For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Marmalade
And if you click on the link above, you will also be able to read the article "Keith Richards won't fade away" by James Adams which includes a link to a few photos.
Quote
hutz13
I just ordered from Amazon here in Canada, weird thing is, there's already used copies for sale but they are $10 more than brand new books.
.
Quote
Edward Twining
I agree with the review from the Globe and Mail wholeheartedly.
Keith comes across as extremely honest (and not in the least superficial). His recounting of his early years are a marvellous read also, because they haven't previously been so well documented. There are very few biographies which are as well written and as unbiased as his. There are many observations that Keith makes who's views i share, and it addresses many lingering questions i have had concerning a number of the Stones' decisions across the decades. Keith certainly displays no signs of jealousy towards Mick or Brian within his critique of them. He's just trying to tell the story as he sees it. There seems no underlying motive, despite his reference to Jagger's more intimate parts.
Quote
Edward Twining
I agree with the review from the Globe and Mail wholeheartedly.
Keith comes across as extremely honest (and not in the least superficial). His recounting of his early years are a marvellous read also, because they haven't previously been so well documented. There are very few biographies which are as well written and as unbiased as his. There are many observations that Keith makes who's views i share, and it addresses many lingering questions i have had concerning a number of the Stones' decisions across the decades. Keith certainly displays no signs of jealousy towards Mick or Brian within his critique of them. He's just trying to tell the story as he sees it. There seems no underlying motive, despite his reference to Jagger's more intimate parts.
Quote
Doxa
Honesty? I guess if one truely believes own bullshit one is honest, in a way, I liked the early Darford days but since that - as the story of The Stones actually starts - I find myself feeling uncomfortable, a bit embarrassed and, most of all, bored. Almost feels like witnessing Keith Richards performing in the last tours. Repeating the same old thing and just getting worse. The same all stories, myths, one-liners repetaed, and now with a hindsight - read: no lack of anchronisms!
Quote
Doxa
Honesty? I guess if one truly believes own bullshit one is honest, in a way, I liked the early Darford days but since that - as the story of The Stones actually starts - I find myself feeling uncomfortable, a bit embarrassed and, most of all, bored. Almost feels like witnessing Keith Richards performing in the last tours. Repeating the same old thing and just getting worse. The same all stories, myths, one-liners repetaed, and now with a hindsight - read: no lack of anchronisms!
Well as far as "trying to tell the story as he sees", well... to me eyes Keith is horribly a prisoner of his own myth. I honestly wanted a bit of more mature, reflective approach. But seemingly having lived in a bubble all of his adult life, surrounded by people who secure his ass and baby (and adore) him, he appears as a kind of "Michael Jackson of rock".
Well, I'm about half way through but I have lost the interest to really read the book any further. Just got the MICK HAS A SMALL DICK DOES EVyRYONE NOW HEAR IT part, and reading it in the context makes is even more idiotic, small-minded and juvenile than in tabloids. Suits very well to the tone of the book. That's "honesty"? I'm not really fond of hearing how "unbearable" Mick gets nor the truth behind snorting dad's ashes. It is so hard to realize that one's own hero just... sucks.
Like Keith Richards once said to Pete Townshead that "Shut the fvck up, and play the guitar", I wish the very same for Keith. (Even I'm not sure if I really want to hear it..)
- Doxa
Quote
fiftyamp
Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.
Keith is nothing but complimentary to Mick in this book. Page after page is filled with Keith's ravings on Mick's songwriting, his stage persona, and his harp playing. The problems only arise when Mick ties his solo deal into the Stones' contract with CBS, without even consulting the rest of the band. Any negative comments made about Mick come from a sense of heartbreak, not a from any petty jealousy or bitterness.
This book is a story of betrayal. First by Anita choosing dope over their relationship, and second by Mick choosing his ego over their friendship.
Quote
fiftyamp
Keith is nothing but complimentary to Mick in this book. Page after page is filled with Keith's ravings on Mick's songwriting, his stage persona, and his harp playing. The problems only arise when Mick ties his solo deal into the Stones' contract with CBS, without even consulting the rest of the band. Any negative comments made about Mick come from a sense of heartbreak, not a from any petty jealousy or bitterness.
Quote
fiftyamp
Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.
Quote
fiftyamp
He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.
Quote
DoxaQuote
fiftyamp
Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.
Okay, maybe I don' grasp the sense of the reference here, Can you then please explain me what the next sentence supposed to mean (the one of Mick having big balls but that doesn't compensate the lack of what is between them.) He is just talking metaphorically of Mick, and no way referring to his genetals?
(Factually I am reading the Finnish translation of the book and there is no ambiguity of the reference.)
- Doxa
Quote
rollinon
I, too, don't know if I want to subject myself to this drug hazed recollection of
fact & sometimes fiction. I may prefer to save my almost forty years of great
Stones memories intact. It is time to go back to my old catalog.
Quote
DoxaQuote
fiftyamp
Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.
Okay, maybe I don' grasp the sense of the reference here, Can you then please explain me what the next sentence supposed to mean (the one of Mick having big balls but that doesn't compensate the lack of what is between them.) He is just talking metaphorically of Mick, and no way referring to his genetals?
(Factually I am reading the Finnish translation of the book and there is no ambiguity of the reference.)
- Doxa
Quote
whitem8
Well Keith lived with Brian and had to deal with all his baggage, and when your "friend" is working out side deals to get paid more and better rooms that is a pretty good indication of a toxic relationship. Keith is just being honest and telling it like it is from his point of view and he must not have really liked the guy...
Quote
gimmelittledrink
And whenever Keith is asked about [the 'tiny todger' comment], he just laughs it off.