Talk:Keith Richards

Archive 1

Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 1

Created 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New Edits April 27th

Made some edits to improve readability and comprehensiveness. The article was becoming a little too succinct and seemed drained of specifics, which is what makes most wikipedia articles interesting. The Mr. Anonymous edits are so entropic at times because the writer seems to feel everything should be sparse and short, and general, and rather skeletal, but spineless- if that makes sense. Plus way to much of this "Richards say" "Richards considers" etc. It gets to read like the writer has some sort of special insight into the subject, as if they sit around the dinner table togther and chat. There is not enough context given to what is in the article, and I think people unfamiliar with Richards are being inadequately served. Even with the points Mr. Anonymous makes, there should be more detail, or at least a clarifying, contextualizing sentence or two. Probably others could add more info too, to add vibrancy to the lame, sterile run-through it was becoming. --Mikerussell 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also

I understand that Richards is regarded as this great, realist rocker and the true muscle behind the Stones and is lionized by a certain faction of Stones fans as this down-to-earth hero in contrast to Jagger(although his public persona, if one pays attention, is wildly protean). All of this is justifiable to a certain extent, but I'd just like to point out that I had to edit some totally ridiculous things out of the Mick Jagger page, which is almost completely ignored compared to this page.

Like with Lennon/McCartney, the Jagger/Richards partnership is in danger of being totally misprepresented. The whole idea of the Lennon/McCartney team has been destroyed because of bad writers and moronic critics; Lennon is actually regarded as a saint for being shot after writing "Imagine," while McCartney receives more derision than almost any other celebrity of his influence and stature. There are reasons for this, but people forget that Lennon was not this great saint, but was often pretty vain and mean-spirited; they forget that McCartney held the Beatles togethor and wrote a huge portion of their best stuff.

The same is in danger of happening to Jagger/Richards, even if it hasn't happened completely yet. But so many fans and writers have taken the easy route out of laziness and convenience: Jagger as the cosmopolitan, image-conscious, trendy frontman and Richards as the rebellious realist rocker with integrity. This is a fallacy. Not only is Richards a much more flamboyant, inconsistent (in terms of opinions) and theatrical person in interviews, he was also very involved in all the projects that narrow-minded fans sometimes dismiss as "Jagger projects" (Satanic Majesties, Emotional Rescue, Undercover, Dirty Work, etc.). In fact, if you really want to get down and dirty, the two best-regarded latter-day Stones records--Some Girls and Tattoo You--were "Jagger projects" and the worst-regarded--Dirty Work--was almost totally the work of Richards.

My point is that the Mick Jagger page is treated like trash, while this page is this shrine where obssessive fans bicker over this reverential document of Richards' greatness and incredible down-to-earthedness and "just a regular guy"-ness. Mikerussell nailed it in his descriptions of some of the things people have said on this page. In Jagger page, I actually read this thing where someone said that he is "often accused" of pretending to be a hard-living tough guy while actually being a closeted ugly homosexual who destroyed the Stones (one of the most annoying things people do on wikipedia is use the term "often accused" to talk trash about people they don't like). This is an extreme example, but when you really get down to it, Jagger is as important to the band as Richards and as compelling a public figure and as interesting a celebrity, despite never having been a junkie. In fact, in the Stones latter days, he's clearly more important a figure. In relation to this page--I would hope people contributing to this article would be able to help with the Jagger page without saying stupid things and trying to make it seem like Jagger is an inferior human being. I posted this here because it's a major oversight and I thought the Richards crowd should know. --Dave

non biased person here (I don't much care for either of them) but you seem to be exactly the kind of person you are complaining about, except with Jagger instead of Richards. Chill. Yes some people suck, but it's wikipedia... get used to it, and make necessary edits. 207.127.128.2 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

With the Stones

Cleaned up the "With the Stones" section. Removed the thing about him playing acoustic guitar at home (this isn't a documentary) and the thing about the fuzz box and the still existing genre of "garage rock"--which is such a vague term as to be meaningless here. I also re-arranged some grammar and stylistic hiccups. I made a concerted effort to keep all of the original ideas there--with the exception of the fuzz box and acoustic guitar sentence, which was inconsequential and incongruous.

