Tell Me :
Talk
Yes, listen to Around And Around
Yeah, an early indication of that "Nothing personal, it's just business" is the way they dumped Georgio Gomelsky who despite not being an official manager, but nevertheless very important figure for them in the early club days, and did a lot to help their career. Like Bill writes in ROLLING WITH STONES, "he deserved better".
In the same book Bill mentions about Andrew's idea to turn Stu down that "for Mick and Brian, who were eager for success, it was a small price to pay", but doesn't say anything about how the rest felt about it, or did they were against it or something. Or were Mick and Brian the leaders whose word only mattered? Or is Bill here belittlening his own responsibility by hiding behind the back of big bad boys? (By contrast, Bill really makes it clear when they made a deal with Allen Klein that he was very much against it, but no one listened him).
In LIFE in which Keith so much praises Stu he barely mentions the whole incident that would shape Stu's fate from then on. He says that the record deal with Decca meant that Stu needed to drop out, since six was too many. That's odd because the record deal was signed after downgrading Stu. Elsewhere Keith has told the familiar story of Andrew's view that "Stu just didn't look the part, and six is too many faces for the fans to remember in a photo" (Bill quotes this in his book). However, that of signing with Andrew and that of signing with Decca happened within a week - things were happening very fast - so it is natural that all of these things and events belonged to the same picture, especially in recollection.
But what I respect in Keith's recollection that unlike Bill, Mick or anyone I've seen talking about it and sort of downplaying its significance or seeing it such a natural move, since Stu was a nice, 'non pop star-like' bloke, etc, Keith admits that was a shitty thing to do, and that they had expected Stu to say 'fvck you'.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-16 14:25 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Ian Stewart and Andrew Loog Oldham
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 15, 2022 19:02
Quote
MartinB
Stu also played on Mocambo, right?
Yes, listen to Around And Around
Re: Ian Stewart and Andrew Loog Oldham
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 15, 2022 21:44
-
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 22:41 by Doxa.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 22:41 by Doxa.
Re: Ian Stewart and Andrew Loog Oldham
Posted by:
MisterO
()
Date: November 15, 2022 22:01
Maybe Stu got the better end of the deal not being considered a member of the Stones. I just saw a clip of Mark Knofler denouncing fame and asking what good comes out of it?
I remember back at a Stones show in 81 in New Jersey. Before the band was on the crew was setting up the stage, there was Stu, right up there with the crew tinkering around with wires.
Interesting thread!
I remember back at a Stones show in 81 in New Jersey. Before the band was on the crew was setting up the stage, there was Stu, right up there with the crew tinkering around with wires.
Interesting thread!
Re: Ian Stewart and Andrew Loog Oldham
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 15, 2022 22:39
As a sign of him still being a part of the band musically, after officially not being a member, is that he was a part of Nanker Phelge collective.
According to Wiki, he got royalties from "Stoned" and "Little By Little". But for some reason, he was left out since those two. And interestingly, Andrew was also a part of the collective, so the royalties were divided in the case of "Stoned" into seven pieces and in "Little By Little" even into 8 pieces, since Phil Spector had his share too. Very democratic.
EDIT: Don't trust the damn Wiki. I checked casually Nanker Phelge songs from ASCAP and Andrew is not credited in any of them, but Stu is in almost each one. So Stu belonged to Nanker Phelge collective as long as it lasted.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 22:40 by Doxa.
According to Wiki, he got royalties from "Stoned" and "Little By Little". But for some reason, he was left out since those two. And interestingly, Andrew was also a part of the collective, so the royalties were divided in the case of "Stoned" into seven pieces and in "Little By Little" even into 8 pieces, since Phil Spector had his share too. Very democratic.
EDIT: Don't trust the damn Wiki. I checked casually Nanker Phelge songs from ASCAP and Andrew is not credited in any of them, but Stu is in almost each one. So Stu belonged to Nanker Phelge collective as long as it lasted.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-15 22:40 by Doxa.
Re: Ian Stewart and Andrew Loog Oldham
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 16, 2022 13:15
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
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."
Yeah, an early indication of that "Nothing personal, it's just business" is the way they dumped Georgio Gomelsky who despite not being an official manager, but nevertheless very important figure for them in the early club days, and did a lot to help their career. Like Bill writes in ROLLING WITH STONES, "he deserved better".
In the same book Bill mentions about Andrew's idea to turn Stu down that "for Mick and Brian, who were eager for success, it was a small price to pay", but doesn't say anything about how the rest felt about it, or did they were against it or something. Or were Mick and Brian the leaders whose word only mattered? Or is Bill here belittlening his own responsibility by hiding behind the back of big bad boys? (By contrast, Bill really makes it clear when they made a deal with Allen Klein that he was very much against it, but no one listened him).
In LIFE in which Keith so much praises Stu he barely mentions the whole incident that would shape Stu's fate from then on. He says that the record deal with Decca meant that Stu needed to drop out, since six was too many. That's odd because the record deal was signed after downgrading Stu. Elsewhere Keith has told the familiar story of Andrew's view that "Stu just didn't look the part, and six is too many faces for the fans to remember in a photo" (Bill quotes this in his book). However, that of signing with Andrew and that of signing with Decca happened within a week - things were happening very fast - so it is natural that all of these things and events belonged to the same picture, especially in recollection.
But what I respect in Keith's recollection that unlike Bill, Mick or anyone I've seen talking about it and sort of downplaying its significance or seeing it such a natural move, since Stu was a nice, 'non pop star-like' bloke, etc, Keith admits that was a shitty thing to do, and that they had expected Stu to say 'fvck you'.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2022-11-16 14:25 by Doxa.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.