Coming from the News Of The World you have to wonder, Keith blasting Mick for his drug taking????????

Keith Richards plans book to lift lid on relationship with Sir Mick Jagger (and guess which Rolling Stone's not pleased?)

By Simon Cable
Last updated at 7:36 PM on 4th July 2010

It is being billed as the ultimate tale of rock n' roll excess, a must read for every rock fan.

Everyone, that is, except for Mick Jagger.

Indeed, the Rolling Stones star is said to be so unhappy about the prospect of Keith Richard's tell-all autobiography, that some have been left fearing for the future of the band.





The book, entitled Life, is not being released until October, but it is said to contain numerous revelations about Sir Mick's private life, including his affairs and drug-taking.

An early draft has already been written, with The Rolling Stones management advising him to tone certain sections down in order to avoid a confrontation with his bandmate.

Richards, 66, signed a £4.8million deal with publishers Little Brown in 2007 after a huge bidding war to seal the rights for his autobiography.

Jagger had also considered writing his own autobiography three years ago, but then decided against it.

And insiders have been astonished by how honest the book is, with one saying: 'Keith once said he was finding it difficult to remember things when he first sat down to start writing it. But his memory seems pretty good.

'It's going to be explosive when it comes out.'
So far, details of the book have been a closely guarded secret. However, it has been revealed that in one passage, the star admits he is fact an avid bookworm who has built libraries inside his homes in England and America.

Richards and Jagger have known each other for more than 50 years having been at primary school together in Dartford, Kent.

However, the pair are said to have been at loggerheads recently, with Richards staying away from the Cannes Film festival after falling out with Jagger about the way he has been promoting their film, Stones In Exile.

It has also been suggested that the band's touring days may now be over, following a number of rows.

Richards has on numerous occasions publicly slated Sir Mick, who in turn has taken a swipe at the guitarist's decision to go ahead with his autobiography.

Asked about the book, Sir Mick, 66, said: 'It will be interesting.I would have thought that you'd actually have to be able to remember your life in order to write about it.'

The growing resentment between the pair is, say insiders, rooted in Sir Mick's eternal energy and drive compared with Richards's often shambolic state on stage and off.

Richards has accused his bandmate of being 'vain' and a 'power freak'. The guitarist, who had brain surgery two years ago after falling out of a coconut tree, said: 'He is a power freak and there's nothing we can do about it.'

He added: 'Mick's a maniac. He can't get up in the morning without knowing immediately who he's going to call.

'Meanwhile, I just go "Thank God I'm awake" and wait for three or four hours before I do anything.'

They have fallen out from time to time over the years, one notable dispute triggered by Jagger's decision to accept a knighthood in 2003.

Jagger reacted by saying Richards criticising him was 'like a bawling child who didn't get his ice cream'.

Daily Mail


So the Daily Mail has added it's tuppence.

In their eagerness to pile on, fact checking must've been deemed unnecessary.
Keith's brain surgery was in 2006...  

Keith shouldn't be shaking his finger at ANYONE.  Maybe one of his grown children should write a book on what it's like being raised by 2 heroin addicts.  Or Anita could offer an opinion as to who smacked her around harder, Keith or Brian.  Seems like another knife in the back if this is true.  I hope it isn't.

At this point in their lives, I doubt anything any of them can say about the other is going to change things much. I mean, really. 40+ years.
Not to mention, this comes from a tabloid  or the fact that it won't hurt as something to get the publicity machine working, in preparation for a tour (?) Or am I just into heavy wishful thinking here? 

ROCK ON: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have remained friends since the early days

Monday July 5,2010
By Julie Carpenter 

IF autobiographies have a habit of causing quarrels Keith Richards’s memoirs look like provoking a humdinger. While most of us are still reeling from the shock fact that Keef’s memory hasn’t been entirely erased by years of class A drugs – or indeed by falling out of a coconut tree in fiji four years ago – it seems that the raddled Rolling Stone guitarist has quietly finished his book.

And the latest story from those who have allegedly peeked at the pages is that Mick Jagger won’t get no  satisfaction from reading it. Keith, it is alleged, has let rip at his bandmate, blasting him for his philan-dering ways and has cathartically let “years of frustration” come out.

The book entitled Life is out in October when we can all judge just how caustic Keith has really been but one things is for certain: the Mick/ Keith relationship has always been contentious, not least because their characters, while central to the band’s success, have always clashed and  contrasted.

