Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

the possessive of names ending in s

the "see talk page" in Mysloop's edit summary refers to the discussion on his/her talkpage: User_talk:Mysloop; the discussion concerns edits to the Brian Jones and Charlie Watts articles as well. the short form is: the wikipedia style guide concedes that there are two acceptable ways to form these possessives. up until now the Stones-related articles have been using the just-apostrophe version: Richards' riffing; Mysloop prefers the apostrophe-s version: Watts's drumming. i personally also prefer the apostrophe-s version, but it's probably worthwhile to make sure this change isn't going against some long-hallowed Stones Project consensus. thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

see MoS Archive 107 for further discussion of this change ... Sssoul (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable Guitars

The magazine Guitars Legends 7 has Keith IDing and dating his two main Teles. Funny how someone thought it had to be a '52 and why Micawber should draw all the attention. Mr Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.150.13 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Slightly injured?

"His father was a factory labourer who was slightly injured during World War II." Wasn't everyone who served in WWII "slightly injured" at some point? In fact, most active people can't get through a month without being slightly injured in one way or another. And it says "during World War II" - does this mean he was "slightly injured" while working in that factory, or wounded while serving in uniform? Does it matter? Probably not. What's the sentence trying to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith's Guitar Playing, and stuff to do

My recent edits hopefully address what has been missing, such as details on what makes Keith's playing so distinctive, unique and innovative. Among what I haven't been able to find is citations that show that Keith sets the beat for the band, as opposed to the drummer, as is what happens in most bands. I know Wyman has explained this in at least one of his books as well as in an interview with Guitar Player magazine. I also would like to find mid-seventies citations from Creem magazine about how uneven a time keeper Charlie Watts could be and how this affected Keith's role in the band. I believe there is an Ian Stewart quotation to that effect. A nearby library may have Creem magazine, which is a trip to go over, and I hope to have those. Another citation I'm looking for is one to establish that Keith plays concert tuning in the main. Mr Anonymous - just saw that I'm not logged in. whoops —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.99.54 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Another citation I'm looking for is one to establish that Keith plays concert tuning in the main": i don't understand what you're looking for - "Keith plays concert tuning in the main" when?? if you mean some particular tour, there's pretty good documentation (especially from the 70s onward) about which of his instruments is/was in which tuning; and (except for a few controversies) sources can be found for the tuning(s) he's in on particular numbers - but tuning doesn't seem like an area where generalizing about "in the main" would be very meaningful/informative.

the 1978 Wyman quote about Charlie following Keith is on this page - scroll down to the section called "attempts to solve the riddle". Sssoul (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it provides much what I was looking for. I noticed several quotes came from the old Creem magazine. The only thing it didn't have was citations on how erratic Charlie's' meter can be. People seem to think he is incredibly steady, like Al Jackson, Jr., when that is not the case, and this has greatly affected Keith's playing. 6 string concert tuning., a term Keith uses, is EADGBE , or maybe better known as standard tuning. In this case, the importance of Keith's open tuning preference might leave the impression that he plays mostly open tunings when in fact he doesn't. I'm trying find a quote that I thought establishes this, but I'm still on the hunt. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

i know what standard/concert tuning is; what i didn't understand was the point of generalizing about it. good luck finding a quote like that; meanwhile i'm glad that page i pointed you toward was helpful. the whole site is well worth reading. Sssoul (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Open Tunings edit restoraion

It's hard to overemphasize how important it is that Richards claims priority for using open tuning for rhythm guitar is. Keith claims "nobody" else did it before him. The statement may be not wholly accurate, but arguing against it will take some doing, while reconciling it to truth that probably no one has used open tunings for fingered chording without slide on electric guitar. I doubt anyone here has the resources to do that. And even if they did, it would probably take some original research thereby making it unusable. Also, that Keith used open tunings for rhythm before anyone else helps dispose of the Ry Cooder controversy. As far as I know, Ry Cooder only reintroduced Keith to open tunings, and Cooder was not using a five string open G, nor using open tuning for fingered chording. Finally, in Keith's mind playing Teles and open tunings are directly related developements, but that point would probably be better made in arsenal paragraph below. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UT

Update: My perception is that musicians rated Keith highly long before rock critics caught on. There is the Chuck Berry regurgitator meme circulated by Lester Bangs (one of the least perceptive critic of the Stones). Somewhere I have a Sam Cutler quote declaring that all the great guitar players bowed to Keith. Somehow or other I'm gonna integrate into the guitar playing section some reception history of Keith's evaluation as a guitar player. This wouldn't be trivial because he did not become the public figure he now is. For most of the sixties he was in the shadows of Jagger and Jones, and he higher ranking as a musician parallels his rise in public attention.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also feel that his credibility as a musician caught on as his fans switched from the teeny-boppers of the mid-1960s to the older audiences of the late 1960s, obviously more appreciative of Keith's talent than the screaming girls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If content of any sort is to be added related to this topic then it should be proposed here so that Sssoul can evaluate what is good and then add it in such a way that the quality of the page is not reduced. The article is edited frequently by IPs and new account users how feel themselves to be an expert of the subject but have an horrible track record in their attempts to improve this article. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody seen a picture of Keith with a 5 string guitar that was not a Telecaster? Thought so. I am certain that the interview cited was not looked at,and an over cautious and poorly informed intuition guided the edit that removed the copy that paired the 5 string open G tuning with Telecasters. In my citation, Keith is very specific that the the Telcasters are extremely sympatico for this tuning. (BTW, he also uses Teles in standard tuning.) Be careful about who is deemed an "expert".The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

the phrase "claims priority" is uncommunicative - if you mean "he claims to be the first" then say that - but then you'll need to develop the subject of whether or not that claim is accurate, provide sources, etc - and it truly doesn't seem worthwhile to interrupt the section on his playing with a subsection on "Controversies surrounding statements about Richards's playing". whether he was the first or not, and regardless of his widely assorted statements at various times, what's significant is that he began to explore open tunings and developed an innovative and distinctive style.

and you again inserted "on Fender Telecaster" in a spot where it's neither accurate nor grammatical. Keith's first public uses of open tuning were on Gibsons, not Fenders; Ted Newman-Jones made a number of custom 5-strings for him (used most extensively on the 1973 tours); in 1979 he used a 5-string Travis Bean; and in 1988 he used a custom-made 5-string Gibson L5S that he borrowed from Ronnie. so yes, plenty of us - including you - have seen photos/footage of Keith with a 5-string guitar that's not a Tele. the clause "several of his Telecasters are tuned this way" is accurate, and it makes the connection you want between this tuning and that make of guitar. Sssoul (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction on the 5 string tuning being used on non Teles. Nonetheless, Keith has said that Teles do lend themselves to this tuning and he has stressed the connection of the arrival of Teles and his futher developement of open tunings. This is why, despite the excections cited, when Keith uses open G five string tunings, the overwhelming chances are that it's gonna be on a Tele. This is obviously more nuanced than what I wrote, and it may have a place in the insturments paragraph.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) his Pirate Zemaitis guitars (the original and the replica he unveiled in 2005) are also 5-strings. yes, someday it will be good to develop the "instruments" section more. meanwhile, let's stick with "several of his Telecasters are tuned this way", okay? thanks. Sssoul (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The question of priority

How much more well-supported, argued and cited could I have made the argument that Keith has made a claim to priority and does indeed have a right to that claim? (Do you understand "priority" as a historical term?)The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

see my reply above. no, the phrase is not communicative; and the section is supposed to be about his playing, not about what he's rightly or wrongly stated about his playing. if you want to add a subsection about his controversial statements, there are plenty - but meanwhile that's not the subject of this paragraph. Sssoul (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [transplanted from my talk page - let's keep the discussion here where it's relevant, please]

I wished you had asked me directly, or via a Talk entry, what "priority" means in the context used. It's a historical term. For example, art historians grant Picasso numerous claims of priority in painting, sculpture, print making and ceramics. I didn't realize that this was such an esoteric usage that it would go over some editors' heads. You might do better to ask before you delete; I would have been more than glad to help you out, and you could have preformed an edit that left maybe the most historically facet of Keith's playing in the article rather than have it suffer a reflexive deletion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

this is not an article for historians, and we should strive to use language that will be widely accessible, not phrases that require readers to ask you for an explanation. meanwhile, his "claim" (accurate or not) is not "maybe the most historically facet of Keith's playing"; what's significant is that he explored open tunings, and developed an innovative and distinctive style using them. that's what my edit stated clearly and i really hope it will stay that way. i'm not interested in fighting with you, but i do care about the accuracy and readability of this article. Sssoul (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ps you might also want to look at WP:WTA re the use of "claim".

