Indeed. And its also quite evident from all accounts (including their own) that Keith and Bill were never good mates either.

Quote
Marie
I'm always reminded of the quote from Ray Davies..."It's true, at times Brian did seem a little schizophrenic, but who wouldn't in that band?"

great line, but what does RD's comment mean? What in particular about the Stones would make them seem schizoid?

Quote
Gazza
Even for the period when they were close friends, Brian has never come across in too many accounts that I've read from anyone as a particularly likeable human being,

not quite -- numerous avid users of the Internet in the 1990s and 2000s think he was a wonderful man.

Quote
cc

Quote
Gazza
Even for the period when they were close friends, Brian has never come across in too many accounts that I've read from anyone as a particularly likeable human being,

not quite -- numerous avid users of the Internet in the 1990s and 2000s think he was a wonderful man.

not sure if you're joking, and not just from Keith's book, but Brian was a user of others, stuck-up, paranoid, and regularly beat up his girlfriends ... not really a wonderful man

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
cc

Quote
Gazza
Even for the period when they were close friends, Brian has never come across in too many accounts that I've read from anyone as a particularly likeable human being,

not quite -- numerous avid users of the Internet in the 1990s and 2000s think he was a wonderful man.

not sure if you're joking, and not just from Keith's book, but Brian was a user of others, stuck-up, paranoid, and regularly beat up his girlfriends ... not really a wonderful man

I'm not making excuses for Brian's behavior towards women. That is inexcusable. In fact, I'm not going to make excuses for him at all. He was what he was, not perfect, and with flaws. Paranoid? Sure, and you'll read many accounts by others to say he had good reason to be on several occasions. He should be given his due where the Stones are concerned, though, just like Mick Taylor should be given his.

Quote
cc

Quote
Marie
I'm always reminded of the quote from Ray Davies..."It's true, at times Brian did seem a little schizophrenic, but who wouldn't in that band?"

great line, but what does RD's comment mean? What in particular about the Stones would make them seem schizoid?

Who knows? Maybe a little jealousy from Davies? Maybe a little rivalry between the Kinks and Stones? Brian, it seems, seemd to have some emotional issues dating back to his youth...very rigid upbringing...

Boy lets just keep picking on Keith. Jesus Christ were we there back in 1962 i was not even born!

Now when we all know by now that The Rolling Stones is Ian Stewart's band - Stewart's who founded it, picked up the guys one by one, and gave its idea, let us see what Ian himself thinks of his - and Brian's - role in forming the band:

[members7.boardhost.com]

(thanks to Chris from "Brian Jones: Censored from Or Minds" board - the best place to discuss Brian Jones in the world)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 18:27 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Now when we all know by now that The Rolling Stones is Ian Stewart's band - Stewart's who founded it, picked up the guys one by one, and gave its idea, let us see what Ian himself thinks of his - and Brian's - role in forming the band:

[members7.boardhost.com]

Great job, Doxa! Great find. There you have it from Ian Stewart himself- Brian started the whole ball rolling. And by his own admission, Ian went along for the ride.

Quote
Doxa
Now when we all know by now that The Rolling Stones is Ian Stewart's band - Stewart's who founded it, picked up the guys one by one, and gave its idea, let us see what Ian himself thinks of his - and Brian's - role in forming the band:

[members7.boardhost.com]

(thanks to Chris from "Brian Jones: Censored from Or Minds" board - the best place to discuss Brian Jones in the world)

- Doxa

So neither Keith (from previous interviews) or Stu agree with Keith's book

Well, if this bit of cold reality from Ian Stuart (via Doxa) throws doubt on Keith's veracity, then what about the rest of the book?

