Brian Jones started The Rolling Stones. Keiths book is written by a real Jokerman.

2 1 2 0

Quote
Title5Take1
I actually don't think it's that fair to Stu, though, because Keith's only heaped on such praise since Stu died (too little too late, I'd say). I'm reminded of John Lennon's line "Everybody loves you when you're six foot in the ground" (lyric from his song Nobody Loves You).

Keith was ALWAYS very complimentary and respectful towards Stu. How can you substantiate that?

I do think that Stu was as important as Brian in getting gigs and getting the other members to join, but musically speaking, the band was Brian's vision. And maybe Keith's (Chuck Berry covers, etc.). So for me their sound in the early days was a product of Brian's blues and Keith's Rock & Roll.

Stu found the band, he connected Mick and Keith with Brian.

And glad Bill was there with his equipment.........what if he wasn't there...........

__________________________

Quote
northernale1
old old news,,,in the early days every account was that it was stu that made the stones roll

What on Earth are you talking about? Every account? Here's a newsflash for you and all others who are taking in Keith's shameless myth making attempts hook-line-and-sinker: Ian Stewart, himself, publically admitted that Brian started the Rolling Stones, placed the ad, ran the auditions and reheasals, booked gigs, and promoted the band. Yes, that is what Ian Stewart said. So, should we disregard Stu's 'account' in favor of Keith's BS?

Quote
MKjan
Stu found the band, he connected Mick and Keith with Brian.

Wrong. Mick and Keith met Brian at the Marquee and invited them to one of his rehearsals.

Quote
Mathijs
Thats not quite what he said. He confirms that Stu was the first to answer There seems to be quite a laps of time between Jones's ad and the invitation from Ian to Keith and Mick to join a jam in a pub. The people who ended up on that jam where basically two camps: Brian's contacts, and Mick and Keith through Ian. Then the key member is Charlie, who is Ian's contact. Then, according to Keith, Ian was instrumental in getting gigs in these jazz places etc.

According to my sources, Mick, Keith, and Charlie were all Brian's contacts who were actively recruited by Brian. Brian met Mick and Keith at the Marquee, so how does that make them Stu's 'contacts'? Brian wanted Mick and Charlie in his band and eventually got what he wanted, reluctantly accepting Keith so that he could get Mick. Where are people getting all this information that Stu handpicked members of the band?

Excerpt from Chapter 5 - although it doesn't answer who started it:
===================================

But Brian was a different story. What was comic about Brian was his illusions of grandeur, even before he got famous. He thought it was his band for some weird reason. The first demonstration of Brian's aspirations was the discovery on our first tour that he was getting five pounds more a week than the rest of us because he'd persuaded Eric Easton that he was our "leader." The whole deal with the band was we split everything like pirates. You put the booty on the table and split it, pieces of eight. "Jesus Christ, who do you think you are? I'm writing the songs round here, and you're getting five pounds extra a week? Get outta here!" It started with little things like that, which then exacerbated the friction between us as it went on and he became more and more outrageous. In the early negotiations, it was always Brian who would go to the meetings as our leader. We were not permitted --by Brian. I remember Mick and me once waiting for the results around the block, sitting in Lyons Corner House.

It happened so fast. After we did a couple of TV shows, Brian turned into this sort of freak, devouring celebs and fame and attention. Mick and Charlie and I were looking at it all a bit skeptically. This is shit you've got to do to make records. But Brian--and he was not a stupid guy--fell right into it. He loved the adulation. The rest of us didn't think it was bad, but you don't fall for it all the way. I felt the energy, I knew that there was something big happening. But some guys get stroked and they just can't get over it. Stroke me some more, stroke me some more, and suddenly "I'm a star."

I never saw a guy so much affected by fame. The minute we'd had a couple of successful records, zoom, he was Venus and Jupiter rolled into one. Huge inferiority complex that you hadn't noticed. The minute the chicks started screaming, he seemed to go through a whole change, just when we didn't need it, when we needed to keep the whole thing tight and together. I've known a few that were really carried away by fame. But I never saw one that changed so dramatically overnight. "No, we're just getting lucky, pal. This is not fame." It went to his head, and over the next few years of very difficult road work, in the mid-'60s, we could not count on Brian at all. He was getting really stoned, out of it. Thought he was an intellectual, a mystic philosopher. He was very impressed by other stars, but only because they were stars, not because of what they were good at. And he became a pain in the neck, a kind of rotting attachment. When you're schlepping 350 days a year on the road and you've got to drag a dead weight, it becomes pretty vicious.

