Tell Me :
Talk
I imagine you are correct about that, although in fairness to Bill, he did also mention apart from the JJF claim, just a random example of working out a small part with Mick Jagger and then stating with satisfaction to Jagger, something along the lines, of "good thing I changed that" or whatever, and Jagger turning to him and saying, "what do mean Bill. I was the one that made the change/came up with that" or whatever. Now maybe Bill was annoying with that, or Jagger was just having fun, or Bill's perception was just off base - but with that sort of environment, again from BW's POV, its easy to imagine, where he'd just wait to do his bit and then leave... he'd been there from the beginning and probably had far less patience for that sort of thing than anyone else...though perhaps more practice at casually shutting down and seemingly not caring.
What I found interesting about the arrangements/chord structures etc. in relation to Bill was in some interview shortly after he quit the Stones, he sort of gloatingly mentioned The Stones couldn't remember how half their songs went and would struggle now to recall, since Bill said "he had it all up here" pointing at his head. He was implying they would rely on him heavily at the early stages of rehearsing older material. Two thoughts occurred to me...one that Bill was quite interested in Mick and Keith's songs in actuality and second, that his departure was one more path for the ascendancy of Chuck Leavell.
Not sure what Bill is so upset about really. The plaque says they "went on to form The Rolling Stones" not "went on to found The Rolling Stones". I guess it all in the semantics of that one word. Perhaps it should say went on to join The Rolling Stones. Or "went on to join the band which would become The Rolling Stones".
I'm not that familiar with the minute detail of the very early history but weren't Keith and Mick in the band when Brian named it The Rolling Stones? If so I'd say that qualifies them to be included in the forming of the band.
Perhaps the true "forming" of the band didn't really happen till Bill brought his fancy guitar amp to the party, and he just wants a nod.
(it's a joke Lem)
In all seriousness, the plaque is cool and the meeting did produce one of the best rock and roll songwriting teams on the planet, etc etc. , I think it's probably fine just the way it is.
peace
It was.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 12:23 by Dreamer.
Would you say that Brian was still in the lead by Come On?
I wouldn't, as Brian wasn't a big Chuck Berry fan or didn't especially approve of playing that kind of music.
I think as soon as the Berry stuff was integrated into the sound, on behalf of the blues and Bo Diddley-stuff, it was Mick and Keith's shop. The music mattered that much.
I partly disagree with this. When you watch the film "Charlie's my darling", or any interview they had in those early years, you already see in their behaviour what they would grow out to be (in a more distorted way, image-wise).
Mick: the tongue-in-cheek fun guy, charming, interested, and with a great talent for performing.
Keith at that time wasn't yet that self-proclaimed pirate, but you can see his pure dedication to music (and little else). I don't think there's a single scene in Charlie's My Darling without him and an instrument, be it guitar or piano. And then there's always Mick at his side, singing along, thinking along, having fun along. More jokingly than Keith maybe, but still, there is a real bond there.
With Brian, things get more complicated. He clearly stands out from the group, in the way he talks, moves, his jokes, and even how the rest makes jokes about him. In the beginning, this might have added to their admiration of him, but in the end, I think Brian never really fit in, never wanted to be "part of a band" or part of anything really. Even that early, he already says that he's not sure he wants to do this forever. There's a lack of enthusiasm, of willing to join the effort. I don't know, maybe that's too harsh to say, but that's the impression I get. And I think this started before even writing their own songs.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 12:39 by matxil.
I understand what you say but that wasn't the power shift. They all brought in something and that was ok: they were all very happy with the succes that happened to them. Playing all the gigs and earning money with it to pay the life they wanted to lead.
Real troubles came in later when because of the songwriting in combination with the hits he started to feel his ownership or leading the band was no longer there...soon followed by his importance as a musician because he was no longer 'there'...he wanted to be somewhere else...together with Anita on a trip...and that got worse and they got better in songwriting and developed skills as producers (already before Miller arrived to the scene). They knew what they were doing. Just a natural process by the way...it's how it went and no one to blame I think.
But didn't «leading the band» mean having some kind of control of the music at all for Brian? Exactly how did he lead it in 1963-64, apart from the symbolics connected to forming it?
I never understood that.
Well they came in together! So they were a team already. Sure; MJ&KR made jokes together about Brian. That's what guys who like to make jokes do. And certainly about the leader.
And he observed it and wasn't very happy with it of course because he wanted to keep his position which was that of the leader...and he felt by then in 1965 it was slipping away...probably already during those two days in Ireland. See my other post...
This is more complex than it is made out to be.
Brian led in many ways, including music, up through 64. Just because they covered chuck didn't mean brian had lost control - although you're right that generally he represented the blues and Keith chuck berry.
The schism happened in many dimensions - eg a big problem was Brian getting sick and missing live dates. In the early days Keith was often the only guitar. This diminished Brian's credibility and power
As I'm sure you know for a while Brian was collecting extra $ above everyone else and this was another issue when they discovered it
Girls were also a constant issue
That wasn't the major fight. And don't forget acting not happy could be part of his act to create guild and keep them away from trying to do more that could threaten his position.
He was still leading until somewhere in 1965 he lost it...when was the moment you think it was obvious MJ&KR were the leaders? When they were leading...
And when was that? Not yet in early 1965.
What I mean is: it's not about what BJ was happy with or not happy with.
It's about the fact that MJ&KR started to realise (because of their songwriting success) the band would be more successful when they were writing the material they would perform and they wanted to do that. That wave already started rolling...
-> Brian missed at least 5 concerts on tour in 1964 according to Wyman's book. this is the most notable in that it's the one the other members complained about the most. It's unclear he missed any in 65 or 66 although I assume he did. His asthma was a problem almost from the beginning.
-> He WAS big on R&B - his whole conception for the band in the first place was for it to be an R&B band. He lobbied the Jazz clubs and publications to take R&B seriously (there are letters he wrote from back then still in circulation and on the internet). While he was less keen on chuck berry, the very first concert they ever played had a number of chuck berry songs. [www.rollingstones.com]
Indeed, Brian played a mean chuck berry rhythm guitar.
[www.iorr.org]
-> their first gig was billed as "mick jagger and the rolling stones" so the question of leadership was, as i mentioned above, always a little more complicated than people make it out to be.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 13:50 by Turner68.
i agree. but it's not as black and white as you might think:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 13:45 by Turner68.
One of the moves he made which was the source of much resentment, was paying himself an extra 5 pounds per week. Done without the others knowing it for several years. Additionally his penchant for announcing to all who could hear," As the leader of this band," had to piss Jagger and Richards off. Especially after they began writing songs.
The singer or the frontman is something different and for this journalist it probably was easy to write "Mick Jagger forms group" obviously not knowing BJ had already done that.
It shows they needed someone for PR
That clipping (do you believe everything you read in the press) was MONTHS later.
Brian decided to form a band. Brian hired the room. Brian put out the call for auditions. Brian decided who joind the initial line-up.
Brian formed the band. The Glimmer Twins did not.
F O R M E D
Stu loved Chuck Berry-ish r&b, and thought it would become the next big thing. Read the interview with Mick Avory posted here earlier this week. It was not just something he okayed.
Brian, however, was not as fond of Berry-stuff. And he never played a «mean Chuck Berry-guitar», not even remotely. Try Bo Diddley and Elmore James
I don't have time right now to find quotes now about Brian not being happy with the Chuck-direction, but perhaps someone else has the time to dig it up?
I will later, though.
My point is that it was a musical power grab going on there as well. Brian lost it, and eventually he was weakened by all the decisions and influence being dragged away from him. That sure didn't start in 1965.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 14:47 by DandelionPowderman.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: June 16, 2015 08:22
Quote
Naturalust
He was obviously important to the whole process and finality of the songs but his contributions to the spark, arrangements, chord structure, melody and lyrics were minimal at best.
peace
I imagine you are correct about that, although in fairness to Bill, he did also mention apart from the JJF claim, just a random example of working out a small part with Mick Jagger and then stating with satisfaction to Jagger, something along the lines, of "good thing I changed that" or whatever, and Jagger turning to him and saying, "what do mean Bill. I was the one that made the change/came up with that" or whatever. Now maybe Bill was annoying with that, or Jagger was just having fun, or Bill's perception was just off base - but with that sort of environment, again from BW's POV, its easy to imagine, where he'd just wait to do his bit and then leave... he'd been there from the beginning and probably had far less patience for that sort of thing than anyone else...though perhaps more practice at casually shutting down and seemingly not caring.