What controversy? I wasn't aware of one. Can you cite anything that even hints at a controversy about Keith's claim? I didn't think so. What I was trying to say, and what I thought I actually did clearly convey, was that Keith does have the right to claim priority for open tunings on electric guitar using fingered chording without guitar. No one has disputed this - ever, and Keith was emphatic when he asserted it. That alone makes his uncontroversial assertion valid. The only exceptions to Keith's statement I can think of at the moment are country blues musicians who have used open tuning without slide, such as. Hence the I said that what Keith said may not be "wholly accurate", and why I further specified that Keith has priority for open tunings using fingered chording without the use of a slide. If this is not "about his playing", or more importantly, his playing since that late 60s, I have no idea what is.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

sigh: okay, if that's what you're trying to say, then your phrasing really is uncommunicative. the term "claim" implies that you don't believe it; and you said yourself that "it may not be accurate"; and yes of course there is "controversy" about Keith's use of open tunings; ask Ry Cooder what he thinks.

meanwhile, i am not interested in fighting with you, so please calm down - surely there's a way to formulate it that we could both agree on, and maybe Keith's own words will be the way to go. can you please cite (here on the talk page, i mean) Keith's exact statement from that "Heart of Stone" interview? (i have the interview, but i also have a job i have to go to in a few minutes.) Sssoul (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the priority issue, there is no controversy: Keith was using his open tuning I IV style of playing well before Ry Cooder showed up in London. Case closed. (BTW, Ry aint talking 'bout the Stones, so no use in asking him anything.) He used open E for Street Fighting Man. Thanks for the Wiki link. I still think Keith's innovation should be better emphasized, but that seems too problematic when the best source is Keith's assertion, and not enough attention has been paid to how revolutionary it was. Oh well. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

for the record: i don't view Cooder's assertions about this question as having any validity - but there are people who do believe his version of it. so thanks for agreeing to the less-problematic wording. Sssoul (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If what I read in Mojo Magazine (Feb 2009) is correct, and it does seem to be pretty thorough about summarizing what happened between Cooder and Keith (I'd really like to see the original Rolling Stone Magazine article/gossip piece on this), Cooder's "version of it" never held that Keith's I IV open tuning chording style was stolen from Cooder, it was instead, among other things, just a 6 string open G tuning , that Cooder said Keith had jacked as well as some generic country licks for the Honky Tonk Woman intro. Funny how Cooder felt ownership of such common fare, and real funny when it's known that Cooder seems to have never used any tunings, let alone open G, with 5 strings on guitar, thereby making whole theft seemingly impossible. See: http://www.rycooder.nl/pages/ry_cooder_tunings_instruments.htm.

The missed point is that Cooder's complaints are entirely removed from the priority issue - which is fortunate since it leaves Cooder out of the picture in this instance. I'm honestly not aware of any controversy about the I IV chording style, which arguably first appeared, albeit in standard tuning, on Not Fade Away with a Bo Diddley beat. Few seem to have appreciated how revolutionary and adventurous Keith had been with open tunings and how distinct is was from antecedents, particularly on electric guitar. Just to show how clueless folks could be, in the 70's a common disparagement of Keith's musicianship was to call him a Chuck Berry clone, e.g. Lester Bangs. If there are those who nonetheless argue a contrary position on priority, I'd be interested to hear about it. Of course this amateur welcomes and appreciates suggestions on what is appropriate for Wikipedia articles. It's silly to stick to a clear mistake. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) it's good to hear you welcome and appreciate suggestions/corrections. if you don't mind another one: you seem to get rather overheated and overcombative in some of these discussions, which makes it hard for other editors to feel like cooperating with you. it might be a good policy for you to impose a "cooling off" period on yourself before posting in public, so that you can doublecheck the facts (eg about the many 5-string guitars Keith has used), consider how you want to phrase things (eg not writing things like "using fingered chording without guitar") and tone down the disparaging remarks (calling other editors "poorly informed" when they're not is not too cool). do what you want, of course - this is only a suggestion for your consideration - but a rep for combative hotheadedness isn't any help on the occasions when you do have a valid point to make.

meanwhile, no one disagrees that Keith has developed an innovative and distinctive style; the article already states that quite forthrightly, so that's cool. Sssoul (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, but edits with little or no comment fuel a fire as well as saying "ask Ry Cooder what he thinks" regarding his dubious "version of it" which proved irrelevant. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

It says in the infobox that Richards was born in Kent. However in the actual text of the article it says he was born in Cardiff, Wales. Likewise, he is listed at the very top of the page as English, but next to the point about Cardiff it says he was of Welsh and French Huguenot heritage. I am just curious about what the deal with this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.97.52 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out the Cardiff error - i don't know how/why/when that crept in, because he was definitely born in Dartford.

the sentence about his ancestry is referring to previous generations of his family; he himself is English. i don't know how to make that sentence clearer than it is now. maybe it doesn't need to be in such a prominent spot in the article, but it doesn't really fit anywhere else either. Sssoul (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

POV

Please check the citation(s) before determining POV was added. In this case you would have found out that it is amply supported. As a courtesy, here is why the non-POV edit is restored about Keith being confidant and assertive per the citation (www.timeisonourside.com/keithstones.html) as follows.

From Ian Stewart: Keith is the musical leader. He is in charge of recording sessions more or less in an oblique way. He doesn't march into the studio and say, Right, it's gonna be this, that and the other and you'll play like this and that. He just kicks off into something, most people follow him. He usually decides how a song is going to shape up.

Also from Ian Stewart, and the following reveals why the editor may have been so misguided: I don't think Keith wants the world to acknowledge him as the leader of the band. He wants to be the leader with Mick as the figurehead. Mick can have all the glory he wants. Keith just wants the band to sound the way he thinks it should sound.

From Bill Wyman: "Keith is a very confident and stubborn player...Keith will not change back. He will doggedly continue until the band changes to adapt to him. It doesn't piss us off in any way, because we all expect it to happen. He knows in general that we're following him, so he doesn't care if he changes the beat around or isn't really aware of it. He's quite amusing like that.

Finally, from the Human Riff himself "The one thing I can contribute with absolute confidence is the sound 'cause I KNOW how this band should sound. It doesn't take me long to realize what's good for a certain song. And I don't have to be influenced by other people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.127.187 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Per mos, for direct quotations references must be inline directly to the quote for verifiability. Fair Deal (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All quotes are from www.timeisonourside.com/keithstones.html, so citation was provided, and the revert is puzzling as a result. My best guess is that the source was never checked.

