Tell Me :
Talk
71Tele, thanks for the comment about "the Stones before Open-G" - so many people see that era as just a sort of lead-up to the real Stones of 1969, and not something worthwhile in its own right.
Something irreplaceable went out of the Stones with Brian - but at that time I don't think they particularly wanted to replace it because they were moving on into Open-G and country and more heavily guitar-based music. They would have used him as The Other Guitarist if he'd been willing and able to go on the road with them - which he wasn't - but the days of multi-instrumental experiments in the studio were probably over, whatever the state of Brian's health.
There is the story of Brian asking "What can I play on this?" and Mick replying sarcastically "Yeah, what can you play?" Whether this story is true or not, there's a bit of truth behind it: the band were moving on and Brian's odd instruments weren't wanted; they wanted the second guitar he no longer played very much. I think the health/drugs problems and the musical difficulties were making a vicious circle: he wasn't wanted musically because he was "out of it" and he got "out of it" partly because he was being musically sidelined.
I don't think "No Expectations" proves anything one way or the other. Yes, Brian could still play slide well enough to put the fairy-dust (significantly, guitar fairy-dust, not a more exotic instrument) on another track, and the band were happy to let him do it. But (as we've seen with all the arguments over Keith recently) playing slide doesn't necessarily mean that you are up to going on a long tour as full-time guitarist.
I believe that was one of the main reasons why both he and they wanted to part ways.
That was my point exactly.
Did Brian really wanted to part ways?
I mean Brian was very aware of the problems between him and the band in 68/69 (i.e he wasn't so far out that some people seem to believe) and seem to have waited for the glimmers to make the move to kick him out. Maybe leaving wasn't his first choice. But he knew that it couldn't go on as it was either.
I think Brian told the truth to the press when he said that him leaving was a mutual agreement. His reactions afterwards shows that it was a difficult thing for him to do but at the same time the best thing as he became a happier person. He must have pondered about it many times before it happened.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-23 13:37 by tonterapi.
Yes, in my mind there is no doubt Brian Jones could've and would've, in a "perfect world"/alternate universe/"what if..." been able to make contributions here and there over the years, some minor and some probably some major, in a continuing "Rolling Stones collective" and the music would've been richer for it, IF you somehow assume the Stones lose nothing they actually did without Brian after he was terminated and expired. But it's daydreaming .... As if The Beatles stayed together and the next album after Abby Road somehow had Imagine, My Sweet Lord, Uncle Albert on it as they came to be separately.
Yes, I agree. But still I wonder though... Reading Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, and Bill describing Brian Jones holed up in his house blasting CCR around the clock. Writing that Jones was obsessed with it. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jones would've embraced a guitar band sound again for a bit, once free of the Glimmers.
No he didnt want to part ways, he wanted to be the Rolling Stone. He said things about starting a band (right...) because what else could he possibly say. I think he knew it was over for him when they sacked him. Prog? No way. I think he wanted to die not play prog. The man lived in a nightmare from 1967 to 1969. He most have known his image, band and girl was gone forever as his status and stardom.
That's what I believe, too.
Yes, his status and stardom on that scale, and apparently that was of paramount importance to him.
But if he had been able to fight back his depression and drug addictions, etc. I believe he probably would've had a very good career ahead of him. Would he have been a "star" or a well respected serious "artist"/musician or a D list celebrity? I don't know. But at 27 years old, its very sad what happened. It wasn't an overt suicide after all, and there would've been a lot of opportunities to come his way.
The culture of celebrity as we know it now, was just dawning then. Does anyone who has achieved significant fame ever really just "go away" anymore? Except by choice?
Brian could've perhaps been a celebrated producer, a concert promoter, a dj, taken up painting, composed more soundtracks, become head of a music dept at a prestigious university, hosted TV shows, written books, opened a restaurant chain, who knows? He wouldn't have had to have taken a regular job and sunk into obscurity unless it was his choice. He wasn't Pete Best. He wouldn't have been Mick Taylor either, because he was certainly a celebrity and had more charisma.
