Book Review: Life by Keith Richards
Author: Jack Goodstein
When Keith Richards decides to write the story of his life you have to expect you're either going to get down and dirty sex, drugs and rock and roll or some innocuous sanitized version of life in the fast lane. But this is Keith Richards, and you've got to figure that if even half of his reputation is true, you're going to get the inside scoop. You're going to get the real story: Altamont, the brain surgery, the Canadian drug bust, the Jagger feud, you're going to get it all. And you do. From the very beginning, when he describes a 1975 arrest in Fordyce, Arkansas, Richards and his co-writer, James Fox give what appears to be a warts and all account of the life and times of the rollingest of stones. What you don't expect, is that the story of the Richards' life and times may not make for the most exciting read. I know I'm in the minority in this, but in all honesty, for this reader the book was often tedious going. Stones fans can stop reading right now, you sure as hell aren't going to agree with much of what's coming.
I'll give Richards credit: this is not one of those look at the dumb things I've done and learn a lesson from it books. It isn't one of those I was lost and now I'm saved confessions. There are no apologies. He lived hard, but he worked at his craft with a passion. He knew what he wanted from his music and he made sure to get it. He is at his best when he talks about his music—about trying to figure out a guitar lick, about the unique sound he got using five string open tuning, about getting to play with the heroes of his youth, about discovering that he could write songs. He is serious about music. He has an aesthetic point of view unfortunately it is a point of view that may not always be easily articulated for the reader. It is almost a kind of mystical awareness which clearly controls everything he does.
There is a sound a band needs to strive for. You know it when you hear it; you know when it's missing. It comes from musicians working together, feeling what each is doing, knowing where they are going. It is an emotional connection: you either have it or you don't. The limited chord structure of rock music is an advantage not a drawback. It is the less is more paradox. Writing songs is less an intellectual process than it is a tossing about of bits and pieces to see what seems to come together. He likes to talk about the writer William Burroughs' cut and paste process. Although that is not quite the way he describes his song writing collaboration with Mick Jagger, their process seems almost equally haphazard. Indeed, one has to wonder if they were really as unstructured as Richards makes it seem. In general his aesthetic is a modern version of Romantic subjectivism.
There is passion when he writes about his music, not so much when he writes about other things. His descriptions of his relationships with women are fairly anemic. He is as happy cuddling, he says, as he is having sex. He is usually the chased rather than the chaser. Groupies are like mothers taking care of the band members, making sure they eat and have clean clothes (if you say so). There are, of course, stories of his relationships with Ronnie Spector, Uschi Obermaier,Lil Wergilis, and especially the mothers of his children, Anita Pallenberg and his wife Patti Hansen. But other than an anodyne anecdote here and there, there isn't really all that much in the way of titillating gossip
On the other hand there are more than enough stories about drugs and alcohol. The trouble is that after awhile they all begin to sound alike. We had smack hidden here and we got stopped by the cops. We were afraid they'd find it. They didn't find it. They did find it. We got away with it. We made a connection here. I went cold turkey. We made a connection there. I went back on. Cold turkey isn't so bad. Cold turkey is terrible. Everything gets jumbled together and after awhile loses its impact. Of course, at one point he does say that it was drugs that kept him alert and ready to work, and also he managed to get along so well on them because he only used the finest quality stuff. As far as insights into the culture of drugs and its effects on creativity, I'm not sure there is much here beyond the obvious.
His offhand remarks about some of the other celebrities he's come into contact with can at times be bitchy. Marlon Brando tries to seduce Anita. Allen Ginsberg is an "old gas bag pontificating on everything." Jean-Luc Godard looked like a French bank clerk. George C. Scott crashes into his white fence driving at ninety under the influence. On the other hand he rarely has a bad thing to say about musicians he works with and admires, at least as far as their playing goes. The one exception would be Mick. He has a lot to say about Jagger and "Lead Vocalist Syndrome." He has much to say about Jagger's need to control things. He has a lot to say about Jagger's pursuit of a solo career. In the end, however, they are like brothers. One moment they're at each other's throats, the next they kiss and make up.
All in all, I was disappointed. I didn't always find his narrative coherent. His prose style, which others have praised, I found off putting. Too often it seemed as though he were simply speaking out phrases for someone to copy down, much as he describes himself doing when writing songs. He seems as uninterested in conventional language as he is in conventional living. At times, especially at the beginning, he uses slang terms without bothering to define them. He favors unique figures of speech that defy easy comprehension. When he talks about music, it is sometimes a bit technical for the non-musician, sometimes so impressionistic as to mean little. The book could use a little shaping and editing. The in medias res beginning is effective, but the end just seems to peter out. Fewer repetitious digressions would be nice, at almost five hundred and fifty pages Life feels long.

