Perhaps Brian held back on playing on some Jagger Richard songs simply because he thought they sucked!?

But anyway, if a member of band I was in came up with stuff as cool as the marimba part on Under My Thumb, the vibraphone on Yesterdays Papers or the mellotron on We Love You and 2000 Light Years From Home I would have zero concerns about overdubbing a few more filler guitar parts!

Even when Brian did play guitar, Keith still on a lot of occasions overdubbed more(sometimes without it being necessary imo), so his apparent issues about Brian not playing guitar meaning overdubbing is pretty much a load of crap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 22:00 by His Majesty.

I don't know, you're reasoning of Brian maybe not playing on sucky songs doesn't hold out, HM. He was dead set against the Stones doing the psychedelia bit with Satanic, but is all over that anyway!

I'm 100% not complaining about what Brian contributed to the Stones sound in the 1960s, that's one of the reasons why I'm a fan of Brian (throw in stellar slide and harmonica duties as well) and he MADE any number of songs with his non-guitar colorings. But as we have no way of truly knowing the extent to which Keith had to overdub parts or did so unnecessarily/for mere filler, I can still see Keith's point of view.

Let's not get started on Keith's take on WHY Brian wasn't always around to do these things either!

Quote
courtfieldroad
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.

That is the pot calling the kettle black...

I can go overboard with the quotes can't I? I can see how Mick and Keith must have felt, but I can also see how Brian might have been made to feel at certain times in the studio too.

Quote
courtfieldroad
He was dead set against the Stones doing the psychedelia bit with Satanic, but is all over that anyway!

I wonder whether the above was all that true though!?

His contributions during 1967 give the impression that he both enjoyed and was also rather well suited to psychedelic music. Even by the supposed get back to your routes 1968 he said he was hung up on electronic music and his mellotron flute part on Jigsaw Puzzle is pretty far out.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
courtfieldroad
He was dead set against the Stones doing the psychedelia bit with Satanic, but is all over that anyway!

I wonder whether the above was all that true though!?

His contributions during 1967 give the impression that he both enjoyed and was also rather well suited to psychedelic music. Even by the supposed get back to your routes 1968 he said he was hung up on electronic music and his mellotron flute part on Jigsaw Puzzle is pretty far out.

You've got a very good point there, I'm not sure of the source for Brian's anti-Satanic view. I read it in Laura Jackson's book, but nothing is quoted from anyone.

I think some of the anti satanic - Brian anecdotes come from Anita.

Quote
His Majesty
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!

Jimmy Miller about Brian Jones in Rolling Stone Magazine’s review of Beggars Banquet;

"I used to try to accommodate him. I would isolate him, put him in a booth and not record him onto any track that we really needed. And the others, particularly Mick and Keith, would often say to me, 'Just tell him to piss off and get the hell out of here.'"

To me it is clear that Brian had a supreme musically tuned soul, he would hear a song and hear inside himself what was missing and added it. This worked absolute magical the Brian Jones years ARE the true Golden years of the Rolling Stones, and Satanic is a masterpiece proofing that Brian was absolutely NOT incapable at all, contrary. The Stones knew this and left Brian free to fill in the music he saw fit. However something changed in 1968 clearly and it had NOTHING to do with Brian not being able to materialise in sound what stirred him hearing new songs, but it had everything to do with Jimmy Miller and the Glimmers now wanting to DICTATE what they were going to do, with what instrument and how. Brian refused to play the game and was bullied out. Jimmy Miller's comment dating from years after the event are revealing into how much the post 67 Stones sound may actually have been crafted by Miller. i am convinced that if the Stones would in 68 have given Brian the same licence to fill in the tracks as he envisioned fitting we would still have a Beggars, but a very different one (a better one i'm sure). But alas the Stones were determined to become a guitar-rockband and lost some of the magic in the process, or as some one has put it so accurately;

Rolling Stone Magazine, Aug 09, 1969; "If Keith Richard and Mick Jagger were the mind and body of the Rolling Stones, Brian Jones, standing most of the time in the shadows, was clearly the soul."

