Tell Me :
Talk
In "According To The Rolling Stones" are some statements by Keith concerning Bill,which are the opposite to what
you´re claiming,musically and personally.
Either they are faked,lies or simply shows a different perspective Keith developed towards him meanwhile.
He certainly dedicates his life to his long IORR posts!
It was funny in the book where Keith was challenging Wyman's number of conquests when he said that he watched him one day in the hotel, that the women who were lined up didn't stay long enough to screw, and he didn't hear any noise - they only had tea lol>
then that goes back to the original question. So why not include one or two of those in "Life" ?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 00:50 by ryanpow.
I remember Keith Giving Mick a lot of Praise for his song writing abilities, both musically and lyrically In "Life".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 00:55 by ryanpow.
Pair off any two living members of the Stones past and present (its maybe a bit harder with Taylor as he wasnt with them THAT long) and at some point the two guys in question have had a close relationship (in some cases, they still do).
With one exception - Keith and Bill. There was never much of a bond, it seems. Bill going out and scoring heroin for Keith when he was going through cold turkey in Toronto in 1977 appears to be as good as it got between them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 03:26 by Gazza.
I'll agree with you on some of what you said...as far as the statement that I've bolded though...are you kidding?
It was meandering and mindnumbing. It was as though I was reading the musings of a drug addict...oh wait, that's what I was doing.
I love Keith, but putting him on a pedestal for his prose is ridiculous.
Danny Gatton was a great guitarist - no doubt.
I'm not sure anyone can go around though making claims about knowing what was going on in his head when he committed suicide.
I agree as well...thoughtful, logical analysis.
I think there's more to it than that. Keith just doesn't like Bill. Not a hatred, it's just that he just doesn't like him. That passage in Stone Alone about Keith telling Bill in '78 that "you never liked me" says a lot.That's something a 10-year-old girl says--"I'm taking my ball and going home!"--not a 34-year-old man. The "lousy cups of tea" was mentioned in Life, what, twice? Three times? And always in a condescending manner; certainly not someone you have little in common with, but more like someone you don't like. Plus no mention of his bass playing, really. When asked in the past, he's always kind of ducked the question and just covered it with faint praise. Jagger, too, has never praised Bill's playing--at least not to my knowledge (Jagger's always wanted gunslingers). And in Life, Wood is kind of treated as a comedy relief.
This is probably the best article ever written about Mick and Keith. The writer's wit is a pleasure to read, as well.
Re-reading it, I had a moment of absolute clarity as to why they will never tour again:
'Here's the thing: I'm a rock star. What is the measure of my success if not the biggest rock and roll tour of all time?'
Any tour they did now would only be a big step down, in terms of performance, revenue, and attendance. For so many reasons: the terrible economy, the band's age, Keith's health, saturation from the last warhorse tours. Far, far better to go out on a high - the biggest grossing tour of all time - than to go downhill in a humiliating public spectacle.
Actually, I don't
. I have a family and a day job (very much to do with writing, too) outside the IORR speculation - the latter is just a dear hobby and I suppose psycholocigally a nice way to keep my mind fresh on order to cope with my normal daily affairs...
But thanks everyone for your nice comments. Makes me brush...
Now, back to business. Now when I rethink Bill/Keith-relationship, it is interesting that Bill might the only one around the Stones who has a critical attitude towards Keith (think of Marianne, ALO, etc.). That critical attitude is VERY unique, indeed. I mean, just look all the books about the Stones; they all are more or less a praisal of the myth of Keith. I guess this much to do the fact that a potential Rolling Stones fan is a fan of Keith Richards. Or if one is not a fan - as Philip Norman - one still somehow digs Keith in the cost of Jagger... Keith always "wins". It is almost absurd how silky handically Keith is treated in, not just in a Rolling Stones, but generally in a rock and roll literature. He sounds almost untouchable. His ass is perhaps kissed more than anyone's in rock and roll business. So it is no wonder how 'uncritical' of his own doings he can be (like I once said, Keith is 'Michael Jackson of rock and roll' who lives in his own never never land, and we all rock fans keep that fantasy world alive). LIFE is a testimony of that.
So I think Wyman's STONE ALONE is the about only book that offers systematically a critical account of Keith and tries to reveal something of the man and reality behind the myth (or, at least, does not go according to the myth). I can only imagine how much it might have pissed Keith's ego at the time. And in LIFE he pays back. The best way is to ignore (the tactics Jagger has generally towards Keith), and then give nasty little remarks. I take, for example, the details of keeping track of Bill's hotel room quests a reference to the detailed account of Bill's (pervert) sex stories he offers in STONE ALONE. And Bill, if anyone, is also a man of little nasty gossip-like remarks (concerning mostly Keith and Mick). His books are full of those. Rhetorically speaking, Keith's 'revenge' is almost perfect.
Anyway, I think we will see in the future years more critical books of Keith and of lis life. I think LIFE is the ultimate myth-making book; it cannot go beyond that any longer. Besides, IORR is a great place to reflect the change of the climate. Just few yaers ago there wasn't almost any critical points about Keith offered at all (of course, about some contingent things, such as his playing skills but not about the whole man and myth) - now they are quite regular. I take that quite many hardcore Stones fans have started to to rethink the past, and especially the "Keith myth" that is taken for granted for so long in Stonesland.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 13:53 by Doxa.
Yes. This is so spot on.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: October 22, 2011 12:43
Quote
Mathijs
Keith just never had anything in common with Bill, and he didn't like Bill's playing very much. And the latter has always amazed me, that Keith never seemed to have been able to understand why the Stones where such a great band, and that Wyman was such an integral part of it. Their choice of Darryl Jones as replacement says it all.
Mathijs
In "According To The Rolling Stones" are some statements by Keith concerning Bill,which are the opposite to what
you´re claiming,musically and personally.
