Keith was using Heroin during their most productive period '68 - '72

But also during one of the 2 worst slumps post Exile till Some Girls.

I have had the great misfortune to lose a friend to Heroin. It is a highly consuming drug.

When the addiction rises friends, interests, day to day activities just don't matter anymore.


I don't have to repeat to you the stories of the Beggar's-Exile period

My main post in this thread is Heroin and Keith Richards.

A real look into this period w/ out any prejudices

The drug use should not be glamorized, but at least examined here and it's effect upon the music, their lyrics, legal hassles.

When Keith started using it really changed the course of the band.

And I still wonder to this day how he could use so much smack and yet still be able to write. Music, Lyrics & Otherwise.

We have the '68-'72 period which is the greatest point in the Stones career, but as the drug use continued and worsened so did the music and personal life of Keef & those around him and the Stones.


So to start this post - when did Keith start using? After T.S.M.R.?

Were he and E.C. 'using' buddies?

Is this start of the essential division between MJ - KR?

The lyrics during this period deepened & darkened. Lot's of mention of drugs etc..'Torn & Frayed' is a summation of Keith's lifestyle.

Were their any other bands around at the time that were publicly known for drug use? The Doors?

This to me is a dark and fascinating chapter in The Stones history.

I feel bad for those who were lost to the Stones dark circle

& grateful for those who have survived to continue making the music we all
share & we all love, rooted in the vast history of blues & rock

I think we all have personal demons, addictions, faults, talent, loved ones - the only difference is it isn't played out in national newspaper's and t.v. programs on the world's stage.

I don't know how history will remember the Stones, but for me they are truly the World's Greatest Rock n Roll Band for good or bad!

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-30 09:51 by Marhsall.

[www.contactmusic.com]


Link to crazy story I have def never heard before about keith and his junk use.

Never heard/read that before. Thanks for posting.
Sounds like Keith was very desperate in those days.

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

A lot of bands had issues with their principal creative elements being hooked on smack (Led Zep, the Who, Derek and the Dominos, the Allmans, etc). There might be a rise for a while (sometimes a few years), but, when the crash comes, things are often shattered.

Keith once said it's an occupational hazard, and it does seem to be that way.

And I think perhaps he was on it for longer than what has been officially recorded??? Who knows?

Again, odd to think as Keith got heavier into smack, the Stones got more popular.
But at least we still have him around, I couldn't imagine what the Stones would have been like w/ out their later works and tours. Or would have Mick replaced him, even though we all know he is irreplaceable?

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

Heroin and other opioids have been a very large number of famous people. Here is our on-going project to provide short biographies of heroin celebrities

John Belushi

Belushi was a heavy cocaine user through most of his adult life. Right at the end of his life, he began using heroin. His death is widely attributed to a speed ball overdose but it was likely a cocaine overdose.

David Bowie
A heavy cocaine and occasional heroin user.

William S. Burroughs
Burroughs was the father of the "beat" movement with books like Junkie and The Naked Lunch.

Kurt Cobain
Kurt Cobain is a tragic figure in the heroin subculture. Most people think that drugs killed him, but in the end it seems more likely that he was killed by the intolerance of those around him who could not come to terms with his drug use.

Miles Davis
Miles Davis was one of the inventors of cool jazz.

Thomas De Quincy
The writer of Confessions of an English Opium Eater was an opium addict for almost fifty years--the William S. Burroughs of his day!
Robert Downey, Jr.
The most oppressed man in America?

Ben Franklin
This founding father was known to occasionally use opium recreationally.

Jerry Garcia
Although the Grateful Dead are strongly associated with psychedelics--especially LSD--Garcia used heroin on and off throughout most of his adult life. His death is often attributed to "heroin overdose" like the death the just about any famous heroin user. Garcia was a chain-smoker who was also quite over-weight and in poor overall health. This is undoubtably the primary reason for his death: general system failure. The official causes was heart failure which he experienced at a rehab clinic.

Boy George
He wasn't a junkie for long, but he has some good stories about being an addict.

