Mathijs, sorry, but you seem to have some kind of problem with Brian Jones and his fans. It doesn't look healthy. Get over it. Use your scientific self-criticism, for god sake.

- Doxa

Mathjis wrote:

> About WHY it is so interesting whether Brian wrote
> music: it isn't.

Then why not give him co-credits at least in interviews? Im not saying creds, Mick and Keith produced their hits, but some damn respect for turning many mediocre songs into hits.

I really don't care who wrote
> Paint it Black. If Brian wrote it: god bless him.
> But what I find truly repulsive is all these
> psychotic Brian Jones fans twisting the truth and
> rewriting history to make Brian a bigger legend
> than he is, and to put down Jagger and Richards
> whose fault it all is what happened to Brian.


I agree and disagree. Mick and Keith have done this to themselves. They did treat him like shit. It's a fact. They havent really showed guilt and I understand that, they dont feel they have to and it's common when friends, well, are suicidal and then suddenly just die.

I
> hate it how everything is turned into one big
> grand scheme by the Stones to get rid of Brian,
> and all the lies like that Brian's death is
> ordered by the Stones and whatever. I can't stand
> people rewriting history in Brian's name, claiming
> brian wrote all the big hits but was denied
> credits.


Agree. Still apart from the psycho-fans, again, someone like Brian has been written out of Stones history, by Mick and Keith. It's a fact. They could say something about Brian forming the band and important, their image. And bringing in Anita. Etc. Something about his importance. And something about how three was a crowd and not just, shit happens in a backseat of a car (Anita). I think they put him down then and felt guilty afterwards. And noone has really done anything wrong, it's all personal. And Brian didnt contribute a lot in the end.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs, sorry, but you seem to have some kind of
> problem with Brian Jones and his fans. It doesn't
> look healthy. Get over it. Use your scientific
> self-criticism, for god sake.
>
> - Doxa

Yes. And out of pure frustration I just ordered a Zemaitis guitar. And now the wife is angry because I bought just another guitar. It's all Brian's fault, the bastard.

Mathijs

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathjis wrote:
>
> > About WHY it is so interesting whether Brian
> wrote
> > music: it isn't.
>
> Then why not give him co-credits at least in
> interviews? Im not saying creds, Mick and Keith
> produced their hits, but some damn respect for
> turning many mediocre songs into hits.
>

But they do, don't they? Bill Wyman's Rolling with the stones is 75% about the first five years, his first book is 100% about the first 6 years. The stones' A Life on the Road also is 75% about the first years -I mean, what can they do more? In my opinion, it's all these dreadfull books like "The murder of Brian Jones" and "Who Killed Christopher Robin?: The Life and Death of Brian Jones" and "Golden Stone: The Untold Life and Tragic Death of Brian Jones" who don't do Jones justice by spreading lies and false story's.

Mathijs

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But they do, don't they? Bill Wyman's Rolling with
> the stones is 75% about the first five years, his
> first book is 100% about the first 6 years. The
> stones' A Life on the Road also is 75% about the
> first years -I mean, what can they do more? In my
> opinion, it's all these dreadfull books like "The
> murder of Brian Jones" and "Who Killed Christopher
> Robin?: The Life and Death of Brian Jones" and
> "Golden Stone: The Untold Life and Tragic Death of
> Brian Jones" who don't do Jones justice by
> spreading lies and false story's.
>
> Mathijs


Yeah, but Keith and Mick has never really made a clear statement about their first years, the 60s and when they say something positive you have what, 40 years of negative coments or half ass excuses. My point is that the winner writes history, Mick and Keith write it. And Brian has been excluded more or less or at best made into some disturbed @#$%& who maybe started the band or was it Stu, and who played marimbas and slide. And beat Anita so Keith didnt @#$%& Brians girl. And Brian deserved to die because he stole a chicken wing from Keith and made some deal when he was 20 - after forming the band and promoting the band that, maybe, would have given him five pounds more. And that's it.

>> I just ordered a Zemaitis guitar <<

congratulations! probably not the right thread for it, but i'd love to hear the details!

and meanwhile i keep thinkin what would happen if, for every post pointing fingers over Brian,
people would go out in the real world and do something really meaningful
to help someone who's having similar problems now. whether it's easy/convenient to do that or not.

People are obviously quite demanding when it comes to Mick and Keith and what they should do or shouldn't do....

