I think the tiny todger remark does relate to Jagger's anatomy. I think Keith is really targeting Mick's vanity, as in relating to his pursuit of women, and especially Anita on the set of Performance. I take the remark as almost a private message to Mick made public by the publication of his book, as a way perhaps of embarrassing him. The overriding impression i get of Keith is that he values loyalty, and a strong level of reliability and consistency, in order to see things through. That's the reason that he speaks so highly of Charlie Watts and Ian Stewart, because they had a genuine love and dedication to the Stones, and they weren't primarily in it for the notoriety, so to speak. To have a long run those elements are essential, so to a sense Charlie and Ian were pretty much the backbone of the group. One gets the impression Keith viewed Brian Jones' shortcomings as pretty much overwhelming many of Brian's strengths, and although Keith does acknowledge Brian's musical ability, his main thought is that Brian, from pretty much early on, became almost a bigger pain than he was worth, and fame and celebrity, very much took the place of a genuine dedication to the group. Keith gives the impression to having little to do with Bill on a personal level, and perhaps being more interested in his amp than his bass playing originally, although he does over time appreciate Bill's fine bass playing. I don't think Keith admired Bill's womanising ways quite so much. Mick Taylor is acknowledged as a great guitarist, and his contributions were key to some of the very best music the Stones made, but Keith found him more difficult to relate to on a personal level.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-29 09:14 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
I think the tiny todger remark does relate to Jagger's anatomy.

my copy of the book hasn't been delivered yet, so i'm not addressing that -
i just want to know where gimmelittledrink saw/heard interviewers ask Keith about it.
has anyone asked the man directly about that in an interview? and if so, can we have a link? thanks!

Quote
with sssoul

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

I arrived at page 60 and I really like it

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

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
Edward Twining
I think the tiny todger remark does relate to Jagger's anatomy.

my copy of the book hasn't been delivered yet, so i'm not addressing that -
i just want to know where gimmelittledrink saw/heard interviewers ask Keith about it.
has anyone asked the man directly about that in an interview? and if so, can we have a link? thanks!

Quote
with sssoul

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

The Times (London)

October 15, 2010 Friday
Keith Richards talks to Caitlin Moran about the girls, the drugs and his rift with Jagger (and the truth about Mick's manhood)


Has Jagger read the book? Richards seems resolutely unfazed. "Yeah," he says .

"So he didn't ask you to take out the bit about how small his cock is, then?" I ask, in a rather prim voice.

"Hey - I was only told that by others," Richards says, with a wolfish smile and a shrug.

"Well, I did say he had enormous balls," Richards says now, generously. "I'm sure he's had worse thrown at him by women. I mean, Jerry Hall pretty much decimated him anyway."

[www.iorr.org]

Quote
Doxa

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

Waw, is it that bad?
What you are saying resembles the review from Rolling Stone

>> The Times (London) October 15, 2010 Friday
Keith Richards talks to Caitlin Moran ...
"So he didn't ask you to take out the bit about how small his cock is, then?" I ask, in a rather prim voice.
"Hey - I was only told that by others," Richards says, with a wolfish smile and a shrug. <<

thanks for that clarification and link

Quote
with sssoul
>> The Times (London) October 15, 2010 Friday
Keith Richards talks to Caitlin Moran ...
"So he didn't ask you to take out the bit about how small his cock is, then?" I ask, in a rather prim voice.
"Hey - I was only told that by others," Richards says, with a wolfish smile and a shrug. <<

thanks for that clarification and link

you are welcome. I'll be crucified for it you know

""So he didn't ask you to take out the bit about how small his cock is, then?" I ask, in a rather prim voice.
"Hey - I was only told that by others," Richards says, with a wolfish smile and a shrug."

I'm not sure about know how to interpret these lines. Does Keith admit here that he really wrote about Mick's penis size?

>> I'll be crucified for it you know <<

no, actually i don't - but thanks anyway

>> Does Keith [acknowledge] here that he really wrote about Mick's penis size? <<

yeah, that's a pretty straightforward acknowledgement -
since he said it quite clearly in 2005 too it's no surprise,
but i did want to know what interviewer had actually asked him about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-29 12:11 by with sssoul.

Here in Helsinki it seems to be only available in finnish and swedish, and I've no intention to read Keith's words in any other language than english. But I probably won't bother to do even that.

Quote
Edward Twining
I think the tiny todger remark does relate to Jagger's anatomy. I think Keith is really targeting Mick's vanity, as in relating to his pursuit of women, and especially Anita on the set of Performance..

I haven't read the book but I don't think that Mick" pursuited " Anita.What a funny idea !
Anita was a big girl,wasn't she ?
Mick didn't steal her from Keith,she decided to give herself to Mick .that's not the same.
Talking about his experience and his life with the Stones is one thing, but talking about Mick's personal life and bitching at him is a luck of respect imo.



