Hey Hansie, did you read this comment on The Book? It explains why the reader loved to read it and it's very insightful as well:

<I've commented a lot, for months, about Keith and his arrested development. BUT...I find in actually reading LIFE I was only partly right about that. It's not black and white, regarding Keith. He has some magnificent blind spots (and I don't mean that in terms of beautiful, but profoundly significant), in terms of self-reflection, and the wisdom one might hope comes to us all with age. His blinds spots--or his "stuck places" or arrested development--tend to be around Brian, and others who he feels (for various reasons) disappointed him, or otherwise incurred his intense (not garden-variety scorn.

However, I'm pleasantly surprised to be straight-up wrong that his looking back uniformly results in blind-spots. because it doesn't. There's a sense, mostly conveyed through his more subtle, self-effacing [less ribald and over-the-top] humor, that he has, in fact, grown and matured, and that his perspective has shifted and mellowed, and he does understand things now that he didn't or couldn't have as a 20-something year old. That sense is both charming and refreshing--especially given how little dimensionality his gives to parts of the past that involve Brian (and others). And how, truly, hateful he can be.

So...that's Keith. As I've said from early on, I believe he's growing into Keith Richards the man who has a public voice. That previously Keith has been either: (1) Keith Richards the private man, or (2) Keith Richards the icon, persona, and public figure/menace. And in the years he's been working on LIFE he seems to have made progress in both separating out and integrating the two identities.

He's not"there" yet, entirely. The areas where Keith displays braggadiccio-filled hateful azzholeishness are the very areas---if you look at them as a group---that involve great emotional pain or the presence of emotional complexity or ambiguity (more than one thing being "true"--or in this case, more than one thing being felt--simultaneously). He's still not adept at synthesizing painful and contradictory emotions. So, in LIFE, he picks the "strongest" emotion and runs with it. Thing is---as we sense when we read LIFE--the "strongest" emotion may appear to him to be the most swaggeringly macho or funny or cool...but also rings false. Or rings full of barely leashed rage. Or rings with thinly veiled despair and sorrow. And it's jarring. These surprising, sour, disingenuous, grotesque, sometimes hateful notes.

In part these notes jar, because he does reveal in LIFE his gentleness and vulnerability. He does take some pretty serious emotional risks in this self-uncovery and -integration process of his--at many points in the book.

So, Keith, like LIFE (and like life), is a work in progress. I hope he writes another installment in another 15 years. At that time, in that book--providing he actually is as tough a guy as he says he is, and seems to be sometimes--we will hear his heart break over and over. Cuz that's what I think happened to this very sensitive heavily medicated lose-himself-in-his-work guy over much of his lifetime. And Keith has some super-robust defenses to keep the uber-intense emotional shit in abeyance. Defenses may serve us, but they're rarely attractive.

I think---in reading LIFE---that Keith is brave. And has taken risks, and has farther to go. To be able to live with yourself, to fully own up to what an utter reprehensible schmuck you've been to people around you--not to mention the unrelenting punishment to your own body (some may say the 2 are linked)...man, that would require a lot of stripping away of defenses, and you'd have to be pretty solid underneath all that. Which, if LIFE is any indication, he's working on it, and believe he can get there over time.>

--- Quote swiss ---

I don't know if anybody has commented on the audio version of the book - and by now this thread is much to huge to run through just to check, so here goes.

I believe the audio version explains just why MJ always has needed KR, just like Johnny Depp has with regards to at least Pirate of Carribian but maybe even in acting at all. JD is doing all the reading but the intro which is done by KR. And despite JD being a fantastic reader, still the intro is done in such a powerful voice you'll never forget. So where MJ and JD are easy catchers, KR is the rough frightening, but also lasting one. This is the magic of Rolling Stones.

Quote
rnrjoe
To anyone who hasn't read ths book yet, I say definitely get it. I agree with many others that its quite vague in details, and skips out on a few interesting stories. However there still is the odd story that adds a fun new insight the average keith fan may not know (such as Keith saluting the Boy Scouts in his hotel room on the A Bigger Bang tour).

There are a few odd things I must point out about Keiths book however.

