Quote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.

Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.

Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.

Mathijs

That's not true.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.

Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.

Mathijs

That's not true.

According to Bill Wyman, it is.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
neptune
Keith wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Brian the night he died, but he couldn't attend his funeral a couple days later? Talk about love/hate relationships.

Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.

Mathijs

That's not true.

According to Bill Wyman, it is.

Mathijs

When and where did he say that?

Not true, - even if he really said it which I doubt.

Here is what Bill said in Stone Alone.

Quote
2000 LYFH
I wonder what happened to Mock?

Thanks for caring. You'll understand I needed some time to comprehend that sophisticated "bastard"-discussion. Even after years the turns some thoughts on this board are able to take come as a surprise to me.
However, to compensate for my absence I'm going to write more than the average IORRian reads in his whole life. And I dedicate this post to Mickscarey.

Quote
stonesnow
Wasn't Keylock sacked after it was found that he was attempting to pass Jones' Joujouka tapes along to various record producers for profit?

I've read more than one time on the internet that Keylock claimed that himself, but I don't know the original source. Maybe a (probably only small) case for the majestic archives of His Majesty? It could be from the second edition of Rawlings' book, but I don't have it.
However, and I think that's quite uncontroversial, Keylocks reputation for saying the truth is lower than zero. (He even admitted it himself occasionally.) Maybe he used "Jones' Joujouka tapes" as a pars pro toto metaphor for "everything that was in Jonses' house" and "various record producers" for "any old receiver of stolen goods"? However, I'm sure the Stones didn't care too much about Brian's possessions.
By the way, funny to compare the Bravo-reporter's realistic view on the perspective of becoming rich with releasing Joujouka (as posted by Majesty) [www.iorr.org] with the funny idea of Keylock (of all people) using the Joujouka recordings (of all things) "for profit". (Though it's probably in its field sort of a best seller. It was re-released on CD in 1995.) I guess Brian's cars, instruments (Mellotron, for example), furniture etc. brought in a lot more loot for Keylock and his builders.

Actually, that's probably of interest for some here, the Joujouka-recordings were - as ALL recordings, songs, music productions by any Rolling Stones member of 1965 that were done before 31 July 1970 - owned by ABKCO (that is by Allen Klein). The fact that Rolling Stones Records released it in 1971 means there had to be some deal about it with Klein. (By the way it means there was no deal about the A Degree Of Murder-soundtrack, either because the Stones didn't try hard enough or because Klein stood in the way. Both is possible. After all Joujouka fits very well into the picture of Jones painted especially by Jagger in recent decades: in interesting, freaky outsider within the Stones who occassionally "coloured" Jagger/Richards-songs with exotic instrumentation, while A Degree Of Murder shows a Jones-written and -produced musical concept pretty close to Between The Buttons era-Stones.)

Quote
24FPS
I was always curious how they came up with the alleged amount to offer Brian when they sacked him. And if that was supposed to tie up all ends and if Brian signed something giving away all future rights.

The pay off sum could realistically cover only two things:

1. Brian's shares in Rolling Stones Ltd., which were at 20%. (So much for "they sacked him". You can't sack a co-owner. If there is an agreement, you can pay him off, if there is no agreement, the whole affair is a case for the judges; so that's why Mick lied when he answered 'Yeah.' to Jann Wenner's 1995 question: 'Did you fire him, finally?')

2. not confirmed, but nevertheless possible, maybe even highly possible: Brian's rights or shares in rights of the band name (which in standard internal band deals are usually not mixed with the shares in the band's company, but ususally belong to the "band leader", which Brian certainly considered himself to be on 1 July 1964, when Rolling Stones Ltd. was incorporated. The rights of the trademark Rolling Stones as they are used to this day were registered in 1970 in the Netherlands, which could be the result of the idea of avoiding conflicting rights registered in the UK some years earlier without the knowledge of, for example, the estate of Brian Jones. Speculation, of course - but not a stupid one for sure.)

Quote
24FPS
I wonder if the ABCKO reissues generated any profits for the Jones estate.

Of course. The old contracts set the minimum standard the record company (or "manufacturer of [the Stones'] phonographic records", as Klein called himself in the 1965 contracts) has to stick to for future sales. I say "old contracts", because you can demand higher shares, if sales at a later date reach heights that seem to make the old contract inadequate (15 million copies for Hot Rocks are a point here, any lawyer with the slightest ambition would say). This is certainly something Allen Klein would never have done without being forced. (One of a zillion reasons why he had to enter so many court rooms in his life.) And actually the percentage guaranteed by the Stones' contract with him and Decca/London Records for the US/Canadian market wasn't such a bad one, especially for the time: 18,5% of wholesale including production, out of this 9,25% for the band. That leaves Brian with 1,85% plus an unknown - but probably another 1,85% - share (minus production costs) for the Rolling Stones produced Satanic Majesty output and a possible unknown plus for the Jimmy Miller productions, because it is hard to believe the Superstar-Stones of 1968 offered Jimmy the same share as Andrew got. But maybe Andrew still had a hand in there, although it doesn't look like that judging from the 1965 contract parts Bill published in Stone Alone.

Quote
24FPS
I forget about those Nanker-Phelge things on the early albums. Those probably produce a donut and a cup of coffee every few years.

Well, especially Play With Fire definitely produces a lot more than that. And the other ca. ten tracks should have brought in at least a few more pennies as well, being re-released over and over again over the last 40 years. Marginal note: Andrew tried to get shares of writing money of covers the Stones did as soon as a Stones release had become equivalent to reaching the higher parts of the charts - that's how the story goes why he first met Klein, bargaining over Stones' versions of Sam Cooke songs. (But I don't think Andrew considered sharing that with the Stones.)

Quote
His Majesty
This [Bravo-]article, which features Brian's last known interview, doesn't suggest to me that any kind of financial deal/offer had been made at the meeting at Cotchford...

Please, Majesty, don't be more naive than you potentially are: a teen magazine is certainly not the place to publish details of business deals. When the Stones (plus or including the Brian Jones estate=his parents) settled with ABKCO in 1972, the announcement for the press certainly did not feature any sums, it just summed up the general conflict, declared it had been settled (without any details) and made clear both parties had ended their business relations. (Not completely true, since ABKCO owns the pre-1971 catalogue to this day.) That's the big charm of a settlement out of court: no internal details go public. (See The Times notice in Rolling With The Stones (p. 392) about their settlement with ABKCO.)

