Quote
Redhotcarpet
He must have hated Keith.

No more than Stu must have hated Brian.

...we would all be very surprised.

I've read somewhere that Brian didn't want to do the 67' European Tour and he was told by Anita that if he did it she'd go back to him or something like that. Anyone read anything about this? If it's true, what a dick move.

Quote
stones78
I've read somewhere that Brian didn't want to do the 67' European Tour and he was told by Anita that if he did it she'd go back to him or something like that. Anyone read anything about this? If it's true, what a dick move.

I read this too. Anita was something else. That's pretty low, if that's true. Brian would have been better off leaving the Stones then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-02 00:50 by neptune.

Quote
BeachGirl
Yes, the Stones were beginning to go back to their blue roots during 1969 but Brian had gone beyond that and was interested in playing more world music.

See, here's where it gets tricky again with Brian. Maybe he was interested in World Music, whatever that meant in 1969, but various sources have said he was in love with Creedence Clearwater Revival and especially 'Proud Mary' that summer of '69. It don't get much rootsier than CCR. Brian obviously couldn't, or wouldn't play Mick Jagger/Keith Richard songs anymore in 1969. Maybe it was a passive/aggressive relationship that he was secretly glad they ended for him. There are reports that he was relieved. It was like a bad relationship they were finally forced to end because Brian wouldn't. He didn't show up to sessions. He looks like he's barely participating in the last photo shoot, the Through the Past Darkly album cover. On the back he looks resigned and non-participatory while the others are supposed to react to being shot by bullets. I truly think he didn't care at the end. No one in the band, including Bill, was close to him anymore.

Speaking of Bill, I've never read anything about his movement from far stage right, next to Brian, to far stage left sometime around 1966, next to Keith, for the rest of his time in the band. Was it part of the band's estrangement with Brian? I think it was altered at the '68 NME performance, but Brian never looked more alone, and small, and pathetic, as he did on stage at the Rock and Roll Circus.

Quote
24FPS
Personally I think he was lazy. He could pick up any instrument and get something useful out of it quickly. Then he could discard the instrument and not be bothered to continue learning it. Eventually it caught up to him and Brian was caught in a situation where it was 'put up your guitar, or shut up'. Brian got caught with his pants down, and his guitar skills eroded.

Brian's 'laziness' helped define the Stones' sound for much of the time he was there, starting with slide guitar and harmonica. What were the Stones without his slide and harp work in the early days? Then when the musical landscape changed in the mid-60's, he experimented with different instruments, helping the Stones stay way ahead of the curve and more effectively compete with the Beatles. He might have dropped the guitar for a couple years, but there was some indication he was going back to it at the end of his life. No Expectations wasn't exactly filler guitar playing. Yes, I share your frustration about Brian's apparent lack of interest in playing on Jagger/Richards records, as I would have loved for a motivated Brian to play on Let It Bleed, for instance (and not just a couple taps of the conga on MR or barely audible autoharp on YGTS). Brian would have been puddy in Miller's hands for that album. But to say that Brian was lazy because he lost interest in guitar is pretty off-base for he contributed well as a musician all the way up until Beggars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-02 15:12 by neptune.

Quote
neptune

Quote
24FPS
Personally I think he was lazy. He could pick up any instrument and get something useful out of it quickly. Then he could discard the instrument and not be bothered to continue learning it. Eventually it caught up to him and Brian was caught in a situation where it was 'put up your guitar, or shut up'. Brian got caught with his pants down, and his guitar skills eroded.

But to say that Brian was lazy because he lost interest in guitar is pretty off-base for he contributed well as a musician all the way up until Beggars.

Perhaps, and this was a problem for Bill, and maybe Ronnie, and possibly Mick Taylor as well, Brian resented how the songwriter(s) dynamic relegated the group to tiers. You could work hard as hell on a Jagger/Richard song, maybe even come up with crucial riffs, but you ain't getting any more recognition or money. I think Bill to this day believes he should get a song writing credit for Jumping Jack Flash. There are Stones songs that simply must have other than Jagger/Richard contributions, or they're just so-so songs. What is No Expectations without Brian's slide work? What is Miss You without Bill's bass? (Even though he might have copped it from Billy Preston).

Maybe Brian thought ahead. If he formed another group after the Stones he might make it a condition that he got compositional songwriting credits. Who knows if he thought that out. The boy was supposed to be smart, but he was coming off years of heavy drug abuse. He was certainly smart enough to know that being 90% of 2000 Light Years From Home got him nothing.

Brian's death was instrumental to the survival of the Stones, as was the departure of Taylor. If Jones would have stayed the Stones would have vanished like all the other bands from the 60's. If Taylor did not leave they would never hav survived the glam rock and punk period.

Mathijs

It's funny how both Jones and Taylor's contributions faded near the end of their tenures. Maybe they had both fulfilled their contracts with their times. Mathijs brings up and interesting point in that neither one was prepared for the times that came after them. Now we've come to the end. There is no fad to be part of.

