Quote
lem motlow

Quote
swiss

Quote
His Majesty
Brian missing gigs has been blown way out of proportion, he probably missed about 15 or so shows. Take a look at their touring schedule from 1963 - 1966, crazy sh*t that would probably kill most folks!

Brian being a somewhat weaker person health wise than the others isn't a crime.

For sure!

I think the issue is his talking about himself and his feeble health as if it were appropriate or interesting in that context---i.e., a generic prompt for a few banal comments prior to their playing. It is indicative of Brian's personality. Self-involved. Presuming the interviewer wishes to know about his cold...and kinda going on about it.

As said, the others wouldn't have talked about themselves like that if they had a cold; if for no other reason they had a band/group identity and owuldn't have rattled on about themselves like that.

yeah,they would never rattle on about themselves...really??

and it doesnt matter what the "interviewer wishes to know about his cold" the guy is interviewing him for the public and i would assume a great deal of his fans would wonder how brian was feeling.if its "indicative of his personality,self involved" what does writing a 500+ page book about yourself say?
this is a young man who never lived past 27 yet everything about him is taken apart piece by piece.did anyone ever hear of the common decency to not trample on someones grave.for f/cks sake,they guy was just a kid.

i also notice how little its mentioned how brians various instruments were a signature of many of the stones songs from 66-68.listen to paint it black,shes a rainbow and alot of others and you'll hear,flutes,sitar,dulcimer,peddle steel,all kinds of things that flavored these songs but i guess thats not"writing songs" even though its the standout sound of the entire tune.

Indeed.

I think Swiss is off the target (well, very uncommon for her) when she says: "Even when the interviewer says "So I understand you're taking break," Brian's response is: "Well, not me personally" which is presumptuous--and narcissistic--of Brian."

Actually he says: "Well, not me particular[ly]" and then he says the whole band needs a holiday because of hard work. It's too far fetched imo to call that presumptuous and narcissistic. I guess Jagger was a bit smarter when he was answering this typically American and superficial interviewer who clearly wasn't interested in any answer he got. But look at Jagger's tongue and hands. What to conclude from that? And from his flirting with the camera? And what about the striking clumsiness of Keith, not knowing how and where to look?

Let's not forget they were still boys back then, Brian being 22, Mick 21 and Keith 20. But did the latter two ever really change? I don't think so. Brian very unfortunately died at the age of 27, after a couple of dreadful years of isolation in the band, just at the moment he was reported to being recovering and getting back on his feet. He didn't get any chance to develop as a human being and to repair his faults. But look at Jagger and Richards, how they've treated many people. Read the quotes from Richards' biography, revealing his lack of self insight and his immature way of judging other people. In my eyes those two guys seem to never have grown up decently. Mick always being keen on attention at any cost, always busy to proving himself by constantly womanising, Keith being an (almost) lifetime junky at the cost of his family and fellow band members. I'm really interested in Swiss' psychiatric qualification of these two old gentlemen.

'....and he wasn't sort of brilliant or anything...." - John Lennon, 1970.

Really? When you think of the charlatans who fooled Apple out of their money, John Lennon's idea of brilliance could be a little suspect. Magic Alex,anyone?

Quote
24FPS
'....and he wasn't sort of brilliant or anything...." - John Lennon, 1970.

Really? When you think of the charlatans who fooled Apple out of their money, John Lennon's idea of brilliance could be a little suspect. Magic Alex,anyone?

Yeah, that part of Lennon's comment doesn't make much sense. Pretty needless.

This is much a fuss about nothing!

It only shows how deep rooted these same ol' forever repeated bad stories about Brian are in the minds of some fans. Briefly mentioning he was ill gets turned in to a psychoanalysis about Brian's supposed self involvement, inappropriate behavior etc etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-25 19:15 by His Majesty.

True, true. But there's little to go on about Brian that you find yourself grasping at straws. Hell, I hardly knew who he was before he died. But his isolation in the band was his own doing. Even Bill stayed away from him in the end, and they had been roomies on the road. I think I remember Charlie being mystified by the continued interest in Brian.

Quote
Addicted
Some of the gigs Brian missed, well it was certainly NOT ONLY due to poor health. The other band members got really pissed off when they saw photos of Brian partying with celebrities after calling in sick before a show... 'It meant they had to work harder because he didn't feel like working at all that night.
This - and other charming stories that explain about Brian, his ways, his health etc - and fundamentally important Stones history - you can actually pick up in a book called LIFE, by some bestselling author named Richards, Keith. ><

,

Another side, from Phil May:

'Mike Jackson was driving Brian down there in Brian's old Rover and they broke down. They couldn't fix it, but Brian said, 'Look, don't worry. The boys will be along in the limo in a moment.' Brian was always picky about setting off on time to get to gigs so he was always the first one on the road. Well, the limo did come along, and here's Brian waving them down like hell and Mike too. And what happens? The limo draws level, the fingers go up from inside and they drive on, laughing their heads off. What I'm saying is, they would rather play with one short than pick him up. That really hurt Brian. Maybe some guys would take it differently, but not Brian. It really cut him up.'

Quote
Squiggle
'Mike Jackson was driving Brian down there in Brian's old Rover and they broke down. They couldn't fix it, but Brian said, 'Look, don't worry. The boys will be along in the limo in a moment.' Brian was always picky about setting off on time to get to gigs so he was always the first one on the road. Well, the limo did come along, and here's Brian waving them down like hell and Mike too. And what happens? The limo draws level, the fingers go up from inside and they drive on, laughing their heads off. What I'm saying is, they would rather play with one short than pick him up. That really hurt Brian. Maybe some guys would take it differently, but not Brian. It really cut him up.'

It just goes to show there's always 2 sides to the story. Unfortunately, Brian's side has never been told.

Quote
24FPS
True, true. But there's little to go on about Brian that you find yourself grasping at straws. Hell, I hardly knew who he was before he died. But his isolation in the band was his own doing. Even Bill stayed away from him in the end, and they had been roomies on the road. I think I remember Charlie being mystified by the continued interest in Brian.

His own doing? It was far from being as simple as that!

Charlie is mystified by a lot of things, including why people love The Rolling Stones.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
swiss

Quote
His Majesty
Brian missing gigs has been blown way out of proportion, he probably missed about 15 or so shows. Take a look at their touring schedule from 1963 - 1966, crazy sh*t that would probably kill most folks!

Brian being a somewhat weaker person health wise than the others isn't a crime.

For sure!

I think the issue is his talking about himself and his feeble health as if it were appropriate or interesting in that context---i.e., a generic prompt for a few banal comments prior to their playing. It is indicative of Brian's personality. Self-involved. Presuming the interviewer wishes to know about his cold...and kinda going on about it.

As said, the others wouldn't have talked about themselves like that if they had a cold; if for no other reason they had a band/group identity and owuldn't have rattled on about themselves like that.

yeah,they would never rattle on about themselves...really??

and it doesnt matter what the "interviewer wishes to know about his cold" the guy is interviewing him for the public and i would assume a great deal of his fans would wonder how brian was feeling.if its "indicative of his personality,self involved" what does writing a 500+ page book about yourself say?
this is a young man who never lived past 27 yet everything about him is taken apart piece by piece.did anyone ever hear of the common decency to not trample on someones grave.for f/cks sake,they guy was just a kid.

i also notice how little its mentioned how brians various instruments were a signature of many of the stones songs from 66-68.listen to paint it black,shes a rainbow and alot of others and you'll hear,flutes,sitar,dulcimer,peddle steel,all kinds of things that flavored these songs but i guess thats not"writing songs" even though its the standout sound of the entire tune.

Indeed.

I think Swiss is off the target (well, very uncommon for her) when she says: "Even when the interviewer says "So I understand you're taking break," Brian's response is: "Well, not me personally" which is presumptuous--and narcissistic--of Brian."

Actually he says: "Well, not me particular[ly]" and then he says the whole band needs a holiday because of hard work. It's too far fetched imo to call that presumptuous and narcissistic. I guess Jagger was a bit smarter when he was answering this typically American and superficial interviewer who clearly wasn't interested in any answer he got. But look at Jagger's tongue and hands. What to conclude from that? And from his flirting with the camera? And what about the striking clumsiness of Keith, not knowing how and where to look?

Let's not forget they were still boys back then, Brian being 22, Mick 21 and Keith 20. But did the latter two ever really change? I don't think so. Brian very unfortunately died at the age of 27, after a couple of dreadful years of isolation in the band, just at the moment he was reported to being recovering and getting back on his feet. He didn't get any chance to develop as a human being and to repair his faults. But look at Jagger and Richards, how they've treated many people. Read the quotes from Richards' biography, revealing his lack of self insight and his immature way of judging other people. In my eyes those two guys seem to never have grown up decently. Mick always being keen on attention at any cost, always busy to proving himself by constantly womanising, Keith being an (almost) lifetime junky at the cost of his family and fellow band members. I'm really interested in Swiss' psychiatric qualification of these two old gentlemen.

hi kleermaker! I've commented a lot, for months, about Keith and his arrested development. BUT...I find in actually reading LIFE I was only partly right about that. It's not black and white, regarding Keith. He has some magnificent blind spots (and I don't mean that in terms of beautiful, but profoundly significant), in terms of self-reflection, and the wisdom one might hope comes to us all with age. His blinds spots--or his "stuck places" or arrested development--tend to be around Brian, and others who he feels (for various reasons) disappointed him, or otherwise incurred his intense (not garden-variety scorn.

However, I'm pleasantly surprised to be straight-up wrong that his looking back uniformly results in blind-spots. because it doesn't. There's a sense, mostly conveyed through his more subtle, self-effacing [less ribald and over-the-top] humor, that he has, in fact, grown and matured, and that his perspective has shifted and mellowed, and he does understand things now that he didn't or couldn't have as a 20-something year old. That sense is both charming and refreshing--especially given how little dimensionality his gives to parts of the past that involve Brian (and others). And how, truly, hateful he can be.

So...that's Keith. As I've said from early on, I believe he's growing into Keith Richards the man who has a public voice. That previously Keith has been either: (1) Keith Richards the private man, or (2) Keith Richards the icon, persona, and public figure/menace. And in the years he's been working on LIFE he seems to have made progress in both separating out and integrating the two identities.

He's not"there" yet, entirely. The areas where Keith displays braggadiccio-filled hateful azzholeishness are the very areas---if you look at them as a group---that involve great emotional pain or the presence of emotional complexity or ambiguity (more than one thing being "true"--or in this case, more than one thing being felt--simultaneously). He's still not adept at synthesizing painful and contradictory emotions. So, in LIFE, he picks the "strongest" emotion and runs with it. Thing is---as we sense when we read LIFE--the "strongest" emotion may appear to him to be the most swaggeringly macho or funny or cool...but also rings false. Or rings full of barely leashed rage. Or rings with thinly veiled despair and sorrow. And it's jarring. These surprising, sour, disingenuous, grotesque, sometimes hateful notes.

In part these notes jar, because he does reveal in LIFE his gentleness and vulnerability. He does take some pretty serious emotional risks in this self-uncovery and -integration process of his--at many points in the book.

So, Keith, like LIFE (and like life), is a work in progress. I hope he writes another installment in another 15 years. At that time, in that book--providing he actually is as tough a guy as he says he is, and seems to be sometimes--we will hear his heart break over and over. Cuz that's what I think happened to this very sensitive heavily medicated lose-himself-in-his-work guy over much of his lifetime. And Keith has some super-robust defenses to keep the uber-intense emotional shit in abeyance. Defenses may serve us, but they're rarely attractive.