Quote
2000 LYFH
Do you remember where you read Brian was to get this money? The only place I found that mentions it is in Tony Sanchez's book.

There are two other sources I know of.

1. Ian Stewart, interviewed in the 1980s: "As a financial settlement, Mick proposed one hundred thousand pounds." (Hotchner, Blown Away, p. 311)
2. Mary Hallett (the housekeeper Brian had taken over from the former owners of Cotchford Farm). Quote in Who Killed Christopher Robin? by Terry Rawlings: "Then Brian told Mary that confirmation of his settlement had come through from Klein's New York office. 'He was so excited, he kept saying, <At last we'll be alright. My money is coming.>'" (p. 172)

Three different sources (and drug dealer "Spanish Tony" Sanchez, the Stones' straight founding member Ian Stewart and life-long rural area housekeeper Mary Hallett, who was in her mid 50s then, are as different as three people possibly can be) plus the rules of business law make it very likely that a sum of 100,000 pounds was the arrangement. Only, we don't know exactly for what. I guess: for the shares in Rolling Stones Ltd., nothing for the name (either not a topic - hard to believe - or still a conflict, more likely), certainly no termination of the recording contracts (no one, neither the remaining Stones nor Klein would have had the money for that. It was Klein's strategy not to pay his clients as soon as possible but in contrast to stretch payments as long as possible to use the huge advance monies he received from the record companies for investments for his own purpose.)

Quote
2000 LYFH
Also thought I heard that this was a - 100,000 pound ($240,000) one time payment and then a smaller amount a year for as long as the band stays together.

The amount of 100,000 pounds for the one time payment makes a lot of sense for my taste. Though the Stones in 1969 had certainly a much higher value then 500,000 pounds, the problem was (just like with most British top stars at the time) there was hardly any money available. So 100,000 pounds, possibly with an additional agreement for an annual payment, was a solid compromise, though still one that was not easy to deal with for Allen Klein who held most of the Stones' monies and who was very likely almost broke in early 1969 due to misinvestments and lost court decisions.

On the value of the Stones: when the Beatles became a public company in April 1967 they received 800,000 pounds for it plus certain financial benefits. Lennon biographer Goldman calls this - rightly, I'd say - absurdly low and says the correct value would have been 4 million pounds; my take is: a few months later, after the release and unheard success of Sergeant Pepper probably even higher. However, the Stones were ca. at 1/3 or 1/4 of the Beatles saleswise; this would mean the Stones in 1969 were worth a minimum of 1 million pounds, leaving Brian Jones with at least 200,000 pounds. When you realize the Stones received $ 1 million in 1972 from Klein just for their claim "there had been a failure to represent [the Stones] best financial interests" alone - and originally claiming $ 29 million (!) for that - you see 1 million pounds for the Stones in 1969 as a whole is really quite a low figure.

The smaller annual amount (usually it's said to be 20,000 pounds) could be

a) in order to compensate for the comparable slow amount for Brian's shares,
b) rights of the name,
c) a mix-up with the annual guarantee payments from Klein and Decca according to their 1965 contract, which were going to run until 1974 (Decca) and 1985 (Klein),
d) complete fiction. (In contrast to the 100,000 pounds I never found a direct quote for the annual 20,000 pounds, only second hand ones written by the authors of the different books.)

The cases a) and b) would have been hard to take for the Stones and for Klein, because money was pretty short on both parts in the summer of 1969. (That's why the idea that Klein decided to take the easiest way to deal with all that isn't far off at all. He was a mafia type from head to foot. If there was a way to assure Britain's most famous drug taker wouldn't come out of his swimming pool after "a party" one night, he sensed it wouldn't surprise anyone who read about that in the news - just like nobody wondered about a black soul singer, Sam Cooke, being shot dead by a brothel owner because he had "threatened" her; a death that in 1964 seemed as natural for the police and the public in the USA as Brian's death in 1969 seemed natural for the police and public in the UK. Klein really had a sense for the right time and the right scenery. That's why he was successful. "I'm not as smart as people think; I'm just well-prepared", he once said about himself.)

Quote
Mathijs
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.

What's this, Mathijs? Your attempt at a Dadaist poem?

The funeral was a very big event in the history of Cheltenham in its own right; it wouldn't have become much bigger by Mick and Keith attending. After all Brian Jones was a very big star and his shocking death had been main headline news a few days earlier.

Mick didn't attend because he had flown to Australia on 6 July 1969 for filming Ned Kelly, just the day after Hyde Park, already under pressure from the film producer who awaited his arrival impatiently.
The whole Brian affair had occupied him much more than he had planned when the film contract was made public on 18 May 1969. Provokingly well timed Brian had announced to the band just ca. a week later he'd leave (but it proved to be his only good tactical move in the event), resulting in hectic activity to present Mick Taylor as official substitute and to organize the Hyde Park concert as a strong proof the Stones were still a working unit - before Mick would have sent himself off to the end of the world in Australia, unable to pull that many strings until 12 September, 1969. (The American tour was announced on 10 September, not before.)

Why Keith didn't attend the funeral is more difficult to decide. I guess it's something of the following: Keith had very mixed feelings about Brian; at the same time he felt very uneasy about Brian's death (as he himself declared in that Rolling Stone magazine interview) - and I don't think he ever wanted to see Tom Keylock again. And I'm pretty sure he never saw him again. I never saw any evidence that Tom Keylock worked for the Stones after Hyde Park resp. after sending Anna Wohlin back to Sweden before she'd talk too much, which happened on 9 July 1969, one day before the funeral. I think his organization work for Brian's funeral (Keylock was pretty much in control of it: organizing the coffin, handling the many press people attending) he did more or less on his own mandate. Brian's parents obviously felt very uneasy not only about their son's death but about the whole atmosphere - they were absolutely not in charge of the situation. Seriously, nobody wants a character like Keylock organizing your son's funeral. However, "a riot" at a funeral because Mick and Keith are attending is really a pretty strange idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)

Quote
Mock Jogger

Quote
2000 LYFH
I wonder what happened to Mock?

Thanks for caring. You'll understand I needed some time to comprehend that sophisticated "bastard"-discussion. Even after years the turns some thoughts on this board are able to take come as a surprise to me.
However, to compensate for my absence I'm going to write more than the average IORRian reads in his whole life. And I dedicate this post to Mickscarey.