Read more: [blogcritics.org]

Ouch !



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

That review is spot on on quite a few things. Something else that bugged me was the "but that's another story" or "more on that later" etc every few pages.

It could have been something special.

Good review. Describes how I feel a lot about the book. It wasn't an easy read. It took me a long time to read it because it did plod along. I was surprised he spoke as much about his drug use as he did. In the end,more about the music and less about his hiding places for dope would have been better.

Quote
proudmary
you have to expect

That's where it usually goes wrong. People expect something ... they don't get what they expected ... they are disappointed.

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

...but if they try sometime, they just might find, they get what they need.

Sunday Times Book Bestsellers Chart today. Back to no 2 after 11 weeks and never dropped below 5th. Must be selling in the UK.

proudmary, where did this review first appear?
Also, what does this mean, anyone know: "The in medias res beginning is effective"?

I don't agree with much of it, because I found the book honest, and fascinating, very much in Keith's
"voice". I did think the early parts told us more than the later sections.

Quote
angee
proudmary, where did this review first appear?
Also, what does this mean, anyone know: "The in medias res beginning is effective"?

I don't agree with much of it, because I found the book honest, and fascinating, very much in Keith's
"voice". I did think the early parts told us more than the later sections.

In the bottom of my post there is a link to the source.
I think all the talk about Keith Richards' honesty is as stereotype
as usual opinion about him beeing cool. I don't consider the addict not capable to cope with difficulties of life - as the hero. I don't consider the person not capable to recognize a merit of other people and not capable of gratitude in relation to equal - as honest person.

It wasn't quite the page turner I expected but I really enjoyed. I thought his comments on Mick were much more balanced than the reviews led us to believe. There were lots of times that I wanted more on the music but it would have been a very long book.

I did find the stuff about the tree incident, his family and his early days to be fascinating.

Some observations:
1. Keith seems somewhat bitter toward people that have left the band. Bill Wyman in particuliar does not appear to be high on Keith's list of people. I really get the feeling that Keith thinks Mick T and Bill let the band down by leaving and he can not get over it.
2. I'd like more on why Keith and Gram Parsons had such a falling out. Not very well explained.
3. I do get the feeling that he really loves Mick but does not like MJ.
4. Not much about Brian a guy with whom he lived with for quite sometime.

I've read all a lot of the posts that Keith seems petty toward Brian. I mean this got pretty personal he stole Brian's girl. Maybe he truely does not want to alk about it. He and Mick seem to not like Brian at all. Maybe all three are to blame equally for Brian's demise. Certainly Brian was self-destructive and Mick and Keith being the age they were focusing on the band and not what was happening to Brian. If that were the case you'd think at 66 years old he'd reflect and show some remorse or guilt about it.

5. He loved drugs!

Overall a good read though. I especially liked reading about him growing up in Dartford.

Feminists won't like it he is always talking about chicks and bitches but that to me is just Keith. He seems to still be head over heals for Patty.

Interesting comment from patti...

“I haven’t finished ‘Life’ yet,” Hansen admitted. “After 30 years of marriage, you kind of figure you know the story. I’ve got it on my Kindle. It’s a little tough. There’s some things…like him having sex with Anita and then smelling the orange? Man, it breaks your heart a little. You don’t want to read that. Because that’s deep!”

Thanks, Proudmary, I had looked for the link in the post at first and didn't see any.

Yeah, rebelrebel, really, and thanks, Rocky Dijon, I hadn't heard that term before.

