Please keep that attitude, Witness. Your contribution is unique and very highly appreciated. My point solely was to say that I don't believe there is a way to define at all what "real" is in these kind of contexts, so I actually am in your side in this debate. But it is like, to make not a very good analogy, like that of defending the existence of God, or trying to prove there does not exist such an entity. I don't think there are good arguments - sheer knowledge - for either of these positions, so not worth arguing for. You believe, or you don't. "Real" is actually for me a term of of showing deep conviction for something one appreciates very highly, and, to go with it, probably have some idiosyncratic criteria to define it. Not a term with much use in my vocabulary. But that's just me, even though I highly recommend that for anyone...

I mean, how many useless sentences we have like "you are not a real fan", "Mick Taylor/Ronnie Wood is not a real Rolling Stone", or "This and that recarnation of the band is not 'real' Rolling Stones". Usually those kind of claims do not lead anywhere, but only gather aggression, unless we specify a bit more what we want to say.

Sorry this meta-talk...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 19:46 by Doxa.

That was exactly what I was worried about.

No one is a defining authority here. Everybody has opinions, and those should come across.

However, being a little clever never hurt anyone

Meanwhile the original Rolling Stones will always be the true Rolling Stones, the real thing.

What followed just wasn't the same thing anymore.

Ps: No god only religion.

><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 20:56 by His Majesty.

You are good at meta-talk as well, Doxa.

I very much like insightfulness, Dandelion. I have to admit that your earlier oneliner I misread and in one isolated sentence I made you an unwarranted short address that I regret.

No harm done, mate

Quote
His Majesty
Meanwhile the original Rolling Stones will always be the true Rolling Stones, the real thing.

What followed just wasn't the same thing anymore.

Ps: No god only religion.

><

No 'real Rolling Stones', only a bunch of fanatics talking about it...><

- Doxa

Quote
His Majesty
Meanwhile the original Rolling Stones will always be the true Rolling Stones, the real thing.

What followed just wasn't the same thing anymore.

Ps: No god only religion.

><

Neither was what preceded the change of guitarist, the unchangeable same. The Rolling Stones for several decades were only true to one incarnation of themselves for shorter periods, Then they have changed . Nonetheless, out of the continual change, a kind of uniqueness showed up and shone through their diversity. That uniqueness, some of it, lived on in the changed Stones that followed. If it is not true Rolling Stones, it is genuine Rolling Stones.

The song title "The Singer Not the Song" has got a parallel to you. "The Guitarist Not the Music" as far as trueness and truthfulness are concerned. You are of course more than most fans engaged in their music, but strangely enough, fully only in one heterogenous time period of it. However, it is very appropriate that it has got a strong advocate, but the perspective might be shortened thereby.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-22 22:07 by Witness.

The "objective" answer to this can't be anything else but Satisfaction. Ask a thousand randomly selected persons and Satisfaction would be the most common answer.
In many cases because that is the only Stones song "tourists" can name...

Quote
Stoneage
The "objective" answer to this can't be anything else but Satisfaction. Ask a thousand randomly selected persons and Satisfaction would be the most common answer.
In many cases because that is the only Stones song "tourists" can name...

Maybe, but in a few years time the next generation will probably say SMU.

I do recall Mick Jagger answering the question "What do you think you will be remembered for after we're all dead and gone" with "that's the guy who wrote satisfaction".
"Nothing else?" the interviewer replied, "no, nothing else" Jagger answered.

Totally free of sarcasm. Classic Mick answer

Quote
Witness

Quote
His Majesty
Meanwhile the original Rolling Stones will always be the true Rolling Stones, the real thing.

What followed just wasn't the same thing anymore.

Ps: No god only religion.

><

Neither was what preceded the change of guitarist, the unchangeable same.

Changes within the same small core group of founding Rolling Stones. That ceased in 1969 and with it went the real thing because the real thing is dependent on the very people that defined the band, the core group of founding members.

The Rolling Stones without Brian's presence, influence, harmonica playing, slide guitar and other instrumentation is not The Rolling Stones. I say the same about Keith's guitar playing, Mick's vocals etc.

You got a lot more music afterwards, but no matter how good or bad it got, it's not the real deal, genuine and original Rolling Stones.

My cut off point is clear, but what's yours?





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 01:31 by His Majesty.

My vantage point is very simple:

It is not I who define who the Rolling Stones were or are. If you prefer to do so for your own enjoyment of Rolling Stones music, fine. But when you insist upon your approach to be followed by other people, I rather let the individuals that have born the name, decide what I should think, instead of you.

And when Brian Jones left the Stones, I don't know about anything that would indicate that even Brian Jones himself contested that there would continue to be a band called the Rolling Stones, to which he would no longer be part.

