|
keeefff |
what did you think of this book?
seem to paint mick in the worst way - saying stuff like mick was afraid to use drugs because it would effect his looks and use to say mean things to brain
i'm only about half done, but i love it
|
|
Break The Spell |
It does paint many of the band members in a negative light, especially Mick, but I went into the book expecting that. I found it quite informative as far as dates and events goes, it gives you a good chronological view of the band if nothing else. I also like that there is comments on every song on every album through bridges (the book came out in 2001) and gives info on various out takes from each album. |
|
Gazza |
quote: keeefff wrote:
what did you think of this book?
seem to paint mick in the worst way - saying stuff like mick was afraid to use drugs because it would effect his looks and use to say mean things to brain
i'm only about half done, but i love it
Its a pile of utter shite and the level of research is appalling
Might be an 'entertaining' read but the factual errors make it worthless and make you sceptical of the autheticity of almost anything that Davis says |
|
pdog |
Crap...
Makes Tony Sanchez into a Pulitzer prize winner.. |
|
ListenToTheLion |
quote: keeefff wrote:
seem to paint mick in the worst way - saying stuff like mick was afraid to use drugs because it would effect his looks and use to say mean things to brain
What do you mean? The example you give paints mick in a sensible way. |
|
Break The Spell |
I believe it was the same guy that wrote "Hammer of the Gods" on zep and an Aerosmith book as well. Hey Gazza, what were some of the big errors in the book?? Forgive me but its been 4 years since I read it so if there's errors their not fresh in my head. |
|
Madafaka |
Talks about drugs too much IMO. That is not the best part of Stones trajectory.
[Edited by Madafaka] |
|
Joey |
quote: keeefff wrote:
what did you think of this book?
seem to paint mick in the worst way - saying stuff like mick was afraid to use drugs because it would effect his looks and use to say mean things to brain
i'm only about half done, but i love it
An Outstanding Book !!!!!
" Old Gods Almost Dead " spent forty two weeks at the Number # 1 Position on the New York Times Best Seller List and has sold two hundred and fifty million copies ( Hard Back ) to date ........ Marriott , Inc. keeps a paperback copy in every hotel room . Word .
JACKY !
................................................
[ Edited by Bill Wyman ]
[Edited by Joey] |
|
tumbling dice |
I like this book.Tony sanches Up and Down is very good too. |
|
HardKnoxDurtySox |
Davis clearly hates the Stones as he spends 2/3 of the book arguing that Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin are superior bands. In an act of shear lunacy previously unheard of in the entire history of writing, Davis claims that "Pump" is the last great rock album. Avoid at all costs! |
|
Gimme Shelter |
I read it too when it first came out. What I remember is that it really critizied the Steel Wheels tour. |
|
corgi37 |
Havent read this book. Seems like the usual stitch up job Jagger gets. Oh my, boo-hoo, he was mean to Brian. Brian wasnt exactly a nice person. Just ask his bastard kids, or the women he beat up.
There might be a semblance of truth in Jagger not wanting to do drugs because it would affect his looks. But, i would say it was more about affecting his performance with the LAY-DEE's! hahaha. And, he still had a pretty go of the party powders and natural herbs from mid 60s to mid 70s. And, being a good boy, i think old Basil might have had a father/son chat with his boy. Health and fitness were drummed into Jagger from an early age.
Its why we can enjoy the wrinkled old fucker running around for 2 hours, sending crowds wild - while fans of Brian (to 99% of the world - who?), Keith Moon, Jim Morrison, Hendrix, Joplin, Cobain etc), can just sit around and remember the "good old days".
Has there ever been a balanced book on the STones? Its either gushing crap, or a vitriolic character assassination, saying how shit they are and they'll never as good as the Beatles. I find it funny some one writes a book about a band, yet compares that band to others. Led Zep's book is full of comparisons to (guess who!!) the Stones. Hendrixes book the same. Even No one here gets out alive. They all want a piece of the kings of the jungle.
Trouble is, there is still some roar in these old lions yet. |
|
sirmoonie |
That book barely avoids copyright infringement of, among others, Bockris book on Keith. Plus, its disjointed, jumps around - a clear cut and paste job written by a computer. |
|
Riffhard |
It's a shit book! As many here have already alluded to. The problem is that it is written by the Kitty Kelly of rock bios. It's a hatchet job plain and simple. Plus there are so many factual errors that any true fan can only shake their heads in disbelief.
I have,on this very forum,stated many many times that the best book ever written about the Stones was Stanley Booth's The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones. He was there. He saw it. Hell,he even lived with Keith for a couple of years at Nellcott. It's also the only book ever written about the band that is forwarded by a letter of agreement signed by all of the Stones themselves. There is no bullshit,or speculation about motives here. Just the straight scoop from a guy that could genuinly call the Stones friends. Even after the book came out! Which is more than Davis,or Spanish Tony could say.
Get it. Buy it. Read it. Learn it. Thank me later.
Riffy |
|
Sir Stonesalot |
You would think that people writing these types of books would come to places like this to get fact checkers.
Old Gods is a funny comedy of farce. 87.6% fact free! |
|
gotdablouse |
It was the first book to shed some led in writing about the B2B sessions though and how they ended with Mick walking out. I don't think I'd ever read that before. |
|
WhenTheWhipComesDown |
What would be the best book on the Rolling Stones starting with the Sixties?