I must be reading this book wrong because I never saw a genuine statement that says in exact words that stu started the band. Just that they all met eachother and stu had answered the add and that they were getting guys together this pre dates the stones. It wasn't until later that the stones became the stones and they didn't even have charlie or bill yet they were still finding their sound and even keith clearly states that brain wound up in the leader position of the band. I hate to be a spoiler but it even talks about the naming of the band where brian was on the phone and was asked for a name so had to think fast and just named them after the song on the record that they saw on the floor. He even states just like stu states in that link that stu didn't like the name. Stu's views and keith views are quite similer just that we are reading two peoples viewpoints on the same thing.

Maybe I am reading the wrong book. This really is a book open to personal enterpritation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 20:44 by Mooseman.

Quote
24FPS
Well, if this bit of cold reality from Ian Stuart (via Doxa) throws doubt on Keith's veracity, then what about the rest of the book?

Well, that's the big issue. People say that Keith is "honest" but I don't see that way. It is not how Keith sees things - giving his account of the happenings - but how he would like certain things to be seen. There are so many 'little things' in the book that an old Rolling Stones hag like me knows being if not wrong but at least very debatable and biased. Therefore I don't think LIFE is a very honest book, but more like a book of propaganda. Almost like reading some politician's memoirs before an election. I think Keith uses his power and right - his subjective account that has, naturally, a huge authority - in a morally suspicious way.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 20:40 by Doxa.

Keith is being honest with HIS opinion how HE saw things happening back then. You will allways get differing oppinions in things like this because people see the world differently. Its like if two people go to a movie one can come out say "Wow that was great" and another can come out saying "That sucked". Both saw the same things but had different views on it.

Quote
Mooseman
Keith is being honest with HIS opinion how HE saw things happening back then. You will allways get differing oppinions in things like this because people see the world differently. Its like if two people go to a movie one can come out say "Wow that was great" and another can come out saying "That sucked". Both saw the same things but had different views on it.

That's all fine and well, but how do you explain how Keith has gone and contradicted himself from stories he's told on the origins in interviews dating back to the 1970s?

I am with Keith on this, he has lived it, those just referring to others accounts is hearsay, it will never fly. As for Keith's contradictions, it is the lens you choose to look through. I have looked back and changed my take on some things in my past. So have you. Keith has lived a very public life, and he has written his honest book on it, it's a great read. If his life doesn't fit into the mold of hearsay being created here, well at least you have the luxury of not living a public life, you get to hide all your personal BS and pretend your honest.

Quote
courtfieldroad

Quote
Mooseman
Keith is being honest with HIS opinion how HE saw things happening back then. You will allways get differing oppinions in things like this because people see the world differently. Its like if two people go to a movie one can come out say "Wow that was great" and another can come out saying "That sucked". Both saw the same things but had different views on it.

That's all fine and well, but how do you explain how Keith has gone and contradicted himself from stories he's told on the origins in interviews dating back to the 1970s?

That's a good point. This is especually true in this Brian/Stu drama. If one checks the ROLLING STONE 1971 interview he there attributes to Brian the things he now does to Stu. Another point is that why he still insists claiming things that we know are not true. Does he really believe that Muddy was painting the ceiling and Andred locked them to kitchen and "As Tears Go By" emerged. Yeah, these are nice little stories but it sounds like that these are no just stories but facts to Keith these days. I don't know if he really believes in his own fictions, or that he can't anymore recall anything else but his stories, or if he just is afraid of losing faces or something and desperately stick to his old claims.

There is nothing wrong in story-telling but the problem with autobiographies is that there are also lot of things that have a factual base. That are not just issues of "opinion". With Keith's book the story-telling aspect and factual aspect are so muddled that it is really up to reader's judgment to clear them out. Which is a demanding task. Especially when there are lots of biased opinions involved. Over-all, I don't think it is solely the case of opinions - "ooh I saw it this way" - but writing everything in accordance to certain basic insights or - to use a proper word - agendas. I think this particular way to emphasize Stu's role to heavens, is Keith's reaction to Bill's claims in STONE ALONE that very much stresses the significance of Brian Jones (plus, seemingly Keith's own psychological issues with Brian). Now Keith writes Brian almost off from the Stones history. Just says the very formal things needed to say. If we believe Keith's account of the formation of The Stones all Brian did was to made the Jazz News note, into which Stu responded, and that's it. Then it was all Stu. Before, of course, Keith and that another guy started making songs. (Well, Brian "thought" that he was a leader, Keith admits, and therefore it was his job to kick Stu out. Seemingly it was handy for the rest to accept Brian's claim to leadership in this particular situation...)

