er...as they were miming to a playback, I can't imagine that his guitar would have been plugged in to anything, Toru....

Hi again Gazza...I actually got this from someone who saw him do at least part of the song live in November '74...the venue was I believe the Philadelphia spectrum...same city different venue where he recorded the infamous "David Live" album that same year...2 entirely different shows in the same city(he was in love with Philly at the time also recording the "Young Americans" album there) at 2 different venues just months apart.
I'm told he didn't do an entire version of IORR, but did sing some of it(perhaps as part of a medley?)...as he did it there one would think he also did the same elsewhere, but then again it could have been a one off thing...I don't know if a complete(or any) recording of that particular show exists...maybe someone else here might shed some light? Cheers,Leah

Yep..the '74 tour was split into two legs with a 3 month gap in between (when he recorded Young Americans). Never seen it mentioned on any list of songs though. I have a book in the house on Bowie concert recordings and I'll check it later.

Thanks Gazza...I only thought to mention it when you let me know that Bowie sang back up on the Stones original...interesting to see if it will be listed...

Welcome aboard, Leahfoxx! I feel bad in a way that you are such a recent convert because one of my greatest joys in my life has been anticipating new Stones material,going to their concerts, collecting rooms full of Stones related " things" and of course sharing thoughts and ideas on this board! This is a wonderful place to " meet" like-minded folks and you will certainly have all of your questions answered here.
I've always had a question about exactly how Ronnie came to be a Stone; I know all about the friendship between Ronnie and Keith and Mick and how Rod Stewart was never too happy about sharing Ronnie etc but when Mick T left in 1974, just as plans were unfolding for their huge 1975-76 tour, WHY did the band feel the need to audition so many guitar players, like Clapton and Beck etc ? Why didn't they simplify things and just announce Ronnie was IT??
Gazza, I know you'll have an interesting take on this. Let's hear it!

Thanks Mickschix...I'm so glad to have found this forum...I've learned so much already and everyone is so nice here...To the question...I also read somewhere that George Throughgood(not sure of my spelling) was seriously considered at some point...was that at this time or at some later point for a different reason?

Quote
Toru A
Related information : Here's excerpts from the interview with Willie Weeks.

Q: How did you end up recording on the Rolling Stones’ “It’s Only Rock ’n’ Roll (But I Like It)”?

Willie: It came about through Keith Richards. He was hanging out with Ronnie [Wood] when we were recording Ronnie’s record,
and Keith said, “We’ve got this track, man, and we’d like for you to put some bass on it.” And I said, “Yeah, of course.”
Andy Newmark and I drove out to Mick Jagger’s place, which ended up being a castle.
After we got there, we sat around waiting for an hour, and I finally said,
“Hey man, are we going to do this?” Within five minutes we were doing it.
They had a mobile studio set up in the back, and I listened to the tune and picked up my bass and started playing.
It was funny—Mick was standing in front of me and it was like he was directing me, but he was dancing! [Laughs.]
It was amazing, man. I’m standing there playing and listening to the music and looking at him and just feeling ... pretty magical.

wait, so he and Newmark were not present at the original recording session where the song was cut, ie, with mick, ron, and supposedly Bowie? I didn't realize there was an added phase of rhythm section overdubs--thought it was just keith's overdubs, and the vocals.

Quote
leahfoxx
Hi again Gazza...I actually got this from someone who saw him do at least part of the song live in November '74...the venue was I believe the Philadelphia spectrum...same city different venue where he recorded the infamous "David Live" album that same year...2 entirely different shows in the same city(he was in love with Philly at the time also recording the "Young Americans" album there) at 2 different venues just months apart.
I'm told he didn't do an entire version of IORR, but did sing some of it(perhaps as part of a medley?)...as he did it there one would think he also did the same elsewhere, but then again it could have been a one off thing...I don't know if a complete(or any) recording of that particular show exists...maybe someone else here might shed some light? Cheers,Leah

live double album from philly at the time;;; stupendouly good!

leahfoxx wrote:

everyone is so nice here...



Just wait, sister.

Yeah, I could post some war links from the past

__________________________

Lol! Well you both and everyone else have been nice...seems a very friendly place so far...

Hi. Leah. Welcome to the Stones family!
What's your favorite album so far? Have you had a chance to listen to them all?

Mine has changed throughout history, but has remained Bridges to Babylon for some time.

Some of the mid-70's albums are not my favorites, I have to say. I think the more recent ones are much better (Voodoo till today).
But if you haven't listened enough to the mid-60's ones, you're missing a lot - including, of course, the foundation for most of their work.

