Btw I think this is a photo of Mick and Keith mocking, as they saw it, Brian's way non existent neck and/or mocking the briaN apparently clicnched his head in to his neck.

[streetfightingman.tumblr.com]

Watch fink?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty
I kinda miss the time when I knew very little about them and just loved the music.

I think it is like Dylan sings "What looks large from the distance is never that big when comes near". Perhaps with The Stones is better just to dig the myth, the image, the supposed coolness (there once was that!), not to really dig it up and try to find out what they and their life really is like. It's the great music and interesting, mysterious aura surrounding it (because hey once were an original, unique top-class phenomenon in the phase of rock and roll culture shaping itself). I never took Sanchez's book so seriously, nor Scaduto's - funnily they somehow made them even look more mysterious, dark and cool...but I didn't thought or reflect the claims of the books too deeply. But if Keith Richards decides to share the dirty details of it in 550 pages, well - you are forced to see the reality of the small-mindness of their (his) life. You cannot esacape it, you need to take it seriously. And it's bloody wicked life. To my eyes Keith in trying to maintain his image, he succeeds in shooting to its leg. I don't think it is intentional. It sounds more like all Keith any longer can do is to 'share the dirty details of the life that once made him a legend'. He is milking out his own image and legend ("Hey, don't go yet! I have one more good druggie story to tell ya!") But the book sells like a Rolling Stones warhorses tour...

- Doxa

I don't know. To me, it's an honest book, in the sense of telling the truth as he sees it. I don't see anything much in the book we didn't know, as others have said. Actually I found Clapton's a little more disturbing. Most who feel "soured" by Life don't seem to feel that same way about Mick when details about his life come out. Mick didn't come off too well in Bill German's book.

What about Keith makes people so prone to romanticize him or idealize him, at least before the book? Is that because he is perceived as the "heart" of the Rolling Stones?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-07 03:03 by angee.

Quote
angee
Most who feel "soured" by Life don't seem to feel that same way about Mick when details about his life come out. Mick didn't come off too well in Bill German's book.

but mick doesn't boast about his deeds or misdeeds, angee. No doubt he has an ego, but at least in public he usually tries to dismiss his mythology.

Quote

What about Keith makes people so prone to romanticize him or idealize him, at least before the book? Is that because he is perceived as the "heart" of the Rolling Stones?

I think that's right, and hopefully that perception has now been corrected. Even if, musically, there's a great deal of truth to it, at least until the early '70s.

Quote
cc

Quote
angee
Most who feel "soured" by Life don't seem to feel that same way about Mick when details about his life come out. Mick didn't come off too well in Bill German's book.

but mick doesn't boast about his deeds or misdeeds, angee. No doubt he has an ego, but at least in public he usually tries to dismiss his mythology.

Quote

What about Keith makes people so prone to romanticize him or idealize him, at least before the book? Is that because he is perceived as the "heart" of the Rolling Stones?

I think that's right, and hopefully that perception has now been corrected. Even if, musically, there's a great deal of truth to it, at least until the early '70s.

Keith's been pretty modest in public too though, don't you think, cc?
I think a book is different, an autobiography, a tricky piece of work, as far as tone, style, what to include.

On the last part, thanks. Hmm, maybe even longer than that.

Quote
angee

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty
I kinda miss the time when I knew very little about them and just loved the music.

I think it is like Dylan sings "What looks large from the distance is never that big when comes near". Perhaps with The Stones is better just to dig the myth, the image, the supposed coolness (there once was that!), not to really dig it up and try to find out what they and their life really is like. It's the great music and interesting, mysterious aura surrounding it (because hey once were an original, unique top-class phenomenon in the phase of rock and roll culture shaping itself). I never took Sanchez's book so seriously, nor Scaduto's - funnily they somehow made them even look more mysterious, dark and cool...but I didn't thought or reflect the claims of the books too deeply. But if Keith Richards decides to share the dirty details of it in 550 pages, well - you are forced to see the reality of the small-mindness of their (his) life. You cannot esacape it, you need to take it seriously. And it's bloody wicked life. To my eyes Keith in trying to maintain his image, he succeeds in shooting to its leg. I don't think it is intentional. It sounds more like all Keith any longer can do is to 'share the dirty details of the life that once made him a legend'. He is milking out his own image and legend ("Hey, don't go yet! I have one more good druggie story to tell ya!") But the book sells like a Rolling Stones warhorses tour...

