Quote
marko
Did Mick had a car back then? i don´t think so,,maybe it was his parents,who knows,but not many people had a car back then.

He apparently used to borrow his parents Triumph Herald.

The letter above and the other early-60s material by Keith quoted in Life do "read right" for me as real items from that time - complete with quotes from Molesworth and the Goons and the whole style of the thing. I've got my own thirteen-year-old teenage diaries (TOP SECRET) from 1962 for comparison, and if Keith's are a fake, then somebody is a damn good parodist. Of course, it is theoretically possible that a few extra bits have been inserted into a real letter or diary, but why would James Fox risk his reputation for something so trivial?

Also, I'm pretty sure that "Jora Leyton" (who only exists in this quote) must be the 60s pop singer John Leyton - which suggests a mistranscription by somebody from actual bad handwriting in a real letter. The one thing that gives me pause is whether Keith would say "crap" so often in a letter to his auntie, but then we didn't know his auntie.

Who knows?

For me James screwed his supposed good reputation by lifting stuff straight from other people's books without any crediting and passing it off as new remembrances.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-27 20:41 by His Majesty.

In the end, how authentic the letter or the diaries are, is not that important (I would say, the only importance is only 'aesthetical'; does that 'look' good or not). They don't prove anything, or give us any striking novelties, or contradict anything, but are just giving a bit contextual touch to the story - how those crucial happenings that would change the author's life forever, looked like from the teenager eyes of him back then. As 'evidence' they are pretty harmless; actually they don't 'say' almost anything. I guess my initial reaction to doubt their authenticity simple derived from them being a bit too fitting, obvious and consistent with everything we know already of those times, and what would happen later. A bit too many lucky co-incidencies.

And since they are written by the author of the book, there is no problems of the authority either. I mean, if we would write a Brian Jones biography, and then reconstruct a letter written by him to someone else, we would be in trouble.

Even though some people sound like being terrified for doing such a thing, to me such a rhetorical trick in an autobiography is not basically any bigger 'crime' than adding studio over-dubs to a live recording. I guess most of us are okay with the latter, right? (But I was horrified when as young kid I first realized that they are doing such a thing!).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-27 21:25 by Doxa.

To me, who grew up in South London not so very far from Dartford, in a similar kind of working class/lower middle class neighborhood and only a few years after Keith, this letter seems odd. Just doesn't ring true. Regarding "crap"... it was not a word really used back then as I remember.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, I think it is false and probably not even penned by Keith.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
But if it is a fake, I don't think it is any big sin. Just a rhetorical means to make an autobiographical story a bit more exciting and lively. Nothing extraordinary in these kind of books and documents of the past. LIFE is not any historical reconstruction in a strict scientific sense, but a commercial product to entertain readers.

- Doxa

Yeah.

Some scans of the letter and diary would have been good.

Perhaps it's the same situation as their autographs.

Could it be the Stones learned to write each others letters and diaries as well?

Quote
Doxa
In the end, how authentic the letter or the diaries are, is not that important (I would say, the only importance is only 'aesthetical'; does that 'look' good or not). They don't prove anything, or give us any striking novelties, or contradict anything, but are just giving a bit contextual touch to the story"

- Doxa

In many ways – yes it is silly. It may even be true. Maybe these were just thoughts in his head way back then and he recounted them as he chose to remember them. All of that to me is somewhat irrelevant. More interesting is the discourse on this board and elsehwere. In the 80's and even early 90's, no one would have even questioned the veracity of this Keith “document” but now, in 2013, few among the discerning believe much of this Keith document to be true – Why?

The inherent problem that many have noted with LIFE is that Keith wrote a compelling and entertaining book for sure - BUT it is not authentic. The badge of authenticity that Keith bestows upon himslef (and only himself) throughout LIFE proves to be just a veneer.

He didnt have to be "truthful" in a biography, an inherently self-aggrandizing and subjective genre - but why right a "biography" if you can't be honest about yourself while at the same time pretending to provide a brutally honest expose about others?

Keith is quite far removed from reality - he has been that way for a long long time. But in writing LIFE, he also completely displayed a lack of a desire to go through the process of self discovery. That is what was astonishing.

Your point regarding this piece in LIFE and its "importance is only 'aesthetical" is a good one. Sadly, an all aspects, text and song, that is all that is left of Keith's importance - period.

Quote
wanderingspirit66

Quote
Doxa
In the end, how authentic the letter or the diaries are, is not that important (I would say, the only importance is only 'aesthetical'; does that 'look' good or not). They don't prove anything, or give us any striking novelties, or contradict anything, but are just giving a bit contextual touch to the story"

- Doxa

In many ways – yes it is silly. It may even be true. Maybe these were just thoughts in his head way back then and he recounted them as he chose to remember them. All of that to me is somewhat irrelevant. More interesting is the discourse on this board and elsehwere. In the 80's and even early 90's, no one would have even questioned the veracity of this Keith “document” but now, in 2013, few among the discerning believe much of this Keith document to be true – Why?