Quote
stonesnow
Wasn't Keylock sacked after it was found that he was attempting to pass Jones' Joujouka tapes along to various record producers for profit?

I've read more than one time on the internet that Keylock claimed that himself, but I don't know the original source. Maybe a (probably only small) case for the majestic archives of His Majesty? It could be from the second edition of Rawlings' book, but I don't have it.
However, and I think that's quite uncontroversial, Keylocks reputation for saying the truth is lower than zero. (He even admitted it himself occasionally.) Maybe he used "Jones' Joujouka tapes" as a pars pro toto metaphor for "everything that was in Jonses' house" and "various record producers" for "any old receiver of stolen goods"? However, I'm sure the Stones didn't care too much about Brian's possessions.
By the way, funny to compare the Bravo-reporter's realistic view on the perspective of becoming rich with releasing Joujouka (as posted by Majesty) [www.iorr.org] with the funny idea of Keylock (of all people) using the Joujouka recordings (of all things) "for profit". (Though it's probably in its field sort of a best seller. It was re-released on CD in 1995.) I guess Brian's cars, instruments (Mellotron, for example), furniture etc. brought in a lot more loot for Keylock and his builders.

Actually, that's probably of interest for some here, the Joujouka-recordings were - as ALL recordings, songs, music productions by any Rolling Stones member of 1965 that were done before 31 July 1970 - owned by ABKCO (that is by Allen Klein). The fact that Rolling Stones Records released it in 1971 means there had to be some deal about it with Klein. (By the way it means there was no deal about the A Degree Of Murder-soundtrack, either because the Stones didn't try hard enough or because Klein stood in the way. Both is possible. After all Joujouka fits very well into the picture of Jones painted especially by Jagger in recent decades: in interesting, freaky outsider within the Stones who occassionally "coloured" Jagger/Richards-songs with exotic instrumentation, while A Degree Of Murder shows a Jones-written and -produced musical concept pretty close to Between The Buttons era-Stones.)

Quote
24FPS
I was always curious how they came up with the alleged amount to offer Brian when they sacked him. And if that was supposed to tie up all ends and if Brian signed something giving away all future rights.

The pay off sum could realistically cover only two things:

1. Brian's shares in Rolling Stones Ltd., which were at 20%. (So much for "they sacked him". You can't sack a co-owner. If there is an agreement, you can pay him off, if there is no agreement, the whole affair is a case for the judges; so that's why Mick lied when he answered 'Yeah.' to Jann Wenner's 1995 question: 'Did you fire him, finally?')

2. not confirmed, but nevertheless possible, maybe even highly possible: Brian's rights or shares in rights of the band name (which in standard internal band deals are usually not mixed with the shares in the band's company, but ususally belong to the "band leader", which Brian certainly considered himself to be on 1 July 1964, when Rolling Stones Ltd. was incorporated. The rights of the trademark Rolling Stones as they are used to this day were registered in 1970 in the Netherlands, which could be the result of the idea of avoiding conflicting rights registered in the UK some years earlier without the knowledge of, for example, the estate of Brian Jones. Speculation, of course - but not a stupid one for sure.)

Quote
24FPS
I wonder if the ABCKO reissues generated any profits for the Jones estate.

Of course. The old contracts set the minimum standard the record company (or "manufacturer of [the Stones'] phonographic records", as Klein called himself in the 1965 contracts) has to stick to for future sales. I say "old contracts", because you can demand higher shares, if sales at a later date reach heights that seem to make the old contract inadequate (15 million copies for Hot Rocks are a point here, any lawyer with the slightest ambition would say). This is certainly something Allen Klein would never have done without being forced. (One of a zillion reasons why he had to enter so many court rooms in his life.) And actually the percentage guaranteed by the Stones' contract with him and Decca/London Records for the US/Canadian market wasn't such a bad one, especially for the time: 18,5% of wholesale including production, out of this 9,25% for the band. That leaves Brian with 1,85% plus an unknown - but probably another 1,85% - share (minus production costs) for the Rolling Stones produced Satanic Majesty output and a possible unknown plus for the Jimmy Miller productions, because it is hard to believe the Superstar-Stones of 1968 offered Jimmy the same share as Andrew got. But maybe Andrew still had a hand in there, although it doesn't look like that judging from the 1965 contract parts Bill published in Stone Alone.

Quote
24FPS
I forget about those Nanker-Phelge things on the early albums. Those probably produce a donut and a cup of coffee every few years.

Well, especially Play With Fire definitely produces a lot more than that. And the other ca. ten tracks should have brought in at least a few more pennies as well, being re-released over and over again over the last 40 years. Marginal note: Andrew tried to get shares of writing money of covers the Stones did as soon as a Stones release had become equivalent to reaching the higher parts of the charts - that's how the story goes why he first met Klein, bargaining over Stones' versions of Sam Cooke songs. (But I don't think Andrew considered sharing that with the Stones.)

Quote
His Majesty
This [Bravo-]article, which features Brian's last known interview, doesn't suggest to me that any kind of financial deal/offer had been made at the meeting at Cotchford...

Please, Majesty, don't be more naive than you potentially are: a teen magazine is certainly not the place to publish details of business deals. When the Stones (plus or including the Brian Jones estate=his parents) settled with ABKCO in 1972, the announcement for the press certainly did not feature any sums, it just summed up the general conflict, declared it had been settled (without any details) and made clear both parties had ended their business relations. (Not completely true, since ABKCO owns the pre-1971 catalogue to this day.) That's the big charm of a settlement out of court: no internal details go public. (See The Times notice in Rolling With The Stones (p. 392) about their settlement with ABKCO.)

Quote
2000 LYFH
Do you remember where you read Brian was to get this money? The only place I found that mentions it is in Tony Sanchez's book.

There are two other sources I know of.