I want to know which one could be the most accurate during the above period.
Thanks. |
|
Riffhard |
quote: WhenTheWhipComesDown wrote:
What would be the best book on the Rolling Stones starting with the Sixties?
I want to know which one could be the most accurate during the above period.
Thanks.
Uhhh,I have just told you three posts ago! The best book by an incredibly large magin is Stanley Booth's-The True Adventures of The Rolling Stones.
It's not even close. That ain't opinion either! That's a fact!
Riffhard |
|
Egbert |
quote: WhenTheWhipComesDown wrote:
What would be the best book on the Rolling Stones starting with the Sixties?
I want to know which one could be the most accurate during the above period.
Thanks.
Booth's "True Adventures of...", Greenfield's "S.T.P.", and Bockris' "Keith Richards" are all good reads and highly recommended. |
|
gorda |
I think that Keith Richards and Mick Jagger need to get together and write a book to set the record straight!
I would like to hear it from their point-of-view.
That big red book, According to the Stones, is too choppy, just bits and pieces of information.
It would be a cool to read a book that started from the beginning as they remembered things.
P.S. Keith and Mick are not angels. But, they are under a lot of pressure! Being in the public eye all the time must be nerve-racking, they have to have some outlet, some release! |
|
Soldatti |
It's good at times, but with loads of mistakes. The chart positions for the albums and singles is a mess. |
|
stonedinaustralia |
quote: Riffhard wrote:
Hell,he even lived with Keith for a couple of years at Nellcott.
not quite Riffy.. i believe it was Redlands and I don't think it streched into years (months maybe)
i don't even think keith lived at Nellcote for a couple of years - around late '72 early '73 (i think) french authorities put out warrant for his arrest while he was away and he never went back |
|
Riffhard |
quote: stonedinaustralia wrote:
not quite Riffy.. i believe it was Redlands and I don't think it streched into years (months maybe)
i don't even think keith lived at Nellcote for a couple of years - around late '72 early '73 (i think) french authorities put out warrant for his arrest while he was away and he never went back
Yeah you're right SIA. I was mistaken about the location. It was indeed Redlands. However,he did live there for the better part of a couple of years in an on again off again arrangment. He says in the book that he relized that he had to move to out shortly before the '72 tour because,in his words,"Somebody was gonna end up dead,and I didn't think it was gonna be Keith!"
Apparently he got addicted to smack as badly as Keith had. He ended his "experiment" well before Keith did though. However,I do think that we are both right in one respect. Booth claims only to lived there full-time for around five or six months,but later he stresses that he used Keith's house as a crash pad(read-smack shack)for at least two years after the '69 tour.
I stand by my claim the his book is the definitive Stones book available. He was writing from a perspective that no other biographer was ever privy to,and that counts for alot in my mind. His story about the riot in Blackpool is one of the funniest things that I have ever read about the band!
Riffy
|
|
chevysales |
quote: pdog wrote:
Crap...
Makes Tony Sanchez into a Pulitzer prize winner..
too funny |
|
corgi37 |
Keith and/or Mick will NEVER write a bio.
Neither will Charlie.
Of course, there's always Bill's books. How many chicks he fucked. How much a train ticket was. Mick and Keith wont let him submit songs. It's all so unfair. I never get air time. I wrote this. I wrote that. |
|
Break The Spell |
quote: HardKnoxDurtySox wrote:
Davis clearly hates the Stones as he spends 2/3 of the book arguing that Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin are superior bands. In an act of shear lunacy previously unheard of in the entire history of writing, Davis claims that "Pump" is the last great rock album. Avoid at all costs!
I remember that part, it was around when Bill was leaving, how he was noticing that the "rock boom had ended" and then Davis stated that "Achtung Baby" and "Pump" were the last truly great rock albums. So he has a U2 comparison to go with all the Zep and Aerosmith ones as well!! |
|
FotiniD |
"Old Gods Almost Dead" is one of those books that I tend to look at it sitting on my bookcase shelf and wondering what the heck possessed me and made me get it. I'd have thrown it away years ago if I could actually come to throw away any book.
Read half of it it over a 15-hour travel by ship and the rest of it when I got back from the holidays. What still puzzles me is why would anyone bother to write a book on a subject he obviously seems to hate - oh, yes, $$$... True enough.
I agree with Riffy, stick with Stanley Booth's book and it won't let you down. Not only is it straightforward, fun to read, illuminating at many points and manages to transfer all the vibe of what it was like to be next to the Stones at that time but the guy can write! Very beautiful book. |
|
gypsy |
I agree w/ Riffy's book choices as well.
Yeah, the chances of Mick and Keith writing a tell-all are slim to none.
Anita won't even write one, and she even expressed disappointment in Marianne for telling all in her bio in 1994. |
|
Break The Spell |
Charlie will surprise us all one day and give us a tell all book with all the dirt. |
|
Voodoo Scrounge |
I have read it. It was the very first BOOK i read about the stones and being young and dumb and naive, I took it all as gospel.
However, as I have grown and matured I have also found much better researched and more well written material about the stones. |