Globe and Mail review: [www.theglobeandmail.com]

Today's Globe And Mail:

REVIEWED BY ALAN NIESTER
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010 9:44PM EDT

In a world where Justin Bieber is cranking out his “life story” at age 16, (more afterbirth than life, really), and rock ‘n’ roll autobiographies in general seem little more than a letter to fans, Keith Richards’ autobiography Life is the real deal. By the time you’ve finished this generous tome, you will feel you know Richards as well as your own brother. For all his faults, blemishes, and bluster, you will probably end up admiring him, because he comes across as overly honest, forthright and open, not so much an Old God as a true veteran rocker and bluesman for whom the music always seemed like the most important thing. There’s enough cultural history, gossip and general folk (and medical) wisdom here to appeal to almost anyone who lived through the era, and for Stones fans, it should be indispensable.

The Rolling Stones perform
"Happy" Until this point, the definitive work on the Rolling Stones was Old Gods Nearly Dead, Stephen Davis’ plodding recounting of The Stones’ odyssey up to the 40-year mark. But Richards’ work is a generous (one might even say sprawling), and wildly cogent testament to life inside the greatest real rock ‘n’ roll circus in the world. Richards and co-writer James Fox were savvy enough to begin by dropping the reader full-bore into a 1975 drug bust. This wasn’t the biggie (the Toronto heroin bust), but a comic episode in the Deep South, involving a red-necked sheriff and a drunken judge in Fordyce, Ark., which ended not only with the charges being dropped, but with the judge demanding the Stones pose with him for a photograph. It gets the whole drug thing out there in a hurry. That Richards is a leading consumer advocate for all things pharmaceutical is no great revelation. But by page 18, you know that no stony end will be left unturned.

Anyone who has read a lot of British rocker-type biographies will recognize the next bit – the growing up in postwar Britain tale. Richards spent his early years in London’s bomb-beaten and crime-infested section known as Deptford. “My earliest memories are the standard postwar memories in London. Landscapes of rubble, half a street’s disappeared.” He was beaten up constantly going to and from school, but it was in Deptford that the first associations, chance meetings really, with Mick Jagger took place. Both were students at Wentworth Primary School, though Jagger was famously from the other side of the tracks (“Posh Town, we used to call it.”) The table was slowly being set.

The early years of The Stones chronicled here will offer very little new to the true Stone’s devotee. Keyboardist Ian Stewart’s effect on the creation on the band cannot be overstated, and Richards gives the late “Sixth Stone” his full due. That the band’s co-founder Brian Jones was a brilliant player and something of a creep is also well-documented elsewhere, but Richards includes anecdotes that illustrate that Jones could be exceptionally cruel. “Brian, a cold-blooded, vicious mother[expletive]. Only short and blond with it,” he notes, recounting at one point the story of a sycophantic friend whom Jones had locked outside, nearly naked, on a winter’s day.

In weeks leading up to the memoir’s publication, Richards’ mercurial relationship with Jagger took centre stage. The fraternal relationship is surprising in its energy, building in its complexity as the book, and the Stones’ history, progresses. On one hand, Richards can positively gush at his long-time partner’s musical prowess (“Mick turned out to be the most amazing harp player. I’d put him up there with the best in the world”). On the other, he can be downright cruel. He criticizes Jagger’s musical tastes (“in 1983, he was just trying to out-disco everyone”) and his already well-known defrocking of Jagger’s physical attributes is simply juvenile, showing a surprising lapse of taste.

Richards’ various drug addictions, arrests, near-arrests and drug-related episodes have, over the years, defined him as much as his playing has – an unfortunate caricature that the book undercuts. He relates in detail his love for pure blues, and how he worked hard to copy those who were great influences on him. He also notes how distressed he was when the band morphed from being “bluesmen” into “some [expletive] ersatz Beatles,” with the music being drowned out by the screaming crowds of teenaged girls. His memories of his formative years in the band are amazingly comprehensive, aided somewhat by diaries he kept at the time (Keith Richards a diarist?) and letters sent to relatives which had been unearthed for this retelling.

For nostalgic Canadian readers, the quick flip-through might be to the Toronto heroin bust, The El Mocambo concerts and a bandmate’s dalliance with Margaret Trudeau. (“She was a groupie, that’s all she was, pure and simple.”) Of the bust, Richards believes that “the longer the process went on, the clearer it was that the Canadian government wanted to wriggle out of it,” which goes a long way to explain why it played out the way it did. With character references supplied by the likes of Dan Aykroyd and Lorne Michaels – and the Maggie distraction providing yet another reason to make it all go away – Richards was found guilty, but freed. He was ordered to play a concert for the blind, “the most Solomon-like judgment that had been handed down in many a year,” according to the wispy, freed defendant.

Momentary lapses of judgment notwithstanding, Richards’ Life is a fascinating warts-and-all account, the ultimate insider tale. And as such, possibly edgy and pointed enough to merit some sort of response. Jagger?

Keith Richards once phoned Alan Niester’s house to talk up the band’s appearance at the Toronto SARS concert.

Special to The Globe and Mail

**Ooooops, apologies! Just saw the link above**



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-28 15:54 by Cocaine Eyes.

And if you click on the link above, you will also be able to read the article "Keith Richards won't fade away" by James Adams which includes a link to a few photos.

...'Deptford'?? Really!?

["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]

Quote
Marmalade
And if you click on the link above, you will also be able to read the article "Keith Richards won't fade away" by James Adams which includes a link to a few photos.

Indeed, the link from Marmalade contains some very interesting stuff.

I just ordered from Amazon here in Canada, weird thing is, there's already used copies for sale but they are $10 more than brand new books.

.

...

Ultimate Rock Music Poll
[www.squidoo.com]

Quote
hutz13
I just ordered from Amazon here in Canada, weird thing is, there's already used copies for sale but they are $10 more than brand new books.

.

I know - I saw that, too.

I agree with the review from the Globe and Mail wholeheartedly.
Keith comes across as extremely honest (and not in the least superficial). His recounting of his early years are a marvellous read also, because they haven't previously been so well documented. There are very few biographies which are as well written and as unbiased as his. There are many observations that Keith makes who's views i share, and it addresses many lingering questions i have had concerning a number of the Stones' decisions across the decades. Keith certainly displays no signs of jealousy towards Mick or Brian within his critique of them. He's just trying to tell the story as he sees it. There seems no underlying motive, despite his reference to Jagger's more intimate parts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-28 19:42 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
I agree with the review from the Globe and Mail wholeheartedly.
Keith comes across as extremely honest (and not in the least superficial). His recounting of his early years are a marvellous read also, because they haven't previously been so well documented. There are very few biographies which are as well written and as unbiased as his. There are many observations that Keith makes who's views i share, and it addresses many lingering questions i have had concerning a number of the Stones' decisions across the decades. Keith certainly displays no signs of jealousy towards Mick or Brian within his critique of them. He's just trying to tell the story as he sees it. There seems no underlying motive, despite his reference to Jagger's more intimate parts.

Any interesting remarks about Taylor, Watts and Wyman in the book, Edward?

Quote
Edward Twining
I agree with the review from the Globe and Mail wholeheartedly.
Keith comes across as extremely honest (and not in the least superficial). His recounting of his early years are a marvellous read also, because they haven't previously been so well documented. There are very few biographies which are as well written and as unbiased as his. There are many observations that Keith makes who's views i share, and it addresses many lingering questions i have had concerning a number of the Stones' decisions across the decades. Keith certainly displays no signs of jealousy towards Mick or Brian within his critique of them. He's just trying to tell the story as he sees it. There seems no underlying motive, despite his reference to Jagger's more intimate parts.

Honesty? I guess if one truely believes own bullshit one is honest, in a way, I liked the early Darford days but since that - as the story of The Stones actually starts - I find myself feeling uncomfortable, a bit embarrassed and, most of all, bored. Almost feels like witnessing Keith Richards performing in the last tours. Repeating the same old thing and just getting worse. The same all stories, myths, one-liners repetaed, and now with a hindsight - read: no lack of anchronisms!

Well as far as "trying to tell the story as he sees", well... to me eyes Keith is horribly a prisoner of his own myth. I honestly wanted a bit of more mature, reflective approach. But seemingly having lived in a bubble all of his adult life, surrounded by people who secure his ass and baby (and adore) him, he appears as a kind of "Michael Jackson of rock".

Well, I'm about half way through but I have lost the interest to really read the book any further. Just got the MICK HAS A SMALL DICK DOES EVyRYONE NOW HEAR IT part, and reading it in the context makes is even more idiotic, small-minded and juvenile than in tabloids. Suits very well to the tone of the book. That's "honesty"? I'm not really fond of hearing how "unbearable" Mick gets nor the truth behind snorting dad's ashes. It is so hard to realize that one's own hero just... sucks.

Like Keith Richards once said to Pete Townshead that "Shut the fvck up, and play the guitar", I wish the very same for Keith. (Even I'm not sure if I really want to hear it..)

- Doxa

Agreed. All this talk of brutal honesty and just telling it the way it is. If he was really being honest, he would address his own decline over the years.......declining guitar skills and declining songwriting skills....and how that has contributed to the decline of the Rolling Stones.

Quote
Doxa

Honesty? I guess if one truely believes own bullshit one is honest, in a way, I liked the early Darford days but since that - as the story of The Stones actually starts - I find myself feeling uncomfortable, a bit embarrassed and, most of all, bored. Almost feels like witnessing Keith Richards performing in the last tours. Repeating the same old thing and just getting worse. The same all stories, myths, one-liners repetaed, and now with a hindsight - read: no lack of anchronisms!

