Robert Greenfield releases his third Stones-book in may. It might be interesting. [www.amazon.co.uk]

His other books have been pretty good.

The first one was great. The second was more of a rehash.I hope the decline is not going further.

Yeah the second, "Season in Hell" was very light, sensational-driven and overly dramatic. However, despite my many reservations against that book, "Season in Hell" managed at least to get some of the chronology correct regarding the summer of 71.

So Im a bit optimistic. Mr Half-full.

From the title it looks like it will all about why they should have split up 30 years ago .

Should meet with approval from many around here

This should be interesting. It follows the band on tour in March 1971. As with anything written about the Stones, often the line is blurred between fact and fiction. I'll most likely buy it; however.

STP is a classic, wonderful book. The book on Exile that came out a few years ago is awful. I saw him give a talk on the book and the period and he just mixed up a lot of details. Not an inspiring book or talk. So I will just re-read STP...

The STP book is one of my all time favourite rock books. Absolutely loved it.

Quote
Spud
From the title it looks like it will all about why they should have split up 30 years ago .

Should meet with approval from many around here

"Ain't it time we said goodbye" to Great Britain, not each other. It's a chronicle of the 71 Goodbye to Great Britian Tour (that's what it was billed as back then)

Quote
Rokyfan

"Ain't it time we said goodbye" to Great Britain, not each other. It's a chronicle of the 71 Goodbye to Great Britian Tour (that's what it was billed as back then)

Good point.
About that name "Goodbye to Britain" tour... in another thread we discussed the never-to-be Undercover and Dirty Works tour. But we never discuss the never-to-be "Sticky Fingers Tour", or call this one that.
OK, Stones didn´t release the album until a month after the tour and by that time they were already in Exile. But on the other hand they themselves have rarely related the tours namewise to the albums. So it somehow makes sense to link it to Stick Fingers. Philosophically speaking of course. Does anybody else think of "the Goodbye... tour" as "the Sticky Fingers tour"?

Z



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-20 16:04 by MILKYWAY.

The only thing I liked about Greenfiel's first book was the eyewitness account of the incident in Rhode Island
when the Glimmers got arrested and the mayor of Boston intervened to get them out of jail.

I don't like his writing, he gets basic facts wrong and seems to have spent a lot more time with the hangers-on than with the band.
Plus which he doesn't seem to know what the word "sibilant" means.

with sssoul, I completely agree.
Wanted to like that first book but I just didn't. The second was worth about 15 minutes.

He can be a good writer. The Bill Graham book had its moments.

Quote
tornnfrayed
STP is a classic, wonderful book. The book on Exile that came out a few years ago is awful. I saw him give a talk on the book and the period and he just mixed up a lot of details. Not an inspiring book or talk. So I will just re-read STP...

Agree. STP was brilliant in terms of capturing a moment in time. I had recently read Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing, on the Campaign Trail, 72...and STP was a great companion piece to that for the era.
Greenfield's Exile book was crap. I was massively disappointed. Unlike the Booth book, Greenfield remained what it should be: a fly-on-the-wall account of a rock and roll tour and everything happening on the sidelines.
This looks interesting - if he writes it as if he's there now.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
tornnfrayed
STP is a classic, wonderful book. The book on Exile that came out a few years ago is awful. I saw him give a talk on the book and the period and he just mixed up a lot of details. Not an inspiring book or talk. So I will just re-read STP...

Agree. STP was brilliant in terms of capturing a moment in time. I had recently read Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing, on the Campaign Trail, 72...and STP was a great companion piece to that for the era.
Greenfield's Exile book was crap. I was massively disappointed. Unlike the Booth book, Greenfield remained what it should be: a fly-on-the-wall account of a rock and roll tour and everything happening on the sidelines.
This looks interesting - if he writes it as if he's there now.

Agreed. I've had Booth's book on my Nook for two years now. Every so often I say, maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind, and try to plow on and read it. Nah, I'm not interested in getting to the few scraps of actual, interesting Stones material by wading thru his own personal drama. STP is the one Stones book I can read more than once.

The book could be very interesting IF it really concentrates on the UK tour and IF he has something new to tell about it.
There's not so much been written about those days and it was a very intense and special time for the Stones.
I have lots of memories reg. 69-71.Strange times . .