- Doxa

I don't know. To me, it's an honest book, in the sense of telling the truth as he sees it. I don't see anything much in the book we didn't know, as others have said. Actually I found Clapton's a little more disturbing. Most who feel "soured" by Life don't seem to feel that same way about Mick when details about his life come out. Mick didn't come off too well in Bill German's book.

What about Keith makes people so prone to romanticize him or idealize him, at least before the book? Is that because he is perceived as the "heart" of the Rolling Stones?

It's because Keith is perceived as one of the people, down-to-earth, whereas Mick is perceived as living in the rarified atmosphere of the jet-setting super-rich. Also, Keith is thought to be very open and warm in interviews, whereas Mick is always distant and closed.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty
I kinda miss the time when I knew very little about them and just loved the music.

I think it is like Dylan sings "What looks large from the distance is never that big when comes near". - Doxa

or even "close up ain't never that big." bob was never particularly good with proper english...

I stand to be corretced, my memory, nor my English, is never that good. The correct line, in its holy bobness goes:

"What looks large from a distance,
Close up ain't never that big"

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-07 10:03 by Doxa.

Quote
Bliss
Once upon a time Keith and I were in perfect harmony:

when we both loved Mick

when we both thought drugs were a fine road to self-discovery

when I did not know that he had ripped off Mick Taylor and others

when I had not yet read Spanish Tony's book in 1979

when there wasn't such a trail of corpses behind him

when he was still quite beautiful to look at

when I hadn't paid a fortune for concert tickets and he was drunk onstage

and when his current playing and composing were superb and giving me great joy.

But things have changed a lot since those days.

I admit that I found some things really contemptible:

His trashing of Mick's reputation as a sex god, whilst elevating himself, despite a lot of prior evidence to the contrary

His horribly mean-spirited remarks about Brian, Donald Cammell and Scott Cantrell

His complete revision of history, including an imaginary liaison with Marianne when she was known to have been pregnant in Ireland at the time, and the nonsense about seeing Muddy Waters painting the ceiling at Chess Records

His lack of knowledge about the burial of his dead child

His nostalgic elevation of Anita in view of his wife Patti's loyalty and intrinsic worth

His references to women as "bitches".

However, my opinion of him cannot diminish in response to anything he says or writes in the same way it probably could have in the past.

You know, the way you put it in a list like that, that's basically how I feel. How I went from thinking when I was young, wow, he's really cool, to thinking, as I got older and learned more about him, well, you know, that really isn't so cool. Neither is that. And especially that.

If I had a friend who did even some of the thing's Keith's done, I don't think I'd stay friend's with him, regardless of who he was, and what he did for a living.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
angee

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty
I kinda miss the time when I knew very little about them and just loved the music.

I think it is like Dylan sings "What looks large from the distance is never that big when comes near". Perhaps with The Stones is better just to dig the myth, the image, the supposed coolness (there once was that!), not to really dig it up and try to find out what they and their life really is like. It's the great music and interesting, mysterious aura surrounding it (because hey once were an original, unique top-class phenomenon in the phase of rock and roll culture shaping itself). I never took Sanchez's book so seriously, nor Scaduto's - funnily they somehow made them even look more mysterious, dark and cool...but I didn't thought or reflect the claims of the books too deeply. But if Keith Richards decides to share the dirty details of it in 550 pages, well - you are forced to see the reality of the small-mindness of their (his) life. You cannot esacape it, you need to take it seriously. And it's bloody wicked life. To my eyes Keith in trying to maintain his image, he succeeds in shooting to its leg. I don't think it is intentional. It sounds more like all Keith any longer can do is to 'share the dirty details of the life that once made him a legend'. He is milking out his own image and legend ("Hey, don't go yet! I have one more good druggie story to tell ya!") But the book sells like a Rolling Stones warhorses tour...

- Doxa

I don't know. To me, it's an honest book, in the sense of telling the truth as he sees it. I don't see anything much in the book we didn't know, as others have said. Actually I found Clapton's a little more disturbing. Most who feel "soured" by Life don't seem to feel that same way about Mick when details about his life come out. Mick didn't come off too well in Bill German's book.

What about Keith makes people so prone to romanticize him or idealize him, at least before the book? Is that because he is perceived as the "heart" of the Rolling Stones?