From the first time I heard It's Only Rock & Roll, I thought it was about Mick's marriage to Bianca and how she expected him to retire when they married. At the time, all the press was lambasting him already for being "old" - at the ripe old age of 27! Imagine putting up with THAT for 38 years.

I keep wondering what it must be like for younger people just discovering their work to make sense out of the timeline of their development, esp. when they're probably working backwards. I don't think I can tell you how it's been to listen to them as they developed each new phase, and how exciting it's been for me for the last 45 years!

Somehow, they just keep getting better & better! Of course, hard work'll do that to you.

Yes, Keith was addicted to heroin for about 10 years.

Incidentally, Keith was also almost electrocuted onstage in the '60s. I can't remember whether it was the '64 or '65 tour. The mike was not grounded properly, and, according to him, he went to move it by at least partly pushing on it with his guitar. When the strings touched the mike, he was knocked over backwards and was out for several minutes. The band all thought he had been killed.

Completely screwed up his hair, too. LOL. Well, he has always been a bit of an Alfalfa.

As far as how Ronnie joined the band, I believe it is in the video 25x5 that he tells that whole story. What he doesn't say there, but did say in an interview at the time was that if Rod Stewart had treated him better he never would have left the Faces.
However, he also that the first time he saw the Stones he said: "Some day, I'm gonna be in that band." It only took him 10 or 12 years, but he made it.

Well TERRY, maybe you can explain WHY Ronnie was not just given the job to replace Mick T instead of going through the audition process! Seems like they could have just put him right into place. Not sure exactly how BAD Rod was to Ronnie, considering that they still hang out. That UNPLUGGED CD that they did is still one of the best unplugged sets ever done.

According to Ronnie, Mick J. DID ask him if he would consider the job the same night that Mick T. told Mick he was leaving. Ronnie says he told him then that he couldn't leave Rod and Mick said he understood, but there was a lot of "What am I gonna do?" in his talk and manner.
They started auditioning guys before Ronnie decided to become available, and, of course, even though it's obvious to us now how great the fit is, the Stones still had to work with him for awhile to be sure before making it permanent. That's one of the reasons he was only officially "on loan" from the Faces for the '75 tour. You know Mick the businessman- leave nothing to chance: make sure it works out right musically, and that you tour well together as people as well, hook Ronnie into realizing that he could never really bring himself to go back (Keith's admitted strategy), all while trying to pretend to Rod that you are not engaging in any sneak thievery.

Ronnie & Rod still are friends, indeed, but that IS what Ronnie said about it at the time. Rod was famous for lording it over his bandmates, even his best mates. Some of the other Faces had serious issues with him. Must be kinda difficult to work with, I guess. Good friend, bad partner? Who knows? Ronnie's excuse to himself for leaving? But he did say it.

That said, you're right about the Unplugged! Although I couldn't help laughing when Rod got to the line: "I can't forget that you were once mine, and I blew it without even tryin'".
Don't get me wrong. I love Rod. I have had the pleasure of seeing him live many times and he always has given a terrific show. A master performer.

I can surely imagine Rod being a DIVA! I too love Rod and have seen him a few times...he is great live! Yes, now I do recall all of the back and forth with Ronnie and the Stones, and it was not a direct path because Ronnie was concerned about pissing off his buddy Rod. I can understand how awkward it was for Ronnie, because he was going over to a much bigger gig!! Top of the tops! The others that auditioned would never have fit like Ronnie does; he is the right blend of rock, rough around the edges, and he defers to Keith ( unfortunately!). If Ronnie were not such a push over, the Stones would sound even better! I saw what he is capable of when he was with Rod, totally different animal now.

Quote
mickschix
I've always had a question about exactly how Ronnie came to be a Stone; I know all about the friendship between Ronnie and Keith and Mick and how Rod Stewart was never too happy about sharing Ronnie etc but when Mick T left in 1974, just as plans were unfolding for their huge 1975-76 tour, WHY did the band feel the need to audition so many guitar players, like Clapton and Beck etc ? Why didn't they simplify things and just announce Ronnie was IT??
Gazza, I know you'll have an interesting take on this. Let's hear it!

It's not really an opinion, Debra - the facts are pretty much undisputed. He was the guitarist in an already active recording and touring band (he even did a Faces tour AFTER the Stones American tour in '75) and therefore wasn't available at the time to join the Stones as a proper replacement for Taylor. It was a matter of principle.

When the Faces fell apart a year or so later, the situation resolved itself.

Clapton didnt audition for the Stones in 1975. The band needed a second guitarist as they had recording commitments and had planned to go on the road, so several guitarists auditioned - with Wayne Perkins and Harvey Mandel being the two main candidates - before the band agreed that Ronnie would 'guest' with them on the tour.