Either they are faked,lies or simply shows a different perspective Keith developed towards him meanwhile.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 22, 2011 12:57
Actually, what Bill Wyman writes in STONE ALONE of The Rolling Stones during the 60's is about the opposite version of what Keith writes in LIFE.
Bill had (a least) three clear tendencies in his book:
(1) To tell the world that The Rolling Stones is actually a band which was pretty much the brain child of Brian Jones (he picked all the members one by one, and gave them the image, the style, the attitude, the idea and the mission), and which worked very democratically in the early days, each member (including Bill, of course) enjoying almost equal weight in the whole. The Stones were originally a five-headed-monster, a tight unit that conqured the world together. (Read: all this is against the idea of Jagger/Richards-dominancy of the latter days).
(2) To reveal that Keith Richards and his position within the band is basically Andrew Loog Oldham's brain child. Keith is potrayed as a shy, almost helpless boy who was happy just to be play the guitar with the 'boys', and couldn't even sing, but then strongly with a harsh force pushed by ALO to the front and to the important/privileged position within the band. Wyman gives us a detailed account how Keith's role was created step by step and by the cost of the others (Brian and Bill, that is). ALO made him to sing back ground vocals, pushed to write music, to be filmed and inerviewed more, etc. Brian and Mick, according to Bill' testimony, and in that order, were the original big boys in the band. ALO teamed Keith with Mick, and thanks to that deal, Keith's star grew up next to Mick's natural lead.
[Showing the importance of the artificial background of Keith's leadership is very much to do with the context of the day when STONE ALONE was released: the 80's were a triumph for the whole world recognizing Keith's fundamental role within the Stones (by the cost of Jagger). "Keith is the Stones" was the slogan of the day.]
(3) To show that the originality of Jagger/Richards songcraft is to an extent a myth. Many songs were group compositions a'la Nanker Phelge but Jagger and Richard took all the credit. Bill even gives us examples of some definitive numbers ("Paint It Black", "Jumpin' Jack Flash"). But by dominating the song policy Jagger and Richards controlled the band and its money. Controlling the band, however, happened step by step, once again eary much helped by ALO. By the time ALO left, the band was almost totally in the charge of Mick and Keith (who, ironically, had teamed up with Allen Klein - the deal only Bill was against of!).
Now if we compare that to Keith's version of the happenings, he writes off the central role of Brian Jones totally out of the picture (pointing out, for example, Stu's role instead in the very beginning), not giving much attention to ALO's role either, and clearly doesn't give Bill any weight at all; just tells more or less a story of talented, leader-born blues purist from Dartford who teamed up with a great singer and then, after a bit of outsider encouragement, recognized that he is a natural-talent composer, who would lead the band with his compositions (the singer would finish the lyrics, though). LIFE tells us tha Keith Richards was born to lead the Rolling Stones. It is his band, and only he can know what is good or bad for it. And yeah, he used to do drugs with John Lennon, the leader of The Beatles, his 'equal' in the musical world.
If we now read these stories against each other, one can see that they express an attitude towards each other that is far from that of respect. They seemingly have very different kind of picture of not just from each other, but of themselves (self-picture) as well. Probably Keith is paying back to Bill a bit (I can understand that since some of the claims Bill made are really below the belt!).
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-22 13:05 by Doxa.
Bill had (a least) three clear tendencies in his book:
(1) To tell the world that The Rolling Stones is actually a band which was pretty much the brain child of Brian Jones (he picked all the members one by one, and gave them the image, the style, the attitude, the idea and the mission), and which worked very democratically in the early days, each member (including Bill, of course) enjoying almost equal weight in the whole. The Stones were originally a five-headed-monster, a tight unit that conqured the world together. (Read: all this is against the idea of Jagger/Richards-dominancy of the latter days).
(2) To reveal that Keith Richards and his position within the band is basically Andrew Loog Oldham's brain child. Keith is potrayed as a shy, almost helpless boy who was happy just to be play the guitar with the 'boys', and couldn't even sing, but then strongly with a harsh force pushed by ALO to the front and to the important/privileged position within the band. Wyman gives us a detailed account how Keith's role was created step by step and by the cost of the others (Brian and Bill, that is). ALO made him to sing back ground vocals, pushed to write music, to be filmed and inerviewed more, etc. Brian and Mick, according to Bill' testimony, and in that order, were the original big boys in the band. ALO teamed Keith with Mick, and thanks to that deal, Keith's star grew up next to Mick's natural lead.
[Showing the importance of the artificial background of Keith's leadership is very much to do with the context of the day when STONE ALONE was released: the 80's were a triumph for the whole world recognizing Keith's fundamental role within the Stones (by the cost of Jagger). "Keith is the Stones" was the slogan of the day.]
(3) To show that the originality of Jagger/Richards songcraft is to an extent a myth. Many songs were group compositions a'la Nanker Phelge but Jagger and Richard took all the credit. Bill even gives us examples of some definitive numbers ("Paint It Black", "Jumpin' Jack Flash"). But by dominating the song policy Jagger and Richards controlled the band and its money. Controlling the band, however, happened step by step, once again eary much helped by ALO. By the time ALO left, the band was almost totally in the charge of Mick and Keith (who, ironically, had teamed up with Allen Klein - the deal only Bill was against of!).
Now if we compare that to Keith's version of the happenings, he writes off the central role of Brian Jones totally out of the picture (pointing out, for example, Stu's role instead in the very beginning), not giving much attention to ALO's role either, and clearly doesn't give Bill any weight at all; just tells more or less a story of talented, leader-born blues purist from Dartford who teamed up with a great singer and then, after a bit of outsider encouragement, recognized that he is a natural-talent composer, who would lead the band with his compositions (the singer would finish the lyrics, though). LIFE tells us tha Keith Richards was born to lead the Rolling Stones. It is his band, and only he can know what is good or bad for it. And yeah, he used to do drugs with John Lennon, the leader of The Beatles, his 'equal' in the musical world.
