We all know how much Ian Stewart meant to the Rolling Stones. He wasn’t just a great player, in the early days he was the ultimate organizer and facilitator, getting them from point A to point B safely and soundly and making sure they had whatever they needed. He was the adult in the room. Without his discipline, it’s hard to imagine them in the early days doing everything that they did.

Something I’ve thought about often is, what if Andrew had not issued the order to remove him from the band roster? Do you think it really would’ve made a difference had he remained? So much of the focus was zeroed in on Mick and Keith and Brian, would the fa b ase have really cared about a sixth member playing piano basically the background? I understand the rationale and how Andrew was coming at it. It was a marketing and public relations decision and those things definitely carry a lot of weight when it comes to commercial success. But was it really necessary?

I would love to know what you think.

no i think the fans would have embraced him like we all have today

but a better question is would ian have been able to stand the fans

it's seems to me he'd have had even more of a dislike for fame then charlie did

also andrew was wrong he more then fit the image of the band

in my opinion

Remember this was the early 60’s. Not today. People would buy an album by what cover they liked. This was the start of the British Invasion. Most of the people would listen with their eyes and not their ears.
But that said. I would of loved to see Stu in all PR promotions.

Knowing the Rolling Stones from the beginning of 1964, I find it hard to answer your question.
But, to start with, if he would have been "projected" as sixth member, his appearance as an "Elvis coupe guy" would certainly not have fitted with the image label that Oldham had put on the band.
Personally I was all in for the way the Stones (partly including Ian at the background) played "their" music. Seeing a band with a piano player sort of next to Charlie would probably have been totally acceptable. Still, a six piece band in those very early 60s blues days would have been odd.
In the end I think Oldham's choice was good for Ian. He was totally happy at the background. "On you go, you three cord wonders" says a lot about how he looked at the madness of those early 60s.
To me and many other fans of those early days he certainly was not invisible, but a real part of it all.
I find "More Hot Rocks" remark "people would buy an album by what cover they liked" totally not recognizeable. When talking to other Stones fans about the Rolling Stones in those early days it was all about their music, not at all about how a sleeve looked like. To me (sorry guys) they were a bunch of ugly guys ... who made great music.



I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

For me Stew was a Rolling Stone and I strongly disagree with Andrew Loog Oldham for pushing Stu to the background . Purely cosmetic BS on the looks aspect versus could he play and sing , which is far more critically important than looks . With the exception of Brian Jones who had looks the rest could have been braking mirrors and cameras with there faces (not you Ronnie ! )

i think if the stones had one "normal" looking guy in the band back then that they could get away with it

they piss where they want and they can have whoever they want in their band!

but can you imagine the questions that ian would have been asked by the press being the normal guy standing next to the rest of them!

he'd be like marilyn in the munsters



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-07-19 19:27 by ProfessorWolf.

Ian Stewart should have remained a band member. He co-founded the band and made some indispensable contributions, for example on Down the Road Apiece. Of course, Nicky Hopkins, Billy Preston were the virtuosos and is Chuck Leavell the more versatile keyboardist. Nicky Hopkins brought the greatest sense of melody (No Expectations), Preston could do it all and Chuck, who I often criticized (Plink Plonk Chuck), is taking a step back on the current tour and fitting in better and better with the band. He is no longer so much in the foreground. Less is often more.

ive always hated Andrew's decision to kick him out.

He was always magnanimous in saying he preferred to be out of the spotlight anyway.

Ive always wondered (and hoped) if the Stones took care of him financially after he became the road manager.

I am absolutely certain that it would have made no difference at all.

The band not inviting Andrew to @#$%& off for even thinking of excluding Ian marks the lowest point in their career.

I re-read Bill and Keith's account of facts it in their respective autobios, and no matter the self-justifying words, the sense of shame is evident.

C

Quote
georgie48
Knowing the Rolling Stones from the beginning of 1964, I find it hard to answer your question.
But, to start with, if he would have been "projected" as sixth member, his appearance as an "Elvis coupe guy" would certainly not have fitted with the image label that Oldham had put on the band.
Personally I was all in for the way the Stones (partly including Ian at the background) played "their" music. Seeing a band with a piano player sort of next to Charlie would probably have been totally acceptable. Still, a six piece band in those very early 60s blues days would have been odd.
In the end I think Oldham's choice was good for Ian. He was totally happy at the background. "On you go, you three cord wonders" says a lot about how he looked at the madness of those early 60s.
To me and many other fans of those early days he certainly was not invisible, but a real part of it all.
I find "More Hot Rocks" remark "people would buy an album by what cover they liked" totally not recognizeable. When talking to other Stones fans about the Rolling Stones in those early days it was all about their music, not at all about how a sleeve looked like. To me (sorry guys) they were a bunch of ugly guys ... who made great music.

thank you for sharing this

Quote
liddas
I am absolutely certain that it would have made no difference at all.

The band not inviting Andrew to @#$%& off for even thinking of excluding Ian marks the lowest point in their career.

I re-read Bill and Keith's account of facts it in their respective autobios, and no matter the self-justifying words, the sense of shame is evident.

C

this evidence still have to deal with the hard fact that Stu was (choose to be) there, until the end of his life

why didn't he share this outrage? Maybe e was a great soul and put music first and ahead of egoes

Quote
TheGreek
For me Stew was a Rolling Stone and I strongly disagree with Andrew Loog Oldham for pushing Stu to the background . Purely cosmetic BS on the looks aspect versus could he play and sing , which is far more critically important than looks . With the exception of Brian Jones who had looks the rest could have been braking mirrors and cameras with there faces (not you Ronnie ! )

Keith and Mick are good looking

Ian Stewart? ... damn, i always thought it was Jay Leno.

Trivia - before every Stones show Stew was supposed to have said something like: "Come on my little 3 chord wonders the show must go on"

It seems that visually he didn't work. Bill didn't either, but one gruesome member in a supposedly scruffy band is enough. It helped put them over as a pop band, and not just a loose blues band.

Quote
HalfNanker

Ive always wondered (and hoped) if the Stones took care of him financially after he became the road manager.

I have been clearly told that Stu was a member of The Rolling Stones until the day he tragically died. So, as far as that side of things he shared the income (and tax liabilities) in the same way as the rest of the band. (But quite how he avoided Exile in France is beyond me).

Presumably, and very strangely, he was a member at a time when Ronnie was an employee.

Captain Corella

....ya get the feelin he was happier in the shadows



ROCKMAN

Quote
24FPS
It seems that visually he didn't work. Bill didn't either, but one gruesome member in a supposedly scruffy band is enough. It helped put them over as a pop band, and not just a loose blues band.

Bill didn't look bad with long hair. I can't imagine Ian Stewart with long hair. I know that's a silly argument to keep someone in a band or not, and when they kicked them out, their hair wasn't even that long (by our modern standards, by their standards it was), but I can see why Andrew wanted him out. He wouldn't have looked the part nor acted the part. Even Charlie and Bill had some kind of morose "not cute" thing that worked. Ian just looked like the plumber.
I don't know if he minded much. He lost all sympathy for Brian and Andrew, but not for the rest apparently.