My 2 cents is it better with the specifics you added, and hopefully those edits will stick. I like the stuff about his father and mother too, which was edited out for no good reason IMO. I still wish somebody would find/source the Human Riff nickname and give it a line or two about why/what it is so special to fans.--Mikerussell 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jagger Entry

How Jagger is regarded is for the Jagger entry. I appreciate how you might feel about the irksome trashing a of encylcpedia entry subject. If you look back to the discussions on this entry there were people who tried to insinuate that Richards ripped off open tuning from Ry Cooder, and was active in Brian Jones demise while exploiting him as well. I looked at the Jagger entry and noticed much of the same kind of unsuported and sometimes flat wrong assertions that were was excised from the Richards entry is going on there. Nick Kent did a great apologia of Jagger recently in Mojo, and I would suggest it as a great source. It takes a lot of effort and argueing when dealing with people who have no knack for reasoned dialogue. Good luck.

right but the people who said the unfounded stuff about Richards had their comments immediately deleted from the page. Also, there was this big controversy with Ry Cooder--that did in fact happen (I tried to write something about it about 4 months ago, but i guess my comments got lost in the big edit war); who knows or cares if Richards ripped him off, but it was obviously important enought to Ry Cooder that he still won't talk about it to this day. I think Keith Richards fans are a little uncomfortable with that controversy--although it doesn't necessarily have to be included here, it's not a "flat wrong assertion." Also, Keith Richards did replace Brian Jones as Anita Pallenberg's lover, whihc I'm sure was active in Brian Jones demise; acually most people say that Brian Jones' demise had at least something to do with his jealosy of Richards (and Jagger). Which issue of Mojo is the Nick Kent thing in?

OK, check out the old discussions on the Ry Cooder thing, it was gone over and over and over. In the end nobody could prove that Keith open tuning style owed much to Cooder except Cooder showed him a tuning Keith already knew about. The Nick Kent article was from - I think - a couple of years ago in a special Stones issue.

Some of the recent edits have merit, but I made minor changes to tone some passages to a more measured tone suitable for an enyclopedia entry.

The fuzz on Satisfaction is a major milestone and it is an inspiration for garage, which is - as is the case with any style - difficult to define - but still does exists. That Richards prefers to play accoutic in private says alot about him as a musician. Richards maintains that a guitar player is best judged by his or her accoustic playing. - Herr Anonymous

saying "it is an inspiration for garage" is vague and will be meaningless to most readers. The Rolling Stones themselves were an influence for "garage rock"--but what do you even mean by garage rock? Define it for me and if you can do it in an intelligent way that relates to this article, then I'll keep that in. People use the term "garage" rock for several different things--they can mean any band that actually plays in a garage, or it can mean any amateurish rock group, or--most importantly--it can refer to any group of American mid-60s bands signed to small labels with few or no hits who played raw, simple rock--that's the definition rock critics most frequently use; look up the definition on this very site: garage rock--or go here: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:411 When you say "garage rock" still exists--that means nothing; punk rock still exists, but it's a style of music most often associated with the late-70s early 80s. Big band swing still exists, but it's most often associated with the 20s and 30s. Garage rock is a much more vague term than either punk or swing, so saying that garage rock still exists can mean any number of things--what? people still play amateurish rock and roll? people still play rock in their garages? people still play music trying to emulate the original 60s garage rock groups? All technically true, but unless you are specific, it means nothing to readers.

Saying that Richards prefers acoustic guitar in private does not say anything of value about his recorded work or influence or importance as a musician. It's one of these things that I think you're really latching on to as this really vital inclusion. What makes it so vital? Explain to me how it adds anything to the page? If it "says a lot about him"--maybe it does, but this is any encyclopedia--if it says something about him, then spell it out in a way that's not POV instead of just including this thing and saying "that means something--im not saying what it means, but it has a meaning." With something like this, it doesn't matter what Richards maintains in interviews--as Mikerussell said, this isn't a page where you have private chats with Richards over tea every evening and add his comments into the mix. Keith Richards has had many interviews and said MANY things. When placed next to the very general, basic, essential information in that section, the thing about him playing acoustic guitar was totally minor and unecessary. It's already mentioned that he contributes some acoustic guitar to studio session. If you can't see this, read through the whole article at once and you will see that it stands out as a bizarre inclusion. Someone back me up, please.