1. Ian Stewart, interviewed in the 1980s: "As a financial settlement, Mick proposed one hundred thousand pounds." (Hotchner, Blown Away, p. 311)
2. Mary Hallett (the housekeeper Brian had taken over from the former owners of Cotchford Farm). Quote in Who Killed Christopher Robin? by Terry Rawlings: "Then Brian told Mary that confirmation of his settlement had come through from Klein's New York office. 'He was so excited, he kept saying, <At last we'll be alright. My money is coming.>'" (p. 172)

Three different sources (and drug dealer "Spanish Tony" Sanchez, the Stones' straight founding member Ian Stewart and life-long rural area housekeeper Mary Hallett, who was in her mid 50s then, are as different as three people possibly can be) plus the rules of business law make it very likely that a sum of 100,000 pounds was the arrangement. Only, we don't know exactly for what. I guess: for the shares in Rolling Stones Ltd., nothing for the name (either not a topic - hard to believe - or still a conflict, more likely), certainly no termination of the recording contracts (no one, neither the remaining Stones nor Klein would have had the money for that. It was Klein's strategy not to pay his clients as soon as possible but in contrast to stretch payments as long as possible to use the huge advance monies he received from the record companies for investments for his own purpose.)

Quote
2000 LYFH
Also thought I heard that this was a - 100,000 pound ($240,000) one time payment and then a smaller amount a year for as long as the band stays together.

The amount of 100,000 pounds for the one time payment makes a lot of sense for my taste. Though the Stones in 1969 had certainly a much higher value then 500,000 pounds, the problem was (just like with most British top stars at the time) there was hardly any money available. So 100,000 pounds, possibly with an additional agreement for an annual payment, was a solid compromise, though still one that was not easy to deal with for Allen Klein who held most of the Stones' monies and who was very likely almost broke in early 1969 due to misinvestments and lost court decisions.

On the value of the Stones: when the Beatles became a public company in April 1967 they received 800,000 pounds for it plus certain financial benefits. Lennon biographer Goldman calls this - rightly, I'd say - absurdly low and says the correct value would have been 4 million pounds; my take is: a few months later, after the release and unheard success of Sergeant Pepper probably even higher. However, the Stones were ca. at 1/3 or 1/4 of the Beatles saleswise; this would mean the Stones in 1969 were worth a minimum of 1 million pounds, leaving Brian Jones with at least 200,000 pounds. When you realize the Stones received $ 1 million in 1972 from Klein just for their claim "there had been a failure to represent [the Stones] best financial interests" alone - and originally claiming $ 29 million (!) for that - you see 1 million pounds for the Stones in 1969 as a whole is really quite a low figure.

The smaller annual amount (usually it's said to be 20,000 pounds) could be

a) in order to compensate for the comparable slow amount for Brian's shares,
b) rights of the name,
c) a mix-up with the annual guarantee payments from Klein and Decca according to their 1965 contract, which were going to run until 1974 (Decca) and 1985 (Klein),
d) complete fiction. (In contrast to the 100,000 pounds I never found a direct quote for the annual 20,000 pounds, only second hand ones written by the authors of the different books.)

The cases a) and b) would have been hard to take for the Stones and for Klein, because money was pretty short on both parts in the summer of 1969. (That's why the idea that Klein decided to take the easiest way to deal with all that isn't far off at all. He was a mafia type from head to foot. If there was a way to assure Britain's most famous drug taker wouldn't come out of his swimming pool after "a party" one night, he sensed it wouldn't surprise anyone who read about that in the news - just like nobody wondered about a black soul singer, Sam Cooke, being shot dead by a brothel owner because he had "threatened" her; a death that in 1964 seemed as natural for the police and the public in the USA as Brian's death in 1969 seemed natural for the police and public in the UK. Klein really had a sense for the right time and the right scenery. That's why he was successful. "I'm not as smart as people think; I'm just well-prepared", he once said about himself.)

Quote
Mathijs
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.

What's this, Mathijs? Your attempt at a Dadaist poem?

The funeral was a very big event in the history of Cheltenham in its own right; it wouldn't have become much bigger by Mick and Keith attending. After all Brian Jones was a very big star and his shocking death had been main headline news a few days earlier.

Mick didn't attend because he had flown to Australia on 6 July 1969 for filming Ned Kelly, just the day after Hyde Park, already under pressure from the film producer who awaited his arrival impatiently.
The whole Brian affair had occupied him much more than he had planned when the film contract was made public on 18 May 1969. Provokingly well timed Brian had announced to the band just ca. a week later he'd leave (but it proved to be his only good tactical move in the event), resulting in hectic activity to present Mick Taylor as official substitute and to organize the Hyde Park concert as a strong proof the Stones were still a working unit - before Mick would have sent himself off to the end of the world in Australia, unable to pull that many strings until 12 September, 1969. (The American tour was announced on 10 September, not before.)

Why Keith didn't attend the funeral is more difficult to decide. I guess it's something of the following: Keith had very mixed feelings about Brian; at the same time he felt very uneasy about Brian's death (as he himself declared in that Rolling Stone magazine interview) - and I don't think he ever wanted to see Tom Keylock again. And I'm pretty sure he never saw him again. I never saw any evidence that Tom Keylock worked for the Stones after Hyde Park resp. after sending Anna Wohlin back to Sweden before she'd talk too much, which happened on 9 July 1969, one day before the funeral. I think his organization work for Brian's funeral (Keylock was pretty much in control of it: organizing the coffin, handling the many press people attending) he did more or less on his own mandate. Brian's parents obviously felt very uneasy not only about their son's death but about the whole atmosphere - they were absolutely not in charge of the situation. Seriously, nobody wants a character like Keylock organizing your son's funeral. However, "a riot" at a funeral because Mick and Keith are attending is really a pretty strange idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mock I think you could/should write a book on this subject. So many unanswered questions about the rise and fall of Brian Jones.

BTW, what was the final results of Trevor Hobley's investigation a few years ago? Or is it still ongoing?

What I'd like to see are high quality pix of the final group photo shoots.
Y'know, the pix of them against the wall and down in the sewer.

Thankee in advance.

I didn't know Stu went to the funeral. I was always under the impression he had been on the outs with Brian ever since his dismissal from the band proper. As for Keith and Anita, come on? Don't you think it would have been uncomfortable all around? Brian's father said his son fell apart after Anita left him. Oh look, here she is, and with the guy she ran off with and broke Brian's heart. How sweet. Would you both like to go up together and give your respects at his casket?

I will always contend that Keith carried some guilt around for some time. To me Coming Down Again is a confessional about the Brian/Anita thing. It's a bit tortured. And god knows what Anita said over the years to Keith when she'd get pissed. The impression she gives even years later is that Brian was much more sophisticated than Keith.