Yes I agree, he seemes to have had a short period when he tried to pretend to have forgotten Anita (he never did, that's obvious), and he had been right about returning to the roots and he was maybe, maybe given a slight tiny shread of hope from Mick about being part of the band. Maybe he just felt he was right about Satanic being shite and enjoyed reading about Mick's mistake.
Maybe he didnt feel hated right before Beggars. Maybe Marianne simply talked Mick into being diplomatic. No way Mick planned to continue with Brian after 1967, no way. I think this is what people who were present in the studio mean when they say things got ugly and Brian was treated like shit. We dont have to repeat the old "Brian was horrible and got what he deserved".
Charlie said the band was the last thing he had in life. That rings very true on many levels. He doesnt say Brian could have functioned in the band. Bill says Brian could not function as it was his band from the start and one cannot ignore the change of power, Brian could not be in a band with Mick and Keith after Keith got together with Anita.
Brian had to go but he didnt want to go and he could not stay so he died.
it reminds me of another photo.
No one is looking at Richards, even those who are in front of him. I wonder how does it feel to be so invisible next to Jagger? Here he is in the foreground in the spotlight with a guitar in his hand, and - no one is looking at him.
We know what Brian felt about it, Marianne wrote how did she feel about it in her book, but Richards did not say a word on this topic. It's a pity really, it would be very interesting
He is also said to have been in good spirit after he left and was excited about getting a band together. Brian worked hard in the beginning of the Stones to promote them and get rehearsals. I think he could've done the same again with a new band if he had found the energy to do so. It's impossible to say if he had been a "star" again. Brian was still very popular among the fans when he left.
I have to agree with what SweetThing wrote. Since everybody who visited or lived with Brian at Cotchford after he left the Stones says he was doing ok I just can't buy the picture of a depressed has-been who wanted to die.
I wonder if they ever pulled a David Byrne on him and asked him to re-audition for the band, LoL.
How do you know? Give it a rest about Anita already....
It's true. btw, does anyone else see Buddy Holly and Art Garfunkel in the audience? 
"Hey cock, you're fired"
No, but I see Elton John and Eugene Levy.
You are speculating....he was in the band for two years after Anita. You are fixated on the idea of "Brian couldn't live without Anita". His real problem was probably drugs. Notice I said probably because I am speculating. He had emotional problems. I am not speculating there because there are psychiatric reports to confirm this. Mix emotional problems with the drug (and alcohol) intake and it made the problems worse. No rehab back in the 1960s.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-24 05:42 by Marie.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: March 23, 2012 11:38
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
24FPSQuote
71Tele
I happened to hear "Under My Thumb" the other day (forget where I was when I heard it) and it struck me how utterly cool the intro to that is, and how this could have only happened with Brian. Jagger-Richards was the songwriting powerhouse, but Brian was the musical secret weapon. He was the "x" factor on "Thumb", "Lady Jane", "Ruby Tuesday" - all the best stuff of their pop period. When they lost him they replaced him (musically) with what we now know as the classic Stones Open G formula, which is very, very cool. But sometimes it's easy to forget that there was a Stones before open G, and Brian was the extra ingredient - the "fairy dust", or whatever you want to call it.
Such a shame that that wasn't enough to give him the confidence he so obviously lacked. I think not being able to write songs and compete with Mick and Keith was a terrible burden for Brian. Needlessly so, in my view, as very, very few people have that gift. But his ability to pick up an instrument and turn a pop song into a hit instinctively is almost as great a gift, and had he been satisfied with that role, I think he could have produced a lot more great music with the band.
My two cents anyway...
I stated on another thread that Brian's multi-instrumentalism was suddenly out of fashion as rock turned to a guitar dominated sound for some years. Brian was not prepared to pick up his axe and play, or at least not play harder edged rock, a music he was never comfortable with. The one time innovator was now passe.