Early in the book, Keith says how when Brian was getting so out of control, him and Mick started to be very mean to him. He says it started with the "Oh, shut up, Brian" comments. Later in his book he says one of the rudest things about Mick Jagger in the 80's was how Mick would dismiss Keith and simply say, "Oh, shut up Keith". Keith thought that was so incredibly rude. Is that not a work of karma?

Later on he says some people claimed he stole Anita. He said he didn't steal her; he 'rescued her' from Brian, and rescued Brian from himself. Later in the book he says Brian never "forgave me for stealing Anita, and I don't blame him". (Probably not exact quote, but that was the jist of it). Did anyone else find he contradicts himself a fair few times in this book?

I also found it kind of funny when he was talking about Ronnie Wood. He said Ronnie is a completely over the top man, in every extent. I believe that could be true, but the part I couldn't help but chuckle at was when he was talking about Ron's drinking. Keith said, "I'm a bit of a drinker, let's say" and then went on to say how Ron drank tequila for breakfast. a 'bit of a drinker' seems to be a very underestimated statement. It also strikes me how, reading Ronnie Woods book, you can see Ronnie writing so much about how he values Keiths friendship and how Keith is such a brother to him. Not much mention about Ron in that context from Keith at all.

Another person on this thread found it a bit ridiculous how Keith said when he was taking heroin, he did it to help him meditate about the songs (during the Exile and Some Girls era). Keith never really admits or allows himself to admit how much addiction was crippling him.

(*Oh, and I don't quite understand the whole OK Corral stuff he was talking about when shooting out the lights during a drug deal. Did he mean he got the stuff then shot out the lights and drove off? Didn't quite get his paragraph*)

Overall, to people who have not yet read the book, it probably will (maybe for the better, most likely for the worse) change your opinion of Keith. I have no complaints with the book, though I posted those above parts of the book simply as something that puzzled me. After all, it's Keiths book and he can write what he likes. and he did just that.

rnrjoe, I am not sure that Keith is contradicting himself when he speaks of Brian and Anita. In context, I think he is saying he feels he rescued Anita but expresses empathy for the way Brian saw it.

Quote
rnrjoe
Keith says...it started with the "Oh, shut up, Brian" comments. Later...he says one of the rudest things about Mick Jagger in the 80's was how Mick would dismiss Keith and simply say, "Oh, shut up Keith". Keith thought that was so incredibly rude. Is that not a work of karma?

Great. Just like religious freaks - the unexplainable is "karma". No, it's not the work of karma. It is what it is: irony. Now, whether or not I believe it or if it actually happened that way? That is really what it's about. Muddy painting the ceiling...perhaps Keith is just using that quote to paraphrase the temperature of the room he was in with Brian and Mick and how the treatment was similar. The irony of life, perhaps, and possibly pun intended, is between the lines.

Quote
rnrjoe
Later on he says some people claimed he stole Anita. He said he didn't steal her; he 'rescued her' from Brian, and rescued Brian from himself. Later in the book he says Brian never "forgave me for stealing Anita, and I don't blame him". (Probably not exact quote, but that was the jist of it). Did anyone else find he contradicts himself a fair few times in this book?

Ha ha! That's why it's entertainment - only this time it's way cheaper than a Stones ticket!

Quote
rnrjoe
I also found it kind of funny when he was talking about Ronnie Wood. He said Ronnie is a completely over the top man, in every extent. I believe that could be true, but the part I couldn't help but chuckle at was when he was talking about Ron's drinking. Keith said, "I'm a bit of a drinker, let's say" and then went on to say how Ron drank tequila for breakfast. a 'bit of a drinker' seems to be a very underestimated statement. It also strikes me how, reading Ronnie Woods book, you can see Ronnie writing so much about how he values Keiths friendship and how Keith is such a brother to him. Not much mention about Ron in that context from Keith at all.

This is a good point. I've been reading the book but not all in a row. He does speak of Ronnie as more of a kind of weary pet than a friend.

Quote
rnrjoe
Another person on this thread found it a bit ridiculous how Keith said when he was taking heroin, he did it to help him meditate about the songs (during the Exile and Some Girls era). Keith never really admits or allows himself to admit how much addiction was crippling him.

