'73 tour - nothing except a bobby keys anecdote- what the hell?
'78 tour - not a word
steel wheels tour - a passing mention

they did tour back then, right?

also - keith says at this point they're carrying two keyboardists - preston along with hopkins - since when did they play in the same version of the road band?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 09:58 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter
Maybe do what Dylan did and break it down into decades or eras - to try and squeeze the Stones into one tome, as I learned from LIFE, seems a bit silly.

Nice book, stories well told - but when the '75 tour becomes one page - the '69 tour not much more - etc. I dunno - that much compression seems to rob the reader of lots of content - a career this rich in experiences gets a bit breezy, I think, when done like this.

Just my two cents - and I stand by the critique that the photo collection seems lazy

A very good idea! I think it would be more interesting and also more intimate and to give more detailed account of certain themes or moments than try to catch hem all in one big story that is doomed to fail. For that reason Wyman's STONE ALONE - despite having its certain faults - is more coherent and informative book than Keith's. Dylan's book is simply perfect in every sense but Dylan does miracles with a pen.

I was really expecting Keith's book to more intimate and personal but even though he really lets his take on things - his opinion - to be heard, I was disappointed for not really giving a new perspective to the things that we didn't already knew (it is covered in Keith/Stones biographies and in Keith's interviews.)

Basically the idea of Keith concentrating on one particulal moment and trying to make it alive and to put some feel into it, sounds like his idea of making songs. It could have had worked better than the LIFE method.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 10:22 by Doxa.

Charlie would write a fascinating book, a completely different view of things, less ego, without the weight of the Jagger/Richards interplay.

Quote
studiorambo
Charlie would write a fascinating book, a completely different view of things, less ego, without the weight of the Jagger/Richards interplay.

Exactly. That would be a wet dream to come true to any Rolling Stones fan if Charlie really would share us what he knows.

Keith seemingly uses "Charlie card" quite a lot in LIFE in regards to Jagger/Richards drama . I think that is morally questionable and I don't think Charlie is very happy for that that he is used as a pawn between Mick and Keith ego wars. I have never heard Charlie saying anything bad about Mick. I think he has always been loyal and equal to both of them. I think for this reason he is so important and significant and 'neutral' figure within the Stones chemistry, and this is also one of those things LIFE is unbalancing. (For example, Ronnie's been a middle man between Mck and Keith - especially in the 80's - but he doesn't seem to possess such an authority and strong personality as Charlie does. Mick and Keith can fvck with Ronnie, but not with Charlie.)

Charlie mentioned that Keith "didn't write the book for him", so he sounded showing typical "not interest" Charlie attitude but that made me wonder what Charlie was really after. Sounds like he knew Keith's agenda and "on with the show" mentality that would shape the nature of the book and to whom it was supposed to written. No, it was not written for Mick either (that is Keith bullshit in claiming to make Mick's eyes open.) It was a book to tell the rest of the world what kind of mythical guy Keith Richards is - and who in his wrong doings can do more better than some other people in their right doings. Just to promote the man and his image. Unfortunately the price for that was to ridicule the man that is his most important working mate. But knowing how pro Mick is, I don't think he lets this book and its claims really matter. Jagger also knows something about how to make products to sell. He knows Keith is laughing all the way to bank.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 12:39 by Doxa.

there is one thing in the book i take major issue with - to a point where, I'm going to try and address it in an AOL News column this week - will post here afterwards - i wonder if it jumped out at anyone else (to me it was absolutely repulsive)

--and Doxa - perfectly put on the Charlie card

--also -- (piling on the criticisms now i know)

not a mention of one stones video shoot - so many incredible cutting edge productions - not a word

Quote
hbwriter
there is one thing in the book i take major issue with - to a point where, I'm going to ... i wonder if it jumped out at anyone else

ohhhh i know - i even phoned Keith's people about it, and you should do the same! i mean really

>> (piling on the criticisms now i know) <<

yeah, why write at all if you aren't coming up with THE exhaustive encyclopedic work about the band's history -
it's like Keith thinks this is his book or something



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 10:19 by with sssoul.

ssspoul--i know it sounds stupid - but i think it will make sense once I write it- another journalist is actually pursuing it as a separate story and i hope he lands it -

and sure it's his book- i just think the amount of stuff he left out is sort of weird - just my opinion

true hb, but it's hard to compare any other rocker to dylan as a writer... (only Lou Reed could come close, imo, and there's no sign he's interested in something like an autobiography. He did write a few pieces for the NY Times a few years back.) Surely the kind of focused memory exercise you describe would be preferable, but too much work for keith at this point. Even though it seems, from reviews, that the most effective sections are the ones from childhood, which required the most recall and hadn't already been belabored in Stones-centric interviews down the years.

I'm not sure that calling it "his book" makes much sense, with sssoul. Would he have written it if others weren't going to read it (and, probably more importantly, buy it)? I would think that only serious writers of artistic fiction take that approach; most others are writing for an audience with expectations.

Dylan's 'Chronicle' was so fascinating because, truth or fiction, it appeared to a lifting of the veil from an intentionally obscured life. The Stones have done so many interviews and so many books have been published about them by now, that it's hard to compete. Now what we want from the Stones is what they really thought. We pretty much know what happened chronologically. Bill has seen to that. And what happened after he left doesn't seem as compelling. Unless we get the true feelings of the band.

Charlie writing a book seems so unlikely. I don't think he cares enough. He could write an interesting book about his life, but maybe it wouldn't satisfy a hard core Stones fan. We'd like Mick to tell his story, but he seems the McCartney of the Jagger/Richards duo, tight lipped and wary. What's left? The details on why they hated Brian? What turned Mick Taylor off to the group? Maybe the most explosive thing left would be Mick's real feelings of dealing with Keith Richards. Was it worse than dealing with Brian? My guess is that Mick would never do that as long as he is a member of the Stones, and needs them to work together for his own benefit.

Anita's angle, however tainted by her own demons, could be an interesting read. Just her comments on Brian's intellect and his facility with German added a new dimension to the legend. So, the heading of this post is 'Suggestion'. Hmmm. I would suggest all of them get as much of their individual stories out there as soon as possible, and as truthfully as they remember. Otherwise it's lost treasure from an incredible, dramatic story spanning 50 years.

cc--i know-dylan is a different writer - but i meant as far as how much time he covered -do it in volumes - there are too many decades to gather was my point - i'm actually reading it my second time and the other thing that jumps out at me is the "Keith bubble" it seems to be written from within - unless i missed it, not one mention of what it is like to interact with a fan - what's it's like when the bubble is pierced - i dunno - coupled with the corporate KR twitter blitz and all the PR, it seems like he was less interested in taking the reader inside as he was solidifying his own legend - we get to see what he thinks - not so much what he feels -just my opinion -

I'm asking here, what were your expectations?

To me, the book is better than I expected...it is identifiably Keith's voice telling
what he wants to talk about, what's most important to him in his life and
career. There are a few matters he wants to omit, such as details of his marriage,
for example, at the request of his wife.

A book by Anita would be most interesting. I read her quotes about Brian in the June 2002 issue (French) of Marie Claire magazine. She said he was "genius, crazy, extravagant." In Stanley Booth's book he said she also kept a picture of Brian on her dresser.

Charlie would release two books. The first book would be:

Charlie Watts The Complete Drawings From A Life On The Road

The second book would be:

Charlie Watts View From The Back

and it would be one page:

"Fifty some years or whatever amount it is up to of just waiting around."

I haven't read the book, angee, and won't for some time, probably. From reviews and comments, it sounds to me like it is a more professional piece of work than might have been expected from a rock autobiog (though the standards of these are probably rising as the figures age or, more importantly, as their fans/readers become established--the clapton book got good reviews, for someone who's never appeared to be very articulate or thoughtful). But it seems to be primarily an exercise in myth-promulgating and legacy-polishing. And a successful one at that, to judge by fairly ill-informed mainstream reviews that have eaten up all the self-serving tall tales.

Angee-- I hoped for a more complete look at life on the road - the Stones are defined by the tours as much as they are the records - the tours from 1969 get, essentially *nothing* - 1972 gets the most but it's the usual stuff--'69 gets altamont of course - whatever - you can't fit everything and that's fine - i enjoyed the book a great deal - but my overall view on Keith dropped at the end of it - i think he fancies himself as far too much of a hero and "genuine article" of rock and roll - and so the offhand, nonchalant raw charm he always seemed to have now seems a thing of the past - it's just my opinion - if i didn't love the band so much i think i would have liked it even more - but i love the mystery of the band as well, so any autobiographies are not likely to appeal to me -

Thanks, cc and hb, for your honest and thought-provoking responses.

Whatever happened to the sequel to Stone Alone?

Quote
hbwriter
there is one thing in the book i take major issue with - to a point where, I'm going to try and address it in an AOL News column this week - will post here afterwards - i wonder if it jumped out at anyone else (to me it was absolutely repulsive)

Well, he said he's 5 foot 10 and, having stood beside the man, I have to take issue with that... I hope I haven't scooped ya.

STG -

>> i know [this kind of picking away at the book] sounds stupid <<

+1

>> [the book] is identifiably Keith's voice telling what he wants to talk about <<

+1



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 10:19 by with sssoul.