It's because Keith is perceived as one of the people, down-to-earth, whereas Mick is perceived as living in the rarified atmosphere of the jet-setting super-rich. Also, Keith is thought to be very open and warm in interviews, whereas Mick is always distant and closed.

Exactly. Like Bliss describes that is the old, romantic picture we get to know in the 70's, and very much established during the 80's (Keith down-to-earth-rock man vs. Mick-the spoiled jetsetter), and it sounds like most of the Stones fans still think in that kind of terms (and part of that is the belief that Keith and solely Keith is the musical heart of the Stones, and Mick is just a soulless frontman who comes up with the lyrics.) It belongs to the 'official' Rolling Stones mythology. Yeah, I guess it was true when Keith was in dopeville. But if we actually look their lives, since the 80's, I don't think there is much that difference. When MIck already duriig the 70's had fun with film stars, went to film premiers, fashion shows or whatever, what difference does it make in contrast to what Keith has now done for years (and if we read LIFE the last 20 yaers is nothing put up picking big names with whom Keith had been associated with, etc)? When Keith mocked Mick's receiving the knighthood, it was just the image-talk. The Stones, if anything, are a part of the establishment, and presidents, prime ministers in their favourite countries are/had been Stones fans for years now, etc. Keith - for his image sake - still seems to live in the 60's, 70's, and the establishment is still after him, right? Oh yeah. Occasionaly Keith - our Hollywood star - comes up with 'controversial' claims - snorting dad's ashes, etc - which shock no one but Stones fans who feel embarrassed for their idol. For the rest, he is just a stupid old man, ozzy osbourne-like funny character who is most known for taking more drugs than anyone (and staying alive).

I share the belief that LIFE is a honest book but it is honest in the sense of being all instant sentiments and feelings and no reflection at all - and that revails that either (a) it is just a role-play, and nothing serious, going there; (b) Keith really is so immature spoiled egoist and hasn't mentally deveolped one inch say, from, 1979, but quite the opposite. I think the truth goes somewhere in the middle.

I think the difference between the old Keith The Rolling Stone and the Keith The Celebrity is that the former didn't live according to any role or myth - the myth was created in the process, being a kind of by-product in the process of making passionate music and trying to stay alive (by living a certain life). But the latter just tries to live according to the myth created by the former, and for that reason, it is never that convincing or 'cool'. To say it frankly, while the former was honest, the latter is phony. I think there is a clear distinction.

As for the Jagger-Richards image confrontation - no matter what is revealed of Mick does not really hurt his image because he is officially known to be a bastard. (And being elegantly, gentlemen-like quiet while Keith - and others like Marianne Faithfull - bullshitts, does work for Mick nowadays, actually). Mick can only surprise us Rolling Stones fans positively (like we understand more of his contribution and significance to the evolution of the band, etc.). But Keith - the coolest guy once ever lived, the heart of the band - has only one route: spoiling his image (and supposed role within the band). And as far as I am concerned, he has succeeded greatly in it! Some of it surely to do with the truth finally coming out.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-07 11:17 by Doxa.

Keith deserves a Brian-deluxe helmet.

Quote
Bliss
It's because Keith is perceived as one of the people, down-to-earth, whereas Mick is perceived as living in the rarified atmosphere of the jet-setting super-rich. Also, Keith is thought to be very open and warm in interviews, whereas Mick is always distant and closed.

Yes, and that's strange that Keith was seen this way, a "down-to-earth" guy...when they all have lived in a bubble since at least the mid 60's.

Quote
His Majesty
Well, the talk in this thread has helped lessen the sour taste, but the book has changed my perception of Keith and the Rolling Stones forever more just as Bill Wymans, Tony Sanchez's etc did.

Anyway, put all their bad points together and they really are/were quite a horrible bunch of people. Guns, Knives, women beating, screwing each others women, junkies, alcoholics, abandoning kids, mocking the dead, knowingly sleeping with underage girls etc etc. Phew!!1

It really is quite ridiculous how so many including myself are drawn to them even going as far as to having a favourite and all that stuff.

I kinda miss the time when I knew very little about them and just loved the music.

