Talk:Keith Richards

Useful reference for future: 1 (species of Trilobite named after Richards)

Vocals
Vocals should absolutely be listed as one of Keith's instruments - he sings lead at every Rolling Stones concert and usually once or twice on most of their albums. He's a vocalist.

Avoiding an edit war over the lead
This cordially delivered message to Flight Time’s talk page is now deleted, but,hopefully, still given consideration is presented here to open a dialogue for reverts completely unaccounted for.


 * Hello. No idea why you reverted and why you might think, among other things, such as fannish POV, think what songs keith sang live are lead worth, you’re invited and encouraged to discuss on the talk page so your reverts is better understood and comity is preserved. This is how is it preferably should not fo: you revert a second time, then I do. At that point a 3rd revert is edit warring. Let’s avoid that and presume good faith and no desire by either party to take ownership. 5ive9teen (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 5ive9teen (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my first of two reverts your changes are not an improvement, another long time editor feels the same. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What is not an improvement? 5ive9teen (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edits did not make the article better. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is unresponsive by any standard, So again, what is objected to, meaning, as was clearly implied, specifically. I don’t like it and will not say why is insufficient. We can continue this way, but recalcitrance will not favor a fannish lead with pov. Refusing to engage in dialogue at all is not indicative of good faith. A second revert obliges substantive discussion, not curt rationals, as those given so far have been, that are too broad and vague to be seen as substantive. When WP policies are referred to in the whole, this is also avoidant when the relevant aspects of the policy are can be difficult, if not impossible to discern. 5ive9teen (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tit for Tat is accomplishing nothing, guys. I'm not going to take sides here because you're both right and you're both wrong, in some ways. Try to remain collegial, explain your edits and reverts fully enough that an observer understands, leave notes up for a bit rather than archiving or deleting, sign your posts, etc. etc. Please. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted ~ 5ive9teen (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer the older version like FlightTime.★Trekker (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Would be helpful to know why. 5ive9teen (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous version includes more worthwhile information. Your shorter version improves nothing.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly! -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This lacks specicifity 5ive9teen (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to specify, three other editors have expressed that the more detailed version that includes more information is preferable.★Trekker (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if more information is in the lead which now has fannish pov.
 * 5ive9teen (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some advise, drop the stick. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * this is neither helpful or collegial. To be frank, a simple shut up could not be more discourteous. Again, to have a more broad adoption of comity, let’s presume good faith and attempt to be receptive to other views and less categorically dismissive.
 * 5ive9teen (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5ive9teen, it doesn't read fannish pov to me. It's pretty much factual (the principal exception being this: After graduating, Richards befriended Jagger, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Ian Stewart and Brian Jones and joined the Rolling Stones). There are a couple of minor`stylistic infelicities, but with those ironed out, I think it would make a good informative lead. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Befriended Bill Wyman is at issue
 * 5ive9teen (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Not only that, though. It reads as though put together by someone who doesn't know the chronology of the Stones' formation. (Also, I'm not so sure Keith graduated from Sidcup, but that may be just my ignorance.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point and in need of attention, as are other passages
 * 5ive9teen (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggested lead opening
Below in italics is a suggested lead opening which excises noting mentioned in the current lead while adding pertinent and lead appropriate info with concision. Civil and considerate comments/suggestions are most welcome


 * A few points:
 * It adds that Keith is a best selling author, an achievement very much much worthy for the lead
 * The rewrite regarding songwriting avoids the triumphant and non-encyclopedic tone of “one of the most successful in history”. Specifying over 20 No1 Hits in the US and UK says is a more factual way better suitably without any diminishment


 * Suggested opening

''Keith Richards (born 18 December 1943) is an English musician, songwriter, lead and backing vocalist, record producer, as well as occasional best selling memorialist. He is primarily associated with his founding and uninterrupted membership in the Rolling Stones, joining in 1962 as second guitarist. With the Rolling Stones’ founding lead singer Mick Jagger they form the songwriting partnership Jagger-Richards, which has written over 20 top ten hits in the US and England''