I think---in reading LIFE---that Keith is brave. And has taken risks, and has farther to go. To be able to live with yourself, to fully own up to what an utter reprehensible schmuck you've been to people around you--not to mention the unrelenting punishment to your own body (some may say the 2 are linked)...man, that would require a lot of stripping away of defenses, and you'd have to be pretty solid underneath all that. Which, if LIFE is any indication, he's working on it, and believe he can get there over time.

As for Mick...not too much to say. He's clearly a private individual who doesn't process things externally the way Keith does. Thank god. I love our dear Keith, but if both Keith and Mick were bleating out their unresolved shit in public it would be too much. Keith "gets" to do that cuz apparently he can't help himself--and he perhaps it's a way to get under Mick's (and other people's) skin without being having to directly confront. Mick hasn't ever chosen to be like that. So, very little sense about Mick Jagger. If he's like most people he probably takes some time to reflect...he used to meditate and do yoga, atone time. You can't do thatfor 30 years and nothave some enlightenment But Mick is also such a pragmatist, and a perfectionist, there'd have to be extremely good reason for him to dig down deep in his heart, feelings flood on the page. He's so self-contained there'd have to be a hook for him to let us see what he's become as an older human being. I suspect he's a really sensitive man, naturally he is. But he also is so shrewd and hyper-aware of image...I would surmise he'd share only that which would profit him or way or another (which is not Keith's primary intent--which seems to be satisfying a need to share and process AS well as crasser motives like "getting the story out first" and making shitloads of dough and putting himself in the spotlight and having a renewed "flash" of public adulation at a level he hasn't felt since, hmmm? '72ish?)....or Mick will wait another chunk of years, when nothing could harm him, and he'll write something extraordinary, insightful and masterful.

And kleer...just to be clear. Everything I'm saying about Brian, of course, is an exaggeration. It's zooming in close close close on this teenny tiny snippet.

I only do that because, as I think 24FPS said, we have so little to go on.

And when not only Keith, but Mick, Bill, Charlie, and Ian have derided Brian--talked about Brian's weakness, his annoyingness, his pathetic tragic decline, his decreasing effectiveness and engagement, and increasing disaffectedness--it is disconcerting. It's horrible. It's like focking Lord of the Flies, to me. Just goddamn piling on, and piling on, like a rugby scrum. Both when this guy (who was---without question--more artistically sensitive than anyone else in the Stones) was alive, as well as posthumusly. And when Bill himself says...

Bill: Charlie and I were all right 'cause we're fairly easygoing, but for Brian it really threw him. Brian was lost. He wasn't even singing backup vocals like he used to. He got confused over what his purpose in the band was. So he started to practice less and get drunk more. He really couldn't handle it, and just went from bad to worse over two or three years. It was difficult to break this cult thing and feel like we were all friends. The atmosphere was a bit strange, a little tense. There would be in jokes that you didn't know about. I went through a period that lasted several years where I was the scapegoat for funny remarks and sarcastic comments. I didn't like it very much. Then suddenly Brian became the one that wasn't liked. I was OK then, back amongst the pluses and Brian was in the minuses. In those days it was a bit vicious. [[url=http://www.timeisonourside.com/chron1966.html]source[/url]]

...we know it's true.

In part, in my opinion, the Rolling Stones bullied Brian to death.

BUT...few things in life are one-dimensional. Who was Brian? what was he like? would you have found him annoying? would I have found him annoying? I don't know. Open question. Has no bearing on whether the mutherfocker was a genius. Mozart also was annoying as hell. But in my quest to know what these people were like---what Brian was like---we have these scant threads of "evidence." So few of them. So in this clip you get 2 things:

(1) (to some of us) rather odd smug self-centered responses to interviewer questions

and

(2) a spectacular radiant performance

Both reveal something about who Brian was. We get to see and hear his brilliance in playing longer than we hear his spoken moments.

And the playing is unearthly and sublime and joyous----in contrast to talking about himself and what "the doctors" are saying. And the reason I call The Doctors bit out repeatedly is it's a tedious and clearly an exaggerated claim--a little hypochondriac play for sympathy that seems uncalculated and therefore part of who he was; or if he was playing hooky and blowing off shows (as Addicted and Keith claim) then it is worse that being a hypochondriac; it's like a little kid's untruth.

People at iorr can say here that Brian's fans would have enjoyed knowing he had a "virus" and The Doctors are perplexed by this fascinating non-diagnosable malady he has presented them with. But in that day and age, no. One did not "go on" about themselves. In most parts of the world. But particularly Britain. One kept the stiff upper lip and one did not complain. One soldiered on. Particularly men. Particularly men purporting to be tough as nails.

True, it would be shrewd to insert that sort of blip into a pre-teen fan magazine interview with Brian. But by that time, the Stones were projecting an image of cool...impervious...not all sniffly and fretting about themselves.

Say what yall will, but it's true. And it's also true he misread the interviewer and answered in a narcissistic way, which could irritate your friends. When you're going for an all-for-one group identity.

By the way....by narcissistic I do not mean Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I mean the generic definition of "a characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance"

And no, I haven't seen anything about the newspapers at that time reporting on Brian's illnesses and missing concerts. Have you, courtfieldroad ? If so, let's see that. Courtfieldroad claims the media was a-buzz about Brian being ill and missing shows. Really? Cool, love to read that too. Or please give me a citation. I'll get the clip myself and I will share it here.

If Brian was getting blasted in the press at this time for being absent due to illness or flaking or playing hooky that would have been an additional stressor for him and the band---and that negative attention more perceived fuel for his bandmates to further distance themselves from him.


