Has anyone here read Barbara Charone's book on Keith? She lived with Keith and Anita in the period before, during and after he was busted in Toronto. I seem to remember that prior to going to Toronto she describes living with them at Redlands, yet in Life, Keith describes being in central london in the time before he goes. I've searched for my Charone book to check it's not me that is recalling it incorrectly but lord knows where I've put it. Can anyone pour some clarity on this?

Barbara Charone had great access, but her book is full of factual errors.

yes, there are some things in Life that Keith remembers differently than other writers,
but an autobiography isn't an encyclopedia. it's how Keith remembers those things.

there are also a couple of bits in Life that the researchers/editors got wrong.
those are unfortunate - but there's really only a small handful of them.

I agree ssoul...but was just wondering which of the two accounts was the correct one and whether it was my memory playing up.

Yes, I'm sure theres always a few inaccuracies. Like the "Muddy" story that just about everyone else disputes but maybe its just one of those you tell so long you think it may be true! All an all, I think Keith's SEEMS more honest and at least tries to stay in line as opposed to say,Ronnie's! I very much enjoyed Ron's book but it was full of shit as a christmas turkey.lol!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 20:38 by scottkeef.

lol...I wonder what we should believe and what we shouldn't - I always liked the Muddy painting the ceiling story, at least some things are corroborated by third parties so such books as Woody's, Keith's Clapton's et al are worth the read and the rest we take with a pinch of salt...or coke!

When Keith talks about firing Brian, he says he and Mick went down. I've always read that Charlie was with them, too. Also, in the photos, the 72 lineup rehearsing says all minus Charlie but you can see his head behind Keith.

>> Also, in the photos ... <<

yeah there are a few mistakes in the photo captions
(that's most of what i meant by errors intruded by researchers/editors)
there's a 1976 Putland shot marked 73, and they've got the wrong venue under the New Barbarians shot -
but you can also tell they really didi try to get the details right.
i bet those particular errors are what the photographers told them

The situation when Freddie Sessler was arrested in Las Vegas was said to have happened in 1999 in Keith's book and in 1994 in Bill German's book.

As far as the Muddy story, 50% of those there, Bill & Keith, confirm the painting story. (the two with the best memories). So Charlie & Mick dispute it?

There's a few timeline issues as I've gone through 'Life', but not enough to make me stop, and not enough to question the general veracity of the book. Thank god I didn't pay to read that Ron Wood garbage.

Quote
24FPS
As far as the Muddy story, 50% of those there, Bill & Keith, confirm the painting story. (the two with the best memories). So Charlie & Mick dispute it?

There's a few timeline issues as I've gone through 'Life', but not enough to make me stop, and not enough to question the general veracity of the book. Thank god I didn't pay to read that Ron Wood garbage.

Bill actually denies the story, according to a credible, cited post by Doxa

Quote
erikjjf
The situation when Freddie Sessler was arrested in Las Vegas was said to have happened in 1999 in Keith's book and in 1994 in Bill German's book.

It was 94. I was with Freddie after the fact.

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

I always find the relations of time and places in these biographies hazy, to say the least

i know i've already implied this, but: to me a biographer has a lot more responsibility for factual accuracy
than anyone writing their autobiography. autobiographers' misrecollections are a glimpse of how their memory works
and if one's interested in the subject/author, one can find those glimpses interesting as well.
a biographer's mistakes on the other hand are just research breakdowns.

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



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 11:41 by Doxa.

you're overdoing it, Doxa - really

Quote
with sssoul
you're overdoing it, Doxa - really

Please specify.'

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 11:35 by Doxa.

I also have implied it before on this board that the point of an autobiography is much
different than the point of a biography. The main reason for reading an autobiography
is to get to know what motivated the person to live the life he lived, in what way his
experiences during his life had impact on his work, and to find the central themes that defined
the life of the person.

There is absolutely no need for the author of an autobiography to give an objective and accurate
report of what happened. The value is in the subjectiveness of the story. If you find
that Keith' story differs from the factual reports by other biographs, don't point your
finger at the fault, but try to find out what he is telling you about himself by giving
you his interpretation of what happened.

That being said, I still consider it a missed chance that Keith did not ask our department
of historic accuracy to help him out with the writing of Life. Just because it would
have been good fun!

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

There's no racism there whatsoever, quite the opposite, imo.

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

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

Very well said sssoul and marco about the point of an autobiography

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

this is a fly s***, if even that, in Keith and Muddy's story. We all must have memories of which we can't let go, no matter if they're true or false, Who gives a ----!

YEAH that Keith ...So disrespectful ta Muddy and Muddy so rude ta Charlie ....

Heck the shakin' from laughter is nearly enough to stop ya playin' their records for a m..m..minute or t..t..two ...



ROCKMAN

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



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 13:16 by Doxa.

Quote
Keef
and it made me think, you didn’t have to be a loudmouth.

Maybe here's the quintessense of the story?

a completely idiotic story that offends everyone in the blues community.i read alot of blues magazines and this story has come up more than once.

from muddys family to his fellow musicians and others who were around at the time,every one of them and i mean every one has lambasted this story.

the great blues master never painted a f/cking ceiling.

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.

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

Mistaken identity? I can see why Keith refuses to lose face by denying the story after all this time, but I can't see what motive he could have had for inventing this vivid visual memory.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
with sssoul
you're overdoing it, Doxa - really

Please specify.'

- Doxa

I think about what it says about the Chess guys - all of a sudden, they become akin to slave owners - all thanks to Keith's story - look, he clearly reveres muddy and the others, and it seems pretty obvious to most by now he was exaggerating to make a point - plenty of artists do it- but what may have seemed innocent as a tale back then, today, has not aged well



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 16:52 by hbwriter.

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

If Muddy was a helpful man I don't see anything strange with Muddy hanging around and doing a little paint job somewhere in the studio - for free or for a salary. Keith's interpretation of the scene (Muddy didn't sell reords etc.) might be his own, but seeing Muddy move a brush that day might very well be true.

How can we even expect stories like these to be verified? It's naive to believe that every time someone sees us touch a brush it must be verified by several others - otherwise s/he who saw is a lier (or racist).