For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
courtfieldroadQuote
BärsQuote
courtfieldroad
...
You missed the point. Perhaps my fault.
Sorry, Bärs, based on your response I re-read what you wrote and can see another interpretation I didn't before so it was my misreading.
But still I'm glad to have posted the links where it's shown how Keith is revising the Stones history in this particular case of who he thought was so important in the beginning. It's really but one example of him rewriting the truth as he sees fit, and it's such an obvious example.
As annoying as it can seem, it actually does good to have other posters try to dance around what Keith is doing and defend him on this point. That only emphasizes the reality of what Doxa so rightly called Keith's agenda when writing the book.
Quote
BärsQuote
courtfieldroadQuote
BärsQuote
courtfieldroad
...
You missed the point. Perhaps my fault.
Sorry, Bärs, based on your response I re-read what you wrote and can see another interpretation I didn't before so it was my misreading.
But still I'm glad to have posted the links where it's shown how Keith is revising the Stones history in this particular case of who he thought was so important in the beginning. It's really but one example of him rewriting the truth as he sees fit, and it's such an obvious example.
As annoying as it can seem, it actually does good to have other posters try to dance around what Keith is doing and defend him on this point. That only emphasizes the reality of what Doxa so rightly called Keith's agenda when writing the book.
I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.
Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.
Quote
MathijsQuote
TrulyMicksQuote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material. He had the riff, the melody, the song titel and main theme, and then would throw it at Mick, whom he then credits of being a genius in completing the song. He states there's just a few Mick songs -YCAGWYW, SFTD, Moonlight Mile and BS. Especially MM is a revelation, as this adds to Taylor's claim he wrote it with Jagger.
My main gripe about the book is that a biography normally is about a very interesting person. And to be honest, I just don't think Keith Richards from '70 to 'the mid-80's was a very interesting person. All we read is about his drug addiction, scoring drugs, cold turkey and whatever, but nothing really interesting about him, his friends, his experiences on the tours. His only memory from a tour is being arrested in Boston in '72...
Mathijs
My main gripe is that the book is fiction but marketed as nonfiction.
What reason do we have to assume that? There's just a few "factual" acounts, and these quite match what we know and assume to be true. There isn't much that, when checked against a source that has no doubts than can be atributed as "fiction".
98% of the book is about his feelings, and how he experienced things, and hence is his truth. If you want to read facts read Wyman's books, only problem is that he was hardly a member of the Stones.
Mathijs
Quote
proudmaryQuote
24FPS
Just once I'd like to see one original, still living Rolling Stone say something to the effect, "My God, we were kids. Brian was the cornerstone of the band, but he had personality problems we were too young to deal with. And you get tired of dealing with them. We basically became a quartet with this jealous malcontent delivering less and less to our sound in the studio and he made touring an impossibility. It all happened before we realized how heavy drugs were. Maybe Brian could have gotten some proper help. There was a touch of genius in his musicianship, but he lost his way. He wasn't shouldering his load and we got tired of carrying him. Put yourselves in our shoes if you want to judge us. Looking back, he had a great influence on the band in the musical directions we went, the whole look and attitude of being a Rolling Stone. He may have been a pain in the ass, but I would never take away his accomplishments. He was only 27, man. He could've straightened up and maybe accomplished some of those things in that brain of his. It's so complicated to try and explain to outsiders what went down between Brian and the rest of the group. It wasn't pretty and maybe we weren't all mature about it. But we were young too and dealing with the pressures of stardom. Rest in Peace, Brian. We couldn't have gotten this thing off the ground without you. You rotten sod." Now, would something gracious like that be so hard?
Seems to me that's what Mick says in his interview with J.Wenner about Brian(Jagger Remembers, RS 1995)
Quote
stones78Quote
Mathijs
What reason do we have to assume that? There's just a few "factual" acounts, and these quite match what we know and assume to be true. There isn't much that, when checked against a source that has no doubts than can be atributed as "fiction".
98% of the book is about his feelings, and how he experienced things, and hence is his truth. If you want to read facts read Wyman's books, only problem is that he was hardly a member of the Stones.
Mathijs
Bill hardly a member of the Stones? What do you mean?
Quote
MarieI'm not making excuses for Brian's behavior towards women. That is inexcusable. In fact, I'm not going to make excuses for him at all. He was what he was, not perfect, and with flaws. Paranoid? Sure, and you'll read many accounts by others to say he had good reason to be on several occasions. He should be given his due where the Stones are concerned, though, just like Mick Taylor should be given his.Quote
LeonidPQuote
ccQuote
Gazza
Even for the period when they were close friends, Brian has never come across in too many accounts that I've read from anyone as a particularly likeable human being,
not quite -- numerous avid users of the Internet in the 1990s and 2000s think he was a wonderful man.
not sure if you're joking, and not just from Keith's book, but Brian was a user of others, stuck-up, paranoid, and regularly beat up his girlfriends ... not really a wonderful man
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
stones78Quote
Mathijs
What reason do we have to assume that? There's just a few "factual" acounts, and these quite match what we know and assume to be true. There isn't much that, when checked against a source that has no doubts than can be atributed as "fiction".
98% of the book is about his feelings, and how he experienced things, and hence is his truth. If you want to read facts read Wyman's books, only problem is that he was hardly a member of the Stones.
Mathijs
Bill hardly a member of the Stones? What do you mean?
Bill screwed the most girls. That's what's R&R is about.
Some people never dig that.
Quote
Doxa
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
Quote
71TeleQuote
Doxa
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
Now we have Keith and Charlie recently saying the Taylor era was the Golden Era, and Jagger just brought Taylor back into the studio. Now, who does that leave? Oh, right...