What I found interesting about the arrangements/chord structures etc. in relation to Bill was in some interview shortly after he quit the Stones, he sort of gloatingly mentioned The Stones couldn't remember how half their songs went and would struggle now to recall, since Bill said "he had it all up here" pointing at his head. He was implying they would rely on him heavily at the early stages of rehearsing older material. Two thoughts occurred to me...one that Bill was quite interested in Mick and Keith's songs in actuality and second, that his departure was one more path for the ascendancy of Chuck Leavell.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 16, 2015 08:39
Quote
carlorossiQuote
lem motlow
he started the band.bill explains it to you in no uncertain terms and i've read this same account by many,many people not named mick and keith.
I thought M and K had told the story dozens of times. I agree w/Bill that they should probably intervene if that Dartford story of Bill's is true, but I'm pretty sure the Stones are on record saying that they joined Brian's band.
Not sure what Bill is so upset about really. The plaque says they "went on to form The Rolling Stones" not "went on to found The Rolling Stones". I guess it all in the semantics of that one word. Perhaps it should say went on to join The Rolling Stones. Or "went on to join the band which would become The Rolling Stones".
I'm not that familiar with the minute detail of the very early history but weren't Keith and Mick in the band when Brian named it The Rolling Stones? If so I'd say that qualifies them to be included in the forming of the band.
Perhaps the true "forming" of the band didn't really happen till Bill brought his fancy guitar amp to the party, and he just wants a nod.
(it's a joke Lem)In all seriousness, the plaque is cool and the meeting did produce one of the best rock and roll songwriting teams on the planet, etc etc. , I think it's probably fine just the way it is.
peace
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: June 16, 2015 11:33
I thought the Datford plaque was more about the chance meeting between Mick and Keith, not directly about the formation of the band. Maybe I'm wrong? Surely there's several interviews where the other guys give Brian credit for starting The Stones.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 16, 2015 11:37
Quote
frankotero
I thought the Datford plaque was more about the chance meeting between Mick and Keith, not directly about the formation of the band. Maybe I'm wrong? Surely there's several interviews where the other guys give Brian credit for starting The Stones.
It was.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: June 16, 2015 11:38
Quote
LeonidP
Bill has his own share of BS too. I recall in his book how he talks abou the early days, he & brian would go out and look to get laid, while Keith and Mick would be holed up writing new songs. And then later in his book he expresses bitterness over sharing of songwriting ... he should have thought of that early on, eh?
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: June 16, 2015 11:43
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 16, 2015 11:47
Quote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: June 16, 2015 11:52
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 16, 2015 11:58
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 16, 2015 12:21
Quote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 12:23 by Dreamer.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 16, 2015 12:26
Quote
DreamerQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
Would you say that Brian was still in the lead by Come On?
I wouldn't, as Brian wasn't a big Chuck Berry fan or didn't especially approve of playing that kind of music.
I think as soon as the Berry stuff was integrated into the sound, on behalf of the blues and Bo Diddley-stuff, it was Mick and Keith's shop. The music mattered that much.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: June 16, 2015 12:39
Quote
DreamerQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
I partly disagree with this. When you watch the film "Charlie's my darling", or any interview they had in those early years, you already see in their behaviour what they would grow out to be (in a more distorted way, image-wise).
Mick: the tongue-in-cheek fun guy, charming, interested, and with a great talent for performing.
Keith at that time wasn't yet that self-proclaimed pirate, but you can see his pure dedication to music (and little else). I don't think there's a single scene in Charlie's My Darling without him and an instrument, be it guitar or piano. And then there's always Mick at his side, singing along, thinking along, having fun along. More jokingly than Keith maybe, but still, there is a real bond there.
With Brian, things get more complicated. He clearly stands out from the group, in the way he talks, moves, his jokes, and even how the rest makes jokes about him. In the beginning, this might have added to their admiration of him, but in the end, I think Brian never really fit in, never wanted to be "part of a band" or part of anything really. Even that early, he already says that he's not sure he wants to do this forever. There's a lack of enthusiasm, of willing to join the effort. I don't know, maybe that's too harsh to say, but that's the impression I get. And I think this started before even writing their own songs.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 12:39 by matxil.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 16, 2015 12:42
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DreamerQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
Would you say that Brian was still in the lead by Come On?
I wouldn't, as Brian wasn't a big Chuck Berry fan or didn't especially approve of playing that kind of music.
I think as soon as the Berry stuff was integrated into the sound, on behalf of the blues and Bo Diddley-stuff, it was Mick and Keith's shop. The music mattered that much.
I understand what you say but that wasn't the power shift. They all brought in something and that was ok: they were all very happy with the succes that happened to them. Playing all the gigs and earning money with it to pay the life they wanted to lead.
Real troubles came in later when because of the songwriting in combination with the hits he started to feel his ownership or leading the band was no longer there...soon followed by his importance as a musician because he was no longer 'there'...he wanted to be somewhere else...together with Anita on a trip...and that got worse and they got better in songwriting and developed skills as producers (already before Miller arrived to the scene). They knew what they were doing. Just a natural process by the way...it's how it went and no one to blame I think.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 16, 2015 12:48
Quote
DreamerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DreamerQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
Would you say that Brian was still in the lead by Come On?
I wouldn't, as Brian wasn't a big Chuck Berry fan or didn't especially approve of playing that kind of music.
I think as soon as the Berry stuff was integrated into the sound, on behalf of the blues and Bo Diddley-stuff, it was Mick and Keith's shop. The music mattered that much.
I understand what you say but that wasn't the power shift. They all brought in something and that was ok: they were all very happy with the succes that happened to them. Playing all the gigs and earning money with it to pay the life they wanted to lead.
Real troubles came in later when because of the songwriting in combination with the hits he started to feel his ownership or leading the band was no longer there...soon followed by his importance as a musician because he was no longer 'there'...he wanted to be somewhere else...together with Anita on a trip...and that got worse and they got better in songwriting and developed skills as producers (already before Miller arrived to the scene). They knew what they were doing. Just a natural process by the way...it's how it went and no one to blame I think.
But didn't «leading the band» mean having some kind of control of the music at all for Brian? Exactly how did he lead it in 1963-64, apart from the symbolics connected to forming it?
I never understood that.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 16, 2015 12:51
Quote
matxilQuote
DreamerQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
I partly disagree with this. When you watch the film "Charlie's my darling", or any interview they had in those early years, you already see in their behaviour what they would grow out to be (in a more distorted way, image-wise).
Mick: the tongue-in-cheek fun guy, charming, interested, and with a great talent for performing.
Keith at that time wasn't yet that self-proclaimed pirate, but you can see his pure dedication to music (and little else). I don't think there's a single scene in Charlie's My Darling without him and an instrument, be it guitar or piano. And then there's always Mick at his side, singing along, thinking along, having fun along. More jokingly than Keith maybe, but still, there is a real bond there.
With Brian, things get more complicated. He clearly stands out from the group, in the way he talks, moves, his jokes, and even how the rest makes jokes about him. In the beginning, this might have added to their admiration of him, but in the end, I think Brian never really fit in, never wanted to be "part of a band" or part of anything really. Even that early, he already says that he's not sure he wants to do this forever. There's a lack of enthusiasm, of willing to join the effort. I don't know, maybe that's too harsh to say, but that's the impression I get. And I think this started before even writing their own songs.
Well they came in together! So they were a team already. Sure; MJ&KR made jokes together about Brian. That's what guys who like to make jokes do. And certainly about the leader.
And he observed it and wasn't very happy with it of course because he wanted to keep his position which was that of the leader...and he felt by then in 1965 it was slipping away...probably already during those two days in Ireland. See my other post...
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: June 16, 2015 12:58
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DreamerQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DreamerQuote
matxilQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxil
Brian Jones started the band. But Mick and Keith made the band big. Sure, with important contributions from the others. But no way they would have come as far without the songwriter partnership of Mick and Keith.
I always find it a bit sad reading about Bill Wyman speaking badly about Mick and Keith. I am sure Mick and Keith could be very nasty and egocentric, but it probably is part of why the band survived.
Brian formed the band. Mick and Keith started it.
I stand corrected
Yes Brian formed it. And started it: it was all his idea and they happily joined.
