Tell Me :
Talk
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Seriously? You don't even know what you're talking about. You said 'distortion' over the fact that Keith gives Stu credit & bashes Brian. I am saying this is his 'feelings' and it doesn't have to do with lies, truths, or distortions. You brought up that word based on others' posts and don't even know what the book says. Wow!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 01:20 by LeonidP.
With respect, but that quote has nothing to do with (a) SOME GIRLS, (b) music over-all. It is a great - one of the greatest in the whole book - and Keith gives open credits for Mick saving his ass through the 70's. He admits that without Mich he would have been in jail.
But how Keith shows his gratefulness? You read the bloody next passage, and Keith immediately starts bittching about co-working with Mick (LOVE YOU LIVE). And it continues and continues for the rest of the book - Mick this and Mick that...
It is interesting that Keith makes so clear distinction between music and everything else. He gives Mick credit for non-musical contexts, and talks even, like we saw, brotherhood kind of behavior. But leadership over the music and its direction of the band is apparantly totally different issue. No mercy for Mick there.
Anyway, Keith is not not the only one making this distinction - for example, in his books Bill Wyman bitches a lot of Jagger dictorship over the band dealings, but admits that Mick is very empathic person and for example, supported very much Bill when his father died during 1990 (?) tour. Seemingly, Mick takes care of people.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 01:39 by Doxa.
Is that so special? Well, I didn't either. So I'm very special too? Or are 'rockstars' supposed to hit a girl at least one time?
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information. I've made up my own mind. I've read several sources, Stones biographies and Brian biographies. And, while Stu is an important part of the Stones early history, he is not given credit for being the Stones leader in those biographies. In interviews, as late as 2002, Anita has referred to Stu as Keith's "Man Friday" , his go to guy when he needed him. That is a huge step down if he was once the leader.
LOL kleermaker, of course you are very special too
BTW hitting ON a girl is not the same as hitting a girl.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Well, then that's the opinion of Someone Earlier
But now tell me, did you read Keith's book or not ?
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Yes, I have.
Damn! You're right. Replying before reading isn't very clever indeed
.
That was my point ... In the book, Keith pays 'tribute' to Stu, basically saying that the rest of the Stones felt honored that he took a chance in joining them ... but never says that Stu started the band -- that was made up by Neptune's post, so there is no 'distortion' or any fact about who started the band here. It seems to me that you haven't read it and just are commenting based on the posts of others and their incorrect interpretations.
Again, I have to believe you're only seeing what you want to see. Keith pays respect to Mick in several places in the book (also calling him the best harp player in the world earlier). You seem fixated only on the negative whereas it's apparent that Keith is trying to include 'everything' both negative & positive, and write a book based on his experience & observations.
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
I think you're spot on, LeonidP. I think Doxa has pre-conceived notions with regards to the Stones and their history from his years spent studying them, which actually makes him one of the most interesting and articulate writers on this forum. This forum just would not be the same without him. However, he is also rather headstrong, and refuses to give an inch when someone else's opinion doesn't correspond with his own, even when relating to the members of the Stones themselves. He almost gives the impression of knowing more about the Stones, than the Stones know about themselves ! I think he's gone totally overboard in his savaging of Keith's book, and his examples are never well balanced, he's only slanting his observations by looking at the negative to try to justify his point. He says Keith's book has an agenda, yet if Keith does have an agenda, it's nowhere near as large as his own. I think the fact that Keith is chiefly a musician, whereas Mick is the singer, makes it only natural that Keith should be more responsible for the musical side of the Stones, while Mick concentrates more on the lyrics - i don't see any slighting of Jagger at all with Keith's observation in that regard. Keith readily admits 'Brown Sugar' is pretty much all Jagger - the music and the lyrics. By 'Some Girls' Jagger's use of guitar playing increases considerably, so naturally he may be more prone to compose more of the musical side too. Doxa even proclaims Keith's diary to be a fake without the slightest bit of proof! This is unfortunate, because when Doxa is a little more level headed in his analysis, he's truly brilliant. Before reading the book, and even before the publicity concerning some of its contents, i had no doubts Keith was going to be controversial to a degree. Not in the sense of sensationalising the Stones story perhaps (which i don't think he does), but with regard to telling it like he sees it, his own very personal recollections, so to speak. After all he is Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, a perceived bad boy and all, and not Cliff Richard ! Keith is (or at the very least was) a highly creative artist, and you don't reach that level of brilliance without the strength of opinion, and an objective in what you're doing, which i think he demonstates consistently within the book's pages. It may not be always what goes down well, necessarily, but i give credit to Keith not shying away. There's a lot of debate regarding Keith's treatment of Brian in the book, with regard to where Brian's true place should be in the Stones story. I have no doubt that Brian's relationship with the band was severely soured, and especially with regard to Keith, which i think is pretty evident within this book. Maybe it's true Keith could have given him greater credit in the initial stages of the formation of the band, although he never denies his importance.