...imagine you are Mick...or Keith - would you feel the need to frequently talk about happenings more than three decades ago?

...or if it is a bit too tough for some to imagine being Mick or Keith...just in case you treated a fellow pupil, student or colleague - let's say: not real nice - for some time 30 or 40 years ago - would you feel the need to frequently talk about him or her even now?

In addition to these all too human motifs I believe Mick and Keith are too aware that no matter what they would say about Brian now, those hardcore Brian fans would not believe them anyway and no matter how positive they would talk about Brians role in the band now, it simply would not make those hardcore Brian fans happy. So why care at all?

I have no doubt that for them it's "always the same old shit" and as such a waste of time.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And Brian has
> been excluded more or less or at best made into
> some disturbed @#$%& who maybe started the band or
> was it Stu, and who played marimbas and slide.

LA Forum, you've really nailed it on the head here. Mick and Keith have gone out of their way to minimize Brian's contributions to the Stones over the past 38 years or so. Once in a blue moon, they'll say something nice about their old band mate, but much of their comments tend to be on the negative side. And when they are not minimizing Brian's role with the band, Mick and Keith just ignore him completely. For instance, when I went to see the Stones two years ago at Soldier Field, Brian Jones, the FOUNDER of the band, was nowhere to be found. The merchandise stands, displays, and the concert's five minute, trip-back-memory-lane video clip during She's So Cold showed nothing of Brian. I thought that was appalling. Hell, Tom Petty showed more respect for Brian by playing a white Vox Teardrop guitar during his last tour (the opening song, no less, when I saw him last September)! This lack of respect for Brian IS the reason why so many of his fans are upset with Mick, Keith, and Co. They can learn a thing or two from Pink Floyd and how they have handled Syd Barett and his memory.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mathijs, sorry, but you seem to have some kind
> of
> > problem with Brian Jones and his fans. It
> doesn't
> > look healthy. Get over it. Use your scientific
> > self-criticism, for god sake.
> >
> > - Doxa
>
> Yes. And out of pure frustration I just ordered a
> Zemaitis guitar. And now the wife is angry because
> I bought just another guitar. It's all Brian's
> fault, the bastard.
>
> Mathijs




- Doxa

neptune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They can learn a thing or two from Pink Floyd and how they
> have handled Syd Barett and his memory.


Yes. You might be a bit surprised, but I agree with this. (Long) gone are the days when they invited Mick Taylor to the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame induction ceremony although he wasn't a band member anymore. Nowadays, they even erase Bill Wyman from a 1978 photo on the front cover of the "Rarities" CD.

neptune Wrote:
They can
> learn a thing or two from Pink Floyd and how they
> have handled Syd Barett and his memory.


very good point.

neptune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
This lack of
> respect for Brian IS the reason why so many of his
> fans are upset with Mick, Keith, and Co. They can
> learn a thing or two from Pink Floyd and how they
> have handled Syd Barett and his memory.

Yes. Exactly. And it is not about putting them down, it is they who ignore Brian Jones when it comes to writing history. I think that's the deal. They dont have to talk about him, why would they, they have had a long career and deserve respect for that, but when they do mention Brian and when they are interviewed about their past, he is and has been ignored for a very very long time. And hadnt it been for all the negative comments. It's like he never did anything. And that attitude from Mick; Brian was a baby. FFS, he was 27 when he died. And depressed. Anita and Keith anyone?
And Keith's shitty comments are just tasteless. It's like he never got over it. Remember his reaction when Ronnie fooled around with one of Brian's guitars on the 2002-tour. Keith probably respects Brian but maybe he could say something relevant just once. Not just "shit happens".

And one or two positive comments don't make thing better. He's been dead and ignored for 40 years.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember his reaction when Ronnie fooled around with one of Brian's guitars on the 2002-tour.

No. What reaction? Which guitar?

>> What reaction? Which guitar? <<

i don't remember which guitar (a 9-string?), and it was probably a studio situation, not a tour,
but i do remember someone (maybe Ronnie himself) talking about Keith telling him to put the guitar down.
how that's going to be interpreted as an insult to Brian i really don't know,
but i reckon i won't have to wait long to find out.

>> He's been dead and ignored for 40 years. <<

wrong on both counts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-25 13:37 by with sssoul.