Quote
belld
Sunday Times Book Bestsellers Chart today. Back to no 2 after 11 weeks and never dropped below 5th. Must be selling in the UK.

Sunday Times today,23rd January, Sir Keith has returned to No 1 best selling hardback book in the UK, twelve weeks after release.

We must remember that Brian abandoned five kids and showed clear signs of sadism. When people mature and get own families, like Mick and Keith, these aspects in Brian's nature, among other documented flaws, must seem much more disturbing in their eyes now than they did when they were in their 20s and had other things to think about.

Quote
Bärs
We must remember that Brian abandoned five kids and showed clear signs of sadism. When people mature and get own families, like Mick and Keith, these aspects in Brian's nature, among other documented flaws, must seem much more disturbing in their eyes now than they did when they were in their 20s and had other things to think about.

As far as I am aware Mick has never talked about Brian's violent behavior, he has in the whole been much more respectful about Brian than Keith. As for abandoning kids, all 3 of them have had their own version of bad judgments there.

Keith sat back and let Brian beat Anita for quite some time. I think he tries to let himself off the hook there by saying she gave as good as she got.

Anyway, his thoughts on Brian's behaviour shouldn't affect the telling of other stories like how he actively went about forming a band etc nor should it affect giving credit where credit is due with regards to his contributions.

In Life he basically tries to play down Brian's role whenever his name is mentioned. Thankfully there's enough previous quotes available, even from Keith himself, for a less distorted and petty story to be found by those that bother to dig a bit deeper.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-23 15:49 by His Majesty.

Whatever Mick and Keith have done, it pales in comparison to what Brian did. How come that people don't get how sick it is to make five children with five different women and abandon them all? He repeatedly tortured his so called friend and laughed at it. He stole money from his band mates when he had secret contracts that gave him more money. What is there to respect in that person? By normal moral standards he would be despised, and rightly so.

I don't think he ever was a leader. He wanted to play the role of the leader for his own benefit. His rapid decline in the group, and lack of songwriting skills, shows that he never was even close to being a true leader, neither socially or musically. The story is probably told truthfully for the first time in Life.

They all kinda suck as people IMO, Brian has some traits that are worse than the others and the others have some traits which are worse than his. They are not the kind of people I'd like to have spent much time around, doesn't stop me liking their music though.

We do not have Brian's side of the story and he didn't live long enough to have the chance to right his wrongs, grow up and mature in to a responsible man.

Keith has lived long, has been very irresponsible at times and doesn't seem to gave grown up much if at all, the macho bullshit in Life is comical, like an 18 year old trying to prove he's tough.

Keith's negative thoughts on Brian, Mick etc it shouldn't change basic facts about what they actually did, like Brian forming the band, unfortunately that is what is going on in parts of Life.

The book is nothing more than Keith's mostly hazy, bitter memory of things re-told to suit him and the people he wants to pat on the back.

You can stick that kind of "truth" up yer bum!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-23 20:31 by His Majesty.

Quote
Bärs
Whatever Mick and Keith have done, it pales in comparison to what Brian did. How come that people don't get how sick it is to make five children with five different women and abandon them all? He repeatedly tortured his so called friend and laughed at it. He stole money from his band mates when he had secret contracts that gave him more money. What is there to respect in that person? By normal moral standards he would be despised, and rightly so.

I don't think he ever was a leader. He wanted to play the role of the leader for his own benefit. His rapid decline in the group, and lack of songwriting skills, shows that he never was even close to being a true leader, neither socially or musically. The story is probably told truthfully for the first time in Life.

We know about the five extra pounds already...We know about chasing Dick Hattrell around the room, etc. at Edith Grove. We know that is worse than pulling the blade on Billie Preston or anything else out there. The children? True, no excuse at all imo. Still, he was around 17 when the first was born. The baby was given up for adoption. He was around 18 when the second was born to an older, married (albeit separated) woman (not sure if he knew of this child). The fifth child was also given up for adoption. The third (born when he was 19) and fourth (he was 22) children were raised by their mothers. Yes, he was wrong. He may have tried to set things right had he lived.