Thank you Mock for your detailed analysis. It took a right bastard to do that.

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
What I'd like to see are high quality pix of the final group photo shoots.
Y'know, the pix of them against the wall and down in the sewer.

Thankee in advance.

Buzz you talking about what looks like a cave?

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
What I'd like to see are high quality pix of the final group photo shoots.
Y'know, the pix of them against the wall and down in the sewer.

Thankee in advance.

Buzz you talking about what looks like a cave?

I think they put one of those on the back of my Sold Out boot, from the Honolulu 1966 concert. The five of them are sitting in what looks like a cave, in clothes very similar to the inside of Through The Past Darkly.

Front cover of a Decca Vol 25 - Gigantes Del Pop (Grabacion Original) Album. Made in Spain (1981). I don't know where there at - Sewer or Cave!

How odd. Brian seems totally removed in the Through The Past Darkly photos, while he's smiling and relaxed in this one. A picture lies a thousand words.

Thanks, fellas! That's the one. The other is Brian at left, alone and approaching
the other four, against a wall. Seems he feels left out, the others want nothing
to do with him.

Yeah, the mood is more cheerful here all around, but it's decidedly at odds with
the more composed shoot that yielded the album cover. Therefore, this shot seems
more contrived than natural. Smiling in a sewer?

It's not a sewer.

They are smiling away in lots of the photos from this May 1969 sessions with Ethan.

I know. Just seems like goin' through the paces.

Sewer? Basement? Hammer Films set?

The pictures were taken at St Catherine's dock in London so it's probably a boathouse or something similar....

Odd place to shoot.

I think it is a great photo!

I think the location plays up their "bad boy" image, kinda like the "cage" photos from a few years earlier, except the smile on their faces kinda takes away from that.

Surely there must be more pics from this shoot.

Quote
Edith Grove
I think the location plays up their "bad boy" image, kinda like the "cage" photos from a few years earlier, except the smile on their faces kinda takes away from that.

Surely there must be more pics from this shoot.

There are lots more.

Spill!

Yeah, the facial expressions don't match the scenery. Wasted opportunity.
Note the difference in the far better photos that grace the cover and interiors
of "High Tide and Green Grass", or the aforementioned "... Darkly".

Quote
Mathijs
Jagger and Richards both didn't attend on Jones's familiy request, they where afraid of them drawing too much attention, afraid of a riot etc.

Mathijs

Ridiculous.

Quote
2000 LYFH
BTW, what was the final results of Trevor Hobley's investigation a few years ago? Or is it still ongoing?

In January 2009 Trevor/his lawyer/his detectives presented a 83 page dossier (obviously an abstract of more material) to the Sussex police. A few weeks before he stated on a Q&A thread on a (shortlived) Brian Jones fanboard: "Not only am I completely satisfied with our results but the team I have around me are too." Trevor's answers may give an impression of the issues Trevor and his team were concerned with and how they dealt with them. Here's the link: [www.createforum.com] (Trevor's user name is "editorbjfc"; he shows up after a first round of questions.)

There was a gigantic international media response in late August 2009, when a former member of Trevor's team, former BBC-producer Scott Jones, announced there'd be a reinvestigation, suggesting he had just stepped into the police office presenting the material - when that had been done seven months before, and not by him. That proved at least one thing: when people say nobody would be interested in the Brian Jones death case that's obviously dead wrong. However, finally Sussex police declined to reopen the case and let Trevor's lawyer, John Latham, know in December 2009.
Three years later Trevor's material is not publicly available. I would have thought the next logical step would be to release it. If any such plans still exist (and if not: why not), I don't know.

From what Trevor said in that Q&A thread and from some material leaked by former members of his team you can get an idea of the direction the investigation took. For example, there had been an attack on Brian's minicab driver Joan Fitzsimons ca. three weeks after Brian's death, resulting in her being blinded. Trevor said he could prove she was a witness on 2 July 1969 and was silenced after she talked about what she had seen. On the internet I saw a local newspaper article from July 1969 about the attack and a police photograph of Frank Thorogood (that infamous builder on the Rolling Stones' payroll that was - after his death in 1993 - accused by Tom Keylock to be responsible for Brian's death). Frank was interrogated over the Fitzsimons assault.

Quote
24FPS
I didn't know Stu went to the funeral. I was always under the impression he had been on the outs with Brian ever since his dismissal from the band proper.

Stu was a very decent guy and apart from that I don't think he hated Brian at all. He resented a lot of his actions (mostly completely justified) and lost hardly an opportunity to say so. That's why many believe he saw Brian as some sort of devil. Stu made a lot of not very pleasant (and always amusing) remarks about Mick and Keith as well. When he was dismissed he felt particularly let down by Brian because of their special relation, since the two of them started the band. At the same time he was aware that it was Andrew who wanted him out and that Mick and Keith acted very opportunistically in the matter. His description of the threesome was "The Unholy Trinity", used by Bill (who obviously loves that expression) as title for a complete ca. 80 page Stone Alone chapter, not accidentally the one covering the time frame January to November 1965, in which Andrew, Mick and Keith did their behind the curtain plot to install Allen Klein as manager (and Mick and Keith as standard songwriters) and get rid of Eric Easton.
However, Stu had, in contrast to some IORRians (who hear less and know better), an enormous respect for Brian's musical abilities. Many quotes prove that and show at the same time he accused Brian mainly of wasting his talents.

Quote
24FPS
As for Keith and Anita, come on? Don't you think it would have been uncomfortable all around? Brian's father said his son fell apart after Anita left him. Oh look, here she is, and with the guy she ran off with and broke Brian's heart. How sweet. Would you both like to go up together and give your respects at his casket?

However, a very personal decision by Keith and Anita. I think Bill Wyman put it the right way when he said he was "saddened" by the absence. I don't think it is something that needs to be judged.

Quote
24FPS
I will always contend that Keith carried some guilt around for some time.

He didn't feel comfortable about the situation and said so. I don't think he felt guilty, the way he talked about Brian treating Anita.

