For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.
Quote
MathijsQuote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.
Mathijs
Quote
His MajestyQuote
MathijsQuote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.
Mathijs
That's not true.
Quote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
MathijsQuote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.
Mathijs
That's not true.
According to Bill Wyman, it is.
Mathijs
Quote
2000 LYFH
I wonder what happened to Mock?
Quote
stonesnow
Wasn't Keylock sacked after it was found that he was attempting to pass Jones' Joujouka tapes along to various record producers for profit?
Quote
24FPS
I was always curious how they came up with the alleged amount to offer Brian when they sacked him. And if that was supposed to tie up all ends and if Brian signed something giving away all future rights.
Quote
24FPS
I wonder if the ABCKO reissues generated any profits for the Jones estate.
Quote
24FPS
I forget about those Nanker-Phelge things on the early albums. Those probably produce a donut and a cup of coffee every few years.
Quote
His Majesty
This [Bravo-]article, which features Brian's last known interview, doesn't suggest to me that any kind of financial deal/offer had been made at the meeting at Cotchford...
Quote
2000 LYFH
Do you remember where you read Brian was to get this money? The only place I found that mentions it is in Tony Sanchez's book.
Quote
2000 LYFH
Also thought I heard that this was a - 100,000 pound ($240,000) one time payment and then a smaller amount a year for as long as the band stays together.
Quote
Mathijs
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.
Quote
Mock JoggerQuote
2000 LYFH
I wonder what happened to Mock?
Thanks for caring. You'll understand I needed some time to comprehend that sophisticated "bastard"-discussion. Even after years the turns some thoughts on this board are able to take come as a surprise to me.
However, to compensate for my absence I'm going to write more than the average IORRian reads in his whole life. And I dedicate this post to Mickscarey.Quote
stonesnow
Wasn't Keylock sacked after it was found that he was attempting to pass Jones' Joujouka tapes along to various record producers for profit?
I've read more than one time on the internet that Keylock claimed that himself, but I don't know the original source. Maybe a (probably only small) case for the majestic archives of His Majesty? It could be from the second edition of Rawlings' book, but I don't have it.
However, and I think that's quite uncontroversial, Keylocks reputation for saying the truth is lower than zero. (He even admitted it himself occasionally.) Maybe he used "Jones' Joujouka tapes" as a pars pro toto metaphor for "everything that was in Jonses' house" and "various record producers" for "any old receiver of stolen goods"? However, I'm sure the Stones didn't care too much about Brian's possessions.
By the way, funny to compare the Bravo-reporter's realistic view on the perspective of becoming rich with releasing Joujouka (as posted by Majesty) [www.iorr.org] with the funny idea of Keylock (of all people) using the Joujouka recordings (of all things) "for profit". (Though it's probably in its field sort of a best seller. It was re-released on CD in 1995.) I guess Brian's cars, instruments (Mellotron, for example), furniture etc. brought in a lot more loot for Keylock and his builders.
Actually, that's probably of interest for some here, the Joujouka-recordings were - as ALL recordings, songs, music productions by any Rolling Stones member of 1965 that were done before 31 July 1970 - owned by ABKCO (that is by Allen Klein). The fact that Rolling Stones Records released it in 1971 means there had to be some deal about it with Klein. (By the way it means there was no deal about the A Degree Of Murder-soundtrack, either because the Stones didn't try hard enough or because Klein stood in the way. Both is possible. After all Joujouka fits very well into the picture of Jones painted especially by Jagger in recent decades: in interesting, freaky outsider within the Stones who occassionally "coloured" Jagger/Richards-songs with exotic instrumentation, while A Degree Of Murder shows a Jones-written and -produced musical concept pretty close to Between The Buttons era-Stones.)Quote
24FPS
I was always curious how they came up with the alleged amount to offer Brian when they sacked him. And if that was supposed to tie up all ends and if Brian signed something giving away all future rights.
The pay off sum could realistically cover only two things:
1. Brian's shares in Rolling Stones Ltd., which were at 20%. (So much for "they sacked him". You can't sack a co-owner. If there is an agreement, you can pay him off, if there is no agreement, the whole affair is a case for the judges; so that's why Mick lied when he answered 'Yeah.' to Jann Wenner's 1995 question: 'Did you fire him, finally?')