You make a point I almost included but it made me too sad: The irony of the British rock scene (including the Stones) returning to bluesy roots music circa 1968 basically meant that Brian's experimental role was no longer necessary. I say "ironic" because Brian was initially such a lover of the blues, but he really found his form on the pop stuff. When the pop period was over, they didn't much need Brian, as it was easier and faster for Keith to just do all the guitar parts in the studio. However, when they wanted to return to the road and needed a functioning second guitarist again it spelled the end of Brian in the group, as we all know.
I totally agree with this. However, the Stones could easily have utilized Brian's fortes if they wanted to, and if he was sober enough, that is.
No Expectation proves it, imo.
71Tele, thanks for the comment about "the Stones before Open-G" - so many people see that era as just a sort of lead-up to the real Stones of 1969, and not something worthwhile in its own right.
Something irreplaceable went out of the Stones with Brian - but at that time I don't think they particularly wanted to replace it because they were moving on into Open-G and country and more heavily guitar-based music. They would have used him as The Other Guitarist if he'd been willing and able to go on the road with them - which he wasn't - but the days of multi-instrumental experiments in the studio were probably over, whatever the state of Brian's health.
There is the story of Brian asking "What can I play on this?" and Mick replying sarcastically "Yeah, what can you play?" Whether this story is true or not, there's a bit of truth behind it: the band were moving on and Brian's odd instruments weren't wanted; they wanted the second guitar he no longer played very much. I think the health/drugs problems and the musical difficulties were making a vicious circle: he wasn't wanted musically because he was "out of it" and he got "out of it" partly because he was being musically sidelined.
I don't think "No Expectations" proves anything one way or the other. Yes, Brian could still play slide well enough to put the fairy-dust (significantly, guitar fairy-dust, not a more exotic instrument) on another track, and the band were happy to let him do it. But (as we've seen with all the arguments over Keith recently) playing slide doesn't necessarily mean that you are up to going on a long tour as full-time guitarist.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 23, 2012 11:43
They would have fired him and replace dhim with Taylor even if Brian had played guitar more in 1968/1969. The "Keith had to play all guitars" is of course just a way of saying "Keith created the Rolling Stones and modern rock" in 1968/1969. With a big zip of Ry. And a riff by Bill. And Jimmy Miller. And heroin.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: March 23, 2012 12:06
I think Brian's addings on Beggars show that there was a place for him in the band even if he didn't play much guitar. Progrock was just around the corner in 68 wich meant that mellotrons, moogs and other odd instruments still had a place in music. I know that the Stones didn't play progrock but with Brian's interest for scores and world music he could easily have been the John Paul Jones in the Rolling Stones and let Mick Taylor play the guitar. If he had wanted it. But as we know he wasn't interested in being a Stone anymore.
So, I don't agree with that there was no place for his "fairy dust". But there was no will to make it work from either Brian or the glimmers. If I had the talent like Brian I wouldn't be very happy about being reduced to be only a rhythm guitarist either.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-23 12:09 by tonterapi.
So, I don't agree with that there was no place for his "fairy dust". But there was no will to make it work from either Brian or the glimmers. If I had the talent like Brian I wouldn't be very happy about being reduced to be only a rhythm guitarist either.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-23 12:09 by tonterapi.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: March 23, 2012 12:12
Yes, I think Brian would have enjoyed prog rock if he had lived to see it, and maybe got involved in it - but it's a direction the Stones had turned away from.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: March 23, 2012 12:22
Yes, as it was Brian had no place in the Stones anymore. But IF they all had wanted it to work Brian could have stayed as their musical swiss army knife.Quote
Green Lady
Yes, I think Brian would have enjoyed prog rock if he had lived to see it, and maybe got involved in it - but it's a direction the Stones had turned away from.
I believe that was one of the main reasons why both he and they wanted to part ways.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 23, 2012 12:25
Quote
tonterapiYes, as it was Brian had no place in the Stones anymore. But IF they all had wanted it to work Brian could have stayed as their musical swiss army knife.Quote
Green Lady
Yes, I think Brian would have enjoyed prog rock if he had lived to see it, and maybe got involved in it - but it's a direction the Stones had turned away from.
I believe that was one of the main reasons why both he and they wanted to part ways.
That was my point exactly.
Did Brian really wanted to part ways?
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: March 23, 2012 13:36
I honestly don't know if Brian said it flat out. But I think he gave hints.Quote
DandelionPowderman
That was my point exactly.
Did Brian really wanted to part ways?
I mean Brian was very aware of the problems between him and the band in 68/69 (i.e he wasn't so far out that some people seem to believe) and seem to have waited for the glimmers to make the move to kick him out. Maybe leaving wasn't his first choice. But he knew that it couldn't go on as it was either.
I think Brian told the truth to the press when he said that him leaving was a mutual agreement. His reactions afterwards shows that it was a difficult thing for him to do but at the same time the best thing as he became a happier person. He must have pondered about it many times before it happened.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-23 13:37 by tonterapi.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 23, 2012 15:24
Quote
tonterapi
I think Brian's addings on Beggars show that there was a place for him in the band even if he didn't play much guitar. Progrock was just around the corner in 68 wich meant that mellotrons, moogs and other odd instruments still had a place in music. I know that the Stones didn't play progrock but with Brian's interest for scores and world music he could easily have been the John Paul Jones in the Rolling Stones and let Mick Taylor play the guitar. If he had wanted it. But as we know he wasn't interested in being a Stone anymore.
So, I don't agree with that there was no place for his "fairy dust". But there was no will to make it work from either Brian or the glimmers. If I had the talent like Brian I wouldn't be very happy about being reduced to be only a rhythm guitarist either.
Yes, in my mind there is no doubt Brian Jones could've and would've, in a "perfect world"/alternate universe/"what if..." been able to make contributions here and there over the years, some minor and some probably some major, in a continuing "Rolling Stones collective" and the music would've been richer for it, IF you somehow assume the Stones lose nothing they actually did without Brian after he was terminated and expired. But it's daydreaming .... As if The Beatles stayed together and the next album after Abby Road somehow had Imagine, My Sweet Lord, Uncle Albert on it as they came to be separately.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 23, 2012 15:27
Quote
71TeleQuote
24FPSQuote
71Tele
I happened to hear "Under My Thumb" the other day (forget where I was when I heard it) and it struck me how utterly cool the intro to that is, and how this could have only happened with Brian. Jagger-Richards was the songwriting powerhouse, but Brian was the musical secret weapon. He was the "x" factor on "Thumb", "Lady Jane", "Ruby Tuesday" - all the best stuff of their pop period. When they lost him they replaced him (musically) with what we now know as the classic Stones Open G formula, which is very, very cool. But sometimes it's easy to forget that there was a Stones before open G, and Brian was the extra ingredient - the "fairy dust", or whatever you want to call it.
Such a shame that that wasn't enough to give him the confidence he so obviously lacked. I think not being able to write songs and compete with Mick and Keith was a terrible burden for Brian. Needlessly so, in my view, as very, very few people have that gift. But his ability to pick up an instrument and turn a pop song into a hit instinctively is almost as great a gift, and had he been satisfied with that role, I think he could have produced a lot more great music with the band.
My two cents anyway...
I stated on another thread that Brian's multi-instrumentalism was suddenly out of fashion as rock turned to a guitar dominated sound for some years. Brian was not prepared to pick up his axe and play, or at least not play harder edged rock, a music he was never comfortable with. The one time innovator was now passe.
