Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NME interview snorted father's ashes

That is the most digusting thing he's ever done! --69.67.229.27 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Frikken Crayzay 81.158.162.61 11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Loder has reported the DENIAL on MTV after asking manager Jane Rose, something AP news wire apparently did not do. Did Keith Richards Really Snort His Dad's Ashes? No — It Was A Joke!-- http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1556258/20070403/rolling_stones.jhtml I got a feeling people who think he is like a cartoon character will keep trying to re-add this line, so take note, the full quote and the denial is in the Recent News section, with exact references, and it doesn't need to get stuck into the body of the text again just to gross people out. --Mikerussell 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, today Keith has admitted to snorting his dad's ashes, but he says he did NOT mix it with cocain. Silly Stone August 2007

technically Keith never denied snorting his dad - Jane Rose and one of the Stones publicists are the ones who said it was a joke. Keith's own statement was widely reported as a denial, but what it actually said was that "the full story was lost in the usual slanting", which he later explained as noted by "Silly Stone" above. Sssoul 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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 who have 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

I don't know who applied the category, but you are right to remove it, which should have been done much earlier. I got a feeling his chances at getting such an honour weren't worsened by his rant at Jagger's acceptance, or his drug crimes, or the fact he has lived most of his life, by now, in the USA, let's face, he is the wrong class, an "uncounted head" in England's pretensions. Richards knows where he comes from, and where Jagger comes from too, and that's why he has no respect for Jagger accepting it. Jagger wouldn't have the guts to touch that point, might reveal him for who he is, so he makes the stupid jealousy remarks. --Mikerussell 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent mass deletion

An editor at 72.89.8.27 IP address mass deleted the Recent News section without any Summary Note in the edit or anything on this page. I reverted the change, as it needs to be explained or defended, otherwise it seems like vandalism. The other remark about Deep's character is already covered in the deleted material, so the POV-ish add-in is just duplication.--Mikerussell 03:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

snorting father section

There should be a whole section dedicated to him revealing that he snorted his father in order to keep in line with other wikipedia pages that give whole sections on people's pages to current events that they are involved in. Look at Tim Hardaway's page, there is a whole section to the controversy of the comments he made. In order to not be biased, there should be equal amount dedicated to Keith Richards' snorting his father comments. Wikipedia should not protect Keith Richards while they degrade everyone else. Keith&MikeRichards 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How do homophobic comments made on the record to reporters- which get played on ESPN radio a hundred plus times, match with misquoted comments that are vigourously denied by the source? Basketball players who "hate gays" are a little different than a guy who is at most a bit of jackass at times. Moreover, how do you get that wikipedia protects anybody, let alone Richards, who is presented in a fairly honest and straight foward fashion here. I personally just wish somebody would add more sources to verify what reads as a accurate article, so we could take down the Need Sources tag at the top.--Mikerussell 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

school

• Did he attend Wilmington Grammar School for Boys or Dartford Grammar School? someone changed the school in the article, and i just wanted to bring it up to try to confirm which one is correct (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keith attended Wentworth Junior County Primary School (as did Mick Jagger) and then Dartford Technical High School (which has since changed its name to Wilmington Grammar School for Boys). It was the Dartford Technical School where he was in the choir. here's a link to the DarTech archives with documentation: http://www.odwa.co.uk/archives/archives.htm i hope someone will make this correction to the article (i've made it a few times already, so i reckon it's someone else's turn now. and maybe it'll stay changed if someone else does it - i hope so!) i keep getting the feeling that some editors are unfamiliar with the fact that in the UK education system, "grammar school" is not a synonym for "primary school" and that this is a big part of why there's so much confusion over Keith's early education. Sssoul 16:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Guest Appearances

This section is really incomeplete. You can say it should be just a sampling, linking off to a separate entry, and I think I would go along with that. Mr Anonymous

Mr Anonymous

Mr Anonymous is invited by me to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling Stones. It could use your no nonsense approach. Get a G*ddamn user name and contribute like a normal human being will you. --Mikerussell 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you didn't ask nice - Guess Who?

The Pussy in Plano, right?--Mikerussell 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You lost me there. Hell, I even googled it and I got links to teen pussy sites. Try again less obliquely - Mr Anonymous aint never been to Plano either. _ Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.239.97 (talk) 03:44, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should have warned you about that, thing is there is a lot of pornography on the Internet, you really need to watch out for that sort of thing when searching any possible word used to make beautiful things their opposite- namely vulgar. I would respectfully suggest you go to your local public library in Texas or California or whatever state you currently reside in and sign up for a course on basic Internet Searching, almost all US libraries offer sessions like this in an effort to close the digital divide. Sorry. As far as the reference itself, it really is not that esoteric and I apologize for confusing you unduly. The term "pussy" is a term often used in popular currency to emasculate an individual. It is not related at all to female genitalia, and actually comes from the word "pursy". If you click on the "pussy" explanation here you can be certain I intended never to expose you to pornographic material. Here I used it in response to your response, which I felt was rather "weak". As far as Plano, Texas or Sacramento, California is concerned, your IP address traces to these cities. Everyone on wikipedia that does not have a user name will have their IP address displayed instead. Wikipedia provides all users access to certain common Internet utilities like WHOIS at the bottom of the page like yours when you responded to my offer to join the project. When you get to the bottom and click on the WHOIS link it will run the IP address. Yours came back to Plano, Texas- thats what you may be so confused about, having never been to the Dallas suburb. Since you have consistently been identifying yourself as "Mr Anonymous" your WHOIS IP address has come back from Plano or Sacramento, California. This does not mean that you live in either community, although you could, rather it means the "packets" you send through your ISP and across the web route through Plano or Sacramento. Thus in the virtual sense, even if you have never been to Plano, "Mr Anonymous" has, since your data routes through there. WHOIS is a very crude way to locate an IP address and quite impercise, it is just the "quick and dirty" way to get a result, but I guess wikipedia feels it is somewhat useful to identify anonymous users, especially if they are consistently vandalizing etc. That is all I meant by the four words. I have no interest in where you live, but your packets certainly do route through Plano often. I hope that is less "oblique". --(If you got a user page, I would stick this message on it and not have to muck up the Keith Richards Talk page.)--Mikerussell 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken or intended, truly, but I should careful what I ask for. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.128.145 (talk) 17:19, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

