Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: paulspendel ()
Date: April 17, 2015 12:02

Yes! The Stones got a tour coming and I understand some of you are already very pre-occupied and nervous with the humble job of carrying the amps and guitar cases (‘we’ got a tour coming) and therefore not interested and a bit snappy, but for the fans who would like to go through the past, darkly, here is my last batch of facts from an old 1968/1969 insider about a guy who was made never to tour again…

I began work for the Stones in Sept. 1968, and it was not long before I was given to understand that there existed big problems. The album Beggars' Banquet was complete but for a few remixes, and I learned (likely from Stew and maybe Charlie) how Brian had proven completely unreliable, having shown up for only a few sessions. I don't now recollect just when recording of (what was to becomesmiling smiley Let It Bleed began, but that was pretty much the same story. (Was it on Gimme Shelter that Brian played Moroccan drums? -- his only performance on that album if I am not mistaken.) Stew once said to me, in all earnest, that, musically speaking, and as a guitarist more particularly, Brian was actually the most gifted & talented member of the group -- "he was easily as good as Clapton, no kidding" -- but that over time, as a lush, he had gone to pieces and was by now completely paranoid of both Keith and Mick, so much so that as a nervous wreck he could not even tune his guitar properly in Keith's presence. And I was soon to get a glimpse of this side of things at a rehearsal for the ROCK'N'ROLL CIRCUS (circa December 1968) held on one floor of the Londonderry Hotel near Hyde Park Corner (habituated by Bill Wyman and his Astrid when they were in the city) -- with The Who and Taj Mahal and others (Jethro Tull?) in attendance.

Thing was, the 5 x Stones had not actually played together by then in so long, and throughout the day the suspense rose as to whether they could even still play -- let alone follow a band like The Who. What I clearly remember is a visibly overweight Brian in his velvet clothes fumbling and fumbling with his amp and with his guitar and being unable to get things together; whereupon the other four determined to just let it rip, without his participation so to speak. And no two ways about it -- thanks to Jagger, behaving like a kind of ring-master, the Stones were actually quite brilliant, and completely acquitted themselves vis-a-vis all their peers (at least, I remember a stunning delivery of Sympathy for the Devil). But, mind, all this without any real participation from Brian who more or less just stood there, as a passenger, faking things. Then a few days later at the all-night recording of the (projected) tv show somewhere in North West London, Brian showed himself equally unable to meet the occasion, musically speaking. What I recollect is how, following several false starts, it was decided that Keith should lay down the acoustic guitar part to You Can't Always Get What You Want, this would then be 'broadcast' through a speaker, the Stones would 'accompany' it, and Brian would simply mime the part.

In other words, then, the rest of the band had a living nightmare on their hands, and Jagger was acutely aware that, while the Stones desperately needed to tour the USA and make a chunk of money, sooner rather than later, Brian might well have forfeited his USA visa by virtue of his recent drug-busts. It must have been during the first few months of 1969, then, that he, MJ, came to me one day in the big room where I worked and shared with me what was tantamount to a confidence: '’I want you to look around -- we need a new guitarist who can double on keyboards, preferably someone young and good-looking, and a new bass-player, preferably black'. I was pretty shocked. Prior to that, Jagger had had me telephone Brian to announce to him (in the manner of an ultimatum) that he HAD to attend the meeting in the office on Tuesday afternoon (or whatever -- e.g., one concerning the Rock'n'Roll Circus project, a meeting of which b & w Ethan Russell photos exist; and the Beggars' Banquet press-party staged in the basement of a hotel in Kensington), or else he was out of the band. And I could see very well the impossibility of the situation and the sheer unlikelihood (on Brian's side) of any remedy. But, at age 20, I had grown up with the Stones (albeit that I was not exactly their #1 fan) and simply could not imagine them (revision them) without this charismatic bloke with blond hair.


