Quote
bustedtrousers
Yes, that's my understanding too, that Keith was upset with her usage in general, which I tried to convey by saying he flipped out over "her use of such hard drugs". Which is ironic, considering he became everything he was concerned she might become, if not worse.

This is the odd thing about Keith's heroin/harder drug use. He really did make a left turn down that road, and didn't seem to be the type who always had an interest in it. If you could go back in time and know him, in say, 1966 to early 67, I don't think he was a reckless individual. I don't think you would view him as one of the ones you'd look at and think, "Well, it's only a matter of time before THAT ONE gets into something he can't handle."

bustedtrousers, I completely agree with you. Suffice to say...Keith went to a very dark place(?). In trying to track the progression...in August 1966, there's the Keith who is still quasi-with Linda Keith, he "tattles" on her to her parents because he's truly concerned about her reckless ways, then in the fall of 1966 he writes Ruby Tuesday (possibly with Brian), in December '66 off to Paris go Brian, Keith, Anita (and possibly Linda Keith, tho Keith says he was hallucinating that she was there sometimes, and sometimes he says she was actually there), then in early '67 Linda keith is flitting around London with/after Jimi Hendrix (tho he has another GF and by some accounts Linda was pursuing him; by other accounts she was a dedicated fan and a friend - I prefer to think the latter), late 66-early 67 Linda and Brian (sometimes joined by Mick and Marianne) go to Hendrix shows and recording sessions and parties where Hendrix is at--but neither Anita nor Keith are reported to be at these events. Redlands bust is Feb 12 '67. Then March 2-15, 1967 Anita and Keith hook up: Tangiers trip. April 1967 Linda and Brian go away together for a week. May 1967: Brian and Anita go to Cannes and Keith arrives shortly thereafter. Fastforward to the fall on 1968...Keith is snorting heroin and Anita is shooting up. That's a full year and a half I'm leaving out but that's where the habit started. The "transformation" of Keith. People also say that Keith sort of idolized Michael Cooper during the period when Cooper was first hanging out with Brian and Anita at their pad, and Keith was a bit at sixes and sevens--he admired the way Cooper dressed, talked, moved--and adopted some of his style. Michael Cooper died in 1971 of a heroin overdose. Maybe Keith also liked his heroin vibe? Or maybe we can just blame Anita and her dark beguiling ways. Mostly joking. Keith says when he first started using he did, as someone says above, feel like he was waking on water and was incredibly prolific, and was numbed out to feelings. Keith as much as I like him, seems very emotionally British to me, not very open--he almost walked out of his court-ordered heroin withdrawal cure in Pennsylvania after Toronto because there was a therapy element to it, and he didn't want to talk about his childhood or his feelings--he's pretty vitriolic about the notion of someone getting inside his head and violating his privacy in that way. So, to me, that says to me he's a guy who--if he has the opportunity not to feel unpleasant feelings--will go to lengths to nullify them (I also wonder whether he's completely clean - I don't care really - it's better for him than booze). So the combination of how great and high he felt, how almost supernaturally creative/productive he could be, how little he had to feel, how cool (cold) and therefore socially adept or less socially awkward and shy he could become, how little when high he had to experience the excruciating boredom and tedium or touring and the invasiveness and lack of privacy of being famous the sorrow and guilt of his comrade drowning in a swimming pool and his "part" in Brian's demise, plus it being a connective bond in his relationship with Anita--all that and the strongly physically addictive nature of drug adds up to his becoming a junkie.

phew -- long paragraph! sorry about that but I figure anyone who doesn't want to read will skip. I have to get outside into the warm California sun now - better, I would imagine, than heroin could ever be!

- swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-02 02:44 by swiss.

Great post. Swiss. I am curious as to what you know about the withdrawal treatments in Pa. and Toronto. There seems to be a shroud of mystery around this.

Quote
LieB

Quote
71Tele
OK, I'll pick it up. I just don't know if I can get through the whole Altamont thing again, though. Very depressing. But it sounds like a book I have to read. Thanks.

As far as I can remember, I didn't find the Altamont part very long or dwelling. By the time you get to that part, which is far into the book, it'll be over pretty quick. It's really well written; I found Tony Sanchez' account of Altamont much more overblown and "gory".

Lieb is quite right here Tele, it's not a huge part of the book by an means. But you really get a sense of what went on, and how horrifying it was to be on, or near, the stage, Plus earlier in the day, and after. But it's not the main point of the book, and it doesn't build up to, and climax with it, like Gimme Shelter. The book as a whole is more about the journey than any one event.

Quote
swiss

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bustedtrousers

Oh my God, Yes! It's Booth's book, and it is extremely worth the read. If you haven't read it, you need to buy it and do so NOW!!!! It's arguably the best one ever written about the Stones. It's about two things, Brian Jones, and the 69 tour, which he lays it out in a very compelling and interesting way, especially the tour. He's there for everything, their stay in L.A. right before the tour, opening night, the Muscle Shoals sessions for Brown Sugar and Wild Horses (Jim Dickinson, who played piano on Horses, was Booth's buddy, and Stanley's the reason why he was at Muscle Shoals to begin with), and of course, Altamont. His first hand account of that show is harrowing, you really get the sense of how horrific it was.

He switches between the 69 tour and telling Brian's story, they both get their own chapters, in a back and forth way. I personally found the chapters on Brian a bit boring at times, but that's mainly because the ones about the tour are so damn interesting. It's so cool though the way he splits the two stories, and Brian's is bittersweet, especially his parents. Very sad the way they were left to pick up the pieces of their son's life and carry on. From Stanley's descriptions, they sound like very good, kind, and sweet people.

Tele, after all I've read on here from you, I can't believe you've never read this book. I'm telling you, if your as big a fan as your posts have led me to believe, you have to do so ASAP.

OK, I'll pick it up. I just don't know if I can get through the whole Altamont thing again, though. Very depressing. But it sounds like a book I have to read. Thanks.