X-Pensive Winos

There should be a section on this band, especially since it's rumoured they might tour again soon. ...and perhaps an expansion of the New Barbarians bit in light of the CD issue. Vytal 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add what you think might be suitable, I agree that additional info is warranted, especially if they tour and record again- cross fingers.--Mikerussell 14:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular lead vocal bootlegs

I've commented this section out for now. It didn't seem to add anything to the article, and there is no verifiable way of checking how "popular" they actually are. --John 20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They were largely included b/c editors (I think a guy named JT Trash) were inserting widely bootlegged songs and the source itself is from the book cited in the head paragraph, but to be honest I never necessarily thought it was that solid of a section. So many readers really would not have heard any of these tracks, so its kind of inside baseball. That being said, it was a compromise from people sticking bootlegs into the lead vocal section and into the body of the text itself, so it will being interest to see what happens. --Mikerussell 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Better Picture

The current picture is pretty bad, its making him look younger, the winds in his face, and its black and white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested: Good Article Nomination

I almost went ahead and submitted but I saw that, while accurate, a lot of the facts need citation. For example: Keith got the 5 stringed Open from Don Everly. What I'll endeavor is to go through the article and make citations when possible and ask for help on this Talk page when not able to find the sources. I think the lack of citation is the only reason this article would not make GA status. - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.131.226 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Richards the puritan

I spent some time a number of years ago making a film about John Lee Hooker. Hooker's manager told me that he'd done a number of projects with Richards. The first time they were going to meet him they'd all waited for this firebrand to arrive three days late, stoned out of his skull. In fact he turned up on the first day at eight o'clock in the morning and worked harder than anyone else all through that day. For the rest of the project he was entirely professional, entirely focussed, and worked everyone else to exhaustion.

I have no way of checking on this and what I'm saying is original research squared. But I think that it's an angle on this great man that's worth following up. Cooke (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wanted: Wiki guidelines for "Notable Guitars

Did a quick search for a Wikipedia page on this topic and it seems someone is just pulling it out of his or her ass - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.5.27 (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Content was referenced and verifiable. Vandalism has been reverted. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No vandalism has occurred. The charge is baseless since my edits all have explanations. All there really is a disagreement, and to disagree with you qualifies as vandalism. You have avoided discussion and have not cited what "Notable Guitars" Wikipedia policy exists. This is the second time this has been noted. When will you produce it, or admit that you made it up? You have to support your position for your edits to remain. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.105.116 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

More detail found here. Every book on Gibson, or more specifically the Les Paul, puts Richards front and centre an important "Les Paul" player. Gibson had stopped making the single cutaway Les Paul in 1960 in favour of the dual cutaway design (later called the SG). Keith Richards gets a 1959 model and uses it on his 1964-1966 Ed Sullivan appearances and the demand for the single cut model becomes so great that by 1968 Gibson has to start maikng them again. His 1959 went to Christies auction in 2004 and the starting bid was $400K. That's a significant guitar. Even if he never used a Les Paul again (he used his 1957 Custom up to 1972 and was pictured on the cover of the 1975 Gibson catalog with a Custom) the 1959 Les Paul meets/exceeds the guideline for the notable_instrument field as it certainly applies as a notable guitar. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For the THRID time, what policy is being refrenced. No answer will lead to the conclusion it is a recent fabrication and non existant expcept in someone's mind. That somebody needs to come through. - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't read the history lesson in the above post then there's no helping you. All the information comes from Bacon's 50 Years of Les Paul book and also well documented in his Encyclopedia of the Electric Guitar book as well. Before Clapton, before Green, before Davies, before Page... Richards was using his, now iconic, '59 LP and because of his notable use of the model, Gibson had to start maikng them again. A proper reference is included in the article to support the text. And deleting cited text is vandalism. So read the books. You can learn how to play guitar later. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the above "lesson" and fail to see how it is anything more than trivia on a Keith Page. Put it on the LP page. Also it is simple noted as a 59 LP, the first ever LP in England may work but it is not noted as such, and what model? Deleting trivial cited text is not vandalism. I could cite lots of trivia such as the white Stat Jimi played that he got from Linda Keith in NY and brought to England until Keith reclaimed it. The point is that that has very little to do with Keith, it might belong on the Jimi page. Now for the 4th time, where is this as-of-yet unproduced Noatable Guitars policy and why hasn't it been yet produced? - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk • contribs)

