In France, and specifically at one of the major book stores "Fnac", Life reached the # 2 position the first week, then dropped to # 5 and is currently at # 9. I am surprised by this high level position reached.

[livre.fnac.com]

[www.lepoint.fr]

Quote
dead.flowers
This thing has been discussed all over this board over again and headlined by tabloids all over the world: Keith writing about Mick's "tiny todger" in his autobiography "LIFE".

Still, I just don't get it. And, the size question notwithstanding, how can Keith be so stupid to eternalise such a silly thing in his book? Has he finally lost the last relicts of his brains? This behaviour appears unbelievably foolish and childish and imprudent. Are there no consultants and advisors around him? That subject matter must have been discussed a thousand times prior to getting it printed. Or does it all have some inner meaning that is still concealed to outsiders?

O si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

"If you had been silent, you would have remained a philosopher."

In the first 270 pages Keith mentions Mick a few times, usually just before he goes "this was before Mick changed." I observed that he was a decent lyricist to Keith's masterful songs, but all of Stone's Co-workers, from saxophonists to drivers and drug dealers seem to have been much more important for Keith's musical career than Mick.

I think its really strange to put the vinegar in the water with the potatoes.....plus the gravy should be with wine or beef stock shouldjn't it? I have some questions..maybe Keef will do a cooking show one day..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 23:56 by tumbled.

Quote
tumbled
I think its really strange to put the vinegar in the water with the potatoes.....plus the gravy should be with wine or beef stock shouldjn't it? I have some questions..maybe Keef will do a cooking show one day..

Now THAT would be fun! - he could give Gordon Ramsay a run for his money in the F-word department...

Quote
tumbled
maybe Keef will do a cooking show one day

Ready, Steady, Coke

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

A couple of reviews here that say some of the things I feel about "Life" rather better than I could: particularly the fact that Keith has chosen to write so much of his book "in character" as his public persona - which makes it both a great entertaining read and in some ways a disappointment, as others here have said more eloquently than me. Of course it isn't all like that, particularly in the earlier parts - the further the book goes on, the more it's "Keef" rather than Keith writing it - which probably reflects the truth, in its own way.

What I do feel about the book is that while Keith hasn't done a great deal of self-analysis, he has given us lots of material for us to do our own. He has been frank (if not always consistent) and doesn't seem interested in justifying or excusing his behaviour or his attitudes. I suspect that in places writing the book has forced him to revisit times and incidents he would rather have forgotten: Mick (I think) has said somewhere that Keith bears grudges but is usually too lazy to remember them (or something like that). Here, he's been forced to remember...

This is what it feels like (from the inside) to make your living being "Keith Richards": take it or leave it. It's interesting that the picture as seen from the inside is less romantic, and the character less attractive, than the usual view from the outside - Keith, as he says in the book, is not in the "showbiz" business of making himself look good "when you know you ain't".

First, the original review

[www.tnr.com]

Keith Richards's 'Life'

Keith Richards' essence as an artist, like dark matter elsewhere in the universe, is something we comprehend only by inference and comparison. Although we think of Richards as absolutely unique among rock stars, we tend to conceive of him and his music in relative terms. Compared to Mick Jagger, Richards's needy, flamboyant, beknighted partner in the Rolling Stones, Richards seems to be a model of masculine insolence as cool. Compared to the Beatles, those lovable moptops, Richards and the Stones embody rock stardom as a state of permanent bad-boyhood. Compared to Chuck Berry, his dominant influence as a guitarist, Richards sounds almost psychedelic. Compared to Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page, Richards is a minimalist.

This week, Richards's memoirs were published under the uncharacteristically grandiose title Life, and the book has been exalted in terms easy to see as more Richards relativism. That is not to say that the book isn't wonderfully fun to read, smart about music, sensationally entertaining, and true to its subject. I picked it up on Monday morning and barely put it down before finishing it on Thursday afternoon. Life is unaffected and blunt, and in its dozy, casual sketchiness, it mirrors its author's guitar playing. Still, the book is something other than—not something less, but something different than—a masterpiece of literary autobiography. Richards's great resource as both a musician and a writer is his offhandedness, an attribute that prevents him from probing into his life with a great deal of analytical depth. As always, it seems, we can't help seeing Richards in relative terms. Compared to most rock memoirs (Dylan's Chronicles notwithstanding), Life is Speak, Memory. Compared to the incoherent muttering we had every right to expect from Richards, the book he produced (with the help of co-writer James Fox) is a monument of lucidity.