Tele, I'd concur it's a definitely not a book to miss. Stanley Booth had access in a way few did, and the Stones' trust (tho if you read betwen the lines you have to wonder how much respect they actually had for him--if you lok at the backstage MSG '69 clips you'll see him sort of anxiously smiling and hovering, especially around Mick, and to me that's the vibe of his whole relationship with that, which, to me personally, feels ever-so-slightly unfortunate, and uncomfortable to read). His tone is enthusiastic and his narrative is compelling for sure! And it contains really good and useful info. I personally found the jumping back and forth time/place an awkward way for Stanley Booth to combine 2 very separate books into one. Also, to my mind there's too much of Stanley Booth himself in it, quotes from gurus and musicians flanking the chapters, plus a lot of stuff about his personal journey and life circumstances, which seem almost poseur-ish, like he's trying to make his life seem cooler than it actually was, which sounds (to me) actually kind of sad and muddled.

It's something like the Goddard film, to me: it would reach full awesomeness potential if someone were to cut out the '69 Stones' parts and splice them back together in a running narrative. And do the same to the early years/Brian parts. And to set aside the Stanley Booth personal journey part. I say this with great affection and appreciation for the author (who I don't know) and am massively grateful he wrote the book. But, again maybe just for me, the reading experience was somewhat compromised by starting chapters, having them shift time and place (I would bookmark it and then skip ahead to get to the next place where the narrative actually left off), and then drift into Stanley Booth recollections about his girlfriend and girlfriend wannabes.

- swiss

I agree completely Swiss, in principle. Everything you say is pretty much true, but the difference for me is, ultimately, none of these things bothered me.

I have to admit though, at first the jumping around between Brian's story and the 69 tour really bugged me at first, and to be honest, I could of done without Brian's part. But after finishing the book, I was so moved by it, I ended up really appreciating the approach Stanley took, and the story he told of Brian. I felt it was a good juxtaposition which, in the long run, worked for me. However, I can completely understand your side of it Swiss, because I felt that too.

Except for the parts about Stanley himself. I really enjoyed the personal stories he told, and I felt he did a good job of fitting them into the narrative. Especially the ones about Thanksgiving at Jerry Wexler's, and about going to his buddy in Memphis' apartment after a drug bust, and finding that the cops had purposely left the gas on so it would fill the place up (was that Jim Dickinson too, I believe it was). I felt the book was as much about Stanley's journey as it was the Stones, and I was ok with that. Again though, I can understand someone else thinking, "Come on already, get back to the Stones. Dammit!".

As far as Mick's attitude toward Stanley goes, I think that's just Mick. He seems to be that way in every book I've read. Warm and friendly one minute, cold and aloof the next. I got the same impression from Tony Sanchez's and Bill German's books too. And Robert Greenfield's Season in Hell. I think Mick grabs onto whoever he thinks he can relate to at any given moment, bonds with them over the issue at hand, and then instead of letting that turn into a true connection and friendship, just moves on, with little thought to the other person(s) involved. Mick to me is in constant motion, and doesn't seem to need and/or want to connect with people intimately the way most of us do. He's never seemed to have the need for a constant buddy, like Keith has had with Ronnie and others.

Your right though Swiss, you could cut out the other stuff and make it just about the 69 tour, and it would be a great book, and I can see why you'd prefer that. But I like it as it is.

Quote
71Tele
Great post. Swiss. I am curious as to what you know about the withdrawal treatments in Pa. and Toronto. There seems to be a shroud of mystery around this.

Thanks, Tele, rambling as it may've been

I didn't know there was a shroud of mystery...the woman's name is Meg Patterson. I just found a great article--below an excerpt of the article on her and the cure - the parts on Keith highlighted in blue.

I'd forgotten she's "Christian." Maybe there was an element of that in the treatment that Keith rebelled against.

This article does not say that Keith wouldn't do talk-therapy but I remember reading somewhere else he basically (if I remember correctly) had a tantrum and said he wasn't going to dredge up any of the past because it had nothing to do with his decision to take drugs.

_______________________
excerpt:

Meet the rock 'n' roll missionary
77-year-old Scot helped Clapton, Moon, Richards, other music stars
Posted: August 11, 1999, 1:00 am Eastern

When you first meet 77-year-old Dr. Meg Patterson, you may not believe that she has been involved in shaping rock history by saving the lives of several of rock's jet-set junkies. This diminutive Scottish surgeon with a sweet Scottish burr, became at 21, the youngest woman to qualify as a doctor at Scotland's Aberdeen University and in 1948 went as a medical missionary to India. She has helped rescue drug abusers Eric Clapton, Keith Moon, Rolling Stones bad boy Keith Richards and The Who's Peter Townsend, who frankly admits, "If I hadn't gone to Meg, I'd be dead."

Dr. Meg, a qualified general surgeon, went to the Far East as a missionary, where she first became acquainted with the drug problem and began to develop the unique "Black Box" treatment for which she has won great respect in her profession.

Now, along with her 79-year-old husband, George, a Christian missionary and journalist whom she met while on vacation along the Tibetan border, the couple have recently moved to the San Diego area, and have agreed to reveal their astonishing story which is made even more unusual by the fact that they don't like rock music.

"Neither Meg nor I care for rock music, although we can enjoy some of Eric's rhythm and blues," said George Patterson. "We most like classical, and gospel when well sung and played, and I enjoy Dixieland music. We have been to several rock music concerts as we received tickets from the performers we know. Meg tolerated them better than I did."

It was while living in Hong Kong that Dr. Meg first stumbled across her revolutionary's detox treatment, which is called NeuroElectric Therapy (NET). She says her Chinese neurosurgeon colleague went into Mainland China to learn electro-acupuncture as an anesthetic for all surgical operations.

Out of this, she developed her NET treatment which entails the placement of two electrodes behind the ears of the person being treated and connected them to a Sony Walkman-like black box that is worn continually night and day.

The box sends out a weak electric current, which, according to Patterson, stimulates production of several neurochemicals including pain-reducing endorphins. The release of endorphins, normally interrupted by consumption of heroin and cocaine, is believed to eliminate the classic traumatic symptoms of withdrawal -- anxiety, runny nose, stomach cramps.

Dr. Meg emphasizes that NET is just the first step toward rehabilitation. In her book "Hooked?" (Faber and Faber, London, 1986), she says that counseling is mandatory to address "the underlying cause that produces the addiction in the first place." As a committed believer, Patterson prefers Christian-oriented counseling, since addiction is ''fundamentally a spiritual problem,'' but she supports other therapies as well. She claims that following NET, rehabilitation can take as little as two months.