The Anita case was certainly NOT the main reason why Keith had a problem with Brian. Mick had a problem with Brian, too, and when this problem turned to hatred, in early 1967, Mick had nothing to do with Anita.
So what was the real reason behind the rift between Mick and Keith on one side and Brian on the other? In fact, it is utterly unbelievable that this has NEVER been put right, in all the books and articles etc. In the complete history of the Stones there is nothing that is more obvious: the reason why Mick and Keith truly hated Brian was his interview that caused the Redlands bust.
In later years Mick and Keith and many observers (not good observers, though) tried to give the impression it was Anita's switch to Keith that made Brian feel uneasy within the Stones - it has a human touch and can be shrugged off with a "that's life" and "shit happens" attitude. In 1967 Mick and Keith were not so careful to hide their hatred. The Flowers album cover had leaves on all Stones presented as flowers, with one exception: Brian.
Says Bill in Stone Alone (1990): "Some insiders later noted that Brian's picture was atop the only stem without leaves, and decided that that was a bad omen. It was certainly macabre, in retrospect, but at the time nobody commented." [p. 538-539]
Says Bill in Rolling With The Stones (2002), being much clearer about the root of the "macabre" picture: "Mick and Keith's idea of a joke was that Brian's flower should have no leaves on the stem. Truth is, I never got it." [p. 287]

The next proof of Mick and Keith's hatred for Brian is even stronger: in the promo film for We Love You they presented him being completely stoned. This caused - predictably - TV stations to not show this film supposed to support the sales for this single, when success for it seemed vital for the Stones' future, being the first new release after the bust. (I guess this irrational behaviour by Mick and Keith, putting their personal issues above commercial success, was a final straw for Andrew Loog Oldham. Though he never liked Brian he loved to produce hit records.) Taking in account the kamikaze effect of the promo film the single did remarkably well, being No. 8 in the UK and No. 14 in the US, though it was the Stones' least successful single since I Wanna Be Your Man.)
There was another very ugly side to the trick Mick and Keith played with Brian: he was just facing his trial after his first bust - and his druggy appearance in a film that was supposed to promote the latest release by his own band certainly didn't help his reputation, neither in public nor in the court room.

I'm pretty sure Mick and Keith didn't stop there. Actually I'm convinced they were behind his second bust. It's almost generally accepted that Brian was set up and that it was not his cannabis that was found by the police in his apartment. Even the judge said so and decided, after the verdict of guilt by the jury, to make the fine as low as possible.
Usually it's speculated some of the chauffeurs could have been behind it. Certainly possible that some of them planted the cannabis; after all the person who did it had to have access to Brian's apartment. But what could be the motive for a chauffeur to do so, if he wasn't just instructed? Actually, there is no motive for a chauffeur. Selling a story to the papers? This would only reveal who was behind it. And with his boss behind bars his job would be gone as well.
Trevor Kempson, in 1968 journalist for the paper that was closest to the Stones' busts, News of the World, who should have some insight in the case and who was informed about Brian having drugs in his apartment only shortly after the police, said:
"Of course Brian was being set up. First the police would be tipped off that he was holding drugs and a few minutes later the tip-off would come to me. I think that someone in The Stones' organization wanted him out of the way." (Quote in: Jeremy Simmonds, The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars [2008], p. 27)
And I think Mick and Keith, who are well known to know their friends and enemies to this day, wanted revenge for Brian's stupid interview that almost would have cost their career. Look at the Beatles and how much anger Paul provoked on John, George and Ringo's side, when he made an interview talking about taking drugs. (In the Beatles Anthology, p. 255 a complete, big page is reserved for the topic, actually.) This did not cause a (direct) bust and - after all - these were the Beatles, who were much more friendly towards each other than the Stones. For the impact Brian's interview had it is held surprisingly low-key in the history of the Stones. Now draw your own conclusion if such an act of revenge on the part of Mick and Keith is realistic.

Brian got the message. Not after the Flowers cover and not after the We Love You promo film. He still gave chatty interviews like in the old days, he still considered himself being part of the band, all over Satanic and within the first weeks of the sessions for Beggars. He was completely involved in the promotion of Jumpin' Jack Flash. It took the second bust for him to realize he wasn't wanted in the band anymore. That's when he started to get nervous when he was around the Stones, sometimes even struggling to tune his guitar. That's when he started to have doubts whether he should even attend a session or other band activities like One Plus One or Rock'n'Roll Circus. And that's when he finally decided to leave the Stones.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)

Quote
Mock Jogger
The Anita case was certainly NOT the main reason why Keith had a problem with Brian. Mick had a problem with Brian, too, and when this problem turned to hatred, in early 1967, Mick had nothing to do with Anita.
So what was the real reason behind the rift between Mick and Keith on one side and Brian on the other? In fact, it is utterly unbelievable that this has NEVER been put right, in all the books and articles etc. In the complete history of the Stones there is nothing that is more obvious: the reason why Mick and Keith truly hated Brian was his interview that caused the Redlands bust.

You have very interesting and plausible points Mock. It makes the glimmers behaviour after Brian's second buts even more interesting - Mick's concern for him that seems to have been genuine, Keith letting Brian stay at Redlands, both showing up at the trial and the guilt that sometimes shines through in interviews made with them over the years. They must have felt that it got out of hand when it's very clear nowadays that the second bust was what broke Brian down.
As late as in 67 Mick called Brian "the best musician in the band" in an italian TV-interview. They had a very @#$%& up relation towards each other no matter what's true.

Interesting observations re 1967 - 1968 MJ.

The 67 bust is such an obvious point of angst towards Brian, given that they nearly lost their freedom I think it's safe to say that, privately atleast, it was no laughing matter.

The stoned Brian footage in We Love You promo clip is ridiculous and must have been an intentional slight on him.

Strange times.

Interesting, and somehow within the realms of imagination, thoughts about 1967, Mock. But I'm not so convinced if there even something called "hatred" among the Twins towards Brian. That is rather strong word. And the accusation of them setting up the second bust is rather wild guess.

There is some counter evidence that I think does not quite fit to your story. Immediately after Brian's death, it was reported that Brian already wanted to quit the band in 1967, but Jagger spoke him over it, since he was too important imagewise. He was band's second popular member, very much loved by the fans (I have always imagined Brian's role was something Keith Richards is enjoying these days). If this report is true (and I am rather convinced it is), my interpretation is that it took years for the Stones - all the way until 1969 - they were strong enough to survive without Brian (and still then they left the door open if he would come back some day, when his departure was announced. As horrible it might sound, Brian's death made thier future easier). Without any evidence I have related Brian's wish to leave after the Anita disaster in Morocco, and before the European tour that took place quite soon. But one could also think that Mick and Keith gave him a hard time after Redlands' bust for that disastrous interview you seem to put a lot of weight.