Quote
Bärs
Whatever Mick and Keith have done, it pales in comparison to what Brian did. How come that people don't get how sick it is to make five children with five different women and abandon them all? He repeatedly tortured his so called friend and laughed at it. He stole money from his band mates when he had secret contracts that gave him more money. What is there to respect in that person? By normal moral standards he would be despised, and rightly so.

I don't think he ever was a leader. He wanted to play the role of the leader for his own benefit. His rapid decline in the group, and lack of songwriting skills, shows that he never was even close to being a true leader, neither socially or musically. The story is probably told truthfully for the first time in Life.

I presume you'd say all that to Brian's face.

Life isn't even truthful to itself. eg. page 125 'Unbelievable how much Brian was the manipulator, thinking about these things'. He admits it, but only in a negative context. Or page 129 'It was Brian's task, since he called himself the leader of the band, to break it to Stu'. Of course it wasn't a Gerry and the Pacemakers situation, but I don't think there's much reason to doubt that Brian was the most active in the early days. First among equals. And of course he blew it with the five pounds but considering what's happened since (from the writing credits to removing Bill from a photo) it doesn't seem too important.

As for the rest, I'll go with Marianne: 'He wasn't as bad as everyone thinks'. Certainly there were some very regrettable things in his life, but I don't think Keith's life will bear such scrutiny, either. And neither will the lives of many of Brian's other contemporaries.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-23 20:59 by Squiggle.

Quote
Marie


We know about the five extra pounds already...We know about chasing Dick Hattrell around the room, etc. at Edith Grove. We know that is worse than pulling the blade on Billie Preston or anything else out there. The children? True, no excuse at all imo. Still, he was around 17 when the first was born. The baby was given up for adoption. He was around 18 when the second was born to an older, married (albeit separated) woman (not sure if he knew of this child). The fifth child was also given up for adoption. The third (born when he was 19) and fourth (he was 22) children were raised by their mothers. Yes, he was wrong. He may have tried to set things right had he lived.

Woopee doo Brian got an extra 5 pounds a week in 1963. How petty for such a small thing to still mean so much 50 years later!? Allen Klein stole the rights
to all their best work, but he still gets a pardon from Keith!?

Why is a cruel joke on someone worse than pulling a knife on someone? Why is abandoning children when you're in your teens/early 20's worse than leaving your
kid(s) with dealers, junkies, guns, knives lying around and a crazed women called Anita?

How about Mick being violent to Marianne one time after a gig?

How about an alleged incident in a limo where Keith hit Anita? Or shooting a gun in a room Full of people?

How about Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, probably all of then stones whilst they were on tour shagging under age girls?

Many morally offensive, wrong and potentially lethal situations there!

They are all as bad as each other IMO, just in different ways and none of these stupid things should mean they should not be credited for doing the great things they did.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-23 21:31 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

[How about Mick being violent to Marianne one time after a gig?

I would not call that violent, I don´t think Marianne does that either. He held her against a wall after a concert. Marianne does not know why and she believes Mick can´t even remember because he seemed under some sort of influence. Sure, he should not have done that, but I think it is not comparable with hitting somebody consciously.

Quote
elunsi

Quote
His Majesty

[How about Mick being violent to Marianne one time after a gig?

I would not call that violent, I don´t think Marianne does that either. He held her against a wall after a concert. Marianne does not know why and she believes Mick can´t even remember because he seemed under some sort of influence. Sure, he should not have done that, but I think it is not comparable with hitting somebody consciously.

Ok, we'll focus on his various problems with paternity instead then!? That stuff went on when he really should have known better.

The point is that they lived, they fuked up, wether they fuk up or not doesn't change the greatness of their musical contributions etc, but Keith tries to change things in Life. He's tried to change the story because he hates Brian and it seems feels guilty about Stu. I guess Life is a continuation of Keith's fuk ups!

The intent seems to be to make Brian out to be nothing more than some kind of incidental sideman who did nothing of worth and Stu as the guy who started it all and had the vision... Bollocks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-23 22:22 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
[Ok, we'll focus on his various problems with paternity instead then!? That stuff went on when he really should have known better.

