Not sure if this has already been posted, but this was filmed the 2nd night in Paris, I believe. Wish there were more interviews and pro shot video from this tour.

[youtu.be]

Nice thanks - I'm grateful I was able to see and hear Ian during the '81 tour.

"Ian Stewart. I'm still working for him. To me The Rolling Stones is his band.
Without his knowledge and organisation... we'd be nowhere." - Keith (from Life)

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Mick Jagger: I don't think the Rolling Stones would ever have got going if it hadn't been for him [Ian Stewart]...

Oh, lord. When are they going to stop this pathetic revisionism? I think Mick means Brian Jones, doesn't he, who formed the band?

They've had so many keyboardists to fill Stu's role since then, who they fired let's not forget, just so they could get their shot at fame, but how many Brian Joneses?

Maybe that's why Mick won't work with ABKCO to make expanded releases of their sixties catalogue -- because it will bring to light the important contributions of their -- intentionally -- forgotten founding member.

Here's a quote from Bill Wyman dated 1985:

"Without him (Ian) there would have been no Rolling Stones. He will be absolutely irreplaceable as a person and a member of the group.
He always used to call us things like, My little 3-chord wonders. But we'd never go onstage until Ian Stewart said it was time to go on".

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
stonehearted
Mick Jagger: I don't think the Rolling Stones would ever have got going if it hadn't been for him [Ian Stewart]...

Oh, lord. When are they going to stop this pathetic revisionism? I think Mick means Brian Jones, doesn't he, who formed the band?

They've had so many keyboardists to fill Stu's role since then, who they fired let's not forget, just so they could get their shot at fame, but how many Brian Joneses?

Maybe that's why Mick won't work with ABKCO to make expanded releases of their sixties catalogue -- because it will bring to light the important contributions of their -- intentionally -- forgotten founding member.

Brian formed the band, but was he the driving force when it came to organising, driving to the gigs, making sure people were ready etc.?

I don't think so.

So, what Mick and Keith say sounds correct in that respect.

It should be added that he was lightyears ahead of the others musically as well (this might be why Keith has stressed his importance when they started out).

That said, Brian's importance can't, and should never, be diminished.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
Mick Jagger: I don't think the Rolling Stones would ever have got going if it hadn't been for him [Ian Stewart]...

Oh, lord. When are they going to stop this pathetic revisionism? I think Mick means Brian Jones, doesn't he, who formed the band?

They've had so many keyboardists to fill Stu's role since then, who they fired let's not forget, just so they could get their shot at fame, but how many Brian Joneses?

Maybe that's why Mick won't work with ABKCO to make expanded releases of their sixties catalogue -- because it will bring to light the important contributions of their -- intentionally -- forgotten founding member.

Brian formed the band, but was he the driving force when it came to organising, driving to the gigs, making sure people were ready etc.?

I don't think so.

So, what Mick and Keith say sounds correct in that respect.

It should be added that he was lightyears ahead of the others musically as well (this might be why Keith has stressed his importance when they started out)o.

That said, Brian's importance can't, and should never, be diminished.

That said, Brian's importance can't, and should never, be EDITED, you are correct, let's not forget where it started



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-21 11:34 by midimannz.

Quote
midimannz

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
stonehearted
Mick Jagger: I don't think the Rolling Stones would ever have got going if it hadn't been for him [Ian Stewart]...

Oh, lord. When are they going to stop this pathetic revisionism? I think Mick means Brian Jones, doesn't he, who formed the band?

They've had so many keyboardists to fill Stu's role since then, who they fired let's not forget, just so they could get their shot at fame, but how many Brian Joneses?

Maybe that's why Mick won't work with ABKCO to make expanded releases of their sixties catalogue -- because it will bring to light the important contributions of their -- intentionally -- forgotten founding member.

Brian formed the band, but was he the driving force when it came to organising, driving to the gigs, making sure people were ready etc.?

I don't think so.

So, what Mick and Keith say sounds correct in that respect.

It should be added that he was lightyears ahead of the others musically as well (this might be why Keith has stressed his importance when they started out)o.

That said, Brian's importance can't, and should never, be diminished.

That said, Brian's importance can't, and should never, be EDITED, you are correct, let's not forget where it started

Agreed, but when Mick and Keith say «there probably wouldn't have been a band without Stu», they're talking about a different thing than the foundation of it and having a plan for its musical direction (which Brian did, luckily).

