Tell Me :
Talk
And I think you're probably right.
As I said before I do believe Keith & Mick and Jimmy Miller when they say that there were times when Brian wasn't even being recorded....that he was isolated....etc. etc.
I think Doxa was inferring too much from the photos and what they thought it proved. However, again, the music itself shows that Brian contributed more to Beggars musically than just the slide for No Expectations.
Like I said my main issue is that it has become the "gospel" that Brian was wasted most of the time (ala YCAGWYW) and I'm certain that this is not the case.
Ofcourse you know it often takes days to get a track finalized.
Let's take "We Love You" for example.
I'm fairly impressed with Brian's mellotron part on that song. The brass sounds great. I've also seen the film for the song and what we get are images of a very, very wasted Brian essentially propping himself up. The guy shown couldn't have recorded the mellotron part on the day that those images were filmed (in my opinion). In fact, it makes me wonder WHY Brian was depicted that way in the film? Was it designed to rub it in the faces of the authorities or was it Mick & Keith trying to presnet the worst image of Brian? Don't shrug that off....let's remember that on the cover of Flowers the ONLY flower to not have petals is the one with the photo of Brian. Keith has stated that they did it to get under Brian's skin and fuel his paranoia.
Nonetheless, my primary point is simply this. Brian could be useless on day one of a recording and be good as gold on days two, three, and four when the final version is completed.
We just don't know. The best source for verification remains, for me, the music itself.
Believe me, I've read through one of the other threads where you, yourself, were pretty disgusted at what you considered revisionist thinking about Brian's parts (I believe it was the Satanic Boxset thread). I'll admit that it's pretty good evidence since it's the actual outtakes on songs that were works in process. Keith leading, Nicky accompanying, and Brian likewise. I know Mathjis stated it was more Keith's album than Brian's but really, is it all that surprising? Years ago we knew that Brian didn't like the fact they went the "Satanic" direction. I think he, himself, felt it was an attempt to copy the Beatles. That doesn't mean Brian wouldn't contribute but it does speak to whether it was really his cup of tea or not. Brian was, if nothing else, a walking contradiction.
I am new to the forum but I've been an ardent Brian Jones fan since 1973. When I was in high school I practically worshipped the guy. I hope I didn't offend you, and I certainly know that you know your stuff where Brian is concerned. I have already suggested somewhere else that there seems to be 2 camps - and the polarity that exists between the 2 camps is pretty extreme.
I think the truth is more in the middle.
Well, my feelings for Mick & Keith are pretty much love/hate.
I'm really angry with Keith and I have been for a long, long time.
It's true I wasn't there and I don't discount everything Keith has had to say over the years. However, when you're still writing songs like "Coming Down Again" 4 years after the guy is dead....well, it just seems you have some unresolved issues of your own there. And by the way, Keith, the line "she was dying to survive" is pretty funny since you were right there with heras she became a heroin addict. One might ask who you thought you were saving. Also, I fail to see the point in comments like "no, no don't bring that guy back. he was an arsehole." I mean the guys been dead a long time now. Why the need to still be so bitter?
Anyway, I'm off topic here.
it just proves one thing.
Both Brian and Keith would be very interesting to psychoanalyze with respect to their relationship and their relationship with Anita.
I always found it interesting how Brian took up with Linda for awhile after Anita left him. I'm sure you've seen the letters/telegram she auctioned that wer from Brian to her. Brian professing his love for her and his desire that she marry him....If I were to pop analyze him I'd suggest it was all about "you took my girl....so I'll take one that you had." I'm sure there's more to it than that (they were friends) but it's ironic Brian professing his love for her not really so long after losing the love of his life.
The band comes first only through 1972 for me. Really, Exile was the last Stones album that really knocked me out. I obviously didn't stop listening but fo rme, that was the end of their truly golden years.
Also, sorry if I drug your Legacy thread into a discussion about his character. I agree with you that it's a shame conversations about his musical abilities always get derailed over his character issues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-07 19:38 by nostoneswithoutbrianjones.
Well, I begrudgingly admit that Sticky and Exile are pretty fantastic.
But, like Noel Redding, for me "there ain't so stones without Brian Jones."
