Quote
NICOS
And glad Bill was there with his equipment.........what if he wasn't there...........

What if Chuck Berry wasn't born?

I wonder why this bothers people som much. I think that the reason is that everybody accepts that Brian couldn't develop as a guitarplayer, he couldn't write songs at all and he couldn't function socially in a creative manner. On other words, what Brian has left is the fact (or myth) that he founded the band and was the early leader. When Keith puts emphasis on Stu's importance in the early days it seems like Keith is take away the only little piece of importance Brian has left. Keith is challenging the mighty Foundation Myth - obviously a terrible crime.

Quote
Bärs
I wonder why this bothers people som much. I think that the reason is that everybody accepts that Brian couldn't develop as a guitarplayer, he couldn't write songs at all and he couldn't function socially in a creative manner. On other words, what Brian has left is the fact (or myth) that he founded the band and was the early leader. When Keith puts emphasis on Stu's importance in the early days it seems like Keith is take away the only little piece of importance Brian has left. Keith is challenging the mighty Foundation Myth - obviously a terrible crime.

I don't think everyone accepts that at all.

Why this bothers me so much is that Keith uses a position of strength against someone who can't fight back. And uses it not just to criticise but, almost, to dismiss that person's life (I don't just mean in the book, which I'm still waiting for, but in his comments generally over the past three decades. Although unless the book presents a more balanced view than people seems to think, it will have made the situation worse, since for casual fans it may be taken as the definitive version of the Stones' history). It's like a modern damnatio memoriae.

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Bärs
I wonder why this bothers people som much. I think that the reason is that everybody accepts that Brian couldn't develop as a guitarplayer, he couldn't write songs at all and he couldn't function socially in a creative manner. On other words, what Brian has left is the fact (or myth) that he founded the band and was the early leader. When Keith puts emphasis on Stu's importance in the early days it seems like Keith is take away the only little piece of importance Brian has left. Keith is challenging the mighty Foundation Myth - obviously a terrible crime.

I don't think everyone accepts that at all.

Why this bothers me so much is that Keith uses a position of strength against someone who can't fight back. And uses it not just to criticise but, almost, to dismiss that person's life (I don't just mean in the book, which I'm still waiting for, but in his comments generally over the past three decades. Although unless the book presents a more balanced view than people seems to think, it will have made the situation worse, since for casual fans it may be taken as the definitive version of the Stones' history). It's like a modern damnatio memoriae.

But if Keit's comments reflect his feelings towards Brian and his evaluation of Brian's musicla input, there is no reason for Keith NOT to state those points of view. You can not blame Keith for beeing alive to tell his story.

Quote
swiss
Doxa -- I keep forgetting you're a she! I am too, and people forget that too. I for some reason picture a Greek guy (I don't mean the person with the handle
"The Greek" ) when I see the name "Doxa" - so sorry!

- swiss

Well, last time I checked the person who writes under the name of Doxa is actually a he... the word "Doxa" does come from ancient Greek - "an opinion or a belief" - but the guy comes from Finland!

But swiss my dear you are not the only one making this brief mistake!

(sorry OT)

- Doxa

Really, if Brian wrote Satisfaction, Ruby Tuesday, As Tears go By, Lady Jane, Under my Thumb, Gimme Shelter, and Jumpin' Jack Flash before he died nobody would be upset about who exactly met who and who said what to whom one day in 1962. Those questions would only be of academic interest and people would have no problems with different accounts. Now the whole legacy of Brian seems to be questioned simply because Keith gives STU credit.

Just started listening to the audio-book version of Keith Richards book.

So far it is really boring, just talking about his drug arrest in Arkansas and some important lawyer he hired. The book is really bad so far.

I thought it was going to be about music. not some sleazy lawyer that Keith had to hire to beat a drug arrest.

I was rooting for the Fortice, Arkansas police department against rich famous Keith Richards. Job well done, guys!

I should also add that the guy who is narrating the book , speaks in a complete monotone. I enjoy listening to the book when I am listening in bed because it sort of lulls me to sleep.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 13:36 by mitchflorida.

Quote
mitchflorida
Just started listening to the audio-book version of Keith Richards book.

So far it is really boring, just talking about his drug arrest in Arkansas and some important lawyer he hired. The book is really bad so far.

I thought it was going to be about music. not some sleazy lawyer that Keith had to hire to beat a drug arrest.