I'm endlessly looking for clues here. I want the multidimensional messy story containing all the simultaneous realities, and apparent contradictions. There's not that much more time when the original people who were around and knew Brian will be alive and able to talk about it. And when people like us still have fresh in our memories what it was like back then...to be able to piece things together in a waythat will be increasingly difficult over time, due to the normal shifts in culture and how people perceive things.

So please don't hate because I'm trying (perhaps somewhat unsparingly) to get to the essence of Brian in all his splendor and glory and his weakness and annoyingness. Nothing Brian Jones was, said, or did would "justify" being broken by the Stones---which they did do to him.

But life is not often made up of mustachio-twirling villains and sweet polly purebreds.

Before this clip -- I'd never seen Brian ever ever exhibiting anything resembling the shit he is accused of, in terms of self-identifying as a sickly self-important little guy. NEVER. I had seen clips where other shit was obvious. Bright, interesting, nonlinear, ethereal, funny, raucous, sexy, provocative, goofballish, out of it, uncomfortable, arrogant, self-conscious, aloof, boisterous, blisteringly talented.

So this clip is one tiny shard of evidence that everyone didn't make it all up about the sickly self-important stuff.

This clip doesn't PROVE something monumental. And I never said it did.

It's just strong suggestion that a set of [mildly to highly unflattering characteristics, depending on how you take such things], which people talked/griped about...did probably exist.

- swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-26 10:53 by swiss.

charlie needs to at least learn to drive a car befor i take anything he says seriously and john lennon was an idiot.for some reason people who grew up in the 60s think his word is gospel..guess what,it isnt.

funny story: when lennon and wacko. i mean yoko were on the mike douglas show in america in the early 70s they did this thing where they called random people and would tell them "i love you"[i swear i'm not making this up] a few years ago howard stern played a tape of this and though it may have sounded really far out and groovy at the time to some people it came off as soo friggin stupid.with one of the best ad-lib lines ever stern quipped"guess they didnt have julians number readily available"

swiss-if your posts get any longer we're gonna have to find YOU a book deal.

lets sum it up-brian probably was a pain in the ass but he was a very young man with alot going on.he never lived long enough to grow up and sort himself out.people who carry on about him like he was 40 yrs old are jerkoffs and morons

brian started the rolling stones-brian named the rolling stones-brian was a very, very talented young man who could play alot of different instruments that are heard on many early rolling stones songs.people who ignore this or downplay it...are jerkoffs and morons

people who worry about a 22 yr old kid talking about having a cold in a old newsreel from nearly 5 decades ago are....in need of a hobby.

Quote
swiss

hi kleermaker! I've commented a lot, for months, about Keith and his arrested development. BUT...I find in actually reading LIFE I was only partly right about that. It's not black and white, regarding Keith. He has some magnificent blind spots (and I don't mean that in terms of beautiful, but profoundly significant), in terms of self-reflection, and the wisdom one might hope comes to us all with age. His blinds spots--or his "stuck places" or arrested development--tend to be around Brian, and others who he feels (for various reasons) disappointed him, or otherwise incurred his intense (not garden-variety scorn.

However, I'm pleasantly surprised to be straight-up wrong that his looking back uniformly results in blind-spots. because it doesn't. There's a sense, mostly conveyed through his more subtle, self-effacing [less ribald and over-the-top] humor, that he has, in fact, grown and matured, and that his perspective has shifted and mellowed, and he does understand things now that he didn't or couldn't have as a 20-something year old. That sense is both charming and refreshing--especially given how little dimensionality his gives to parts of the past that involve Brian (and others). And how, truly, hateful he can be.

So...that's Keith. As I've said from early on, I believe he's growing into Keith Richards the man who has a public voice. That previously Keith has been either: (1) Keith Richards the private man, or (2) Keith Richards the icon, persona, and public figure/menace. And in the years he's been working on LIFE he seems to have made progress in both separating out and integrating the two identities.

He's not"there" yet, entirely. The areas where Keith displays braggadiccio-filled hateful azzholeishness are the very areas---if you look at them as a group---that involve great emotional pain or the presence of emotional complexity or ambiguity (more than one thing being "true"--or in this case, more than one thing being felt--simultaneously). He's still not adept at synthesizing painful and contradictory emotions. So, in LIFE, he picks the "strongest" emotion and runs with it. Thing is---as we sense when we read LIFE--the "strongest" emotion may appear to him to be the most swaggeringly macho or funny or cool...but also rings false. Or rings full of barely leashed rage. Or rings with thinly veiled despair and sorrow. And it's jarring. These surprising, sour, disingenuous, grotesque, sometimes hateful notes.

In part these notes jar, because he does reveal in LIFE his gentleness and vulnerability. He does take some pretty serious emotional risks in this self-uncovery and -integration process of his--at many points in the book.

So, Keith, like LIFE (and like life), is a work in progress. I hope he writes another installment in another 15 years. At that time, in that book--providing he actually is as tough a guy as he says he is, and seems to be sometimes--we will hear his heart break over and over. Cuz that's what I think happened to this very sensitive heavily medicated lose-himself-in-his-work guy over much of his lifetime. And Keith has some super-robust defenses to keep the uber-intense emotional shit in abeyance. Defenses may serve us, but they're rarely attractive.

I think---in reading LIFE---that Keith is brave. And has taken risks, and has farther to go. To be able to live with yourself, to fully own up to what an utter reprehensible schmuck you've been to people around you--not to mention the unrelenting punishment to your own body (some may say the 2 are linked)...man, that would require a lot of stripping away of defenses, and you'd have to be pretty solid underneath all that. Which, if LIFE is any indication, he's working on it, and believe he can get there over time.