People often say what a shame that Brian wasn't around for those since they more closely resemble the music Brian actually loved. Ofcourse, without Mick Taylor those albums would have been vastly different (regardless of what the manic Keith fans say).
The great shame of it, though, is that Brian wasn't able to get it together (specifically with respect to the drug busts) in time to see that their sound was moving back in the right direction. Surely he enjoyed recording No expectations more than, say, Dandelion. What I mean is that any chance he had of staying in the band and working through it effectively ended when he would have been unable to get a VISA to tour.
Damn that Pilcher. Glad he, himself, got prosecuted for corruption. Still, the jerk is immortalized in a Beatles song.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-13 20:52 by nostoneswithoutbrianjones.
Pfff....I feel so sorry for you...43 years of 'no Stones' while you could have enjoyed so much good music....
Mathijs
Your loss, nostoneswithoutbrianjones.
Ok. I always liked this pic, for its innocense.
Lynn Goldsmith 1978
Jean Pigozzi 1978
Easy for Photobucket to say, eh ?
Are you sure they're erased? Sometimes you have to update or something. Happened to me.
Sorry no credits
Putland
Jean Pigozzi 1978
Rehearsals for Hyde Park gig - June 1969 - By Michael Cooper
I found various folders on my pc containing all my stones pics, but that's quite a number of threads been 'damaged' due to them not being on photobucket anymore!
No, no.
I said that Sticky and Exile are fabulous.
As for Goats, It's Only, etc. etc.....well, they're okay but even the critics seem to see the decline beginning after Exile.
I, myself, actually also really liked Black and Blue.
I saw them at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta, GA for Some Girls.
Having said all that....the simple fact is they began to decline after Exile.
And pretty much everything after Some Girls....well, come on now. You really gonna compare any of that to anything done before 1972????
Honestly?
Yep.
I hate it for you.
I don't think I'd handle it too well.
looks like Keith and Bill had a quarrel in the washing machine !
Mick Jagger, William Burroughs and Andy Warhol, 1980
Photo by Marcia Resnick
Marcia Resnick says: “One evening in NYC in 1980, Mick Jagger, rock legend, William Seward Burroughs, literary luminary and Andy Warhol, art prodigy, had dinner in the ‘Bunker,’ Burroughs’ residence on the Bowery. The atmosphere was palpable. A food fight erupted. Then, the egos of these three charismatic gods of the counterculture clashed, resulting in a profound silence.”
Cool, Thanks, didnt know that, looked like 1969 but Id guessed during Let it bleed recordings.
Yeah I mean look at his eyes. The man fought his smack addiction back then. Would be interesting to see some pics from the definite and final (well sort of) cure in late 1979.
New York City 1966 ?
Live AID 1985
One of my favorite of Ken Regan, comments are useless
HMN
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
()
Date: January 7, 2011 18:54
Quote
His Majesty
The pics aren't important, but some of them are screen grabs from the film.
Anyway we see this moving about/altering distance from the mic in the film itself. So whether he played his part well or not, the sound of the guitar would be coming in and out due to him moving about thus his acoustic part, at least the majority of those takes we see in the film probably couldn't have been used even If they wanted to.
Take a look through my posts and you'll find that I am quite a fan, I'll blow my own trumpet here cos I know I've put The hours in working out his instrumental parts, finding rare pics and quotes, info etc, a fairly knowledgeable one at that of Brian Jones the musician.
In One Plus One I don't think either he or the band were taking his acoustic guitar contribution all that seriously, at least for fast version when Keith is playing bass.
And I think you're probably right.
As I said before I do believe Keith & Mick and Jimmy Miller when they say that there were times when Brian wasn't even being recorded....that he was isolated....etc. etc.
I think Doxa was inferring too much from the photos and what they thought it proved. However, again, the music itself shows that Brian contributed more to Beggars musically than just the slide for No Expectations.
Like I said my main issue is that it has become the "gospel" that Brian was wasted most of the time (ala YCAGWYW) and I'm certain that this is not the case.
Ofcourse you know it often takes days to get a track finalized.
Let's take "We Love You" for example.
