Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...23456789101112Next
Current Page: 7 of 12
Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Tseverin ()
Date: July 10, 2006 19:35

Doxa,
I've just been checking this LARS board for the first time & came across this from Deb (which doesn't sound like holding back to me!):

"It seems that Jagger's actions on July 2 or the days leading up to it look suspicious. That is all I would say about it at this point. Jase mentioned Lord Goldsmith, and after looking him up he is Her Majesty's Attorney General."

Dunno what the Goldsmith thing is all about but the first part is clear enough... I wonder if Mick's lawyers are aware of these murmurings.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Miss U. ()
Date: July 11, 2006 00:51

Tseverin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miss U,
>
> This may well be true but as we haven't had access
> to this "evidence" yet we cannot really be
> expected to blindly trust Trevor either.


I'm not going to get into speculation or arguments with anyone. I don't expect you to blindly trust Trevor, however you don't really seem to have an open mind about this; your posts are of a challenging nature. Which of course I understand as I had the same reaction. But you will not be provided with proof on a message board at this instant. Surely you can understand the need for discretion at this stage. Yet to continue demanding proof and answers to all your questions is simply not reasonable. If people prefer to place their faith in a known liar (Keylock), then I question the wisdom of that. Trevor is a very astute man and he is taking this very seriously without jumping to conclusions. He certainly wouldn't have consulted lawyers to take legal action based on assumptions.
Yes Keylock admitted that to the police, and the police are aware. Enuff said.



> Doxa, re your last point; Trevor Hobley who runs
> (ran?) the BJ fanclub & the investigation
> apparently was not a Brian Jones fan to start with
> but I believe was drawn into it all by the lack of
> perceived justice for him: Correct me if I'm wrong
> here Miss U.

Trevor was drawn into it after meeting with Pat Andrews. He is more of a Beatles fan.

As for your question about Keylock being made an honorary member, you're confusing the official BJ club Trevor runs with the old fan club run by David Reynolds. The old fan club under Reynolds is the one that made Keylock an "honorary" member. Recall when I said that Keylock keeps a very close eye on the BJ fan club. This rang many alarm bells with many club members, and many from the old club have switched over to the new club under Trevor Hobley.
Trevor has proven to be very trustworthy and accountable to members.

Below is a post from EL on the bj forum which some may be interested in, food for thought:




"FIRST, about Brian's work visa: Uh, remember TWO OTHER STONES (MICK AND KEITH, who else) were ALSO busted for drugs, by the same officer (Pilchard), tried in the same courts, all three were found guilty. The British courts hated the Stones. DO YOU REALLY THINK they'd grant a work visa to TWO of them (Mick and Keith) but not the other one?? (Brian) HUH?!?! I would think that NOBODY's gettin' a work visa considering THIS group's combined offences at the time. Logical? Yep, That's why the visa story is bullshit. None of 'em should've gotten one. Or all of 'em.

"Businees AND pleasure" Brian told Gerry. I, as well as everyone here on this board should take Gerry's word as absolute fact - without the slightest doubt whatsoever. Ok, then so WHAT would Brian's busines be?? WE know from ALL parties considered that there was dissension in the ranks concerning Brian as far back as 1965. This is reported in just about everything wrtiten about them. A fact.

Therefore, it is quite logical to deduce, that Brian had something up his sleeve, a new band, perhaps, a "supergroup" , a writ containing papers that he owned the rights to the Stone's name - or all of the above - after all, what other BUSINESS would he have in New York?
Opening a fruit stand?

SECOND: All reports from all sources close to Brian, Alexis Korner, Ronni Money, Anna Wohlin, et. al., indicate that in 1969 Brian was getting off drugs and was starting to get his act together. The jam sessions at Cotchford went well into the night,"that racket" according to Mary Hallett, which means some sort of act was forming. And Brian had a single, that Les Perrin's wife Janey reported but it "mysteriously disappeared" Hmmm.

When you factor in that BRIAN ALONE SIGNED THE INTIAL CONTRACT with Oldham and Easton , it's an almost NO-BRAINER that he would own the rights to the band's name - every contract I ever signed in the music buisness gave me (and my fellow band mates IF THEY SIGNED - or ME ALONE if ONLY I SIGNED - ownership of our collective corporate entity - and the name - until and unless written agreement was drawn up to the contrary. And I think Trevor has proof of this as well.

THREE: I do not contend that Brian was killed because he was starting a super- group with Hendrix and Lennon.. I contend that he was killed because the 'powers that be 'were afraid HE VERY WELL MIGHT START a supergroup with Hendrix and Lennon, and blow the Stones' triumphant 1969 return tour out of the water.

And it would.

Brian was not an "after thought" in Stones history in 1969. He was STILL one of the most popular memebers and IF HE DID join forces with Lennon (the leader of the greatest band in the world @1969) and Hendrix (the greatest guitarist in the world @1969) uh, well, YEAH, it would be the biggest news the rock world would ever hear up to that point. And the Stones were, in 1969 facing some mighty tough rivals for the throne, like Led Zeppelin, Jeff Beck Group, Rod Stwart, Pink Floyd - some GREAT musicians were serious threats - the LAST thing they needed was for "this little bastard" from their own ranks starting the biggest group of all time. He might've. And yes, they wanted to prevent this. The single disappeared, remember?