If there is a weakness within the writing, it is sometimes the fact that it is a little too loosely written at times, which can often result in the questioning of the book's credibility. For example, Keith paints an incredibly rich and articulate portrait of his pre-Stones years, where there is barely a hint of anything which may be deemed untrue, or questionable. However, he makes a silly and tasteless remark concerning a religious instruction teacher, Mr Edgington, which spoils things somewhat.
Some of Keith's remarks are also quite tongue in cheek, which sometimes doesn't translate so well to the written page, so at times a sense of humour is essential ! Maybe the many language translations don't always get the gist of what Keith's saying quite right? The book does not read like an academically prescibed thesis. It is very much personality driven.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 10:00 by Edward Twining.
I didn't speak what Keith - or "we" - thinks about the song; the point is how to see Mick's contribution in it. Keith claims that Mick just came with "that beat, that four on he floor", and asked the others - read: Keith - to "add the melody". Basically he just says that Mick had an idea of a disco song in his mind - a beat - thanks to his nights in Studio 54, and the rest - guess who? - builded up a song around Mick's wish "to keep the man happy".
Well, this is what the "disco boy" says of its origin:
I got that together with Billy Preston, actually. Yeah, Billy had shown me the four-on-the-floor bass-drum part, and I would just play the guitar. I remember playing that in the El Mocambo club when Keith was on trial in Toronto for whatever he was doing. We were supposed to be there making this live record... I was still writing it, actually. We were just in rehearsal.
- Mick Jagger, 1995
During the rehearsal of the El Mocambo gig I wrote the song Miss You. So I remember that 'cause I was waiting for everyone in the band to turn up and I was with Billy Preston, and Billy Preston was playing the kick drum and I was always playing the guitar and I wrote Miss You on that so I remember that moment very well.
- Mick Jagger, 2001
Everyone is free to make own interpretations.
- Doxa
P.S. I haven't yet discussed of the "we" anonym Keith loves to use rhetorically in the book, and on some really specific moments uses the authority of 'neutral' Charlie Watts to back up Keith's claims or opinions which I find a bit disgusting, too (maybe I will talk it some day...), but here is one quote relevant here:
A lot of those songs like Miss You on Some Girls... were heavily influenced by going to the discos. You can hear it in a lot of those four on the floor rhythms and the Philadelphia-style drumming. Mick and I used to go to discos a lot... It was a great period. I remember being in Munich and coming back from a club with Mick singing one of the Village People songs - YMCA, I think it was - and Keith went mad, but it sounded great on the dance floor.
- Charlie Watts, 2003
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 10:31 by Doxa.
Well, Keith states in his book that around '80 Wood was heavily into basing crack cocaine, and that he (Keith) 'never, ever did that'. But if you go to Ian Maclagans book there's quite some stories of Keith joining Keys, Wood and more in these weeklong drugs binges. Ian even states that one of the keys of Keith's drugs use is that he knew where to draw the line -use it until you almost get hooked, and then stop. I remember a story of Ian where a piece of burning crack cocaine fell on Richards foot and that he didn't notice it at all, burning through his skin. It is clear that Keith gave up heroin somewhere in '78 or '79, but replaced it with Jack Daniels and cocaine in all of its variations. This seems to continue to about '88, until he starts with the Winos. Bill German writes that he never liked it when Keith turned up at Wood's house from '82 to '86, as Keith would use so much drugs and then got totally angry and evil about Mick, and very posssesive about Wood.
Lovely group of people!
Mathijs
Good point, he obviously knows a lot about them -- either way, I'm tired of arguing about it. I'm now at the Undercover part of the book (chapter 11) and getting close to the end. It's definitely my favorite Stones book, no doubt about it. I am both listening, and reading it whenever I have a chance, I expect to finish tomorrow or Sat.
I agree with you, LeonidP. I think the last part ('Undercover' onwards) is definitely where Keith voices his disapproval of Mick most strongly. The whole book in my opinion makes a smashing read.
Come on Hansie, don't make us Dutchies look like provincials, even if you're from Limburgia
. Of course we know everything about drugs here. Don't we have a reputation to maintain? Yes, right in the (major) veins. Like real junkies do or used to do.
Thanks
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Interesting that he mentions Mozart. I knew already that Keith admires Mozart's music very much. But I can't explain what Keith means by that. It would be more interesting if he had mentioned some (parts of) compositions as examples. Even more interesting if he had compared some of his own work with some of Mozart's and Vivaldi's work.
BTW: The fact that I love both the Stones' (especially with Taylor) and Mozart's music so much (Keith is the main Stones 'composer' in my eyes) is proof to me that they have something in common. It undoubtedly has something to do with feelings and emotions translated into music in a certain way. I'm also convinced that Keith at a musical level loved working with Taylor. Both Keith and Taylor were at their best when playing together. Like Taylor said in his 2001 interview the Stones (especially Keith, Mick and Taylor) communicated about the music without words. I can image why Keith said he misses Taylor a lot. I think it's also the other way around. They understood each other through music, using it as a language.
kleermaker, I always was a bit suspect of your Mozart/Stones comparisons, but after reading confirmation from Keith himself, I have to hand it to you.
