Quote
2000 LYFH

Wasn't that dog onstage at Altamont?

I was listening to the post audio of Altamont from the Gimmie Shelter dvd and Mick, during the pre-Altamont press conference mentions that he was in the US in 1968.

Quote
originalstones

Quote
stonesrule
He admired them. The Doors were one of the leading LA bands but The Rolling Stones were from England! And they did not sound like the Beatles.

Stonesrule

Sorry for bringing up an old topic again. I find it interesting you knew Jim Morrison. Are you a writer? I heard Stephen Davis wrote in his Jim Morrison biography that when he met Jagger he kept asking him about Brian Jones, like Jim Morrison had some weird fascination with Brian. I thuoght it was a b.s. story. I am very skeptical of what Stephen Davis writes. I know John Densmore wrote in his autobiography that the Doors were big fans of the Stones and the Aftermath album when it came out. Do you remember anything else tha Jim Morrison told you about his meeting with Mick?

Rob

it causes problems on the board when some people dont know who stonesrule is and she tells them something that is the exact truth and they think she's someone making things up.
its a little embarrassing for the rest of us who would like to hear more of her stories.

and for godssake please dont read anymore of that friggin hack stephen davis's nonsense.that guy is possibly the worst writer in any genre i've ever seen.
and spare me the laundry list of crap he's written.i know all about it.

here's the stephen davis book writing method-

1.find a few people who knew the subject and interview them.this will give you some hint of credibilty.they will probably tell stories that have have been heard a million times or make shit up but it doesnt matter.
2.find old copies of creem,circus,rolling stone,hit parader and whatever else and fill in the blanks.
3.add some of your own made up shit in there.
4.lather,rinse,repeat.

the guy is so lame that i've actually read some of his stuff and remembered the article that he stole it from.

On occasion I write books about music and other subjects. I love to read so when I write I try to keep it as accurate and without bias as possible. I write for the reader and for history. The best reward has been little notes of praise from a wide variety of authors I admired. At the end of the day, a dedicated writer is likely to add up all the hours, the licensing fees etc., the arguments with publishers about quality and truth versus sensationalism. and find that that the reward for the time involved was worth about $2.50 an hour. So one has to feel []COMPELLED to tell an accurate story to go through all the agonies. I have a great memory inherited from my family bloodlines.

I knew...know a number of great musicians, bands, actors etc.

If I had been born in the MidWest, let's say, none of the above would have been true. But I grew up in LA at the "right time" and spent a lot of time traveling the US, UK and Europe. I had some serious responsibilities in the music business in the 70's. For me, the glory days ended when John Lennon was murdered. Have seen 3,000 performances at small and large venues throughout the world including amazing performances by Sinatra, Ella, Ray Charles, Aretha, Hendrix, Stevie Wonder and, of course the Rolling Stones.

Still cherish my record collection and great music gifts from certain people here. Deeply regret getting rid of virtually every one of the 4,000 vinyl LPs I had at one time. Needed to make room for books re art, european history, Georges Simenon etc. I wake up sometimes moaning, "How could I have given away 'High Tides and Green Grass' etc.

Some of my favorite music writers are Stanley Booth, Michael Lydon, Nik Cohn, Charlie Gillet, Bill Flanagan, Richard Williams Greil Marcus and, on occasion, David Fricke.

I've known a lot of rock writers in the US, UK and France. Too many, but not all, are just idol-worshipers or don't have enough background to bring freshness and truth into the picture.

Among my least favorite music writers are Stephen Davis and others who rely on clippings and videos and often interpret things wrongly. I think Christopher Andersen on music subjects is an unprofessional glib idiot.

Other than that I think about Paris every day,

Rob, you really wound me up.,,and also since this is a Jim Morrison thread I somehow found myself thinking of him because we had some interesting conversations re writing about music. This thread would undoubtedly amuse Jim.

I really must behave here. The Bully may be lurking.

Oh yes, Rob, your question! Jagger told me he found The Doors and Jim "interesting." Jim was a great fan of the Stones and absolutely, 'Aftermath' was a landmark album for The Doors, for me and many other people and musicians in LA. Hendrix was a major admirer of the Stones and their music...he had a great musical memory and was intelligent and interesting when he talked about their songs and musicianship. He understood that Jagger was one of a kind before most people did.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-07 01:41 by stonesrule.

Quote
stonehearted

Which is the reason the most blistering live rock album ever recorded was never released. In the 60s, The Who were more of a live act than studio artists, but their American breakthrough could have happened a year before Tommy if their Shakin' All Over (April 5, 1968) set from the Fillmore East had been released as scheduled--as this would have captured the essence of The Who on vinyl far better than any of Shel Talmy's and Kit Lambert's previous production efforts had--instead of the record company's decision to release the 30-minute singles hodgepodge Magic Bus: The Who On Tour.

The Shakin' All Over album that never was achieved mythical status by inspiring a Beatles song later that year. While Shakin' All Over was in production Townshend revealed in the NME that The Who had just recorded the loudest, most raucous record ever recorded. This inspired Paul McCartney to write and record Helter Skelter with The Beatles so that they might instead be known for having recorded the "loudest, most raucous record ever recorded."

Well, I have Shakin' All Over on CD finally. Makes for a fine bootleg--but dammit, if it had been officially released back in the day we would have had a deluxe, remastered double-disc set by now....

Was it intended only for the US market? If not what stopped it from being released on Track Records in UK etc? Not financially worth it due to no US release?

Good stuff Stonesrule. I'll buy you dinner at the place of your choice the next time you're in Austin. Don't regret getting rid of those LPs. They're not worth much anymore and it's all out there in the ether anyway, plus some. Hell, for that matter don't regret anything. Our decisions ARE our lives.

Re The Who. That's a pretty interesting subject. To me it took the Who several years to get Big in the U.S. because of their recordings. The songs were NOT great pop songs by the American definition at that time and the production of the early Who records were positively 3rd rate compared to The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Creedance et.al. The Monterrey Pop movie gave a small glimpse of the fury of a live Who concert and the Woodstock movie expanded that interest even more. It wasn't until I got ahold of Live At Leeds that I became a Who "fan". That record opened up a LOT of ears. Thankfully they followed that up with their first truly well-produced record, "Whos Next" and then there was no stopping them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-07 01:15 by Bungo.

i think it's very ironic that Jim had such a fascination with Brian Jones because they were very much alike in a lot of ways. They were both incredibly talented and intelligent men, they both had passions that they weren't able to completely pursue. Brian had such a passion for music but was kicked out of the Stones leaving him unable to pursue and Jim had such a passion for poetry but he couldn't pursue because he was so involved with the Doors and that's what he was being recognized for. Also they both were sort of lost in their own minds, Brian would do drugs and drink and completely change, the same way that Jim did. When they got intoxicated they were loud, sporadic, mean and uncontrolable. But they weren't really that way when they were alone and sober. Also they both died on July 3 at age 27 and they both have deaths that are unsolved up to this day. i mean it's still assumed that Brian just drowned and that Jim just had a heart attack but no one knows for sure. There are still many other similarities but listing them all would take too long, anyways i just thought that was interesting, they are very much connected to eachother.