Quote
mitchflorida
One of the reasons the Rolling Stones became so popular was because Brian Jones was so handsome and good looking.
Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material. He had the riff, the melody, the song titel and main theme, and then would throw it at Mick, whom he then credits of being a genius in completing the song. He states there's just a few Mick songs -YCAGWYW, SFTD, Moonlight Mile and BS. Especially MM is a revelation, as this adds to Taylor's claim he wrote it with Jagger.
MyMathijs
Quote
stones78Quote
BärsQuote
courtfieldroadQuote
BärsQuote
courtfieldroad
...
You missed the point. Perhaps my fault.
Sorry, Bärs, based on your response I re-read what you wrote and can see another interpretation I didn't before so it was my misreading.
But still I'm glad to have posted the links where it's shown how Keith is revising the Stones history in this particular case of who he thought was so important in the beginning. It's really but one example of him rewriting the truth as he sees fit, and it's such an obvious example.
As annoying as it can seem, it actually does good to have other posters try to dance around what Keith is doing and defend him on this point. That only emphasizes the reality of what Doxa so rightly called Keith's agenda when writing the book.
I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.
Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.
You want to compare Brian's musical contributions to the band to Stu's? Brian deserves to have a fan club and a statue.
Quote
lem motlow
1.does keith mention that it was mick that brought him into the group?
2.does he still sell the old andrew-stu story or admit the stones themselves threw stu out?
3.does he still say his solo career was a reaction to mick or does he talk about the barbarians tour and his own single and plans for a possible album as far back as the late 70s.
i like keith but you cant just change real situations into you're own reality.
Quote
DoxaQuote
AmsterdamnedQuote
stones78Quote
Mathijs
What reason do we have to assume that? There's just a few "factual" acounts, and these quite match what we know and assume to be true. There isn't much that, when checked against a source that has no doubts than can be atributed as "fiction".
98% of the book is about his feelings, and how he experienced things, and hence is his truth. If you want to read facts read Wyman's books, only problem is that he was hardly a member of the Stones.
Mathijs
Bill hardly a member of the Stones? What do you mean?
Bill screwed the most girls. That's what's R&R is about.
Some people never dig that.
Hahahha! It is one of the funniest revalations (read: gossips) Keith "The Deep Throat" Richards wants to share with us in the book regards Bill Wyman that his claims for screwing so many girls is heavily over-exaggarated and all he was able to do is to serve them awful mild tea... (keith was hiding behind the next door and making notes..)
But there was one tender moment between them Keith remembers almost fondly: when Bill carried him smack in Toronto. Good Bill was something good for. That and the big amp.
Not a member... well well well... good that here finally starts some politically correct (revisionist) voices be heard; Mathijs took the demanding job into his informative shoulders... to keep his 'old' claim that nothing was lost when Darryl replaced Wyman, because, well, there wasn't hardly anything existing to be replaced... in fact, the Stones have always been a four piece-band - Just look at the RARITIES cover.. ><
- Doxa
No, but since some here thinks that this book is the shit that holds the truth and some of us feel that we have to say that Keith's memory of things has change with every decade. He gets nastier the older he gets. When it comes to Brian Keith's memory seems to be a mess and there is no end to making his role in the Stones as small as possible.Quote
Bärs
I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.
God bless Stu. He deserves a big credit just for the fact that he stayed!Quote
Bärs
Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.
Just like the neverending "Brian was a horrible prick who just abused women! He got what he deserved!" thing.Quote
71Tele
It's just the whole "Andrew came along and took Brian's band away" thing that is extremely tiresome.
Quote
tonterapiNo, but since some here thinks that this book is the shit that holds the truth and some of us feel that we have to say that Keith's memory of things has change with every decade. He gets nastier the older he gets. When it comes to Brian Keith's memory seems to be a mess and there is no end to making his role in the Stones as small as possible.Quote
Bärs
I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.God bless Stu. He deserves a big credit just for the fact that he stayed!Quote
Bärs
Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.
But you can't compare Stu with Brian. Brian had problems, psychological issues from his loveless childhood for starters. Stu didn't have that and he was certainly a lot more self secure than Brian and since Brian never really learned to face his problems he ended up creating more. Some by accident, some by stubborness and some by stupidity. But I don't believe for a second that he just acted like an ass because he was an ass. Humans tend to be more complex than that.
Then you have to look at the Stones story in general. Brian was an, if not a leader, equal to Mick and Keith until they started to write songs. Stu was definitely not. Brian played the guitar and with his sliding he got a big part of the spotlight. It was Mick and Brian at that time - Keith was the 3:rd man. Stu played keyboards and was held away from photos of the band. He wasn't very known.
..and at last. Yes, Brian have an ugly statue that doesn't look like him, a movie that is fiction and show him like a complete idiot and a fan club that I really don't know what to think of. I think that Stu is happy that he don't have that kind of "appreciation".Just like the neverending "Brian was a horrible prick who just abused women! He got what he deserved!" thing.Quote
71Tele
It's just the whole "Andrew came along and took Brian's band away" thing that is extremely tiresome.
Quote
Mathijs
Hey Doxa, you're getting really over the top in this thread. You used to be well-thought and eloquent, and now you're just ranting about how everything is a lie.
Mathijs
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Maybe a stupid question, please forgive me if that is the case.
But, butt, bud I really like reading this book. Anybody else with the same feeling ?
Quote
kleermaker
It might be of any help if you just would explain why you "really like reading this book".
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Maybe a stupid question, please forgive me if that is the case.
But, butt, bud I really like reading this book. Anybody else with the same feeling ?