If we now read these stories against each other, one can see that they express an attitude towards each other that is far from that of respect. They seemingly have very different kind of picture of not just from each other, but of themselves (self-picture) as well. Probably Keith is paying back to Bill a bit (I can understand that since some of the claims Bill made are really below the belt!).
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-22 13:05 by Doxa.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
WilliamPatrickMaynard
()
Date: October 22, 2011 16:39
Excellent analysis, Doxa. You should really collect these articles and think about doing something with them. Either a blog or a book. I am quite serious.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Brue
()
Date: October 22, 2011 17:32
I suppose it was easy to be five equals when all they were doing was playing covers at the beginning. Oldham knew they wouldn't stand a chance of staying together unless they wrote songs. Jagger said himself about Jones and his songwriting ability, something to the effect that he'd try to write ditties 'about flowers in the park' that were ridiculous. He said they tried to get him to write but he just couldn't do it. He was fine as a complimentary musician, but that's about it. I tend to agree with Ronnie, when he said on his radio show about Wyman - 'one time we're in the studio, and Bill tries to get an idea out and Keith listens to it and then shuts him down. Bill says, 'you never use any of my ideas' and Keith says, 'if you wrote anything good we would'. I mean really, have you listened to Wyman's solo work? 99% never even made the radio.
The Stones are a study in natural selection. If you think that there are five people on earth who could have written those classics, you're crazy - they were lucky they had two that could come up with them. Songs like that don't happen by accident or committee. That's the cruel reality - just because you can play an instrument well, doesn't mean you can write music. They're two totally separate things. Just look up Danny Gatton - probably the greatest electric guitarist ever - he blew his head off because he couldn't write any decent music and he was tired of being a hired gun. So he killed himself.
The Stones are a study in natural selection. If you think that there are five people on earth who could have written those classics, you're crazy - they were lucky they had two that could come up with them. Songs like that don't happen by accident or committee. That's the cruel reality - just because you can play an instrument well, doesn't mean you can write music. They're two totally separate things. Just look up Danny Gatton - probably the greatest electric guitarist ever - he blew his head off because he couldn't write any decent music and he was tired of being a hired gun. So he killed himself.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: October 22, 2011 18:43
Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Excellent analysis, Doxa. You should really collect these articles and think about doing something with them. Either a blog or a book. I am quite serious.
He certainly dedicates his life to his long IORR posts!
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: October 22, 2011 19:48
Agree re Excellent Doxa posts.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 22, 2011 22:47
I've read Life 5 times now, Stone Alone more times than I can remember, both seem to have a certain element of score settling about them as well as other childish activities so called adults like to indulge in when they get the chance.
Bill and Keith are bitches!
Given some of Keith's more recent comments, even some during the initial Life hype, the realisation of the book was a somewhat painful process for him and thus I think this is partially why some of it is quite angsty.
Bill's seems like a typical bass players book, focuses on the money side of things a lot, Noel Reddings book is the same.
What has this got to do with the original post!? I dunno.
Bill and Keith are bitches!
Given some of Keith's more recent comments, even some during the initial Life hype, the realisation of the book was a somewhat painful process for him and thus I think this is partially why some of it is quite angsty.
Bill's seems like a typical bass players book, focuses on the money side of things a lot, Noel Reddings book is the same.
What has this got to do with the original post!? I dunno.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Brue
()
Date: October 22, 2011 23:52
Quote
His Majesty
I've read Life 5 times now, Stone Alone more times than I can remember, both seem to have a certain element of score settling about them as well as other childish activities so called adults like to indulge in when they get the chance.
Bill and Keith are bitches!
Given some of Keith's more recent comments, even some during the initial Life hype, the realisation of the book was a somewhat painful process for him and thus I think this is partially why some of it is quite angsty.
Bill's seems like a typical bass players book, focuses on the money side of things a lot, Noel Reddings book is the same.
What has this got to do with the original post!? I dunno.
It was funny in the book where Keith was challenging Wyman's number of conquests when he said that he watched him one day in the hotel, that the women who were lined up didn't stay long enough to screw, and he didn't hear any noise - they only had tea lol>
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: October 23, 2011 00:43
Quote
seitanQuote
ryanpow
My impression was that he was pretty cold towards him. I never read Stone Alone, but in Rolling with the Stones Bill went out of his way to say some nice things about Keith and called him a good friend. Keith Didn't do that at all.
BooHoo..
On the other hand, everyone can dig out lot of interviews where Keith says nice things about Bill.
then that goes back to the original question. So why not include one or two of those in "Life" ?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 00:50 by ryanpow.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: October 23, 2011 00:54
Quote
Doxa
just tells more or less a story of talented, leader-born blues purist from Dartford who teamed up with a great singer and then, after a bit of outsider encouragement, recognized that he is a natural-talent composer, who would lead the band with his compositions (the singer would finish the lyrics, though).
- Doxa
I remember Keith Giving Mick a lot of Praise for his song writing abilities, both musically and lyrically In "Life".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 00:55 by ryanpow.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: October 23, 2011 00:57
Quote
Mathijs
Keith just never had anything in common with Bill, and he didn't like Bill's playing very much. And the latter has always amazed me, that Keith never seemed to have been able to understand why the Stones where such a great band, and that Wyman was such an integral part of it. Their choice of Darryl Jones as replacement says it all.
Mathijs
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: October 23, 2011 01:43
Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Sometimes I fear that it's just a job and they don't love each other as much as we love them and then I remember of course not. That only happens to people who work together who aren't famous.
Pair off any two living members of the Stones past and present (its maybe a bit harder with Taylor as he wasnt with them THAT long) and at some point the two guys in question have had a close relationship (in some cases, they still do).
With one exception - Keith and Bill. There was never much of a bond, it seems. Bill going out and scoring heroin for Keith when he was going through cold turkey in Toronto in 1977 appears to be as good as it got between them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 03:26 by Gazza.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 23, 2011 02:59
Quote
nocomment
"Life" is not the normal horseshit autobiography that makes nice and offers
reflection and balance and the wisdom of years. It is what Keith has said:
a re-living of his life, in his head, as it happened. That is why it is such
a great and amazing book.
