Quote
Rockman
Lurv ta hear -- Chucky No Looky .....

Yeah, I'm guessing that's one Nico lists as "Untitled Reggae Jam" or something. Interesting that there was something in 1977 other than "Jah is Not Dead."

>>>the only person that Keith has been seriously dishonest with is himself

So very true, and for anyone who doesn't agree, reading Keith's biography Life would take your breath away reading all the denials of responsibility for the pain and harm he has caused others, particularly his nearest and dearest. This is very typical of the addict and alcoholic. I have always admired AA for insisting that acknowledgement of pain and damage, and reparations if possible to those the alcoholic has harmed is essential for recovery.

A number of critics have pointed this out about Life. Keith's fame and fortune have allowed him to do this; ie, he believes his own publicity.

Quote
Bliss
>>>the only person that Keith has been seriously dishonest with is himself

So very true, and for anyone who doesn't agree, reading Keith's biography Life would take your breath away reading all the denials of responsibility for the pain and harm he has caused others, particularly his nearest and dearest. This is very typical of the addict and alcoholic. I have always admired AA for insisting that acknowledgement of pain and damage, and reparations if possible to those the alcoholic has harmed is essential for recovery.

A number of critics have pointed this out about Life. Keith's fame and fortune have allowed him to do this; ie, he believes his own publicity.

I'm not sure Keith's the drunk who comes home completely wasted and takes it out on the wife and kids.
No evidence from anyone that Keith has ever harmed a woman or a child in drink..
I know a lot of people that don't drink that harm a lot of people, not all heavy drinkers are harming their nearest and dearest, and plenty of people that don't drink are in denial.
Would Patti put up with abuse, no way, she would take her half and leave.

Just because Keith protects his image in his book, to the public i mean, doesn't mean he is in denial, he just doesn't want to lay himself open in that way, he is a very proud man, its taken a life time to build his image to casual fans, he knows he was selfish on heroin, all junkies are selfish, he says so himself, but as a drinker he has always stopped and started at will, and is completely functioning and in control.
I think as a shy man he has used drink to enable himself to be Keith Richards, same with Coke, but that's just a prop, it's not who he is, and luckily for Keith he has had the constitution to use that prop for decades, but i still don't think he is an alcoholic, he's not burying himself in the stuff, just using it to his advantage.

Winston Churchill once said "I get more out of alcohol than alcohol gets out of me", and i think that other than at a few low points in Keith's life that applies to keith as well.

I know that what Bliss says is a commonly held view about Life but I disagree

i think it was a wonderful decision by Keith and his co-writer to do
the book unapologetically and from the viewpoint of Keith as it happened.
To capture his mindset at the time he was doing what he did. Not the
now-older-and-wiser bit that ruins nearly every autobiography.

keith is indeed now older and wiser, as he has been demonstrating consistently,
but in Life he did not disown and should not have disowned his past.
keith and the music he produced is one of the glorious tales of our time. and
if he somehow did it without any real consciousness of, for example, most
of the great stuff Bill Wyman was doing, that is just so damn fascinating.
it would have been false for keith to put in his as-it-happened book how
great bill was because keith didnt really give a shit about what Bill was
playing as long as Bill held the bottom together. keith played with charlie
and bill just followed those two (including covering for keith when
necessary) in his own unique under-appreciated way.

i myself never sufficiently appreciated bill wyman until after bill left the band.

did you? if so, congratulations. youre better than me and better than keith

so i think Life is actually an extremely honest book, a real
portrait of a genius at work, doing what he needed to do the get job done,
not some revisionist politically correct horseshit. i think it was very brave
for keith to show himself as he was, and a high achievement to make me, for
one, feel what it was like to be keith

as keith has said about the book "i thought it was tough living it, but
re-living it was a bit too much." re-living it. not reflecting upon it,
thank god



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 15:43 by rev20.

Rocky, thanks again, but i don't think people are really in the mood for
the dr.anita stevens story so i'll save it for another time

1) i'm pretty sure she no doubt consulted closely with mick on what might be
the best way to handle keith, not just for legal purposes but also for therapeutic
purposes. wouldnt that latter thing be considered unethical? Yes but she
would do anything for her patients, including break the rules. when i've
told stories about her to other shrinks and analysands, they have two
reactions a) youre full of shit, no shrink would do that and b) if she did
that, they should have taken away her license. fortunately for me keith
himself told just such a story in Life so now i got corroboration

1) she was absolutely consulting with the stones lawyers. she was the one who
testified that he was another mozart and so of course he had problems, but
keith is working hard on getting well, so let him go, let him get well.
(ok, the "hard" thing was probably perjury LOL, but other than that...)

2) we've since learned that behind the scenes mick was working hard on behalf
of sid goddamn vicious, so anybody think he wasnt masterminding things for keith?



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 16:54 by rev20.