It's not surprise that Keith doesn't write about touring. Rolling Stones tours are Mick's private domain, so obviously KR has nothing to tell about it.
But Life really is not the book, it's more compilation of old and some new interviews. Starting point for writing it was the huge sum of money from publishing house, and his main concern was "myth-promulgating and legacy-polishing"like cc put it
I wish Mick would write his book, not to prove smth, not for the self-serving purposes. There are plenty remarkable autobiographies - Nabokov's, Bukowski's, G. Green's, for example. I mean Jagger is capable of writing smth. more out of ordinary than cheap celebrity book.

there is one thing in the book i take major issue with

What do you mean?

Just finished the book. Loved it. A little thin on recording processes and the creative process of making albums, imo, But YCAGWYW

When it comes to Keith's criticism of Mick, I think people here exaggarate this a bit. IMO, Keith really loves Mick, something that also comes across very clear in the book. But he felt betrayed by his friend, and I think he haven't really forgiven him for that.

Still, it seems they have a good relationship and partnership. I don't think Keith went too far. This time it's the real deal - the time to say it like he felt it was.

The "tiny todger-thing" was a joke. After reading that passage, I think it's amazing that that story got a long thread here on IORR

Quote
redsock
Whatever happened to the sequel to Stone Alone?

I think what happened it to it was Bill, the historian, realized that the time when he and the band actually made history was covered by STONE ALONE. He wanted to tell story of "little rock and roll band" who conquered the world as a five-piece-unit (and of which he was quite important member). Bill never been much a fan of the 70's hedonist druggie scenes - nor with the music The Stones did during those years - and I think he didn't feel being much involved in that "Mick Jagger run and Keith Richards babied" band any longer. He hated living according to Keith's junkie time and missed sessions, etc. By comparison, in STONE ALONE he sounds so proud being a member of the band in the early days. It would take until Mick and Keith taking the lead totally to their hands, and thereby "unbalancing" the original five-piece-unit, when he he starts getting bitter and more critical. Somehow I have the feeling that after BEGGARS BANQUET Bill lost his interest in contributing the creative output of the Stones (as strange as it might sound) and just concentrated to his rather small but well-paid part with minimal efforts. I think any post-1969 book would have been a very bitter book if he had written it.

So instead we got ROLLING WITH THE STONES, and if we look its contents the 60's band is heralded there again. About 360 pages of it covers happenings prior 1970, and only around 140 happenings ever since. I think that is a good indication how Bill sees the history of the Stones, and what he finds interesting there.

- Doxa

A friend of mine said he should have called his book Happy, she LOL, ....me...a wry grin...EddieByword

Proceeding very slowly, just finished the Exile chapter. Now I assume the last 200 pages will be full of bullshit and Mick-bashing, because nothing I've read so far justifies in any way the harsh comments most of you have reserved to the book. Will see, just in case I'm well prepared!

C

Quote
liddas
Proceeding very slowly, just finished the Exile chapter. Now I assume the last 200 pages will be full of bullshit and Mick-bashing, because nothing I've read so far justifies in any way the harsh comments most of you have reserved to the book. Will see, just in case I'm well prepared!

C

Well, actually you might have noticed that in many reviews here is stated that the Mick-bashing is located to the latter part of book. Starting about the same time as Keith decides to quit heroin, and stop telling "interesting" stories related to drug-use (you are in that part of the book and it will take some time now). But as you might noticed - since you read it slowly and carefully which is good - even by far there are some nasty remarks here and there, that might give a hint what will follow. Starting, for example, in the very first page where Keith mentions how horrible price they were going to pay some day for letting Mick have the the big cvck on ´75 stage. And in the good ole times we are few times reminded that "how different Mick was at the time", but still some Holmes-like insights are made even during those salad days what will indicate or explain what will come some day, such as seeing James Brown backstage awfully treating people as servants, and how much this affected to Mick...

(What goes for the much reported tiny todger-part, and over-all the PERFORMANCE, Anita/Mick/Marianne thing, I think Keith shoots himself to foot there, and Jagger actually comes out of a moral winner of this part. If Keith's inconsistent macho idiotisms are expressing his true and honest feelings there, the man needs a serious professional psychological help. It is very difficult to say if the incident had such a huge implicit impact to Mick/Keith relationship as Keith now seems to shout out loud. Don't know. Very difficult to say if this really is the reason for all the anger but its odd and emphasizied existence is a kind of tempting key to understand the Jagger/Richards tension expressed in the book. It is even mentioned again in some of the scenes that took place during the 90's when Mick and Keith argued in the studio. Could it really be so simple???)

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 17:36 by Doxa.

How can you not take issue when he says he never used drugs for pleasure. Really? He just used them to help him work. But don't try this at home kids. What a justifying load of crap.

when he referred to himself as the "riff master" i actually winced -