I know that the reviews of this book have been mixed but I'm thinking of buying it anyway. Two questions.

Was the 2006 reissue updated?

Is it aimed at the causual punter or is it detrailed for the more obsessive - I mean devoted - fan?

Don't support the author or publisher by buying it. It's garbage

A bag of shit in the shape of a book.

What they said. Save your money.

Old Gods Almost Dead is a terrible piece of hack-work: poorly written and researched. The factual errors and unbelievable – and, to make things worse, it is not the least bit enjoyable to read. I can take a bit of poetic license if it’s in the name of entertainment, but there is nothing remotely fun about the book.

I loved this book
It worked perfectly to wipe yer arse on, start a fire, or make paper airplanes with.

Definitely worth it

I enjoyed reading this - bear in mind, there's a lot of fiction in there.

Dont waste youe $$$$

I didn't care for it.

It left me feeling like none of these guys like each other, and all of their albums were squandered opportunities. Both of which I think most of us would agree are false.

Based on that premise...you can probably judge for yourself if you think it's worth reading or not.

It's the only Stones book that I couldn't get through...the dude should have his facts straight before writing a book.

PECMAN

The author was on Fox News a few years back when it first came out and the guy is a total ass. The above comments made by others are not surprising at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-17 23:12 by nick.

It's a rubbish book. Save your cash!

Quote

Re: Old Gods Almost Dead
Posted by: kovach ()
Date: July 17, 2009 16:18

I didn't care for it.

It left me feeling like none of these guys like each other, and all of their albums were squandered opportunities. Both of which I think most of us would agree are false.

Actually, I think that's exactly right, at least from 1983 thru now. They are old gods almost dead, I don't think they particularly like each other anymore either. Except for Charlie, they all always seem to like him.

And any album involving Don Was is a missed opportunity.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-17 23:28 by Doxa.

Quote
boogie69

Quote

Re: Old Gods Almost Dead
Posted by: kovach ()
Date: July 17, 2009 16:18

I didn't care for it.

It left me feeling like none of these guys like each other, and all of their albums were squandered opportunities. Both of which I think most of us would agree are false.

Actually, I think that's exactly right, at least from 1983 thru now. They are old gods almost dead, I don't think they particularly like each other anymore either. Except for Charlie, they all always seem to like him.

And any album involving Don Was is a missed opportunity.

Yeah,how often do you think Mick and Keith talk to each other. I'd say not much.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

It was ok - but a lot of "facts" are incorrect which drives me NUTS!

I found factual errors in it (as in all books on them I've read.)
But all in all I thought is was a decent read. I didn't purchase - checked it out from library.

I had a hard time to push myself to continue reading but about halfway through I could not do it anymore. It just has to be the worst book ever written about Stones.

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Quote
Big Al
Old Gods Almost Dead is a terrible piece of hack-work: poorly written and researched. The factual errors and unbelievable – and, to make things worse, it is not the least bit enjoyable to read. I can take a bit of poetic license if it’s in the name of entertainment, but there is nothing remotely fun about the book.

good point. Kris Needs' Keith bio - for example - is unbelievably sloppily researched and pretty lightweight, but its affectionately written , amusing and enjoyable to read nonetheless.

Davis, by contrast, is just a miserable hack - and as a major point of his book is to demolish the Stones 'myth', the constant factual mistakes just automatically make you doubt the authenticity of ANY 'fresh' story or revelation he digs up.

Dire.

...piece of crap.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
boogie69

Quote

Re: Old Gods Almost Dead
Posted by: kovach ()
Date: July 17, 2009 16:18

I didn't care for it.

It left me feeling like none of these guys like each other, and all of their albums were squandered opportunities. Both of which I think most of us would agree are false.

Actually, I think that's exactly right, at least from 1983 thru now. They are old gods almost dead, I don't think they particularly like each other anymore either. Except for Charlie, they all always seem to like him.

And any album involving Don Was is a missed opportunity.

Yeah,how often do you think Mick and Keith talk to each other. I'd say not much.

Yeah, but it seemed to leave this impression during their hey-day as well!

..something which would be highly unlikely as they twice shared a flat from about 1962-64 (in Edith Grove and then in Cricklewood) and then lived a couple of hundred yards apart in the same street in Chelsea in the late 60s and early 70's.

