Quote
Nikkei
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?

I guess. Since Charlie was the last who joined.
BJ saw Stew come in first to the Bricklayer's Arms after placing his advertisement in Jazz News of May 2nd 1962.
Together they auditioned MJ&KR (after several guys left like Geoff Bradford & Brian Knight). MJ brought KR in.
Bill joined later after Dick Taylor left followed by CW in January '63.

I also see it as two founding cells that had to fertilize each other Keith&Mick and Brian&Stu. (Keeping in line with Keiths conception and nativity theories concerning the location of their 50th Birthday) That Brian clip is somehow foreboding if you look at it now. Stating a point on camera as if he knew he'd be substituted?

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.[/quote]


Yes that process started earlier. But the result wasn't visible in March 1965.
MJ&KR were already a team and had something very funny going on between them but when they started to become successful as songwriters in 1965 with TLT and especially with Satisfaction and GOOMC (both in the UK & the US at #1) it was clear the wind was blowing from a different direction. Those things together with his health | drug use | Anita coming in spring '65 | ALO was making MJ a more important part of the RS as a frontman...all of that influenced his position in the band. But the cake wasn't ready until late 1965 or so. From that moment he really started to eat that pie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 15:36 by Dreamer.

Quote
Dreamer
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.

Yes that process started earlier. But it wasn't visible in March 1965.
MJ&KR were already a team and had something very funny going on between them but when they started to become successful as songwriters in 1965 with TLT and especially with Satisfaction and GOOMC (both in the UK & the US at #1) it was clear the wind was blowing from a different direction. Those things together with his health | drug use | Anita coming in spring '65 | ALO was making MJ a more important part of the RS as a frontman...all of that influenced his position in the band.[/quote]

That's nicely summed up, imo. Of course the songwriting success was the definite push that set Brian on the sideline. But the media and fans are always the last ones to spot what's going on within a band

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Dreamer
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.

Yes that process started earlier. But it wasn't visible in March 1965.
MJ&KR were already a team and had something very funny going on between them but when they started to become successful as songwriters in 1965 with TLT and especially with Satisfaction and GOOMC (both in the UK & the US at #1) it was clear the wind was blowing from a different direction. Those things together with his health | drug use | Anita coming in spring '65 | ALO was making MJ a more important part of the RS as a frontman...all of that influenced his position in the band.

That's nicely summed up, imo. Of course the songwriting success was the definite push that set Brian on the sideline. But the media and fans are always the last ones to spot what's going on within a band [/quote]

It must have been terrible for him. He liked it so much and it was his band! And now he saw others taking the lead away from him. Again: nothing to blame MJ&KR for because they were doing what they wanted to do and they got there (writing music) first and were on top of the wave with the kind of music they were writing...which was also slightly different than what BJ wanted them to play...

That's nicely summed up, imo.
Well I got there because you pushed me!
Pfff but I still got a deadline to catch so I'm outta here!!

Quote
Nikkei
I also see it as two founding cells that had to fertilize each other Keith&Mick and Brian&Stu. (Keeping in line with Keiths conception and nativity theories concerning the location of their 50th Birthday) That Brian clip is somehow foreboding if you look at it now. Stating a point on camera as if he knew he'd be substituted?

Well since Mick brought Keith into the band and the name The Rolling Stones happened sometime after that, one could argue that Mick "formed" the band too. Whatever input they had in bringing Bill and Charlie in could also be considered "forming" the band. I do understand that it was Brian's creation in the beginning, he put the advertisement out, got the gigs. etc., but it seems Mick and Keith were pretty involved in the formation of the music they played. Besides how many times have we heard the phrase "in the bands formative years". The forming of a band involves more that just hiring the members, it involves song selection, image, the forming of the music they play, etc. Certainly Brian had some help here.