Oh yes later they took it further when they started to write and produce as the twins.
Songwriting wasn't much in the beginning but when they more or less took over (1965) from Brian what the band was to play it got into third gear or something. But the first two or three years or something it was Brian who formed it | started it | developed it.
Writing things made them realise their influence could be more important...a few big hits came out of that (1965) and then they realised they wanted to be most important. From that moment on Brian was less important just because he couldn't join and they didn't let him because they knew they were doing it together because he couldn't do it.
He did write with them a few times but the credits went to MJ&KR which he probably thought was more or less ok because it wasn't a huge part...he did not see the importance of being mentioned even it wasn't much what he added. They took over because MJ&KR did realise the importance; by now they needed to be most important.
Continuing story...
Would you say that Brian was still in the lead by Come On?
I wouldn't, as Brian wasn't a big Chuck Berry fan or didn't especially approve of playing that kind of music.
I think as soon as the Berry stuff was integrated into the sound, on behalf of the blues and Bo Diddley-stuff, it was Mick and Keith's shop. The music mattered that much.
I understand what you say but that wasn't the power shift. They all brought in something and that was ok: they were all very happy with the succes that happened to them. Playing all the gigs and earning money with it to pay the life they wanted to lead.
Real troubles came in later when because of the songwriting in combination with the hits he started to feel his ownership or leading the band was no longer there...soon followed by his importance as a musician because he was no longer 'there'...he wanted to be somewhere else...together with Anita on a trip...and that got worse and they got better in songwriting and developed skills as producers (already before Miller arrived to the scene). They knew what they were doing. Just a natural process by the way...it's how it went and no one to blame I think.
But didn't «leading the band» mean having some kind of control of the music at all for Brian? Exactly how did he lead it in 1963-64, apart from the symbolics connected to forming it?
I never understood that.
This is more complex than it is made out to be.
Brian led in many ways, including music, up through 64. Just because they covered chuck didn't mean brian had lost control - although you're right that generally he represented the blues and Keith chuck berry.
The schism happened in many dimensions - eg a big problem was Brian getting sick and missing live dates. In the early days Keith was often the only guitar. This diminished Brian's credibility and power
As I'm sure you know for a while Brian was collecting extra $ above everyone else and this was another issue when they discovered it
Girls were also a constant issue
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:05
Brian missing gigs was later (65/66, especially 66).
Collecting extra $ was very early on. More like 1962 than 1964.
He was NOT happy with playing rhythm & blues and Berry stuff, which dominated the setlist.
This is why I'm asking why some of you think he still was leading the band.
Collecting extra $ was very early on. More like 1962 than 1964.
He was NOT happy with playing rhythm & blues and Berry stuff, which dominated the setlist.
This is why I'm asking why some of you think he still was leading the band.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:13
But didn't «leading the band» mean having some kind of control of the music at all for Brian? Exactly how did he lead it in 1963-64, apart from the symbolics connected to forming it?
I never understood that.[/quote]
Leading by just being the leader. In those days that was something different than today: you didn't just took over from the leader. Not that he really was a leader but he liked to be somewhat important which he was! But they respected him for starting things and stuff like that. organizing things. But they could come up with ideas at the same time and KR did: Chuck Berry. Brian and Stew thought that was ok; Brian liked blues but wasn't against KR wanting to play Berry.
In 1965 they started writing very seriously and MJ&KR became much more of a team which they already were in a way.
Like BW once said:
"He formed the band. He chose the members. He named the band. He chose the music we played. He got us gigs. ... Very influential, very important, and then slowly lost it – highly intelligent – and just kind of wasted it and blew it all away."
I never understood that.[/quote]
Leading by just being the leader. In those days that was something different than today: you didn't just took over from the leader. Not that he really was a leader but he liked to be somewhat important which he was! But they respected him for starting things and stuff like that. organizing things. But they could come up with ideas at the same time and KR did: Chuck Berry. Brian and Stew thought that was ok; Brian liked blues but wasn't against KR wanting to play Berry.
In 1965 they started writing very seriously and MJ&KR became much more of a team which they already were in a way.
Like BW once said:
"He formed the band. He chose the members. He named the band. He chose the music we played. He got us gigs. ... Very influential, very important, and then slowly lost it – highly intelligent – and just kind of wasted it and blew it all away."