The inherent problem that many have noted with LIFE is that Keith wrote a compelling and entertaining book for sure - BUT it is not authentic. The badge of authenticity that Keith bestows upon himslef (and only himself) throughout LIFE proves to be just a veneer.

He didnt have to be "truthful" in a biography, an inherently self-aggrandizing and subjective genre - but why right a "biography" if you can't be honest about yourself while at the same time pretending to provide a brutally honest expose about others?

Keith is quite far removed from reality - he has been that way for a long long time. But in writing LIFE, he also completely displayed a lack of a desire to go through the process of self discovery. That is what was astonishing.

Your point regarding this piece in LIFE and its "importance is only 'aesthetical" is a good one. Sadly, an all aspects, text and song, that is all that is left of Keith's importance - period.

Sadly, a discussion about a letter Keith Richard's says he wrote is used as an excuse to dismiss his importance as a musician.

It's remarkable that fans know "the truth", and that Keith doesn't.

I'm not saying that there aren't a few dubious tales in there, but there's a long way from that to the pseudo/psycho analysis here about what Keith was, and supposedly has become, mostly based on info from other books as well as pure speculation...

I think it was written on the grassy knoll.

Quote
Title5Take1
I think it was written on the grassy knoll.

You are the winner! Best laugh I've had today, thanks for that Title5Take1.

yeah, It's a CIA plot to frame Keith's opinions to make the Beatles look better. We all know that Lennon is still alive and working in fish store in Liverpool.

All autobiographies or memoirs cannot be taken too seriously in terms of truthfulness. It's entertaining reading, nothing more (I felt the same about McCartney's 'Many Years From Now').

Come on, if this letter had existed, don't you guys think it had surfaced already and scans would be known?

This would be the written story that everybody knows, written by Keith's hand, and a tremendous document in R&R history. Probably on display somewhere, for its importance. Why don't we see it, then? No need to answer.

Personally, I didn't read LIFE, and I never payed too much attention to what Keith says/writes or somebody writes for him. That helps me in my admiration for the man. All in all, I read about 4 biographies.

My favorite one starts this way:

"Listen. The greatest feeling I ever had in my life - with my clothes on - was when I first hear Diz and Bird together in St. Louis, Missouri, back in 1944."

I LOVE this book

FWIW, i.e. nothing, I think the letter rings totally true, for the reasons Green Lady mentioned above. I've got diaries from that era that sound similar, too. (Apart from the bit about meeting Mick Jagger.) The most I'm prepared to concede is that he may have cleaned it up a bit to read "crap" so that we wouldn't know he wrote "shit" to his auntie. And as for the rest of the book, it's so obviously Keith's voice, no matter what Fox did in terms of transcription or organization. Sure it's not 100% accurate--nor would most people's life stories be, if they're reconstructing them from memory. It's not an academic history treatise.

Quote
Aquamarine
FWIW, i.e. nothing, I think the letter rings totally true, for the reasons Green Lady mentioned above. I've got diaries from that era that sound similar, too. (Apart from the bit about meeting Mick Jagger.) The most I'm prepared to concede is that he may have cleaned it up a bit to read "crap" so that we wouldn't know he wrote "shit" to his auntie. And as for the rest of the book, it's so obviously Keith's voice, no matter what Fox did in terms of transcription or organization. Sure it's not 100% accurate--nor would most people's life stories be, if they're reconstructing them from memory. It's not an academic history treatise.

Also, 1962-3 was a time when people actually still wrote letters. Richard Burton's diary/journal has been published recently (some written during this same time period), so I tend to agree that it is not too far-fetched.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-28 01:08 by nightskyman.

Quote
latebloomer


Sadly, a discussion about a letter Keith Richard's says he wrote is used as an excuse to dismiss his importance as a musician.

The music, thankfully, does the best talking.

Quote
nightskyman


Also, 1962-3 was a time when people actually still wrote letters. Richard Burton's diary/journal has been published recently (some written during this same time period), so I tend to agree that it is not too far-fetched.

Of course it is not far fetched that Keith would write letters or that some would still exist.

Having read my late father’s various writings and scribbling from a similar period to that of Keith’s letter in question, I do find myself concurring with the views of Green Lady and Aquamarine. There is something in the style and themes expressed that tie-in so perfectly with the England of that era: ‘The Goons Show’, etc. Either it’s a genuine piece, or a very good recreation by Keith himself, or perhaps, someone else. I suspect the former.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
nightskyman


Also, 1962-3 was a time when people actually still wrote letters. Richard Burton's diary/journal has been published recently (some written during this same time period), so I tend to agree that it is not too far-fetched.

