Tell Me :
Talk
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
thinking of people I've spoken with, and comments on the board here, and in this thread in particular. people did know, yes.
he once said "you can't have a worse reputation than mine" referring to his drug use..but also said " I never had problems with drugs, only with police"..
well, no. I really don't think the events of his life referred to in this thread were on fan's minds until they read his book, apparently..
it's really not dandy-this wasn't some interview that would be read by stonesfreaks like ourselves,it was a book supposedly written by keith looking back on his life,it was a big deal.
to have one of the greatest charactors in the last 100 years look back on his life and the big headline is him talking about his writing partners penis is sad and pathetic.like i said in my previous post,he drank too much and it effected his personality and judgement.i agree with some of the posters saying it's too bad he didnt write it now-he seems to be in a much better place.
Hardly...he reconfirmed all the crap for the last couple of decades as 'his take'.
Shouldn't be a shock that some segment of readers are going to say, "yeah ok, not for me".
But they're not saying that. That would be perfectly comprehendable.
That they don't know the old stories, and think Todgergate is a more serious offense than randomly firing a gun in a hotel IS surprising. At least to me...
thats not it-they do know all the old stories.everyone has heard it all a million times.its just sad to alot of people to think thats the level he was operating on-the jagger/richards thing is kind of a big deal- and you're reducing yourself to talking about micks junk?
instead of a great man looking back on his life it seems more like an extended interview from the 80"s.projecting the image,still talking crap about a dead guy..still mad at jagger.i think most of us expected him to rise above it all as he looked back,he didnt and its disappointing.
I pretty much agree with all that, although I would add that I think Mick Jagger can be a pretty cold fish at times and it genuinely hurt and surprised Keith when Mick thought the Stones were in his rearview mirror around the time of Dirty Work. Unfortunately, Keith's response was to lash out in anger, then - and decades later when he wrote "Life". The todger comment and "Brenda" and all the rest of it obviously is coming from a place of a lot of pain. These guys being Englishmen, I just don't think they talked about this stuff a lot, and each dealt with their mutual issues in their own way: Mick by being aloof and cold, and Keith by lashing out. Now, there's a book waiting to be written...
Thanks for claryfying, memphiscats. I wasn't taking any kind of "moral" position or even judging. I think a lot of the anger and bluster comes from a place of pain. You hurt the ones you love, and all of that.
I can see that, but to me it wasn't surprising at all that we didn't get the "great man looking back"-book. I'm not even sure if Keith himself thinks he is/was that great to tell about.
Agree on every point!
And perhaps Keith will write a Part 2 -- I hope so! I think he did his best with this, and it's
imperfect, but I'm appreciative of the effort and parts of it are really interesting, and
wonderful.
Yeah, I suppose one can choose to belive that...
It was in 1983, I believe.
Boring, or unpleasant, Mick? Who knows..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 10:51 by DandelionPowderman.
In Philip Norman's Jagger book there was some discussion of this project. If I recall right, Jagger was able to come up - this was news to me - with a rather short manuscript - which more was a kind of observation of English life style of the 50's and 60's or something - but the publisher was seriously disappointed with the result, and refused to release it. It was them then demanding more revealing stuff (dirt), which ended up by Jagger dropping the whole project, and returning the money.
So taking his artistic licence and typical sloppiness, I don't think Jagger is not so far from the truth in his recollections.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 13:01 by Doxa.
Might be. Might be that Normann's "source" was Jagger's statement as well.
I don't think so (or that was all he had). I think he did a bit of research on the matter, talking to some people involved, etc. But it is my hasty memory, and can't check it, since I lost the book in a flood (but that's another story...
)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 14:49 by Doxa.