Template:Infobox musical artist#Notable_instruments is the link to the template guidelines. Particularly noteworthy models or custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated - like Keef's 52 Tele, 59 Les Paul, 57 Les Paul etc. The fact that the single-cut model had to be ressurected on the grounds the KR used it and everyone coveted it... followed by the guitar itself going onto an auction years later with an intitial pitch of 400 G's makes it one of the most notable individual guitars in British rock history... which is what the infobox field was designed for. It gets listed in the box because it's notable. But details and citations don't go in the box they go in the article... which is exactly where the details were put... without being too wordy.. . along with a verifiable citation. Keef's clear lucite Dan Armstrong model could warrant mention as well... but I do not have a good wording for the article mention I have the ref (a Tony Bacon book... of course) but don't know quite how to word it. He was the only "star" user of the model (production lasted for only 1 year)... and film of Hendrix playing Keef's clear Ampeg in a backstage jam is easily available. Unlike the Les Paul... Richards use of the clear guitar could save it from demise. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the oft asked and belated produced policy. However, the policy argure agaist your deltetions. It states "Particularly noteworthy models or custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated (e.g. Jimi Hendrix's Fender Stratocaster and Gibson Flying V guitars or Tori Amos's Bösendorfer piano)." Get it, "Jimi Hendrix's Fender Stratocaster" (He actually had a ton, including the one he borrowed from Keith) Adding the 345, 345s, Music Mans, Hummingbirds, the Firebird, other Keith Teles that have a name (Micawber isn't the only one), the Strats, the 3rd ever Fender Twin. Face it, you overplayed your hand and now per the policy you cite need to allow inclusion of what you have deleted. Moreover any guitar Keith plays a played often is, by virture of provenance, is notable and gonna fetch a lotta cash at Christies. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

??? Perhaps you need to read it again. Particularly noteworthy = not a gear list. This is backed up by the discussion on the templates talk page and from the Guitarist Project guidelines from their original box/field... since they were the one's who created it in the first place. Hendrix used, and studio favoured, several guitar models over the Stratocaster. In particular he used an SG, a 335 and a left handed Goldtop Les Paul. None of those are listed since it's the Strat and the V that meet the "Particularly noteworthy" bit. Pete Townshend used a dozen different guitar ,models to some significance... he has 4 listed... one only because he has a sig model with his name on it. George Harrison used a dozen different guitars... only "Rocky" and the rosewood Tele are listed. Clapton has Brownie, Blackie, the sig model and.... like Keef... his first Les Paul model. He only used it for the "Beano" album and that was it. But he was the second "star" guitarist to use one (that's actually a lie... Jimmy Page was using his 3 pickup Custom before Clapton git his LP... but... as a studio musician... no one ever saw it until he joined the Yardbirds a couple of years later) The "sight" of Richards using his Les Paul had an immediate impact on the demand of the single cut model. But it was the "sound" of Clapton using his that sent a rush out on many guitarists to "have to have one"(Jeff Beck, Dave Davies and, in the U.S. Billy Gibbons) And so... Clapton gets his very brief Les Paul usage listed... simply because of the impact he made with it. Only 1700 single cut Les Pauls... later known as the "Standard"... were produced between 1958 and 1960. Had Keith Richards not bought one and use it in front of global audience... then 1700 might very well have been the only ones ever built to this day. That's why it meets "particularly noteworthy" criteria. He has used a 1957 Les Paul Junior for almost 40 years. But it doesn;t meet "noteworthy" criteria so it doesn;t get listed. Unless, of course, his '57 Junior suddenly goes on eBay for a million bucks then it might get a nod. I still think the clear Ampeg deserves a mention. But, like I said before, Keef using one didn't stop it from "guitar death" so it doesn't rank up to the '59 or Micawber. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to weigh in on this issue: It is indeed correct that this field was originally developed by WikiProject Guitarists and eventually integrated into the Musical Artist Infobox because it applies to all instrumentalists. The consensus has always been that the infobox should contain only particularly noteworthy instruments, not a laundry list. Anything in the infobox should be verifiable with a source that describes not just that the artist used the instrument but that his use was particularly notable. Most artists would only have 1 or 2 entries there. There will be some gray areas. In those cases, why can't you mention the notable instruments using prose in the article? An infobox should only ever be a summary of key, important data. Everything else belongs in the article. Many guitarist articles have concise sections on equipment if said equipment is notable. See Steve Lukather for example. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another example givin by the guideline is the Flying V for Hendrix. If that rather minor instrument in his arsenal deserves inclusion, with Keith, Strats - including the one Jimi played, Music Man Strat, his stock humbucker Teles, Hummingbirds, The LP Junior (thanks for correcting me on that one, BTW - no use in sticking to a mistake). Keith is noted for the different guitars he plays, and they are notable because they are in heavy rotation. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just an example and I don't even know who put that on there. The main point, which you are missing, is that YOU don't get to decide what instruments are notable. You have to have a reliable source backing it up. You also have to follow consensus about how many items belong in the infobox. Continuing to add information to the article against consensus will not only get you reverted but it will get you blocked for disruption as well. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hendrix's Flying V is a "minor instrument in his arsenal?"??? His hand painted psychedelic '67 V was his main stage guitar through several tours and he recorded most of the Axis album with it. His Sunburst V, used for the Rainbow Bridge concert... among many others, is part of the Hard Rock Cafe's Hendrix Experience display. And his Gibson custom left-handed 1969 V is one of the rarest of collectible guitars and is also a premier Hard Rock display item. It was one of only a few "true" left-handed models that he played. Gibson produces a re-issue of the psychedelic V that has been made in limited numbers since 1991 and sells for $15 grand. The Flying V It is hardly a "minor instrument" in his arsenal. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, then are Keith's humbucker teles, hummingbirds, Music Man Strats, Fender Strats, LP Juniors minor? - Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Truly Notable Guitars