I'm fairly impressed with Brian's mellotron part on that song. The brass sounds great. I've also seen the film for the song and what we get are images of a very, very wasted Brian essentially propping himself up. The guy shown couldn't have recorded the mellotron part on the day that those images were filmed (in my opinion). In fact, it makes me wonder WHY Brian was depicted that way in the film? Was it designed to rub it in the faces of the authorities or was it Mick & Keith trying to presnet the worst image of Brian? Don't shrug that off....let's remember that on the cover of Flowers the ONLY flower to not have petals is the one with the photo of Brian. Keith has stated that they did it to get under Brian's skin and fuel his paranoia.
Nonetheless, my primary point is simply this. Brian could be useless on day one of a recording and be good as gold on days two, three, and four when the final version is completed.
We just don't know. The best source for verification remains, for me, the music itself.
Believe me, I've read through one of the other threads where you, yourself, were pretty disgusted at what you considered revisionist thinking about Brian's parts (I believe it was the Satanic Boxset thread). I'll admit that it's pretty good evidence since it's the actual outtakes on songs that were works in process. Keith leading, Nicky accompanying, and Brian likewise. I know Mathjis stated it was more Keith's album than Brian's but really, is it all that surprising? Years ago we knew that Brian didn't like the fact they went the "Satanic" direction. I think he, himself, felt it was an attempt to copy the Beatles. That doesn't mean Brian wouldn't contribute but it does speak to whether it was really his cup of tea or not. Brian was, if nothing else, a walking contradiction.
I am new to the forum but I've been an ardent Brian Jones fan since 1973. When I was in high school I practically worshipped the guy. I hope I didn't offend you, and I certainly know that you know your stuff where Brian is concerned. I have already suggested somewhere else that there seems to be 2 camps - and the polarity that exists between the 2 camps is pretty extreme.
I think the truth is more in the middle.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 7, 2011 19:23
No offense meant or taken, we are seeing things Much the same way.
There are many camps in rolling stones fan base, but for me the band comes first, Brian is such an enigmatic figure and it's through him that I became I fan of the band so he'll always have special meaning to me.
How he was as a person isn't that important to me, although how they interacted is very interesting, they all seem to be hypocritical, contradictory @#$%& in some way or another, but also beautiful, wonderful people too at times.
I do wish musical discussions about .Brian didn't always end up being about his character.
There are many camps in rolling stones fan base, but for me the band comes first, Brian is such an enigmatic figure and it's through him that I became I fan of the band so he'll always have special meaning to me.
How he was as a person isn't that important to me, although how they interacted is very interesting, they all seem to be hypocritical, contradictory @#$%& in some way or another, but also beautiful, wonderful people too at times.
I do wish musical discussions about .Brian didn't always end up being about his character.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
()
Date: January 7, 2011 19:34
Quote
His Majesty
No offense meant or taken, we are seeing things Much the same way.
There are many camps in rolling stones fan base, but for me the band comes first, Brian is such an enigmatic figure and it's through him that I became I fan of the band so he'll always have special meaning to me.
How he was as a person isn't that important to me, although how they interacted is very interesting, they all seem to be hypocritical, contradictory @#$%& in some way or another, but also beautiful, wonderful people too at times.
I do wish musical discussions about .Brian didn't always end up being about his character.
Well, my feelings for Mick & Keith are pretty much love/hate.
I'm really angry with Keith and I have been for a long, long time.
It's true I wasn't there and I don't discount everything Keith has had to say over the years. However, when you're still writing songs like "Coming Down Again" 4 years after the guy is dead....well, it just seems you have some unresolved issues of your own there. And by the way, Keith, the line "she was dying to survive" is pretty funny since you were right there with heras she became a heroin addict. One might ask who you thought you were saving. Also, I fail to see the point in comments like "no, no don't bring that guy back. he was an arsehole." I mean the guys been dead a long time now. Why the need to still be so bitter?
Anyway, I'm off topic here.
it just proves one thing.
Both Brian and Keith would be very interesting to psychoanalyze with respect to their relationship and their relationship with Anita.
I always found it interesting how Brian took up with Linda for awhile after Anita left him. I'm sure you've seen the letters/telegram she auctioned that wer from Brian to her. Brian professing his love for her and his desire that she marry him....If I were to pop analyze him I'd suggest it was all about "you took my girl....so I'll take one that you had." I'm sure there's more to it than that (they were friends) but it's ironic Brian professing his love for her not really so long after losing the love of his life.