But I still go along the 'official' versions that Anita's role was rather dramatical for the Stones' inner circle. Keith's LIFE indicates rather strongly how strongly PERFORMANCE affair affected to his and Mick's relationship. Still during the 90's, when having fights in studio, they yelled to each other about it. If we believe Richards - and I guess he does not have really a reason to lie about it - that incidence seem to explain rather well why the Jagger/Richards relationship got so bad quite quickly after the rosey tandem years of the 60's. Surely there are some other reasons (for example, Keith's adventures in dopeville), but LIFE gives rather strong weight to it, and it sounds like Richards - who needed to act cool at the time - seemed to have an eternal trauma about it. I was really surprised how strongly Keith seemed still seems to feel about it. It wasn't anything like "shit happens".

But back to Brian. I guess one could now say that "okay, Mick and Keith didn't let Brian then (1967) go, but started to sapotage his image by all the little 'tricks' you gave in your scenario, until his image - and health - was so bad, that losing him was not such a big deal anymore".

Okay, if one would love go along with that scenario (which ultimatly leads to Brian's 'murder'), feel free to. But I give a different one. What happened in summer 1967 (FLOWERS album, the "We Love You" promo film), might have been Mick and Keith's little kicks towards Brian's direction, but in the end of the day, the whole Redlands bust and trial, turned out to be a triumph for Mick and Keith. They got so much public attention. They got so much sympathy. Jagger was finally a voice of his generation, asked to television conversations and all, and bigger audience started to recognize Keith Richard's name. And at the same time, after artistic disappointment of SATANIC MAJESTIES, Mick and Keith's developed hugely as musicians, and started to write their most memorable music ever. Despite worrying of Brian, Mick and Keith concentrated to work their asses for their career. When the crazy year of 1968 arrived The Stones were ready for that with music that resonated with winds of the times. What Mick and Keith did during the period 1968/69 laid the foundation for all the future Rolling Stones.

So to me eyes it looks like during 1968/69, instead of trying to get rid of Brian, they put their energy in developing their own act, and to be artistically independent (and noted for that). They gradually didn't need Brian so much any longer, and when Brian lost the interest - as did Bill as well, after being disappointed for them igoring his songs during BEGGARS BANQUET sessions - the whole band was lead by Mick and Keith's visions. Yeah, their 'sin' was ignoring the others probably, but other way to look at it, was that the guys were so inspired, and trusted their own intuitions, that they believed that this was best for the band. And the following years, and decades, prove them to be right.

So I don't think they intentionally tried to kick Brian out of the band. Brian ultimately just didn't fit to the scheme any longer. That was not an aim, but a side product. And Brian, unfortunately, couldn't get inspired, or find a suitable role, within the new order (in Mick and Keith's show). And probably Mick and Keith couldn't care less (another 'sin' but how one could blame them for having an artistic peak?). I don't know what is a cause or an effect in Brian's decline, but I don't think there were any 'plan' or 'plot' against him. Maybe there was something like that in the early ALO days - "unholy trinity" - but by 1967 they didn't need ALO any longer, and quite soon Brian either. They didn't need any 'plots' against anyone any longer. By 1968 the band was totally in their hands, under their artistic command (and they hired any one tyo suit to them if needed, like Jimmy Miller). And if we look the way they started to record, they didn't any longer a multi-instrumentalist who could make a track to shine by few tries within minutes - no, they have all the luxury to spend weeks or months in studio just get the track right. (I have felt that some of Brian's frustation was based that on spending hours and hours in studio trying to find the right 'feel' or something - the way Keith Richards especially started to work, like using a studio as his own testing laboratorio. Brian, as I understand, did his best things quickly and effectively).

I would say that still in 1967 Mick and Keith were highly dependent of Brian's musicianship and contribution (one reason why they didn't let him go then, and not just for the image loss. And personally I think his contributions are the ones that still saves a lot of Mick and Keith's visions in SATANIC MAJESTIES). But a year, and especially two, later, it wasn't so any longer. And when they were planning to go live again, it was obvious that Brian was a real problem for them (in many ways). I think Brian's destiny as a Rolling Stone was finally sealed then. Did he leave vuluntarily or not, I think both sides knew that there was not any other solution.

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 12:04 by Doxa.

Quote
Mock Jogger

So what was the real reason behind the rift between Mick and Keith on one side and Brian on the other? In fact, it is utterly unbelievable that this has NEVER been put right, in all the books and articles etc. In the complete history of the Stones there is nothing that is more obvious: the reason why Mick and Keith truly hated Brian was his interview that caused the Redlands bust.
In later years Mick and Keith and many observers (not good observers, though) tried to give the impression it was Anita's switch to Keith that made Brian feel uneasy within the Stones - it has a human touch and can be shrugged off with a "that's life" and "shit happens" attitude.

Says Bill in Rolling With The Stones (2002), being much clearer about the root of the "macabre" picture: "Mick and Keith's idea of a joke was that Brian's flower should have no leaves on the stem. Truth is, I never got it." [p. 287]

There was another very ugly side to the trick Mick and Keith played with Brian: he was just facing his trial after his first bust - and his druggy appearance in a film that was supposed to promote the latest release by his own band certainly didn't help his reputation, neither in public nor in the court room.

And I think Mick and Keith, who are well known to know their friends and enemies to this day, wanted revenge for Brian's stupid interview that almost would have cost their career.

Interesting reading all over but:

Many sources and Brians own behaviour, comments to friends, total lack of comments on the subject, sudden numbness and fast detoriation and actions after Anita left him for Keith speaks volumes. As does common sense. By all means this really finished him off on a personal level and he went downhill fast.

However I think he tried to get back on track in early 1968, trying one last time to find something on a professional level and according to many thanks to Mick's smoothtalking. And Mick probably wanted him to just be a bandmember and focus on the guitar. Which would have made Brian into someone they could replace, a former star. JJF video is a good example of how to erase someone by using the right shooting angle.

