I finished it on Thursday night and am gearing up for another go-round today.

I loved it. I thought it was both hilarious and touching, a perfect mix of bullsh*t and heart - Keith in a nutshell. I don't think he was really hard on anybody aside from Brian, and by pretty much every account I've read, Brian was kind of a prick, so that's not surprising. I mean, all the references to Bill's tea-making abilities - I took that as affectionate razzing, not "that miserable bastard can't even do something as simple as make a decent cup of tea". Actually, I thought he was rather harsh towards Ronnie. I picked up nothing but a lot of love towards Mick, and sadness and frustration that their relationship went down the shooter. As for Anita, he basically says they'd still be together had she cleaned up with him - it's pretty clear she was the love of his life. I mean, after Doris & Bert, Mick & Anita were probably the two people who had the most impact on his life, so it's only natural that he dwells on them.

But my favorite part was his childhood. Loved everything about his family ("Cousin Beef" - ha!), Dartford, school, choir, and everything leading up to Sidcup. And how much does young Bert look like Keith in that photo of him & Doris in bathing suits? Now we know where the ears come from! And Doris... what a character. She's clearly where Keith got his tough-guy side.

Really, I can't say enough good things about the book. Of course I wish he went into more detail about certain things, but the voice and tone were unmistakably Keith, and I'd rather have that than a Wyman-esque checklist of, for example, "What we did in March of '66".

Quote
JuanTCB
I finished it on Thursday night and am gearing up for another go-round today.

Now that's the spirit that I like

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

Any new insights, except that Keith was a (com)poser, and totally on drugs and lonely from '70 until '80?

Quote
kleermaker
Any new insights, except that Keith was a (com)poser, and totally on drugs and lonely from '70 until '80?

Booze 40 % + and coke until 2006 & smoking like a chimney.
Cheers.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
kleermaker
Any new insights, except that Keith was a (com)poser, and totally on drugs and lonely from '70 until '80?

Booze 40 % + and coke until 2006 & smoking like a chimney.
Cheers.

Well, that saves me a read.

Quote
kleermaker
Any new insights, except that Keith was a (com)poser, and totally on drugs and lonely from '70 until '80?

One point that might especially interest you. Keith claims that when Taylor joined, Keith started to write songs that had Taylor's abilities already taken under concern. He knew what Taylor could and would do for them. That is to say that Taylor extending the Stones soundscale went according to Keith's master plan. (Funny rhetorical feature of the book: when someone else - only Jagger is mentioned - brings an idea or a song, it is Keith's job to develop it further - and finally, all credition - as far as true greatness go - should be addressed to Keith or the "band" which of course is totally under Keith''s supervision("Sympathy For the Devil", "Brown Sugar", "Miss You".) When Keith brings a song or a riff or sketch, the rest just do what Keith supposes or expects them to do - all the greatness is in the original idea...)

One another thing. Keith speaks very fondly of his and Taylor's co-work with guitar. Not much is discussed but enough. As I interpret his words, he was so inspired and fascinated of the five-string open tuning possibilities at time, that having a wonderful player as Taylor in the band - Keith even admits that as a guitarist Taylor was already there where he is was just travelling on - wasn't any threat for him (or his ego). He seemingly loved the task of taking care of the rhythm or chord section, and freewillingly gave the lead and solos duties to Taylor. 1969 tour was a chance to take the new innovation to tour (and Keith tells how Ike Turned forced him to teach it to him, and how the next Ike & Tina Turner album was made totally acccording to Keith's teachings, from Open G. True or not, I don't know). EXILE was like a final study what can be really worked out of the open tuning possibilities.

No mention of any "ancient art of weaving" is mentioned in those pages when golden era - Keith also agrees with the title - from BEGGARS to EXILE is discussed - and this the era Keith gives his most detailed musical analysis and is most proud of.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 20:18 by Doxa.

I found it generous that Kieth gives Mick all credit for "Moonlight Mile" despite the historical recollection of others that Kieth Came up with riff, "the Japanese thing." It just seems like he did make some calculated moves to avoid being petty and is being generous, probably in the best interest of the band. He is trying not to appear as though he is compensating for a "little dodger."

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
Any new insights, except that Keith was a (com)poser, and totally on drugs and lonely from '70 until '80?

