b



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-30 18:04 by misterfrias.

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Edward Twining
The overriding impression i get of Keith is that he values loyalty, and a strong level of reliability and consistency, in order to see things through. That's the reason that he speaks so highly of Charlie Watts and Ian Stewart, because they had a genuine love and dedication to the Stones, and they weren't primarily in it for the notoriety, so to speak. To have a long run those elements are essential, so to a sense Charlie and Ian were pretty much the backbone of the group. One gets the impression Keith viewed Brian Jones' shortcomings as pretty much overwhelming many of Brian's strengths, and although Keith does acknowledge Brian's musical ability, his main thought is that Brian, from pretty much early on, became almost a bigger pain than he was worth, and fame and celebrity, very much took the place of a genuine dedication to the group. Keith gives the impression to having little to do with Bill on a personal level, and perhaps being more interested in his amp than his bass playing originally, although he does over time appreciate Bill's fine bass playing. I don't think Keith admired Bill's womanising ways quite so much. Mick Taylor is acknowledged as a great guitarist, and his contributions were key to some of the very best music the Stones made, but Keith found him more difficult to relate to on a personal level.

I always wonder if his respect for Charlie and Stu doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that they've never been a threat to him.

Exactly. Sir Keith's humble servants. Aren't him so big hearted for them? Thank you. Lord! But fvck those Brian and Taylor and Jagger and Wyman! How better the band been without those "unloyal" (no Keith's ass licking) @#$%&!

- Doxa

Keith once said in an interview, "My mum took me for a walk in my pram, and when we returned our flat was completely gone from a German bomb." But I later read a biographer say, "Actually a piece of rubble landed on Keith's bed through a window. The flat itself was unharmed." So I was wondering what version Keith would tell in LIFE, and he says just a bit of brick landed on his bed. His flat wasn't flattened.

And I once read Keith say in an interview that he lost his virginity at age 15--an older girl lured him into a van--but in LIFE it's all innocent kissing and snuggling up to the point in the book I'm at now, where it sounds like maybe (he's very vague) he lost his virginity around 19 or 20. Maybe he felt compelled to say the "age 15" exaggeration because of competitiveness with Brian losing it at 16 and having three illegitimate kids.

Keith has embellished and flat-out lied for years.

I wanted to like the book, but I don't.
Keith is a braggart, trying to act like a tough guy throughout. I find that attitude childish and immature. If you're going to kick someone's ass, quit talking about it and do it. In every "fight" he's ever been in, he ran off and left Spanish Tony or some other hanger-on to finish it.

Did anyone else get the impression that Keith is still in love and in awe of Anita? He talks about her constantly. So does Marlon.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
kingkirby
My one and only comment on Mick's todger: I think Marianne was a very kind lady who knew exactly what to say to Keith to make him feel better about Mick and Anita...

Poor Marianne! She after all didn't say anything and it's totally not her style. It was Anita. I don't want to know what her standards are but she complained all the time that Keith didn't @#$%& her and preferred to hang with his junkie friends. In Stones In Exile she told smth. like "it was sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, not necessary in this order" It was funny

Keith slept with Marianne way BEFORE Anita and Mick had sex during "Performance" in September 1968.
Marianne wrote about it in her autobiography, stating that it was the best night of her life and she fell in love with Keith. But she knew, by then, that Keith had fallen in love with Anita, who was still with Brian. Keith told Marianne in the morning that she should be with Mick, as they weren't exclusive at that time. So, this had to be '66 or '67.

Keith lies again. Why? He could have just written, "Hey, I already slept with his bird two years prior, and she'll tell you it was the best sex she ever had."

Keith is very well-endowed - you can tell by the Exile photos b/c he is obviously not wearing underwear underneath those white pants he wore almost daily. But Anita complained that he couldn't achieve orgasm b/c of the heroin.

This is not a book you can read if you have expectations or pre concieved image you have to read it for what it is. Oh and don't go looking for the negative things which seems to be what everyone is doing so far, if you constantly look for the negatives you will miss the good stuff.

