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?

There is one page where neighbours is spelt 'neighbors' - surely an error?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
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

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.

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
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

No doubt there is some truth in that psycho analysis...but then again don't we all tell our story in such a way and describe those we interact with in a certain way to make ourselves look/feel better?

+1[/quote]

No doubt there is some truth in that psycho analysis...but then again don't we all tell our story in such a way and describe those we interact with in a certain way to make ourselves look/feel better?[/quote]


Yeah but we're not surrounded by a staff, cameras, yes-men and fans. And we dont get paid.
As years go by you change opinions about people, you probably reflect on your life, grow older (not wiser). In a way I'd prefer a book where he digs down deep in what he thinks and feels created all those songs, riffs and live moments.

Quote
Big Al
There is one page where neighbours is spelt 'neighbors' - surely an error?

The book uses American english, even though the author(s) are British.

As noted in another post, Satisfaction is not in open G.

C

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?

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
with sssoul
you're overdoing it, Doxa - really

that sums it up perfectly

Quote
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
Bärs
But it's clear that Muddy helped the white kids with their gear. How is that not slavery?

That kind of statement is assuming and implying that Muddy was forced to help them, if that is indeed what you are saying, with a gun held to his head or various other forms of torture to motivate. Even if he wasn't Muddy Waters and was some other black person that worked at the studio and the job description included 'help loading gear in' then how is that slavery? What if it was some Spanish person - a Mexican - what would that be then? If it was a white person it wouldn't be slavery? It could be, in Europe.

There are plenty of black people in the United States that do painting for a JOB. It means nothing who they are doing it for - a home owner - and who is their employer - the dude who gave them a JOB - and what colour they are.

Don't know if the Muddy story is true or not - however, I don't think Keith or anyone else was trying to low-rate the great Muddy.

Muddy might have been trying to pick up a few extra bucks (or the secretary). Hell, I've painted ceilings (so did Michaelfuckingangelo) - no shame in that.

Can someone Photoshop these together fer me?

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Can someone Photoshop these together fer me?

that is too f'in funny

LOL Elmo. You are so right. This is really getting too f u c k i n g ridiculous

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

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Can someone Photoshop these together fer me?

Sounds like a job for schillid.

I'll be here all week/weak.

Bada-bing,Bada-boom!!

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
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
lem motlow

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
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.

douchebag? ... nice! follow along with me for a moment. You weren't there. Neither was I. I am only saying that it's possible. Of course I don't know for sure. You state matter of factly:'the great blues master never painted a f/cking ceiling.' Umm, I think that qualifies you as the douchebag, sorry.

And you need to brush up on some history. Some of these blues musicians were not making much money. That's a fact. They didn't get paid like the popular pop artists of the later 50s & 60s. It's not out of the question that some of them would have to do some odd jobs to make ends meet. In fact, what you call demeaning is actually admirable, imo.


And read Keith's quote:
---------------------------------
[www.timeisonourside.com]

I have several memories of Muddy Waters. The weirdest one is when we first went into Chess Studios in '64, the first time we came here... There's Phil Chess and there's Ron Malo, the engineer, and this guy in white overalls painting the ceiling. As we walked by into the studio, somebody said, Oh, by the way, this is Muddy Waters, and he's painting the ceiling. He wasn't selling records at the time, and this is the way he got treated... I'm dying, right? I get to meet The Man - he's my @#$%& god, right - and he's painting the ceiling! And I'm gonna work in his studios. Ouch! Oh, this is the record business, right?... And bless him. When we started the Rolling Stones, we were just little kids, right? We felt we had some of the licks down, but our aim was to turn other people on to Muddy Waters.

- Keith Richards, 1992
---------------------------------

So if you can further follow along here ... Keith is stating this fact (as he sees it, yes i will concede that it is possibly not true) as something incredulous to him. His idol is making ends meet by painting the ceiling. "Ouch, Oh this is the record business, right?" ... he is stating this in terms of his own possible demise. So how is this demeaning in any way? He is stating what he believes is a fact - not demeaning at all, nor in any way, shape or form. I could only take this as "wow, I may be doing the same thing one day".