Folks are overthinking this.

What they mean is that if it weren't for Stu , they'd never have made it to any gigs or rehearsals, wouldn't have had much functional kit... and would probably have seldom got out of bed in the morning

Quote
Spud
Folks are overthinking this.

What they mean is that if it weren't for Stu , they'd never have made it to any gigs or rehearsals, wouldn't have had much functional kit... and would probably have seldom got out of bed in the morning

And don't forget Keith's quote, after Stu passed:

«Who's gonna tell us now, when we misbehave»..

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Spud
Folks are overthinking this.

What they mean is that if it weren't for Stu , they'd never have made it to any gigs or rehearsals, wouldn't have had much functional kit... and would probably have seldom got out of bed in the morning

And don't forget Keith's quote, after Stu passed:

«Who's gonna tell us now, when we misbehave»..

Seems like Keith was up for the job.

If you want to know how important Stu was to The Rolling Stones, ask yourself one question, in two parts: How many Stones tours before Stu's passing had an acoustic piano on stage and how many tours after Stu's passing had an acoustic piano on stage?

No matter how good the Stones hired keyboard players (Hopkins, McClagen, Preston, Levell, Clifton) were/are, they only got an acoustic piano on stage if Stu was there. Why? Because Stu said so and the Stones valued him and his opinion enough to say yes.

We can all read the liner notes, press releases and reporting about the Stones all we want and come to the determination of who is/was or is/was not a Rolling Stone. We can debate for ever about who was the most important Stone at any part of their career. The two clinchers for me in answering different forms of those questions are: Who did the Stones insist on having inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (8 band members) and who got an acoustic piano on stage?

Another point of reference: People talk endlessly about the different era's of the Stones and which are better or best... Jones, Taylor, Wood, etc. Many people lament what are referred to as "the Vegas" years... All I know is that Stu was there for all of the "greatest" eras but the Vegas years didn't start until after his passing. Yes, Stu answered to the Stones, but I have a feeling that he might have been the only person that the Stones ever considered answering to (though Anita and maybe Andrew/Klein may have to be considered as well).

Debate Stu's importance all you want, I could be wrong.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
stonehearted
Mick Jagger: I don't think the Rolling Stones would ever have got going if it hadn't been for him [Ian Stewart]...

Oh, lord. When are they going to stop this pathetic revisionism? I think Mick means Brian Jones, doesn't he, who formed the band?

They've had so many keyboardists to fill Stu's role since then, who they fired let's not forget, just so they could get their shot at fame, but how many Brian Joneses?

Maybe that's why Mick won't work with ABKCO to make expanded releases of their sixties catalogue -- because it will bring to light the important contributions of their -- intentionally -- forgotten founding member.

Stu was much more than just a piano player! Without him, The Rolling Stones anno 1963 would not have been able to move around the country north, south, east, west and play almost every single night, sometimes two times at two different places at the same evening. Stu was the only one with a car; he was the one that transported the band and the equipment around the country. Without his exhausting work in 1963, The Rolling Stones may not have earned their reputation as hard working rock and roll band. Never forget that.

And just for the record, whenever Stu was referred to as the sixth stone, he always replied: In fact, I'm the second stone - meaning he was the first member of the group selected by Brian. It was Brian and Stu who held the auditions in the very beginning, and he was undoubtedly influential in picking Mick, Keith and Dick Taylor.


Plus, it was Stu who persuaded Charlie to join the band, who was the only one friendly to Bill at his first rehearsal and who invited him back, and who convinced Brian not to sack and replace Mick.

I think it's fair to say, that without Ian Stewart The Rolling Stones would have been something else.

The only thing Stu couldn't do was keep the Stones from releasing bunk songs.

Stu speaks!

[www.youtube.com]


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

This is the band’s most recent video interview. And you lot want to argue who was more important?

Quote
mpj200
This is the band’s most recent video interview. And you lot want to argue who was more important?

But I thought that's what a music forum like this was for.

This is the forum that brought Taylor v. Wood to the conversation.

I would contend that the most important Rolling Stone ever was... Dick Taylor.

Quote
Deltics
Stu speaks!

[www.youtube.com]

Thanks for this, I had never heard this interview before.
Intresting that Stu confirms they wanted to replace Brian with Ronnie in 1969 but Ronnie Lane pleaded with them not to pinch him form the Faces.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-12-22 11:28 by Ket.

Keith Richards ought to put on shirt.