Herman Goering
Goering became a morphine addict in WWI because of an injury. He stayed addicted to morphine for the rest of his life. In WWI, he was an ace pilot with 22 confirmed "kills". Under @#$%&, he was the commander of the Nazi air force (Luftwaffe). He was so liked by @#$%&, that @#$%& named him his successor; various failures during WWII, however, caused him to fall out of favor with the Nazi leader who used him publicly as a scapegoat for war troubles. Goering is most remembered as the leader of the Luftwaffe, but he is an excellent example of how little a problem opioid addiction is, when the opioid is legal and readily available. Goering was found guilty of war crimes after WWII and sentenced to hang--he killed himself before the sentence could be carried out.

Billie Holiday
Billie Holiday was one of the greatest singers of this century. But like many great artists the US government treated her very poorly.

Love
Love was the psychedelic version of the Velvet Underground. In it's original incarnation, it did not last long but still managed to produce two of the greatest rock albums ever.

Bela Lugosi
"Dracula" spent a decade plus addicted to morphine and methadone.
Charlie Parker
Probably the greatest sax player of all time, Parker was also a life-long heroin addict.

Edgar Allan Poe
Since Poe died before heroin was invented, he clearly never used heroin. It is well-documented, however, that he used opium with some regularity.

Elvis Presley
You doubt us? You doubt that the king of rock-n-roll was a junkie? We'll provide you with the facts--you can decide for yourself. Also check out the strange story of Elvis and Nixon.

Keith Richards
We'll get around to dealing with him soon enough.

Tom Sizemore
You may remember him as the sick cop who kills a prostitute in Natural Born Killers. The word is that he is now off smack. The story goes that Robert De Niro showed up on Tom's doorstep one morning with Tom's mom to confront him about his heroin use (I'm so touched my eyes are getting all watery). One telling has De Niro threatening to turn Sizemore into the police for "heroin use" which may be true even though heroin use is not illegal--De Niro wouldn't necessarily know this fine point of law. I wrote a short rant about how I would like to see him playing fewer cops.

James Taylor
The prototypical "singer/songwriter" of the 1970s was an on again, off again heroin user.

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

Heroin got its name from the German term for heroic, as those who tried it out it in its early days reported feeling valiant and heroic after ingesting or being injected with it. Heroin is an opium-based drug derived from the drug morphine. In its early years, this drug was marketed as the antidote to morphine addiction and was even lobbied by a pharmaceutical company to be distributed freely through mail to all morphine addicts. But after a few years of medical use, this substance proved to be an aggressive drug, as addicting as morphine. Finally, in the early 1900s, heroin was listed as a narcotic substance and was subsequently banned from being produced, distributed, and used in the United States.(1) With it, drug and alcohol rehab programs came to the rescue of heroin users.

Heroin, in smaller doses and in slightly different forms, may also be used for medicinal purposes. Marketed under the name of diamorphine, this drug is used to provide pain relief when administered through IV or subcutaneous ways.(2) Despite its medical use, heroin, when taken in large doses and used when not needed, could not only be addicting but could also result in eventual death because of overdose. Some heroin users also show change in behavior that often lead to conflicts with their relationships. Fortunately, there are drug and alcohol rehab centers to help patients cope with withdrawal symptoms for them to be able to kick the bad habit and stay clean. The program comes in many different forms but normally includes detoxification, counseling, and group therapy. One of the main objectives is to address the underlying cause and help build broken relationships. Options include undergoing in-patient or out-patient treatment.(3)

Heroin-inspired creativity

Though heroin has detrimental effects to the body and to the mind, it cannot be denied that more than just a handful of the greatest personalities in popular culture were users of this illegal drug. Some of the greatest works of literature, music, and art have been purported to have been made while in the throes of the drug and even after a person has quit using heroin for good with the help of rehabilitation.(4)

And though there are people who are too far gone into physical and mental decline due to drug abuse, there are those who recover and still contribute significantly to humanity. Here are just a few of the famous personalities of our time who have gotten over their “bad” habits and started living again.