Of course not...he's Keith Richards!

Life made the New York Times '100 notable books of 2010' list

from "les inrockuptibles" blog :
Et si toute autobio comptait des mensonges ? Ce n'est en tout cas pas celle de Keith Richards qui nous contredira.
Au vu de la stratégie narrative adoptée par Keith Richards dans son autobiographie, on prendra le pari qu'au nombre des livres contenus dans sa superbe bibliothèque figure un exemplaire des Histoires extraordinaires d'Edgar Poe. Et qu'ayant assimilé la leçon de La Lettre volée, ce conteur chevronné sait que la meilleure façon de dissimuler un secret est encore de l'exposer aux yeux de tous.
En exhibant, dans un prologue du plus haut comique, "les insécurités" qui, en 75, auraient poussé Mick Jagger à chevaucher en concert un zob format zeppelin, Keith évacue l'évidente source de ces mêmes insécurités - cette année-là, le chanteur du "plus grand groupe de rock'n'roll du monde" monte pour la première fois sur scène en ayant à sa droite un bras cassé (Ron Wood) et à sa gauche un junkie décati (Keith lui-même). Car si "bite gonflable géante" il y eut, ce fut avant tout pour faire oublier des guitares flasques.
Des dizaines d'enregistrements pirates en témoignent : loin d'être, ainsi que le prétend Life, "le groupe le plus dangereux du monde", les Stones des mid-70's sont surtout dangereux pour le rock lui-même, dont les riffs raplapla et les solos scorbutiques de leur guitariste illustrent alors l'effroyable descente aux enfers.
Lors des concerts donnés en juillet au Forum de LA, le seul instant de réelle émotion verra Mick foncer vers Keith, quasi incapable de se souvenir des paroles de Happy, pour lui entourer du bras les épaules et, en bon fils de prof de gym qu'il reste, ramener à la surface son pote au bord de la noyade.
Les sarcasmes dont Keith gratifie aujourd'hui son partenaire d'un demi-siècle rappellent ainsi que, dans leur guerre des ego, une bonne action ne saurait décidément rester impunie.
B.J. 11/27/2010

Try it again in English this time.

May you translate it, please?

Here is the link

[www.lesinrocks.com]



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 19:49 by SwayStones.

Babelfish anyone ?


And if all autobio counted lies? This n' is in any case not that of Keith Richards which will contradict us. Within sight of the narrative strategy adopted by Keith Richards in his autobiography, one will take the bet qu' in the number of the books contained in its superb library a specimen of the extraordinary Stories d' appears; Edgar Poe. And qu' having assimilated the lesson of the stolen Letter, this senior storyteller knows that the best way of dissimulating a secrecy is still l' to expose to the eyes of all. While exhibant, in a prologue of highest comic, " insécurités" who, in 75, would have pushed Mick Jagger to overlap in concert a zob format zeppelin, Keith evacuates l' obvious source of these same insecurities - this year, the singer of the " greater group of rock' n' roll of the monde" go up for the first time on scene by having on its right-hand side a broken arm (Ron Wood) and on its left a steamed junkie (Keith itself). Because if " inflatable cock géante" there was, it was before very making forget flask guitars. Tens d' pirate recordings testify some: far d' to be, as claims it Life, " the most dangerous group of the monde" , Stones of the mid-70' S are especially dangerous for the rock'n'roll itself, whose fronts raplapla and the scorbutic solos of their guitarist illustrate l' then; appalling descent into Hell. At the time of the concerts given in July to the Forum of, the only moment of real emotion will see Mick sinking towards Keith, quasi unable to remember the words of Happy, to surround him of the arm the shoulders and, in good wire of teacher of gym qu' it remains, to bring back to surface its pal at the edge of the drowning. The sarcastic remarks of which Keith gratifie aujourd' today its partner d' one half-century recall thus that, in their war of the ego, a good deed could not definitely remain unpunished. B.J. 11/27/2010

<<would have pushed Mick Jagger to overlap in concert a zob format zeppelin<<<


Nice translation but don't mix zob with job.