@ Milky Way - I wanted to read "A day in the Life" cause I'm quite interested in some parts and persons.In the end I forgot about it.
You think it's worth looking for?

Quote
StonesCat

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
tornnfrayed
STP is a classic, wonderful book. The book on Exile that came out a few years ago is awful. I saw him give a talk on the book and the period and he just mixed up a lot of details. Not an inspiring book or talk. So I will just re-read STP...

Agree. STP was brilliant in terms of capturing a moment in time. I had recently read Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing, on the Campaign Trail, 72...and STP was a great companion piece to that for the era.
Greenfield's Exile book was crap. I was massively disappointed. Unlike the Booth book, Greenfield remained what it should be: a fly-on-the-wall account of a rock and roll tour and everything happening on the sidelines.
This looks interesting - if he writes it as if he's there now.

Agreed. I've had Booth's book on my Nook for two years now. Every so often I say, maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind, and try to plow on and read it. Nah, I'm not interested in getting to the few scraps of actual, interesting Stones material by wading thru his own personal drama. STP is the one Stones book I can read more than once.

Exactly. The Booth book is almost sacred to some Stones' fans and when I read it - in 84, I was still in high school and enjoyed as a document of its time...but even then, I found Booth a little too eager to hang with the boys...seemed like he fancied himself one of them and that annoyed me.
STP was like a journalist's journey into a foreign world (because that's what it was - it was not a 'normal existence to outsiders), kept his distance and gave you a kind of bird's-eye view of the tour and the Stones and their interactions, with each other. fans and how they fit into the American culture of the time.
Booth seemed like he wanted to be them and it showed in his writing....although he feigns a certain nonchalance now.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-12 05:51 by stupidguy2.

Quote
CousinC
@ Milky Way - I wanted to read "A day in the Life" cause I'm quite interested in some parts and persons.In the end I forgot about it.
You think it's worth looking for?

Saw that book too...must admit the Tommy Weber story about bonking Anita in the bed by Keith and Tony was one of the cringeworthy details that put "Season in Hell" in the speculative category for me. But if MILKYWAY says it good...

Knowing a bit of Anita and thinking of Webers looks then I assume the story happened. Didn't Tony Sanchez tell it first?
The early 70's were drugwise very different to today.A lot of young, often rich,good looking people, sometimes jetting around - all on and with drugs Not like the addicts today.For some time it all was part of the counter-culture.

Quote
CousinC
Knowing a bit of Anita and thinking of Webers looks then I assume the story happened. Didn't Tony Sanchez tell it first?
The early 70's were drugwise very different to today.A lot of young, often rich,good looking people, sometimes jetting around - all on and with drugs Not like the addicts today.For some time it all was part of the counter-culture.

Yes I think I first read it in Tonys book Please don´t misunderstand me, it probably happened, but as with everything else in life (at least in the arts), there is that angle you choose to your material. And my criticism is aimed towards the way Greenfield choose to tell his story. His language seems rushed, its narrative shallow and story speculative. And IMHO its the emphasis on stories of the Tommy Weber/Anita kind that partly makes it so.
However, as stated previously, Greenfield should get credit of getting some dates correct, some of which has been erroneous for years, even on trusted Stones sites.

Quote
RobberBride

Quote
CousinC
Knowing a bit of Anita and thinking of Webers looks then I assume the story happened. Didn't Tony Sanchez tell it first?
The early 70's were drugwise very different to today.A lot of young, often rich,good looking people, sometimes jetting around - all on and with drugs Not like the addicts today.For some time it all was part of the counter-culture.

Yes I think I first read it in Tonys book Please don´t misunderstand me, it probably happened, but as with everything else in life (at least in the arts), there is that angle you choose to your material. And my criticism is aimed towards the way Greenfield choose to tell his story. His language seems rushed, its narrative shallow and story speculative. And IMHO its the emphasis on stories of the Tommy Weber/Anita kind that partly makes it so.
However, as stated previously, Greenfield should get credit of getting some dates correct, some of which has been erroneous for years, even on trusted Stones sites.