When the uniqueness I found and find in the band's music during the continual change of the Stones from Brian Jones's period, lived on in the band after that time, I have no need to deviate from what the members of the band consider themselves as. If this is not clear, it is on the other hand much uncomplicated.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 10:39 by Witness.

So if Charlie and Ronnie quit and Mick and Keith go out on tour with a backing band as The Rolling Stones you'd accept it as The Rolling Stones just because they say it is? You would feel that you are witnessing the real thing? LOL.

There is some rumours about there being a dispute about the name in 1969, but it's probably a load of crap.

The whole new member thing is messy and greatly affects the music, it's made even more wonky and dubious when they don't even allow new musicians to actually officially join, merely be paid players like Daryll Jones.

I saw them at Wembley in 1995, but no way was that the real thing that I saw no matter what they claim it to be.

Quote
His Majesty
The whole new member thing is messy and greatly affects the music, it's made even more wonky and dubious when they don't even allow new musicians to actually officially join, merely be paid players like Daryll Jones.

The new member issue has more to do with band pedigree than anything else.

Perhaps if Bill Wyman had left in 1974 instead, then the replacement bass player would have been more than a hired side player--provided the replacement player was a contemporary of the band members and had been in a previous band that had enjoyed some degree of success.

For instance, Kenny Jones was made a full member of The Who because he had come from The Small Faces, which had been a big deal when The Who themselves were starting out. That's why we talk now of "the Kenny Jones era." But Zak Starkey is a generation younger and doesn't have that same band pedigree, even though he has been their drummer now for 17 years--3 years longer than Keith Moon, and has played on something like 9 major tours.

After the 90s, these bands acquired this perceived "legendary" status, so any new replacement player at this point cannot be made a full equal "legendary" member.

If Ron Wood were to leave, or get kicked out finally, as was rumored in recent years, his replacement would be yet another hired side player and for publicity photos and the like you would see just the core three of Mick, Keith, and Charlie.

If I forget the unfortunate and misguiding word "real", and just pick up some themes discussed above.

I think the crucial thing in trying to make sense of The Rolling Stones story is to accept that there were actually two different Rolling Stones which made history. The first one is the "original" one that conquered the world, the peak years being that of from 1964 to 1966. This was the golden period of THe Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones competition, and these two groups basically ruled the pop music world. One cannot underestimate Brian Jones's role.

But there is the second coming of the Stones, a process which took some time, including´changes in altogether musical landscape (in which the Beatles/Stones-debate was not any longer so relevant). We could now locate it to 1968/72 "golden period", but the "new" band was born during those years little by litte. Yeah, their rebellious reputation, and to an extent music, was based on those mid 60's peak years, but it was the new challenges by new trends and rivals, masterful material of BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED plus the smash singles which resonated with the "counter cultural" times, and not lastly, a triumphal return to concert stages in 1969 with a brandnew sound, that gave them a new life. Replacing a founder member within the process only showed that the band was able reinvent themselves so convincingly that even such a dramatic change didn't matter. The new band was so exciting by its own terms that not many missed the "old" band, and if they did, there were lots of new fans charmed by the "new" one. Even today, I would claim their biggest hardcore fan base today derives from the so called Taylor years.

If we compare this to their famous rivals, The Beatles, I think the biggest difference is that the Beatles never had such radical turn in their career as the Stones had (or forced to have). After the crazy Beatlemania days, they became a full-blood experimental studio band, and that's where it all ended. They just "grew up", get fed up with each other personally and musically, and there seemingly was no way out. Yep, they could have commercially continue forever, and sell shitloads of records just by their name, but being such a vital organ with ambitious minds, they decided not. The Beatles died off "naturally", after having lived such a rich and naturally developing adventurous life (with no radical breaks or steps), which broke all the records pop music has ever seen.

In a way, The Stones followed the Beatles in their career all the way to studio band stage (even though the results might not been so monumental always), but unlike The Beatles, they were able reach out from there, and take the next step to the 70's - which for many then and now would be mean the birth of the "real" Rolling Stones (which only means that it was that kind of musical unit they would be known ever since).

So my point is to say that the difference between The Beatles and the Stones was that the Stones developed and reinvented their musical stance so much during the late 60's that it was possible for them to replace a founder member, who had been a big part of their music and image earlier. For the Beatles that would have been drastical. You take any of the four out, and the band would have gone. The bands differ from their constitution.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 12:16 by Doxa.

Don't forget the money reasons.

And what of poor ol' Chuck Leavell? Is he not a real Rolling Stone? What's left of the stones has relied on him for so much and for so long, he's got to be a bit bummed about not being given member status.

He meets all the musical criteria put forth by witness. He enhanced an appraoch already in motion before he joined and he allowed them to develop that further as well.

