I suppose most of you have read this excellent book by Nick Kent, but for those of you who haven´t. Buy it and read it. Wonderful dark stories about our so beloved rock stars, not least the chapters about the Stones.

yes this is a very good read. Its creepy but good.

I had a run-in with Gazza about this (our only disagreement). I think the book's one of the best books written about modern music this side of Nick Tosches' Hellfire. Shawn Levy's Ratpack Confidential, Albert Goldman's Elvis (yes, yes, I know, it was cruel and twisted and deceitful - and that's just the author - and had nothing much about the music, and Peter Guralnick's books were better (indeed they were), but it was a groundbreaking book). Gazza took exception to the apocryphal tale of Keith biffing ron when he fell asleep on stage at Wembley in '82. Gazza and I were both there and - well, I didn't see it, and neither did anyone else?

Does this, therefore, make Nick Kent full of s.hit? Yes and no. He has a singular (and, in my opinion) flawed take on artists' output. He wrote a blinkered review of The Clash's Sandinista when it came out, and dismisses Some Girls along with everything the Stones released after Exile.

The Sly Stone piece is great, but Fresh was an underrated album, he doesn't fully grasp the dark warped genius that is There's A Riot Goin' On, and, yes, Sly's subsequent output was deeply flawed, but it had its moments.

In short, don't read The Dark Stuff if you want serious music journalism. Kent is a failed musician - literally: he was in a band which splintered and became the Sex Pistols, then reconvened into a Television tribute act. His opinions on albums will infuriate hardened fans.

And don't really read the book for serious character appraisals of the people he writes about. This is literate tabloid stuff, full of drugs, dementia, booze, sex and scandal. It's highbrow muchracking. It's tits and tokes for the chattering classes.

But guess what? I f.ucking love it! Buy it and weep!

thers a few things that are incorrect. but a lot of it is just his point of view. He has a point of view different from what you usually hear. I dont always agree with it but I find it fascinating.

I wrote off Nick Kent for exactly the reasons you mention Nikolai. The frustrated musician syndrome was becoming too obvious. It seems to me that he trashed anything that overlapped with the actual time that he himself would have been playing music. Anything earlier seems to be okay, since it could not have possibly rivalled his own stuff.
I don't know the man and his rock'n roll career, but that was the vibe I got.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Nikolai

I like the book. I like Kent's writing style. However, the Keith thumping Ronnie story is out and out fiction and this outright lie has been rehashed in other biographies ever since. When no one in a 72,000 crowd saw this incident but Nick Kent, it makes you wonder what other journalistic licence he is guilty of at other points in his book. Its good entertainment, but some of it is hard to take seriously for the reasons stated above

For the record, I wasnt actually there - but the video evidence is clear enough evidence that its pure invention.

PS - Goldman's book is garbage. I sincerely hope that bastard is rotting in hell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-15 03:12 by Gazza.

Gazza, did n't goldman later write a book on lennon that was as eqaully disgusting as his take on elvis? he has lennon laying around the dakota naked and defecating of the floor and himself or some such rot.

yes

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai
>
> I like the book. I like Kent's writing style.
> However, the Keith thumping Ronnie story is out
> and out fiction and this outright lie has been
> rehashed in other biographies ever since. When no
> one in a 72,000 crowd saw this incident but Nick
> Kent, it makes you wonder what other journalistic
> licence he is guilty of at other points in his
> book. Its good entertainment, but some of it is
> hard to take seriously for the reasons stated
> above
>
> For the record, I wasnt actually there - but the
> video evidence is clear enough evidence that its
> pure invention.
>
> PS - Goldman's book is garbage. I sincerely hope
> that bastard is rotting in hell.


Nick Kent spent most of his writing career on hard drugs (which he only kicked in the mid-eighties), so he probably hallucinated Keith biffing Ron. I was at that show and can't say I noticed. I was too fixated on Jagger.

But I agree with you about the book's literary qualities - Nick Kent's a terrific writer and the Dark Stuff is a rollicking read. I still haven't read anything remotely as good about the Stones in all the 3000 pages I've read about them as Kent's piece - even if it is made up.

>Gazza took exception to the apocryphal tale of Keith biffing ron when he fell asleep on stage at Wembley in '82. Gazza and I were both there and - well, I didn't see it, and neither did anyone else?


Did Kent author the atrocious Stones cover article in "Spin" from the summer of '86? That was unforgiveable trash.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza, did n't goldman later write a book on
> lennon that was as eqaully disgusting as his take
> on elvis? he has lennon laying around the dakota
> naked and defecating of the floor and himself or
> some such rot.