Also that spring:- Jagger came to me one day and asked me what I had found out. About what? About a new guitarist and bass-player (but now with the emphasis on a guitarist). Here to cut a long story short, that is how Mick Taylor entered the picture -- it was my (last resort) idea that Mick should telephone John Mayall for advice, which he did right there & then. Mick Taylor.then overdubbed a lead-guitar part on Honky Tonk Women, which the band had recorded with Brian gone AWOL; and pretty much synchronously came the public announcement that Brian had left the band (following, as I recall, a visit made by Mick & Keith to Brian @ Cotchford). During the few weeks following, I spoke with Brian several times by telephone, and he appealed to me for help. He fancied putting together a new band -- "like Credence Clearwater" -- and I vaguely remember discussing this notional project (by phone) with Alexis Korner. Also, Brian was no song-writer, but fancied he might be able to write stuff working in collaboration with someone else -- did I know anyone suitable? I told him about a friend of mine, Kevin Westlake, and it was decided to have a try-out. But then for some reason the chauffeur-car, as reserved for Kevin one morning, did not show, so this never came to be. And, just a day or two later, Brian was suddenly dead.

Tom Keylock was manifestly a hustler and, of late, had become ever more side-lined -- meaning that Keith had distanced himself from him, and Tom's remaining connection was with Brian. As I recall, it was Tom who had brought in that builder bloke (Frank Thoroughgood by name ???) and his team, and that fellow more than once accompanied Tom to the office, presumably to see and talk with Frank Trowbridge (the controller) about money-matters. Now I do remember this Jacky -- but just that she had freckles and did not really seem to fit in with us lot, although I can't really put my finger on quite why. BTW, I do also remember meeting Brian's father and mother a couple of times at the office, once after his death if I am not mistaken. Sorry that I have no more memories that might shed light on the circumstances surrounding his death.

Aftermath:- Obviously the plan to shelve Bill Wyman got shelved, and this despite -- as I suspect to have been so -- a tentative plan (on the part of Jagger) to replace him with Tim Davis, formerly of Steve Miller Band (whom I got to hang out with a lot in Paris as a member of the Stones's entourage in 1970). During that time in Paris (concerts @ Olympia), Clapton was also a member of the entourage, and I could not help but get the impression he coveted the possibility of joining the Stones in addition to (or instead of?) Mick Taylor. Not because of anything that got said, but the mere fact he was so avidly in attendance (if I remember right, he played a cameo with support-act, Buddy Guy [?]).

I think that's about it. Sorry to disappoint you re: Brian's death. And just a word about certain conspiracy theories, as little as I am a student of them:- In truth, Mick & Keith (and the other two) gave Brian every chance over more than a year to get his act together, but the fellow was by then just too far gone. There was no other way out but to replace him and the story that he had decided to quit the band (on account of musical differences) was no more than a story floated as a charitable gesture in Brian's direction so he might maintain his self-respect -- Mick and Keith finally decided to fire him, and that's what they did. Otherwise there could have been no more band, and the projected USA tour (climaxing with Altamont) simply could not have gone ahead -- not just because of possible visa difficulties but because Brian was simply not up to it and reliable any more.
The Stones had first gotten involved with Klein in about 1964 and, as I recollect, their management contract was to run until 1969, by and after when things were left all a bit too ambiguous. I can swear that, from the time I went to work for the band in Sept. 1968, Tom Keylock was no more than a handiman, as in factotum, but with an ever more marginalized role -- he was more tolerated than appreciated and assigned to anything much -- and none of the band (except perhaps Brian?, I don't know on that) would ever have taken seriously in the least any aspiration he may have had to manage their affairs. Indeed, as soon as Jagger returned from Australia (Ned Kelly) circa October 1969, he acted on an idea that flew into my head one day (if he had not already had the same idea himself) and approached Rupert Loewenstein with a view to appointing him to just such a role, at least as far as all the contracts and money were concerned. [Jagger had the previous spring suggested to the Prince that his Assistant, me, should arrange all the music for a royal ball he planned (which Jagger & Marianne F. then attended). That I did, much to Rupert's satisfaction. So when some months later Jagger, in some despair, wondered aloud to me what in hell the band were gonna do to sort out all their complicated affairs, I responded for lack of any better imagination: what not let's talk with Prince Rupert.] Note, Jagger was away in Australia that August when Klein visited London again. Klein was peeved that the band had 'gone independent' and done the Hyde Park Concert, which Granada Television had filmed and recorded -- I seem to remember that Tom Keylock had somehow come to know Joe Durden-Smith of Granada and had assured him he could fix anything (vis-a-vis the Stones), whereas in truth that concert had been arranged entirely on MJ's initiative after he had asked me to go check out the earlier Blind Faith concert, to report back to him as to how it went and what I thought, and then to broker an arrangement with the organizers, Blackhill Enterprises (or whatever it was called). It is actually more likely that Jo Bergmann was then the 'bridge' with Joe D-Smith. Anyway, on that visit to London, Klein demanded of me the copies that I (on behalf of the Stones) had acquired of the (roughly mixed) tapes of the concert. But Shirley had tipped me off as to his impending visit and, knowing there to be a real risk that, unconscionably, Klein would rush to issue the tapes more or less on the model of what he had done years earlier with 'Got Live If You Want It', I had hidden them in the toilet above the cistern. So, loyal to Jagger, I now lied through my teeth saying I did not have the tapes -- whereupon Klein in great anger threw a fist at me (he missed) and physically shoved me aside. I remember writing Jagger in Australia at some length about that episode, which had rattled me, and how later on he thanked me for having been so prudent. -- There is no question but that Tom had emerged from the 'low life' domain, and I think I remember hearing how Mick & Keith had availed themselves of his services in wreaking some revenge on one or more of those responsible for having set up their drug-bust at Keith's home (1967). But the reason the band left for France (in 1970) had everything to do with Prince Rupert L.'s sage advice with respect to their then dire financial situation, and nothing at all to do with Tom Keylock, who by then was way out of the picture. Re: the Jajouka tapes, I feel pretty sure that already by August 1969 I had dispatched them (actually, delivered them in person) to Peter Rudge at Track Records, who then issued the album. I don't recall Keylock having had anything at all to do with that. -- BTW, I then ran into Tom again in 1970 or 1971 @ the Roundhouse in London. If I remember right, he was by then involved with a Scandinavian bloke in promoting a concert to be filmed by Durden-Smith. And, indeed, a band I managed (Gypsy by name) were on the bill thanks to Tom doing me a favour. (He knew that my venture was funded by Jagger and Prince Rupert, so maybe he wished to ingratiate himself to me. I now suddenly remember arguing with him on that occasion -- his contract/waiver stipulated that he (& his cronies) would assume copyright of all songs performed, which of course I declined to accept!)

I really don't have any opinion on this but for thinking the whole scenario, as spelled out, is unlikely. Of course, I was not there, but I do think news would have reached me shortly afterwards had Mick and Keith been there that night in the immediate lead-up to Brian's death. I clearly remember getting home (NW3) from the Speakeasy very late one night -- circa 2:00 am, I imagine -- and my flat-mate, Brian Belshaw of the group Blossom Toes, who had sort of stayed up wondering where I was, told me with real gravity that I HAD TO call David Sandison, PR-man Les Perrin's assistant, i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e-l-y the moment I got home, whatever time of night that might be. Brian didn't know why but realized this was something very serious, and of course I very soon found out what had happened. I remember I made sure to be at the office by 8:00 am, so as to field all inquiries or whatever, but have little recollection of that solemn morning. I would have thought that, if indeed Mick & Keith had showed up that evening of 2/7, then Brian's then girlfriend would have said so sometime on the record, or that Marianne Faithfull would have done so in her memoirs (as told by David Dalton?). And does Bill Wyman (No Stone Unturned) have anything to say on this?

I met with Jagger by arrangement at his home for an 'interview' circa August 1968. By then I had visited the office for 'no-show' appointments with Jagger once or twice and, in the reception area, had got chatting with Shirley -- who, as I was to learn from her only later, had commended me to Jagger for the job (as factotum in all things concerning records and the like, but with special concern for the prospective creation of a notional 'Mother Earth' record label). My first encounter with all five members of the group followed shortly upon that successful interview with Jagger -- I accompanied Jo Bergmann to the Festival Hall [?] for a Mothers of Invention concert, at which the 5 Stones & their ladies got to share some kind of a royal box, and we all met up in some kind of a bar or cafe in the building.


A few thoughts came to me today:- Tom Keylock was, as I have said, a reprobate hustler who always had something or other (some scheme) going and talked out of both sides of his mouth -- i.e., he was duplicitous. And I wouldn't doubt for a moment that he traded all the time on his close association with the Stones, misrepresenting to others that he was actually their 'manager' and it was he who (actually, behind the scenes) always called the tune. Whereas, as you surely know, he had never really been anything more than their chauffeur, roadie, and on stage 'bouncer' -- also, to an extent, as the occasion required, their ad hoc fixer. Myself, I had a fine and stable enough relationship with him, but I sensed right away not to get taken in by him and all his bullshit, and knew very well to keep my distance so that, vis-a-vis the band, I would never get 'compromised' (guilt by association, and all the rest of it). I seem to think, BTW, that that Jacky must have come into circulation through him. She had an outdated (mod) haircut, and clothes that were not at all a la mode (au courrant).

