let us know when ya get to the INDEX....



ROCKMAN

Anyone have any thoughts on the audiobook version? Too bad Keith didn't read the entire book. Depp wasn't bad. Hurley wasn't either, but I wish Depp read the whole book.

Quote
Rockman
let us know when ya get to the INDEX....

Why, are you in it?

It's a poorly written and organised book but that's down to editors I think. It was a hard chew for me to read. Many people I know read it and thought it was great. But then they'd never really read any Rolling Stones books till "Life" so weren't reading stuff they'd basically read many times before told by different authors as I had. I came off disliking Keith a great deal unfortunately as in my opinion he is self centred in the extreme. A full blown narcissist. People are measured in my eyes once they are parents on what kind of parents they are. Keith should never have been a father and this shines thru I think with the relationships he did or didn't have with his five children. The way Marlon parented Keith from what 4? is disgusting. Guns under pillows, drugs, houses on fire and who knows what else. I don't doubt he loved his kids but no normal human being goes on stage the same night they lose their child. And brushing it off as he was only six weeks old and we didn't really have a bond or whatever still leaves me wondering how anyone allowed him to put it in the book. Anyways I think if you're bored after 60 pages the book is done for you.
Avoid reading Keidas and a Gene Simmons autobios too. Unless you have a bucket on the ready next to you for vomiting. Never read two books from people that could be more up themselves. Keidas has no talent other than for performing but you could be forgiven for thinking on the eighth day God created him after reading his autobio.

Too bad Keith didn't read the entire book. Depp wasn't bad. Hurley wasn't either, but I wish Depp read the whole book.

Keith reads the last two CD's ... Wish he'd have read the whole book



ROCKMAN

Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
It's a poorly written and organised book but that's down to editors I think. It was a hard chew for me to read. Many people I know read it and thought it was great. But then they'd never really read any Rolling Stones books till "Life" so weren't reading stuff they'd basically read many times before told by different authors as I had. I came off disliking Keith a great deal unfortunately as in my opinion he is self centred in the extreme. A full blown narcissist. People are measured in my eyes once they are parents on what kind of parents they are. Keith should never have been a father and this shines thru I think with the relationships he did or didn't have with his five children. The way Marlon parented Keith from what 4? is disgusting. Guns under pillows, drugs, houses on fire and who knows what else. I don't doubt he loved his kids but no normal human being goes on stage the same night they lose their child. And brushing it off as he was only six weeks old and we didn't really have a bond or whatever still leaves me wondering how anyone allowed him to put it in the book. Anyways I think if you're bored after 60 pages the book is done for you.
Avoid reading Keidas and a Gene Simmons autobios too. Unless you have a bucket on the ready next to you for vomiting. Never read two books from people that could be more up themselves. Keidas has no talent other than for performing but you could be forgiven for thinking on the eighth day God created him after reading his autobio.

like i said its picking up. keith is the biggest autobiography i've read so he has more pages to talk about things. i'm really not that interested in these guys childhoods and he talks the most about his out of the books i've read and doesn't tell a lot about how it related to his music yet. ray davies did the best, barely talking about his childhood. davies book reads more like an actual story the way its laid out

Ray had written about his childhood before. Keith hadn't.

Life is anything but boring.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ray had written about his childhood before. Keith hadn't.

Life is anything but boring.

The childhood bits are probably the best bits..
Although I'm not sure I believe in the childhood diary. Keith's dodgy dossier.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ray had written about his childhood before. Keith hadn't.

Life is anything but boring.

Hey Dandie I love ginger nuts too just wondering why you incorporated one into your signature?

Quote
vertigojoe

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ray had written about his childhood before. Keith hadn't.

Life is anything but boring.

Hey Dandie I love ginger nuts too just wondering why you incorporated one into your signature?

Root powder

Quote
71Tele
The thing we're forgetting is that the book was a huge mainstream commercial success. It got good reviews and sold very well (ahem, unlike any recent studio album by the Rolling Stones). So, the author(s) did something right....

dunno, throwing Mick under the bus...not sure that was worth the trade off to sell a few books. Guess it depends on one's point of view.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ray had written about his childhood before. Keith hadn't.

Life is anything but boring.

I think we'd already established it was also tedious

Quote
71Tele
The thing we're forgetting is that the book was a huge mainstream commercial success. It got good reviews and sold very well (ahem, unlike any recent studio album by the Rolling Stones). So, the author(s) did something right...As a reliable insight into Keith's creative process and thinking, and as a document for Rolling Stones fans, it's of pretty limited use. Also, as has been mentioned, there is the inevitable "show me the blade" side of Keith's personality, which many of us saw through years ago, so that aspect is tiresome. The weakness for me is that when reading it, I could actually imagine James Fox transcribing taped monologues from Keith and pasting them together.