The band comes first only through 1972 for me. Really, Exile was the last Stones album that really knocked me out. I obviously didn't stop listening but fo rme, that was the end of their truly golden years.
Also, sorry if I drug your Legacy thread into a discussion about his character. I agree with you that it's a shame conversations about his musical abilities always get derailed over his character issues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-07 19:38 by nostoneswithoutbrianjones.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 7, 2011 19:43
Oh, I meant the original band, I'm not all that bothered about what followed. 
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
()
Date: January 7, 2011 19:52
Quote
His Majesty
Oh, I meant the original band, I'm not all that bothered about what followed.
Well, I begrudgingly admit that Sticky and Exile are pretty fantastic.
But, like Noel Redding, for me "there ain't so stones without Brian Jones."
People often say what a shame that Brian wasn't around for those since they more closely resemble the music Brian actually loved. Ofcourse, without Mick Taylor those albums would have been vastly different (regardless of what the manic Keith fans say).
The great shame of it, though, is that Brian wasn't able to get it together (specifically with respect to the drug busts) in time to see that their sound was moving back in the right direction. Surely he enjoyed recording No expectations more than, say, Dandelion. What I mean is that any chance he had of staying in the band and working through it effectively ended when he would have been unable to get a VISA to tour.
Damn that Pilcher. Glad he, himself, got prosecuted for corruption. Still, the jerk is immortalized in a Beatles song.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-13 20:52 by nostoneswithoutbrianjones.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 7, 2011 22:07
Quote
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
But, like Noel Redding, for me "there ain't so stones without Brian Jones."
Pfff....I feel so sorry for you...43 years of 'no Stones' while you could have enjoyed so much good music....
Mathijs
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
gypsy18
()
Date: January 7, 2011 22:13
Quote
MathijsQuote
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
But, like Noel Redding, for me "there ain't so stones without Brian Jones."
Pfff....I feel so sorry for you...43 years of 'no Stones' while you could have enjoyed so much good music....
Mathijs
Your loss, nostoneswithoutbrianjones.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 7, 2011 23:35
Shut up and post some pics!
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 7, 2011 23:57
Quote
His Majesty
Shut up and post some pics!
Ok. I always liked this pic, for its innocense.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 8, 2011 16:59
Lynn Goldsmith 1978
Jean Pigozzi 1978
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 12, 2011 00:03
Jesus wept!
Signed in to my photobucket account only to discover every single album has been deleted!!!???
Loads of music related stuff including thousands of stones pics all gone!!!!!!! Thankfully I have a some of them backed up, but man I am so @#$%& angry!! Arghhhh!
Photobucket say it was not them, so someone must have got in to my account!
Signed in to my photobucket account only to discover every single album has been deleted!!!???
Loads of music related stuff including thousands of stones pics all gone!!!!!!! Thankfully I have a some of them backed up, but man I am so @#$%& angry!! Arghhhh!
Photobucket say it was not them, so someone must have got in to my account!
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: January 12, 2011 00:07
Quote
His Majesty
Photobucket say it was not them, so someone must have got in to my account!
Easy for Photobucket to say, eh ?
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 12, 2011 01:34
Quote
His Majesty
Jesus wept!
Signed in to my photobucket account only to discover every single album has been deleted!!!???
Loads of music related stuff including thousands of stones pics all gone!!!!!!! Thankfully I have a some of them backed up, but man I am so @#$%& angry!! Arghhhh!
Photobucket say it was not them, so someone must have got in to my account!
Are you sure they're erased? Sometimes you have to update or something. Happened to me.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 12, 2011 01:38
My pro account is up to date etc, they are all gone!
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 12, 2011 02:00
Sorry no credits
Putland
Jean Pigozzi 1978
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 12, 2011 02:08
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Rehearsals for Hyde Park gig - June 1969 - By Michael Cooper
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: January 12, 2011 02:10
Majesty, man I am sorry to hear about that. And you had a lot of very rare 67/68 pics too. Very fU*cked up.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 12, 2011 02:14
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Majesty, man I am sorry to hear about that. And you had a lot of very rare 67/68 pics too. Very fU*cked up.