If I can remember the part in the book correctly...
Keith was talking about the use of a "Pedal Tone". I think he referred to it as a pedal rather than a "suspension".
As it's been 20 years since I finished my last "official" music theory class in college, I went to wikipedia and found what I think to be a pretty good explination. You can click this link: [en.wikipedia.org]
Though they describe it as a pedal point, I believe this is what Keith was talking about. Not quite a "drone" (like a bag-pipe) but a note from an original chord that is held under multiple chords for (typically) an extended period of time is a pedal tone (or point).
A suspension is typically a note being held from a previous chord into a second chord where the note doesn't typically played. Generally, when a third chord is played, that suspended note is realeased.
I'm wishing I could think of an example but I'm struggling to do so right now. The signature riff (although made up of multiple notes as opposed to just one note) from "Peter Gunn Theme" is sort of an example of the technique. The bass part holds the same riff for the entire song while the horn parts play the song.
Peace,
Mr DJA
I was afraid it might be... I'll look up the quote in the book and see if I can get my brain to function better for you when I'm outside of corporate america.
Peace,
Mr DJA
That says it all for me. That settles it for me. I love Keith, but some people take everything he says as the gospel truth and get pissy when people suggest maybe his memory may a bit cloudy and self-serving. The truth is, Keith (during the SG rehearsals, recording) was not exactly in much condition to be that reliable.
This song has Mick all over it....the A minor, the ooh-ooh-oohs....it sounds like something that just came together all at once, as opposed to Keith saving it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 22:33 by stupidguy2.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Marie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 00:46
Quote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: November 4, 2010 00:57
Aah, now I get it.
A distortion is a lie.
If you are not sure whether something is true or not,
it's a distortion because it fits your argument that Keith isn't being truthful.
Keith keeps looking better and better.
A distortion is a lie.
If you are not sure whether something is true or not,
it's a distortion because it fits your argument that Keith isn't being truthful.
Keith keeps looking better and better.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: November 4, 2010 01:18
Quote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Seriously? You don't even know what you're talking about. You said 'distortion' over the fact that Keith gives Stu credit & bashes Brian. I am saying this is his 'feelings' and it doesn't have to do with lies, truths, or distortions. You brought up that word based on others' posts and don't even know what the book says. Wow!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 01:20 by LeonidP.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 4, 2010 01:29
Quote
LeonidP
So have you even read the book, or are you making assumptions? Because now I just got to the Some Girls section, and here's what Keith writes about Mick:
===================================
Mick looked after me with great sweetness, never complaining. He ran things; he did the work and marshaled the forces that saved me. Mick looked after me like a brother...
===================================
So you guys are just spouting off that Keith isn't giving Mick credit for any of Some Girls and now I just read this and see he gives him loads of credit. Jesus Christ!
With respect, but that quote has nothing to do with (a) SOME GIRLS, (b) music over-all. It is a great - one of the greatest in the whole book - and Keith gives open credits for Mick saving his ass through the 70's. He admits that without Mich he would have been in jail.
But how Keith shows his gratefulness? You read the bloody next passage, and Keith immediately starts bittching about co-working with Mick (LOVE YOU LIVE). And it continues and continues for the rest of the book - Mick this and Mick that...
It is interesting that Keith makes so clear distinction between music and everything else. He gives Mick credit for non-musical contexts, and talks even, like we saw, brotherhood kind of behavior. But leadership over the music and its direction of the band is apparantly totally different issue. No mercy for Mick there.
Anyway, Keith is not not the only one making this distinction - for example, in his books Bill Wyman bitches a lot of Jagger dictorship over the band dealings, but admits that Mick is very empathic person and for example, supported very much Bill when his father died during 1990 (?) tour. Seemingly, Mick takes care of people.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 01:39 by Doxa.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 4, 2010 01:29
Quote
RickHolland
Never hit ON a girl in his life, that's what I meant!!
Is that so special? Well, I didn't either. So I'm very special too? Or are 'rockstars' supposed to hit a girl at least one time?
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Marie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 01:30
Quote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Seriously? You don't even know what you're talking about. You said 'distortion' over the fact that Keith gives Stu credit & bashes Brian. I am saying this is his 'feelings' and it doesn't have to do with lies, truths, or distortions. You brought up that word based on others' posts and don't even know what the book days. Wow!
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information. I've made up my own mind. I've read several sources, Stones biographies and Brian biographies. And, while Stu is an important part of the Stones early history, he is not given credit for being the Stones leader in those biographies. In interviews, as late as 2002, Anita has referred to Stu as Keith's "Man Friday" , his go to guy when he needed him. That is a huge step down if he was once the leader.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 01:44
Quote
kleermaker
So I'm very special too?