Now that we have some consensus, I will soon be adding cited notable guitars of Keith focusing on guitars with names and ones that he acutally played rather that incidental guitars in regards to Keith such as the vaguely unspecified '59 Les Paul. Really, it would be good the know what model it actually was . Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.57.169 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

but ... 1959 Gibson Les Paul *is* the name of the model. i've added that it had a sunburst finish, if that helps any. and a detailed web source describing the history and notability of this particular instrument (don't miss the "additional photos" on that site!). and by the way, if someone wants more information about vintage guitar models (just for their own education, i mean, not for this article), here's a good on-line resource:

http://www.provide.net/~cfh/index.html

hope that helps ... swing on Sssoul (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

re-organizing a bit

if you check the "history" page i've tried to give an idea of what the changes i've made are aiming at; and i tried to do them in increments in hopes that makes them easier to undo if they're deemed ill-conceived. i hope the added references and details are some help, as well as the reorganization of the "with other artists" section to bring it closer to something like chronological order. obviously the list of guest appearances would be better off if it were in some kind of order as well.

i realize the "vocals and other instruments" section seems awfully short at the moment, but i'm hoping it can be expanded rather than sucked back into the "guitar" section. Keith's vocals especially really seem worth more detailed attention, rather than treating them as a "just a sideline". thanks & swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ps: sorry if i'm treading on some hard-won consensus about the list of lead/shared-lead vocals, but: "The Singer Not the Song" seems pretty iffy to me. there are dozens of numbers on which Keith's harmonies are as prevalent as on that one. i suggest deleting it. Sssoul (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologise for anything... all your edits were very good and overdue. The page looks much better than it did. 156.34.226.160 (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, well done, Sssoul. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the encouraging words - i've gone ahead and deleted "The Singer Not the Song" and added sources for some more of the facts. another couple of changes i'd like to make:

~ calling Bo Diddley rock & roll rather than R&B seems mighty controversial to me!

~ in the "songwriting" section, it doesn't seem accurate to say MJ/KR's songwriting "later" incorporated soul, gospel and pop. their first original numbers (maybe particularly those released by other artists) were very distinctly pop ("puerile pop ballads" Keith called them in some great quote that i'll have to look up); "The Last Time" was famously lifted from a gospel number; and there are soul-influenced harmonies all over those early numbers.

so will anyone be outraged if i go ahead and revise those parts? thanks and swing on Sssoul (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ps: one more question: are those lengthy quotes from Dick Taylor in the "early life" section acceptable in terms of wikipedia copyright policies? they're taken verbatim from Bockris, so i've duly added the appropriate references, and i don't mind if wikipedia and Bockris don't mind, but ... well, i'd rather ask to make sure. thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

about them trials ...

not to rehash old discussions too much but:

1] i've redone the "Redlands bust" section a bit, and it might seem a bit too long now. but i felt like it needed changing, because ... well, beginning at the end, that famous Times editorial didn't actually mention Keith at all, so we shouldn't imply that it did; and it just seems unnatural not to describe Mick's sentence and appeal as well as Keith's. also, the previous version sounded to me like they spent considerably more than a day or two in prison; in fact they weren't incarcerated until their respective trials began, and they were both let out on bail the day after the sentencing. the previous version also had the Times editorial in the wrong chronological order - that came out the day after they got out on bail. (for editors who don't have appropriate books handy, here's a site with the timeline laid out - since it's a blog i guess it's not a good reference to cite in the article, but it's correct anyway: http://redlandsbust.blogspot.com/ but anyway if you see useful ways of shortening what i did without hurting the accuracy ... go for it!

2] i've added the bit about his other court cases because i think a lot of people imagine Keith's had a lot more than five drug trials. but if it's just opening a can of worms that's better left unopened, please go ahead and delete it.

3] then the Toronto part ... okay, again i absolutely don't want to open any cans of worms here, right? i read the "Regina v Richards" thing in the archived talk pages, which was interesting, but what's being cited there is the prosecution's appeal of the sentence, not Keith's trial itself. the Flippo book i'm citing has an appendix presenting assorted Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian court documents related to Keith's arrest, preliminary hearings and trial, and according to those, Keith was originally charged with "possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking" and "possession of cocaine", not "importing narcotics" as our article currently states. according to Flippo (pages 134-139) the prosecution ultimately dropped the cocaine charge and "intent to traffick" charge; what Keith was finally tried and sentenced for was the way-less-severe offence of simple possession of heroin.

so ... with the aim of being accurate without inviting any futile brouhahas, would something like this be okay:

Richards was tried on drug charges on three other occasions in the 1970s,[29 - Flippo pp 177-178] but the most serious charges he faced resulted from his arrest in February 1977 at Toronto's Harbour Castle Hotel (Regina v. Richards), when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police found him in possession of "22 grams of heroin".[30 - Canadian Law Book] Richards was originally charged with "possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking" - an offence that according to the Criminal Code of Canada can result in prison sentences of seven years to life.[31 - Flippo pp 67-68] The charge was later reduced to possession.[32 - Flippo pp 134-136]