- swiss

Please don't think I didn't read and enjoy the rest of your post, swiss - but it's rather long to quote in full, and I wanted to say that you've identified a lot of things I feel about Life - particularly the bit about defences. Others have posted at length about how appalled they are by the Keith revealed in the book, and how much worse they now think of him - and I can see why. But it's Keith who has allowed the book to be published the way it is, "warts and all", and I don't think he's stupid enough not to know that he's included a lot of stuff that isn't calculated to make people love him. It's very possible (and indeed he says something like it once or twice in the book) that he knows only too well that he isn't the world's most wonderful human being, and he isn't in the business of disguising it. Maybe Keith doesn't like Keith, or want to make excuses for his behaviour, as much as we do.

There are also places where some things, as you say, are clearly being avoided or talked about inappropriately because they are emotionally painful. Have you noticed that he is usually absent from funerals? One way of dealing with grief and disappointment is anger - especially for a person brought up (as I was too) not to give way to certain emotions in public. "Don't be so soft!" says his Mum - and that is a hard lesson to unlearn after all this time.

Yes, I'd like to read Life Part 2 further down the line....

Quote
lem motlow
swiss-if your posts get any longer we're gonna have to find YOU a book deal.

lets sum it up-brian probably was a pain in the ass but he was a very young man with alot going on.he never lived long enough to grow up and sort himself out.people who carry on about him like he was 40 yrs old are jerkoffs and morons

brian started the rolling stones-brian named the rolling stones-brian was a very, very talented young man who could play alot of different instruments that are heard on many early rolling stones songs.people who ignore this or downplay it...are jerkoffs and morons

people who worry about a 22 yr old kid talking about having a cold in a old newsreel from nearly 5 decades ago are....in need of a hobby.

er - we're not in need of a hobby. We've got one. it's called iorr.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
lem motlow
swiss-if your posts get any longer we're gonna have to find YOU a book deal.

lets sum it up-brian probably was a pain in the ass but he was a very young man with alot going on.he never lived long enough to grow up and sort himself out.people who carry on about him like he was 40 yrs old are jerkoffs and morons

brian started the rolling stones-brian named the rolling stones-brian was a very, very talented young man who could play alot of different instruments that are heard on many early rolling stones songs.people who ignore this or downplay it...are jerkoffs and morons

people who worry about a 22 yr old kid talking about having a cold in a old newsreel from nearly 5 decades ago are....in need of a hobby.

er - we're not in need of a hobby. We've got one. it's called iorr.

ha ha,no kidding,like im one who should be talking....

Brian being an ass shouldn't be a major problem to us the fans! The music he helped create is all that should really matter!

Whether he took a dump in Keith's pie pre-gig or was busy being held underwater in July 1969 doesn't change the greatness of his best recorded contributions... and there are many!!!

People as @#$%& up as Mick and especially Keith taking on rotation digs at him is comical, 40 - 50 years after even more so! This kinda crap spilling over in to fans of the band only adds to the stupidity of it all.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-26 19:56 by His Majesty.

Quote
kleermaker
I guess Jagger was a bit smarter when he was answering this typically American and superficial interviewer who clearly wasn't interested in any answer he got.

off-topic (and maybe we need a break from the topic), but this crack is absurd. Have you ever heard the "interviews" on the BBC sessions from the same period? They're just as superficial and intended just to fill up a few seconds between performances. The interviewer (Brian Mathew?) sounds like a gentle but uninterested dad.

Quote
cc

Quote
kleermaker
I guess Jagger was a bit smarter when he was answering this typically American and superficial interviewer who clearly wasn't interested in any answer he got.

off-topic (and maybe we need a break from the topic), but this crack is absurd. Have you ever heard the "interviews" on the BBC sessions from the same period? They're just as superficial and intended just to fill up a few seconds between performances. The interviewer (Brian Mathew?) sounds like a gentle but uninterested dad.

Keith Fordyce.

Quote
swiss
hi kleermaker! I've commented a lot, for months, about Keith and his arrested development. BUT...I find in actually reading LIFE I was only partly right about that. It's not black and white, regarding Keith. He has some magnificent blind spots (and I don't mean that in terms of beautiful, but profoundly significant), in terms of self-reflection, and the wisdom one might hope comes to us all with age. His blinds spots--or his "stuck places" or arrested development--tend to be around Brian, and others who he feels (for various reasons) disappointed him, or otherwise incurred his intense (not garden-variety scorn.

However, I'm pleasantly surprised to be straight-up wrong that his looking back uniformly results in blind-spots. because it doesn't. There's a sense, mostly conveyed through his more subtle, self-effacing [less ribald and over-the-top] humor, that he has, in fact, grown and matured, and that his perspective has shifted and mellowed, and he does understand things now that he didn't or couldn't have as a 20-something year old. That sense is both charming and refreshing--especially given how little dimensionality his gives to parts of the past that involve Brian (and others). And how, truly, hateful he can be.

So...that's Keith. As I've said from early on, I believe he's growing into Keith Richards the man who has a public voice. That previously Keith has been either: (1) Keith Richards the private man, or (2) Keith Richards the icon, persona, and public figure/menace. And in the years he's been working on LIFE he seems to have made progress in both separating out and integrating the two identities.

He's not"there" yet, entirely. The areas where Keith displays braggadiccio-filled hateful azzholeishness are the very areas---if you look at them as a group---that involve great emotional pain or the presence of emotional complexity or ambiguity (more than one thing being "true"--or in this case, more than one thing being felt--simultaneously). He's still not adept at synthesizing painful and contradictory emotions. So, in LIFE, he picks the "strongest" emotion and runs with it. Thing is---as we sense when we read LIFE--the "strongest" emotion may appear to him to be the most swaggeringly macho or funny or cool...but also rings false. Or rings full of barely leashed rage. Or rings with thinly veiled despair and sorrow. And it's jarring. These surprising, sour, disingenuous, grotesque, sometimes hateful notes.

In part these notes jar, because he does reveal in LIFE his gentleness and vulnerability. He does take some pretty serious emotional risks in this self-uncovery and -integration process of his--at many points in the book.