Behroez brings up an interesting point I've never read discussed, which is Brian's inability to move successfully back into guitar based music after having left it so long ago. Not that he was ever a great rock guitarist, but, ironically, what may have helped seal his fate with the band was the inability to perform adequately on a musical instrument. You can criticize Mick & Keith all day but they were the songwriters of the group. They could always spot trends and guitar based music is where the sound was going, with fluid, technical playing a plus. (Which is what they got with Mick Taylor)

They needed a strong second guitarist with a sound that complimented Keith's. That used to be Brian's job until he abdicated. I guess Brian thought he could skate by with the occassional odd instrument adding texture to their records, but those days had passed with their return to roots music. It was play or get out time for Brian. I assume Brian and Keith had quit weaving years earlier. Brian's chops on guitar might have been quite rusty, even as a rhythm player. He certainly looks lost in the Rock and Roll Circus footage. In retrospect it makes his set piece on 'No Expectations' look more like one of his coloring jobs; something he picked up and learned quickly. Brilliant of course, but heartbreaking in hindsight.

Fascinating that he could go from major contributions on Satanic Majesties Request, to minimal input just a year later. I can't think of any comprable story in rock and roll or jazz, where a player just lost his ability.

So much character assassination of Brian going on, but in Barbara Charones book on Keith, Mick said this...

''Brian was unbearable, but perhaps it was them who made him unbearable.''

There's a couple books on Brian out there that chronicle his life before the Stones. This was no angel corrupted and brutalized by Bill Perks, Charles Robert Watts, Keith Richard and Michael Jagger. They didn't make him knock up all those girls, some of whom he got pregnant before he even headed to Alexis Korner's in London. I think his escapades shocked the rest of them. Nobody made Brian unbearable but Brian. In the end we are all responsible for our own behavior, despite what Mummy & Dad did to us.

An angel corrupted? Definitely not, but getting chicks pregnant was nothing to with the band, but if nothing else he was young, randy and stupid with regards to that.

Mick just waited a bit before he pretty much started doing the same thing over a far longer period, whats his excuse?.

''Nobody made Brian unbearable but Brian. In the end we are all responsible for our own behavior, despite what Mummy & Dad did to us.''

Circumstances and events can change people... the above is all well and good, but it hasn't stopped any of them, even up to present day, from being totally irresponsible at times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 11:02 by His Majesty.

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

jeeez, I know. No shit! not sure if I should put the sticky-tonguey-outty smilely face or the eye rolling one here about my lengthiness. When I'm 90 I will only write and speak in the most elegant spare haiku.

Quote
Green Lady
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.

what a great point!

Quote
Green Lady
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.

I hadn't though about that re: funerals-- gosh, it's true! And also about morphing grief and disappointment into anger, a more "powerful" emotion, where one can avoid being "soft." And Keith is a softy. We all knew those kids who freaked out and cried all day in kindergarten and when their moms came to pick them up, climbed into their arms (a little too large) and sobbed. That was Keith. His mother carried him home inconsolable from kindergarten. To your other point above --and my point saying Keith was brave and took many emotional risks in writing LIFE -- Keith isn't in the business of disguising what he's like in this book....except when he is

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

Let's hope we get to see that some day. I hope Keith is happy he wrote LIFE.

- swiss

Quote
Doxa

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

Thanks very much, you guys!

Quote
kleermaker
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.

thanks K - my replies below.

Quote
Doxa
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

Doxa, you're so right.

Kleermaker, I read your post last week and went "ahhhh, jeepers Kleermaker, I can't just let your damn respectfully provocative comment just sit there!" and before I knew it...I feel a long post coming on Thanks for the provocation. And as Doxa says, it does help sometimes to be prodded to sharpen one's thinking, vision, and expression.

Quote
swiss
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...I would surmise he'd share only that which would profit him or way or another...or Mick will wait another chunk of years, when nothing could harm him, and he'll write something extraordinary, insightful and masterful.

Quote
kleermaker
[ 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. ]

We shall see, shan't we! I think he could do it...but not for a while. When he perceives he has nothing left to lose.

Quote
kleermaker
[ 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.) ]

Good points, all. I just added Hildesheimer's book to my Wish List on amazon.com - thanks!

Quote
swiss
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.

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

You're right, kleermaker, that Ronnie seems to have been the exception to this rule.

Thanks again for your post, kleermaker.

swiss

Quote
24FPS
Behroez brings up an interesting point I've never read discussed, which is Brian's inability to move successfully back into guitar based music after having left it so long ago. Not that he was ever a great rock guitarist, but, ironically, what may have helped seal his fate with the band was the inability to perform adequately on a musical instrument. You can criticize Mick & Keith all day but they were the songwriters of the group. They could always spot trends and guitar based music is where the sound was going, with fluid, technical playing a plus. (Which is what they got with Mick Taylor)

They needed a strong second guitarist with a sound that complimented Keith's. That used to be Brian's job until he abdicated. I guess Brian thought he could skate by with the occassional odd instrument adding texture to their records, but those days had passed with their return to roots music. It was play or get out time for Brian. I assume Brian and Keith had quit weaving years earlier. Brian's chops on guitar might have been quite rusty, even as a rhythm player. He certainly looks lost in the Rock and Roll Circus footage. In retrospect it makes his set piece on 'No Expectations' look more like one of his coloring jobs; something he picked up and learned quickly. Brilliant of course, but heartbreaking in hindsight.