Certain times are vivid, certain times are just a blur.
Was Bill Wyman slighted during Keith's "Life"? Yes. Keith didn't change history.
I'll agree with you on some of what you said...as far as the statement that I've bolded though...are you kidding?
It was meandering and mindnumbing. It was as though I was reading the musings of a drug addict...oh wait, that's what I was doing.
I love Keith, but putting him on a pedestal for his prose is ridiculous.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
1cdog
()
Date: October 23, 2011 03:18
Quote
Brue
I suppose it was easy to be five equals when all they were doing was playing covers at the beginning. Oldham knew they wouldn't stand a chance of staying together unless they wrote songs. Jagger said himself about Jones and his songwriting ability, something to the effect that he'd try to write ditties 'about flowers in the park' that were ridiculous. He said they tried to get him to write but he just couldn't do it. He was fine as a complimentary musician, but that's about it. I tend to agree with Ronnie, when he said on his radio show about Wyman - 'one time we're in the studio, and Bill tries to get an idea out and Keith listens to it and then shuts him down. Bill says, 'you never use any of my ideas' and Keith says, 'if you wrote anything good we would'. I mean really, have you listened to Wyman's solo work? 99% never even made the radio.
The Stones are a study in natural selection. If you think that there are five people on earth who could have written those classics, you're crazy - they were lucky they had two that could come up with them. Songs like that don't happen by accident or committee. That's the cruel reality - just because you can play an instrument well, doesn't mean you can write music. They're two totally separate things. Just look up Danny Gatton - probably the greatest electric guitarist ever - he blew his head off because he couldn't write any decent music and he was tired of being a hired gun. So he killed himself.
Danny Gatton was a great guitarist - no doubt.
I'm not sure anyone can go around though making claims about knowing what was going on in his head when he committed suicide.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 23, 2011 03:29
Quote
stonesrule
Agree re Excellent Doxa posts.
I agree as well...thoughtful, logical analysis.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: October 23, 2011 03:37
Charlie Watts and Ian Stewart are the only members of the band that go unscathed in Keith's book really.. Jagger is given some credit ("he finally wrote a Rock and Roll song"
), but put through the shredder.
Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor, Brian Jones, Nicky Hopkins...all basically dismissed in short order. And, actually, I suspect Keith went out of his way not to be particularly unpleasant about Wyman, so he just left it at the minimum (except when unable to help himself he compared Jagger to Wyman and indicating Jagger would find that insulting.
Ronnie gets a bit of credit, but it ends with Ronnie doesn't really know who he is.
Keith is really a piece of work...but I suppose thats just the way it is...
That satire, an imaginary Jagger response to Life piece which appeared in Slate should be an addendum in the last couple pages of LIFE....
[www.slate.com]
), but put through the shredder.Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor, Brian Jones, Nicky Hopkins...all basically dismissed in short order. And, actually, I suspect Keith went out of his way not to be particularly unpleasant about Wyman, so he just left it at the minimum (except when unable to help himself he compared Jagger to Wyman and indicating Jagger would find that insulting.
Ronnie gets a bit of credit, but it ends with Ronnie doesn't really know who he is.
Keith is really a piece of work...but I suppose thats just the way it is...
That satire, an imaginary Jagger response to Life piece which appeared in Slate should be an addendum in the last couple pages of LIFE....
[www.slate.com]
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: October 23, 2011 07:11
Quote
Mathijs
Keith just never had anything in common with Bill, and he didn't like Bill's playing very much. And the latter has always amazed me, that Keith never seemed to have been able to understand why the Stones where such a great band, and that Wyman was such an integral part of it. Their choice of Darryl Jones as replacement says it all.
Mathijs
I think there's more to it than that. Keith just doesn't like Bill. Not a hatred, it's just that he just doesn't like him. That passage in Stone Alone about Keith telling Bill in '78 that "you never liked me" says a lot.That's something a 10-year-old girl says--"I'm taking my ball and going home!"--not a 34-year-old man. The "lousy cups of tea" was mentioned in Life, what, twice? Three times? And always in a condescending manner; certainly not someone you have little in common with, but more like someone you don't like. Plus no mention of his bass playing, really. When asked in the past, he's always kind of ducked the question and just covered it with faint praise. Jagger, too, has never praised Bill's playing--at least not to my knowledge (Jagger's always wanted gunslingers). And in Life, Wood is kind of treated as a comedy relief.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 23, 2011 09:21
Maybe Keith's pissed that Brian and Bill, and Mick Taylor to a degree, have these vaunted places in the fan's hearts no matter how much Keith belittles them. Keith's pettiness lowers him, not them. All you need to know is that he freaked when Bill left. If all Bill had was 'timing', then why did Keith go ballistic? Maybe Keith has abandonment issues.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: October 23, 2011 11:36
Quote
SweetThing
Charlie Watts and Ian Stewart are the only members of the band that go unscathed in Keith's book really.. Jagger is given some credit ("he finally wrote a Rock and Roll song"
Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor, Brian Jones, Nicky Hopkins...all basically dismissed in short order. And, actually, I suspect Keith went out of his way not to be particularly unpleasant about Wyman, so he just left it at the minimum (except when unable to help himself he compared Jagger to Wyman and indicating Jagger would find that insulting.
Ronnie gets a bit of credit, but it ends with Ronnie doesn't really know who he is.
Keith is really a piece of work...but I suppose thats just the way it is...
That satire, an imaginary Jagger response to Life piece which appeared in Slate should be an addendum in the last couple pages of LIFE....
[www.slate.com]
This is probably the best article ever written about Mick and Keith. The writer's wit is a pleasure to read, as well.
Re-reading it, I had a moment of absolute clarity as to why they will never tour again:
'Here's the thing: I'm a rock star. What is the measure of my success if not the biggest rock and roll tour of all time?'
