Quote
LeonidP

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.

Quote
Rockman


................................Keith Richards 1997

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Rockman


................................Keith Richards 1997

it just....blows me away that he can say something that silly and ridiculous with a straight face.

"i've spent half my life in back rooms with black guys"-no keith,you've spent 2/3s of your life living in mansions and being shuttled around the world in private planes and the other 3rd back in london your skinny white ass was not hangin in any back room with the brothers.

to me the other side of the tracks is where i can really rest" ah ha ha ha ha ha really???? holy f/cking shit!!!!

its actually like when my little niece would say"i've been outside ,flying with birds"and everyone would say"wow,great" the sad thing is there are actual adults that listen to keiths nonsense and not only take it as true but as gospel. vanilla ice didnt have this much nerve,i mean really dont you guys ever feel even a little embarrassed?

keith really has become what we call in america a celebretard.they live in such a bubble that they dont even understand the basic idea of being condescending.keith,those people you're "hangin with" have job titles,they work for you.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Rockman


................................Keith Richards 1997

it just....blows me away that he can say something that silly and ridiculous with a straight face.

"i've spent half my life in back rooms with black guys"-no keith,you've spent 2/3s of your life living in mansions and being shuttled around the world in private planes and the other 3rd back in london your skinny white ass was not hangin in any back room with the brothers.

to me the other side of the tracks is where i can really rest" ah ha ha ha ha ha really???? holy f/cking shit!!!!

its actually like when my little niece would say"i've been outside ,flying with birds"and everyone would say"wow,great" the sad thing is there are actual adults that listen to keiths nonsense and not only take it as true but as gospel. vanilla ice didnt have this much nerve,i mean really dont you guys ever feel even a little embarrassed?

keith really has become what we call in america a celebretard.they live in such a bubble that they dont even understand the basic idea of being condescending.keith,those people you're "hangin with" have job titles,they work for you.

Quote
bustedtrousers

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
crumbling_mice
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?

Quote
Bliss
My recollection of this is that Keith's mother Doris had serious objections to Anita from the very beginning, and this was exacerbated when Anita couldn't manage Angela very well on the road (Anita's report). Doris pretty much insisted on taking Angela with her to Dartford to raise her.

Quote
crumbling_mice
Charone's book is one of my favourites too and I thank you for clarifying the bit prior to the toronto bust... I tend to believe her timelines more than the ones in Life. I was about 19 when I read it so didn't pick up on the Dandelion thing. I'd bought into the Charone outlook I think, but now you point it out, yeah it's a strange way to live, but as Keith states in Life, it was done to give her stability (don't know why that didn't apply to Marlon!) Maybe it was part of Charone's deal, that she wasn't to discuss Dandelion in any depth so she could have as normal a life as possible in Dartford?

Quote
Bliss
Doris was a very strong-minded woman and Keith was close to her til she died at a very old age. Anita wouldn't have stood a chance against her, considering her long crime sheet.

But it's clear that both Keith and Anita favoured Marlon. Angela was born with a harelip and had difficulty talking. I have read that Marlon bullied her cruelly. Being taken by Doris was probably the best thing that could have happened to her.

Quote
Daffodil

Quote
Bliss
Doris was a very strong-minded woman and Keith was close to her til she died at a very old age. Anita wouldn't have stood a chance against her, considering her long crime sheet.

But it's clear that both Keith and Anita favoured Marlon. Angela was born with a harelip and had difficulty talking. I have read that Marlon bullied her cruelly. Being taken by Doris was probably the best thing that could have happened to her.

My main point still is at Doris "took" Dandelion because she was neglected and deserted. She didn't "take" Marlon because Marlon was cared & loved by his parents, however unconventional his upbringing might have been.

Plus that Anita isn't/wasn't a weak woman either. If she (and Keith) had wanted to keep Dandelion, she/they would have. For some reason, they didn't really care about her.

As I wrote earlier (and you say too) , probably living with Doris was the best thing that could happen to Dandelion in the circumstances. When reading "Life", I was really disturbed when reading the account of Marlon's life in Connecticut in the early 80s, too: how he was left with the hangers-on and dealers.

That both of Keith and Anita's children have apparently grown up to be "normal" people, content with their lives, is a great thing and seems almost like a miracle. But still the "whitewashing" of these events and Dandelion's early childhood in particular bothers me.

Quote
Rockman


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 ...

Quote
Daffodil

Quote
crumbling_mice
Charone's book is one of my favourites too and I thank you for clarifying the bit prior to the toronto bust... I tend to believe her timelines more than the ones in Life. I was about 19 when I read it so didn't pick up on the Dandelion thing. I'd bought into the Charone outlook I think, but now you point it out, yeah it's a strange way to live, but as Keith states in Life, it was done to give her stability (don't know why that didn't apply to Marlon!) Maybe it was part of Charone's deal, that she wasn't to discuss Dandelion in any depth so she could have as normal a life as possible in Dartford?

You're welcome! I'm glad someone else also appreciates Charone's book, since for a book written from the perspective of a journalist fan`/ press assistant/officer / whatever she was for Keith in the late 70, I think it is a remarkably clear-headed account of Keith's life around 1977-78. Despite clearly being a "Keith fangirl" she gives quite an objective view of the sorry state Keith and Anita were in at that time. The only big thing that disturbs me, in addition to the treatment of Dandelion, is Charone's view that Keith "might actually be able to handle heroin".

As for the Dandelion case (I'm answering also to Bliss's comment here), I think Charone (and most of the other Stones writers too) have done a lot of whitewashing. It can very well be true that Doris insisted on having Dandelion, as she felt that she could give the child a better life - and most probably it is true that she got a better life with her grandmother. However, the main point of the story is that, for some reason, both Keith and Anita (I wouldn't want to put the blame entirely on Anita, as most Stones books/articles do) neglected her and lavished all their attention on Marlon. E.g. Philip Norman's Stones bio describes how Dandelion was left alone to wander around hotel corridors, and when she got sick during one tour, it was Bianca who took her to hospital and visited her there. So it really seems that, for one reason or another, Dandelion was deserted by both her parents, which is really a horrible thing.

Quote
crumbling_mice
Hmmm...Bliss, that might just explain quite a lot of the way Angela was treated as opposed to Marlon

Quote
proudmary

Quote
crumbling_mice
Hmmm...Bliss, that might just explain quite a lot of the way Angela was treated as opposed to Marlon

Why this? Mick and Anita slept during the shooting of Perfomance in the end of 1968 and Marlon was born in 1969. So why the possibility that Mick might be the father of Angela too should have had more impact on Keith?
And Marlon as Angela are his children not Mick's. I don't even believe that Mick had an afair with Anita in 71.

Quote
mickscarey
who cares