Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
misterfrias
And two years to the day after Brian's departure, Jim Morrison left this earth.

I thought this thread was about Brian...

It should be about the children BJ neglected & abandoned. I wonder how they are doing?

Quote
MILKYWAY

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
misterfrias
And two years to the day after Brian's departure, Jim Morrison left this earth.

I thought this thread was about Brian...

It should be about the children BJ neglected & abandoned. I wonder how they are doing?

They are doing good.

* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *

Brian Jones died for our sins . . errrr, I mean for his sins.

No, he just died, same as anyone else who dies.

* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *

Quote
MILKYWAY

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
misterfrias
And two years to the day after Brian's departure, Jim Morrison left this earth.

I thought this thread was about Brian...

It should be about the children BJ neglected & abandoned. I wonder how they are doing?

Disagree.

If you insist however, you might find this interesting if you haven't already seen it:

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
MILKYWAY

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
misterfrias
And two years to the day after Brian's departure, Jim Morrison left this earth.

I thought this thread was about Brian...

It should be about the children BJ neglected & abandoned. I wonder how they are doing?

Disagree.

If you insist however, you might find this interesting if you haven't already seen it:

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Halfway down the page, I posted about one of the women by whom Brian had a son--the one mentioned in the Daily Mail article. She actually posted a few years back on a similar, now defunct, online fan forum. In my original post I got the name crossed, because it's been a few years, but a look at the Daily Mail article posted above jogged my memory. It definitely was Dawn Molloy. It's proof that people involved in the lives of the Stones--and perhaps the Stones themselves--do indeed pay attention to forums like these.

www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1631508,page=2



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-05 03:51 by stonesnow.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Naturalust
There is a little of Brian in all of us.

What do you mean by that Naturalust?

If you have to ask....No, really I likely mean that we are talking about him and thinking about him TODAY and human thought being the powerful force it is somehow infuses us physically with the essence of the man. peace

I never would have guessed that was your intended meaning if I had not asked so yes, I did have to ask ...

Fair enough. Said in another way, as an archetypical figure in todays culture, Brian's truths have importantly survived to present day and are carried in the thoughts and dreams of many, many people, you and I included. peace

huh?...Brian Jones in todays' culture..?? vast majority of people have likely never heard of him and know nothing of his music...believe it or not the Stones themselves are fading from popular view--very quickly in fact in the last few years...that's what inactivity and irrelevance will do to perfomers. Not only do most 20-something folks know nothing about the Stones but they do not care...sad but true.

Quote
lunar!!!

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
Naturalust
There is a little of Brian in all of us.

What do you mean by that Naturalust?

If you have to ask....No, really I likely mean that we are talking about him and thinking about him TODAY and human thought being the powerful force it is somehow infuses us physically with the essence of the man. peace

I never would have guessed that was your intended meaning if I had not asked so yes, I did have to ask ...

Fair enough. Said in another way, as an archetypical figure in todays culture, Brian's truths have importantly survived to present day and are carried in the thoughts and dreams of many, many people, you and I included. peace

huh?...Brian Jones in todays' culture..?? vast majority of people have likely never heard of him and know nothing of his music...believe it or not the Stones themselves are fading from popular view--very quickly in fact in the last few years...that's what inactivity and irrelevance will do to perfomers. Not only do most 20-something folks know nothing about the Stones but they do not care...sad but true.

But they--and people younger than their 20s--sure know and care who Jim Morrison was. Know why? 'Cause no one ever had to watch him grow old. It's only natural that people in their 20s aren't concerned with people in their 60s/70s--the only thing that never gets old is good, old-fashioned ageism.

We don't know whether or not "most" 20 year olds are or aren't in to the stones or if they are aware of and influenced by Brian Jones.

Some are for sure, just as some aren't.

Useless generalisations are useless.

* His Majesty, Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd *

great musician but he was his own worst enemy. loved every track he played on.