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 21:32 by Doxa.

Well done Doxa on finding Ian Stewarts comments. Facts are so much better than reading a book by man who is still slagging off his former band mate who has been dead for over 30 years.

Quote
maine road
Facts are so much better than reading a book by man who is still slagging off his former band mate who has been dead for over 30 years.

So true! But sometimes it feels like you're talking to deaf ears here at IORR. No matter what Keith has said in the past about Brian this book suddenly tells the truth and how he really feels!? It feels good to know that I'm not the only one who just don't buy this one-sided bashing crap about a very talented guy who founded one of the worlds greatest rock n roll band ever and take it for truth.

Thanks Doxa for your post! Very interesting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-31 23:32 by tonterapi.

Just once I'd like to see one original, still living Rolling Stone say something to the effect, "My God, we were kids. Brian was the cornerstone of the band, but he had personality problems we were too young to deal with. And you get tired of dealing with them. We basically became a quartet with this jealous malcontent delivering less and less to our sound in the studio and he made touring an impossibility. It all happened before we realized how heavy drugs were. Maybe Brian could have gotten some proper help. There was a touch of genius in his musicianship, but he lost his way. He wasn't shouldering his load and we got tired of carrying him. Put yourselves in our shoes if you want to judge us. Looking back, he had a great influence on the band in the musical directions we went, the whole look and attitude of being a Rolling Stone. He may have been a pain in the ass, but I would never take away his accomplishments. He was only 27, man. He could've straightened up and maybe accomplished some of those things in that brain of his. It's so complicated to try and explain to outsiders what went down between Brian and the rest of the group. It wasn't pretty and maybe we weren't all mature about it. But we were young too and dealing with the pressures of stardom. Rest in Peace, Brian. We couldn't have gotten this thing off the ground without you. You rotten sod." Now, would something gracious like that be so hard?

Quote
Marie

Quote
cc

Quote
Marie
I'm always reminded of the quote from Ray Davies..."It's true, at times Brian did seem a little schizophrenic, but who wouldn't in that band?"

great line, but what does RD's comment mean? What in particular about the Stones would make them seem schizoid?

Who knows? Maybe a little jealousy from Davies? Maybe a little rivalry between the Kinks and Stones? Brian, it seems, seemd to have some emotional issues dating back to his youth...very rigid upbringing...

who knows?? You made the quotation, I assumed you felt it was meaningful. My point was that, without more specificity, it's just a cryptic comment.

Quote
cc

Quote
Marie

Quote
cc

Quote
Marie
I'm always reminded of the quote from Ray Davies..."It's true, at times Brian did seem a little schizophrenic, but who wouldn't in that band?"

great line, but what does RD's comment mean? What in particular about the Stones would make them seem schizoid?

Who knows? Maybe a little jealousy from Davies? Maybe a little rivalry between the Kinks and Stones? Brian, it seems, seemd to have some emotional issues dating back to his youth...very rigid upbringing...

who knows?? You made the quotation, I assumed you felt it was meaningful. My point was that, without more specificity, it's just a cryptic comment.