Neptune and LA Forum: it's just utter crap. It's just total bollocks that the Stones "went out of there way to ignore Brian". I just checked:

"A Life on the Road" is 260 pages long. The first 110 pages deal with 1963 - 1969. So, 40% of the book deals with a mere 6 out of 43 years.

Wyman's Rolling With the Stones is 512 pages long. The first 332 pages are about the first six years with Brian Jones, ending with a general pardon for Jones. That's 65% of the book about 14% of the Stones career span.

"According to the Stones" is 358 pages long. The first 140 pages deal about the first 6 years. Jagger, Richards and Watts all talk in great detail about Jones, in a very honest way. They all acknowledge how great a musician he was, and how instrumental he was in forming the Stones. They also talk openly about what happens in '68, that Brian was starting to suffer problems, including the statement of Watts that Brian "left us no choice".

Brian was very important for the Stones. But equally important for the Stones are the Taylor years: this is where they created the body of work they still thrive on today. The Stones we know now, the legendary Stones, are much more the Stones from Sticky Fingers and Exile than the Stones of Out of Our Heads or Between the Buttons. Some Girls is a much more important album than December's Children. You guys want to make Brian bigger than he is. You want to hear Jagger say "yes, Brian wrote a lot of songs", and as long as he doesn't say that he is down playing Jones' role. Well, Jagger simply CAN'T say that, because Jones didn't write any songs. They talk about Jones half of the time in the books, but still it isn't enough.

Mathijs

erikjjf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LA FORUM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Remember his reaction when Ronnie fooled around
> with one of Brian's guitars on the 2002-tour.
>
> No. What reaction? Which guitar?

Ronnie fooled around with, not sure, but think it was the Vox. Possibly some other guitar. Anyhow, Keith's reaction was "leave that @#$%& thing alone". And the reporter said something about Brian and Brian's death still being something of an open wound in the Stones camp. Like it happened yesterday. I can see that. Heroin, cocaine and business as usual, touring, producing, their own careers - life - probably put Brian under a blanket. I dont think Mick and Keith has ever really talked about Brian's death or other stuff. If they drifted apart after Altamont maybe it is just something they won't touch. Or feel the need to discuss. Like with most things I guess. And that's why they give fans the same clichés over and over. It's called PR. And would Keith really be Keith if he lied and said he felt sorry for Brian?

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neptune and LA Forum: it's just utter crap. It's
> just total bollocks that the Stones "went out of
> there way to ignore Brian". I just checked:
>
> "A Life on the Road" is 260 pages long. The first
> 110 pages deal with 1963 - 1969. So, 40% of the
> book deals with a mere 6 out of 43 years.
>
> Wyman's Rolling With the Stones is 512 pages long.
> The first 332 pages are about the first six years
> with Brian Jones, ending with a general pardon for
> Jones. That's 65% of the book about 14% of the
> Stones career span.
>
> "According to the Stones" is 358 pages long. The
> first 140 pages deal about the first 6 years.
> Jagger, Richards and Watts all talk in great
> detail about Jones, in a very honest way. They all
> acknowledge how great a musician he was, and how
> instrumental he was in forming the Stones. They
> also talk openly about what happens in '68, that
> Brian was starting to suffer problems, including
> the statement of Watts that Brian "left us no
> choice".
>
> Brian was very important for the Stones. But
> equally important for the Stones are the Taylor
> years: this is where they created the body of work
> they still thrive on today. The Stones we know
> now, the legendary Stones, are much more the
> Stones from Sticky Fingers and Exile than the
> Stones of Out of Our Heads or Between the Buttons.
> Some Girls is a much more important album than
> December's Children. You guys want to make Brian
> bigger than he is. You want to hear Jagger say
> "yes, Brian wrote a lot of songs", and as long as
> he doesn't say that he is down playing Jones'
> role. Well, Jagger simply CAN'T say that, because
> Jones didn't write any songs. They talk about
> Jones half of the time in the books, but still it
> isn't enough.
>
> Mathijs