46A Maddox Street we traded under the registered name, "Rolling Stones Partnerships, Ltd.". (But I'm not sure now if that was singular or plural.) I mentioned before how Jagger (also) assigned me to track down a new bass player, preferably black -- so then how come nothing was ever to come of that? I can think of reasons involving the very chemistry of the band (I think Bill had Charlie very much on his side, this despite Charlie's close friendship with Mick). But what I think I can remember as being decisive (as maybe told to me by Prince Rupert L.) was that any cheque for over one thousand pounds written on the limited company's account required at least four signatures -- i.e. four of the five band members' signatures. So just on that account I tend to doubt that Brian could have maintained any propriety claim on the band's name over the course of the six or seven years previous. Re: Bill's being let go, as projected -- one has to understand that, right then (1968-69), everything was up for grabs and the Stones, but meaning Mick more specifically as their by then de facto guiding spirit), were having to reinvent and if necessary reconfigure themselves. Everything floated in uncertainty. The great thing about Bill was that he was totally reliable and no prima donna -- also, of course, he could actually deliver on his bass, even as & when Keith had already conceived and laid down the bass part (as on e.g. Sympathy for Devil) in his stead. But I imagine it may have taken the fullness of time for Mick and Keith to realize and appreciate just how crucial was just such a role. Had they hired a Ron Wood or a Tim Davies on bass, then this could well have upset the boat. Cf. Mick Taylor's burgeoning disgruntlement over time over the way he was exploited (as & when Keith went AWOL), yet not awarded any kind of an equal say in the band's repertoire et cetera. The band was very much Mick & Keith's partnership, but with the prudent Charlie always serving as something of an anchor to the duo's bipolarity.

Tom was rendered redundant with extreme prejudice. And, after Brian's death and the cessation of any & all contingencies that had been left hanging thereupon since his departure from the band, there was no one in the whole circle around the Stones left with any motive or incentive to make him feel welcome

I inherited Brian's Afghan (waist) coat (the one he wears on a cover of Rolling Stone magazine) -- a memento that I did not really want and soon managed to lose. Also, thanks, to Ian 'Stew' Stewart, I was given one of Brian's earlier guitars (was it a so-called Thunderbird?)

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: ash ()
Date: April 17, 2015 12:25

thanks Paul

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: April 17, 2015 13:03

That's some heavy stuff there, man...eye popping smiley

Thanks paul!

Never, ever heard that possible scenario of Wyman...

Uuh, time to give some thought on it...

- Doxa

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Date: April 17, 2015 13:09

Is there a reissue of your book in the works, Paul?

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: paulspendel ()
Date: April 17, 2015 13:21

Hi, no. The 2012 version is still on the market. However, Terry and Michael Chapman are working hard on the additional DVD. We hope to publish it this year. Trying to get a distribution deal at the moment. We've got some interesting interviews with Tom and other relevant persons.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: paulspendel ()
Date: April 17, 2015 13:22

you are welcome Doxa! Let it all sink in...
The thing I noticed from all this is that the Stones are just like any other human.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: April 17, 2015 14:16

Yeah, Paul, very human... especially Jagger and Richards seemed to pretty determinate in their doings those days, and not seemingly the nicest people always, but probably it was the nature of them to be like that in order to get along in the business.

Lately here at IORR we've been discussing quite a lot of Jagger's possible plan B scenarios to replace people, but this latest discovery/rumour tops them all... Interesting I recall Wyman claiming is some of his books that around that time Jagger was considering calling the band quits, taking a movie star career or something, if BEGGARS BANQUET wouldn't turn out to do well. Those 1968/69 seemed to very uncertain times for the band, despite them having an artistic peak, and writing their best music ever in the studio. Go figure.. The description here gives a good account of those hectic, uncertain days.