A.G wrote a book based on interviews with people around Lennon. It was released six years after Lennon died and Yokos "Lennon was a saint inc." ruled the legacy. Ask yourself why noone sued Goldman. Noone did. Noone could.
It's a good book, sometimes, far from always, speculative, but it gives a fuller picture of the great man. Music magazines recommend it today along with other books.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza, did n't goldman later write a book on
> lennon that was as eqaully disgusting as his take
> on elvis?

I have that book, and yes, it´s full of filth, but as a counterbalance to other books I´ve read about Lennon I thinks it´s kind of interesting. I know the Beatles camp was furious when it was published, no wonder. But... if you look at Goldman´s sources he really talked to a lot of people who were very close to Lennon.

Couldnt care less how many people he talked to.

Goldman always despised rock music and equally despises all of the subjects of his biographies. There's no balance in his work at all. He only wrote about artists who were deceased (that might explain the lack of legal action, LA Forum). None of his books contain any insight to the music or give any indication that he has any understanding or empathy for the cultural contribution any of his subjects made during their lifetime. He was little more than a vulture picking over the bones of a corpse to see what shit he could unearth. I dont know what kind of 'music magazines' recommend his work - most critics I'm aware of consider them to be amongst the worst music books ever written.

As Stones fans, count yourselves lucky that Mick or Keith didnt die prematurely. A 'true story' from this pondscum would have been very unpleasant reading. I think he was in the early stages of a Jim Morrison biography when he popped his clogs.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Couldnt care less how many people he talked to.
>
> Goldman always despised rock music and equally
> despises all of the subjects of his biographies.
> There's no balance in his work at all. He only
> wrote about artists who were deceased (that might
> explain the lack of legal action, LA Forum). None
> of his books contain any insight to the music or
> give any indication that he has any understanding
> or empathy for the cultural contribution any of
> his subjects made during their lifetime. He was
> little more than a vulture picking over the bones
> of a corpse to see what shit he could unearth. I
> dont know what kind of 'music magazines' recommend
> his work - most critics I'm aware of consider them
> to be amongst the worst music books ever written.


Who says that? Im talking about Mojo and Uncut. There are no "true stories" about anyone. He wrote a book that made Lennon more human. It's dirty yes, so what? And of course Ono would have sued if she could. But then there would have been other problems. Like the diaries. Like Seaman and the staff at Dakota. Or Stu Sutcliffe's sister. She did the right thing. Make the authour the target for Lennon-fans. And pretend she doesnt want to give A.G more publicity.




>
>
> As Stones fans, count yourselves lucky that Mick
> or Keith didnt die prematurely. A 'true story'
> from this pondscum would have been very unpleasant
> reading. I think he was in the early stages of a
> Jim Morrison biography when he popped his clogs.

But Keith and Mick has never been portraied as saints. That's the difference.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Keith and Mick has never been portraied as
> saints. That's the difference.


they have been on here..LOL

actually... Lennon and Elvis' elevations to sainthood had been long debunked by other books and various exposes way before Goldman got his grubby hands on them. Goldman merely took the myth-bashing to a new extreme, without any compassion or balance whatsoever.

Agree with you that theres no 'true story' about anyone and the wisdom in not giving him the oxygen of publicity though.

I'm with gazz. AG has nothing to say about Elvis' music. Its just tabloid jounro...

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm with gazz. AG has nothing to say about Elvis'
> music. Its just tabloid jounro...

Yeah, Im the Goldman on iorr.org. Lol. True, but, the man behind the myth becomes more real. More real issues. I like that.

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Gazza took exception to the apocryphal tale of
> Keith biffing ron when he fell asleep on stage at
> Wembley in '82. Gazza and I were both there and -
> well, I didn't see it, and neither did anyone
> else?
>
>
> Did Kent author the atrocious Stones cover article
> in "Spin" from the summer of '86? That was
> unforgiveable trash.

Yes, I tghink he did write that piece - or A contentious piece about The Stones. Back then he - and a lot of people assumed they were breaking up.

I haven't read AG's Lennon book since high school, but did check out the Elvis book a few years ago. What really disgusted me about it was the utter contempt he had for Elvis himself - the whole book is tainted by AG's view that Elvis was nothing more than a dumb hillbilly - hell, he even calls him "white trash" a number of times. There's also a couple of paragraphs in there about Elvis' supposed hang-ups about - get this - not being circumcised. What the hell is that all about? Mind you, this is all Goldman's opinion/speculation/fantasy.

Don't even get me started on his musical take on the '68 Comeback Special.