I recall Mandel and Perkins auditioning but I thought Clapton's name was tossed about too...so, he never actually auditioned? I love Clapton but I never saw him as a Rolling Stone; he's too strong as a solo artist. I do remember now the word " guest" attached to Ronnie during that tour, now that the cobwebs have cleared away, thanks to you, Gazza. That explains why Ronnie felt insecure for so long. They kept him as a hired hand for quite some time.

Quote
mickschix
They kept him as a hired hand for quite some time.

Yeah. Seventeen years or something. The 'boy' did show some commitment...

- Doxa

boy ron came in to full Stones stride with that HG stuff! also great version of @#$%&...'78 live Stones quite a thrill...powerrrrrfullllll

Quote
mickschix
I recall Mandel and Perkins auditioning but I thought Clapton's name was tossed about too...so, he never actually auditioned? I love Clapton but I never saw him as a Rolling Stone; he's too strong as a solo artist. I do remember now the word " guest" attached to Ronnie during that tour, now that the cobwebs have cleared away, thanks to you, Gazza. That explains why Ronnie felt insecure for so long. They kept him as a hired hand for quite some time.

Clapton was reportedly sounded out as a possible replacement for Brian in 1969, but he had just put Blind Faith together at the time.

The Stones were a 4 piece from December 1974 until Woody was confirmed as Taylor's replacement in February 1976 (even though he wasnt a 'board member' for 17 years afterwards). Woody, Billy Preston and Ollie Brown were 'guest musicians' on the 1975 tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-20 01:32 by Gazza.

I'd forgotten about that! Guess we'll never know what that partnership would have been like...I would guess Clapton would not have stayed long. The music of the Stones would not have been that different in that they would have been injected with a healthy dose of the blues, similar to what MT contributed. All speculation, we can only guess and imagine.

Musically it could and probably would have been brilliant. Not sure if an artist of the stature Clapton enjoyed would have been too content at playing something of a subordinate role to both Mick and Keith for too long though - and similarly I'm not so sure Mick & Keith would have been too easy about sharing the spotlight so much with someone with their own large following either.

Mick & Keith together have been the dominant force in the band since the mid 60's when (with considerable pushing from Oldham) they usurped Brian and this continued to the end of Brian's spell in the band when his role was negligible. Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood were never pushy enough to threaten that position which suited Mick and Keith very nicely. The dynamics within the band would have been pretty different had Clapton joined them. Might have had great results musically (although its hard to see how the Stones could have improved musically on that run of albums from 1968-72) but it may have affected the band's longevity.

Do you mean that Clapton would have pushed hard, thus perhaps ending the band? I agree that Ronnie and Mick T were not " pushers", and pretty much stayed quiet, were non-threatening, so life inside the Stones circle remained in tact.( where it stands today between Ron and Keith), It's a very interesting dynamic, and I can see Mick and Keith's point. It IS their band. The Brian issue, also very well documented has 2 sides; one camp says that Brian, the original " leader" caved in to the nastiness directed at him from from Keith and Mick, add into that mix the whole Anita thing ( going between Brian & Keith), and the other side sees Brian as weak, drug-dependent and a liability to the band---so many drug busts not allowing the band to tour the USA. Perhaps he BECAME weak and basicly disintegrated due to that pressure from his band mates. I think it is a combination of both! Anyway, I agree the music Clapton could have contributed could have been awesome!!

>Do you mean that Clapton would have pushed hard, thus perhaps ending the band?

Well, I'm not saying that in any way that's derogatory towards Eric, but that the dynamics within the band may have made things more fragile with three 'strong' personalities and creative artists may have led to some friction sooner or later which may have not been easily resolved. Clapton doesn't have a track record of lasting in bands for very long for various reasons.

> I agree that Ronnie and Mick T were not " pushers", and pretty much stayed quiet, were non-threatening, so life inside the Stones circle remained in tact.( where it stands today between Ron and Keith), It's a very interesting dynamic, and I can see Mick and Keith's point. It IS their band.

Well it isn't really - it's just somewhat evolved that way.

> The Brian issue, also very well documented has 2 sides; one camp says that Brian, the original " leader" caved in to the nastiness directed at him from from Keith and Mick, add into that mix the whole Anita thing ( going between Brian & Keith), and the other side sees Brian as weak, drug-dependent and a liability to the band---so many drug busts not allowing the band to tour the USA. Perhaps he BECAME weak and basicly disintegrated due to that pressure from his band mates.

Theres's at least two sides to that argument. All of them have some validity. However, the Stones IMO would not have lasted many more years unless they'd taken the decision to change personnel when they did.