Fascinating that he could go from major contributions on Satanic Majesties Request, to minimal input just a year later. I can't think of any comprable story in rock and roll or jazz, where a player just lost his ability.

I have read that his broken hand never healed properly, which meant he couldn't play guitar as he used to. Or, at least, he couldn't for a while and then he was busted a second time and his life collapsed (and even the judge seems to have suspected that the second bust was a set up).
I'd still describe his contribution to Beggars as significant, rather than minimal, though. And Brian in the early sixties seems to have been highly regarded as a guitarist by his peers.

But it must have been very frustrating for Mick and Keith, never being sure what they were working with. No-one could have performed a better recorder part for Ruby Tuesday or a better marimba part for Under My Thumb but who'd have predicted that? You'd never have chosen Brian for a solo recital on either instrument, would you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-29 13:15 by Squiggle.

Quote
His Majesty
So much character assassination of Brian going on, but in Barbara Charones book on Keith, Mick said this...

''Brian was unbearable, but perhaps it was them who made him unbearable.''

Quote
24FPS
Nobody made Brian unbearable but Brian. In the end we are all responsible for our own behavior, despite what Mummy & Dad did to us.

I agree that, in the very end, we're all responsible for what we do and how we respond to others, Brian was unfathomably irresponsible about making babies he wouldn't support and abusive towards women. Plenty of young, foolish people don't engage in those particular activities.

But keeping it within the context of the band dynamics as the Charone quote intends, Mick has a point. Those dynamics, the unhappy tensions between Mick, Keith, and Brian, are the heart of the '60s Stones. Would Brian have fared better in another band? Or would he have found something else to be unhappy about because that's who he was? Surely some of Brian's off behavior in relation to the studio had to do with those tensions, was more reaction than action. For Mick to even speculate as much suggests he recognized that fact and his own role in it.

By 1968 the Stones wanted to go back on tour, but Brian either couldn't or didn't want to go back to being their second guitarist on stage. His contributions to their songs in the studio had often been wonderful, but it was probably never going to be possible for him to reproduce those contributions live.

After TSMR, the rest of the band turned away from following the Beatles down the road of wonderful albums but no touring - they were back in the business of writing songs that could be performed live. And for that, what they needed was someone willing and able to do the job of The Other Guitarist. The fact that Brian had visa difficulties didn't help, but I think if he'd really wanted to come to the States with them, a way round would have been found.

That may be at the root of the way he was sidelined in the studio. He was still willing to provide colouring and extras - but by then, that was not what the others wanted.

Why didn't he want to go back to being their Other Guitarist? Because of the aftermath of the broken hand, or the miseries of getting continually busted? Or maybe, during the enforced layoff when he couldn't play, Keith had (out of necessity) taken over all the band's guitar duties, and all that seemed to be left for him was to be taught Mick and Keith's songs and just play what he was told? For a very creative person, that wouldn't have been much fun.

By 1968 Brian was still gifted, No Expectations is no colouring job!

The May 1968 bust and long wait for the trial and eventual charge really seems to have battered his will. I view it as the beginning of the end of any possible future he had in the band. The knock back of his appeal in early 1969 sealed his fate in the band imo.

The Rock & Roll Circus should be viewed as not being representative of his skills earlier in the year as No Expectations and Still A Fool show he was still able to contribute some good, albeit a little shakey, guitar playing.

Anita has said something along the lines of Brian couldn't play with the stones anymore, not that he didn't have the ability, but that he couldn't bring himself to do it... I think that is what we see in the R&R Circus.

His Majesty: 'Anita has said something along the lines of Brian couldn't play with the stones anymore, not that he didn't have the ability, but that he couldn't bring himself to do it... I think that is what we see in the R&R Circus."

