In an interview with Matt Lauer about their upcoming tour they were talking about sex drugs and rock'n roll. Suddenly Keith said about Mick 'still sex and rock 'n roll but he has given up the drugs. I think Keith didn't give up the drugs otherwise he would have said " we have given up the drugs". Funny to watch the interview.

He gave up smack about 1980.
There were some flashbacks. Maby a good bunch too.
To me he seems in a better & better state, esp. the latest years.
He enjoys a spliff at occasions, as I got it,
and wouldnt even say now to a thin white line
sometimes.
This is what I concluded after following this herbert from Dartford rather thoroughly in books & articles for some while. I´m sure there will be others stating something else, and if anyone have more nuances or perspective at this issue, I´d be delighted to read it. One of my better sources is biographist Victor Bockris, think it was published in 2002 (title Keith Richards).




"Maverick Pomeroy: Ok, what has this to do with hair-transplants, wigs, Sir Elton or teeth-bleeching?"

[www.amazon.com] for Bockris´ book.

I enjoyed Bockris book, but beware of some facts that are wrong. Like the part about the show in gothenburg 1982.....20 minute guitar solos, hi-jacked cherry picker...wrong! I was there on both shows, so I know. But the part when Keith is lying on his back playing, that´s true.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

i'm sorry Keith didn't highjack that cherrypicker, but i'm glad he played on his back! another thing Bockris got wrong is his enormously detailed account of Keith punching Ronnie during She's So Cold at Wembley in 82. Keith didn't punch anybody during She's So Cold at Wembley in 82.
actually Bockris gets a bunch of stuff wrong - but then, they all do.

Yeah it happens to the best of us....jeez I parted my hair on the wrong side this morning and I'd only had one beer.

ROCKMAN

I liked that Matt Lauer tried the Q re the American Idol mentality because I feel that Jagger and Keith would have an interesting and inside view on the whole pop world. Even though they didn't give much of an answer it was a good point of the intervista.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'm sorry Keith didn't highjack that cherrypicker,
> but i'm glad he played on his back! another thing
> Bockris got wrong is his enormously detailed
> account of Keith punching Ronnie during She's So
> Cold at Wembley in 82. Keith didn't punch anybody
> during She's So Cold at Wembley in 82.
> actually Bockris gets a bunch of stuff wrong - but
> then, they all do.


both of the Gothenburg and Wembley stories are lifted wholesale from Nick Kent's previously published articles.

They're absolute nonsense

I read all biographies religiously up to a few years ago. By now the facts have been told. Unless an autobio surfaces I steer clear of these bios. This is just me but I am just not interested what Bockris or Kent think they saw or know.
"All the Rage" by Mac told the stories well.
They used to put out these GREAT books. Oversized, glossy beautiful pics, reviews and articles, creative writings. Nowadays the only way we still see those type books are criminally overpriced super limited editions from Genesis. They put out several superb books but made practically unavailbale to someone like me. I have all those Carr, Dalton books from the 70's. They are priceless now. I wish somehow those 5 or 6 books by Genesis were rereleased at humane prices.

Has the Chuck book revealed any insights by the way? It should really, since he spent a lot of time with them.

I haven't ordered it btw cause I was afraid the mailman would laugh at me.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> both of the Gothenburg and Wembley stories are
> lifted wholesale from Nick Kent's previously
> published articles. They're absolute nonsense


ah, so that was Nick Kent's doing, was it? and here i thought he was copying from poor old Victor. but i believe you, Gazza - Kent's "Keith biography" that came out this year is so full of factual errors it's plain embarrassing.




"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

well..I'm not familiar with a Keith bio by Nick Kent - dont you mean Kris Needs' book?

Kent's autobiography "The Dark Stuff" came out a few years ago, although it would have been after Bockris' book. However, his Stones material in it was previously published in the early 80's.

The story about Keith playing a 20 min gtr solo in Gothenburg simply isnt borne out by the audio evidence. Vilhelm (as said above) was at both shows and at least verifies the story about him lying on his back. And Kent's account of Keith biffing Ronnie for flubbing up the intro on "Shes so cold" at the 2nd wembley show is nonsense too, as can be seen on the video. Even if Ronnie had just got a whack across the nose when the camera wasnt pointing at him, he and the rest of the band are looking remarkably composed considering

A lot of the 'factual' material on Bockris' book is rehashed from other sources, so like all such books, mistakes get repeated. Its a fun read though, especially on Keith's post-heroin period which hasnt been well covered elsewhere although I think he over-emphasises Keith's importance to the Stones music while shortchanging Mick's influence.

right, sorry! embarrassing factual errors even as we speak: i meant Kris Needs's "Keith bio", of course. Nick Kent, Kris Needs - turn 'em upside down and they all look alike ... sorry! and thanks for the correction, insights, details and all.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Didnt at all intend to claim Bockris´ book is The Truth, god help us: no book ('xcuse me, Islamists & bible belters) is, and esp. not in the Stones-business*.

