Quote
with sssoul
... i don't like speculating about private feelings that people haven't chosen to make public,
but i reckon it was not an "emotionally simple" moment for any of them. the way i've read it,
Keith stayed at the studio because that was his way of dealing with the complicated emotions,
not because he was "pretending to be busy" with recording needs.

meanwhile, Anita wasn't in Australia, or in the studio; she was about eight months pregnant.
"should" she have gone to the funeral? "should" she and Keith have gone together? or "should" Keith have gone alone?
try thinking about that from a few different viewpoints ... the people who didn't go had reasons for not going,
and we don't have to know what they were. we also don't have to judge anyone.

I personally think both Keith & Mick should have gone,no matter were you are: if you've been working so close for so many years I mean..I should have gone.

Quote
with sssoul
... i don't like speculating about private feelings that people haven't chosen to make public,
but i reckon it was not an "emotionally simple" moment for any of them. the way i've read it,
Keith stayed at the studio because that was his way of dealing with the complicated emotions,
not because he was "pretending to be busy" with recording needs.

meanwhile, Anita wasn't in Australia, or in the studio; she was about eight months pregnant.
"should" she have gone to the funeral? "should" she and Keith have gone together? or "should" Keith have gone alone?
try thinking about that from a few different viewpoints ... the people who didn't go had reasons for not going,
and we don't have to know what they were. we also don't have to judge anyone.

Fair point. Keith's situation was undoubtedly complicated by the still thorny issue of his relationship with Brian being adversely affected by the fact that Anita left Brian for him. Not exactly a straightforward situation, and in hindsight its easy for all of us to judge how everyone should have reacted to what was an unforeseen event when we weren't in that position ourselves.

That said, the existence of this thread - almost 40 years later - shows that the choice of not attending in many ways has become something of a bigger significance than the funeral itself. Unfortunately it gets remembered by the fact that two of his bandmates didnt attend rather than the fact that two of them DID.

>> Keith has made his thoughts in Brian, the funeral and Brians parents very clear in many interviews -
doesnt the Q 1988 interview have some good quotes about it? <<

oldkr honey, what someone says is not always a reflection of all the feelings they have -
but sure thing: dig out the quotes and let's talk about what Keith's actually said about Brian's funeral.
of course he's talked about Brian on many occasions, but i don't really recall him talking about the funeral.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-02 20:32 by with sssoul.

Mick had Keith's trousers - so neither one could go because Keith wanted to wear his trousers and Mick wouldn't give them up.

Mick and Keith didn't attend because they both hated Brian. Period.

I don't believe the ''Keith was in the studio'' explanation, but regardless of that none of us really know why they didn't attend. For all we know they may have been asked to stay away by his parents or something.

We just don't know and who are we to judge!?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-02 22:20 by His Majesty.

In the 25x5 video, Bill mentions Keith being in studios and Mick being in Australia and that he and Charlie attended.
I recall reading Bill saying he didn't accompany Mick/Keith and Charlie to see Brian because he wasn't in studio that night and it was a pretty far drive from his place to the studio and then another drive to Brian's place.

To this day, Keith remains pretty uncomplimentary about Brian on a number of counts. I suppose you could say he might have regarded it as pretty hyprocritical to pitch up at his funeral given what had gone down betweeen them.

Hey there's only one lad who knows why and it's totally his business....



ROCKMAN

I know that I will probably get a lot of flack over this, but here goes. As much as I love the Stones, Keith's comments have in the last few years been pretty nasty about Brian. Granted Brian could be a real jerk, and yes, he did not participate much, as far as recording in his later years with the Stones. But, Keith seems to forget the crap he put the rest of the band through in the 70's. Brian helped to start the band, and get them going in the right direction. When he became a liability, they dumped him. So as far as not going to the funeral, why would they go? Once he was gone. They forgot him, even the contributions he made.

Quote
Rockman
Hey there's only one lad who knows why and it's totally his business....

totally agree Rockman, no ones business but theirs, can't really see why its being discussed here.........