So quit. But instead of that he dragged it out with non-appearances in the studio and forced them to fire him. Passive-aggression. Maybe he was being a deliberate a-hole by vaguely strumming through the other songs, but being spot on during 'his' number, 'No Expectations'. He wasn't too bright at that point. If he wanted to leave the group he should have played expertly, showing what a big contribution he could still give. It's what athletes do, suck it up in a contract year to impress the free agent market. Too bad 'he couldn't bring himself to do it'. He missed out playing on some fantastic songs.

And could someone explain what his great contributions to Beggars Banquet are? Obviously his slide on 'No Expectation'. I'm still confused on Street Fighting Man if that great droning sound is done by Jones or Dave Mason. Some Woo-Hoos, along with a bunch of other people on 'Sympathy'. Somebody mentioned some flute part on 'Jigsaw'. What else?

>> So quit. But instead of that he dragged it out with non-appearances in the studio and forced them to fire him <<

that might have been more a practical move than a psychological game - i don't remember where it was published,
but i read an interview from the mid-60s in which Bill noted that the Stones had an agreement
that if any of them got fired they'd get a "golden handshake" deal, but that that didn't apply to anyone who quit.

meanwhile: Green Lady, your speculation is very insightful - thanks!

Something like:

SFTD - part of the chorus
NE - slide guitar
DD - harmonica
PW - one of two harmonicas (Mick also plays one)
JP - mellotron
SFM - tambura (the swirling and droning. Dave Mason's shehnai is the sound at the end)
PS - harmonica
SCB - mellotron
FG and SOTE - nothing

Brian might well have done better to say 'that's it, I'm off' but even healthy people tend to stumble along being hopeful, fearful, lethargic. The Beatles were going through something similar. Steve Marriott, on the other hand, did say 'that's it, I'm off' but that probably wasn't any less messy for the Small Faces.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-30 00:29 by Squiggle.

Quote
24FPS
So quit. But instead of that he dragged it out with non-appearances in the studio and forced them to fire him. Passive-aggression.

People struggle on in jobs, marriages etc they are deeply unhappy in for a whole host of reasons. For sure there were a whole load of mixed feelings from all about what they were going through.

Quote
with sssoul
>> So quit. But instead of that he dragged it out with non-appearances in the studio and forced them to fire him <<

that might have been more a practical move than a psychological game - i don't remember where it was published,
but i read an interview from the mid-60s in which Bill noted that the Stones had an agreement
that if any of them got fired they'd get a "golden handshake" deal, but that that didn't apply to anyone who quit.

meanwhile: Green Lady, your speculation is very insightful - thanks!

I didn't know that deal of possible 'golden handshake'. That might explain some of the actions that took place!

Anyway, after Brian's death, it was reported that Brian was actually trying to leave the band in 1967, but the others didn't let him to do that since he was too important for the band in imagewise. I guess that must have taken place after Anita/Keith thing (who would blame Brian then?) . And even by the time of his actual leaving, the departure was published with very silky gloves - and the option of Brian's possible return was left open. Supposedly it was not for trying to be gentle for Brian's feelings but for the their fans. Still in 1969 - the band being in total control of Mick and Keith musicwise, Brian being low profile for two years, and the whole rock culture in the middle of transformation period, it was not sure how the fans would react to Brian's departure. As horrible it now sounds, Brian's death actually sorted few things out.

It is probably difficult understand it now but leaving a pop band of iconic status of The Stones or The Beatles was no such a small thing in those days. Brian's status within the band was very cemented among the fans through the 60's. I guess in order to have afford to kick him out needed a process of smalling his public role and significance. Even though Brian did his part in not contributing much, in a hindsight that might have been a mutual process - the others were also reducing his role to mininum. There have been stories that they thought replacing Brian with Jimmy Page already in 1965 but in reality that was a total bullshit. They could have fancied with the idea because Brian started to act unbearable but all of them surely knew that Brian was irrecoverable at that time - it would have been like kicking out John Lennon or Paul McCartney out of The Beatles. This is one of the reasons I think Brian was able to 'blackmail' others - he knew the others were dependent of him (both musically and imagewise). They were forced to forgive him his signs of 'disloyalty'. I think this might be the biggest reason for Keith's anger (and also the negative feelings of the others) even today. It would still years for Keith Richards to grow up imagewise above Brian. It is funny to see how the stars of Brian and Keith actually developing through the 60's: other going steadily down, and other up - meeting perhaps each other around 1968. Bill Wyman's STONE ALONE gives a good description how this was manipulated by the Stones management.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-01 09:39 by Doxa.