Another one for English speakers--from Google translator:

Roma "Les Inrockuptibles" blog:
And if there were any autobiographical lies? This is certainly not that of Keith Richards, who contradict us.
Given the narrative strategy adopted by Keith Richards in his autobiography, we will take the bet that many of the books in his superb library contained a copy of the extraordinary stories of Edgar Allan Poe. And having absorbed the lesson of The Purloined Letter, this seasoned storyteller knows that the best way to hide a secret is still exposing for all to see.
By exhibiting, in a prologue to the high comedy, "insecurities" that, 75, allegedly pushed Mick Jagger to ride in a concert format zob Zeppelin, Keith removes the obvious source of these insecurities - that year, the singer of "the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world" goes up for the first time on stage with his right arm broken (Ron Wood) and left a junkie decrepit (Keith himself). For if "dick giant inflatable" there was, it was above all to forget the guitars flanges.
Dozens of pirate recordings speak for themselves: far from being, as contended Life, "the most dangerous group in the world", the Stones of the mid-70's are especially dangerous to the rock itself, whose riffs Raplapla and their guitar solos scorbutic then illustrate the dreadful descent into hell.
During the concerts in July at the Forum in LA, the only moment of genuine emotion will go for Mick to Keith, almost unable to remember the words of Happy for him to surround the arm and shoulders, a good son of a gym teacher that it remains, bring to the surface beside his friend from drowning.
The sarcasm with Keith today gratifies his partner of half a century and recall that, in their war of egos, a good deed can not definitely go unpunished.
B.J. 11/27/2010

Jealousy? Mick has always been the center of attention, the man women want to shag, the socialite who can befriend anyone. In short a charmer, a magnet.
Keith has always been the shy withdrawn boy with a huge inferiority complex directed towards anyone else. "Life" oozes resentment and jealousy toards the outside world, that is evrything that exists outside of Keith's gang (Jane Rose, Bobby Keys and the bunch of weirdos/outlaws who've been following Keith for years).

No wonder Mick didn't want this lot around the band...

That is another absurd theory that Mick used the "Cock prop" to cover up the lack of musical performance from Keith and Ron. The phallus segment lasted a minute maybe during a 2hour show. That french journalist's point is wrong even though it is true that keef's repeated jabes at Mick in his book "Life" makes Richards eventually looks rather ungrateful.
Rock and Roll,
Mzops

..I think the book is great and I highly recommend it....but it is true..the author has managed to make himself a less sympathetic figure. I doubt very much he had that intention.

Quote
Shezeboss
from "les inrockuptibles" blog :
Et si toute autobio comptait des mensonges ? Ce n'est en tout cas pas celle de Keith Richards qui nous contredira.
Au vu de la stratégie narrative adoptée par Keith Richards dans son autobiographie, on prendra le pari qu'au nombre des livres contenus dans sa superbe bibliothèque figure un exemplaire des Histoires extraordinaires d'Edgar Poe. Et qu'ayant assimilé la leçon de La Lettre volée, ce conteur chevronné sait que la meilleure façon de dissimuler un secret est encore de l'exposer aux yeux de tous.
En exhibant, dans un prologue du plus haut comique, "les insécurités" qui, en 75, auraient poussé Mick Jagger à chevaucher en concert un zob format zeppelin, Keith évacue l'évidente source de ces mêmes insécurités - cette année-là, le chanteur du "plus grand groupe de rock'n'roll du monde" monte pour la première fois sur scène en ayant à sa droite un bras cassé (Ron Wood) et à sa gauche un junkie décati (Keith lui-même). Car si "bite gonflable géante" il y eut, ce fut avant tout pour faire oublier des guitares flasques.
Des dizaines d'enregistrements pirates en témoignent : loin d'être, ainsi que le prétend Life, "le groupe le plus dangereux du monde", les Stones des mid-70's sont surtout dangereux pour le rock lui-même, dont les riffs raplapla et les solos scorbutiques de leur guitariste illustrent alors l'effroyable descente aux enfers.
Lors des concerts donnés en juillet au Forum de LA, le seul instant de réelle émotion verra Mick foncer vers Keith, quasi incapable de se souvenir des paroles de Happy, pour lui entourer du bras les épaules et, en bon fils de prof de gym qu'il reste, ramener à la surface son pote au bord de la noyade.
Les sarcasmes dont Keith gratifie aujourd'hui son partenaire d'un demi-siècle rappellent ainsi que, dans leur guerre des ego, une bonne action ne saurait décidément rester impunie.
B.J. 11/27/2010

Total BS !