Also I think youre right about the Redlands bust and Brians interview prior to it. Why? Because it was now Mick and Keiths band and had been so for a while. Brian was a star on his own in the band. Actually quite understandably given their age and growing but still shaky careers, they felt they had to break him. Anita leaving meant Brian had nothing left, no guns.

The footage of Brian nodding out in We love you is among the most digusting attempts at putting someone down in public. "Mick is innocent, Brian is the really druggy"? Thats why boy bands have managers and PR teams. You just dont do those things even if youre fed up with someone.

Quote
Doxa
By 1968 the band was totally in their hands, under their artistic command (and they hired any one tyo suit to them if needed, like Jimmy Miller). And if we look the way they started to record, they didn't any longer a multi-instrumentalist who could make a track to shine by few tries within minutes - no, they have all the luxury to spend weeks or months in studio just get the track right. (I have felt that some of Brian's frustation was based that on spending hours and hours in studio trying to find the right 'feel' or something - the way Keith Richards especially started to work, like using a studio as his own testing laboratorio. Brian, as I understand, did his best things quickly and effectively).

- Doxa

I open up this angle a bit since I think some of Brian's disnterest is due to the way the band started to work in 1967 (I am not so on explaining all with his drug abuse, etc. for his dysfunction, even those, of course might have a role as well). Like said, as like the Beatles, the Stones started to have a luxury to spend so much time as possible in the studio if they needed to in perfecting their tracks and albums. They functionally turned out be a studio band during the time period of 1967-69, which strongly had its side effects as well. As ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS, and to an extent, Hyde Park show, give evidence, they were really sloppy live band in the end (re CIRCUS, maybe Brian's contribution is weakest, but honestly, they could have fired the whole band, expect Jagger, if based on that performance).

What Mick Taylor have said of his earliest impressions as playing with them, was that how terrible they sounded, and he wondered how come theý have had so great sounding records in their belt. And this has been commented by some studio people along the years). The band just jams and jums without bigger effort until the spark comes. Then finally something happens. But as the yaers went by, based on that luxury, and even when they still again were a red hot live band, their recording sessions based on that working method. Due his 'external hobbies', Keith lost the last STICKY FINGERS sessions, the problem which was tried to figure out by trying to make the next album at his home - to at least have their main song-writer and intuinist available. That deal frustrated especially Bill Wyman, and later even Mick Jagger (who made a full stop for all that in 1989).

Anyway, at the same time they were in their artistic peak. Keith found his creative muse in those luxorious, free-going circumstances, and for yaers he would define himself as "making records". That was his realm of excellence. Writing a song or a sketc, trying new guitar tunings, then recording it with the band, under his guidance, finally mixing etc. Especially during 1968/69 he really mastered that game, to have the time to develop and try his intuitions. BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED are, if anything, Keith's artistic flower, and his musicianship, to start really blossoming. He didn't need (any longer) to whine if Brian was not there to help him with guitars (or with anything). No, he could spend as much time, and to jam with - and being inspired by - anyone around, as needed to get the tracks right (and at the same time he really developed as a guitar player, and inventing his own signature style). To make as many takes and over-dubs if needed. And the band was there to try his ideas as long as it was needed.

But the 'new deal' was based on that Keith - with Mick - was given a full freedom to command the recording process. For the rest it was up to be available and follow master's ideas and intuitions (and perhaps to offer some little suggestions). Tirelessly, endlessly. My guess is that Brian Jones was the first victim of this 'new order'. Maybe it was too much for him - the founder of the band for god sake - to just be there available, and trying to serve master's intuitions as 'loyally' as he can. Yeah, first forced to try to contribute to Mick and Keith's 'pop songs', and finally being an opinionless, silent studio musician. I mean, that really might have hurted his ego, if anything. And just for some yaers ago he was the man both Mick and especially Keith looked upon.

Altogether, I think for any ambitious musician that (rather lazy) way to record must have been a pain in the ass. I think it must have been hard for Mick Taylor as well. As noted by some studio personnel (Johns I guess), Taylor made his contributions quickly and effectively, just by a take or two. And that's it. I think the reason why Keith Richards once blamed him as "worthless in studio" was simple that of not having the 'right' stamina to go that endless, and I guess tiresome, process. I presume Brian as a musician might have trouble with that, plus taking the "power struggle" he had effectively just lost. No wonder he lost his interest.

But like said, the output of those sessiosn was usually worth the investment (at least, most of Stones fans, and many others, would say). EXILE is probably greatest testimony of that. But thinking how it is done: the backing tracks based on endless jam sessions in Nellcote (and elsewhere) to find the right 'feel', and take, then mixed and over-dubbed, mostly solely by Mick and Keith afterwards. The old Brian's role, "icing the cake" was then done by calling any graet musician in the town to do the bit. This is all Mick, and especially Keith show. From all the people involved, only Keith seemed to have really enjoyed doing it. For all the rest, despite Charlie I guess, it seemed to have a rather hard experience. I remember Mick calling it as a "struggle", and being surprised that they finally got anything to done.

So, the way the Stones started making their masterpieces (starting with BEGGARS BANQUET) asked a kind of deaf loyality from teh others to follow the masters' - or master's - intuition. And my guess is that it was finally too much asked from Brian Jones. And I think his stance is rather justified, taking his history within the band. Bill lost his creative interest, and just accepted his side musician role (even though sometimes rebelled by not accepting to work in according to Keith's "junkie time". But still today, Bill seem to have a hard time to accept the greatness in their generally praised 1968-72 output, and he sounds ever bitter of what happend during BEGGARS BANQUET sessions). Charlie, without having any own artistic ambition, accepted the new order (and over-all seems to admire Keith's jazz-man like attitude). Mick seemingly got tired of that - being loyal to Keith's muse (which seemingly had lost its craetive spark by then) - during EMOTIONAL RESCUE sessions.

I think this explanation also rather well gives reason why Brian lost the interest to contribute when finally Mick and Keith started making more rootsie, blues-based stuff (that at least theoretically seemed to suit to him) after their pop experiences (that Brian was said to hate). This always has been a kind of dilemma in trying to explain the 'logic' of Brian's actions. But it wasn't any longer the style of the music that mattered; it was the whole way the band worked in the studio, totally lead by Mick and Keith's intuitions. No wonder he appreared sometimes drugged-out and in whatever shape. Probably that was also some kind of rebelling against the new order.

Any thoughts?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 14:51 by Doxa.