Quote
hbwriter
Swiss--rock on sister-

oh--and busted -i was thinking - sorry to get pulled back in - but ya got me thinking - because I think you've had some some fine posts in this thread - no, the conversation the way you suggest is silly and i know you intended it that way- I imagine something far more subtle - look at it like this --that is one of just a handful of passages Marlon actually wrote - which gives it real weight - there had to have been at least a little back and forth on it

in it Marlon says - ""I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing."

Detail like this from a nine year old?? That doesn't seem a little bit odd to you?

There is so much about his recollection that seems unbelievable, that I seriously question how it was put together--Perhaps J. Fox wove it into something that fit the narrative - I don't know- but I do think it is orchestrated - it defies reason on several key levels - did anyone challenge it or look to corroborate it - you're accusing a dead teen of making constant death threats - if you can't back that up, editorially, I'd keep it out.

But however it happened, obviously it was editorially decided that in the Keith/Marlon version, that Scott Cantrell was an "absolute prick" who made loads of death threats that nobody but Marlon heard. You can buy that if you'd like - I don't - but who cares? My original post had nothing to do with that - it was in answer simply to Keith's attitude toward Cantrell and why he'd choose to present it as such - some others have twisted this into making me the issue with veiled accusations (addicted) and outright stupidity (LeonidP accusing me of harboring a vendetta for 30 years) - so if what you say is true ("You're coming across to many of us as..." ) then I'm curious how people like addicted and leonidP are coming across to you as, as well. I think what they have done is far more egregious than anything I've done here - what they've done is akin to slander.

--and as for the signed book comment you made - you know what?- I submitted an honest entry that I still stand by - the fact that addicted threw it back at me publicly in this thread as if I was not able to write a sincere entry while still asking an objective question about Keith Richards - then passionately defending my point of view - well, I think that tells you all you need to know about the "rules."

HB, I'm glad you seem to appreciate my comments, and don't see them as disrespectful. I certainly haven't meant them to be. And my comment about the signed book was a crack at Addicted, not you.

As far as how Leonid and Addicted have been coming across to me, it's like this. I think Addicted is a bit sycophantic, and at least part of it is because of his association with Keith. I also think his mentioning that on this board has been rather self-centered. I think his whole "Imagine yourself being a father..." comment was misguided, and it was wrong of him to speak of Scott Cantrell as being a bastard. I don't think you, or anyone here, has a hidden agenda towards Keith or anyone in the Rolling Stones, so I think Addicted is extremely off-base in that respect as well. So much so that I would hazard to guess that Addicted has an agenda, a very public one, which is that people should be made to worship the Stones, and just ignore their obvious faults and misdeeds. And this agenda is carried out by constant posts of sycophantic praise, which mention his precious association as often as possible, combined with jumping down the throat of people who say anything against the Stones. I have to say I don't really believe all this, even as I write it, but it is how Addicted comes across to me, especially in this thread.

I think Addicted needs to imagine how Scott Cantrell's remaining family members would feel about how he has spoken about him. Would he feel comfortable and justified to make those same comments to their face?

Leonid is a little more complicated. I don't think there was anything wrong with his very first post. The fact that what Keith said didn't really bother him, tells me he just took Keith at his word, without reading too much into it or the actual incident. Outside of that, I think he and I feel the same way, to a degree, and he has tried to say the same thing I have-that you are a bit overzealous about this, and are reading too much into certain things. Like the way Marlon speaks about remembering the incident due to the anniversary of the moon landing, and the show he was watching about it. I see it the same way Leonid does. Just because he mentions the 10th anniversary first before saying later he was watching a special about it, doesn't mean that the show didn't help him remember. Since you pointed it out, I see what you mean, and anything is possible, but I never would have thought that on my own. I think you're reading way too much into things such as this, and when Leonid states what I think everyone else also sees as the obvious, that IT IS because of the TV show he remembers it, your mind is so made up you won't even consider it. You actually state, "that's not why he would remember it". How do you know that, how can you state that so definitively? You just don't know that.

And even after that, I do not begin to see your point that the attitude towards Scott Cantrell was concocted, orchestrated, or contrived in any way. I don't think there was any plan, regardless of how subtle, for Marlon to write what he did to further his dad's bad-assery. It may have happened because that's how he sees his dad, and he likes that rep, but I don't think anything was orchestrated in any conscious way. I think it's things like this that Leonid and I both take issue with.

However, Leonid hasn't always been as tactful as myself, and others, and he comes across as argumentative, to the point of antagonizing you. I feel he hasn't been very nice at times. That might not be his intent, but since you asked, that's how he comes across to me.

Please take no offense Leonid. These aren't insults, I'm just trying to point out what I see, since HB asked.

Addicted, you can take all the offense you want. I don't really care.

HB, with all due respect, I think you're reading way too much into this incident, and deciding that certain possibilities, as you see them, are almost fact. The fact is, none of us knows what happened that night, and during the period leading up to it. Or what Marlon thought while it was all happening. Or that Keith may have legitimate reasons for talking about Scott like he did (and even if the facts behind those reasons are wrong and Keith "doesn't know any better" so to speak, the reasons still stand in Keith's mind as valid). Or about any of a million other details. We weren't there.

