'Life' wins Top Award at the 2011 Audies

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01538eb1b639970b-800wi


Deborah Netburn
May 25, 2011


On Tuesday night the Audio Publishers Association held its 16th annual Audies Gala in New York City. The press release says the event is often referred to as the "Oscars of the spoken word entertainment." I'm not sure about that, but it is an awards ceremony that honors audio books in 30 different categories including Multi-Voiced Performance, Audiobook Adaptation, Humor and Inspirational/Faith-Based Fiction.

The Audiobook of the Year award went to one of the year's highest profile audiobooks-- "Life," the best selling autobiography of Keith Richards, narrated by Johnny Depp and Joe Hurley with Keith Richards (Hachette Audio). The Audies jury selected the book in part because it introduced new audiences to the audio-book format.

Los Angeles Times

___

LIFE Takes Audie Award

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - by BWW News Desk


New York based pop singer and songwriter, Joe Hurley, who narrated the critically acclaimed "LIFE" with Keith Richards and Johnny Depp, accepted the prestigious Best Audio Book Of The Year Award at tonight's 2011 Audie Awards Ceremony in New York City. "LIFE," the audio book released by Hachette Audio, captures the rock-n-roll spirit and life of Keith Richards and is narrated by Hurley and award winning actor Johnny Depp. The Audio book has won accolades since its release including New Yorker Magazine, Amazon's Best of 2010, Publisher's Weekly and numerous celebrities including Jimmy Vivino and Julie Sweeney to name a few.

Hurley took the stage to accept the award and through a surge of emotions, told the story about seeing the Rolling Stones in London, his first rock concert, and now turning to this great privilege in his life which he simply described as a "helluva joy ride."

Long considered the "Academy Award" amongst Audio Books Awards, "LIFE" competed against The Woody Allen Collection, written and narrated by the famed director himself and The Red Pyramid by Rick Riordan and narrated by Katherine Kellgren and Kevin P. Free for the award. "LIFE" also won "Biography Book of the Year" also accepted by Joe Hurley at the ceremony.

"When I heard they needed me on this project, there were no questions asked," said Hurley. "I was sound checking 'Sing Me Back Home' in Paris when I got the call. I went straight to the airport flew for hours, lost my luggage and had no sleep but we recorded it on time and the result is this amazing memoir to music icon, Keith Richards, who I have the privilege of calling a personal friend."

Talk Books World

Excellent Pete Townshend piece in Intelligent Life.
He's currently working on his autobiography, and Life came up in his conversation with Simon Garfield.   

I mention the success of Richards’s memoir. “The point is,” Townshend says, “when we read Keith Richards’s book, are we really reading who he is? James Fox [Richards’s ghost] is a brilliant writer. I think it’s sad that we will only remember Keith’s book because of what he said about the size of Mick’s [apparently modest] genitals. Which, by the way, to use an apt term, is bollocks. I’ve seen them, and they are not small. And it is not just the balls that are big.”

left shoe shuffle wrote on May 28^th, 2011 at 11:07am:

Well leave it to Pete Townsend to have the ultimate word on the size of Mick Jagger's todger.

but his balls are huge, and big balls are are cool, as you can tell, with tight pants, you can't help but look at his junk...

Interesting thought ~ MICK & Pete?   LOL I guess Pete T had an eyeful of MICK's todger, maybe more! Thanks Pete for informing us KEEF was wrong about MICK's todger, but that raises the quesion HOW DOES HE KNOW? Gay in NY? Fag in LA? When the shit hits the fan, I'll be sittin on the can.

What, Snooki didn't win!

by John Tamny


What Keith Richards’ “Life” As a Rolling Stone Tells Us About Economics
Jun. 4 2011


Image via Wikipedia

Though Rolling Stones’ guitarist Keith Richards’ autobiography is a great read on its own for the remarkable story it tells, there are economic lessons within that apply to all manner of concepts made frequently prosaic by books and newspaper articles. From the wealth gap, to what drives success, to taxation, Richards’ amazing story explains them all in exciting, uplifting fashion.