LIke I said, who knows....I did think it was meaningful...He didn't elaborate after he made the quote...they were talking about Brian's problems in the book... So what if it's a cryptic comment?

by the way, Neptune started this thread with a stretch ... Keith does not write that Stu started the band:

=======================================


Stu had gone down to the Ealing Club because he'd seen an ad Brian Jones had placed in Jazz News in the spring of '62 for players wanting to start an R&B band. Brian and Stu started rehearsing with a bunch of different musicians; everybody would chip in two quid for an upstairs room in a pub. He'd seen Mick and me at the Ealing Club doing a couple of numbers and invited us along. In fact, to give Mick his due, Stu remembered that Mick had been coming already to his rehearsals, and Mick said, "I'm not doin' it if Keith's not doin' it." "Oh, you made it, did you?" And I started with him and he says, "You're not gonna play that rock-and-roll shit, are ya?" Stu had massive reservations and he was suspicious of rock and roll. I'm "Yeah," and then I start to play some Chuck Berry. And he's "Oh, you know Johnnie Johnson?" who was Chuck's piano player, and we started to sling the hash, boogie-woogie. That's all we did. And then the other guys slowly started to turn up. It wasn't just Mick and Brian. Geoff Bradford, a lovely slide blues guitar player who used to play with Cyril Davies. Brian Knight, a blues fan and his big number was "Walk On, Walk On." He had that down and that was it. So Stu could have played with all these other cats, and actually we were third in line for this setup. Mick and I were brought in as maybes, tryouts. These cats were playing clubs with Alexis Korner; they knew shit. We were brand-new in town in those terms. And I realized that Stu had to make up his mind whether he was going to go for these real traditional folk blues players. Because by then I'd played some hot boogie-woogie and some Chuck Berry. My equipment had worked. And by the end of the evening I knew there was a band in the making. Nothing was said, but I knew that I'd got Stu's attention. Geoff Bradford and Brian Knight were a very successful blues band after the Stones, Blues by Six. But they were basically traditional players who had no intention of playing anything else except what they knew: Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee, Big Bill Broonzy. Stu I think that day realized by the time I'd sung him "Sweet Little Sixteen" and "Little Queenie," and he'd got behind me that somehow a deal had been made without anything being said. We just hit a chord together. "So I'll be back then, right?" "See you next Thursday."

Ian Stewart. I'm still working for him. To me the Rolling Stones is his band. Without his knowledge and organization, without the leap he made from where he was coming from, to take a chance on playing with this bunch of kids, we'd be nowhere. I don't know what the attraction was with Stu and me. But he was absolutely the main impetus behind what happened next. Stu to me was a much older man--actually only by about three or four years, but at that time so it seemed. And he knew people. I knew nothing. I'd just come from the sticks.

a cryptic comment sounds meaningful but doesn't actually explain anything. many of keith's interview responses are cryptic (to help this discussion stay on topic). I suppose all you said was that you often thought of this remark; you didn't claim that it was illuminating. But the idea of the thread is to try to cut through the myths around the band's early days, and such a remark only adds to the haze.

Quote
cc
a cryptic comment sounds meaningful but doesn't actually explain anything. many of keith's interview responses are cryptic (to help this discussion stay on topic). I suppose all you said was that you often thought of this remark; you didn't claim that it was illuminating. But the idea of the thread is to try to cut through the myths around the band's early days, and such a remark only adds to the haze.

Everyone here has read the books. Booth's, Bill's, etc. Everyone knows about the early days of the Stones. Everyone knows who started and named the band. It doesn't add to any haze. Davies was asked about Brian Jones and he commented on it. I suppose the remark about the band was a little dig thrown in by him out of spite.
The following is from Mandy Aftel's book Death of Rolling Stone. Brian placed an ad in Jazz News magazine soliciting musicians to form a rhythm and blues group. Ian Stewart, piano player, answered Brian's ad. Quote Stu, " He was livin' in an unbelievable awful state; drinkin' spaghetti out of a cup. I thought it was a stunt! But they had no money whatsoever. We talked about music and Nrian said he was going to have a rehearsal Monday. The rehearsal consisted of another piano player, a singer, Andy Wren, and brian on regular and slide guitar. Brian was very functional. We rehearsed a couple of times. Sometimes guitarist Geoff Bradford joined us-very good, but a great purist. He wouldn't bend at all." Alexis Korner would encourage musicians to sit in with the band at Ealing Jazz Club. Quote Keith Richards, "Brian was dying to play. he was a really good guitar player, even on that homemade amplifier of his. You could tell that the sounds were there. He played slide guitar before the average British guitarist had heard of it."