Any tour they did now would only be a big step down, in terms of performance, revenue, and attendance. For so many reasons: the terrible economy, the band's age, Keith's health, saturation from the last warhorse tours. Far, far better to go out on a high - the biggest grossing tour of all time - than to go downhill in a humiliating public spectacle.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 23, 2011 11:50
In a way this is display of why the Stones are so great: that the inner players are not really aware of what makes then great. yes - this is frustrating for us as fans; especially as the years go on, and they become more set in their way, and more susceptible to yes-men whispering nonsense in their ears.
You can not fault Keith for not liking Bill very much. I have to be honest: when I think about Bill, the person - I think that I wouldn't like him much at all; especially the younger Bill. But it is amazing to me that nobody in the band can see how vital, how huge Bill's role in the band's sound was. By omission alone: like Mathijs just said - all you need to do is play these 3 chord rockers with DJ and ask yourself: "Hmm it's not the same, not quite right; what is missing?" Maybe try another bass player and find the same. Maybe it is something Bill does NOT do - whatever, Bill was crucial.
You can not fault Keith for not liking Bill very much. I have to be honest: when I think about Bill, the person - I think that I wouldn't like him much at all; especially the younger Bill. But it is amazing to me that nobody in the band can see how vital, how huge Bill's role in the band's sound was. By omission alone: like Mathijs just said - all you need to do is play these 3 chord rockers with DJ and ask yourself: "Hmm it's not the same, not quite right; what is missing?" Maybe try another bass player and find the same. Maybe it is something Bill does NOT do - whatever, Bill was crucial.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 23, 2011 13:42
Quote
BlissQuote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Excellent analysis, Doxa. You should really collect these articles and think about doing something with them. Either a blog or a book. I am quite serious.
He certainly dedicates his life to his long IORR posts!
Actually, I don't
. I have a family and a day job (very much to do with writing, too) outside the IORR speculation - the latter is just a dear hobby and I suppose psycholocigally a nice way to keep my mind fresh on order to cope with my normal daily affairs...But thanks everyone for your nice comments. Makes me brush...
Now, back to business. Now when I rethink Bill/Keith-relationship, it is interesting that Bill might the only one around the Stones who has a critical attitude towards Keith (think of Marianne, ALO, etc.). That critical attitude is VERY unique, indeed. I mean, just look all the books about the Stones; they all are more or less a praisal of the myth of Keith. I guess this much to do the fact that a potential Rolling Stones fan is a fan of Keith Richards. Or if one is not a fan - as Philip Norman - one still somehow digs Keith in the cost of Jagger... Keith always "wins". It is almost absurd how silky handically Keith is treated in, not just in a Rolling Stones, but generally in a rock and roll literature. He sounds almost untouchable. His ass is perhaps kissed more than anyone's in rock and roll business. So it is no wonder how 'uncritical' of his own doings he can be (like I once said, Keith is 'Michael Jackson of rock and roll' who lives in his own never never land, and we all rock fans keep that fantasy world alive). LIFE is a testimony of that.
So I think Wyman's STONE ALONE is the about only book that offers systematically a critical account of Keith and tries to reveal something of the man and reality behind the myth (or, at least, does not go according to the myth). I can only imagine how much it might have pissed Keith's ego at the time. And in LIFE he pays back. The best way is to ignore (the tactics Jagger has generally towards Keith), and then give nasty little remarks. I take, for example, the details of keeping track of Bill's hotel room quests a reference to the detailed account of Bill's (pervert) sex stories he offers in STONE ALONE. And Bill, if anyone, is also a man of little nasty gossip-like remarks (concerning mostly Keith and Mick). His books are full of those. Rhetorically speaking, Keith's 'revenge' is almost perfect.
Anyway, I think we will see in the future years more critical books of Keith and of lis life. I think LIFE is the ultimate myth-making book; it cannot go beyond that any longer. Besides, IORR is a great place to reflect the change of the climate. Just few yaers ago there wasn't almost any critical points about Keith offered at all (of course, about some contingent things, such as his playing skills but not about the whole man and myth) - now they are quite regular. I take that quite many hardcore Stones fans have started to to rethink the past, and especially the "Keith myth" that is taken for granted for so long in Stonesland.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 13:53 by Doxa.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 23, 2011 14:36
Not so much a slight, but a matter of setting the record straight. Now this was done in Keith's own slanted way; just as biased as Bill''s had to be.
Keith is a very intelligent man; He must know the human theatre as well as anyone. But he is a dude too; her can't come out and admit it.
Sure - Keith was a spotty, very shy kid with a guitar, who had run into Jagger. And this has to be one of Keith's huge strokes of fortune: that Jagger hitched up with him. That he saw in Keith his missing half; the slightly criminal, and surely blue collar element. I think Jagger on some level knew all along what was going to happen. Keith, just knew that here was his chance, here was someone smarter than he,and a star. Who knows if Brian really hand picked Keith? he must've picked Jagger; just like Alexis Korner; and somehow Keith tumbled along. If these were all purists back then, who took the Blues seriously, then the fact that Keith had the bits of rockabilly, Berry-isms down could not have meant a lot. It was Jagger who knew, and then ALO who saw that Keith was a writer. And also that Keith was strong, and the ultimate foil for Jagger.
So I think there is nothing 'wrong' with the fact that it took ALO to bring out Keith's strengths. That Keith was shy and quiet, and not much of an entity until someone brought it out in him. Keith deserved all the credit he got from back then. And he was half of the writing production team. It is a natural evolution to have someone like ALO jump start the drive, the story, and then the pupil overtakes the master. That is a good thing.
A band needs a leader; a band won't go anywhere on an equal 5 part democracy. Odd how Bill doesn't mind the concept of a leader when it is Brian, or even Mick, but minds it if it is Keith. Still I think that Bill tried hard to go out of his way to give props to the guy who erased many of his bass tracks, and from all accounts never took him quite seriously. Keith could have taken a cue from that.