AG was small, petty, vindictive, and generally an assh*le. It's one thing to write objectively about someone's flaws, etc., to give a complete portrait of a subject (which, to keep this on topic, is what I think Nick Kent does, albiet a little dramatically). It's another thing to set out with an agenda of ripping the subject to shreds.

In short, f*ck Albert Goldman. I'm just sorry he died so that he couldn't see how Lennon's & Elvis' legacies have endured, stronger than ever, despite his attempts at debasing them.

all i've read of Goldman are some of his essays, but his cantankerous attitude is pretty notorious.
it's interesting that he also wrote a couple of paragraphs about Keith that sound as if the artist genuinely moved him.

Nick Kent strikes me as a self-aggrandizing jerk, which might be more tolerable to me
if he weren't just makin so much sh1t up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-15 23:38 by with sssoul.

"When no one in a 72,000 crowd saw this incident but Nick Kent, it makes you wonder what other journalistic licence he is guilty of at other points in his book." True, (i was there & didn't see it by the way) but he's probably guilty of less dodgy stories than Keith through the years.

He's flawed but can be a fantastic rock writer. He wrote seminal pieces on Syd Barrett & Roky Ericksson & I can still recall lines from an NME Only Ones article from the late 70's. He does infuse real drama into his pieces which tends to attract people like me who like their rock music to be dramatic but repels others who like music writing to be dry & full of facts (like Wyman's autobiog!).

I heard he was so in love with the Stones & particularly Keith that he completely fell for the whole romantic drugs & decadence lifestyle that accompanied them. I remember one piece where he himself was interviewed for 'Sounds' I think & he was topless, in black leather trousers in a completely bare kitchen save for one cool photo of Keith on the wall (he can't be all bad, come on) & dug out the complete inside of a loaf with a mean blade (I'm probably straying into Kent-style exaggeration here!). I heard his band The Subterraneans who were named after the Kerouac book were pretty good too but never got to see them.

On the downside he spoke a lot of poisonous shit about the Stones in that Without Walls doc from 1990. In retrospect though the stuff about Jagger always wanting to be a social climber & selling his soul to some lord are hard to deny after he accepted that bloody knighthood.

A lot of the stuff in Goldman's Lennon book IS NOT TRUE.

I remember being horrified that Goldman was stooping so low because he once had been a very fine writer for magazines. Maybe the big bucks for tabloid-type books changed him. I can say this with some relevance because I knew John and a number of the people quoted in the book.

Many Wannabes and drug dealers and ex junkies make me sick. I've known too many of them who instead of getting on with their lives sell their alleged friends and heroes out by making up stuff. Usually for money but often for attention, a moment in the spotlight.

Felt the same way about Goldman's Elvis books. One learns learn way too much about the author's own fantasies.


As for Nick Kent being an authority on the Stones' "dark side," puh-lese.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-16 05:44 by stonesrule.

>> He does infuse real drama into his pieces which tends to attract people like me who like their rock music to be dramatic
but repels others who like music writing to be dry & full of facts <<

i'd rather have writing that's dramatic and full of facts. it's not Nick Kent's "dramatics" that bug me,
it's the errors + the unfortunate tendency to make stuff up and sell it as journalism.
as for his "Keithalike" phase: a lot of people have spent time straining to look/act like Keith, and so what?
it's not a particularly noteworthy achievement. or any reason to get vitriolic toward the Stones
when he'd messed up his own life.

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "When no one in a 72,000 crowd saw this incident
> but Nick Kent, it makes you wonder what other
> journalistic licence he is guilty of at other
> points in his book." True, (i was there & didn't
> see it by the way) but he's probably guilty of
> less dodgy stories than Keith through the years.
>
> He's flawed but can be a fantastic rock writer. He
> wrote seminal pieces on Syd Barrett & Roky
> Ericksson & I can still recall lines from an NME
> Only Ones article from the late 70's. He does
> infuse real drama into his pieces which tends to
> attract people like me who like their rock music
> to be dramatic but repels others who like music
> writing to be dry & full of facts (like Wyman's
> autobiog!).
>
> I heard he was so in love with the Stones &
> particularly Keith that he completely fell for the
> whole romantic drugs & decadence lifestyle that
> accompanied them. I remember one piece where he
> himself was interviewed for 'Sounds' I think & he
> was topless, in black leather trousers in a
> completely bare kitchen save for one cool photo of
> Keith on the wall (he can't be all bad, come on) &
> dug out the complete inside of a loaf with a mean
> blade (I'm probably straying into Kent-style
> exaggeration here!). I heard his band The
> Subterraneans who were named after the Kerouac
> book were pretty good too but never got to see
> them.
>
> On the downside he spoke a lot of poisonous shit
> about the Stones in that Without Walls doc from
> 1990. In retrospect though the stuff about Jagger
> always wanting to be a social climber & selling
> his soul to some lord are hard to deny after he
> accepted that bloody knighthood.