We were on a swing through the Midwest, and Brian's asthma had got him and he was in hospital in Chicago. And, hey, when a guy's sick, you double for him. But then we saw pictures of him zooming around Chicago, hanging at a party with so-and-so, fawning over stars with a silly little bow around his neck. We'd done three, four gigs without him. That's double duty for me, pal. There's only five of us, and the whole point of the band is that it's a two-guitar band. And suddenly there's only one guitar. I've got to figure out whole new ways to play all of these songs. I've got to perform Brian's part as well. I learned a lot about how to do two parts at once, or how to distill the essence of what his part was and still play what I had to play, and throw in a few licks, but it was damn hard work. And I never got a thank-you from him, ever, for covering his arse. He didn't give a shit. "I was out of it." That's all I would get. All right, are you gonna give me your pay? That's when I had it in for Brian.

One can get very sarcastic on the road and quite vicious. "Just shut up, you little creep. Preferred it when you weren't here." He had this way of ranting on, saying things that would just grate. "When I played with so-and-so..." He was totally starstruck. "I saw Bob Dylan yesterday. He doesn't like you." But he had no idea how obnoxious he was being. So it would start off, "Oh, shut up, Brian." Or we'd imitate the way he cringed his head into his nonexistent neck. And then it went to baiting him in a way. He had this huge Humber Super Snipe car, but he was a pretty short guy and he had to have a cushion to see over the steering wheel. Mick and I would steal the cushion for a laugh. Wicked, schoolboy sort of stuff. Sitting at the back of the bus, we just let him have it, pretending he wasn't there. "Where's Brian? Shit, did you see what he was wearing yesterday?" It was the pressure of work, and the other side of it was that you hoped that kind of shock treatment would snap him out of it. There's no time to take time off and say let's sort this out. But it was a love-hate relationship with Brian. He could be really funny. I used to enjoy hanging with him, figuring out how Jimmy Reed or Muddy Waters did this or T-Bone Walker did that.

What probably really stuck in Brian's craw was when Mick and I started writing the songs. He lost his status and then lost interest. Having to come to the studio and learn to play a song Mick and I had written would bring him down. It was like Brian's open wound. Brian's only solution became clinging to either Mick or me, which created a triangle of sorts. He had it in for Andrew Oldham, Mick and me, thought there was a conspiracy to roll him out. Which wasn't true at all, but somebody's got to write the songs. You're quite welcome; I'll sit around and write a song with you. What have you come up with? But no sparks flew when I was sitting around with Brian. And then it was "I don't like guitar anymore. I want to play marimbas." Another time, pal. We've got a tour to do. So we got to rely on him not being there, and if he turned up, it was a miracle. When he was there and came to life, he was incredibly nimble. He could pick up any instruments that were lying around and come up with something. Sitar on "Paint It Black." The marimbas on "Under My Thumb." But for the next five days we won't see the @#$%&, and we've still got a record to make. We've got sessions lined up and where's Brian? Nobody can find him, and when they do, he's in a terrible condition.

He barely ever played guitar in the last few years with us. Our whole thing was two guitars and everything else wove around that. And when the other guitar ain't there half the time or has lost interest in it, you start getting overdubbing.

Quote
LeonidP
Excerpt from Chapter 5 - although it doesn't answer who started it:
===================================
I never saw a guy so much affected by fame. The minute we'd had a couple of successful records, zoom, he was Venus and Jupiter rolled into one.

Gee, the very same thing could be said of Keith Richards since 1979, as far as the fame thing goes. Of course, this is all just one side of the story. The other guy has been dead for 42 years and cannot defend himself.

Quote
neptune

Quote
LeonidP
Excerpt from Chapter 5 - although it doesn't answer who started it:
===================================
I never saw a guy so much affected by fame. The minute we'd had a couple of successful records, zoom, he was Venus and Jupiter rolled into one.