Well, I havent read their latest book where they praise Brian like you say but that has to be the first time in history. Stoned was under production so why not. Mick has never missed a good PR. And Bill has made a point of saying something positive about Brian when noone did.
They have put him down for years and years, if they softened up now then that's a nice touch. And I'm not really talking about the pragmatic Mick but Keith. Those comments about Brian has been served for a long time. You know that's true.
I'm not one of those who think Brian wrote Satisfaction and was murdered by Keith. I just think Keith has been very cold hearted. Then on the other hand he is always trying to be the tough down to earth guy. He has many one liners and I think many of his oneliners about Brian are embarrassing. At least those after 1980, after heroin-Keith.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neptune and LA Forum: it's just utter crap. It's
> just total bollocks that the Stones "went out of
> there way to ignore Brian". I just checked:
>
> "A Life on the Road" is 260 pages long. The first
> 110 pages deal with 1963 - 1969. So, 40% of the
> book deals with a mere 6 out of 43 years.
>
> Wyman's Rolling With the Stones is 512 pages long.
> The first 332 pages are about the first six years
> with Brian Jones, ending with a general pardon for
> Jones. That's 65% of the book about 14% of the
> Stones career span.
>
> "According to the Stones" is 358 pages long. The
> first 140 pages deal about the first 6 years.
> Jagger, Richards and Watts all talk in great
> detail about Jones, in a very honest way. They all
> acknowledge how great a musician he was, and how
> instrumental he was in forming the Stones. They
> also talk openly about what happens in '68, that
> Brian was starting to suffer problems, including
> the statement of Watts that Brian "left us no
> choice".
>
> Brian was very important for the Stones. But
> equally important for the Stones are the Taylor
> years: this is where they created the body of work
> they still thrive on today. The Stones we know
> now, the legendary Stones, are much more the
> Stones from Sticky Fingers and Exile than the
> Stones of Out of Our Heads or Between the Buttons.
> Some Girls is a much more important album than
> December's Children. You guys want to make Brian
> bigger than he is. You want to hear Jagger say
> "yes, Brian wrote a lot of songs", and as long as
> he doesn't say that he is down playing Jones'
> role. Well, Jagger simply CAN'T say that, because
> Jones didn't write any songs. They talk about
> Jones half of the time in the books, but still it
> isn't enough.
>
> Mathijs


Quite selective reading I need to say, and with very odd interpretations. What's the point of showing that the books are basically covering The Brian Jones years -- the years that seemed to be to be essential for the band, and not just for Brian, but to Mick and Keith as well - are discustsed in great detail in those books? Do you think that someone is claiming that he Stones are ignoring all those years when they invented themselves, conquered the world, and were young, beautiful and relevant? Using your own vocabulary, that is 'utter crap' and 'bullocks'. They are a 60's band, and they seem to know it. The point Brian Jones fans are doing is paying attention to the role of Brian Jones in those hectic years - a role that seem to be forgotten - and Jagger and Richards are not really contributing to keep that in mind (I don't know if that supposed to be their task or not in the firts place). That's the field open for sort of historical interpretation and with that, revisionism seems to take easily place; if you look without prejudices for example what "According To The Rolling Stones" and "Stone Alone" say about those years, you will find very different interpretations what Brian Jones meant for the band. They are even contradicting each other!

Look at your (and mine) big hero Keith. Even he has not make up his mind what Brian's role really was - and you don't need to be a psycholgist to notice that he is really struggling with the issue. If we look as the years go by, he seems to more and more negative and to a larger extent ignoring Brian's contribution (compare what he said about him in 1971 Rolling stone interview to the things he has said later; for example, nowadays story-teller Keith - bless him - claims that it was Ian Stewart was the founder of the band).

You address your criticism towards Neptune and LA Forum. I think you should add Bill Wyman into your list, namely what those guys say is basically what Bill Wyman's book Stone Alone is stating. He clearly describes the motive of this book is to remind people of the existence of the band - "a little rock and roll band" - which once was lead, organized, idealized by Brian Jones, and more understood as a unit of five musicians than Mick Jagger-Keith Richards show. But I guess Bill Wyman is also presenting 'utter crap' and 'bullocks' in that book - what could he know about the inner dymanics and workings of The Rolling Stones back in the 60's, compared to one besserwisser in cyperspace.

- Doxa

Thanks Doxa.