The Rolling Stones were always The Lords Of Misrule...and in our younger incarnations we reveled in that fact and deified them - I remember listening to Stray Cat Blues as a young man and the malevolent, slam-bang, paedophilic vibe giving me chills (and yes, thrills) every time - never really delving into the implications of that deviancy and ruthless misbehavior or contemplating on how profoundly corrosive that misrule could be...

...and now you find out that the Stones are just as nasty as they all along claimed to be and that our childhood heroes were not fukcing around when they sung about death, drugs, orgies, overdoses, murder, and general deviancy...they meant it, man...and you claim that they are "a horrible bunch of people"...well what did you expect...that it was "only rock and roll" and that the lashing deviancy and ruthless narcissism was all a show???!!! Well, it wasn't. Rock and Roll is a ruthless game and these cats knew how to scratch and claw and rip your neck off...

Yes, they are nasty, self-indulgent, greedy and pitiless bastards...and that is how they thrived in the best of times and survived in the worst of times - and part of what made them great and dangerous and the defining act in their genre. Anyone expecting anything else from the Stones is delusional. This is The Rolling Stones...and they don't play.

And kudos to DOXA...great and passionate posts!

There has been more thought than bitching of late and I've found a number of the recent posts to make for excellent reading with insightful analysis of the band.

Turd on the Run, what you wrote was brilliant and nearly turned into the lyrics to "Midnight Rambler" (Honey, it's no rock 'n' roll show). Well done. Many good points and food for thought.

What I kept coming back to with LIFE and this thread was Townhend's remarks when he inducted them in the Hall of Fame ("Guys, whatever you do don't try to grow old gracefully. It wouldn't suit you.")

Quote
Rocky Dijon
... Townhend's remarks when he inducted them in the Hall of Fame ("Guys, whatever you do don't try to grow old gracefully. It wouldn't suit you.")

Amen

Doxa, I agree with your point that Mick was not known as the nice guy so anything he says or does gets a different kind of attention from Keith.

I don't concur that Keith is phony now, compared to honest in the past or that there's a clear distinction, from whatever date that was. I don't
see him trying to live according to the myth, as you say, just recognizing how he's been portrayed.


Turd On the Run, excellent points about Rock and Roll and the Stones. No, they weren't kidding.

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Bliss
Once upon a time Keith and I were in perfect harmony:

when we both loved Mick

when we both thought drugs were a fine road to self-discovery

when I did not know that he had ripped off Mick Taylor and others

when I had not yet read Spanish Tony's book in 1979

when there wasn't such a trail of corpses behind him

when he was still quite beautiful to look at

when I hadn't paid a fortune for concert tickets and he was drunk onstage

and when his current playing and composing were superb and giving me great joy.

But things have changed a lot since those days.

I admit that I found some things really contemptible:

His trashing of Mick's reputation as a sex god, whilst elevating himself, despite a lot of prior evidence to the contrary

His horribly mean-spirited remarks about Brian, Donald Cammell and Scott Cantrell

His complete revision of history, including an imaginary liaison with Marianne when she was known to have been pregnant in Ireland at the time, and the nonsense about seeing Muddy Waters painting the ceiling at Chess Records

His lack of knowledge about the burial of his dead child

His nostalgic elevation of Anita in view of his wife Patti's loyalty and intrinsic worth

His references to women as "bitches".

However, my opinion of him cannot diminish in response to anything he says or writes in the same way it probably could have in the past.

You know, the way you put it in a list like that, that's basically how I feel. How I went from thinking when I was young, wow, he's really cool, to thinking, as I got older and learned more about him, well, you know, that really isn't so cool. Neither is that. And especially that.

If I had a friend who did even some of the thing's Keith's done, I don't think I'd stay friend's with him, regardless of who he was, and what he did for a living.

There is something else at work here:>> I << have changed in certain ways, and Keith has just carried on being himself.

'when we both thought drugs were a fine road to self-discovery'

That is the heart of it. To me, now, drinking and drugs are just childish escapism at best, and a way to ruin your life and everyone's around you, at worst. The more Keith waxes nostalgic for the bad old days, the more turned off I get. But I recognise it's not him; it's me.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Bliss
Once upon a time Keith and I were in perfect harmony:

when we both loved Mick

when we both thought drugs were a fine road to self-discovery

when I did not know that he had ripped off Mick Taylor and others

when I had not yet read Spanish Tony's book in 1979

when there wasn't such a trail of corpses behind him

when he was still quite beautiful to look at

when I hadn't paid a fortune for concert tickets and he was drunk onstage

and when his current playing and composing were superb and giving me great joy.