Robert Downey Jr. (actor)

In between his stints as America’s boy next door and comeback king of the moment, Robert Downey Jr. was a heroin user. He did time in prison for a number of charges and went out of the limelight for a few years. In recent years, however, he rebounded and once again graced the silverscreen with the hit movie “Iron Man” followed by his controversial and comedic take on an Australian actor playing an African-American soldier in the movie “Tropic Thunder.” Yep, after heroin and all the other shenanigans, Robert Downey Jr. is definitely back.(5)

David Bowie (musician)

All those psychedelic explorations and unique sounds in his music could come from the real semi-lucid states when Bowie was under the influence of heroin. Though heroin has been noted as a drug that can cause impairment and eventual death, it helped produce some of the finest and most creative musical pieces. David Bowie then went on to have a very colorful career not only in music, but also in acting on movies and on stage.(6)

James Taylor (singer, songwriter)


Who would have thought that the romantic and love-themed crooning of singer/songwriter James Taylor were influenced by this drug. Apparently, James Taylor was a habitual user even before he hit big time. His substance abuse continued even during his peak years. Though he found and lost professional contacts due to his erratic behavior when under the influence, it cannot be denied that he was a prolific songwriter who produced tunes that are well-loved even today.(7)

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (lawyer, politician)

The Kennedys were a force to reckon with in the 1960s. Unfortunately, political struggles and the so-called Camelot curse put an end to their ideals. The next Kennedys in line still held the spotlight, but for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., it was a different kind of publicity after he was caught with heroin in his bag while on a flight to Dakota in 1983. The heroin user then turned his life around and now runs his own law firm. Rober Kennedy, Jr. doesn’t seem to display the same ardent interests in politics as the earlier generations of this distinguished family did, but he is a staunch activist working to preserve and improve the environment.(8)

Irvine Welsh (author of Trainspotting)

The memorable ‘rite of passage’ movie “Trainspotting” moved audiences around the world with its shocking but poignant portrayal of the lives of a group of junkies in Scotland. The movie was based on an equally spectacular novel written by Irvine Welsh, a writer who rose to the ranks as one the most highly creative novelists we have today. Though Welsh admitted to only doing heroin for 18 months, he clearly had the will to get up and leave the experience behind, eventually penning novels that saw worldwide acclaim.(9) Trainspotting wasn’t just fiction spun out of the blue but had elements that Irvine Welsh may have experienced during his days as a heroin user. After a string of successful novels turned blockbusters, Welsh has sponsored charities in his native country, Scotland.

Jim Carroll (author of The Basketball Diaries)

One of the movies that propelled actor Leonardo Di Caprio to stardom is “The Basketball Diaries.” The movie is based on the biographical novel written by writer slash punk musician Jim Carroll. Jim Carroll published some of the accounts of his teenage years in New York where his early life revolved around basketball, gangs, and drugs.(10)

William Burroughs (author of Junkie and The Naked Lunch)


William Burroughs was one of the most resounding voices of the Beat generation. In his first novel entitled “Junkie,” he offered details of his life as a heroin dealer in Greenwich Village. The lifestyle of heroin addicts was aptly described in the novel, shedding light to the seedy side of then puritanical America. His other novel, the “Naked Lunch,” which was made into a movie, also tackled addiction to heroin and other controlled substances.(11) Though Burroughs received acclaim through his writings and other works, heroin eventually caught up with him. Still, Burroughs was able to live out his life till he turned 83.(12)

These are just some of the personalities who have been users of heroin. While it may be argued that some of them produced their finest work while in the influence of the drug, it’s apparent that the effects of heroin come at a price on both the mind and the body. However, one gets to thinking that there have been countless musicians, novelists, actors, and other personalities who have come up with their masterpieces without even using the drug.

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

[archives.cbc.ca]

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

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

Ronnie spilling the beans about his "pal"'s dirty secrets. Jo had already told the Paris hotel episode but she had carefully avoided any mention of IV injection.

Ron you just stabbed a mate in the back...

Quote
dcba
Ronnie spilling the beans about his "pal"'s dirty secrets. Jo had already told the Paris hotel episode but she had carefully avoided any mention of IV injection.

Ron you just stabbed a mate in the back...

Not quite just, that article is over 2 years old, and it's about a story that was in Ronnie's book. His telling of it hardly just happened.

I get the impression that his heroin use during 1968 - 1969 was nothing more than occasional use, no needles etc.