One point that might especially interest you. Keith claims that when Taylor joined, Keith started to write songs that had Taylor's abilities already taken under concern. He knew what Taylor could and would do for them. That is to say that Taylor extending the Stones soundscale went according to Keith's master plan. (Funny rhetorical feature of the book: when someone else - only Jagger is mentioned - brings an idea or a song, it is Keith's job to develop it further - and finally, all credition - as far as true greatness go - should be addressed to Keith or the "band" which of course is totally under Keith''s supervision("Sympathy For the Devil", "Brown Sugar", "Miss You".) When Keith brings a song or a riff or sketch, the rest just do what Keith supposes or expects them to do - all the greatness is in the original idea...)

One another thing. Keith speaks very fondly of his and Taylor's co-work with guitar. Not much is discussed but enough. As I interpret his words, he was so inspired and fascinated of the five-string open tuning possibilities at time, that having a wonderful player as Taylor in the band - Keith even admits that as a guitarist Taylor was already there where he is was just travelling on - wasn't any threat for him (or his ego). He seemingly loved the task of taking care of the rhythm or chord section, and freewillingly gave the lead and solos duties to Taylor. 1969 tour was a chance to take the new innovation to tour (and Keith tells how Ike Turned forced him to teach it to him, and how the next Ike & Tina Turner album was made totally acccording to Keith's teachings, from Open G. True or not, I don't know). EXILE was like a final study what can be really worked out of the open tuning possibilities.

No mention of any "ancient art of weaving" is mentioned in those pages when golden era - Keith also agrees with the title - from BEGGARS to EXILE is discussed - and this the era Keith gives his most detailed musical analysis and is most proud of.

- Doxa

Thanks Doxa, one of the most (if not the most) informative posts on The Book.

0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 21:29 by Amsterdamned.

0

Quote
Amsterdamned
0

Now who can argue with that ?
Proost

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

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
Any new insights, except that Keith was a (com)poser, and totally on drugs and lonely from '70 until '80?

One point that might especially interest you. Keith claims that when Taylor joined, Keith started to write songs that had Taylor's abilities already taken under concern. He knew what Taylor could and would do for them. That is to say that Taylor extending the Stones soundscale went according to Keith's master plan. (Funny rhetorical feature of the book: when someone else - only Jagger is mentioned - brings an idea or a song, it is Keith's job to develop it further - and finally, all credition - as far as true greatness go - should be addressed to Keith or the "band" which of course is totally under Keith''s supervision("Sympathy For the Devil", "Brown Sugar", "Miss You".) When Keith brings a song or a riff or sketch, the rest just do what Keith supposes or expects them to do - all the greatness is in the original idea...)
- Doxa

This is worse than anything else. I thought he is complementary of Mick´s songwriting. The greatness is in the original idea when keith comes up with them, when Mick comes up with the idea or even the nearly finished song it is again Keith who wants credit for the true greatness?

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Amsterdamned
0

Now who can argue with that ?
Proost

Well said; I didn't want to spoil this topic on Iraq, think twice...





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 00:22 by Amsterdamned.

Strange that the post-Aftermath albums not mentioned in the book are Buttons, IORR, and Tattoo You.

I found the most interesting bits to be about The Courtfield Road period with Robert Fraser and that crowd, just as I found the most interesting bits in Miles's book about McCartney, Many Years From Now, were from the same period.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Amsterdamned
0

Now who can argue with that ?
Proost

Well said; I didn't want to spoil this topic on Iraq, think twice...

What about Afghanistan?

As much as the Stones loved and played the blues, LIFE affirms what I've always thought: that Keith plays up "We're a blues band" more than was true for the sake of establishing "street cred." Alongside all these claims of the Stones being "a blues band" and listening almost exclusively to blues records, in LIFE are also lines like (on p. 133) "The best rhythm guitar playing I ever heard was Don Everly [of the Everly Brothers]. Nobody ever thinks of that, but their rhythm guitar playing was perfect." And (on p. 144), "The Ronettes...released one of the greatest songs ever recorded, BE MY BABY."

I admired Mick in ACCORDING TO THE ROLLING STONES for confessing that he once bought Tab Hunter's record RED SAILS IN THE SUNSET.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 02:32 by Title5Take1.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
kleermaker
Any new insights, except that Keith was a (com)poser, and totally on drugs and lonely from '70 until '80?