Brian probably didn't leave because he was afraid to go out on his own. It happens and is understandable. You want to leave, but you don't. You hope things will get better, but they won't. Most people go through something like this at some point and time, with a job, marriage, or a relationship. Being in a band like the Rolling Stones is a once in a lifetime thing.

I do think there's some truth to this.

Mick, I believe, has been honest with himself about Brian. There's no bigger admirer of Brian Jones on the face of this earth than me....but clearly Brian had issues. I believe Mick has been genuine and honest in describing his relationship with Brian and Brian's relationship with the band. Keith, on the other hand, has swerved left and right over the years in describing Brian. In the early years I believe (but obviously cannot prove) that Keith went out of his way to say "nicer" sorts of things about Brian. Perhaps he feared backlash from Brian fans. Brian's death, after all, was still fairly fresh. Over the years as time has passed and history has mostly forgotten Brian's role.....he has become emboldened to more harshly critique his friend. I don't like it....but I wasn't there and the simple truth is none of us knows what it was like those last few years of Brian's life. We've all read so many different things that no one knows for sure what the truth is. Hell, I'm not even sure Keith, Bill, Charlie, and Mick know exactly what the truth is anymore....I suppose they know better than us. But even their memories aren't certain.

My primary issue with Keith is simply this......why disparage a dead guy in such a horribly ugly manner? He could say essentially the same thing as Mick, still being honest about the situation, without being so incredibly ugly.

Example:

"Don't bring that guy back. He was an arsehole."


Really, Keith? That's your best sentiment about the guy?

I wonder if anyone out there who loved Gram Parsons might say the same thing about you when you're gone? Surely you don't think your role in Gram's life turned out all for the best, do ya? "Well, hell yeah, all it cost me to come up with the licks for "Dead Flowers" was the death of a friend due to my introducing him to the joys of heroin." "I'd say that was a small price to pay."

It would be very interesting to have someone psychoanalyze Keith with regards to Brian. It seems to me there is a whole lot going on where Brian is concerned. On some level I can't help but feel there is a little guilt in there somewhere....and I'm not suggesting he necesarily should feel guilty....only that on some level he does. One has to look only at the lyrics to "coming Down Again" to know that even as late as 1973 the triangle between he, Brian, and Anita was still on his mind. Yes, the lyrics suggest he feels justified......but really, honestly, 4 years after the guys death and you're still having conversations with yourself about it?

This is evdience you don't know what you're talking about.

The Dylan song, first of all, is widely known now to NOT have been referencing Brian.

Secondly, Lennon and Dylan were both quite friendly with Brian. Even Lennon's 1970 Rolling Stone interview is quite honest about Brian Jones....whom he considered a friend.

Paul does comment in "Many years ago" that he got on "like a house on fire with Brian" but that he thought some people used to get " a little annoyed with him."

Nonetheless, he, too, is quite effusive in his praise of his relationship with Brian.

Then, ofcourse, there are George's comments about Brian which are glowing as well.

So, by all means, please explain your comments and clarify who these folks were who found him annoying.

You are horribly misquoting Lennon from the 1970 Rolling Stone Interview.

Q - What was Brian like?"

A - Brian Jones?

Q - Yes.

A - Well he was different over the years as he disintegrated. He was one of those person who disintegrated right in front of you.....but in the early days he was alright. He was young and confident. I saw a lot of Mick and Brian in the early days and I admired them. and he was alright...and he wasn't sort of brilliant or anything. He was just a nice guy."



So, here we have John being honest about Brian in terms of disintegrating....but at the same time saying he was "just a nice guy."

All the anti-Brian contingent gets form this is "he wasn't sort of brilliant or anything."

John, as hard as it may be for you to believe, is being honest here in describing his relationship with Brian. He's not knocking the guy...It's pretty well documented that he and Brian were close friends.

The closest I've come to hearing about that night was in Al Aronowitz great Brian tribute "Over his dead body."

Agreed.

John being John.

Since when is being honest a bad thing.

In this same interview he talks about Mick's "fag dancing."

In fact, Brian comes off better than Mick.

Again, the fact remains that Brian and John were close.

For the record, you cite a bad example. Twas Brian who introduced Magic Alex to John,

And again, this is NOT John attacking Brian. Most of it is honest.

Don't you think that towards the end when the phone rang if it was Brian it probably WAS trouble? Don't you think he disintegrated in front of John's eyes? Don't you think Brian was in a lot of pain? As for the "wasn't sort of brilliant" that can be overlooked becasue the point John is making is that "whatever Brian was or wasn't" he was "JUST A NICE GUY."