(outdent) sorry, but i too am removing the quotes you've re-added - instead of adding them again (which would be edit warring, which is not okay) please let's use the talk page to reach some agreement about whether/how to change the "guitar playing" section.
i'm quite familiar with Ian McPherson's fine site. my main objection to the addition of those quotes is stylistic: the section you're editing reads better the way it was before your edits (we need to use complete sentences, and provide some context, not just strings of quotes). it seems your aim is to work in a mention of the fact that the Stones traditionally followed Keith instead of following the drummer - is that right? if so, let's consider where to put that and how to phrase it, and the best way to support it with citations. Sssoul (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

update: okay, i've worked the part about the Stones folowing Keith into a new paragraph at the end and made a few other changes while i was at it. 69.227.127.187, if that doesn't satisfy you please let's discuss it further here on the talk page. Sssoul (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Being "familiar" and understanding are at odds then. The source supports that The Stones do follow Keith and not the drummer. THis is in no way incidental, but is central to his playing and also extremely unique facet of his playing, perhaps one of the most important attributes of Keith, making it more than worthy of mention. Can you name any other bands that follow the guitar player and not the drummer? When I said that Keith was "always confident and assertive", WITH citation, this was removed as POV, which is isn't. Keeping that in mind the quotes were strung to anticipate that objection, again with inline citation. Presumably lack of inline citation is now agreed to be a groundless objection. Now what more is needed to establish that Keith is the leader of the band, and, moreover, why would that not be significant? Bill Wyman, as related in a Guitar Player Magazine interview, has made the exact same claim after doing an analysis of The Stones sound - in trying to figure out what was so different about it - with Billy Preston. Frankly, I'm missing what could be controversial. The citation supports again and again what was removed. The entry unfortunately leaves the impression that Keith is just another guitar player happy to rhythym, which is pretty unremarkable, and Keith is not an unremarkable guitarist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.127.187 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

... nothing was removed - i changed your edits into complete sentences and shifted them to a different position. on stage, the Rolling Stones currently rely on Chuck Leavell to count in most numbers, and Keith is still a 100% remarkable guitarist. who the band follows on stage is not crucial to that.

please reread WP:NPOV. and please realize that a combative approach to other editors is not okay. i am not fighting with you; i am interested in the readability and accuracy of the article. your additions didn't read well, so they got edited. Sssoul (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Sssoul's re-working of the awkward content. The wording follows the refs and remains "un-peacocked" which is how it all started out back when mr anon started fluffung the section up. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Pensive Winos

Would anyone here think that an attempt should at least be made to actually start an article on the X-Pensive Winos, or is that a bit hasty, with more to fit on Keith Richards' article?--leahtwosaints (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

to me the incompleteness of this article doesn't have any bearing on any other article - if you feel up to launching an article on the Winos, go for it! Sssoul (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gosh Sssoul, if I'd only seen this earlier. I got wrapped up in securing photos that are difficult to find, and stretched myself too thin. Ah, well. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Two foolish

1. Am I the only one who thinks that an awful lot from this talk page should be archived since many of the discussions are ancient and no longer issues anymore?2. Has anyone checked the photos-- from Wikimedia Commons -or even looked at all the other Keith Richards articles (from the other language version Wikipedias) for BY-SA or CC-BY-SA photos that best represent how he has appeared at various points in his life? Currently, there is little from his earlier years, and the other pictures from the most recent decades are too big in size, IMHO. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

sure, go ahead and archive the obsolete discussions, if you feel moved to do so! part of what you'll be archiving is a suggestion that we might use this shot (maybe with some discreet cropping, if that's allowed). Sssoul (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the photo in the article, Sssoul? But please don't replace the photo in the Infobox as that's a good one of him--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Jeanne, I agree that the photo in the infobox is best representative of all phases of Keith's career, w/ guitar, & his rebel bad-boy image that so many fans associate with him, and should stay. Normally, WP practice is to add the most recent dated shot in the infobox, but it's not written in stone and many FA articles do it. (I upload photos for use in the Wikipedia- the newest one of Keith and all of the Mick Taylor, Lisa Fischer, and Bernard Fowler photos are a small number of them) However, I am famously not good with archiving but would trust you, Sssoul, or another dedicated editor here to make decisions regarding what to archive and what is appropriate. I think that too many of the suggestions and questions I find in the Stones' articles are from 2005-2007! Pick your own posts to remain, but let's just clear the lot of them from over a year ago and be done with it. If the points are that important, they will surely reappear.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

okay, i've archived everything prior to 2009 - hope that helps! Sssoul (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead vocals section

I can't help wondering if there is a better way to handle the section re: the songs on which Richards has assumed the lead vocalist position. Would it not be possible to incorporate the songs and why he chose to sing lead on them, in the text? There must be a reason, with Jagger who doesn't routinely use any instrument in concert other than a harmonica or percussive instrument (tambourine, maracas, etc). What about the section where he sings backing vocals expanded to a couple of paragraphs, talk about first, why and when he did act as lead vocalist, and then as backing vocalist, and if possible, put some of the songs in the main bulk of the text, so they won't need mentioning a second time later. The only other alternative I can think of would be to begin a side page discussing this, but I don't see the merit in doing that. However, listing each song where he sang lead seems bulky and not quite right the way it is now.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Leahtwosaints, if you have good sources for the "why" question i'd love to be directed to them. i don't know of much along those lines; and most of what i know of pretty much boils down to "i wrote it" (but since he's also written miles of numbers for Jagger to sing that doesn't actually explain anything).

meanwhile, i don't follow your statement about Jagger not playing instruments. he also plays guitar quite regularly in concert - has done since 1975 - but i'm not sure how that's related to Keith's role as a vocalist. could you elaborate a little on what you mean? thanks Sssoul (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I've been watching a different set of Stones videos than you have Sssoul, cause I really don't see Jagger that much on an instrument in concert. But aside from that, to answer, of course off the top of my head at ah, 4:19 AM, I don't obviously have references but I think what I meant was that Jagger is who the band generally (can we agree on that word?) depend upon to be frontman in the band. I'd assume that, with the many books written about the Stones (some by themselves) and the Jagger/Richards songwriting team, there would be some references as to why Keith sang more (or less) at differing times in the Stones' career. (At a Gram Parsons tribute concert a couple years ago, his voice was terribly hoarse which he put down to smoking too much.) My guess is that some songs he sings because he wrote them. But I fear that a list like that below the main text of the article could end up producing a trivia situation. I only had a suggestion; it isn't that I have the answers. That's why I (thought) I put it in the form of a question. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry if i somehow ruffled you, Leahtwosaints - it's not all my intention. i just honestly didn't understand what you're asking (?) about Mick's playing - i still don't, so i hope someone else can respond to that part.

Keith started taking at least two lead-vocal turns per show in 1989 (from 1972 to 82 he normally had one, and before 1972 he normally only sang backup/harmony). probably the increase in his LV duties in 1989 was related to his experience fronting the X-Pensive Winos (and co-fronting the New Barbarians in 1979), but what other factors were involved is not something i've ever seen a reliable source go into. maybe Keith's forthcoming autobiography will provide some insight.