 * Current opening

'' Keith Richards (born 18 December 1943) is an English musician, songwriter, singer and record producer who is an original member, guitarist, secondary vocalist, and co-principal songwriter of the Rolling Stones. His songwriting partnership with the band's lead vocalist Mick Jagger is one of the most successful in history His career spans over six decades… '' 5ive9teen (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Just a few notes.
 * • Keith's listed as co-author of Life, but while presumably not a word is in there that he didn't want to be there, in a starkly frank assessment, he's really more the totally involved editor of Fox's text. It can certainly be argued that Fox would've had no text without Keith's input to begin with though, so co-author can be claimed with some legitimacy. Memorialist? Well, yes, but it seems a stretch to have that in the lead. Secondarily, how does occasional work there?
 * • I see what you mean by “one of the most successful in history” seeming, possibly, a bit fannish. But it's also an historical fact, well within the point of an encyclopedia. It doesn't absolutely need to be there, though, and can be avoided, as you suggest, by weaving in facts of record sales (see below).
 * • Secondary vocalist is actually a nicely succinct way to express accurately his vocal contribution to the Stones' catalog and live gigs.
 * • over 20 top ten hits in the US and England Definitely chase down the actual number. over and his cousin more than are to be avoided whenever possible with small numbers (21 is over/more than 20; so are 26, 41...183...). I don't think I've ever seen a top ten for England; are you sure the count you're referring to isn't for the U.K.? (And top ten is quite different in meaning from no. 1.) Perhaps a better indicator of their success (and endurance) is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_200#Most_top-10_albums
 * All things considered, seems to me that a careful minimalist editing of the current text might be best. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a not an Art of the Deal fabrication with minimal distant involvement from the principle. According to his co-author Fox the book’s text is from recordings with Keith, who is very well read, in particulate in regards to history. The writing is as he spoke. Anyone having seen or read some of his interviews would recognize his eloquent, salty voice in his books. There are two books btw. Fox did say Keith was a surprisingly good editor. When he saw the proposed title My Life, he said drop the My. His other book is a childhood memoir of him and his grandfather. Also a worthwhile read. Moreover he has very reliable recollection. If we can’t say Keith is a best selling memoirist, then we have to to deny the same to Grant, because Mark Twain. Favorable regiews of the book, e.g. the NYRB and the New Yorker have not diminished Keith as a writer. Unlike Dylan he won’t get a Nobel, but that’s not the standard here, is it? 5ive9teen (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "This is a not an Art of the Deal fabrication with minimal distant involvement from the principle." In no way did I imply that it was. Considering the book's production -- endless interviews, Fox produces text, they work on the final product from that -- "co-author can be claimed with some legitimacy". That's not the issue. The issue is placement in the article. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Keith as a Writer
There are no sources of note or prestige which say, and they are to be required to maintain the case, that Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard to give weight to excluding his literary excursions from the lead. The exact opposite is shown as follows.

There are, AFAIK, no sources saying Life is not primarily Keith’s creation. It was a best seller and very well received. He also wrote a childhood memoir well received. He is called a writer by the NYTs. ''Mr. Richards, now 66, writes with uncommon candor and immediacy. He's decided that he's going to tell it as he remembers it, and helped along with notebooks, letters and a diary he once kept, he remembers almost everything.''

From elsewhere: The audiobook Life won two prestigious Audie Awards for 2010—Audiobook of the Year and Best Biography/Memoir. Additionally, the audiobook Life was voted Amazon's No. 1 Audiobook of the Year for 2010. Life received the 2011 Norman Mailer Prize for biography. The latter for Distinguished Biography.

Perhaps most prestigious and compelling case for Keith as a memoirist belonging in the the lead comes from the scholarly and highly selective NYRB review in which Keith is praised as a “marvelous sentence-maker…in a book that feels entirely dictated” The NYRB also says “unlikely heir to two great memoirs of thrift and common sense, Walden and Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography”

Neither the New Yorker, the NYRB, the LA Times, or The Guardian, James Fox. One exception, nometheless supportimg my point is the NYT which says “James Fox, Keith’s co-­author, deserves a lot of credit for editing, organizing and elegantly stepping out of the way of Keith's remembrances”. James Fox did not, and never has, as has nobody else, written any sentences like this wonderful and insightful one on songwriting:

''“Well, I’ve got to tame this beast one way or another. But how to tame it? Gently, or give it a beating? . . . I’ll take you twice the speed I wrote you! You have this sort of relationship with the songs. . . . You ain’t finished till you’re finished, O.K.? . . . No, you weren’t supposed to go there. Or sometimes you’re apologizing: I’m sorry about that. No, that was certainly not the way to go. Ah, they’re funny things. They’re babies.” ''
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(Richards_book)#Production Numerous sources offer accounts of the book's production, all (that I've seen) chime with the Production section of the Wikipedia article. None of those suggest anything that could be construed as in the realm of "Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard" -- and an apparent fondness for exercising the straw man fallacy thwarts any discussion. Methinks this thread has exhausted itself. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m genuinely lost. I intended no disparaging characterization of previous replies. I hope no offense was taken. None was intended. Beyond that, I was arguing for lead significance and nothing else, which I’ve supported. If the perceived “strawmans” were specified, I could addressed them much better and, of course, only in good faith. 5ive9teen (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You've done it at least twice: "This is a not an Art of the Deal fabrication with minimal distant involvement from the principle" and "Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard", as though those claims had been made somewhere, and both after I had already agreed that co-author was legitimate. I don't see that there's anything to engage on here, although I do feel that the book deserves a bit more than cryptic passing mention in the KR article (miscategorized under Tributes for other artists). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I still hope no offense taken where none intended. The issue is are Keith’s two memoirs lead significant? James Fox involvement was a key reason in opposition.
 * This left an impression: Keith was, more the totally involved editor of Fox's text. There is no source for one editor’s supposition which I know of, and a source is needed make it rise above mere opinion. The text is treated by all that can be cited as  Keith’s. Of course I welcome cites that establish this as disputed.
 * Grant’s memoirs were much more assisted by Mark Twain; to a much greater degree than Keith’s Fox’s collaboration. Indeed Twain is credited commonly with 1/3 of the book. Obviously, by all accounts, more than Fox might have done.
 * The Grant article’s lead excludes Twain, and no concern apparent that this is an omission in need of repair 5ive9teen (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fox's participation in no way precludes mentioning the book in the lead. Careful wording, very easy to craft, would avoid giving the false impression that Keith is the sole author (something like "assisted by..."; any number of ways to express it). More important is better organized brief text regarding Life in the body of the article. (Any infelicitous representation of Twain's participation in Grant's volumes is relevant to that article, not Keith Richards. If you choose to work on that, take care not to fall victim to Badeau's machinations.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The oblique caution about Badeaus’s machinations, which are very obscure to most, I suspect, but I don’t profess any related erudition, is lost on me, though it is presumably relevant, I wouldn’t know if I’ve engaged them, or how they can be avoided. The Grant annalogy, as closely illustrative, and appropriate as it is, is tangential and can be left roadside. Glad that Keith as an author (he has 2 books) is agreed to as lead significant. Will see what might work given that apparent consensus. 5ive9teen (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The production of the text of Grant's memoirs may or may not be what you seem to expect. If you want to research it, here's a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_U._S._Grant#Adam_Badeau The research needed requires time and effort, and not everything can be found on the internet. -- I don't know that consensus has been reached here on whether to mention Life in the lead. I see no objection, as long as it's accurate. Definitely read at least this before doing anything: https://www.thedailybeast.com/keith-richards-memoir-writer-james-fox-speaks Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For good and not-to-be-shaded reasons, of course it can be interesting to others. And if it is to helpful to us, I welcome it being brought up again, hopefully less obliquely and more specifically.5ive9teen (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A case for lead inclusion of Keith’s literary endeavors based on authorship, distinguished acclaim and sales
A very brief summary of the case for lead appropriateness more lengthily made in a previous section

Kieth is regarded and rewarded in sales and awards as a distinguished memoirist unironically compared in the NYRB (not a PR professional’s stenographer in any one’s mind) to Franklin and Walden. What is the case for Kieth’s literary endeavors to not be in the lead? So far, I haven’t seen any such attempt except for a mistaken elevation of Fox’s to primary author. 5ive9teen (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "a mistaken elevation of Fox’s to primary author" With that stacked upon your other misrepresentations, and no indication that you even skimmed, much less understood. the interview with Fox, I give up. Bonne chance. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, and for the sake of comity, alleged misrepresentations should be specified. I hope it’s realized that this is not a disingenuous request, but rather an expression of a sincere desire to clear to the air, and, naturally make proper acknowledgement and admission where needed. They could then be spoken to without the guesswork of what they may or may not be. Keith was called more the totally involved editor of Fox's text. A clear elevation of Fox by erroneous diminishment, if not disparagement, of Keith’s authorship. The passenger, not the driver, if you will. Only one editor has acted as if that assertion were true. Let’s see if we can these two points before moving on. Finally, accusations such as “your misrepresentations”, whether well-founded or not, could personalize the dialogue, already a little too energetic, and prevent collegiality. It seems inexplicably becoming more and more contentious.  5ive9teen (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)