“Keith slating Mick – you wouldn’t expect anything else would you?” laughs Chris Salewicz, the author of Mick & Keith. “It’s become like some old comedy routine and their differences probably boil down to this: Keith is completely dysfunctional – his rock-and-roll lifestyle is written all over his face – whereas Mick has got himself together.”

Indeed one of Jagger and Richards’s most public spats was over Jagger’s acceptance of a knighthood in 2003

which the hellraising Richards interpreted as Jagger defying the spirit of the Rolling Stones and embracing the establishment. “I don’t want to step out on stage with someone wearing a f****** coronet and sporting the old ermine,” raged a clearly horrified Richards. He labelled it a “f****** paltry honour” and added: “It’s not what the Stones is about, is it?” referring to the band’s anti-establishment roots. Jagger countered that Keith “was like a bawling child who hasn’t got an ice cream.”

At the time their relationship was dubbed “frostier than the Arctic  circle” and this is far from being their only argument. Just two years later the pair were publicly at loggerheads after Richards gave an interview topublicise their album A Bigger Bang and, ahem, brought into question the size of Jagger’s manhood. According to one report Jagger “practically ran over to Keith’s suite” at the four Seasons Hotel in Boston to remonstrate. And in May this year there was a report of another bust-up between the bandmates who are both 66 and possibly should know better.

This time Richards allegedly thought Jagger was being “arrogant and rude” about their film Stones In Exile, which was being promoted in Cannes.

Historically the feud is thought to go back to the Eighties when Jagger decided to pursue a solo career. “That was the thing that brought our disagreements to a head,” Richards has commented but Salewicz also notes
that it is because of Jagger that the Stones are still together.

“Everyone sneers at Mick Jagger for being a control freak but actually Mick Jagger has kept that group on the road. Without Mick it would have fallen apart,” he says.

The comment also hints at the core of the pair’s relationship: Jagger has been the band’s business brains and strategist while Richards’s role has been more about providing the group’s rebellious spirit. And while their differences may cause them to rant and rave at each other, what is true is that the pair’s longest relationships are with each other. Keith has likened their arguments to “a family squabble” and even compared their dynamic to that of an old married couple.

“Mick has to get up in the morning with a plan, who he’s going to call, what he’s going to eat, where he’s going. Me, I wake up, praise the Lord, then make sure all the phones are turned off. If we were a mum-and-pop operation he’d be mum.”

Partly because of this the pair’s relationship is unlikely to flounder completely. “you have to remember that Mick and
Keith have a shared childhood,” says Salewicz. “They’re both from Dartford in Kent. It’s true that Keith was the boy from the council house and Mick was quite middle class, the son of a PE teacher, but they’ve known each other since they were four or five.

They’ve got that common experience of being war children and they’ve got the same passions for music. At their core they’re almost like siblings squabbling. But if you’re going to pin- point one moment when the problems
really began I would say it was when Mick Jagger slept with Anita  Pallenberg on the set of the 1968 film Performance.”

At the time the Italian-born actress Pallenberg was dating Richards but it is believed she enjoyed a brief fling with Jagger and when Pallenberg fell pregnant with Richards’s daugh­ter Dandelion, Richards raged against Jagger and even refused to believe the child was his for a time. “Keith’s response to that was to plunge into heroin addiction,” adds Salewicz. “Despite all this macho bluster Keith is quite sensitive and

I would say he has a more conser­vative idea about relationships. You don’t get the impression he cheated on his girlfriends like Mick Jagger.” It would consequently not be too surprising if Richards was to berate Jagger for his womanising in his autobiography. After his relation­ ship with Pallenberg ended (they have two children) Richards  married former model Patti Hanson in 1979. At the wedding reception he declared in his own inimitable fashion: “She’s a wonderful girl, I ain’t letting the bitch go.” True to his word the pair remain married with two children, Theodora and Alexandra, 21 years later.

Jagger, by contrast, has been rather less faithful, fathering seven children by four different women. He has been with current girlfriend L’Wren Scott for almost nine years now but Jagger is as famous for his affairs as for his rubber lips. His ex wife Jerry Hall remembers him sleeping with Carla Bruni when she was pregnant and has commented:

“Mick just slept with every single girl that came round. It was tiring rushing home making sure he wasn’t sleeping with someone.”

Adds Salewicz: “You could say they have contrasting bad habits. Mick’s endless bird­chasing versus Keith’s dysfunctional lifestyle. You choose which is the worst.”