You make a point I almost included but it made me too sad: The irony of the British rock scene (including the Stones) returning to bluesy roots music circa 1968 basically meant that Brian's experimental role was no longer necessary. I say "ironic" because Brian was initially such a lover of the blues, but he really found his form on the pop stuff. When the pop period was over, they didn't much need Brian, as it was easier and faster for Keith to just do all the guitar parts in the studio. However, when they wanted to return to the road and needed a functioning second guitarist again it spelled the end of Brian in the group, as we all know.
Yes, I agree. But still I wonder though... Reading Bill Wyman's Stone Alone, and Bill describing Brian Jones holed up in his house blasting CCR around the clock. Writing that Jones was obsessed with it. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jones would've embraced a guitar band sound again for a bit, once free of the Glimmers.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 23, 2012 15:41
Quote
tonterapiI honestly don't know if Brian said it flat out. But I think he gave hints.Quote
DandelionPowderman
That was my point exactly.
Did Brian really wanted to part ways?
I mean Brian was very aware of the problems between him and the band in 68/69 (i.e he wasn't so far out that some people seem to believe) and seem to have waited for the glimmers to make the move to kick him out. Maybe leaving wasn't his first choice. But he knew that it couldn't go on as it was either.
I think Brian told the truth to the press when he said that him leaving was a mutual agreement. His reactions afterwards shows that it was a difficult thing for him to do but at the same time the best thing as he became a happier person. He must have pondered about it many times before it happened.
No he didnt want to part ways, he wanted to be the Rolling Stone. He said things about starting a band (right...) because what else could he possibly say. I think he knew it was over for him when they sacked him. Prog? No way. I think he wanted to die not play prog. The man lived in a nightmare from 1967 to 1969. He most have known his image, band and girl was gone forever as his status and stardom.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 23, 2012 15:52
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
tonterapiI honestly don't know if Brian said it flat out. But I think he gave hints.Quote
DandelionPowderman
That was my point exactly.
Did Brian really wanted to part ways?
I mean Brian was very aware of the problems between him and the band in 68/69 (i.e he wasn't so far out that some people seem to believe) and seem to have waited for the glimmers to make the move to kick him out. Maybe leaving wasn't his first choice. But he knew that it couldn't go on as it was either.
I think Brian told the truth to the press when he said that him leaving was a mutual agreement. His reactions afterwards shows that it was a difficult thing for him to do but at the same time the best thing as he became a happier person. He must have pondered about it many times before it happened.
No he didnt want to part ways, he wanted to be the Rolling Stone. He said things about starting a band (right...) because what else could he possibly say. I think he knew it was over for him when they sacked him. Prog? No way. I think he wanted to die not play prog. The man lived in a nightmare from 1967 to 1969. He most have known his image, band and girl was gone forever as his status and stardom.
That's what I believe, too.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 23, 2012 16:01
X
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:16 by His Majesty.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:16 by His Majesty.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 23, 2012 16:06
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
tonterapiI honestly don't know if Brian said it flat out. But I think he gave hints.Quote
DandelionPowderman
That was my point exactly.
Did Brian really wanted to part ways?
I mean Brian was very aware of the problems between him and the band in 68/69 (i.e he wasn't so far out that some people seem to believe) and seem to have waited for the glimmers to make the move to kick him out. Maybe leaving wasn't his first choice. But he knew that it couldn't go on as it was either.
I think Brian told the truth to the press when he said that him leaving was a mutual agreement. His reactions afterwards shows that it was a difficult thing for him to do but at the same time the best thing as he became a happier person. He must have pondered about it many times before it happened.
No he didnt want to part ways, he wanted to be the Rolling Stone. He said things about starting a band (right...) because what else could he possibly say. I think he knew it was over for him when they sacked him. Prog? No way. I think he wanted to die not play prog. The man lived in a nightmare from 1967 to 1969. He most have known his image, band and girl was gone forever as his status and stardom.
Yes, his status and stardom on that scale, and apparently that was of paramount importance to him.
