Quote
His Majesty

Quote
HMS
They would have ended up sounding like THE ROLLING STONES. At the end it´s all Keith n Mick. Another drummer, bass player, guitarplayer would have only slightly affected the sound of the band. The songs would have been the same anyway, since they are all written by Jagger/Richards.

I dont know why some people constantly underrate Jagger/Richards as a creative working unit and overrate the contributions of soldiers like MT, Bill or Charlie. Ian Stewart is completely right. It´s Keith´s riffs and Mick´s trademark voice that are the essence of the Stones-sound, certainly not the way Charlie bangs his drums. And Bill Wyman isn´t even featured on a lot of Stones-tracks. To compare the Stones with losers like The Pretty Things is very offensive. A team like Jagger/Richards with their songwriting qualities and their personal charisma never had met the fate of the countless R n B-bands of the 60s. Most of them are all long gone and forgotten, because they simply weren´t talented enough to create a style of their own like Jagger/Richards did. Would you dare to say the Beatles would have ended up like countless anonymous Beat-bands without Ringo banging the drums?

Change one thing and all that follows changes.

Yeah, no kidding.. not least, to imagine NO Brian Jones up on stage with Mick and Keith at the very start. That begins to change the dynamics immediately...not just musically, but behind the scenes (who does Keith room with in that coldest of winters?), and image-wise on stage - does the frenzy still start? Is it as intense?

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah, no kidding.. not least, to imagine NO Brian Jones up on stage with Mick and Keith at the very start. That begins to change the dynamics immediately...not just musically, but behind the scenes (who does Keith room with in that coldest of winters?), and image-wise on stage - does the frenzy still start? Is it as intense?

If there had never been a Brian Jones, then there would have been another guy with strange hairdo on stage, maybe he would have played the guitar even better, who knows. It doesn´t matter really.

Brian or no Brian, people would have gone nuts anyway as long as there would have been a Mick Jagger onstage. It was Keith and Mick as a powerful team who turned a R n B-coverband into the greatest Rock n Roll Band in the world. The sidemen (I prefer the term *soldier*) have little if anything to do with the development of the band. If Brian would have stayed healthy and alive, he would have left the Stones anyway. In this band is only room for two generals and Brian would have never been satisfied being only a soldier. Bill and Charlie on the other hand would have never had a career as musicians without Mick and Keith as bandmates. Even today Charlie can hardly believe what miracle happened to him back then. Without Mick and Keith he would now be a jazzplayer in small clubs, struggling very hard to make a living. He is very aware of the fact that he would be nothing without Keith n Mick. That´s why he stands so loyal to the band.

Anyway, we would have all the wonderful music even if the soldiers weren´t Jack and Joe but Jim and Jeff. In the end it´s all Keith, Keith, Keith and Mick, Mick, Mick.

Quote
HMS

Quote
SweetThing
Yeah, no kidding.. not least, to imagine NO Brian Jones up on stage with Mick and Keith at the very start. That begins to change the dynamics immediately...not just musically, but behind the scenes (who does Keith room with in that coldest of winters?), and image-wise on stage - does the frenzy still start? Is it as intense?

If there had never been a Brian Jones, then there would have been another guy with strange hairdo on stage, maybe he would have played the guitar even better, who knows. It doesn´t matter really.

Brian or no Brian, people would have gone nuts anyway as long as there would have been a Mick Jagger onstage. It was Keith and Mick as a powerful team who turned a R n B-coverband into the greatest Rock n Roll Band in the world. The sidemen (I prefer the term *soldier*) have little if anything to do with the development of the band. If Brian would have stayed healthy and alive, he would have left the Stones anyway. In this band is only room for two generals and Brian would have never been satisfied being only a soldier. Bill and Charlie on the other hand would have never had a career as musicians without Mick and Keith as bandmates. Even today Charlie can hardly believe what miracle happened to him back then. Without Mick and Keith he would now be a jazzplayer in small clubs, struggling very hard to make a living. He is very aware of the fact that he would be nothing without Keith n Mick. That´s why he stands so loyal to the band.

Anyway, we would have all the wonderful music even if the soldiers weren´t Jack and Joe but Jim and Jeff. In the end it´s all Keith, Keith, Keith and Mick, Mick, Mick.

Nope.. No Jones, No Stones.

Wyman was sooo replaceable. Charlie, not so. Jordan banks the drums too loud for The Stones

In reality, the Stones did not continue without Wyman. Sure, they kept the name, but it was never really the Rolling Stones after Wyman left.

Quote
Turner68
In reality, the Stones did not continue without Wyman. Sure, they kept the name, but it was never really the Rolling Stones after Wyman left.

I'm pleased you returned: you make a worthy adversary.

Could one therefore not just as easily say that the Stones were never 'really the Rolling Stones' following the departure of...

Ian Stewart?

Brian Jones?

.....

Olly.

Quote
Turner68
In reality, the Stones did not continue without Wyman. Sure, they kept the name, but it was never really the Rolling Stones after Wyman left.

It amazes me that you've got on one side people who feel that it's entirely obvious that Wyman's departure made a fundamental change to the band, and on the other people who think that anybody but Jagger-Richards is disposable and irrelevant. It's as if we're not listening to the same band.

Quote
Olly

Quote
Turner68
In reality, the Stones did not continue without Wyman. Sure, they kept the name, but it was never really the Rolling Stones after Wyman left.

I'm pleased you returned: you make a worthy adversary.

Could one therefore not just as easily say that the Stones were never 'really the Rolling Stones' following the departure of...

Ian Stewart?

Brian Jones?

Thanks... Good be here. Good to be...

I think it's a matter of taste. You certainly can argue that when Ian passed during the Dirty Work sessions the Stones were over.