HMN

God I love this lingo.

"..whose fronts raplapla and the scorbutic solos of their guitarist..."

I tried to make a more understandable translation for the English speakers.I hope I could help since I am not very good in/on translation (in French we call it "version/thème " )

All the translators on line ,google or whatever are just crap-better than nothing,that's right - but crap .
Like Honestman once wrote ,if you translate Rolling Stones with google tranlator,it says "Pierres de roulement " = ball bearing

Actually, I prefer the hand job ,it takes me a bit longer than the google translator but I think it's closer to the meaning.

Btw,I don't know who the journalist is -BJ like Brian Jones ? but we should write him to ask what was in his mind when he wrote this .

Here we go !

---

And if all autobiography was telling lies? This is in any case not the Keith Richards'one that will contradict us/say the opposite . Within sight of the narrative strategy adopted by Keith Richards in his autobiography, one will take the bet that, in regard of the number of the books contained in his awesome library a specimen of the "Extraordinary Stories "by Edgar Poe. And having assimilated the lesson of the "Stolen Letter", this senior storyteller knows that the best way of dissimulating a secret is still to expose it to the eyes of all.

While vaunting , in a hilarious way , the " insécurities/weakness" that would have pushed Mick Jagger in 1975 to overlap /ride on stage an extra large zeppelin c**k , Keith evacuates the obvious source of these same insecurities - this year, the singer of the " greatest band of rock' n' roll in the world" go up for the first time on stage with ,at his side a good-for-nothing / loafer (Ron Wood) and on his left side a steamed /decrepit junkie (Keith himself).
There might have been a " giant inflatable c**k" ,but it it was done in order to forget how flange/weak were the guitars. Dozens of bootlegs can bear it : very far from being " the most dangerous band in the word " , as it's written on " Life" ,the Stones of the mid-70' S are especially dangerous for the rock'n'roll itself, whith poor riffs and the scorbutic solos of their guitarist show the fail into Hell.
During the LA Forum's shows in July,the only moment of real emotion will see Mick rushing towards Keith, quasi/almost unable to remember the words of Happy, wrapping him with his arm on Keith's shoulders and, as a good gym teacher 's son he is, to keep afloat his pal at the edge of the drowning.The Keith's sarcastic remarks toward to hisone half century partner recall us that, in their war of the ego, a good deed could not definitely remain unpunished.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Thanks SwayStones, you are an angel.

I think the passage you translated includes some very important insights. Keith's stuff is rhetorically quite well composed - what he chooses to talk about and what not, and from which angle - it is like some textbook of rhetorics. Therefore a good review should consider also the aspects the explicit text refuses to talk about, or interprets from its own point of view.

It is exactly for this reason I have claimed here that Keith's autobiography is a very demanding job to really read. Or to seriously read. Not explicitly, but to see through it, to really see its rhetorical and biased side. Of course, one can just enjoy Keith's take on things or his funny "stories" but if one is interested more deeply on Stones and on Keith's doings - or to put it simply: on truth - it is a hell of a book to really interpret.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 23:24 by Doxa.

i finally got the keith book saturday at barnes and nobles,damn this book is really big.yall know i wasnt much on book learning as we had to burn the books in the village to keep warm and to cook our beans.back to books , i also picked up the baseball codes ,really cool book about all the stuff that goes on between the white chalk lines and all the stuff about beanballs and stuff like that ,for example one of the stories was about the all star game in 1974 when one ballplayer looked into the shaving kit of one pitcher in the clubhouse and the pitcher did not like that ,so a while later he faced him at the plate and first pitch beanball .stuff like that i love ,reading all about the "quirks"of the game.

doxa You are very welcome .

I tried to improve my translation a bit better :

"And if all autobiography was telling lies? This is in any case not the one of Keith Richards which will contradict us. Within sight of the narrative strategy adopted by Keith Richards in his autobiography, one will take the bet that, in regard of the number of the books contained in its awesome library a specimen of the extraordinary Stories d' appears; Edgar Poe. And having assimilated the lesson of "The stolen Letter, this senior storyteller knows that the best way of dissimulating a secrecy is still to expose to the eyes of all.