We certainly agree on that point, Rev. Mick helped orchestrate Keith meeting Patti as part of the same process. I have to be careful not to name names of private people as Bjornulf has reminded us, but it's clear Mick thought certain people in Keith's life were toxic and since he was allegedly trying to clean up, you couldn't really leave Keith to his own devices to pick healthy relationships. That's nothing against Keith. Many people who, for example, go through a string of bad relationships fail to look harder at themselves and ask why they're attracted to people who are bad for them. That's an over-simplification in Keith's instance, but there's some basic truth there. Patti was earthy enough and tough enough to fit him, but solid enough to anchor him every time he lost control of his own rudder.

Did Mick lure Keith into Studio 54 in 1979?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Mick lure Keith into Studio 54 in 1979?

No

No, but Jerry invited Patti to Keith's birthday party where they first hooked up.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Mick lure Keith into Studio 54 in 1979?

i dont know much about the patti thing. i thought the story was that jerry
had some involvement, so it is not so farfetced that mick might have also,
secretly. its not as though, i dont think, that rocky is suggesting anything
other than what any friend would do for another, try to hook then up with
some body that might be good for them. but after that, its up to cupid



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 17:04 by rev20.

Chatoyancy's perspective would be welcome if anyone knows how to summon her.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
No, but Jerry invited Patti to Keith's birthday party where they first hooked up.

Exactly. So Jerry could in fact have been the good samaritan here. Or both. Or just Mick.

Well, that was sort of my (cryptical) point

Quote
rev20

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Mick lure Keith into Studio 54 in 1979?

i dont know much about the patti thing. i thought the story was that jerry
had some involvement, so it is not so farfetced that mick might have also,
secretly. its not as though, i dont think, that rocky is suggesting anything
other than what any friend would do for another, try to hook then up with
some body that might be good for them

Not at all far-fetched, Revvy.

How could Mick be a Machiavellian planner of all things,
including masterminding Keith’s love life,
in 1977-1978
when highly busy divorcing dancing romancing creating
on his own time?

C’mon.

Keith Richards is his own man.

So is Mick.

Quote
35love
How could Mick be a Machiavellian planner of all things,
including masterminding Keith’s love life,
in 1977-1978
when highly busy divorcing dancing romancing creating
on his own time?

C’mon.

Keith Richards is his own man.

So is Mick.

I'm leaning towards that conclusion myself, although Mick and Jerry nursed Keith in their home for weeks round that time, as part of him becoming «drug free»...

Quote
35love
How could Mick be a Machiavellian planner of all things,
including masterminding Keith’s love life,
in 1977-1978
when highly busy divorcing dancing romancing creating
on his own time?

C’mon.

Keith Richards is his own man.

So is Mick.

dont confuse two things. i'm the one who said mick was masterminding keith's
legal thing and i think consulting with his shrink

nobody has suggested mick was masterminding keith's love life. jerry
(and maybe mick) seemed to think patti might be good for keith, but it was
cupid that sealed the deal

it might also be true that mick and jerry didnt think very much of the
other women keith was dating at the time

to think that mick would not have any interest in who keith wound up with
seems extremely unlikely to me. he couldnt control it certainly, but he
could try to influence it



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 17:16 by rev20.

Sure, it's possible. There are a percentage of fans who think Mick wanted Keith to return to heroin because of ugly words exchanged in the studio. Others think Mick was trying to do the best thing for the band (if not his friend) in helping Keith clean up to the level he was willing. In their world, pharmaceutical coke is recreational after all. I tend to think that despite the personal disagreements over who was leading the band and the frustration with how long mixing would take with Keith at the helm, Mick (and Jerry) did their best to lend some stability to his life.

A guitar player in another band who were hanging around a lot in that period was at the birthday party. His perspective was it was orchestrated and there had been similar attempts in the months before. Once they were put together, they clicked instantly and anyone watching them knew it was a match. Allegedly, the same happened with Ronnie and Jo. I'm not suggesting it was how they first met, but talent generally have minders. Minders notice who is good and who is bad for someone and do their best to steer things to where they'll work out best. I'm not talking Fairy Godmothers. Minders are on a payroll and, in this instance, their real boss is Mick.

And yeah, I think the guitar player I was friendly with in the 1990s who told me some of this stuff is probably the same one Chatoyancy mentioned she was hanging with during the late 1970s or early 1980s in New York when she moved in their circles. His privacy is still important to him despite never having been a household name and I think Chatoyancy's privacy is important to her so I'm not naming names here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 17:17 by Rocky Dijon.

It is not mysterious to me.

Obviously 35-40 years ago there were so few options for successful meaningful opioid addiction treatment.
Sure, wouldn’t you call and see how your business partner and close personal friend is faring on recovery? If the Doc thought positive progression?

I don’t see what the big deal is, I guess.

I don't think anyone said it was a big deal. I just agreed with revvy. I must write things in such a fashion that it sets people off. I don't mean to. I'm just "talking."

Quote
35love
It is not mysterious to me.

Obviously 35-40 years ago there were so few options for successful meaningful opioid addiction treatment.
Sure, wouldn’t you call and see how your business partner and close personal friend is faring on recovery? If the Doc thought positive progression?

I don’t see what the big deal is, I guess.