"By the end of the 10-day therapy, your mood starts to stabilize. You just feel normal," said Pete Townsend, lead guitarist of The Who, who underwent NET with Patterson in 1982 to treat cocaine, heroin and tranquilizer abuse.

When guitar legend Eric Clapton, who formed Cream and is reckoned by his peers to be the greatest living blues guitarist, first came to her for treatment in 1974, she says she had to ask her children, Lorne, Sean, and Myrrh, who he was.

Clapton moved into the couple's home in Harley Street, London, where they had recently moved, after 10 years in Hong Kong, so that they could control his treatment. During this time, George Patterson was able to talk to Clapton about Christianity. "When I spoke of the necessity for love and repentance and forgiveness as antidotes for sin and hate and wrong doing, or quoted the words of Christ and the necessity for obedience to the will of God, I was squirmingly conscious of being a hypocrite, because these were merely theoretical postulations to me now and not a personal experience," said George Patterson. Shortly after this, Patterson re-committed his own life to God.

George Patterson was surprised when Clapton said that he had become a Christian some years earlier, when a Scots-born disc jockey had traveled on a concert tour of the U.S. with Clapton for several months. However, his faith had been dented when the Christian suddenly said during a party, "I feel God wants me to pray." Apparently Eric's friend lost his temper and stormed out, which became a turning point for Clapton, who felt that if God could not hold on to a dedicated believer in such a situation, he was no longer sure if he could continue to hold his own hesitant faith.

Then he was able to pray with Clapton to recommit his life to Christ. He then told him to pick up his guitar and let God guide him. Clapton soon picked up his guitar and began composing a beautiful blues lullaby entitled, "Give Me Strength." At first the only lines he could think of, "Lord, for tomorrow and its needs I do not pray, Give me, dear Lord, give me strength for today." When he completed it, it appeared on his album, "461 Ocean Boulevard."

In a book by Ray Coleman called "Survivor," which tells the story of Eric Clapton, the guitarist is quoted as saying, "I conquered drugs through my own wish or will to survive, with the help of Meg Patterson and her husband and family. They gave me love, and I found that was the medicine I needed as much as, if not more than, the actual electro-acupuncture which was she practicing. Mine was a totally self-centered way of getting better."

It was in 1997 that Meg received a call from Canada asking if she would treat urgently and secretly Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones.

In her book, "Dr. Meg" (Word Books), she wrote, "I was not too surprised by the call, for I had already been approached on a few occasions by the Rolling Stones organisation about possible treatment for Keith, after I had treated Eric, but they had never followed through on the initial calls. This time the situation was drastically different.

"Keith had been arrested in Canada, during a tour there, with a large amount of heroin in his room; consequently, instead of just being charged with possession, he was being held on the much more serious crime of drug trafficking, which could draw a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment or more."

She said that, while this would be a personal tragedy for Keith, it would "also mean professional and financial disaster for the Rolling Stones group and organisation."

Because Keith was out on bail, and terms of the bail restricted him to North America, the treatment would have to take place on the continent. So, American Christian moviemaker Shorty Yeaworth and his wife, Jean, offered their home. Shorty and Jean were film producers and musicians, and they had worked with drug addicts in the past.

Meg and George met Richards and his common-law actress wife, Anita Pallenberg, who Dr. Meg insisted also had to come off the drugs, at the Philadelphia Airport reception area. "When they appeared in the airport reception area they were accompanied by their seven-year-old son, Marlon, who was almost as notorious as Keith for his behavior -- including taking drugs and alcohol in public.

"Keith and Anita were floating somewhere on Cloud Nine with drugs, and Marlon was shouting and beating on them for attention," she said. "Keith, pale and haggard as always, was dressed in a white suit and purple shirt, and he stood unsmiling beside an equally sullen Anita while Bill Carter (the Rolling Stones attorney), embarrassingly said that Keith had told him to send me and the doctors off, cancel the arrangements, and to prepare to leave for New York right away.

"I took a deep breath, then slowly and clearly spelled it out to the red-faced lawyer: either they could get into the car right away and get on with the treatment as agreed, or we would immediately inform the authorities -- and Keith and Anita would never see New York, as they would be on the plane back to Canada and prison. They might as well learn right now that I was in charge, and that they would have to do exactly as I said, as I was here to cure their addictions, not to play silly games at the drug-induced whim of arrogant and temperamental celebrities.

"The matter was settled ... and when we got to Shorty and Jean Yeaworth's home Keith and Anita were still so high on drugs they did not want to eat. I attached the machines to them, with the usual instructions, then we all left them. ... Anita was restless, but more because of a huge thigh abscess -- from her drug injections -- than anything else."

Dr. Meg said that Keith slept for 43 hours, and when he finally awoke, he was clear-eyed and refreshed.

Later Richards said, "It's so simple it's not true. It's a little metal box with leads that clip on to your ears, and in two or three days, which is the worst period for kicking junk -- it leaves your system."

Commented Dr. Meg, "It took more than that, of course. Over the next three weeks there were times when things got very rough indeed, especially when George was having to deal with the underlying causes of addiction as they applied to Keith and the lifestyle of the Rolling Stones. At one point, Keith threw his radio across the garden in fury when George ordered him to turn off the blaring rock music while they were having a discussion. But he certainly quickly lost the awful haggard look and even started to look tanned and healthy from sitting in the lovely gardens.

"When Mick Jagger came to visit him he said unbelievingly that he hadn't seen Keith look so well for 10 years. Ahmet Ertegun, the head of Atlantic Records -- who had provided me with research funds in the past -- also visited Keith and was so impressed he offered to raise funds for the treatment to be introduced into the United States. But Keith's increasing restlessness was a problem, and even in our isolated farmhouse there were dealers seeking to provide him with drugs -- at extortionate rates, of course.

"Apart from the drug dealers we were confident that the media and others knew nothing of our whereabouts, until one day Shorty, after answering the telephone, said that Norman Stone and Steve Turner were in Washington to make a film and were on their way to see him in a couple of hours. Shorty knew them, and had been unable to think up a good reason to discourage their visit. We accepted the fact that they had known about Eric Clapton, and had kept it confidential, and would no doubt be prepared to do the same with Keith.