While vaunting , in a hilarious way , the " insécurities/weakness" that would have pushed Mick Jagger in 1975 to overlap /ride on stage an extra large zeppelin c**k , Keith evacuates the obvious source of these same insecurities - this year, the singer of the " greatest band of rock' n' roll in the world" go up for the first time on stage with ,on his side a good-for-nothing / loafer (Ron Wood) and on his left side a steamed /decrepit junkie (Keith himself).
If there was a " giant inflatable c**k" ,but it was above all to make people forget the weakness of the guitars. Dozens of bootlegs can testify it : very far from being " the most dangerous band in the world " , as it's written on " Life" ,the Stones of the mid-70' S are especially dangerous for the rock'n'roll itself, whith poor riffs and the scorbutic solos of their guitarist show the awful descent into Hell.
During the LA Forum's shows in July,the only moment of real emotion will see Mick rushing towards Keith, quasi/almost unable to remember the words of Happy, putting his arm around Keith's shoulder and, as a good gym teacher 's son he is, to keep afloat his pal at the edge of the drowning/.The Keith' sarcastic remarks toward his one half century partner reminds us that, in their war of egos, a good deed could not definitely remain unpunished."

* "to keep afloat his pal at the edge of the drowning" is may be not the right translation for the French sentence :"ramener à la surface son pote au bord de la noyade."
Don't take it on the literally meaning : Keith wasn't sinking into a swimming pool



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Keith's Life
by Simon Sweetman
The hype surrounding Keith Richards' memoir (Life) has been bubbling away for a year or so, ever since the announcement of the mega-advance he received. From there it was all about how this would be the "best music book since Dylan's Chronicles" and so on.
And I believed (a lot of) it, too.
Unfortunately, Richards is not Bob Dylan as a prose-writer; so this is no Chronicles. Instead we get a rambling monologue which many will think is suited to the subject and author but is actually borderline impenetrable for the first hundred pages.
It is also bogged down in the worst kind of family-history scene-setting. And it's not even Keith writing. Veteran journo James Fox was called in to transcribe the tapes, to thread the stories together.
It's ramshackle and frustrating and occasionally there's a sparkle; occasionally there's a jewel of truth, a gem, a nugget. But too often cantankerous Keef comes across like the spoilt brat only-child he was.

His lack of compassion for any of the band members serves to show just how much of an enterprise The Rolling Stones now is - ironically the one that gets the most savaging is Mick Jagger. It's ironic because he is the one that has turned the Stones in to the huge machine it is - thereby rewarding his old chum (who apparently can't really stand him now) with a job for the last thirty years, given he gave up writing decent songs years ago.
Don't get me wrong - I love the Stones. I'll happily defend their worth (and regularly seem to). If you believe their only decent period was 1968-1972 there is still a huge amount of riches that came out from there.
Enough to, mostly, sustain their live shows these days - with a sprinkling of the before and after to even it out.
But of course there is a lot more than just those classic four albums and a couple of killer singles. Most of the 1970s work stands up to scrutiny - and through to the early 1980s. And the first "comeback album", Steel Wheels, is, if nothing else, solid. And from 1965-1968 there were some great pop singles.
But Keith's book dances around a lot of this, tracing around some of the songs and how they were written, getting bored and discussing some of his bedpost notches, getting bored and meandering over to drug use, sashaying over to discuss some of the non-Stones music he loves. And it's all so rambling - a little too rambling.
The feeling I had 120 pages in or so was that no-one believes in the myth of Keith Richards more than Keith Richards. At page 530, or whatever it was, I still had that feeling. Sure, there are some jokes about that from Keith - he discusses the idea that image hangs over him, casting a long shadow, and that people think he's still a junkie even though he gave it up 30 years ago. Clean.
People have praised this book for its honesty - but that's ridiculous - if Keith was honest he'd be thanking Jagger for keeping him in work for the last 30 years; he'd be thanking Ronnie for covering his playing from time to time rather than writing him off as, essentially, a good mate who is thoroughly unreliable and a bit of an idiot.