Basically I think it's a bit silly that Bill chooses in 2015 to talk about hiring some heavies to go rip the plaque off the wall at Dartford station because of one word that can be loosley interpreted. If he is so concerned about single words perhaps he should be a bit better at writing lyrics. Besides no one can deny the importance of that chance meeting at Dartford station and people interested in the history of The Rolling Stones will find plenty of information that gives Brian Jones his due. History is not being re-written by a single word on a plaque at some train station, imo.

peace

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Turner68
I'm glad Bill is speaking up for Brian.

me too .

this is a young man with a vision who died when he was 27 years old-

think of that- he never had a chance to redeem himself,to apoligize or tell his side of the story.was he a fck up,yes. did he treat women badly and have children he didnt care for,yes.
but years change a person,you learn and grow.most of us are given the time to go back and make things right,brian never had that chance.
to have men in their 40's 50's and 60's speak about the way a young kid acted in certain situations and have him judged in that way is unfair.i believe a bit of perspective is order.

of all the tours i've seen and the footage of the band i've seen before my time i have to conclude my favorite era is actually from the early 60's.

charlie is my darling is my favorite-the actual,original rolling fckn stones.no war horses,no big stages just the original 5 stones out there killing it.it's really amazing how good they were.there's a spark there that can't be defined,it continues to this day,of course but it's still in alot of ways the band brian started back in london in the early 60's.

Well said!

Quote
Turner68
I'm glad Bill is speaking up for Brian.

agreed.. I hate rock star bios, never read them, I just look here for the important bits and make the rest up. Lay off Naturalist, one of the last of the fun posters who can write concisely. Bill's a great, great bassist, he could have done more in the band's recordings but hated the junkie lifestyle and was MIA for many great junkie songs. Keith, MT and Woody are strong bassists as well. Taylor tried but could not function as a junkie, Jagger loves himself and money too much to stay in the gutter. Copping is a full time job even for rock stars.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Turner68

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.

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.

my point about brian and chuck berry guitar pointed to a link to an IORR discussion about it. there was a long IORR thread years ago where people went back through video clips of chuck berry songs they played live, figuring out the parts that brian played, etc. a number of people concluded he was surprising good.

as for what you say about it not starting in 1965, i tend to agree, that's why i was mentioning brian missing the concerts in 1964. i just thought people were making it black and white about songwriting and blues vs chuck berry when i feel it's more complicated than all that.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
Turner68
I'm glad Bill is speaking up for Brian.

agreed.. I hate rock star bios, never read them, I just look here for the important bits and make the rest up. Lay off Naturalist, one of the last of the fun posters who can write concisely. Bill's a great, great bassist, he could have done more in the band's recordings but hated the junkie lifestyle and was MIA for many great junkie songs. Keith, MT and Woody are strong bassists as well. Taylor tried but could not function as a junkie, Jagger loves himself and money too much to stay in the gutter. Copping is a full time job even for rock stars.

even if he was there Keith would play on a track if he had a better bass idea..

and in France for Exile Bill didn't live close by, neither did Charlie, but Charlie chose to just stay in the house..

Bill, that poor old bitter man.....who left the band too early in order to benefit from the big money in the last 22 years.

Perhaps the sign in Dartford could've been 'Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones first met here.' I think people would've figured it out or came to their own conclusions.

I'm sure Mick and Keith consider themselves co-founders of the band. Certainly they took control of it.

Quote
leatherjacket
Bill, that poor old bitter man.....who left the band too early in order to benefit from the big money in the last 22 years.

Bill? Never was and never will. I think people miss his humour/irony in lots of quotes. He exaggerates with a smile on his face even with something like this that makes him angry. He's still very good with everyone in & around 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.>>

According to Keith, it's when Charlie finally agreed to join. I know you posted that line in a joking context, but in his eternally Wattsian reverence, Keith has recently, around the time of the 50th anniversary interviews, publicly stated as such.

As for Bill, he must have realized from an early point that he didn't really fit in and that they would just as soon carry on without him.

In his coffee table picture book Rolling With The Stones, one of the mementos illustrated is a magazine advert for a bass player to audition for the Stones... which appeared several months after he'd already become a full member. In the caption beneath the illustration, Wyman wryly notes, "Perhaps my amplifiers and cigarettes weren't enough after all?"

<<Would you say that Brian was still in the lead by Come On?>>

He recovered the lead--literally!--with the follow-up single.

[www.youtube.com]

By the way, Keith looks quite amusing in that clip--like a bowlegged George Harrison.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 19:53 by stonehearted.

Quote
nightskyman
Perhaps the sign in Dartford could've been 'Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones first met here.' I think people would've figured it out or came to their own conclusions.