Yeah, it is a kind of 'war horses' take of Keith's extraordinary life, which actually doesn't offer much new angles, insights or info to anyone who has followed his life through the years, read his interviews, Stones books etc. Especially the musical side of the story was pretty well covered earlier, with a very few surprises. Keith seemingly is very conscious of what in his life has an appeal to masses, which pretty much is the constitution of his pirate image, of which he - and Jane Rose - has taken care so carefully since the 80's. The drugs and bashing Jagger - or making himself more important by emphasizing his relation by whatever way to Jagger - is part of the deal or attraction, and in both "Keef" goes extreme. I am sure he made the publisher happy too.

What goes for that macho alpha male blade side, the natural boy scout leader stuff, etc. that probably surprised me mostly by its magnitude. Genuine or not, every public act, like releasing an autobiography, is a public performance, and to be judged as such. I just found it uncool. Sounds very childish.

- Doxa

The book was a huge commercial success BECAUSE the publisher paid $7 million dollars for it and publicized and marketed it in every way humanly possible.

People liked it too, stonesrule.

Yes LB people did like it!

And Keith promoted it because that was a key demand of the publisher for why he was paid so much. He spent more time promoting it than he did being involved with the writing.

I still believe that Keith could write and be totally committed with a much better book today.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele
The thing we're forgetting is that the book was a huge mainstream commercial success. It got good reviews and sold very well (ahem, unlike any recent studio album by the Rolling Stones). So, the author(s) did something right....

dunno, throwing Mick under the bus...not sure that was worth the trade off to sell a few books. Guess it depends on one's point of view.

I didn't say it was worth the trade off, just that it was a commercial success, which it was.

Of course the Mick bashing is not forgivable on any level, AGREED! There are far more interesting bios to read, and Townshend's was excellent, also enjoyed Clapton's and even Ronnie's and one by Cynthia Lennon entitled simply " John" was a good read. Paul McCartney's bio " Many Years From Now" I could not finish....it was dull. I loved both Steven Tyler's bios because he is brutally honest!
Keith, I found, thinks way too highly of himself and needs a reality check. He needs to dig down into the weeds and come up with the truth about Mick's loyalty and how great a friend he has been to him. He was damn lucky to have had Mick in his corner in 1977, during his Toronto drug bust days....

Quote
71Tele

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele
The thing we're forgetting is that the book was a huge mainstream commercial success. It got good reviews and sold very well (ahem, unlike any recent studio album by the Rolling Stones). So, the author(s) did something right....

dunno, throwing Mick under the bus...not sure that was worth the trade off to sell a few books. Guess it depends on one's point of view.

I didn't say it was worth the trade off, just that it was a commercial success, which it was.

fair enough, and thanks for clarifying

Yes, LB - it was liked by people too!
I admit that you're probably right, stonesrule. It could've been a better book -- maybe a bit more introspective -- but regardless, a great read.

I must say, it was my very first reading on the Stones/Keith so the stories and the escapades were brand new to me. (A latebloomer myself .)

LIFE cemented my feelings towards the band and peeked my curiosity. (NOTE: As others have voiced, the entire tiny todger episode was uncalled for and mean-spirited.) The other stuff people bitch about, well, I don't really mind the machismo overlay and I expect an ego; I don't think you'd survive very well in the Stones - or any hard working rock band - without a big one.

After Life, the very next book I gobbled up was the STP tour. It's a bit Mick-centric -- but I liked the way Greenfield insinuated a lot of the exchanges and stories with the fans, Jo Berman, Marshall, and so many others who made up the '72 tour.

Since those newbie days, I've read many interviews and books about the band and Keith specifically (even broke down and read Spanish-Tony's). I'm actually going to re-read LIFE in the next couple of weeks - I might anty-up for the book-on-tape version. What I found most compelling in Life is unarguably Keith's sense of humor. It had me hooked from the very first story...remember when KR & Ronnie were busted in Arkansas? I was in stitches.




p.s. A cool and comprehensive little tome I've come across was published by Amsco music in 1972, It's called Rolling Stones, An unauthorized biography in words, photographs, and music. It's got reviews of their records and films, lyrics from their songs, and interviews with the band (along with some other cool stuff). If you ever find it at a second-hand bookstore, grab it!

I think Keith needs to maintain the "Keith Richards" image at all costs, and if there is a weakness in "Life" it is that aspect. It's too bad too, because when he discusses his childhood, family and early influences he actually comes close to revealing something real (and very appealing) about himself. It's unfortunate that the bravado "show the blade", shooting out lights in tenements aspect of his persona had to make an inevitable appearance. This may have been entertaining to newbies (including some book reviewers), but to those of us who have become overly-familiar with these stories from decades of interviews or books it was tedious ground to go over.