Considering the wealth gap, it’s often a confused concept. No doubt there are broad income differences throughout the world, but that’s frequently the case because the highest earners regularly reduce the lifestyle gap through innovations that make former luxuries quite commonplace. Richards revealed this numerous times in Life.

Indeed, while Richards’ mother worked as a Hotpoint washing-machine demonstrator, “it took her ages to get her own.” Maytag and Sears come to mind as successful businesses headed by highly paid executives who achieved their pay by virtue of making washing machines broadly accessible. Richards also notes that his family “didn’t have a record player for a long time”, but thanks to innovators who were doubtless well compensated for mass producing the once obscure disc player, someone of Richards’ humble beginnings was eventually able to buy and play music.

The above was particularly important when we consider Richards’ career path. As he put it, “I’ve learned everything I know off of records”, and “Being able to hear recorded music freed up loads of musicians that couldn’t necessarily afford to learn to read or write music, like me.” Economic commentators love to bash the rich as greedy, but the profit motive driving music industry executives provided Richards with a musical education on the relative cheap.

Commentators regularly bemoan inequality in terms of opportunity while seeking government fixes, but Richards’ inspiring story reminds us that starting at the bottom is often a blessing. His first guitar cost 10 British pounds, but since his mother couldn’t afford to pay for it, she got someone else to purchase it, and then that someone eventually defaulted. Notable here is that Richards “couldn’t afford an electric” guitar, but his family’s inability to pay for an electric was instrumental in his rise as a guitar player.

As he explained it, “I firmly believe if you want to be a guitar player, you better start on acoustic and then graduate to electric.” Rather than allow his reduced economic circumstances to act as a barrier to achievement, he accentuated the positive, that he had a guitar, and proceeded to “play every spare moment I got.” Clearly Richards started at the bottom, and had less financial resources to fund his development much as there’s inequality among children today, but this was no deterrent.

Richards’ view is that “if you want to get to the top, you’ve got to start at the bottom, same with anything.” Wise words from a wise man, and something politicians would do well remember as they seek to achieve equality through legislative fiat. Being at the bottom often drives creativity, as Richards’ story attests. Thank goodness British politicians weren’t giving out electric guitars back in the ‘50s.

Considering the Rolling Stones’ humble beginnings as a band, where they began and where they ended up exposes in living color the lie that says upward mobility is a myth. As Richards recounts about the Stones’ early days, “At the time poverty seemed constant, unmovable.” Living in a horrid Chelsea flat with Mick Jagger and Brian Jones, Richards tells the reader about live music venue Wetherby Arms, and how “Usually I’d go round the back and steal their empties and sell them back to them. You got a couple of pence on a beer bottle.”

Every little bit counted because while the Rolling Stones sell out stadiums today, in the early ‘60s they were lucky if they got paid at all for their concerts. Modern theorists would call this exploitation as they do any time individuals or groups are “underpaid” in their eyes, but for the band these allegedly stingy concert promoters provided them with invaluable experience that eventually put them in a position to charge quite a bit.

Still, at the time “hunger was the order of the day” given how bands almost by definition start at the bottom. Of course any profits they were able to cobble together went toward “guitar strings, mending amplifiers and valves. Just to keep what had going was an incredible expensive.” All of this can’t be stressed enough.

For one, the fact that limited profits were immediately reinvested in the business that was the Rolling Stones reminds us how crippling corporate taxes can be, particularly on businesses just getting started. When politicians seek high taxes on businesses they’re robbing them of their future. Second, in the early days they desperately wanted a drummer by the name of Charlie Watts, but they couldn’t initially afford him. Again, when profits are taxed, the ability of a company to grow is compromised.

The above deserves even more mention. So often we hear about “excess profits” used to pay “exorbitant salaries.” But as Richards noted time and again throughout Life, a bad band is a function of bad musicians. As he put it, “To a musician, playing below your mark is soul destroying”, and as such, the genius of the Rolling Stones was the accomplished nature of all the band’s musicians. Sure enough Richards recounts how Mick Jagger essentially tried to go solo on the cheap with unfortunate results. Talent matters, and it costs money.

Considering the Stones’ eventual grand success, it can’t be stressed enough how much work it required to get to that point. Former Congressman Richard Gephardt once said that the rich, far from having achieved wealth through hard work, had simply won “life’s lottery.” The story of the Rolling Stones exposes Gephardt’s musings as patently absurd.

