I'D LIKE TO FORGET ABOUT JUKE BOX JURY SAYS KEITH RICHARD

KEITH RICHARDS | 1964

This ghostwritten Richards column from Britain's now-defunct music weekly Melody Maker is an interesting snapshot of the Stones in mid-July 1964, a year and one month after the release of their debut single. The guitarist uses his turn in the spotlight to praise some fellow "beat" groups, bang the drum for R&B, and comment on the Stones' first number one in any of the four competing British charts. The bulk of the column, though, is understandably dedicated to a very controversial appearance the Stones had made a week before on record review TV show Juke Box Jury, where they had the temerity to be sniffy about almost every new release they were played, including the latest by the exalted Elvis Presley. Richards — as straight-talking then as he is now — shrugs his shoulders at the furor. Such exhibitions of sullen indifference to public opinion were then uncommon and only bolstered the group's burgeoning image as champions of the younger generation's rebellious ideals.

All right, so Juke Box Jury wasn't a knockout. Now everybody's had a go at us, I'd like the chance to reply.

I think the whole programme's very limited for a start. We all sat, consciously, knowing there were five of us, and we had a few seconds each after each record.

We weren't great, and that's a fact. But the records they played us! They were NOTHING! Don't misunderstand — they weren't bad records, but there didn't seem anything to say about them. It wasn't that the singing or guitars were out of tune on any particular record, but they were all records with nothing much about them. We were lost. And I think it came across.

We were all lost, except for Charlie and maybe Mick. I agree we didn't come over well, but it wouldn't be much different if we did it again, quite honestly.

It's the way the show's run that restricts you. Juke Box Jury doesn't suit the Stones.

I'll say one thing for our show on Juke Box, though. I'm sure that's what helped us reach number one. If nothing else, it kept our image up!

People thought the worst of us before they saw us. When they finally looked at Juke Box Jury, it was the confirmation that we were a bunch of idiots.

We don't care that much what people think. But I can tell you this: it's difficult to say anything sensible in a few seconds, especially with unspectacular records. But I could tell things were not going well on the show.

We don't particularly care about whether we go back on the Jury. It was an experience I personally would rather forget.

Having a number one hit's a good feeling, but we're not all mad about it.

I'd hate everybody to think that just because we've made the top spot this time, we'll have to do it every time we have a single out. All the Stones agree that as long as we get in the top ten, we'll be very happy.

As it happens, I think "It's All Over Now" is the best single we've done, and I'm glad to say the group improves every time it makes a single. At least, we think so.

I like the overall sound on this new one more than I did on anything before.

Glad Mick wrote a bit last week about the Paramounts. We all think they're good and deserve to make it.

Wayne Fontana has a very good group, though. Give them the right material and they'll be there.

It's all very well people having a go at the rhythm-and-blues thing and saying it's not authentic.

But there's a lot more good come out of the scene than many people allow.

For instance, the trad boom didn't do much good for the real thing, did it? People only got interested in British copies of the real thing.

Now, in R&B, people are digging British groups — and if you look at the chart you get big names like Howlin' Wolf, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley and Tommy Tucker.

That's what's really pleased me about it all. If our stuff has got people interested in R&B by some of the great American stars, we'll have done some good.

I personally reckon that this can be built up. The next step for groups like ours could be to do more gospel. Pop music tastes are changing, and I don't see why we can't get people interested in such people as Solomon Burke.

I don't think he's selling very big, but I'd like him to, because he's great.

People who knock the R&B scene don't give it enough credit for interesting people in something they'd never have heard of.

I'm fed up of people calling us non-authentic. Why can't we play what we like?

Who's laying down the rules?

KEITH TALKS ABOUT SONGWRITING

KEITH RICHARDS | 1964

The Rolling Stones Book was a monthly from Beat Publications released to cash in on the success of the group in the same way that the same stable's The Beatles Book had already capitalized on the ascendency of the Fab Four. During its lifetime from June 1964 to November 1966, the fact that The Rolling Stones Book had three dozen or so pages to fill on a regular basis with purely Stones material meant that every member received exposure. Though the boast that the "boys" edited it themselves can be taken with a pinch of salt, the monthly often saw the band speaking more frankly and indeed caustically than they did in the music press (although to be fair, the music press in those days would probably have toned down any controversial remarks on the grounds that they might upset their readers).

This feature from the third issue of the magazine, dated August 10, 1964, captures Richards at a point where he, with Jagger, was just dipping his toes into the forbidding pool that was songwriting.

Note: for "Marion Faithful" read "Marianne Faithfull."

Mick and I have been writing songs together for about a year now. We didn't make a lot of fuss about it when we started, we just began working at it, because it was something that we both like doing.

In fact, very few people realised that we did write songs until Gene Pitney recorded "That Girl Belongs to Yesterday." Gene's a big mate of ours and has helped us terrifically by turning...