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:19
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Brian missing gigs was later (65/66, especially 66).
Collecting extra $ was very early on. More like 1962 than 1964.
He was NOT happy with playing rhythm & blues and Berry stuff, which dominated the setlist.
This is why I'm asking why some of you think he still was leading the band.
That wasn't the major fight. And don't forget acting not happy could be part of his act to create guild and keep them away from trying to do more that could threaten his position.
He was still leading until somewhere in 1965 he lost it...when was the moment you think it was obvious MJ&KR were the leaders? When they were leading...
And when was that? Not yet in early 1965.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:27
Quote
DreamerQuote
DandelionPowderman
Brian missing gigs was later (65/66, especially 66).
Collecting extra $ was very early on. More like 1962 than 1964.
He was NOT happy with playing rhythm & blues and Berry stuff, which dominated the setlist.
This is why I'm asking why some of you think he still was leading the band.
That wasn't the major fight. And don't forget acting not happy could be part of his act to create guild and keep them away from trying to do more that could threaten his position.
He was still leading until somewhere in 1965 he lost it...when was the moment you think it was obvious MJ&KR were the leaders? When they were leading...
And when was that? Not yet in early 1965.
What I mean is: it's not about what BJ was happy with or not happy with.
It's about the fact that MJ&KR started to realise (because of their songwriting success) the band would be more successful when they were writing the material they would perform and they wanted to do that. That wave already started rolling...
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:27
Maybe some believe the band was stolen from him and/or he doesn't get proper credit. I think Brian is partly to blame for this, though Mick and Keith were probably overwhelming as a partnership (my thoughts). Perhaps he allowed them to nudge him aside, changing the direction of the band. Which is probably a good thing in retrospect. However, to my memory I think both Mick and Keith have been pretty gracious with his legacy.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:37
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Brian missing gigs was later (65/66, especially 66).
Collecting extra $ was very early on. More like 1962 than 1964.
He was NOT happy with playing rhythm & blues and Berry stuff, which dominated the setlist.
This is why I'm asking why some of you think he still was leading the band.
-> Brian missed at least 5 concerts on tour in 1964 according to Wyman's book. this is the most notable in that it's the one the other members complained about the most. It's unclear he missed any in 65 or 66 although I assume he did. His asthma was a problem almost from the beginning.
-> He WAS big on R&B - his whole conception for the band in the first place was for it to be an R&B band. He lobbied the Jazz clubs and publications to take R&B seriously (there are letters he wrote from back then still in circulation and on the internet). While he was less keen on chuck berry, the very first concert they ever played had a number of chuck berry songs. [www.rollingstones.com]
Indeed, Brian played a mean chuck berry rhythm guitar.
[www.iorr.org]
-> their first gig was billed as "mick jagger and the rolling stones" so the question of leadership was, as i mentioned above, always a little more complicated than people make it out to be.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 13:50 by Turner68.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:41
Going back to the original point in Bill Wyman's interview.
Dartford have put up an incorrect plaque.
It's as wrong to deny that the Glimmer Twins were, and are, responsible for the astounding success of the Rolling Stones, as it is to claim that they "FORMED" the band.
That's what Bill Wyman is peeved about. And rightly so.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Dartford have put up an incorrect plaque.
It's as wrong to deny that the Glimmer Twins were, and are, responsible for the astounding success of the Rolling Stones, as it is to claim that they "FORMED" the band.
That's what Bill Wyman is peeved about. And rightly so.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:44
Quote
CaptainCorella
Going back to the original point in Bill Wyman's interview.
Dartford have put up an incorrect plaque.
It's as wrong to deny that the Glimmer Twins were, and are, responsible for the astounding success of the Rolling Stones, as it is to claim that they "FORMED" the band.
That's what Bill Wyman is peeved about. And rightly so.
i agree. but it's not as black and white as you might think:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 13:45 by Turner68.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:46
Naturallust, I agree with you that while Bill is an ambitious historian, he doesn't know everything about the Stones. It's obvious when you read other books, faulty as they may be, that Bill wasn't there for many moments of Stones history, be it songwriting, drugs, recording, etc. That's common knowledge. Even if Keith is a bullshitter sometimes, there's a lot of stuff in his book Life that clearly didn't happen in Bill's presence and accordingly did not make it into any of Bill's books.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Jesse1960
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:54
Quote
duke richardson
yes I know. They were on a mission. Brian did get it going. They established themselves and Brian and Keith learned how to play while living through the worst winter in a long time
Then Brian saw this band as his. Then he made moves that caused deep resentment. So much for thinking it was his band. It's sad though, and wrong that the plaque in Dartford is all about Mick and Keith ..