I guess if one is god, one can define the facts.

Keith sticks to his tiresome 'Muddy painting the ceiling' story and mr. Honesty even claims - being seemingly awere of critical voices - that ask Bill Wyman - he will confirm his story.

Well, this is what Mr. Wyman actually writes in his ROLLING WITH THE STONES:

"Muddy very definetely was not up a ladder painting the studio, he was a major star at this time and had been for years."

LIFE is full of these kind of little stories and gossips - too much of them - which makes the book difficult one to take seriously. Keith is best - and actually honest - when he just describes music and making it, but unfortunately there is not so much of it. He basically says something of Mick and his co-work in creating their "first" (Why Keith? ) song "As Tears Go by" when Andrew locked them to kichen () Then we are dreaming on "Satisfaction", and then doing BEGGARS BANQUET.

Typical is that in talking about creating "Gimme Shelter" he sees Jagger's dick size relavant.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-28 21:28 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Honesty? I guess if one truly believes own bullshit one is honest, in a way, I liked the early Darford days but since that - as the story of The Stones actually starts - I find myself feeling uncomfortable, a bit embarrassed and, most of all, bored. Almost feels like witnessing Keith Richards performing in the last tours. Repeating the same old thing and just getting worse. The same all stories, myths, one-liners repetaed, and now with a hindsight - read: no lack of anchronisms!

Well as far as "trying to tell the story as he sees", well... to me eyes Keith is horribly a prisoner of his own myth. I honestly wanted a bit of more mature, reflective approach. But seemingly having lived in a bubble all of his adult life, surrounded by people who secure his ass and baby (and adore) him, he appears as a kind of "Michael Jackson of rock".

Well, I'm about half way through but I have lost the interest to really read the book any further. Just got the MICK HAS A SMALL DICK DOES EVyRYONE NOW HEAR IT part, and reading it in the context makes is even more idiotic, small-minded and juvenile than in tabloids. Suits very well to the tone of the book. That's "honesty"? I'm not really fond of hearing how "unbearable" Mick gets nor the truth behind snorting dad's ashes. It is so hard to realize that one's own hero just... sucks.

Like Keith Richards once said to Pete Townshead that "Shut the fvck up, and play the guitar", I wish the very same for Keith. (Even I'm not sure if I really want to hear it..)

- Doxa

Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.

Keith is nothing but complimentary to Mick in this book. Page after page is filled with Keith's ravings on Mick's songwriting, his stage persona, and his harp playing. The problems only arise when Mick ties his solo deal into the Stones' contract with CBS, without even consulting the rest of the band. Any negative comments made about Mick come from a sense of heartbreak, not a from any petty jealousy or bitterness.

This book is a story of betrayal. First by Anita choosing dope over their relationship, and second by Mick choosing his ego over their friendship.

Quote
fiftyamp

Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.

Keith is nothing but complimentary to Mick in this book. Page after page is filled with Keith's ravings on Mick's songwriting, his stage persona, and his harp playing. The problems only arise when Mick ties his solo deal into the Stones' contract with CBS, without even consulting the rest of the band. Any negative comments made about Mick come from a sense of heartbreak, not a from any petty jealousy or bitterness.

This book is a story of betrayal. First by Anita choosing dope over their relationship, and second by Mick choosing his ego over their friendship.

My feelings exactly fiftyamp, I am reading the same book as you!!

He's nothing but complimentary to Mick??? So all the negative comments are actually compliments then??

Quote
fiftyamp

Keith is nothing but complimentary to Mick in this book. Page after page is filled with Keith's ravings on Mick's songwriting, his stage persona, and his harp playing. The problems only arise when Mick ties his solo deal into the Stones' contract with CBS, without even consulting the rest of the band. Any negative comments made about Mick come from a sense of heartbreak, not a from any petty jealousy or bitterness.

Quote
fiftyamp
Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.

Okay, maybe I don' grasp the sense of the reference here, Can you then please explain me what the next sentence supposed to mean (the one of Mick having big balls but that doesn't compensate the lack of what is between them.) He is just talking metaphorically of Mick, and no way referring to his genetals?

(Factually I am reading the Finnish translation of the book and there is no ambiguity of the reference.)

- Doxa

Quote
fiftyamp
He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.

I've been waiting to see if anyone other than myself had read this line that way. (Why do I think that both fiftyamp and I are about to be told how wrong we are?)

While there is no doubt that, with the subtleties of the English language, it can be read both ways, I find it interesting that, up until this point, not one person has mentioned the alternate way of reading the line. For all we know, Mick & Keith used to sit around Edith Grove and call each other "Tiny Todger".

