I just finished reading Keith Richards' bio, "Life"

All the rolling stones are awful people.

[quote] I have to admire him for staying married to Patti Hansen for so long

What the heck is wrong with her for staying married to him so long?

I always thought he was an overrated piece of shit. An incoherent, dull, druggie. Unlike the Beatles who were loved individually, and as a group, the Stones only had one real star of the group- Mick Jagger, with out Mick the Stones would have never been successful. He should thank his lucky stars to of been Micks friend.

He's more famous as a druggy than a musician

Charlie Watts seems nice.

All rock stars sound pretty much the same. Spoiled, pampered, drugged.

R2 and R3 are ignorant of music and the facts of rock history. As dreadful as Richards has been in his personal life, he is a pre-eminent star and influence in rock music history for his serious, brilliant musicianship. If you don't know that you don't know shit about the subject you're farting about.

What is it with these uneducated twats who confuse moral judgment with aesthetic assessment, and always think that if they say it it must be true? The DL is so full of these smug little assholes that it's hard to avoid the stink of sulphur.

Saw the scintillating Stones documentary 'Crossfire Hurricane', and read "Life" off the back of it.

It's packed with good stories, and the top-end counter-culture wafts from the page. KR's role as the biggest baddest richest outlaw in the West is secure. No-one does it better.

I too was surprised at how much he criticises Jagger: it's like he's goading a response he knows Jagger is too tight ever to give. That, and the sense that KR feels that if he's doing the big book it might as well go in as hard as he dares. Bland and polite isn't his style.

MJ clearly held it all together when KR looked like he would be sent down for years; and then overplayed his oldest child role by calling the shots and cutting deals alone. KR implies though that there are matters in which MJ is lucky not to have been caught out. (He was obviously more canny.) Then there was the knighthood! KR rightly ridicules it.

Still, they got some songs from all the tension. I liked reading about how KR is so steeped in music of all forms. (He's at pains to show how MJ is much more superficial.) Looking forward to The Stones at Glastonbury this summer.

Tried to start this book several times and never got past the first page. Sounded great though, but I'd rather keep the image of Keith Richards as it is and this book wouldn't have helped.

Ronnie Wood seems lovely...

though Patti was probably making decent money on her own, marrying and staying married to Keith guaranteed her a cushy life.

Hated the so-called classic Cocksucker Blues. Stones and their leechy entourage come off as crude assholes. Keith Richards has let other people hold the bag and go to prison for his drug deals.

"As dreadful as Richards has been in his personal life, he is a pre-eminent star and influence in rock music history for his serious, brilliant musicianship. If you don't know that you don't know shit about the subject you're farting about."

The book is not about his "serious, brilliant musicianship," although I seem to remember a lot of out-of-tune, off-rhythm guitars. It's about his personal life. And I agree with one poster, the book was weirdly flat and affectless, although for a waste case Keith does enjoy criticizing others quite a bit.

He was such a hardcore drug user fro decades OP, do you really think he remembers anything?

The Stones were indisputably one of the great bands, but not exactly known for their intellectual acumen. There were other bands for that. They were a Top Forty dance band.

R-6 I assure you I know more about music than your ass will ever know, so fuck off you fan boy. I acknowledge Keith's Talent as a blues guitarist, I never stated he had no talent, though he cannot compare to Clampton, Hendricks, Jimmy Page,& Pete Townshend IMO. He does have talent. However, I stand behind the statement that Mick Jagger was/is the star of the Stones.

And Mick was such a cheap skate, he would rather that all his kids would be called bastards, rather then admit he was married to their mother. What? Does he think he can take it to hell with him? What a jerk?

I agree with R13. He wrote great blues riffs and certainly some great songs, but I don't think he was an aficionado guitarist like Hendrix or Clapton or Page. Neither was Cobain or Johnny Marr and they both were great songwriters, so it's not an indictment against Keith...

Jagger's kids all sit pretty and don't seem to be hurting for cash, and he is close to all of them, so...whatever bad husband he might have been he does seem to be a doting dad. Even Jerry Hall has grudgingly admitted that he's a good parent. When did he disown them?

