Following The Off The Hook thread here - [www.iorr.org]

A potted version of my thoughts are:


The original Rolling Stones band only played together for 15 weeks - from late January '63 until the first week in May '63. Bill Wyman was the last to join the line-up in late January to play along side Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts, Ian Stewart, Brian Jones and Keith Richards. This was the band that took the London club venues by storm and parachuted the English Blues scene into national recognition.

That band ceased in early May when Stu was sacked and they then began to concentrate on making Top 10 chart records. Most of their bookings became 40 minute type stints in dance halls, ballrooms or theatres. The audiences no longer danced and became more like spectators at a freak show.

Note that not only did the band change but the audiences and venues became quite different. Also, anyone who hadn't been around the small London blues scene of about 50 people - had probably never heard of Chuck Berry or Bo Diddley etc...

A few records did capture that 'Richmond' enthusiasm, namely 'Off The Hook - Little by Little and Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man' - there may others but only those come to mind.

Note those 3 songs are all in the same vein.


Phelge

Phelge's Stones
[www.jamesphelge.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-15 21:20 by bv.

I think you're really adding a wotyhwile point of view on the band's early days, here.

Plus: You were there - you've experienced what you're speaking of.
I think your take on this is worth much more than me (or anybody else here) reflecting on it.

Overall, I'd say you're making a fair point...
albeit that you make it sound as though they lost something; whereas one might also argue the gained somthing along that way.

There's veen so many incarnations & dimensions of that band, each with its unique strengths & flaws... What an epic 53 years it has been for them. ...ànd us!!

Brian who? Hasn't he sort of semi-officially been airbrushed out of the band's history?

By sheer virtue of their name the Stones were always going to roll and develop as nearly all musicians and bands are destined to do.

While blues and r'n'b purists might lament the passing of that particular incarnation of the band at least we have on record, quite literally, some of the finest examples from that era, as executed by the Stones.

Nothing stays the same ever and there are many surprises around every corner. Who's to say that the Stones won't complete a 360 circle and go back to that style in their last remaining years?

I mean, who'd ever have thought Mick Taylor would ever be invited back into the fold.

Quote
Silver Dagger
By sheer virtue of their name the Stones were always going to roll and develop as nearly all musicians and bands are destined to do.

While blues and r'n'b purists might lament the passing of that particular incarnation of the band at least we have on record, quite literally, some of the finest examples from that era, as executed by the Stones.

Nothing stays the same ever and there are many surprises around every corner. Who's to say that the Stones won't complete a 360 circle and go back to that style in their last remaining years?

I mean, who'd ever have thought Mick Taylor would ever be invited back into the fold.

yeah, it's been a particularly marvelous 3-5 years, starting with the GYYYO deluxe edition, and all the new/old material and touring since 2012.

Fantastic really, you can't ask for more...well maybe a new album?

Quote
Silver Dagger
Who's to say that the Stones won't complete a 360 circle and go back to that style in their last remaining years?

I do. Especially since most of the fans of that style don't go to concerts much anymore. peace

MY FAVORITE PERIOD OF THE BAND IS THE BEGINNING THRU AFTERMATH..
WHAT A JUMPIN BAND, SO TIGHT.
STU'S PRESENCE ON THE EARLY RECORDS IS SUBLIME.

THE TAMI SHOW ILLUSTRATES WHAT A RIP-SNORTIN BAND THEY WERE.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Silver Dagger
Who's to say that the Stones won't complete a 360 circle and go back to that style in their last remaining years?

I do. Especially since most of the fans of that style don't go to concerts much anymore. peace

Well they kinda headed that way on the Stripped album. A nice bluesy feel on some old material there.

That little - but so important - phase in the first pages of their story has always excited me. That of them making a name of themselves within a London club scene. Since the recorded history starts later, it has also been a mystery to to anyone not being present at the time. James points here one particular feature: that of the audience. They initially were playing places in where the audience mostly was 'young adults', students, devotees and whatever club-goers digging that type of thing - jazz, rhythm&blues - that was a hot thing in those places. The Stones, if I have understood right, add there their own rock and roll-influenced reading of the r&b stuff. With which they intially had problems with more purist minded people, but seemingly just by their own powers would be able to charm the crowd and make them the biggest draw in the whole scene. They created rather quickly a huge following. James also mentions the 'dancing' part. Especially at Crawdaddy Club - some witnesses claim - the audience created their own type of dancing to dig the band. The band make them to move.

This all was very very different once they got a record deal, a 'real' manager having nose in pop world, themelves to radio and television, and soon gigging all over Britain (those ball-rooms package tours with Everly Brother, Bo Diddley, etc.). Being a 'pop phenomenon', 'anti-Beatles' and all that would have mean that they weren't any longer playing rather long sets to blues-diggers who were familiar with the music, but screaming teen audiences, to whom just being there a given - rather short - time was enough to 'win' their hearts. For most of us that's the beginning of the band as they would be remebered (funnily, their official documentary, CROSSFIRE HURRICANE starts there...). Even though the music - and they having difficulties to find suitable radio-hit material - didn't changed radically much (and they would continue their 'blues mission' in bigger schemes), as a band they changed rather much rather quickly, as the game changed. Rather quickly they sounded like being able to think themselves as a pure 'pop group' having different goals and functions and audiences than the one playing for blues devotees.

My picture has been that as a live band the Stones would to an extent suffer rather much in the following years due to excited - and 'uncritical', already won - teenager audiences, the equipment they had to play in bigger venues (not hearing each other), etc. My guess is as a live band playing 'seriously' to the audiences who would actually listen - and make them dance - would take them actually all the way to 1969 when they started again seriously to think how to charm the audiences by their actual playing. Surely as musicians and record makers they had progressed helluva lot during teh years, but as a live band that's a bit different story.

Just wish I have had the chance to see the 'original', determinated Rolling Stones in their best club circuit condition at the time.... I can only imagine what they were like then.... I am sure they were a helluva band, and I think the firm foundation of their cohesive, groovy sound was then created, and it would lead them rather well, without need much updating or rehearsing, all through the following crazy years.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 13:00 by Doxa.

Quote
JamesPhelge00
Following The Off The Hook thread here - [www.iorr.org]

A potted version of my thoughts are:


The original Rolling Stones band only played together for 15 weeks - from late January '63 until the first week in May '63. Bill Wyman was the last to join the line-up in late January to play along side Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts, Ian Stewart, Brian Jones and Keith Richards. This was the band that took the London club venues by storm and parachuted the English Blues scene into national recognition.

Much as I love your book, James, isn't this statement inaccurate? Bill, by most accounts, joined in December of '62, with Charlie not coming on board until January of '63?