But if he had been able to fight back his depression and drug addictions, etc. I believe he probably would've had a very good career ahead of him. Would he have been a "star" or a well respected serious "artist"/musician or a D list celebrity? I don't know. But at 27 years old, its very sad what happened. It wasn't an overt suicide after all, and there would've been a lot of opportunities to come his way.
The culture of celebrity as we know it now, was just dawning then. Does anyone who has achieved significant fame ever really just "go away" anymore? Except by choice?
Brian could've perhaps been a celebrated producer, a concert promoter, a dj, taken up painting, composed more soundtracks, become head of a music dept at a prestigious university, hosted TV shows, written books, opened a restaurant chain, who knows? He wouldn't have had to have taken a regular job and sunk into obscurity unless it was his choice. He wasn't Pete Best. He wouldn't have been Mick Taylor either, because he was certainly a celebrity and had more charisma.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 23, 2012 16:18
Quote
His Majesty
In early 1968 Brian seems full of hope and excitment for the bands return to orbit, fast forward to late 1968 and it seems his heart was truly no longer in it anymore.
Yes I agree, he seemes to have had a short period when he tried to pretend to have forgotten Anita (he never did, that's obvious), and he had been right about returning to the roots and he was maybe, maybe given a slight tiny shread of hope from Mick about being part of the band. Maybe he just felt he was right about Satanic being shite and enjoyed reading about Mick's mistake.
Maybe he didnt feel hated right before Beggars. Maybe Marianne simply talked Mick into being diplomatic. No way Mick planned to continue with Brian after 1967, no way. I think this is what people who were present in the studio mean when they say things got ugly and Brian was treated like shit. We dont have to repeat the old "Brian was horrible and got what he deserved".
Charlie said the band was the last thing he had in life. That rings very true on many levels. He doesnt say Brian could have functioned in the band. Bill says Brian could not function as it was his band from the start and one cannot ignore the change of power, Brian could not be in a band with Mick and Keith after Keith got together with Anita.
Brian had to go but he didnt want to go and he could not stay so he died.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 23, 2012 16:19
X
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:17 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:17 by His Majesty.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: March 23, 2012 17:30
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Fantastic shot! However, almost no one is looking at Brian. Wonder what happened to the left of him on stage..
Mick Jagger is whats happening.
ProbablyStill, there are a couple of loyal Brian-followers giving him the attention there
it reminds me of another photo.
No one is looking at Richards, even those who are in front of him. I wonder how does it feel to be so invisible next to Jagger? Here he is in the foreground in the spotlight with a guitar in his hand, and - no one is looking at him.
We know what Brian felt about it, Marianne wrote how did she feel about it in her book, but Richards did not say a word on this topic. It's a pity really, it would be very interesting
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: March 23, 2012 19:01
I don't think he wanted to be a Rolling Stones as a member in the way it was in 68. But he wanted the life that came with it. Musically he seem to have been uninterested in what they were doing.Quote
Redhotcarpet
No he didnt want to part ways, he wanted to be the Rolling Stone. He said things about starting a band (right...) because what else could he possibly say. I think he knew it was over for him when they sacked him. Prog? No way. I think he wanted to die not play prog. The man lived in a nightmare from 1967 to 1969. He most have known his image, band and girl was gone forever as his status and stardom.
He is also said to have been in good spirit after he left and was excited about getting a band together. Brian worked hard in the beginning of the Stones to promote them and get rehearsals. I think he could've done the same again with a new band if he had found the energy to do so. It's impossible to say if he had been a "star" again. Brian was still very popular among the fans when he left.
I have to agree with what SweetThing wrote. Since everybody who visited or lived with Brian at Cotchford after he left the Stones says he was doing ok I just can't buy the picture of a depressed has-been who wanted to die.
I agree. That would indeed have been a big obstacle.Quote
His Majesty
Whatever he actually wanted to do he would have been hindered by the battering his playing abilities had taken. Factor in the psychological problems, the problems with drugs, legal or otherwise and that's quite an up hill challenge ahead of him.