For the next two years, Richards lived under threat of criminal sanction, and he sought medical treatment in the U.S. for heroin addiction. During this period, The Rolling Stones recorded their biggest-selling studio album, Some Girls, released their number-one single "Miss You" and toured North America. In October 1978 Richards was tried for possession of heroin.[33 - Flippo pages 134-136] He was given a suspended sentence, put on probation for one year, with orders to continue treatment for heroin addiction and to perform a benefit concert on behalf of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.[34 - Flippo p 178]

let me know what you think, please and thank you ... and swing on Sssoul (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your work has all been fine so far. Keep it up. There is a GA building out of all of it. (and in case you didn't catch my apology way way back on Pat's talk about re: my gender gaff.... I am sorry for assuming you to be a male :D ) 156.34.226.160 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks again for the encouraging words - and yeah i did see your apology, no worries! it happens all the time - on line, i hasten to add! :D it's the guitar anorakism that does it, i reckon.

oh and: right on about that "classic albums" deletion; it was even more POV-ish before i toned it down to "classic", but indeed, it isn't appropriate (besides which it goes without saying - the same is true of every Rolling Stone, that's why they're Rolling Stones!)

meanwhile, carrying on ... i've put that reworking of the Toronto Bust Section into the article and hope it looks okay now; if anyone can come up with page numbers and a publisher for the Circus magazine citation, that would be a huge help - all i have is that one article, but it's the May 29th 1979 issue if anyone can look it up, please and thank you.

GA status for Keith would be charming indeed - there's a ways to go both content-wise and citation-wise though, i think! the "recent" section needs updating about the 2007 tour, Shine a Light and all that; the "vocals and other instruments" section definitely wants expanding; surely there's more that can be said/cited about his acoustic playing and his use of effects; and does Cocky the Cockatoo really belong there?? it's a well-told anecdote, of course, but i'm not real sure what it's illustrating in the article. Cocky the Cockatoo as Character Witness? :D

thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

about them vocals & other instruments

so now i've got something like seven paragraphs about Keith's vocals (with citations, with citations) but i don't know what to do with it. first off, i'm not at all sure seven paragraphs about his singing will be wanted/needed; second off, putting a long thing about his singing in "vocals and other instruments" with just one sentence about the "other instruments" doesn't make sense, nor does splitting it into two sections unless the "other instruments" section expands to more than one line. so does anyone feel like writing a few paragraphs about his bass playing, his piano playing, etc? i have some citations i could throw in (like songs he wrote on piano, that bowed bass on Ruby Tuesday, stuff like that) but i don't feel equipped to write a whole section about it myself. anyone have the time/inclination? and then i'll unveil my screenful about his singing. thanks & swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Away from your subject header... re: vocals etc... I just wanted to inject a quick question about something else. The Notable_instrument field is a very delicate field that is not meant to be a gear list... and the 2 obvious choices are the Tele and the Keithburst... but... does the Dan Armstrong rate high enough to be "notable". I can't find any documentation about the original run of this guitar without finding Keef's name/face plastered all over it. As for the bass playing question... the tall tale was always that most of the band's studio basslines were done by him while Billy boy napped on the couch.... which was false. But he did lay down numerous counter basslines and multi-tracked short bass runs here-n-there in many Stones tracks which, to me adds something to his songwriter/producer resume... his "beginning-to-end-song-construction"... as it were. That whole Stones recording process is pretty well documented across many interviews. Anyways.... the Dan A?... your thoughts? 156.34.221.252 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

apparently the DA Keith had from 69-71 was a prototype, and after it was stolen they gave him two new ones - production models - that you see in a few shots from the 72 tour. he didn't like them as well as that prototype, though; and the next time he turned up on stage with one was 05 (approximately twice) and 07 (pretty regularly) - most likely a reissue, of course, and i haven't seen it mentioned in any cite-worthy sources. don't let me stop you from putting it in the info-box, though! i consider his Juniors and/or the Pirate Zemaitis more "notable" than that one, but i probably don't have a very good sense of what's supposed to be in that field of the info-box. i mean: from the manufacturer's point of view Keith was definitely a notable DA player for a while there, but does that mean it was one of Keith's Notable Instruments?

... of course when he used it (miming to playback) on the 1969 Ed Sullivan show with a broken string dangling off it, that was pretty notable! :D made an impression on me, anyway :D

as for the upcoming (i hope!) "other instruments" section: yeah Keith has indeed played some very fine bass, and i sure hope someone can write a bit about it for the article! thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