Quote
Gazza
..something which would be highly unlikely as they twice shared a flat from about 1962-64 (in Edith Grove and then in Cricklewood) and then lived a couple of hundred yards apart in the same street in Chelsea in the late 60s and early 70's.

Yep - I think the 'divorce' happened around the time they left England; Keith was hooked deeper in heroin, was hanging out with Gram Parsons, Mick with Bianca and flirting with jet set, etc. Their paths in their personal life separated quite radically, and they've been like business partners, but nothing else really, ever since. At least I don't consider them as a unit they once were in their early, mid-twenties - living together, or on the same street, making songs in hotel rooms, hanging together as hot pairs with Marianne and Anita, etc. It could be the case that while they were young and hungry, the differences in their characters didn't really affect a lot; it was 'them against the world'. But when they matured up and got very rich and healthy rock stars, those differences - with their egos - seemed to be grow too serious ones, and as far as I can see, finally led to the point that they cannot sometimes be in a same room - not even when they are making an album.

If I want to be melodramatical - and why not? - I could say that somehow the departure (and death) of Brian Jones seemed also kill the deep teamship between Mick and Keith - before that it was Mick&Keith against Brian, since that it has been Mick and Keith's courts against each other. The Stones always been a result of that kind of tensions.

I'm looking for Keith's biography to give some light - among other things - to the interesting relationship between him and Mick - and hopely to Brian, too. Keith, in the end, seems to be such a honest guy that he might even revail something 'personal' and 'real'. Jagger? NEVER!

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-20 18:46 by Doxa.

I read this book several years ago and I don't remember it being as bad as everyone says it is. Of course I didn't know half the stuff I do about the Stones since I've been on here. So I didn't really know fact from fiction. But I rememeber liking it becasue he went tour by tour and album by album. All the way through No Security. I'll have to see if I still have this somewhere and go back and find out just how bad it really is.

Davis seems to have some kind of bias against the Stones in this book. He constantly makes negative comparisons of the Stones against other bands of the time, especially Led Zeppelin.

But as others have said, there are so many factual errors that you don't believe anything in the book. He claimed that "Start Me Up" was a number 1 hit for 7 weeks. The song never even topped the charts. The Stones last #1 was "Miss You" in '78. That's just one example of a factual error that he could have checked. There are many more. If he gets that stuff wrong, then how can you trust him on anything else?

More than anything, it seems like Davis wanted to tear down the great legend of the Rolling Stones and reveal that they're celebrity prima-donna cut throats.

Didn't he also write a "book" about G&R?

Dunno. but he wrote the infamous "Hammer of the Gods" Zep bio, didnt he?

Yep
He wrote a Jim Morrison bio also. And a couple of Marley bios as well



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-21 01:22 by Sohoe.

Quote
dcba
Didn't he also write a "book" about G&R?

from wikipedia's entry on the G&R book

"The book was very poorly received due to a number of embarrassing errors. Among them, Davis incorrectly names Paul Stanley of Kiss as the bass player of the group (Stanley is a guitarist), and he also incorrectly mentioned Bon Jovi's hit album "Slippery When Wet" as their debut album (it was actually their third album)."


I really enjoyed Aerosmith: Walk this way and Hammer of the Gods so I thought he do a good job on the Stones but after all these comments I've got right off buying a copy!

Quote
Braincapers

Quote
dcba
Didn't he also write a "book" about G&R?

from wikipedia's entry on the G&R book

"The book was very poorly received due to a number of embarrassing errors. Among them, Davis incorrectly names Paul Stanley of Kiss as the bass player of the group (Stanley is a guitarist), and he also incorrectly mentioned Bon Jovi's hit album "Slippery When Wet" as their debut album (it was actually their third album)."


I really enjoyed Aerosmith: Walk this way and Hammer of the Gods so I thought he do a good job on the Stones but after all these comments I've got right off buying a copy!

By all means, buy a copy if you like, but I'd try and get it from the library first. I actually read the Aerosmith book before I read the Stones book and liked it. But remember, Walk This Way was written by the band and Davis. The other books were written by Davis himself. I don't know about the Zeppelin book but I do know his Stones book is pretty bad.