And none of us knows what went on with the book editorially, and how Marlon may have been coached. But you're so adamant in your belief that Marlon was in on something like that, that you say it happened, at least on some level. You don't know that, anymore than you know how many women Mick has slept with. I understand you're a writer and a published author, and you've been through the process. You obviously have an insight most don't. But just because you know how these things work doesn't mean you know what went on with this book. I'm sure on the celeb beat you spoke of, intimidation and rules being overlooked do happen all the time. But I suspect in the case of someone like Keith, it's more along the lines them giving him free reign others don't get, because his story is such a lofty one. Then again, I obviously can't say for sure.

All this aside, one other thing I'd like to point out, is about the things in the book like the Muddy Waters story. Granted I believe it's bullshit at this point, but is it really an editorial liability? I mean, they hired Keith to write his story, they had to of had some prior knowledge he was a bullshit artist, and that there would be exaggerations. When it comes to stories like the one about Muddy, isn't it in the best interest of the book to let Keith tell his story as he sees it? Even if an editor was savvy enough about the history, should he really even try to edit something like that? When you get someone like Keith to write their life story, you got to go into it knowing there are things that aren't going to jive as the truth. Granted, it's not really so great that people who don't know better, end up thinking things like Muddy was so poor he had to paint the studio. But you shouldn't go to a rock star like Keith for historical accuracy to begin with. As long as they aren't litigious offenses, and the Muddy story hardly is, isn't it best to stay out of a guy like Keith's way, and just let him tell his story uncensored, bullshit included?

Even if that is the case, it's the very reason that I never read Bill Clinton's book. I suspected before it came out he'd bullshit about too many things. He's a bullshit artist of the first order. And sure enough, all the reviews I saw confirmed my instincts.

I'm beginning to think I may not want to read Keith's book either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 10:08 by bustedtrousers.

The last 2 posts (by Bliss and bustedtrousers, respectively) express my sentiments exactly. HB, your obvious (and comprehensible) moral outrage is understood (though not necessarily shared) by many in this discussion, but your aggressive stance, your conjecture, and your incessant responses can be interpreted as over-bearing. You made your point 5 pages ago. Let it stand or fall - in people's minds - on its own merits. We get it.

I take special interest in this discussion because I lived in the South Salem area during the later part of my childhood and into my teenage and college years (the 1970's). My family still has a home there. I remember this incident vaguely, as I was home from college during the summer of '79, and this was big news in the area. I had seen Keith Richards driving his silver Jag a few times - and I was a HUGE Stones fanatic...the biggest (I thought) in the world - and I found the entire Scott Cantrell situation almost surreal. His grotesque death definitely added to the entire "danger and darkness" mystique the Stones had a patent on at that time...friends commented that it was a typical Stones-like incident...untimely, strangely malevolent, tangled-web deaths of troubled souls seemed as much a part of the Stones Universe as killer open-G riffs...it seemed par for the course, callously speaking.

This is a classic Rashomon scenario. One can fully understand the Cantrell family's profound sorrow and sense of aggrieved anger...and, as some have eloquently stated, one can also comprehend Keith's malice and contempt for the young usurper...regardless of the hypocritical nature of this disdain. Whether Scott Cantrell was a 'good kid' (as hb writer claims) or a 'prick' and 'arsehole' (as the Richards men recall) is entirely beside the point. It is all a matter of perspective. Scott Cantrell felt he found a safe haven, Marlon felt used and betrayed, and Keith felt humiliated and cuckolded. And - as with other Stones-related tragedies of this era - Anita was at the nexus of the storm.

The only inarguable, irrefutable fact is that this was a massive tragedy handled gracelessly. Keith, Anita, and all the sleazoid hanger-ons and enablers (the Sesslers, et al.) covered their asses as best as their wealth, notoriety, and influence allowed...and this leaves a repugnant smell in the air.

One final point/query for hb writer and everyone else...unless I missed the post, no one seems to have brought up what I see as one of the key aspects of this calamity - Cantrell's sister alludes to this and monalisa(?) does as well: The fact that Anita and/or Keith or the Stones entourage "wanted him gone". He had become inconvenient/had served his purpose. So this would indicate that a few days before Cantrell's death there had been an attempt to evict him from Frog Manor. If I were an investigating officer or detective this ominous piece of information would have set off alarm bells. If I read the post(s) correctly, Scott Cantrell was escorted from the premises and taken back to his father's home by two Stones functionaries. Both times Cantrell (played as if he) could not get in. This would indicate that the 'romance' (and I use that word loosely, as it seems that what for a woman like Anita would be a trivial, momentary diversion could, for a boy like Scott Cantrell, be something far more emotionally valid) was over (at least for Anita) and that Cantrell had become an unwanted guest/burden for Anita. And then a mere day or two later the young man is dead. My head reels with a multitude of scenarios...

Could he have been so distraught by this rejection - and the crushed pride of being suddenly unwanted in a place he felt (for a brief moment) safe and loved - that he was emotionally unhinged and carelessly taunted Anita that he would kill himself without her? Did he pick up the pistol as a dramatic 'dare'? Did he know the gun was loaded? He was in Anita's bed...but was it now out of pity for him from Anita's side while he still harbored passionate romantic feelings for her? Or had he begged Anita to take him back and had she dismissed and rejected him with finality? Was the gunshot to the head atrocious carelessness or pre-meditation or the desperate act of a lovesick, disoriented young boy...or was it something entirely more sinister?

