Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
Thrylan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What NL said. Some of the most interesting weaving is rhythm playing, imo. Rhythm licks traded back and forth.

You mentioned a couple of ER tracks........IMO, 78'-80' period, SG and ER, epitomise weaving. SSC in another great example.

Perfect example
That was a fantastic period...in your spare time check out a lil tune called Munich Hilton...

Hot.......This period is COMPLETELY underrated. Love all the slap echo.....love the guitar tone of this period. I suggested on here before that 77'-81' may in hindsight prove to be as fertile or more so than the beloved 68'-72' period.

I had a Rotten Roll at the Munich Hilton once......

Looks like a bit of a roll back of the rewrite of history is going to happen.

Good.

[www.bbc.com]

Rolling Stones plaque 'disgusts' Bill Wyman

A plaque marking the meeting between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards is to be replaced after The Rolling Stones' former bassist Bill Wyman objected.

The blue plaque, unveiled at Dartford station in February, says the pair "went on to form The Rolling Stones".

But Wyman complained, saying guitarist Brian Jones created The Rolling Stones and enlisted the other members.

"I've never upset a Rolling Stone before but we are going to put it right," said councillor Jeremy Kite.
The plaque unveiled in February says Jagger and Richards formed The Rolling Stones

Jagger and Richards both went to Wentworth Primary School but met up again on platform two of Dartford station in Kent on 17 October 1961.

They bonded over a love of the blues and formed a musical friendship that still endures.

Wyman, who left the band in 1993, told BBC Radio 5 live the plaque was disgusting.

"Mick Jagger and Keith Richards didn't create the Rolling Stones - they were part of The Rolling Stones like all of us," he said.

"Brian Jones wanted to form a blues band and he enlisted each member one by one.

"He gave the name The Rolling Stones, he chose the music and he was the leader."

Guitarist Jones drowned in the swimming pool of his home at Cotchford Farm in Hartfield, East Sussex in 1969 after taking a cocktail of drink and drugs.

Dartford council leader Mr Kite said the plaque was intended to commemorate the meeting of the two Dartford sons, not the formation of The Rolling Stones.

But he said it would be taken down and replaced by another with new wording.

"Accuracy in history is really, really important and we want it to be right," he said.

"We will create a new plaque which makes it clear that this is where Mick met Keith and went on to be part of The Rolling Stones."

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Yes thanks in part to your efforts Captain! The councilman mentions your letter in the interview. That must feel good.

Seems the whole thing will be corrected by changing one word. "went on to form" will likely be changed to "went on to join".

All sounds reasonable to me but Bill's still going to be miffed that Brian didn't get a mention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-26 01:20 by Naturalust.

It's still not right if it implies that that's where they met for the first time, as opposed to knowing each other at school years earlier. Perhaps we should word the plaque ourselves, For the Benefit of Mr Kite.

Quote
Naturalust
Yes thanks in part to your efforts Captain! The councilman mentions your letter in the interview. That must feel good.

Seems the whole thing will be corrected by changing one word. "went of to form" will likely be changed to "went on to join".

All sounds reasonable to me but Bill's still going to be miffed that Brian didn't get a mention.

Hey, where's the mention of my letter? Bill was the one who went ballistic.

And, Aquamarine, grevious though the temptation, I've tried really hard to avoid the word "Benefit" in my correspondence on this issue. This is too serious to muddle it with that other band's songs.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

No Jones No Stones

Oh, who cares, really?

Jones' forming of the group is such a banal fact, considering that it's Jagger and Richards' song-writing that is key to their ultimate longevity and remembrance.

tomato, to-mah-to

overall, Mick and Keith's songwriting has had a bigger influence imo but they might have never even gotten famous, not to mention written together, if it hadn't been for Brian reaching out to the right people at the right time.

Quote
CaptainCorella

Hey, where's the mention of my letter?

Listen to the interview. He mentions a letter from a fan, you cracked the door open. Give yourself a bit of credit, you deserve it.

Quote
King Bee
No Jones No Stones

No Jagger No Stones
No Richard(s) No Stones

The three of them formed the Rolling Stones.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

No Charlie - No Swing



ROCKMAN

Quote
Aquamarine
It's still not right if it implies that that's where they met for the first time, as opposed to knowing each other at school years earlier. Perhaps we should word the plaque ourselves, For the Benefit of Mr Kite.

LOL! ><

Quote
Rockman
No Charlie - No Swing

Yup, and if ain't got that swing, it don't mean a thing!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

in addition to forming the band, i believe brian supplied the band with a heavy shot of blues that was otherwise lacking. this obviously is a core part of the band's identity, and is thanks to brian primarily. and that's exactly why they went out and hired mick taylor to replace brian - they felt they needed a guitarist with a heavy blues influence and MT was the best available. keith's position was as the chuck berry r-n-r guitarist in both of those combinations. (and yes i know keith liked the blues and brian and MT played chuck berry...)

in the mid 70s they'd left the blues legacy far far behind - reggae and country were more interesting - and the goal for the second guitarist was to lubricate mick and keith's relationship, and they went a completely different direction.

i believe these simple facts explain a lot of the tension in arguments between stones fans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-26 02:55 by Turner68.

When was the train station story first told?

Quote
MingSubu
When was the train station story first told?

