Reading "Life" just makes me love Keith even more than I already did. His life and art inspire me daily, and I can't imagine a world without him.

Drew

I don't think I want to read another book about him...I like to keep it at his word. I never knew the man until I read his book, when I was a kid in the 70s (Im 47) a older guy told me he was a terrible person...I though he would know better than me, after reading the book I don't think Keith is all that bad.

Cool. A positive thread about Keith and his book. I like that.
Just wonder how long it will last

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

the only thing I'm not liking so far is Marlon's role as roadie, and keeping keef alert behind the wheel of the Bentley.

Mick's rock, I'm roll.

I finished the book and having spent a little bit of time with Keith on a few occasions over the past 13 years, I think it really comes across as if he was just talking to you. I've never heard any of the feelings as he expresses them in here about Mick, drugs or chicks, but his quick wit and tongue come across as if he's talking to you, which is a nice quality and a bit unusual for me when it comes to reading autobiographies.

I agree, it makes me like him more in some ways, but as a parent of teenagers and not wanting them to mess with drugs as its such a crap shoot I'd prefer they avoid, I have some mixed feelings as in a way it does glorify the use of drugs, but it also is a good reason to not do drugs, at least in excess.

All those situations with him and Mick are now a lot more understandable, and I hope it causes Mick to stop and think a bit before they work together next. Hopefully, as a result of this, they can collaborate again together, not as individual players but as team members of a group.

If mick really said the only issue is the singing coach comment, which would be a bit ironic, I think maybe he will get what Keith is saying.

We've all had friendships go south, and many of those we wish we could rekindle, but in many cases the spark is gone for good and theyre better left alone. In these guys case, they are connected like brothers, or mom and pop, and they hopefully can work through their differences in the twilight of their careers to once again create some of the special magic they have so often made together. Sounds like were gonna watch that very thing happen before our eyes again, at least one more time, and knowing Keith, probably to some degree for as long as we're blessed with his presence on earth.

For me this confirms horrible suspicions I didnt even conjure. I will never look at Richards with serious respect again. His deceit and hostility is earmark junkie hate. BORING. Hes the new Steven Adler or the actor from the old yank sitcomTaxi doing a whining crying demand for a diaper change or whatever on Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew. The Stones long ridiculous charade of tepid sloppy coasting on 60s and early 70s excellence is for sale and its a novelty act and soap opera and hes really a vicious ugly lazy character to me. I am ok with the reality of it. The shit music on DW was already The Junkie Stones. I am just surprised that hes such a doofus lost in narcissism but hey, those that cant measure up and be a man instead of a rehab gary busey (but dumber) kind of fake gangster always are haters. What an ashh hole are words Id never dream ever remotely dream of thinking about my supreme teenage guitar messiah. But what a complete vicious impotent lazy poof this very little screwjob is after years of syncophants millions of bucks and a selfish addiction to his own ego posturing. Gosh i hope he dosent pull a blade or shooter on me with four hired bodyguards kissing his lazy punk ass. Wish the book never came out. I wont even refer to him by his firsst name anymore. But when I mention Stephen Adler here on IORR you will know who I am really referring to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 02:15 by mockingbird3.

Quote
chelskeith
I finished the book and having spent a little bit of time with Keith on a few occasions over the past 13 years, I think it really comes across as if he was just talking to you. I've never heard any of the feelings as he expresses them in here about Mick, drugs or chicks, but his quick wit and tongue come across as if he's talking to you, which is a nice quality and a bit unusual for me when it comes to reading autobiographies.

I agree, it makes me like him more in some ways, but as a parent of teenagers and not wanting them to mess with drugs as its such a crap shoot I'd prefer they avoid, I have some mixed feelings as in a way it does glorify the use of drugs, but it also is a good reason to not do drugs, at least in excess.

All those situations with him and Mick are now a lot more understandable, and I hope it causes Mick to stop and think a bit before they work together next. Hopefully, as a result of this, they can collaborate again together, not as individual players but as team members of a group.