He gives Bill Wyman about three lines in the whole book - that seems less surprising though. Just as it's not a surprise that Keith has a lot of love and respect for Charlie Watts as both player and person, Charlie is also hardly mentioned but he's not toyed with, teased and mocked like the others.
Brian Jones certainly cops it - which seemed almost surprising. As talented as he was, I've no doubt that Jones was far too much the loose cannon but it seems a tad, well, revisionist, for Richards to paint Jones at arm's length now rather than in detail.
But then, one criticism of Jones does stand truth with what Keith holds dear. He discusses Brian's inability to create songs, to write. And this is clearly so important to Richards that it does illuminate why he might not respect Jones, musically.
The songwriting partnership of Jagger/Richards is looked at, often. And this will be of interest to fans - Keith essentially coming up with a lyrical theme, a title, a line or two or maybe a chorus and then basically tossing it to the side for Jagger to turn in to a full lyric. It speaks to both of their musical personalities; that Keith writes the riff and dashes out the idea, then gets someone to finish it for him. And that Mick makes the improvements creates the flash, the dazzle, the chance to peacock-prance. You get a picture of him almost writing the lines to emphasise the strut he has in mind.
But too often Keith comes across as a classless grouch, crass and a little too full of himself.
And for all his discussion of songs he spends far too long trying to justify Bridges To Babylon as a great Stones album, unfairly maligned. I wonder if this is because he had more songs on it than he normally does with Stones albums these days. Funny that he doesn't spend the same amount of time dissecting A Bigger Bang.
Ah, but you see that album received fairly positive notices - and several raves. And that album was put together, driven in fact, mostly, by one Sir Mick Jagger.
It's funny how he and Jagger have changed roles in the band. It's actually Jagger that drives the ship now - has been for a long time. Keith might seem like the cool one, but would the Stones exist without Jagger.
Impossible - because the Stones are a live show. And it is Jagger that brings that show. Sure, Charlie and Keith are the sound of the stones, but Jagger is the show.
I wanted to like this book more than I did. I think having read several books about the Stones, including other biographies and watching the concert films and documentaries there was little left for me to discover.
And the picture Keith paints of himself is pretty much what I expected and what I always had him pegged as: far less cool than so many people actually think. At his best he wrote great riffs, he embodied rock'n'roll in the sound and the lurch on stage. But he is lost in the idea of what he is supposed to be to people.
And this book is an often lazy, far too unkempt collection of shaggy-dog stories.
And the picking on Jagger seemed petty and all for the purpose of providing juicy excerpts. Read the reviews and think of all the advance-press, it all amounts to seeing a racy film trailer and then being bored by the full movie.

[www.stuff.co.nz]

It seems to me that Keith will live and die even more of a legend based on his consistency. Whether it is a tragedy that he lives up to his image is another question.

I think the criticsim of his songwriting is valid to a point. After Voodoo, there are not many good songs, but the late 1980's and early 1990's seem to be a good period for Keith.

Anyone can criticize anyone, but there is no denying there is a genius to Keith. People very passionately await new songs from Keith, even if he hasn't written anything good in 16 years.

And the idea of where his proper place amongst songwriters lies is fascinating. The question about what he wrote.......... Did he get too much credit? Did he pirate other peoples songs? Who wrote what? Did he write Life or was it Mick Jagger, Taylor,Woody, Jordan, Wyman, Faithful and Parson's ghost? There is some kind of bizzarre fascination with this. Is Keith a genius songwriter? Genius Manipulator? Centainly some kind of genius. Two things are for sure - he is one hell of a personality and he really looks like shit.

Quote
Slimharpo
And the idea of where his proper place amongst songwriters lies is fascinating. The question about what he wrote.......... Did he get too much credit?

Of course, he does get too much credit compared to Mick. I am still surprised that nobody seems to have a problem with Keith´s claim that "in general" he comes up songs, even with the lyrical idea for it, while Mick only waits for these ideas to come to finish them off.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 12:20 by Doxa.

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Slimharpo
And the idea of where his proper place amongst songwriters lies is fascinating. The question about what he wrote.......... Did he get too much credit?

