For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Rolling HansieQuote
Doxa
is disputed
a claim made and justified
it is not most definitively true
the moral of Keith's story
he really want to say with it
ever wondered its consequences
he tries to be empathic to Muddy
he is really offensive
humble but a proud man
story is denied very strongly
he was a star, an artist, not anyone's "boy"
an implicit racism in Keith's story
Keith doesn't respect his "hero"
uses him as a just another pawn in his story-telling game
Yeah Doxa, I would say you are indeed overdoing a little bit on just a simple story
Well it is simple nice story, and specifically when articulted in such a romantic, eloquent way as this:
“My hero?” says Keith Richards. “It’s got to be Muddy Waters. Because I know him as an all-round gent and his music is sublime. Mick Jagger introduced me. The first time Mick and I ever met—we were about 16—he showed me his album on the train. Mick came ’round my house a day or two later and let me listen to it: The Best of Muddy Waters. That was the first time I’d heard Muddy. The first time I met Muddy was in Chicago in 1964. We were doing our first session at Chess studios, and on our way through the studio, Mr. Chess or the management said, ‘You might like to meet this guy.’ And there was a guy painting a ceiling—whitewashing it—on a step ladder. And he turned around and looked down and it was Muddy Waters. He had white paint running all down his black face. They told him, ‘This is the Rolling Stones,’ and he said, ‘I love what you’ve been doing with my music.’ And there I am looking up, watching the white paint run down that great black face, and he’s smiling. It really was like, ‘Meet the painter.’ And he was doing that because he hadn’t been selling records—that’s how he made his living, he’d paint the studio. They’d go, ‘You’re not selling records, come on over and make a few bucks painting the ceiling.’ Soon after that he got his thing back again—but what a way to meet the man! I’ve never forgotten what a gentleman he was, and it made me think, you didn’t have to be a loudmouth.”
For years I also shared the feeling of its cutuness and harmless nature until I started to study another side of the story - not that of Keith Richards' but that of Muddy Waters' - and then it wasn't so cute and harmless at all. It truely stroke me how deeply it seemed to offend some people who knew Muddy Waters. What I tried to suggest in my post that making such claims - putting the guy from cotton fields, after making a huge career in music business, to paint the white man's ceiling when his career is doing bad - is not a kind of thing is nice to hear. There are more connotations in his claim that Keith I think unfortunately is not able to understand (and seemingly, not many here either). Keith, no matter how much loves Muddy's blues music, was not there in those cotton fields, and he did not live in Chicago either. No matter his deep love and affection for American black culture, seems to lack some sort of direct knowledge of the context. He finally is a romantic but spoiled white boy from Dartford who has been a privileged wealthy pop star for all of his adult life. I think the Muddy example is just a typical way to treat other people in Keith's self-centered, non-empathic universe. He doesn't really (need to) pay any attention to sentiments of other people. LIFE is a splendid reading of that philosophy.
- Doxa
Quote
Bliss
I think this is an example of how Keith uses Muddy Waters as an alibi. The moral of the story is that Keith was concerned about black/afro-american musicians and their well-being. I believe "Muddy Waters painted the ceiling" serves Keiths image more than anything else. And Muddy understood this.
In a smiliar way Brian Jones is important as villain in the story of how Keith "rescued" Anita, Mick as the shallow singer, Ronnie as the unstable little brother. They all make Keith look steady, trustable, good hearted, deep and stable
+1
Quote
Big Al
There is one page where neighbours is spelt 'neighbors' - surely an error?
Quote
Bärs
Two questions:
If white paint is running down a black face, what has that to do with slavery?
If a black person works as a painter to earn money, what has that to do with slavery?
Quote
with sssoul
you're overdoing it, Doxa - really
Quote
lem motlow
the great blues master never painted a f/cking ceiling.
Quote
and doxa is right,i'll bet many of you who think that saying"white paint running down his black face " is no big deal are not yourselves black people,correct?
if you insult someone and then kiss their ass,you still insulted them.
Quote
Bärs
But it's clear that Muddy helped the white kids with their gear. How is that not slavery?
Quote
Elmo Lewis
Can someone Photoshop these together fer me?
Quote
Elmo Lewis
Can someone Photoshop these together fer me?
Quote
LeonidPQuote
lem motlow
the great blues master never painted a f/cking ceiling.
ah, i didn't know you were there too.Quote
and doxa is right,i'll bet many of you who think that saying"white paint running down his black face " is no big deal are not yourselves black people,correct?
if you insult someone and then kiss their ass,you still insulted them.
it's not a big deal. you are allowed to make observations and state facts. that is not racism in any way. it's when you count race against someone, or see them differently that makes it racism. i see none of that in Keith's statement - at all.