I liked Richards's book but agree that he takes no responsibility for his drug use's impact on anyone else. A classic addict. But, a good guitar player. He should be kissing Jagger's butt for keeping the Stones alive though. The band he professes to love so much was basically sustained by Jagger and Rupert Loewenstein's savvy 1970s investments.

I do think Jagger is a horrible interview...never reveals anything about himself, really...I'm sure this book must have freaked him out.

On the basis of the subject line alone, that sounds like a must read anyway. *downloads*

R16, according to Keith, the Rolling Stones could have made more records, but Mick suddenly and unexpectedly was craving for a solo career and he put a halt to the band. All members felt betrayed by Mick back then...I think they still feel a kind of bitterness about Jagger, at least Keith does, or so it seems to me...

Drugs and music made fugly guys like him having in their bed women who were certainly out of their league.

Pallenberg's mind was certainly clouded by drugs. If she was sane, would she sleep with Keith? I don't think so!

R19, Keith was not fugly when he was younger. He was certainly not what you would call a beau, but he had sex appeal.

Wow, he was cute!

Keith had a magnetism in the sixties and early seventies, and comes over as more likeable than Jagger, though not nearly as bright. He was and is a serious musician, and some of his work will be remembered for many decades to come as archetypal rock music of the period during which the Stones peaked - 1966-1973.

But, I dislike that Keith's drug addiction has become 'legendary' and somehow admirable, for perennial morons such as Johnny Depp and Kate Moss, whose own drug use and dress sense is directly inspired by Richards / Richard's girlfriends. And Richards doesn't exactly seem to mind that, whereas at his age, he should be more willing to distance himself from hard drug abuse.

Keith's book is funny and likeable, if you don't care about his pettiness and spitefulness. It did have a real effect - apparently Mick refused to tour for years because of Keith's taunting him about his allegedly tiny 'todger'.

R19, according to Marianne Faithfull, Keith rescued Anita from Brian Jones's abuse.

Anita was terrified of Jones, who was nasty piece of work who beat her severely, and saw no way of getting free of him. Keith spirited her away to Morocco or wherever one night. Jones was furious.

"according to Marianne Faithfull, Keith rescued Anita from Brian Jones's abuse.

Anita was terrified of Jones, who was nasty piece of work who beat her severely, and saw no way of getting free of him. Keith spirited her away to Morocco or wherever one night. Jones was furious."

There was no "rescuing" involved. Anita Pallenberg wasn't some poor lower income woman with no resources to help her escape an abusive man. She could have left him at any time, but didn't. What happened was that she and Keith started an affair and she dumped Brain for Keith. It's as simple as that. And Keith had no qualms about stealing the girlfriend of his bandmate. He later aaid Brien "never forgave" him for that. Well, I guess not! Some biographer called Keith's actions "treachery of the hightest order."

Brian Jones was a horrible human being (Keith Richards is no better) but you can't help but feel a little bit sorry for the guy. He was the one who created the band The Rolling Stones. In the beginning, he was the only good musician among them. But he spiraled deeper and deeper into drugs, and Mick and Keith unceremoniously kicked him out of the band, the band that HE created. That is somewhat understandable, but for Keith to run off with his girlfriend was just plain cruel.

Brian ended up dying at the bottom of a swimming pool at age 27. Was he murdered, like some say? Who knows? It doesn't really matter, anyway. He was one of those rock stars whose destiny was to die young.

R25, Keith in his biography writes that Brian Jones was beating his women, but he never wrote that Brian actually beat Anita. Maybe, he omitted to write that, ok, but, what he actually wrote was that Anita was beating Brian when they had a fight! More than once Brian was with a black eye after a fight with Anita.

Keith wrote about Anita that she was like a Valkyrie, a very strong woman and that she could be very manipulative and that she knew what she wanted and he really appreciated that about her. However, she was a drug addict and according to him with the passing of time she became hysterical and paranoid...