If there is any truth in that - finding a new bass player - I can only imagine that it was getting rid of the 'whole opposition' in the band - Wyman/Jones vs. Jagger/Richards/ALO goes all the way to early days. Besides Wyman was frustrated and having lost some of his motivation, because they didn't use any longer his songs; his advices or contributions - or even himself - were not so much needed in a studio. That took place during making BEGGARS BANQUET - his STONE ALONE makes that damn clear. OR if they really need to create a Brian Jones-less band, probably it could be easier if the whole constitution is shaken more, and the whole band reshaped, to be build more on Jagger/Richards axis. I mean, the change needs to be radical for the people not missing the past... who knows...

So in the end, me thinks that it was getting rid of Brian Jones convincingly that was the big challenge for them. He really was imagewise damn important member. For example, not even trying to find a substitute for Taylor - or even Wyman decades later - was anything compared to that... The description above gives a clear picture that they had no real choice. They just needed to do that, since the guy simply was not functional any longer. They needed to take the risky involved.

But it looks like that the lesson in the end is that no matter Jagger have had fancied with replacing his stuff - be them possible scenarios, plan Bs or whatever - in the end they seem to be a rather loyal bunch of fellows, and not easily change anything unless it really is necessary...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-17 14:23 by Doxa.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: fuzzbox ()
Date: April 17, 2015 17:18

"What I recollect is how, following several false starts, it was decided that Keith should lay down the acoustic guitar part to You Can't Always Get What You Want, this would then be 'broadcast' through a speaker, the Stones would 'accompany' it, and Brian would simply mime the part."

A fantasy recollection.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: NEWMAN ()
Date: April 17, 2015 17:18

Bill out for a (black) bass player and a new guitar player who could also play KEYBOARD. Don't believe it for one minute. Sorry.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Nikkei ()
Date: April 17, 2015 17:41

My brain turned to jello but i made it through. What a waste of time.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: April 17, 2015 17:47

Thanks for that Paul, very interesting and good to hear from someone that was actually there.

For some of the negative comments, I'm not sure what engenders the hostility but don't let that put you off. New information isn't always appreciated as it upsets the established truth.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: fuzzbox ()
Date: April 17, 2015 17:51

Quote
treaclefingers
Thanks for that Paul, very interesting and good to hear from someone that was actually there.

For some of the negative comments, I'm not sure what engenders the hostility but don't let that put you off. New information isn't always appreciated as it upsets the established truth.

Not really, the part I singled out is so obviously wrong.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: April 17, 2015 17:54

Quote
fuzzbox
Quote
treaclefingers
Thanks for that Paul, very interesting and good to hear from someone that was actually there.

For some of the negative comments, I'm not sure what engenders the hostility but don't let that put you off. New information isn't always appreciated as it upsets the established truth.

Not really, the part I singled out is so obviously wrong.

And I wasn't singling you out, just so we're clear fuzz!

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: fuzzbox ()
Date: April 17, 2015 17:54

Quote
treaclefingers


And I wasn't singling you out, just so we're clear fuzz!

thumbs up

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: runaway ()
Date: April 17, 2015 18:49

Thanks for sharing Paul Spendel,

A very interesting story with some new insights and would like to hear the Wyman story through another source as well and yes Keylock was supposed to look after Brian but he did not do a very good job!


He did not impress me when I met him at the time.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: April 17, 2015 19:00

Well, this explains Bill Wyman desperately experimenting with black face makeup in late 1968.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Koen ()
Date: April 17, 2015 21:39

Quote
paulspendel
likely from Stew

Stu, not Stew thumbs up

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Rokyfan ()
Date: April 17, 2015 21:52

Quote
Koen
Quote
paulspendel
likely from Stew

Stu, not Stew thumbs up

why? His name is not Stuart, its Stewart.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Koen ()
Date: April 17, 2015 22:14

Because it is Stu.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: MingSubu ()
Date: April 17, 2015 22:34




Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: April 17, 2015 23:37

Thanks for the post. Lots of stuff in there from someone who was there. Can't ask for much more than that. Very generous of you for sharing it here Paul, I appreciate it.

I can't imagine this fellow is making up stuff, seems to me he was very involved in the Stones business at that time and is just regurgitating as much as he can reasonably remember.