Booze 40 % + and coke until 2006 & smoking like a chimney.
Cheers.

Well, that saves me a read.

Read the book, kleermaker. You are likely to wonder what all the fuss is about !

Quote
Edward Twining
Read the book, kleermaker. You are likely to wonder what all the fuss is about !

Absolutely. I've gotten to page 200 now and I can only say that I still love it.
And indeed, I truly wonder what it is that gets some people so upset.

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

According to an excerpt from Life, Keith asserts that Ian Stewart started the Rolling Stones, handpicked the members, forged the whole thing, and came up with the original vision for the band. Well, another one bites the dust for poor ole' Brian Jones. Brian being written out of the band's history once again? I guess in a couple years time, we'll be arguing whether Brian was ever a member of the Rolling Stones- maybe it was Ronnie in a blond wig?

I actually don't think it's that fair to Stu, though, because Keith's only heaped on such praise since Stu died (too little too late, I'd say). I'm reminded of John Lennon's line "Everybody loves you when you're six foot in the ground" (lyric from his song Nobody Loves You).

Quote
neptune
According to an excerpt from Life, Keith asserts that Ian Stewart started the Rolling Stones, handpicked the members, forged the whole thing, and came up with the original vision for the band. Well, another one bites the dust for poor ole' Brian Jones. Brian being written out of the band's history once again? I guess in a couple years time, we'll be arguing whether Brian was ever a member of the Rolling Stones- maybe it was Ronnie in a blond wig?

Or maybe Brian was wrongly credited all along?

Look you guys, it is clear from all sources that both Stew and Brian started the Rolling Stones. As for Keith's view on this subject, he was clear in stating that he believed it was Stew who cleared the way via the auditions that it was Mick and Keith who would be in the band. Of course it was Brian's ad in the SOHO Jazz News that lured in Stew to the Bricklayers Arms pub for auditions that brought him into the picture. In this case it is easily Brian's brain child. stew didn't place the ads. In Keith's book there is no negativity expressed towards Brian early in the book. Keith has stated many times he was blown away by Brian' slide playing ability. Early on Brian was a guiding light, but his star dimmed as celebrity gained prominence.

While Keith eventually became bitter and negative in his feelings towards Brian as a personality, the issues that became divisive revolved around the money, Brian's health weakness as it related to the band, his abusive behavior towards Anita, and his evolving lame performance at studio sessions. None of these issues would paint Keith as being over the top cruel towards Brian. It merely looks to me as a Darwinian response to a situation where the band's survival meant more to those guys than Brian's fragile persona. Was it right/fair, who are we to judge? Keith merely states it through his experience. Were any of us there to dispute this? I am sure there is some guilt as it relates to Brian within both Mick and Keith. They lived with the guy. Strange in that both Charlie and Bill were more sympathetic, while Stew seemed to also detest Brian in the end.

I think it is fair to assume that without Brian there would have been no Rolling Stones as we know them. The same could be said for Stew on similar terms. I think it was really Brian's deal. He came down to London from Cheltenham to play blues. He wanted to get a band together. Stew showed up first at the Arms and cleared the way for the Dartford boys, after everyone else had shown their licks. No Brian ad in London, no Stones.

Stew leaned towards Mick and Keith based on their "feel" for the music. I think that's why they made the first cut. Brian dug their enthusiasm for the music he loved, and that brought the core together.

Well said, filstan.

Quote
neptune
According to an excerpt from Life, Keith asserts that Ian Stewart started the Rolling Stones, handpicked the members, forged the whole thing, and came up with the original vision for the band. Well, another one bites the dust for poor ole' Brian Jones. Brian being written out of the band's history once again? I guess in a couple years time, we'll be arguing whether Brian was ever a member of the Rolling Stones- maybe it was Ronnie in a blond wig?

Thats not quite what he said. He confirms that Stu was the first to answer Brian's ad (which effectively acknowledges that Brian formed the band) but that it was Stu who then effectively organised things, helped by the experience he'd already gained and the contacts he'd built up on the local music scene.