The evening of 17 October 1961

Mick: oy mum I saw me old mate keef today at the station!
Mick's mum: Keith Richards? That naughty boy! You stay away from 'Im now you hear? He's nowt but trouble

Quote
Turner68
in addition to forming the band, i believe brian supplied the band with a heavy shot of blues that was otherwise lacking. this obviously is a core part of the band's identity, and is thanks to brian primarily. and that's exactly why they went out and hired mick taylor to replace brian - they felt they needed a guitarist with a heavy blues influence and MT was the best available. keith's position was as the chuck berry r-n-r guitarist in both of those combinations. (and yes i know keith liked the blues and brian and MT played chuck berry...)

in the mid 70s they'd left the blues legacy far far behind - reggae and country were more interesting - and the goal for the second guitarist was to lubricate mick and keith's relationship, and they went a completely different direction.

i believe these simple facts explain a lot of the tension in arguments between stones fans.

All of which explains why Aftermath, Between The Buttons and Satanic Majesties (and even Flowers) were so heavily blues influenced.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Deltics

Quote
Turner68
in addition to forming the band, i believe brian supplied the band with a heavy shot of blues that was otherwise lacking. this obviously is a core part of the band's identity, and is thanks to brian primarily. and that's exactly why they went out and hired mick taylor to replace brian - they felt they needed a guitarist with a heavy blues influence and MT was the best available. keith's position was as the chuck berry r-n-r guitarist in both of those combinations. (and yes i know keith liked the blues and brian and MT played chuck berry...)

in the mid 70s they'd left the blues legacy far far behind - reggae and country were more interesting - and the goal for the second guitarist was to lubricate mick and keith's relationship, and they went a completely different direction.

i believe these simple facts explain a lot of the tension in arguments between stones fans.

All of which explains why Aftermath, Between The Buttons and Satanic Majesties (and even Flowers) were so heavily blues influenced.

not sure what you are talking about, since obviously they aren't. i suggest listening to the first couple rolling stones records and then beggar's banquet however.

Quote
Rockman
No Charlie - No Swing

No Ron, no slide......><

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Rockman
No Charlie - No Swing

No Ron, no slide......><

No Chuck, no.... oh, never mind...

Quote
Turner68


No Chuck, no.... oh, never mind...

No Chuck, .... Ben Waters!

Maybe I'm missing somthing with the complaint. My understanding is the plaque
is at the Dartford rail platform. This was designed to mark the spot Mick and Keith meet again after many years as an interesting point of interest.

Quote
swimtothemoon
Maybe I'm missing somthing with the complaint. My understanding is the plaque
is at the Dartford rail platform. This was designed to mark the spot Mick and Keith meet again after many years as an interesting point of interest.

What you are missing is the fact that the original plaque claimed that they FORMED The Rolling Stones.

Without question it was an important encounter, and they are without question central to the ongoing success of the band, but they didn't form it.

Brian Jones did.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
swimtothemoon
Maybe I'm missing somthing with the complaint. My understanding is the plaque
is at the Dartford rail platform. This was designed to mark the spot Mick and Keith meet again after many years as an interesting point of interest.

You are correct. The stated problem was with the plaque wording which stated Mick and keith went on to "form" the Rolling Stones. People took the narrow definition of "form" to mean they created the band and that's the whole issue really. People are sticklers about RS history and Brian's role in particular.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
swimtothemoon
Maybe I'm missing somthing with the complaint. My understanding is the plaque
is at the Dartford rail platform. This was designed to mark the spot Mick and Keith meet again after many years as an interesting point of interest.

You are correct. The stated problem was with the plaque wording which stated Mick and keith went on to "form" the Rolling Stones. People took the narrow definition of "form" to mean they created the band and that's the whole issue really. People are sticklers about RS history and Brian's role in particular.

Form in the sense used in the plaque does mean created. It is clear to a native speaker. Did stonestod and gazza form IORR? No. Did Ringo and George form the Beatles? No. Did Eric Clapton form the yardbirds? No.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
swimtothemoon
Maybe I'm missing somthing with the complaint. My understanding is the plaque
is at the Dartford rail platform. This was designed to mark the spot Mick and Keith meet again after many years as an interesting point of interest.

You are correct. The stated problem was with the plaque wording which stated Mick and keith went on to "form" the Rolling Stones. People took the narrow definition of "form" to mean they created the band and that's the whole issue really. People are sticklers about RS history and Brian's role in particular.

Form in the sense used in the plaque does mean created. It is clear to a native speaker. Did stonestod and gazza form IORR? No. Did Ringo and George form the Beatles? No. Did Eric Clapton form the yardbirds? No.

Without Brian there would have been no Rolling Stones. I do think that is forgotten among the masses. You could also say Ian Stewart played an important
role as well. Mick and Keith along with...might have been more appropriate.

guys....hahaha!

when there is more then one instrument playing..it's weaving.

how interesting the result of the NEW piece of music that has now been created is up to the players and their chemistry

I can't believe there's even talk about this...how funny.

Keith uses the term mainly in reference to guitarplayers being able to intertwine chording and riffing/soloing at will...this takes a certain talent and genuine sense of excitement and an ear for the whole sound while making the music....in short,rock and roll.

A bass is a guitar too...only with larger strings and less of 'em

Ah whatever, it's all just energy

[www.youtube.com]

Superb version of BOB...everybody in top form on one of the best songs ever( wow, Ronnie!!)..

Listen to DJ....he adds...nothing. plays the same line..same tempo..for minutes, wtf! is he even there in his mind?

unreal...if BW was playing here, it would have been better then the 81 live version.

Bill Wyman seems like a tool to me and he can't wait to tell everybody what he did with his tool.

He didn't even play bass on JJF.

As far as I know, Brian was with Stu and Mick was with Keith and they all joined up, so someone starting it is not it, it was a combining.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-28 13:05 by howled.

Quote
King Bee
No Jones No Stones

I like this. Its almost something a crowd could chant. Its not true but I like it.

Here let me try one

No beers no hangover....wait, that doesn't rhyme