Forgiveness? Maybe, but a sense of humor, definitely. There probably is a lot of BS in the book, but who cares? I am a huge fan of Keith's, but he's not someone I know personally, so I didn't feel the need to forgive him for anything at all. If you've had your illusions shattered then whose fault is that? It's certainly not Keith's responsibility to make sure his fans only see him in the best possible light. I don't like some of the things he wrote about in the book, but it doesn't change my opinion of him. From what I know about him, there are things I admire about KR and things I don't, but I love his music and I found his book entertaining. That's all I require of a public figure. Count me satisfied.
btw, this isn't directed at you memphiscats, you are a breath of fresh air on this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 15:04 by latebloomer.
+1
For myself, it was the parakeet, the turtle, and the onions. Lost all respect for the man.
Yeah, visualising Keith cooking in the kitchen, peeled off (pun intended) all the mystique and danger...
Yes, I agree. It would've been nice for him to have continued the way the book started (fond reminiscing). The fondness sort of stops after the 'Sticky Fingers' period (not including the Brian Jones 1967 stuff).
True...I don't think he disparages Wyman in the book.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: August 26, 2014 00:09
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 00:12
Quote
duke richardson
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: August 26, 2014 00:25
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duke richardson
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
thinking of people I've spoken with, and comments on the board here, and in this thread in particular. people did know, yes.
he once said "you can't have a worse reputation than mine" referring to his drug use..but also said " I never had problems with drugs, only with police"..
well, no. I really don't think the events of his life referred to in this thread were on fan's minds until they read his book, apparently..
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: August 26, 2014 00:31
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duke richardson
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
it's really not dandy-this wasn't some interview that would be read by stonesfreaks like ourselves,it was a book supposedly written by keith looking back on his life,it was a big deal.
to have one of the greatest charactors in the last 100 years look back on his life and the big headline is him talking about his writing partners penis is sad and pathetic.like i said in my previous post,he drank too much and it effected his personality and judgement.i agree with some of the posters saying it's too bad he didnt write it now-he seems to be in a much better place.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 00:52
Could be, lem, but the book didn't surprise me - not a bit. Had it surprised me, I would have suspected foul play and dishonesty right away.
The role he is stuck with has turned to be something that he can't get out of - not even in his own bio. It went on too long, and to just turn the page and come out as a kind-hearted family guy... I dunno. Maybe he'll do that with the next one, after the Stones have stopped rolling for good.
The role he is stuck with has turned to be something that he can't get out of - not even in his own bio. It went on too long, and to just turn the page and come out as a kind-hearted family guy... I dunno. Maybe he'll do that with the next one, after the Stones have stopped rolling for good.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 26, 2014 00:52
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duke richardson
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
Hardly...he reconfirmed all the crap for the last couple of decades as 'his take'.
Shouldn't be a shock that some segment of readers are going to say, "yeah ok, not for me".
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 01:01
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duke richardson
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
Hardly...he reconfirmed all the crap for the last couple of decades as 'his take'.
Shouldn't be a shock that some segment of readers are going to say, "yeah ok, not for me".
But they're not saying that. That would be perfectly comprehendable.
That they don't know the old stories, and think Todgergate is a more serious offense than randomly firing a gun in a hotel IS surprising. At least to me...
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: August 26, 2014 02:01
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That they don't know the old stories, and think Todgergate is a more serious offense than randomly firing a gun in a hotel IS surprising. At least to me...
thats not it-they do know all the old stories.everyone has heard it all a million times.its just sad to alot of people to think thats the level he was operating on-the jagger/richards thing is kind of a big deal- and you're reducing yourself to talking about micks junk?
instead of a great man looking back on his life it seems more like an extended interview from the 80"s.projecting the image,still talking crap about a dead guy..still mad at jagger.i think most of us expected him to rise above it all as he looked back,he didnt and its disappointing.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: August 26, 2014 06:34
While it's certainly true to say the book reads like a compilation of Keith's interview shtick, when you've got a book that's 500 pages and he rarely drops the act, it becomes overkill. Add to it the fact that this time, the remarks make headlines whereas in the past they would have appeared in the latest issue of Q or Melody Maker and the straight press would never take notice. This wasn't a magazine interview where IORRians could laugh it off as Keith being drunk. The book did real damage to the band. Lots of people bought it and loved it, but for a lot of diehard Stones fans (myself included), it made me feel sick of Keith.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 26, 2014 08:15
Quote
lem motlow
after the 70's when he kicked heroin he replaced it with alcohol and basically became something he never was before,a drunk.