I too have grown disillusioned with Keith in the latter years, mainly after the book, but I have to remind myself that Keith is just being a Keith. It makes sense. He is not growing old gracefully.
Keith is a very intelligent man; He must know the human theatre as well as anyone. But he is a dude too; her can't come out and admit it.
Sure - Keith was a spotty, very shy kid with a guitar, who had run into Jagger. And this has to be one of Keith's huge strokes of fortune: that Jagger hitched up with him. That he saw in Keith his missing half; the slightly criminal, and surely blue collar element. I think Jagger on some level knew all along what was going to happen. Keith, just knew that here was his chance, here was someone smarter than he,and a star. Who knows if Brian really hand picked Keith? he must've picked Jagger; just like Alexis Korner; and somehow Keith tumbled along. If these were all purists back then, who took the Blues seriously, then the fact that Keith had the bits of rockabilly, Berry-isms down could not have meant a lot. It was Jagger who knew, and then ALO who saw that Keith was a writer. And also that Keith was strong, and the ultimate foil for Jagger.
So I think there is nothing 'wrong' with the fact that it took ALO to bring out Keith's strengths. That Keith was shy and quiet, and not much of an entity until someone brought it out in him. Keith deserved all the credit he got from back then. And he was half of the writing production team. It is a natural evolution to have someone like ALO jump start the drive, the story, and then the pupil overtakes the master. That is a good thing.
A band needs a leader; a band won't go anywhere on an equal 5 part democracy. Odd how Bill doesn't mind the concept of a leader when it is Brian, or even Mick, but minds it if it is Keith. Still I think that Bill tried hard to go out of his way to give props to the guy who erased many of his bass tracks, and from all accounts never took him quite seriously. Keith could have taken a cue from that.
I too have grown disillusioned with Keith in the latter years, mainly after the book, but I have to remind myself that Keith is just being a Keith. It makes sense. He is not growing old gracefully.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
MartinB
()
Date: October 23, 2011 15:13
Keith obviously doesn't like Bill, and the book makes it clear. Conversely, Bill doesn't like Keith. During almost every gig of Bill there is a sarcastic comment about Keith. It is mutual and there is nothing wrong with it.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 23, 2011 16:11
Martin, I had never heard about that. You mean with the R. Kings?
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
WilliamPatrickMaynard
()
Date: October 23, 2011 16:25
I agree with Bill Wyman's assessment except for the fact that it could never have been Jagger-Wyman or Jagger-Jones. That's what Andrew saw that was truly visionary. There is much I disliked about Keith's book, but none of it shocked me. The bluster or ego (obviously I hope it's the former, but it doesn't really change my life one way or the other) are what I've come to expect. I'm hopeful that Keith's current solo sessions go somewhere and that the results are as strong as those that have heard them suggest. In the meantime, looking forward to hearing more of the newly-finished SOME GIRLS tracks.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 23, 2011 16:53
I pretty much agree with your sentimens, Palace. I said that STONE ALONE and LIFE give "opposite" versions of the Stones during the 60's but I actually I think that the word "opposite" in not the accurate one. I think is more the issue of having two different accounts of the same thing. And being such different, almost opposite ones, they are so interesting. And both are done looking the thing from inside the band. Both Bill nad Keith possess such knowledge only they can have.
Personally I think both of them over-do their interpretation. In both cases one needs to read between the lines to get more 'accurate' picture. Or 'dialectically' against each other. I will now talk only of Bill (having talked of Keith already so much in different threads).
I think Bill is right in pointing out the role of the others, especially Brian's but I think he belittles way too much the actual talent and genious of Jagger/Richards duo. Maybe he is too close to see - or admit - their significance, and wittnessing their success; in the front of his eyes he saw all that happening, which made him, I think, a bit jeolous and bitter. I mean, seeing them first as 'nobodys' who couldn't even read music (as him) but soon as 'rock gods' capable almost to do anything was probably a bit too much for a regular guy as him. Mick and Keith had something Bill never had, but he seems unwilling to admit that. And that specialness - "x-factor" - also made Bill a very wealthy man. Charlie, by contrast, always had admitted the importance of Mick and Keith. Stu also as well (saying even that Mick and Keith would have make it without meeting him and Brian).
I give two examples of Bill's 'blindness' that seems to weak his judgment.
(a) Singing. Bill harshly belittles Keith's ability as a singer. He claims that Keith that was not only a shy but opening his mouth to sing was unnatural for him. That is mocking if anything; Bill seems to claim that Keith didn't have any talent for that. So he is bitter when ALO replaced Bill and Brian with Keith as a background singer.
Shit, anyone who listens Bill to sing and compare that to Keith's will recognize in a sec who is the singer and who is not. Brian and Bill were idiots to think that they are better singers as Keith who has a beautiful, natural voice. It was nothing but correcting the situation back to a natural order what ALO did when 'forced' Keith to sing, and laughed out of the court Brian and Bill's pretensions (okay, the back vox to "You Better Move On" sounds nice, but thank god, the Stones didn't continue with that kind of style). I can listen Bill's "You Never Can Tell" once in a evening for a good fun but that's enough, thank you.
(b) Songwriting. Yeah, Bill can write, that is, to make compositions that a structure of the real song. But having that ability is a big step for being a profilic songwriter, something which Mick and Keith are. Yeah, probaly Mick and Keith are not techically as great as some Paul McCartney or Paul Simon but they have an unique visionality into seeing the essential and writing that off. They can write from the simple possible material the best possible song anyone can - a song that have a meaning. They know a hell a lot of the song dynamics. And young Keith had head full of catchy melodies plus Mick's intellect pick up clever lyrics. And that was just the templete they started before finding an own voice.