Gee, the very same thing could be said of Keith Richards since 1979, as far as the fame thing goes. Of course, this is all just one side of the story. The other guy has been dead for 42 years and cannot defend himself.

Eggzactly, he can't defend himself 'cause he's not around -- so this is the best we have to go on. And btw, Keith got blizted on booze & drugs, but never due to fame going to his head -- just read books by Oldham, Keyes, Wood, etc. for proof on that; he grew up a poor boy and always gave credit where credit was due.

Quote
LeonidP
Eggzactly, he can't defend himself 'cause he's not around -- so this is the best we have to go on. And btw, Keith got blizted on booze & drugs, but never due to fame going to his head -- just read books by Oldham, Keyes, Wood, etc. for proof on that; he grew up a poor boy and always gave credit where credit was due.

Gave credit where credit was due? Keith? That whole excerpt you provided is what I call character assassination of another person, and a dead one at that. Go ahead and sugar-coat it all you want. It's character assassination, plain and simple. Yes, Brian Jones was a very flawed human being, but he committed no crimes. He was guilty of being an obnoxious rock star, yes. So what? Keith's negative feelings about his old bandmate, who payed the ultimate price 42 years ago, are pretty pathetic. Keith, get over yourself already!

Quote
neptune

Quote
Mathijs
Thats not quite what he said. He confirms that Stu was the first to answer There seems to be quite a laps of time between Jones's ad and the invitation from Ian to Keith and Mick to join a jam in a pub. The people who ended up on that jam where basically two camps: Brian's contacts, and Mick and Keith through Ian. Then the key member is Charlie, who is Ian's contact. Then, according to Keith, Ian was instrumental in getting gigs in these jazz places etc.

According to my sources, Mick, Keith, and Charlie were all Brian's contacts who were actively recruited by Brian. Brian met Mick and Keith at the Marquee, so how does that make them Stu's 'contacts'? Brian wanted Mick and Charlie in his band and eventually got what he wanted, reluctantly accepting Keith so that he could get Mick. Where are people getting all this information that Stu handpicked members of the band?

Brian named the band. Also Mick and Keith didn't mind having Brian tell Stu he was no longer a member of the band because Andrew Loog Oldham wanted him removed. Oldham went to see the Stones perform with his partner, Eric Easton, and signed them on May 3, 1963. The deal was arranged between Brian and Oldham.

How about you all stop reading excerpts and read the book I just read this part of the book this morning and there is nothing bad said about brian jones in relation to the forming of the band.

You guys are reading excerpts and only getting bits and pieces the whole story is in the book and once you read that couple of chapters it all makes sense.

Quote
neptune

Quote
northernale1
old old news,,,in the early days every account was that it was stu that made the stones roll

What on Earth are you talking about? Every account? Here's a newsflash for you and all others who are taking in Keith's shameless myth making attempts hook-line-and-sinker: Ian Stewart, himself, publically admitted that Brian started the Rolling Stones, placed the ad, ran the auditions and reheasals, booked gigs, and promoted the band. Yes, that is what Ian Stewart said. So, should we disregard Stu's 'account' in favor of Keith's BS?

...yet you're judging 'Keith's BS' from a selectively edited excerpt in a book that presumably you havent read. Again - Keith doesn't claim in his book that 'Stu started the band', as this thread title alleges.

Additionally, Keith also states (as Marie correctly points out above) that the decision to fire Stu came down to Brian. Something which he wouldnt have been in a position to do had he not been the band's de facto leader at the point.

Its quite evident from actually READING the book - and not relying on extracts - that Keith doesnt undermine Brian's early role at all. If anything, what he DOES do is emphasise Stu's important role in it's early development - at the expense of downplaying that of himself and Mick.

Quote
Mooseman
How about you all stop reading excerpts and read the book I just read this part of the book this morning and there is nothing bad said about brian jones in relation to the forming of the band.

You guys are reading excerpts and only getting bits and pieces the whole story is in the book and once you read that couple of chapters it all makes sense.