He's as much a Rolling Stone, if not more, as Mick Taylor. ><

...

Regarding The Who, it's quite ridiculous that Pete and Roger go out with that name.

I can understand both sides here. The Stones lost a unique trademark sound when Brian left.

A new sound was born in 1968, not 1969, prior to Taylor's arrival. When Taylor arrived, he helped to enhance that sound, a sound that had become very popular in the UK and the US (the mix between rock'n'roll, r&b, soul, blues and country - heavily relying on guitar solos, rather than just the songs themselves).

As I was born into the second era, that was the era that instantly grabbed med when I learned to appreciate the Stones. Funnily, it was TY first - with both Taylor and Wood.

However, quickly I sensed that there was something special with the band's original sound - and that goes for both the R&B/Rock'n'roll period and the pop-rock/more studio-oriented period.

Something of the latter got lost along the way, although some of the best songs, like Moonlight Mile, offer a "professional-sounding" version of that genius music, imo.

Quote
His Majesty
And what of poor ol' Chuck Leavell? Is he not a real Rolling Stone? What's left of the stones has relied on him for so much and for so long, he's got to be a bit bummed about not being given member status.

I think it's out of respect for Stu--they never replaced him as a member.

After Stu was ousted at the behest of ALO, all their keyboard/piano players were hired nonmembers.

Just their unspoken way of saying that the piano/keyboard slot belongs to Stu, even after he was no longer there to occasionally fill it.

paint it, black

Quote
Doxa
If I forget the unfortunate and misguiding word "real", and just pick up some themes discussed above.

It's not misguided or anything.

If Jagger's had done his solo tour of the 80's under The Rolling Stones name is that the real thing just because he say's it is?

The realness comes from the ongoing development of the core founding members personalities, influence, musical ideas and tastes. It comes from the ups and downs of those people interacting.

These are the people that started the thing, these are the people that defined it.

The real deal genuine thing, not some continuation with replacement people.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
His Majesty
And what of poor ol' Chuck Leavell? Is he not a real Rolling Stone? What's left of the stones has relied on him for so much and for so long, he's got to be a bit bummed about not being given member status.

I think it's out of respect for Stu--they never replaced him as a member.

After Stu was ousted at the behest of ALO, all their keyboard/piano players were hired nonmembers.

Just their unspoken way of saying that the piano/keyboard slot belongs to Stu, even after he was no longer there to occasionally fill it.

Ah the ol' guilt complex.

They never played live with another pianist until 1970.

Well R&R Circus has Nicky, but that's a filming with multiple attempts at songs etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 12:48 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
So if Charlie and Ronnie quit and Mick and Keith go out on tour with a backing band as The Rolling Stones you'd accept it as The Rolling Stones just because they say it is? You would feel that you are witnessing the real thing? LOL.

There is some rumours about there being a dispute about the name in 1969, but it's probably a load of crap.

The whole new member thing is messy and greatly affects the music, it's made even more wonky and dubious when they don't even allow new musicians to actually officially join, merely be paid players like Daryll Jones.

I saw them at Wembley in 1995, but no way was that the real thing that I saw no matter what they claim it to be.

I have not been in need of strong criteria. So I have kept it rather loose.

Quote
Witness
My vantage point is very simple:

It is not I who define who the Rolling Stones were or are. If you prefer to do so for your own enjoyment of Rolling Stones music, fine. But when you insist upon your approach to be followed by other people, I rather let the individuals that have born the name, decide what I should think, instead of you.

And when Brian Jones left the Stones, I don't know about anything that would indicate that even Brian Jones himself contested that there would continue to be a band called the Rolling Stones, to which he would no longer be part.

When the uniqueness I found and find in the band's music during the continual change of the Stones from Brian Jones's period, lived on in the band after that time, I have no need to deviate from what the members of the band consider themselves as. If this is not clear, it is on the other hand much uncomplicated.

In the last paragraph I grant myself a basis to consider what would or will come out of it. If necessary, criticize it. However, I have never seen the need. Then I can easily accept, according to the first paragraph, what the band's members decide as "criteria". You might construct hypothetical "dilemmas" for my approach to stumble on. I'll wait to such scenarios actually happen.

In the past with Bobby Keyes, Jim Price and Nicky Hopkins featuring regularly round the band, I often thought of the band's personnel as "the inner five" and "the outer three". I have not been doing that sort of thinking in the later decades. Maybe I have become to "liberal". If necessary, I might take it up again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 12:49 by Witness.

Gentlemen, you have changed the subject. Read the thread title again. This is not another Brian Jones thread...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

A new sound was born in 1968, not 1969, prior to Taylor's arrival. When Taylor arrived, he helped to enhance that sound, a sound that had become very popular in the UK and the US (the mix between rock'n'roll, r&b, soul, blues and country - heavily relying on guitar solos, rather than just the songs themselves).