If mick really said the only issue is the singing coach comment, which would be a bit ironic, I think maybe he will get what Keith is saying.

We've all had friendships go south, and many of those we wish we could rekindle, but in many cases the spark is gone for good and theyre better left alone. In these guys case, they are connected like brothers, or mom and pop, and they hopefully can work through their differences in the twilight of their careers to once again create some of the special magic they have so often made together. Sounds like were gonna watch that very thing happen before our eyes again, at least one more time, and knowing Keith, probably to some degree for as long as we're blessed with his presence on earth.

I think what the book actually shows is that for some 30 years - which is bloody long time - Mick and Keih hadn't get along at all. I thought it was a bit better since 1989 but what Keith testimonies and emphasizes here seem to be much worse than I ever thought.

I don't buy the brotherhood thing at all. Once when asked about this brotherhood thing, Jagger answered that he has a brother and his name is Chris. Mick and Keith are business partners and they tolarate each other for that. Maybe they once were friends who had same dreams and ideals but that was some 50-40 yaers ago! Then for a decade or so, Mick babied Keith because the band needed him musically. Now (last 30 years) Mick just tolarates him because the band needs Keith imagewise. Keith basically has just whined and consulted Jack Daniels and Smirnoff for the last 20-30 years. Posed drunk, played bad guitar and created few night club ballads - but most of all: concentrated to act according to his own myth. LIFE if anything gives a great revalation how childish man and - to use his own word of preference - "unbearable" with all his guns and addictions (and easily wounded ego) our hero is. I totally understand Jagger's difficult position. There is nothing for him to "get" in reading this book. But Keith could with some of the milliards he has earned in Jagger's and Cohl's hihgway to get himself a mirror. A BIG mirror.

Keith Richards - the creative heart and soul of The Rolling Stones - never survived the 70's. (Jagger didn't survive the 80's but that is another story.)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 02:58 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa


Keith Richards - the creative heart and soul of The Rolling Stones - never survived the 70's. (Jagger didn't survive the 80's but that is another story.)

- Doxa

So the difference between Mick and Keith is just 10 years. In my book they both didn't survive Taylor's quit. IORR may not be a very good album but it has at least Time Waits FNO, Dance Little Sister and Fingerprint F. Best song since ages (despite bad vocals): Plundered My Soul! Guess who's on that song.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa


Keith Richards - the creative heart and soul of The Rolling Stones - never survived the 70's. (Jagger didn't survive the 80's but that is another story.)

- Doxa

So the difference between Mick and Keith is just 10 years. In my book they both didn't survive Taylor's quit. IORR may not be a very good album but it has at least Time Waits FNO, Dance Little Sister and Fingerprint F. Best song since ages (despite bad vocals): Plundered My Soul! Guess who's on that song.

Hmm.. how surprised I am to hear this from your mouth... But thanks reminding me of "Plundered My Soul". It would be really interesting to know what Keith actually does think of Taylor's involvement. As far as I know, it all occurred without Keith knowing it. But as the book shows - and in fact EXILE project shows - Jagger doesn't pay much attention to informing Keith or/in order to not having him too much involved. I can understand that very well.

In LIFE Keith speaks warmly of Taylor's Stones years. But meanwhile Keith was just memoiring, Mick asked Taylor to attend a Stones record session...

- Doxa

Keith is at his most unaffected and "real" when he is talking about the early days with Mick (when they indeed were like brothers), his love of bluesmen like Muddy and John Lee Hooker, learning those blues tricks on guitar, etc. At some point the rock star persona kicks in and it's all score-settling and posturing. I love the guy. I can't stand the guy.

i wish he'd done what dylan did - release the book - and shut the f up - go on the road and play - stop talking about yourself for chrissakes!

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa


Keith Richards - the creative heart and soul of The Rolling Stones - never survived the 70's. (Jagger didn't survive the 80's but that is another story.)

- Doxa

So the difference between Mick and Keith is just 10 years. In my book they both didn't survive Taylor's quit. IORR may not be a very good album but it has at least Time Waits FNO, Dance Little Sister and Fingerprint F. Best song since ages (despite bad vocals): Plundered My Soul! Guess who's on that song.

