjoyed it, but I never bought a copy and haven't particularly felt the lack of it. Probably the most up to date, until the man himself publishes his own book.

Christopher Sandford's biographies of Mick (Primitive Cool) and Keith (Satisfaction) - he's a professional biographer and both are good factual stuff although I wish he wouldn't pause to air his own opinions about the music every time he talks about a new album...

Barbara Charone on Keith: adoring but nevertheless readable and enjoyable account up to and including the 1977 trial.

Old Gods Almost Dead: inaccurate, sensationalist but often fun to read if you can forgive its faults.

Terry Rawlings' Who Killed Christopher Robin? is probably the best of the Brian biographies, but all of them have an axe to grind and a murder theory to promote. A good biography of Brian, which isn't obsessed with his death above everything else about him, has yet to be written.

Personal experience books

Stanley Booth's True Adventures - yes, it's partly his own story, but it's also a wonderful portrait of the 1969 Stones. As he says at the end; "you did get to hear the band play". I haven't yet read his Keith book.

Bill German's book : yes, this is also Bill's own story, even more so than Stanley Booth's, but again it's a revealing account of what it was like to be around the Stones at a certain period in their history.

James Phelge's book: quite simply, what life was like at 102 Edith Grove. Funny, honest, gross - it would make a wonderful sitcom - one of my favourites.

Tony Sanchez: hard to tell how much of this is true - to me a lot of it feels like a kernel of truth exaggerated and sensationalised for a tabloid readership, and it's one I don't enjoy.

I've yet to come across a book that was totally worthless, that adds absolutely nothing to the Stones canon. Not all Stones books are worth owning, unless you are a diehard completist and have unlimited funds and shelf space. But all of them are worth a look, if you have the time, and you can get it in your local library.

Even the bizarre Laura Jackson, who evidently hates Mick with a red hot passion, and correspondingly idealizes Brian: until I read 'Golden Stone', I never imagined an author could string together so many threadbare cliches in one book. Some of her sentences contain nothing but cliched phrases. But I have read she was the very first one to identify the most likely scenario of Brian's death.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-20 21:26 by Bliss.

Keith Richards - Barbara Charone

>>Bill German's book : yes, this is also Bill's own story, even more so than Stanley Booth's, but again it's a revealing account of what it was like to be around the Stones at a certain period in their history

I was thinking about why I found Bill's book so enjoyable, and Stanley's so irritating. It come down to their respective egos, or lack therof. From the first, Bill presents himself as utterly ordinary, and the photos show him as a dorky but engaging fan. He doesn't spare himself at all, in terms of relating how badly he was treated by the Stones and their entourage. I would have been outraged at being strung along for months as he was, waiting for his interview with Keith. And there is no question they hung him out to dry when they made him the bagman for a drug delivery on the Japan tour. Whatever rewards Bill has gotten in terms of personal contact with the Stones, he has earned in spades.

Stanley, on the other hand, has trouble with his role of biographer. He clearly sees himself as a fellow artist, a musicologist with authentic credentials of a first-hand connection to the Southern blues music that the Stones could only appropriate second-hand.

What anyone in the Stones' circle has to understand is that no one is equal in importance to the Stones; not wives, girlfriends, side musicians, managers, friends....no one. As friendly as the Stones may be, they are on a different level and different rules apply. Stanley just can't accept that in his book, he is of no importance.

Truman Capote also famously bailed in the middle of the '72 tour, because he was treated as just another writer, not the celebrity he perceived hmself to be. I get the feeling from interviews that Bianca was outraged and wounded that she was not at all an equal partner in her marriage to Mick. Jade has also expressed some bitterness at perceived neglect from her parents, due to their fame and busy lives.

I know some find it very boring, but my fav stones book is Bill's - Stone Alone.

For the visuals my favourite book is Terry Southern's - Early Stones, the one featuring photos by Michael Cooper. Great images, not sure I believe the supposed interviews contained within though.