Did Kim mention anyone from "Hello Larry"?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

So why was only Paul McCartney made a knight? Why not Ringo? or George? or John (or can't someone be made a knight posthumously?)

and of the Stones, why just Mick? Was he and Paul the only two of the groups who contributed something significant to Great Britain? or was it because they were considered the leaders of their respective groups?

"He even criticized the guy's penis size. WTF??"

So is Jagger a 'bragger' or a little 'dagger'?

He's a 'nagger' with 'swagger' and he ain't no 'lagger', R30.

"However, she was a drug addict and according to him with the passing of time she became hysterical and paranoid..."

And yet he left his infant son Tara alone with her. Yes, he left his weeks old son with Anita and went on tour, taking his son Marlon along with him (Marlon was only 7 or 8 years old). I think either consciously or subconsciously he took Marlon along with him to protect him from Anita. He had bonded with Marlon, but not with Tara; Tara was not of great importance to him. He got a call saying Tara was dead. He continued on with the tour, and let Anita take care of the whole unpleasant business of disposing of the remains. There was no funeral or memorial service. He never even TALKED about it with Anita! How did Tara die? Where was he buried? Or was he cremated? What happened to the ashes? Apparently Keith Richards never bothered to find out. For all he knew or cared, his paranoid junkie wife could have killed the infant Tara by throwing him out of a window. The death of Tara Richards remains a mystery. How any father could behave in the nonchalant way Keith Richards did after the sudden, unexplained death of a child is beyond my understanding. I got the feeling that he just didn't give a damn, and neither did Anita Pallenberg. They were both junkie scum.

I liked the book but Keith seems like an asshole. His living kids seem normal. I also liked Jo Wood's book. Lots of dish there.

R32, the baby died at 10 weeks of cot (crib) death.

Excerpts from the book 'Brian Jones: The untold life and mysterious death of a rock legend' by Laura Jackson

By the time Anita's path converged with Brian's in 1965 she was twenty-one and had worked in all major European capitals. She had gone to West Germany on a fashion assignment and was in Munich the very night the Stones were appearing.

'That's how i met Brian,' she once revealed. 'He was the only one of the Stones who really bothered to talk to me. He could even speak a little German.' Having watched Brian on stage, Anita had been captivated by the way he moved, the intriguing aura he projected. 'Brian was so far ahead of Mick and Keith, you wouldn't believe it. They were just schoolboys beside him.' Hours later, offstage, however, Anita confronted the reality in its grim light. She said 'There had been some kind of disagreement within the Stones. Brian against the others and he was crying. He said 'Come and spend the night with me. I don't want to be alone.' So i went with him. Almost the whole night he spent crying. Whatever had happened with the other Stones, it had absolutely devasted him.'

Anita's motives, though, have always been a grey area. The picture painted is very much that Anita, while loving Brian, went through the mill with him, suffering many beatings at his hands because of his wild insecurity, and that in the end she was simply unable to take it anymore. But other sources, some closest to Brian, read it quite differently. They suggest that Anita, whom no one took for a fool, first thought the power of the Stones was Brian. But once behind the scenes it became obvious that Brian was in a minority of one and going through great difficulties, then her allegiance wasn't so hard to shift.

"the baby died at 10 weeks of cot (crib) death."

Sez who? Even Richards admits he has no idea how Tara died. There was no autopsy, no medical inquest. But "crib death" is a convenient ways of sweeping the whole unpleasant business under the rug. I tend to think that the infant died of neglect or some kind of abuse. Anita Pallenberg did hard drugs during all her pregnancies; maybe the effects of that made Tara weak and sick. Or maybe she smothered him during one of her paranoid drug frenzies.

At any rate, the behavior of Richards and Pallenberg after the death of their youngest child was strange indeed. They acted like the child never existed; there was no mourning or grieving. They just went about their business like nothing ever happened. Richards didn't even bother to stop touring! Constrast his behavior with that of Robert Plant, whose son Karac died suddenly of a a virus. Led Zeppelin was in the midst of a tour; upon hearing of his son's death Plant immediately flew back to his family and the tour was cancelled. I guess Keith Richards didn't think the death of his son was important enough for him to stop touring and making millions. What a bastard.