Also, factor in that ALlen Klein would NEVER EVER part with $100,000 unless he had no and I mean NO OTHER choice(actually English pounds - I think the rate at the time would be closer to $400,000 USDollars) and, therefore the logical deduction is obvious. Remneber, people don't hold bonfires to BURN all your belongings and bleach your hair white in your casket if you've died accidentally. Also your friends (Stevie Marriott) don't get threatened to "stay the @#$%& away from Brian Jones if you want to stay healthy" - then die in a mysterious fire.

As far as Klein breaking up the Beatles - that dubious honour goes to Yoko Ono who drew such a wedge between John and Paul that they weren't even talking - how could they write songs together then?

FOUR: You don't buy the theory that Brian was kicked out of the Stones so they could tour - well, they knew Brian wasn't co-operating, as he was sick of playing Jagger Richards songs (some of which he may well have written, but that's another thread)- and kids WERE ACTUALLY LISTENING to the music in '69 - so Jagger probably wanted to make sure they had a guitarist he could control and wouldn't play "Popeye the Sailor Man" when the mood struck him.

This is more than "barely specualtion" Drawing any other conclusion (do you have one??) is what seems illogical. Knowing Klein; knowing music business contracts; knowing Gerry's testimony; knowing Brian's (and the Stones') dissatisfaction with one another; knowing the tremendous amounts of money at stake; and knowing what the music industry thugs are capable of, well what do you think??

All you've said is that you don't beleive it. OK. Give me an alternate conclusion. we'll all listen.

With Respect,


El"

---------------------------

and another from EL:

Here are some hard nosed, PURELY logic based FACTS (not fantasy) that are a lot more than "workable theories". Really, the only logical deduction from these facts, unfortunately, lead to one inevitable conclusion: Brian was murdered, undoubtedly ordered by Klein, for money. Brian was the true threat to blow the whole thing wide open and he alone had the power to paralyze the band's future, had he been left alone to pursue his chosen path.

Here's the FACTS:

ONE: Brian WAS in New York City - in 1969 - Visa bullshit not withstanding, he DID get here! "for business AND pleasure" - as reported by our own eyewitness - Gerry, who ALSO indicated that he was nervous, a little paranoid, and not really wanting to speak to anyone (until Gerry assured him she was a big fan, and it was an opportunity to speak to one of her idols) - something anyone of us here would have done.

TWO: Brian DID own the rights to the name "Rolling Stones", and this fact will be brought to light shortly as I do beleive that Trevor Hobley has legal proof of this; Rawlings intimated it in his book as well. Brian named the band, and remember, HE WAS THE ONLY ONE to sign the initial contracts with Oldham and Easton. Legal rights to the name, is a simple, irrelevant clause to a contract, especially at the time (1963) when pop bands were assumed to have a shelf life of less than three years.

THREE: Hendrix and Lennon were among many musicians who rehearsed at Brian's, Brian recorded with both men at separate times, making him (along with Eric Clapton)the ONLY members of any famous rock groups to play an instrument on a Beatles recording (back up vocalist and session cats not withstanding, of course). Lennon even once said, (at the R & R Circus?) "don't let them push you around, quit them, maybe I'll even join you" - or something like that! and the possibility of a supergroup, or ANY new group with Brian was an inevitability- had he lived. The best musicians in England were clamouring to play with him, once they found out he no longer was a Rolling Stone. Brian only had to pick and choose.

FOUR: Brian Jones was an man of above average intelligence - his IQ was 135 - he was keenly aware of what was going on around him, and although one may lose oneself in the excess of drink and drugs, you eventually sober up - and your IQ doesn't diminish. Brian was on a mission in 1969 to create music again, and Klein, also keenly aware of what was going on, CERTAINLY realized that Brian Jones was capable of putting together a band that could rival the Rolling Stones - particuarly if he was getting off drugs -AND at the same time, Brain could still cripple Klein's OWN act, legally preventing them from touring under their own name. Remember, the drug busts, lack of touring,legal fees, were taking it's toll on the Stones finances- the Stones DESPARATELY needed money in 1969 and this "little Welsh Bull" was about to throw a monkey wrench into this whole affair. Klein's response (to the proposed $100,000 pay off) was something to the effect of,

"Why am I still paying this little @#$%& @#$%& money when
we've thrown him out of the band?" Or something similarly colorful.

By the way NOBODY BUT NOBODY IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS parts with this kind of money to an EX-band mate (that you've just fired) UNLESS there's a LOT MORE TO IT behind the scenes..and this EX band mate has control over you or your career in some way shape manner or form

Allen Klein would NEVER part with that money to Brian Jones; he found an alternate method..

FIVE: Allen Klein is the meanest SOB in the business - someone who will LITERALLY stop at nothing to get what he wants - and I have been advised so by my former personal managers, who know what he is capable of - read some of these posts about him, and Jagger's quote to Lennon that "You're making the biggest mistake of your life" - AND the fact the Jagger parted with the complete world rights to his most valuable songs JUST to get rid of Klein - gives you some idea of what his bastard REALLY IS capable of.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the conclusion to this sad story..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-11 00:53 by Miss U..