Quote
beatbabe
I know that I will probably get a lot of flack over this, but here goes. As much as I love the Stones, Keith's comments have in the last few years been pretty nasty about Brian. Granted Brian could be a real jerk, and yes, he did not participate much, as far as recording in his later years with the Stones. But, Keith seems to forget the crap he put the rest of the band through in the 70's. Brian helped to start the band, and get them going in the right direction. When he became a liability, they dumped him. So as far as not going to the funeral, why would they go? Once he was gone. They forgot him, even the contributions he made.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I agree 100%. There's a double standard applied to Brian, where it was okay for Keith to be pretty much a 'passenger' during much of the 70's and give everybody around him a hard time (just ask Mick!), but it was wrong for Brian to do the same in the late 60's. That's total hypocrisy and that's an aspect of Keith Richards I don't care for. Instead of choosing to remember the good things about his old mate, he just focuses on the negative, recently calling Brian a Cheltenham cu_ _ of all things. It's just really distasteful, but most Stones fans seem to be okay with that.

Quote
neptune

Quote
beatbabe
I know that I will probably get a lot of flack over this, but here goes. As much as I love the Stones, Keith's comments have in the last few years been pretty nasty about Brian. Granted Brian could be a real jerk, and yes, he did not participate much, as far as recording in his later years with the Stones. But, Keith seems to forget the crap he put the rest of the band through in the 70's. Brian helped to start the band, and get them going in the right direction. When he became a liability, they dumped him. So as far as not going to the funeral, why would they go? Once he was gone. They forgot him, even the contributions he made.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I agree 100%. There's a double standard applied to Brian, where it was okay for Keith to be pretty much a 'passenger' during much of the 70's and give everybody around him a hard time (just ask Mick!), but it was wrong for Brian to do the same in the late 60's. That's total hypocrisy and that's an aspect of Keith Richards I don't care for. Instead of choosing to remember the good things about his old mate, he just focuses on the negative, recently calling Brian a Cheltenham cu_ _ of all things. It's just really distasteful, but most Stones fans seem to be okay with that.

100% agree with both of you!

Well recently I read a recent interview where the interviewer asked KR a question which I hadn't heard him being asked before.

The question was (similar to a topic on this website) If you could bring one musician back from the dead, who would it be?

Keith replied Muddy Waters to which the interviewer said: 'Oh, poor Brian Jones' to which Keith replied 'Brian Jones was an @#$%&, definitely Muddy'.

Unlikely, that Keith felt too sad about Brian's passing or if he did/does he hides it well.

Maybe Keith just does not do funerals?

I think the whole funeral thing in society is way over blown.

Who's the funeral for anyway? What's the benefit? Undertaker, funeral home and social get together?

If it's for the benefit of the family members it fails about 9/10 times as family wind up supporting a bunch of folks that show up and express regrets for not staying in touch.

Quote
beatbabe
I know that I will probably get a lot of flack over this, but here goes. As much as I love the Stones, Keith's comments have in the last few years been pretty nasty about Brian. Granted Brian could be a real jerk, and yes, he did not participate much, as far as recording in his later years with the Stones. But, Keith seems to forget the crap he put the rest of the band through in the 70's. Brian helped to start the band, and get them going in the right direction. When he became a liability, they dumped him. So as far as not going to the funeral, why would they go? Once he was gone. They forgot him, even the contributions he made.

But let's be honest here Brian was a complete a** a lot of the time. Beating on women, etc. Keith may have 'drifted' thru the 70's but I don't think you can compare that to Brian's wild mood swings.

It wasn't just Mick and Keith who hated Brian. I believe Bob Dylan has some quotes about Brian being a jerk and a horrible person.

I think it was commendable that Mick and Keith did NOT attend the funeral; I think that they really did not LIKE Brian and it would have been the epitomy of phoniness to attend just for " appearances". Yes, Mick's legal reasons, I believe were valid, but deep down, I bet he was glad NOT to attend. Keith's feelings are legitimate and he had to be true to himself. Isn't that WHY we love Keith?

Quote
1cdog
Maybe Keith just does not do funerals?

.

he 'did' Ian Stewart's....

Regardless, Brian is not here to defend himself. As far as it goes, none of the Stones were angels. We all know that. I just hate that they only remember the negative things. Oh well, it doesn't really matter. It is Keith's and Mick's business as to why they did not attend. They had their reasons, whatever they were.