Good point, TotR. Could it also have been because SC was shattered at being ejected from the glamourous Stones world, just as Gram Parsons had been? To have had entrée to that world of wealth, celebrity, power and mystery, and then to be tossed aside like a used Kleenex; could Scott's suicide, if it was that, be a way of expressing his grief, loss and also anger and retaliation at being discarded?

ToTR not a big deal but I did bring up this (i.e., the atempted ousting), altho my posts are long and dense and I certainly don't blame anyone for skimming/skipping.

As many of us have said, we have no idea What Happened. Nor the multitude of perspectives on what happened. And we won't.

Bliss, your possibility is as plausible as the next. Another variation (and all these theories obviously are speculation) is if the tides had indeed turned, and Scott was no longer entirely persona grata, and no longer felt entirely welcome, he could have accidentally shot himself in the grip of last-ditch attention-getting recklessness. Or...as we was heard at the time, Anita and he could have been playing Russian Roulette (or some variation). And if serious drugs were involved and multiple people really strung out...it's anybody's guess what went down.

I think most of us agree, while Keith may honestly feel, on some level, "good riddance to bad rubbish," that's as Bliss says, an inside voice---and using it publicly, in writing--referring to Scott who shot his face off in his house as a little prick--displays a marked lack of grace and compassion. It's the rhetoric of tales told among one-upping buddies over a late-night boozy poker game.

But again, as I've said, Keith's imperfect and human--and he rarely shines brightest when addressing real tragedy in his past in LIFE.

I think this topic is played for me too...

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
hbwriter
Swiss--rock on sister-

oh--and busted -i was thinking - sorry to get pulled back in - but ya got me thinking - because I think you've had some some fine posts in this thread - no, the conversation the way you suggest is silly and i know you intended it that way- I imagine something far more subtle - look at it like this --that is one of just a handful of passages Marlon actually wrote - which gives it real weight - there had to have been at least a little back and forth on it

in it Marlon says - ""I remember the date, July 20,1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing."

Detail like this from a nine year old?? That doesn't seem a little bit odd to
you?

There is so much about his recollection that seems unbelievable, that I seriously question how it was put together--Perhaps J. Fox wove it into something that fit the narrative - I don't know- but I do think it is orchestrated - it defies reason on several key levels - did anyone challenge it or look to corroborate it - you're accusing a dead teen of making constant death threats - if you can't back that up, editorially, I'd keep it out.

But however it happened, obviously it was editorially decided that in the Keith/Marlon version, that Scott Cantrell was an "absolute prick" who made loads of death threats that nobody but Marlon heard. You can buy that if you'd like - I don't - but who cares? My original post had nothing to do with that - it was in answer simply to Keith's attitude toward Cantrell and why he'd choose to present it as such - some others have twisted this into making me the issue with veiled accusations (addicted) and outright stupidity (LeonidP accusing me of harboring a vendetta for 30 years) - so if what you say is true ("You're coming across to many of us as..." ) then I'm curious how people like addicted and leonidP are coming across to you as, as well. I think what they have done is far more egregious than anything I've done here - what they've done is akin to slander.

--and as for the signed book comment you made - you know what?- I submitted an honest entry that I still stand by - the fact that addicted threw it back at me publicly in this thread as if I was not able to write a sincere entry while still asking an objective question about Keith Richards - then passionately defending my point of view - well, I think that tells you all you need to know about the "rules."

HB, I'm glad you seem to appreciate my comments, and don't see them as disrespectful. I certainly haven't meant them to be. And my comment about the signed book was a crack at Addicted, not you.

As far as how Leonid and Addicted have been coming across to me, it's like this. I think Addicted is a bit sycophantic, and at least part of it is because of his association with Keith. I also think his mentioning that on this board has been rather self-centered. I think his whole "Imagine yourself being a father..." comment was misguided, and it was wrong of him to speak of Scott Cantrell as being a bastard. I don't think you, or anyone here, has a hidden agenda towards Keith or anyone in the Rolling Stones, so I think Addicted is extremely off-base in that respect as well. So much so that I would hazard to guess that Addicted has an agenda, a very public one, which is that people should be made to worship the Stones, and just ignore their obvious faults and misdeeds. And this agenda is carried out by constant posts of sycophantic praise, which mention his precious association as often as possible, combined with jumping down the throat of people who say anything against the Stones. I have to say I don't really believe all this, even as I write it, but it is how Addicted comes across to me, especially in this thread.

I think Addicted needs to imagine how Scott Cantrell's remaining family members would feel about how he has spoken about him. Would he feel comfortable and justified to make those same comments to their face?

Leonid is a little more complicated. I don't think there was anything wrong with his very first post. The fact that what Keith said didn't really bother him, tells me he just took Keith at his word, without reading too much into it or the actual incident. Outside of that, I think he and I feel the same way, to a degree, and he has tried to say the same thing I have-that you are a bit overzealous about this, and are reading too much into certain things. Like the way Marlon speaks about remembering the incident due to the anniversary of the moon landing, and the show he was watching about it. I see it the same way Leonid does. Just because he mentions the 10th anniversary first before saying later he was watching a special about it, doesn't mean that the show didn't help him remember. Since you pointed it out, I see what you mean, and anything is possible, but I never would have thought that on my own. I think you're reading way too much into things such as this, and when Leonid states what I think everyone else also sees as the obvious, that IT IS because of the TV show he remembers it, your mind is so made up you won't even consider it. You actually state, "that's not why he would remember it". How do you know that, how can you state that so definitively? You just don't know that.