Not wishing to put too much emphasis on it, but I do wonder if Brian's death resulted in an increase of heroin use.

1970 seems to be the year in which Heroin started to have a negative effect.

Quote
His Majesty

Not wishing to put too much emphasis on it, but I do wonder if Brian's death resulted in an increase of heroin use.

.

Is it not possible that both Keith and Anita turned to heroin as an aid for their 'guilt' over the treatment of Brian Jones?

Tony Sanchez was rather too the point on this ,as we all can read or have red in his famous book.

I don't think that during the Stones "peak" (68-72) Keith's heroin use was a major issue in terms of creativity...there might be "crazy" stories of course, but not related to music, during those years he was as creative as ever in the studio, live it was HIS band...driving the song with his rhythms, also in the interviews from this period, as the one in 1971 that was posted here some weeks ago, or the famous Rolling Stone interview from the same year, he seems really coherent and insightful, of course sooner or later it was going to get the best of him, as any drug addiction will. The mid 70's were probably his worse heroin years, but the decline of the Stones records was not only due to Keith being a junkie, not for me at least. Anyway, I agree that is a terrible habit, just my two cents on Keith and heroin.

I do not know when Keith started using. All I know is that the Keith of the Gimme Shelter film, Exile and the '72 tour is a different Keith than Black & Blue and the '75-'76 tours. Heroin makes you feel like you could walk on water at first. Then it does what it does. It is very fortunate that he was wealthy enough and lucky enough to not buy some bad stuff and off himself. Heroin addiction is, in the end, a very selfish journey. Yes, I wonder how long he was really into it and how he really got off it (or IF he really got off it completely). I don't know what to make of the conflicting stories. But Keith's bravura boasts of "I never had a drug problem, only a police problem" are just that -bravura. There is a moment of honesty in Exile when he talks about why he used (to get away from fame and people's expectations) but I seriously doubt that's the whole story. I also doubt whether is new auto biography will shed a lot of light on the issue.

Quote
71Tele
I do not know when Keith started using. All I know is that the Keith of the Gimme Shelter film, Exile and the '72 tour is a different Keith than Black & Blue and the '75-'76 tours. Heroin makes you feel like you could walk on water at first. Then it does what it does. It is very fortunate that he was wealthy enough and lucky enough to not buy some bad stuff and off himself. Heroin addiction is, in the end, a very selfish journey. Yes, I wonder how long he was really into it and how he really got off it (or IF he really got off it completely). I don't know what to make of the conflicting stories. But Keith's bravura boasts of "I never had a drug problem, only a police problem" are just that -bravura. There is a moment of honesty in Exile when he talks about why he used (to get away from fame and people's expectations) but I seriously doubt that's the whole story. I also doubt whether is new auto biography will shed a lot of light on the issue.

In Stanley Booth's True Adventures book he tells a story about Keith inviting him back to his room and doing heroin. He quotes Keith as saying he just does it occasionally at that point. So he must have started in 68 or 69. I think 67 is too early, because, I think, he still had that girlfriend then, forget her name, she was a model though, that did heroin, and supposedly flipped out when he became aware of her use of such heavy drugs.

I think it comes from Bockris's book, which I know means it should be taken with a liberal dose of salt, but he lays out a theory that says Keith bought Redlands with the goal of settling down with that particular girl, only to have her break his heart when he proposed to her. After that, he became a much harder, colder person who seemed resolved to not let anyone hurt him in such a way again. Harder drug use seemed to coincide/follow with this event.

I know since it's from Bockris it's supposed to be suspect, but his timeline adds up, things didn't end smoothly with that particular girl, and Keith did appear to be much more innocent and sensitive before that breakup. She was apparently his first serious love, and she supposedly crushed him.

After reading that, and other more reputable things since that I feel back it up, I've always felt that the heartache from that breakup led to his advanced drug-induced misadventures. It seems to have knocked him for a loop that triggered other things.

Just a theory though, who knows why such a seemingly smart individual as Keith would choose a path that involved heroin. He seemed to be more clever than that to me.

