Now that I've read both of these guys auto-bios I've got definite opinions on their approaches.

Have many of you read these two, and how would you compare them?

Townshend's was better and more insightful and soul-searching.

Keith's was funnier, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 01:36 by Gazza.

Keith was being Keef and he used a writer. Pete was being Pete and he actually wrote it himself.

I like both of them though and am glad they did them.

Pete wrote his himself, sober, whereas Keith dictated his, drunk, to be transcribed by a hired writer. However, both tended to merely skim over the most recent 30 years and both dwelled heavily on their formative years growing up in post-War England--which makes each revealing on that level--and also devoted a fair stretch to their glory years as emerging musicians in the 60s. Pete's book is more introspective and soul-searching--therapeutic and cathartic in that regard--whereas Keith's is more self-glorifying and self-mythologizing, in that after reading it he appears exactly the same as he does in his many latter-day magazine interviews.

Quote
stonehearted
Pete wrote his himself, sober, whereas Keith dictated his, drunk, to be transcribed by a hired writer. However, both tended to merely skim over the most recent 30 years and both dwelled heavily on their formative years growing up in post-War England--which makes each revealing on that level--and also devoted a fair stretch to their glory years as emerging musicians in the 60s. Pete's book is more introspective and soul-searching--therapeutic and cathartic in that regard--whereas Keith's is more self-glorifying and self-mythologizing, in that after reading it he appears exactly the same as he does in his many latter-day magazine interviews.

Thats kind of what I was trying to say, but couldnt quite express.

I should use you as my ghost-writer.

The best part of Keith's book by far was the part about his childhood. Pete's early pre-Who years was amongst the most interesting of his book too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 02:04 by Gazza.

I read both, and would say maybe Pete should have used Keith's writer. I just found Keith's a livelier read. (I did learn Peter kicked heroin in a house down the hill from where I live, which was a major surprise.) But I'm not nearly as big a Pete fan as I am a Keith fan, and that certainly colored my opinion of the books.

I have read both plus Bobby Keys book as well and about to read Rod Stewart's.

I was a bit disappointed with Pete's book - he is full of self doubt and also quite antagonistic towards Roger Daltrey. Pete's childhood whilst somewhat interesting was a bit long, plus I never got the feel for the music that the Who created apart from Tommy and Pete's obsession with writing another rock opera.

It's been a while since I've picked up Keith's book my wife is now reading it, his stories were far more accurate than Bobby's especially around the '73 tour of Australia.

pool's in but the patio ain't dry

Pete's was a true autobiography. Written by the person who lived the life. Keith's was a long interview with all his usual bravado and self aggrandizement. It was fun to read, yet didn't require me to think much, and seemed at times very cloying and self serving. Pete's was not as intense as I thought it would be, and did skim over a lot of stuff, but also I think he wrote from his heart. The beginning half of the book was very well written, and interesting. The last half seemed rushed, and I have seen interviews with Pete where he said it was going to be a lot longer, but his publishing company wanted it shorter. He said he has thought about releasing another volume, which would be good. I didn't think he was unkind to Roger, in fact I was expecting more about his relationships with his fellow who, and there really wasn't a lot. He has said in interviews he purposely did not want to write about his relations as it was too biased and also not the point of the book. Good for him, but also it did leave me wanting more insights into his relations with his fellow Whoers.

There was a good thread about Pete's book when it was first published. Here it is.

[www.iorr.org]

The initial thread on Keith's book was a monster!

Quote
winos
I was a bit disappointed with Pete's book - he is full of self doubt

...yes, as in his life and as such it is authentic.

Pete's book is written while Keith's is dictated. That's obvious. I wish Pete's was longer, since he can remember more, it seems. However, I was disapointed that there was more pages about Teresa Russell than certain Who albums.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 05:56 by tomk.

I liked both. But of the two I liked Keith's book a little more as I think it covered more ground, but by no means complete.

Pete's book was interesting but I guess it was a case of expecting too much and I think both books probably suffered from the publishers/editors chopping block and demands. I hope there are more books coming out.

Keith's made an impression ...Pete's gave me depression ..



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Keith's made an impression ...Pete's gave me depression ..

Beautifully put Rockman!!

pool's in but the patio ain't dry

Quote
tomk
Pete's book is written while Keith's is dictated. That's obvious.

I don't really get the distinction, though. They're Keith's words, whether they're oral originally or written. And Pete's words, even if originally written, would have been heavily edited, trust me. So it's not like one of them flew solo and the other just put the plane on autopilot.