I have read the couple of chapters and it all makes nonsense. I think from forming the band and until BEGGARS BANQUET - Brian's functional era - is clearly the weakest part of the book. He is just recicling his old stories and myths - and sometimes gives them even stronger push like with Stu's role and what a @#$%& (and small) Brian was. Seemingly Keith is not able to get any clear picture of that time - maybe it all happened too quickly and he couldn't grasp and reflect what was going on. It could be that because he personally had such a small role in the very early days, he seemingly is belittlening or even ignores the significance of two guys that actually were like big brothers to him - Brian and Mick - and talks bullocks, for example of Stu (who is a neutral, low-profile - or even nobody egowise - loyal-to-Keith man). The most telling remarks comes from Keith's mother who explains Keith's willingness to go as sick to early gig not due to loyality but being afraid that he will kicked out if he would not show up.)

I strongly assume that the lost diary from early 1963 is a fake. (Perhaps the letters to his aunt as well). A deeper analysis would easily show the anachronisms. For a man who thinks there is nothing wrong with bettering a live album with studio over-recordings it is not a big step to make an autobiography "to sound better and more authentic" by some trick sources.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 00:43 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
He is just recicling his old stories and myths - and sometimes gives them even stronger push

it's true: the excerpts, at least, are hard to distinguish from official mythology such as found in According to the Rolling Stones. Shuffling around old stories that may be new to non-fans. Possibly this is a strategy to avoid actually having to go back and think about those sometimes painful episodes. He does write about the deprivation of his childhood during the post-war years, but this is now a common theme in British culture -- the one point in history that they can indulge in victimization about, like everyone else.

and keith has long liked to sing the praises of Stu and especially charlie, somewhat to the exclusion of mick and bill.

I don't know the deep history of the stones as much as you guys and I try not to pass judgement on people I don't know but I mean sure Keith says some nasty stuff in regards to brian but only in response to stuff brian did which going with the descriptions in the book werent nice but you know you don't have to agree or like everything a mate does a few pages before he praises brian greatly, I have mates who do stupid things and can be nasty but but they are still mates and I would be the first to call them out when they do something stupid. People are not perfect.

Quote
filstan
Look you guys, it is clear from all sources that both Stew and Brian started the Rolling Stones. As for Keith's view on this subject, he was clear in stating that he believed it was Stew who cleared the way via the auditions that it was Mick and Keith who would be in the band. Of course it was Brian's ad in the SOHO Jazz News that lured in Stew to the Bricklayers Arms pub for auditions that brought him into the picture. In this case it is easily Brian's brain child. stew didn't place the ads. In Keith's book there is no negativity expressed towards Brian early in the book. Keith has stated many times he was blown away by Brian' slide playing ability. Early on Brian was a guiding light, but his star dimmed as celebrity gained prominence.

While Keith eventually became bitter and negative in his feelings towards Brian as a personality, the issues that became divisive revolved around the money, Brian's health weakness as it related to the band, his abusive behavior towards Anita, and his evolving lame performance at studio sessions. None of these issues would paint Keith as being over the top cruel towards Brian. It merely looks to me as a Darwinian response to a situation where the band's survival meant more to those guys than Brian's fragile persona. Was it right/fair, who are we to judge? Keith merely states it through his experience. Were any of us there to dispute this? I am sure there is some guilt as it relates to Brian within both Mick and Keith. They lived with the guy. Strange in that both Charlie and Bill were more sympathetic, while Stew seemed to also detest Brian in the end.

I think it is fair to assume that without Brian there would have been no Rolling Stones as we know them. The same could be said for Stew on similar terms. I think it was really Brian's deal. He came down to London from Cheltenham to play blues. He wanted to get a band together. Stew showed up first at the Arms and cleared the way for the Dartford boys, after everyone else had shown their licks. No Brian ad in London, no Stones.

Stew leaned towards Mick and Keith based on their "feel" for the music. I think that's why they made the first cut. Brian dug their enthusiasm for the music he loved, and that brought the core together.

filstan
beautiful! I think you should write a stones book

Mick's rock, I'm roll.

Quote
neptune

Quote
MKjan
Stu found the band, he connected Mick and Keith with Brian.

Wrong. Mick and Keith met Brian at the Marquee and invited them to one of his rehearsals.

Are you meaning to say the Ealing Club?