Quote
24FPS
Mick has stated that they were merciless 'towards the end'. By that time Brian had managed to alienate each and every Stone, including Bill. Bill states they were friends and yet I've rarely if ever seen a picture of them two together. I wonder if Bill thought they were friends but Brian was friends with Bill because Mick and Keith wouldn't be friends with Brian. And as Charlie said about Brian, "I was only the drummer."

They had put up with him missing time in the studio and even on stage. As the pressure grew on them to churn out pop albums and tours every year, he receded to the background. If you look at videos from 1965 he seems lost and Bill is more in the forefront than Brian is. Then when Brian starts playing the exotic instruments the camera returns to him and he is happily out front again. But the changing times demanded guitar music and that's the one instrument he had neglected. I never understood why he couldn't play a non-slide lead. Brian was lazy in that he did not improve his guitar playing skills. Or really stick with one instrument over time at all.

"Poor' Brian brought on his own calamities. He should have been slapped up side the head when he knocked up a girl as a teenager. People kept letting him get away with his obnoxious behavior. If the RCMP in Toronto hadn't intervened on Keith, do you think he would have ever stopped shooting smack? Shirley intervened on Charlie in the 80s. Bill and Mick appear to have gotten their own selves under control. But Brian was too headstrong and cocksure about his place in the world. Nobody could tell him what to do. RIP.

Yeah, the bullying reached a top in the last months of 68. But it had been going on and off for years by that time. Like I said, even if Mick and Keith didn't always meant to hurt Brian with their remarks he would, being the sensitive guy he was, take to his heart and get upset. They knew that.
I don't think that it's fair to blame Brian alone for the alienation. It takes two to tango and I think it became a vicious circle. In 64 but even more in 65 he must have felt pretty lost about his role in the band. It wasn't his band anymore, the promotion was done by ALO and he had nothing to say really about what should be done. Acting like an ass was probably his way to get back at them for pushing him out.

Brian wanted to show off musically but couldn't do so anymore when they moved away from the blues covers. I also believe, and I think ALO said something in that way, that Brian wanted to be "real" and didn't consider pop to be "real". He loved the life that came with it but he was not satisfied musically. The stress that came with that kind of fame was too much for him to handle. He couldn't handle other alpha males either. So it was bound to fail.
Changing the guitar for exotic instruments was just right for that time and for the songs. I think it made the songs stand out and to be fair he still played guitar live. I have never understood why people complain about that.

It's pretty known that Brian never set out to be a guitar player, dulcimer player and what have you. He learned what he needed of an instrument and moved on. That's not being lazy - that's being uninterested in doing so.

I think that the biggest problem that we have today with this is that we are only getting one story over and over again. We can't, for obvious reasons, hear Brian's thoughts and feelings about it all and that is a loss. Although he was a difficult guy and an ass in some ways, I mean I don't want to turn this into "poor" Brian at all. It's just that I don't believe that he was the problem alone.

"He should have been slapped up side the head when he knocked up a girl as a teenager. People kept letting him get away with his obnoxious behavior."

Quote
tonterapi
I also believe, and I think ALO said something in that way, that Brian wanted to be "real" and didn't consider pop to be "real". He loved the life that came with it but he was not satisfied musically. The stress that came with that kind of fame was too much for him to handle.

This is one good and I think very important point in your fine post. Jagger said it in other words that Brian was not a suitable for pop/show business, but had a mind of more jazz musician or something. Brian was the most blues purist of them all (and he came to blues from the jazz corner whereas Mick and Keith from a pop/rock and roll corner), and I think that kind of ambitious attitude and search for 'realness' or 'authenticity' is I believe the 'demon' he had during his whole pop career (his pioneer-like deep interest towards JouJouka stuff - 'world music' - and making a movie soundtrack tells also something of his ambitious mentality as a musician). I think the people who do not much care about 'pop' or 'rock', but are rather critical towards radio-friendly commercial music, might easily recognize Brian's dilemmaic position (even though they don't contribute to IORR). I also believe that is the singular reason why Brian couldn't write songs, as Keith, ALO and many other of the inner circle have claimed the situation to have been. He couldn't come up with simple pop songs with suitable, easy-listening melodies and catch phrases - something Mick and Keith seemed to do from the day one when ALO metaphorically locked them to kitchen. It's like some scientists are not able to popularize their theories to a common public - just can't mentally do the compromise; they prefer to write to scientific journals instead of releasing top seller books that would appeal to every man's taste.

But anyway, in his glory days The Stones benefitted greatly from Brian's natural musicality, his rich musical imagination, his 'difficult' no bull-shitting attitude, 'purity' and love for 'exotic' and 'authentic' sounds. And I especially believe that Keith Richards learned way a lot more from Brian Jones about music and one's attitude to that than he ever will admit. But it took years for him to really master Brian's teachings, to full develop his own "it's all the same shit, man" philosophy (but he herited a lot of Brian's demons as well).

In hindsight Brian Jones was pretty much an unique musical character of his own - that's why he is so diffucult to label as with any unversalities and stereoptypias that were created in later yaers.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-05 12:29 by Doxa.

Brian Jones being real means he went through TV and radio, he wasnt just "pop". Morrisson was obsessed with Brian not Mick.

Also I think Keith and Mick cant be "real" because they knew eachother to well and they were quite ordinary guys (more normal, down to earth, more their age). Brian being left outside the ALO songwriter team means he had to do something else to become a star. Writing songs on your own and showing them to Mick and Keith doesnt sound like a party. I dont think anyone could do that because the whole idea of the company, the group, was that Mick and Keith would be the writers and CEO. That's the way business was done.

Thats why Brian's only way out would have been to hook up with a songwriter like Nick Drake. Songs with a spot for a guy who could add a riff, melody, a lick or "colouring" on guitar, piano or a recorder. Then he would have gotten more than just the "inspiration" credit .

Doxa: Great post. You sum up what I think about the whole deal about Brian as a musician and the reason why he couldn't write (commercial) songs.

Regarding the Brian Jones statuettes, I still have some available for sale, but they are going fast. The price is $249 + $50 shipping and handling.

Buy one and the second one is half-off.

Quote
tonterapi
Doxa: Great post. You sum up what I think about the whole deal about Brian as a musician and the reason why he couldn't write (commercial) songs.

Thanks. Some further 'for Brian's musical legacy' stuff....

I need to say that as far as The Stones were "Brian's baby", that he conceptually was the founder of The Rolling Stones, is also I think based to his depthness as a 'pure' musician with ambitious visions. It was his visions that saw, for example, in pop/rock and roll-oriented boys Mick Jagger and Keith Richards something to build with instead of some more purist-minded and more advanced musicians like Geoff Bradford (or who were those guys who walked out from Brian's band when The Dartford boys walked in.) He seemingly liked the Chuck Berry/Jimmy Reed stuff these guys were offering, which suited to his ideas of a blues band. I presumme he saw the potentiality of bigger popularity as well. It was him who endlessly begged someone named Charlie Watts to join - since only he had the right touch in his drumming to fit their group - until he finally said yes. Damn those intuitions of him were blessed! He basically was a leader and founder of the band that was musically quite perfect unit and closed shop when it was offered to the hands of Andrew Loog Oldham to make something more commercial out of it.

Of course, after losing his leadership, it was still also his visionalism and depthness as a musician that helped later to lift many Jagger/Richard pop songs above the contemporary scene. Most of the 'pop era' stuff is charming but rather 'juvenile' stuff, and it is many times Brian's touch that gives them the unique depthness and immortality (think of "The Last Time", "Under My Thumb, "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", etc). Even though Mick and Keith are profilic song-writers, The Stones have never been much a pure song band a'la The Beatles, but more like an unit trying to capture a collective sound that is not to be distinguished from the song itself, and Brian Jones had a huge role in accomplishing that in the early days. I think instrumentalwise the biggest all the way to SATANIC MAJESTIES (It was Brian who, in the end, helps to save gaining some of the targets in infamous SATANIC MAJESTIES project...) To me it looks like that it took until 1968/1969 when Mick and Keith had learned to write such mature and deep material, and develop as strong musicians (Keith) that they were able to survive without Brian's musical depthness, and search for 'real'.