"Their faces were a study when they arrived and saw us, and Keith, sitting there. Their film assignment was about black gospel music, and they had been visiting Nashville among other places, interviewing people known to Keith, so they were able to talk music gossip with him. It was not possible to film Keith himself, but Norman arranged a filmed interview with Dr. Dick Corbett, who was in charge of a leading government drug treatment unit in New Jersey, at his drug clinic to discuss his views about NET and the treatment of his present unidentified patients. Dick confirmed that he was in touch with the government regarding the treatment process, and that he was recommending that NET be introduced into the United States.

"After three weeks at Shorty and Jean's for the detox programme we decided that Keith could leave and have the remaining three weeks in his own rented home, with anonymous access to a local Philadelphia studio where he could work with Mick Jagger on some recording ideas. On the day he left there was a convoy of limousines to take Keith, Marlon their son, and some of the Atlantic Records personnel to their home. I found it very moving, after all the struggles of the past three weeks, to see the tough, saturnine Keith give Jean Yeaworth a warm hug with his 'thank you' for their hospitality -- and then turn to George, give him a hug, and say smilingly, 'Take care, you b------.'

"When the black stretch limousine pulled away, on the window-ledge at the rear there was conspicuously displayed the supposedly uncontrollable Marlon's personal Sunday school presentation copy of the Bible -- which he had been given while attending with the Winston's son. He had refused to allow it to be packed because he wanted to be certain that it went with him!"

When asked for an opinion of the music of Keith Richards' Rolling Stones, Dr. Meg described it in one word: "Dreadful."

- swiss

Quote
bustedtrousers
I agree completely Swiss, in principle. Everything you say is pretty much true, but the difference for me is, ultimately, none of these things bothered me.

I have to admit though, at first the jumping around between Brian's story and the 69 tour really bugged me at first, and to be honest, I could of done without Brian's part. But after finishing the book, I was so moved by it, I ended up really appreciating the approach Stanley took, and the story he told of Brian. I felt it was a good juxtaposition which, in the long run, worked for me. However, I can completely understand your side of it Swiss, because I felt that too.

Except for the parts about Stanley himself. I really enjoyed the personal stories he told, and I felt he did a good job of fitting them into the narrative. Especially the ones about Thanksgiving at Jerry Wexler's, and about going to his buddy in Memphis' apartment after a drug bust, and finding that the cops had purposely left the gas on so it would fill the place up (was that Jim Dickinson too, I believe it was). I felt the book was as much about Stanley's journey as it was the Stones, and I was ok with that. Again though, I can understand someone else thinking, "Come on already, get back to the Stones. Dammit!".

As far as Mick's attitude toward Stanley goes, I think that's just Mick. He seems to be that way in every book I've read. Warm and friendly one minute, cold and aloof the next. I got the same impression from Tony Sanchez's and Bill German's books too. And Robert Greenfield's Season in Hell. I think Mick grabs onto whoever he thinks he can relate to at any given moment, bonds with them over the issue at hand, and then instead of letting that turn into a true connection and friendship, just moves on, with little thought to the other person(s) involved. Mick to me is in constant motion, and doesn't seem to need and/or want to connect with people intimately the way most of us do. He's never seemed to have the need for a constant buddy, like Keith has had with Ronnie and others.

Your right though Swiss, you could cut out the other stuff and make it just about the 69 tour, and it would be a great book, and I can see why you'd prefer that. But I like it as it is.

Wow! what a great writer you are! I've never read a "take" on Mick like that, and it's absolutely spot-on (in hindsight). Now I think "So true - it was always right there but that characterization never crystalized like that for me!"

In my one brief encounter with Mick (at age 16, at a fairly intimate party of maybe 200-300 people) he was definitely displaying "I have utterly no use for you and want you to know it" mode (which my friend and I thought was hilarious because it was so over the top, and we'd already seen him sulking and skulking around by himself most of the party, which was an extremely merry Hamptons party of the late '70s, so no need to be McGlumster--even to 16 years olds we thought it was sort of babyish and operatic of him).

I was thinking today after ii wrote that Keith is very emotionally private -- to the point of being emotionally buttoned-down -- that Mick is too. Isn't that ironic?! That these two icons of unleashed hedonism, whim-driven passion, and ID run amok, are also emotionally pretty laced-up?

I think Mick's one buddy has been Keith. The one male peer he's ever needed or relied on.

So many betrayals between them. Betrayals of choices they have made as individuals that have affected their relationship as friends and co-creators. Probably unarticulated disappointments and lack of resolution of conflicts. For years. And years. And years. And with little means of connecting and healing? Mick says "I don't need you. I can make as good music alone - and if we're collaboraing that's fine but it's just music" and Keith says "Naw--we need each other, to bring out the best and worst of each other in every way - we're donnected in our veins." Keith can be emotional and connect to Mick through music. He's said collaborating with him is like making love and maybe better, like communicating psychically. And Mick can also connect to Keith musically, especially when playing his harp. But I think Keith is totally straight and not afraid to have whatever weird closeness with Mick. But I think Mick can't deal with whatever their connection is - freaks him out, has been disappointed by Keith too many times. So now keeps him at arm's distance.

Anyway - back to you. Your appreciating Stanley Booth's journey is lovely and feels gracious to me. And you are right; it's more about my saying "Get back to the Stones, dammit!" than "Hang that Stanley Booth and his story!"

- swiss

Great post swiss

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Swiss, I knew about the Meg Patterson "black box" treatment, but I always thought it was some sort of quackery. A metal box with wires cures you of addiction? Really? Isn't it true this "cure" didn't take, and he had to kick again? I had always assumed he was clean on the '78 tour (he did look and play much better), but now I'm not so sure. I think there was also some sort of relapse on the Voodoo Lounge tour.

I also heard "RUMORS" of the dabbling on voodoo.. didn't know if it were true or not... great tour! If Keith does better playing on smack I say we all chip in!, I couldn't take another Bigger Bang tour

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Quote
swiss

Quote
bustedtrousers
I agree completely Swiss, in principle. Everything you say is pretty much true, but the difference for me is, ultimately, none of these things bothered me.