The point is that they lived, they fuked up, wether they fuk up or not doesn't change the greatness of their musical contributions etc, but Keith tries to change things in Life. He's tried to change the story because he hates Brian and it seems feels guilty about Stu. I guess Life is a continuation of Keith's fuk ups!

The intent seems to be to make Brian out to be nothing more than some kind of incidental sideman who did nothing of worth and Stu as the guy who started it all and had the vision... Bollocks!

I have not read the book and I never will but all the comments about it here seem to confirm the impression that I had of Keith from the early 80ies on. So, thank you!

Quote
His Majesty
They all kinda suck as people IMO, Brian has some traits that are worse than the others and the others have some traits which are worse than his. They are not the kind of people I'd like to have spent much time around, doesn't stop me liking their music though.

We do not have Brian's side of the story and he didn't live long enough to have the chance to right his wrongs, grow up and mature in to a responsible man.

Keith has lived long, has been very irresponsible at times and doesn't seem to gave grown up much if at all, the macho bullshit in Life is comical, like an 18 year old trying to prove he's tough.

Keith's negative thoughts on Brian, Mick etc it shouldn't change basic facts about what they actually did, like Brian forming the band, unfortunately that is what is going on in parts of Life.

The book is nothing more than Keith's mostly hazy, bitter memory of things re-told to suit him and the people he wants to pat on the back.

You can stick that kind of "truth" up yer bum!

Interesting and thoughful considerations, YM. I feel sorry that I cannot report anything positive after having had the doubtful pleasure of reading this book. I haven't enjoyed it the slightest.

A couple of weeks ago I was through with reading Keith's book. And, what I would never do with any book, I didn't even read the last chapter of that one. All too much for me. I've enjoyed so many books on the Stones, Stanley Booth, and name them all, Bill Wyman's books. But this one should have better never been written. Even though I never was that much of a Keith fan, with this wish-wash he lost the last respect I had for him. Not speaking about the music, but as a human being.

The book is pure self-adulation about how good is he as a maker, a songwriter, composer, author. How many times he calls himself alpha male and alpha animal? Poor guy. But that book really upsets me, apart from the inaccuracies contained, I get the impression that Keith has a big inferiority complex and that he is full of selfishness and jealousy. And all that Mick bashing. What for? I wouldn't be surprised if this book would be the final motive for the Stones' end as a touring band. A permanent self-presentation of the good Keith, the generous one, the altruistic one, the innocent one, the strong one, the tough one, the intelligent one, while my impression is that whenever it was do or die, he always had someone else carry the can for him. All negative events are cut out. Keith as a person has disqualified himself. The Mick was so wise to return the advance cheque and out of respect for living persons or whatever reasons refrained from writing his memoires. And what about Keith's glorification of drugs of all sorts? He always goes that he would never ever recommend them to anyone, however, what concerns himself, he must say there are such and such positive aspects and so on. It's like a diary of a professional junkie. And why must he glorify all that violence in his life? All the knifes, the guns, the fights. Seems he's got chaught in puberty for ever.

O si tacuisses.

A few bucks into his pocket but a desaster for his memento.

Edit: PS:
And I can't stand all that talk about his knives and guns and such, as if he still was proud about it like a little boy, and numerous mentionings of aggressive incidents and attitude.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-28 11:31 by dead.flowers.

You know the thing we tend to forget is they're old men in their sixties who are still in a rock band. To some extent, arrested adolescent is a requisite. There's a reason they didn't become respectable conformists who play respectable conformist music. To an extent, Keith's book makes us villify them for the same traits that produces the music we adore.

*Must stop moaning about life!*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-24 20:19 by His Majesty.

I never got past 1965 with this complete whitewash of a book. I worshipped Keith when I was younger,but he now talks complete bollocks IMHO .The re writing of history to suit his agenda is unforgivable .
Yes we all love Stu,but the formation of the band has been well documented . You can't erase Brian from the picture (ditto Bill !)

I enjoyed the stories of growing up in Dartford,but have to take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

One day maybe Charlie will tell us how it really was................but I doubt it.

sc uk