I was rooting for the Fortice, Arkansas police department against rich famous Keith Richards. Job well done, guys!

I should also add that the guy who is narrating the book , speaks in a complete monotone. I enjoy listening to the book when I am listening in bed because it sort of lulls me to sleep.

Hi Mitch.
Gimme a sign when he starts lulling about Taylor.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 13:51 by Amsterdamned.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
mitchflorida
Just started listening to the audio-book version of Keith Richards book.

So far it is really boring, just talking about his drug arrest in Arkansas and some important lawyer he hired. The book is really bad so far.

I thought it was going to be about music. not some sleazy lawyer that Keith had to hire to beat a drug arrest.

I was rooting for the Fortice, Arkansas police department against rich famous Keith Richards. Job well done, guys!

I should also add that the guy who is narrating the book , speaks in a complete monotone. I enjoy listening to the book when I am listening in bed because it sort of lulls me to sleep.

Hi Mitch.
Gimme a sign when he starts lulling about Taylor.

I actually skipped to that in the index of the book. From what I can gather, Keith Richards blames Mick Taylor's "inner demons" for Taylor's decision to leave the Stones.

Keith has it exactly right. Something was wrong in Taylor's head . . to blame Keith or Mick is ridiculous.

From the brief parts that I read, it sounded like Keith Richards was the number one member of the Mick Taylor Fan Club, even if he wasn't really good friends with him. Keith only cares about music and it didn't matter whether Taylor and Keith were friends or not .. Keith certainly didn't kick Taylor out of the group.

Quote
Bärs
I wonder why this bothers people som much. I think that the reason is that everybody accepts that Brian couldn't develop as a guitarplayer, he couldn't write songs at all and he couldn't function socially in a creative manner. On other words, what Brian has left is the fact (or myth) that he founded the band and was the early leader. When Keith puts emphasis on Stu's importance in the early days it seems like Keith is take away the only little piece of importance Brian has left. Keith is challenging the mighty Foundation Myth - obviously a terrible crime.

Check out Keith's own words from the '71 Rolling Stone Interview from the Censored board on Brian:

[members7.boardhost.com]

If there's a "foundation myth", as you call it, then Keith himself is responsible for it. After Stu dies, he takes away the "myth" and hands it to Stu:

[members7.boardhost.com]

All that, despite what Stu himself said (and you'd think he'd know):

[members7.boardhost.com]

So, is the truth at the whim of Keith Richards to dispense as he pleases?

And I also think it's not accurate to state that Brian had nothing else but his early role as leader because he didn't develop on guitar, write songs, and who knows what you mean by "function socially in a creative manner". Apart from his defining harmonica and slide in the early years,his contributions as colorist on some of the most loved songs in the Stones catalogue like Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday helped make those songs, nothing to dismiss so casually.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 14:36 by courtfieldroad.

Thanks a lot, Doxa!

We need your well-formulated posts to keep the balance here.

Quote
mitchflorida

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
mitchflorida
Just started listening to the audio-book version of Keith Richards book.

So far it is really boring, just talking about his drug arrest in Arkansas and some important lawyer he hired. The book is really bad so far.

I thought it was going to be about music. not some sleazy lawyer that Keith had to hire to beat a drug arrest.

I was rooting for the Fortice, Arkansas police department against rich famous Keith Richards. Job well done, guys!

I should also add that the guy who is narrating the book , speaks in a complete monotone. I enjoy listening to the book when I am listening in bed because it sort of lulls me to sleep.

Hi Mitch.
Gimme a sign when he starts lulling about Taylor.

I actually skipped to that in the index of the book. From what I can gather, Keith Richards blames Mick Taylor's "inner demons" for Taylor's decision to leave the Stones.

Keith has it exactly right. Something was wrong in Taylor's head . . to blame Keith or Mick is ridiculous.

From the brief parts that I read, it sounded like Keith Richards was the number one member of the Mick Taylor Fan Club, even if he wasn't really good friends with him. Keith only cares about music and it didn't matter whether Taylor and Keith were friends or not .. Keith certainly didn't kick Taylor out of the group.

Thanks for the info Mitch. I got it the other way around btw.
I'am only interested in Taylor and pre Taylor era things,
The rest would be lulling me asleep,the post Taylor eara in particular.
Btw I always thought Taylor was kicked out cause of smoking weed?