LOL kleermaker, of course you are very special too
BTW hitting ON a girl is not the same as hitting a girl.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 01:47
Quote
Marie
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information.
Well, then that's the opinion of Someone Earlier
But now tell me, did you read Keith's book or not ?
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Marie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 01:58
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
Marie
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information.
Well, then that's the opinion of Someone Earlier
But now tell me, did you read Keith's book or not ?
Yes, I have.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 4, 2010 02:00
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
kleermaker
So I'm very special too?
LOL kleermaker, of course you are very special too
BTW hitting ON a girl is not the same as hitting a girl.
Damn! You're right. Replying before reading isn't very clever indeed
.Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: November 4, 2010 03:35
Quote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
MarieQuote
LeonidPQuote
Marie
Keith can write what he wants, that's his perogative. It seems wrong that some people who read this book and who don't know as much about the Stones history as some of you who post here, will get a distorted picture of that history.
How is stating his feelings a distortion of history?
It isn't a distortion. As long as it's is truthful and fair.
exactly ... you're the one that used the word 'distortion', so I am asking just where the lie is?
Yes I used the word distortion... and I'll use it again if I like...how do you know it's the truth?
Seriously? You don't even know what you're talking about. You said 'distortion' over the fact that Keith gives Stu credit & bashes Brian. I am saying this is his 'feelings' and it doesn't have to do with lies, truths, or distortions. You brought up that word based on others' posts and don't even know what the book days. Wow!
Someone earlier said it is the reader's responsibility to read a variety of sources and make up their own minds based on the information. I've made up my own mind. I've read several sources, Stones biographies and Brian biographies. And, while Stu is an important part of the Stones early history, he is not given credit for being the Stones leader in those biographies. In interviews, as late as 2002, Anita has referred to Stu as Keith's "Man Friday" , his go to guy when he needed him. That is a huge step down if he was once the leader.
That was my point ... In the book, Keith pays 'tribute' to Stu, basically saying that the rest of the Stones felt honored that he took a chance in joining them ... but never says that Stu started the band -- that was made up by Neptune's post, so there is no 'distortion' or any fact about who started the band here. It seems to me that you haven't read it and just are commenting based on the posts of others and their incorrect interpretations.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: November 4, 2010 03:38
Quote
DoxaQuote
LeonidP
So have you even read the book, or are you making assumptions? Because now I just got to the Some Girls section, and here's what Keith writes about Mick:
===================================
Mick looked after me with great sweetness, never complaining. He ran things; he did the work and marshaled the forces that saved me. Mick looked after me like a brother...
===================================
So you guys are just spouting off that Keith isn't giving Mick credit for any of Some Girls and now I just read this and see he gives him loads of credit. Jesus Christ!
With respect, but that quote has nothing to do with (a) SOME GIRLS, (b) music over-all. It is a great - one of the greatest in the whole book - and Keith gives open credits for Mick saving his ass through the 70's. He admits that without Mich he would have been in jail.
But how Keith shows his gratefulness? You read the bloody next passage, and Keith immediately starts bittching about co-working with Mick (LOVE YOU LIVE). And it continues and continues for the rest of the book - Mick this and Mick that...
It is interesting that Keith makes so clear distinction between music and everything else. He gives Mick credit for non-musical contexts, and talks even, like we saw, brotherhood kind of behavior. But leadership over the music and its direction of the band is apparantly totally different issue. No mercy for Mick there.
Anyway, Keith is not not the only one making this distinction - for example, in his books Bill Wyman bitches a lot of Jagger dictorship over the band dealings, but admits that Mick is very empathic person and for example, supported very much Bill when his father died during 1990 (?) tour. Seemingly, Mick takes care of people.