re his choice of numbers to sing: yes, it's generally assumed that the songs Keith sings (apart from covers) are ones he wrote - but since he's also written miles of songs that Jagger sings, that's only a partial "explanation". again maybe Keith's autobiography will provide more insight, but i haven't seen anything but a toss-off sentence or two here and there about how these things come about. it's like other details of the inner workings of the Jagger/Richards collaboration - they really haven't been very forthcoming about it, over the decades; and outsiders' speculation isn't very helpful. but you might find this page interesting: http://www.timeisonourside.com/songwriting.html

meanwhile, i think the list of songs he's sung lead on is informative for people who don't know; and yeah, his singing voice has acquired texture over the decades. i hesitate to put a youtube link even on a talk page, but recommend doing a youtube search for "Keith Richards Nora Jones Love Hurts" as an example of his singing at that Gram Parsons tribute gig. Sssoul (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Last time. Sigh. Did you read my comment on Richard's voice being hoarse at a Gram Parsons tribute concert above? That is the concert which my sister attended, that was partially uploaded to video with Norah Jones. The very same one. Anyway, my whole intent is just to prevent a trivia fiasco, since there is so much to Keith Richards' career. It is the reason at any time on any article I would encourage people to try to incorporate information into text rather than making lists. That's it. No ruffled personal feathers on my part, anyway. I was just hoping that the page becomes more fluid. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

smile: yes, i read your comment - that's why i pointed out the youtube clip: perceived hoarseness seems to be a subjective POV. meanwhile: yes, if a reliable source is published with citeable insights about the evolution of Keith's role as a lead singer, it will be good to expand that section, but right now i don't see any way to do that without indulging in WP:OR. Sssoul (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

eliminating duplicate information

now that someone's launched a more detailed "gear" section (bravo!), we have to decide how to deal with the duplication of information. the "guitar playing" section already includes this paragraph:

Richards – who owns over 1000 guitars, some of which he has not played but was simply given – is often associated with the Fender Telecaster, particularly with two 1950s Telecasters outfitted with Gibson PAF humbucker pickups in the neck position.[ref] Also notable was the 1959 Bigsby-equipped sunburst Les Paul that he acquired in 1964, which was the first "star owned" Les Paul in Britain.[ref] Since 1997 a Bigsby-equipped ebony Gibson ES-355 has served as one of his main stage guitars.[ref] Even though Richards has used many different guitar models, in a 1986 Guitar World interview he joked that no matter what model he plays, "give me five minutes and I'll make 'em all sound the same."[ref]

a lot of that is now duplicated in the new "equipment section". i'm not sure how we should deal with this:

• should we just jettison the paragraph above from the "Guitar playing" section? i think that section would read all right without it.
• or should keep the above paragraph in the "guitar playing" section and make the new detailed equipment section a separate article, with "see also" hatnote in the "guitar playing" section?
• or maybe other editors envision other ways to deal with it? Sssoul (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

update: i've just reverted a transplant of the paragraph on effects to the new "equipment" section, because i think we need to discuss these changes first, but in fact that might indeed work well if the "Richards – who owns over 1000 guitars" paragraph is also eliminated from the guitar-playing section. that would leave the "Guitar playing" section like this:

Richards's guitar playing shows his fascination with chords and rhythm; he conspicuously avoids flamboyant virtuosity, which he calls "the fastest-gun-in-the-west sort of thing".[ref]

Chuck Berry has been a constant inspiration for Richards. His first band Little Boy Blue and the Blue Boys played many Berry numbers,[ref] and Jagger and Richards were largely responsible for bringing Berry and Bo Diddley covers into The Rolling Stones' early repertoire. Jimmy Reed and Muddy Waters records were another early source of inspiration, and the basis for the style of interwoven lead and rhythm guitar that Richards developed with Brian Jones.[ref] In the late 1960s, Brian Jones's declining interest in guitar left Richards to record all of the guitar parts on many tracks, including slide guitar, which had been Jones's speciality in the band's early years. Jones's replacement guitarist Mick Taylor worked with The Rolling Stones from 1969 to 1974, and Taylor's virtuosity at lead guitar led to a much more pronounced separation between lead and rhythm guitar roles, notably onstage.[ref] In 1975 Taylor was replaced by Ronnie Wood, marking a return to the style of guitar interplay that he and Richards call "the ancient art of weaving".[ref]

During the 1967/68 break in the Rolling Stones' touring, Richards began experimenting with open tunings. These tunings were most commonly used for slide guitar, but Richards explored their use in rhythm playing, developing an innovative and distinctive style of syncopated and ringing I-IV chording that can be heard on "Street Fighting Man" and "Start Me Up".[ref] Although he also frequently uses standard tuning, he particularly favours a five-string variant of open G tuning (borrowed from Don Everly of the Everly Brothers), using GDGBD unencumbered by a low 6th string; several of his Telecasters are tuned this way, and this tuning is prominent on numerous Rolling Stones tracks, including "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar" and "Start Me Up".[ref]

Richards considers acoustic guitar to be the basis for his playing,[ref] and has said: "Every guitar player should play acoustic at home. No matter what else you do, if you don't keep up your acoustic work you're never going to get the full potential out of an electric, because you lose that touch."[ref] Richards's acoustic guitar is featured on tracks throughout the Rolling Stones' career, including hits like "Not Fade Away", "Brown Sugar", "Beast of Burden" and "Almost Hear You Sigh". All the guitars on the studio version of "Street Fighting Man" are Richards on acoustic, distorted by overloading a small cassette recorder microphone, a technique also used on "Jumping Jack Flash".[ref]

Richards has described his role in the Rolling Stones as "oiling the machinery".[ref] Ian Stewart called him the musical leader of the Rolling Stones, and both Bill Wyman and Ronnie Wood have noted that while other rock & roll bands follow the drummer's timing, the Rolling Stones follow Richards.[34] "I'm not putting down Charlie in any way for doing this," Wyman stated in 1978, "but onstage you have to follow Keith. You have no way of not following him."[ref]

does that read all right to people?

or do people prefer making the expanded gear section into a separate article? the article is still lacking about 40 years of Keith's biography, and maybe it'll seem unbalanced to "ordinary readers" if there's a great big detailed equipment section instead of a separate article for the guitar-spotters among us.

it would be excellent to hear what other editors think. Sssoul (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the conspicuous lack of any post-1965 biography. I would suggest that we try and tackle that as well as the gear issue.Alex MacPherson (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

... right, so does the edit of the "Guitar playing" section proposed above read all right to people?

is that edit, plus the new expanded "Musical equipment" section, the way we want to go?

or should we keep the "Guitar playing" section the way it is now, and make the expanded gear section a separate article? Sssoul (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the precedent has been set that equipment sections ought to be anecdotal to biographical information in the primary article. Despite the conspicuous lack of biographical info here, I don't think it's necessarty to create an entirely new article. As for guitar playing, I think anything related to his playing style - for instance, his use of open-G tuning, and his similarity to Chuck Berry - ought to remain in the guitar playing section. So long as the equipment section doesn't presume to list anything except the gear he has used, I think the overlap will disappear with a good re-write of the guitar playing section.Alex MacPherson (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

okay, since there seem to be no objections to the proposed edit of the "Guitar playing" section i went ahead and carried that out. i hope it looks/reads okay now ... but would the "Musical equipment" section be happier if it were moved down below the "persona" and "recent news" sections? with so many decades of biography missing it's hard to structure the article sensibly, but ... ?

meanwhile, thank you, Heteren, for the added details - it's good to see your typeface around here! i've added some "citation needed" tags to a few of the additions, not because there's any doubt about them but because in-line citations are needed; i can provide some of the necessary refs myself when i have a bit more time. i've also eliminated a few bits that seemed extraneous to this article - i hope you see why, but of course we can discuss it here on the talk page if necessary. thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks really good Sssoul. Now that it's properly structured, future additions should be easy. All that remains is forty-odd years of biography. I'm not sure if I'm up to the task. Considering my love of KR, there's no way I could be entirely objective, and moreover, I simply haven't got the stamina to write a massive piece at this particular time.Alex MacPherson (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Brief notes

I cannot count the number of people who have contributed to this article. There are already several archives of discussions about this article, and together with this page they demonstrate how many people have contributed to this article. I am not an editor, only some one who uses Wikipedia from time to time. I just wanted to pass this note of appreciation to you all for the work and time you have put in to make this article what it is today. Thank you. appreciate = to be grateful for (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to gloss over the significant fact that throughout the 60's and beyond, the last name Richard was almost universally used. I believe it to have been an omission on the part of Decca Records, the Stones' label at the time, but I am not enough of an authority to state this with conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.183.6 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Economics