I am only a little way through but enjoying it so far.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Edward Twining
The overriding impression i get of Keith is that he values loyalty, and a strong level of reliability and consistency, in order to see things through. That's the reason that he speaks so highly of Charlie Watts and Ian Stewart, because they had a genuine love and dedication to the Stones, and they weren't primarily in it for the notoriety, so to speak. To have a long run those elements are essential, so to a sense Charlie and Ian were pretty much the backbone of the group. One gets the impression Keith viewed Brian Jones' shortcomings as pretty much overwhelming many of Brian's strengths, and although Keith does acknowledge Brian's musical ability, his main thought is that Brian, from pretty much early on, became almost a bigger pain than he was worth, and fame and celebrity, very much took the place of a genuine dedication to the group. Keith gives the impression to having little to do with Bill on a personal level, and perhaps being more interested in his amp than his bass playing originally, although he does over time appreciate Bill's fine bass playing. I don't think Keith admired Bill's womanising ways quite so much. Mick Taylor is acknowledged as a great guitarist, and his contributions were key to some of the very best music the Stones made, but Keith found him more difficult to relate to on a personal level.

I always wonder if his respect for Charlie and Stu doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that they've never been a threat to him.

Exactly. Sir Keith's humble servants. Aren't him so big hearted for them? Thank you. Lord! But fvck those Brian and Taylor and Jagger and Wyman! How better the band been without those "unloyal" (no Keith's ass licking) @#$%&!

- Doxa

I think though there has to be an element of strength or even ruthlessness, to maintain a certain level of commitment, especially among a group that have existed over a long period and are/were regarded as 'the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world'. You don't attain that level of success by being less than totally determined. I think in the early days this came more naturally because the members of the Stones were very hungry with a shared goal. I think Brian was a disappointment because as soon as the Stones achieved a level of fame, he was more interested in playing on his celebrity. The fact that the Stones recorded and performed so brilliantly in that first decade is a tribute to the fact they were very much musically a cohesive unit, led perhaps by Keith. By the end of the sixties the Stones main rivals, the Beatles, had split up, and over the longer haul it was a case of the Stones finding a level of commitment, even if their musical output in the second half of their career became pretty much meaningless. Jagger in the eighties did lose interest in the group and attempted to forge a solo career which had it been successful, may have signalled the end of the Stones. Keith most definitely in his biography conveys the feeling he genuinely cares for the band, even after half a century, and with Charlie, and in addition Ronnie's commitment, he has managed to keep them alive. Jagger returned to the fold after he found he was never going to be as big a draw as a solo artist. One can speculate whether the Stones are chiefly in it for the money alone these days, but i think there has to be a fire burning somewhere within their souls to feel the need to regroup every few years, and go on those massive tours as they don't need the money anymore. I certainly wouldn't have missed them if they had split after the 81/82 tours, but obviously Keith (and the other members) never wants to let go.

As far as innaccuracies within the book are concerned, who really knows the truth? I doubt even Keith and the rest of the Stones know precisely what they were doing in detail over a fifty year period. One's memory becomes selective, remembering only things that have the most meaning etc. The day to day living can often be lost in a blur to the passages of time. There may be plenty of things written in Keith's book which may contradict what has be said previously, but even those details may not have been true in the first instance. In the early days, especially when Andrew Oldham was attempting to pitch the Stones against the Beatles in the bad boy stakes, i'm sure lots of untruths and half truths were spoken. Given all these things, i think Keith's book stands up very well on its own terms, in fact remarkably well. It's always going to be from one man's perspective, for sure, but the story's source does come very much from the inside.

Doxa, your comments 'But fvck those Brian and Taylor and Jagger and Wyman! How better the band been without those "unloyal" (no Keith's ass licking) @#$%&!' does not reflect the tone of Keith's book at all. In fact what i love about the book is the fact that Keith gives plenty of insight into things.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-30 11:28 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
I think Brian was a disappointment because as soon as the Stones achieved a level of fame, he was more interested in playing on his celebrity.

Brian worked his ass off for the band until Oldham took over together with Jagger and Richards. After that I think that he lost track on what his role was in the band and being the insecure guy he was he started to do drugs to hang in there. He, Mick and Keith had been equals before Oldham and it took time before Brian understood that he had lost that power.
I've never understood it as he "gave up on music" just to be a celebrity. But he was definitely more aware of his star status than Mick and Keith as can be seen in interviews with him and in the people he had befriended. He was very much an explorer trying to find ways to express himself. Brian did however, still play on the Stones records and tours right up to when the second bust happend in 1968. Then it started to go downhill and it didn't stop until the last months of his life.