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: July 11, 2006 03:24

Supergroups don't always work musically...three strong egos like Jones, Hendrix, Lennon in one band? Nice idea, but was it really a realistic perspective? Threaten the Stones? In theory, yes. But the Stones had many popular songs behind them, and this "supergroup" had to start from scratch - or can anyone imagine them playing Beatles & Hendrix songs - not to speak of Stones songs - Jagger-Richards compositions which Brian was "so fed up with"? I just can't imagine how Lennon, Hendrix & Jones could have integrated in one group...three guitar players...

"Brian DID own the rights to the name Rolling Stones ....Brian named the band, and remember, HE WAS THE ONLY ONE to sign the initial contracts with Oldham and Easton."

What does that mean? He signed the deal with Oldham and Easton so he owns the band name? That's a strange legal conclusion. However, it depends on the Stones legal structure... were they Brian's band and the others - Jagger, Richards, Watts & Wyman just "hired hands", like employees, on Brian's payroll? Or did Brian sign the deal on behalf of the band, as their representative, which means that the others had authorized him to do so? In this -most likely- case the fact that only Brian signed the deal does not mean anything concerning the bandname ownership. And this integral part of the murder theory would go aboard.

Overall, I must say that this "El" is one kind of a guy...talking about "facts" but selling nothing but theories, allowing only one conclusion when in fact diverse conclusions can be drawn. His logic resembles that of the rooster who crows for day and when the sun rises concludes that it happens because he is crowing every morning!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-11 03:37 by retired_dog.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: CindyC ()
Date: July 11, 2006 17:54

Remneber, people don't hold bonfires to BURN all your belongings and bleach your hair white in your casket if you've died accidentally.


The hair part has me confused.

1. Did that really happen? Who reported saw this?
2. Why would someone want to dye his hair? What would this hide, blood? Why would it need to be dyed in the casket? If they were trying to hide blood, you would think they would dye it before the authorities got there or something.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Sara ()
Date: July 16, 2006 01:30

Oh people, are you all just too blind? Can't you read? Are you so obsessed with Mick or Keith or whoever that you just don't want to see the truth? You may well say "we know they weren't angels", but it doesn't seem to me that you really understand this. Yes, Brian was no angel either, but---so what? Reread those facts. Yes, facts, not opinions. Of course we can't prove a thing, but they are facts nonetheless. And Trevor HAS proof. Reread them and THINK about them objectively, not as a Keith-fan or whatever. Open your yes, for god's sake!

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: July 16, 2006 02:13

So Sara, those facts (that can not be proved you say) plus Trevor's proofs (that is not seen anywhere) should us convince that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards murdered Brian Jones?

You claim that 'we' are so obsessed with Mick and Keith that we don't want to see the truth. Maybe so, but what I perceive is some people that are so obsessed with Brian Jones (or anti-Mick/Keith) that don't want to see the truth.

What goes for so called facts that 'El' provides above, I have discussed those at LARS board (you can check them there, if you want). There are some facts involved, but very strong interpretations plus horrible amount of speculation. And if it is not a question of facts or proofs, but beyond them, it is a question of a blind faith. And from that base I would not start calling public figures as murderers. Common sense, c'mon!


- Doxa

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Debra ()
Date: July 16, 2006 05:04

Very True, Doxa and certainly if El had the REAL TRUTH, don't you think he would have gone VERY PUBLIC with it long ago?? I find it preposterous to even suggest Mick and Keith murdered Brian, but let's just say they did to be totally ridiculous for a moment. Do you think being such HUGE megastars that they could actually get away with it?? NO! Somebody somewhere would have uncovered it by now! And the real point is motivation( or lack of it). They may have been glad to get Brian out of the band, given the fact that he was such a loadstone around all of their necks, especially with his drug convictions not allowing them to tour the USA, but to MURDER him AFTER he was successfuly removed from the band makes zero sense! And then there's the issue of MONEY! If EL had the inside track on this he certainly would be a millionaire by now, having sold the rights to the story, the REAL STORY, for millions and nothing would have prevented him from selling the story to everyone, including Hollywood!

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Potted Shrimp ()
Date: July 16, 2006 06:15

Sara Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh people, are you all just too blind? Can't you
> read? Are you so obsessed with Mick or Keith or
> whoever that you just don't want to see the truth?
> You may well say "we know they weren't angels",
> but it doesn't seem to me that you really
> understand this. Yes, Brian was no angel either,
> but---so what? Reread those facts. Yes, facts, not
> opinions. Of course we can't prove a thing, but
> they are facts nonetheless. And Trevor HAS proof.
> Reread them and THINK about them objectively, not
> as a Keith-fan or whatever. Open your yes, for
> god's sake!


You are an idiot

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Adrian-L ()
Date: July 16, 2006 15:13

> Sara Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
Of course we can't prove a thing, but
> > they are facts nonetheless. And Trevor HAS
> proof.

if you cannot prove a thing- then they are not facts- it's as simple as that- and until you do have facts and evidence, that stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, and not solely on internet chat rooms, you will, quite correctly, continue to be derided and scorned as a misguided bunch of saddo's, who may mean well, but need, quite frankly, to get out more.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: July 16, 2006 15:29

It's not the plot that is thickening - but this thread with utter crap

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: stone-relics ()
Date: July 16, 2006 16:23

Just for a little background, Brian didn't own the rights to the name Rolling Stones. There was a folk group that owned that name, and I think, to this day, still do...

