Quote
Naturalust

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

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
Naturalust

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

I strongly suspect that Bill did something very similar - which may explain his ongoing annoyance at the inaccuracy.

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

Quote
Deltics

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

Also, the band that Brian envisaged in his advert in Jazz News bore little relation to the eventual line-up.

Quote
Deltics

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

Also, the band that Brian envisaged in his advert in Jazz News bore little relation to the eventual line-up.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Deltics

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

Also, the band that Brian envisaged in his advert in Jazz News bore little relation to the eventual line-up.

Exactly! Thanks, Deltics.

This was one of the points I tried to make...

Quote
duke richardson
well they sure found what worked very early, once they got Charlie and Bill.

the gigs they got increased, as did the people wanting to see them

what a sense of validation they all must have had, especially Brian, when those lines outside the clubs started happening..

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Deltics

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

Also, the band that Brian envisaged in his advert in Jazz News bore little relation to the eventual line-up.

Exactly! Thanks, Deltics.

This was one of the points I tried to make...

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
duke richardson
well they sure found what worked very early, once they got Charlie and Bill.

the gigs they got increased, as did the people wanting to see them

what a sense of validation they all must have had, especially Brian, when those lines outside the clubs started happening..

yeah, it's truly amazing how fast they took off.

i don't know if anyone is familiar with malcolm gladwell's theory that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to be truly great at anything (politician, businessman, carpenter, musician). he holds up some colorful examples, including the Beatles and all those gigs in germany and the north of england they played for several years before making it big. pretty interesting stuff. anyway, the stones' early success totally contradicts all that. lightning struck.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Turner68

Quote
duke richardson
well they sure found what worked very early, once they got Charlie and Bill.

the gigs they got increased, as did the people wanting to see them

what a sense of validation they all must have had, especially Brian, when those lines outside the clubs started happening..

yeah, it's truly amazing how fast they took off.

i don't know if anyone is familiar with malcolm gladwell's theory that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to be truly great at anything (politician, businessman, carpenter, musician). he holds up some colorful examples, including the Beatles and all those gigs in germany and the north of england they played for several years before making it big. pretty interesting stuff. anyway, the stones' early success totally contradicts all that. lightning struck.

Yes and no. The Stones had something immediately, but it took a while to refine it. Brian and Stu seemed the most finished players in the nascent stage of the group. They were together 3 years before they became international superstars with Satisfaction, and even that wasn't their apex, which didn't really begin until they were together 7 years by adding a new improved guitar player which pushed them into the stratosphere. In that sense it's pretty close to the Beatles time line of 1957 to 1962, making a crude record, and then becoming better and better, culminating in their watershed year of 1964, 7 years since John and Paul intersected.

Quote
Naturalust
The "formation" of The Rolling Stones was much more than getting the musicians together. One could even argue that The Beatles were involved in forming the Stones.

I've been trying to think of a better way to word the writing on the plaque and it's actually tough to come up with something that says as much with as few words.

peace

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Naturalust
The "formation" of The Rolling Stones was much more than getting the musicians together. One could even argue that The Beatles were involved in forming the Stones.

I've been trying to think of a better way to word the writing on the plaque and it's actually tough to come up with something that says as much with as few words.

peace

the stones were already a band when they met the beatles.now you're just throwing stuff out there because you're bored and want to say something.
i cringe when these conversations veer off into this kind of nonsense.

it's embarrassing to the board actually,people come here because of the tour and read long time posters saying the beatles formed the stones,that they cant understand the concept of a person starting a band.,that the band had in mind wasnt the eventual line-up[you mean the one with chuck leavell?]..

if you go on stonesdougs site and ask who started the stones they'll say brian,if you go on rocks off and ask they'll say brian,because this is something every hardcore stones fans knows...

and we're sitting with.."well what is the exact meaning of "formation"..maybe the beatles did it..it's pathetic.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

seriously?? you cant figure that out?

the person has an idea that he wants to form a band,he finds others to join him-he started the band.

after the yardbirds went out of business jimmy page wanted to form another version of the group.

there was one guy-jimmy page, he started the new yardbirds.

he talked to an old friend from the session days who joined on bass
he got word of a singer in the north country and went and listened to him and liked what he heard
the singer had a friend who played drums who came along.....

is this concept of jimmy forming the band also difficult to grasp or is this just something reserved for brian who did the same thing?

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Naturalust
The "formation" of The Rolling Stones was much more than getting the musicians together. One could even argue that The Beatles were involved in forming the Stones.

I've been trying to think of a better way to word the writing on the plaque and it's actually tough to come up with something that says as much with as few words.

peace

the stones were already a band when they met the beatles.now you're just throwing stuff out there because you're bored and want to say something.
i cringe when these conversations veer off into this kind of nonsense.

it's embarrassing to the board actually,people come here because of the tour and read long time posters saying the beatles formed the stones,that they cant understand the concept of a person starting a band.,that the band had in mind wasnt the eventual line-up[you mean the one with chuck leavell?]..

if you go on stonesdougs site and ask who started the stones they'll say brian,if you go on rocks off and ask they'll say brian,because this is something every hardcore stones fans knows...

and we're sitting with.."well what is the exact meaning of "formation"..maybe the beatles did it..it's pathetic.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Deltics

Quote
with sssoul
I don't understand how one person can form a band. By definition a band is formed by more than two people.
One person can be a catalyst for a band's formation, but that one person can't form it without others.