Bill complains in STONE ALONE that song-writing was a closed shop - that realized during the BEGGARS BANQUET sessions when Mick and Keith refused to listen or play his songs (there is one expection later). He had just had his composition in the previous album, and he might have thought that he will be the George Harrison of The Stones from then on. But that didn't happen, which seemingly made him very bitter, and he lost his interest in Stones music (I take the latter caused by the former). He makes clear in STONE ALONE that he doesn't rate very high the late 60's Stones stuff (that usually is considered their best ever); he makes remarks of how much better Led Zeppelin or CCR is, etc.
What Bill has to offer? Within the Stones we have two compositions. The first is an oddity in album full of oddities. The other is a joke song that saw the light of the day in a vaults album. Then we have Bill's solo albums. I have only MONKEY GRIP and the one which has "Si Si Je Suis un Rock Star" in it. The best I can think of these albums, and the quality of the songcraft, is that they only saw the light of the day only because the artist is a bass player in the greatest rock and roll band in the world. Yeah, there might be some 'okay' songs - of which most are some kind of jokes - but there not anything one could call a profilic song-writing, and surely not anything that would keep the greatest rock and roll band of the world on focus. Bill's stuff is at best as some kind of funny album fillers, but seemingly Mick and Keith decided that that is not needed. If we think the time frame they 'closed the shop' and said Bill 'fvck off' is that of BEGGRS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE - can anyone really say they were wrong in their judgments? I guess no...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 17:09 by Doxa.
Personally I think both of them over-do their interpretation. In both cases one needs to read between the lines to get more 'accurate' picture. Or 'dialectically' against each other. I will now talk only of Bill (having talked of Keith already so much in different threads).
I think Bill is right in pointing out the role of the others, especially Brian's but I think he belittles way too much the actual talent and genious of Jagger/Richards duo. Maybe he is too close to see - or admit - their significance, and wittnessing their success; in the front of his eyes he saw all that happening, which made him, I think, a bit jeolous and bitter. I mean, seeing them first as 'nobodys' who couldn't even read music (as him) but soon as 'rock gods' capable almost to do anything was probably a bit too much for a regular guy as him. Mick and Keith had something Bill never had, but he seems unwilling to admit that. And that specialness - "x-factor" - also made Bill a very wealthy man. Charlie, by contrast, always had admitted the importance of Mick and Keith. Stu also as well (saying even that Mick and Keith would have make it without meeting him and Brian).
I give two examples of Bill's 'blindness' that seems to weak his judgment.
(a) Singing. Bill harshly belittles Keith's ability as a singer. He claims that Keith that was not only a shy but opening his mouth to sing was unnatural for him. That is mocking if anything; Bill seems to claim that Keith didn't have any talent for that. So he is bitter when ALO replaced Bill and Brian with Keith as a background singer.
Shit, anyone who listens Bill to sing and compare that to Keith's will recognize in a sec who is the singer and who is not. Brian and Bill were idiots to think that they are better singers as Keith who has a beautiful, natural voice. It was nothing but correcting the situation back to a natural order what ALO did when 'forced' Keith to sing, and laughed out of the court Brian and Bill's pretensions (okay, the back vox to "You Better Move On" sounds nice, but thank god, the Stones didn't continue with that kind of style). I can listen Bill's "You Never Can Tell" once in a evening for a good fun but that's enough, thank you.
(b) Songwriting. Yeah, Bill can write, that is, to make compositions that a structure of the real song. But having that ability is a big step for being a profilic songwriter, something which Mick and Keith are. Yeah, probaly Mick and Keith are not techically as great as some Paul McCartney or Paul Simon but they have an unique visionality into seeing the essential and writing that off. They can write from the simple possible material the best possible song anyone can - a song that have a meaning. They know a hell a lot of the song dynamics. And young Keith had head full of catchy melodies plus Mick's intellect pick up clever lyrics. And that was just the templete they started before finding an own voice.
Bill complains in STONE ALONE that song-writing was a closed shop - that realized during the BEGGARS BANQUET sessions when Mick and Keith refused to listen or play his songs (there is one expection later). He had just had his composition in the previous album, and he might have thought that he will be the George Harrison of The Stones from then on. But that didn't happen, which seemingly made him very bitter, and he lost his interest in Stones music (I take the latter caused by the former). He makes clear in STONE ALONE that he doesn't rate very high the late 60's Stones stuff (that usually is considered their best ever); he makes remarks of how much better Led Zeppelin or CCR is, etc.
What Bill has to offer? Within the Stones we have two compositions. The first is an oddity in album full of oddities. The other is a joke song that saw the light of the day in a vaults album. Then we have Bill's solo albums. I have only MONKEY GRIP and the one which has "Si Si Je Suis un Rock Star" in it. The best I can think of these albums, and the quality of the songcraft, is that they only saw the light of the day only because the artist is a bass player in the greatest rock and roll band in the world. Yeah, there might be some 'okay' songs - of which most are some kind of jokes - but there not anything one could call a profilic song-writing, and surely not anything that would keep the greatest rock and roll band of the world on focus. Bill's stuff is at best as some kind of funny album fillers, but seemingly Mick and Keith decided that that is not needed. If we think the time frame they 'closed the shop' and said Bill 'fvck off' is that of BEGGRS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE - can anyone really say they were wrong in their judgments? I guess no...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-23 17:09 by Doxa.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: October 23, 2011 17:16
Really, what is Bill's point about the closed writing? We see what Bill offered up eventually. If he had done "Stone Alone" and "Monkey Grip" and we'd all been floored by these powerful rock'n roll testimonials, but his dynamic vocal prodigy unleashed on the Western world, it would have been different. Then, yes - we would be saying "I can not believe Mick and Keith supressed this talent". But these are harmless, tuneful little ditties; sung on key, yes, played at such tepid temperatures, you could warm a baby's bottle in them. Like Doxa, says, had Bill not been the Stones' bassplayer, these albums would have never seen the light of day. Shit, the Rhythm Kings probably wouldn't exist. It is not so much a debt that Bill needs to acknowledge, it is a truth. There is much grace, and power in knowing your role. Charlie..is there more of a class act on this planet? And you never see him running around "me, me.."