And even after that, I do not begin to see your point that the attitude towards Scott Cantrell was concocted, orchestrated, or contrived in any way. I don't think there was any plan, regardless of how subtle, for Marlon to write what he did to further his dad's bad-assery. It may have happened because that's how he sees his dad, and he likes that rep, but I don't think anything was orchestrated in any conscious way. I think it's things like this that Leonid and I both take issue with.

However, Leonid hasn't always been as tactful as myself, and others, and he comes across as argumentative, to the point of antagonizing you. I feel he hasn't been very nice at times. That might not be his intent, but since you asked, that's how he comes across to me.

Please take no offense Leonid. These aren't insults, I'm just trying to point out what I see, since HB asked.

Addicted, you can take all the offense you want. I don't really care.

HB, with all due respect, I think you're reading way too much into this incident, and deciding that certain possibilities, as you see them, are almost fact. The fact is, none of us knows what happened that night, and during the period leading up to it. Or what Marlon thought while it was all happening. Or that Keith may have legitimate reasons for talking about Scott like he did (and even if the facts behind those reasons are wrong and Keith "doesn't know any better" so to speak, the reasons still stand in Keith's mind as valid). Or about any of a million other details. We weren't there.

And none of us knows what went on with the book editorially, and how Marlon may have been coached. But you're so adamant in your belief that Marlon was in on something like that, that you say it happened, at least on some level. You don't know that, anymore than you know how many women Mick has slept with. I understand you're a writer and a published author, and you've been through the process. You obviously have an insight most don't. But just because you know how these things work doesn't mean you know what went on with this book. I'm sure on the celeb beat you spoke of, intimidation and rules being overlooked do happen all the time. But I suspect in the case of someone like Keith, it's more along the lines them giving him free reign others don't get, because his story is such a lofty one. Then again, I obviously can't say for sure.

All this aside, one other thing I'd like to point out, is about the things in the book like the Muddy Waters story. Granted I believe it's bullshit at this point, but is it really an editorial liability? I mean, they hired Keith to write his story, they had to of had some prior knowledge he was a bullshit artist, and that there would be exaggerations. When it comes to stories like the one about Muddy, isn't it in the best interest of the book to let Keith tell his story as he sees it? Even if an editor was savvy enough about the history, should he really even try to edit something like that? When you get someone like Keith to write their life story, you got to go into it knowing there are things that aren't going to jive as the truth. Granted, it's not really so great that people who don't know better, end up thinking things like Muddy was so poor he had to paint the studio. But you shouldn't go to a rock star like Keith for historical accuracy to begin with. As long as they aren't litigious offenses, and the Muddy story hardly is, isn't it best to stay out of a guy like Keith's way, and just let him tell his story uncensored, bullshit included?

Even if that is the case, it's the very reason that I never read Bill Clinton's book. I suspected before it came out he'd bullshit about too many things. He's a bullshit artist of the first order. And sure enough, all the reviews I saw confirmed my instincts.

I'm beginning to think I may not want to read Keith's book either.

One point Busted,Addicted is a woman.
Also, if anyone here has an agenda is Addicted,
l even wonder if she is a Rolling Stones fan?
Probably not,just doing PR work in order to sell the book.

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Quote
bustedtrousers
However, Leonid hasn't always been as tactful as myself, and others, and he comes across as argumentative, to the point of antagonizing you. I feel he hasn't been very nice at times. That might not be his intent, but since you asked, that's how he comes across to me.

You are quite perceptive! Certainly no offense taken, and you hit the nail on the head. I tried initially to be civil but after I wrote that Keith's statement didn't bother me (& I still don't feel bothered by it) he tried to use that as a character flaw against me (he said something like "this says a lot about you" as if this makes me a horrible person. Once you start to pass judgement - which he was already doing w/ Keith & even Marlon to a degree - and come across as holier-than-thou, well I guess I start to lose it a bit, and that probably is my real character flaw.

I've said it too many times now, but still, only Keith knows how he feels about this kid and why. If he thinks the kid was a prick, so be it. We weren't there to know what interactions took place between Keith and SC, nor do we know what info Anita or Marlon passed on to Keith about it.

Quote
ROPENI
One point Busted,Addicted is a woman.
Also, if anyone here has an agenda is Addicted,
l even wonder if she is a Rolling Stones fan?
Probably not,just doing PR work in order to sell the book.

D'oh! Now that you mention it, I remember that. I would go back and change it, but it's already been quoted twice.

Addicted sounds so male to me for some reason. And she doesn't always "sound" very female on here. Not always a lot of sugar and spice, everything nice there.

How she spoke about Scott Cantrell was not very pleasant at all. Reading that, and then realizing it's coming from a woman, reinforces my belief that the world would be no better off if run by women. No worse, I'm sure. But no better off. Not with women who talk like that about such a young person, who died so tragically.