While Jagger can hardly be considered squeaky­ clean it is the stories about Richards which are  legendary. Keith’s marathon drugs binges  during the Stones’ heyday would sometimes last nine days without sleep while breakfast would be a heady cocktail of tequila, aspirin and cigarettes. He once ploughed a car carrying bags of heroin, cocaine and marijuana into a ditch at 70mph, accidentally set alight his Tudor mansion in Kent and
allegedly had a blood transplant at a Swiss clinic so he could pass the medical to get a US work permit.

Of late it is thought he has mellowed and his tastes are surpris­ingly old­fashioned: he is wont to put on a George Formby tape after a concert, is a cricket fan and counts former prime minister Sir John Ma­jor among his friends. But he is still far more of a loose cannon than  Jagger ever was or ever will be. “But,” adds Salewicz, “Keith may be having another go at Mick but I’d like to hear what Mick thinks about Keith’s endlessly dysfunc­tional lifestyle. I’m sure he’s got a point of view on that.”

If Keith’s autobiography is as in­ flammatory as we are led to believe then we may yet find out. One thing is for certain: there’s far more mile­ age in these two old rockers yet.


- Daily Express, 5/7/10

Mick knows what is going to be in the book, and anything that is considered a fight between them, will be well crafted publicity, to help garner attention. And it will work, the book will sell more, the band will be preparing new music and tour and the show goes on...

I tend to agree Ginda.
If true, this could indeed be the final nail in the coffin for their relationship, which is already tenuous at best.
I'm worried.

LJ.

The Glimmer's working relationship is closing in on fifty years.

If Keith's reflections are honest and objective, the book won't be as anti-Mick as the tabs are hoping...  

LadyJane wrote on Jul 5^th, 2010 at 10:34am:



I'm not.

If the Stones' future is uncertain, it won't be because of some silly book.

I mean, really, how much is Keith going to get for an autobiography? A couple of million?  He could make that from a week of concerts.

Hardly worth the effort in putting together a book that will jeopardize the future of the band and his earnings potential for the rest of his life.

If he spends 90% of a book praising Mick Jagger and 10% of it bitching about him, which of the two is going to get the headlines?

A load of over-sensationalised tabloid nonsense.

And the public fall for this every time.

Ginda wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


Or Anita could offer some insight into all the "curses and hexes" she put on people she didn't approve of, especially women.
I like Anita's aura and she remains a significant part of the Stones' story, but on smack, she became petty and paranoid and, IMO, brought out that side of Keith.
I read the 'Odd Couple' article this morning and was going to post it, but i didn't realized this was already an active thread. It could be just tabloid crap, 'i need a story..' that has been exaggerated to drum up online traffic....
As much as Keith has bitched about Mick in the past, I have a hard time believing he would diss his admittedly best friend and musical partner in a book. I would like to think Keith would be more reflective at his point in his life.
After all, in Stones in Exile, which Jagger oversaw, Keith is portrayed quite wonderfully and romantic in spite of the drugs, so why would he be calling Jagger "arrogant" in regard to the film.

This is most likely BS, but then again, Keith has lashed out before and with everyone, the Johnny Depps etc...- telling him he's the greatest living legend in rock and roll, Keith just might be believing the hype.

" Jagger has fathered seven kids by four women and had flings with beauties including Angelina Jolie and Carla Bruni and even Carrie Prejean  "


<  -- Friggin Beautiful !!!!!!!!!


******* PREJEAN APPROVED !!!!! ***********

!!!

How dysfunctional is Keith really?  We all know he was during the mad bad heroin days, but since?  How much of that is just him playing up to the old image?

He and Patti have been together for 30 years.  That is amazing.  Very few relationships last that long in every day life, let alone under the spotlight of fame.  If he is as completely dysfunctional as the tabloids would have you believe he couldn't hold a marriage together for that long.  I don't care how patient the woman is, it still takes two to make a relationship work.  If Keith has taken some shots at Mick over his womanizing, that's fair.  It is one of the big personality differences between them.  Cause if Keith has fooled around on Patti, he has managed to keep it very quiet.  Big difference between when he was with Anita and Uschi, Lil, etc.

As many others have posted, this seems like pre-sale hype to me.  If Keith wrote an honest biography he has to address the Anita/Mick flings.  There is no way around it.  I've always been curious as to how the Glimmers got past that and kept working together.  How many friendships ever survive something like that?  And if that is the angle Keith took in writing about it..how we got past it.....then that is fair game.  Even with a few cheap shots thrown in for good measure. 

Mick was there.  There is nothing Keith could write that could possibly be 'news' to Mick.  The book won't sink the band.  JMHO, but I really think it will take something catastrophic like a terminal illness or a death to that.