Excellent read. Many thanks, with sssoul

I think Wayne Perkins would've been a better choice. Interesting interview.

Bingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Wayne Perkins would've been a better
> choice. Interesting interview.

With any other guitarist than Ron Wood the Stones would not have survived the punk movement and the 80's. The best decision since Brian's idea of forming a band was to take a guitarist that wasn't a blues lead guitarist.

Mathijs

With any other guitarist than Ron Wood the Stones would not have survived the punk movement and the 80's. The best decision since Brian's idea of forming a band was to take a guitarist that wasn't a blues lead guitarist.

Mathijs


True. Taylor was perfect just splecdid and perfect for the band and had probably been great in many ways, later on. Perkins was great and Mandel too. But for the band Ron was the best choice. Look at their mid to late 70s and early 80s. Ron was the man on Some Girls and live. The big band since 1989 is a different band for me. Not the same dynamics. And they dont need a sologuitrist anymore. Ron was great this tour a surprise really.

Thanks, with sssoul! Excellent interview.

Really enjoyed that, thank you.

I'm tired, I'm tired of doing what I'm told.
Things are moving way too slow.

>
> "Oh, I think controls everything. Not so much the
> music; Keith leads that."


LR: is he as involved in the music as Keith?

IS: Oh sure.... ;-)

Re some of the above posts on Stu, whom I knew, he was "straight as straw," the rare sort of person one can totally rely on.

Re Chuck, Stu would have found a better piano player for a "permanent" position.

Keith's drug situation was very sad to Stu. His fingers were constantly crossed.

Nothing escaped Stu's notice but he knew when to be silent and when to lay it on line. Stu had great respect for Jagger, understood his core was, to quote Stu, "solid."

I don't think those two statements really contradict each other. I understand what Stu means.

I love this interview, many thanks!

Many thanks for posting this - a really interesting read.

I agree with Mathijs about the decision to recruit Ron Wood. In Mick Taylor the Stones had a fantastic blues lead guitarist, who gave them several years of great music in that style. But they were drifting towards becoming a band with the standard blues lead/rhythm setup, and another virtuoso lead guitarist would have set them more firmly on that course - sounding more and more like all the rest of the big blues-based bands, and less like their unique selves.

exhpart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely fascinating! I especially like that
> Mick put his foot down and said it's Woody or no
> tour - always thought it was Keith that got Ronnie
> the gig.


yes me too! very surpised

and the Brian Jones myth is over when you read this interview

One of the most interesting interview I've ever read! Thanks for posting it. Stu is the more sympathetic face of The Rolling Stones.

Thanks for posting With Sssoul.

Interesting to notice Mick first secured Keith's position in the band and later Ronnies. I know Mick has had a lot of negative remarks about his "commercial" approach to music. But this interview with Stu makes it clear again that Mick is a great talent scout. He knows how to build a strong team.

>> Mick is a great talent scout <<

smile: so was Stu

And Brian

kind of suprised stu is so harsh about brian here. it had only been 6 years...

wow kind of surprised keith was anti woody at first, thought they were brothers
way before munich

smile: well, "not sure" isn't exactly "anti". and being tight with someone
can make us try extra hard to make sure we're hiring them for the right reasons.

as for what Stu says about Brian ... does that seem "harsh" or simply sound like Stu's unadorned perceptions?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-04 09:55 by with sssoul.

We have to take in consideration that Keith had been playing with Mick Taylor for over 5 years. Taylor concentrated a lot on fills and solos.
Ronnies role in The Faces, where he was the only guitar player, was a combination of holding rythms/playing riffs and taking a lead now and again. It is understandable that Keith thought Ronnie to be more Keithish in his playing than Taylorish.
During the 1975 tour Ronnie they tried to fit Ronnie into Mick Taylors role if you ask me (maybe 1976 as well). In 1978 I think they really found the way to colaborate with both guitarists doing fills, solos, riffs and rythm, like no other two guitar players ever could.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as for what Stu says about Brian ... does that
> seem "harsh" or simply sound like Stu's unadorned
> perceptions?

if his unadorned perceptions strike me as harsh, what's the difference, other than in euphemism?