I have to admit though, at first the jumping around between Brian's story and the 69 tour really bugged me at first, and to be honest, I could of done without Brian's part. But after finishing the book, I was so moved by it, I ended up really appreciating the approach Stanley took, and the story he told of Brian. I felt it was a good juxtaposition which, in the long run, worked for me. However, I can completely understand your side of it Swiss, because I felt that too.

Except for the parts about Stanley himself. I really enjoyed the personal stories he told, and I felt he did a good job of fitting them into the narrative. Especially the ones about Thanksgiving at Jerry Wexler's, and about going to his buddy in Memphis' apartment after a drug bust, and finding that the cops had purposely left the gas on so it would fill the place up (was that Jim Dickinson too, I believe it was). I felt the book was as much about Stanley's journey as it was the Stones, and I was ok with that. Again though, I can understand someone else thinking, "Come on already, get back to the Stones. Dammit!".

As far as Mick's attitude toward Stanley goes, I think that's just Mick. He seems to be that way in every book I've read. Warm and friendly one minute, cold and aloof the next. I got the same impression from Tony Sanchez's and Bill German's books too. And Robert Greenfield's Season in Hell. I think Mick grabs onto whoever he thinks he can relate to at any given moment, bonds with them over the issue at hand, and then instead of letting that turn into a true connection and friendship, just moves on, with little thought to the other person(s) involved. Mick to me is in constant motion, and doesn't seem to need and/or want to connect with people intimately the way most of us do. He's never seemed to have the need for a constant buddy, like Keith has had with Ronnie and others.

Your right though Swiss, you could cut out the other stuff and make it just about the 69 tour, and it would be a great book, and I can see why you'd prefer that. But I like it as it is.

Wow! what a great writer you are! I've never read a "take" on Mick like that, and it's absolutely spot-on (in hindsight). Now I think "So true - it was always right there but that characterization never crystalized like that for me!"

In my one brief encounter with Mick (at age 16, at a fairly intimate party of maybe 200-300 people) he was definitely displaying "I have utterly no use for you and want you to know it" mode (which my friend and I thought was hilarious because it was so over the top, and we'd already seen him sulking and skulking around by himself most of the party, which was an extremely merry Hamptons party of the late '70s, so no need to be McGlumster--even to 16 years olds we thought it was sort of babyish and operatic of him).

I was thinking today after ii wrote that Keith is very emotionally private -- to the point of being emotionally buttoned-down -- that Mick is too. Isn't that ironic?! That these two icons of unleashed hedonism, whim-driven passion, and ID run amok, are also emotionally pretty laced-up?

I think Mick's one buddy has been Keith. The one male peer he's ever needed or relied on.

So many betrayals between them. Betrayals of choices they have made as individuals that have affected their relationship as friends and co-creators. Probably unarticulated disappointments and lack of resolution of conflicts. For years. And years. And years. And with little means of connecting and healing? Mick says "I don't need you. I can make as good music alone - and if we're collaboraing that's fine but it's just music" and Keith says "Naw--we need each other, to bring out the best and worst of each other in every way - we're donnected in our veins." Keith can be emotional and connect to Mick through music. He's said collaborating with him is like making love and maybe better, like communicating psychically. And Mick can also connect to Keith musically, especially when playing his harp. But I think Keith is totally straight and not afraid to have whatever weird closeness with Mick. But I think Mick can't deal with whatever their connection is - freaks him out, has been disappointed by Keith too many times. So now keeps him at arm's distance.

Anyway - back to you. Your appreciating Stanley Booth's journey is lovely and feels gracious to me. And you are right; it's more about my saying "Get back to the Stones, dammit!" than "Hang that Stanley Booth and his story!"

- swiss

You bring up an interesting possibility Swiss, and one that I was thinking in the back of my mind, but your comments brought it out and clarified it for me. Is it possible that Mick felt so burned by the damage their friendship suffered when Keith went on a much darker path, that he resolved himself to never let another person get so close? I don't think it's that simple. I'll break it down, but keep in mind this is my personal theory, and I don't expect anyone else to buy into it.

I think Keith's behavior likely added to it. But I think being cold, aloof, and opportunistic when it comes to acquaintances, and I use that word instead of friends, was part of Mick's make-up all along. Mick is a very smart and observant individual, and I've had the impression for a long time that he sees himself above something as base as rock n' roll. But it's his lot in life, and as smart as he is, he's never been able, or quite willing enough, or some combination of the two, to find his way out.

I think he started looking around his world, the Stones world, in the late 60's, around the time of Brian's demise, but before his actual death, and thought to himself that many of his peers were not all that clever, and probably wouldn't make it. As a result, I think he decided to not put too much of himself into any relationship he had with anyone he came across, especially in the business. I think he felt many of them weren't as smart as him, and that having a lot of close friends in the life he was starting to lead was a losing proposition, as many would not be around for the long haul. I think he sees himself as above most of the people he encounters as a result of his life in the Stones, doesn't care to give very much of himself to them, and only does so when it benefits him in some way. I think what happened with both Keith and Brian, along with others that came and went along the way, added to this, and maybe those two even sparked it, but I think it was always within him.

The irony of all this with me, is that I think, despite his frequent ill demeanor, Mick is basically a decent person that has never forgotten where he came from. Specifically, that tiny shithole of an apartment that he shared early on with Keith and Brian. I think that is the last time he bonded so deeply with anyone, and he has felt an obligation towards Keith, and as it grew into a huge organization, the Stones itself, ever since. I think that's why in the 70's, he was never able to walk away and do what he really wanted (and what that is, I don't know, but I don't think it was rock n' roll). He felt too much obligation and loyalty to what he had helped build. But that was then, and this is now.

Now, I think it's all about the money.

Good post about about Meg Patterson too, by the way. One of the few truly good parts of Clapton's book is about his rehab with Meg.

Quote
71Tele
Swiss, I knew about the Meg Patterson "black box" treatment, but I always thought it was some sort of quackery. A metal box with wires cures you of addiction? Really? Isn't it true this "cure" didn't take, and he had to kick again? I had always assumed he was clean on the '78 tour (he did look and play much better), but now I'm not so sure. I think there was also some sort of relapse on the Voodoo Lounge tour.

No, it's not quackery, it's the real deal according to those who have done it. I remember first hearing about her and her treatment when Townshend cleaned up before the Who's 82 tour. He swore by it, and Townshend is no fool.