JR

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: July 16, 2006 20:47

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just for a little background, Brian didn't own the
> rights to the name Rolling Stones. There was a
> folk group that owned that name, and I think, to
> this day, still do...

No, no, no! Completely wrong! The thing with this folk group was just a part of Allen Klein's conspiracy masterplan. The name "Rolling Stones" was just "photoshopped" into the original, historic b-w picture...this folk group's real name was in fact "The Rocking Bones", so it was quite easy to fake that. Didn't you know that? It's a proven fact, proof is that Allen Klein is simply capable of doing everything you can ever imagine. Why don't you see this simple logic?

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Promoman ()
Date: July 16, 2006 20:53

Open-G wrote: It's not the plot that is thickening - but this thread with utter crap

Great one Open-G

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: stone-relics ()
Date: July 16, 2006 20:54

I have evidence to the contrary...

JR

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Hurriganes ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:04

Miss U. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tseverin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Miss U,
> >
> > This may well be true but as we haven't had
> access
> > to this "evidence" yet we cannot really be
> > expected to blindly trust Trevor either.
>
>
> I'm not going to get into speculation or arguments
> with anyone. I don't expect you to blindly trust
> Trevor, however you don't really seem to have an
> open mind about this; your posts are of a
> challenging nature. Which of course I understand
> as I had the same reaction. But you will not be
> provided with proof on a message board at this
> instant. Surely you can understand the need for
> discretion at this stage. Yet to continue
> demanding proof and answers to all your questions
> is simply not reasonable. If people prefer to
> place their faith in a known liar (Keylock), then
> I question the wisdom of that. Trevor is a very
> astute man and he is taking this very seriously
> without jumping to conclusions. He certainly
> wouldn't have consulted lawyers to take legal
> action based on assumptions.
> Yes Keylock admitted that to the police, and the
> police are aware. Enuff said.
>
>
>
> > Doxa, re your last point; Trevor Hobley who
> runs
> > (ran?) the BJ fanclub & the investigation
> > apparently was not a Brian Jones fan to start
> with
> > but I believe was drawn into it all by the lack
> of
> > perceived justice for him: Correct me if I'm
> wrong
> > here Miss U.
>
> Trevor was drawn into it after meeting with Pat
> Andrews. He is more of a Beatles fan.
>
> As for your question about Keylock being made an
> honorary member, you're confusing the official BJ
> club Trevor runs with the old fan club run by
> David Reynolds. The old fan club under Reynolds
> is the one that made Keylock an "honorary" member.
> Recall when I said that Keylock keeps a very
> close eye on the BJ fan club. This rang many
> alarm bells with many club members, and many from
> the old club have switched over to the new club
> under Trevor Hobley.
> Trevor has proven to be very trustworthy and
> accountable to members.
>
> Below is a post from EL on the bj forum which some
> may be interested in, food for thought:
>
>
>
>
> "FIRST, about Brian's work visa: Uh, remember TWO
> OTHER STONES (MICK AND KEITH, who else) were ALSO
> busted for drugs, by the same officer (Pilchard),
> tried in the same courts, all three were found
> guilty. The British courts hated the Stones. DO
> YOU REALLY THINK they'd grant a work visa to TWO
> of them (Mick and Keith) but not the other one??
> (Brian) HUH?!?! I would think that NOBODY's
> gettin' a work visa considering THIS group's
> combined offences at the time. Logical? Yep,
> That's why the visa story is bullshit. None of 'em
> should've gotten one. Or all of 'em.
>
> "Businees AND pleasure" Brian told Gerry. I, as
> well as everyone here on this board should take
> Gerry's word as absolute fact - without the
> slightest doubt whatsoever. Ok, then so WHAT would
> Brian's busines be?? WE know from ALL parties
> considered that there was dissension in the ranks
> concerning Brian as far back as 1965. This is
> reported in just about everything wrtiten about
> them. A fact.
>
> Therefore, it is quite logical to deduce, that
> Brian had something up his sleeve, a new band,
> perhaps, a "supergroup" , a writ containing papers
> that he owned the rights to the Stone's name - or
> all of the above - after all, what other BUSINESS
> would he have in New York?
> Opening a fruit stand?
>
> SECOND: All reports from all sources close to
> Brian, Alexis Korner, Ronni Money, Anna Wohlin,
> et. al., indicate that in 1969 Brian was getting
> off drugs and was starting to get his act
> together. The jam sessions at Cotchford went well
> into the night,"that racket" according to Mary
> Hallett, which means some sort of act was forming.
> And Brian had a single, that Les Perrin's wife
> Janey reported but it "mysteriously disappeared"
> Hmmm.
>
> When you factor in that BRIAN ALONE SIGNED THE
> INTIAL CONTRACT with Oldham and Easton , it's an
> almost NO-BRAINER that he would own the rights to
> the band's name - every contract I ever signed in
> the music buisness gave me (and my fellow band
> mates IF THEY SIGNED - or ME ALONE if ONLY I
> SIGNED - ownership of our collective corporate
> entity - and the name - until and unless written
> agreement was drawn up to the contrary. And I
> think Trevor has proof of this as well.
>
> THREE: I do not contend that Brian was killed
> because he was starting a super- group with
> Hendrix and Lennon.. I contend that he was killed
> because the 'powers that be 'were afraid HE VERY
> WELL MIGHT START a supergroup with Hendrix and
> Lennon, and blow the Stones' triumphant 1969
> return tour out of the water.
>
> And it would.
>
> Brian was not an "after thought" in Stones history
> in 1969. He was STILL one of the most popular
> memebers and IF HE DID join forces with Lennon
> (the leader of the greatest band in the world
> @1969) and Hendrix (the greatest guitarist in the
> world @1969) uh, well, YEAH, it would be the
> biggest news the rock world would ever hear up to
> that point. And the Stones were, in 1969 facing
> some mighty tough rivals for the throne, like Led