Next, Bill Wyman. He supposedly states the story is false, but he does say that Muddy helped them carry in their equipment. How is it that Bill's story is not questioned, yet you only question Keith's? And if Keith saying that he was painting the ceiling is demeaning, then how is Wyman's comment also not demeaning? Either way, has it come to a point that you cannot state what a person is doing without fear of being demeaning? So the janitor at my workplace happens to be a black man. Can I not tell a new worker that he is the janitor? I guess not, that would be demeaning and/or racist. I suppose I'll just say "I don't know why that guy is walking around our building" just to be safe.

Next, Marshall Chess. Keith states in Life that Marshall denies it, but Keith also says Marshall was just a kid and wasn't there at the time. If this is something that Muddy did as a one-off then Marshall may not be aware that this even happened. It doesn't prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that Keith made it up. This makes you a double-douchebag for jumping to such an absolute conclusion.

And another thing is a comment by Andrew Loog Oldham, stating that Brian was "incredulous" as seeing Muddy painting the ceiling. Brian is dead of course, but here is Andrew's words:

-----------------------------
2Stoned
Written and Produced by
Andrew Loog Oldham

[www.loog2stoned.com]

the trip to Chicago
and Chess recording studios. Brian would be incredulous at the
fact that he’d discovered one of his musical heroes at the studio
painting the ceiling. Muddy Waters was up a ladder when they
arrived and had climbed down to welcome the Stones and help
carry their guitars into the building.
-----------------------------

So if you believe the part about him carrying equipment (which even Wyman confirms) then you have to wonder why Muddy was there at all. Certainly he wasn't recording at the time - no mention of other band members - and no mention of watching their hero in the studio for the 1st time. It just could be conceivable that he was trying to earn some extra cash.


Lastly are comments from Muddy himself:

-----------------------------
[www.timeisonourside.com]

When I started out, they called my music nigger music. People wouldn't let that kind of music into the house. The Beatles started, but the Rolling Stones really made my kind of music acceptable. I really respect them for opening doors for black music. The Stones made all that possible. I'll tell ya, the guitar player ain't bad either.

- Muddy Waters
-----------------------------

So the Stones "opened the door for black music" and "made all that possible". And "peope wouldn't let that kind of music into the house". Wow, I take this to mean he wasn't making a ton of dough back then, and certainly have to consider it possible that he would do odd jobs to make ends meet. Again, I stress 'possible'.

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.

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.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
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.

Wasn't there another Keith story about Sonny Boy or Little Walter in the Chess studios that supposedly had them (according to a few people): laughing on the floor / scared to death? That one was denied too by a few people, can't remember what the story was.

Quote
Bliss
Well Keith certainly seems to believe it. Was he hallucinating?

Yeah, too much paint-thinner in the air.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 04:08 by neptune.

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
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
neptune

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
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.

Well said Neptune. The only thing you left out is how condescending ssshe is most of the time.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
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.

Thank you for the reply Green Lady. I had the feeling that England is as you describe it. And as a result of that context you mention, Keith's "white paint/black face" comment really can't be construed as racial, in the way it could be if said by an American. You guys don't have that horrific master/slave/plantation history, so you don't think in those terms.

When it comes to Keith's story, I think the problem is this. In America, we have painted ourselves into such a corner with racism, that any story which contains a perfectly innocent and descriptive detail, like what Keith said about Muddy's black face, can automatically run the risk of being labeled as racist. And the really sad part is, if Keith were American and I didn't know better of him, I myself may very well have taken some of what he said as racist.

Sadly, I'm not surprised to hear it isn't necessarily any better in the UK, just different. Unfortunately, that seems to be that case all over the world.

Quote
neptune

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
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.

I don't see it as protecting Keith. I see it as trying to look at it objectively. I am only saying that it's possible the story is true. Keith was there. You weren't. To be sure that the story is not true is just asinine on anyone's part. Even if not true, I don't see why Keith needs protecting. It's not a bad story even if made up, and certainly not a racist story.

BTW, aren't you the one that started the post stating that Keith changed history in his book, giving credit to Stu for starting the Stones instead of Brian ... then after everyone got in a big 2 day fight about it, I looked up the quote in the book and saw this was never mentioned (rather Keith merely praises Stu highly for sticking with them, never saying he started the band). You are very credible.

Quote
Gazza

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.

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.

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.