Keith's didn't take completely right away, but I think by the 81 tour he was off it. I seem to recall reading about what else he did after Meg's initial treatment. I have vague memories of him using the box again, and even going through some kind of treatment while at Longview Farm, or possibly right before, for the 81 rehearsals, but I can't recall exactly. I can't keep in order everything I've read like I use too. I'd like to know more about this, and the rumored late 90's relapse.

I've read more than once on here over the last few days that some people question whether he's really clean. I think he is. Look at how bad he was in the couple years leading up to Toronto and his cleaning up. I don't think he'd be alive if he kept using.

If he's able occasionally do it, and not fall completely back into it, that might be a possibility, but I don't think he can do that. I think it's all or nothing for him, I don't think he can dabble.

Plus, I've always been amazed at Patti's tolerance, but I don't think she'd put up with that, and I don't think he could hide it from her.

Without getting to teary-eyed, I think the posts from Swiss and bustedtrousers on this subject are among the most insightful and thoughtful I have seen here.

Regarding Keith's late 90s relapse: He did brag in an interview during the No Security tour that he still dabbled with injecting himself occasionally. he said he even used an old medical book for tips.

This may be more 'showmanship' from Keith though.

I have often wondered if he is still on heroin. When i saw him on the No Security tour he was running around like a mad man, certainly more active and energetic than Bridges to Babylon shows just a few months before. He was taking runs and sliding on his knees and generally moving around as much as Mick.

The Wembley show on 4 Flicks, I think he looks wasted all through that show. Maybe he is just drunk but he looks high as hell.

However, seeing him on Jimmy Fallon a few weeks ago, he does not look like a man that is doing much these days. Most lucid I have EVER seen him. Maybe he quit a lot of stuff due to his head injury. Will we ever really know?

Quote
71Tele
Without getting to teary-eyed, I think the posts from Swiss and bustedtrousers on this subject are among the most insightful and thoughtful I have seen here.

I second that 71Tele. Fantastic posts by both swiss and bustedtrousres - great and very informative reading and very well written.Should be added to the list of important threads in my opinion.Thanks to both of you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-02 11:37 by klrkcr.

Agreed -- great posts, very interesting analysis on Mick & Keith. Hilarious about that party where you met Mick, swiss!

The story about the '77 treatment was very interesting and moving as well.

As for Stanley Booth's book, I agree totally with bustedtrousers. The parts about Brian, etc., where slow sometimes, and I generally enjoyed the '69 tour parts the most, but as a whole, I thought it worked really well and I enjoyed it 99 percent of the time. The copy I have is a late edition with a very interesting afterword from Booth as well.

Everytime when threads like this one appear I'm seduced to post something but ultimately most times wont.

I think I told my story one time very early on on a board (in the 90's?).

I had done my school and began to study but at the same time I was playing music myself and was (trough a friend) more and more working for a very big German/European promoter.

So I saw many bands that came to Germany in the early/mid 70's.

I've been a huge Stonesfan since my childhood in the 60's. First had seen them in 70 and when they came in 73 I was around on some dates like in Essen where I had to help with the Mobile. We even had to break a hole in the hall for all those cables, etc.

I was more and more doing music and music jobs and had quit university. Through all those contacts I had began to dabble with drugs myself.

In 76 I was again on even more dates. Keith' helper asked me for drugs cause Keith didn't want to go on until something came around. I was absolutely no dealer but a user now. But - I couldn't resist (like many before and after me) the chance to really meet Keith. Remember driving around with that helper in Keith silver Ferrari. After many hassles I succeeded. Later I had 3 or 4 encounters with Keith (and Anita and Marlon who were around on some dates).

At the moment I don't want to go more into this but from than on I got very much into coke and smack. I knew some other Stonesfans too and they all got on drugs.
We tended to give the Stones some blame. I for shure did this for some time.

This was long before Internet and all Stones people I KNEW where doing drugs mostly animated by the Stones and their songs. Only many years later when through the net I heard of other great fans I learned that many had seen it other ways.

well, I was on drugs for many years. I also did this Patterson method (didn't work for me as it didn't work for Keith and Anita). She's telling a lot of bull§$% in her book.

Same with Keith these days. I have to laugh when I read his remaks of having no problem to get off the stuff, etc.etc. I know another Keith!
To make it short after many years I'm off but I have to pay the price. But that is okay with me. I had a lot of fun too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-02 13:37 by CousinC.

Please CousinC tell us more.

Wow, interesting story, CousinC.
If you're up to it, we'd love to hear more about your encounters with Keith in the mid-70s.

I have nothing to add...this is an excellent thread, thanks for the posts.

Quote
CousinC
Everytime when threads like this one appear I'm seduced to post something but ultimately most times wont.

I think I told my story one time very early on on a board (in the 90's?).

I had done my school and began to study but at the same time I was playing music myself and was (trough a friend) more and more working for a very big German/European promoter.

So I saw many bands that came to Germany in the early/mid 70's.

I've been a huge Stonesfan since my childhood in the 60's. First had seen them in 70 and when they came in 73 I was around on some dates like in Essen where I had to help with the Mobile. We even had to break a hole in the hall for all those cables, etc.

I was more and more doing music and music jobs and had quit university. Through all those contacts I had began to dabble with drugs myself.

In 76 I was again on even more dates. Keith' helper asked me for drugs cause Keith didn't want to go on until something came around. I was absolutely no dealer but a user now. But - I couldn't resist (like many before and after me) the chance to really meet Keith. Remember driving around with that helper in Keith silver Ferrari. After many hassles I succeeded. Later I had 3 or 4 encounters with Keith (and Anita and Marlon who were around on some dates).

At the moment I don't want to go more into this but from than on I got very much into coke and smack. I knew some other Stonesfans too and they all got on drugs.
We tended to give the Stones some blame. I for shure did this for some time.

This was long before Internet and all Stones people I KNEW where doing drugs mostly animated by the Stones and their songs. Only many years later when through the net I heard of other great fans I learned that many had seen it other ways.

well, I was on drugs for many years. I also did this Patterson method (didn't work for me as it didn't work for Keith and Anita). She's telling a lot of bull§$% in her book.

Same with Keith these days. I have to laugh when I read his remaks of having no problem to get off the stuff, etc.etc. I know another Keith!
To make it short after many years I'm off but I have to pay the price. But that is okay with me. I had a lot of fun too.

