Quote
71Tele
The book is alive and real when he is talking about the early days with the Stones, learning the blues, the first tours, etc. Wonderful. After that it descends into a litany of drug tales, grudges, score-settling and macho tough-guy talk. That is, once he became "Keith Richards" (or "Keith Richard") the rock star, is when all these other layers got added on. I am thankful we have his entertaining (and even inspiring) account of the early days. The rest of it I could have gotten from interviews or the Spanish Tony book.

+ 1, but don't spoil the fun. I haven't got past the wonderful description of the early days yet

Quote
Claire_M

Quote
Mathijs
About Brown Sugar, the '69 clip shows Jagger playing the chord sequence and singing the first line of the first verse. This means that basically he has written the entire song, and all Keith did was to rock it up and make it a Stones song, with a rythm guitar part that only he can (or could) play.

Mathijs

The '69 footage - where can one see it, is it in the Gimme Shelter film of Altamont? Thank you.

Mathijs

Keith does talk about his fingers... I find that wrong

It si sooo great that the clip from the 1969 MSG backstage exists - Brown Sugar as a little unfinnished song...filmed just accidently. A song which bacame a rock history.

It is almost as if there was a film of Keith waking up in the middle of the night, grabbing his guitar and recording the Satisfaction riff in order not to forget it till mornig...or Mick and Keith in the night haering the footsteps of Keith's gardener Jack...Jumpin' Jack :-). It is great that this moment was accidently preserved.

...the 69 clip of Mick introducing Brown Sugar to Ike and Tina is like a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame highlight...magnificent stroke of luck to have something embryonic like that on film...very special

Nice video ideed. I recognize it from somewhere. Is it on Gimme Shelter or on some bonus DVD that I must have somewhere ? Please help and don't make me go searching through my DVD's.

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

Quote
Mathijs

The '69 footage - where can one see it, is it in the Gimme Shelter film of Altamont? Thank you.

Mathijs[/quote]

This is great....I love it!
I've never seen this before, thanks.

Friend of mine got it, he read it, now I have it and have started. He liked it but didn't seem thrilled about it. He's not a big Stones fan but he does like them. My dad also read it and gave it a C+ - says Keith hardly mentions Bill Wyman!

Friend in Chicago has it, he's digging it.

So come on - who's read it and has something to say/point out etc?!!? Or I have I missed the thread for that?

My first thoughts are I was utterly surprised-stunned that he opened the book talking about the Fordyce, ARK bust! Hilarious shit there! In the second chapter he talks about his grandfather Gus, "You gonna be a kunt all yer life?" - funny shit!

Have you missed the thread for that? You must be kidding, skip!

[www.iorr.org]

There's only 19 Pages of ongoing warefare between the Keith Supporters & Keith Haters.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Well, it's just something different: Mick vs Keith instead of Taylor vs Wood. Both silly 'topics', actually.

Quote
kleermaker
Well, it's just something different: Mick vs Keith instead of Taylor vs Wood. Both silly 'topics', actually.

I disagree slightly, kleermaker. Quite fascinating what Keith chooses to pblish about his feelings about Mick (rather than just keep certain things private). We normally don't get this much insight into the personal dynamics of the band relationships, with how closely guarded an organization the Stones have become, so it's natural that we are poring over all the tea leaves here. Maybe the genitalia-size discussions are a bit much, but again, Keith chose to put that in his book. It begs the question: Why?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
Well, it's just something different: Mick vs Keith instead of Taylor vs Wood. Both silly 'topics', actually.

I disagree slightly, kleermaker. Quite fascinating what Keith chooses to pblish about his feelings about Mick (rather than just keep certain things private). We normally don't get this much insight into the personal dynamics of the band relationships, with how closely guarded an organization the Stones have become, so it's natural that we are poring over all the tea leaves here. Maybe the genitalia-size discussions are a bit much, but again, Keith chose to put that in his book. It begs the question: Why?

Why? Cause in the end I think there's just an enourmous jealousy towards Mick. It's very much like "I am Keith Richards, chief writer, leader and producer of the Stones, larger than life, and the Stones are my band. So why the fVck is Mick Jagger a-hundred times more famous than I am? Why does he get all the women? Who the fVck is Mick Jagger? And why does he screw my wife?".

It's just childish jealousy, nothing more, nothing less. And what's left then? Stating that he got a small dick. How cheap.