But things have changed a lot since those days.

I admit that I found some things really contemptible:

His trashing of Mick's reputation as a sex god, whilst elevating himself, despite a lot of prior evidence to the contrary

His horribly mean-spirited remarks about Brian, Donald Cammell and Scott Cantrell

His complete revision of history, including an imaginary liaison with Marianne when she was known to have been pregnant in Ireland at the time, and the nonsense about seeing Muddy Waters painting the ceiling at Chess Records

His lack of knowledge about the burial of his dead child

His nostalgic elevation of Anita in view of his wife Patti's loyalty and intrinsic worth

His references to women as "bitches".

However, my opinion of him cannot diminish in response to anything he says or writes in the same way it probably could have in the past.

You know, the way you put it in a list like that, that's basically how I feel. How I went from thinking when I was young, wow, he's really cool, to thinking, as I got older and learned more about him, well, you know, that really isn't so cool. Neither is that. And especially that.

If I had a friend who did even some of the thing's Keith's done, I don't think I'd stay friend's with him, regardless of who he was, and what he did for a living.

There is something else at work here:>> I << have changed in certain ways, and Keith has just carried on being himself.

'when we both thought drugs were a fine road to self-discovery'

That is the heart of it. To me, now, drinking and drugs are just childish escapism at best, and a way to ruin your life and everyone's around you, at worst. The more Keith waxes nostalgic for the bad old days, the more turned off I get. But I recognise it's not him; it's me.

I think you´re hitting the nail on the head there, Bliss. It is we that get older - so do our levels of what we can accept from our boys.

We knew almost everything in LIFE, and all of a sudden we won´t accept things we thought were cool 30 years ago...

Our boys?
It's no local football club.

Quote
Amsterdamned
Our boys?
It's no local football club.

once our boys, always our boys. boys will be boys and stones will be boys.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Amsterdamned
Our boys?
It's no local football club.

once our boys, always our boys. boys will be boys and stones will be boys.

Damn right you are:

Quote
angee
Doxa, I agree with your point that Mick was not known as the nice guy so anything he says or does gets a different kind of attention from Keith.

I don't concur that Keith is phony now, compared to honest in the past or that there's a clear distinction, from whatever date that was. I don't
see him trying to live according to the myth, as you say, just recognizing how he's been portrayed.


Turd On the Run, excellent points about Rock and Roll and the Stones. No, they weren't kidding.

good posts angee and Turd On The Run.
For me growing up with the Stones, along the way, I did recognize general attitudes and social norms were changing but also recognized the Stones were in their own world, making their own choices and being themselves. Hasn't diminished my love or acceptance of them a single bit,need I mention the great music that came out of it all.

Quote
Turd On The Run

...

Fair game for living the life, doing your best and/or worst, but what the ferk is all this moaning and bitching about it years after the fact!? He needs someone to say "for christ sake you old spoiled ccunt get over it already!"

"Shut up Keith!"

He claims to love and put the band first, but he's doing and has done an awful lot to mess it up! his crap petty book being the most recent.

Quote
Turd On The Run
This is The Rolling Stones...and they don't play.

Perfect summary of the modern day stones!

As for growing old gracefully... They have done mostly, unfortunately one of them has a big chip on his shoulder about issues covering more than 40 years. Bad and dangerous? Nope, just spiteful and pathetic.





Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-08 04:56 by His Majesty.

The problem's partly that things which might look attractive in the shadows don't always look so good in full light. The tone of the book doesn't help, though. He aims at being laconic and comes across as self-satisfied (which probably isn't the truth, or at least not the whole truth).
As swiss pointed out, he becomes evasive at the most difficult moments, hiding behind his role, which is understandable but which doesn't result in a very good book. All the worse when you combine it with the mean-spiritedness he shows towards others. Throughout, there's disappointingly little reflection and his judgements often seem glib and shallow (again, I'm sure there's really more to them than that but I don't think there's much more in the book).

Quote
Bliss

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Bliss
Once upon a time Keith and I were in perfect harmony:

when we both loved Mick

when we both thought drugs were a fine road to self-discovery

when I did not know that he had ripped off Mick Taylor and others

when I had not yet read Spanish Tony's book in 1979

when there wasn't such a trail of corpses behind him

when he was still quite beautiful to look at

when I hadn't paid a fortune for concert tickets and he was drunk onstage

and when his current playing and composing were superb and giving me great joy.

