For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Mathijs
How tragic it is, but the fact that Jones was replaced with Taylor gave the Stones new life, and 10 years more. I am sure they would have vanished like 98% of all other 1960's bands without the fresh blood of a hot new young lead guitar player. Same for Ron Wood -they would not have survived the punk years with Taylor, but managed to reinvent themselves with Wood. Part of the Stones longevity is the fact that they changed personnel.
Quote
Taylor1
Do you think the main reason in June 1969 that Mick and Keith asked Brian to leave was he could not get a visa to tour in America.
Quote
Taylor1
Well,he was still a young man.If he had cleaned up,maybe in a couple of years he could have contributed musically.Eric Clapton was horrible zombieat The Concert for Bangladesh and played bad,with Jesse Ed Davis having to brought in at the last minute to cover for him.And he cleaned up and was great again .So maybe in 1972 or 1973 there may have been a new Brian.
Quote
doitywoik
The question of questions: would there have ever been EOMS with Brian instead of Mick T? (Or SF?)
Quote
His Majesty
Brian was effectively done being a serious musician by 1969, maybe even 1968. John Mayall has commented in his recent book about being at Cotchford in 1969 and trying to play with Brian. Not a pretty picture at all. Brian's rhythm etc all shot to @#$%&.
The visa thing was a handy excuse to force an end to the long drawn out pain Brian was putting himself and the band through. He didn't have the balls to leave of his own accord so they forced the issue.
...
The virtuoso thing was not a must have, people would love the stones regardless. Keith soloing was unique and cool enough to carry them through that stuff anyway.
There is only what happened though and the greatness of what followed is clear for all to hear.
Quote
Spud
Sadly...and unlike Keith...Brian wasn't a "functional Junkie" .
Maybe he could have straightened out and come through it ...but we'll never know.
Quote
24FPSQuote
Taylor1
Well,he was still a young man.If he had cleaned up,maybe in a couple of years he could have contributed musically.Eric Clapton was horrible zombieat The Concert for Bangladesh and played bad,with Jesse Ed Davis having to brought in at the last minute to cover for him.And he cleaned up and was great again .So maybe in 1972 or 1973 there may have been a new Brian.
That's so hard to say. He wasn't much of a lead guitar player, didn't write songs, couldn't sing, or wouldn't. Others were surpassing him on slide. When was Brian still great? '65? That's a long way to come back from.
Quote
georgie48Quote
24FPSQuote
Taylor1
Well,he was still a young man.If he had cleaned up,maybe in a couple of years he could have contributed musically.Eric Clapton was horrible zombieat The Concert for Bangladesh and played bad,with Jesse Ed Davis having to brought in at the last minute to cover for him.And he cleaned up and was great again .So maybe in 1972 or 1973 there may have been a new Brian.
That's so hard to say. He wasn't much of a lead guitar player, didn't write songs, couldn't sing, or wouldn't. Others were surpassing him on slide. When was Brian still great? '65? That's a long way to come back from.
None of the members of the Stones were ever great. The power of the Stones was/is in the collective. Brian's important contribution (not so much as a guitarist) to the Stones went as far as 1968, which was confirmed by the other band members. He added a lot of color to the Mick/Keith songs. But yes, it became less and less.
Quote
duke richardsonQuote
georgie48Quote
24FPSQuote
Taylor1
Well,he was still a young man.If he had cleaned up,maybe in a couple of years he could have contributed musically.Eric Clapton was horrible zombieat The Concert for Bangladesh and played bad,with Jesse Ed Davis having to brought in at the last minute to cover for him.And he cleaned up and was great again .So maybe in 1972 or 1973 there may have been a new Brian.
That's so hard to say. He wasn't much of a lead guitar player, didn't write songs, couldn't sing, or wouldn't. Others were surpassing him on slide. When was Brian still great? '65? That's a long way to come back from.
None of the members of the Stones were ever great. The power of the Stones was/is in the collective. Brian's important contribution (not so much as a guitarist) to the Stones went as far as 1968, which was confirmed by the other band members. He added a lot of color to the Mick/Keith songs. But yes, it became less and less.
To me it’s the consistently high quality of the songs , in addition to their collective chemistry. But when you say none of the Stones was ever great I assume you mean as a virtuoso musician.. but I think you’d have to say for sure that Mick Jagger was always a great frontman. not a great singer but nobody is better as a frontman.