> Zeppelin, Jeff Beck Group, Rod Stwart, Pink Floyd
> - some GREAT musicians were serious threats - the
> LAST thing they needed was for "this little
> bastard" from their own ranks starting the biggest
> group of all time. He might've. And yes, they
> wanted to prevent this. The single disappeared,
> remember?
>
> Also, factor in that ALlen Klein would NEVER EVER
> part with $100,000 unless he had no and I mean NO
> OTHER choice(actually English pounds - I think the
> rate at the time would be closer to $400,000
> USDollars) and, therefore the logical deduction is
> obvious. Remneber, people don't hold bonfires to
> BURN all your belongings and bleach your hair
> white in your casket if you've died accidentally.
> Also your friends (Stevie Marriott) don't get
> threatened to "stay the @#$%& away from Brian
> Jones if you want to stay healthy" - then die in a
> mysterious fire.
>
> As far as Klein breaking up the Beatles - that
> dubious honour goes to Yoko Ono who drew such a
> wedge between John and Paul that they weren't even
> talking - how could they write songs together
> then?
>
> FOUR: You don't buy the theory that Brian was
> kicked out of the Stones so they could tour -
> well, they knew Brian wasn't co-operating, as he
> was sick of playing Jagger Richards songs (some of
> which he may well have written, but that's another
> thread)- and kids WERE ACTUALLY LISTENING to the
> music in '69 - so Jagger probably wanted to make
> sure they had a guitarist he could control and
> wouldn't play "Popeye the Sailor Man" when the
> mood struck him.
>
> This is more than "barely specualtion" Drawing any
> other conclusion (do you have one??) is what seems
> illogical. Knowing Klein; knowing music business
> contracts; knowing Gerry's testimony; knowing
> Brian's (and the Stones') dissatisfaction with one
> another; knowing the tremendous amounts of money
> at stake; and knowing what the music industry
> thugs are capable of, well what do you think??
>
> All you've said is that you don't beleive it. OK.
> Give me an alternate conclusion. we'll all
> listen.
>
> With Respect,
>
>
> El"
>
> ---------------------------
>
> and another from EL:
>
> Here are some hard nosed, PURELY logic based FACTS
> (not fantasy) that are a lot more than "workable
> theories". Really, the only logical deduction from
> these facts, unfortunately, lead to one inevitable
> conclusion: Brian was murdered, undoubtedly
> ordered by Klein, for money. Brian was the true
> threat to blow the whole thing wide open and he
> alone had the power to paralyze the band's future,
> had he been left alone to pursue his chosen path.
>
> Here's the FACTS:
>
> ONE: Brian WAS in New York City - in 1969 - Visa
> bullshit not withstanding, he DID get here! "for
> business AND pleasure" - as reported by our own
> eyewitness - Gerry, who ALSO indicated that he was
> nervous, a little paranoid, and not really wanting
> to speak to anyone (until Gerry assured him she
> was a big fan, and it was an opportunity to speak
> to one of her idols) - something anyone of us here
> would have done.
>
> TWO: Brian DID own the rights to the name "Rolling
> Stones", and this fact will be brought to light
> shortly as I do beleive that Trevor Hobley has
> legal proof of this; Rawlings intimated it in his
> book as well. Brian named the band, and remember,
> HE WAS THE ONLY ONE to sign the initial contracts
> with Oldham and Easton. Legal rights to the name,
> is a simple, irrelevant clause to a contract,
> especially at the time (1963) when pop bands were
> assumed to have a shelf life of less than three
> years.
>
> THREE: Hendrix and Lennon were among many
> musicians who rehearsed at Brian's, Brian recorded
> with both men at separate times, making him (along
> with Eric Clapton)the ONLY members of any famous
> rock groups to play an instrument on a Beatles
> recording (back up vocalist and session cats not
> withstanding, of course). Lennon even once said,
> (at the R & R Circus?) "don't let them push you
> around, quit them, maybe I'll even join you" - or
> something like that! and the possibility of a
> supergroup, or ANY new group with Brian was an
> inevitability- had he lived. The best musicians in
> England were clamouring to play with him, once
> they found out he no longer was a Rolling Stone.
> Brian only had to pick and choose.
>
> FOUR: Brian Jones was an man of above average
> intelligence - his IQ was 135 - he was keenly
> aware of what was going on around him, and
> although one may lose oneself in the excess of
> drink and drugs, you eventually sober up - and
> your IQ doesn't diminish. Brian was on a mission
> in 1969 to create music again, and Klein, also
> keenly aware of what was going on, CERTAINLY
> realized that Brian Jones was capable of putting
> together a band that could rival the Rolling
> Stones - particuarly if he was getting off drugs
> -AND at the same time, Brain could still cripple
> Klein's OWN act, legally preventing them from
> touring under their own name. Remember, the drug
> busts, lack of touring,legal fees, were taking
> it's toll on the Stones finances- the Stones
> DESPARATELY needed money in 1969 and this "little
> Welsh Bull" was about to throw a monkey wrench
> into this whole affair. Klein's response (to the
> proposed $100,000 pay off) was something to the
> effect of,
>
> "Why am I still paying this little @#$%& @#$%&
> money when
> we've thrown him out of the band?" Or something
> similarly colorful.
>
> By the way NOBODY BUT NOBODY IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS
> parts with this kind of money to an EX-band mate
> (that you've just fired) UNLESS there's a LOT MORE
> TO IT behind the scenes..and this EX band mate has
> control over you or your career in some way shape
> manner or form
>
> Allen Klein would NEVER part with that money to
> Brian Jones; he found an alternate method..
>
> FIVE: Allen Klein is the meanest SOB in the
> business - someone who will LITERALLY stop at
> nothing to get what he wants - and I have been
> advised so by my former personal managers, who
> know what he is capable of - read some of these
> posts about him, and Jagger's quote to Lennon that
> "You're making the biggest mistake of your life" -
> AND the fact the Jagger parted with the complete
> world rights to his most valuable songs JUST to
> get rid of Klein - gives you some idea of what his
> bastard REALLY IS capable of.
>
> You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure
> out the conclusion to this sad story..