Mick said some very nice things about Brian's invaluable contributions when they were inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. Keith's infamous "shit happens" remark in 25x5 was in reference to Anita leaving Brian for Keith and had no bearing on Brian's talent and input to the band. However, if you take the attitude that Mick and Keith don't say enough about Brian and then call Mick's positive remarks an example of Mick never missing a PR opportunity, you've already written them off and you'll never be satisfied short of their fulfilling some bizarre fantasy press conference where they tearfully announce they're turning over their millions to Brian and Mick Taylor's biggest fans who really deserve it.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wyman's Rolling With the Stones is 512 pages long.

I wasn't referring to Bill Wyman. I'm talking about Mick and Keith.


> "According to the Stones" is 358 pages long. The
> first 140 pages deal about the first 6 years.
> Jagger, Richards and Watts all talk in great
> detail about Jones, in a very honest way.

Yes, a lot of the book covers the 60's, but that's a very important period for the band. As for what they say about Jones, I don't know if 'honest' is an accurate description here. Charlie doesn't say much about Brian other than some vague pronouncements about his demise. Keith pretty much criticizes Brian throughout, referring to his long deceased bandmate as a "passenger", "dead weight", and too short to see over the steering wheel of his car (he may have also called him an ass---- in the book, but I'm not sure. I know Keith called Brian an ass---- in his last interview with Q magazine). And lastly, Mick says some OK things about Brian, that he was a "colourist" and all, but then he says some outright lies. Mick, for instance, states that Brian's only contribution to Beggars was "some slide on No Expectations", which we all know to be untrue. Then he claims he became a better harmonica player than Brian, but then later states that they had different styles. No Mick, Brian was better than you in every way, different styles or not! As for the band's origins, Brian is NOT mentioned at all, leading the readers to believe that Mick and Keith were the leaders from the beginning. Honesty, you say? Hmmmm . . . .


> The Stones we know
> now, the legendary Stones, are much more the
> Stones from Sticky Fingers and Exile than the
> Stones of Out of Our Heads or Between the Buttons.

Yes, but does it make the Stones better for it? The Stones lasted long enough to make SF and Exile because they were a kickass band in the 60's that wrote some of the greatest anthems in rock history.


> Some Girls is a much more important album than
> December's Children.

That's your opinion. December's Children has Get Off Of My Cloud. That song alone is as important as all of Some Girls put together.


>You guys want to make Brian
> bigger than he is. You want to hear Jagger say
> "yes, Brian wrote a lot of songs", and as long as
> he doesn't say that he is down playing Jones'
> role.

I don't want Mick to say Brian wrote a lot of songs. For all I know, Brian may not have even written Chow Time! I just want Mick and Keith to stop with the lies and criticisms and to treat the man with a little more respect.

I CAN'T READ THIS SHIT ANYMORE!!!!!! Mick do this, Keith do that, Mick did this, Keith did that, poor-Brian-ooo-wheep---wheep, what have they done to Brian, whiiiiiiine, more respects please for Brian - all this whining by few people who calling themselves Brian Jones fans but obviously are out there to gain some attention. GET A LIFE! 60's are nearly 40 years ago and how many of you were actually born already back then? And how many really know what was going on so it really enables you to bash Mick & Keith constantly? If you constantly request Mick & Keith to respect Brian more what do you do gain respect for him on your part? If younger people go see to find out more about Brian and go to fanclub websites, all they read is Brian was above all and apart from that constant Mick & Keith bashing. Its so boring!!! And you behaviours makes my blood start to boil!!!!!!

Rocky Dijon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick said some very nice things about Brian's
> invaluable contributions when they were inducted
> into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. Keith's
> infamous "shit happens" remark in 25x5 was in
> reference to Anita leaving Brian for Keith and had
> no bearing on Brian's talent and input to the
> band. However, if you take the attitude that Mick
> and Keith don't say enough about Brian and then
> call Mick's positive remarks an example of Mick
> never missing a PR opportunity, you've already
> written them off and you'll never be satisfied
> short of their fulfilling some bizarre fantasy
> press conference where they tearfully announce
> they're turning over their millions to Brian and
> Mick Taylor's biggest fans who really deserve it.