So, Keith, like LIFE (and like life), is a work in progress. I hope he writes another installment in another 15 years. At that time, in that book--providing he actually is as tough a guy as he says he is, and seems to be sometimes--we will hear his heart break over and over. Cuz that's what I think happened to this very sensitive heavily medicated lose-himself-in-his-work guy over much of his lifetime. And Keith has some super-robust defenses to keep the uber-intense emotional shit in abeyance. Defenses may serve us, but they're rarely attractive.

I think---in reading LIFE---that Keith is brave. And has taken risks, and has farther to go. To be able to live with yourself, to fully own up to what an utter reprehensible schmuck you've been to people around you--not to mention the unrelenting punishment to your own body (some may say the 2 are linked)...man, that would require a lot of stripping away of defenses, and you'd have to be pretty solid underneath all that. Which, if LIFE is any indication, he's working on it, and believe he can get there over time.

[ This comes across as the most interesting and wise comment on Keith's book that I've read on IORR. ]

As for Mick...not too much to say. He's clearly a private individual who doesn't process things externally the way Keith does. Thank god. I love our dear Keith, but if both Keith and Mick were bleating out their unresolved shit in public it would be too much. Keith "gets" to do that cuz apparently he can't help himself--and he perhaps it's a way to get under Mick's (and other people's) skin without being having to directly confront. Mick hasn't ever chosen to be like that. So, very little sense about Mick Jagger. If he's like most people he probably takes some time to reflect...he used to meditate and do yoga, atone time. You can't do thatfor 30 years and nothave some enlightenment But Mick is also such a pragmatist, and a perfectionist, there'd have to be extremely good reason for him to dig down deep in his heart, feelings flood on the page. He's so self-contained there'd have to be a hook for him to let us see what he's become as an older human being. I suspect he's a really sensitive man, naturally he is. But he also is so shrewd and hyper-aware of image...I would surmise he'd share only that which would profit him or way or another (which is not Keith's primary intent--which seems to be satisfying a need to share and process AS well as crasser motives like "getting the story out first" and making shitloads of dough and putting himself in the spotlight and having a renewed "flash" of public adulation at a level he hasn't felt since, hmmm? '72ish?)....or Mick will wait another chunk of years, when nothing could harm him, and he'll write something extraordinary, insightful and masterful.

[ As for Mick, I don't expect him to be writing "something extraordinary, insightful and masterful". Actually I don't expect him to write anything really personal at all. It would be very un-Mick. ]

And kleer...just to be clear. Everything I'm saying about Brian, of course, is an exaggeration. It's zooming in close close close on this teenny tiny snippet.

I only do that because, as I think 24FPS said, we have so little to go on.

And when not only Keith, but Mick, Bill, Charlie, and Ian have derided Brian--talked about Brian's weakness, his annoyingness, his pathetic tragic decline, his decreasing effectiveness and engagement, and increasing disaffectedness--it is disconcerting. It's horrible. It's like focking Lord of the Flies, to me. Just goddamn piling on, and piling on, like a rugby scrum. Both when this guy (who was---without question--more artistically sensitive than anyone else in the Stones) was alive, as well as posthumusly. And when Bill himself says...

Bill: Charlie and I were all right 'cause we're fairly easygoing, but for Brian it really threw him. Brian was lost. He wasn't even singing backup vocals like he used to. He got confused over what his purpose in the band was. So he started to practice less and get drunk more. He really couldn't handle it, and just went from bad to worse over two or three years. It was difficult to break this cult thing and feel like we were all friends. The atmosphere was a bit strange, a little tense. There would be in jokes that you didn't know about. I went through a period that lasted several years where I was the scapegoat for funny remarks and sarcastic comments. I didn't like it very much. Then suddenly Brian became the one that wasn't liked. I was OK then, back amongst the pluses and Brian was in the minuses. In those days it was a bit vicious. [[url=http://www.timeisonourside.com/chron1966.html]source[/url]]

...we know it's true.

In part, in my opinion, the Rolling Stones bullied Brian to death.

BUT...few things in life are one-dimensional. Who was Brian? what was he like? would you have found him annoying? would I have found him annoying? I don't know. Open question. Has no bearing on whether the mutherfocker was a genius. Mozart also was annoying as hell.

[ I don't know if "Mozart also was annoying as hell". We always see most other people one-dimensionally and ourselves in all dimensions. But then we see something of someone that deviates from the 'standard pattern' we 'know' so well that at the same time questions the whole standard pattern itself. Then we realize other people are all just as three dimensional as we experience ourselves. (BTW: the book 'Mozart' by Wolfgang Hildesheimer provides some interesting views on not only the enigmatic Mozart but also on this whole question of how to 'interpret' and 'understand' other people.) ]

But in my quest to know what these people were like---what Brian was like---we have these scant threads of "evidence." So few of them. So in this clip you get 2 things:

(1) (to some of us) rather odd smug self-centered responses to interviewer questions

and

(2) a spectacular radiant performance

Both reveal something about who Brian was. We get to see and hear his brilliance in playing longer than we hear his spoken moments.

And the playing is unearthly and sublime and joyous----in contrast to talking about himself and what "the doctors" are saying. And the reason I call The Doctors bit out repeatedly is it's a tedious and clearly an exaggerated claim--a little hypochondriac play for sympathy that seems uncalculated and therefore part of who he was; or if he was playing hooky and blowing off shows (as Addicted and Keith claim) then it is worse that being a hypochondriac; it's like a little kid's untruth.

People at iorr can say here that Brian's fans would have enjoyed knowing he had a "virus" and The Doctors are perplexed by this fascinating non-diagnosable malady he has presented them with. But in that day and age, no. One did not "go on" about themselves. In most parts of the world. But particularly Britain. One kept the stiff upper lip and one did not complain. One soldiered on. Particularly men. Particularly men purporting to be tough as nails.