Of course it is not far fetched that Keith would write letters or that some would still exist.

Apparently, some people in this particular thread find it implausible (or feel that the letters published in 'A Life' are not one of the actual letters Keith wrote). I don't know why some are having a hard time with it. The letters are some of the most enjoyable reading of the whole book. So I say just enjoy it.

Something that could easily be concocted by anyone with half a clue about early 60's Britian.

Quote
nightskyman

Apparently, some people in this particular thread find it implausible (or feel that the letters published in 'A Life' are not one of the actual letters Keith wrote). I don't know why some are having a hard time with it. The letters are some of the most enjoyable reading of the whole book. So I say just enjoy it.

It's Keith, it's good to be suspicious.

Quote
His Majesty
it's good to be suspicious

it's good to be anything

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

Quote
Doxa
In the end, how authentic the letter or the diaries are, is not that important (I would say, the only importance is only 'aesthetical'; does that 'look' good or not). They don't prove anything, or give us any striking novelties, or contradict anything...
- Doxa

The diary, if true, and I hope it is, helps us to date pictures which are sometimes dated to 1962 as actually being from early 1963.

Ie, if we see Keith with his Harmony Meteor guitar we know that it has to be from on or after 25th January 1963.

This same diary may also cast doubt on the supposed debut gig pics actually being from their debut gig as A fawn Vox AC30 which matches Bill's is being used by the stones onstage. Could be someone else's, but it might be Bill's which means those historic photos would actually be from a later date.

So for stones nerds it's kinda important to know whether the letters and diary are real.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-28 01:48 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
In the end, how authentic the letter or the diaries are, is not that important (I would say, the only importance is only 'aesthetical'; does that 'look' good or not). They don't prove anything, or give us any striking novelties, or contradict anything...
- Doxa

The diary, if true, and I hope it is, helps us to date pictures which are sometimes dated to 1962 as actually being from early 1963.

Ie, if we see Keith with his Harmony Meteor guitar we know that it has to be from after 10th January 1963.

This same diary may also cast doubt on the supposed debut gig pics actually being from their debut gig as A fawn Vox AC30 which matches Bill's is being used by the stones onstage. Could be someone else's, but it might be Bill's which means those historic photos would actually be from a later date.

So for stones nerds it's kinda important to know whether the letters and diary are real.

Never thought of it from that perspective...wow, that's good stuff!

I also think there's a difference between errors and things that are deliberately fabricated. As I discovered on rereading my old diaries, I got things wrong when writing them down a couple of hours after they happened. So it's not surprising if there are factual errors in Keith's letters/diaries--that doesn't mean he deliberately made them up!

Quote
nightskyman


Never thought of it from that perspective...wow, that's good stuff!

Sorry, I looked earlier, but as if to prove memories are bad...

... The diary tells us he bought his Harmony on 25th January 1963.

The diary also informs us that on 11th January 1963 Bill said that he would stay even if they sacked Tony Chapman. Tony was finally sacked on 14th January 1963.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-28 01:48 by His Majesty.

^ Phelge's Stones, another great personal diary from that period, makes mention early on of how Keith would make weekly trips to the guitar shop to make payments on his Harmony guitar, which was on "hire purchase".

Quote
Aquamarine
I also think there's a difference between errors and things that are deliberately fabricated. As I discovered on rereading my old diaries, I got things wrong when writing them down a couple of hours after they happened. So it's not surprising if there are factual errors in Keith's letters/diaries--that doesn't mean he deliberately made them up!

That's the point I was trying to make earlier..it seems really far fetched to think he would sit down and completely make up a letter just to include in his book. The letter certainly is a nice touch, but there are plenty of great Keith stories without it.

The inclusion of a couple of fake or worked up letters perhaps based on real ones with not so interesting info on them would require no extra effort fom Keith as he wrote nothing for the book... All that's needed for a letter is his memories which is what they were doing anyway.

Do letters Keith wrote to one of his aunts in 1962 exist? No reason for them not to.

Are these letters as they are presented in the book? This is the thing I have doubts about. There's just a sense of the writer as presented in the book knowing that the meeting with Mick is significant and the few little pieces of rock star speak creeping in.

...

Someone mentioned that there ought to have been some scans of the letters doing the rounds due to their musical historic significance, but of course these are from a family member so quite understandable that they wouldn't have been flogged around hunting for a sale and shown off before Keith got them.

That not happening with the diary depends on who had it. We are only told that he bought it back recently and that it had probably been left at a party or something back in the day.

...

A pic showing the letters and diary toegether in the photograph section would have been groovy. Lovely little items from a key year in his musical life.