keith always drank but he began to do it in excess to replace his old habit and it changed his personality.
at first i thought it was funny- the interviewer would describe how he had downed his fourth tumbler of whatever cocktail in the last 45 minutes and he would say a few things,some of it i'd heard before,some of it about the current state of the band,he would ramble a bit but it seemed like no big deal.
but at some point,i cant remember the exact year,he just seemed to go off the rails.the stories became a bit odd and unlike keith-they just sounded like some guy you know who bullshits all the time,and the attacks on jagger became disturbing.no longer just taking the piss out of a friend but like an angry,obsessed person with an axe to grind.
i finally had to accept that a guy i thought for decades was the coolest dude on the planet had become an angry old drunk,it was heartbreaking.i didnt read the book because i knew what it would be-not the mr smooth keith.not that old soul who just seemed to glide through life and let it roll off his back but instead the bitter one with no perspective and nothing left but some silly image to sell.-from the looks of these reviews i was right,its really sad.
I pretty much agree with all that, although I would add that I think Mick Jagger can be a pretty cold fish at times and it genuinely hurt and surprised Keith when Mick thought the Stones were in his rearview mirror around the time of Dirty Work. Unfortunately, Keith's response was to lash out in anger, then - and decades later when he wrote "Life". The todger comment and "Brenda" and all the rest of it obviously is coming from a place of a lot of pain. These guys being Englishmen, I just don't think they talked about this stuff a lot, and each dealt with their mutual issues in their own way: Mick by being aloof and cold, and Keith by lashing out. Now, there's a book waiting to be written...
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
memphiscats
()
Date: August 26, 2014 08:30
Oh my...how holier than thou? I had know idea how much of the moral majority represents itself here. Perhaps a little forgiveness is needed?
p.s. I wasn't responding directly to tele's blurb...just some other stuff that's been stated in this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 08:35 by memphiscats.
p.s. I wasn't responding directly to tele's blurb...just some other stuff that's been stated in this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 08:35 by memphiscats.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 08:40
let he who is without sin, cast the first Stone .....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 26, 2014 08:47
Quote
memphiscats
Oh my...how holier than thou? I had know idea how much of the moral majority represents itself here. Perhaps a little forgiveness is needed?
p.s. I wasn't responding directly to tele's blurb...just some other stuff that's been stated in this thread.
Thanks for claryfying, memphiscats. I wasn't taking any kind of "moral" position or even judging. I think a lot of the anger and bluster comes from a place of pain. You hurt the ones you love, and all of that.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 09:02
Quote
lem motlowQuote
DandelionPowderman
That they don't know the old stories, and think Todgergate is a more serious offense than randomly firing a gun in a hotel IS surprising. At least to me...
thats not it-they do know all the old stories.everyone has heard it all a million times.its just sad to alot of people to think thats the level he was operating on-the jagger/richards thing is kind of a big deal- and you're reducing yourself to talking about micks junk?
instead of a great man looking back on his life it seems more like an extended interview from the 80"s.projecting the image,still talking crap about a dead guy..still mad at jagger.i think most of us expected him to rise above it all as he looked back,he didnt and its disappointing.
I can see that, but to me it wasn't surprising at all that we didn't get the "great man looking back"-book. I'm not even sure if Keith himself thinks he is/was that great to tell about.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: August 26, 2014 09:38
<<let he who is without sin, cast the first Stone .....>>
Okay, whoever he (or she) is can cast first. Just pencil me in for the second or third casting slot. Hell, I'm not choosy, I'll even take fourth or fifth in the casting order. Just so long as I don't have to cast last in the line-up.