It does seem a kind of miracle that Richards could elicit the performance he got from the dozen or so brain cells to have survived the neurological genocide of his drug and alcohol intake. I like Keith Richards's Life, even though I know it's only a rock and roll book.

(YouTube clip from @#$%& Blues)

I only hope Richards records a video version, reading the book into a camera, for the iPad. The text of Life rings so true to its writer that it comes across like half the information in a filmed interview, just waiting to be completed by the scary-sexy image of its author in all his satanic majesty.

(Clip of Keith talking about the blues on a BBC documentary)

David Hajdu is the music critic of The New Republic.

Then the follow-up:

[www.tnr.com]

More Thoughts on Keef

I've gotten a few complaints from fellow Keefheads—note the inclusionary construction there—about the piece I posted a few weeks ago on Keith Richards's memoir, Life. The criticism has centered not on my text, but on the videos I chose to accompany it, because neither of the two clips shows Richards making music. One of them, an excerpt from Robert Frank's 1972 documentary @#$%& Blues, captures Richards collapsing into a groupie's arms, blissed out on heroin; and the other one, a snippet from a more recent interview with Richards for a BBC documentary about the blues, shows him clear-headed but ravaged, physically, by age and self-abuse. A music-writer friend emailed to say, "Good God! Why didn't you show his work?"

The fact is, both of those videos show Richards at work—and not merely in the sense that he was on the timeclock when the footage was shot. More meaningfully, Richards's notorious gift for exuding stupefication and ghoulishness has always been part of his art, if not the very essence of his genius. His @#$%&-upedness—and there is no more precise term for it—provides the content of Richards's work. It informs his music as deeply as the blues or Chuck Berry do. As Richards acknowledges in his book, "I can't untie the threads of how much I played up to the part that was written for me. … I think some of it is that there is so much pressure to be that person that you become it, maybe, to a certain point that you can bear. It's impossible not to end up being a parody of what you thought you were."

I've always loved Keith, while knowing that my voyeuristic fascination with his decadence is a kind of sadism and, as such, a kind of cowardice. I've been too fearful of the likely consequences to dare trying more than an eensy fraction of the things he has done—and I'm referring not only to drugs, but to his pursuit of kicks of all sorts, including the thrill of creative abandon. Like others in the aged nation of geeks who comprise Stones fandom, I have been terrified by Richards's recklessness at the same time I've coveted it. If much of what Richards has done to himself is a crime, my response is a sin.

One of those Keefheads who wrote me is an old friend I used to play music with, and he sent me a link to the video I'm posting here: an excerpt from Shine a Light, Martin Scorsese's film of the Stones performing at the Beacon Theater in New York in 2006. It has Richards singing "You Got the Silver" from Let It Bleed, the first song for which he ever sang the entire lead vocal. Straightened out and cleaned up, he is still gloriously harrowing, magnetic in a @#$%&-upedness that endures, if only in our collective fantasies.

Keith likes to say: "Don't try this at home."

Interesting stuff from The New Republic, thanks Green Lady.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-19 17:13 by angee.

I'm happy the reviewer had the balls to tweak his review. Its easy just to write people off with a label in the case of Uncle Keith, he is too intelligent too deep and too genuine to be trashed like that.

has anyone else got the sense that the last 1/2 of the book is in semi chronological but not quite flowing and seems to have had to be edited quite a bit to get down to a reasonable size. It must be hard to cram all the vignettes into one volume. ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-19 18:24 by tumbled.

NY Times Book Review podcast: Interview with Keith Richards

[artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com]

***********************************************************
"What I'm doing is a sexual thing. I dance and all dancing is a replacement for sex". - Mick Jagger

NY Times Audio interview dated today November 19: maybe its older I can't tell.

[artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com]

Ooo never mind you've already posted it.. high five. how do I delete this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 00:02 by tumbled.

Quote
tumbled
I'm happy the reviewer had the balls to tweak his review. Its easy just to write people off with a label in the case of Uncle Keith, he is too intelligent too deep and too genuine to be trashed like that.

has anyone else got the sense that the last 1/2 of the book is in semi chronological but not quite flowing and seems to have had to be edited quite a bit to get down to a reasonable size. It must be hard to cram all the vignettes into one volume. ...

