stonedinaustralia wrote on Feb 1
st, 2010 at 4:12am:
Mr. Yeats wrote on Jan 27
th, 2010 at 4:22pm:
It kind of pains me to say it, but Richards holds SOME responsability for a generation of a certain type of people fucking themselves up with various chemicals (he's also responsible for some good things, outside of his musical influence- one of those things would be getting fucked up! There's fucked up, and then there's fucked up, and it's always the intelligent individual's responsability to know the difference).
...
sorry mr. yeats but i don't buy it for a minute and i doubt (if i may may be presumptuous) that keith would either - all keith has done is show that you can party hard ...indeed very hard...but you have to know your limitations (and , granted, have a degree of luck)
people's decisions are their own responsibility...the gods know i have done some things of monumental stupidity and some of them, i admit, based on my own juvenile "what would keith do" ideas (see also HST) but i would never suggest that he was "responsible" for my actions and as i say i am sure he would also deny this responsibility - he has always maintained he's a musician - not some life -style guru
it is an anti-Stones position to Blame It On The Stones! (imho)
btw - for what it's worth - dig your sig. as would Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker from Howth Castle and Environs
Yeah, you're right, StonedinOz- I may stand corrected.
"Responsible" is not the word I meant to use; "influence" would be more accurate.
I've always held the position you've put forth (and you're right- Keith has indeed talked about this and
properly claims no responsability), and it's only recently I've been thinking about it- the trmendous cultural/social influence the Stones (and others) have had on young people, outside of the strictly musical sphere.
My parents generation were heavy cig smokers (my particular parents weren't at all); aside from from the lack of medical info on the dangers of cigarettes at the time, it was often considered a "glamorous"
or "sophisticated" habit, especially amongst middle-class people.
Hollywood (the "silver screen") was hugely influential in the '30's and '40's- maybe the single biggest popular influence on young people of the day (musicians and bands hadn't yet reached anywhere near the levels of celebrity they have today, including young Sinatra et al).
I can't help thinking that the musicians of the '60's were as influential- in mostly innocent ways- on the youth of that time. The '60's are, after all, when their celebrity really blew up: way more so than Elvis or even the insipid pop crooners of the '50's. The Stones et al really didn't know what they were doing; they were just trying to live creative lives autonomously from the shadow of their parents war-informed existences.
Although getting high has always been appealing to musicians (and writers- such as Thompson- and artists in general), this era was (I think) the first time it was really recognized and acknowledged in the mainstream culture. Again, not a lot was known about the real dangers of dope and coke (or at least discussed in the mainstream), whilst- ironically- weed and acid were considered harmful. But did rock n' roll types exploit and even glamourize getting high? Of course they did. And Richards continued to for several decades. He talked about publicly it like it was cool or no big deal, far more than Lou Reed or Johnny Thunders ever did, for example. He worked hard at his image. I don't think he meant ill to the young people paying his wages, but, to paraphrase Charlie Parker, he maybe should have kept his bad habits to himself (might have saved himself a lot of grief!)
So is he responsible for some people's bad habits? No. You're correct and so is he. But I don't think you can deny he had a huge impact on the social sensabilities of a LOT of young people. And it wasn't always for the better.
"In the name of the former and of the latter and of the holocaust. Allmen".- JJ
Pages: 
Keith On The Wagon (Read 7,760 times)