I don't think Taylor was even missed, necessarily to the wider public perception of the Stones. The Stones were already on a huge downwards spiral with 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll'. Ok. Taylor augmented 'Time Waits For No-One' pretty well on his guitar, but that doesn't stop 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' being arguably the weakest Stones album of the seventies. The Stones pretty much stopped rolling after 'Tattoo You' and the the 81-82 tours in my opinion. Those events in the early eighties may have been some distance from the Stones true peak in terms of quality, but so was the Stones 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' album. Keith confirms pretty much the time when fundamentally he and Jagger no longer managed to see eye to eye on most things, and that very much co-incides with when the Stones musical quality began to decline on a truly consistent level, around the time of 'Emotional Rescue', and had it not been for the outtakes filled 'Tattoo You', 'Emotional Rescue' would undoubtedly have heralded the start of an unbroken run of mediocre, or even bad Stones albums. That's why for all the stick given to Keith's recollections, for me there is certainly an element of truth in what he's saying, and certainly with regard the eighties era onwards, which is clearly for all to see within the grooves of the album releases.

Like he says of Mick and Brian, Keith has shown himself to be an interesting bunch of guys. personally, I think he was ruined by his addictions, even though they haven't yet killed him.

He asked once (paraphrasing) why Mick wasn't happy, and what was so hard about being Mick Jagger?

Well, I wonder what is so hard about being Keith Richards, that he has to anaesthetise himself with drugs and alcohol for the last 42 years. He says it is a way of cocooning himself from the pressures of fame, well, how hard is it to cocoon yourself in your various estates around the world, guarded by people whose job it is to keep the public away from you? Apart from his infant son dying of cot death, Keith has suffered very little tragedy in his life, compared to others. He is surrounded by a large adoring family and as many wonderful friends as anyone could wish for, endless money, he works doing what he loves best, and oh yes, prestige and fame since he was in his early 20s. He doesn't seem to be overly concerned about world peace or human or animal suffering, so again I ask..why the need for the drugs and alcohol, especially as it has cost him so dearly in terms of his creativity and ability.

IMO, the teel Wheels/UJ tour was the best and most professional tour the Stones ever did. You don't like the Vegas format? Fine. However, I think it's very wrong to say that the Stones stopped rolling. That tour was a huge success both in terms of performing and ticket sales.

After that tour, things started to detoriate, imo. Except for the ticket sales, that is.

To this date I still haven't heard a really bad 1989/90 show. I've heard several bad 1969/70, 1971, 1972/73, 1975/76, 1978 and 1981/82 shows.

IMO, Keith was on top of his game in 1989/90. I first noticed a detoriation in his playing on the Winos 1992 tour.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
IMO, the teel Wheels/UJ tour was the best and most professional tour the Stones ever did. You don't like the Vegas format? Fine. However, I think it's very wrong to say that the Stones stopped rolling. That tour was a huge success both in terms of performing and ticket sales.

After that tour, things started to detoriate, imo. Except for the ticket sales, that is.

To this date I still haven't heard a really bad 1989/90 show. I've heard several bad 1969/70, 1971, 1972/73, 1975/76, 1978 and 1981/82 shows.

IMO, Keith was on top of his game in 1989/90. I first noticed a detoriation in his playing on the Winos 1992 tour.

I'm with you one this one. For The Stones 1989/90 was something different and they were really forced to show that they are still competent. The concentration in their playing, starting even from Keith, is easy to notice - especially when compared to the Vegas Tours that followed it. With STEEL WHEELS/URBAN TOUR they created a templete or a format that they had followed and repeated tirelessly and with increasing detoriation ever since. (For example, it took me almost ten years to really grasp that shit this band is not going anywhere but repeating the same old show. I skipped BRIDGES TO BABYLON tour beacuse I had lost my interest, and calculated that I've had seen already my old heroes doing their nostalgy act enough by then. LICKS tour brought me back because I thought "well it doesn't matter artistically, The Stones tour offers a possibility to see some nice places and meet fellow Stones fans, so why not").