The man who co-wrote "Life" has said in interviews that it was difficult for Richards to discuss Tara because of his lingering feelings of guilt.

[quote]What is it with these uneducated twats who confuse moral judgment with aesthetic assessment?

No one is assessing his musicianship when they are calling him a druggie. They are simply saying that his deplorable personal behavior has far overshadowed his musical accomplishments in terms of repute.

John Wilkes Booth was one of the most respected actors of his time but he's quite more famous for assassinating Lincoln.

I find it very cruel that The Stones one day paid a visit to Bryan Jones and told him that he was fired. I think that they should have handled it differently, back then. I believe that they should speak in a good and honest manner to Brian. They should have told him that they need him in the band and that they truly respect him as a musician. But of course, they didn't act this way, there were always important things that were left unsaid between them. I strongly believe that the way they spoke to Brian that day was cold and humiliating. They didn't give him a chance. There was not real communication behind this decision and that is sad. Brian felt that there was no turning back, he couldn't improve himself, nobody told him that they actually needed him in the band. They gave him to understand that he was not irreplaceable. The man needed help and instead of helping him, they practically dumped him, and on top of that, Keith came away with Anita Pallenberg, who according to Brian's father was Brian's greatest love. Brian was dating a lot of women, but Anita was always his favourite.

I read it. I thought he was rather smug. I didn't find it that interesting. The most interesting part to me was how irresponsible he was with the kids he brought into this world. Sticking them in a big mansion out on Long Island with no food or money. Making your kid a caretaker so you don't die choking on your own heroin-induced vomit. Someone should write a "Mommy Dearest" type book about these Rock Dads who keep going.

"Brian was dating a lot of women, but Anita was always his favourite."

If that's how Jones treated her, no wonder she dumped him for an impotent junkie.

Their music sucks big time.

R42 = idiot

R41 Anita was not an angel. She was not monogamous as well!

R39, they told Brian that they needed to tour the US (which was true), and he couldn't get a visa due to his drug convictions. He had contributed nothing in at least two years before they finally fired him. They had wanted to fire him for quite awhile but did not do so because they believed the fans wanted to see the same line-up, with no changes. He was stoned all the time. In the studio, they would unplug his guitar. Just watch him in the Rolling Stones Circus and Godard's Sympathy for the Devil and see for yourself. He also got a lump sum of £100,000 and the promise of £20,000 a year for the life of the band.

R45, they could have replaced him temporarily with someone else for the US tour. It is absolutely true that he did a lot of things that upset the members of the band, but on the other hand he was a brilliant musician. The Stones owe him a lot. It was Brian's innovations that change the sound of the band forever.

Mick Jagger and Keith Richards didn't even attend Brian's funeral. Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman did. So, what was their excuse?

R46, Mick was in Australia for a film commitment. Keith and Anita just didn't go. I am not a Brian-shipper. Their best work came after he had any real input, plus he never wrote anything they recorded.

EITHER, R44.

He called someone a "faggot" in the book. I know I should lighten up but I really hate that word, especially in print and from a famous adult.

Brian's contribution to the early albums gave The Stones the special sound they have today. As it is written in the Wiki 'His innovative use of traditional or folk instruments, such as the sitar and marimba, was integral to the changing sound of the band'.

CAN YOU IMAGINE PAINT IT BLACK WITHOUT BRIAN'S SIGNATURE SITAR RIFF? He made the song special. His touch on Richards/Jagger's songs made the sound different. The Stones followed that pattern, ever since.

Yes, R49, he calls gays faggots and women bitches. And he slags off the person responsible for keeping his career going through decades of drugged-out or drunken uselessness, as well as making him a multi-millionaire.

Yes, R50, on Aftermath he played the sitar and the Mellotron and the sitar; in fact, every instrument except what he was primarily supposed to play, the guitar. That was the problem. But if for you, Aftermath was the high point of their career, that's fine. But most agree that the Stones' Golden Era was 1968-1972, when Brian's input was minimal or non-existent.