Quote
Mathijs
Brian's death was instrumental to the survival of the Stones, as was the departure of Taylor. If Jones would have stayed the Stones would have vanished like all the other bands from the 60's. If Taylor did not leave they would never hav survived the glam rock and punk period.

Mathijs

I don't agree, had either Jones or Taylor been interested in staying in the band that interest would have resulted in a different Rolling Stones history to what actually happened, but still successful.

Threads like these are meaningless though, all there is is what actually happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-03 09:59 by His Majesty.

Quote
Mathijs
Brian's death was instrumental to the survival of the Stones, as was the departure of Taylor. If Jones would have stayed the Stones would have vanished like all the other bands from the 60's. If Taylor did not leave they would never hav survived the glam rock and punk period.

Mathijs

Sorry, absolutely no evidence to support the contention that had Taylor stayed the Stones "would never have survived the glam rock period". Had Taylor not left when he did, Black and Blue would have been a better album and the '75 Tour would have gone the same, except with a better guitarist. Taylor followed the writers, just as Bill and Charlie did.

The only thing that made them nearly not survive that period was Keith Richards' worsening heroin addiction.

I am a firm believer in that with the fresh blood of Taylor and Wood when they arrived at the Stones camp, it made the Stones fresh and young again, it re-energised the group and made it possible to follow new roads. I think this is strongest with Wood in '77 and '78. With Wood, the Stones could react much better to the punk movement than would have possible when they where still a blues based band with a great lead guitar player. With Wood the Stones outpunked the punks. Also, Wood was visually much more attractive than Taylor, something that became more and more important from the mid-70's.

Mathijs

They didn't have to compete with Glam or Punk, such was their position at those times they just had to come up with some good songs, but even then their continued success wasn't as reliant on that as before.

Quote
Mathijs
I am a firm believer in that with the fresh blood of Taylor and Wood when they arrived at the Stones camp, it made the Stones fresh and young again, it re-energised the group and made it possible to follow new roads. I think this is strongest with Wood in '77 and '78. With Wood, the Stones could react much better to the punk movement than would have possible when they where still a blues based band with a great lead guitar player. With Wood the Stones outpunked the punks. Also, Wood was visually much more attractive than Taylor, something that became more and more important from the mid-70's.

Mathijs

Good point. Blues based bands with great lead guitar players had their problems when Punk appeared. If anything, Led Zeppelin's In Through The Out Door sounds directionless. As a band, you had to ask yourself whether you wanted to adopt yourselves to the "modern times" or simply intended to stay through them.

Quote
His Majesty
They didn't have to compete with Glam or Punk, such was their position at those times they just had to come up with some good songs, but even then their continued success wasn't as reliant on that as before.

I see Some Girls and the '78 tour as a clear reaction to the punk scene. In fact, it feels like Jagger picked up the gloves thrown at him by Johnny Rotten on that tour, and Some Girls has many New York club scene influences.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
Brian's death was instrumental to the survival of the Stones, as was the departure of Taylor. If Jones would have stayed the Stones would have vanished like all the other bands from the 60's. If Taylor did not leave they would never hav survived the glam rock and punk period.

Mathijs

The Stones were glam and punk in 1964!

Also, Wood was visually much more attractive than Taylor, something that became more and more important from the mid-70's.

Mathijs

I you sure about this?

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
Also, Wood was visually much more attractive than Taylor, something that became more and more important from the mid-70's.

Mathijs

I you sure about this?

I think that perhaps he meant that Wood had a better ‘look’ for the Rolling Stones. It has always been said that Ronnie is very much suited in that sense, with his rooster hair-do, etc. Visually, he always has – and still does – look like a Rolling Stone.

Actual facial attractiveness is of no relevance, really.

Yes I think I did understand that ........but I want to here this from Mathijs himself..........because the greatness of MT joining the Stones was great because he wasn't a Stone like Brain was........Mick T was there, just to get some balance between a Stone and a none Stone to make some great music.

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-03 23:43 by NICOS.

Quote
Mathijs

I see Some Girls and the '78 tour as a clear reaction to the punk scene. In fact, it feels like Jagger picked up the gloves thrown at him by Johnny Rotten on that tour, and Some Girls has many New York club scene influences.

Mathijs

No disputing it was a reaction to it, but it's not a reaction that was needed, ie it wasn't a case of make or break for the band if they didn't atleast partially jump on the punk bandwagon.

There was a whole lot more going on in the music world than punk during it's short lived peak, especially in USA. Some prog acts like Genesis and YES got even bigger during that time and loads of acts like Foreigner etc had massive success without even as much as a nod to punk.

Had Mick Taylor in 1975 been interested and wanted to stay viable alternative roads(from what actually happened) to continued success were there. Same goes for Brian in 1969.

But, they both chose to leave the band and that is that!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-03 19:15 by His Majesty.