It's quite ridiculous isn't. Here there is a 500+ page biography by Keith Richards and all that's important is whether Jones formed the Stones or not. Well, anyone who has ever been in a band knows bands don't get 'formed', except Supertramp. Bands evolve out of friends and contacts, and 1 out of 10.000 bands get lucky enough to score some kind of an hit.

I enjoyed reading the book. I especially liked the parts by Marlon, as it filled in parts of the mid-80's period and what ever happened to Anita. I enjoyed Keith's honesty towards Jagger, especially as Keith gives Jagger all credits he deserves. What I don't understand though is that Richards fails to understand Jagger was right to not tour with the Stones in '84 or '86, with Charlie on heroin, Wood on crack cocaine and Keith a full blown alcoholic and coke addict, topped off with a lack of good new material.

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

Quote
courtfieldroad
...

You missed the point. Perhaps my fault.

Quote
Amsterdamned
What if Chuck Berry wasn't born?

Good question



Edit: Oooops, so sorry. Wrong Chuck

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 15:35 by Rolling Hansie.

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.

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.

Quote
Mathijs
...It's quite ridiculous isn't. Here there is a 500+ page biography by Keith Richards and all that's important is whether Jones formed the Stones or not....

Mathijs

i quite agree! that's why i put in the excerpt from the book -- keith never says Stu formed the band, he just pays him a tribute, basically saying it's amazing that someone of his talent decided to give these guys (mick, keith, brian) a chance by working w/ them.

this thread was just created by Neptune, totally taking a comment from the book out of context and starting a ridiculous debate over something that was never stated in the book.

Quote
Bärs

But if Keit's comments reflect his feelings towards Brian and his evaluation of Brian's musicla input, there is no reason for Keith NOT to state those points of view. You can not blame Keith for beeing alive to tell his story.

Well, it's a combination of his (changing) views and his willingness to express them (as definitive). When someone is defended for telling it like it, that often seems to mean that he or she is just being a bit of a twazzock.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 16:14 by Squiggle.

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.


Forget about tiny todger, Brenda and all the crap! Main purpose of this book for Richards to take all the credit from Mick as a songwriter. Mick's job was to finish mostly ready songs - that's the revelation. Not only riffs, but vocal melody and the ideas of the songs, titles - all from Keith. It's Keith's agenda - as Doxa put it- for last 20 years and he really fights for it

you may believe it if you want - but it's petty, spiteful and mean-spirited bullshit.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 16:47 by proudmary.

Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material.

I think Mick might confirm something quite different.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
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
Squiggle

Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material.

I think Mick might confirm something quite different.

i think not ... it's pretty obvious Keith wrote a majority just from the bootleg demos, where keith is on vocals, if only repeating a phrase. i think i've read serveral times/sources that mick didn't realize he could even come up with riffs of his own until around Some Girls time period.

but keith is not just taking all credit - in the book he does say that Sympathy was Mick's idea, and that's a pretty huge Stones track to give someone else credit for ... if keith was about taking the credit for himself, then he would surely want Sympathy on his resume



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 16:47 by LeonidP.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material.

I think Mick might confirm something quite different.

i think not ... it's pretty obvious Keith wrote a majority just from the bootleg demos, where keith is on vocals, if only repeating a phrase. i think i've read serveral times/sources that mick didn't realize he could even come up with riffs of his own until around Some Girls time period.

I think not as well...The evidence we have in the form of outtakes indeed suggest that all basic ideas and melodies are Keith's -Sometimes I feel Blue, the Satanic Outtakes, the Redlands tapes etc. It appears that the first bulk of Jagger tracks started appearing around '77, with Do You Think I Care etc.

Also Jagger has mentioned several times that he didn't write his own song until Yesterday's Papers, and that until the mid 70's he mainly wrote lyrics.

Mathijs

Quote
TrulyMicks

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.

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
LeonidP

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material.

I think Mick might confirm something quite different.

i think not ... it's pretty obvious Keith wrote a majority just from the bootleg demos, where keith is on vocals, if only repeating a phrase. i think i've read serveral times/sources that mick didn't realize he could even come up with riffs of his own until around Some Girls time period.

but keith is not just taking all credit - in the book he does say that Sympathy was Mick's idea, and that's a pretty huge Stones track to give someone else credit for ... if keith was about taking the credit for himself, then he would surely want Sympathy on his resume

but there is the evidence Godard's One Plus One and Mick sings the melody. So it's stupid to take from him this credit.
I think it's very petty to talk now about all the credits - not for us fans, for Keith - he obviously destroys band's integrity

Quote
proudmary

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material.