Of course, the dangerous and raw rock and roll band of 1981/82 - a band Jagger had started to hate - was gone but if 1989/90 would have remained their last - a kind of professional nostalgy tour to show their competence one more time - it would have a hurray way to end the incredible story. Artistically speaking, Bill Wyman was the only who made the right decision. He only has lost a horrible amount of money but artistically nothing.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 11:58 by Doxa.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa


Keith Richards - the creative heart and soul of The Rolling Stones - never survived the 70's. (Jagger didn't survive the 80's but that is another story.)

- Doxa

So the difference between Mick and Keith is just 10 years. In my book they both didn't survive Taylor's quit. IORR may not be a very good album but it has at least Time Waits FNO, Dance Little Sister and Fingerprint F. Best song since ages (despite bad vocals): Plundered My Soul! Guess who's on that song.

I don't think Taylor was even missed, necessarily to the wider public perception of the Stones. The Stones were already on a huge downwards spiral with 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll'. Ok. Taylor augmented 'Time Waits For No-One' pretty well on his guitar, but that doesn't stop 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' being arguably the weakest Stones album of the seventies. The Stones pretty much stopped rolling after 'Tattoo You' and the the 81-82 tours in my opinion. Those events in the early eighties may have been some distance from the Stones true peak in terms of quality, but so was the Stones 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' album. Keith confirms pretty much the time when fundamentally he and Jagger no longer managed to see eye to eye on most things, and that very much co-incides with when the Stones musical quality began to decline on a truly consistent level, around the time of 'Emotional Rescue', and had it not been for the outtakes filled 'Tattoo You', 'Emotional Rescue' would undoubtedly have heralded the start of an unbroken run of mediocre, or even bad Stones albums. That's why for all the stick given to Keith's recollections, for me there is certainly an element of truth in what he's saying, and certainly with regard the eighties era onwards, which is clearly for all to see within the grooves of the album releases.

I agree with the evaluation of their artistic quality (by you) but I find Keith's way to reflect the downhill totally unbalanced. I'm with Keith that Jagger's solo career sucked aristically, and that Mick's movements are unnatural these days, etc. Fvbk, we all notice that. But Keith is absolutely blind in reflecting his own artistic downhill, and unbearable behavior - his own goddamn contribution - in making The Rolling Stones artistically dead nostalgy act. He only blames Jagger which I find really, really short-minded, and most of all, not justified if we look what actually happened.

So let us do that.

(1) SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU were the last great Stones albums. They are also their best sold new studio albums. I think even Keith admits that. They are mostly based on Mick Jagger's ideas and visions, and in those albums Jagger was more in lead of the band than he ever has done. During making SOME GIRLS Keith was still in dopeville, as his hazy, inconsistent, self-refuting recollection in his book shows. Seemingly Jagger still babied him and let him to do his part (which was, sometimes awesome, of course) but it all went according to Mick's master plan/leadership. Without Mick's sudden touch of muse and inspiration we would have had just another IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL, BLACK&BLUE kind of album in a row. TATTOO YOU is almost a Jagger solo album - he (with Chris Kimsey) shifted the mediocre/potential songs from the vaults into greatness. Keith had nothing - expect creating few riffs in the past - to do in creating the final album, which is, surprisingly, one of the most cohesive ones they have ever done. By looking SOME GIRLS and especially TATTOO YOU alone I would call Jagger almost a genious. No wonder Keith doesn't even mention TATTOO YOU at all in his book - only making the riff of "Start Me Up".

(2) But look what happened when Keith was heavily involved, that is, having his intuitions and ideas co-existing with Jagger's? Remember, that is Keith's claim to "co-lead the band" he so much addresses since his "cleaning out". There we we have EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER. The first took more time than any other Stones album to finish thanks to the fighting twins. According to Wyman, the scenes were horrible. The latter followed the formula but Mick and Keith started to avoid each other in the studio. Well, deep Stones fans might find something interesting in these albums, but neither of them was artistically any big success, to say it mildly. Compared to SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU at least.

