Quote
courtfieldroad

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.

I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.

Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
courtfieldroad

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.

I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.

Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.

You want to compare Brian's musical contributions to the band to Stu's? Brian deserves to have a fan club and a statue.

Quote
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

For starters, he presents the song writing credits as fact, but they're not. Maybe he just can't remember the truth.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
24FPS
Just once I'd like to see one original, still living Rolling Stone say something to the effect, "My God, we were kids. Brian was the cornerstone of the band, but he had personality problems we were too young to deal with. And you get tired of dealing with them. We basically became a quartet with this jealous malcontent delivering less and less to our sound in the studio and he made touring an impossibility. It all happened before we realized how heavy drugs were. Maybe Brian could have gotten some proper help. There was a touch of genius in his musicianship, but he lost his way. He wasn't shouldering his load and we got tired of carrying him. Put yourselves in our shoes if you want to judge us. Looking back, he had a great influence on the band in the musical directions we went, the whole look and attitude of being a Rolling Stone. He may have been a pain in the ass, but I would never take away his accomplishments. He was only 27, man. He could've straightened up and maybe accomplished some of those things in that brain of his. It's so complicated to try and explain to outsiders what went down between Brian and the rest of the group. It wasn't pretty and maybe we weren't all mature about it. But we were young too and dealing with the pressures of stardom. Rest in Peace, Brian. We couldn't have gotten this thing off the ground without you. You rotten sod." Now, would something gracious like that be so hard?

Seems to me that's what Mick says in his interview with J.Wenner about Brian(Jagger Remembers, RS 1995)

Thanks for the info. I knew I read Mick saying something to that affect.

It's always been my understanding that Keith wrote 80% of the music in the 60's--the pre-STICKY FINGERS days. After that, Mick started writing a lot of the music too and it became more equal. I think it's fair to say Mick has written more than Keith since the late 70's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 20:16 by lucasd4.

One of the reasons the Rolling Stones became so popular was because Brian Jones was so handsome and good looking. The reason Andrew Loog Oldham kicked Ian Stewart out of the group is that he didn't look like a rock star.

Brian was obviously the leader of the group until Satisfaction became a big hit.

Quote
stones78

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?

Bill screwed the most girls. That's what's R&R is about.
Some people never dig that.

Quote
Marie

Quote
LeonidP

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.

not sure if you're joking, and not just from Keith's book, but Brian was a user of others, stuck-up, paranoid, and regularly beat up his girlfriends ... not really a wonderful man

I'm not making excuses for Brian's behavior towards women. That is inexcusable. In fact, I'm not going to make excuses for him at all. He was what he was, not perfect, and with flaws. Paranoid? Sure, and you'll read many accounts by others to say he had good reason to be on several occasions. He should be given his due where the Stones are concerned, though, just like Mick Taylor should be given his.

I think Jones is given his due, and justly so. It's just the whole "Andrew came along and took Brian's band away" thing that is extremely tiresome.

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
stones78

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?

Bill screwed the most girls. That's what's R&R is about.
Some people never dig that.

Hahahha! It is one of the funniest revalations (read: gossips) Keith "The Deep Throat" Richards wants to share with us in the book regards Bill Wyman that his claims for screwing so many girls is heavily over-exaggarated and all he was able to do is to serve them awful mild tea... (keith was hiding behind the next door and making notes..)

But there was one tender moment between them Keith remembers almost fondly: when Bill carried him smack in Toronto. Good Bill was something good for. That and the big amp.

Not a member... well well well... good that here finally starts some politically correct (revisionist) voices be heard; Mathijs took the demanding job into his informative shoulders... to keep his 'old' claim that nothing was lost when Darryl replaced Wyman, because, well, there wasn't hardly anything existing to be replaced... in fact, the Stones have always been a four piece-band - Just look at the RARITIES cover.. ><

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 21:00 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

No mention of any "ancient art of weaving" is mentioned in those pages when golden era - Keith also agrees with the title - from BEGGARS to EXILE is discussed - and this the era Keith gives his most detailed musical analysis and is most proud of.

- Doxa

Now we have Keith and Charlie recently saying the Taylor era was the Golden Era, and Jagger just brought Taylor back into the studio. Now, who does that leave? Oh, right...

<Hahahha! It is one of the funniest revalations (read: gossips) Keith "The Deep Throat" Richards wants to share with us in the book regards Bill Wyman that his claims for screwing so many girls is heavily over-exaggarated and all he was able to do is to serve them awful mild tea... (keith was hiding behind the next door and making notes..)>

Well,it's B Perks's own words.
And I believe him more than Keith in a way.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Doxa

No mention of any "ancient art of weaving" is mentioned in those pages when golden era - Keith also agrees with the title - from BEGGARS to EXILE is discussed - and this the era Keith gives his most detailed musical analysis and is most proud of.