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
71Tele
I do not know when Keith started using. All I know is that the Keith of the Gimme Shelter film, Exile and the '72 tour is a different Keith than Black & Blue and the '75-'76 tours. Heroin makes you feel like you could walk on water at first. Then it does what it does. It is very fortunate that he was wealthy enough and lucky enough to not buy some bad stuff and off himself. Heroin addiction is, in the end, a very selfish journey. Yes, I wonder how long he was really into it and how he really got off it (or IF he really got off it completely). I don't know what to make of the conflicting stories. But Keith's bravura boasts of "I never had a drug problem, only a police problem" are just that -bravura. There is a moment of honesty in Exile when he talks about why he used (to get away from fame and people's expectations) but I seriously doubt that's the whole story. I also doubt whether is new auto biography will shed a lot of light on the issue.

In Stanley Booth's True Adventures book he tells a story about Keith inviting him back to his room and doing heroin. He quotes Keith as saying he just does it occasionally at that point. So he must have started in 68 or 69. I think 67 is too early, because, I think, he still had that girlfriend then, forget her name, she was a model though, that did heroin, and supposedly flipped out when he became aware of her use of such heavy drugs.

I think it comes from Bockris's book, which I know means it should be taken with a liberal dose of salt, but he lays out a theory that says Keith bought Redlands with the goal of settling down with that particular girl, only to have her break his heart when he proposed to her. After that, he became a much harder, colder person who seemed resolved to not let anyone hurt him in such a way again. Harder drug use seemed to coincide/follow with this event.

I know since it's from Bockris it's supposed to be suspect, but his timeline adds up, things didn't end smoothly with that particular girl, and Keith did appear to be much more innocent and sensitive before that breakup. She was apparently his first serious love, and she supposedly crushed him.

After reading that, and other more reputable things since that I feel back it up, I've always felt that the heartache from that breakup led to his advanced drug-induced misadventures. It seems to have knocked him for a loop that triggered other things.

Just a theory though, who knows why such a seemingly smart individual as Keith would choose a path that involved heroin. He seemed to be more clever than that to me.

Do you mean Linda Keith? Interesting...But then he got the girl he wanted - Anita - and they both proceeded to become junkies. Hard to know what happens deep inside the psyche of a person. He did seem to relish this kind of coldness after he took up with junk, but I have only read the same stories from Tony Sanchez, etc, that everyone else has.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
71Tele
I do not know when Keith started using. All I know is that the Keith of the Gimme Shelter film, Exile and the '72 tour is a different Keith than Black & Blue and the '75-'76 tours. Heroin makes you feel like you could walk on water at first. Then it does what it does. It is very fortunate that he was wealthy enough and lucky enough to not buy some bad stuff and off himself. Heroin addiction is, in the end, a very selfish journey. Yes, I wonder how long he was really into it and how he really got off it (or IF he really got off it completely). I don't know what to make of the conflicting stories. But Keith's bravura boasts of "I never had a drug problem, only a police problem" are just that -bravura. There is a moment of honesty in Exile when he talks about why he used (to get away from fame and people's expectations) but I seriously doubt that's the whole story. I also doubt whether is new auto biography will shed a lot of light on the issue.

In Stanley Booth's True Adventures book he tells a story about Keith inviting him back to his room and doing heroin. He quotes Keith as saying he just does it occasionally at that point. So he must have started in 68 or 69. I think 67 is too early, because, I think, he still had that girlfriend then, forget her name, she was a model though, that did heroin, and supposedly flipped out when he became aware of her use of such heavy drugs.

I think it comes from Bockris's book, which I know means it should be taken with a liberal dose of salt, but he lays out a theory that says Keith bought Redlands with the goal of settling down with that particular girl, only to have her break his heart when he proposed to her. After that, he became a much harder, colder person who seemed resolved to not let anyone hurt him in such a way again. Harder drug use seemed to coincide/follow with this event.

I know since it's from Bockris it's supposed to be suspect, but his timeline adds up, things didn't end smoothly with that particular girl, and Keith did appear to be much more innocent and sensitive before that breakup. She was apparently his first serious love, and she supposedly crushed him.

After reading that, and other more reputable things since that I feel back it up, I've always felt that the heartache from that breakup led to his advanced drug-induced misadventures. It seems to have knocked him for a loop that triggered other things.

