im pondering a few thoughts here....

1) Why 2010 till release?.. does it take that long to write it?.
2) There is bound to be stuff in there that is really gonna upset the rest of the band ( or individuals) surely?.. is this why 2010 is promoted?.. so that if there should be another tour or whatever, it will be after the event and wont matter as it will be all over once the book is released?..
3) I wonder if any royalies will have to be paid (i.e to Rolling stones, previous record producers)?.. i dont know how this works..
4) Will it prompt the others to follow suit?..

it could be explosive and kill off the band for good if taken badly?..
what do you think?..
PS.. i didnt want to jump on the speculation-in-future wagon but it seems to fit some statements made on here..

Dog

2010 seems like ages away, but its only two and a half years. They haven't started the thing yet, so it seems about right. Of course its not really an autobiography (in my opinion) as Keef wont be hammering away on a typewriter like Dylan did for his awesome "Chronicles".
I don't know much about these things either, but I guess they will find someone sympathetic who will record hours of interviews and try to coax some insight out of Keith and bang it down on paper. Keith (who is apparently a voracious reader) will then edit it. It could be great. Or it could read like a compilation of all his magazine interviews. We shall see.

1) Maybe it'll take that long for him to remember everything. More likely that he'll be otherwise engaged for a while

2) I'd say theyre all used to keith's acid tongue by now

3) Cant see why anyone but Keith and his co-writer would get royalties. Its got nothing to do with the band's music.

4) Ronnie has already co-operated on autobiographical projects. Charlie ? can t see him being interested. Mick got millions for his autobiography in the mid 80s and had to return the advance because he could hardly remember anything worthwhile. Hes simply too guarded to 'reveal all' .

>it could be explosive and kill off the band for good if taken badly?..

Considering the amount of vitriol, abuse and sniping Keith has publicly directed at Mick for the last 20 years or more, how bad can it be? Water off a duck's back, I'd say. Who can assume it'll be nasty anyway? Despite his tendency to engage his mouth before his brain sometimes for the sake of a good quote, its quite obvious by now how much affection and admiration Keith has for his band mates. For every quote where he's bitching about Mick, you'll find more where he talks about him positively. Its just that the negative ones get the most press coverage.

It takes time for his lawyers to read it before published .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-14 21:16 by brainer.