It's harder to argue that about Brian passing since Sticky Fingers and EOMS were still to be recorded, but I certainly respect those who say No Jones, No Stones.

For me, since I first saw them on the Steel Wheels tour, I like to think that they were still the Stones. Similarly, I suspect that those who argue that it wasn't a big deal that Wyman left are also those who never saw live the band with Wyman in it.

Quote
Turner68
...You certainly can argue that when Ian passed during the Dirty Work sessions the Stones were over...

Interesting. I was actually alluding to his leaving the original line up; the first time the original version of the band had been disturbed.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
Turner68
...You certainly can argue that when Ian passed during the Dirty Work sessions the Stones were over...

Interesting. I was actually alluding to his leaving the original line up; the first time the original version of the band had been disturbed.

Did I miss something ?
- Brian left/was kicked
- MT left
- Stu died
- BW left

Quote
Olly

Quote
Turner68
...You certainly can argue that when Ian passed during the Dirty Work sessions the Stones were over...

Interesting. I was actually alluding to his leaving the original line up; the first time the original version of the band had been disturbed.

Ah, I see. Well, you can tell from my saying that when Wyman left the Stones the band was over, that I'm less concerned with the name (i.e., the band called the stones since they can call anything they want the stones as long as they control the name) and more what we know and listen to as the stones (a subjective view point to be sure, as I've acknowledged).

So i'd argue that regardless of whether Ian was called a member of the band, he was still essentially with the band we know and listen to as the Stones up until his passing in the 80s.

Quote
bv
No Charlie No Stones

Correct...They will then tour as the Glimmer Twins

Quote
Turner68
In reality, the Stones did not continue without Wyman. Sure, they kept the name, but it was never really the Rolling Stones after Wyman left.

It was never really The Rolling Stones after Brian left.

Quote
Olly

Interesting. I was actually alluding to his leaving the original line up; the first time the original version of the band had been disturbed.

Ian was still around to influence things when he wanted to until he died. An important distinction from someone leaving a band. ALO told me that the removal of Ian was visual, not a musical thing. He sometimes played piano behind the wings and continued to play on recordings he felt like it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-14 04:09 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Olly

Interesting. I was actually alluding to his leaving the original line up; the first time the original version of the band had been disturbed.

Ian was still around to influence things when he wanted to until he died. An important distinction from someone leaving a band. ALO told me that the removal of Ian was visual, not a musical thing. He sometimes played piano behind the wings and continued to play on recordings he felt like it.

Whoaaa...I never knew Ian played in Wings...

Quote
HMS

If there had never been a Brian Jones, then there would have been another guy with strange hairdo on stage, maybe he would have played the guitar even better, who knows. It doesn´t matter really.

Brian or no Brian, people would have gone nuts anyway as long as there would have been a Mick Jagger onstage. It was Keith and Mick as a powerful team who turned a R n B-coverband into the greatest Rock n Roll Band in the world. The sidemen (I prefer the term *soldier*) have little if anything to do with the development of the band. If Brian would have stayed healthy and alive, he would have left the Stones anyway. In this band is only room for two generals and Brian would have never been satisfied being only a soldier. Bill and Charlie on the other hand would have never had a career as musicians without Mick and Keith as bandmates. Even today Charlie can hardly believe what miracle happened to him back then. Without Mick and Keith he would now be a jazzplayer in small clubs, struggling very hard to make a living. He is very aware of the fact that he would be nothing without Keith n Mick. That´s why he stands so loyal to the band.

Anyway, we would have all the wonderful music even if the soldiers weren´t Jack and Joe but Jim and Jeff. In the end it´s all Keith, Keith, Keith and Mick, Mick, Mick.

If there had been no Brian Jones you might not have had events kick started which lead to the forming of the band that became The Rolling Stones which then achieved some success as a cover band.

Mick and Keith are to all intent and purposes no different to the other thousands of wanna be R&B enthusiasts wishing they were black blues men in the delta.

Without THAT particular set up and circumstances which all lead to further situations they maybe don't get that initial success thus they don't have an oppurtunity to progress in to song writing etc etc.

They remain shit kickers from Dartford. This is as much to do with luck and chance as it is to do with talent.

They all basically got @#$%& lucky with the line up, situation, timing etc etc and rode with it as best they could. Change members at start and it might have been them that wrote songs straight away and Mick and Keith were left as "soldiers".

Pretty Things is perfect example of an R&B band that never quite got passed being popular on their own turf. The basic fate for the majority of R&B bands at the time. It's no insult to compare a different stones line up to them. The stones might have ended up much the same had circumstance, luck etc etc pushed them in a different direction.

Life and fate are fragile, silly to argue about what ifs, but to say all the good stuff would have happened regardless of who tthe others were is nuts. This was not achieved by two people.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-14 07:54 by His Majesty.

Sure, Mick & Keith wrote the songs, but they were a group even before that happened. The Greatest Cover Band in the World....the Rolling Stones. And it was the individual members melded together that created a sound long before Jagger/Richards started churning out the songs. The Stones are/were more of an instrumental unit than the Beatles. There was an instrumental chemistry in the Stones that makes covers of their songs unsatisfactory.

Sure, Bill wasn't on a handful of their great singles, but he was on most of the ones that mattered. Satisfaction is good song with just Keith's fuzz. With Wyman's counterpoint bass it's a timeless smash. Ronnie and Keith played on a few good songs, especially Keith, but, excepting Sympathy, Bill showed live that Keith's lines were child's play for him to imitate or improve on. Pick up on Bill playing Live With Me live for a thrill.

So different from the Beatles. Paul could do songs without the others. John did some powerful solo stuff like We All Shine On. But the Stones are not the Stones without the Stones.

Gotta agree with 24fps and His Majesty.