- Doxa
Again, I have to believe you're only seeing what you want to see. Keith pays respect to Mick in several places in the book (also calling him the best harp player in the world earlier). You seem fixated only on the negative whereas it's apparent that Keith is trying to include 'everything' both negative & positive, and write a book based on his experience & observations.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: November 4, 2010 03:56
Quote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 4, 2010 06:10
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
I think you're spot on, LeonidP. I think Doxa has pre-conceived notions with regards to the Stones and their history from his years spent studying them, which actually makes him one of the most interesting and articulate writers on this forum. This forum just would not be the same without him. However, he is also rather headstrong, and refuses to give an inch when someone else's opinion doesn't correspond with his own, even when relating to the members of the Stones themselves. He almost gives the impression of knowing more about the Stones, than the Stones know about themselves ! I think he's gone totally overboard in his savaging of Keith's book, and his examples are never well balanced, he's only slanting his observations by looking at the negative to try to justify his point. He says Keith's book has an agenda, yet if Keith does have an agenda, it's nowhere near as large as his own. I think the fact that Keith is chiefly a musician, whereas Mick is the singer, makes it only natural that Keith should be more responsible for the musical side of the Stones, while Mick concentrates more on the lyrics - i don't see any slighting of Jagger at all with Keith's observation in that regard. Keith readily admits 'Brown Sugar' is pretty much all Jagger - the music and the lyrics. By 'Some Girls' Jagger's use of guitar playing increases considerably, so naturally he may be more prone to compose more of the musical side too. Doxa even proclaims Keith's diary to be a fake without the slightest bit of proof! This is unfortunate, because when Doxa is a little more level headed in his analysis, he's truly brilliant. Before reading the book, and even before the publicity concerning some of its contents, i had no doubts Keith was going to be controversial to a degree. Not in the sense of sensationalising the Stones story perhaps (which i don't think he does), but with regard to telling it like he sees it, his own very personal recollections, so to speak. After all he is Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, a perceived bad boy and all, and not Cliff Richard ! Keith is (or at the very least was) a highly creative artist, and you don't reach that level of brilliance without the strength of opinion, and an objective in what you're doing, which i think he demonstates consistently within the book's pages. It may not be always what goes down well, necessarily, but i give credit to Keith not shying away. There's a lot of debate regarding Keith's treatment of Brian in the book, with regard to where Brian's true place should be in the Stones story. I have no doubt that Brian's relationship with the band was severely soured, and especially with regard to Keith, which i think is pretty evident within this book. Maybe it's true Keith could have given him greater credit in the initial stages of the formation of the band, although he never denies his importance.
If there is a weakness within the writing, it is sometimes the fact that it is a little too loosely written at times, which can often result in the questioning of the book's credibility. For example, Keith paints an incredibly rich and articulate portrait of his pre-Stones years, where there is barely a hint of anything which may be deemed untrue, or questionable. However, he makes a silly and tasteless remark concerning a religious instruction teacher, Mr Edgington, which spoils things somewhat.
Some of Keith's remarks are also quite tongue in cheek, which sometimes doesn't translate so well to the written page, so at times a sense of humour is essential ! Maybe the many language translations don't always get the gist of what Keith's saying quite right? The book does not read like an academically prescibed thesis. It is very much personality driven.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 10:00 by Edward Twining.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 4, 2010 10:16
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
I didn't speak what Keith - or "we" - thinks about the song; the point is how to see Mick's contribution in it. Keith claims that Mick just came with "that beat, that four on he floor", and asked the others - read: Keith - to "add the melody". Basically he just says that Mick had an idea of a disco song in his mind - a beat - thanks to his nights in Studio 54, and the rest - guess who? - builded up a song around Mick's wish "to keep the man happy".
Well, this is what the "disco boy" says of its origin:
I got that together with Billy Preston, actually. Yeah, Billy had shown me the four-on-the-floor bass-drum part, and I would just play the guitar. I remember playing that in the El Mocambo club when Keith was on trial in Toronto for whatever he was doing. We were supposed to be there making this live record... I was still writing it, actually. We were just in rehearsal.
- Mick Jagger, 1995
During the rehearsal of the El Mocambo gig I wrote the song Miss You. So I remember that 'cause I was waiting for everyone in the band to turn up and I was with Billy Preston, and Billy Preston was playing the kick drum and I was always playing the guitar and I wrote Miss You on that so I remember that moment very well.
- Mick Jagger, 2001
Everyone is free to make own interpretations.
- Doxa
P.S. I haven't yet
discussed of the "we" anonym Keith loves to use rhetorically in the book, and on some really specific moments uses the authority of 'neutral' Charlie Watts to back up Keith's claims or opinions which I find a bit disgusting, too (maybe I will talk it some day...), but here is one quote relevant here:A lot of those songs like Miss You on Some Girls... were heavily influenced by going to the discos. You can hear it in a lot of those four on the floor rhythms and the Philadelphia-style drumming. Mick and I used to go to discos a lot... It was a great period. I remember being in Munich and coming back from a club with Mick singing one of the Village People songs - YMCA, I think it was - and Keith went mad, but it sounded great on the dance floor.
- Charlie Watts, 2003
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 10:31 by Doxa.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 4, 2010 11:32
Quote
71TeleQuote
MathijsQuote
Doxa
But when Jagger starts to be more independent and starts making music, Keith's bitching starts. Seemingly anything Mick does is worth nothing. Even a masterpiece like "Sympathy For he Devil" is mocked as "Mick's song". The description of SOME GIRLS - an album everybody knows is one of Jagger's strongest contributions ever - is analogical to belittlening Brian's contributions in the early days: Keith is so proud of the album - who can debate with sales? - but is incapable to give any respect to the master mind behind it. No, all he does is in pejorative terms. "The Whip Comes Down" is described "oh shit, Jagger is finally written a rock'n'roll" song; "Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable. No any mention of three-guitar attack, Jagger's pushing the band to rock faster, to react to punk, etc - Jagger's contribution is ignored under the anonomy of "we" - which, as the reader by then knows, is synonymous to "Keith's command and vision". There Keith is inconsistent, once again: first he says that everything starts from a scratch, and then he says that scene went usually that Mick came with a song, and then he (Keith) would say what to do with. (Then the junkie scenes: the 'master' taking 45 minutes pause to spend in toilet did just good for the songs because he had time to "think" there...)