I think Mick might confirm something quite different.

i think not ... it's pretty obvious Keith wrote a majority just from the bootleg demos, where keith is on vocals, if only repeating a phrase. i think i've read serveral times/sources that mick didn't realize he could even come up with riffs of his own until around Some Girls time period.

but keith is not just taking all credit - in the book he does say that Sympathy was Mick's idea, and that's a pretty huge Stones track to give someone else credit for ... if keith was about taking the credit for himself, then he would surely want Sympathy on his resume

but there is the evidence Godard's One Plus One and Mick sings the melody. So it's stupid to take from him this credit.
I think it's very petty to talk now about all the credits - not for us fans, for Keith - he obviously destroys band's integrity

Keith states that SFTD was Mick's song, but that it was quite a 'turgid folk song" and that it didn't became that monster hit until it was turned around in 'mad samba'. He doesn't take credit for that, but he sure was leading the sessions.

Mathijs

Quote
proudmary

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material.

I think Mick might confirm something quite different.

i think not ... it's pretty obvious Keith wrote a majority just from the bootleg demos, where keith is on vocals, if only repeating a phrase. i think i've read serveral times/sources that mick didn't realize he could even come up with riffs of his own until around Some Girls time period.

but keith is not just taking all credit - in the book he does say that Sympathy was Mick's idea, and that's a pretty huge Stones track to give someone else credit for ... if keith was about taking the credit for himself, then he would surely want Sympathy on his resume

but there is the evidence Godard's One Plus One and Mick sings the melody. So it's stupid to take from him this credit.
I think it's very petty to talk now about all the credits - not for us fans, for Keith - he obviously destroys band's integrity

i think it does nothing of the sort. really he gives most credit to the chicago blues musicians, stating more than once that all they were trying to do was introduce blues to the brits - and he give credit throughout similarly along the way -- Ry Cooder was responsible for teaching him the open-g, Graham Parsons taught him country, etc.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Mathijs
...It's quite ridiculous isn't. Here there is a 500+ page biography by Keith Richards and all that's important is whether Jones formed the Stones or not....

Mathijs

i quite agree! that's why i put in the excerpt from the book -- keith never says Stu formed the band, he just pays him a tribute, basically saying it's amazing that someone of his talent decided to give these guys (mick, keith, brian) a chance by working w/ them.

this thread was just created by Neptune, totally taking a comment from the book out of context and starting a ridiculous debate over something that was never stated in the book.

Firts of all (Mathijs), it is not ridiculous: the topic was a thread of its own but then it was shifted here by BV. With respect to moderator, I think it was not a good move because the thread didn't try to review or say what is good/bad or whatever in Keith's book but discuss that particular part. I think there are lots of claims and points in the book that deserve more closer look (and I hope many threads to come). It is is Keith Richards there talking for god sake! Maybe the most wanted Rolling Stones book ever! Not a small thing.

Secondly, if one thinks is it ridiculous to discuss who actually formed the band or were actual in the process creating the band - in a Rolling Stones discussion board! - well, what can I say...

Thirdly (LeonidP). I agree with the notion that Neptune's original point was a bit misleading - Keith doesn't talk anything in terms of "founding" but more like describing the process and who were influential there. (I also share Mathijs' point that the word "founding" is not the best one to talk generally the formation of bands.) But what I find striking is the inconsistincy in his views to his earlier (71') and to Stu's (and some others). I think the crucial part is not the quoted here but a few pages later where Keith describes that "principally Stu chose the members" and he had the "vision" of the band, etc. In his praisal of his beloved Stu he goes over the top - and how come? A co-incidence? - in expanse of some certain other band member Keith doesn't have much nice words to say about in the book. I know how many here dislikes Brian and loves Keith but bullshit is bullshit. The argument "it doesn't matter beacuse all the significant things happened much later" has no any relevance if one is interested in truth.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 17:23 by Doxa.

If you can't discuss the origins of the Rolling Stones on a Rolling Stones board then where can you? Keith Richards is entitled to write what he wants but as Brian Jones is no longer around to speak for himself then others have to do it for him. No its not important the origins but perhaps its a question of fairness.

There must be no other band where certain fans and certain band members seem so keen to trash the memory of one of its members.

Quote
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?