Stephen Davis wrote this bio back in 2001, and I did spot some poor editorial follow up, BUT, how does it fare in overall accuracy, as shifty a thing that is? Surely it isn't nearly as bad as "Up and Down With ..."

........expensive arse paper....



ROCKMAN

It's shit.

One of the worst Stones biographies ever written. Absolute f***ing shite. Davis has as much 'insight' into the Stones as my dog. And she's been dead for ten years.

Biggest lies?

( Yep ... I've just revisited "Lies" off "Some Girls", one of the better rockers there )

One of Jim Morrison's closest friends said that the most famous biography of him--"No One Here Gets Out Alive"---should have been titled, "Nothing Here But Lots of Lies."

Same goes with this book.

Garbage tabloid book.

[thepowergoats.com]

Haha...it's no use posting anymore. How can I follow the trio of Rockman, Stones78 and Gazza?
(But it is the worst piece of crap ever put on paper re. the Stones.)

I have never read a Stones book where I didn't learn at least one new fact, and this one is no exception. But it's definitely one of the lowest-ranking ones.

It's a shame knowing a bunch of trees had to be killed in order to print that piece of garbage.

God awful..dont waste your money

Much of what I read was corraborated in "Life" and "Nankering with The Stones", but the flag that reared its ugly head was the bit following the "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby" promo shoot in which Brian proceeds to jerk off and is caught on film. Then Davis alleges Jagger played this unedited film to house guests for years afterwards ... I just don't see anyone with a lick of decency doing something that low. A dead guy? A dead ex-friend? No. Weird thing to print, too.

never read it...perused it in the library once. that was enough.

A good writer, who loves music: Stanley Booth. Knows the Stones well.

never read it, but what a title.

Ten years later, we're talking about a new tour.

He should come out with a followup book called "REALLY old gods, practically dead".

I actually never finished it. The amount of basic facts Davis gets wrong (stuff that could have been verified within MINUTES) is so annoying that it renders the book unreadable and, considering its meant to be some kind of 'exposé', removes any credibility that the author may hope to have as a source for uncovering something 'new'.

On the plus side, the photo of Marianne and Anita is really nice. It's sole good point.

They're still almost dead.
...obviously take a while to expire them there gods !

It's a bunch of rehashed pieces and parts of other books. It's awful.

Quote
stevecardi
One of Jim Morrison's closest friends said that the most famous biography of him--"No One Here Gets Out Alive"---should have been titled, "Nothing Here But Lots of Lies."

Same goes with this book.

And that was before the publication of Stephen Davis' even more odious bio of Morrison, Life, Death, Legend, which claimed Jim was gay (!), and the magnum hackus on Led Zeppelin, Hammer of the Gods. The fellow is the successor to Albert Goldman.

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Stephen Davis wrote this bio back in 2001, and I did spot some poor editorial follow up, BUT, how does it fare in overall accuracy, as shifty a thing that is? Surely it isn't nearly as bad as "Up and Down With ..."

its not even good enough to call it a piece of shit.its written by a complete hack and filled with things either taken from old magazine articles or stolen from other books.you could literally look at it and go "oh,i remember that article from creem in 75 or "thats from barbara charones book"

tony sanchez who wrote "up and down with the rolling stones" actually lived with keith and was his right hand man for a long time.so let me see,a guy who lived with keith vs a guy who did a summary of other peoples work in book form?

after taking a weak shot at tonys writing skills for having help with the book[years later the irony is amusing]keith said two things"he was there" and "thats enough tony,no further"- what part of spanish tony's book is in dispute?

when i first heard that lame "old gods almost dead" title the first thing that came to my mind was-liver than YOU'LL ever be motherf/cker

A work of fiction. Kinda like the chick who wrote "Layla".

Quote
Claire_M
and the magnum hackus on Led Zeppelin, Hammer of the Gods.

"magnum hackus"

Claire_M: Oh yes, I LOVE this phrase (mental note to self: use this again in some way). And it certainly accurately describes that Zep book.

It was written a decade ago and the "almost dead gods" are gearing up for a massive 2012 tour.

First I thought the title was stupid, secondly I found it depressing. Made it sound like none of them liked each other and none of them really even liked much of their own music. At least that's what I remember about it from when I read it when it first came out.

I just checked it out of the library. My first impression is that Davis is a good writer - his prose style as is good. As for the rest, we'll see... (I wonder if Mick would be a good prose writer - he cracked Keith for using a ghost writer. I read a short piece Paul Simon (who I regard as a brilliant poet) wrote for the NYT once and remember thinking "he's not a great prose guy, how odd."