So history tells us that manager Andrew Loog Oldham essentially dismissed Ian Stewart early on as an official Stone because, in Oldham's opinion, Stewart's image and age didn't really "fit in" with the rest of the band (despite Wyman being even older), and having six members in the band was one too many. Stewart was disappointed with the decision but instead of complaining or making noise about it, he gracefully accepted the demotion and continued to support the band with his talents and friendship from the outside, so to speak.

My question is, once Oldham was no longer in the picture (circa 1968), was Stewart ever offered a chance by the rest of the band to be reinstated as an official Stone? If not, why not, given their friendship? And if so, why would Stewart turn it down? Unless the Stones continued to truly agree with Oldham's philosophy, it would seem to be a slap in the face to Stewart to not have undo a previous injustice. And yet, everyone just carried on, status quo.....

Any thoughts? Thanks and cheers!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-13 13:10 by bv.

My understanding is that Stu was only sidelined with respect to on-stage/public issues. eg Photo shoots etc.

I was very reliably told that he was always a Rolling Stone and had a vote at meetings.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

His image didn’t ‘fit’, so was demoted to roadie. In ‘68, that was still the case. Besides, by then, he was probably more than comfortable with his role. He’s integral part of their formative years, and any Stones fan appreciates him, I’m sure. An interesting part of the bigger jigsaw.

A couple of other points ;

Oldham was out during the making of Satanic in 1967. They didnt need him any more and also alledgedly he went abroad to avoid the legal troubles of the drug busts.
With all that going on and Brians decline they were perhaps not thinking of reconfiguring the band.

Also in a professional band despite how we look at them, they are all going to work every day just like any other job and I suspect (but dont know) that financially Ian was taken well care of and so probably didnt want the spot light of fame on him (he had seen the screaming madness of the sixties) and he was probably very content as he was......he was very involved and had a good life without all the hassle of fame.

Thanks everyone for your feedback on this. This circumstance of the band's history involving Ian Stuart's role has always seemed somewhat hazy to me, and a little glossed over, but your explanations are sound and I appreciate it!

By the time Andrew left, Nicky Hopkins was their piano player. Stones fans make much of Stu because of Keith's memorializing of him (largely at Brian's exclusion and to push Keith's somewhat disingenuous purist image to counter his portrayal of Mick constantly chasing fashion). The truth is, over the course of time between SATANIC MAJESTIES and DIRTY WORK, Stu didn't contribute enough to be considered a full band member.

To be sure, many of his contributions were gems and beloved by the band and fans, but he was still a sideman. His last tour as sole piano player was in 1970. Most people wouldn't have noticed his playing in 1969 and 1970 in contrast to Nicky, Billy, Mac, Chuck, and Matt in the decades that followed.

Didn't he play piano in 1981-1982, and Mac/Chuck played keyboards?

Just to knitpick a bit

My understanding is that Stu got to play on the songs he wanted to play on live, and he did.

Wasn't there some story that Ian wouldn't play on anything in a minor key?
He was such a purist, major keys only???

not blind, was blindmansbluff, is acetboy

Quote
Rocky Dijon
By the time Andrew left, Nicky Hopkins was their piano player. Stones fans make much of Stu because of Keith's memorializing of him (largely at Brian's exclusion and to push Keith's somewhat disingenuous purist image to counter his portrayal of Mick constantly chasing fashion). The truth is, over the course of time between SATANIC MAJESTIES and DIRTY WORK, Stu didn't contribute enough to be considered a full band member.

To be sure, many of his contributions were gems and beloved by the band and fans, but he was still a sideman. His last tour as sole piano player was in 1970. Most people wouldn't have noticed his playing in 1969 and 1970 in contrast to Nicky, Billy, Mac, Chuck, and Matt in the decades that followed.

This stance presents an interesting angle, Rocky Dijon, as to ask the reason "why" Stu's role was diminished. Did he opt to limit or choose his contributions as a sideman BECAUSE of a his image-related demotion, OR was he demoted because he was seen to have less usage than other session pianists going forward? It almost suggests a "chicken or the egg" conundrum....



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-13 18:18 by sf37.

Probably happier being out of the spotlight. He was very tight with Bill and they probably talked about the good and bad of being in the band like Bill was. It's not like he was missing out on the big money in the 60s. Charlie and Bill were broke by '69.