Just a theory though, who knows why such a seemingly smart individual as Keith would choose a path that involved heroin. He seemed to be more clever than that to me.

Do you mean Linda Keith? Interesting...But then he got the girl he wanted - Anita - and they both proceeded to become junkies. Hard to know what happens deep inside the psyche of a person. He did seem to relish this kind of coldness after he took up with junk, but I have only read the same stories from Tony Sanchez, etc, that everyone else has.

Well, it's only a theory. I'm curious to know if there was a person who formally (haha) introduced Keith to heroin. Maybe I've read it somewhere, but if so, it's lost to the sands of time. Was it Anita?

I don't think Anita was Keith's ultimate goal, and I'm not saying that's what you meant, but from what I've read and remember, I don't think he had an Eric Clapton like love for the girl of one of his friends, I think it just happened. And if they hadn't of all taken that fateful trip to Morocco, and if Brian hadn't gotten physical with her, Keith and Anita likely would never of happened.

Linda Keith, that is correct, and his relishing of a certain kind of coldness after taking up with junk I think is part of the result of his break-up with her. But again, this is only what I believe to be the case, I'm certainly not trying to say it's the final word.

Going by the last of your post, I'm curious, have you read the True Adventures Of The Rolling Stones?

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
71Tele
I do not know when Keith started using. All I know is that the Keith of the Gimme Shelter film, Exile and the '72 tour is a different Keith than Black & Blue and the '75-'76 tours. Heroin makes you feel like you could walk on water at first. Then it does what it does. It is very fortunate that he was wealthy enough and lucky enough to not buy some bad stuff and off himself. Heroin addiction is, in the end, a very selfish journey. Yes, I wonder how long he was really into it and how he really got off it (or IF he really got off it completely). I don't know what to make of the conflicting stories. But Keith's bravura boasts of "I never had a drug problem, only a police problem" are just that -bravura. There is a moment of honesty in Exile when he talks about why he used (to get away from fame and people's expectations) but I seriously doubt that's the whole story. I also doubt whether is new auto biography will shed a lot of light on the issue.

In Stanley Booth's True Adventures book he tells a story about Keith inviting him back to his room and doing heroin. He quotes Keith as saying he just does it occasionally at that point. So he must have started in 68 or 69. I think 67 is too early, because, I think, he still had that girlfriend then, forget her name, she was a model though, that did heroin, and supposedly flipped out when he became aware of her use of such heavy drugs.

I think it comes from Bockris's book, which I know means it should be taken with a liberal dose of salt, but he lays out a theory that says Keith bought Redlands with the goal of settling down with that particular girl, only to have her break his heart when he proposed to her. After that, he became a much harder, colder person who seemed resolved to not let anyone hurt him in such a way again. Harder drug use seemed to coincide/follow with this event.

I know since it's from Bockris it's supposed to be suspect, but his timeline adds up, things didn't end smoothly with that particular girl, and Keith did appear to be much more innocent and sensitive before that breakup. She was apparently his first serious love, and she supposedly crushed him.

After reading that, and other more reputable things since that I feel back it up, I've always felt that the heartache from that breakup led to his advanced drug-induced misadventures. It seems to have knocked him for a loop that triggered other things.

Just a theory though, who knows why such a seemingly smart individual as Keith would choose a path that involved heroin. He seemed to be more clever than that to me.

Do you mean Linda Keith? Interesting...But then he got the girl he wanted - Anita - and they both proceeded to become junkies. Hard to know what happens deep inside the psyche of a person. He did seem to relish this kind of coldness after he took up with junk, but I have only read the same stories from Tony Sanchez, etc, that everyone else has.

Well, it's only a theory. I'm curious to know if there was a person who formally (haha) introduced Keith to heroin. Maybe I've read it somewhere, but if so, it's lost to the sands of time. Was it Anita?

I don't think Anita was Keith's ultimate goal, and I'm not saying that's what you meant, but from what I've read and remember, I don't think he had an Eric Clapton like love for the girl of one of his friends, I think it just happened. And if they hadn't of all taken that fateful trip to Morocco, and if Brian hadn't gotten physical with her, Keith and Anita likely would never of happened.