Is this in jest or did Keith really studied doctorate in Economics?

http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-do-keith-richards-of-rolling.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bismark.a (talk • contribs) 06:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it was Mick Jagger who studied at the London School of Economics, hoping to eventually enter politics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What Keith says in Life

It's great that someone added something from the book (it's not a short book). But, Keith says lots of things about Mick, many of them complimentary, and has more than one relationship go sour. I think it's very much pulled out of context here, and would be best to go back, chronologically and add the new information in segments, regarding Mick (and a whole lot of other things). Keith also uses other sources besides himself in the book, with footnotes. All of those sources bring way more information to light about Keith, so major revision of this article is needed- not just a gossipy edition about him think Mick "unbearable." Keith says a few choice things about himself and everybody else, as well.--LeValley 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, either the editor or AP has it wrong. Keith does not say Mick is unbearable. He says that Mick is becoming unbearable at a certain point (first page Chapter 12), and then details in that chapter the main reasons he believes Mick stops short of becoming completely unbearable and at the end of the chapter, Mick is no longer so unbearable (although they still barely speak to each other). For most of the book, Mick is not unbearable, it's just a "two-alpha" thing (direct quote).LeValley 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

SO funny, and possiblly useful

I found a couple of very funny-- but informative clips of TV-- shows both with Richards beinng interviewd and a commentary that I found soooo funny. This interview was on The Jimmy Fallon Show. Here is Fallon interviewing Keith Richards, very informative funnier and with more depth than most interviews I've seen anywhere: [1]

And on the The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, there's a great monologe that briefly

mentions the supposed incident with him "snorting" a few of his dad... Also, there's discussion about the snorting incident from Disney, who produced all of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Keith Richards is in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End in which Richards has a cameo appearance, playing the father of Johnny Depp: [2] If not useful, hopefully you'll all find both You Tube interviews, etc. entertaing! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos issue

The photos continue to be improperly sized and placed. Ideally, they should illuminate the text, but at the very least, they shouldn't take the reader's attention from what is being said! I uploaded Richards' photos from the earlier years; please use some care with them. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not intending to step on toes, so...

I really think there should be more mention of musical influences for Richards. I uploaded a photo from a few months ago to Commons of Richards performing in tribute for Chuck Berry at a 2012 award ceremony. It is here: [3] alongside Elvis Costello at the JFK Library. What do others think? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would look fine in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Which "Toronto Hotel"

Why hide the fact that Richards was arrested at the Harbour Castle hotel in Toronto? It's kinda dumb to say, "a Toronto hotel" and put a picture on the page titled "Toronto hotel" when it was obviously the Harbour Castle and is referenced as such in many, many places (including in the file name of the photograph). Did the people who own or manage the Harbour Castle delete the hotel name out of a dislike for bad publicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.141.47 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think if anything they would WANT people to know that's where Keith Richards stayed and got into trouble... Makes me want to visit it... Chafinsky (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the article: "Richards's mother bought him his first guitar, and he played at home recording Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and others"

"played at home recording"? Does that mean he played along with recordings? Listened to them? Actually recorded himself? Seems like a word is missing...70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)TF

perhaps it ought to be "dabbled in home recording" for clarity --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a comma between home and recording. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Founding member vs founder member

The English use "founding member" A Google for "founding member" Guardina UK" gets 2.5 million results while (whilst, if you must) "founder member" Guardian UK gets 1.5 million results. Even though this metric overwhelmingly favors/favours "founding member", if the results were reversed to even to a more exaggerated and extreme extent, WP preference for commonality would prevail. Per WP MOS Guidelines: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.107.187 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2013‎ (UTC)

There is more to the issue than Google hits of webpages. We are not trying to figure whether to exclude the phrase "founder member" from all of Wikipedia because "founding member" is also used. There is plenty of room for variation in exactly the manner we already use for dates and spelling. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bink wholly ignored issue of commonality. In other words, missed the main point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.107.187 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if 'founder' were used more in the UK, both terms are valid UK English so the one that makes the sentence flow the best should be used. Using 'founding' breaks up the unintentional rhyming and keeps it from sounding like a Dr. Seuss poem. sing-ER, songwrit-ER, and a found-ER memb-ER is a very awkward sentence to open a wiki article in my opinion. Whereas "singer, songwriter, and founding member" flows quite well by comparison. Chafinsky (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been demonstrated any compelling argument behind changing it to 'founder'. I say it should be reverted to how it has been as 'founding' for the time being. Chafinsky (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have been "founding" for quite a while. If that's not incorrect, let's leave it that way. I checked the phrasing for December 31 of 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and found "founding" in all cases. The MOS:COMMONALITY argument also seems to favour "founding". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It was "founder" until user Chafinski changed it in March 2012, citing incorrect grammar, not WP:COMMONALITY, as his reason. It's gone back and forth several times in my 1 1/2 year absense from Wikipedia (usually Americans claiming grammatical error), but "founder" is the correct term, and WP:COMMONALITY is not the proper guideline this case. Radiopathy •talk• 12:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't WP:COMMONALITY the proper guideline here? To me it seems directly relevant, regardless of whether it was mentioned in a particular edit in March 2012. Perhaps Chafinski wasn't aware of that guideline at the time. Anyhow, whatever happened in March 2012, the word seems to have been "founding" on December 31 of each of the three years before that date – and possibly more, since I didn't look farther back – and on December 31 of each of the two years after that date. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TIES applies here. If the topic weren't so unambiguously British, MOS:COMMONALITY could be appropriate. And yes, I know the Guardian uses "founding"; they use the month/day/year style of dates as well, but that shouldn't influence a Wikpedia article. Radiopathy •talk• 16:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This same debate is going on at Mick Jagger, and here's what I posted there:

To a significant percentage of readers, colour, ageing,disorientated and aluminium read wrong or at best awkwardly. Those spellings, amongst others, are constantly being "corrected" by editors from other English speaking countries (mostly America, it seems). MOS:TIES acknowledges and respects the differences in English around the world, and by rights, "founder member" should remain.

Do a Wikipedia search for "founder member" and see how many articles about football (soccer) clubs and lesser-known British musicians use the term - and since fewer people from other countries have much of an interest in those articles, the term "founder member" is left unmolested, without any debate.

Radiopathy •talk• 00:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Syd Barrett and John Lennon also use 'founder member'. I'm ok with keeping it consistent with that.Chafinsky (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Keef

How can Richards' nickname "Keef," which dates back to at least 1962 and was derived from "Cousin Beef" according to Richards, be Estuary English, a newly observed variety of English in 1984?

