Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
tatters

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
tatters

Quote
tatters
No mention by Keith of his huge 1960s solo hit.

Hey, ninety-seven to three
It's good to have you back again, oh
Hey, ninety-seven to three
Her lovin' is the medicine that saaaved me
Oh, I love my baby

If anyone "gets" this, let me know. I thought it was very clever.

Evidently not.

Evidently not clever, or evidently no one gets it? YOU get it, don't you?

Well if no one gets it than I guess it's not that clever. So no I don't get it.

No, if no one gets it, it just means that I'm REALLY clever, and that you haven't read Life and don't know your top 40 AM radio hits circa 1966-67. There, I gave you a big hint.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-30 17:41 by tatters.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
tatters

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
tatters

Quote
tatters
No mention by Keith of his huge 1960s solo hit.

Hey, ninety-seven to three
It's good to have you back again, oh
Hey, ninety-seven to three
Her lovin' is the medicine that saaaved me
Oh, I love my baby

If anyone "gets" this, let me know. I thought it was very clever.

Evidently not.

Evidently not clever, or evidently no one gets it? YOU get it, don't you?

Well if no one gets it than I guess it's not that clever. So no I don't get it.

i have no clue either -- much too clever for me

wait, isn't there some comment by keith in the book on mixing dope - and then he wrote lyrics to that effect, i.e. on the ratio? ... still not sure why this would be considered 'clever'.

OK, here it is - of course as this was the 60s the lyrics had to be cleaned up a bit...

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Quote
tatters

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
tatters

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
tatters

Quote
tatters
No mention by Keith of his huge 1960s solo hit.

Hey, ninety-seven to three
It's good to have you back again, oh
Hey, ninety-seven to three
Her lovin' is the medicine that saaaved me
Oh, I love my baby

If anyone "gets" this, let me know. I thought it was very clever.

Evidently not.

Evidently not clever, or evidently no one gets it? YOU get it, don't you?

Well if no one gets it than I guess it's not that clever. So no I don't get it.

i have no clue either -- much too clever for me

wait, isn't there some comment by keith in the book on mixing dope - and then he wrote lyrics to that effect, i.e. on the ratio? ... still not sure why this would be considered 'clever'.

OK, here it is - of course as this was the 60s the lyrics had to be cleaned up a bit...

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!

i know i'm a bit slow, but i still need the 'clever' part explained, thanks.

Quote
Green Lady

OK, here it is - of course as this was the 60s the lyrics had to be cleaned up a bit...

That's exactly right. It had to be cleaned up in order to get it played on the radio. You know, even to this very day, there are die-hard, hard-core Stones fans who don't realize that the Keith who recorded this song, and OUR Keith, are one and the same person. It's one of the best-kept secrets in all of rock and roll history. Sure, the guy in the video looks nothing like Keith Richards, but that's because they hired a male model to lip sync. "98.6" was one of several solo hits written and recorded by Keith Richards in 1966 and 1967, but due to stipulations of the Decca contract, too convoluted to go into here, Keith wasn't permitted to perform his solo material on stage, on TV, or on film. So (and this is a not-at-all-uncommon practice), they went out and found some "pretty boy" to mouth the lyrics. As Keith explains in "Life", he thought it might be a good idea to write a song called "97 to 3", as a way of remembering his heroin recipe. Three parts pure smack, to 97 parts "cut". But this was 1966. If word got around that this innocuous little ditty was written only as the singer's way of remembering his heroin recipe, it would have caused a scandal. So the title was changed to "98.6", normal body temperature. Normal, that is, when you've had your "fix", and everything has evened out. I hope this clears things up for everybody.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-31 02:00 by tatters.

