[www.wcsx.com]

From the website:


6/2/2010
Writer Says Keith Richards Autobiography Memories Are Gloomy
Veteran British music journalist Nick Kent identified himself as the co-author of Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards' upcoming autobiography. During a speech at the Hay Festival, Kent told an audience that he "helped Keith Richards write his upcoming book on the years of the early '70s. I helped fill in the early '70s, when things got really, really bad. I can understand why he forgot all about it. It just wasn't pleasant." Kent said that Richards' memories "are incredibly gloomy. A lot of resentment, bitterness, Keith broke down in tears several times when he talked about it and turned into a blubbering wreck. It was a bad time for him. When you look back on your life you tend to suppress bad memories and that's what he's done, apart from the fact that he was taking more drugs than all Motley Crue put together." Richards recently said that he's waiting for proofs of the book, which is expected to be published in October.

I have to say I am surprised. I guess I believe NK because he was involved in the writing; but I am a bit surprised. I didn't think Keith would go Ron Wood's route where everything was jolly. but...a blubbering wreck?

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I have to say I am surprised. I guess I believe NK because he was involved in the writing; but I am a bit surprised. I didn't think Keith would go Ron Wood's route where everything was jolly. but...a blubbering wreck?

One can recall the sad day when of his children (Tara, I think) died and Keith still went on to play the concert that was scheduled that night.

Nick Kent has a reputation for focusing on the sensationalist, down side of the subjects he writes about (or, apparently, in this case, WITH). In that light, what he said DOESN'T surprise me.

Quote

It just wasn't pleasant." Kent said that Richards' memories "are incredibly gloomy. A lot of resentment, bitterness

I wonder what could have been so bad, outside of what he brought on himself with heroin addiction, which he has never seemed to feel too bad about. In the early 70's he was in the number 1 group in the world, especially since the Beatles had fallen away, he got to do whatever he wanted, he was with the woman he wanted to be with. He and Anita seemed happy then. He did have a child die, that's something you never fully get over, but it was in 1976, not the early 70's, and he doesn't seem bitter about it.

Is it Jagger? I don't think Mick ever maneuvered to take over the group. To Whatever degree that happened, Keith brought it on himself by not being "there". Anyways, Jagger took the lead early on business wise, and Keith was the creative drive, which they both seemed happy with. If he lost his position as creative leader, it was his own fault, I don't think Mick was after it, certainly not back then. And surely he made peace with it long ago, since he's admitted he f-ucked up towards the end by staying a junkie for so long.

I know it got pretty bad in the year or two before the bust in Toronto, but up until then, he seemed to enjoy being a junkie. And he never seemed to really struggle and suffer with the addiction in the way most junkies do. Even among his peers, he never seemed to go through what people like Papa John or James Taylor did with their addictions.

I can understand it wasn't all fun and games, but resentment and bitter? Keith doesn't seem the type. And did Kent mean he felt that way then or now? If he meant then, what did he have to be bitter about and resent at that point? And if he means now, again, Keith has never seemed the type. Outside of losing his son, what could have been so unpleasant before the Toronto bust? He always seemed to be enjoying himself. Even the legal problems he'd had pre-Toronto he seemed to slyly take a kind of pride in. Am I wrong in thinking he enjoyed being a dangerous rebel?

I hope Nick Kent doesn't ruin anything by running his mouth too soon, I want to know what happened. I had mixed feelings about this book, but now I'm intrigued. Not from a tabloid, sensationalistic standpoint, but because there seems to be a different, more serious story here than I originally thought, and I'd like to hear it, warts and all.

One thing Ive thought about recently when I rememberd reading about the time he was estranged from his father and they didn't speak to each other, from some time in the late 60's to the early 80s (after which they became very close), was how his heroin use cooincided with that time in his life. I think there is a relationship there.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-03 07:05 by ryanpow.

....mmmmmm well...Nick Kent ain't what ya'd call a packet of laughs ......



ROCKMAN

I finished reading Nick's 70's memoirs "Apathy For The Devil" a few weeks ago, and using the word "gloomy" in Keith-context doesn't really surprise me at all. I won't go into details, but let's say that Monsieur Kent probably knows a lot more about what it is like to be a junkie than any of us here (I certainly hope so!). And he knows Keith personally.
I think it's shocking for a lot of people to have their picture of Richards shattered, but isn't it more realistic that he has regrets about those years than that he would just shrug them of with a laugh and and a couple cute junkie anecdotes?
I'm inclined to believe he just played a role of a carefree user all these years, but of course it's impossible to know what he really thinks and feels.
I just hope what Nick said won't bury this project!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-03 07:37 by Child Of Clay.