I'm not talking about his diction but his emotions. I know keith has said much the same, or worse, and mick has rarely spared kind words for brian--it's the company line, but I hadn't realized it had already been established by 1975--but stu begins this interview touting how he & brian founded the band. jarring then to execrate him later in the text. maybe the comments are from different interview sessions, and stu was feeling grumpier or more drunk a few weeks later.

one factor that occurs to me is stu's extraordinary musical conservatism. he doesn't in this interview seem remotely to fathom brian's experimentalism. sad.

Thank youu withsssssssssoul!

Very insightful reading from the year 1975. Like said by many here, there are many, many interesting points, but I just take two:

(1) Jagger's potentiality as a solo artist. At that time, Jagger's name was perhaps in its highest peak. It was really Mick Jagger and The Rolling StoneThat would have been - around 1973-75 -teh perfect timing for a succesfull solo career. He never chose that (until it was too late). Perhaps Jagger knew like Stu, that Keith was the 'pulse'. But even Stu seems to wonder here why Jagger hasn't left the band, because he seemed run the whole almost by himself.

(2) The status and importance of Keith Richards as a guitar player. It is clear that Stu is defending Keith here of the skills that people don't notice and appreciate. That was still the time when flashing solos were the essence of rock guitarist, the criteria which Keith never met. If the best guitarists were listed at the time, you wouldn't find the name of Keith Richards there. It took the punk movement, and dropping the whole idea of musical elitism and egoism, until Keith's authentical and extraordinary style and approach was recognized.

More later.

- Doxa

yeah deeply fasincating; what a treat; very down to earth; his natural approach serves to bascially humanize so much about the whole phenomenon, right from the heart of the scene, even pre-charlie/bill even, and andrew of course; thanx so much for posting and sharing!!

also, how self effacing, this gentleman...i've heard him play bs, as we all have, a zillion times on that record; but i've also heard him EXPLODE it out live, absolutely rocketing it to another dimension once the chorus hits...just amazing...that element spreading out widely with this wild percussive, even savage, epiphany; what incredible INCREDIBLE passion in the man, despite his dry calm personal delivery...

... & he just totally disses his own amazing spirit and natural skills, such is his humilility. What a blessing he was around; i don't know if that team would have survived without a level head like this in the brew...

a lot of eye opening stuff about the origins here; i love this stuff.
haaa, great that he thought so highly of 'exiles' even tho it was not generally understood to be the landmark of originality and brilliance it was by the critics, and some fans, at first. it was a totally ground breaking rock album, and like maybe the 5th in a row, if you include ya=ya's which i prefer to do.

i mean that's amazing; we know we know the golden period and all that, banguet and thru exiles in my estimation...(tho i consider the first 8 studio albums or so, pre-taylor to be absolutely essential personally also) especially aftermath, between the buttons, 12X5 and each one of the rest of them heh heh...

(to me at the time of release it was spell binding and mesmerizing) listented to all four sides and then started again right from the beginning; spellbound.

rocks off blew me away, td, rtj. i just wanna see his face, loving cup, shine a light, sweet virginia, do the hip shake yeah...the almost muddled vocals on some tracks; lower in the mix than a 'hit' kinda mix...in some tracks...it was just so perfect; soul survivor...others...wow)

the confessional lyrics...brilliant songwriting...only get his rocks off while he's dreaming; the drummer thinks that he is dynamite, you got to roll me, round and round and round we go, short fat fanny is on the loose, let me in mr. immigration man...amazing full productiojn numbers with incredible lyrics and melody; incredibly down home stripped kinda sweaty blues things...the whole thing is a friggin' miracle.