another day, another kooky idea: has the idea of having a section in the article about Keith's guitars already been discussed/discarded - i mean a few paragraphs about the ones he's used longterm like the Juniors, and/or the striking ones like the Dan Armstrong, Pirate Zemaitis etc? i guess it would be hard to keep it from turning into a whole book, but since people pretty clearly keep feeling like more deserve mentioning than there's room for in the info box ... ? share your thoughts Sssoul (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The field in the infobox was designed, originally, by the guitarist project. It is not meant to be a gear list, in fact, it was originally meant to be used rather sparingly... not for notable instrument models that a guitarist may have had a long history with.... but for individual guitars themselves that could almost support an article of their own. Like Blackie and Brownie and Rocky etc. It has since become a bit more than that even including manufaturer signature models, which if I am reading the talk pages of several key guitar project members and admins tied to that project, just because you have a signature model doesn't make it notable. When a guitarist has extensive use of many different guitars that have certain notabilities of their own... the best way to get all the info in is to have it in it's own section. Many famous guitarists have articles where their "gear" is just a 'cold' list. And in some cases these 'lists' have been removed simply because they look like advertising. Having a 'prose' gear section thats abundant with citations is a great way to convey all the info. But those sections can get very long. And thats where "Wiki wheel spinning" starts its teeter totter battle. Stevie Ray Vaughan's gear section was so big that several editors decided it was worthy of its own article. That way the main article would be shorter. Then... lo and behold.... someone who never bothered to research the reasoning for the seperate article proposed it to be merged back into the main article???... even discussed deleting it altogether. I think a well referenced gear section that 'details' the "individuals" (Micawber, Keithburst, the DA and the Pirate), 'defines' the "lifers" (the Juniors, ES's, the Customs) and then briefly mentions the "oddballs" (the Hyde Park V, the early Casinos, the L5Ss etc). As a guitar player I read guitarist pages for the "technical" data. Casual readers would not have the same gearhead interests... so you need to find the balance between the two. Too wordy=too much and too short=why bother. 2-3 paragraphs are good. 4-5 and there's likely to be complaints that it should have it's own article... and then later on the complaint wil be... well, y'know. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the insights - i will ponder that. i reckon part of the problem with establishing a "gear section" is that it invites additions of every guitar anyone recalls seeing the cat with, whether they have any sources/citations/cool details or not. part of a solution would be to have clear criteria outlined to direct people to when trimming away excess additions - are there some existing guidelines somewhere in the Guitar/Musician Project pages? if so, maybe a link to them could usefully added to the talk page here, for future reference?

by the way, before stumbling on the "notable instruments" discussion with "Mr Anonymous" above, i did go hunting for the criteria for the "notable instruments" field, and couldn't find anything. maybe the criteria that have been established could be posted somewhere easy to find on the appropriate Project Pages, so people can locate them?

also by the way, i still have doubts about Ronnie Wood's infobox, and i left a few questions about it on his talk page, if you ever have time. thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The original "guitarist" infobox wa deprecated and replaced with the more global "musician" infobox. It can be found here: Template:Infobox musical artist. The use of the instrument field has changed slightly away from what the guitarist project intended for it. The word 'notable' on Wiki always tread a fine line between WP:NOTE and POV fan fave. The original intention was to indicate the Blackies, Brownies, Rockys, Lennys, 1st Wifes, Fools, Micawbers etc. It just stretched into what it has become. It isn't a gear list... but everyone knows that... say... Ritchie Blackmore is known as a Stratman... so Fender Stratocaster is more than acceptable in his infobox. It isn't restricted to guitarists/bassists/banjo-ists/mandolinists (all the strings covered by the guitarist project)... but it pretty much used by guitarists only. Glen Campbell's Ovation Bluebird would be a terrific choice for his infobox... but it isn't there? And, no offence to Steve Marriot, but the most famous user of the Ovation Breadwinner was, of all people, David Cassidy (bringing back Partridge Family nightmares from my junior high school years) and yet... that guitar isn't included in his infobox. So the field has a long way to go before it gets used for everyone properly. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the link to the infobox template - i know it's "old news" to you, but in case it's any help to hear what a well-meaning & interested newcomer makes of it: it would be great for newcomers if someone could add a bit more explanation somewhere on that page and the pertinent project pages for what should go in the "notable instruments" field - i feel like i now have some sense of how you see it (from your explanations - thanks - and from watching your ongoing "not a gear box" deletions) but i also understand why people look at the examples on the template page and/or the ways the field is variously used on different musician pages and think (for example) "okay, so if Strats are notable for Hendrix i'll list them for Ron Wood too." again, i believe i'm getting the general idea, but it would be helpful for other people too if clearer criteria were easy to locate.

meanwhile, are there examples you could point me to of good prose-style gear sections within articles? that would be a help in thinking about how to organize Keith's. everything you've mentioned sounds right - those black 57 LP Customs belong in there too, and his black Custom Tele - and when Shine a Light comes out everyone's gonna want to know what that guitar he gave to Buddy Guy was - a Guild!? which he says was an "old favourite" but he's never used it on stage before.

oh and that single-pickup L5S in fact belongs to Mr Ron Wood - Keith borrowed it for the Talk Is Cheap tour. isn't that interesting.

and so on. :D take good care & swing on Sssoul (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro deletion

I removed the reference to "Satisfaction" being their biggest hit because that needs support and is too arguable. I think saying saying something along the lines of "..wrote many international number one hit including..." is safer. Also song that defined an era is a little too fanish. Nonetheless, it's nice to see so many good and needed edits being done. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.13.148 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

since that bit is being repeatedly added/deleted, maybe it's worth discussing a little. it seems to me that a factual statement about the status of Satisfaction would be way better than a value judgement: what does "greatest" mean in this case anyway? is Satisfaction a "greater" composition than (for example) Gimmie Shelter, and if so in whose opinion? or does "greatest" mean "best-selling", or "longest at number 1", or "most recognized Stones signature tune", and if so according to what data?

and maybe (probably!) all that is better left to the "songwriting" section of the article, and/or the existing (and pretty detailed) wikipedia article about Satisfaction, and/or the "Jagger/Richards" article. in this spot in Keith's article maybe "including whatever-number top-40 hits" would be good, if an unambiguous list is available from a cite-worthy source. Sssoul (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ps: the new paragraph in the intro about Keith being an internationally-recognized icon needs a citation, or it's got to go - the source currently cited - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/default.stm - is a general BBC News "entertainment" page and i see nothing at all about Keith on it. Sssoul (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

update: okay so i checked the imdb source that was given for the "Satisfaction is their greatest hit" statement - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0724189/bio - and both of the new bits about his "internationally recognized iconic" status and Satisfaction being a "defining song of the era" are lifted practically verbatim from there - that won't do!! that text is copyrighted (and pretty "promotional" in tone as well). i'm removing the "internationally recognized iconic" bit - i'm not at all opposed to calling Keith an iconic figure, or mentioning his contributions to charity etc, but a solid source needs to be found and properly cited.