Anyway, he died and that's that.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 23, 2012 19:04
In all this romanticism about Brian we forget the pictures of him showing up for studio work out of it on acid (see We Love You), and then plastered on booze (see Beggars Banquet). And reports of him not showing up at all. This was a band that was desperate on many levels. Charlie and Bill were broke and needed to tour simply to keep their heads above water. Mick & Keith's royalties were all mixed up with Klein. They had to focus. And Brian was being a drag.
They needed consistency. The four of them had hardened against him out of necessity. There was no time to coddle him and give him more love, as George Harrison suggested would have helped. Brian would have had to have fought for his place in the Stones. He would have had to get over the 'It's my band' B.S. And nothing in Brian's musical past showed he had the capability to be the consummate guitar player Mick Taylor turned out to be. Brian had allowed the events to transpire that led to his firing. Period.
They needed consistency. The four of them had hardened against him out of necessity. There was no time to coddle him and give him more love, as George Harrison suggested would have helped. Brian would have had to have fought for his place in the Stones. He would have had to get over the 'It's my band' B.S. And nothing in Brian's musical past showed he had the capability to be the consummate guitar player Mick Taylor turned out to be. Brian had allowed the events to transpire that led to his firing. Period.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
TheDailyBuzzherd
()
Date: March 23, 2012 19:41
Quote
24FPS
Brian had allowed the events to transpire that led to his firing. Period.
I wonder if they ever pulled a David Byrne on him and asked him to re-audition for the band, LoL.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Marie
()
Date: March 24, 2012 00:03
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
tonterapiI honestly don't know if Brian said it flat out. But I think he gave hints.Quote
DandelionPowderman
That was my point exactly.
Did Brian really wanted to part ways?
I mean Brian was very aware of the problems between him and the band in 68/69 (i.e he wasn't so far out that some people seem to believe) and seem to have waited for the glimmers to make the move to kick him out. Maybe leaving wasn't his first choice. But he knew that it couldn't go on as it was either.
I think Brian told the truth to the press when he said that him leaving was a mutual agreement. His reactions afterwards shows that it was a difficult thing for him to do but at the same time the best thing as he became a happier person. He must have pondered about it many times before it happened.
No he didnt want to part ways, he wanted to be the Rolling Stone. He said things about starting a band (right...) because what else could he possibly say. I think he knew it was over for him when they sacked him. Prog? No way. I think he wanted to die not play prog. The man lived in a nightmare from 1967 to 1969. He most have known his image, band and girl was gone forever as his status and stardom.
How do you know? Give it a rest about Anita already....
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 24, 2012 00:21
Quote
proudmaryQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Fantastic shot! However, almost no one is looking at Brian. Wonder what happened to the left of him on stage..
Mick Jagger is whats happening.
Probably
it reminds me of another photo.
No one is looking at Richards, even those who are in front of him. I wonder how does it feel to be so invisible next to Jagger? Here he is in the foreground in the spotlight with a guitar in his hand, and - no one is looking at him.
We know what Brian felt about it, Marianne wrote how did she feel about it in her book, but Richards did not say a word on this topic. It's a pity really, it would be very interesting
It's true. btw, does anyone else see Buddy Holly and Art Garfunkel in the audience? Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: March 24, 2012 00:30
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Keith probably felt like a big guy doing this sort of alpha male shit. Meet an employee and sack him. He seems to enjoy that little anecdote.
"Hey cock, you're fired"
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 24, 2012 01:43
X
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:19 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:19 by His Majesty.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 24, 2012 01:45
X
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:19 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:19 by His Majesty.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 24, 2012 03:57
Quote
SweetThingQuote
proudmaryQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Fantastic shot! However, almost no one is looking at Brian. Wonder what happened to the left of him on stage..
Mick Jagger is whats happening.
Probably
it reminds me of another photo.
