I am not more than halfway through Keith Richards' autobiography, and just need to stop and reflect a bit on what I've read so far. I've heard from others that this was a fantastic, wonderful read; others have shrugged their shoulders or disliked the endless references to drugs.
So, sitting around page 300 and heading into Exile On Main Street and a French château, how am I feeling about this book? For the most part, I am enjoying it. Keith's prose is easy to read, and he is fairly straight-forward about things, places, and people. I am not sure it's fair to speak so badly and bluntly of the dead, who really can't defend themselves, and I'm sure there are a few living who'd like to wring his neck for his less than charitable remarks. That said, I have been fascinated by the discussion about the process of songwriting, and how certain melodies and lyrics came about. I love those musical anecdotes, and they are by and large one of the main reasons I so loved watching Elvis Costello's wonderful tv show Spectacle. I really like how he links particular songs to a place and time, and goes on to explain where the lyrics came from. I was also quite enthralled by the whole 5-stringcopen tuning he described, though as someone who doesn't play guitar, I can't really appreciate the liberation of that last string. Those are the moments in rock and roll memoirs that I love reading about. the gossip about who dated and did who, couldn't care less. I love his reverence for some of the pioneers that came before him, and I do admit to being just a little bit surprised at his admiration for Baden-Powell. I would never have taken him for a boy scout, but I can see the taste for learning survival skills. That is perhaps why he's still here, despite lots of falls from many different types of coconut trees.
My only frustration is that he sometimes doesn't say enough and just glides over events. I suppose it's because he thinks many of his readers have read about them to death, but there were a few instances where I was left wondering what the hell he was on about and didn't think it was up to me as a reader to go look up the incident on Google just to satisfy my need for narrative details and decided to just plough forward.
As for the endless drugs, that didn't strike me as something that got under my skin. It's there, always, but never invading the narrative in a way that annoyed me. I am looking forward to getting to the late 70s, and to the point where he and the Stones showed up at the El Mocambo (where, by the way, my parents met in the late 50s when it was a swing hall) and changed the course of Canadian politics and a Prime Minister's marriage forever. My teenage brain remembers those events one way- I can't wait to hear his side of the story.
8 comments:
Anne Marie, your account of Keith's book so far, sounds like Keith! He always does sort of 'go on', even in interviews, and I , many times have thought to myself, "what?". You may be right, after all these years, he figures alot may know what he's on about. Keith - interesting chap he is!
Yes, he does do that, even in print! He seems like a nice guy, though.
I’m a huge Stones fan (seen 3 gigs), and really looked forward to this book. But I actively dislike it. 1. Keith can’t help it, but his childhood / teen years were decidedly unremarkable. Unlike McCartney or Brian Wilson (etc), there was no real early indication of a creative musical talent. I think he’s really conscious of this. So, 2. Even though EVERYONE from Bill Wyman to Alexis Corner to Charlie Watts acknowledges the Stones were originally Brian Jones’s band, Keith almost totally sidetracks Jones and credit’s the piano player. Up until 1968 the Stones albums had a musicality which disappeared with Brian Jones: Ruby Tuesday, Lady Jane, Paint it Black, Aftermath; The range of instruments (played by Jones) and the lightness of touch, is amazing. But Jones (not a pleasant man) was pushed to one side whilst Oldham (the manager) groomed Jagger & Richards to become songwriters. As Bill Wyman says “We took Brian’s band off him”. 3. The Stones reputation as “the greatest rock band in the world” rests on what they did between 1969 and 1974, what fans call the Mick Taylor years. (Brian Jones’s replacement). In fact, if you go see the Stones today their set list is essentially the same as that of 1972 with just 2 additions. (1978’s Miss You, and 1981’s Start Me Up). So I was hoping we’d find out at last why Mick Taylor was fired. Well, it turns out he wasn’t a party animal. Hmmm… Nothing to do with the fact that Taylor’s solos were grabbing all the critical acclaim then…
When Keith appointed his clone Ronnie Woods to take over on second guitar they became a riffing bRand. Stunning rhythm section with a great showman vocalist. But they were once much more. I didn’t get any insight into the writing process here at all. It just seemed to me a rather insecure person, making claims which history doesn’t really back up. I doubt Jagger will bother with a response.
PS: I saw both the Stones and the Who in ‘69 / ‘70. Both were great. But no-one could top the Who, and I think, in the end, their’s (and the Kinks) has been the most influential legacy.
Ian, your review here is not only much more interesting than mine, but probably so much more accurate as I have to admit knowing very little about the band before the mid-70s, which is essentially when I was old enough to start listening to them. I am a fan too, but much more casually, and only saw them live in '99 and at Sarstock in 2003, which was well past their prime. I have to admit, I was sorely disappointed by his retelling (or lack thereof) of events that transpired in Toronto after his drug bust and generally found everything from Exile on Main Street on rather hastily thrown together- perhaps the whole thing was, only I did not know enough about the 60s with them to realise that. My sister is a huge RS fan and always said he was jealous of Brian.
As to what I meant by insight into songwriting, I found his explanation for some of the songs quite interesting- Wild Horses being a lullabye for his song, and Angie having nothing to do with Mrs. Bowie, as I long suspected. I have always liked finding out where songs came from, or what they were based on.
That said, as I now approach the end of the book, I am quite let down that his treatment of events I remember haven't gone beyond the actual vague headlines I read about, and suspect will the case for the 50 or so pages I have left to finish.
Thanks for your review. I was looking forward to it, and unlike KR, you didn't disappoint.
The one thing Stones fans might like is that at least the book goes beyond Altamont c.1970. Not even Bill Wyman's did that. But yes, details are few regarding those years. Possibly because whereas Keith's heroin fuelled baby "Exile on Main Street" went Platinum in the US, "Some Girls" (1977), "Emotional Rescue" (1980), and "Tatoo You" (1981) went 6x, 2x, and 4x multi-Platinum respectively. And this at a time when Keith's habits meant Jagger really had to take over the reigns. But Keith simply dismisses them in the book as "the kind of music Mick might have heard in a club the night before".
Two interesting songwriting details: "Sister Morphine" was a song originally released by Marianne Faithfull as a single in 1969. The Rolling Stones included it on their 1971 album release Sticky Fingers, and credited to Jagger/Richards. It took a legal battle for Marianne Faithfull to be credited as co-writer on later releases. I believe there was a similar "issue" over Ronnie Wood getting a credit for "Only Rock n Roll".
Rant over. And I still love the Stones.
Ian, ranting is okay. I find I am struggling with the last 50 pages, probably because it's from a time period I remember and I am not really learning anything I haven't seen alluded to elsewhere. Like you said, he doesn't fill in much more beyond big headlines.
You might have been right about the insecurities- I find his dismissal of Wyman to be rather condescending, and his treatment of Mick from the moment he cleaned up his own act is probably just as unkind.
I do, however, commend him for having a very non-racist, non-classist attitude at a time when neither of these qualities were widely held by the general public, and certainly even less among the privileged set. I sure hope the falling out of the tree episode at least ends the book on an amusing note.
If nothing else, he really is a cat. Nine lives and then some.
Nice input from both of you. Myself, I enjoy the personality that radiates from an author's own rendition...as I do with their music. I was going to get Keith's book for Xmas, but got Russell Brand's Booky Wook II, which I thoroughly enjoyed!
Hi you. I probably come into the group who got bored by the endless drug references. And I dont like the Stones enough to care about the other bits!! I thought it may be a funnier read but hey ho. I do like Keef.
Post a Comment