And what's up with the hidden agenda crap? How can you have a hidden agenda, and what could you ever possibly expect to accomplish with one, on here?

thanks for taking the time, all -to add some context, texture and common sense to all of this - much appreciated

the train has long left the station - but i did forget to add - my b.s. meter also went off when Keith (or whomever) wrote: (speaking to Anita) "Listen baby, I'm leaving, we're over, but this is not the guy for you." He'd really say that about some 17 year old caretaker/babysitter? He knew Anita better than anyone - if anything, I'd rather imagine Keith saying to Scott - "Get the f--- outta here kid - before it's too late!"

But since a few here took - "He was sleeping with Keith's old lady" line - Keith writes that he dumps her outright- then warns her about a teenaged caretaker- implausible to me on levels I won't try to describe.

But Swiss, Busted, Ropeni, Bliss, TurdontheRun et al--sorry if I over baked this - honestly, I was just pushing back on the challenges - and thanks again for being graceful

(can of worms alert - has anyone commented on keith's decision to fully "out" billy preston? was it that common knowledge that he was gay? i was not aware of that, 75-dance-with-mick notwithstanding - still how necessary was that? keith sure did not seem to let his grudges go to waste in this book, i guess)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-05 17:11 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter
thanks for taking the time, all -to add some context, texture and common sense to all of this - much appreciated

the train has long left the station - but i did forget to add - my b.s. meter also went off when Keith (or whomever) wrote: (speaking to Anita) "Listen baby, I'm leaving, we're over, but this is not the guy for you." He'd really say that about some 17 year old caretaker/babysitter? He knew Anita better than anyone - if anything, I'd rather imagine Keith saying to Scott - "Get the f--- outta here kid - before it's too late!"

Interesting. I think you can re-write the entire book with all the things you think Keith really said and felt.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
hbwriter
thanks for taking the time, all -to add some context, texture and common sense to all of this - much appreciated

the train has long left the station - but i did forget to add - my b.s. meter also went off when Keith (or whomever) wrote: (speaking to Anita) "Listen baby, I'm leaving, we're over, but this is not the guy for you." He'd really say that about some 17 year old caretaker/babysitter? He knew Anita better than anyone - if anything, I'd rather imagine Keith saying to Scott - "Get the f--- outta here kid - before it's too late!"

Interesting. I think you can re-write the entire book with all the things you think Keith really said and felt.

that was meant to be tongue in cheek -

By the way - this is how the Victor Bockris book on Keith covered this incident - (Keith was interviewed by VB for this book at the South Salem house) Interestingly, according to Anita - Keith was upset about the event - but not because of the death - funny how somethings can change over time - read it closely - see what Keith was concerned about





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 03:44 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter
By the way - this is how the Victor Bockris book on Keith covered this incident - (Keith was interviewed by VB for this book at the South Salem house) Interestingly, according to Anita - Keith was upset about the event - but not because of the death - funny how somethings can change over time - read it closely - see what Keith was concerned about

Ummm,ok thanks. Because after 7 pages you haven't made your point yet...But now we get it.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
hbwriter
By the way - this is how the Victor Bockris book on Keith covered this incident - (Keith was interviewed by VB for this book at the South Salem house) Interestingly, according to Anita - Keith was upset about the event - but not because of the death - funny how somethings can change over time - read it closely - see what Keith was concerned about

Ummm,ok thanks. Because after 7 pages you haven't made your point yet...But now we get it.

I just thought this was interesting - note that I didn't rail *too* much about it - but you have to admit - it is kind of interesting (well, you don't *have* to but I'd appreciate it if you did

hi hbwriter

1. please let's not rely on Anita's selective memory to determine Keith's state of mind at the time of this tragedy! Whatever else Keith might have actually said, the highly drugged-out nearly psychotic Anita reports remembering (as conveyed by Bockris) Keith saying: "you lost a piece." I'd say Inadmissible Evidence

2. Billy Preston - I thought everyone knew he was gay! No? I seem to recall assumptions to that effect forever, and around the time of "Nothing from Nothing" hearing he was going to gay danceclubs in NYC -- just that kind of NY gossip, which is usually pretty reliable because it's not in the press and just sort of someone who knows someone mentions it.

So anyway, I Googled it, and here's a couple of items - I don't think Keith "outed" him, hbwriter! I really don't think Keith is a malicious @#$%&.

Los Angeles Times

Singer Billy Preston Arrested in Sex Case
August 19, 1991|EDWARD J. BOYER | TIMES STAFF WRITER

Singer Billy Preston, who wrote the hit ballad "You Are So Beautiful" and played keyboards with the Beatles, was arrested Sunday on suspicion of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy at his home in Malibu, authorities said.

Preston, 45, was arrested for investigation of sexual battery, showing pornographic material to a minor, possessing cocaine and being under the influence of a controlled substance, said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Rafael Estrada.

Drug, Porn Charges Filed Against Billy Preston
August 31, 1991
Felony cocaine possession and other criminal charges were filed Friday against soul singer Billy Preston, who was arrested earlier this month after a teen-age day laborer told authorities Preston had tried to molest him. Preston, 44, is scheduled to be arraigned Sept. 19 in Malibu Municipal Court. He posted $10,000 bail after his arrest Aug. 18 by sheriff's deputies.

LOS ANGELES: Billy Preston Pleads No Contest to Charges
September 5, 1992
Singer and musician Billy Preston pleaded no contest Friday to possession of cocaine and assault with a deadly weapon stemming from incidents involving a teen-age boy and a man in 1991. The felony cocaine possession charge stemmed from Preston's arrest in August, 1991, for investigation of sexual assault on a 16-year-old boy picked up at a day-laborer gathering point and taken to Preston's Malibu home.