I'm not a huge cheerleader for Meg Patterson or anything, I can only go on what I've read. And I read that it worked for Clapton and Townshend, they both said so, and it supposedly worked for Keith in the short term. Clapton's book in particular went into details that made me question Meg Patterson's reasons and methods, especially the Christian aspect. Clapton bought into that because he had a past history with it, having supposedly been saved backstage at a Blind Faith concert (and he was God for a while). But I've always had a problem with the spiritual aspect of recovery programs when they try and push Christianity as the only answer. I'm a Christian by default because of where I was born and bred, and I have no problems with most of the basic original messages, but I don't think any one religion should be pushed as the answer for all people.

Despite his praise for her in it, Clapton's book also gave me the impression that her and here husband are a bit whack-a-do, and quite possibbly full of it like CousinC said.

I also think the fabled black box is really about dealing with the initial pain and trauma of withdrawal, I think it's supposed to relieve the pain and anxiety that comes in the first three to four days of kicking heroin, so the patient isn't driven to quit in the middle in order to just get relief from the horrible pain. I don't think it can cure the aspects of addiction that remain after getting clean, the one day at a time struggle. There is no magic cure for that as of yet. Whether or not the person stays clean afterward is up to the person, and their failure is not the fault of the black box. If Meg Patterson claims otherwise, that the box itself does "cure" the addiction, I think that is very suspect.

In reference to CousinC's experience with it, I also get the impression it's the kind of thing that doesn't work for everyone. I think it might be like hypnotism, which can be done to some, but not to others. If you compare it to nicotine addiction, which is also a very strong addiction, there are people who have been cured of smoking cigarettes by being hypnotized, but it doesn't work
work for everyone. I think the way the black box works is similar, in that it's not going to achieve the same results with every person.

And everybody, please don't jump my shit by reading a million things I have not said, or meant to imply, into my post. I'm not saying nicotine addiction is as bad as heroin, or that heroin addiction can be cured by being hypnotized, or anything else. I'm just making the point that, based on what I have seen and heard in my life, the black box sounds like the type of thing that will legitimately work miracles for some people, and not do crap for others.

@ Bustedtrousers and others


Obviously I could say very much to all of this. But we have a heatwave over here (lol) and I just don't have enough time at the moment.

Besides I have to think a bit about it all before mixing things up. Some stories (like about Keith) I told many times to friends, etc. and they are very present to me but other memories are hazy.

But I'm interested in those themes too and I'll gladly come back tomorrow to discuss some more!
Plus I just couldn't stand those ear clips from the small "black box" . . more later.

Thanks CousinC - I would love to read the stories you wish to tell us cheers.

Cheers!

See you . .

I was on heroin (in and off) for twenty years. Now I’m completely clean (from heroin, methadone, buprenorfine.. everything) from more than 2 months and I‘m feelin’ great and I want to stay clean, ‘cause I’m forty and I’m tired of all the shit that happens with the smack.
In my opinion Keith, in Rock an Roll Circus is an addict. He got the eyes.
Maybe it was an occasional user at the time but I can bet he was an user.
It is true: smack can make you walk on the water. I’m sure it didn’t interfere with the creative process for two or three years. But it comes the day you have to pay. And it’s an expensive bill.
Thanking god he did it and he’s still with us, but there is an enormous cemetery outside.
It’s terrible.

- - - - I like that post; gutsy to admit. Keith's succumbing to heroin has always fascinated me for some weird reason; I read in Bokris' book Keith began experimenting with heroin in August 1968, when he was alone starting to write tunes for Let It Bleed, and Mick and Anita were bangin each other in some lousy movie, and it was a slow process, use for a weekend, off for a few months, then a few less months, then a month, then a few weeks, a few days..you get the idea



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-07 02:37 by stones77.

Wow, Cousin C. That's brave of you to tell your story. Thanks for sharing, as they say. If you feel like telling more, cool. And if not, that's ok too. I imagine there's mixed feeling between the good times and the, well, not so good times. And you probably don't want to romanticize the junkie times and the circumstances when you were around Keith.

Anyway, good and bad, that's quite a story. Hope things are well with you these days.

best
swiss

I hope he tells us more too, I'm interested to know more about his experience with the black box, if he is of a mind to speak about it. Since I first read about Townshend's experience with it, I've always been fascinated by it.

Another reason is because my Mom once had these tiny metal buttons placed on a, supposed, pressure point(s) on both ears, in order to quit smoking. Whenever she got the urge, she was supposed to tap them with like a pencil or something. They didn't work.

About ten years after that she tried hypnotism, which worked! But only temporarily. She was supposed to go back if she had trouble again, but she never went.

Finally, about ten years after that (which was about 4 years ago, I think), she went to another guy who took some kind of laser and zapped her (painlessly) around her thumbnail, and I think somewhere else too, but I forget where. Amazingly, this time it worked! So far she hasn't smoked a cigarette since, although she has struggled with it at times. But nothing else worked like this last treatment. She's in her 70's and has smoked since she was like 12 or some shit. The longest she ever quit before was maybe a month. I thought she would never quit, but it's been like 4 1/2 years now.

It's these experiences that make me think that Meg Patterson's black box must work along somewhat similar lines, and probably is a miracle for some, and a complete bust for others. So while I don't doubt that it didn't help CousinC, and even Keith (although I thought it did, at least for the short term), I also firmly believe it helped Clapton and Townshend, and I'd like to know more about it.

I wonder if Meg herself treated CousinC. For years I thought she was some kind of a saint, and wondered why her treatment couldn't become standard for heroin addiction. Until I read Clapton's book. Although the box worked for him, his story gave me mixed feelings about her.

Quote
bustedtrousers
I hope he tells us more too, I'm interested to know more about his experience with the black box, if he is of a mind to speak about it. Since I first read about Townshend's experience with it, I've always been fascinated by it.

Another reason is because my Mom once had these tiny metal buttons placed on a, supposed, pressure point(s) on both ears, in order to quit smoking. Whenever she got the urge, she was supposed to tap them with like a pencil or something. They didn't work.

About ten years after that she tried hypnotism, which worked! But only temporarily. She was supposed to go back if she had trouble again, but she never went.