Okay, whoever he (or she) is can cast first. Just pencil me in for the second or third casting slot. Hell, I'm not choosy, I'll even take fourth or fifth in the casting order. Just so long as I don't have to cast last in the line-up.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 10:00
What we need to have in mind (it's naive not to, imo) is that the Rolling Stones has been a gang, operating on the dark side of the law, doing things that normal people don't do, exploiting numerous people.
That is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.
Maybe it worked as a kind of therapy for Keith, but Mick doesn't strike me as the dwelling type. Seemingly, he just wants to move forward.
That is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.
Maybe it worked as a kind of therapy for Keith, but Mick doesn't strike me as the dwelling type. Seemingly, he just wants to move forward.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: August 26, 2014 10:13
Quote
DandelionPowderman
What we need to have in mind (it's naive not to, imo) is that the Rolling Stones has been a gang, operating on the dark side of the law, doing things that normal people don't do, exploiting numerous people.
That is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.
Maybe it worked as a kind of therapy for Keith, but Mick doesn't strike me as the dwelling type. Seemingly, he just wants to move forward.
Agree on every point!
And perhaps Keith will write a Part 2 -- I hope so! I think he did his best with this, and it's
imperfect, but I'm appreciative of the effort and parts of it are really interesting, and
wonderful.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: August 26, 2014 10:46
<<It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.>>
The reason he gave for abandoning his first and only attempt at writing an autobiography was that he found it boring, as he said in 2013.
"No, I still won't do it," he said.
"And I've been asked again recently."
"I did it for the money in the 80s or early 90s," he said.
"I started writing it but it was so depressing and boring having to scrape over your past."
"They wanted me to talk about people close to me and divulge all these secrets. I realised I didn't want to do that. So I stopped and gave the money back."
Further details at: [www.express.co.uk]
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.>>
The reason he gave for abandoning his first and only attempt at writing an autobiography was that he found it boring, as he said in 2013.
"No, I still won't do it," he said.
"And I've been asked again recently."
"I did it for the money in the 80s or early 90s," he said.
"I started writing it but it was so depressing and boring having to scrape over your past."
"They wanted me to talk about people close to me and divulge all these secrets. I realised I didn't want to do that. So I stopped and gave the money back."
Further details at: [www.express.co.uk]
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 10:50
Quote
stonehearted
<<It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.>>
The reason he gave for abandoning his first and only attempt at writing an autobiography was that he found it boring, as he said in 2013.
"No, I still won't do it," he said.
"And I've been asked again recently."
"I did it for the money in the 80s or early 90s," he said.
"I started writing it but it was so depressing and boring having to scrape over your past."
"They wanted me to talk about people close to me and divulge all these secrets. I realised I didn't want to do that. So I stopped and gave the money back."
Further details at: [www.express.co.uk]
Yeah, I suppose one can choose to belive that...
It was in 1983, I believe.
Boring, or unpleasant, Mick? Who knows..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 10:51 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 26, 2014 12:53
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stonehearted
<<It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.>>
The reason he gave for abandoning his first and only attempt at writing an autobiography was that he found it boring, as he said in 2013.
"No, I still won't do it," he said.
"And I've been asked again recently."
"I did it for the money in the 80s or early 90s," he said.
"I started writing it but it was so depressing and boring having to scrape over your past."
"They wanted me to talk about people close to me and divulge all these secrets. I realised I didn't want to do that. So I stopped and gave the money back."
Further details at: [www.express.co.uk]
Yeah, I suppose one can choose to belive that...
It was in 1983, I believe.
Boring, or unpleasant, Mick? Who knows..