Actually now I think about it, I don't see why these two books are being compared, any more than any other two autobiographies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 10:09 by Aquamarine.

Some parts of Life appeared earlier in Barbara Charone book and others, it just seems like they've been taken, but edited and added to a bit. It's not a case of things being the same because it's the same stories, it's nearly word for word copy and paste. Just some parts about Brian and Brian-Anita-Keith stuff.

Although funnily in 70's Keith didn't see himself as a Sir Galahad type figure when recounting that episode, he did in life.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
tomk
Pete's book is written while Keith's is dictated. That's obvious.

I don't really get the distinction, though. They're Keith's words, whether they're oral originally or written. And Pete's words, even if originally written, would have been heavily edited, trust me. So it's not like one of them flew solo and the other just put the plane on autopilot.



Actually now I think about it, I don't see why these two books are being compared, any more than any other two autobiographies.

Aquamarine, you always manage to say what I think, but express it much more eloquently!

Pete turned out to be boring, Keith is really entertaining

- and I bet both of them selected what they really wanted to say, and left lot of things unsaid.. I take both books with grain of salt.

Quote
seitan
Pete turned out to be boring, Keith is really entertaining

- and I bet both of them selected what they really wanted to say, and left lot of things unsaid.. I take both books with grain of salt.

Pete admitted to passing out in a pool of his own feces after being rejected by the B-List movie actress, Theresa Russell. If that's being selective about the things he wanted to leave unsaid, then I can't even begin to imagine what those things might be.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-26 15:43 by tatters.

some good view points here by you all, thanks! I'm a major stones fan since childhood and still am, not so much the who although I do like a lot of things. Keith's book seems like he is always blaming others, primarily Mick for his misfortune and how poorly treated he is. It gets boring quickly, just like Steven Tyler's book always blaming and pointing a finger at Joe Perry. Keith literally does roll through life.

Pete's is different in that he blames himself for his poor marriage and addictions, but despite he knows better and cleans his act up periodically, still succumbs to his affairs, tempers and treating his family and band members terribly along the way. A very complicated character.

Quote
tatters

Quote
seitan
Pete turned out to be boring, Keith is really entertaining

- and I bet both of them selected what they really wanted to say, and left lot of things unsaid.. I take both books with grain of salt.

Pete admitted to passing out in a pool of his own feces after being rejected by the B-List movie actress, Theresa Russell. If that's being selective about the things he wanted to leave unsaid, then I can't even begin to imagine what those things might be.

The bit about Theresa Russell is significant, because from that episode Pete composed the last hit song The Who ever had.





Regarding what was left out, that was just the work of the editors trimming for commercial length. During his promo book tour Pete explained why this was done and even alluded to some parts that were cut, like a lengthy bit on the political and cultural influences behind the early Who track Rael for instance. Pete mentioned that these expurgated parts might appear online at some point.

Keith's book ripped the scab off his relationship with Jagger. Wasn't necessary. Petty.

Quote
ifyacantrockme
Keith's book seems like he is always blaming others, primarily Mick for his misfortune and how poorly treated he is.

Seriously? I didn't perceive him as playing the victim.

As someone who waited forever for a Keith Richards autobiography, I was somewhat let down by 'Life' but it was still a good read--- entertaining for sure ! Kind of a 'Daily Mirror" kind of story...

Townsends was also good, but his is a little creepy-- cant put my finger on it, but the whole bi-sexual theme and the way he treated people in his life kind of dis-enchanted me with him-- very much like Claptons....still love his music ( like Clapton) but not a lot of respect for the man..........

I guess the lesson is as Dylan said.. " Don't trust leaders, watch the parking meters..."

Don't follow leaders
Watch the parkin' meters ...............



ROCKMAN

Quote
bob r
As someone who waited forever for a Keith Richards autobiography, I was somewhat let down by 'Life'...

I had high hopes too which weren't met, but then I just accepted it on it's own terms.

I had high hopes too which weren't met, ..... maybe each copy shoulda come with a joint !!!!



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
I had high hopes too which weren't met, ..... maybe each copy shoulda come with a joint !!!!

Or the pages about tripping soaked in LSD.

The best part of Keith's book had to do with the way JJF and SFM were put together. While he's not generally thought of as a studio wizard genius (in the way that Townshend is), it was clear that he takes great pride in the low-tech studio wizardry he employed in the creation of those two tracks. It seems he considers them to be his proudest achievements and the apex of his creativity. A little surprising, actually, since most of us here consider '68 to be just the beginning of the peak period.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 02:41 by tatters.