Quote
mickschix
I think it was commendable that Mick and Keith did NOT attend the funeral; I think that they really did not LIKE Brian and it would have been the epitomy of phoniness to attend just for " appearances". Yes, Mick's legal reasons, I believe were valid, but deep down, I bet he was glad NOT to attend. Keith's feelings are legitimate and he had to be true to himself. Isn't that WHY we love Keith?

Not really - I do admire him for other reasons though - but the "Keith The Pirate Who's Only in It for the Music" image is a wee bit played out

Keith was too busy making up alibi's for him n' Mick.

[thepowergoats.com]

Keith showed up for every gig except when he was actually hurt, or maybe I should say unable due to some actual injury that wasn't drug induced. Brian was loaded out of his mind and missed a ton of shows yet alone wigged out on recording sessions. If that makes Keith a hypocrite for some of you, whatever, you are just taking up a side. No matter the status of the Keith or the Stones, Keith has ALWAYS SHOWN UP. Consider what Keith has had to tolerate - it's a lot more than what Brian had to tolerate.

Brian wanted to be a star, Keith wanted to play music. There you go - it probably is just that simple.

You can't condemn Keith for how he feels about Brian - that is something that is beyond any of us, what they all went through. There is way more to it than just what is spoken about in magazines etc...and we can sit back and say Keith is an ass for saying what he says about Brian but it's not our life, our business, our history. It's his. So STFU.

Quote
skipstone
Keith showed up for every gig except when he was actually hurt, or maybe I should say unable due to some actual injury that wasn't drug induced. Brian was loaded out of his mind and missed a ton of shows yet alone wigged out on recording sessions. If that makes Keith a hypocrite for some of you, whatever, you are just taking up a side. No matter the status of the Keith or the Stones, Keith has ALWAYS SHOWN UP. Consider what Keith has had to tolerate - it's a lot more than what Brian had to tolerate.

He'd shown up as far as gigs are concerned. I remeber reading about the '77 club gig that he was nowhere to be found and was still in England when the others were already in Toronto and they had to trie hard to get him over to Toronto.
As far as recording goes, there are many, many stories about Keith not showing up. I read about Wyman that he stayed home at one point and ask someone to call him heb Keith finally showed up and only then he would go over to the studio.
How do you think the album "Jamming with Mr. Edward" came about?

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
skipstone
Keith showed up for every gig except when he was actually hurt, or maybe I should say unable due to some actual injury that wasn't drug induced. Brian was loaded out of his mind and missed a ton of shows yet alone wigged out on recording sessions. If that makes Keith a hypocrite for some of you, whatever, you are just taking up a side. No matter the status of the Keith or the Stones, Keith has ALWAYS SHOWN UP. Consider what Keith has had to tolerate - it's a lot more than what Brian had to tolerate.

Brian wanted to be a star, Keith wanted to play music. There you go - it probably is just that simple.

You can't condemn Keith for how he feels about Brian - that is something that is beyond any of us, what they all went through. There is way more to it than just what is spoken about in magazines etc...and we can sit back and say Keith is an ass for saying what he says about Brian but it's not our life, our business, our history. It's his. So STFU.

Actually the 'ton of shows' that Jones missed is a bit of a myth. You'd barely need two hands to count them.

Not taking sides at all as I couldnt give a bollocks whether he went to a funeral or not, but the amount of shows cancelled or rescheduled in the last decade alone due to Keith doing something stupid - whether intoxicated or not - probably amounts to a couple of dozen. Pretty much all of them in Europe, which is maybe easier for some who dont live there to gloss over.

Well, alright then, compared to actually missing a gig versus cancelling a gig but still making them, it's still, considering the history, a huge amount.

Of course Keith has been not around here and there for recording. Nevertheless, when it mattered, it seems, he did it. That's just my own viewpoint.

I don't care what Keith thinks of Brian. Or what any of them think about any of them.

Agree with you to a degree - especially re : the recording sessions. However, 6 or 7 shows out of over 1,000 - especially with the touring schedule they had in 64-65 when they were doing 250-300 shows a year - isnt THAT massive an amount, really. Relatively minor inconvenience compared to having 10-20 shows on a tour pulled.

Just emphasising that its not all one sided throughout the band's long history, even though the Stones 'machine' in later years would like to imply otherwise.