Why the moccery? Noone is asking for a PC and tears etc. Brian was written out of their history, understandable perhaps in the 70s but it's a fact.

alimente Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I CAN'T READ THIS SHIT ANYMORE!!!!!! Mick do this,
> Keith do that, Mick did this, Keith did that,
> poor-Brian-ooo-wheep---wheep, what have they done
> to Brian, whiiiiiiine, more respects please for
> Brian - all this whining by few people who calling
> themselves Brian Jones fans but obviously are out
> there to gain some attention. GET A LIFE! 60's are
> nearly 40 years ago and how many of you were
> actually born already back then? And how many
> really know what was going on so it really enables
> you to bash Mick & Keith constantly? If you
> constantly request Mick & Keith to respect Brian
> more what do you do gain respect for him on your
> part? If younger people go see to find out more
> about Brian and go to fanclub websites, all they
> read is Brian was above all and apart from that
> constant Mick & Keith bashing. Its so boring!!!
> And you behaviours makes my blood start to
> boil!!!!!!


OK, so you say Bill Wyman wasnt there? Mick and Keith are alright and everything they say is true.

neptune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith pretty
> much criticizes Brian throughout, referring to his
> long deceased bandmate as a "passenger", "dead
> weight", and too short to see over the steering
> wheel of his car (he may have also called him an
> ass---- in the book, but I'm not sure. I know
> Keith called Brian an ass---- in his last
> interview with Q magazine).

I don't know, maybe I see it too much from Keith's point of view. But I think I understand Keith in a way. You (Brian and Keith) start together in 1963 with the same passion, with the same dream, of building this band with blues music. Both are mediocre guitar players trying to become as goo a Muddy Waters' guitarists, but Brian is a truly excellent harp player and a real American blues fanatic. Two years later, Keith has grown part of a partnership that rivals Lennon/McCartney and has developed into an excellent guitarist, while Brian never really developed as a guitar player, never could write decent songs, and went astray on every exotic instrument you can possibly imagine. Instead of excepting this new role, Brian indulged in drugs. So, instead of becoming brothers in arms, Brian became a burden for Keith. I think I can really understand Keith's short temper towards Brian. Whatever the reason was for Brian's demise (and stealing his girl doesn't help), I can understand Brian was just a big burden for Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

neptune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith pretty
> much criticizes Brian throughout, referring to his
> long deceased bandmate as a "passenger", "dead
> weight", and too short to see over the steering
> wheel of his car (he may have also called him an
> ass---- in the book, but I'm not sure. I know
> Keith called Brian an ass---- in his last
> interview with Q magazine).

its not nice to talk like this about dead people, but it might be true that he was an ass or it might not be true. who knows? Keith knew him better than all you KNIGHTS IN SHINING ARMOUR who come here to defend Brian who only know him by watching him perform, looking at videos, reading books and looking at photos in music mags. thats the difference.

IMO In the early years of RS Brain was the only "star".When the 5 walked into a room it was Brain who filled it alone.Just look at old pics with the "shy" glimmer twins next to Brain ,who's looking like(what the british love) A COOL DANDY , a hard time for M.+K.

Yeah and when you read their comments about Brian that should be considered.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both are mediocre guitar players trying to become as goo a
> Muddy Waters' guitarists, but Brian is a truly
> excellent harp player and a real American blues
> fanatic.

Brian was not a mediocre guitarist. Actually, from 1962 to 1965, Brian was widely considered to be one of the best guitarists in the rock/blues scene, drawing the admiration of guys like Jimmy Page, Bo Diddley, Alexis Korner, and Muddy himself. This is what Muddy had to say while watching Brian play some slide at Chess in 1964: "That one over there ain't bad!" Brian was the best slide guitarist during much of the 60's until Duane Allman, Ry Cooder and Mick Taylor emerged late in the decade. This idea that Brian was a mediocre guitarist is nothing but a myth.


> Instead of excepting this new role, Brian indulged
> in drugs. So, instead of becoming brothers in
> arms, Brian became a burden for Keith.

Well, was Keith such a great brother-in-arms of Brian's? Keith is a prickly character who has had problems getting along with several others who have worked with him, including MT, Bill Wyman, and Ry Cooder. I don't think Mick Jagger himself has had that much fun working with Keith over the years . . .

well, let's not forget what a burden Mick was - sounding "too black" for the BBC and all,
leading Brian and Eric Easton to confer about dumping him.

just a sidelight, but: Neptune, does your copy of According to include the four-page contribution from Giorgio Gomelsky?
i'm surprised you haven't mentioned it, given your concern over that book's revisionist agenda -
i mean look which Stones he singles out for mention, how many times, and the way he refers to the band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-26 10:37 by with sssoul.