That ain't Keith.

Just read the first line:

This new year of the Exile on Main Street sessions, 1972, opened upon us in an entirely different shape for the Rolling Stones.

Its spoken by someone who isn't in the band- third party.

Keith always speaks about the Stones as it being his band, not "The Rolling Stones". He would say "The Stones", at the least, or most.

Secondly, I've never heard Keith speak of Dr john as an ally.

From there it gets more obvious. Have we ever heard Kr taking about specifics in terms of his recreational habits, "Burma" etc.

john

The Flasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I the only one who reacts to the mention of
> Mick as "Jagger" sounds a bit to dry...


Yes I picked up on that but more notably I have never heard Keith refer to Charlie as Watts ,
there is always affection towards Charlie when he normally speaks

They simply wouldn't do a Keith "autobiography" in that style of prose.
As we all know, in reality most autobiographies are simply bographies written from what the subject says rather than what other folks have said. Simple as that.
They're written by erm, ...writers...but have to at least look like the subject's own words.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-18 15:41 by Spud.

The Flasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I the only one who reacts to the mention of
> Mick as "Jagger" sounds a bit to dry...
Actually he calls MJ "Jagger" most of the time when referring to him.

MadMax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That ain't Keith

Agree ... doesn't "sound" like him at all

I´m especting a sort of an "Bukowsky approach" to his book; Full of humour,witty comments,some caos and off course lots of Keithfucius

Read some of the Keith bits of According To The Rolling Stones to "hear" what he sounds like channelled via interview/ghostwriter:

"We were forced onto our back foot by the whole tax thing. In England we were stymied and we suddenly felt the whole weight of this dead empire coming down on us. So the only thing to do was to go away and reconstruct everything, and say "We're all going to do this boys, we're going to move out - let's be a family." In a way it was energising, which is, I guess, why Exile On Main Street ended up as a double album.

Nellcote was a great house, and it wasn't too showy. It was in the bay at Villefranche, and had been built by an English Admiral called Byrd. There was a cave and steps down to his own private boating dock, so I bought a speedboat. I thought I'd splash out, I might be in jail the next year, so let's have some fun while I'm free! I think we'd sucked the South of France dry...

We hadn't intended to record in my house. We did look around for studios around there once we'd all decided that was what we were going to do - but although there are plenty of very good French recording engineers now, at that time in the South of France in the early 1970s there weren't too many. There were no studios with good rooms to work in, the equipment was shabby and nobody felt comfortable in any of the places we looked at. I had this basement, which was really very ugly, but it was the biggest one of all the houses we had down there, and we also had our own mobile recording truck. So we said, "Why don't we just forget about looking for a studio. Let's bring in the truck and work around the problems; at least this way we don't have to ask interpreters every time we want to turn it off or on."

There is no way that this is the same author as the other piece of pompous unreadable garbage.

Whoever wrote it, it isn't very good.

But my point still remains, we don't know what Keith's written work is like. He might be a crap writer for all we know - he's a musician and not an author after all - albeit he writes lyrics for songs but, even then, Mick does most of the lyrics.

According to the RS was NOT written by Keith, it was an amalgamation of a series of interviews put together in a book by a professional writer / editor. Keith is entirely random when he speaks so you only get little pieces here and there which then need to be sorted out by the editors in irder to put the book into any sort of order.

Thats no more an excerpt from Keith's autobiography than it is an excerpt from mine.

Cant believe people would be taken in by this. Its only been reported a few days ago that he's maybe going to write one, and yet some folks take at face value reports of leaked excerpts appearing online hours later. Bloody hell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-18 15:17 by Gazza.

It's good to hear some clear and valid word on that, Gazza.

madmaxx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If this is Keith then he wrote it during his stay
> at the Hospital in NZ .


if that's Keith, it reads like he wrote it when he was still under the anaesthetic...

>> we don't know what Keith's written work is like. <<

you may not, but other people here do. Keith's written a number of short pieces that have been published.

>> He might be a crap writer for all we know <<

he's not. and his style is nothing like that well-nigh-impenetrable "excerpt" at the start of the thread.

Whoever wrote it it is poorly written.

Think I'll go read the words to "Before They Make Me Run" - his best autobiography.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Keith doesn't talk quite like that and I have never seem him call Charlie of Watts....

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats no more an excerpt from Keith's
> autobiography than it is an excerpt from mine.
>
> Cant believe people would be taken in by this. Its
> only been reported a few days ago that he's maybe
> going to write one, and yet some folks take at
> face value reports of leaked excerpts appearing
> online hours later. Bloody hell.


Gazza, you mean your not ghost writing for Keith?

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They simply wouldn't do a Keith "autobiography" in
> that style of prose.
> As we all know, in reality most autobiographies
> are simply bographies written from what the
> subject says rather than what other folks have
> said. Simple as that.
> They're written by erm, ...writers...but have to
> at least look like the subject's own words.



dear god i hope not... that style is way too pretentious and, well, BORING

im not buying it