Marianne Faithfull's autobiography is a cracking read.

She is (perhaps overly) affectionate towards Keith, fair in her assessment of Mick (he comes across as superficial and materialistic, but a more or less decent guy), and absolutely scathing about Brian Jones.

According to her, Jones was a vicious bully and woman-beater, and yes, that does put him in a different moral category to Keith and Anita, who were basically just junkie fuck-ups.

NB: She also claims that Mick had a homoerotic longing for Keith, and she told him one night, go on - sleep with him. It's what you've always wanted, isn't it?

R53, Marianne knows herself about homoerotic longing! She was in love with Anita Pallenberg...In her autobiography,(you are right, it is a very gripping book, not dull at all) she writes:

'It was at Courtfield Road that i got to know Anita Pallenberg. You can't begin to imagine what she was like in those days! She was the most incredible woman i'd met in my life. Dazzling, beautiful, hypnotic and unsettling. Her smile-those carnivorous teeth!-obliterated everything. Other women evaporated next to her. I was utterly in her thrall and would have done anything for her. When i told her some years ago how in love with her i was at the time, Anita nodded like some great old Cheshire cat being brought her tribute. Another rat tail to nail up on the barn door.'

I hadn't realized that Pallenberg and Faithfull were identical twins!

My take on Richards's cool attitude after the infant Tara died was that he knew he wasn't his child. He and Anita had been drifting apart already for some time, it was drugs and Marlon that were the only thing keeping them together by the mid-70s.

He's never come out and said it but that's the impression I always had. He was sad about the death but not flattened, because it wasn't his kid.

Entertaining book, but he's full of shit about a lot of things and probably not a reliable historian.

The Stones have been on auto-pilot ever since 1981, when "Start Me Up" was a hit. Yes, the Stones have put out lots of albums and done lots of tours and made tons of cash even though their creative prime and relevancy has long since past. Why do they keep going? Because they are the Stones and they can. As Keith Richards pithily once said "People will buy any shit that drops out of our ass." Yep...no argument there.

the Stones are a mind controlled Iluminati band.

Keith's book is full of inaccuracies. I read the 1972 portion on google just to see if any new info could be gleaned. Even that slim slice had dates, cities, names... wrong. All of it could have been checked on google. My problem is with the editors of the book. If I was able, through memory, to see how inaccurate part of the book was, what about the whole thing? And why did they let it get published that way? It seems to me it was an oral history made fast, made cheap, and the extract the maximum $ from the thang. Or am I innocent to the world of present day publishing?

R29 In fact Ringo is being made a Knight this year, it was announced a couple months ago.

But as for Paul, when he was knighted in 1997, he had just played a major role in creating the Liverpool Institute of the Performing Arts, which is an arts college, he also stayed in the UK and paid his taxes all those years(and he was by far the richest Beatle due to his music publishing business so it was a lot of taxes lol), he was kind of the most "British" ex-Beatle at that point and had been the most successful in terms of overall solo career. Basically he was far more of "service to his country" than John, George or Ringo were at that point. John left in the early 1970's and got a US Green Card, I think Ringo has made LA basically home for decades. I'm not actually sure about George, I'm pretty sure he still lived in the UK mostly but he had various money problems over the years so wasn't really on the radar right then for knighthood. I'm sure if he'd lived he'd have gotten it before Ringo but he died just a few years after Paul was knighted.

[quote] I'm not actually sure about George, I'm pretty sure he still lived in the UK mostly but he had various money problems over the years so wasn't really on the radar right then for knighthood. I'm sure if he'd lived he'd have gotten it before Ringo but he died just a few years after Paul was knighted.

Harrison absolutely would have been offered a knighthood, he may actually have been offered one but possibly declined, much like Bowie did and Keith Richards allegedly has (no one knows unless the decliner speaks about it).

But I agree that Ringo's tax status and avoidance of UK life may very well have affected his relatively late knighthood. He's one of the last two surviving Beatles and one would think he'd have one by now.