And this is all before the horrible and ugly 80's scene. Of course, Jagger's solo career failure is a field day for Keith, and he surely uses that card - he sometimes sounds like having an orgasm in bashing Mick. But not saying that it sucks musically and conceptually, he claims, for example, that Mick steals melodies. (All this should be read as Mick is not able to do without him anything worthy musically, or even: Mick is an impotent composing songs).
As I read it, Keith's nostalgy drive for old days - when describing the sixties scenes - he mentions few times "oh Mick was so different then". It was not just the behavior but seemingly also the way to write songs (and thereby, lead musically the band): Keith the master mind and Mick the secretary.
A quick analysis. Keith's only claim for leadership and significance within the Stones was due his song-writing: he was the guy who did the music. That made HIM special. That was the reason to step to front behind Brian's shadow - a move I think he would ever could have done without his song-writing skills. But according to Keith, the Jagger-Richards team work had a clear divison of work, and seemingly when Jagger started composing songs by his own, and thereby started to be not musically dependent of Keith - seems to be a hard case for Keith. And the 70's scenes - in Keith's dopeville years - Mick took the musical leadership of the Stones- a progression that fulfilled in SOME GIRLS. By then Jagger was totally on his own as a song writer, and he had the visions and ideas how to lead the band - Keith was HIS guitarist, the "riff-master" who worked under and according to his vision. The success of SOME GIRLS was a mark that Jagger was in a right track: he was able to give the band a new life. This, if anything, pissed Keith off. Especially when he "cleaned out". This all happened before the 80's scene. Like said, Keith had a field day thanks to Mick's solo career failure, and my god he really uses that card in defining the earlier and ever since happenings.
But what happened after the 80's World War Three - since Mick "came to his senses"- Keith is not able to give any reasonable or insightful account of the happenings of The Rolling Stones or their creative work. Just stupid studio bullying or how he was able to great such a masterpieces as "Flip the Switch" or "You Don't Have to Mean It". And no bloody ANY critical word for his own creative downhill or the nature of The Rolling Stones (as a Vegas act who is kissing sponsors ass). Totally lost his judgment (like comparing his 8 kilometers - with a heavy guitar - to Mick's 15 kilometers on stage...). But thanks for the sausage receipt.
- Doxa
Well, here I agree with you. As I stated before, I don't understand that Keith doesn't see that they survived the 70's due to Mick, and their 'comeback' with Some Girls and especially Tattoo You and the '81 tour was a true tour de force of Mick mostly. Then, Jagger's decision not to tour with three junkie band members and a so-so received album.
There's one line in the book that’s prove of this: Keith mentions (when the book arrives somewhere in ’78) that Mick doesn't need all the big stages, the props, the moves and whatever, and all the forays into disco and what-more as Jagger forever ‘could sing “I Am a Man” on a table top and still be famous and earn money’. And that is the biggest misconception of Keith, and probably his biggest jealousy towards Mick. Keith likes to see the Stones as a Chicago blues band, and he likes to see himself as the de facto leader as he is the main songwriter, whereas Jagger is the lead singer of the band and hence the most important man for most of the audience, and Jagger is the one whom keeps his foot in modern times, adjusting the band to remain modern and relevant, or even a money making machine from ’89.
When Keith cleaned up in ’78 he wanted to do “I am a Man’, while Jagger came with ‘Miss You’. Instead of being grateful towards Jagger, he keeps slagging him.
Mathijs
I totally agree with you here, Mathjis...People who can't understand why Jagger refused to tour behind Dirty Work are not perhaps aware of the fact that no fewer than three band members were a mess at this point (yes, hard to think of our Charlie that way, but he was out of control). What's not clear to me is Keith was supposedly "clean" by then. Did he have a relapse around this time, or was it only that his coke and alcohol use were so out of control? He does not admit to any relapse in his book, he says several times that it has been 30 years since he was a junkie.
Well, Keith states in his book that around '80 Wood was heavily into basing crack cocaine, and that he (Keith) 'never, ever did that'. But if you go to Ian Maclagans book there's quite some stories of Keith joining Keys, Wood and more in these weeklong drugs binges. Ian even states that one of the keys of Keith's drugs use is that he knew where to draw the line -use it until you almost get hooked, and then stop. I remember a story of Ian where a piece of burning crack cocaine fell on Richards foot and that he didn't notice it at all, burning through his skin. It is clear that Keith gave up heroin somewhere in '78 or '79, but replaced it with Jack Daniels and cocaine in all of its variations. This seems to continue to about '88, until he starts with the Winos. Bill German writes that he never liked it when Keith turned up at Wood's house from '82 to '86, as Keith would use so much drugs and then got totally angry and evil about Mick, and very posssesive about Wood.