In the case of Dr.Stevens, i am suggesting that Mick's collaboration with
Dr. Stevens breached the profession's rules (but only because she thought
it was better for the patient that what the rules required)

read the story in Life about Stevens. her name is not used,
because the story absolutely outrages everyone i have ever met in
the profession. but delights me, because i know what she did to
instantly establish rapport with keith was so fcukin brilliant

and then sometime in the future i'll tell you the completely bonkers
way she handled me when we first met. 100% different than how she handled
keith, but just as hilarious

stevens was like mick a great bunch of guys



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 17:33 by rev20.

So she falls between the extremes of Milton Wexler and Eugene Landy...

Quote
Rocky Dijon
So she falls between the extremes of Milton Wexler and Eugene Landy...

way beyond me rocky.

she told me point blank. dont be an idiot. dont read anythng about
psychoanalysis. go through it for yourself. youll save a lot of time

my intellectual grasp of psychoanalysis is limited to the great and
disturbing movie "a dangerous method". i have a sense that the process has
been much tamed since freud and jung were inventing it together. with stevens
it was still a dangerous risk-taking art, not the "science" that people
later claimed it had become.

stevens wanted results, that's all. any drugs she prescribed she would cut
off in a matter of weeks. she'd say "now you know what normal feels like,
that's what we're shooting for". the task would be to fix your wiring,
not paper-over the problem with drugs or willpower or whoring-by-the-therapist.

she'd say that "hey you want a whore to tell you how great you are. go get
one, she'll be cheaper than me"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 17:47 by rev20.

Quote
rev20
stevens was like mick a great bunch of guys

Keith was rephrasing a famous quote about a British peer when he called Mick that. For the life of me I can't remember who it was. Lord Harlech? The Duke of Marlborough? Someone out there likely remembers. American journalists unsurprisingly don't recognize the reference, but it makes Keith's line all the more entertaining and revealing considering he's elevating Mick to the level of the aristocracy by referencing a well-known British witticism.

i always thought it was ronnie that described mick as a great bunch of guys

doesnt sound like keith at all


and while, rocky, youre probably right about who said it first, what ronnie
meant was that mick would have different personalities at different times
to fit the situation

different personalities

personalities run deep. few people can change them like clothes.

mick: "what people resent is that i can remember exactly what it was
like to be seven years old and just be like that. people hate that about me"

mick can be macho, mick can be gay. for real, not just acting

some of these personalities take a lot more energy than others, because
he does have a true or base personality as well, so because of the energy
demands he doesnt do it so much anymore, but he could if he wanted to

so it was with stevens. not just her methods would change session to
session, her personality would too. so suddently you were dealing
with somebody who was very much like your father, and of course she
would never tell you what she was doing, your job was just to deal
with the resulting emotions



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-07 18:15 by rev20.

Quote
rev20
way beyond me rocky.

Eugene Landy was hired by Mike Love and The Beach Boys' Brother Records to get Brian Wilson functioning again. He delivered, but took it to the extreme of getting a Machiavellian control over Wilson which translated into sharing songwriting credits (and royalties) and being listed as an Executive Producer on his albums. It cost him his license in California.

Less extreme was Milton Wexler, another influential L.A. analyst with a lot of celebrity clients. He came under fire (investigated, but didn't lose his license) for writing screenplays with a film-maker client. There are other allegations, though most conclude Hollywood-types pay a therapist to be a creative sounding board so his actions were acceptable in their circles.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-05-08 02:28 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I don't think anyone said it was a big deal. I just agreed with revvy. I must write things in such a fashion that it sets people off. I don't mean to. I'm just "talking."

Me too. I also write abruptly.

It is tricky not to look back at events that took place 35-40 years ago with a 2018 mindset. The atmosphere and headspace in 1977-1981
is where we should remember decisions were made.

While you (or anyone) might not agree with my conclusions, speculation, or hear-say I accept; I'm certainly not "woke" or in any way PC-friendly apart from trying to remember common decency to others. The rest is rubbish to me. So yes, I try to put myself in other's shoes, even when they're Earth shoes or Hushpuppies no one would wear forty years later.

Quote
35love
How could Mick be a Machiavellian planner of all things,
including masterminding Keith’s love life,
in 1977-1978
when highly busy divorcing dancing romancing creating
on his own time?

C’mon.

Keith Richards is his own man.

So is Mick.

Yes 35love i agree, Mick would have wanted her for himself , i don't think lining up beautiful women for Keith was a high priority in Micks life.

In Keith's bio Life, Keith leaves a cryptic clue ( to my mind anyway ) that Mick gave Keith heroin and said he thought it was coke to Keith.
I'm sure Mick new the difference, but if what Keith said was true it was a thoughtless ridiculous thing to do when Keith had just got clean.
I don't think Mick goes out of his way to sort out Keith's welfare
As you said Keith's his own man, he sorted himself out in the end.

I think the basic difference between Keith and Sir Michael is that Keith is primarily a musician and content with that. Music and the band comes first (when not drugs interfer...).
Sir Michael is that and everything else. Which is a lot more to handle...

A fair statement. I claim Stoneage for my team.