I also believe that Mick Taylor was a perfect replacement for Brian. He added the next missing piece for their sound, and he pretty much offered them the needed 'professionalism' (to quote Charlie). Taylor also seem to have a 'purist' like musical mind like Brian had, having deep musical intuitions of his own, which resulted as non-compromised, unique sounds to enrichen Jagger/Richard material, which then lifted The Stones music higher in their following musical adventures. At least live - I don't think Taylor ever had the role and importance Jones had in their studio output.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-05 17:23 by Doxa.

Quote
mitchflorida1



Regarding the Brian Jones statuettes, I still have some available for sale, but they are going fast. The price is $249 + $50 shipping and handling.

Buy one and the second one is half-off.

Do you have a a picture of one that looks like Brian?

Spot on Doxa. The realness is there in 1968/1969 and the colouring is done by Keith on guitar and Mick's mature vocals.

Quote
Naturalust
Fair enough. Said in another way, as an archetypical figure in todays culture, Brian's truths have importantly survived to present day and are carried in the thoughts and dreams of many, many people, you and I included. peace

Brian's truths? He was just a musician not a deity. What are some of these "truths" that you speak of?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-05 18:05 by GumbootCloggeroo.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Naturalust
Fair enough. Said in another way, as an archetypical figure in todays culture, Brian's truths have importantly survived to present day and are carried in the thoughts and dreams of many, many people, you and I included. peace

Brian's truths? He was just a musician not a deity. What are some of these "truths" that you speak of?

The truths I speak of are not inherently obvious, but are truths that are buried in our subconsciousness that allow us to see Brian as an archetype.

The more obvious ones are things like "poor boy becomes successful" , "beautiful girly man has appeal" , "died young in order to bring humanity something" and possibly even "musician who allows us to feel where we couldn't before". The truths are there or we wouldn't be speaking of Brian today with such detail and admiration. The fact that he was a mean jerk most of the time has little to do with the image of Brian in most people's minds. Or as many have said , don't confuse the issue with facts. peace

Quote
Doxa
Thanks. Some further 'for Brian's musical legacy' stuff....

I need to say that as far as The Stones were "Brian's baby", that he conceptually was the founder of The Rolling Stones, is also I think based to his depthness as a 'pure' musician with ambitious visions. It was his visions that saw, for example, in pop/rock and roll-oriented boys Mick Jagger and Keith Richards something to build with instead of some more purist-minded and more advanced musicians like Geoff Bradford (or who were those guys who walked out from Brian's band when The Dartford boys walked in.) He seemingly liked the Chuck Berry/Jimmy Reed stuff these guys were offering, which suited to his ideas of a blues band. I presumme he saw the potentiality of bigger popularity as well. It was him who endlessly begged someone named Charlie Watts to join - since only he had the right touch in his drumming to fit their group - until he finally said yes. Damn those intuitions of him were blessed! He basically was a leader and founder of the band that was musically quite perfect unit and closed shop when it was offered to the hands of Andrew Loog Oldham to make something more commercial out of it.

Of course, after losing his leadership, it was still also his visionalism and depthness as a musician that helped later to lift many Jagger/Richard pop songs above the contemporary scene. Most of the 'pop era' stuff is charming but rather 'juvenile' stuff, and it is many times Brian's touch that gives them the unique depthness and immortality (think of "The Last Time", "Under My Thumb, "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", etc). Even though Mick and Keith are profilic song-writers, The Stones have never been much a pure song band a'la The Beatles, but more like an unit trying to capture a collective sound that is not to be distinguished from the song itself, and Brian Jones had a huge role in accomplishing that in the early days. I think instrumentalwise the biggest all the way to SATANIC MAJESTIES (It was Brian who, in the end, helps to save gaining some of the targets in infamous SATANIC MAJESTIES project...) To me it looks like that it took until 1968/1969 when Mick and Keith had learned to write such mature and deep material, and develop as strong musicians (Keith) that they were able to survive without Brian's musical depthness, and search for 'real'.

