For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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?
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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
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?
Quote
lem motlowQuote
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.
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
Turner68
I'm glad Bill is speaking up for Brian.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
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.
Quote
DoomandGloomagreed.. 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
Turner68
I'm glad Bill is speaking up for Brian.
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.
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.
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?"
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..
Quote
Green LadyQuote
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
NaturalustQuote
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
Quote
duke richardsonQuote
NaturalustQuote
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
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.
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.
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?
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: