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

I don't like that he forgets there's mostly electrics on JJF though.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
tatters

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

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

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

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





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

That's another tune where Pete's demo is better than the band's version.

^ Yes, I like those jazzy guitar nuances in Pete's version, great melodic soloing that he never got a chance to do with the band. It gives the song a more inspired effect.

Quote
stonehearted
^ Yes, I like those jazzy guitar nuances in Pete's version, great melodic soloing that he never got a chance to do with the band. It gives the song a more inspired effect.

I saw the Who in 1980 in LA and thought they were tremendous. Pete was drunk as a skunk but played great. I had no idea he was also coke and pilled-up to the gills.

In Europe in March 1981 thereabouts Pete actually downed a fifth of scotch or some such hard liquor or maybe even two-fifths during their set. He took over for Keith Moon in that respect, probably out of guilt, finally getting straight again after a near fatal overdose in the loo of a club later that year.

Quote
bob r


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

"

I too found that Clapton came across as a not very nice self centered man when I read his book

Quote
AlanPartridge

Quote
bob r


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

"

I too found that Clapton came across as a not very nice self centered man when I read his book

What goes for the respect for those great musicians as persons, better not to read autobiographies... Dylan an exception, though.

But the autobiographies are handy to get whatever info, interesting anecdotes, perspectives, etc.

- Doxa, an intensive reader, but still suffering from the trauma left by LIFE...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 17:04 by Doxa.

Quote
AlanPartridge

Quote
bob r


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

"

I too found that Clapton came across as a not very nice self centered man when I read his book

What an egotistical person he was! He painted a picture, though, on how he saw the light and became a very nice person eventually

I enjoyed the book, but found Clapton to be a sad character. Maybe his honesty made it a better book - I don't know - but it was a good read, imo.

enjoyed the book, but found Clapton to be a sad character.

....yeah that Clapton book sure had the blues



ROCKMAN

Quote
AlanPartridge

Quote
bob r


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

"

I too found that Clapton came across as a not very nice self centered man when I read his book

Rock musicians tend to be very self centred. As do actors - and even chat show hosts, Alan!

Its a very natural trait in any performing artist. There's always going to be that 'look at me, look at me' element in their personality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-28 00:19 by Gazza.

Quote
His Majesty

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

I don't like that he forgets there's mostly electrics on JJF though.

or that Satisfaction is in standard tuning. ..

Quote
DandelionPowderman


or that Satisfaction is in standard tuning. ..

I bet James Fox is responsible for that mistake.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
AlanPartridge

Quote
bob r


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

"

I too found that Clapton came across as a not very nice self centered man when I read his book

Rock musicians tend to be very self centred. As do actors - and even chat show hosts, Alan!

Its a very natural trait in any performing artist. There's always going to be that 'look at me, look at me' element in their personality.

Good thing none of the rest of us are like that...

The thing about Pete's book is he is being brutally honest and shares his inner soul. While difficult to read at times, it was also a compelling insight into Pete's personality and passion.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Gazza

Quote
AlanPartridge

Quote
bob r


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

"

I too found that Clapton came across as a not very nice self centered man when I read his book

Rock musicians tend to be very self centred. As do actors - and even chat show hosts, Alan!

Its a very natural trait in any performing artist. There's always going to be that 'look at me, look at me' element in their personality.

Good thing none of the rest of us are like that...

I was kinda thinking that when I typed it but I thought it best to be tactful!

What I liked about Keith's book was good sense of humor. Disapointed about his need to insult Mick - on the other hand some of his nasty comments were spot on. Keith's book was really entertaining and funny, but not very honest at times.

What I liked about Pete's book was his honesty, disapointed about the need to complain so much, it was a book written by a really depressed millionaire. Not always entertaining or fun, but for a depressed self centered millionaire it was ok.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-28 04:02 by seitan.

Quote
seitan
What I liked about Keith's book was good sense of humor. Disapointed about his need to insult Mick - on the other hand some of his nasty comments were spot on. Keith's book was really entertaining and funny, but not very honest at times.

What I liked about Pete's book was his honesty, disapointed about the need to complain so much, it was a book written by a really depressed millionaire. Not always entertaining or fun, but for a depressed self centered millionaire it was ok.

Now that's what I call a ringing endorsement...can't decide whether or not you were being intentionally funny here or not seitan, but thanks for the laugh, regardless. I haven't read Pete's book yet, but this sure makes me want to run out and get a copy. Actually, I do want to read it, but I think I'll wait for sunnier skies...

^ A good summary of Who I Am really.

The book, not who I am.

Ehm, ah, aye...

You are our resident Brian Jones expert HM, but that won't save you....

Ronnie Woods biography crushes both of these ...



2 1 2 0

Really? I thought Ronnie's was terrible. Shallow, and just full of stories about him getting hi and losing all his money. Over and over and over again. No thanks.

I like the Keith book best. Pete's was good but a little whiny. The Neil Young book is very interesting, too.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


or that Satisfaction is in standard tuning. ..

I bet James Fox is responsible for that mistake.

I sincerely hope he was!

Two of the best rock star autobiographies are Mac's and Gregg Allman's.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Two of the best rock star autobiographies are Mac's and Gregg Allman's.

I just read Gregg Allman's recently. Ya, it was pretty good.

I found both to be great as far as all the Rock Bios I have read. PT's was cut by 50%. His editor wanted a shorter book. Guess they think our attention span is like most (editors) seem to think, we only want to read People magazine. He hopes to put the complete version up on the Who's website. A for example with a Editor's mentality. Steve Irwin's wife book was over 600+ pages. They cut it down to 300, so it could be a summer lite read. Sad.

Read both, then read Neil's and was so grateful that, unlike Keith and Pete, he never mentioned Mick's dick. I hated Keith's, thought it was false, forced and unnecessarily cruel, and not just to Mick, Keith used to be funny and cool, now he TRIES to be funny and cool, and it breaks my heart. Didn't like Pete's too much either, all of that moaning back in the day about how he can't tour because you come home and find your marriage in ruins, oh, you can't be away from home, then I find out he was slamming everything moving less than 15 miles an hour, maybe that had something to do with his marriage going bad. Stephen Stills was right, put out a box set as your autobiography.

Keith's was smug, contrived, hurtful and spiteful. I really dislike him as a person after reading it. Pete's was whiny but also brutally self-critical. Above all, unlike Keith, his love for the members of his band is apparent. Keith came across as insecure, immature and bitter. I almost stopped reading at the"spite Mick by screwing his woman" anecdote. I'd love to read an unabridged version of Pete's but I tossed Keith's.