I also believe that Mick Taylor was a perfect replacement for Brian. He added the next missing piece for their sound, and he pretty much offered them the needed 'professionalism' (to quote Charlie). Taylor also seem to have a 'purist' like musical mind like Brian had, having deep musical intuitions of his own, which resulted as non-compromised, unique sounds to enrichen Jagger/Richard material, which then lifted The Stones music higher in their following musical adventures. At least live - I don't think Taylor ever had the role and importance Jones had in their studio output.

- Doxa

Spot on again Doxa.

I think you touch what many of the Brian-bashers miss and also don't get because they have no understanding of the music scene of the 60's.
Brian was just as important for the Stones in the 60's as Mick Taylor was in the early 70's. They where both in the right spot doing the right things for their times.

Both Mick and Keith (although rare) have given Brian credit for his talent as a musician and they obviously seem to have trust him enough to let him experiment.
The question I would love see answered is if Brian kept his voice in the studio as an arranger after ALO joined? Did they listen to him? We know they didn't in 68 and that's most likely a big reason for why Brian lost interest totally.

Quote
Naturalust
The more obvious ones are things like "poor boy becomes successful" , "beautiful girly man has appeal" , "died young in order to bring humanity something" and possibly even "musician who allows us to feel where we couldn't before". The truths are there or we wouldn't be speaking of Brian today with such detail and admiration.

There are hundreds of people that can be described in that way. Let's not make Brian out to be some kind of unique being as if he was beyond human

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Naturalust
The more obvious ones are things like "poor boy becomes successful" , "beautiful girly man has appeal" , "died young in order to bring humanity something" and possibly even "musician who allows us to feel where we couldn't before". The truths are there or we wouldn't be speaking of Brian today with such detail and admiration.

There are hundreds of people that can be described in that way. Let's not make Brian out to be some kind of unique being as if he was beyond human

Beyond human? Obviously the missing definition for you is as follows.

An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated.

Nothing "beyond human" was either suggested or implied, in fact quite the opposite. With respect. peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Naturalust
The more obvious ones are things like "poor boy becomes successful" , "beautiful girly man has appeal" , "died young in order to bring humanity something" and possibly even "musician who allows us to feel where we couldn't before". The truths are there or we wouldn't be speaking of Brian today with such detail and admiration.

There are hundreds of people that can be described in that way. Let's not make Brian out to be some kind of unique being as if he was beyond human

Beyond human? Obviously the missing definition for you is as follows.

An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated.

Nothing "beyond human" was either suggested or implied, in fact quite the opposite. With respect. peace

Sometimes it feels like the level of fandom on here can get a bit crazy. Sorry for painting you with the same brush.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Naturalust
The more obvious ones are things like "poor boy becomes successful" , "beautiful girly man has appeal" , "died young in order to bring humanity something" and possibly even "musician who allows us to feel where we couldn't before". The truths are there or we wouldn't be speaking of Brian today with such detail and admiration.

There are hundreds of people that can be described in that way. Let's not make Brian out to be some kind of unique being as if he was beyond human

Beyond human? Obviously the missing definition for you is as follows.

An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated.

Nothing "beyond human" was either suggested or implied, in fact quite the opposite. With respect. peace

Sometimes it feels like the level of fandom on here can get a bit crazy. Sorry for painting you with the same brush.

No worries GC, I'm tickled that you attempted to paint me at all. I can be just as crazy as the rest of 'em , just check any guitar thread as of late. In fact, I have one guitar that I am convinced is a diety. peace

Quote
His Majesty
We don't know whether or not "most" 20 year olds are or aren't in to the stones or if they are aware of and influenced by Brian Jones.

Some are for sure, just as some aren't.

Useless generalisations are useless.

sorry if the truth hurts-- but its true....take your own survey..but don't fool yourself....lady gaga--that's the 'taste' in music now...anyone ACTUALLY believe the average person under 40 gives a rats @!#$% about the Rolling Stones?..even the Stones THEMSELVES don't care about the Stones....just the hardcore fans left now..

I basically agree with everything that has been said in this post and
I think it was well written.