In Philip Norman's Jagger book there was some discussion of this project. If I recall right, Jagger was able to come up - this was news to me - with a rather short manuscript - which more was a kind of observation of English life style of the 50's and 60's or something - but the publisher was seriously disappointed with the result, and refused to release it. It was them then demanding more revealing stuff (dirt), which ended up by Jagger dropping the whole project, and returning the money.
So taking his artistic licence and typical sloppiness, I don't think Jagger is not so far from the truth in his recollections.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 13:01 by Doxa.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 13:47
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stonehearted
<<It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.>>
The reason he gave for abandoning his first and only attempt at writing an autobiography was that he found it boring, as he said in 2013.
"No, I still won't do it," he said.
"And I've been asked again recently."
"I did it for the money in the 80s or early 90s," he said.
"I started writing it but it was so depressing and boring having to scrape over your past."
"They wanted me to talk about people close to me and divulge all these secrets. I realised I didn't want to do that. So I stopped and gave the money back."
Further details at: [www.express.co.uk]
Yeah, I suppose one can choose to belive that...
It was in 1983, I believe.
Boring, or unpleasant, Mick? Who knows..
In Philip Norman's Jagger book there was some discussion of this project. If I recall right, Jagger was able to come up - this was news to me - with a rather short manuscript - which more was a kind of observation of English life style of the 50's and 60's or something - but the publisher was seriously disappointed with the result, and refused to release it. It was them then demanding more revealing stuff (dirt), which ended up by Jagger dropping the whole project, and returning the money.
So taking his artistic licence and typical sloppiness, I don't think Jagger is not so far from the truth in his recollections.
- Doxa
Might be. Might be that Normann's "source" was Jagger's statement as well.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 26, 2014 14:49
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stonehearted
<<It's impossible for Mick and Keith to write a cosy, great grandpa-tale, looking back on their respectable lives, sharing their wisdom.
That's probably why Mick won't write his bio. There are too many skeletons in the closet.>>
The reason he gave for abandoning his first and only attempt at writing an autobiography was that he found it boring, as he said in 2013.
"No, I still won't do it," he said.
"And I've been asked again recently."
"I did it for the money in the 80s or early 90s," he said.
"I started writing it but it was so depressing and boring having to scrape over your past."
"They wanted me to talk about people close to me and divulge all these secrets. I realised I didn't want to do that. So I stopped and gave the money back."
Further details at: [www.express.co.uk]
Yeah, I suppose one can choose to belive that...
It was in 1983, I believe.
Boring, or unpleasant, Mick? Who knows..
In Philip Norman's Jagger book there was some discussion of this project. If I recall right, Jagger was able to come up - this was news to me - with a rather short manuscript - which more was a kind of observation of English life style of the 50's and 60's or something - but the publisher was seriously disappointed with the result, and refused to release it. It was them then demanding more revealing stuff (dirt), which ended up by Jagger dropping the whole project, and returning the money.
So taking his artistic licence and typical sloppiness, I don't think Jagger is not so far from the truth in his recollections.
- Doxa
Might be. Might be that Normann's "source" was Jagger's statement as well.
I don't think so (or that was all he had). I think he did a bit of research on the matter, talking to some people involved, etc. But it is my hasty memory, and can't check it, since I lost the book in a flood (but that's another story...
)- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 14:49 by Doxa.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: August 26, 2014 14:56
Quote
memphiscats
Oh my...how holier than thou? I had know idea how much of the moral majority represents itself here. Perhaps a little forgiveness is needed?
p.s. I wasn't responding directly to tele's blurb...just some other stuff that's been stated in this thread.