Keith writes how Tony Blair sent him a get-well note when Richards nearly killed himself when he fell out of a palm tree in 2006 and landed on his head.
Keith says: "The opening line of my letter from Tony Blair was, 'Dear Keith, you've always been one of my heroes...' England's in the hands of someone who I'm a hero of? It's frightening."

it's so important to him to tell to everybody that he is the hero of Blair too, not only Jagger. Now I finally understand why he reacted so angrily when Mick got knighthood from Blair. And Mick even didn't support invasion in Iraq' in contrary to Richards

THANK YOU my beloved Keith for this book. I received my copy this morning. Sure it is an open heart one when I just have a look to the photos...
and when I read again an interview like the Telerama one (french magazine - interview in NY city) it is a real pleasure as it is deep, sincere and very human...

Now Mick, go back in the kitchen with Keith and create the new Satisfaction hit and the "boucle sera bouclée" (full circle achieved)

"we know it's a bit late but we hope you don't mind if we stay"

Quote
proudmary
it's so important to him to tell to everybody that he is the hero of Blair too, not only Jagger. Now I finally understand why he reacted so angrily when Mick got knighthood from Blair. And Mick even didn't support invasion in Iraq' in contrary to Richards

Cool. You really make this conclusion up out of one line from the book. Really amazing.

The opening line of my letter from Tony Blair was, 'Dear Keith, you've always been one of my heroes...'

I know that I am just a simple guy who always loves to look on the bright side of "life". Therefore I prefer to look at the second part of that line.

England's in the hands of someone who I'm a hero of? It's frightening.

Now, if that ain't humour

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

Oh, and before I forget. I got up to page 106 and I still love the book. Really a good read.

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

I've read that ALL ABOUT YOU is about Anita or Mick. But Keith's recent Mick comments (wishing they were close like the very early days) recalls Keith's line, "I may miss you/But missing me just isn't you."

I think it was a fabulous read. There's two main things that struck me:

1. He considers himself not a musician, guitarist or producer -he acknowledges that his main talent is songwriting, and he sees himself as a songwriter. There's half a page about the Stones live in concert, but dozens of pages about the songwriting (of which he claims he wrote 80% of all Stones music, and Jagger only did lyrics).
2. He was a total junky from '70 to '80, and that's basically all he was. He comes accross as one of the most lonely people on this world, spending week after week being totally out of it 'on the john'. His contacts are Marlon, Sessler, and a bit of Anita, and the rest dealers, smack, dope, dealers and whatever. In the end I thought 'wow, even if your Keith Richards heroin is not a great drug to do...."

Mathijs

Who the fvck is Keith Richards?

Quote
Mathijs

(of which he claims he wrote 80% of all Stones music, and Jagger only did lyrics).

Mick Taylor remembers these things differently

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Mathijs

(of which he claims he wrote 80% of all Stones music, and Jagger only did lyrics).

Mick Taylor remembers these things differently

I bet Brian Jones would have remembered them differently as well.

Quote
Mathijs
There's half a page about the Stones live in concert, but dozens of pages about the songwriting (of which he claims he wrote 80% of all Stones music, and Jagger only did lyrics).

Well,you have even more fictional copy than I do. Mine doesn't claim anything of the sort but for example, gives to several songs an acknowledgement of Jagger making the musical base, and even points out that Jagger gave to Keith's songs a final shapement not just in lyrics but with singing melody as well.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 00:13 by Doxa.

Quote
Mathijs
I think it was a fabulous read. There's two main things that struck me:

1. He considers himself not a musician, guitarist or producer -he acknowledges that his main talent is songwriting, and he sees himself as a songwriter. There's half a page about the Stones live in concert, but dozens of pages about the songwriting (of which he claims he wrote 80% of all Stones music, and Jagger only did lyrics).
2. He was a total junky from '70 to '80, and that's basically all he was. He comes accross as one of the most lonely people on this world, spending week after week being totally out of it 'on the john'. His contacts are Marlon, Sessler, and a bit of Anita, and the rest dealers, smack, dope, dealers and whatever. In the end I thought 'wow, even if your Keith Richards heroin is not a great drug to do...."

Mathijs

I think Keith is right there. At least it's quite confirming to me.
In his own limited way he was a great player though.
80% of his songwriting could never have been established without the imput and inspiration of his fellow musicians.But he deserves a lot of credit..



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 00:52 by Amsterdamned.

Review from The Toronto Star:

Book review: 'Life' by Keith Richards
The Rolling Stones' guitarist talks about Mick, sex, drugs, but most importantly, rock 'n' roll.

October 28, 2010|7:00 p.m.