[ I think you're very right here. It certainly applies to all Rolling Stones members, with perhaps the exception of Ron Wood. ]

True, it would be shrewd to insert that sort of blip into a pre-teen fan magazine interview with Brian. But by that time, the Stones were projecting an image of cool...impervious...not all sniffly and fretting about themselves.

Say what yall will, but it's true. And it's also true he misread the interviewer and answered in a narcissistic way, which could irritate your friends. When you're going for an all-for-one group identity.

By the way....by narcissistic I do not mean Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I mean the generic definition of "a characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance"

And no, I haven't seen anything about the newspapers at that time reporting on Brian's illnesses and missing concerts. Have you, courtfieldroad ? If so, let's see that. Courtfieldroad claims the media was a-buzz about Brian being ill and missing shows. Really? Cool, love to read that too. Or please give me a citation. I'll get the clip myself and I will share it here.

If Brian was getting blasted in the press at this time for being absent due to illness or flaking or playing hooky that would have been an additional stressor for him and the band---and that negative attention more perceived fuel for his bandmates to further distance themselves from him.


I'm endlessly looking for clues here. I want the multidimensional messy story containing all the simultaneous realities, and apparent contradictions. There's not that much more time when the original people who were around and knew Brian will be alive and able to talk about it. And when people like us still have fresh in our memories what it was like back then...to be able to piece things together in a waythat will be increasingly difficult over time, due to the normal shifts in culture and how people perceive things.

So please don't hate because I'm trying (perhaps somewhat unsparingly) to get to the essence of Brian in all his splendor and glory and his weakness and annoyingness. Nothing Brian Jones was, said, or did would "justify" being broken by the Stones---which they did do to him.

But life is not often made up of mustachio-twirling villains and sweet polly purebreds.

Before this clip -- I'd never seen Brian ever ever exhibiting anything resembling the shit he is accused of, in terms of self-identifying as a sickly self-important little guy. NEVER. I had seen clips where other shit was obvious. Bright, interesting, nonlinear, ethereal, funny, raucous, sexy, provocative, goofballish, out of it, uncomfortable, arrogant, self-conscious, aloof, boisterous, blisteringly talented.

So this clip is one tiny shard of evidence that everyone didn't make it all up about the sickly self-important stuff.

This clip doesn't PROVE something monumental. And I never said it did.

It's just strong suggestion that a set of [mildly to highly unflattering characteristics, depending on how you take such things], which people talked/griped about...did probably exist.

- swiss

Great post swiss, thanks. Glad I provoked you to write it. It has the same high quality as your post in the 'smoking' thread. I've added some comment in cursive and between hooks.

Quote
lem motlow
swiss-if your posts get any longer we're gonna have to find YOU a book deal.

I'd buy it.

Quote
Squiggle

Quote
lem motlow
swiss-if your posts get any longer we're gonna have to find YOU a book deal.

I'd buy it.

Me, too!

- Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
Great post swiss, thanks. Glad I provoked you to write it..

For somehow you have the abilty to "provoke" the best out of people, Kleermaker. I know you can drive some people mad but I hink with your consistent, articulated contributions you really "force" people to sharpen their vision and thoughts. At least mine. The point is not at all is to agree, but just share thoughts. Great you are here.

It's Friday night, I am having few drinks at home, listening to my own compilaions of The Stones, and writing here... and feeling good... probably that's why I am so big-hearted and sharing comlpliments here and there ..



- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
Great post swiss, thanks. Glad I provoked you to write it..

For somehow you have the abilty to "provoke" the best out of people, Kleermaker. I know you can drive some people mad but I hink with your consistent, articulated contributions you really "force" people to sharpen their vision and thoughts. At least mine. The point is not at all is to agree, but just share thoughts. Great you are here.

It's Friday night, I am having few drinks at home, listening to my own compilaions of The Stones, and writing here... and feeling good... probably that's why I am so big-hearted and sharing comlpliments here and there ..



- Doxa

Have a great night Doxa! It's good to hear you're so good-humoured! Well, you got a thread dedicated to you. Seems big enough a compliment to me.

I'm jealous. I don't know how to make smiley faces clinking steins. Seriously. It looks like fun to me. Back to Brian: It was that Mojo profile a few years back that got me interested in Jones again. Away from the Stones he was doing some intesting things; hanging out with Warhol before the others, playing with Dylan, recording world music with the Master Musicians. And with Anita's recent comments on his intellectual prowess, it just made him a more fascinating subject to me. I wish I could know what him and Hendrix talked about. I would imagine a converation between Jones and Hendrix discussing the blues could be enlightening. He is more than the f-ed up pop star, canary in the coal mine rock death image.

Quote
24FPS
I'm jealous.

Don't be. A hangover...

But what you mentioned about Brian's "circles", I tend to think that the others (Mick and Keith) were somehow jealous for him hanging out with all these 'cool' people, and seemingly getting alone with them. I think partly for these psychological reasons, Keith tries belittle it; for example, bash Brian's "unloyal" socializing while he and Mick were "writing songs" ("let's drink to the hard working people"). Especially Brian's involvement with Dylan seems to be a hard case for Keith. of course, Dylan was the king of them all, and a true son of bitch; it took Keith years to come to really to get along with Dylan. In 1965 he was just air to Bob (his comment on "Satsisfaction" vs. "Desolation Row" surely was a nasty remark at the time.) But if one reads LIFE it is funny how keen Keith is getting to know all those "art" people Anita knows when the time comes. It is cool then. He doesn't mention that most of those circles were ones with which Brain had already hanging on... And more one reads LIFE Keith sounds more and more proud how he "knows" all the cool or right people here and there, and is hanging with them. It is almost name-dropping since the 80's.