2. not confirmed, but nevertheless possible, maybe even highly possible: Brian's rights or shares in rights of the band name (which in standard internal band deals are usually not mixed with the shares in the band's company, but ususally belong to the "band leader", which Brian certainly considered himself to be on 1 July 1964, when Rolling Stones Ltd. was incorporated. The rights of the trademark Rolling Stones as they are used to this day were registered in 1970 in the Netherlands, which could be the result of the idea of avoiding conflicting rights registered in the UK some years earlier without the knowledge of, for example, the estate of Brian Jones. Speculation, of course - but not a stupid one for sure.)Quote
24FPS
I wonder if the ABCKO reissues generated any profits for the Jones estate.
Of course. The old contracts set the minimum standard the record company (or "manufacturer of [the Stones'] phonographic records", as Klein called himself in the 1965 contracts) has to stick to for future sales. I say "old contracts", because you can demand higher shares, if sales at a later date reach heights that seem to make the old contract inadequate (15 million copies for Hot Rocks are a point here, any lawyer with the slightest ambition would say). This is certainly something Allen Klein would never have done without being forced. (One of a zillion reasons why he had to enter so many court rooms in his life.) And actually the percentage guaranteed by the Stones' contract with him and Decca/London Records for the US/Canadian market wasn't such a bad one, especially for the time: 18,5% of wholesale including production, out of this 9,25% for the band. That leaves Brian with 1,85% plus an unknown - but probably another 1,85% - share (minus production costs) for the Rolling Stones produced Satanic Majesty output and a possible unknown plus for the Jimmy Miller productions, because it is hard to believe the Superstar-Stones of 1968 offered Jimmy the same share as Andrew got. But maybe Andrew still had a hand in there, although it doesn't look like that judging from the 1965 contract parts Bill published in Stone Alone.Quote
24FPS
I forget about those Nanker-Phelge things on the early albums. Those probably produce a donut and a cup of coffee every few years.
Well, especially Play With Fire definitely produces a lot more than that. And the other ca. ten tracks should have brought in at least a few more pennies as well, being re-released over and over again over the last 40 years. Marginal note: Andrew tried to get shares of writing money of covers the Stones did as soon as a Stones release had become equivalent to reaching the higher parts of the charts - that's how the story goes why he first met Klein, bargaining over Stones' versions of Sam Cooke songs. (But I don't think Andrew considered sharing that with the Stones.)Quote
His Majesty
This [Bravo-]article, which features Brian's last known interview, doesn't suggest to me that any kind of financial deal/offer had been made at the meeting at Cotchford...
Please, Majesty, don't be more naive than you potentially are: a teen magazine is certainly not the place to publish details of business deals. When the Stones (plus or including the Brian Jones estate=his parents) settled with ABKCO in 1972, the announcement for the press certainly did not feature any sums, it just summed up the general conflict, declared it had been settled (without any details) and made clear both parties had ended their business relations. (Not completely true, since ABKCO owns the pre-1971 catalogue to this day.) That's the big charm of a settlement out of court: no internal details go public. (See The Times notice in Rolling With The Stones (p. 392) about their settlement with ABKCO.)Quote
2000 LYFH
Do you remember where you read Brian was to get this money? The only place I found that mentions it is in Tony Sanchez's book.
There are two other sources I know of.
1. Ian Stewart, interviewed in the 1980s: "As a financial settlement, Mick proposed one hundred thousand pounds." (Hotchner, Blown Away, p. 311)
2. Mary Hallett (the housekeeper Brian had taken over from the former owners of Cotchford Farm). Quote in Who Killed Christopher Robin? by Terry Rawlings: "Then Brian told Mary that confirmation of his settlement had come through from Klein's New York office. 'He was so excited, he kept saying, <At last we'll be alright. My money is coming.>'" (p. 172)
Three different sources (and drug dealer "Spanish Tony" Sanchez, the Stones' straight founding member Ian Stewart and life-long rural area housekeeper Mary Hallett, who was in her mid 50s then, are as different as three people possibly can be) plus the rules of business law make it very likely that a sum of 100,000 pounds was the arrangement. Only, we don't know exactly for what. I guess: for the shares in Rolling Stones Ltd., nothing for the name (either not a topic - hard to believe - or still a conflict, more likely), certainly no termination of the recording contracts (no one, neither the remaining Stones nor Klein would have had the money for that. It was Klein's strategy not to pay his clients as soon as possible but in contrast to stretch payments as long as possible to use the huge advance monies he received from the record companies for investments for his own purpose.)Quote
2000 LYFH
Also thought I heard that this was a - 100,000 pound ($240,000) one time payment and then a smaller amount a year for as long as the band stays together.