If he had left out all the asides about knives and "shooters", etc. it would have been a more manageable book. keith talks about Mick having LVS (Lead Vocalist Syndrome). Well he has LMS (Little Man Syndrome). I have met guys like this who are slightly built, or were picked on in school etc. They talk about how tough they are and talk about weapons all the time, making a fetish of guns and knives. Real people who know how to handle themselves are usually quiet about it, not constatntly bragging or showing off. The fact that he chose to include so much of this in his book shows just how big the discrepancy is between how he thinks he's coming off, and how it really looks to an outside observer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 01:11 by 71Tele.

i'd love to argue with you tele.but i cant.its hard to admit when one of your heros has became not only mortal but a bit of a douche bag.

this is what happens when someone doesnt have that one friend that says "what the hell are you doing?" or "what you're saying is a load of crap" it keeps us in check and grounded.you can easily see the victim of chronic ass kissing here.a grown man who has the demeanor of a spoiled child who is rarely challenged.one who doesnt notice 1/3 of the crowd heading to the restroom during his set.

my favorite guitar player looks and sounds alot like your typical hollywood celebretard who seem to think everything they say is a prophecy.

he was never forced to grow up and therefore is stuck in a bit of a time warp and views his audience as the same stoned kids that listened to him in the 60s and 70s.he doesnt realize that when he says something such as that he cured hep c on his own some of those fans may actually work in the medical field.i also dont think keith uses the net much or grasps how much information is available to everyone.if you tell a silly story ..well, lets put it this way..this isnt 1974

Quote
Rockman
.... Keith's vacation in Africa is a killer ....

The lesson is: don't go to safari if you have a heavy hangover..

- Doxa

Quote
lem motlow
i'd love to argue with you tele.but i cant.its hard to admit when one of your heros has became not only mortal but a bit of a douche bag.

this is what happens when someone doesnt have that one friend that says "what the hell are you doing?" or "what you're saying is a load of crap" it keeps us in check and grounded.you can easily see the victim of chronic ass kissing here.a grown man who has the demeanor of a spoiled child who is rarely challenged.one who doesnt notice 1/3 of the crowd heading to the restroom during his set.

my favorite guitar player looks and sounds alot like your typical hollywood celebretard who seem to think everything they say is a prophecy.

he was never forced to grow up and therefore is stuck in a bit of a time warp and views his audience as the same stoned kids that listened to him in the 60s and 70s.he doesnt realize that when he says something such as that he cured hep c on his own some of those fans may actually work in the medical field.i also dont think keith uses the net much or grasps how much information is available to everyone.if you tell a silly story ..well, lets put it this way..this isnt 1974

Couldn't agree with you more. He's my favorite guitar player too - as well as one of my favorite songwriters. I think the book is fascinating. It reveals a lot about Keith - maybe more than he really had in mind. In this way it's very much like Dylan's book. You really get a sense of who they are by what they chose to tell you (and not tell you).

I have one other observation. I think Keith really needs the balance of the other guys in the Stones, not just Mick, but especially Charlie, and even Stu and Bill when they were in the band. It keeps him in check to some degree and keeps him a bit more honest. I had an opportunity to observe the Winos backstage. These were guys all in awe of Keith and they adopted his persona to some degree. I have to say it was kind of a harsh and unpleasant atmosphere. I never liked the Winos' energy, and I think a lot has to do with the fact that no one could balance Keith. He's better with people around him who can call bvllshit on some of his more ridiculous tendencies.

I generally liked the book very much. I did however find it rather disappointing Regarding the last 20 years. 550 odd pages of autobiography yet a pultry 50 are on this period. I know already much of the older stories, and although it is fantastic to hear his side of it I would have liked to hear a bit more from recent times. For instance any YouTube video of Keith from the 90's shows him obviously completely coked or stoned...it is obvious. Yet seems he has to tryed to give the impression of being "a gentleman" these days. Maybe it is because of the family or security issues that not much dirt is revealed and certainly not as openly as in the earlier chapters. Anyone agree?