But things have changed a lot since those days.

I admit that I found some things really contemptible:

His trashing of Mick's reputation as a sex god, whilst elevating himself, despite a lot of prior evidence to the contrary

His horribly mean-spirited remarks about Brian, Donald Cammell and Scott Cantrell

His complete revision of history, including an imaginary liaison with Marianne when she was known to have been pregnant in Ireland at the time, and the nonsense about seeing Muddy Waters painting the ceiling at Chess Records

His lack of knowledge about the burial of his dead child

His nostalgic elevation of Anita in view of his wife Patti's loyalty and intrinsic worth

His references to women as "bitches".

However, my opinion of him cannot diminish in response to anything he says or writes in the same way it probably could have in the past.

You know, the way you put it in a list like that, that's basically how I feel. How I went from thinking when I was young, wow, he's really cool, to thinking, as I got older and learned more about him, well, you know, that really isn't so cool. Neither is that. And especially that.

If I had a friend who did even some of the thing's Keith's done, I don't think I'd stay friend's with him, regardless of who he was, and what he did for a living.

There is something else at work here:>> I << have changed in certain ways, and Keith has just carried on being himself.

'when we both thought drugs were a fine road to self-discovery'

That is the heart of it. To me, now, drinking and drugs are just childish escapism at best, and a way to ruin your life and everyone's around you, at worst. The more Keith waxes nostalgic for the bad old days, the more turned off I get. But I recognise it's not him; it's me.

That's true also, Bliss. Some of it is my age, the older I get, the more judgmental, and less tolerant, I become about such things. Especially things I never had much tolerance for to begin with, like hard drug use. Coke, heroin, stuff like that, I never thought was that cool to begin with, so when I read about guys like Keith doing that, I wasn't thrilled, but I figured they live in a different world, so whatever.

But then I started learning more about him, which did happen as I got older. Mainly because I could finally afford to buy books and other things about Keith and the Stones. I learned more about the things he's done, and that have happened, while or because he was a junkie. Along with just learning about him as a person. So some of it is me, and my morals adjusting as I age. But a lot of it I wouldn't have thought was cool even when I was 18, I just didn't know about it yet.

I've never thought that anyone who has kids they are raising, yet still carries on doing coke and whatnot, as cool. That's just never jived in my book. And the more I've heard about Keith doing that, all through the 80's and 90's (not to mention what he put Marlon through even earlier), the less respect I've had for him.

After reading the book twice and watching the interview from the NY public library I have fallen in love with the man. I was ready to crucify him based on comments I had heard before reading the book. I have since apologized.

Quote
His Majesty
Fair game for living the life, doing your best and/or worst, but what the ferk is all this moaning and bitching about it years after the fact!? He needs someone to say "for christ sake you old spoiled ccunt get over it already!"

This is essentially correct. I think the ghost writer is partly responsible though. Having a friend write your autobiography is not a good strategy IMO. He should have given Keith the feedback that you suggest above.

...in the end it is still an honest book...he makes no apologies...and that's his life in a nutshell...we are left to make our own decisions...it isn't as pretty as some of us thought..the lack of accountability w/ the drugs is a huge part of that....but it's only rock n' roll...that's his point. He did it his way.

You could put together a better and more honest book from the many interviews he's done over the years. Maybe re visiting the past made him really cranky hence the petty, grumpy tone of the book.

The book is all the more frustrating due to him being more reflective in some of the interviews he did promoting it.

Is this a sign that James and/or Keith chopped away some parts where the vulnerable side of him was laid bare without any attempts at bravado to cover it up? Does Keith's personality just not transfer well to written word?

He doesn't seem to be at peace with whats happened during His life though, I feel sorry for him in a way because things like Brian, Mick allegedly bonking Anita etc still seem to be very raw subjects as if they happened yesterday. Yah really need some help there mr Richards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-08 18:06 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
You could put together a better and more honest book

Go ahead. I am looking forward to it

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

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
His Majesty
You could put together a better and more honest book

Go ahead. I am looking forward to it

Can't be bothered!

You're not!

Quote
His Majesty
Can't be bothered!

You're not!

??? ???

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