Interesting but surprising news. I flipped through the Richards-related passages in Kent's 'Apathy for the Devil' yesterday, and they were mostly about Richards' Spinal Tap-esque bad boy behaviour. Perhaps it was Kent's dramatic stories that brought him to tears.

See [www.iorr.org]

What I find concerning is, if true, this a$$hole writer has to kiss-and-blabber about what it was like writing with/for Keith? what a little shit. Wonder whether Keith is regretting his choice of helpers. What a fricking creep.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-03 07:48 by swiss.

Perhaps it was Kent's dramatic stories that brought him to tears.


Hey Yeah Paris .....You nailed it... Take a bow......



ROCKMAN

I thought it was James Fox who was co-author?

BAD NEWS SELLS..it get peoples attention the Badder the story the better..thats where all the money is..

Quote
colonial
BAD NEWS SELLS..it get peoples attention the Badder the story the better..thats where all the money is..

something Andrew Loog Oldham knows all about!

... is it not possible that Keith might be remembering really harsh things he's seen that we, the public, know absolutely nothing about? No?

[thepowergoats.com]

what a frickin creep is right - and nothing new, of course

besides which: if Keith talked to him as part of the recollection process
that doesn't make him a "co-author"

would "Life" be another book than Victor Bokris book on Keith??
i still am not sure if im gonna buy "life"
jeroen

we don´t know what keith was telling, what´s Kent talking about....

Wouldn't it have been better if Keith had put those stories in song instead of writing a book?

Nick is the former NME reporter who "went blue" after going to interview Keith at his Cheyne Walk, Chelsea home in 1974. Nick apparently was already doing junk but had never had anything as strong as what Keith brought to the table and promptly went to the toilet and OD'd.
You can see the consequences of what happened later that same day during the BBC Old Grey Whistle Test interview with Whistling Bob Harris when Keith almost nodded out during their chat.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-03 14:35 by Silver Dagger.

>> when Keith almost nodded out during their chat <<

Keith's quite relaxed, obviously, but completely articulate, on-topic, courteous, etc, throughout the interview -
and i love the glint in his eye at the very end

Silver Dagger, i didn't want to interrupt Charlie's Birthday Thread, but:
thanks so much for posting that brilliant photo of him you took!

I just can't imagine Keith's memories being "incredibly gloomy". It does not jive with a lifetime in the public eye, and a downright fanatical fanbase that has tried to dissect his every word and move and note.
I do believe that if Keith has decided to do the autobio he is going to do it his way, an honest way, and maybe try to surprise a few folks. But the bitter, resentful Keith full of gloomy stories just doesn't make sense.
yes 71Tele, I also thought J Fox was the co-author. But since this book has gone though so many changes already , what is a co writer?

It will be interesting for sure to see what Keith finds so upsetting. I feel certain it will have to do with the many deaths and ruined lives around him at that point...

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I just can't imagine Keith's memories being "incredibly gloomy".

We´ll just have to wait and see, won´t we?

Nick Kent also had some serious drug problems during the 70´s...

Quote
with sssoul
>> when Keith almost nodded out during their chat <<

Keith's quite relaxed, obviously, but completely articulate, on-topic, courteous, etc, throughout the interview -
and i love the glint in his eye at the very end

Silver Dagger, i didn't want to interrupt Charlie's Birthday Thread, but:
thanks so much for posting that brilliant photo of him you took!

Thanks sssoul. I have some others I took on the day which I must find. It was, from memory, Charlie's first ever gig with his boogie woogie jazz band. There's one which is a bit sad really which shows Stew humping Charlie's kit out of his car. I say sad because you don't expect to see such a great musician having to do that but I guess he did some roadying to say on the Stones payroll.

The photo is old and a bit faded now. It looks as though Charlie's jacket was dirty but those are water/fade marks on the photo. Charlie, as we all know, is always immaculately attired.

Going by his previous track record, if Nick Kent is involved, does that mean the book will have to be classified as 'fiction' ?

Nick Kent referes to the time when Keith was really bad "1974-1977" as the gloomy past.I am not so surprised that looking back at that period of his life Keith broke down. Keith lost a son (Tara) and was very deep into drugs, he was sick and went to detox in Switzerland and finally got himself in a big mess in Canada. Keith has joked about it but seriously the life of a junkie is probably, for the most part, no laughing matters.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

I can confirm for sure what rollmops said, being a junkie is no laughing matter its fu**ing miserable life. Ive learnt the hard way, i was in tears this morning thinking about what i have lost due to drugs. Im clean now but its a daily struggle and i want to go in to self destruct mode when i think about what i have lost. For sure Keith didnt have to worry about money and scoring buts deaths of friends and ruined lives will bring you to your knees and im sure it still hurts like hell when he thinks about it all