"Life," Keith Richards' 500-plus-page autobiography, is a life story remarkably short on life stories — or at least the sort we might expect.

Partly, of course, that's a matter of memory. "The ultimate party," Richards writes, "if it's any good, you can't remember it. You get these brief vignettes of what you did."

But even more, it has to do with intention, with what Richards wants to say about his myth.

He is, after all, the very model of the rock star bad boy: drug addict, bluesman, libertine. But he is also, as anyone who has followed his career knows, exceedingly intelligent, a keen and cool-eyed observer of the illusions that drive the rock 'n' roll machine. "I can't untie the threads of how much I played up to the part that was written for me," he acknowledges. "I mean the skull ring and the broken tooth and the kohl. Is it half and half? … Image is like a long shadow. Even when the sun goes down you can see it.… It's impossible not to end up being a parody of what you thought you were."

That's a key point, especially when it comes to the Stones, who have, over the course of nearly half a century, gone from being the most dangerous band in the world to a full-fledged corporate entity: Rolling Stones Inc. It's been more than 30 years since their last great album "Some Girls" and even longer since they were at their peak — 1972's "Exile on Main St.," which remains, I think, the single greatest rock 'n' roll record ever made.

Their story too has been told many times, perhaps best in Stanley Booth's "The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones."We know the high (or low) points: Altamont, the 1972 U.S. tour, the recording of "Exile" in Richards' rental house at Nellcôte in the south of France. We know too about the excess and the drug busts (1967, with a naked Marianne Faithfull; 1977 in Toronto, the case that almost ended the Stones' career). Because of that, it's impossible to read "Life" without experiencing a peculiar kind of double vision, between the stories we have read and what Richards means to tell us — between, in the most essential sense, the myth and the man.

So to steal a line from "Street Fighting Man," what can a poor boy do? Richards' solution is to give us a book that reads, in many places, like an extended interview transcript, full of digressions and blind alleys, repetitions and riffs. He dispenses with the basics fairly quickly: three pages on Altamont, not much more than that on Toronto, barely a page on the death of Brian Jones and the Hyde Park concert in his memory. "It's difficult to put those middle and late '60s together," Richards writes, "because nobody quite knew what was happening. A different kind of fog descended.…"

Richards writes at greater length about his relationships with Anita Pallenberg and Mick Jagger, both of which were fraught; of the latter, he observes, "I love the man dearly; I'm still his mate. But he makes it very difficult to be his friend." Even though a quote like that gives the book the whisper of a public airing, it's not really what Richards has in mind. Instead, we get the sense that he's being candid, saying what he feels because he has no reason to hide.

Nowhere is that more compelling than when Richards writes about music, which he does with insight and grace. Here we have the brilliant stuff, worth the price of admission. Early on, he breaks down the intricacies of blues guitarist Jimmy Reed's chording: "It took me years to find out how he actually played the 5 chord, in the key of E … nstead of making the conventional barre chord, the B7th, which requires a little effort with the left hand, he wouldn't bother with the B at all. He'd leave the open A note ringing and just slide a finger up the D string to a 7th. And there's the haunting note, resonating against the open A."

There's more: Richards' discussion of Chuck Berry and T-Bone Walker's double-string playing "It had the possibility of getting this dissonance and this rhythm thing going, which you can't do picking away on one string"; or his notion that "There are some people looking to play guitar. There's other people looking for a sound."

It may seem insular, nerdy even, but Richards resolves it in his explication of five-string open tuning, which became the key to the Stones' sound. The genesis, he tells us, is pure Jimmy Reed, a way of tuning the guitar so there is always a drone note, so that, "if you're working the right chord, you can hear this other chord going on behind it, which actually you're not playing." This is why, he claims, so many Stones songs, while apparently so simple, can be so hard to re-create on a conventional guitar.

"To write a song that is remembered and taken to heart," Richards notes, "is a connection, a touching of bases. A thread that runs through all of us. A stab to the heart." This suggests, for me, the most useful way of thinking about this autobiography.

Forget the war stories, the biographical details, if that's what interests you, you're better off with Stanley Booth's book. But if it's some connection with the music that you're after, you might want to start right here.