Of course, he does get too much credit compared to Mick. I am still surprised that nobody seems to have a problem with Keith´s claim that "in general" he comes up songs, even with the lyrical idea for it, while Mick only waits for these ideas to come to finish them off.

My perception is that Keith gets way too much credit in %s of the Stones material but the fact is that Keith's ideas in riffs, melodies, chord sequences, and over-all his musical intuitions, are essential to the Stones to be what they are. He is the musical genious behind the Stones music - no matter that he has been a very mediocre songwriter since the mid-70's's and since the late nineties almost a senile as a writer. But it is the genious of Keith Richards that drove the Stones to the superb singles like "Satisfaction", "Jumpin Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women" and masterpiece albums like BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE that very much constitutes the legacy of The Stones.

(But what is Keith's true genious - for example, his abilty to pick up ideas from different sources by his "antenna" and then develop then to the use of his own - is a topic of interest of its own. It might include some crule "borrowing" of ideas from here and there (the list of whiners is a long one) but there is more to it. Also his tendency to not really "finish" the songs but leave that to someone else (Jagger) - and thereby always needing a partner - is an interesting feature. I am planning to make an own thread of it some day - this theme has been talked loosely here for ages but as I recall not really "seriously" under one specific thread. It deserves one.)

That Sweetman's review is spot on.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 12:23 by Doxa.

I really enjoyed reading the book, but I noticed myself disliking Keith more and more the further I got. Indeed, it does seem as if he was full of himself, as the review a few posts above points out. He, who could have been a General of the army, throws out riffs and ideas and kind of throws them over to Jagger to finish it - but he makes it clear that he is the main responsible for a majority of the songs.

I cannot help but getting the impression he glorified his junkie years (oh how much pure and high quality stuff he had...) and completely misses that Mick had to carry the band for 30 years - then he suddenly falls into a deep hole when he comes back clean and finds out he is not the leader of the band. How ridiculous to be even hurt, what did he expect? Sure there are some great stories, but he leaves out some essentials and instead goes on and on about drug using. I don't like those people who look back at their past and glorify even the bad bits. Perhaps it's not intentional.

At the end it is probably as they say. Once you "meet" your heroes, you will probably be disappointed.

Quote
Doxa
My perception is that Keith gets way too much credit in %s of the Stones material but the fact is that Keith's ideas in riffs, melodies, chord sequences, and over-all his musical intuitions, are essential to the Stones to be what they are. He is the musical genious behind the Stones music - - Doxa

This is what I don´t believe. Keith is not more responsible for melodies and ideas than Mick. Maybe in the mid-60ies it was like that, when Mick wrote mainly the lyrics, but not from the late 60ies on to this day. I think fact is, that we don´t know who was responsible for an idea or a melody, and I think fact is, that we automatically believe Keith is. Take a song like PMS, there was a backing track, but did keith have the idea for "the song Plundered my soul"? For the melody, the lyrics? That was Mick´s. I have not read Keith´s book, but could it be, that, when he writes about the songwriting, he writes about the 60ies only? Keith was very out of it at times in the 70ies, what did Mick do in these times? I am sure he was writing songs! Maybe I am just suspicious of the word genious. I my eyes Mozart was a genious, but not Keith Richards.

Mozart is off in another area but you could draw comparisons with songwriters of the past like Bernart de Ventadorn or Adam de la Halle or Thomas Campion. Unfortunately, twentieth century popular songwriters were often pretty sloppy with regard to things like metre and rhyme but the Stones did, I think, produce great music and even poetry. Mick and Keith are right at the top of those twentieth century songwriters.
I don't know who was more responsible, though. The idea of first composing chord sequences and only then melodies has always seemed a little strange to me.

I don't think Keith is interested in credit for PMS, but certainly a lot of lyrics, chords and melodies on Exile On Main Street scream Keith Richards. Same is true on Let it Bleed. Now Sticky Fingers you have much more of a collaboration between Parsons, Faithful, Jagger and Richards with Keith graciously giving Jagger credit for Moonlight Mile despite it being a song Taylor developed based on a Keith riff. Now isn't Keith a sweet guy trying to woo Mick back?