Quote
Gazza
Agree with you to a degree - especially re : the recording sessions. However, 6 or 7 shows out of over 1,000 - especially with the touring schedule they had in 64-65 when they were doing 250-300 shows a year - isnt THAT massive an amount, really. Relatively minor inconvenience compared to having 10-20 shows on a tour pulled.

Just emphasising that its not all one sided throughout the band's long history, even though the Stones 'machine' in later years would like to imply otherwise.

Yes, the repeated tale of "Brian missing gigs" is not very impressive when the actual facts are studied. Also, the moralistic attitude of Keith towards Brian's drug abuse sounds sometimes, well, a bit hypocrite.

But I have tried to interpret Keith's words of Brian in the context of the their career. At that time, when the band very close to each other, was still working hard to reach the top, and remain there, little gestures and actions were so important. Brian's gestures seemingly pissed Keith and the others off. Brian's secret deal to get 5 pounds more than the others seems to be the most worst economical misbehaving within the group in its history - never mind whatever Jagger and Richards later did (ask Bill Wyman...). Also Brian's idea of dropping the guitar seemed to defend Keith who probably felt like being betrayed- and he has always insisted that the idea of the Stones is two guitars playing like one. This has probably also something to do with those much talked about missed gigs - perhaps Keith felt like being left alone and felt insecure (even though the most pissed off people were actually the fans who felt betrayed of not seeing Brian who was with Mick the most popular member of the band). I think the actual importance of those missed gigs and Brian's "disloyalty", was due to the fact that the others were still quite dependent of him. Perhaps Brian, the famous "a..hole" also intentionally teased the others, or rebelled, by playing with his role and being "unloyal"- he surely was still awere of his importance. I believe Charlie is true when he says that that Brian's departure already began during that American thour where he missed tours. Seemingly, the others WANTED to get rid of him - he was too difficult to cope with. But it took years until the others COULD survive without him, and let him go, or were certain enough to kick him off. For example, according to some sources (NME 1969?), Brian wanted already leave in 1967, but was not let to. They probably thought that Brian was still too important imagewise.

But people attending to funerals or not, or what kind of personal feelings having of the death of other people, is not really my concern to estimate or judge.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-04 12:35 by Doxa.

Are their any tapes of the Stones playing live in the 60s without Brian?

John Carr states that by specific request of Brian's parents Mick and Keith were asked to stay away as they wanted the funarel to be more of a private affair. The fact that Brian was deeply disliked by just about anyone who knew him doesn't help either.

Concerning Keith's "crap he put on the Stones in the '70's" -the Stones released 6 studio albums in the '70's (including a double one), two live albums (of which one double) and several compilations. Of these albums three are regarded as classic rock albums. They toured Europe four times and the US three times. Albums sold are in excess of 50 million.

I wouldn't mind being in a band with such a "crap" front man.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs


Concerning Keith's "crap he put on the Stones in the '70's" -the Stones released 6 studio albums in the '70's (including a double one), two live albums (of which one double) and several compilations. Of these albums three are regarded as classic rock albums. They toured Europe four times and the US three times. Albums sold are in excess of 50 million.

I wouldn't mind being in a band with such a "crap" front man.

Mathijs

I don't think the case is so one-to-one.

Keith was the musical heart of the band and the others were thoroughly dependent of him: no Keith, no Stones. I don't think, for example, Mick Jagger did this for solely altruic reasons, or because Keith was a "nice guy", but because Mick - more than anyone - was awere of and respected Keith's contributions and importance within the band. When Brian started to be "trouble", he was not anymore in that sort of role within the band. So the result was that while people just wanted to find a way to get rid of Brian, in the 70's they were forced to follow Keith's "junkie time", which for example, pissed Bill Wyman off. And I need to say that it was very nice indeed that the others "babied" Keith; like Mathijs listed, we got wonderful results! But the point remains the same: some of Keith's action were tolerated, while Brian's similar ones were not. But they have bloody good reasons for this double-standard! But to this day, this 'moralistic' and condemning attitude toward Brian is a funny little shared protestant virtue within the world of the Stones and their fans.. That 'evil' Brian...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-04 13:11 by Doxa.