Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 2

Archive 1
Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 1

Created 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

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"." 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


 * I agree with Wwwhhh, first time I read it, I had no idea what it meant. Glad someone else noticed its inappropriate inclusion in a Userbox. Again we have a case of where one section of his career means so much personally to one editor, the overall article looses its objectivity. I think you could include The New Barabanians, or the X-pensive Winos and Wingless Angels themselves before any one day gig. Why not include the Dirty Strangers (he recorded at least under that name) before Dirty Mac too, which was what I thought the 'Dirty Mac' stood for when I first read it.--Mikerussell 04:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit
Regarding recent edit, what the hell is "trivial trivia"? - The Anoymous One

Declined British Honour
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)

It seems strange that nobody has removed the category "people that declined a British Honour" which was added (in error) in July 2006. Richards was never offered any grade in the order of the British Empire, no MBE, CBE, OBE or KBE (Knighthood). You can't decline something you have not been offered. Didn't Jagger say that Richards' reaction was similar to a child brawling about not getting an icecream ? CNN reported that Richards' chances (to get an honour) became even slimmer after he went into a rage about Jagger's decision to accept. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/04/jagger.richards.reut/ 88.211.144.49 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Yannic

Run Rudolph Run single
The editor who split up his Solo recordings into album, and singles did a good job but keeps forgetting his first single in 1979. It was released as a Keith Richards single, not RS, and here is a picture of it Rolling Stones Records release, I don't know if it ever charted.

The Whole Ry Cooder Thing, again - groan.
I removed the following

"Richards was familiar with open tunings through his association with Don Everly, who showed Richards how open tunings could be used for rhythym guitar, Bukka White, Ry Cooder, Taj Majal and Gram Parson. Ry Cooder has claimed credit for being the one who taught Richards open G but Richards has always insited that he was previously familiar with the tuning. Moreover, Richards' style of open tuning on electric owes very little to Cooder. Secondly, Richards befriended Gram Parsons, who furthered Richards appreciation and knowledge of country music. "

This is stuff I entered and edited at The Stones' Wiki page. I think who or who didn't learn Keith open tuning is inside baseball. I also have to admit to having never seen precisely what Ry Cooder said in total. Also a lot of what I added is what I rememberd and it really could use better sourcing. Normally I don't care that much about sourcing and citations unless there is a dispute. as is very much the case with Cooders' controversial charges. I'd rather not include it on this page without citations.

The other problem I had is that removed text has been simply pasted and not integrated into the already existing text: the Gram Parsons line is a non sequiter. - Mr Anonymous

Charley Drayton?
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)

Good point - your more than welcome to add it. - Mr Anonymous

Comments Requested
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)


 * 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)

The above comments might be good arguments why how confusing it is by trying to establish "Not Fade Away" and "Rt 66" as prototypes of his I IV riffing style. I do think his I IV style was evidenced on thse songs and was unique and wasn't heard before Keith did it, but that would too hard to establish in a short section. Thanks for the comments and I'll just leave the passage as is to avoid confusion. - Mr Anonoymous

Rewriting Intro Pragraph
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)

"MASSIVE" recent adds by 70.241.88.145 & User:JT TRASH
The edit is really just speculation, gossipy-toned additions from one of these editors who assumes their personal knowledge is worthy for the whole world to read. The discussion about the proposed solo record could be added, if properly sourced, in a slim paragraph or two, not a whole 'analysis' by some anonymous editor. If there is a need for solo vocals on Stones albums, which I think is a bad idea- see Talk section (#15 above), it must be added at the bottom of the article, or better yet on the Rolling Stones article and/or The Rolling Stones discography, such as adding "Lead vocal Richards" in a credit of the song. The newcomers who have added the material must appreciate that others want to know why things change, and they need to explain/defend their addition either in the TALK page or at least in their EDIT summaries. This would prevent the total revert action taken, since it is not possible or very fair to other contributors to expect them to trace each tiny edit- that amount to 20 or so- to keep any editions that are valid. There is such a thing as a sandbox where an editor can perfect their additions and then add their new material. --Mikerussell 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Reprinted from Mikerussell TALK page-

'':== Keith Richards edits ==
 * I understand you edited the Keith Richards contributions I made, but I feel that editing ALL the information contradicts Wikipedia's purpose. I provided documentated information on Keith Richards that is relevant to the page. I did add one Keith Richards quote that I failed to cite due to not fully understanding how to properly cite quotations. I have read up on citations and feel that since the information is cited below it is relevant and worthy of inclusion on the page. If possible, is there anyway to use the information I provided if organized in a better way? If you feel that some of the information I provided was placed in wrong areas, is there anyway you can transfer the info to the proper place on Wikipedia whether that be the Keith Richards page, Rolling Stones page, Rolling Stones discography page, etc.?? The information I provided would better serve people with an interest in Keith Ricahards. Please include the text I provided. Thanks you.
 * Citations for the Keith Richards quote I provided:


 * (March 12-13, 1977)
 * Source for the text I provided:
 * Bockris, Victor. [1993] (2003).  Keith Richards: The Biography  New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81278-9''
 * from User:JT TRASH


 * I re-added the list of lead vocals at the end of the article in a non-intrusive fashion because of the comments above. I can see keeping the RS lead vocal tracks, the bootleg stuff, I don't know and will let others decide its fate.--Mikerussell 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed "I Think I'm Going Mad". I pretty sure this was released as a b-side on which Jagger sang lead vocals. Much of what has been added and the effort to add it is appreciated, but I have to question the inlcusion of rare Stones' cuts that have Jagger lead vocals. I think a lot of those cuts would be better put on the Stones' entry while leaving Stones' cuts that Richards sang lead vocals on do belong here. Again, thanks for all the work; it should lead to a better Richards entry. -Mr. Anonymous
 * I agree, I don't know where that is coming from, but I didn't add those, like why would he be recording in 1983 a Beast of Burden take? Makes not a lot of sense. The Love is Strong track I actually have on CD and it is an interesting track with lyrics that make it memorable, but I don't know where a lot of the tracks listed come from and i was hoping the guy who added them would clarify or dump them soon.--Mikerussell 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we talk about how he is living off somebody elses blood?
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)
 * I read that they replaced the blood he normally used with dark, sparkling Folger's Crystals. &mdash;Chowbok 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

A Content Question
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)

New Edits December 6th
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Intro Paragraph
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).

And what would be "Mr Anonymous"? Mr Anonymous→


 * 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)

Emblematic?
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)

Glad to hear you're not guilty of the "embematic" adjective. Hope the same is true of "enduring". Removed trivia and fannsih text. - Mr Anonymous

Jagger and Songwriting
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).

Mr Anonymous

Expulsion?
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).

Virgin Records and other things
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)Oldkr
 * 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)