That was one of the first books on the Stones I read. It was really good, specially the years of struggle, the Edith Grove days. It is actually very well written (well, Bill didn't write it on his own, he hired someone from Fleet Street to do the job for him: Ray Coleman). I wonder why he didn't continue with the seventies. Your thoughts on this book?

I thought he took some petty stabs at Mick and Keith, and I found it shocking that he talked so little about the *music* and so much about women and money. I'm betting that if Keith wrote an autobiography, it would be mostly about music.

Having said that, I was glad to have read it, especially because of the parts about the Edith Grove days. I agree that was great. Why doesn't it go into the 70s? I guess he didn't have that much interesting to say about them.

About the missing part 2 (70's on), I agree with Gotthesilver, Bill does not find that time very interesting. There is no any more a bunch of poor young guys changing their lives and the world around them, making history... there are just a bunch of old rich junkie devils who do their best to cope with the change of trends of the day, and stay relevant. And it's even more Mick and Keith's band, not a unit of five individuals anymore. Just look Bill's "Rolling With The Stones" and compare the amount of pages covering the 60's and the rest. Bill - with many others - seems to think the Stones solely as a 60's phenomenon.

The bitterness towards Mick and Keith is the feature that sometimes weakens Bill's otherwise great books.

- Doxa

I think it's a great book. I don't mind that Wyman doesn't talk about the music - plenty of other books do that. I can also understand his bitterness toward Mick and Keith. It's not as if I was under the impression the Stones were all one big, happy family even before I read the book.

It is too bad he's not as interested in writing about the '70s, '80s and early '90s. I'd love a sequel. I'd especially like to hear his account of leaving the band.

Another thought on this book. When you read the book, you get the impression he sort of wanted to be an advocate of Brian ("he was such a pioneer"), and that they were best mates in the band (in part due to the fact that they were both looking for girls all the time). But on a recent interview, Charlie says "Bill never got on with Brian. It wasn't Bill's fault. Brian's fault entirely". What do you think? Had Brian a real friend at all within the band from 1966 onwards?

Bill is a good bass player, but he really thinks he is the best thing that ever happend to the Stones. And he's wrong.....