'Broke' with mansions...

If I remember correctly, Stu was involved in the tour organization and he always tried to choose hotels with golf course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-13 20:33 by djgab.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't he play piano in 1981-1982, and Mac/Chuck played keyboards?

Just to knitpick a bit

My understanding is that Stu got to play on the songs he wanted to play on live, and he did.

Absolutely he did. That's why I mentioned 1969 and 1970 as his last tour as sole (only) piano player. I love hearing him play, but most fans never notice him because songs weren't built around him being up front and center like they were with Nicky, Billy, and Mac. It's different with Chuck and Matt, but they're still usually more prominent in the mix.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
'Broke' with mansions...

True, but they were dangerously low on funds, especially with Klein having the purse. Maybe Stu was better off if he got paid directly.

Yeah, ALO was the one who presented the idea of taking Stu out of picture and seemingly is nowadays accounted for it. However it wasn't his decision - The Stones were not his puppets - but an idea he sold to the group. The band bought it and it was their decision to accomplish it. They wanted money and to be pop stars like ALO had promised to make of them. So they agreed with ALO and asked Brian to do the dirty job - 'you supposed to be leader, right?'- to inform Stu about it. Stu didn't take that easily, and that also ruined his relationship with Brian. Other wise, as we know, Stu swallowed his pride, and accepted the role he was given - sideman, driver, road manager, minder, a tea-maker, whatever.

Probably it was a tough decision, and I guess they felt bad about it, since everybody seemed to like Stu. But you know, shit happens. They were young and hungry and the world was there ready to conquer, like The Beatles has just shown. One cannot really morally condemn young ambitious souls, and you know, the results speak for themselves. But what I find honourable is that they - the band - have always taken the responsibility of it. Not like, blaming ALO for it. It was their decision. Especially Keith, when looking back with a reflection, seems to feel guilty about it.

So that of ALO being around or not later doesn't really mean anything. The image and nature of the Stones as a five-member unit with pretty specific roles was sealed by the time Andrew left. They all were big, well-known pop stars. Stu was nobody. Yeah, in a way "Andrew's philosophy" was very much taken for granted, be the man around or not.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-14 18:23 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Yeah, ALO was the one who presented the idea of taking Stu out of picture and seemingly is nowadays accounted for it. However it wasn't his decision - The Stones were not his puppets - but an idea he sold to the group. The band bought it and it was their decision to accomplish it. They wanted money and to be pop stars like ALO had promised to make of them. So they agreed with ALO and asked Brian to do the dirty job - 'you supposed to be leader, right?'- to inform Stu about it. Stu didn't take that easily, and that also ruined his relationship with Brian. Other wise, as we know, Stu swallowed his pride, and accepted the role he was given - sideman, driver, road manager, minder, a tea-maker, whatever.

Probably it was a tough decision, and I guess they felt bad about it, since everybody seemed to like Stu. But you know, shit happens. They were young and hungry and the world was there ready to conquer, like The Beatles has just shown. One cannot really morally condemn young ambitious souls, and you know, the results speak for themselves. But what I find honourable is that they - the band - have always taken the responsibility of it. Not like, blaming ALO for it. It was their decision. Especially Keith, when looking back with a reflection, seems to feel guilty about it.

So that of ALO being around or not later doesn't really mean anything. The image and nature of the Stones as a five-member unit with pretty specific roles was sealed by the time Andrew left. They all were big, well-known pop stars. Stu was nobody. Yeah, in a way "Andrew's philosophy" was very much taken for granted, be the man around or not.

- Doxa

Thank you Doxa for your further insight into this. Very interesting, with the view that there was no single scapegoat to blame for what transpired, but rather a shared responsibility. With Brian having to deliver the news on behalf of the others, presumably somewhat reluctantly, he comes off almost as much aa a sympathetic character as does Ian. And then when the tables are later turned and Brian himself is summarily dismissed, well.....what goes around comes around, I guess.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-14 23:05 by sf37.

Stu was very devoted to the band and Bill once said he did the work of a team of people, despite his being disorganized most of the time.

My question is, had Stu not been asked to take the road manager band and had remained a full-fledge member of the band, how would they have ultimately fared on the road with someone likely not as dedicated or tenacious? All is hypothetical, of course, but if nothing else, he's such a fascinating character in the mix.