Bay Area Reporter
Here at the Arts desk, we've always loved the so-called "5th Beatle," Billy Preston, and his wonderful, danceable, upbeat music. We're sorry he's gone (he died last week at 59), but why have none of his obituaries pointed out, and nobody has mentioned, the fact that Preston was gay? Perhaps he wasn't publicly out, but among those close to the music industry, his sexuality was surely no secret.

So we went right to the Gay Grapevine to find out if our gaydar was in good working order. In response to our query, "How do you know for sure that Preston was gay?" Orrin Downthehatch of the Gay Oral History Project (motto: "Open wide") replied, "...most importantly, back around 1977, I was hanging out with a couple of friends over at their house on Potrero Hill. One of them was a really hot guy, Kevin, who was a major sex addict (he'd do 15 men in one night at the baths). While we're hanging out, the phone rings, and it's Billy Preston calling to talk to Kevin! Billy was on the road, opening for The Rolling Stones, and he just called to chat. After a long, silly conversation with Kevin and his then-roommate Barbara, I asked why Preston would be calling them. And Kevin looked at me with this 'Duh?' expression, and Barbara tactfully clarified, as if I needed it, that Billy was gay. So. Is this a sure thing? I think so."

Good enough for us.
06/15/2006

_____________________

Quote
swiss
hi hbwriter

1. please let's not rely on Anita's selective memory to determine Keith's state of mind at the time of this tragedy! Whatever else Keith might have actually said, the highly drugged-out nearly psychotic Anita reports remembering (as conveyed by Bockris) Keith saying: "you lost a piece." I'd say Inadmissible Evidence

2. Billy Preston - I thought everyone knew he was gay! No? I seem to recall assumptions to that effect forever, and around the time of "Nothing from Nothing" hearing he was going to gay danceclubs in NYC -- just that kind of NY gossip, which is usually pretty reliable because it's not in the press and just sort of someone who knows someone mentions it.

So anyway, I Googled it, and here's a couple of items - I don't think Keith "outed" him, hbwriter! I really don't think Keith is a malicious @#$%&.

Los Angeles Times

Singer Billy Preston Arrested in Sex Case
August 19, 1991|EDWARD J. BOYER | TIMES STAFF WRITER

Singer Billy Preston, who wrote the hit ballad "You Are So Beautiful" and played keyboards with the Beatles, was arrested Sunday on suspicion of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy at his home in Malibu, authorities said.

Preston, 45, was arrested for investigation of sexual battery, showing pornographic material to a minor, possessing cocaine and being under the influence of a controlled substance, said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Rafael Estrada.

Drug, Porn Charges Filed Against Billy Preston
August 31, 1991
Felony cocaine possession and other criminal charges were filed Friday against soul singer Billy Preston, who was arrested earlier this month after a teen-age day laborer told authorities Preston had tried to molest him. Preston, 44, is scheduled to be arraigned Sept. 19 in Malibu Municipal Court. He posted $10,000 bail after his arrest Aug. 18 by sheriff's deputies.

LOS ANGELES: Billy Preston Pleads No Contest to Charges
September 5, 1992
Singer and musician Billy Preston pleaded no contest Friday to possession of cocaine and assault with a deadly weapon stemming from incidents involving a teen-age boy and a man in 1991. The felony cocaine possession charge stemmed from Preston's arrest in August, 1991, for investigation of sexual assault on a 16-year-old boy picked up at a day-laborer gathering point and taken to Preston's Malibu home.


Bay Area Reporter
Here at the Arts desk, we've always loved the so-called "5th Beatle," Billy Preston, and his wonderful, danceable, upbeat music. We're sorry he's gone (he died last week at 59), but why have none of his obituaries pointed out, and nobody has mentioned, the fact that Preston was gay? Perhaps he wasn't publicly out, but among those close to the music industry, his sexuality was surely no secret.

So we went right to the Gay Grapevine to find out if our gaydar was in good working order. In response to our query, "How do you know for sure that Preston was gay?" Orrin Downthehatch of the Gay Oral History Project (motto: "Open wide") replied, "...most importantly, back around 1977, I was hanging out with a couple of friends over at their house on Potrero Hill. One of them was a really hot guy, Kevin, who was a major sex addict (he'd do 15 men in one night at the baths). While we're hanging out, the phone rings, and it's Billy Preston calling to talk to Kevin! Billy was on the road, opening for The Rolling Stones, and he just called to chat. After a long, silly conversation with Kevin and his then-roommate Barbara, I asked why Preston would be calling them. And Kevin looked at me with this 'Duh?' expression, and Barbara tactfully clarified, as if I needed it, that Billy was gay. So. Is this a sure thing? I think so."