No one is looking at Richards, even those who are in front of him. I wonder how does it feel to be so invisible next to Jagger? Here he is in the foreground in the spotlight with a guitar in his hand, and - no one is looking at him.
We know what Brian felt about it, Marianne wrote how did she feel about it in her book, but Richards did not say a word on this topic. It's a pity really, it would be very interesting
No, but I see Elton John and Eugene Levy.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 24, 2012 04:02
Quote
His MajestyQuote
24FPS
In all this romanticism about Brian we forget the pictures of him showing up for studio work out of it on acid (see We Love You), and then plastered on booze (see Beggars Banquet). And reports of him not showing up at all. This was a band that was desperate on many levels. Charlie and Bill were broke and needed to tour simply to keep their heads above water. Mick & Keith's royalties were all mixed up with Klein. They had to focus. And Brian was being a drag.
They needed consistency. The four of them had hardened against him out of necessity. There was no time to coddle him and give him more love, as George Harrison suggested would have helped. Brian would have had to have fought for his place in the Stones. He would have had to get over the 'It's my band' B.S. And nothing in Brian's musical past showed he had the capability to be the consummate guitar player Mick Taylor turned out to be. Brian had allowed the events to transpire that led to his firing. Period.
You are assuming and filling in blanks that just aren't there. There are no photos or footage of him showing up during Beggars Banquet sessions plastered on booze. One brief appearance during We Love You promo looking wasted doesn't cover 2 years of studio work.
(/quote] His Majesty
If I knew how to simply copy a picture from my documents and paste it into this box, I could show a well known photo of Brian plopped on the floor in the studio, beer in hand, looking like he was feeling good as the trio of Charlie, Mick, and Bill stare at him, unamused.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Marie
()
Date: March 24, 2012 04:58
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
His Majesty
In early 1968 Brian seems full of hope and excitment for the bands return to orbit, fast forward to late 1968 and it seems his heart was truly no longer in it anymore.
Yes I agree, he seemes to have had a short period when he tried to pretend to have forgotten Anita (he never did, that's obvious), and he had been right about returning to the roots and he was maybe, maybe given a slight tiny shread of hope from Mick about being part of the band. Maybe he just felt he was right about Satanic being shite and enjoyed reading about Mick's mistake.
Maybe he didnt feel hated right before Beggars. Maybe Marianne simply talked Mick into being diplomatic. No way Mick planned to continue with Brian after 1967, no way. I think this is what people who were present in the studio mean when they say things got ugly and Brian was treated like shit. We dont have to repeat the old "Brian was horrible and got what he deserved".
Charlie said the band was the last thing he had in life. That rings very true on many levels. He doesnt say Brian could have functioned in the band. Bill says Brian could not function as it was his band from the start and one cannot ignore the change of power, Brian could not be in a band with Mick and Keith after Keith got together with Anita.
Brian had to go but he didnt want to go and he could not stay so he died.
You are speculating....he was in the band for two years after Anita. You are fixated on the idea of "Brian couldn't live without Anita". His real problem was probably drugs. Notice I said probably because I am speculating. He had emotional problems. I am not speculating there because there are psychiatric reports to confirm this. Mix emotional problems with the drug (and alcohol) intake and it made the problems worse. No rehab back in the 1960s.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-24 05:42 by Marie.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 24, 2012 07:38
X
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:20 by His Majesty.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-25 14:20 by His Majesty.
Re: *Brian Jones: 1942 - 1969*
Posted by:
Marie
()
Date: March 24, 2012 08:04
big deal...they all did it.
This Thread has been closed
Online Users
AntoineParis , big4 , blindman , chevysales , DandelionPowderman , deardoctor , FloresMuertas , hockenheim95 , Irix , JohnnySnapps , liddas , Mabru , makemeburnthecandle , martinw , MJAGGER123 , novica , retired_dog , RnT , sebekken , stoned52 , TooTight , TW2019 , wachterc , wupperstein , Wuudy , zwilling
Guests:
2294
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10