Now, I fully expect that people are going to say, "but the next line talks about Mick's giant balls therefore the todger is a direct reference to his personal anatomy". Talk to ANY musician about how big your balls have to be to walk on stage in front of 50,000+ people. It has nothing to do with physical size in that concept. All I've got to say is it take some big balls to stick your neck out sometimes.

Notice that, of all the people worldwide who are talking about this comment as a slam on Mick's anatomy, Mick apparently didn't have a problem with Keith leaving it in the book.

Only time will tell what is actually the truth but, until then, I'm with fiftyamp. I can't speak for Keith, but I know when a call someone a "little prick" it has nothing to do with the size of their manhood.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Should Keith write about betrayal and hurt and not write about his reaction to it? He offers his truthful opinion on Mick. Negative comments are sometimes appropriate for the offenses endured. Lots of compliments for Mick.

Doxa:

Did you get to the part where Keith remembers creating Jumpin Jack Flash, without any reference to Mr. Wyman? Granted ~ I wasn't there. But I understood that Bill was integral in that particular song's creation; which obviously became one of the band's finest moments.

I, too, don't know if I want to subject myself to this drug hazed recollection of fact & sometimes fiction. I may prefer to save my almost forty years of great Stones memories intact. It is time to go back to my old catalog.

The 'tiny todger' comment, which has been repeated in literally thousands of print and online publications, has been interpreted in only one way: that Keith Richards says Mick Jagger has a wee little willy. And whenever Keith is asked about it, he just laughs it off. He has never said, 'No, that's not what I meant.'

I am only two chapters in but I'm really enjoying it so far. Possibly less accurate/truthful than some of the biographies but it's Keith's take and so far it's a great read.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
fiftyamp
Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.

Okay, maybe I don' grasp the sense of the reference here, Can you then please explain me what the next sentence supposed to mean (the one of Mick having big balls but that doesn't compensate the lack of what is between them.) He is just talking metaphorically of Mick, and no way referring to his genetals?

(Factually I am reading the Finnish translation of the book and there is no ambiguity of the reference.)

- Doxa

From the beginning, I was skeptical about Keith's book. When the "Tiny Todger" comment came out, I was annoyed. Then, after reading a few positive reviews, I was kind of looking forward to it. Now, as I read these posts, I'm not so sure.

Quote
rollinon
I, too, don't know if I want to subject myself to this drug hazed recollection of
fact & sometimes fiction. I may prefer to save my almost forty years of great
Stones memories intact. It is time to go back to my old catalog.

Exactly my feelings. I´m afraid of reading on.

Love the unreleased pics inside, well done.
Gonna start to read it now, comments later

HMN

Quote
Doxa

Quote
fiftyamp
Either you're not reading the same book as I am, or your reading comprehension is crap. Keith never refers to Mick's dick. His quote was 'she had no fun with the tiny todger'. One line in the middle of a paragraph. He's calling Mick a tiny todger, not referring to it.

Okay, maybe I don' grasp the sense of the reference here, Can you then please explain me what the next sentence supposed to mean (the one of Mick having big balls but that doesn't compensate the lack of what is between them.) He is just talking metaphorically of Mick, and no way referring to his genetals?

(Factually I am reading the Finnish translation of the book and there is no ambiguity of the reference.)

- Doxa

In American and UK english, when you say someone has big balls or bollocks, you're usually talking about their attitude. Example: 'Well that boyo's got a set of balls on him!' Balls is like courage, no fear. I hope that helps.

I'm 300 pages in and I'll save the review until I'm finished, but I know one thing so far, Keith makes Hunter Thompson look like the Pope, and I'm still in the early-mid 70s parts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-20 05:36 by chelskeith.

Only comment and I've only finished the first two chapters (read while running on the treadmill or eliptical trainer) the book is written as if the reader is in a conversation with Keith. Which requires a very talented author. So far, its been a great read...an hour at the gym never passed so fast.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

Quote
whitem8
Well Keith lived with Brian and had to deal with all his baggage, and when your "friend" is working out side deals to get paid more and better rooms that is a pretty good indication of a toxic relationship. Keith is just being honest and telling it like it is from his point of view and he must not have really liked the guy...

Toxic relationship? That relationship with Brian Jones helped Keith Richards become the uber-rich rock star that he is today. Brian invited him to join his band way back in 1962 and the rest is history. Keith should be thanking Brian in his book. But Keith has no class whatsoever, and is intent on flaming his long deceased friend for whatever petty reasons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-29 05:46 by neptune.

Quote
gimmelittledrink
And whenever Keith is asked about [the 'tiny todger' comment], he just laughs it off.

could you provide links to at least a couple of the interviews you mean?
no one's asked him about that in any of the interviews i've seen/heard -
that brouhaha has just been commentators who weren't addressing Keith, or anywhere near him

If you want sugar go the grocery stgore, Keith is what he is and speaks his mind, wrong or not, at least not being a hypocrite.