More important, why do we have something in the lead that isn't even discussed, let alone well-sourced, in the article text. See WP:LEAD. Removed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Keith Richards's original name (plus the possessive configuration question)

This is a long Wikipedia entry that I've not yet comprehensively read, but my overview of it couldn't find any reference--particularly in the masthead portion which usually includes Wikipedia birth names!--to the well-known fact that he was originally known as "Keith Richard". I'm betting that this (apparent) non-inclusion is due to it perhaps not being his original legal name, but there's little doubt he was known by that early on. Heck, just consult the early RS album covers and label credits! But even if it was never formal, it still was widely used, by others and (presumably) Richard(s) himself. So shouldn't it be addressed herein? Thanks in advance for your clarification! Oh, and regarding the style of possessive for names ending in S, I've always followed the lead of Newsweek back in the '60s, who adopted the much-less-confusing (to the eyes AND the mind) style of Richards's, not Richards', with the possessive of, say, Mr. and Mrs. Richards being configured as the Richardses' [signed] FLORDIA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.22.25 (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC) his legal name was Keith Richard, he had his name legally changed to Keith Richards somewhere around the 1980 timeframe, I think it was the late 70s, but I remember it happening, not the exact date - this is a big error on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.232.193 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Keith was born Keith Richards. He was however billed as Keith Richard for at least the first 14 years of the Stones’ existence. (The original “s” was already gone with the band’s 1963 breakthrough and didn’t reappear until 1978’s “Some Girls” album.) Since then he's used his original name. The usual explanation for the loss of the 's' was that it was a suggestion from the Stones' then manager to try and exploit the assocation with the name of Cliff Richard, a British pop singer who at that time was (and still is) a hugely successful star. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.61.36 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Overall tone

I am a Stones fan, and like Keith Richards's style, but this article seems like a fan page in a teeny bopper magazine. Who cares if a pop magazine like Rolling Stone says he's the fourth best guitarist in history? That is a ridiculous claim. They mean he is one of the best known and most popular. There are numerous other things like that. Also, how is it relevant that two of his grandparents were socialists? That is no more relevant than saying that his uncle liked strawberry jam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.126.205 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm, strawberry jam. Maybe that should be added then, it cannot be much worse than that idiotic Shepherd's Pie recipe in Life.--Mike Russell 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Year that Keith Richards was expelled from Dartford Technical College

I've found a conflict between two sources. In Bent Rej's book The Rolling Stones: in the beginning (2006), on page 263, he wrote

By 1959 Keith was frequently playing truant from school ... In April 1960, Keith was asked to leave Dartford Technical College because of his truancy. Luckily for Keith, the headmaster enrolled him into Sidcup Art School where he took a course in advertising and met Dick Taylor.

Although I don't have access to Keith Richards: The Beginning by Victor Bockris (2003) I found sample pages from the book with a Google search. On page 30 Bockris wrote:

By 1959 Keith was going out of his mind at Dartford Tech. In one final act of disobedience, half an hour before the end of school on the final day of his fourth year, he went over the wall with some mates, hopped onto a motorcycle, and took off "in search of chicks!" He didn't find any. What he did find was a very irate headmaster greeting him with the school's final condemnation: That's it, you're expelled!

However, Keith was lucky. Once he got over Keith's act of defiance, he had to admit that Richards's drawings showed talent and arranged for Keith to get a place in that nearby citadel of learning, Sidcup Art College, situated between Dartford and London. As Keith remembered it, "When I went to art school in 1959, people were just starting to grow their hair and loosen up.

I'm not sure how to resolve this. One question for any English editors reading this: in what month does the English school year normally end? Maybe Rej knew, or thought he knew, it ended in April and therefore changed the year of Richards' expulsion from 1959 to 1960, or maybe he had some other source of information. Does anyone have a third book which could break the tie? For now I'm going to assume that Bockris's book, which was written as a biography, is likely to be more carefully researched than Rej's, which is mainly a collection of photographs, so I've reverted the year back to 1959. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Add vocals as an instrument

Apparently I need to make a discussion for this. It even states that he sings lead vocals on some tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.255.26 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. AddingInstruments (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The field is for what they are primarily known for. I'd support putting in vocals because he sings on his solo albums as well. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Richards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301002442/http://music.cbc.ca/#!/blogs/2013/6/Rear-view-Mirror-Who-was-Suzanne-and-why-did-Leonard-Cohen-make-her-famous to http://music.cbc.ca/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://search.tennessean.com/sp?aff=1100&skin=100&keywords=Keith+Richards&x=4&y=15
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fretbase.com/blog/2009/08/time-magazine-picks-the-10-best-electric-guitar-players-including-yngwie/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keith Richards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708151836/http://www.chrisspedding.com/jour/kr.htm to http://www.chrisspedding.com/jour/kr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208180150/http://www.uberproaudio.com/content/view/121/38 to http://www.uberproaudio.com/content/view/121/38/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keith Richards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720090826/http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/anything-goes-keith-richards-and-patti-hansen/ to http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/anything-goes-keith-richards-and-patti-hansen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115035902/http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/soldonsong/songlibrary/indepth/satisfaction.shtml to http://members.tripod.com/blue_lena/guitar2.htmlt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Smash potato

Hello Redrkr, I was wondering why you reverted the spelling/typo correction that an IP made to the article? They just corrected "smash potato" to "mashed potato." (IP edit, your edit). I would just revert the revert as it is correct as far as I can tell, but am genuinely wondering what your reasoning for the revert was (incase I missed something). --All the best, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I assumed they were changing a quote. The quote is actually "spuds". On further review, the move to "mashed" is fine. Though someone else should probably judge the relevance of the entire entry. ( Redrkr (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC) )

I agree with you on that point. Will probably come up in the GA review (if it isn't removed before hand). It doesn't really matter to me whether or not that sentence is included, I was just curious why the typo fix was reverted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Keith-Richards and guitar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• The nominator withdrew the deletion request on 14 June 2018, as noted on the nomination page.Twistlethrop (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Guitar (butterscotch Telecaster)

This guitar was gifted by Eric Clapton. Fenderplecre (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support this Fenderplecre? It can't be included otherwise. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Related move discussion

I've started a move discussion concerning whether the article about American college basketball coach Keith Richard should be moved to Keith Richard (basketball) so that "Keith Richard" redirects to the more famous Stones guitarist. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

“Overloaded to a cassette recorder...”

Please explain in detail what this means. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:F8A2:94BF:7DF8:FD4C (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Keith Richards has been said to be a co-founder of the Rolling Stones, but that isn’t true. Brian Jones founded the Stones. 24.80.84.205 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

Keith Richards, sometimes referred to as Keith Richard, ... 86.41.198.149 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamietw (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Links to related articles should be put into the 'See also' section

In my opinion, related links should be put into the 'See also' section as in my opinion it is strange to have an empty 'See also' section in the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Instruments

Richards is known for singing and also playing bass as well as guitar and even possibly keyboards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80s Sam (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead seems super light to me and almost reads like a bunch of bullet points. Like Mick has "His songwriting partnership with Keith Richards is one of the most successful in history" but why's that not here? Where's the mention of his drug problems (which he had a lot of) or personal relationships? Just seems to me like it could be significantly better, especially at 114k bytes. – zmbro _(talk) 02:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, Zmbro. I'm wrestling with that lede and thinking of how to flesh it out; if you have any ideas, I am definitely open to them (and invite edits). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that he sang lead on a bunch of Stones songs and name a few. I'd go for "Happy", "Before They Make Me Run", and maybe a few other important ones. – zmbro _(talk) 13:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Added. Do you happen to know offhand of a source that covers the fact he typically sings a couple songs a night? It is extremely evident if you look at setlists, but still. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked and I found right off the bat haha. [4] --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. Might be able to find something on Rock's Backpages. – zmbro _(talk) 16:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: We're in luck. Found it in the aforementioned link above and was actually already covered (and sourced) in Keith Richards#Vocals and other instruments. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead already looks 10x better. Although there's a direct quote that I would reword or that needs to be sourced. Also, he's considered one of the greatest guitarists of all time right? Besides a mention from RS where's that at? – zmbro _(talk) 16:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Added and the direct quote removed. Good ideas! Any other sections you find especially lacking? I would love to take this up to FA, perhaps in 2022 (my plate is already full for 2021, considering how it takes months to get articles through haha). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Just doing a quick run-through the entire "Lead vocals on Rolling Stones tracks" section is unsourced and I doubt FAC reviewers would want to see in bulleted lists. Same for equipment, think that should be in prose. Some of his filmography is unsourced and the entire "Public image and personal life" section is sourced differently than the rest of the article. Imo everything should be converted to sfn. That's a pretty good start. – zmbro _(talk) 16:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Thank you for this! I have put Rolling Stones Gear book on hold at the library and shall delve into that for this. I've converted all the books to sfn, fixed the different sourcing issue and, for now at least, turned the gear into a table; I may just split it off to Instruments played by the Rolling Stones#Keith Richards though and use Template:Main here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed the "Lead vocals on Rolling Stones tracks" section and added a bit more to Keith Richards#Vocals and other instruments to compensate somewhat. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

One other thing. Entire article is overlinked (Oldham is literally linked like six times). Install this script to help you see them. I'd use the visual editor to remove them. – zmbro _(talk) 00:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Only Lead Vocalist other than Mick..." Wrong.