Indeed, as Richards noted about the band’s early days, “Benedictines had nothing on us. Anybody that strayed from the nest to get laid, or try to get laid, was a traitor. You were supposed to spend all your waking hours studying Jimmy Reed, Muddy Waters, Little Walter, Howlin’ Wolf, Robert Johnson. That was your gig. Every other moment taken away from it was a sin.”

Speaking of “gigs”, Richards recounts that “The gig never finished just because you got off stage.” Particularly during the early years, the band worked nearly non-stop with concert tours, then would immediately go back into the studio to record another album that would beget another tour. Richards has over the years played through fevers, a finger burned to the bone, and the death of a child. Commentators are often blinded by substantial wealth enjoyed by successful people, but they rarely acknowledge the hard work and personal sacrifice necessary to reach that point.

That’s why the commentary suggesting the rich must “give back” has always bothered this writer. Implicit there is that they’ve taken something, rather than done something pleasing for consumers such that those same consumers have showered them with their dollars.

Along the lines of the above, a more confiscatory estate tax is often trotted out as a way of equalizing wealth inequalities. Richards not surprisingly didn’t talk about the estate tax in Life, and happily kept his autobiography free of the nitwit political commentary that so often fills celebrity memoirs, but his story reminds us that we all stand on the shoulders of giants such that we’re the beneficiaries of success whether we inherit the fruits of success or not.

Indeed, though Richards once worshipped and learned from Elvis Presley guitarist Scotty Moore from afar, “Now I know the man, I’ve played with him.” Richards wasn’t handed the money earned by Moore, or for that matter some of his other idols including Chuck Berry, Jimmy Reed and Bo Diddley, but their brilliance on the guitar surely informed his, which means Richards inherited something far greater than money.

Considering income taxes more broadly, Richards exposes the hubristic absurdity of confiscatory rates. With England taxing the country’s highest earners at 83% by the 1970s, Richards saw those rates as the equivalent of “being told to leave the country.”

And sure enough the Rolling Stones did just that. As Richards recounts, “The last thing I think the powers that be expected when they hit us with super-super tax is that we’d say, fine, we’ll leave. We’ll be another one not paying tax to you.” Of course that’s the beauty of wealth of the mind, as opposed to immovable wealth of the earth (think oil). Wealth of the mind which the Rolling Stones possessed in abundance made them highly mobile on the way to the band producing its classic album Exile on Main St. away from England in the South of France. England made the cost of success in the ‘70s expensive, so the Rolling Stones moved on. Amen.

Considering trade, the deal that ensured the Rolling Stones’ long-term success was a 1965 contract with Decca Records. As Richards recalls, “It was an incredibly successful deal for both parties. Which is what a deal is supposed to be. I’m still getting paid off of it; it’s called the Decca balloon.” So often economic journalists decry imports given the belief that they weaken us, or that trade between “countries” must be balanced, but as Richards reminds, trade is always a two-way street whereby individuals exchange what they have for something they don’t. The Rolling Stones’ surplus was popular music, and they exchanged it with a company whose surplus was successful distribution of that music.

Both sides made out big on their trade, and that describes trade more broadly. If left alone by governments, it involves individuals exchanging what they have for what they don’t, and it’s wealth enhancing for both sides. This should be remembered the next time some politician laments the opening of markets and the economic “losses” that will result from letting individuals transact with whomever they want, and without regard to country border.

Lastly, a frequent question posed to Richards is “Why don’t you give it up?” Richards’ response, one that is typical of very successful individuals is that “I can’t retire until I croak. I don’t think they quite understand what I get out of this. I’m not doing it just for the money or for you. I’m doing it for me.”

Richards has achieved on a stratospheric scale because he’s doing the work he loves for himself. Rich people tend to love what they do, so to achieve economic success it’s important to find something you enjoy so much that you’ll work incredible hours at it. In a fascinating book full of lessons, that’s the most important lesson of all.

http://blogs.forbes.com/johntamny/2011/06/04/what-keith-richards-life-as-a-rolli...