I found various folders on my pc containing all my stones pics, but that's quite a number of threads been 'damaged' due to them not being on photobucket anymore!
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 12, 2011 02:17
HEY HEY now that's a cool shot .........
And and and the guy with a BIG toe for a thumb....
Rock & Roll refuels .................................. JeanPigozzi
FANKS redhotcarpet...
ROCKMAN
And and and the guy with a BIG toe for a thumb....
Rock & Roll refuels .................................. JeanPigozzi
FANKS redhotcarpet...
ROCKMAN
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
()
Date: January 13, 2011 20:52
Quote
MathijsQuote
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
But, like Noel Redding, for me "there ain't so stones without Brian Jones."
Pfff....I feel so sorry for you...43 years of 'no Stones' while you could have enjoyed so much good music....
Mathijs
No, no.
I said that Sticky and Exile are fabulous.
As for Goats, It's Only, etc. etc.....well, they're okay but even the critics seem to see the decline beginning after Exile.
I, myself, actually also really liked Black and Blue.
I saw them at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta, GA for Some Girls.
Having said all that....the simple fact is they began to decline after Exile.
And pretty much everything after Some Girls....well, come on now. You really gonna compare any of that to anything done before 1972????
Honestly?
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 13, 2011 20:56
Rule No.1 when using public computers - always remember to sign out!!!
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
nostoneswithoutbrianjones
()
Date: January 13, 2011 21:01
Quote
His Majesty
Rule No.1 when using public computers - always remember to sign out!!!
Yep.
I hate it for you.
I don't think I'd handle it too well.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
jpasc95
()
Date: January 13, 2011 21:42
Quote
with sssoul
- 1963 by Philip Townsend
looks like Keith and Bill had a quarrel in the washing machine !
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: January 14, 2011 11:59
Mick Jagger, William Burroughs and Andy Warhol, 1980
Photo by Marcia Resnick
Marcia Resnick says: “One evening in NYC in 1980, Mick Jagger, rock legend, William Seward Burroughs, literary luminary and Andy Warhol, art prodigy, had dinner in the ‘Bunker,’ Burroughs’ residence on the Bowery. The atmosphere was palpable. A food fight erupted. Then, the egos of these three charismatic gods of the counterculture clashed, resulting in a profound silence.”
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 14, 2011 12:45
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Redhotcarpet
Rehearsals for Hyde Park gig - June 1969 - By Michael Cooper
Cool, Thanks, didnt know that, looked like 1969 but Id guessed during Let it bleed recordings.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 14, 2011 12:48
Quote
Rockman
HEY HEY now that's a cool shot .........
And and and the guy with a BIG toe for a thumb....
Rock & Roll refuels .................................. JeanPigozzi
FANKS redhotcarpet...
Yeah I mean look at his eyes. The man fought his smack addiction back then. Would be interesting to see some pics from the definite and final (well sort of) cure in late 1979.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
jimjamaica
()
Date: December 20, 2011 01:34
New York City 1966 ?
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: December 20, 2011 02:33
Live AID 1985
One of my favorite of Ken Regan, comments are useless
HMN
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
pinksuit
()
Date: December 20, 2011 03:58
Whoa!
I am lurking on this board since 2002. So I guessed I have seen most of all. But it is amazing what you guys come up with in pictures! I thought this band has been photographed to death, but there are still so many pics that are new to me and not just that. There are amazing shots posted by you guys. Thanks.
I am lurking on this board since 2002. So I guessed I have seen most of all. But it is amazing what you guys come up with in pictures! I thought this band has been photographed to death, but there are still so many pics that are new to me and not just that. There are amazing shots posted by you guys. Thanks.
Re: *The Rolling Stones photo thread*
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 20, 2011 16:27
This thread now makes me very sad.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Dan , FeelslikeaGhost , hot stuff , Idorh , ladinsky14 , llsbsk , Milan , sotob , stonemac , StonyRoad , tonyc , TumblinDice76 , TURB0 , voodoodrew , wolundamo , z
Guests:
2155
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10