Quote
lem motlowQuote
LeonidPQuote
lem motlow
the great blues master never painted a f/cking ceiling.
ah, i didn't know you were there too.Quote
and doxa is right,i'll bet many of you who think that saying"white paint running down his black face " is no big deal are not yourselves black people,correct?
if you insult someone and then kiss their ass,you still insulted them.
it's not a big deal. you are allowed to make observations and state facts. that is not racism in any way. it's when you count race against someone, or see them differently that makes it racism. i see none of that in Keith's statement - at all.
douchebag,try to follow along here-find me one person on the planet that worked with muddy waters,was related to him or even knew him in passing that will say that at one point in his career he wasnt selling records so he had to paint the ceiling at chess studios.
bill wyman was there,he says keiths story is false.marshall chess has said that he often jokes with keith about this fantasy story and i've read in BLUES PLAYER MAGAZINE where muddys family and friends said he was a well dressed man,always with cufflinks, an expensive watch and tailored suits and was never,ever in coveralls and painting to pick up extra money.
calling it racist probably is a bit much but it is at the very least demeaning and annoying.it would be like slash saying"yeah,i met keith richards in the 80,s the stones werent working then, he had blown all his money and was sweeping the floor and taking out the trash at the studio where i was working"
now if everyone who knew keith,worked with him or even came in contact with him said this story was bullshit but slash kept repeating it over and over and i call bullshit, an acceptable response is "hey man, were you there"? do you know how lame that is?
i have a newsflash for you,keith makes up crazy stories sometimes.
Quote
LeonidP
[Nothing at all. It's an observation from Keith. Too many people read way too much into it. It's an unbelievable stretch to equate this with picking cotton if the fields for the white man. And still it's possible that this story is true. It's been told by Keith for years, and though Muddy's family might say it's inaccurate, I've never read that Muddy himself, while alive, has ever denied it.
Quote
DoxaQuote
with sssoul
what Bill "confirms" is that the Stones met Muddy Waters at Chess Studios,
and that he helped them carry their gear inside. everyone present seems to agree on that
Exactly. As far as I know no one denies that - that the Stones met Muddy (and many of their other heroes as well, such as Chuck Berry) at Chess - which is not even a story, but a simple fact. But what is disputed it the claim of Muddy painting a roof or a ceiling because his records were not selling at the time. This is a claim made and justified by only one person - Keith Richards who testifies seeing with his own very eyes that Muddy was doing the painting job, even how the white paint was in his black face, when he Stones were visiting the Chess studios. According to Wyman, "it is not most definitively true", and it is denied by Chess people as well. Jagger doesn't remember anything.
I have always wondered the moral of Keith's story. What does he really want to say with it? Or has he ever wondered its consequences? Maybe he tries to be empathic to Muddy but I think he is really offensive for such a humble but a proud man as Muddy Waters, according to the people who knew him, was. The story is denied very strongly in every source I have seen. The belief to counter it is based on that Muddy would have never acted like that in the given circumstances - by that time, no matter how his records were selling, he was a star, an artist, not anyone's "boy". So from that base I think here is a an implicit racism in Keith's story. I wonder why on earth Keith doesn't respect his "hero" any better but uses him as a just another pawn in his story-telling game?
- Doxa
Quote
Bliss
Well Keith certainly seems to believe it. Was he hallucinating?
Quote
LeonidPQuote
with sssoul
you're overdoing it, Doxa - really
that sums it up perfectly
Quote
bustedtrousersQuote
DoxaQuote
with sssoul
what Bill "confirms" is that the Stones met Muddy Waters at Chess Studios,
and that he helped them carry their gear inside. everyone present seems to agree on that
Exactly. As far as I know no one denies that - that the Stones met Muddy (and many of their other heroes as well, such as Chuck Berry) at Chess - which is not even a story, but a simple fact. But what is disputed it the claim of Muddy painting a roof or a ceiling because his records were not selling at the time. This is a claim made and justified by only one person - Keith Richards who testifies seeing with his own very eyes that Muddy was doing the painting job, even how the white paint was in his black face, when he Stones were visiting the Chess studios. According to Wyman, "it is not most definitively true", and it is denied by Chess people as well. Jagger doesn't remember anything.
