Listening Pete Townshend describing the scenes of making ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS, there is no doubt who was the ringmaster already then.

Besides, the very first Marquee gig was advertised as Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones....

I have the picture that Jagger has been always very pragmatic guy, and this aspect naturally made him the one making things to happen. He is quick making decisions - and not keen on informing others - and seemingly has a natural interest in every detail plus a curious ear for new things. And is damn ambitious and competative soul. The power is not something to be given or declared (a'la Brian) but to be taken, and Jagger took his chances. I think the rest quite quickly recognized that and let him lead the ship, and trust his intuitions in many decisions (it also worked for them, and Jagger seemingly took many such responsibilities no one else was interested in or talented enough to carry). I think that even though Brian was 'officially' or 'formally' a leader in the early days, I suppose Jagger's mojo was already present there. He simply is not the guy to follow anything passively. Keith, like Mick once sang, put his wagon next to him, which was a great move. A pragmatic, all things care taking Mick gave him a templete within which was possible to concentrate just on making music. Of course, ALO's role was also crucial here. ALO understood immediately that Jagger is the main man, but I think Jagger didn't any outsider help in gaining his position. He already had that (and seemingly Brian was awere of that from the day one). Keith seemingly needed ALO's encouragement and manipulation.

If anything what describes the Stones power dymamics is that it is not very democratic, equal or open - and never been. I don't think anything was openly discussed and agreed on. The Stones are famous for talking nothing. Things just happened. A kind of Darwinian model. Brian made sacred deals, and what then AL0, Mick and Keith would later do, wasn't any more open deal deal. Lots of things were done and decided in private, and the rest just had the chance to okay it. This is something Wyman complains in STONE ALONE. He seems to say that for not making things more difficult, it was better to okay most. But that's just classical use of power. The guys - or the guy - who had the determination and will, took their chances. Of all Stones related people I think Charlie Watts, who never seem to have jealousy issues, is the one who has always been most frank about the nature or hierarchy of the Stones, and giving the respect where it belongs to. Mick and his side-kick lil' brother Keith.

But in a long run, I think all the Stones-related people, should be grateful for meeting Michael Philip Jagger, and trusting his intuitions. It's him who made and kept it big.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-17 15:52 by Doxa.

Quote
Havo
Well, Iam 58 of age---and I remember that Brian jones seems to be the the "leader" in their first years. When or especially "WHY" he lost this Title to mick jagger?
And Why couldnt Keith take the lead?

Mick's the singer, the focus of the band for the average person. It takes a different kind of person to be a frontman than a guitar player (meaning a guitar player who's NOT also the lead singer). That person usually has the ego and vanity to pull off leading a band too. Certainly the public will assume the lead singer is also the 'leader' of most bands (be it an accurate ascertation or not).

Brian was an abusive, fragile mess of nerves who kind of lost his mind. Not a leader. Keith is a selfish junkie who spent more years pouring smack down his crack than applying any kind of leadership. Not a leader.

[thepowergoats.com]

I guess Mick was the informal leader from early on. Brian presented himself as the leader so that he could get away with a higher salary. However Brian was very well spoken in interviews (at least the ones I have heard). He took his roll as a leader quite serious obviously. Mick, in his early days, often appeared as immature and vague. Not exactly your typical leader type.

A couple of data points for the discussion...

Only Brian signed the 1st record deal on 21st of May 1963 on behalf of the band (one of the real gems of my collection) however by January 66 when the letter below was written he acknowledges Mick as the leader.

Matt,

That fan letter is unbelievable!
What a treasure...

When they started touring as 'Mick Jagger & The Rolling Stones'

Quote
mattleeuk
A couple of data points for the discussion...

Only Brian signed the 1st record deal on 21st of May 1963 on behalf of the band (one of the real gems of my collection) however by January 66 when the letter below was written he acknowledges Mick as the leader.

Thank YOU for sharing this gem!!

Quote
tatters

Quote
Havo
Well, Iam 58 of age---and I remember that Brian jones seems to be the the "leader" in their first years. When or especially "WHY" he lost this Title to mick jagger?
And Why couldnt Keith take the lead?

Why do you mention your age in every single post? Nobody cares how old you are.

it's an age thing

Quote
Stoneage
Brian presented himself as the leader so that he could get away with a higher salary. However Brian was very well spoken in interviews (at least the ones I have heard). He took his roll as a leader quite serious obviously.

Well, Brian really wanted to be the leader of his own blues band. The extra fiver was a bonus. But he wanted to be what Aleksis Korner was for the Blues Incorporated. The problem for Brian was that he wasn't really ready to have that position questioned. Although he was determined and, as you say, serious about the leader role his insecurity prevented him to compete with a strong character like Mick.

The letter posted above shows that Brian was well aware that he had lost the leadership and I don't believe that he did much to get back in that place.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Edith Grove
Why does there even need to be a "leader" of a band ?

so the followers know who to follow. hello?

I follow the Stones, but I don't consider Mick "my leader."

the stones are your leaders, then, whether you like it or not. sigh.

But I don't follow only the Stones....

listen, we are to form a straight, single-file line. you're either in front of them or behind them...can't be both.

We could link arms and travel side by side with our brothers (and sisters).

Thanks matleeuk! That letter by Brian is awesome.

It is a reply post to a fan girl I presume. But he is extremily straight about the leadership thing.

- Doxa

Matleeuk, thanks for sharing the letter, it is a real gem and it is really interesting. Nice handwriting too. Very self-confident I would say



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-20 11:05 by Happy24.