We have discussed this matter earlier, but I can't (any longer) say it straight-fowarddly that is was exactly "Flash" and BEGGARS BANQUET that gave us the "new sound". Stylistically probably (blues rock, country&western, etc.), especially compared to SATANIC MAJESTIES, but not so different, in the end, that they had done earlier (especially in the very beginning), and BEGGARS, as LET IT BLEED as well, still sounds a work of a "studio band", and a rather natural further result of experimental and ambitious mind of a typical 60's band. GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! and STICKY FINGERS sound something different - a professional "hard rocking", able to master any style or genre, 70's band. The material they wrote in 1968/69 surely gave the foundation for all the years to come, but it was the live versions - mostly acoustic based things turned to electric - which would manifest the new sound. From STICKY FINGERS on, the studio and live versions of the songs didn't vary very much at all.

So my point is that one cannot point out an exact date or year of the new sound to born - it was a process which took some time.

BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED are funny albums in that sense that the people who appeciate either "the old Jones-based band" or "the new 'greatest rock and roll band of the world'", but not both, tend to like those albums. They are transformational albums - something unique still present from the past, but still lots of seeds showing to future. I mean, even His Majesty still finds LET IT BLEED interesting...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 12:58 by Doxa.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
If I forget the unfortunate and misguiding word "real", and just pick up some themes discussed above.

It's not misguided or anything.

If Jagger's had done his solo tour of the 80's under The Rolling Stones name is that the real thing just because he say's it is?

The realness comes from the ongoing development of the core founding members personalities, influence, musical ideas and tastes. It comes from the ups and downs of those people interacting.

These are the people that started the thing, these are the people that defined it.

The real deal genuine thing, not some continuation with replacement people.

Out of this, might emerge a collective entity. If we accept it, and that is the big IF, a band personnel with substitutes might be considered to be able to carry on that collective entity. In the case with the Stones, that was happened in the eyes and ears of sufficient people. Old fans and new fans. Those old fans who did not stay active fans, might have preferred what went before, without necessarily wanting to denounce what followed. Others might have felt that the new Stones was not relevant for them, either because of the music, or because they themselves had reached a new phase in their own lives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 13:06 by Witness.

Quote
Stoneage
Gentlemen, you have changed the subject. Read the thread title again. This is not another Brian Jones thread...

Someone must have led us astray! Who might it be?

Quote
Doxa


BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED are funny albums in that sense that the people who appeciate either "the old Jones-based band" or "the new 'greatest rock and roll band of the world'", but not both, tend to like those albums. They are transformational albums - something unique still present from the past, but still lots of seeds showing to future.

- Doxa

Beggars Banquet is totally a part of the Jones era.

What happened later, some comments by Mick and Keith etc and the lazy journalist cliches spewed out in music magazines for decades has coloured the perception of the album a bit.

Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet was seen a come back though, this is quite clear from the coverage the single and album got in NME, Melody Maker etc at the time. This percieved come back is different than the sound that appeared later though because it's still all very 60's sounding and retains some aspects of the stones take on psychedelic music. The more traditional tracks softening the weirdness of the more experiemntal tracks.

I think the new sound truly appeared during the 1969 tour. Hyde Park still has some of the rough as @#$%& aspect of the later live Jones era. I don't think it's just a matter of nerves etc, Taylor's musicianship just hasn't had the time to really influence the others and vice versa yet.

The Rock & Roll Circus - Hyde Park is like the live manifestation of Let It Bleed, all very transitional with this odd atmosphere and uncertainty hanging over it. The future is calling, but what that future will be isn't clear at that time.

Even though he had already left, Brian dying sure helped put a clear full stop between the old and new band. The old era has left this world, dead, gone forever. As horrible as it sounds, his death helped the band with regards to how it was percieved in some ways. What was initially only a 'guitarist' being replaced turned in to a percieved act of defiance in the face of death.

The future really arrives during the 1969 tour.

Or "... so in a sense when I joined the group is was virtually a new group". - Mick Taylor 1973



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-23 16:12 by His Majesty.

Parachute Woman is my answer. Dark, uplifting, blues yet rock n roll. Hard but swinging. Forward moving but reminiscent of the old times. Sexy shuffle, compressed sound though light and echoing. The original soul of the band intact, Brian' soul really, although it's (mainly) Mick and Keith who does "his" parts on harmonica and slide. Taylor and Ronnie couldve played on it later on and it would still be true to the original soul of the band. The original band (with the feel of Brians genius on their early blues numbers, but also the maturing Keith, the rock n roll of the band)


What do you think, pretty good choice huh?