Quote
tatters

That's exactly right. It had to be cleaned up in order to get it played on the radio. You know, even to this very day, there are die-hard, hard-core Stones fans who don't realize that the Keith who recorded this song, and OUR Keith, are one and the same person. It's one of the best-kept secrets in all of rock and roll history.

what do you mean by 'recorded'? there's no way that is Keith Richards singing on this track

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
tatters

That's exactly right. It had to be cleaned up in order to get it played on the radio. You know, even to this very day, there are die-hard, hard-core Stones fans who don't realize that the Keith who recorded this song, and OUR Keith, are one and the same person. It's one of the best-kept secrets in all of rock and roll history.

what do you mean by 'recorded'? there's no way that is Keith Richards singing on this track

He´s just trying to make a joke, that´s all...

Quote
proudmary
Jagger is no saint. But you end up feeling that he must be blessed with unusual reserves of stoicism to have put up with Richards's outrageously self-absorbed behaviour over such a long period of time.[/b]

Well, well.

I wonder how Keith feels being described in pretty much the exact way he, himself, might have described Brian.

Outrageously self-absorbed? Keith?

Yep, I'd say poor ole Brian rubbed off on you more than you'd admit.

How does it feel, arsehole?

So far I am finding the book great but Cjarlie has only just joined the band.

So how's that for a Subject?


It was so cozy. The monsoon-like rain was coming down outside but there we were under my white down duvet getting it on like it was 1970 all over again.

Every once in a while I got out of bed to refill the wine glass or get a snack but really did not want to leave his side and only did when my current all time favorite Stones song Waiting on a Friend came through the headphones I was wearing and caused me to get up and dance around the bedroom. He didn't seem to mind at all as I literally picked him up and put him down even though he describes himself as someone who has a very short temper with people who ignore his single-minded focus even if things take, as they usually do, all night long. I was so turned on I could not get to sleep anyway without the eventual assistance of a white pill which I thought might make us even more kindred as I knew Keith had been fond of these at one time.

It was amazing because I had never been particularly entranced with Keith or any of the individual Stones, though of course as a dancer I admired Mick's wiry body and his moves and his incredible energy, but I was always a passionate Stones, the group, fan, especially after the Beatles had begun their downward spiral and I sensed Stones were in it for the longer haul.

I could mark my life by the Stones concerts I had seen: at the Garden, in Amstel Hall in Amsterdam where I almost got trampled to death, on the field in Dodger Stadium accompanied by a nine year old who kept nudging me as the people in front of us lit up joint after joint and the sweet smell of pot wafted over us or, finally, the most recent time at the Hollywood Bowl when I was the guest of a renegade eighty-something Hollywood producer-director and his wife and had stood along side them in the stands as we sung along with the chorus of Jumpin Jack Flash.

And so here I was in bed with Keith practically all to myself and there could not have been a sexier, more boon, intelligent and intriguing companion to usher in the New Year with his skull rings and exposed, hairy chest and kohl-ringed eyes. Even though he insisted on telling me all about Anita and Ronnie and Patti, I wasn't jealous hearing about their sexual exploits one bit and only felt myself grateful to be under the sheets with the very same, studly guy.

Keith made me understand that the Stones, especially he and Mick, had had very trying times and that for a long time his very best friend was really the junk that he poured into his butt. (He couldn't mainline because, well, it would show). He also gave me insight that the life of a jet setting, rock and rolling Stone may not have gathered moss but instead hundreds of groupies, musicians, producers, managers, friends, hangers-on rich and poor and of course, fans.

And he generously doffed his hat to the other musical geniuses of the century, his inspirations. He was also excellent on the historical roots of blues, jazz, rock and roll and how to play the guitar, erudite (with the ample aid of James Fox, his buddy, three-way no problem) and clearly widely read. The way he said he began writing the Stones songs--a phrase or first line handed off to Mick and then worked over by them both--seemed like letting the genie out of the bottle.

I know you might be very jealous of me and the time we got to spend together which ended up lasting the whole entire weekend, three nights of intimacy I will never forget, but I will give you a secret tip: you too can have your nights with Keith as he is a very democratic fellow and understands, like that night in Jamaica he told me about where he went to the bordello near his house and just hung out with two girls in bikinis and watched them sleep all night and never even touched them, that he can be chaste and respectful as well as randy and rock-star.