Accoustic Guitar and Satisfaction

The revised edits regarding accoustic guitar address some of the objections. How much "Satisfaction" has to do with "garage" is both problematic and probably not that important: I can can see your point. However, "Satisfaction" was the first major hit to feature a Fuzz and which has since overdriven guitar has since dominated rock n' roll, it is not a trivial fact. Leaving out mention of the relation between accoustic guitar and Keith is like leaving any mention of sculptur in a Picasso entry. BTW, though I may not agree with all edits, I do very much appreciate the explanations and objections provided without resorting to insult or superior tone.

erm...I can't quite tell if the implication is that I have resulted to insult or superior tone in the past. If I have, I apoligize, although I sometimes feel that indirect insults and mild superiority can be effective, humorous tools in certain situations... I think there is justification for some mention of guitar effects and acoustic guitar playing for sure, although certainly Richards work, skill, and legacy as an acoustic guitarist is minor compared to his songwriting and electric rhythm guitar playing. IE, none of his acoustic playing--though good--was hugely influential or innovative. I think it's the equivalent of including something about his solos--he's certainly played many more electric guitar solos than played acoustic guitar on Stones recordings and shows, and yet the article--justifiably, I think--has no mention of Richards solos b/c they aren't especially a notable or prominent feature of his brilliance. About "Satisfaction"--to most rock listeners the difference between distortion, fuzz, and feedback is somewhat obscure. Distortion is easily produced--Link Wray (and Ray Davies) produced forms of it in unconventional ways early on (before '65), and it was a relatively common feature. [Feedback is a little different, and it was in fact first used by the Beatles (beginning of 1964 single "I Feel Fine"), though it's speculated that the Who and The Creation had used it live before then--it was known in the rock community--its a form of overamplified, overdriven guitar noise, too.] True-the fuzzbox is meant to replicate distortion--but it was a special effect unit; the Stones were not the first to use it, as far as most people know, since it was released for mass consumption in the mid-60s, but they were the first to have a hit with it and the technology quickly developed from the relatively crude, early models; many "garage" bands in the US were influenced by the fuzz sound on satisfaction--it was after all, an enomrous hit--and often used it in their own songs. But all sorts of distortions and effects were quickly becoming available by the time Satisfaction was released and you can't clearly point to that song as the impetus behind all of this technology and it's many uses--with the coming of the phsycedelic era, all sorts of distorted, overdriven, and effects-laden guitars started becoming very popular because of general trends in music and technology--not specifically because of satisfaction; mentioning that it is the first hit with a fuzzbox is important to the song's own entry more than anything else; Keith Richards did not single-handedly or consciously kick-start these innovations (indeed the fuzzbox wasn't even his idea or intent), since in the 60s recording technology in general was broadening; Therefore, saying: ""Satisfaction" was the first major hit to feature a Fuzz" This is true "and which has since overdriven guitar has since dominated rock n' roll," Also true "it is not a trivial fact" Well, Those are two seperate facts, neither are trivial, but they aren't related and the first fact is certainly more trivial than the second. As for acoustic guitar--it's not quite on the level of Picasso's sculpting IMO, but it does merit some inclusion.

Explanation: I was complimenting on your discussion based on reasoned argument and referring to others who have completely bipassed diaglogue for a lower road. 

Resonse. We'll probably just disagree on Richards accoustic playing as being that important or not and let it go at that. That is before I give out my opinion that "Street Fighting Man" was done on accoustic and this is maybe the first song to feature the I IV style he has been milking on electric ever since then. I would say it is important mainly because he says it is important. I would also mention that his accoustic guitar playing is unique, and no other player before him played with the feel found on "Torn And Frayed", "Angie", "The Worst" and many have tried to copy his accoutic style. OK, I'm done.

Thanks to Ian Rose and discussion Topic

Ian, I could do a better jo in preventing typos and such, but nonetheless, thanks again.