Linda Keith, that is correct, and his relishing of a certain kind of coldness after taking up with junk I think is part of the result of his break-up with her. But again, this is only what I believe to be the case, I'm certainly not trying to say it's the final word.

Going by the last of your post, I'm curious, have you read the True Adventures Of The Rolling Stones?

Is that the one by Booth? No, I don't think so. Is it worth the read? I admit that my ideas on this subject are as much conjecture as anyone's. Very hard to figure out why some people (Mick Jagger, me, for example) can try things out without much difficulty and others become junkies/alcoholics. Part psychology, part brain chemistry, I suppose.

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.

Quote
JimmyPhelge
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.

Gutsy of you to share this, Jimmy. I have my own demons, but fortunately never that one. I think almost everyone in "Circus" is on smack. Pete Townshend talks about it in the commentary for the DVD. Keith looked great through about '73, then he looked sick and horrible. Probably also why they went onstage three hours late during the '75 tour.

Two months is great. Hang in there!

Lou Reed wrote a great melody about Heroin .

Reality is worse,looking around me in the the center of Amsterdam..
The local government takes "rather good care" of them the last years: They don't look like junkies that bad. And my bike never gets stolen anymore.But the suffering continues. Poor people,I pity them.

I don't know if I completely understand the original question...is it how could Keith's heroin addiction both help and hurt his ability to be prolific and productive? how did he start and when did it turn south?

Well, I'm not 100% that this is correct but I believe it was Robert Fraser who turned Keith onto heroin. I thought the story was Keith was hanging out at Rbt Fraser's house in London during the filming of Performance because Fraser's house was down the block from the house where Performance was being shot. While whiling away the hours with Fraser before picking up Anita at the set, Keith tried snorting speedballs - heroin mixed with coke. Fraser, of course, was a heroin junkie already (see: Redlands bust). Keith "said" in one book or other he'd do speedballs while Anita and Mick were doing their thing on (and off ) the set, and he would furiously write the songs that would end up on Let It Bleed.

John Lennon said Robert Fraser turned him onto heroin. Incidentally, Yoko's art exhibit where John and Yoko met was curated and sponsored by Robert Fraser.

Anita has said in recent years she started shooting heroin during the filming of Performance.

btw...correct - Linda Keith was no stranger to drugs, and had more than a passing acquaintance with heroin. But, from what I recall, Keith objected to her drug use in general -- I don't think he singled out heroin, but rather how often she was fuckedup on one drug or other and not present in their relationship. As late as August 1966 Keith contacted Linda Keith's parents to tell them she was living a wild life in NYC with a bad sort buy the name of Jimi Hendrix and that they should go and fetch her and bring her back to England (which they did).

- swiss

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
71Tele
I do not know when Keith started using. All I know is that the Keith of the Gimme Shelter film, Exile and the '72 tour is a different Keith than Black & Blue and the '75-'76 tours. Heroin makes you feel like you could walk on water at first. Then it does what it does. It is very fortunate that he was wealthy enough and lucky enough to not buy some bad stuff and off himself. Heroin addiction is, in the end, a very selfish journey. Yes, I wonder how long he was really into it and how he really got off it (or IF he really got off it completely). I don't know what to make of the conflicting stories. But Keith's bravura boasts of "I never had a drug problem, only a police problem" are just that -bravura. There is a moment of honesty in Exile when he talks about why he used (to get away from fame and people's expectations) but I seriously doubt that's the whole story. I also doubt whether is new auto biography will shed a lot of light on the issue.

In Stanley Booth's True Adventures book he tells a story about Keith inviting him back to his room and doing heroin. He quotes Keith as saying he just does it occasionally at that point. So he must have started in 68 or 69. I think 67 is too early, because, I think, he still had that girlfriend then, forget her name, she was a model though, that did heroin, and supposedly flipped out when he became aware of her use of such heavy drugs.

I think it comes from Bockris's book, which I know means it should be taken with a liberal dose of salt, but he lays out a theory that says Keith bought Redlands with the goal of settling down with that particular girl, only to have her break his heart when he proposed to her. After that, he became a much harder, colder person who seemed resolved to not let anyone hurt him in such a way again. Harder drug use seemed to coincide/follow with this event.