The amount of 100,000 pounds for the one time payment makes a lot of sense for my taste. Though the Stones in 1969 had certainly a much higher value then 500,000 pounds, the problem was (just like with most British top stars at the time) there was hardly any money available. So 100,000 pounds, possibly with an additional agreement for an annual payment, was a solid compromise, though still one that was not easy to deal with for Allen Klein who held most of the Stones' monies and who was very likely almost broke in early 1969 due to misinvestments and lost court decisions.
On the value of the Stones: when the Beatles became a public company in April 1967 they received 800,000 pounds for it plus certain financial benefits. Lennon biographer Goldman calls this - rightly, I'd say - absurdly low and says the correct value would have been 4 million pounds; my take is: a few months later, after the release and unheard success of Sergeant Pepper probably even higher. However, the Stones were ca. at 1/3 or 1/4 of the Beatles saleswise; this would mean the Stones in 1969 were worth a minimum of 1 million pounds, leaving Brian Jones with at least 200,000 pounds. When you realize the Stones received $ 1 million in 1972 from Klein just for their claim "there had been a failure to represent [the Stones] best financial interests" alone - and originally claiming $ 29 million (!) for that - you see 1 million pounds for the Stones in 1969 as a whole is really quite a low figure.
The smaller annual amount (usually it's said to be 20,000 pounds) could be
a) in order to compensate for the comparable slow amount for Brian's shares,
b) rights of the name,
c) a mix-up with the annual guarantee payments from Klein and Decca according to their 1965 contract, which were going to run until 1974 (Decca) and 1985 (Klein),
d) complete fiction. (In contrast to the 100,000 pounds I never found a direct quote for the annual 20,000 pounds, only second hand ones written by the authors of the different books.)
The cases a) and b) would have been hard to take for the Stones and for Klein, because money was pretty short on both parts in the summer of 1969. (That's why the idea that Klein decided to take the easiest way to deal with all that isn't far off at all. He was a mafia type from head to foot. If there was a way to assure Britain's most famous drug taker wouldn't come out of his swimming pool after "a party" one night, he sensed it wouldn't surprise anyone who read about that in the news - just like nobody wondered about a black soul singer, Sam Cooke, being shot dead by a brothel owner because he had "threatened" her; a death that in 1964 seemed as natural for the police and the public in the USA as Brian's death in 1969 seemed natural for the police and public in the UK. Klein really had a sense for the right time and the right scenery. That's why he was successful. "I'm not as smart as people think; I'm just well-prepared", he once said about himself.)Quote
Mathijs
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.
What's this, Mathijs? Your attempt at a Dadaist poem?
The funeral was a very big event in the history of Cheltenham in its own right; it wouldn't have become much bigger by Mick and Keith attending. After all Brian Jones was a very big star and his shocking death had been main headline news a few days earlier.
Mick didn't attend because he had flown to Australia on 6 July 1969 for filming Ned Kelly, just the day after Hyde Park, already under pressure from the film producer who awaited his arrival impatiently.
The whole Brian affair had occupied him much more than he had planned when the film contract was made public on 18 May 1969. Provokingly well timed Brian had announced to the band just ca. a week later he'd leave (but it proved to be his only good tactical move in the event), resulting in hectic activity to present Mick Taylor as official substitute and to organize the Hyde Park concert as a strong proof the Stones were still a working unit - before Mick would have sent himself off to the end of the world in Australia, unable to pull that many strings until 12 September, 1969. (The American tour was announced on 10 September, not before.)
Why Keith didn't attend the funeral is more difficult to decide. I guess it's something of the following: Keith had very mixed feelings about Brian; at the same time he felt very uneasy about Brian's death (as he himself declared in that Rolling Stone magazine interview) - and I don't think he ever wanted to see Tom Keylock again. And I'm pretty sure he never saw him again. I never saw any evidence that Tom Keylock worked for the Stones after Hyde Park resp. after sending Anna Wohlin back to Sweden before she'd talk too much, which happened on 9 July 1969, one day before the funeral. I think his organization work for Brian's funeral (Keylock was pretty much in control of it: organizing the coffin, handling the many press people attending) he did more or less on his own mandate. Brian's parents obviously felt very uneasy not only about their son's death but about the whole atmosphere - they were absolutely not in charge of the situation. Seriously, nobody wants a character like Keylock organizing your son's funeral. However, "a riot" at a funeral because Mick and Keith are attending is really a pretty strange idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
What I'd like to see are high quality pix of the final group photo shoots.
Y'know, the pix of them against the wall and down in the sewer.
Thankee in advance.
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
TheDailyBuzzherd
What I'd like to see are high quality pix of the final group photo shoots.
Y'know, the pix of them against the wall and down in the sewer.
Thankee in advance.
Buzz you talking about what looks like a cave?
Quote
Edith Grove
I think the location plays up their "bad boy" image, kinda like the "cage" photos from a few years earlier, except the smile on their faces kinda takes away from that.
Surely there must be more pics from this shoot.
Quote
Mathijs
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.
Mathijs
Quote
2000 LYFH
BTW, what was the final results of Trevor Hobley's investigation a few years ago? Or is it still ongoing?
Quote
24FPS
I didn't know Stu went to the funeral. I was always under the impression he had been on the outs with Brian ever since his dismissal from the band proper.
Quote
24FPS
As for Keith and Anita, come on? Don't you think it would have been uncomfortable all around? Brian's father said his son fell apart after Anita left him. Oh look, here she is, and with the guy she ran off with and broke Brian's heart. How sweet. Would you both like to go up together and give your respects at his casket?
Quote
24FPS
I will always contend that Keith carried some guilt around for some time.
You have very interesting and plausible points Mock. It makes the glimmers behaviour after Brian's second buts even more interesting - Mick's concern for him that seems to have been genuine, Keith letting Brian stay at Redlands, both showing up at the trial and the guilt that sometimes shines through in interviews made with them over the years. They must have felt that it got out of hand when it's very clear nowadays that the second bust was what broke Brian down.Quote
Mock Jogger
The Anita case was certainly NOT the main reason why Keith had a problem with Brian. Mick had a problem with Brian, too, and when this problem turned to hatred, in early 1967, Mick had nothing to do with Anita.
So what was the real reason behind the rift between Mick and Keith on one side and Brian on the other? In fact, it is utterly unbelievable that this has NEVER been put right, in all the books and articles etc. In the complete history of the Stones there is nothing that is more obvious: the reason why Mick and Keith truly hated Brian was his interview that caused the Redlands bust.
Quote
Mock Jogger
So what was the real reason behind the rift between Mick and Keith on one side and Brian on the other? In fact, it is utterly unbelievable that this has NEVER been put right, in all the books and articles etc. In the complete history of the Stones there is nothing that is more obvious: the reason why Mick and Keith truly hated Brian was his interview that caused the Redlands bust.
In later years Mick and Keith and many observers (not good observers, though) tried to give the impression it was Anita's switch to Keith that made Brian feel uneasy within the Stones - it has a human touch and can be shrugged off with a "that's life" and "shit happens" attitude.
Says Bill in Rolling With The Stones (2002), being much clearer about the root of the "macabre" picture: "Mick and Keith's idea of a joke was that Brian's flower should have no leaves on the stem. Truth is, I never got it." [p. 287]
There was another very ugly side to the trick Mick and Keith played with Brian: he was just facing his trial after his first bust - and his druggy appearance in a film that was supposed to promote the latest release by his own band certainly didn't help his reputation, neither in public nor in the court room.
And I think Mick and Keith, who are well known to know their friends and enemies to this day, wanted revenge for Brian's stupid interview that almost would have cost their career.
Quote
Doxa
By 1968 the band was totally in their hands, under their artistic command (and they hired any one tyo suit to them if needed, like Jimmy Miller). And if we look the way they started to record, they didn't any longer a multi-instrumentalist who could make a track to shine by few tries within minutes - no, they have all the luxury to spend weeks or months in studio just get the track right. (I have felt that some of Brian's frustation was based that on spending hours and hours in studio trying to find the right 'feel' or something - the way Keith Richards especially started to work, like using a studio as his own testing laboratorio. Brian, as I understand, did his best things quickly and effectively).
- Doxa