Lovely group of people!
Mathijs
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 4, 2010 12:13
-
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 12:17 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 12:17 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: November 4, 2010 14:32
That's pretty much the scientific approach if you want anything close to "truth" no matter the subject.Quote
Rolling Hansie
Well, then that's the opinion of Someone Earlier
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: November 4, 2010 15:01
Quote
Edward Twining
I think you're spot on, LeonidP. I think Doxa has pre-conceived notions with regards to the Stones and their history from his years spent studying them, which actually makes him one of the most interesting and articulate writers on this forum. This forum just would not be the same without him.
Good point, he obviously knows a lot about them -- either way, I'm tired of arguing about it. I'm now at the Undercover part of the book (chapter 11) and getting close to the end. It's definitely my favorite Stones book, no doubt about it. I am both listening, and reading it whenever I have a chance, I expect to finish tomorrow or Sat.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 4, 2010 17:07
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Edward Twining
I think you're spot on, LeonidP. I think Doxa has pre-conceived notions with regards to the Stones and their history from his years spent studying them, which actually makes him one of the most interesting and articulate writers on this forum. This forum just would not be the same without him.
Good point, he obviously knows a lot about them -- either way, I'm tired of arguing about it. I'm now at the Undercover part of the book (chapter 11) and getting close to the end. It's definitely my favorite Stones book, no doubt about it. I am both listening, and reading it whenever I have a chance, I expect to finish tomorrow or Sat.
I agree with you, LeonidP. I think the last part ('Undercover' onwards) is definitely where Keith voices his disapproval of Mick most strongly. The whole book in my opinion makes a smashing read.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 17:15
Language question from a Dutch guy:
When Keith writes about shooting up heroin he speaks about "mainlining", and that he never did that. He used to shoot up in the muscles. Does "mainlining" mean shooting up in the veins ?
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
When Keith writes about shooting up heroin he speaks about "mainlining", and that he never did that. He used to shoot up in the muscles. Does "mainlining" mean shooting up in the veins ?
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 4, 2010 17:23
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Language question from a Dutch guy:
When Keith writes about shooting up heroin he speaks about "mainlining", and that he never did that. He used to shoot up in the muscles. Does "mainlining" mean shooting up in the veins ?
Come on Hansie, don't make us Dutchies look like provincials, even if you're from Limburgia
. Of course we know everything about drugs here. Don't we have a reputation to maintain? Yes, right in the (major) veins. Like real junkies do or used to do.Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 17:39
Quote
kleermaker
Yes, right in the (major) veins
Thanks
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 18:33
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 4, 2010 19:43
Quote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?
Interesting that he mentions Mozart. I knew already that Keith admires Mozart's music very much. But I can't explain what Keith means by that. It would be more interesting if he had mentioned some (parts of) compositions as examples. Even more interesting if he had compared some of his own work with some of Mozart's and Vivaldi's work.
BTW: The fact that I love both the Stones' (especially with Taylor) and Mozart's music so much (Keith is the main Stones 'composer' in my eyes) is proof to me that they have something in common. It undoubtedly has something to do with feelings and emotions translated into music in a certain way. I'm also convinced that Keith at a musical level loved working with Taylor. Both Keith and Taylor were at their best when playing together. Like Taylor said in his 2001 interview the Stones (especially Keith, Mick and Taylor) communicated about the music without words. I can image why Keith said he misses Taylor a lot. I think it's also the other way around. They understood each other through music, using it as a language.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 4, 2010 20:43
Quote
kleermakerQuote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?
Interesting that he mentions Mozart. I knew already that Keith admires Mozart's music very much. But I can't explain what Keith means by that. It would be more interesting if he had mentioned some (parts of) compositions as examples. Even more interesting if he had compared some of his own work with some of Mozart's and Vivaldi's work.
BTW: The fact that I love both the Stones' (especially with Taylor) and Mozart's music so much (Keith is the main Stones 'composer' in my eyes) is proof to me that they have something in common. It undoubtedly has something to do with feelings and emotions translated into music in a certain way. I'm also convinced that Keith at a musical level loved working with Taylor. Both Keith and Taylor were at their best when playing together. Like Taylor said in his 2001 interview the Stones (especially Keith, Mick and Taylor) communicated about the music without words. I can image why Keith said he misses Taylor a lot. I think it's also the other way around. They understood each other through music, using it as a language.
kleermaker, I always was a bit suspect of your Mozart/Stones comparisons, but after reading confirmation from Keith himself, I have to hand it to you.
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: November 4, 2010 21:11
Quote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?
If I can remember the part in the book correctly...
Keith was talking about the use of a "Pedal Tone". I think he referred to it as a pedal rather than a "suspension".
As it's been 20 years since I finished my last "official" music theory class in college, I went to wikipedia and found what I think to be a pretty good explination. You can click this link: [en.wikipedia.org]
Though they describe it as a pedal point, I believe this is what Keith was talking about. Not quite a "drone" (like a bag-pipe) but a note from an original chord that is held under multiple chords for (typically) an extended period of time is a pedal tone (or point).
A suspension is typically a note being held from a previous chord into a second chord where the note doesn't typically played. Generally, when a third chord is played, that suspended note is realeased.
I'm wishing I could think of an example but I'm struggling to do so right now. The signature riff (although made up of multiple notes as opposed to just one note) from "Peter Gunn Theme" is sort of an example of the technique. The bass part holds the same riff for the entire song while the horn parts play the song.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 4, 2010 21:53
Thanks Mr DJA, but the story on Wikipedia is also very complicated to me.
Keith specifically refers to the 5 string open tuning, starting at page 241.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Keith specifically refers to the 5 string open tuning, starting at page 241.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: November 4, 2010 22:01
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Thanks Mr DJA, but the story on Wikipedia is also very complicated to me.
Keith specifically refers to the 5 string open tuning, starting at page 241.
I was afraid it might be... I'll look up the quote in the book and see if I can get my brain to function better for you when I'm outside of corporate america.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: Keith Richards' autobiography Life - reviews and comments
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: November 4, 2010 22:26
Quote
DoxaQuote
LeonidPQuote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa
by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:
---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------
So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.
I didn't speak what Keith - or "we" - thinks about the song; the point is how to see Mick's contribution in it. Keith claims that Mick just came with "that beat, that four on he floor", and asked the others - read: Keith - to "add the melody". Basically he just says that Mick had an idea of a disco song in his mind - a beat - thanks to his nights in Studio 54, and the rest - guess who? - builded up a song around Mick's wish "to keep the man happy".
Well, this is what the "disco boy" says of its origin:
I got that together with Billy Preston, actually. Yeah, Billy had shown me the four-on-the-floor bass-drum part, and I would just play the guitar. I remember playing that in the El Mocambo club when Keith was on trial in Toronto for whatever he was doing. We were supposed to be there making this live record... I was still writing it, actually. We were just in rehearsal.
- Mick Jagger, 1995
During the rehearsal of the El Mocambo gig I wrote the song Miss You. So I remember that 'cause I was waiting for everyone in the band to turn up and I was with Billy Preston, and Billy Preston was playing the kick drum and I was always playing the guitar and I wrote Miss You on that so I remember that moment very well.
- Mick Jagger, 2001
Everyone is free to make own interpretations.
- Doxa
P.S. I haven't yet
A lot of those songs like Miss You on Some Girls... were heavily influenced by going to the discos. You can hear it in a lot of those four on the floor rhythms and the Philadelphia-style drumming. Mick and I used to go to discos a lot... It was a great period. I remember being in Munich and coming back from a club with Mick singing one of the Village People songs - YMCA, I think it was - and Keith went mad, but it sounded great on the dance floor.
- Charlie Watts, 2003
That says it all for me. That settles it for me. I love Keith, but some people take everything he says as the gospel truth and get pissy when people suggest maybe his memory may a bit cloudy and self-serving. The truth is, Keith (during the SG rehearsals, recording) was not exactly in much condition to be that reliable.
This song has Mick all over it....the A minor, the ooh-ooh-oohs....it sounds like something that just came together all at once, as opposed to Keith saving it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-04 22:33 by stupidguy2.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AJDuffer , ARB , BackstreetCaliforniaGirl , BeastyBurdeny , bjornkasm , Bob C. , Chitown23 , chrism13 , chrisvw , Dan , davidestrada , DECCA61 , DiegoGlimmerStones , EGJim , fedecarp , Fletchesus , gagiwh , gastonl74 , GJB , GJV , gotdablouse , Halup , hockenheim95 , jahisnotdead , jason8903 , JDSAM1994 , JordyLicks96 , josepi , keefgotsoul , keefmick , kkhoranstoned , kstones79 , ladinsky14 , laurel , MAF , Martin90 , maumau , MGetzner , millerman60 , [email protected] , More Hot Rocks , Musicwinn , nonfilter , padre69 , Papo , paulstones , portlandphil , Putty , Pvk2 , RaahenTiikeri , Ram , rbarnes00 , rebelhipi , rogerriffin , sarahunwin , Sir Mick , snarf2014 , spunky , Stilllife09 , stonenut356 , Stonesfan2146 , stonesfrkk , straycatuk , thorgal34 , ThumpinJackFlash , TumblinDice76 , TW2019 , undertheradar , vintage stone , waterrats , WembleyWhammer , willprefecture , witterings , wupperstein
Guests:
3705
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10