I'm sure Mick and Keith consider themselves co-founders of the band. Certainly they took control of it.

The plaque was put up by Dartford Borough Council, who understandably would like their two local lads to get as much kudos as possible. Doubt if any actual Rolling Stones were consulted about its wording or accuracy.

Of course Brian and Stu formed the band - and Brian was the early leader simply because it was his idea in the first place. A very familiar scenario: the guy who had the idea isn't ultimately the one who saw it through to its full development and eventual success, but without him it wouldn't have started, and without them it might not have lasted. Who knows whether Mick and Keith would have had the drive to organise a band of their own? They would clearly have ended up as the stars of whatever band they joined, but would they ever have started one?

I agree with the fertilisation idea in one of the earlier posts in this thread - two elements that need to join to create life. And all of them formed the band. "The Rolling Stones were six who became one," says Andrew Oldham.

Quote
stonehearted
<<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.>>

According to Keith, it's when Charlie finally agreed to join. I know you posted that line in a joking context, but in his eternally Wattsian reverence, Keith has recently, around the time of the 50th anniversary interviews, publicly stated as such.

As for Bill, he must have realized from an early point that he didn't really fit in and that they would just as soon carry on without him.

In his coffee table picture book Rolling With The Stones, one of the mementos illustrated is a magazine advert for a bass player to audition for the Stones... which appeared several months after he'd already become a full member. In the caption beneath the illustration, Wyman wryly notes, "Perhaps my amplifiers and cigarettes weren't enough after all?"

Wow that's pretty interesting! Perhaps he decided right then and there he was going to make the most of it and try to score as many girls as he could while the getting was good. Some say he never got tied up in the trappings of the rock star lifestyle but one could easily argue he was just as caught up as any of them with his sexual conquests, perhaps even more so. I recall he has a chapter in Stone Alone called Addictions and Frictions, he probably didn't realize he was a hard core addict too.

You get the feeling that if Keith and Bill were both given a woman and a guitar, Bill would pick the woman every time and Keith the guitar. I am somewhat surprised that there aren't an army of little Bill's scattered around the world.

peace

army of little Bill's scattered around the world

you would think, if he's to be believed, that he would have dozens of offspring, just on the law of averages..

kinda always thought he exaggerated his count a bit, but still..

either lucky or careful..or something..

Quote
duke richardson
army of little Bill's scattered around the world

you would think, if he's to be believed, that he would have dozens of offspring, just on the law of averages..

kinda always thought he exaggerated his count a bit, but still..

either lucky or careful..or something..

Also a bit strange that none of the thousands of women on Bill's plate have ever come forward to talk about their experiences. Perhaps it's more of a "tried for the singer and ended up with the bass player" kind of shame that keeps them quiet.

What is also totally bizzare is that Mandy's mother married Bill's son! Can't really get my mind around how the offspring would be related to the family....Mom and step-great grandma?

peace

<<Some say he never got tied up in the trappings of the rock star lifestyle but one could easily argue he was just as caught up as any of them with his sexual conquests>>

In that sense, yes you could argue that. But while reading your post I was reminded of something. Years before the rock lifestyle afforded him the convenience of multiple casual encounters, Bill was in the Royal Air Force, and you know how young servicemen can be with their rites of passage.

Then again, perhaps being a rock star with hundreds of young girls at his disposal simply allowed him to indulge in the fulfilling adolescence he never got to truly and properly enjoy among the bomb-cratered austerity of Post-War England.


Bill Wyman (Perks), 1955.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
nightskyman
Perhaps the sign in Dartford could've been 'Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones first met here.' I think people would've figured it out or came to their own conclusions.

I'm sure Mick and Keith consider themselves co-founders of the band. Certainly they took control of it.

The plaque was put up by Dartford Borough Council, who understandably would like their two local lads to get as much kudos as possible. Doubt if any actual Rolling Stones were consulted about its wording or accuracy.

Of course Brian and Stu formed the band - and Brian was the early leader simply because it was his idea in the first place. A very familiar scenario: the guy who had the idea isn't ultimately the one who saw it through to its full development and eventual success, but without him it wouldn't have started, and without them it might not have lasted. Who knows whether Mick and Keith would have had the drive to organise a band of their own? They would clearly have ended up as the stars of whatever band they joined, but would they ever have started one?