i'm also amending the reference to Satisfaction; i hope the fact that there are 14 Jagger/Richards tunes in the Rolling Stone "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" will be acceptable to everybody - at least it's a fact rather than someone's opinion of which of their songs is the "greatest".

while i was at it, i took out the bits about him being an "entertainer" and "actor" - yes music is part of the entertainment industry, but i feel like we've made the point that he's a musician; and his cameo role in the film is mentioned in the "recent activities" part of the article. but if we feel it's really necessary to list *all* his "roles" in the intro, he's also a writer; and i think something like "performing artist" would be more to the point than "entertainer".

i'm also undoing the change in format - i see no point in a "biography" heading with only one sub-heading, and i object to the idea of making "Mick Jagger" a phase in Keith's biography. until there are solid sections on subsequent decades in Keith's life, i propose keeping the format as it is.

i hope that makes sense to people - but if it doesn't, i hope we can discuss it instead of just repeatedly adding/undoing this stuff. thanks & swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of the introductory paragraph, I think there needs to be some work done to reduce the repetitive occurrence of "Rolling Stone(s)". As it stands, reading through the lead paragraph is more like a children's book than an encyclopedia, and since when is random inclusions in Rolling Stone magazine lead-paragraph material? I know this is common practice all throughout rock-music articles, but it's a bit absurd that one (opinion-driven) magazine has become the exclusive indicator of popularity and success; information such as this might be better suited for a later portion of the article. --Jacob ^Talk 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

another photo?

there's a reasonably good shot of Keith with Micawber available: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Keith_Richards_Hannover_2006.jpg does anyone else like the idea of adding it in the vicinity of the "guitar playing" section? if it's worth it (and if it's permissible) i could try photoshopping out the other musicians in it, if that would look better in a smaller format ... but then someone would need to teach me how to upload it. share your thoughts ...

oh and while i'm here: is there somewhere the "hidden" list of bootleg recordings could be tucked away for safekeeping? someone put quite a bit of work into it, so it seems cavalier to just delete it, but the article's getting quite long as it is even without "secret" additions. Sssoul (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

okay, since there are apparently no objections i've moved that "hidden" list here: /that bootleg list Sssoul (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ry Cooder?

The article makes no mention of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ry_Cooder , but I keep seeing their names popping up in numerous guitar magazines. Something about history and possible influence might make a good addition to the article. 92.9.163.157 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

French Ancestry

seeing as his grandfather had the surname Dupreejeanne (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC), shouldn't Keith Richards be listed as a British person of French descent?Nobody has mentioned this.Was his grandfather of Huguenot descent or recent French ancestry?

i don't understand. where is it that you want him "listed as a British person of French descent"? if you know of a list like that and want to add him to it, go ahead; if you mean adding it to this article somewhere: i think there are other things that are more urgently needed (eg about four decades of biography). Sssoul (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article does need to be improved.It should give more details about his life and contributions to The Stones.I just wondered about his ethnicity.I'm a Keith Richards fan for more than three decades!jeanne (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

i've taken out the apparently speculative statement about Keith's ancestry - if you have a reliable source that specifies the details of his "remote French ancestry", let's have the details here on the talk page first, please: where exactly did you find this information, and what exactly does it say? if you have some argument for why "remote French ancestry" is more worth mentioning than his Welsh ancestry on the Richards side, could you let us know that too, please? and then if it is referenced and relevant, putting the statement into a part of the paragraph where it would make some sense - for example in the bit about his Dupree grandfather - would be a nice touch.

if you don't have a source specifying this "remote French ancestry", it isn't cool to add your own personal speculation - see WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. if you have a reliable source but don't know how to make a reference out of it, i'm willing to help, if you provide the necessary details here on the talk page - have a look at the References listed at the end of the article for an idea of what's needed for the various types of reference. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters I am not in the least bit interested in appearing "cool" or "uncool". That is for high school students. What I am interested in doing is stating the obvious. The surname Dupree is doubtlessly of FRENCH origin. It certainly did not originate in China. I mentioned it because ethnicity is often mentioned in articles of people less notable than Keith Richards and I have noticed that people are somewhat reluctant to say a person is part French but not so when they are Italian,Polish,etc. Of course the Welsh part should be added. I never knew he was Welsh. That would explain his dark ,Atlantic-Mediterranean appearance. The Beatles members' Irish-Welsh ancestry is often mentioned. Why not add that Keith is of Welsh-French ancestry. I really don't think Keith Richards will be offended if he reads in Wikipedia thaht he is part French.By the way,why not use an older photo of him, for instance one taken in 1969 with the cougar tooth earring?jeanne (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm biased, being of part-French ancestry myself, but I'm not at all reluctant to see French background mentioned - as long as it's cited from reliable sources, like any other ethnicity claim. It doesn't matter how obvious it is from the name, it needs a source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I myself have a French great-grandmother and I know I'm biased; but Ian,how can I get a source for it when it's not mentioned in any of his biographies or interviews.In fact,Keith often mentions Gus Dupree but never says he was French.How did Ssoul discover Keith's paternal Welsh ancestry?jeanne (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"How did Sssoul discover Keith's paternal Welsh ancestry?" i found a reliable source where Keith talks about it, that's how; and when i stated that "it's not cool" to add your own speculative theories to the article, what i meant is that it's not in line with wikipedia standards - again, try reading WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR.