Forgiveness? Maybe, but a sense of humor, definitely. There probably is a lot of BS in the book, but who cares? I am a huge fan of Keith's, but he's not someone I know personally, so I didn't feel the need to forgive him for anything at all. If you've had your illusions shattered then whose fault is that? It's certainly not Keith's responsibility to make sure his fans only see him in the best possible light. I don't like some of the things he wrote about in the book, but it doesn't change my opinion of him. From what I know about him, there are things I admire about KR and things I don't, but I love his music and I found his book entertaining. That's all I require of a public figure. Count me satisfied.
btw, this isn't directed at you memphiscats, you are a breath of fresh air on this thread.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-26 15:04 by latebloomer.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 15:00
Quote
latebloomerQuote
memphiscats
Oh my...how holier than thou? I had know idea how much of the moral majority represents itself here. Perhaps a little forgiveness is needed?
p.s. I wasn't responding directly to tele's blurb...just some other stuff that's been stated in this thread.
Forgiveness? Maybe, but a sense of humor, definitely. There probably is a lot of BS in the book, but who cares? I am a huge fan of Keith's, but he's not someone I know personally, so I didn't feel the need to forgive him for anything at all. If you've had your illusions shattered then whose fault is that? It's certainly not Keith's responsibility to make sure his fans only see him in the best possible light. I don't like some of the things he wrote about in the book, but it doesn't change my opinion of him. From what I know about him, there are things I admire about KR and things I don't, but I love his music and I found his book entertaining. That's all I require of a public figure. Count me satisfied.
+1
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
bleedingman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 15:13
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duke richardson
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
For myself, it was the parakeet, the turtle, and the onions. Lost all respect for the man.
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
EJM
()
Date: August 26, 2014 15:17
+2Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
latebloomerQuote
memphiscats
Oh my...how holier than thou? I had know idea how much of the moral majority represents itself here. Perhaps a little forgiveness is needed?
p.s. I wasn't responding directly to tele's blurb...just some other stuff that's been stated in this thread.
Forgiveness? Maybe, but a sense of humor, definitely. There probably is a lot of BS in the book, but who cares? I am a huge fan of Keith's, but he's not someone I know personally, so I didn't feel the need to forgive him for anything at all. If you've had your illusions shattered then whose fault is that? It's certainly not Keith's responsibility to make sure his fans only see him in the best possible light. I don't like some of the things he wrote about in the book, but it doesn't change my opinion of him. From what I know about him, there are things I admire about KR and things I don't, but I love his music and I found his book entertaining. That's all I require of a public figure. Count me satisfied.
+1
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 15:20
Quote
bleedingmanQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
duke richardson
this book did have that effect- made a lot of people not like Keith, when before the book they thought he was a cool guy.
That is baffling. They didn't know about the blade, his stabs at Mick or all these stories they reacted on, earlier? Didn't they think they were true?
It's incredible what a bio of mostly known stuff can do...
For myself, it was the parakeet, the turtle, and the onions. Lost all respect for the man.
Yeah, visualising Keith cooking in the kitchen, peeled off (pun intended) all the mystique and danger...
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 15:23
Quote
lem motlowQuote
DandelionPowderman
That they don't know the old stories, and think Todgergate is a more serious offense than randomly firing a gun in a hotel IS surprising. At least to me...
thats not it-they do know all the old stories.everyone has heard it all a million times.its just sad to alot of people to think thats the level he was operating on-the jagger/richards thing is kind of a big deal- and you're reducing yourself to talking about micks junk?
instead of a great man looking back on his life it seems more like an extended interview from the 80"s.projecting the image,still talking crap about a dead guy..still mad at jagger.i think most of us expected him to rise above it all as he looked back,he didnt and its disappointing.
Yes, I agree. It would've been nice for him to have continued the way the book started (fond reminiscing). The fondness sort of stops after the 'Sticky Fingers' period (not including the Brian Jones 1967 stuff).
Re: question about keiths book LIFE?
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: August 26, 2014 15:27
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71Tele
In "Life", Freddie Sessler is treated like a loved comrade-in-arms, while Bill Wyman, Brian Jones, and Mick Taylor are basically afterthoughts. Seems strange.
Well, he has a few tongue in cheek-comments about Bill in there
True...I don't think he disparages Wyman in the book.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.