Yes, and Tony told Keith but he said that Weber took advantage of her while she was unconscious. Keith apparently figured out the truth and told Anita something to the effect of "I know you had it off with Tommy. Tony told me!" and then Anita looked at Tony, mumbling under her breath, and Tony was afraid she was putting a spell on him. Keith tried to get tough with Tommy, but backed down and life went on. According to Tony, anyway.

j



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-20 16:05 by MILKYWAY.

I was just thinking, why has he taken so long to write a book about this tour? I only hope he has enough material...the true facts...and it's not loaded with a lot of B.S.

Anybody else read this?
I picked it up at the local library and knocked it off. It's not that long and a good read.
The main test consists of Greenfield's notes from their last tour of England before they left for the south of France, his observations from Nellcotte where he interviewed Keith for RS magazine and a few stories from Los Angeles where they completed Exile. He also mixes in his voice from today, looking back and trying to make sense of it all.
His central point is that even at this point, Mick and Keith had drifted apart and were no longer mates.
It's heavy on details from the time and lighter on the usual mythology.
Couple of highlights:
- The tour was quite small -- they were still crammed into dressing rooms together at this point, and England being a small country they were sometimes taking trains.
- Keith was always late and although loyal to his friends and not unpleasant he lived completely in his own world.
- There was an incident in which an old man came into the dressing room pestering them for autographs for a sick child. Mick politely signed and steered him to the others.
- After they played poorly one time, Bill insisted to the other, 'Just acknowledge we were shit.' Mick said something like, 'Yeah, but it's over now, I have to move on.'
- Greenfield doesn't quite say this, but it sounds as if quite a bit of the work on Exile was actually done in Los Angeles.
- I suspect (just me on this) that the other reason they left England was because Keith would eventually have been busted and put in prison. At the same time, I wonder if leaving home wasn't the worst thing that happened to them. It turned them into vagabonds, never living in the same place, keeping M&K from hanging out together and taking them completely away from normal everyday people.

Greenfield wrote two interesting books.
I prefer Aint it time we said goodbye.
This is an interesting part from this book about the Leeds concert.

Quote
CousinC
Knowing a bit of Anita and thinking of Webers looks then I assume the story happened. Didn't Tony Sanchez tell it first?
The early 70's were drugwise very different to today.A lot of young, often rich,good looking people, sometimes jetting around - all on and with drugs Not like the addicts today.For some time it all was part of the counter-culture.

Ive never really seen the link between the lifestyle of Keith and Anita and "counter culture".
Read any books about the Arts and some of its personalities, especially those with loads of dosh and too much time on their hands.
Similar lifestyle, girls being passed around etc. Nothing new under the sun.

STP was a rollicking good ride that makes you feel like you are right in the middle of the chaos and decadence that was the '72 tour. I couldn't put that book down.

The next one was trash. I literally threw it away as soon as I finished it.

Not sure which I hated more, his factual errors or the continual use of amateurish literary devices like "You make ask yourself dear reader...."

This my favorite Stones period and I've enjoyed all of the books in Greenfield's early 70s "trilogy." My complaint about Ain't it Time... is not enough detail on the shows themselves. Oh, and I'm really tired of reading about fan-boy, hanger-on Parsons.

I read this after reading STP, and I am not sure which one I like more. STP - BRILLIANT, but so is this, because it was really the last "small" tour of the Stones without all the hoopla and hype that came with 72 and on.

I love this thread, because there are some herein who are not afraid to go after some UBER-SACRED cows like GP and the Booth book. Some of the people on this list will go "bananas".

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Quote
CMH516
STP was a rollicking good ride that makes you feel like you are right in the middle of the chaos and decadence that was the '72 tour. I couldn't put that book down.

The next one was trash. I literally threw it away as soon as I finished it.

Not sure which I hated more, his factual errors or the continual use of amateurish literary devices like "You make ask yourself dear reader...."

Could not agree more. STP is a great read. Never get tired of it. The second book was absolutely awful. A huge disappointment. He was obviously just writing something to cash in on the publicity surrounding the Stones as they approached 50. There was nothing of any substance in the book. I threw mine away as well. I just wonder how this new book is ? My sense from reading reviews is that it is only slightly better than the second book