Just some random comments

- the biggest disappointment for me was that I was expecting to get much more (new) information of the songwriting & songs, since they are obviously a major part of Keith and his life

- from the previews/leaked bits I was expecting the Jagger parts to be much worse than they actually were. The only really stupid bit is the "tiny todger" comment.
The parts where he condemns Mick's dictator attitude are negative, yes, but they are not vindictive,and you can understand Keith's point of view (and, also, I think, Mick's)

- otherwise, I think Keith is actually quite fair towards Mick, and seems genuinely sad that the person with whom he shared so much in the 60s and 70s seems to have gone forever. A small interesting detail is in the Gram Parsons part, where Keith notes that Gram is the only man he ever shared a bed with. This seems to come quite out of the blue and I think it refers to Marianne's and Anita's allegations about there having been more than brotherly love between M&K, and also possibly to the bed-sharing stories at Edith Grove

- I used to feel really sorry for Angela and the way she was treated by her parents, but reading Marlon's accounts of his early and teenage life the life with Doris may really have been a better alternative. I'd no idea Marlon was actually alone, without either Keith or Anita, only with the hangers-on, for long periods in the 80s. The fact that he pulled himself together, got an education, a job, and a stable family life, seems like a miracle and commands a lot of respect.

Quote
Title5Take1
I've read that ALL ABOUT YOU is about Anita or Mick. But Keith's recent Mick comments (wishing they were close like the very early days) recalls Keith's line, "I may miss you/But missing me just isn't you."

In the book, Keith refers to 'All About You' twice. First, he says that "most people" think the song is about Anita, but "even though no song is written about a single thing, this song is probably more about Mick".

And, later, he says that 'I Had It With You' is totally about Mick, and that it was the first time he was really conscious he was writing a song about Mick, except for "perhaps 'All About You'.

So I think you can say that 'All About You' is a song about Mick, not about Anita.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 07:34 by Daffodil.

So does he give Mick enough credit for songwriting, for all the songs Mick came up with and worked on with Mick Taylor for example, or does he only credit Mick for shaping up Keith´s songs?

Daffodil, the musical side is perhaps the one aspect of the book where we could truly find plenty of room to debate, because obviously it is the part of the Stones we are closest to. I too wish Keith had spent more time discussing the music, although if it had meant cutting down on his other observations, then perhaps it would have been a hard choice. The one aspect of the book i find irritating is when Keith keeps referring to the john, which is an american expression obviously for toilet, which he refers to having said even in the early days before the Stones initial success in America. No-one in England born and bred would use that term unless they had spent time in the US. For me, coming from England, i find it mighty irritating, but i am perhaps being very picky in pointing that out.

The observations Keith makes concerning the immediate post war years are some of the most interesting and informative in my opinion. Those early years with Bert, Doris and Gus, and caravan holidays to places like Torquay. Gus being interested in music, and Keith being a choirboy in school, and how his time singing was cut short by his voice breaking which led to him developing a more rebellious streak etc. It all seems remarkably well written and informative, partly because the reader perhaps has less pre-conceived ideas to what the events were prior to Keith's musical career, so there's less reason to question what Keith has to say. Keith comes across remarkably intelligent and articulate at this point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 09:07 by Edward Twining.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Edward Twining
I think Brian was a disappointment because as soon as the Stones achieved a level of fame, he was more interested in playing on his celebrity.

Brian worked his ass off for the band until Oldham took over together with Jagger and Richards. After that I think that he lost track on what his role was in the band and being the insecure guy he was he started to do drugs to hang in there. He, Mick and Keith had been equals before Oldham and it took time before Brian understood that he had lost that power.
I've never understood it as he "gave up on music" just to be a celebrity. But he was definitely more aware of his star status than Mick and Keith as can be seen in interviews with him and in the people he had befriended. He was very much an explorer trying to find ways to express himself. Brian did however, still play on the Stones records and tours right up to when the second bust happend in 1968. Then it started to go downhill and it didn't stop until the last months of his life.

Brian "lost his power" when it came time to write original songs and he was incapable of doing it. Oldham shouldn't be blamed for realizing Jagger & Richards were the ones with the writing talent, he should be thanked, or the Rolling Stones would have been just another British blues band that disappeared when the blues craze went out of style. Brian managed to find other important ways to contribute musically (and brilliantly, I might add). It's a shame his personality make up could not withstand losing the group's "leadership". You can't be the leader of the band when it is others in the band who come up with all of the material. I think Daltrey was the "original" leader of The Who as well. Couldn't last.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Edward Twining
I think Brian was a disappointment because as soon as the Stones achieved a level of fame, he was more interested in playing on his celebrity.