- Doxa

Now we have Keith and Charlie recently saying the Taylor era was the Golden Era, and Jagger just brought Taylor back into the studio. Now, who does that leave? Oh, right...

Well, in fact, there was something I would say news in book regarding Ronnie's role. According to Keith they all - expect him - didn't want Ronnie to do 1981 American Tour at all because Ronnie was in such a bad shape. So they were actually throwing him out - this always been rumoured but never as far as I know "confirmed" so clearly. Keith claims that he needed to pay Ronnie's insurances to have Ronnie in (and thereby it was his duty to take care of/look after him). So when Ronnie took the coke/heroin ride, Keith came and hit him.

It is funny that in that during that very time Keith - after 12 years and 300 hundred pages of memoirs [and my god what amount of babying and saving his ass for years by others, Mick that is] - he was finally "clean", he immediately started to moralize Ronnie's behavior and his junkie friends, etc. A typical act of hypocricy Keith masters all over the book. (There are portions where Keith wonders why Mick never "liked" his friends - who, by the way, were all junkies... Well, Mick was just jealous and wanted to have him all by himself, reflects Keef...)

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 21:22 by Doxa.

Quote
mitchflorida
One of the reasons the Rolling Stones became so popular was because Brian Jones was so handsome and good looking.

i am not female but none the less i never really saw brian as that beautiful, but mick surely had that special something that you could see immediately.

As a long time Jimi and Stones fan, I've always been intrigued by Linda Keith.
To report more about what Keith Richards has to say in his new book about Linda breaking his heart after ending it with him in the summer of '66 (via Jimi and another fellow):

"That's the first time I ever felt the deep cut. The thing about being a songwriter is, even if you've been @#$%& over, you can find consolation in writing about it.....Basically Linda is Ruby Tuesday".

So finally after all of these years, though it has been speculated on often, we find out definitively....Linda Keith is Ruby Tuesday!

The recording date of the song adds up, as well. Though nearly half of the Stones "Between The Buttons" LP was recorded in August in L.A, the rest of the tracks all come from Olympic recorded between November 9 and November 26, 1966.....including the first takes of Ruby Tuesday (USA release: January 14, 1967,#1 Billboard Hot 100, March 4, 1967)

So Keith and, subsequently, Jimi's chick had a top of the charts/hit single/#1 song written about her because of none other then....Jimi Hendrix....and, of course, Keith Richards broken heart. That's some cool and crazy stuff.

And I know I've read several times where Jimi was a guest/observer at a Stones recording session or two. It would be so ironic if he were at Olympic in November, 1966, while the Stones were cutting Ruby Tuesday.

Oh goodie, Grey's Anatomy on Dutch TV. I love that, because now I can go read on a bit in Keith's book without missing anything on TV

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

stu said:" mick would only sing if keith was a part of it"

"brian tried to persuade charlie watts to leave korner and join them but he was loyal to korner"

"but while micks personality secured the marquee date it was still brians unit he was taking with him.for the gig he[brian] decided to name the band "the rollin stones"
-FROM BILLS BOOK STONE ALONE [even though someone said he was"hardly a member of the stones"i'm pretty sure when i saw them live he was the guy standing to keiths left]

ANDREW LOOG OLDAHAM-"i had no power OR authority to kick anyone out of the band,they did it themselves.i only suggested that 6 were to many for people to remember and that stu didnt look the part.the notion that i kicked stu out is a myth"

1979-"the recording had gone from bad to worse.keith,who had not slept for four days had annoyed mick so much that he rufused to came back to the studio saying"keith was so out of it nothing had been done"
"two months later i spoke to mick at length about recording and the fact that woody was going to tour with his own band and keith was probably going with him.while he was in good spirits i think mick felt slightly betrayed"-bill wyman

in the january 79 issue of melody maker keith first mentions his own solo record.

so thats a couple of my questions to anyone who has read the book-
1.does keith mention that it was mick that brought him into the group?

2.does he still sell the old andrew-stu story or admit the stones themselves threw stu out?

3.does he still say his solo career was a reaction to mick or does he talk about the barbarians tour and his own single and plans for a possible album as far back as the late 70s.
i like keith but you cant just change real situations into you're own reality.