Well, I'm trying to make my answer short in Finnish if You don't mind:



Vuonna 1967 maailma kuohui ja Stones yritti parhaimpansa mukaan olla mukana kelkassa nauttimalla huomattavia annoksia huumeita, ja etenkin Brian Jones näytti olevan mielissään tästä suuntauksesta. Kaiken lystinpidon keskellä olisi pitänyt tehdä biisejäkin, mutta sellaiseen ei herroilla Jagger ja Richards näyttänyt olevan aikaa. Niinpä yhtye suunnistikin Olympiciin helmikuussa 1967 takki tyhjänä ja katsotaan-mitä-keksitään -mieliala mukanaan. Ensimmäisenä tartuttiin Bill Wymanin biisiin Acid In The Grass (digatkaapa tuota nimeä!), josta myöhemmin tulisi In Another Land. Sessiot jatkuivat käyden viikko viikolta yhä tajuttomimmiksi ja voidaan vain ajatella mitä bändin streitein jäsen Charlie Watts ajatteli jostakin Sing This All Together -hölmöilystä.
Kaiken sekoilun keskellä bändi kuitenkin teki taustaraidan biisiin nimeltä You Can´t Always Get What You Want niinkin aikaisin kuin helmikuussa 1967 - mikä tietysti osoittaa että Mick ja Keith osasivat yhä tehdä kunnon biisejä, mutta unohtivat ne hetkessä. Bändin tuleva klassikko kuitenkin hukattiin jostakin syystä arkistoihin pariksi vuodeksi.
Kevään ja kesän sessioiden tulokset olivat kuultavissa joulukuussa 1967 ilmestyneessä Their Satanic Majesties Request -kiekolla (kesällä ilmestyi Amerikan markkinoille Flowers-kokoelma), joka on useaan otteeseen ja syystäkin teilattu bändin pohjanoteeraukseksi. Vaikka kiekolta näyttävät puuttuvan kunnon biisit, tulkinta ja idea, on siinä jotakin hyvääkin. Sen soundit ovat edellisiä kiekkoja paremmat, sillä Olympiciin oli hankittu kahdeksanraitanauhuri. Biisien välissä kuuluva kuorsaus kuuluu Bill Wymanille, joka nukkui studion lattialla.
Sankareittemme vaiherikasta vuotta 1967 seurasi tapahtumarikas vuosi 1968, jonka alkajaisiksi Keith Richards leikki kotonaan kitarastyrkkarilla ja akustisella kitaralla. Mies huomasi, että akustisen kitaran soundi mikillä yliohjattuna vahvistimeen on itse asiassa melko magee. Hän rämpytti biisinraakiletta nimeltä Primo Grande. Sävellyksestä kehittyi kevään mittaan Did Everybody Pay Their Dues ja lopulta toukokuussa Street Fighting Man, ja lopulliseenkin versioon jäi yliohjattu akustinen kitara ja Wattsin paukuttamat lelurummut (joissa on upeat soundit).