Quote
24FPS
When it became apparent that they were a huge international concern capable of generating great amounts of revenue. Mick seemed best suited to guide them through an increasingly complex economic landscape. He didn't do it himself but he was smart enough to employ the best. Meanwhile Keith shot heroin. For years. And became useless over time.

Yeah.. when an education at the London School of Economics became useful.

I would say when Mick hooked up with Prince Rupert. They moved in the same circles and had a social r'ship which turned into a professional one. Keith became increasingly detached from management as he got deeper into heroin.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
24FPS
When it became apparent that they were a huge international concern capable of generating great amounts of revenue. Mick seemed best suited to guide them through an increasingly complex economic landscape. He didn't do it himself but he was smart enough to employ the best. Meanwhile Keith shot heroin. For years. And became useless over time.

Yeah.. when an education at the London School of Economics became useful.

Did he finish that school? I don't think so. And such an education isn't a guarantee you're smart in practical economic affairs making deals etc.
In fact the Stones have learned it the 'hard' way.
Änyway, I think Mick's intelligence is way overrated.

Mick became the leader when he started writing songs with Keith. Brian was reduced to a session musician .

Quote
mitchflorida1
Mick became the leader when he started writing songs with Keith.

why couldn't keith become the leader when he started writing songs with mick?

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
mitchflorida1
Mick became the leader when he started writing songs with Keith.

why couldn't keith become the leader when he started writing songs with mick?

Keith ain't no leader . .

Quote
mitchflorida1

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
mitchflorida1
Mick became the leader when he started writing songs with Keith.

why couldn't keith become the leader when he started writing songs with mick?

Keith ain't no leader . .

bill's a leader

Is the letter written by Brian himself or a secretary? I think it is Brian.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
mitchflorida1

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
mitchflorida1
Mick became the leader when he started writing songs with Keith.

why couldn't keith become the leader when he started writing songs with mick?

Keith ain't no leader . .

bill's a leader

Someone forgot to tell Mick. When is the last time that a bass player was the leader of a rock group?

Quote
mitchflorida1

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
mitchflorida1

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
mitchflorida1
Mick became the leader when he started writing songs with Keith.

why couldn't keith become the leader when he started writing songs with mick?

Keith ain't no leader . .

bill's a leader

Someone forgot to tell Mick. When is the last time that a bass player was the leader of a rock group?

well, it's not Terry Taylor's Rhythm Kings, is it now?

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
24FPS
When it became apparent that they were a huge international concern capable of generating great amounts of revenue. Mick seemed best suited to guide them through an increasingly complex economic landscape. He didn't do it himself but he was smart enough to employ the best. Meanwhile Keith shot heroin. For years. And became useless over time.

Yeah.. when an education at the London School of Economics became useful.

Did he finish that school? I don't think so. And such an education isn't a guarantee you're smart in practical economic affairs making deals etc.
In fact the Stones have learned it the 'hard' way.
Änyway, I think Mick's intelligence is way overrated.

I think that's kleer.

Quote
kleermaker
Änyway, I think Mick's intelligence is way overrated.

That's an interesting claim and issue. In a way I can agree with. In the sense that people think that Jagger is such a clever, calculating business man he is many times projected to be, especially by 'Keith's block'. I think he is much more passionate, impulsive, intuitive as he is thought to be. More as an artist than a businesman, that is to say. I think the reason people are confused about it is because Jagger is so private person. He doesn't share his inner feelings and intentions nor life with public, but just let us see the public figure, the performer he is very much in control with. Wheras Keith has made his inner life as public as it can be (be it real or not), because that's part of Keith's appeal as a rock and roll icon. He is so 'honest'. I think Jagger is very much like Dylan in this sense. Mysterious guys, but I think in both cases, there is not much interesting actually to find out.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-20 17:59 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
Änyway, I think Mick's intelligence is way overrated.

That's an interesting claim and issue. In a way I can agree with. In the sense that people think that Jagger is such a clever, calculating business man he is many times projected to be, especially by 'Keith's block'. I think he is much more passionate, impulsive, intuitive as he is thought to be. More as an artist than a businesman, that is to say. I think the reason people are confused about it is because Jagger is so private person. He doesn't share his inner feelings and intentions nor life with public, but just let us see the public figure, the performer he is very much in control with. Wheras Keith has made his inner life as public as it can be (be it real or not), because that's part of Keith's appeal as a rock and roll icon. He is so 'honest'. I think Jagger is very much like Dylan in this sense. Mysterious guys, but I think in both cases, there is not much interesting actually to find out.

- Doxa

I think it comes from the fact that they have set the bar very low for rock- and popstars. You don't have to be all that well-read to be considered intelligent or even intellectual in that business. Especially in the 60s and 70s when higher education wasn't considered the staple goods it is today (I'm thinking about Jagger's drop out university studies here).

Quote
nonfilter
Does one or the other of us have to be the boss?

[www.non-filters.com]

Just she...

Mick is the head, Charlie is the heart(beat), Keith is the soul, Ronnie is the.....ummmm.....

Quote
Stoneage
Is the letter written by Brian himself or a secretary? I think it is Brian.

Brian. If you wrote a letter to any of the Stones Brian was most likely to answer you.

About a year ago there was an auction in Sweden where a swedish fan sold the letter he got from Brian when he wrote to Brian in 65 asking for his autograph. In that letter to Brian they guy had also included pictures of all of the Stones that he had cut out from magazines and even they came back signed by every individual member. Brian had brought them to the studio.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-20 22:00 by tonterapi.