Good enough for us.
06/15/2006

_____________________

i honestly had no clue on preston - to me he just seemed like an overall wildman - i think also, that bit hit he had with syreeta (with you i'm born again) - back in the 70s made me think he was married to her or something - they were billed as sort of a couple - (she had been married to stevie wonder before that) sad, she died young like preston

Swiss - one other odd Preston-related claim in the book - Keith talks about the 73 european tour - as having two keyboard players along for the whole ride - "Preston and Nicky Hopkins, side by side" -

how does that make it into the book? seriously - it's stuff like that that makes me question just how much else he gets is wrong simply because his memory sucks, he's vindictive (as discussed previously) or he was so fried, he actually thinks hopkins *did* play on that tour -



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 06:30 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter
Swiss - one other odd Preston-related claim in the book - Keith talks about the 73 european tour - as having two keyboard players along for the whole ride - "Preston and Nicky Hopkins, side by side" -

how does that make it into the book? seriously - it's stuff like that that makes me question just how much else he gets is wrong simply because his memory sucks, he's vindictive (as discussed previously) or he was so fried, he actually thinks hopkins *did* play on that tour -

hbwriter, call me simple, but I'm inclined to think (a) he forgot.

The more progress I make in Keith's book the clearer it becomes how antithetical it is to a Wyman-esque history slash autobiography slash band biography. It's an impressionist memoir of, by, and about Keith Richards.

As such, I don't see him stating "claims" as much as rambling and remembering the best he can.
- swiss

Quote
swiss

Quote
hbwriter
Swiss - one other odd Preston-related claim in the book - Keith talks about the 73 european tour - as having two keyboard players along for the whole ride - "Preston and Nicky Hopkins, side by side" -

how does that make it into the book? seriously - it's stuff like that that makes me question just how much else he gets is wrong simply because his memory sucks, he's vindictive (as discussed previously) or he was so fried, he actually thinks hopkins *did* play on that tour -

hbwriter, call me simple, but I'm inclined to think (a) he forgot.

The more progress I make in Keith's book the clearer it becomes how antithetical it is to a Wyman-esque history slash autobiography slash band biography. It's an impressionist memoir of, by, and about Keith Richards.

As such, I don't see him stating "claims" as much as rambling and remembering the best he can.
- swiss

You may be right, Swiss--but things like that are such easy fixes - why let him alter history when it's a matter of fact, not opinion? I mean, this one is black and white. How far would they let him drift? What if he said Ronnie played on that tour alongside Mick Taylor?

Quote
swiss
[
The more progress I make in Keith's book the clearer it becomes how antithetical it is to a Wyman-esque history slash autobiography slash band biography. It's an impressionist memoir of, by, and about Keith Richards.

As such, I don't see him stating "claims" as much as rambling and remembering the best he can.
- swiss

Yeah, the book is an impressionist-like, but still I think Keith should have used a bit more self-reflection and even true imagination. Now it sounds like he just relies to his own past-impressions (recollections he has done in millions of interviews during the decades) and tries just to reconstruct them. He is so deep in his own myth and bullshitting. I think the example of The Muddy painting story speaks volumes of the method used in writing - he is just so stick to his old story (maybe he believes it!) that his way to "justify" it, goes really pathetic.

- Doxa

For those of you who love 'Shine a Light', you can thank Billy Preston for that, because he took Mick to a number of gospel churches when they were in LA together.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
neptune
What makes a man world famous and rich since he was 19 speak so viciously ill of the dead?

honesty.

But honesty isn't much of a defense. People may be many things honestly. Someone who is honestly being a ninny is still being a ninny. But, alright, he is being honest in expressing what he feels.

That's different to arriving at those feelings honestly (as swiss has written, he doesn't seem to deal well with emotionally difficult issues). But then again, that's fair enough. Who can say that they're honest with themselves?

My problem is less that he hasn't come to a more balanced, compassionate conclusion than he has than that he doesn't seem to admit the possibility of one. Someone's life is dismissed with another stereotyped response. I'm sure most people consider someone else a 'prick' but I hope they wouldn't wouldn't leave it at that. At least, not when they're writing a hugely popular autobiography and the other person is dead. It would be decent to be restrained by a sense of justice. The knowledge that there must be more to the story, even if you can't bring yourself to accept it.


But I don't think there's anything more here than bad judgment in writing the book eg. Marlon's statement that "I remember the date, July 20, 1979, vividly, because it was the tenth anniversary of the moon landing" doesn't seem strange to me. It's the sort of date which would have appealed to me as a child. In the normal flow of things, of course, he'd probably have forgotten the anniversary but considering what else happened, he didn't.

Quote
swiss
please let's not rely on Anita's selective memory to determine Keith's state of mind at the time of this tragedy! Whatever else Keith might have actually said, the highly drugged-out nearly psychotic Anita reports remembering (as conveyed by Bockris) Keith saying: "you lost a piece." I'd say Inadmissible Evidence

sorry, but this needs to be (politely) challenged....
Of course Anita's statement is reliable. It's somewhat outrageous that the gun would be Keith's
biggest concern. Surprised he also wasn't pissed that "the prick" got blood on the bed sheets.

I think someone quoted Keith as saying he didn't care about anyone or anything except his drug dealer.
Well.....this would support that.

You can't selectively choose which statements by Anita you want to accept and not accept.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 16:09 by sweet neo con.

It's funny; people don't like Mick being so guarded in interviews,never giving away any of his real thoughts or feelings; now Keith has really opened up to the world, no holds barred, and everyone's outraged.

Quote
Bliss
It's funny; people don't like Mick being so guarded in interviews,never giving away any of his real thoughts or feelings; now Keith has really opened up to the world, no holds barred, and everyone's outraged.

well...being candid & saying things that outrage...aren't always the same thing.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 16:58 by sweet neo con.

