Excuse me if this has been posted before but I've only just seen it and wanted to share it with IORR as it's fantastic. Brian is clearly taking the lead here with Mick struggling to get a word in.

Charlie rules ...........



ROCKMAN

In the first part of the interview, Brian is conveniently perfectly placed withing reach of the interviewer, and Mick is a bit out of reach of the microphone. As mentioned, they've been traveling quite a bit in recent days, and the whole band seems a bit jetlagged and sluggish, with the exception of Brian who seems positively wired.

I love how Charlie looks like he's falling asleep. Even when he reluctantly answers questions from the interviewer in the second part he slurs his words as though half asleep and refers the interviewer over to Mick--not Brian--to answer for him.

In those days the lead singer was generally the spokesman, and in that sense the de facto leader at least outwardly. But it has to be said Brian was alert, intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, displaying overall a more forceful personality--perhaps the most forceful of all the band members at that time--showing qualities he would not be known for later on.

Very cool. Thanks for posting!

Thanks to Brian and Mick or it would have been a very short
Interview!!! Haha. Bill looked scared..

I think calling the interview "Brilliant" is a little over the top.
But it certainly shows the Brian Jones who still had enthusiasm...before he traded that for drugs.

So many gifted rock stars became quickly surrounded by sleazy people including eager young groupies who brought them "little presents" ranging from high powered weed to coke to heroin.

I remember guys/young stars on the rise who lost all their English humor and excitement as they became dependant on the "stuff." They became miserable, frightened and it affected their music. Some made it through...some didn't. For quite some time, Brian was an accident waiting to happen.

And, of course, this all was usually accompanied by booze. I recall trying to avoid Ringo Starr circa 1973-4. Not much humor left in him as he hit the bottle.

A great little snippet of the Stones of '65!

Saw it about ten times........always nice to see it again....thanks

__________________________

Quote
stonehearted
(I)t has to be said Brian was alert, intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, displaying overall a more forceful personality--perhaps the most forceful of all the band members at that time--showing qualities he would not be known for later on.

Very well put

Having seen this one several times now (one of my favorites), it is clear to me anyway that no one except Brian cares at all about the interview. As someone has already said, except for Brian they're all tired.

My thought is that this is last arena for Brian Jones to show off his personality and articulateness (though much of it sounds like bullshit). No one seems to care that he's dominating here, too tired to compete (recognizing it doesn't matter, that it will be the music that speaks for the Stones).

Why shouldn't he be the leader? It was his band. His creation.

Is it just me or does Brian come accross as quite a negative person?

Mathijs

Quote
Carnaby
Why shouldn't he be the leader? It was his band. His creation.

As Brian said in an interview, he and Stu were hanging around and Mick and Keith rolled up and they joined together.

Apparently Brian was more connected to get gigs than Mick or Keith and Mick was still doing his Economics course.

Mick and Keith and Stu weren't working for Brian and when Brian tried to take more of a cut than the others, then the others put a stop to it pretty quickly.

Eventually the Stones had to write their own songs, just like the Beatles, and Mick and Keith were motivated to try writing and it worked and even Brian was motivated to try to write songs at the beginning but they didn't seem to work very well or he lacked confidence in submitting them or whatever.

Bits and pieces in songs might have come from Brian or Bill or even Stu or Jack Nitzsche or whoever but it was Mick and Keith knocking the whole thing together into a sellable song.

Brian could always add things to the songs but by the end he didn't seem to even care.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-02 13:32 by howled.

Quote
Mathijs
Is it just me or does Brian come accross as quite a negative person?

Mathijs

Yeah, he has a bit of an attitude in that interview, I think. Maybe just part of the Stones' bad boy image they liked to live up to on occasions like these. On the other hand, I think Brian sounds pretty honest too.

Maybe something to take notice of.

Apparently the date of the interview is around April 23 or 24 1965 or so and Keith says they are going to the States to record and Satisfaction was recorded on

12 May 1965, RCA Studios, Hollywood

and in the interview I think Keith is interrupting mentioning "Martha and the Vandellas" when Motown is being talked about and Satisfaction is partly based on "Martha and the Vandellas" "Nowhere To Run".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-02 17:31 by howled.

Quote
howled
Maybe something to take notice of.

Apparently the date of the interview is around April 24 1965 or so and Keith says they are going to the States to record and Satisfaction was recorded on

12 May 1965, RCA Studios, Hollywood

and in the interview I think Keith is interrupting mentioning "Martha and the Vandellas" when Motown is being talked about and Satisfaction is partly based on "Martha and the Vandellas" "Nowhere To Run".

Good observation Agent howled.

Quote
Carnaby
Why shouldn't he be the leader? It was his band. His creation.

Because it was nothing to be proud of yet...that would come later...

All this stuff about Brian being the leader and he's the spokeman for the band etc etc

Well, look at another 1965 interview

My impression is that Brian is more interested in speaking than the others.

Keith doesn't want to say much at all and Charlie never does and Bill isn't interested much and Mick is often getting asked interviewer questions because he's the singer and that increased as Mick became more well known.

What someones sees is often what they are looking for.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-02 18:29 by howled.

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Carnaby
Why shouldn't he be the leader? It was his band. His creation.

Because it was nothing to be proud of yet...that would come later...

Still no reason why Brian shouldn't have stepped up & grabbed the bull by the horns at these functions. No matter what the eventual outcome, this was, as Carnaby states, his band.

It's not that Brian is leading, seems wonky to use that term for an interview, but it's more, as stonesrule has already poiinted out, that he's enthusiastic. Interview wise this enthusiasm is still evident right up to and including atleast January 1968.

...

This who's band it was lark needs to be knocked on the head. In 1963 Brian described the stones as "an amalgamation of two bands". It wasn't his band, it was their band.

This leader title was a self appointed thing, quite pretensious and something that didn't last that long. I think it began to end when ALO and Eric Easton became their managers and was officially ended by the others when they found out about his extra £5 or what ever it was circa October 1963.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-03 10:39 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
It's not that Brian is leading, seems wonky to use that term for an interview, but it's more, as stonesrule has already poiinted out, that he's enthusiastic. Interview wise this enthusiasm is still evident right up to and including atleast January 1968.

...

This who's band it was lark needs to be knocked on the head. In 1963 Brian described the stones as "an amalgamation of two bands". It wasn't his band, it was their band.

This leader title was a self appointed thing, quite pretensious and something that didn't last that long. I think it began to end when ALO and Eric Easton became their managers and was officially ended by the others when they found out about his extra £5 or what ever it was circa October 1963.

That's good enough grounds for assuming leadership to me. You don't do that kind of thing unless you think you're more special or worth more than the others.

James Brown was the leader of his band.

I don't think the Stones ever operated like James Brown.

Quote
howled
James Brown was the leader of his band.

I don't think the Stones ever operated like James Brown.

This is so good!!!