"Richards is the only band member of the Stones, aside from Jagger, to ever share or have a lead vocal role in concert and on official releases." On record, Bill Wyman sang "In Another Land". Sojambi Pinola (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Add Keith Richards signature somewhere. I see most rock musicians can have their signature on their pages but not Keith. It's a very simple change. Copira (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That image is a copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Can a citation mentioning rhythm & blues as genre be located?

Genre mentions rhythm & blues, uncertain if it comes from recognitions or influences. I did a quick search for an article pointing at work as being R&B & didn't locate anything. eARTspI . TOK . 3bs 17:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

This article makes the following childishly exaggerated and quite undocumented claim: "Richards is widely considered one of the greatest guitarists of all time." Such a claim either should be removed completely or at the very least moderated by the word 'pop' or 'rock' by way of identifying the KIND of guitar Richards plays. He's not a classical guitarist nor a jazz guitarist. Unless I see some evidence to the effect that a fair representative sample from these branches of guitar consent to Richards being one of their greatest, the claim is quite without substance - rather more like an expression of the writer's enthusiasm than anything that can be trusted.

Richards is possibly one of the greater rock guitarists of his time. 68.146.136.163 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm currently responding to this edit request. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 15:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 15:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Keith Richards as an Internet meme

I'm not sure where it fits in the article, but it is perhaps notable that Keith has become an Internet meme. Due to his age (or rather, his old looks) and his apparent ability to survive misadventures, there are many memes which joke around the theme that Kieth is hundreds or thousands of years old, and possibly immortal. Perhaps some younger people might know him more from the meme than from his music career. The sources I found today on the topic aren't great, but it is nonetheless a thing. "It's a long running joke that Keith is immortal." 2406:3003:207B:2F9:91C7:44B6:207F:4733 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Protection necessary?

I noticed this page has been protected since May 2022, according to this edit and this talk page. While protecting the page is understandable, it has been over 7 months, so perhaps protection is no longer needed at this time? 69.245.96.48 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Keith is definitely a target of repeated death hoaxes. I personally believe this indefinite protection most likely justified, but you could appeal to lower it at WP:RFPP. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Dead source

Bockris, Victor (2003) is now a 404 deadlink. It's used as a source 17 times. 86.187.224.133 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Bass

Richards has played bass on many stones recordings as well as with the dirty Mac and on some guest appearances, could this be considered a primary instrument. 80s Sam (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

Keith Richards has six grandchildren, three from his son Marlon, two from his daughter Angela, and one from his daughter Alexandra. 82.14.246.184 (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

”[B]y the early 1970s he had fully asserted his given name”, should read: “by the early 1970s he had fully asserted his birth name” (Richards being his surname, not his given name). 95.149.88.180 (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done, but "family name". Maproom (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction should state that Richards has appeared in two Pirates of the Caribbean movies, not three

"He also appeared in three Pirates of the Caribbean films as Captain Teague, father of Jack Sparrow, whose look and characterisation was inspired by Richards himself."

This is untrue. Captain Teague was portrayed by Alexander Scheer in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. AndrewBridgeman (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Pirates information

https://ew.com/article/2004/11/12/keith-richards-father-figure-week/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/keith-richards-to-play-pirate-pop/

If I may offer some more reliable sources. Keith Richards was rumored for a role as Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow's dad in POTC since 2004, and later reported in 2006 in at least one article by CBS. I'd add these myself, but you know, protected. This is a request in addition to the incorrection to "appeared in three films" comment in the article's introduction, as stated above, which was made even with the page protected. 147.124.239.44 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it.★Trekker (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war over the lead

This cordially delivered message to Flight Time’s talk page is now deleted, but,hopefully, still given consideration is presented here to open a dialogue for reverts completely unaccounted for.

Hello. No idea why you reverted and why you might think , among other things, such as fannish POV, think what songs keith sang live are lead worth, you’re invited and encouraged to discuss on the talk page so your reverts is better understood and comity is preserved. This is how is it preferably should not fo: you revert a second time, then I do. At that point a 3rd revert is edit warring. Let’s avoid that and presume good faith and no desire by either party to take ownership. 5ive9teen (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 5ive9teen (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in my first of two reverts your changes are not an improvement, another long time editor feels the same. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What is not an improvement? 5ive9teen (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edits did not make the article better. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is unresponsive by any standard, So again, what is objected to, meaning, as was clearly implied, specifically. I don’t like it and will not say why is insufficient. We can continue this way, but recalcitrance will not favor a fannish lead with pov. Refusing to engage in dialogue at all is not indicative of good faith. A second revert obliges substantive discussion, not curt rationals, as those given so far have been, that are too broad and vague to be seen as substantive. When WP policies are referred to in the whole, this is also avoidant when the relevant aspects of the policy are can be difficult, if not impossible to discern. 5ive9teen (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Tit for Tat is accomplishing nothing, guys. I'm not going to take sides here because you're both right and you're both wrong, in some ways. Try to remain collegial, explain your edits and reverts fully enough that an observer understands, leave notes up for a bit rather than archiving or deleting, sign your posts, etc. etc. Please. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Noted ~~~~ 5ive9teen (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the older version like FlightTime.★Trekker (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Would be helpful to know why. 5ive9teen (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The previous version includes more worthwhile information. Your shorter version improves nothing.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This lacks specicifity 5ive9teen (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to specify, three other editors have expressed that the more detailed version that includes more information is preferable.★Trekker (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if more information is in the lead which now has fannish pov.

5ive9teen (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@5ive9teen: Some advise, drop the stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

this is neither helpful or collegial. To be frank, a simple shut up could not be more discourteous. Again, to have a more broad adoption of comity, let’s presume good faith and attempt to be receptive to other views and less categorically dismissive.

5ive9teen (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

5ive9teen, it doesn't read fannish pov to me. It's pretty much factual (the principal exception being this: After graduating, Richards befriended Jagger, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Ian Stewart and Brian Jones and joined the Rolling Stones). There are a couple of minor`stylistic infelicities, but with those ironed out, I think it would make a good informative lead. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Befriended Bill Wyman is at issue

5ive9teen (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Not only that, though. It reads as though put together by someone who doesn't know the chronology of the Stones' formation. (Also, I'm not so sure Keith graduated from Sidcup, but that may be just my ignorance.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point and in need of attention, as are other passages

5ive9teen (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggested lead opening

Below in italics is a suggested lead opening which excises noting mentioned in the current lead while adding pertinent and lead appropriate info with concision. Civil and considerate comments/suggestions are most welcome

A few points:

It adds that Keith is a best selling author, an achievement very much much worthy for the lead

The rewrite regarding songwriting avoids the triumphant and non-encyclopedic tone of “one of the most successful in history”. Specifying over 20 No1 Hits in the US and UK says is a more factual way better suitably without any diminishment

Suggested opening

Keith Richards (born 18 December 1943) is an English musician, songwriter, lead and backing vocalist, record producer, as well as occasional best selling memorialist. He is primarily associated with his founding and uninterrupted membership in the Rolling Stones, joining in 1962 as second guitarist. With the Rolling Stones’ founding lead singer Mick Jagger they form the songwriting partnership Jagger-Richards, which has written over 20 top ten hits in the US and England

Current opening

Keith Richards (born 18 December 1943) is an English musician, songwriter, singer and record producer who is an original member, guitarist, secondary vocalist, and co-principal songwriter of the Rolling Stones. His songwriting partnership with the band's lead vocalist Mick Jagger is one of the most successful in history His career spans over six decades… 5ive9teen (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a few notes.

