Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Edits April 27th 

message: 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)
thread_title: Also

message: 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)
thread_title: With the Stones

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coconut head Keef Riff Hard 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beaking New 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent news updates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  User 68.81.176.93 and Napster Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: True, now he's leaving me odd posts on my User Page.--Mikerussell 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To: Albatross2147 parody not important 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current News section 

message: Someone added the category that he declined a British honour- I am just curious- did someone over there really seriously offer one? I know he slagged, rightfully IMHO, on Jagger for courting the Court, but I never heard anybody suggesting that Keith should also be Knighted? --Mikerussell 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declined British Honour 

message: No mention of Charley Drayton as one of the Expensive Winos?  Charley played mainly bass but also drums on the odd song (eg Take It So Hard).  He has a long list of credits.Leeborkman 02:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charley Drayton? 

message: Keith used the I IV chord changes early on two notable songs: "Not Fade Away" and "Route 66" (I could be wrong, but except for these two songs, but I don't  Keith used I IV riffs again until the  late 60's.)  I'm suggesting this edit to the section covering open tunings. 
"Richards' guitar playing is noted for open tunings with syncopated and ringing I, IV chording heard on "Start Me Up" and "Street Fighting Man." Early on Richards had prominently used I, IV changes on The Stones' first realease on "Not Fade Away" and "Route 66", but until his adoption of open tunings Richards had left alone I IV riff dependencies. For open tunings Richards has frequently used a five-string variant of the open G (GDGBD, which is unencumbered by a rumbling, lower E). On some of the Stones' biggest hits, including "Honky Tonk Women," "Brown Sugar," and "Start Me Up", this tuning is prominent. Though he has continued to use standard tunings, Richards has cited the adoption of open tunings as a turning point in his guitar playing."
This is a first draft, but I think this proto I IV style has not been noted before and may well be of enough interest to include it in the entry. I'd like to hear what others think. - Mr Anonymous
:Not Fade Away and Route 66 are of course covers, so the choice of chords was largely out of Keith's hands ;-) There are a bunch of other early Stones covers (especially Berry songs like Round and Round, Oh Carol, not to mention Satisfaction!!) that also use basic I IV chords.  In fact, I'm thinking that there must be dozens of them. Leeborkman 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point is that I IV is the most fundamental of all rock and roll progressions (eg, the Beatles first two major singles, Love Me Do and Please please Me), so I don't know that it is really worth mentioning. Leeborkman 05:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments Requested 

message: I've been thinking the intro paragraph could be more representative of the entry. It has stuff that might be be better left or inserted into the body. For example, the spelling of his last name and his guest appearances are maybe better dealt with lower down in the body. Rather than just spring a rewrite, I'd rather solicit and try to forge a consensus on what can be done as well as invite anybody else to rewrite the intro. - Mr Anonymous
P.S. It also might be good to include any other critiques of the article as a whole.
Guys, as you know, I make infrequent and largely cosmetic contributions to this article. In response to Mr Anonymous, my recommendation is not to change or delete stuff currently in the intro but simply augment it. I think the para flows well and the stuff about his name is worth keeping there, but the guest appearances part does look like it unbalances the para because there's only a few other sentences. So if someone adds a couple more lines re. the Stones and his place in music history (perhaps incl. a quote) before the other artists' line, I reckon you'll have a very useful intro. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting Intro Pragraph 

message: Okay my dad told me last night that he had a blood transfusion because of all the ****** drugs he did. So of course we are going to put this in here. Zabrak 04:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that they replaced the blood he normally used with dark, sparkling Folger's Crystals. —Chowbok 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's a myth, as discussed here:  But it's worth mentioning because it's such a popular myth. Wikipedia should have definitely a statement on it because it's one of the things Keef is 'known' for. tmimh 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we talk about how he is living off somebody elses blood? 

message: i have serious doubts about the statement that Keith was expelled from Sidcup Art College.  he was indeed expelled from Dartford Technical School (it was Mick who attended the Grammar School - i'll go ahead and change that), which led his headmaster to steer him toward Sidcup, but i can't find anything in my sources that indicates that he was ejected from Sidcup as well, as opposed to dropping out of his own free will.  i'm changing the dubious statement about the alleged Sidcup expulsion here, but it recurs in other wikipedia articles (for example the one on Sidcup Art College), and unless there's solid evidence for it, i feel they should all be eliminated.  even though Keith does go back and forth on whether he always/never blew a second chance, it seems to me that saying he left Sidcup should suffice - it's not as if his outlaw image needs any embellishing.  i can undertake to track down and edit the references to it, but i wanted to sound you out about it here before i do that - i don't want to step on too many toes around here if i can help it. 
also: the speculation about why Keith was conceived seems extremely iffy, not to mention irrelevant, so i've discreetly snipped that.  similarly: Keith's parents divorced after Keith left the family home in favour of the infamous Edith Grove flat.  it sounded here as if the divorce preceded his departure and/or was somehow related to the alleged Sidcup expulsion, so i've amended that bit as well.  
i hope what i've done reads okay and that i got most of the formatting and so on right.  thanks ... Sssoul 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Content Question 