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

Quote
Edward Twining
The overriding impression i get of Keith is that he values loyalty, and a strong level of reliability and consistency, in order to see things through. That's the reason that he speaks so highly of Charlie Watts and Ian Stewart, because they had a genuine love and dedication to the Stones, and they weren't primarily in it for the notoriety, so to speak. To have a long run those elements are essential, so to a sense Charlie and Ian were pretty much the backbone of the group. One gets the impression Keith viewed Brian Jones' shortcomings as pretty much overwhelming many of Brian's strengths, and although Keith does acknowledge Brian's musical ability, his main thought is that Brian, from pretty much early on, became almost a bigger pain than he was worth, and fame and celebrity, very much took the place of a genuine dedication to the group. Keith gives the impression to having little to do with Bill on a personal level, and perhaps being more interested in his amp than his bass playing originally, although he does over time appreciate Bill's fine bass playing. I don't think Keith admired Bill's womanising ways quite so much. Mick Taylor is acknowledged as a great guitarist, and his contributions were key to some of the very best music the Stones made, but Keith found him more difficult to relate to on a personal level.

I always wonder if his respect for Charlie and Stu doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that they've never been a threat to him.

His remarks about Mick in the early days are all complimentary.

Now I've not got too far in the book but I wouldn't be surprised if his remarks about him when they fell out were less complimentary. Seems quite obvious to me.

I wouldn't want to read something that missed out the bad bits - the Stones almost ceased to be so SOMETHING major happened in their relationship. Now we get to see what that something was from Keith's perspective.

When or if Mick writes an autobiography, we'll get to see it from his point of view.

Different people recall different things - it's only human. Keith is telling it how he remembers it, and he was there. OK so there will be inconsistencies with things remembered by say Bill, but that's hardly a surprise! They're only humans!

Quote
Squiggle
I always wonder if his respect for Charlie and Stu doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that they've never been a threat to him.

Very true and also Bill to some extent. With Mick he had to share the power of the band, with Brian he had a friendship that went sour after his self proclaimed Sir Galahad move and with Taylor he had somebody who kicked his ass on the guitar.

Keith would probably have liked it better if everyone around him just had kept their mouth shut and played what he wanted them to play. Charlie and Stu (and Bill) did just that.

Quote
sjs12
Keith is telling it how he remembers it, and he was there.

I'd say that Keith is telling it how he wants it to be remembered. Not how it was. The stories he has told used to sound different - at least the one about Brian.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-29 14:02 by tonterapi.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Squiggle
I always wonder if his respect for Charlie and Stu doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that they've never been a threat to him.

Very true and also Bill to some extent. With Mick he had to share the power of the band, with Brian he had a friendship that went sour after his self proclaimed Sir Galahad move and with Taylor he had somebody who kicked his ass on the guitar.

Keith would probably have liked it better if everyone around him just had kept their mouth shut and played what he wanted them to play. Charlie and Stu (and Bill) did just that.

Quote
sjs12
Keith is telling it how he remembers it, and he was there.

I'd say that Keith is telling it how he wants it to be remembered. Not how it was. The stories he has told used to sound different - at least the one about Brian.

Yeah, it was the same with my Grandad and his war stories, but I still sat on his knees and listened.

... whose point of view did people expect Keith's autobiography to present?
[turning up Yap Yap waaaaay loud ... ]

Quote
sjs12
Yeah, it was the same with my Grandad and his war stories, but I still sat on his knees and listened.

Oh, yes. I've been there as well. One thing is certain and that is that Keith is a very entertaining story teller no matter the level of truth.

Quote
with sssoul
... whose point of view did people expect Keith's autobiography to present?
[turning up Yap Yap waaaaay loud ... ]

The point of view of someone who also analyses what happened and who also could look at himself in a critical way and who had an overview to present instead of a collection of personal opinions, anecdotes and oneliners about others only.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
with sssoul
... whose point of view did people expect Keith's autobiography to present?
[turning up Yap Yap waaaaay loud ... ]

The point of view of someone who also analyses what happened and who also could look at himself in a critical way and who had an overview to present instead of a collection of personal opinions, anecdotes and oneliners about others only.

My thoughts exactly,kleermaker.
Once again,I haven't read the book,only excerpts ,I feel embarassed by his views on Mick Jagger, and the critical words devoted to Mick's womanising and drug taking. (not to mention very personal point of views )



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

My one and only comment on Mick's todger: I think Marianne was a very kind lady who knew exactly what to say to Keith to make him feel better about Mick and Anita...

Quote
stupidguy2

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.

...well, why not read the book, then!? ('finally', I could -should?- add... )

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

Quote
proudmary
Waw, is it that bad?

- No; it is not. It 'is' what yóu think of it- after you've read it, mind you. Not after following Doxa's comments 'just like that'. I don't know where he gets his authority from; but I definitely ain't agreeing with it. As far as what Doxa is saying about "LIFE" these days, and Keith in general, I think it sounds like a load of crap coming out of the wrong side of his anatomy- though he's fully entitled to his opinions, obviously.