Also, the band that Brian envisaged in his advert in Jazz News bore little relation to the eventual line-up.

Exactly! Thanks, Deltics.

This was one of the points I tried to make...

Dandy, I think our discussion was getting hung up on the term R&B, as when I saw this post above I *also* thought - exactly! see, Brian wanted an R&B band. Those clearly were days when labels meant different things, and labels were changing, etc. Clearly Brian leaned against Chuck Berry and towards blues especially with slide ala Elmore James. But the heart of those first few recordings up to 64 - Can I Get a Witness, I Just Wanna Make Love to You, Bo Diddly and Not Fade Away, etc. - I would call R&B and I would judge to be squarely in the type of band Brian envisaged.

It's splitting hairs at the end of the day I think - Brian founded the band, was seen as its leader, and very quickly Mick and Keith took charge by steering the band towards a more rock n roll bent and by writing original songs.

I would also note that just because Brian didn't ask for a second guitar doesn't mean he wasn't planning on jamming - hey, Let It Bleed was made with mostly one guitarist :-) By the way it's to his credit that in his ad he wasn't looking for a singer or a second guitarist but when he met Mick and Keith he grabbed them both :-)

Quote
liddas

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Turner68

Quote
duke richardson
well they sure found what worked very early, once they got Charlie and Bill.

the gigs they got increased, as did the people wanting to see them

what a sense of validation they all must have had, especially Brian, when those lines outside the clubs started happening..

yeah, it's truly amazing how fast they took off.

i don't know if anyone is familiar with malcolm gladwell's theory that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to be truly great at anything (politician, businessman, carpenter, musician). he holds up some colorful examples, including the Beatles and all those gigs in germany and the north of england they played for several years before making it big. pretty interesting stuff. anyway, the stones' early success totally contradicts all that. lightning struck.

Yes and no. The Stones had something immediately, but it took a while to refine it. Brian and Stu seemed the most finished players in the nascent stage of the group. They were together 3 years before they became international superstars with Satisfaction, and even that wasn't their apex, which didn't really begin until they were together 7 years by adding a new improved guitar player which pushed them into the stratosphere. In that sense it's pretty close to the Beatles time line of 1957 to 1962, making a crude record, and then becoming better and better, culminating in their watershed year of 1964, 7 years since John and Paul intersected.

Check your math: Ron joined the band 13 years later, not 7!

C

Quote
ovalvox
As hard as Mick and Keith try they just can't change history. Read Keith's life. Brian Jones formed the Rolling Stones with Stu his first recruit. He lead the Rolling Stones until he sliced his own throat by hiring Oldham. He chose the songs they played. He is on record by multiple reliable sources as being the better guitar player at the formation of the Stones. Sorry Mathjis but Brian could play more than just simple chords. The IBC recordings are proof of that. Mick and Keith should ask God for thanks. Brian Knight could have been the lead singer and Geoff Bradford could have been the other guitarist. Not saying this alternate reality would have made any of them stars. Most likely not. They would have all descended into obscurity. There was a certain chemistry that made the Stones and Brian Jones was clearly in that equation. The catalyst so to speak. Take Brian out of the equation and Mick and Keith are unwittingly altering their current reality. No Jones no stones. And although Brian is marginalized by Mick and Keith. As long as his fans are around that isn't going to happen. As for the plaque in Dartford? I'm sure they are proud that Mick and Keith are from there. And there is only so much you can squeeze on a plaque. If they want to believe it let them. The rest of the world knows differently.

Quote

As for Bill? He's always wanted his day in the sun but it's hard to get around the most famous front line in music history.

Quote
Turner68
Bill wyman replaces the plaque
Sometime later Armageddon strikes
It appears only cockroaches are left
But.... Out of the rubble Keith Richards emerges holding a bill wyman signature metal detector
Which he uses to search throughout greater London find the original plaque
And put it back up at what is left of dartford train station
"Gold rings on ya Bill" Keith says, patting the metal detector with his hands and smiling his sly grin

I am working on the screenplay for this.

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Naturalust
The "formation" of The Rolling Stones was much more than getting the musicians together. One could even argue that The Beatles were involved in forming the Stones.

I've been trying to think of a better way to word the writing on the plaque and it's actually tough to come up with something that says as much with as few words.

peace

the stones were already a band when they met the beatles.now you're just throwing stuff out there because you're bored and want to say something.
i cringe when these conversations veer off into this kind of nonsense.

it's embarrassing to the board actually,people come here because of the tour and read long time posters saying the beatles formed the stones,that they cant understand the concept of a person starting a band.,that the band had in mind wasnt the eventual line-up[you mean the one with chuck leavell?]..

if you go on stonesdougs site and ask who started the stones they'll say brian,if you go on rocks off and ask they'll say brian,because this is something every hardcore stones fans knows...

and we're sitting with.."well what is the exact meaning of "formation"..maybe the beatles did it..it's pathetic.

Quote
duke richardson
Keith has said many time it was Stu's band..

lem motlow-

no disputing facts. Brian started the Rollin' Stones. no argument there.

he assholed himself out of the Rolling Stones too.