Life garners perhaps it's most prestigious award yet...

Heart Of Stone wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 6:25pm:



In fairness to her, she most certainly did 'start at the bottom'.

Keith Richards, Role Model
June 22, 2011
By Jim Hunt

I had just turned 10 when I first saw the Beatles on "The Ed Sullivan Show." At that moment, I, like many others, knew that what I was witnessing was the most amazing thing in the world. Rock, long hair, screaming teen audience and parents who were completely shocked, dismayed and bewildered – what else could a young person ask for? That night, I decided that I had to play in a band, and my instrument of choice would be the drums. I could see myself in the back line, keeping the beat and holding it all together. My father, on the other hand, had a different opinion about me playing in a band – especially playing drums. My father is a classically trained choral director who found (at the time) the Beatles and others of that ilk to be a horrible blot on the word "music," and he was more than dismayed that I might take an interest in this sure-to-be-short-lived phenomenon.

The next school year, in the sixth-grade band, I would have my first opportunity to play an instrument – an opportunity, in my mind, to begin to learn drums. Unfortunately, my father said that if I were to play in the band I would need to play a "real instrument," and the drums (in his mind) did not qualify. So, what was I to do? There was only one other option. The sixth grade at my school also had a ukulele band. It looked like a little guitar and had strings, and was the closest I was going to get to something that could lead me down the path to rock and roll. So from that point on, I was a guitar player.

But if I couldn’t be Ringo, who would I be? Paul and John both played rhythm instruments, but they were both lead singers, too – definitely not "back-line" guys. George was almost in the back line, but he played lead, so that wouldn’t work. I was adrift in a Rock and Roll identity crisis until I found the answer: Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. There he was, the consummate rhythm guitarist – a drummer in the guise of a guitar player – holding down the back line with Charlie Watts while Mick did his thing out front. That was what I wanted – what I needed to do. You knew just from watching them that while Mick was getting most of the glory, the band needed Keith more than anyone else if they were going to succeed. He was cool, confident and essential. From that point on, Keith Richards was my hero and my idol and the blueprint for what I hoped would be my rock and roll future.

As was the case for many of us in the generation that was swept up in the British Invasion of the 60s, rock became (and remained) an avocation rather than a vocation. Over the years, I’ve played in my share of garage and cover bands, but my profession has been that of an educator. After finishing my undergraduate degree in education, I taught elementary and middle school for 12 years; after completing my graduate work, I taught in a teacher education program for 12 years. For the past 12 years, I have served as the provost and dean of the faculty for a small, residential liberal arts college.

Over my 36-year career as an educator, you would think that someone might have replaced Keith as my idol – as my aspiration and inspiration – especially after I became a provost. Provosts should idolize great academic figures and thinkers, not Keith Richards. But I still, nevertheless, idolize Keith.

For those of us who hold Keith in such high esteem, this past year provided numerous opportunities to indulge in our hero worship. With the release of Keith’s autobiography, Life, and all the interviews that surrounded its release, we were able to gain greater insights into Keith the person, not just Keith the musician. We learned about his philosophy toward music, bands and life in general in a way that gave us greater insights into what makes Keith be Keith.

After gaining these insights and reflecting on the work that I do, I have come to the conclusion that being a provost at small, residential liberal arts college is like being the "Keith" at your institution. What follows are a four brief observations about what provosts can learn about their work from Keith Richards.

Draw your satisfaction from "playing in the band." One of the things that becomes clear about Keith when you read his book is that he did not set out to be a star. That happened, but it was not his goal. What he wanted to do was play in a band. He wanted to be the foundation on which everything was built, but he didn’t need the spotlight. He could let Mick take the spotlight because that was what Mick and the Stones needed. But he also knew that without Keith there could be no Rolling Stones, and he drew his satisfaction (no pun intended – well, maybe a little) from knowing that. And although that relationship has had its ups and downs over the decades, it has worked for almost 50 years.

A successful provost understands how this works in the academy. As a "Keith," you have to be willing to commit to the behind-the-scenes work – the stage-managing, if you will – that is necessary for your institution to succeed. You don’t worry about getting the credit as much as you focus on getting it done. Keith’s attitude is that it is all about the music, and it doesn’t matter who plays the note as long as the note gets played. A successful provost should adopt this philosophy in all the work that she or he does. One of Keith’s great quotes about Mick goes like this: "Vanity will not carry a band. But, a band can carry vanity" – an important motto for success as a provost.

Make sure you have the right "Micks." At a small liberal arts college, the "Micks" will most likely be found within the faculty. In the same way that Keith and the Stones need Mick to front the band, a provost needs high-profile faculty members to front the academic program. That said, you need to make sure you have "Micks" who are congruent with and committed to the mission of the institution. Can you imagine Mick as a Beatle or in a band like Herman’s Hermits? It just wouldn’t work. Likewise, high-profile faculty members at a small liberal arts college who are not committed to teaching undergraduates won’t work either. It should also be acknowledged that, like Mick, high-profile faculty members will likely also possess a strong sense of self-importance. While this strong sense of self-importance may present problems from time to time (and it will), you can and should use it to the advantage of institution. These faculty members want the spotlight and you should give it to them. They are the "stars" of the institution and the reason that students want to attend. Let them be Mick.

Try "alternative tunings." If you have ever tried to play guitar like Keith Richards, you know that to play some of their most notable songs, you can’t play in standard tuning. While he uses open E and D tuning on some songs, it is the open G tuning that is necessary for the signature Keith Richards sound. Get in open G, and you’ll sound like Keith. In his book, Keith talks about the importance of playing in open G – about how it allows one note to harmonize with another, creating beautiful resonances without you even putting your finger on a string. As a provost, you likely have a governance structure that (if you’re still willing to indulge this metaphor) is your “standard tuning” and the way things are usually done. Usually the players in this governance structure are selected to be there by their faculty colleagues. But there will be times when the existing structure simply will not create the resonance that the institution needs to unleash its creative energies. In these cases, you should be willing to consider “alternative tunings” by selecting faculty members to work on projects based not on whether it might satisfy institutional protocols or political sensibilities, but rather on the interest and competence of the faculty members as they align with the project. These kinds of committees are more likely to yield the results the institution needs.

Don’t sweat the rumors. Over the years, there have been innumerable rumors and myths about Keith Richards – some based on fact and others not. In reading his book, I was struck by the fact that he has not spent much of his career trying to dispel the rumors and myths. I assume there are probably two reasons. First, he probably found many of them to be amusing and somewhat in keeping with his image, and second, because they simply were not true and were not worth the time and effort it would take to prove otherwise. The second reason is the one that holds a lesson for provosts. As you know, rumors abound on a college campus, particularly a small one. Rarely are they accurate, and they are always more interesting than the actual truth. Provosts will be tempted to try to address every little rumor, but be wary of taking too much time out of your day to do this. Let most of them just be noise in the channel and address only those that have real significance or importance to the functioning of the institution. Doing otherwise will simply leave you distracted, tired and wilted like a bouquet of dead flowers (O.K., another pun).

So there it is – the musings of a provost who would like to think that somehow he has been able to emulate his hero even in a profession that is typically far removed from rock and roll. I will leave you with one final thought: Does a successful provost have to be a Keith? Or, said another way, can a successful provost be a Mick? My experience tells me that Micks who become provosts don’t stay provosts very long – they usually become presidents (that’s not to say that all presidents are Micks…). But provosts who are fulfilled by their Keith roles can be highly effective and serve their institutions well for many years. They understand that while you can’t always get what you want, if you try sometimes….well, you know the rest.

Jim Hunt is provost and dean of the faculty and professor of education at Southwestern University, a liberal arts college in Georgetown, Texas.

http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/06/22/essay_comparing_being_a_provost_...

left shoe shuffle wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 4:09pm:


Blame it on the editor or KEEF did it for the money? I dont think it was for the money, but at least Marianne has enough class to leave MICK's shortcomings out of it! I love Marianne.

left shoe shuffle wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

Good news. Snooki is working on a sequel to be released next year. http://books.usatoday.com/bookbuzz/post/2011/07/jersey-shore-party-girl-snooki-t...
Perhaps Keith could write one as well. Life was a great piece of fiction.