Quote
Mathijs
And Keith's confirms what I have always believed -he wrote the bulk of Stones material. He had the riff, the melody, the song titel and main theme, and then would throw it at Mick, whom he then credits of being a genius in completing the song. He states there's just a few Mick songs -YCAGWYW, SFTD, Moonlight Mile and BS. Especially MM is a revelation, as this adds to Taylor's claim he wrote it with Jagger.

MyMathijs

This is a ridiculous claim by Keith. In his whole career Mick only wrote 4 songs? And Mick only starts to work when he gets something new from Keith?
Mcik said that befor Yesterdays Papers he only wrote lyrics and helped with the melody, which is natural for the singer. Then he started to write complete songs. I have never read that he said until 77 he wrote only lyrics. Mick Taylor said that Mick came up with most of the songs and he can only talk about his time with them.

Quote
stones78

Quote
Bärs

Quote
courtfieldroad

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.

I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.

Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.

You want to compare Brian's musical contributions to the band to Stu's? Brian deserves to have a fan club and a statue.

Yeah, he deserved a better fan club and a better statue than the one with the totally hysterical golden helmet... (I guess it's supposed to be hair.)

Quote
lem motlow
1.does keith mention that it was mick that brought him into the group?

2.does he still sell the old andrew-stu story or admit the stones themselves threw stu out?

3.does he still say his solo career was a reaction to mick or does he talk about the barbarians tour and his own single and plans for a possible album as far back as the late 70s.
i like keith but you cant just change real situations into you're own reality.

1. Yes he does. (Well, he actually says both of them were invited by Stu to the rehearsal but when Keith goes there, Stu mentions something like Mick having already been there, and - "to his honour needs to be mentioned" - demanded that he doesn't join unless Keith will do so also. (It is not very clear at all - some inconstincies in order of events here and there).

2. No. He says that the deal with Decca would mean that Stu should be kicked out of band. Six was too much, and naturally the pianist was the oddity. No mention of Andrew or any other active agents here.

3. As I interpret his words - he speaks bloody much there - the solo career was a reaction for The Stones doing nothing (thanks to Mick). But as far as the events in 1979 go, he was upset because Mick refused to make a Stones tour, but since Keith wanted to to tour, The New Barbarians option fitted fine.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 22:59 by Doxa.

Why doesn't lem read the book?

YAY - my book just arrived! Haven't had time to start reading.
To with sssoul - NO it is NOT autographed. It only has Keith's signature on the front cover (in silver) and on the dust jacket his bit about "This is the Life......" also with his signature.

There, I said I'd let you know!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
stones78

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?

Bill screwed the most girls. That's what's R&R is about.
Some people never dig that.

Hahahha! It is one of the funniest revalations (read: gossips) Keith "The Deep Throat" Richards wants to share with us in the book regards Bill Wyman that his claims for screwing so many girls is heavily over-exaggarated and all he was able to do is to serve them awful mild tea... (keith was hiding behind the next door and making notes..)

But there was one tender moment between them Keith remembers almost fondly: when Bill carried him smack in Toronto. Good Bill was something good for. That and the big amp.

Not a member... well well well... good that here finally starts some politically correct (revisionist) voices be heard; Mathijs took the demanding job into his informative shoulders... to keep his 'old' claim that nothing was lost when Darryl replaced Wyman, because, well, there wasn't hardly anything existing to be replaced... in fact, the Stones have always been a four piece-band - Just look at the RARITIES cover.. ><

- Doxa

Hey Doxa, you're getting really over the top in this thread. You used to be well-thought and eloquent, and now you're just ranting about how everything is a lie.

You know very well what I feel about Wyman, I'm not going to repeat that. What I meant with 'not being a Stone' is that he wasn't part of the social lives of Richards, Jagger and Wood, and not even that of Watts. Wyman was there for tour rehearsals and tours, and half the time in the studio, and that was it. So if you want to hear the facts about the shillings earned in 1966 read Wyman’s book, for the juice Wood's and Richards books are much better.

Mathijs

Quote
Bärs
I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.

No, but since some here thinks that this book is the shit that holds the truth and some of us feel that we have to say that Keith's memory of things has change with every decade. He gets nastier the older he gets. When it comes to Brian Keith's memory seems to be a mess and there is no end to making his role in the Stones as small as possible.

Quote
Bärs
Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.

God bless Stu. He deserves a big credit just for the fact that he stayed!

But you can't compare Stu with Brian. Brian had problems, psychological issues from his loveless childhood for starters. Stu didn't have that and he was certainly a lot more self secure than Brian and since Brian never really learned to face his problems he ended up creating more. Some by accident, some by stubborness and some by stupidity. But I don't believe for a second that he just acted like an ass because he was an ass. Humans tend to be more complex than that.