How does anyone feel about changes references from "Richards" to "Keith"? At least we're not calling him Mr. Richards like the New York Times would, but "Richards" seems a little too formal.

I think this is a bad idea, just because it sounds fannish and it personally bothers me when writers refer to him as Keith in formal articles(and they do it pretty often)--as if it's like, Keith Richards is this hugely accessible everyman that we all know and love--when in fact he's been incredibly rich and famous for a period longer than almost any other rock star and was a serious heroin addict for many years; not to pass judgement, but this image of him as this accessible everyman--self-cultivated, in some ways--irritates me a little when fans buy into it so much--I mean, he's a rock star and people need to embrace that he is a rock star a little more and obssess about Jagger being a rock star a little less; I actually think "Mr. Richards" is more formal than "Richards."

Coconut head Keef Riff Hard

Thie edit really has a problem in incorporating "News' like the guy falling off a coconut tree, the old edit had a nice way to incorporate 'breaking' news, it was called "Which way to go I don't know"- and was specifically set to incorporate events of temporary nature. Too bad tweedle-dee's wisdom took sway, because now it is just at the bottom of the page and not really fitting. I mean it will have to be edited back out when he recovers. There should be a section for a living person in each article that recent news can be incorporated readily for readers to see and digest without it needing to alter the 'base' article.

Also- I looked at my Main Offender CD today to play and it says "Keef Riff Hard" in red right along the back panel. I thought it should be added to the human riff thing, I mean he must like the former nickname more.--Mikerussell 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Beaking New

I don't care much for breaking news, I don't think it has place in an encyclopedia. But this an internet encyclpedia. So let's see how this might work. Let's have recent news section with a time to live of 6 months on any entry to that section.

if this a suggestion, I will try it.--Mikerussell 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation

To Ian Rose: I'm pretty sure it's from the Stone's own book, but I'll check and confirm.

Recent news updates

I added some stuff someone else tried to write in, but not very well. I think it is valid to cite reports that conflict with 'official' Stones/Richards statements, as the sources seem respectable and there are good reasons for assuming the official reports would be less than frank. I did not edited out old reports since they still seem to be valid.--Mikerussell 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User 68.81.176.93 and Napster Links

The unidentified user has recently been slipping in links to Napster offerinsg for Richards and the Stones, this time under 'External links' last time under 'Solo Recordings'. As far as I know Napster is a pay-for-play online music vendor, one of many, and thus to include such links serves as an advertisement for the site. I think they clearly violate the not-for-profit orientation of wikipedia. I deleted them again. In fact, if you notice this IP addressee's edit history, you see the user has been adding Napster links to many other artists, but not much more. --Mikerussell 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

List of lead vocals?

Is there somewhere in Wikipedia a list of the Rolling Stones songs on which Keith performs the lead vocal? I really like the 3 or 4 I've heard, and would like to track down the rest... a list would be very helpful. --kingboyk 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Many are called but few get up. Get working there, Kingboyk.

Actually it is probably a bad idea to include the a 'lead vocal' list. Once you get to know more about the Rolling Stones you'll see why it is hard to just say Richards lead vocal tracks are his main, or only contribution to a Rolling Stones record. When CD burning came out I burned a CD with all Keith lead vocals from RS records and it is very unbalanced- somehow they belong where they are- on the full RS record, plus that is what makes his solo records so unique- they are a complete record with him singing. For what it's worth Kingbong-

Between the Buttons- "Connection" (some US releases have Jagger singing), Let it Bleed- "You Got the Silver", Exile- "Happy", GoatsHSoup- "Coming Down Again", Some Girls- "Before they make me Run", Emotional rescue- "All about You", Tattoo You- "Little T&A, Undercover- "Wanna Hold You", Dirty Work- "Too Rude" an d"Sleep Tonight" (maybe his best IMHO), Steel Wheels- "Can't Be Seen", Slipping Away", Voodoo Lounge- "The Worst" and "Thru & Thru", Bridges- "Don't have to Mean it", "Thief in the Night/How Can I stop", Forty Licks-"Losing My Touch", Bigger Bang- "This Place is Empty", "Infamy".