Mathijs

Are you saying that Keith Richards is a lot less famous than Mick? Keith is friends with Johnny Depp, Paul McCartneyt and Tom Waits. The guy is hugely famous and can probably get all kinds of women despite looking really aweful. Get real. How many books has he sold now? How many rock stars try to look and act like Keith Richards?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 04:38 by Slimharpo.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
Well, it's just something different: Mick vs Keith instead of Taylor vs Wood. Both silly 'topics', actually.

I disagree slightly, kleermaker. Quite fascinating what Keith chooses to pblish about his feelings about Mick (rather than just keep certain things private). We normally don't get this much insight into the personal dynamics of the band relationships, with how closely guarded an organization the Stones have become, so it's natural that we are poring over all the tea leaves here. Maybe the genitalia-size discussions are a bit much, but again, Keith chose to put that in his book. It begs the question: Why?

Why? Cause in the end I think there's just an enourmous jealousy towards Mick. It's very much like "I am Keith Richards, chief writer, leader and producer of the Stones, larger than life, and the Stones are my band. So why the fVck is Mick Jagger a-hundred times more famous than I am? Why does he get all the women? Who the fVck is Mick Jagger? And why does he screw my wife?".

It's just childish jealousy, nothing more, nothing less. And what's left then? Stating that he got a small dick. How cheap.

Mathijs

Regretfully, Mathjis, I have to say you are probably right. Very hard to see what other motivations there would be for some of the snarky things said about Mick in the book. The only other motivation would be to stir up controversy in order to increase book sales.

Keith is the man who in many ways has been the decisive factor for the shaping of the image that up till this day and always will stay attached to the name the Rolling Stones. If you say that name the Rolling Stones, people automatically will think of Satisfaction, Tuesday or any other golden Stones song that was written by Keith. The image that people will get is the sex, drugs and rock and roll image crafted very much around "the living Count Dracula of Rock and Roll" Keith. And the picture in the head will always be the one with Keith and Brian etc. Nothing will ever change that. Even if the worst nightmare for Keith will become true, a Stones succesfull without him, when Jagger, Wood, Taylor, Watts (and maybe Wyman or else Darryll) will lock themselves up in a studio for a year without Keith but with a good producer and some good songwriters to come out with a brandnew Stones album to celebrate the 50 yrs of the Stones, that will outsell every previous Stones album ever made. And if they will go than without Keith on a worldtour playing only those new songs and new renditions of old covers but no Keith compositions, and it will be hailed as the best Stones tour ever breaking all exisitng attendance records. Closing that tour off with a final concert broadcasted via satelite all over the world (without Keith or his compositions) to which a worldrecord of people will look. Even than, even than that image of the Rolling Stones will still be the one of the Stones with Keith. Like when you mention Pink Floyd no matter how many albums Floyd sold in the 70's the image of Floyd wil ALWAYS be the one with Syd Barrett. In fact that last succes will be like a kind of homage to the founder members, to look proud at and say, look i was there when it started. Keith, arthritis and a head dive has taking it's toll, you can't beat life it has it's own ways wheter we like it or not. Let it be and give your blessing to Taylor and let him and Wood, Jagger and Watts fiddle around in the studio for themselves, and take the luxury of enjoying it from the other side (as a spectator) of that which you have been so instrumental of in creating.

Richard Branson's Keith story:

Quote
TippyToe
Richard Branson's Keith story:

I'm sure they were "just cuddling and sleeping and not even doing anything".

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
Well, it's just something different: Mick vs Keith instead of Taylor vs Wood. Both silly 'topics', actually.

I disagree slightly, kleermaker. Quite fascinating what Keith chooses to pblish about his feelings about Mick (rather than just keep certain things private). We normally don't get this much insight into the personal dynamics of the band relationships, with how closely guarded an organization the Stones have become, so it's natural that we are poring over all the tea leaves here. Maybe the genitalia-size discussions are a bit much, but again, Keith chose to put that in his book. It begs the question: Why?

Why? Cause in the end I think there's just an enourmous jealousy towards Mick. It's very much like "I am Keith Richards, chief writer, leader and producer of the Stones, larger than life, and the Stones are my band. So why the fVck is Mick Jagger a-hundred times more famous than I am? Why does he get all the women? Who the fVck is Mick Jagger? And why does he screw my wife?".