Maan suola
Vuoden 1968 alussa The Rolling Stones ryhdistäytyi. Kenties äijät pitivät palaverin, jossa pohdittiin bändin yleistä linjaa tai kenties suunnanmuutoksen takana olivat bändin uudet biisit, jotka eivät parhaalla tahdollakaan sopineet psykedeelisiin vaatteisiin.
Eräänä syynä suunnanmuutokseen oli herra nimeltä Gram Parsons, kantrimies, innovaattori, loistava muusikko ja biisintekijä. Hän kuului vielä 1968 Byrdsin riveihin, ja heidän tultuaan talvella 1968 Lontooseen keikalle, jäi Gram sinne hengailemaan ja jammailemaan Keithin kanssa. Byrds oli nimittäin lähtemässä keikalle Etelä-Afrikkaan, jonne Gram ei suostunut lähtemään apartheid-politiikan takia.
Keef osoittautui Gramin riemuksi suureksi country & western -diggariksi. Lisäksi miehet löysivät yhteistä harrastuspohjaa kokaiini-, kannabis- ja alkoholipuuhista. Duon kevään ja kesän päivät kuluivat iloisesti erilaisia paukkuja sekoitellessa ja Merle Haggardin sekä Carter Familyn biisejä jammatessa ja erilaisia kitarapikkauksia opetellessa: Keef opetti Gramille blues-likkejä ja Gram Keefille kantri-likkejä. Gram tulisi jäämään Stonesien lähipiiriin vuoteen 1973 saakka, jolloin hän kuolisi alkoholin ja huumeitten yliannostukseen
Joskus maaliskuussa 1968 sattui Bill Wyman soittamaan pianolla riffin, josta hän ajatteli olevan aihetta biisiin. Mickin ja Keithin mielestä se oli kehittämisen arvoinen ja huhtikuun alussa bändi harjoitteli biisiä nimeltä Jumping Jack Flash, joka lopulta kreditoitiin Jaggerille ja Richardsille, vaikka se kulkee kivikasvobasistin keksimän riffin varassa - kilttinä miehenä Bill ei koskaan ryhtynyt oikeustoimiin menetettyjen miljoonien vuoksi.
Myös tämän sävelmän lopullisessa studioversiossa Keith soittaa yliohjattua akustista kitaraa, ja ilmiselvän hittibiisin myötä haudattiin suunnitelma julkaista Did Everybody Pay Their Dues singlenä - sitä jopa mainostettiin lehdissä tuolla nimellä seuraavana Stones-julkaisuna (Keef on myös kuulemma basistina biisissä).
Tarina pomppivasta Jackista toi Rollarit komeasti takaisin ruotuun ja listojen kärkeen, vaikka singlen b-puolelta löytyvällä Child Of The Moon -zipaleella on vielä kaikuja kukkaisajoista. Beggar´s Banquet julkaistiin monen viivytyksen jälkeen loppuvuodesta 1968, sillä vanha kunnon Decca säikkyi tällä kertaa levyn vessakantta. Kyseessä on alusta loppuun loistava levy: Nicky Hopkinsin pirullisen svengaavalla pianolla ryyditetystä Sympathy For The Devilistä gospel-mausteiseen Salt Of The Earthiin. Väliin mahtuu suorasukaisia seksibiisejä (Parachute Woman, Stray Cat Blues) ja virkistäviä akustisia kantribluessävelmiä (Prodigal Son, No Excepatations, Factory Girl, Dear Doctor). Brian Jones ei biiseissä enää juurikaan ollut mukana, sillä äijän soittotaito alkoi olla jo mennyttä hupielämän tuloksena. Bändi teki kuitenkin samoissa sessioissa loistavan, pitkän version Muddy Watersin Still A Fool -sävelmästä ja siinä Jonesy soittaa vielä sydämensä kyllyydestä rakastamiaan blues-kuvioita. Bändi kaivoi myös esiin vanhan You Can´t Always Get What You Want -biisin ja ryhtyi työstämään sitä tulevaisuutta varten. Charlie Watts ei tämän biisin sessioissa ollut mukana ja rumpuihin päätyi Jimmy Miller, mies joka myöhemmin kunnostautui lehmänkellon soittajana Honky Tonk Womenissa. Loppuvuodesta Palterit tekivät vielä Rock´n Roll Circus -nimisen telkkarishown, jossa vieraana oli nimekäs joukko bändin kaverita. Yhtyeen setti oli jokseenkin löysä ja epävireinen, joten bändi jaksoi pitää ohjelmaa hyllytettynä 30 vuotta. Lopullisessa versiossa ei ole koko bändin settiä, sillä Route 66, Confessin The Blues, Yonder Wall ja Walking Blues eivät ole mahtuneet mukaan.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: jagger50 ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:06

Short?

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Hurriganes ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:08

I tried

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: jagger50 ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:09

Only for fun. Lovely language by the way.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Hurriganes ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:10

You must be the only one to say so. Thanks ;-)

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: oldkr ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:13

which police force is carrying this investigation, because until one does its nothing more than hobbyists seeing things that arent there

OLDKR

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Debra ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:14

As far as I can tell this is all speculation and no one knows what Lennon WOULD HAVE DONE or Hendrix for that matter! Speculation is worthless and for every one guess as to what was about to happen, there are 1000 other possibilities, all meaningless. So where exactly are tapes of Brian jamming with all of these superstars??? Do they exist? Who can prove Hendrix thought seriously about recording with Brian? I know they were buddies as evidenced by footage at Montery Pop Festival. There IS NO Proof.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: jagger50 ()
Date: July 16, 2006 21:31

Whatever went down went down. Brian gave us all meaningful direction. And we thank him for that. Where would contemprary music be without the Stones? Or us? IMO Brian had a hard time from the very begining. And was later hard on himself. Any speculation about his death is just that. American's live with Kennedy's death under a cloud of suspicion. But with Brian things were more clear. Can't we live with that? We enjoy everyday what he gave us. That is enough for me. And as Forrest Gump would say, " That's all I have to say about that." RIP Brian.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Sara ()
Date: July 16, 2006 22:09