I have always wondered the moral of Keith's story. What does he really want to say with it? Or has he ever wondered its consequences? Maybe he tries to be empathic to Muddy but I think he is really offensive for such a humble but a proud man as Muddy Waters, according to the people who knew him, was. The story is denied very strongly in every source I have seen. The belief to counter it is based on that Muddy would have never acted like that in the given circumstances - by that time, no matter how his records were selling, he was a star, an artist, not anyone's "boy". So from that base I think here is a an implicit racism in Keith's story. I wonder why on earth Keith doesn't respect his "hero" any better but uses him as a just another pawn in his story-telling game?
- Doxa
I've always thought that to Keith, the story meant how ironic, and possibly disheartening, it was to meet one of your heroes, and have them be down on their luck. Especially while you are on your way up. And it was a lesson in how things can turn out, how far you can fall. How you can see someone as great, and that they must have a great life, only to learn the reality is much different. I don't think it was racist at all. He was just telling a story, and pointing out the details that stood out to him.
Also, the racism that you think the story infers is, in my opinion, very American-centric. Being an American, and from the south, the line "watching the white paint run down that great black face, and he’s smiling.", does have the scent of AMERICAN racism. BUT, and this is very important, because Keith isn't American, but is BRITISH, I don't think he would speak such words with any racist meaning. I don't think the British in general look at black people in the same way that Americans do. There is a very different history of blacks in Britain, and I don't think Keith would have been, or is, very versed in the American racist vernacular.
Can any of the people here from England verify this. Am I correct in my thinking that the racism towards blacks in England, however it might exist, is significantly different from the racism in America? I get the impression that the racism in England towards blacks is much milder than in America. That what may be racist when said by an American, would likely not be when said by a Briton. Is this true? Is Keith innocent in his way of speaking, because a Brit wouldn't think of a black guy in the same way as an American and, therefore, something that is racist when said by an American, isn't so when said by a Brit?
As far as the story itself goes, I think it's bullshit. From what I've read, Leonard loved Muddy, and whenever Muddy raised questions about, or needed, (his) money, Leonard would give him some. Or buy him a car, or whatever else he needed. Maybe not the best way to answer Muddy's concerns, but not racist either.
Sam Phillips had a habit of buying guys like Carl Perkins a Cadillac whenever they achieved a certain goal in their career. Back then the, "Don't worry, here's a Cadillac" trick was a common thing pulled by guys like Chess and Sam.
Leonard may not have always been completely honest about the money that Muddy generated and was owed for/by Chess, but he always took care of him. I don't think Leonard would have felt right making Muddy do such manual labor for pay. Plus, Muddy still made money on the road during the mid-60's. He always did. If I'm not mistaken, it was always his primary source of income.
And I don't think Muddy ever denied the story personally, because it probably never came up while he was alive. I don't know when Keith first told it, but back when Muddy was still around, I don't think it was well known like it is now.
Quote
neptuneQuote
LeonidPQuote
with sssoul
you're overdoing it, Doxa - really
that sums it up perfectly
Here are ssoul and Leonid Brezhnev, like usual, protecting their hero Keith Richards. Whenever someone questions the character of Keith "The Great", they, like firemen, have to arrive on the scene and furiously douse the flames with their endless rationalizations. I happen to agree 100% with Doxa. Keith is a presumptuous brat coming from pleasant England commmenting on how Muddy 'might' have paid the bills in 1964 without any regard for his privacy. Some things are better left unsaid.
Quote
Green LadyQuote
bustedtrousersQuote
DoxaQuote
with sssoul
what Bill "confirms" is that the Stones met Muddy Waters at Chess Studios,
and that he helped them carry their gear inside. everyone present seems to agree on that
Exactly. As far as I know no one denies that - that the Stones met Muddy (and many of their other heroes as well, such as Chuck Berry) at Chess - which is not even a story, but a simple fact. But what is disputed it the claim of Muddy painting a roof or a ceiling because his records were not selling at the time. This is a claim made and justified by only one person - Keith Richards who testifies seeing with his own very eyes that Muddy was doing the painting job, even how the white paint was in his black face, when he Stones were visiting the Chess studios. According to Wyman, "it is not most definitively true", and it is denied by Chess people as well. Jagger doesn't remember anything.
I have always wondered the moral of Keith's story. What does he really want to say with it? Or has he ever wondered its consequences? Maybe he tries to be empathic to Muddy but I think he is really offensive for such a humble but a proud man as Muddy Waters, according to the people who knew him, was. The story is denied very strongly in every source I have seen. The belief to counter it is based on that Muddy would have never acted like that in the given circumstances - by that time, no matter how his records were selling, he was a star, an artist, not anyone's "boy". So from that base I think here is a an implicit racism in Keith's story. I wonder why on earth Keith doesn't respect his "hero" any better but uses him as a just another pawn in his story-telling game?