I agree with the fertilisation idea in one of the earlier posts in this thread - two elements that need to join to create life. And all of them formed the band. "The Rolling Stones were six who became one," says Andrew Oldham.

Well put.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
duke richardson
army of little Bill's scattered around the world

you would think, if he's to be believed, that he would have dozens of offspring, just on the law of averages..

kinda always thought he exaggerated his count a bit, but still..

either lucky or careful..or something..

Also a bit strange that none of the thousands of women on Bill's plate have ever come forward to talk about their experiences. Perhaps it's more of a "tried for the singer and ended up with the bass player" kind of shame that keeps them quiet.

What is also totally bizzare is that Mandy's mother married Bill's son! Can't really get my mind around how the offspring would be related to the family....Mom and step-great grandma?

peace

how did that work out? (Bill's son and Mandy"s mom?)

don't hear much about any of that from Bill..

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
duke richardson
army of little Bill's scattered around the world

you would think, if he's to be believed, that he would have dozens of offspring, just on the law of averages..

kinda always thought he exaggerated his count a bit, but still..

either lucky or careful..or something..

Also a bit strange that none of the thousands of women on Bill's plate have ever come forward to talk about their experiences. Perhaps it's more of a "tried for the singer and ended up with the bass player" kind of shame that keeps them quiet.

What is also totally bizzare is that Mandy's mother married Bill's son! Can't really get my mind around how the offspring would be related to the family....Mom and step-great grandma?

peace

how did that work out? (Bill's son and Mandy"s mom?)

don't hear much about any of that from Bill..

from listverse.com.

"You may want to pay attention – this one gets a little complicated. In 1989, Bill Wyman, 52, the bassist for the Rolling Stones married Mandy Smith. 18. They were married until 1993 after Patsy Smith, Mandy’s mother, gave her full consent to the May-December romance. That same year, Mandy’s mother Patsy Smith, 49, married Stephen Wyman, Bill’s 31 year old son. That makes Patsy Smith the Mother-In-Law and Daughter-In-Law of Bill Wyman. This bizarre Mother-In-Law pairing would not last however as Bill and Mandy divorced in 1993 and Patsy and Stephen’s marriage ended in 1995."

Some more twisted food for though about those strange pairings:

Bill Wyman became his son’s son-in-law, because he married to his son’s stepdaughter. Mandy Smith became Stephen Wyman’s mother because she was his father’s wife. By virtue of his marriage to Mandy’s mother, then Stephen Wyman was both Mandy’s son and father. Likewise, Patsy Smith was Mandy’s daughter as well as her mother.

Of course, things get real interesting if both couples had decided to have children.

If Patsy Smith had a son, the child would be Bill Wyman’s brother-in-law and Stephen Wyman’s uncle because he would be the brother of this stepmother, Mandy Smith. If Mandy had a son, the child would be Stephen Wyman’s brother as well as his grandchild because the baby would be the son of his daughter.

It then follows that Patsy Smith would be her husband’s grandmother because she was his mother’s mother. Stephen Wyman would be both his wife’s husband and grandchild. And since the husband of a person’s grandmother is his grandfather, Stephen Wyman would be his own grandfather!

peace



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-16 22:47 by Naturalust.

Quote
leatherjacket
Bill, that poor old bitter man.....who left the band too early in order to benefit from the big money in the last 22 years.

Gosh, with the 1981 tour and Steel Wheels tour grossing a combined $150,000,000 dollars, poor Bill only became a multi-millionaire, instead of a multi-multi-millionaire. And with that restaurant only lasting for 26 years, I'm sure he's down to his last few pounds. He might have to sell a house in France, or a choice Citroen. And those mechanical royalties from all the archival releases from his time in the band, he can barely afford the train fare down to Dartford to yank down the plaque.