One of the moves he made which was the source of much resentment, was paying himself an extra 5 pounds per week. Done without the others knowing it for several years. Additionally his penchant for announcing to all who could hear," As the leader of this band," had to piss Jagger and Richards off. Especially after they began writing songs.
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: June 16, 2015 13:59
What later puzzled me was how affectionally he announced himself "One of the original members, yes." at a time when it was difficult to point out the not-original members. Charlie, perhaps?
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
Dreamer
()
Date: June 16, 2015 14:09
Quote
Turner68Quote
CaptainCorella
Going back to the original point in Bill Wyman's interview.
Dartford have put up an incorrect plaque.
It's as wrong to deny that the Glimmer Twins were, and are, responsible for the astounding success of the Rolling Stones, as it is to claim that they "FORMED" the band.
That's what Bill Wyman is peeved about. And rightly so.
i agree. but it's not as black and white as you might think:
The singer or the frontman is something different and for this journalist it probably was easy to write "Mick Jagger forms group" obviously not knowing BJ had already done that.
It shows they needed someone for PR
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: June 16, 2015 14:12
Quote
Turner68Quote
CaptainCorella
Going back to the original point in Bill Wyman's interview.
Dartford have put up an incorrect plaque.
It's as wrong to deny that the Glimmer Twins were, and are, responsible for the astounding success of the Rolling Stones, as it is to claim that they "FORMED" the band.
That's what Bill Wyman is peeved about. And rightly so.
i agree. but it's not as black and white as you might think:
That clipping (do you believe everything you read in the press) was MONTHS later.
Brian decided to form a band. Brian hired the room. Brian put out the call for auditions. Brian decided who joind the initial line-up.
Brian formed the band. The Glimmer Twins did not.
F O R M E D
Re: Bill Wyman interview (inc. Brian Jones reflections)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 16, 2015 14:46
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
Brian missing gigs was later (65/66, especially 66).
Collecting extra $ was very early on. More like 1962 than 1964.
He was NOT happy with playing rhythm & blues and Berry stuff, which dominated the setlist.
This is why I'm asking why some of you think he still was leading the band.
-> Brian missed at least 5 concerts on tour in 1964 according to Wyman's book. this is the most notable in that it's the one the other members complained about the most. It's unclear he missed any in 65 or 66 although I assume he did. His asthma was a problem almost from the beginning.
-> He WAS big on R&B - his whole conception for the band in the first place was for it to be an R&B band. He lobbied the Jazz clubs and publications to take R&B seriously (there are letters he wrote from back then still in circulation and on the internet). While he was less keen on chuck berry, the very first concert they ever played had a number of chuck berry songs. [www.rollingstones.com]
Indeed, Brian played a mean chuck berry rhythm guitar.
[www.iorr.org]
-> their first gig was billed as "mick jagger and the rolling stones" so the question of leadership was, as i mentioned above, always a little more complicated than people make it out to be.
Stu loved Chuck Berry-ish r&b, and thought it would become the next big thing. Read the interview with Mick Avory posted here earlier this week. It was not just something he okayed.
Brian, however, was not as fond of Berry-stuff. And he never played a «mean Chuck Berry-guitar», not even remotely. Try Bo Diddley and Elmore James
I don't have time right now to find quotes now about Brian not being happy with the Chuck-direction, but perhaps someone else has the time to dig it up?
I will later, though.
My point is that it was a musical power grab going on there as well. Brian lost it, and eventually he was weakened by all the decisions and influence being dragged away from him. That sure didn't start in 1965.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 14:47 by DandelionPowderman.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1StonesRecluse , coffeepotman , EddieByword , frtylicks , Green Lady , kstones79 , makemeburnthecandle , maxgb , Quique-stone , shattered , TornAndFried , TW2019 , voodoodrew
Guests:
1582
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10