Finally, about ten years after that (which was about 4 years ago, I think), she went to another guy who took some kind of laser and zapped her (painlessly) around her thumbnail, and I think somewhere else too, but I forget where. Amazingly, this time it worked! So far she hasn't smoked a cigarette since, although she has struggled with it at times. But nothing else worked like this last treatment. She's in her 70's and has smoked since she was like 12 or some shit. The longest she ever quit before was maybe a month. I thought she would never quit, but it's been like 4 1/2 years now.

It's these experiences that make me think that Meg Patterson's black box must work along somewhat similar lines, and probably is a miracle for some, and a complete bust for others. So while I don't doubt that it didn't help CousinC, and even Keith (although I thought it did, at least for the short term), I also firmly believe it helped Clapton and Townshend, and I'd like to know more about it.

I wonder if Meg herself treated CousinC. For years I thought she was some kind of a saint, and wondered why her treatment couldn't become standard for heroin addiction. Until I read Clapton's book. Although the box worked for him, his story gave me mixed feelings about her.

I think you or someone else nailed it earlier on that the cure seems to treat the pain and anxiety suffered during withdrawal, but it's just to get through the extremis, and then other kinds of "work" has to be done, including the addict doing hard work to get to the root of what he f<ck they're doing and why they're avoiding reality and feelings so doggedly (I speak firsthand, having kicked booze 18 yrs ago, various substances 10 yrs ago, and nicotine 5 yrs ago). That's the thing about addicts, they think something outside themselves is the answer -- and nothing is. It can help but addiction is an internal fight too -- self vs self. And if Keith or your Mom or Clapton or Ronnie Wood isn't ready to stop and hasn't faced themselves and whatever conditions got them started in the first place nothing can stop them from going back.

I just moved to San Francisco, and am seeing more junkies than I've ever seen in one place. Not lurching down the street or nodding off junkies, but young people with that glassy pinned look hanging out. I f<cking hate heroin.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-08 08:59 by swiss.

Quote
swiss
I think you or someone else nailed it earlier on that the cure seems to treat the pain and anxiety suffered during withdrawal, but it's just to get through the extremis, and then other kinds of "work" has to be done, including the addict doing hard work to get to the root of what he @#$%& they're doing and why they're avoiding reality and feelings so doggedly (I speak firsthand, having kicked booze 18 yrs ago, various substances 10 yrs ago, and nicotine 5 yrs ago). That's the thing about addicts, they think something outside themselves is the answer -- and nothing is. It can help but addiction is an internal fight too -- self vs self. And if Keith or your Mom or Clapton or Ronnie Wood isn't ready to stop and hasn't faced themselves and whatever conditions got them started in the first place nothing can stop them from going back.

Absolutely right.

The black box seems bs to me. If it works why is not used all around the world to cure the addiction? Here (in Italy) we're still struggling with methadone and buprenorphine or cold turkey (the real journey through hell). Sometimes someone comes out with a new cure like sleep treatment or something but it is always BS (or at least something only rich folks can afford).

And, like Cousin C said, i hate when Keith talks about how simple it was to get out of heoin or go trough withdrawal.
I love you, but this is bullshit, man. And you know well. Get out of your own mithology, you're grown up.

I'm afraid to say, yes heroin is a terrible drug (I know as I've worked with heroin users for many years) but it has been the inspiration and driving force for a huge amount of classic rock songs, art, performances. Without it, we would not have much of the best Stones work, or Beatles, or WHo, the list goes on. Drugs are not all bad, it's how you use them, who uses them, when you use them etc etc...a loaded gun is not dangerous until someone picks it up.

Without drugs, booze and pills and powders the rock music output would be awful, worthless...rock and roll and drugs dance hand in hand and often produce a fantastic combination....and often it ends badly!

Quote
swiss

Quote
bustedtrousers
As far as Mick's attitude toward Stanley goes, I think that's just Mick. He seems to be that way in every book I've read. Warm and friendly one minute, cold and aloof the next. I got the same impression from Tony Sanchez's and Bill German's books too. And Robert Greenfield's Season in Hell. I think Mick grabs onto whoever he thinks he can relate to at any given moment, bonds with them over the issue at hand, and then instead of letting that turn into a true connection and friendship, just moves on, with little thought to the other person(s) involved. Mick to me is in constant motion, and doesn't seem to need and/or want to connect with people intimately the way most of us do. He's never seemed to have the need for a constant buddy, like Keith has had with Ronnie and others.

In my one brief encounter with Mick (at age 16, at a fairly intimate party of maybe 200-300 people) he was definitely displaying "I have utterly no use for you and want you to know it" mode (which my friend and I thought was hilarious because it was so over the top, and we'd already seen him sulking and skulking around by himself most of the party, which was an extremely merry Hamptons party of the late '70s, so no need to be McGlumster--even to 16 years olds we thought it was sort of babyish and operatic of him).

I think Mick's one buddy has been Keith. The one male peer he's ever needed or relied on.

But I think Keith is totally straight and not afraid to have whatever weird closeness with Mick. But I think Mick can't deal with whatever their connection is - freaks him out, has been disappointed by Keith too many times. So now keeps him at arm's distance.


- swiss

I really cannot follow you. I disagree with most of what you both say here, sorry
Mick and keith know each other for 60 years, so I am sure, Mick CAN deal with their connection or closeness. Keith is certainly not the only male friend that Mick ever had or needed, I am sure, Mick has enough friends, they just don´t write books about their friend, or have you ever heard a friend of his claiming, that Mick treats his friends badly? A Bill German or Tony Sanchez are certainly not people, who Mick calls his friends. Mick knows who his friends are, and, pardon me, why should he want to be friends with 16 year olds?

It is only people, who are disappointed, that Mick does not talk with them as much as THEY want him to, or that he is not as delighted to see them (fans) the next day, as they expect him to. Also Keith wanted to ged rid of Bill German, but he sent Jane Rose to do that. So it is always easy for Keith to play the good one when he pays somebody to take over the role of the bad one.
Mick does not need that, he is man enough to do that by himself!

I think we really don´t know anything about Mick and his other friends and how he treats them, and I am sure he can connect with them and has normal relationships with them, like with Keith after 60 years. I think that he still works with Keith is proof enough, that he is a very loyal person towards his friends.