• Keith's listed as co-author of Life, but while presumably not a word is in there that he didn't want to be there, in a starkly frank assessment, he's really more the totally involved editor of Fox's text. It can certainly be argued that Fox would've had no text without Keith's input to begin with though, so co-author can be claimed with some legitimacy. Memorialist? Well, yes, but it seems a stretch to have that in the lead. Secondarily, how does occasional work there?

• I see what you mean by “one of the most successful in history” seeming, possibly, a bit fannish. But it's also an historical fact, well within the point of an encyclopedia. It doesn't absolutely need to be there, though, and can be avoided, as you suggest, by weaving in facts of record sales (see below).

• Secondary vocalist is actually a nicely succinct way to express accurately his vocal contribution to the Stones' catalog and live gigs.

• over 20 top ten hits in the US and England Definitely chase down the actual number. over and his cousin more than are to be avoided whenever possible with small numbers (21 is over/more than 20; so are 26, 41...183...). I don't think I've ever seen a top ten for England; are you sure the count you're referring to isn't for the U.K.? (And top ten is quite different in meaning from no. 1.) Perhaps a better indicator of their success (and endurance) is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_200#Most_top-10_albums

All things considered, seems to me that a careful minimalist editing of the current text might be best. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a not an Art of the Deal fabrication with minimal distant involvement from the principle. According to his co-author Fox the book’s text is from recordings with Keith, who is very well read, in particulate in regards to history. The writing is as he spoke. Anyone having seen or read some of his interviews would recognize his eloquent, salty voice in his books. There are two books btw. Fox did say Keith was a surprisingly good editor. When he saw the proposed title My Life, he said drop the My. His other book is a childhood memoir of him and his grandfather. Also a worthwhile read. Moreover he has very reliable recollection. If we can’t say Keith is a best selling memoirist, then we have to to deny the same to Grant, because Mark Twain. Favorable regiews of the book, e.g. the NYRB and the New Yorker have not diminished Keith as a writer. Unlike Dylan he won’t get a Nobel, but that’s not the standard here, is it? 5ive9teen (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"This is a not an Art of the Deal fabrication with minimal distant involvement from the principle." In no way did I imply that it was. Considering the book's production -- endless interviews, Fox produces text, they work on the final product from that -- "co-author can be claimed with some legitimacy". That's not the issue. The issue is placement in the article. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Keith as a Writer

There are no sources of note or prestige which say, and they are to be required to maintain the case, that Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard to give weight to excluding his literary excursions from the lead. The exact opposite is shown as follows.

There are, AFAIK, no sources saying Life is not primarily Keith’s creation. It was a best seller and very well received. He also wrote a childhood memoir well received. He is called a writer by the NYTs. Mr. Richards, now 66, writes with uncommon candor and immediacy. He's decided that he's going to tell it as he remembers it, and helped along with notebooks, letters and a diary he once kept, he remembers almost everything.

From elsewhere: The audiobook Life won two prestigious Audie Awards for 2010—Audiobook of the Year and Best Biography/Memoir. Additionally, the audiobook Life was voted Amazon's No. 1 Audiobook of the Year for 2010. Life received the 2011 Norman Mailer Prize for biography. The latter for Distinguished Biography.

Perhaps most prestigious and compelling case for Keith as a memoirist belonging in the the lead comes from the scholarly and highly selective NYRB review in which Keith is praised as a “marvelous sentence-maker…in a book that feels entirely dictated” The NYRB also says “unlikely heir to two great memoirs of thrift and common sense, Walden and Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography”

Neither the New Yorker, the NYRB, the LA Times, or The Guardian, James Fox. One exception, nometheless supportimg my point is the NYT which says “James Fox, Keith’s co-­author, deserves a lot of credit for editing, organizing and elegantly stepping out of the way of Keith's remembrances”. James Fox did not, and never has, as has nobody else, written any sentences like this wonderful and insightful one on songwriting:

“Well, I’ve got to tame this beast one way or another. But how to tame it? Gently, or give it a beating? . . . I’ll take you twice the speed I wrote you! You have this sort of relationship with the songs. . . . You ain’t finished till you’re finished, O.K.? . . . No, you weren’t supposed to go there. Or sometimes you’re apologizing: I’m sorry about that. No, that was certainly not the way to go. Ah, they’re funny things. They’re babies.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(Richards_book)#Production Numerous sources offer accounts of the book's production, all (that I've seen) chime with the Production section of the Wikipedia article. None of those suggest anything that could be construed as in the realm of "Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard" -- and an apparent fondness for exercising the straw man fallacy thwarts any discussion. Methinks this thread has exhausted itself. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m genuinely lost. I intended no disparaging characterization of previous replies. I hope no offense was taken. None was intended. Beyond that, I was arguing for lead significance and nothing else, which I’ve supported. If the perceived “strawmans” were specified, I could addressed them much better and, of course, only in good faith. 5ive9teen (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You've done it at least twice: "This is a not an Art of the Deal fabrication with minimal distant involvement from the principle" and "Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard", as though those claims had been made somewhere, and both after I had already agreed that co-author was legitimate. I don't see that there's anything to engage on here, although I do feel that the book deserves a bit more than cryptic passing mention in the KR article (miscategorized under Tributes for other artists). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I still hope no offense taken where none intended. The issue is are Keith’s two memoirs lead significant? James Fox involvement was a key reason in opposition.

This left an impression: Keith was, more the totally involved editor of Fox's text. There is no source for one editor’s supposition which I know of, and a source is needed make it rise above mere opinion. The text is treated by all that can be cited as Keith’s. Of course I welcome cites that establish this as disputed.

Grant’s memoirs were much more assisted by Mark Twain; to a much greater degree than Keith’s Fox’s collaboration. Indeed Twain is credited commonly with 1/3 of the book. Obviously, by all accounts, more than Fox might have done.

The Grant article’s lead excludes Twain, and no concern apparent that this is an omission in need of repair 5ive9teen (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Fox's participation in no way precludes mentioning the book in the lead. Careful wording, very easy to craft, would avoid giving the false impression that Keith is the sole author (something like "assisted by..."; any number of ways to express it). More important is better organized brief text regarding Life in the body of the article. (Any infelicitous representation of Twain's participation in Grant's volumes is relevant to that article, not Keith Richards. If you choose to work on that, take care not to fall victim to Badeau's machinations.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The oblique caution about Badeaus’s machinations, which are very obscure to most, I suspect, but I don’t profess any related erudition, is lost on me, though it is presumably relevant, I wouldn’t know if I’ve engaged them, or how they can be avoided. The Grant annalogy, as closely illustrative, and appropriate as it is, is tangential and can be left roadside. Glad that Keith as an author (he has 2 books) is agreed to as lead significant. Will see what might work given that apparent consensus. 5ive9teen (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The production of the text of Grant's memoirs may or may not be what you seem to expect. If you want to research it, here's a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_U._S._Grant#Adam_Badeau The research needed requires time and effort, and not everything can be found on the internet. -- I don't know that consensus has been reached here on whether to mention Life in the lead. I see no objection, as long as it's accurate. Definitely read at least this before doing anything: https://www.thedailybeast.com/keith-richards-memoir-writer-james-fox-speaks Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

For good and not-to-be-shaded reasons, of course it can be interesting to others. And if it is to helpful to us, I welcome it being brought up again, hopefully less obliquely and more specifically.5ive9teen (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)