How can anyone admire Keith Richards ? I admire humanitarians, doctors, nurses, social workers. American celebrity culture is fucked up

[quote] Ringo's tax status and avoidance of UK life

Wasn't it more that he got together with Barbara Bach, an American, who became his wife and partner in both drinking and drugging and getting sober?

R63? Keith is British...

R62 Harrison was offered an OBE after McCartney's knightood, which he apparently declined because it was a lower status honor than the knighthood.

R64 Linda McCartney was American and she and Paul smoked plenty of pot together. LOL. But she lived in England and Scotland, with Paul. Certainly they visited the US alot to see her family and even owned some properties. And of course he's married to another American now, Nancy. It was the British wife who ended up being the troublemaker. LOL

i read this years ago.

I don't know how he remembers all the events, he was fucked up on drugs for so much of it. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate. This is his autobio. His take, his version of events.

Keith Richards was upset that Mick accepted the knighthood. He was against it. Keith would definitely turn down if he was ever offered. And can you imagine they wanted to give MBE or whatever to Johnny Rotten? He turned it down of course.

[quote]And can you imagine they wanted to give MBE or whatever to Johnny Rotten?

The man who sang "God bless the Queen, she ain't no human being?" No, I cannot.

Eric Clapton's autobiography sorta did the same thing Keith's did: create a portrait of the artist as a self-centered, ungrateful and drugged-out mess who takes little responsibility for mistreating others. I guess a lot of artists are like that but it made for uncomfortable reading.

i remember he said he survived all the drugs coz he only did high quality shit. good quality shit for him only.

KR is not a great musician. He stands there and plays 3 riffs. Brian Jones, Ron Wood, and Mick Taylor were great musicians.

Yes I read the book. The parts about Jagger are pretty hilarious. Keith has known Mick longer than anyone (they went to school together) and he totally has Mick’s number. Nobody else could call Mick out for being a tight-fisted, pretentious social climber. Yet there still a gruff affection for Mick. He’s smart enough to realise that he & Mick need each other.

r64 nationality of one's wife isn't really a factor in getting a knighthood. Plenty of recipients have had foreign-born wives.

In terms of recent popular musicians being offered a KBE, the individuals ongoing popularity, overall legacy and contributions to their professional field, UK charity work, criminal record, political stance/donations (yes, this matters although not admitted), and other sundry issues like residency and tax status all contribute.

Jimmy Page for example only has an OBE, while Robert Plant (his equal in his band, many consider Page the founder) has the higher CBE. Reason: Page's past criminal record and drug charges in the early 80s (heroin arrest).

Many believe Clapton will ultimately be denied a KBE because of his racist bigoted comments and Enoch Powell support (granted, while high/drunk) during the 70s.

[quote]nationality of one's wife isn't really a factor in getting a knighthood. Plenty of recipients have had foreign-born wives.

I meant this as an explanation for his absence from the UK, as opposed to wanting to avoid taxes.

Could be the reason. I think Ringo just likes the US a lot, plus the tax savings as he didn't make as much money as the others after the Beatles broke up.

Barbara Bach's 1st husband was an Italian or French national and I don't think she herself lived in the US much before marrying Ringo. I think most of her acting career up to that point was in Europe iirc. So not sure she herself was a main reason to live stateside.

Richards just had to apologize to Jagger AGAIN for rude comments he made to a journalist. Richards is a hero, but he does know that the Stones wouldn't exist had Jagger not held the thing together while he was a mess...right? Sheesh.

The comments may have been out of line, but they were correct.

Oh, dear.

[quote]Could be the reason. I think Ringo just likes the US a lot, plus the tax savings as he didn't make as much money as the others after the Beatles broke up.

Most British pop stars of that era ended up living in America (not sure about now).

It's a much cooler place to live if you are a star.

KR and the lads did some things, but they've been an oldies act for 35 years.

And he was a long-term junkie who didn't have to maintain a basic, adult level of functioning or responsibility. With all that, he's ended up better than one might have expected.

They end up in LA coz of the weather. UK weather is shit.