I know since it's from Bockris it's supposed to be suspect, but his timeline adds up, things didn't end smoothly with that particular girl, and Keith did appear to be much more innocent and sensitive before that breakup. She was apparently his first serious love, and she supposedly crushed him.

After reading that, and other more reputable things since that I feel back it up, I've always felt that the heartache from that breakup led to his advanced drug-induced misadventures. It seems to have knocked him for a loop that triggered other things.

Just a theory though, who knows why such a seemingly smart individual as Keith would choose a path that involved heroin. He seemed to be more clever than that to me.

Do you mean Linda Keith? Interesting...But then he got the girl he wanted - Anita - and they both proceeded to become junkies. Hard to know what happens deep inside the psyche of a person. He did seem to relish this kind of coldness after he took up with junk, but I have only read the same stories from Tony Sanchez, etc, that everyone else has.

Well, it's only a theory. I'm curious to know if there was a person who formally (haha) introduced Keith to heroin. Maybe I've read it somewhere, but if so, it's lost to the sands of time. Was it Anita?

I don't think Anita was Keith's ultimate goal, and I'm not saying that's what you meant, but from what I've read and remember, I don't think he had an Eric Clapton like love for the girl of one of his friends, I think it just happened. And if they hadn't of all taken that fateful trip to Morocco, and if Brian hadn't gotten physical with her, Keith and Anita likely would never of happened.

Linda Keith, that is correct, and his relishing of a certain kind of coldness after taking up with junk I think is part of the result of his break-up with her. But again, this is only what I believe to be the case, I'm certainly not trying to say it's the final word.

Going by the last of your post, I'm curious, have you read the True Adventures Of The Rolling Stones?

Is that the one by Booth? No, I don't think so. Is it worth the read? I admit that my ideas on this subject are as much conjecture as anyone's. Very hard to figure out why some people (Mick Jagger, me, for example) can try things out without much difficulty and others become junkies/alcoholics. Part psychology, part brain chemistry, I suppose.

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.

Quote
swiss
I don't know if I completely understand the original question...is it how could Keith's heroin addiction both help and hurt his ability to be prolific and productive? how did he start and when did it turn south?

Well, I'm not 100% that this is correct but I believe it was Robert Fraser who turned Keith onto heroin. I thought the story was Keith was hanging out at Rbt Fraser's house in London during the filming of Performance because Fraser's house was down the block from the house where Performance was being shot. While whiling away the hours with Fraser before picking up Anita at the set, Keith tried snorting speedballs - heroin mixed with coke. Fraser, of course, was a heroin junkie already (see: Redlands bust). Keith "said" in one book or other he'd do speedballs while Anita and Mick were doing their thing on (and off ) the set, and he would furiously write the songs that would end up on Let It Bleed.

John Lennon said Robert Fraser turned him onto heroin. Incidentally, Yoko's art exhibit where John and Yoko met was curated and sponsored by Robert Fraser.

Anita has said in recent years she started shooting heroin during the filming of Performance.

btw...correct - Linda Keith was no stranger to drugs, and had more than a passing acquaintance with heroin. But, from what I recall, Keith objected to her drug use in general -- I don't think he singled out heroin, but rather how often she was fuckedup on one drug or other and not present in their relationship. As late as August 1966 Keith contacted Linda Keith's parents to tell them she was living a wild life in NYC with a bad sort buy the name of Jimi Hendrix and that they should go and fetch her and bring her back to England (which they did).

- swiss

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."

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Tele71
Is that the one by Booth? No, I don't think so. Is it worth the read? I admit that my ideas on this subject are as much conjecture as anyone's. Very hard to figure out why some people (Mick Jagger, me, for example) can try things out without much difficulty and others become junkies/alcoholics. Part psychology, part brain chemistry, I suppose.

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.

That was the best review I've ever read on this book! I agree with every word! The '69 tour parts are best, but the whole book is great. I even wrote a short paper on this book in literature class at university (in Swedish).

After this book, my second favourite Stones book is Nankering With the Stones, by James Phelge.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-02 00:27 by LieB.

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.

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

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".