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Sara, those facts (that can not be proved you
> say) plus Trevor's proofs (that is not seen
> anywhere) should us convince that Mick Jagger and
> Keith Richards murdered Brian Jones?
>
> You claim that 'we' are so obsessed with Mick and
> Keith that we don't want to see the truth. Maybe
> so, but what I perceive is some people that are so
> obsessed with Brian Jones (or anti-Mick/Keith)
> that don't want to see the truth.
>
> What goes for so called facts that 'El' provides
> above, I have discussed those at LARS board (you
> can check them there, if you want). There are some
> facts involved, but very strong interpretations
> plus horrible amount of speculation. And if it is
> not a question of facts or proofs, but beyond
> them, it is a question of a blind faith. And from
> that base I would not start calling public figures
> as murderers. Common sense, c'mon!
>
>
> - Doxa


Where did I say that Mick and Keith killed Brian? That's not my opinion, I simply meant to say that they might know something, but I never accused them of anything. I simply said that they might not be as innocent as people think.

Potted Shrimp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sara Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh people, are you all just too blind? Can't
> you
> > read? Are you so obsessed with Mick or Keith or
> > whoever that you just don't want to see the
> truth?
> > You may well say "we know they weren't angels",
> > but it doesn't seem to me that you really
> > understand this. Yes, Brian was no angel
> either,
> > but---so what? Reread those facts. Yes, facts,
> not
> > opinions. Of course we can't prove a thing, but
> > they are facts nonetheless. And Trevor HAS
> proof.
> > Reread them and THINK about them objectively,
> not
> > as a Keith-fan or whatever. Open your yes, for
> > god's sake!
>
>
> You are an idiot

So this answer makes you any better than me?

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: July 16, 2006 22:16

stone-relics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have evidence to the contrary...
>
> JR


....but I can't tell ya. hahaha

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Miss U. ()
Date: July 16, 2006 23:35

New Forum-- hope to see U there.

"The Death Of Brian Jones"
To share upcoming news/discuss Brian's death/murder, in support of BJFC

[pub14.bravenet.com]

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: July 17, 2006 00:11

Hurriganes, a nice story of late-60's days of "Palterit" - but there was some mistakes included, and the set of R&R Circus was not "jokseenkin löysä ja epävireinen" - liian vahvoja mielipiteitä, Juntunen-perkele!!!

- Doxa

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Miss U. ()
Date: July 17, 2006 21:07

Debra, the first priority is to get the case reopened and those involved to be legally brought to justice...that requires some discretion. Perhaps someday there will eventually be a book, but there is a proper time for everything. Like Trevor said, in the coming weeks and months there will be an increase in media attention, and I will be sharing news on my board (see above link in my last post).
We've given you enough reasons to be suspicious about his death. As for the proof that will have to wait.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Hurriganes ()
Date: July 17, 2006 21:47

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hurriganes, a nice story of late-60's days of
> "Palterit" - but there was some mistakes included,
> and the set of R&R Circus was not "jokseenkin
> löysä ja epävireinen" - liian vahvoja
> mielipiteitä, Juntunen-perkele!!!


Doxa perkele! (national way to say hello btw) It's a story about The Stones made by a fan of them. Of course there are mistakes then. Although R&R Circus never was like that, the expression is quite an excellent though:

"jokseenkin löysä ja epävireinen" ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-17 21:55 by Hurriganes.

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: July 18, 2006 11:49

Hey Ganes-man, it was written very well indeed! And with right attitude! (and mistakes are always allowed as far as The Rolling Stones is concerned;-)

- Doxa

Re: The plot thickens
Posted by: Tralala ()
Date: July 18, 2006 12:20

First of all - I simply hate conspiracy theories. They are often launched by people who: 1) Are mentally ill and seek the attention. or 2) Simply want the worst for whoever it should hit. (The Head "witness" here - a Beatles fan...Really?)
The builder, the guy who died from cancer a few years ago, admitted to holding Brian's head under water untill he didn't move any longer... If that isn't killing him, what is? So, Mr Thoroughgood (or whatever) did it. Why else should he admit it on his death bed. He had an argument with BJ over bills. The builder also stole truckloads full of Brians stash before dawn after he had killed him.

And one fact that so many Brian Jones fans seem to absolutely ignore: The man was a complete @#$%&! He beat his women up. He had four (or five) kids outside of marriage and he couldn't care less. He fu**ed up Stones shows on purpose - by playing Popeye the Sailor man - no matter what the others were playing. He was a self centered provocateur wit a lousy health, pretty hair and a great musical talent. If he had been blessed with some good sosial skills, he might have been a nice person. He wasn't. (There's lots of litterature confirming this - amongst others how he abused Anita (before the break up), giving her black eyes, broken ribs etc. Only @#$%& commit such deeds.)

If you mean you can prove - not just indicate, and have witnesses - not just clairvoyants - why don't you take this matter to court, then?! Afraid they'd hand you some of "Mother's Little Helpers" in stead of taking you seriously?

Finally: It was the drug abuse that killed him, slowly. He became such a psycho to be around that he really ended up a very lonely person. One can only speculate what had happened if he had managed to start his own band after leaving The Stones. He might have managed to clean up his act - but probably not. He was too f***ed up.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...23456789101112Next
Current Page: 7 of 12


This Thread has been closed

Online Users

Guests: 1665
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home