...But among books on the Stones or Richards I prefer Bockris. I´ve heard about that Göteborg story & that it isnt not correct mirrored. To certain extent Bockris has not did a thoroughly job distincting myth from facts. But with the Stones they most often not even themselves know the truth or remember an event.

The definite Stones- or Richards-book is not yet written, and will never be. We have to do as all good source-critical historian do, interchange between them.

* I dont count Wyman´s books, which of course are 100% correct when it comes to details (maybe with a warning flag while speaking of girls or fidelity or non-fidelity)

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont count Wyman´s books, which of course are
> 100% correct when it comes to details

actually, they're not. There are mistakes in both of them!!! Especially the "Rolling with the Stones" one!

How many?
Seriously even good old Bill have to hit the air sometime.
Little irony in my writing there, but he i s a calendar-biter, on that we can agree, cant we? ...Like the story from Mac:s autobiography, they´re watching ZZ Top (now I´m telling from memory - ) "ZZ [cee cee] Top is very good, right, Bill?". Bill, grumbling: "Well, they were called ZZ [zed zed] Top when we wre playing with them back in 7x (73?), and they are called ZZ Top now.
He sure has better memory on years & stuff than Keef have. Dont think Jagger either is that good placing things in chronological order. Would be interesting to see if Charlie could put things in place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-05-16 10:50 by Baboon Bro.

Bill said in a BBC interview in '82 that when it came to remembering stuff about the band's history "I have a good memory and surprisingly so has Keith....Mick's hopeless and so's Charlie..and of course Woody's only a new boy - hes only been with us 7 years so he dont know much.."

The fact that Mick had to return a multi million pound advance for his autobiography in the mid 80s because he couldnt remember hardly anything speaks volumes!

According to Charlie, Mick remembers everything! I suspect that a lot of his memory lapses are as genuine as his accent...


You might have to scrape me off the floor at the end of the tour, but it'll be really good scrapings. - Mick Jagger

if they were and he was offered 6 million quid for his autobiography, he'd have remembered pretty fast!

I don't agree with you there. Does anyone outside the Stones and his intimate circle really know what Mick thinks and feels about things? He goes to considersble lengths to keep it like that and makes up for any loss of potential revenue from the book by upping the revenue from touring! Well it's a theory...


You might have to scrape me off the floor at the end of the tour, but it'll be really good scrapings. - Mick Jagger

Noone outside Jagger - if even he himself does - know about his thinking & feeling. But I´m definitely with Gazza on this one. Jagger´s so greedy he cries for every pound his paying a session musician with over 10£ (even if its Townsend or Ry Cooder or whoever). Leaving his biography if his own memory works to another so that the ghost-writer could earn plenty just isnt Jagger... And he isnt a person that looks back; although he can - as we´ve seen from time to time - travel back to his musical roots, but his past is mostly closed.

Gaz wrote:
"I think he over-emphasises Keith's importance to the Stones music while shortchanging Mick's influence."

I think you under-estimate Keith, he has a lot more pull than you think. Mick just seems to be the boss all the time because he goes out in public more and is in the media mor. But Ol' Keef, he fanangles and watches, from afar. Bet on it.


"Fuc the Rock babe, I want the Roll." (KR)

Over- or just emphasizing Keith´s importance in Stones´ music seems to be a tendensis during the last years biography writing. Bockris as well as (e.g.) Christopher Sandford seem to run thesises on this. Even if this may lead to slightly exaggerations I agree with LISMM63 sofar that Keith has more importance than most of us use to think. On the other hand I often get a sense that Jagger get all the credits for lyric-writing, even if Keith often is the one that starts a theme, and lays a foundation on the lyrics. On the third hand Jagger sometimes not is given credit for contributing with arrangements or parts in music... And when the roots are there, when rock'n'roll is in the air - they are both on it. Woody & Charlie as well as Bill, Stu & Brian also should be noticed as contributors more often (on Bill we had a thread not so long ago on this).

But now we´ve seemed to began another thread...