I first saw him on the '81 Hampton broadcast and at first I couldn't figure out why they had hired some burley guy who looked like he should be a bouncer at a rough saloon on the south side of Chicago, versus playing keyboards with a bunch of skinny rockers. My jaw about hit the ground when Mick introduced him and said he's been with the band for 20 years! I knew I had to look into this guy who's fingers flew up and down the keyboard ferociously.

Quote
sf37
Very interesting, with the view that there was no single scapegoat to blame for what transpired, but rather a shared responsibility. With Brian having to deliver the news on behalf of the others, presumably somewhat reluctantly, he comes off almost as much aa a sympathetic character as does Ian. And then when the tables are later turned and Brian himself is summarily dismissed, well.....what goes around comes around, I guess.....

Seen another way, success at their level requires a certain amount of ruthlessness to attain and sustain. Stu, Eric Easton, Andrew, Brian, Jimmy Miller, and more recent examples were all on the receiving end of that ruthlessness. To a degree, it would be fair to view Mick going solo or the band airbrushing Bill out (rather than paying for using his likeness) are examples of the same. "Nothing personal, it's just business."

Ian Stewart & The Rail Roaders - 1966

video: [youtu.be]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 00:43 by Zotz.

If you want to know the high regard Stu was held in,look at the collaboration for "boogie for Stu " . And yes, he wouldn't play minor chords....didn't stop him playing with Led Zeppelin either ! He was a family friend of Ben Waters, who Carrie's on Stu's legacy.

Satisfied since 1976

Apart from the Stones, Ian also played on Boogie With Stu off of Physical Graffiti and got a song writing credit for it. Probably some nice royalty cheques from that over the years.

Quote
Zotz
Ian Stewart & The Rail Roaders - 1966

video: [youtu.be]

Thanks! Produced by Wyman too

Quote
CaptainCorella
My understanding is that Stu was only sidelined with respect to on-stage/public issues. eg Photo shoots etc.

I was very reliably told that he was always a Rolling Stone and had a vote at meetings.

Sure this was really so? I recall an interview with Bill about band meetings and voting, and he talked about the vote whether a European tour should be done (either 1982 or 1990, can't recall which ist was, probably 1982), and he said it was a 3:2 vote in favour of a European tour. So, Stu seemingly had no part in this vote.

edit: Fixed some typos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 22:55 by doitywoik.

Stu did not want to play minor chords...

Quote
DGA35
Apart from the Stones, Ian also played on Boogie With Stu off of Physical Graffiti and got a song writing credit for it. Probably some nice royalty cheques from that over the years.

"Boogie with Stu" is a good example of how the credition can be sometimes just an arbitary business deal, nothing to do with who actually did something: the lyrics of the song are based on a Ritchie Valens song "Ooh My Head". But instead of crediting the composers of the song, Ritchie Valens and Bob Keane, they gave the credit to Ritchie's mother in order for her to collect some of the royalties directly... Well, Keane sued them later (it's Zeppelin hey!) and got half of the royalties directed to Mrs. Valens, if I understood that right.

But yeah, the track most likely is Stu's biggest money-maker of any tracks he contributed to.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 16:09 by Doxa.

A far as we could tell from the outside, Stu always appeared to be content with his lot ...


That has to be the important thing.

...and he didn't have the worst job in the world did he ?

I don't think he needed any sympathy from us ...and neither would he ask for any.

Quote
RnT
Stu did not want to play minor chords...

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't he play piano in 1981-1982, and Mac/Chuck played keyboards?

Just to knitpick a bit

My understanding is that Stu got to play on the songs he wanted to play on live, and he did.

He played piano on the 1976 European tour.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't he play piano in 1981-1982, and Mac/Chuck played keyboards?

Just to knitpick a bit

My understanding is that Stu got to play on the songs he wanted to play on live, and he did.

He played piano on the 1976 European tour.

On selected numbers, right? He did that all the way, I believe - on all tours. In 1976 it was mainly Billy, except for the numbers Stu wanted to play on.

In 1981/82 he was the only upright piano player in the band. Mac and Chuck only played keyboards. I've seen Chuck play with Stu on the upright, but I don't think he played it by himself. Not 100 percent sure, though



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 16:59 by DandelionPowderman.

Stu also played on Mocambo, right?