Quote
mattty973
I generally liked the book very much. I did however find it rather disappointing Regarding the last 20 years. 550 odd pages of autobiography yet a pultry 50 are on this period. I know already much of the older stories, and although it is fantastic to hear his side of it I would have liked to hear a bit more from recent times. For instance any YouTube video of Keith from the 90's shows him obviously completely coked or stoned...it is obvious. Yet seems he has to tryed to give the impression of being "a gentleman" these days. Maybe it is because of the family or security issues that not much dirt is revealed and certainly not as openly as in the earlier chapters. Anyone agree?

I do agree, but about the last 20 years, I think those are pretty much covered by his comments on all the mega-tours, which let's face it, has been what the Stones have been about since 1990 or so. Not much of musical value has happened since then. I think he has also led a more settled (for him) family life of sort of a gentleman musician which does not make for great drama to write about.

Quote
mattty973
I generally liked the book very much. I did however find it rather disappointing Regarding the last 20 years. 550 odd pages of autobiography yet a pultry 50 are on this period. I know already much of the older stories, and although it is fantastic to hear his side of it I would have liked to hear a bit more from recent times. For instance any YouTube video of Keith from the 90's shows him obviously completely coked or stoned...it is obvious. Yet seems he has to tryed to give the impression of being "a gentleman" these days. Maybe it is because of the family or security issues that not much dirt is revealed and certainly not as openly as in the earlier chapters. Anyone agree?

I agree. I see the book consisting of three parts that are different from each other. The tone and content of the book changes dramatically between them.

The first is a description of this innocent war baby who loves music dearily and grows up to be a rock star who has his own original voice. The theme is simply: MUSIC and nothing but MUSIC. Even though the description of the Stones history is way too catchy and not like to any Rolling Stones biography, this is the best part of the book for me.

The second is a description of junkie years. I never realized that the drug issue is such a big deal for Keith that he emphasizes its significance so much. The drug issues and events are the the mostly detailed pieces in the whole book. (The description of 1975 bust sets very well the tone or theme of the book). He seemingly can not decide what to say of King Heroin and slips between gloryfying and condemning. But I guess that is honest junkie talk as it can be. Keith seems to think taht those druggie years were constitutional for his persona and image (as teh music was earlier), and he really is vocal about it. It is this part that I found Keith most genuine and personal and revealing a lot of himself (not intentionally though) but I'm not so sure if I really am so inerested to hear all this. So it is DOPE DOPE DOPE.

Then comes the third part - the post-junkie years (well, in Keith's terminology: no heroin; Keith doesn't talk anything of his whiskey/vodka years). Suddenly Keith just loses his insightfulness and pointness - the scences from early 80's to today are described very sketchily and oddily - he describes music and scenes related to it with no real passion. Even his marriage is just another occasion in series of events. Constant slagging of Jagger is a big part of it, and seemingly losing any critical ability to describe his own dealings, especially in music. The events he chooces to talk in his life begs the questuon: what is the point of sharing this (safari, the kitchen/knive story). A lot of name-dropping: played and being admired by this and this person. He says he runs 8 miles against Jagger's 15 on stage every night. Oh yeah? He doesn't seem to reveal anything substantive or real. Or he sounds like not having anything to say about any more in his life.

My observation is that it is surprisingly hard to be Keith Richards when "all is said and done". Two constitute parts of being Keith Richards are music and drugs, and neither of them since the late 70's have had such substantial role in Keith's life. Only in imagewise. We will hear stories of snoring dad's ashes and how the antenna's are still out and eternal songs and riffs coming to Keith's mind. I think the third of the book should be re-written, and Keith could use a bit sel-critisism there. The world didn't end in 1979. The hardest analysis would consider Keith's downhill of creativity, the significance of his different addictions to his work, his own role in Rolling Stones dealings in the last 20 years, etc. In the last part of the book Keith decides to show nothing mortalness or signs of aging, but instead creates this mythical super hero KEEF who has always existed and will always exist.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 20:49 by Doxa.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tumbled
I'm happy the reviewer had the balls to tweak his review. Its easy just to write people off with a label in the case of Uncle Keith, he is too intelligent too deep and too genuine to be trashed like that.

has anyone else got the sense that the last 1/2 of the book is in semi chronological but not quite flowing and seems to have had to be edited quite a bit to get down to a reasonable size. It must be hard to cram all the vignettes into one volume. ...