message: i've updated the list of "notable collaborations" and finetuned the information about the 1979 CNIB concerts (both were on the same date); i also feel it's worth noting who Keith performed those concerts with, and in the process discovered that there doesn't seem to be any article about the New Barbarians.  is that right, or am i just not looking in the right places? i'd love to contribute to or create a page about that gallant band.
meanwhile, those changes also led to a need to slightly alter the "segue" sentence about his meeting/falling in love with Patti Hansen.  i tried to keep that change light-handed and noncontroversial and i hope it's acceptable.  Sssoul 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fresh blood for Keith Richards (pun intended)...! Sssoul, your edits look fine to me, the one minor point is formatting the date you added re. the concert, which I've altered (left an explanation on your Talk page for future ref). Cheers, Ian Rose 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: thank you kindly, Ian Rose - i'm glad what i did is all right, and appreciate the input on the proper date format - and of course being fresh blood for Keith is always a privilege! Sssoul 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits December 6th 

message: I've redone the intro paragraph to make it more indicative of the article. I also removed fairly trivial stuff like the listing of who he guested with. The only thing I figure out what to do was where to include the bit about the changing of his surname. Mr Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.68.241 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro was very shabby as I read it today, really not up to par with other articles on wikipedia, too many parenthtic expressions which jammed in too many qualifiers and needless thoughts. I tried to return an affirmative tone, and place him in context with other artists outside the RS, since it seems like this is routinely done for other artists. I also added the Reference system, and thus hope others begin to use it and build this article like others on wikipedia, since it is a notch below other articles because there is so few quotes properly referenced. Just look at the Phil Collins article in comparison. --Mikerussell 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph 

message: Well, Mike you also restored to the intro the guest appearances - which is nowhere first and foremost what comes to mind when thinking of Keith and is better left in the body of the text. Also what is "emblematic" about Jupin' Jack Flash, etc...? This is needless puffery. - Mr Anonymous
:I agree the first and foremost thing about Richards is not "the guest appearances", as you state, but that is percisely why it is so useful in the intro. Locating Richards in the company of other artists, those named are quite more than just 'guest appearances', for instance Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, Scottie Moore and Sheryl Crowe are not mentioned, is useful in informing the reader of his other interests beyond the all-too omnipresent Stones affliation. Personally, when I started to listen to RS, I had no idea how much of Richards time was spent with other artists and very different artists than Jagger was hopping into to bed with at the time like Michael Jackson and David Bowie. I think it is a worthwhile compaison and inclusion, a kind of musical gulit by association. I did not include the word 'emblematic', since I read it now, it seems to be saying the song represents a 'genre'- something I think is hardly ever used for music, as opposed to literature, so it probably should be changed. I hope to find more time to read the article and add references, but now I am late. Everyone should try to see how simple it is to use the "ref /ref" system. --Mikerussell 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emblematic? 

message: The deleted text overstates the case;
This is what Timeisonourside.com actually states:
At the end of the '60s I had a little more time to sit around and play my guitar, writing songs rather than just lyrics for the first time. I'd  written songs before then, but they were little things like Yesterday's Papers. Now I could take it more seriously. Brown Sugar was one of those songs. I wrote it in Australia, somewhere between Melbourne and Sydney, while I was in my trailer filming Ned Kelly - I had a whole bunch of time out there. I was simply writing what I wanted to write, not trying to test the waters. People are very quick to react to what you write, but I just write what comes into my head. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.115.101 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jagger and Songwriting 

message: Is this the right word for how he left school? Was he kicked out or just move up? And does anyone know if his parents are alive? Did they live in luxury? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expulsion?

message: The stones, and keith as a solo artists are no longer signed to virgin their contract ran out but I don't know how to edit. Also Keith's mother (Doris Richards - she divorced Bert and married a man with the same surname) is still alive she lives in an average house in Dartford, although has a cottage on keith's premises in CT, as does his son Marlon. Keith's father Bert has been dead for a while. And, yes Keith was expelled(albeit close to his completion date) from school and it was by the grace of his teachers that he was admitted to sidcup art (see: Bokris et al)Oldkr 06:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a link to a source about the Virgin records stuff, I, or someone else, will add it; I could not find any info about the Virgin deal ending and any possible new negoations/contracts when I did a quick search. Editiing ain't so tough- I put a welcome message on your User talk:Oldkr with some basic info.--Mikerussell 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Virgin Records and other things