What Keith could do though is correct the revisionist (and now officially sanctioned) bollocks that he and Mick formed the band. Even the Stones' facebook page suggests that they did.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-30 14:59 by Gazza.

old old news,,,in the early days every account was that it was stu that made the stones roll

and I have yet to see a quote of Keith or anyone talking bad about stu(if anyone has please pass it on),, even before his untimely death, there was praise for stu

Quote
Gazza

Quote
neptune
According to an excerpt from Life, Keith asserts that Ian Stewart started the Rolling Stones, handpicked the members, forged the whole thing, and came up with the original vision for the band. Well, another one bites the dust for poor ole' Brian Jones. Brian being written out of the band's history once again? I guess in a couple years time, we'll be arguing whether Brian was ever a member of the Rolling Stones- maybe it was Ronnie in a blond wig?

Thats not quite what he said. He confirms that Stu was the first to answer Brian's ad (which effectively acknowledges that Brian formed the band) but that it was Stu who then effectively organised things, helped by the experience he'd already gained and the contacts he'd built up on the local music scene.

What Keith could do though is correct the revisionist (and now officially sanctioned) bollocks that he and Mick formed the band. Even the Stones' facebook page suggests that they did.

What does come over from the book is that in Keith's recollection he had to pass an audition with Ian Stewart (at which Brian wasn't present) to get into the band. So he felt that Stu had the say-so on whether he was accepted, and he was "working for Stu" from then on...

That does suggest, as Gazza says, that Brian was the ideas man but Stu did a lot of the day to day organising (for instance, it's his telephone number you had to call to book the Stones - or at least the telephone number of his desk at the office, which was the only phone available to any member of the band in the early days).

i've always thought it was Brian & Stu's band.

....so shoot me.

Quote Keith: The Rolling Stones was Brian's baby.

Stu was important, too, but then so were they all. Keith also said in the '71 Rolling Stone interview it was Brian who kept everyone together. I agree that it's only been since Stu's death that Keith's wanted to credit Stu in this way, I just see it as his way of honoring a good guy who got a raw deal, it just so happens he's doing it at Brian's expense.

Quote
courtfieldroad
Quote Keith: The Rolling Stones was Brian's baby.

Stu was important, too, but then so were they all. Keith also said in the '71 Rolling Stone interview it was Brian who kept everyone together. I agree that it's only been since Stu's death that Keith's wanted to credit Stu in this way, I just see it as his way of honoring a good guy who got a raw deal, it just so happens he's doing it at Brian's expense.

I agree 100%. Well said. I think Keith's compliments toward Stu are in their extreme nothing but corny because they go laughably beyond facts. If Stu would be around, he most likely would be embarrassed. I don't think it is the best way to celebrate person's memory by attributing him things he didn't do. Especially knowing that here are lots of people who take every Keith's word as a fact or at least as a gospel.

- Doxa

Quote
Gazza

Quote
neptune
According to an excerpt from Life, Keith asserts that Ian Stewart started the Rolling Stones, handpicked the members, forged the whole thing, and came up with the original vision for the band. Well, another one bites the dust for poor ole' Brian Jones. Brian being written out of the band's history once again? I guess in a couple years time, we'll be arguing whether Brian was ever a member of the Rolling Stones- maybe it was Ronnie in a blond wig?

Thats not quite what he said. He confirms that Stu was the first to answer Brian's ad (which effectively acknowledges that Brian formed the band) but that it was Stu who then effectively organised things, helped by the experience he'd already gained and the contacts he'd built up on the local music scene.

What Keith could do though is correct the revisionist (and now officially sanctioned) bollocks that he and Mick formed the band. Even the Stones' facebook page suggests that they did.

There seems to be quite a laps of time between Jones's ad and the invitation from Ian to Keith and Mick to join a jam in a pub. The people who ended up on that jam where basically two camps: Brian's contacts, and Mick and Keith through Ian. Then the key member is Charlie, who is Ian's contact. Then, according to Keith, Ian was instrumental in getting gigs in these jazz places etc.

It does look like Ian was more instrumental to the formation of the Stones than Brian. But then again, he does not mention Charlie and Bill in any way. His only real acknowledgements are the songwriting of himself (80%) and Mick (the rest), and half a page on the beautiful playing of Mick Taylor. That's basically all there is. He spends 6 pages on the Wingless Angels,half on the Stones.

Mathijs



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-30 19:22 by Mathijs.