how ferocious. i tend to agree with a lot of the above comments about stu, had he lived longer, and what a tragic loss, would have taken more control of 'music director' sort of stuff...and maybe become more the pianist, now that pop star image, or the number of guys in the 'group' are not primary considerations...amd in that position it didn't matter anymore...they have lisa for a little theatrical cake and dramatic foil for micks bump and grind forays...
and keith and ron and charlie are keith and ron and charlie; and look great to me; even tho keith had a few really hard knocks and ron's been sick with this or that...and dang throat cancer tried to bring charles down...those guys still eke that tremendous charisma no matter what they're wearing or how they're dressing...charlie is my darling, what a gent.

...thank god stu was on the '69 and '72 tours; an essential part of the performing outfit imo, even when nicky was right there...which is really saying something when u thinks about it.

i also often have longed for the days when they would take a GREAT TOP SUPER ACT with them as a warm up on tours, circa ike and tina review and stevie and wonderlove, but also see how that became, at the time, financially prohibitive as a priority...it is also a shame that multi million proven sellers and performers like this could have a hit record in '64, maintain and develop even more of a catalog and audience; sell millions of greatest hits albums, so much so they had to release them in several volumes, tour almost non-stop and they STILL END UP VIRTUALLY BROKE circa '69 and beyond! whoa, that sux so horrid.

very generous of you to share the interview. ty again. a million impressions. an unforgettable cat. a truly great loss.

>> to execrate him <<

but what do you see as Stu "execrating" him??

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> but what do you see as Stu "execrating" him??

--
Well, Brian loved it in that he was a Rolling Stone and all that rot but he forgot every so often that he was supposed to be playing guitar, and he just lost interest in that. Brian just got himself incredibly messed up very quickly. I think Brian was a very weak and easily led character.

Brian used to like to dabble at keyboards, and percussion and reed instruments, but he seemed to get a mental block about guitar and got frustrated over his inability to write or compose songs. And he's the only person who's gone around saying, 'I'm a Rolling Stone, I want this and I want that'. I mean, Mick and Keith don't do that and neither do Bill and Charlie. But Brian did -- he was really ridiculous as soon as he got any inkling of money or fame.
--

ok, "execrate" is too strong. but as true as his perception of brian's weaknesses may have been, stu seems very angry at brian's abandonment of the guitar. and even if he's the company secretary, it's ugly to me for him to trot out the company line of how much brian's own fault his death was.


the point about the band spending all its revenue on touring is interesting, but I wonder if it's true. you'd think they were making money on the tours, b/c they weren't making any on the records. it's not like they had a big stage show in 1969.

thanks for clarifying, cc. i agree that "execrate" seems a bit too strong,
and i don't read any anger in the part about Brian losing interest in playing guitar.
exasperation with the 'I want this and I want that' attitude, certainly, but not anger.
so we're interpreting what's printed differently, and either or both of us might think differently
if we could hear/see Stu saying these things.

>> it's not like they had a big stage show in 1969. <<

yeah but they had Allen Klein in 1969. as well as quite impressive supporting acts, who were paid by the Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-04 19:29 by with sssoul.

I've always liked Stu......thanks so much for posting this (apparently) rare interview, sssoul. I thoroughly enjoyed it.....great insight into the quiet man.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... a couple of other threads inspired me to dig
> this one out - i think it's from Creem magazine?

Yes it's from Creem Magazine; I transcribed the article with pix and all and posted it here at this message board a couple of years ago, here's the link

[www.iorr.org]

Check the whole thread, it has all the pix from the article and also the liner notes from the back cover of ROCKET 88 by Stu... so check it out!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-04 17:59 by Voodoo Chile in Wonderland.

thanks for the link, Voodoo Chile!

How and when did Ian Stewart die?
What killed him?
In the youtube clip of the mixing of little queenie he seemed to be treated as a bit of a gofer by Mick. Get the coffee Stew!