Even though his Stones fellows seem to point out Brian's nastier sides - I guess it was a hell to work with him - Brian seemed to get along rather well with all different kinds of people, and he seemed to charm them quite easily. It sounds like during his short life in the 60's he seemed to know closely all the important figures of that decade, from Dylan and Hendrix to people like Warhol. Not to mention that he seemed to all seduce all the cool 60's chicks along the way... It sounds that this is a legacy that still somehow seem to piss Keith off. That in some way Brian was always one step ahead of them rest, and like showing the way to a word-class coolness (and Anita surely made that clear). Jagger sounds like getting over it (if he ever had real problems with it).

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 11:57 by Doxa.

That Brain dude sure caused a lot of trouble...

Quote
Doxa
Even though his Stones fellows seem to point out Brian's nastier sides - I guess it was a hell to work with him - Brian seemed to get along rather well with all different kinds of people, and he seemed to charm them quite easily. It sounds like during his short life in the 60's he seemed to know closely all the important figures of that decade, from Dylan and Hendrix to people like Warhol. Not to mention that he seemed to all seduce all the cool 60's chicks along the way... It sounds that this is a legacy that still somehow seem to piss Keith off. That in some way Brian was always one step ahead of them rest, and like showing the way to a word-class coolness (and Anita surely made that clear). Jagger sounds like getting over it (if he ever had real problems with it).

Doxa, I think you're getting on to something here. What always seems to get lost here was how popular Brian was among the art and music scene at the time. Much has been said about Brian being an ass. But then he had all these friends like Dylan, Hendrix, Warhol, Townshend, Eric Burdon, George Harrison, Nico, etc. Brian seemed to be the one Rolling Stone other musicians and artists wanted to meet. The Byrds, Beatles, Kinks, Townshend, Frank Zappa, and Donovan didn't gravitate toward Keith, but to Brian! Look at the Monterey Pop Festival- Brian was called the 'King of the Festival' by the people there, he just oozed cool. I'm sure there was a little jealousy from Keith and Mick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 06:09 by neptune.

"Brian was ...enthusiastic, insightful, intelligent, and a good musician with a really nice side to him. But I don't think he was really cut out to be famous. He hated to be misquoted in the papers, for instance, and all those things you have to get used to if you want to be famous, which he did. When he became famous, he realized he didn't like it, but by then it was too late." Mick Jagger, 1983.

"When I met him I liked him quite a lot. He was a good fellow, you know, I got to know him very well, I think, and I felt close to him, you know how it is with some people, you feel for them, feel near to them. He was born on Feb. 28, 1942 and I was born on Feb. 25, 1943, and he was with Mick and Keith and I was with John and Paul in the groups, so there was a sort of understanding between the two of us. The positions were similar and I often seemed to meet him in times of trouble. There was nothing the matter with him that a little extra love wouldn't have cured. I don't think he had enough love or understanding. He was very nice and sincere and sensitive, and we must remember that's what he was." - George Harrison

Quote overload already!

They're all fine and well, but they don't change one little fact that separates the STONES from EVERYONE ELSE: the Stones had to work and tour with Brian, all those other folks didn't. Brian clearly had likeable qualities and could be fun to be around, but that's not the same as being easy to work with.

Mick and Keith probably did have some jealousy at the social circles he was moving in, but you also see whatever they felt about Brian socializing with the big guns being coupled with complaints about him coming to the studio zonked BECAUSE he'd been out socializing. I doubt the negative things they say have to do with simple jealousy, Keith's always been pretty obvious in showing he felt Brian let the band down, abandoning guitar, not showing up or being too stoned at times.

Quote
courtfieldroad

Mick and Keith probably did have some jealousy at the social circles he was moving in, but you also see whatever they felt about Brian socializing with the big guns being coupled with complaints about him coming to the studio zonked BECAUSE he'd been out socializing. I doubt the negative things they say have to do with simple jealousy, Keith's always been pretty obvious in showing he felt Brian let the band down, abandoning guitar, not showing up or being too stoned at times.

This thing of Brian apparently abandoning guitar, thus letting the band down, is more to do with Keith's expectations as to what Brian should be doing musically than what Brian musically wanted to do. The quality of Brian's non guitar contributions tell me it was far from being a bad thing that he chose to experiment with different instruments...

Brian's versatility is a vital part of what makes the Brian Jones era so interesting! Brian helped define classic songs by being the musician he was rather than the musician Keith wanted him to be!

As for letting the band down, they've all been pretty guilty of that at times!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 20:58 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
courtfieldroad

Mick and Keith probably did have some jealousy at the social circles he was moving in, but you also see whatever they felt about Brian socializing with the big guns being coupled with complaints about him coming to the studio zonked BECAUSE he'd been out socializing. I doubt the negative things they say have to do with simple jealousy, Keith's always been pretty obvious in showing he felt Brian let the band down, abandoning guitar, not showing up or being too stoned at times.

This thing of Brian apparently abandoning guitar, thus letting the band down, is more to do with Keith's expectations as to what Brian should be doing musically than what Brian musically wanted to do. The quality of Brian's non guitar contributions tell me it was far from being a bad thing that he chose to experiment with different instruments...

Brian's versatility is a vital part of what makes the Brian Jones era so interesting! Brian helped define classic songs by being the musician he was rather than the musician Keith wanted him to be!

As for letting the band down, they've all been pretty guilty of that at times!

I agree those are Keith's expectations and perceptions. While most of us would agree we benefited mightily from Brian's abandoning the guitar, Keith is forever stuck in the "we're a two guitar band" mode. Brian was into glorious experimentation, all Keith wanted to be was a guitarist, they were cut from two entirely different musical cloths.

But objectively speaking, was Keith totally off base in expecting Brian to share more guitar duties than he apparently did? If you write songs which rely on two guitars and end up overdubbing the second guitar part yourself even though you have another qualified guitarist who can do it, are you wrong to be less than thrilled about it?

This is just the two sides of the same coin that was the '60s Stones.