I think I am re-living my huge disappointment upon reading Bill's first book. If you guys recall it was the first inside book, and I for one had high hopes.
But Keith's book was also a major let down. Talk about someone not finding grace. I am so amazed that his book was a huge success with the non hardcores; that was his big market.
But I still lay the real blame on the writer, editor's doorstep. They should have kept him talking. I think they jumped on the juicy cheap shots early on.
I think I am re-living my huge disappointment upon reading Bill's first book. If you guys recall it was the first inside book, and I for one had high hopes.
But Keith's book was also a major let down. Talk about someone not finding grace. I am so amazed that his book was a huge success with the non hardcores; that was his big market.
But I still lay the real blame on the writer, editor's doorstep. They should have kept him talking. I think they jumped on the juicy cheap shots early on.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: October 23, 2011 19:08
This thread has gone way out in left field. No one is saying Bill is an equal to the songwriting partnership of Jagger/Richard(s). It would have been nice to have had Keith maybe say something insightful about Bill's playing and what it contributed to the Stones sound. If he was so ordinary they had ample opportunity to replace him. I think it's great to have Bill's insight from Stone Alone. And ALO figured out what would be the most likely songwriting partnership. Jagger was good at lyrics and Keith was the musician. In time those roles would overlap each other. So Keith didn't like Bill, and vice versa. Okay. It seems that in time Keith doesn't like Mick either. Both Bill and Mick seem to be people who distanced themselves from Keith's ways. I guess the ultimately frustrating part is getting Keith to admit Bill's contribution. Of course Charle Watts seems sort of mystified about the cult grown up around Brian. Maybe all of their musical contributions are trumped by their interpersonal relationships.
Final note: I'm a big fan of Wyman. But I thought it was a bit classless to reveal that he bought heroin for Keith in Toronto. I almost gasped when I read it. It seemed a bit of a betrayal, or in the least that Bill wanted some kind of credit for what should have been a private issue between the two. My god, the things those men must know about each other.
Final note: I'm a big fan of Wyman. But I thought it was a bit classless to reveal that he bought heroin for Keith in Toronto. I almost gasped when I read it. It seemed a bit of a betrayal, or in the least that Bill wanted some kind of credit for what should have been a private issue between the two. My god, the things those men must know about each other.
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: October 23, 2011 19:13
it's more like he slighted music in favor for meaningsless drugs...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Does anybody else feel like Keith slighted bill wyman in "Life"?
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: October 23, 2011 22:12
Quote
Doxa
Actually, what Bill Wyman writes in STONE ALONE of The Rolling Stones during the 60's is about the opposite version of what Keith writes in LIFE.
Bill had (a least) three clear tendencies in his book:
(1) To tell the world that The Rolling Stones is actually a band which was pretty much the brain child of Brian Jones (he picked all the members one by one, and gave them the image, the style, the attitude, the idea and the mission), and which worked very democratically in the early days, each member (including Bill, of course) enjoying almost equal weight in the whole. The Stones were originally a five-headed-monster, a tight unit that conqured the world together. (Read: all this is against the idea of Jagger/Richards-dominancy of the latter days).
(2) To reveal that Keith Richards and his position within the band is basically Andrew Loog Oldham's brain child. Keith is potrayed as a shy, almost helpless boy who was happy just to be play the guitar with the 'boys', and couldn't even sing, but then strongly with a harsh force pushed by ALO to the front and to the important/privileged position within the band. Wyman gives us a detailed account how Keith's role was created step by step and by the cost of the others (Brian and Bill, that is). ALO made him to sing back ground vocals, pushed to write music, to be filmed and inerviewed more, etc. Brian and Mick, according to Bill' testimony, and in that order, were the original big boys in the band. ALO teamed Keith with Mick, and thanks to that deal, Keith's star grew up next to Mick's natural lead.
[Showing the importance of the artificial background of Keith's leadership is very much to do with the context of the day when STONE ALONE was released: the 80's were a triumph for the whole world recognizing Keith's fundamental role within the Stones (by the cost of Jagger). "Keith is the Stones" was the slogan of the day.]
(3) To show that the originality of Jagger/Richards songcraft is to an extent a myth. Many songs were group compositions a'la Nanker Phelge but Jagger and Richard took all the credit. Bill even gives us examples of some definitive numbers ("Paint It Black", "Jumpin' Jack Flash"). But by dominating the song policy Jagger and Richards controlled the band and its money. Controlling the band, however, happened step by step, once again eary much helped by ALO. By the time ALO left, the band was almost totally in the charge of Mick and Keith (who, ironically, had teamed up with Allen Klein - the deal only Bill was against of!).
Now if we compare that to Keith's version of the happenings, he writes off the central role of Brian Jones totally out of the picture (pointing out, for example, Stu's role instead in the very beginning), not giving much attention to ALO's role either, and clearly doesn't give Bill any weight at all; just tells more or less a story of talented, leader-born blues purist from Dartford who teamed up with a great singer and then, after a bit of outsider encouragement, recognized that he is a natural-talent composer, who would lead the band with his compositions (the singer would finish the lyrics, though). LIFE tells us tha Keith Richards was born to lead the Rolling Stones. It is his band, and only he can know what is good or bad for it. And yeah, he used to do drugs with John Lennon, the leader of The Beatles, his 'equal' in the musical world.
If we now read these stories against each other, one can see that they express an attitude towards each other that is far from that of respect. They seemingly have very different kind of picture of not just from each other, but of themselves (self-picture) as well. Probably Keith is paying back to Bill a bit (I can understand that since some of the claims Bill made are really below the belt!).
- Doxa
Yes. This is so spot on.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
crholmstrom , DEmerson , joguema , LFSDoc , Mabru , Manofwealthandtaste , mariano , pg592003 , Woody24 , yeababyyea
Guests:
905
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10