(3) Then we have DIRTY WORK: the "Keith's album". Jagger voted with his feet and what we got when trusted almost totally to Keith's musical intuitions and leadership: probably the worst album ever in Stones history.

(4) STEEL WHEELS was an act of diplomacy and compromise: both parties tried with their best behavior to not upset the other and we got the softest, unballsy, the most non-edged AOR Stones album ever. Since that the band has been driften between these two extremes: the artificial, artistically not inspiring STEEL WHEELS templete and the artistically disaster-leading open fight scene of EMOTIONAL RESCUE. The result has been few mediocre pastishe Stones albums that artistically add next to nothing to Stones legacy.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 12:54 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
but if 1989/90 would have remained their last - a kind of professional nostalgy tour to show their competence one more time - it would have a hurray way to end the incredible story.

What we would have missed in Doxa's scenario:

Great analysis, Doxa
With all his fights for control Richards destroyed the artistic integrity of the band then, and with his continious vendetta he ruins their historical legacy now



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 13:27 by proudmary.

Quote
chelskeith

All those situations with him and Mick are now a lot more understandable, and I hope it causes Mick to stop and think a bit before they work together next. Hopefully, as a result of this, they can collaborate again together, not as individual players but as team members of a group.

What should Mick stop and think about? After reading this book, I am speechless and cannot even put into words how unbearable I find Keith. He's a total embarrassment, and I am still trying to accept him for the petty, insecure and UNGRATEFUL lying SOB that he is, and I hope Mick can too. And then maybe Mick will carry him again for the next couple of decades.

Quote
proudmary
Great analysis, Doxa
With all his fights for control Richards destroyed the artistic integrity of the band then, and with his continious vendetta he ruins their historical legacy now

Yeah, it's sad isn't it?

It does seem crazy, doesn't it? They have just done the most successful tour EVER, and they are winding down their career. It is unconscionable that Keith has reopened the war between him and Mick at this point, thus torpedo-ing any chance of going out in a blaze of glory.

<(1) SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU were the last great Stones albums. They are also their best sold new studio albums. I think even Keith admits that. They are mostly based on Mick Jagger's ideas and visions, and in those albums Jagger was more in lead of the band than he ever has done. During making SOME GIRLS Keith was still in dopeville, as his hazy, inconsistent, self-refuting recollection in his book shows. Seemingly Jagger still babied him and let him to do his part (which was, sometimes awesome, of course) but it all went according to Mick's master plan/leadership. Without Mick's sudden touch of muse and inspiration we would have had just another IT'S ONLY ROCK'N*ROLL, BLACK&BLUE kind of album in a row. TATTOO YOU is almost a Jagger solo album - he (with Chris Kimsey) shifted the mediocre/potential songs from the vaults into greatness. Keith had nothing - expect creating few riffs in the past - to do in creating the final album, which is, surprisingly, one of the most cohesive ones they have ever done. By looking SOME GIRLS and especially TATTOO YOU alone I would call Jagger almost a genious. No wonder Keith doesn't even mention TATTOO YOU at all in his book - only making the riff of "Start Me Up".>

I think you might be speculating too much, regarding the Some Girls era. Judging from the Place Pigalle-boots, as well as other autobiographies (Mac among others), No one "babies" Keith. He has his chops, as well as his songs and vision of how they should be together.

The playing and recording of the TY-material was certainly not mediocre. A dream job for Jagger to finalize that stuff, imo.

sad. disgusted w this dwarf. lost all respect. what a selfish little man. hbought the first album first month or so it came out so Im not too happy about saying this. well this alters the iconography. a coarse feeble braggart and hate addled too. selfish. a very little man. u know there are cats like wilson pickett and there are cats like Jeff Conway. rawk on keef. yeah right. maybe some actual working artst will commit suicide and you can have a laugh.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think you might be speculating too much, regarding the Some Girls era. Judging from the Place Pigalle-boots, as well as other autobiographies (Mac among others), No one "babies" Keith. He has his chops, as well as his songs and vision of how they should be together.