This is going to be one of those love it or hate it take it or leave it books. I mean if you don't like keith for whatever reason then thats ok. I honestly think that you can't look at this book as a rolling stones book it is a book about a man who just happened to be in the rolling stones. His views his oppinions his memories.

As for giving credit to Stu and it contradicting him giving credit to brian in the past well maybe he was just closer to Stu I mean its pretty clear in the book about how he is an only child maybe he thought of Stu as a big brother or something. Plus with Brian dieing so young and Stu taking on the road manager position maybe behind the scenes Keith turned to Stu for a leader.

Quote
24FPS
Just once I'd like to see one original, still living Rolling Stone say something to the effect, "My God, we were kids. Brian was the cornerstone of the band, but he had personality problems we were too young to deal with. And you get tired of dealing with them. We basically became a quartet with this jealous malcontent delivering less and less to our sound in the studio and he made touring an impossibility. It all happened before we realized how heavy drugs were. Maybe Brian could have gotten some proper help. There was a touch of genius in his musicianship, but he lost his way. He wasn't shouldering his load and we got tired of carrying him. Put yourselves in our shoes if you want to judge us. Looking back, he had a great influence on the band in the musical directions we went, the whole look and attitude of being a Rolling Stone. He may have been a pain in the azz, but I would never take away his accomplishments. He was only 27, man. He could've straightened up and maybe accomplished some of those things in that brain of his. It's so complicated to try and explain to outsiders what went down between Brian and the rest of the group. It wasn't pretty and maybe we weren't all mature about it. But we were young too and dealing with the pressures of stardom. Rest in Peace, Brian. We couldn't have gotten this thing off the ground without you. You rotten sod." Now, would something gracious like that be so hard?

Yeah, or even something like "You get a bunch of 20-year-old, talented yet insecure guys with big egos together in one apartment, add public popularity and small time fame then bigger-time time, then enormo-time FAME, add women and infighting and jealousy in all directions and jockying for power and position, add a dash of cruel azzholeishness on the part of all of these guys, and stir...See what happens." Brian and Keith were best friends, thick as thieves for a good while there.

In one of the books it tells how Mick was odd man out for a goodly period of time, and Brian and Keith would gang up on Mick, being dicks as 20 year olds will be with each other. With Brian, he was self-dealing some (giving himself more than the others), and as their egos grew they started resenting him. The Ray Davies' comment means it was a brutal focking band to be in; it would have driven almost anyone mad to be around them. If you turn on anyone you've liked before and are a relentless azshole to them (meaning Mick and Keith deciding they no longer liked Brian) you can break anyone. You can turn anyone into a sniveling insecure sad sack. Not to say he wasn't (a) a very sensitive guy, and (b) an azshole to women and kinda a dick generally at times---but they all pretty much were (Mick, Keith, Brian). And if Mick and Brian had turned on Keith and treated him like shit he would've broken too. Add drugs and "steal" his girlfriend and you have a guy who's going to be basically having a nervous breakdown for the rest of his short life.

THAT'S the insight missing from Keith. Brian was basically having a nervous breakdown. And Keith was so guilty and self-righteous about absconding with Anita that he had to see it as Brian's getting whathe deserved.

So understandable Keith had to see it that way, at the time...but goddamn...Keith still has the perspective of a sheltered defensive 22 year old who made off with his best friend's girlfriend and watched him crumble and die? Nothing a bit more considered? nothing a bit more complex?