He sings the first verse on Beggar banquet's "Salt of the Earth" and shares lead on Black and Blue's "Memory Motel". There are live versions on some live records too, as well as Live Licks- "The Nearness of You". This doesn't mention all the bootleg stuff though. --Mikerussell 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I really appreciate it. If you think it doesn't belong in an article, well, I'll take your word for it :) --kingboyk 06:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To: Albatross2147 parody not important

I think you are misjudging the value, interest level and merit of your repeated attempt to include a parody made about Richards' accident. If you included every parody made, or joke broadcast about the accident, the volume would drown Austrailia itself. Just becuase you think it is funny, others may not or won't- especially when the majority of people outside your city have never heard of the song, or the guy/radio station broadcasting the goof.--Mikerussell 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• for the record the bit that Mikerussell deleted read "Richards' accident gave rise to a parody version of the Rolling Stones' 1965 song "Get off my cloud" which was broadcast on New Zealand radio on 12th May 2005 which included the lines, "'Ere Keith get out of that tree/You silly old fart, you're sixty three".[1]" How you can refer to this par with a respectable source as "a vanity style, non-newsworthy item that detracts clearly from the tone and purpose of the article" is beyond me given that most of the Richards article especially the Recent News seems to consist of trivia about a very trivial subject. You obviously didn't check the source or you would not have made the comment you did about it being only heard in one city in Australia. However I hope that you enjoy getting your kicks out of the 21st century equivilent of Perry Como, I liked the Stones 40 years ago but I grew out of it - maybe you should too Albatross2147 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Recent News section is kind of getting too big, but it is only a summary of the world-wide press releases that I have been getting emailed to me with Google News Alerts when the stuff happened last April. I am just trying to impart the info succinctly, since for a time it looked rather serious- maybe still is, a concussion shouldn't require weeks of treatment usually. Anyway, I am afraid I am too old to trade musical favorites, although you are free to your opinion.--Mikerussell 17:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you ignore them they go away. If you give them attention they think they're in a cage match - I'd just revert and make no comment - Mr Anonymous

True, now he's leaving me odd posts on my User Page.--Mikerussell 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead Vocal

There's a very good discussion above about Richards lead vocals. What counts is not co-lead, which is why "Memory Motel" from "Black and Blue" doesn't count. There is also no Richards lead vocals on "Sticky Fingers" or "It's Only Rock n'Roll." "Some Girls" is the start of Richards lead vocals being a standard feature on Stones records. Again, the discussion above goes over this in detail. - Mr Anonymous

Current News section

I think the Current News section may becoming a bad habit I got into when reports stated he was brain-dead in Antarctica, or whatever the rumour was, so I won't be updating as I have, thinking this past edit is the last one I will do for awhile on him. Others may want to edit it, but maybe it is too long already and it shouldn't be a running commentary on RS shows. --Mikerussell 16:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead Vocal Redux and Guitars

See above for revert to previously well-explained topic of Richards and lead vocals. As for including Dan Armstrongs on Zemaitis guitars, Keith's association with these are brief. The point of this entry is to not list every guitar Keith played. That is why no mention has been made of Strats, which he has as much more consistently played throughout his career. Interesting piece of trivia: when Jimi came to London, Keith's girlfriend Linda Keith let him borrow Keith's white Strat until a pissed off Keith got it back. Not too sure what happened to that guitar since. -- Jah Anonymous

Dammit

My brother just vandalized this page, my IP won't be blocked or anything will it? Gopherbassist 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

Affilliations

I object to the inclusion of The Dirty Mac in the "affiliations" section of Keith's profile. The Dirty Mac was an impromptu band which performed two songs in one concert, one a cover and the other an extended jam, and doesn't seem "worthy", for want of a better word, of inclusion in the "affiliations" section. Keith has played concerts with (just off the top of my head), Chuck Berry and Eric Clapton, to name just two, outside of the Rolling Stones at charity gigs or just jamming. They are rightly not listed in the "affiliations" section as they were not actual bands, nor was Keith involved with them long enough to warrant being listed beside the Rolling Stones in the "affiliations" section. Wwwhhh 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

However brief, the affiliation is notable and actual. - Senor Anonymous