The playing and recording of the TY-material was certainly not mediocre. A dream job for Jagger to finalize that stuff, imo.

The point of what I tried to say that SOME GIRLS was still done in a similar way as the albums prior it. This is what Keith himself reflects, and thereby admitting Jagger essentially leading the band, and him being still in dopesville. This is to say that Keith hadn't the need to claim for commandorship by then. Jagger's commandorship started to piss Keith off not until he "cleaned out". THIS IS WHAT KEITH SAYS HIMSELF ALL THE TIME. Of course, Keith always contributed much within the studio, and had a huge role there in making the music, but seemingly that was okay for Jagger and the rest. Jagger "used" Keith's creativity to the benefit of the band - he knew what and how to do with it. Seemingly the way they worked in making SOME GIRLS was okay for them, and they didn't have much complaints. And not me either for having a result like SOME GIRLS.

But suddenly Keith was no longer satisfied of how the band was lead, or what was his role in it. He felt - if I get him right - he was playing for MIck, and this hurted his ego. It was after SOME GIRLS when the heroin had changed to Jack Daniels the trouble and the fight over commanship really started (Keith even makes a horrible claim that Mick wished him to have stayed in dope to maintain his power.) I don't know exactly what Keith's claims or demands were but seemingly something Jagger had had earlier in his hands. Somehing importnat in Keith's eyes. The resulted scenes killed the Rolling Stones - something terrible happend in the band chemistry. This can be really well to be seen in Wyman's recollections from making SOME GIRLS to EMOTIONAL RESCUE. I have one intersting Keith and Mick interview from the time of EMOTIONAL RESCUE being released where Mick complains that Keith spent endless hours in studio mixing album but couldn't really come up anything worthwhile. Keith says there that SOME GIRLS was not a "real Stones album" and they didn't sound like themselves but with EMOTIONAL RESCUE they had rediscovered their essence. (The interview is from Finnish rock magazine called SOUNDI from 1980 - I will translate it some day here; it is one the most interesting ones ever.)

As far as TATTOO YOU is concerned, yeah the material was superior than mediocre (but the material for EMOTIONAL RESCUE wasn't bad potentially either but somehow they just screwed up with it). But in the end, the fact was that it was "just" archive material and they have had reasons why the stuff wasn't released before. No matter what they were, it was up to Jagger's job to finish it all and create an incredily strong and cohesive album out of it. I would say it was almost a miracle how everything clicked so well there. You are really belittlening Mick's contribution if you say it was "dream job" - hinting like anyone could have done a masterpiece from such strong material. I don't think so.

But I have never heard the reason why Keith was not present in making it - taking all his claim to lead the band and have a part in making decision over the albums and cuts, etc. Isn't these kind of things exactly the kind of things he was - and is still - so much whining to have, in order to possess actual musical directorship? At least this was exactly the case with EMOTIONAL RESCUE. My guess is that Mick was so pissed off to Keith during EMOTIONAL RESCUE sessions that he simply gave him an ultimatum: "I'm going to do another album from an archive material now, but you don't show your face and your buddy Jack Daniels here if you want play any note with me in future". And Keith, surprisingly, got the point through.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-08 15:28 by Doxa.

Quote
Bliss
It does seem crazy, doesn't it? They have just done the most successful tour EVER, and they are winding down their career. It is unconscionable that Keith has reopened the war between him and Mick at this point, thus torpedo-ing any chance of going out in a blaze of glory.

I said it before and you all said that i was mad, but Keef is like the man that in his depression will take down with him the very thing he claims to love (like the man who kills his own family, rather than seeing them continue without him). Why doesn't he admit the truth? Why doesn't he say he can't play anymore? Why doesn't he give his blessings to Mick Taylor to replace him for a final Stones album and tour? Why the "if i can't join it i will destroy it" menatility?

<But I have never heard the reason why Keith was not present in making it>

Some sources point out that Mick and Keith both worked on the outtakes soon to be TY, from different camps.