Keith says that he never puts the moves on the ladies first, that he is passive and that they always have come onto him but he (and Amazon) made it very easy for me by setting a very, very reasonable low fee for the three day love-in. I almost felt like we were John and Yoko and that world peace somehow depended on not getting out of bed.

Happy New Year and hey, you may not be able to always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

What a stupid article. I'm sure the author thought she was being so clever. But she wasn't.

Perhaps you are being too harsh Reagan. Cleverness is in the eye of the clever.

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever."

Quote
schillid

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever."

no, St. Hubbins preferred books on tape. "I've just got Richard Simmons reading Keith Richards' autobiography."

I like it. It shows humor.

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

Quote
Reagan
What a stupid article. I'm sure the author thought she was being so clever. But she wasn't.

Agreed.

Whatever get's you through the night!

Quote
cc

Quote
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.

Well, I guess you ain't been looking around, then.

John Lennon (1970 Rolling Stone Interview):

"He was just a nice guy."


Paul McCartney (Many Years From Now):

"We always got on like a house on fire. He had a good old sense of humour, I remember laughing and giggling a lot with him."

George Harrison (Interview):

"He was very nice and sincere and sensitive and we must remember that's what he was."

Ian Stewart (Interview):
"He was actually quite a nice person who didn't want people to think he was nice."

Pete Townshend (Interview):

"I was melodramatically upset when he died. He was the first friend of mine that had ever died."



So, how's that for starters?

I think what you mean is that no one in the band he formed thought he was nice.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-13 20:34 by nostoneswithoutbrianjones.

Quote
nostoneswithoutbrianjones

Quote
cc

Quote
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.

Well, I guess you ain't been looking around, then.

John Lennon (1970 Rolling Stone Interview):

"He was just a nice guy."


Paul McCartney (Many Years From Now):

"We always got on like a house on fire. He had a good old sense of humour, I remember laughing and giggling a lot with him."

George Harrison (Interview):

"He was very nice and sincere and sensitive and we must remember that's what he was."

Ian Stewart (Interview):
"He was actually quite a nice person who didn't want people to think he was nice."

Pete Townshend (Interview):

"I was melodramatically upset when he died. He was the first friend of mine that had ever died."



So, how's that for starters?

I think what you mean is that no one in the band he formed thought he was nice.

It's all nice and well to point out who liked Brian, but there are plenty others outside of the Stones who have supplied stories about a less than likeable Brian. Just looking at his relations with women should be a tip off that this isn't just some negative smear campaign against Brian, there were issues there.

It usually depends on what the context of their relationship was with Brian and how well they actually knew him as to the opinions and stories you get.

At the end of the day, I wasn't particularly impressed with LIFE any more than I was with RONNIE. Both read like a transcript of interview sessions and Keith was "in character" too much of the time. I don't begrudge him doing the book. Sadly, he'll make more money writing this than he would floating a new solo album around to record labels and I'm sure that's why it happened. Jane Rose's association with William Morris is to bring her client lucrative deals. He could be a cult figure putting out solo albums that sell under 100,000 copies or he could appear in the PIRATES movies and "write" his autobiography. His handlers are doing their job and Keith is going where the money is. I wish the creative side of him hadn't appeared to have dried up since 1997, but that's what seems to have happened. Even an album of cover versions (along the lines of "You Win Again" and "Still a Fool" that he cut a decade ago) would be preferable to me, but it wouldn't compete financially with playing Johnny Depp's dad and doing the interview circuit with his autobiography. The incentive is money now as always. I don't blame him, but I do regret the decision as a lifelong fan of his work.

Quote
courtfieldroad
It's all nice and well to point out who liked Brian, but there are plenty others outside of the Stones who have supplied stories about a less than likeable Brian. Just looking at his relations with women should be a tip off that this isn't just some negative smear campaign against Brian, there were issues there.

It usually depends on what the context of their relationship was with Brian and how well they actually knew him as to the opinions and stories you get.