Quote
Taylor1
It was only a short period of time that Brianwas playing badly in the Stones,December1968until May 1969.Fromthe bootlegs I’ve heard ,he played fine on the 1967 tour.Marianne Faithful said he played great at the NME 1968 concert..Check out his playing on Ruby Tuesday’s the 1967 tour.And even though he wasn’t fully engaged on Beggar’sBanquet,his guitar onNo Expectaions,mellotron on JigsawPuzzle and Stray CatBlues,and sitar on Street Fighting Man is great.A lot of the opinion of how much he had deteriorated was based on his performance at the Rock n Roll Circus.But evenhis poor performance there can be attributed somewhat to him not going on stage until 300in the morning after doing drugs all day .Moreover ,I think he had lost interest in the band by 1969.But he didn’t lose his abilities as a musician.He could have rehabilitated himself had he lived.
Quote
georgie48Quote
24FPSQuote
Taylor1
Well,he was still a young man.If he had cleaned up,maybe in a couple of years he could have contributed musically.Eric Clapton was horrible zombieat The Concert for Bangladesh and played bad,with Jesse Ed Davis having to brought in at the last minute to cover for him.And he cleaned up and was great again .So maybe in 1972 or 1973 there may have been a new Brian.
That's so hard to say. He wasn't much of a lead guitar player, didn't write songs, couldn't sing, or wouldn't. Others were surpassing him on slide. When was Brian still great? '65? That's a long way to come back from.
None of the members of the Stones were ever great. The power of the Stones was/is in the collective. Brian's important contribution (not so much as a guitarist) to the Stones went as far as 1968, which was confirmed by the other band members. He added a lot of color to the Mick/Keith songs. But yes, it became less and less.
Quote
24FPSQuote
georgie48Quote
24FPSQuote
Taylor1
Well,he was still a young man.If he had cleaned up,maybe in a couple of years he could have contributed musically.Eric Clapton was horrible zombieat The Concert for Bangladesh and played bad,with Jesse Ed Davis having to brought in at the last minute to cover for him.And he cleaned up and was great again .So maybe in 1972 or 1973 there may have been a new Brian.
That's so hard to say. He wasn't much of a lead guitar player, didn't write songs, couldn't sing, or wouldn't. Others were surpassing him on slide. When was Brian still great? '65? That's a long way to come back from.
None of the members of the Stones were ever great. The power of the Stones was/is in the collective. Brian's important contribution (not so much as a guitarist) to the Stones went as far as 1968, which was confirmed by the other band members. He added a lot of color to the Mick/Keith songs. But yes, it became less and less.
No Stones were great? Keith was the greatest Chuck Berry interpreter of all time. Listen to Bill Wyman backing Junior Wells/Buddy Guy/and Muddy Waters at Montreaux in 1974. He's fantastic. Totally different from his Stones playing.
Quote
Taylor1Quote
24FPSQuote
georgie48Brian played great flute in Paris 1967 live, so I have a hard time believing his musical skills were gone by 1969.Quote
24FPSQuote
Taylor1
Well,he was still a young man.If he had cleaned up,maybe in a couple of years he could have contributed musically.Eric Clapton was horrible zombieat The Concert for Bangladesh and played bad,with Jesse Ed Davis having to brought in at the last minute to cover for him.And he cleaned up and was great again .So maybe in 1972 or 1973 there may have been a new Brian.
That's so hard to say. He wasn't much of a lead guitar player, didn't write songs, couldn't sing, or wouldn't. Others were surpassing him on slide. When was Brian still great? '65? That's a long way to come back from.
None of the members of the Stones were ever great. The power of the Stones was/is in the collective. Brian's important contribution (not so much as a guitarist) to the Stones went as far as 1968, which was confirmed by the other band members. He added a lot of color to the Mick/Keith songs. But yes, it became less and less.
No Stones were great? Keith was the greatest Chuck Berry interpreter of all time. Listen to Bill Wyman backing Junior Wells/Buddy Guy/and Muddy Waters at Montreaux in 1974. He's fantastic. Totally different from his Stones playing.
Quote
Taylor1
It was only a short period of time that Brianwas playing badly in the Stones,December1968until May 1969.Fromthe bootlegs I’ve heard ,he played fine on the 1967 tour.Marianne Faithful said he played great at the NME 1968 concert..Check out his playing on Ruby Tuesday’s the 1967 tour.And even though he wasn’t fully engaged on Beggar’sBanquet,his guitar onNo Expectaions,mellotron on JigsawPuzzle and Stray CatBlues,and sitar on Street Fighting Man is great.A lot of the opinion of how much he had deteriorated was based on his performance at the Rock n Roll Circus.But evenhis poor performance there can be attributed somewhat to him not going on stage until 300in the morning after doing drugs all day .Moreover ,I think he had lost interest in the band by 1969.But he didn’t lose his abilities as a musician.He could have rehabilitated himself had he lived.