It's just childish jealousy, nothing more, nothing less. And what's left then? Stating that he got a small dick. How cheap.

Mathijs

Regretfully, Mathjis, I have to say you are probably right. Very hard to see what other motivations there would be for some of the snarky things said about Mick in the book. The only other motivation would be to stir up controversy in order to increase book sales.

I bet Keith didn't think Mick's tiny todger would be come the main issue of his Life

Nice video. Funny story. Thanks for posting TippyToe

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

Keith needs to get a Life!
That's the last of my Keith bashing

Quote
behroez
Even if the worst nightmare for Keith will become true, a Stones succesfull without him, when Jagger, Wood, Taylor, Watts (and maybe Wyman or else Darryll) will lock themselves up in a studio for a year without Keith but with a good producer and some good songwriters to come out with a brandnew Stones album to celebrate the 50 yrs of the Stones, that will outsell every previous Stones album ever made. And if they will go than without Keith on a worldtour playing only those new songs and new renditions of old covers but no Keith compositions, and it will be hailed as the best Stones tour ever breaking all exisitng attendance records. Closing that tour off with a final concert broadcasted via satelite all over the world (without Keith or his compositions) to which a worldrecord of people will look.

Like that bit very much to become true to be honest, Keith's bitterness is a result of his inability to be Keith anymore (has nothing to do with Mick really), like you say "you can't beat life it has it's own ways wheter we like it or not." To Keith i wouls say; "Free yourself of the pain for longing what can't be, surrender and wish the best for the rest".

Eh, Tele, I totally forgot about this being at the top of the thread list.

Ha ha. Obviously.

Quote
Mathijs

Brilliant i just love that 60's guitarsound.

Thats great footage, never heard Mick play guitar so well, Ike looks impressed

That footage shows how much Mick and Keith hung out together and close they were... Mick's is just playing Open G...

Like that version of Robert Johnsons "Lil Queen of Spades".

I think Eric Clapton's book, that he wrote himself without ghost writer is more interesting and by far more sincere. He doesn't cherish his image and has maturity to take responsibility for what he did. It was his intention to write the book to seek for the answers while Richards recieved a 7million$ proposal. Different starting points brought opposite results. Richards who comes out of this book is so full of himself, doesn't see consequences of his actions and takes responsibility for nothing.
And the worst part is now I see he has envied people all his life

Quote
proudmary
I think Eric Clapton's book, that he wrote himself without ghost writer is more interesting and by far more sincere. He doesn't cherish his image and has maturity to take responsibility for what he did. It was his intention to write the book to seek for the answers while Richards recieved a 7million$ proposal. Different starting points brought opposite results.Richards who comes out of this book is so full of himself, doesn't see consequences of his actions and takes responsibility for nothing.
And the worst part is now I see he has envied people all his life

I'm only in Chapter Three as I read books for a living (so, there's only so much reading a person can do on any given day), but from what I've read so far....I'm enjoying this book a great deal.
Two points to proudmary:
1. You say that (in the book) Keith doesn't "see consequences of his actions and takes responsibility for nothing." Well, perhaps you've not seen the interview which Keith did a number of years ago in which he talks about how drugs "make you selfish".

2."And the worst part is now I see he has envied people all his life." I see this as a vulnerability and an admission of his own weaknesses (as we all have as human beings).

That's my 2 cents' worth so far.....

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
I'm only in Chapter Three as I read books for a living (so, there's only so much reading a person can do on any given day), but from what I've read so far....I'm enjoying this book a great deal.
Two points to proudmary:
1. You say that (in the book) Keith doesn't "see consequences of his actions and takes responsibility for nothing." Well, perhaps you've not seen the interview which Keith did a number of years ago in which he talks about how drugs "make you selfish".

2."And the worst part is now I see he has envied people all his life." I see this as a vulnerability and an admission of his own weaknesses (as we all have as human beings).

That's my 2 cents' worth so far.....

#1 - but when you get off drugs you're supposed to not be selfish in that way anymore - I don't think Keith was claiming that once you take drugs your DNA changes and you morph into a selfish person

#2 - Keith isn't saying with self-reflection in LIFE that he's envied people all his life; it's kinda clear that he has, whether he realizes how much that motivates him, and apparently he hasn't moved beyond that.

Still: Loving LIFE, tho also only at Chapter3-ish!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-14 11:32 by swiss.