I don't think Keith's autobiographical models were confessional, a la Townshend, whose book I found narcissistic in the extreme. Of course writing an autobiography is a narcissistic exercise. Keith's work is in the model of books by Miles Davis and Chuck Berry, sort of pugnacious "I'm gonna tell it how it really was, baby" missives from self-styled oppressed rebels. (If you think Kwith comes off likes peick, you should read Miles). Dylan, on the other hand, just lies and cajoles through Chronicles, very effectively massaging his history into something likeable. I liked it. But I liked Life too. Mostly.

It's odd. I've been a Stones fan since the early 70s, and I suspect I am not alone on this board in having at one time considered Keith Richard the coolest guy ever. Yet I had no interest in reading *Life*. Something about the excerpts just sounded too much like the musings of a bullshitter with no capacity for self-reflection.

BLIVET, that was a simply brilliant assessment.

I find the icelandic version is very well translated, As we know there ara all kind of phrases in the rock industry, that are difficult to translate but the icelandic translator is opviously well into the rock industry language in my country. I like the book, and I drop into it from time to time, just random anywere in the book.

Quote
blivet
It's odd. I've been a Stones fan since the early 70s, and I suspect I am not alone on this board in having at one time considered Keith Richard the coolest guy ever. Yet I had no interest in reading *Life*. Something about the excerpts just sounded too much like the musings of a bullshitter with no capacity for self-reflection.

I'm not saying you shouldn't read it, but your assessment is dead bang on. He went WAY down in my opinion after reading 'his account' of things.

Beyond all the other crap, the thing that still sits with me was the off handed way I felt he dealt with the death of his baby. For me, I think that's when I crossed the rubicon.

He's in a band I happen to love, and created a lot of the greatest works, but I don't really like him as a person.

Not really sure what the fuss is about I enjoyed it, finished it in just under two days if I remember correctly.

Quote
shadooby
Not really sure what the fuss is about I enjoyed it, finished it in just under two days if I remember correctly.

Why would you consider it a 'fuss' if people don't like the book?

funny i didn't even say i didn't like in the OP i asked if it picked up steam because nothing grabbed me yet. it has and i am getting into it. i never care about anyones childhood so that was part of the issue.

The main criticism you could make about Life is that it isn't exactly written by Keith the man, but instead "that other guy", as Keith himself calls his public persona, that he props up on stage and presents to interviewers, especially magazine feature writers.

The book starts out with that "gunslinger" chapter where he's caught with a carload of drugs in a strange backwater of the U.S. South, facing a tough sentence from a hard judge, but who is then miraculously saved by the legal council provided by the Stones machine. "It was a classic outcome for the Stones". Indeed. And chapter 1 of Life is a classic pose for Keith Richards.

In Life, his public persona is on display. He probably doesn't talk to his grandkids or children at the dinner table the way he does when "that other guy" is on display in public. "Aw, the little bitch got soul" he sang about Patti in Little T&A, but I doubt while growing up the kids heard Keith referring to their mother as "the little bitch" around the house, nor I'm sure would he refer to her that way to Patti's family during family gatherings. Like Mick, Keith knows how to keep his true self hidden and protected while "that other guy" is filling in to keep the general public hyped up on impression management.

So, this chapter 1 is the version of himself that he wishes to introduce to the public: as a man who gets himself into bind after bind through his own excess, after which a comedy of errors ensues, or in his own words "total comedy, absurdity, Keystone Kops as the judge takes to the bench and the various lawyers and cops try to get him to follow their versions of the law" (p. 15), then Our Hero makes a narrow escape by the skin of his teeth in classic Stones fashion, the Keith of the Nine Lives.

Apart from that, even with 547 pages of life to discuss the reader finds that there is nothing to learn about the man that couldn't be found in any of those self-mythologized magazine interviews that have been the standard over the last twenty years, that he takes Mick for granted and is still dismissive toward Brian, even when discussing his demise--which he devotes one paragraph to. When discussing the possibility of manslaughter, he takes a maybe they did and maybe they didn't approach. If they didn't, then it Brian's own fault for taking too many of the wrong drugs under the wrong circumstances. He manages a backhanded compliment here with "He had a high tolerance for drugs, I'll give him that." If they did, then it was his own fault because "He pissed off the builders, whining son of a bitch." (p. 272)

Very telling how Keith can publicly profess all this gratitude and tribute for all these old soul and blues men for the inspiration to play music, but he can only manage one paragraph of backhanded compliments and withering insult for the man who helped create the vehicle through which Keith has been allowed to play that music since he was a teenager.

In the very true sense, that is the real Keith Richards. It speaks volumes, more than 547 pages of vodka fueled whitewash ever could.