That's true, but what's often forgotten is that his former girlfriends have generally spoken fondly of him. Pat Andrews, Linda Lawrence, Zouzou, Suki Potier, Anita... well, Anita says a lot of things but Brian comes off about as well as Keith in her interviews.

(On a side note, he seems to have had plenty of female friends through his life. Ronnie Money, P.P.Arnold, Janie Perrin, Shirley Arnold, Jaz Coleman's 'Grandma Pandy' [ [members7.boardhost.com] ], Mary Hallett, Nico etc).

i know..i know..i should just read the book...but could someone please tell me
if Keith had nice things to say about Mick Taylor? ANy sign that he felt threatened
by his abilities or MJ's collaborations w/MT when KR was incapacitated?
(not that he'd admit it...but...)

i assume that ultimately it was KR's decision to hire MT.

i also assume that KR is the primary reason that MT never got
any writing credits (co-authorship).

thanks. if it's already been discussed...please direct me to those "pages".

Quote
sweet neo con
i know..i know..i should just read the book...but could someone please tell me
if Keith had nice things to say about Mick Taylor? ANy sign that he felt threatened
by his abilities or MJ's collaborations w/MT when KR was incapacitated?
(not that he'd admit it...but...)

i assume that ultimately it was KR's decision to hire MT.

i also assume that KR is the primary reason that MT never got
any writing credits (co-authorship).

thanks. if it's already been discussed...please direct me to those "pages".

Keef is very complimentary of MT's musicianship. Keef also wants us to know that MT has about as much personality as a door knob.

Not actually a direct quote. Although cruel, nothing in LIFE was as funny as that.

A more accurate statement might be that he said complimentary things about Mick Taylor's playing, but was far more interested in heroin and hangers-on's then the band at the point in his life.

Quote
sweet neo con
i know..i know..i should just read the book...but could someone please tell me
if Keith had nice things to say about Mick Taylor? ANy sign that he felt threatened
by his abilities or MJ's collaborations w/MT when KR was incapacitated?
(not that he'd admit it...but...)

i assume that ultimately it was KR's decision to hire MT.

i also assume that KR is the primary reason that MT never got
any writing credits (co-authorship).

thanks. if it's already been discussed...please direct me to those "pages".

As said above, Keith is complimentary about his playing (how could he not be?) but less so about his personality. Then, as with the discussion of nearly every personality in the book, he contrasts him with Jagger in a throwaway sentence. There seems to be no one Keith relates to who doesn't bring him back to Mick, usually with a rant. Of course, one has to make allowances for how the book is ghosted and the narrative choices that Fox, rather than Keith, has made. But aside from the quite lyrical early descriptions of his childhood and adolescence and some expected flashes of great humour the whole 500 pages amounts to one long primal scream for Mick's attention.

Quote
tatters

Quote
sweet neo con
i know..i know..i should just read the book...but could someone please tell me
if Keith had nice things to say about Mick Taylor? ANy sign that he felt threatened
by his abilities or MJ's collaborations w/MT when KR was incapacitated?
(not that he'd admit it...but...)

i assume that ultimately it was KR's decision to hire MT.

i also assume that KR is the primary reason that MT never got
any writing credits (co-authorship).

thanks. if it's already been discussed...please direct me to those "pages".

Keef is very complimentary of MT's musicianship. Keef also wants us to know that MT has about as much personality as a door knob.

That is about all he said. MT got about 2 lines in the whole book.His guitar tech Pierre got mentioned more.

Quote
sweet neo con
i know..i know..i should just read the book...

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

Thanks for answering my question. The catch-22 is....if Taylor would've had
a stronger personality (in the band) he probably would've butted heads with Keith
and made more of a stink about writing credit. Keith wanted to be the Skipper
and he needed a Gilligan..like Ronnie.

He also talks (briefly) about how having MT in the band gradually changed the way songs were written - you'd build in space for him to do his thing ( solos or whatever ) now that the band had somebody capable of that.

He should have called the book 'Dog in the Manger'