"___road" from the Page 2 of this thread (don't remember his/her name and heshe is new, I think) puts it well that we fans oughta have figured it out by now that clearly some other shit was going on with Brian and Keith, and Keith still has a bug up his ass about Brian, as evidenced by reciting the same old self-righteous stale story.

Doxa -- I keep forgetting you're a she! I am too, and people forget that too. I for some reason picture a Greek guy (I don't mean the person with the handle
"The Greek" ) when I see the name "Doxa" - so sorry!

- swiss



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 08:51 by swiss.

Quote
24FPS
Just once I'd like to see one original, still living Rolling Stone say something to the effect, "My God, we were kids. Brian was the cornerstone of the band, but he had personality problems we were too young to deal with. And you get tired of dealing with them. We basically became a quartet with this jealous malcontent delivering less and less to our sound in the studio and he made touring an impossibility. It all happened before we realized how heavy drugs were. Maybe Brian could have gotten some proper help. There was a touch of genius in his musicianship, but he lost his way. He wasn't shouldering his load and we got tired of carrying him. Put yourselves in our shoes if you want to judge us. Looking back, he had a great influence on the band in the musical directions we went, the whole look and attitude of being a Rolling Stone. He may have been a pain in the ass, but I would never take away his accomplishments. He was only 27, man. He could've straightened up and maybe accomplished some of those things in that brain of his. It's so complicated to try and explain to outsiders what went down between Brian and the rest of the group. It wasn't pretty and maybe we weren't all mature about it. But we were young too and dealing with the pressures of stardom. Rest in Peace, Brian. We couldn't have gotten this thing off the ground without you. You rotten sod." Now, would something gracious like that be so hard?

Seems to me that's what Mick says in his interview with J.Wenner about Brian(Jagger Remembers, RS 1995)

Quote
Marie
Brian had issues, everybody knows it, but where does everyone get the impression that nobody liked Brian? Ever read or seen the Stones introduction into the Hall of Fame? Pete Townshend gives a very nice tribute to Brian. Steve Winwood liked him, Noel Redding liked him, Eric Burden liked him, to name a few. Granted, they didn't work in a band with him as Keith, Mick, and the others did, but I'm always reminded of the quote from Ray Davies..."It's true, at times Brian did seem a little schizophrenic, but who wouldn't in that band?"

Yes. And many of his ex-girlfriends still seem very fond of him.

Here's a variety of opinions about Brian: [members.tripod.com]

Paul McCartney's seems especially apposite: He was lovely, though. I remember being in a car with Chris Barber and I was driving and someone else in the car saying, 'Bloody Brian. On bloody heroin,' and we said, 'Yeah, maybe he is on heroin but we're supposed to be his friends and you can't go around slagging him off'.

EDIT: And these pages from Mandy Aftel's book about his time with Zouzou are worth reading: [www.angelfire.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 12:13 by Squiggle.

Quote
cc
not quite -- numerous avid users of the Internet in the 1990s and 2000s think he was a wonderful man.

There are also other accounts by people outside the Stones who actually knew Brian that say that he was a very likeable guy with a great sense of humour. Broken yes, but not the devil Keith wants us to believe he was.
I couldn't care less about what a random user on the internet say he was. I listen to people who knew the guy who isn't filled with guilt and self righteousness.

That said, we all already know that he had huge problems with himself and with drugs. It's nothing new. But it should be seen in context of his upbringing and tough life.

Quote
LeonidP
Brian was a user of others, stuck-up, paranoid, and regularly beat up his girlfriends ... not really a wonderful man

Brian wasn't unique doing what he did. It was different times, drugs turned people into a-holes, women were considered meat & it was a competition of egos.
It's no excuse for his behaviour but if Brian should be judged based on that then other artists who have done the same thing has to be that too. So, who wants to piss on John Lennon, Nikki Sixx or Ozzy? I sure don't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-01 12:13 by tonterapi.