Quote
proudmary
What you are saying resembles the review from Rolling Stone

Again: no, it doesn't. The review in Rolling Stone -at least the one I read!?- was a neutral, evaluative, well-balanced, interesting, critical, but overall very positive an almost aplauding review of these noteworthy memoirs that "LIFE" definitely is; kinda gratefull (as we all should be) for being still around and able to read it. Doesn't sound like Doxa at áll.

No offence, Dox.

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

Quote
kingkirby
My one and only comment on Mick's todger: I think Marianne was a very kind lady who knew exactly what to say to Keith to make him feel better about Mick and Anita...

Poor Marianne! She after all didn't say anything and it's totally not her style. It was Anita. I don't want to know what her standards are but she complained all the time that Keith didn't @#$%& her and preferred to hang with his junkie friends. In Stones In Exile she told smth. like "it was sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, not necessary in this order" It was funny

Some people seem to think Keith is perfect and never makes mistakes. It's sometimes more annonying than the "taylorites".

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
Edward Twining
The overriding impression i get of Keith is that he values loyalty, and a strong level of reliability and consistency, in order to see things through. That's the reason that he speaks so highly of Charlie Watts and Ian Stewart, because they had a genuine love and dedication to the Stones, and they weren't primarily in it for the notoriety, so to speak. To have a long run those elements are essential, so to a sense Charlie and Ian were pretty much the backbone of the group. One gets the impression Keith viewed Brian Jones' shortcomings as pretty much overwhelming many of Brian's strengths, and although Keith does acknowledge Brian's musical ability, his main thought is that Brian, from pretty much early on, became almost a bigger pain than he was worth, and fame and celebrity, very much took the place of a genuine dedication to the group. Keith gives the impression to having little to do with Bill on a personal level, and perhaps being more interested in his amp than his bass playing originally, although he does over time appreciate Bill's fine bass playing. I don't think Keith admired Bill's womanising ways quite so much. Mick Taylor is acknowledged as a great guitarist, and his contributions were key to some of the very best music the Stones made, but Keith found him more difficult to relate to on a personal level.

I always wonder if his respect for Charlie and Stu doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that they've never been a threat to him.

You make a very good point, Squiggle. Obviously we are only hearing one side of the story, and where a group as big as the Stones are concerned there are always going to be two or more sides, amongst the inevitable disagreements and confrontations, and those who say the least, or who are more willing to compromise the most, are possibly more appreciated. However, i find Keith's book pretty evenly balanced, certainly where Jagger is concerned. Keith praises him almost unreservedly in the early part of the book, and when Keith is prone to become more critical, most of what he says i find easy to relate to as i have had very much the same inkling concerning Jagger on occasion. Brian, perhaps may have been a little shortchanged by Keith, in terms of his importance in the very early days, and Keith does paint a very dark picture of him for much of the time. However, Keith does give him some credit musically in terms of his mastery of a variety of instruments. Little credit is given for Brian's role in getting the group noticed initially, though.

Quote
with sssoul
>> I'll be crucified for it you know <<

no, actually i don't - but thanks anyway

>> Does Keith [acknowledge] here that he really wrote about Mick's penis size? <<

yeah, that's a pretty straightforward acknowledgement -
since he said it quite clearly in 2005 too it's no surprise,
but i did want to know what interviewer had actually asked him about it.

Right, thanks for the clarification.

Anyway, I don't believe that he is factually correct.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
with sssoul
... whose point of view did people expect Keith's autobiography to present?
[turning up Yap Yap waaaaay loud ... ]

The point of view of someone who also analyses what happened and who also could look at himself in a critical way and who had an overview to present instead of a collection of personal opinions, anecdotes and oneliners about others only.

Sounds as "Wicked as it seems"...

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

No matter what anyone thinks of the Rolling Stones, fan or not, this book is really good . The people behind it have done their research, and whatever you knew about the Stones before, by reading all the books on the market, you will learn loads of unknown things from Keith. Believe it or not, this is the one.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Stu and Charlie were not threats. In an interview in 2002, Anita tells a story how she and Keith got into an argument that ended when Anita smashed one of Keith's guitars. He called up Stu and told him to come quick, one of his guitars had had an accident. Anita referred to Stu as Keith's "man Friday".

The more positive reviews I read about the English version of "Life", the more I feel that I have to revise my earlier (negative) comment to the book as such. So far it appears to me that the German edition may be the weakest translation of all currently available editions. This is partially due to the fact that when some text is originally written in an informal, colloquial style, the translator has to choose among ca. 70 different dialect forms and/or regional usages. The problem now I have with the translation is that whenever I want to read typical Keith, I get "Keith from Lüneburger Heide" instead. Don´t get me wrong: I´m not advocating for a Bavarian or (ideal?) Viennese Keith, all I´m saying is: Buy the original English version. It is obviously worth reading.

One question I have to English / American forum members: Throughout the book the German version speaks of a "Fünfsaiter", which is in literal translation a "Fivestringer". What better expression is there to describe the simple fact that Keith ripped off the sixth string of his guitar?

Do the girls still scream, when you perform on stage? KR: Not on stage, but when I perform, yeah.