Great take on Kent and his book, but there are some things you should know. Kent used to be part of the Kings Road scene in the early seventies - which spawned punk. He used to go out with Chrissie Hynde. When she dumped him for someone else he went looking for her with his belt - to give her a whipping. Kent also claims to have - well, not exactly to have discovered the Sex Pistols, but to have helped shape their music by making Steve Jones and Johnny Rotten listen to The Stooges and the MC5. This is actually bollocks. Rotten saw The Stooges at the Scala on their one and only UK date in the early 70s, so scratch that. There was no love lost between the Pistols and Kent. Sid Vicious attacked him with a bike chain at the 100 Club, and Kent appears in The Filth & the Fury - stoned out of his gourd, barely able to stand up and keep his eyes open at the same time, talking a fast line of articulate crap about the Pistols. He's very bitter towards them because some of them used to be in The Subterraneans.

As for The Subterraneans - they were a Television tribute act and little more than that. I've got one of their records. It's bad Marquee Moon.

I thought the description of Jagger working a room hilarious. It possibly never happened - or maybe it did - but everyone knows about Jagger and his multiple personalities. Listen to him addressing the crowd on the Houston 1978 boot - yee-hawing with the best of 'em, phoney Southern accent. Switch to the Capitol Theatre boot and he's Johnny Rotten lite.

JuanTCB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't read AG's Lennon book since high school,
> but did check out the Elvis book a few years ago.
> What really disgusted me about it was the utter
> contempt he had for Elvis himself - the whole book
> is tainted by AG's view that Elvis was nothing
> more than a dumb hillbilly - hell, he even calls
> him "white trash" a number of times. There's also
> a couple of paragraphs in there about Elvis'
> supposed hang-ups about - get this - not being
> circumcised. What the hell is that all about?
> Mind you, this is all Goldman's
> opinion/speculation/fantasy.

Please, all writers speculate and have opinions. You dont agree with his, fine. Elvis was Jewish, (mother's side) maybe that had to do with it. He had many obsessions, he wore the star of David and a crucifix side by side to make sure he got to heaven. Same here. Elvis was a God. Lennon was a saint. Goldman wrote about the real persons, maybe added some speculations so what. You've heard the music, you're a fan and you want something else and something new. He talked to the staff at Dakota. What about Stu's sister? Or Cynthia? Or Julian? Or Lennon himself? Much of what Goldman published has been told and published by others years later and still noone has sued. The pont is, he dared to make a few speculations based on facts and interviews and that was forbidden in 1986. Today it's nothing.









>
> Don't even get me started on his musical take on
> the '68 Comeback Special.
>
> AG was small, petty, vindictive, and generally an
> assh*le. It's one thing to write objectively
> about someone's flaws, etc., to give a complete
> portrait of a subject (which, to keep this on
> topic, is what I think Nick Kent does, albiet a
> little dramatically). It's another thing to set
> out with an agenda of ripping the subject to
> shreds.
>
> In short, f*ck Albert Goldman. I'm just sorry he
> died so that he couldn't see how Lennon's & Elvis'
> legacies have endured, stronger than ever, despite
> his attempts at debasing them.

> AG was small, petty, vindictive, and generally an
> assh*le. It's one thing to write objectively
> about someone's flaws, etc., to give a complete
> portrait of a subject (which, to keep this on
> topic, is what I think Nick Kent does, albiet a
> little dramatically). It's another thing to set
> out with an agenda of ripping the subject to
> shreds.
>
> In short, f*ck Albert Goldman. I'm just sorry he
> died so that he couldn't see how Lennon's & Elvis'
> legacies have endured, stronger than ever, despite
> his attempts at debasing them.



Elvis probably wanted to have another life and Lennon always tried to change. They are not Gods, they were artists. Get over it.

Keith, on the other hand, was a God in the mid 70s.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith, on the other hand, was a God in the mid
> 70s.


You're being deeply ironic, I take it? Keith was a God with a smack habit, rotting teeth and someone who - in Nick Kent's words - was letting his talent go to shit from 1973 onwards. If it hadn't been for Jagger the Stones would have turned into a hipper version of Status Quo round about 1976 and probably fizzled out amid public indifference in the early eighties.

Say what you want about Albert Goldman, but the three surviving Doors had commissioned him to write a biography of Jim Morrison. He died before he could start it. Lord knows what he would have dug up.