Then you have to look at the Stones story in general. Brian was an, if not a leader, equal to Mick and Keith until they started to write songs. Stu was definitely not. Brian played the guitar and with his sliding he got a big part of the spotlight. It was Mick and Brian at that time - Keith was the 3:rd man. Stu played keyboards and was held away from photos of the band. He wasn't very known.

..and at last. Yes, Brian have an ugly statue that doesn't look like him, a movie that is fiction and show him like a complete idiot and a fan club that I really don't know what to think of. I think that Stu is happy that he don't have that kind of "appreciation".

Quote
71Tele
It's just the whole "Andrew came along and took Brian's band away" thing that is extremely tiresome.

Just like the neverending "Brian was a horrible prick who just abused women! He got what he deserved!" thing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-02 00:55 by tonterapi.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Bärs
I actually think that the only agenda existing is the one that tries to demonize Keith.

No, but since some here thinks that this book is the shit that holds the truth and some of us feel that we have to say that Keith's memory of things has change with every decade. He gets nastier the older he gets. When it comes to Brian Keith's memory seems to be a mess and there is no end to making his role in the Stones as small as possible.

Quote
Bärs
Look at Stu. He sacrificed a lot for the band when he accepted being put out of it. He was still loyal. He was sober and reliable when the pressure was high. He perfected his strenghts as a piano player. Brian deliberately chose to do everything contrary. Now Brian is famous and Stu is not, because of Stu's sacrifice. Brian's got a statue and films made about him. He's got a fanclub that speaks for him. Stu's got nothing of that and he is not here either to speak for him. Keith is now balancing the picture since Stu was written out of the whole story right from the beginning.

God bless Stu. He deserves a big credit just for the fact that he stayed!

But you can't compare Stu with Brian. Brian had problems, psychological issues from his loveless childhood for starters. Stu didn't have that and he was certainly a lot more self secure than Brian and since Brian never really learned to face his problems he ended up creating more. Some by accident, some by stubborness and some by stupidity. But I don't believe for a second that he just acted like an ass because he was an ass. Humans tend to be more complex than that.

Then you have to look at the Stones story in general. Brian was an, if not a leader, equal to Mick and Keith until they started to write songs. Stu was definitely not. Brian played the guitar and with his sliding he got a big part of the spotlight. It was Mick and Brian at that time - Keith was the 3:rd man. Stu played keyboards and was held away from photos of the band. He wasn't very known.

..and at last. Yes, Brian have an ugly statue that doesn't look like him, a movie that is fiction and show him like a complete idiot and a fan club that I really don't know what to think of. I think that Stu is happy that he don't have that kind of "appreciation".

Quote
71Tele
It's just the whole "Andrew came along and took Brian's band away" thing that is extremely tiresome.

Just like the neverending "Brian was a horrible prick who just abused women! He got what he deserved!" thing.

Very well said....

Quote
Mathijs
Hey Doxa, you're getting really over the top in this thread. You used to be well-thought and eloquent, and now you're just ranting about how everything is a lie.

Mathijs

I was just about to thank Doxa for his eloquent posts! I think his opinions about the book are shared by many who do not have time to articulate about it. So, thanks Doxa!

Thank you Mathijs.

Maybe a stupid question, please forgive me if that is the case.
But, butt, bud I really like reading this book. Anybody else with the same feeling ?

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

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Maybe a stupid question, please forgive me if that is the case.
But, butt, bud I really like reading this book. Anybody else with the same feeling ?

It might be of any help if you just would explain why you "really like reading this book". Give it a try, I would say. It might be of any interest.

Quote
kleermaker
It might be of any help if you just would explain why you "really like reading this book".

Nothing to explain. I just like it and was asking if there was anybody else with the same feeling.

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

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Maybe a stupid question, please forgive me if that is the case.
But, butt, bud I really like reading this book. Anybody else with the same feeling ?

Yes, while I am not finished yet with Life, I have also really enjoyed reading the book. You don't have to explain anything about why you like the book if you don't want to. It's simply Keith's take on his life. It's enough for me. I am surprised how snippy people have become in discussing this book. While Keith is harsh in his criticism of Brian in the book, his opinions were formed through living with him, working with him, traveling with him. It isn't all negative. He said they had fun together, enjoyed playing together in the early years. And yes, Keith in a way became a little bit like Brian in later years. That is what makes this story interesting. That's why the story of these musicians/people compel us fans to write all this nonsense about a band that is made up of budding senior citizens that have seen better days on stage and in the studio. In the meantime enjoy the book. The Stones are being discussed again. They are in the news.

Let it rock