i too have nothing against mentioning French ancestry if it's deemed relevant and at least moderately notable *and* if a source can be cited. if you don't find it stated in any of the books about Keith, maybe there are reasons for that; meanwhile, according to one genealogy theory most Europeans are descended from Charlemagne, but that doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned in every biography. Sssoul (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

update: all right, i've checked my sources; Keith says his Richards great-grandparents moved to London from Wales in the 19th century, and immediately emphasizes that his paternal grandfather was a Londoner; the Dupree line he says "came to England from the Channel Islands" and were descended from "Huguenots driven out of France in the 17th century". the question is whether any of that is sufficiently notable to mention in an article that's not attempting to be a full-length book, and whether ethnic labels of any kind are a major aspect of Keith's life, accomplishments, etc. if anything, i think he's made more of a point of being a Londoner - and i think there's a lot to be said in favour of letting people choose their own ethnic labels. Sssoul (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. At least the Dupree name has been traced to a place and time.The Channel Islands, I had considered but had opted for a Huguenot/London connection. All Londoners take pride in their city of birth but this is the first time I have ever heard of a Londoner being referred to as an ethnic group. Pray explain how a Londoner differs genetically from other English people. As to Charlemagne, I really don't see how an eighth-century Frankish emperor got into the discussion on Keith Richards' now established French-Huguenot ancestry. As to all Europeans being descended from him- well let's just say I hope you are right.I think that should be discussed on another page, though. I find the Welsh part interesting. Why not place it in the article.Isn't Madonna's half Italian heritage blazoned from every article on her !?jeanne (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1] if Madonna makes a big point of her ethnic background, that has no bearing on what should be in anyone else's biography.

2] i did not state that Londoners constitute an ethnic group; i stated that Keith has put more emphasis on identifying himself as a Londoner than he has on his ancestry. which is why i don't see much point in adding where one set of his great-grandparents came from: it has very little to do with how Keith presents himself or what makes him notable.

3] the discussion was about ancestry, which is how a genealogy theory entered into it. i hope we can consider the discussion done now. good health to you. Sssoul (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cliff Richard

Keith has stated in many interviews that he dropped the "S" from his surname because of Cliff Richard.I don't know if Keith or Oldham came up with the idea but it was done on account of Cliff.jeanne (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

i've seen various different explanations given for the s-dropping. Sssoul (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

update: i've checked my sources and haven't found any interviews where Keith says it was "because of Cliff Richard". could you specify where you found these interviews, please and thank you? what i'm finding is speculation: that ALO came up with it "to sound more pop" - to emulate Cliff - to distinguish Keith from Cliff (sic!) - because he wanted someone in the group with a first name for a surname - because the possessive form of a name ending in s was too challenging for the press - because of Keith's estrangement from his father at the time - etc etc. in the book STP Robert Greenfiel even says it was done to make Keith's name "more sibilant"! until further notice i vote for skipping the speculation and sticking with the fact that the s-less version was his professional name for a spell. Sssoul (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglican religion

Seeing as Keith sang in a choir at Westminster Abbey,that would make him an Anglican. Surely that should be included in the article.jeanne (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

he wasn't in the Westminster Abbey choir; he was in the Dartford Technical School choir, which performed at various events/venues. Keith's said his choir performances were his first contact with organized religion; his parents weren't churchgoers. Sssoul (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

update: checked my sources for this too: "The Richardses were atheists. Doris didn't approve of vicars and told Keith that they were all dirty old men." (Bockris page 28) i'm not suggesting that should be added to the article; if/when Keith starts publicizing his spiritual beliefs as an adult that might seem more relevant. Sssoul (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

==Fleshing out the article= Ok Sssoul,Youv'e had your last word, now get down from your high horse and let's get to work on fleshing out the article.Deal? For starters, it doesn't state how Keith got his inspiration for "Satisfaction". It was in a dream he had whilst sleeping in an American hotel room, he woke up with the riff in his head, grabbed his guitar and recorded it on his portable tape player. Later, when Mick heard it, the latter added the lyrics.I've a bio on Keith from 1984, I'll get it out and do some more research. Also his life with Anita should be expanded.She deserves more than a footnote.Nothing about his famous trip to Morocco in 1967 either.The article should mention the fact that his parents were athiests, seeing as you can source that. A few of his famous quotes need to be included.For instance, "S..t happens ","Everybody's Lucifer " (Rolling Stone" interview 1971.)Not to mention his quote about Elton John in the "Daily Mirror" after Princess Diana's funeral."His only talent is writing songs about dead blondes."jeanne (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

here's the quote page: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keith_Richards Sssoul (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The motel he was staying when he dreamt of the riff for Satisfaction was The Gulf Motel,Clearwater,Florida. My source comes from Bill Wyman's "Stone Alone". Barbara Charrone also wrote a good bio on Keith back in 1979.jeanne (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Keith Richards

I recall a number of years ago that Richards attempted to sue another (obviously much less well-known) musician who was coincidentally also named Keith Richards for misrepresentation or something. Since the other Richards was older and that was his actual name, and was furthermore NOT claiming to be the Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, the suit was unsuccessful. Does anyone else remember this, and have a source about it? Lurlock (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)