- Doxa
I've always thought that to Keith, the story meant how ironic, and possibly disheartening, it was to meet one of your heroes, and have them be down on their luck. Especially while you are on your way up. And it was a lesson in how things can turn out, how far you can fall. How you can see someone as great, and that they must have a great life, only to learn the reality is much different. I don't think it was racist at all. He was just telling a story, and pointing out the details that stood out to him.
Also, the racism that you think the story infers is, in my opinion, very American-centric. Being an American, and from the south, the line "watching the white paint run down that great black face, and he’s smiling.", does have the scent of AMERICAN racism. BUT, and this is very important, because Keith isn't American, but is BRITISH, I don't think he would speak such words with any racist meaning. I don't think the British in general look at black people in the same way that Americans do. There is a very different history of blacks in Britain, and I don't think Keith would have been, or is, very versed in the American racist vernacular.
Can any of the people here from England verify this. Am I correct in my thinking that the racism towards blacks in England, however it might exist, is significantly different from the racism in America? I get the impression that the racism in England towards blacks is much milder than in America. That what may be racist when said by an American, would likely not be when said by a Briton. Is this true? Is Keith innocent in his way of speaking, because a Brit wouldn't think of a black guy in the same way as an American and, therefore, something that is racist when said by an American, isn't so when said by a Brit?
As far as the story itself goes, I think it's bullshit. From what I've read, Leonard loved Muddy, and whenever Muddy raised questions about, or needed, (his) money, Leonard would give him some. Or buy him a car, or whatever else he needed. Maybe not the best way to answer Muddy's concerns, but not racist either.
Sam Phillips had a habit of buying guys like Carl Perkins a Cadillac whenever they achieved a certain goal in their career. Back then the, "Don't worry, here's a Cadillac" trick was a common thing pulled by guys like Chess and Sam.
Leonard may not have always been completely honest about the money that Muddy generated and was owed for/by Chess, but he always took care of him. I don't think Leonard would have felt right making Muddy do such manual labor for pay. Plus, Muddy still made money on the road during the mid-60's. He always did. If I'm not mistaken, it was always his primary source of income.
And I don't think Muddy ever denied the story personally, because it probably never came up while he was alive. I don't know when Keith first told it, but back when Muddy was still around, I don't think it was well known like it is now.
bustedtrousers, British racism can be just as poisonous as the US variety, but it doesn't have that context of fairly recent slavery/slave ownership or that whole language of "boys" and "plantations". We have different ways of giving and taking racial offence (which I don't think I want to go into). Also, the non-white population of the UK was fairly small in the early 1960s and race/racism was only just beginning to be a significant issue. I don't think for an Englishman in the 1960s the potential racial offensiveness of this situation would be blindingly obvious. And I agree with your take on the "point" of this story as far as Keith is concerned. As I said earlier, I can't see what reason (certainly not a racist one) he would have for making this up, and it seems to be a real, vivid and significant memory for him, which is why he keeps telling it.
If it does indeed cause huge offence, a tactful person might decide that it was now time to quietly lay the story to rest - but Keith? tactful? forget it.
Quote
neptuneQuote
LeonidPQuote
with sssoul
you're overdoing it, Doxa - really
that sums it up perfectly
Here are ssoul and Leonid Brezhnev, like usual, protecting their hero Keith Richards. Whenever someone questions the character of Keith "The Great", they, like firemen, have to arrive on the scene and furiously douse the flames with their endless rationalizations. I happen to agree 100% with Doxa. Keith is a presumptuous brat coming from pleasant England commmenting on how Muddy 'might' have paid the bills in 1964 without any regard for his privacy. Some things are better left unsaid.
Yes, definitely possible that Keith's memory has been altered. Still anyone that tries to bring up the race card w/ Keith (not you, of course), especially in regards to Muddy Waters, has no idea how much respect & love Keith has shown Muddy over the years, up until Muddy's death.Quote
GazzaQuote
LeonidP
[Nothing at all. It's an observation from Keith. Too many people read way too much into it. It's an unbelievable stretch to equate this with picking cotton if the fields for the white man. And still it's possible that this story is true. It's been told by Keith for years, and though Muddy's family might say it's inaccurate, I've never read that Muddy himself, while alive, has ever denied it.
Well, maybe he was unaware of the story. I dont recall it being mentioned by Keith prior to the interview for "25 x 5" in 1989. Muddy had been dead for over six years by that point.
I agree with your comment that to equate Keith's quote with racism to be preposterous.