Mick being candid...and Keith posturing.






IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 17:07 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
swiss
please let's not rely on Anita's selective memory to determine Keith's state of mind at the time of this tragedy! Whatever else Keith might have actually said, the highly drugged-out nearly psychotic Anita reports remembering (as conveyed by Bockris) Keith saying: "you lost a piece." I'd say Inadmissible Evidence

sorry, but this needs to be (politely) challenged....
Of course Anita's statement is reliable. It's somewhat outrageous that the gun would be Keith's
biggest concern. Surprised he also wasn't pissed that "the prick" got blood on the bed sheets.


Well.....this would support that.

You can't selectively choose which statements by Anita you want to accept and not accept.I think someone quoted Keith as saying he didn't care about anyone or anything except his drug dealer.

I'd agree with this - more because of Bockris than Anita - he's a good, thorough writer - to include something that specific means he trusted it - plus, reading it again, the fact that Keith would be pissed about the gun - the one thing that could get him back in trouble- that may be the reasonable thing I've ever heard him say - totally in character with the moment - the other really interesting thing Anita says is that the "boy ended it for us" - in Keith's book - it's already over - I think the Bockris passage is somewhat enlightening - also because it was recorded when the thing was fresh - not 32 years later.

As for Preston - the links certainly don't produce any info that suggest Preston led an openly gay lifestyle- it's murky, police blotter stuff -Keith even says - "he was gay at a time when you couldn't be openly gay" - given that the revelation comes after we hear about Keith (yawn) pulling his blade on Billy for playing too loud - again, it *feels* like another corpse kick - totally unnecessary -



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 17:35 by hbwriter.

Quote
Bliss
It's funny; people don't like Mick being so guarded in interviews,never giving away any of his real thoughts or feelings; now Keith has really opened up to the world, no holds barred, and everyone's outraged.

Bliss- I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization about this thread - if there's outrage, at least some of it (mine, anyway) stems from he fact that it seems either phony, calculated or trumped up - not truly 'no holds barred'

the Preston thing (if Billy Preston *was* gay - again - Keith also claims Preston and Hopkins played "side by side" throughout the 73 European tour - so clearly Keith's facts are subject to flaw), while it may be honest, just seems wrong to do - why out a dead man? (oh wait - i forgot - he played too loud - required that knife be pulled on him)

Keith to Billy - supposedly
"If you don't turn that fu&*ing thing down - you're going to feel it"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 17:43 by hbwriter.

HB wrote"...the fact that Keith would be pissed about the gun - the one thing that could get him back in trouble- that may be the reasonable thing I've ever heard him say..."

(Keith to Anita after hearing about Cantrell's "suicide" )
"oh, you managed to lose a piece (gun), didn't you?"

HB...if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that because of Keith's past troubles with THE LAW
that his association with the gun will get him in trouble....and THAT is why it's his first concern.
Correct?

Still not sure this should be KR's first concern....someone who was INVOLVED with his "wife"
was just found dead and his "wife" (& mother of his children) was under suspicion.

Correction: i don't want to put words in your mouth...you did not say "first concern".

I shoould have waited to read if i understood you correctly before responding.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 18:00 by sweet neo con.

Quote
sweet neo con
HB wrote"...the fact that Keith would be pissed about the gun - the one thing that could get him back in trouble- that may be the reasonable thing I've ever heard him say..."

(Keith to Anita after hearing about Cantrell's "suicide")
"oh, you managed to lose a piece (gun), didn't you?

HB...if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that because of Keith's past troubles with THE LAW
that his association with the gun will get him in trouble....and THAT is why it's his first concern.
Correct?

Still not sure this should be KR's first concern....someone who was INVOLVED with his "wife"
was just found dead and his "wife" (& mother of his children) was under suspicion.

Right - the gun was stolen/unlicensed - it was Keith's gun - how can it not make total sense hat he freaked out over a dead teenager holding one of his illegal shooters? He was concerned about a life all right - his own - hardly shocking when you look at the level of selfishness and entitlement he commanded/expected

From People
"Nor has Anita tried since to explain what happened. She is due in court next week to face charges of having handguns without a permit and possession of a stolen gun (the death weapon disappeared from a Fort Lauderdale sheriff's office last year)."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 17:58 by hbwriter.

Quote
hbwriter

Quote
sweet neo con
HB wrote"...the fact that Keith would be pissed about the gun - the one thing that could get him back in trouble- that may be the reasonable thing I've ever heard him say..."

(Keith to Anita after hearing about Cantrell's "suicide" )
"oh, you managed to lose a piece (gun), didn't you?

HB...if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that because of Keith's past troubles with THE LAW
that his association with the gun will get him in trouble....and THAT is why it's his first concern.
Correct?

Still not sure this should be KR's first concern....someone who was INVOLVED with his "wife"
was just found dead and his "wife" (& mother of his children) was under suspicion.

Right - the gun was stolen/unlicensed - it was Keith's gun - how can it not make total sense hat he freaked out over a dead teenager holding one of his illegal shooters? He was concerned about a life all right - his own - hardly shocking when you look at the level of selfishness and entitlement he commanded/expected

ok..i understand now exactly what you meant.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-06 18:23 by sweet neo con.