I think the only thing that been left out is the Anita thing. They were young guys back then and girls are a significant reason for being in a band. Anita and Brian had something going on but to have a band mate steal your girl is one knife to the heart in all of this. Certainly another reason for Brian to become even more alienated from his band.

Marv

Quote
Doxa

Quote
tonterapi
Doxa: Great post. You sum up what I think about the whole deal about Brian as a musician and the reason why he couldn't write (commercial) songs.

Thanks. Some further 'for Brian's musical legacy' stuff....

I need to say that as far as The Stones were "Brian's baby", that he conceptually was the founder of The Rolling Stones, is also I think based to his depthness as a 'pure' musician with ambitious visions. It was his visions that saw, for example, in pop/rock and roll-oriented boys Mick Jagger and Keith Richards something to build with instead of some more purist-minded and more advanced musicians like Geoff Bradford (or who were those guys who walked out from Brian's band when The Dartford boys walked in.) He seemingly liked the Chuck Berry/Jimmy Reed stuff these guys were offering, which suited to his ideas of a blues band. I presumme he saw the potentiality of bigger popularity as well. It was him who endlessly begged someone named Charlie Watts to join - since only he had the right touch in his drumming to fit their group - until he finally said yes. Damn those intuitions of him were blessed! He basically was a leader and founder of the band that was musically quite perfect unit and closed shop when it was offered to the hands of Andrew Loog Oldham to make something more commercial out of it.

Of course, after losing his leadership, it was still also his visionalism and depthness as a musician that helped later to lift many Jagger/Richard pop songs above the contemporary scene. Most of the 'pop era' stuff is charming but rather 'juvenile' stuff, and it is many times Brian's touch that gives them the unique depthness and immortality (think of "The Last Time", "Under My Thumb, "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", etc). Even though Mick and Keith are profilic song-writers, The Stones have never been much a pure song band a'la The Beatles, but more like an unit trying to capture a collective sound that is not to be distinguished from the song itself, and Brian Jones had a huge role in accomplishing that in the early days. I think instrumentalwise the biggest all the way to SATANIC MAJESTIES (It was Brian who, in the end, helps to save gaining some of the targets in infamous SATANIC MAJESTIES project...) To me it looks like that it took until 1968/1969 when Mick and Keith had learned to write such mature and deep material, and develop as strong musicians (Keith) that they were able to survive without Brian's musical depthness, and search for 'real'.

I also believe that Mick Taylor was a perfect replacement for Brian. He added the next missing piece for their sound, and he pretty much offered them the needed 'professionalism' (to quote Charlie). Taylor also seem to have a 'purist' like musical mind like Brian had, having deep musical intuitions of his own, which resulted as non-compromised, unique sounds to enrichen Jagger/Richard material, which then lifted The Stones music higher in their following musical adventures. At least live - I don't think Taylor ever had the role and importance Jones had in their studio output.

- Doxa

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

Quote
mitchflorida1



Regarding the Brian Jones statuettes, I still have some available for sale, but they are going fast. The price is $249 + $50 shipping and handling.

Buy one and the second one is half-off.

Why do you tease me so?

Quote
marvpeck
I think the only thing that been left out is the Anita thing. They were young guys back then and girls are a significant reason for being in a band. Anita and Brian had something going on but to have a band mate steal your girl is one knife to the heart in all of this. Certainly another reason for Brian to become even more alienated from his band.

Marv

We are quite a few that believe that Keith's betrayal hurt Brian more than loosing Anita. Brian and Keith were really good friends right before that so it was a big blow and affected the band the coming tour. According to Brian he wanted to leave in 67 (most likely because of this) but was talked out of it by Mick.

I think that the strained relation between Brian and Keith was a bigger reason to why Brian had to go than Mick and Keith wants to admit today.

I think the only thing that been left out is the Anita thing. They were young guys back then and girls are a significant reason for being in a band. Anita and Brian had something going on but to have a band mate steal your girl is one knife to the heart in all of this. Certainly another reason for Brian to become even more alienated from his band.

Marv




I agree. I think this is the single most "censored"/left out/"forgotten" fact about Brian Jones and the Rolling Stones.