As for Bill's contribution to songs, I was recently listening to the Black Box bootleg. If you hear the evolution of well known songs it appears that Charlie and Bill pretty much figure out their parts early and they become set arrangements. A lot of the later takes are Mick and Keith trying to get a final polish.

keith richards on the first time meeting brian jones who was sitting on a stool playing bar slide guitar in a club-


"we get into brian after he finishes dust my broom.we turn him onto jimmy reed and stuff he didnt know about because he was more into t-bone walker and that sort of thing.
he was in the process of moving to london to get a band together"

"i left shool and didnt even bother to get a job,we were still kids.mick was still serious or thought he was,everyone told him to get a career in economics.he was very much into it.
but brian was already working at it,he invite me up to some pub in london to listen to what he was getting together.that's where i met stu,he was with brian"

when booking the band for a gig the club owner asked him "what is the name of your group?[they didnt have one until 2 seconds later] uh,uh um,looking down at that second at a pile of blues records laying on the table brian said ....uh,the rolling stones.

Quote
lem motlow
when booking the band for a gig the club owner asked him "what is the name of your group?[they didnt have one until 2 seconds later] uh,uh um,looking down at that second at a pile of blues records laying on the table brian said ....uh,the rolling stones.

I guess there is one than one version of that story around....the slightly different version is:

"According to Richards, Jones christened the band during a phone call to Jazz News. When asked for a band name Jones saw a Muddy Waters LP lying on the floor of which one of the tracks was "Rollin' Stone"."

Which actually makes a bit more sense because they likely would have had a name in mind if they were booking a gig with a club owner. And the they probably piled their records on the floor rather than the table...did they even have a table back then?

peace

either way we have keith explaining -

1.meeting brian and him telling mick and keith that he[brian] was moving to london to start a band.

2.brian living in london and inviting keith to come and jam where he meets stu who is already working with brian on said band.

3.a quick thinking brian naming the band "the rolling stones"

Quote
Green Lady

The plaque was put up by Dartford Borough Council, who understandably would like their two local lads to get as much kudos as possible. Doubt if any actual Rolling Stones were consulted about its wording or accuracy.

Of course Brian and Stu formed the band - and Brian was the early leader simply because it was his idea in the first place. A very familiar scenario: the guy who had the idea isn't ultimately the one who saw it through to its full development and eventual success, but without him it wouldn't have started, and without them it might not have lasted. Who knows whether Mick and Keith would have had the drive to organise a band of their own? They would clearly have ended up as the stars of whatever band they joined, but would they ever have started one?

Very well put.

On the point about Dartford council knowing about accuracy.... When the intent to put up a plaque was first publicised I wrote to Mr Jeremy Kite (Council Leader) as follows:

The BBC report of the proposed plaque on Dartford Station says (in part)

> Dartford council leader Jeremy Kite said the town was proud of the
> link.
>
> The two musicians met on platform two - Richards was on his way to
> Sidcup Art College, carrying his hollow-bodied Höfner cutaway
> electric guitar, while Jagger was travelling to the London School of
> Economics and holding some of his prized blues records.
>
> "Fate was sealed and they started talking about playing their music
> together," Mr Kite said.
>
> "They went off and recruited Brian Jones next, and the rest is
> history," he added.

The last bit concerns me.

Unequivocally The Rolling Stones was created by Brian Jones.

He was the one who put the advert in the paper. He was the one who arranged the venue for the 'auditions'. Jagger & Richards were not even the first ones to turn up. The late Ian Stewart preceded them.

There's no argument that the band has to credit its long life and success to Jagger & Richards, but they did not "recruit Brian Jones", it was the other way round.

A small, but historically important, point.

And he swiftly replied:

I stand firmly corrected. I’m afraid that when journalists stuff a microphone in front of you it tends to have an alarming impact on the grey cells. I knew categorically about the meeting of messrs Jagger and Richard at Dartford ( not, technically, their first ever meeting of course but certainly the significant one in terms of their collaboration) but should, of course, have said that they went on to meet Brian Jones and the rest is history,

Not a small point at all. If it’s right, it’s right and if it’s wrong, it’s wrong. You are right to make sure the real history is defended.

best wishes


Jeremy

So the Council knew they were wrong in that detail in the text, but did bugger all about it despite the assurance.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
CaptainCorella

On the point about Dartford council knowing about accuracy.... When the intent to put up a plaque was first publicised I wrote to Mr Jeremy Kite (Council Leader) as follows:

Wow, that is indeed very cool. I sincerely applaud your effort to set the record straight! The "recruited Brian Jones part" is indeed a bit too much. You have obviously stood up for Brian more than even Bill has.

peace