If he had left out all the asides about knives and "shooters", etc. it would have been a more manageable book. keith talks about Mick having LVS (Lead Vocalist Syndrome). Well he has LMS (Little Man Syndrome). I have met guys like this who are slightly built, or were picked on in school etc. They talk about how tough they are and talk about weapons all the time, making a fetish of guns and knives. Real people who know how to handle themselves are usually quiet about it, not constatntly bragging or showing off. The fact that he chose to include so much of this in his book shows just how big the discrepancy is between how he thinks he's coming off, and how it really looks to an outside observer.

I aggree with you. To me Keith is a legend and after reading this book I still admire him but..In this book he is indeed bragging about himself all the time, whether he talks about him beeing tough, playing guitar or writting lyrics, basically everything he touched he turned into gold. "If I had been recruited I would have made it to general's rank".I don't think so.. But what is most disturbing to me in this book is him talking about drugs. I mean every now and then I had a feeling that I'm reading a guidebook for a junkie..how to take this an that, what amount, when to take it. And basically he says he was very smart junkie, he knew exactly how to take drugs and not like "others", I mean come on you used this shit how can you be smart about it.If you are junkie you are weak and sick, not smart and tough like he describes himself. It's on every second page - acid, heroin, crack,coke, weed, his dealers..and there was always a good reason why he was taking it.. I think I want be exploring his life any more, I'll just stick to his music, that's where he's brilliant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 22:01 by Bitches Brew.

Quote
Bitches Brew

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tumbled
I'm happy the reviewer had the balls to tweak his review. Its easy just to write people off with a label in the case of Uncle Keith, he is too intelligent too deep and too genuine to be trashed like that.

has anyone else got the sense that the last 1/2 of the book is in semi chronological but not quite flowing and seems to have had to be edited quite a bit to get down to a reasonable size. It must be hard to cram all the vignettes into one volume. ...

If he had left out all the asides about knives and "shooters", etc. it would have been a more manageable book. keith talks about Mick having LVS (Lead Vocalist Syndrome). Well he has LMS (Little Man Syndrome). I have met guys like this who are slightly built, or were picked on in school etc. They talk about how tough they are and talk about weapons all the time, making a fetish of guns and knives. Real people who know how to handle themselves are usually quiet about it, not constatntly bragging or showing off. The fact that he chose to include so much of this in his book shows just how big the discrepancy is between how he thinks he's coming off, and how it really looks to an outside observer.

I aggree with you. To me Keith is a legend and after reading this book I still admire him but..In this book he is indeed bragging about himself all the time, whether he talks about him beeing tough, playing guitar or writting lyrics, basically everything he touched he turned into gold. "If I had been recruited I would have made it to general's rank".I don't think so.. But what is most disturbing to me in this book is him talking about drugs. I mean now and then I had a feeling that I'm reading a guidebook for a junkie..how to take this an that, what amount, when to take it. And basically he says he was very smart junkie, he knew exactly how to take drugs and not like "others", I mean come on you used this shit how can you be smart about it.If you are junkie you are weak and sick, not smart and tough like he describes himself. It's on every second page - acid, heroin, crack,coke, weed, his dealers..and there was always a good reason why he was taking it.. I think I want be exploring his life any more, I'll just stick to his music, that's where he's brilliant.

Good point about the drugs. While I never judge anybody about drug use (rock and roll is the wrong milieu if you want your heroes drug-free), it's the hypocrisy about it in the book that bothers me. A "smart" junkie? Isn't that kind of a contradiction in terms? To allow oneself to get to the point where you are shitting yourself, putting yourself in "the gutter" (his words) and seriously adversely affecting your work and the livelihood and reputation of your colleagues? How 'smart" is that? Yes, he's still alive (as opposed to others), so I give him points for a sort of "junkie smart", if you will. I didn't expect contrition or confession in this book - that wouldn't be Keith, but perhaps I did expect slightly more honesty or less self-delusion.