Too bad James Phelge wasn't involved with the band a little sooner. Brian and Stu can't clarify exactly how things progressed, Mick seems to have no interest, and Keith might be prone to put things in a positive way for him. (Human nature). Bill can't even tell us about the earliest moments of the band. Mick and Keith first saw Brian on stage at Alexis Korner's place, right? How it all went down after that seems a little unclear. Carlos Little played drums at some point, correct? And Tony Chapman who brought in Bill. But was there ever a bass player for the nascent Stones before Bill? What is apparent is that Mick and by extension Keith, auditioned to be in a band imagined by Brian and that Stu was already in the band by the time Mick and Keith attempt to join. Dick Taylor is in there somewhere and he left voluntarily to go to art school, correct? And they did not like Chapman's drumming, he couldn't keep time, and they pursued Charlie. And as much as they abused 'Ernie' Bill, he was more together than they were at that time and truly loved the music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 07:58 by 24FPS.

Quote
neptune

Quote
LeonidP
Eggzactly, he can't defend himself 'cause he's not around -- so this is the best we have to go on. And btw, Keith got blizted on booze & drugs, but never due to fame going to his head -- just read books by Oldham, Keyes, Wood, etc. for proof on that; he grew up a poor boy and always gave credit where credit was due.

Gave credit where credit was due? Keith? That whole excerpt you provided is what I call character assassination of another person, and a dead one at that. Go ahead and sugar-coat it all you want. It's character assassination, plain and simple. Yes, Brian Jones was a very flawed human being, but he committed no crimes. He was guilty of being an obnoxious rock star, yes. So what? Keith's negative feelings about his old bandmate, who payed the ultimate price 42 years ago, are pretty pathetic. Keith, get over yourself already!

Yes, credit where it was due! He's the one that was awed by all the poor chicago black bluesmen and made sure they got credit ... always made sure it was about imitating their sound and not hiding it ... always the one to suggest they come on tours, playing on stage w/ them, etc. Not Brian, but Keith. What the hell do you want? He's writing a book and trying to tell the story honestly ... if it comes across as a character assassination to you, well that seems more Brian's fault for how he behaved & lived his life. It's not like we didn't know most of this stuff about Brian anyway, but at least we now hear it from someone firsthand. Me get over myself? Check the mirror douche.

Quote
LeonidP
Yes, credit where it was due! He's the one that was awed by all the poor chicago black bluesmen and made sure they got credit ... always made sure it was about imitating their sound and not hiding it ... always the one to suggest they come on tours, playing on stage w/ them, etc. Not Brian, but Keith. What the hell do you want? He's writing a book and trying to tell the story honestly ... if it comes across as a character assassination to you, well that seems more Brian's fault for how he behaved & lived his life. It's not like we didn't know most of this stuff about Brian anyway, but at least we now hear it from someone firsthand. Me get over myself? Check the mirror douche.

Both Brian and Keith gave the old Chicago bluesman their credit, so you're wrong there. Please try reading some more literature on the old Stones and watching videos from that era, especially the one where Brian tells Mick to 'shut up' so they can hear Howlin Wolf perform. Brian idolized and worshipped the old Chicago bluesmen, and you're obviously ignorant of that. As for Keith's character assassination of Brian, I firmly believe it's done in poor taste. Keith still has an axe to grind with Brian after all these years, and all I ask is why? Why does he continue to attack a guy who's been dead for 42 years. I mean I find that really morbid, but that's just me. Lastly, I asked Keith to get over himself, NOT YOU. Go get some bi-focals . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 06:23 by neptune.

Quote
Mooseman
sure Keith says some nasty stuff in regards to brian but only in response to stuff brian did

stuff brian did 40-50 years ago ... you'd think he'd have gained more perspective by now. Or at least worked through it toward some new thoughts or insights on the subject instead of repeating the old "he stopped playing guitar after a while, can you believe it?"

Quote
cc

Quote
Mooseman
sure Keith says some nasty stuff in regards to brian but only in response to stuff brian did

stuff brian did 40-50 years ago ... you'd think he'd have gained more perspective by now. Or at least worked through it toward some new thoughts or insights on the subject instead of repeating the old "he stopped playing guitar after a while, can you believe it?"