DAMN DAMN!! My copy of this book havent arrived yet!!!!!

Quote
drewmaster
Reading "Life" just makes me love Keith even more than I already did. His life and art inspire me daily, and I can't imagine a world without him.

Drew

Seconded

Quote
Doxa
I have one intersting Keith and Mick interview from the time of EMOTIONAL RESCUE being released where Mick complains that Keith spent endless hours in studio mixing album but couldn't really come up anything worthwhile. Keith says there that SOME GIRLS was not a "real Stones album" and they didn't sound like themselves but with EMOTIONAL RESCUE they had rediscovered their essence. (The interview is from Finnish rock magazine called SOUNDI from 1980 - I will translate it some day here; it is one the most interesting ones ever.)

- Doxa

Very interesting. I think 'Some Girls' is perhaps the Stones most one dimensional album, so i can perhaps understand that statement from Keith. However, 'Emotional Rescue' is a far more interesting stylistically, but it isn't so well formed where the individual songs are concerned. 'Some Girls' is highly successful in fulfilling its musical objectives, in fact it is perhaps the last Stones album (apart from the outtakes filled 'Tattoo You') to do so. 'Emotional Rescue' takes the Stones in a more interesting direction, but isn't half as successful in reaching its goals. Wasn't it Keith who envisaged 'Dance' as an instrumental, to introduce the album so to speak, but it was Mick who came along with realms of notes with written lyrics? In one sense 'Emotional Rescue' is a bad album, particularly if compared with the Stones more inspiring moments, but it is also really rather enjoyable at the same time. It has many really good ideas, which aside from a few noticeable exceptions, that never really comes to fruition.

Interesting speculation on Keith's limited role in the making, or perhaps 'redressing' of the tracks for 'Tattoo You', although i think the album's unifomed sound within its mixing is chiefly responsible for its success. I agree that Jagger took a more central role perhaps to the songs original compositions, maybe, being at the time when Keith was pre-occupied in his drug haze. However, even those songs don't stand up in comparison to the Stones earlier output when the Stones were truly firing on all cylinders. To even hint at the word 'masterpiece', Doxa, in relation to the greatness of 'Tattoo You', is grossly exaggerating the quality of its contents. I actually think the album is rather patchy, but the cohesiveness of the production, perhaps aids it in hanging together better than it would otherwise. Exactly how much, or how little, Keith had to do with the album is again, very much speculation. Doxa, you tend to paint rather extreme scenarios. Mick and Keith are fundamental in the role of getting the best out of the Stones, when they are both firing on all cylinders, that's why the 68-72 period is so untouchable (and frequently earlier periods). By the eighties both Mick and Keith were no longer as hungry creatively, in a collaboratory sense or otherwise, and i don't see Jagger's solo material as really any better than the Stones at that period in time (maybe even worse). Jagger's true love of music had dissolved into an ego trip, with his collaboration with more contemporary producers and more modern sounds. Somewhere along the line musical integrity took a back seat, and he set out purely looking for hits, and a new, more contemporary audience. There was little in terms of musical sincerity to be found in that process. Jagger is at his peak a truly great singer, songwriter and performer, and his needs to be a little more diverse and creative at times serves him well. However, the eighties was when he became noticeably less musically honest. He was purely taking sides within the musical lanscape to score points, so to speak. Luckily for the rest of the Stones, his pretentions were never convincing. And luckily for the fans of the Stones, the Stones to a degree were still acting as a democracy. The Stones eighties ouput was not great, or even perhaps good, but those unremarkable albums was nowhere near as embarrassing as some of Jagger's solo efforts from this period. Hindsight, especially for me, sees things that way. Keith's effort, 'Talk Is Cheap' is preferrable in terms of complimenting my taste, but even then many of his riffs on the more uptempo songs sound pretty much formulaic and routine. I think some of those songs work pretty well, however.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-09 10:17 by Edward Twining.

Ironic thread title. Remarkable that Rolling Stones "fans" would so disparage Keith, regardless of their reaction to the book. I think the book is a gas. This message board, not so much.