Quote
Bitches Brew


I aggree with you. To me Keith is a legend and after reading this book I still admire him but..In this book he is indeed bragging about himself all the time, whether he talks about him beeing tough, playing guitar or writting lyrics, basically everything he touched he turned into gold. "If I had been recruited I would have made it to general's rank".I don't think so.. But what is most disturbing to me in this book is him talking about drugs. I mean now and then I had a feeling that I'm reading a guidebook for a junkie..how to take this an that, what amount, when to take it. And basically he says he was very smart junkie, he knew exactly how to take drugs and not like "others", I mean come on you used this shit how can you be smart about it.If you are junkie you are weak and sick, not smart and tough like he describes himself. It's on every second page - acid, heroin, crack,coke, weed, his dealers..and there was always a good reason why he was taking it.. I think I want be exploring his life any more, I'll just stick to his music, that's where he's brilliant.

I share your sentiments. The significance of drugs in Keith Richards story is so strongly emphasized. It doesn't matter how it is talked - there are so many views to the theme - but its amount is simply incredible. Sometimes I feel like thinking that this is just tabloid stuff - that Keith knows which is publicly most interesting part of his life and he really "shares" it all with us.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 21:52 by Doxa.

I find his comments in the book about Ronnie Wood pretty interesting and I don't think they have been commented on here. He basically says Ronnie's rehabs have been frauds. he also says Ronnie is kind of "lost" and is basically the same messed up or sober, he just might "look you in the eye more" straight (not sure if that's a back handed compliment). He obviously has a great deal of affection for Ronnie, but respect for his partner-in-weaving? Not so much. When Keith Richards has to punch you out because you are taking too many drugs, what does that say?

He also says "everybody" wanted Ronnie off the 1981 tour (by "everybody" I read Mick, Charlie and Bill). That he vouched for Ronnie to keep him in the group certainly says a lot about Keith's loyalty, though I am not sure what it says about his judgment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-20 21:58 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
mattty973
I generally liked the book very much. I did however find it rather disappointing Regarding the last 20 years. 550 odd pages of autobiography yet a pultry 50 are on this period. I know already much of the older stories, and although it is fantastic to hear his side of it I would have liked to hear a bit more from recent times. For instance any YouTube video of Keith from the 90's shows him obviously completely coked or stoned...it is obvious. Yet seems he has to tryed to give the impression of being "a gentleman" these days. Maybe it is because of the family or security issues that not much dirt is revealed and certainly not as openly as in the earlier chapters. Anyone agree?

I do agree, but about the last 20 years, I think those are pretty much covered by his comments on all the mega-tours, which let's face it, has been what the Stones have been about since 1990 or so. Not much of musical value has happened since then. I think he has also led a more settled (for him) family life of sort of a gentleman musician which does not make for great drama to write about.

Patti made the comment that she hoped there wasn't much about her in the book that it was mostly about the music, as it should be, I think were her exact words in her Vogue interview this past summer. That would make writing about the last 20 years shorter if she asked him not write as much about their private life.

I like it so far.....

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

I just came across the part where Mick Taylor joins the band. I think Keith is right on the money talking about that. Taylor is a guy who has all the talent in the world. But has also fought his demons. I think he fought them then and he still is today.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
I just came across the part where Mick Taylor joins the band. I think Keith is right on the money talking about that. Taylor is a guy who has all the talent in the world. But has also fought his demons. I think he fought them then and he still is today.

I think you're right. Just my intuition.

I finally laid it aside, being somewhere in the middle.
I couldn´t stand his selfishness, after all he
would have been nothing without Brenda and the others.

Quote
TooTough
I finally laid it aside, being somewhere in the middle.
I couldn´t stand his selfishness, after all he
would have been nothing without Brenda and the others.

Really?? Despite my criticisms, I was never bored. The book was very entertaining.

Quote
TooTough
I finally laid it aside, being somewhere in the middle.
I couldn´t stand his selfishness, after all he
would have been nothing without Brenda and the others.

So do I. Never mind selfishness(that's what one expect from the rock star) and homoerotic longing for Jagger(hovewer it's more embarrassing than entertaining), but it's so boring. Now, that's the sin I can't excuse

Maybe do what Dylan did and break it down into decades or eras - to try and squeeze the Stones into one tome, as I learned from LIFE, seems a bit silly.

Nice book, stories well told - but when the '75 tour becomes one page - the '69 tour not much more - etc. I dunno - that much compression seems to rob the reader of lots of content - a career this rich in experiences gets a bit breezy, I think, when done like this.

Just my two cents - and I stand by the critique that the photo collection seems lazy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 02:54 by hbwriter.

Great Post. Agreed!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"