No, if Brian was an a-hole 40-50 years ago, why should Keith call it something else now.
He did touch on how and why Brian effed up. I am also a fan of Brian, his use of different instruments, his slide playing and his love of blues and jazz. I give him credit, and also don't mind the criticisms, they come from others who were there, not just Keith.

Quote
neptune
... As for Keith's character assassination of Brian, I firmly believe it's done in poor taste. Keith still has an axe to grind with Brian after all these years, and all I ask is why? Why does he continue to attack a guy who's been dead for 42 years. I mean I find that really morbid, but that's just me. Lastly, I asked Keith to get over himself, NOT YOU. Go get some bi-focals . . .

He's telling a FU_KIN_ story, Jesus Christ! No point in sugar coating by now when most of this about Brian is KNOWN! Let's keep a nice book minus the details so little kids can read it. BS! And get some bi-focals ... Obviously they all gave the bluesmen credit in the beginning, but read again how I said it was always Keith bringing these guys onstage, or having them open for Stones, or playing in their bands etc. Face it, the only good books, or at least those worth reading, are those that tell everything, but woe if it offends you!

Quote
LeonidP
Obviously they all gave the bluesmen credit in the beginning, but read again how I said it was always Keith bringing these guys onstage, or having them open for Stones, or playing in their bands etc. Face it, the only good books, or at least those worth reading, are those that tell everything, but woe if it offends you!

I agree 100% with you about Keith giving credit to his old blues heroes. But I totally disagree with you about the part that Keith told everything regarding Brian (at least from the many excerpts I've read- yes, I know, I haven't read the whole book yet!). It seems like he's rehashing the same old negative stories about Brian. Yet, by Keith's own admission in the past, they were really close in the beginning, from 1962 to 1964. They were friends then, which must have meant that Keith liked Brian, right? Well, where are the POSITIVE stories (about Brian) from that period? It seems like Keith is only choosing to focus on the negative side of things, which doesn't give us a total picture. That's what offends me.

Lord, how these threads get off topic. I could give a damn about the negative stuff Keith says about Brian! If the fans don't understand Keith has massive unresolved issues with Brian Jones and there's a lot more to it than just not liking the guy, they never will.

Back to the original topic at hand, I do give a damn about historical accuracy and Keith ain't got it. The particular passage about Stu's importance does pretty much undercut Brian's role, how it can be read in any other way is truly remarkable. Lest there be any doubt what Keith's doing -- in Life, Keith says that STU had to decide whether he wanted to go forward with the rock-n-roller Richards or stick with the traditional players.

In Booth, quote Keith: BRIAN doesn't know what to do, whether to kick me out and keep it together with these cats or kick those two out and have only half a band again.

He's taking the things he assigned to Brian originally and handing it to Stu. Again, I think it's to honor Stu, but let's face: he's also sticking it to Brian and he knows it. Stu was logistically important with having a telephone, but then no one else besides Keith remembers Stu having all these terrific music contacts or much of anything else in those early days. It was a small scene at best, and at best Stu turned Brian onto Geoff Bradford, not Mick and Keith who didn't apparently meet Stu until they went to audition for Brian.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 15:44 by courtfieldroad.

He knew Brian from 1962-69, Neptune. Its safe to say that for more than half of that time, he didnt like the guy. Even for the period when they were close friends, Brian has never come across in too many accounts that I've read from anyone as a particularly likeable human being, so why Keith should be suddenly expected to go against the grain just for the sake of doing so escapes me.

Again, you're asking where are the positive stories from the 1962-64 period - and again, there are some in the book that you're admitting you havent read. Extracts of anyone's autobiography in a magazine or a newspaper arent going to concentrate on the happy-clappy shit because it doesnt make for good copy - why can't people grasp this concept?

Brian had issues, everybody knows it, but where does everyone get the impression that nobody liked Brian? Ever read or seen the Stones introduction into the Hall of Fame? Pete Townshend gives a very nice tribute to Brian. Steve Winwood liked him, Noel Redding liked him, Eric Burden liked him, to name a few. Granted, they didn't work in a band with him as Keith, Mick, and the others did, but I'm always reminded of the quote from Ray Davies..."It's true, at times Brian did seem a little schizophrenic, but who wouldn't in that band?"