Not surprised about the Keylock stuff and it gives a likely accurate and somewhat detailed perspective of his role with the band. But, I was definitely shocked a bit by Jaggers statement "and a new bass-player, preferably black", wtf? Did he think that a black bass player would add some missing soul or was it purely an image thing? Well no doubt he got what he wanted in the 90's although I still miss Bill's playing!

Lots of assertions here lately about Mick's thinking in terms of replacing Rolling Stone's members. I may be in the minority but I tend to believe all of them. Just doesn't seem like the type of stuff people would make up and the power and control aspects of Mick are well documented elsewhere.

Thanks again for the post, I welcome more anytime you so choose.

peace

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Date: April 18, 2015 00:03

Bill replaced after Brian´s departure?

It would have put an end to the rolling stones as we know them. It would have definitely finished with the band.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: April 18, 2015 00:05

I don't know what's so hard to believe about this. It may not all be recollected with the passage of time, but I can believe them trying to get rid of Bill. They never understood or appreciated his contribution, and I'm not sure they do to this day. That's why I think it shocked the band when he left them, instead of the reverse. Well, they got their black bass player, and got what they deserved.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: BILLPERKS ()
Date: April 18, 2015 00:23

Bill said himself that Mick wanted to replace him several times over the years.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: MKjan ()
Date: April 18, 2015 01:26

Quote
24FPS
I don't know what's so hard to believe about this. It may not all be recollected with the passage of time, but I can believe them trying to get rid of Bill. They never understood or appreciated his contribution, and I'm not sure they do to this day. That's why I think it shocked the band when he left them, instead of the reverse. Well, they got their black bass player, and got what they deserved.

I think Keith has spoken highly of Bills work in recent years, but even after reading them, I felt his words fell short of Bills contribution and so Bill deserves
more credit. A lot more.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: blivet ()
Date: April 18, 2015 02:31

Quote
24FPS
I don't know what's so hard to believe about this. It may not all be recollected with the passage of time, but I can believe them trying to get rid of Bill. They never understood or appreciated his contribution, and I'm not sure they do to this day. That's why I think it shocked the band when he left them, instead of the reverse. Well, they got their black bass player, and got what they deserved.

I think at some point the twins finally did wake up concerning Bill's contribution to the band. I can't think of any other reason they would have had to offer him a fortune to come back every time the Stones went on tour. Surely they can't be paying Darryl tens of millions of dollars?

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: April 18, 2015 02:40

Good point blivet. There certainly is a financial benefit from Bill being gone. Hard to imagine that would have been an issue in the late 60s. But they never seemed to ever appreciate him to the tune of tens of millions.

peace

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: April 18, 2015 05:50

Quote
blivet
Quote
24FPS
I don't know what's so hard to believe about this. It may not all be recollected with the passage of time, but I can believe them trying to get rid of Bill. They never understood or appreciated his contribution, and I'm not sure they do to this day. That's why I think it shocked the band when he left them, instead of the reverse. Well, they got their black bass player, and got what they deserved.

I think at some point the twins finally did wake up concerning Bill's contribution to the band. I can't think of any other reason they would have had to offer him a fortune to come back every time the Stones went on tour. Surely they can't be paying Darryl tens of millions of dollars?

I think they were more worried about image than his contribution. All Keith ever said about Bill's playing is that he had good timing. That's it? I guess Mick & Keith feel the Stones are theirs, 100%. I don't think they can fathom how important Bill's playing was to their classic sound. Or it pissed them off when he left and they realized he took the chemistry with him.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: deardoctortake1 ()
Date: April 18, 2015 06:06

What I recollect is how, following several false starts, it was decided that Keith should lay down the acoustic guitar part to You Can't Always Get What You Want, this would then be 'broadcast' through a speaker, the Stones would 'accompany' it, and Brian would simply mime the part.


this makes sense and seems true. If you watch and listen to the original black and white extended rock and roll circus video you can hear the acoustic being played without an acoustic in the shot. A different mix than the released version.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-18 06:07 by deardoctortake1.

Re: Through the past Darkly 1968/1969
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: April 18, 2015 13:32

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
Bill replaced after Brian´s departure?

It would have put an end to the rolling stones as we know them. It would have definitely finished with the band.

I wonder what Charlie would have to say about it at the time....if it was seriously under consideration, that is.
Despite Charlies expressed views on touring, rock music generally he has stayed the course...so my guess is he would have let it happen.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2482
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home