Brian worked his ass off for the band until Oldham took over together with Jagger and Richards. After that I think that he lost track on what his role was in the band and being the insecure guy he was he started to do drugs to hang in there. He, Mick and Keith had been equals before Oldham and it took time before Brian understood that he had lost that power.
I've never understood it as he "gave up on music" just to be a celebrity. But he was definitely more aware of his star status than Mick and Keith as can be seen in interviews with him and in the people he had befriended. He was very much an explorer trying to find ways to express himself. Brian did however, still play on the Stones records and tours right up to when the second bust happend in 1968. Then it started to go downhill and it didn't stop until the last months of his life.

Brian "lost his power" when it came time to write original songs and he was incapable of doing it. Oldham shouldn't be blamed for realizing Jagger & Richards were the ones with the writing talent, he should be thanked, or the Rolling Stones would have been just another British blues band that disappeared when the blues craze went out of style. Brian managed to find other important ways to contribute musically (and brilliantly, I might add). It's a shame his personality make up could not withstand losing the group's "leadership". You can't be the leader of the band when it is others in the band who come up with all of the material. I think Daltrey was the "original" leader of The Who as well. Couldn't last.

+1000000000000

Quote
Mathijs
I think it was a fabulous read. There's two main things that struck me:

1. He considers himself not a musician, guitarist or producer -he acknowledges that his main talent is songwriting, and he sees himself as a songwriter. There's half a page about the Stones live in concert, but dozens of pages about the songwriting (of which he claims he wrote 80% of all Stones music, and Jagger only did lyrics).
2. He was a total junky from '70 to '80, and that's basically all he was. He comes accross as one of the most lonely people on this world, spending week after week being totally out of it 'on the john'. His contacts are Marlon, Sessler, and a bit of Anita, and the rest dealers, smack, dope, dealers and whatever. In the end I thought 'wow, even if your Keith Richards heroin is not a great drug to do...."

Mathijs

If this is true (about KR considering himself primarily a songwriter) why did he basically stop writing songs in the conventional sense sometime in the mid 70s? He even bragged about it at the time ("I have stopped writing songs" ). He switched to this kind of riff-finding method, which certainly produced some decent work, when combined with Jagger and the band's efforts, but really changed the Stones sound. The weakness of this method is apparent especially on his solo albums, in my opinion. Not enough melody and structure, and often not especially strong lyrics. Hard to believe the same guy wrote Ruby Tuesday. I also think that it's interesting that this switch in songwriting style seems to have started with the hard core junkie period. You have to have discipline to write structured pop songs - hard to do when you're on the stuff. Better to stay awake for days and see what comes out of the atmosphere. Yes, there are some lovely exceptions, but I miss the guy who teamed up with Jagger Tin Pan Alley style. I thought he was great.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 13:34 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs
I think it was a fabulous read. There's two main things that struck me:

1. He considers himself not a musician, guitarist or producer -he acknowledges that his main talent is songwriting, and he sees himself as a songwriter. There's half a page about the Stones live in concert, but dozens of pages about the songwriting (of which he claims he wrote 80% of all Stones music, and Jagger only did lyrics).
2. He was a total junky from '70 to '80, and that's basically all he was. He comes accross as one of the most lonely people on this world, spending week after week being totally out of it 'on the john'. His contacts are Marlon, Sessler, and a bit of Anita, and the rest dealers, smack, dope, dealers and whatever. In the end I thought 'wow, even if your Keith Richards heroin is not a great drug to do...."

Mathijs

If this is true (about KR considering himself primarily a songwriter) why did he basically stop writing songs in the conventional sense sometime in the mid 70s? He even bragged about it at the time ("I have stopped writing songs" ). He switched to this kind of riff-finding method, which certainly produced some decent work, when combined with Jagger and the band's efforts, but really changed the Stones sound. The weakness of this method is apparent especially on his solo albums, in my opinion. Not enough melody and structure, and often not especially strong lyrics. Hard to believe the same guy wrote Ruby Tuesday. I also think that it's interesting that this switch in songwriting style seems to have started with the hard core junkie period. You have to have discipline to write structured pop songs - hard to do when you're on the stuff. Better to stay awake for days and see what comes out of the atmosphere. Yes, there are some lovely exceptions, but I miss the guy who teamed up with Jagger Tin Pan Alley style. I thought he was great.

+ 1000000000 again.

Very positive Review in todays Sunday Times Culture Section.

<and with Taylor he had somebody who kicked his ass on the guitar.>< tonterapi>


Well said.