Tell Me :
Talk
Sounds great anyway, imo.
It's an odd listen/viewing.
Yeah, even more on Parachute Woman, imo, because Brian is really active there, but unfortunately inaudible...
His playing quietly gets to creep in at points, I wish they had his guitar louder. Their set is wonky without it. Having it clear for No Expectations, but not the rest adds to that wonkyness.
They might have had line recordings where they checked his tracks later on, and found out they weren't good enough, but I doubt it. They probably just turned him way down when he played electric.
He's louder on the bootleg recordings and he plays fine. Basic stuff, but nothing wrong with it.
It's a post mix thing... They should maybe have applied the same mixing out to Keith's puny Sympathy soloing.
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Cos they are arseholes.
LOL! What about No Expectations, then?
That's what makes it all wonky. Why that, but not the other guitar parts!?
Must just have been a thing of only have him audible when we have to.
For your other post - I agree. It's no wonder why Brian lost interest. Some people say that Brian had an ego problem and that's what made him act like he did. But that's denying Brian his feelings and version over what happend. I don't think Brian felt ok with being marginalized to a session man with no or very little chances to experiment with musical instruments other than the guitar. He knew that he had lost the band at that point but to not being able to have any musical input anymore (unlike before) must have sucked out loud. The final nail in the coffin.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 20:50 by tonterapi.
It is the Brian's side of things - his perspective - that I find like a missing piece in Stones' history. And unfortunately whenever that is tried to reconstruct, it is pretty much based on strong Brian fanship, which unfortunately means rather often open hostility towards Mick and Keith. I guess the 'true fans' feel like it their duty to balance the things that way, since Brian and his legacy is rather harshly treated by Mick and Keith (which is not the case always, though).
What I tried above was to understand Brian's behavior just from the artistic point of view - that of him being foremost a musician, who gets his real kicks out of playing.
There are some other explanations - him just being such a mental case - or a druggie (or such a.shole an sich) - which seem to offer a satisfying picture of his "disloyalty", "dysfunctioning", no matter how much he have tried to be a functional member. Or some other personal issues - such as losing Anita, or whatever tension he had with Mick/Keith - but somehow I don't find them good enough. (It is the issue over cause and effect, which is a puzzling one.)
Anyway, I have tried to use Bill Wyman's books as a guideline how Brian would think too. Bill was there to wittness quite a lot what Brian did also. And reading how Bill felt when Mick and Keith took over the leadership, and especially how that was finally completed to their total control during BEGGARS BANQUET sessions (in compared to their earlier, more 'democratic' way to work, I can only imagine how Brian would have felt. Namely, what he (Brian) 'lost', and what kind of ambitions he used to have, is something Wyman, with all the respect to him, can only dream of. My conclusion is that while Wyman passively agreed on (and surely made a wise decision careerwise), Brian lost his interest totally.
- Doxa
A lot of good points Doxa. I think with the departure of Andrew and with TSMR behind them, that 1968 is the year that Brian along with Bill should have taken the band back from the Mick/Keith show. They were 2/5th's of the band just like Mick/Keith were 2/5th's of the band. Of course if they had no material ready to record, then its a moot point, but certainly Brian and Bill could have come up with a couple of songs. Of course with hindsight, we know that the Glimmer's came up with a masterpiece, but in late 67 and early 68 nothing was known except the commercial failure of TSMR. A missed opportunity if you ask me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 03:56 by 2000 LYFH.
Keith's guitar playing is pretty much the same in 1967 European tour. Check out the live versions of Going Home for example.
The biggest change is the change in pace, the frantic nature of their approach to live playing during their pop years is radically toned down.
The mos
I find it both more accomplished and more heavy in 1968, just like it is on BB compared to Buttons which was the album they toured behind at the time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 10:38 by DandelionPowderman.
Interesting discussion, again. They needed a heavier up to date sound. This, combined with Micks obvious Morrison/Performance/JaggeractingBrianandKeith image speaks volumes about the band at this time. I think Mick reestablished himself (first time the change is total and not a smooth transition like in the 70s - second time being in 1989) and Keith was the other one who had to reestablish himself - now as a lead/riff guitarist (which he also did again in 1989). This is the first time the Glimmers take the stage and the rest of the band is not important. They invent the Glimmer Twins and the sound is heavy. This makes it into one of the best shows they ever did. It's naked and raw. And fogive me for saying this but yes Bruce Botnick was hired around this time because of his part in creating the Doors albums. Bring some of the Rothchild teams tricks to Gimme Shelter and Rambler, give it the monumental doomy feel. A prime example of how Mick and Keith made use of what was current and made into their own act. Also what sometimes if not often meant they used people, session musicians and others in this process and the credits will always be the solid Jagger/Richards.
Yup. That s what I meant with the personal loss being a complete nightmare (Anita) but he still might have been talked into continuing and maybe felt important in early 1968 until he saw the others in the studio and relized he was out in the cold. I think this is what others who were there meant about Brian being treated like shit and thus not turing up. I understand why he didnt want to go to the studio anymore. It's passive aggression over not being one of the boys. He was stupid - and smart to do that in 1965 when he was on fire, it worked out, he was a star on his own and had some power. But in 1968 the real state of affairs and the possible appearance of Anita in the studio made it impossible. I mean think about it. He started a band and now he's just some bloke whos told what to play. He shouldnt have numbed himself out totally and felt sorry for himself. The only thing he could have done was to "grow up" and face Keith and Mick. Work it out.
Good points, but I think you didn't quite catch my point.The examples I gave just gives a hint of the direction the whole rock scene leading to at the time. It wasn't just "fastest gun under the sun", but the whole approach how to deliver rock shows. It all went rather serious in playingwise compared to the times when The Stones last time doing live shows. It wasn't "pop shows" and screaming chicks anymore, but now people really payed attention to the way they play. The things and expectations were changing rather quickly those days. I think The Stones were highly awere of that, since they were a hot contemporary name still, and really payed attention to the demands of the game they were at. They knew that what they did in 1965 wasn't anymore accurate in 1968. The Stones seemingly had no any wish to remain where they once were, but stay contemporary. The move to replace Brian - who seemingly was not able to take the next step - with Mick Taylor was careerwise a brilliant, and perhaps necessary move. Like Charlie Watts once put it, Taylor gave them "professionalsim". Namely, that was the thing they needed at the time to remain as a hot contemporary rock group, not any more a "pop band".
The points you make - I put them in bold - were signals of the new 'serious' attitude, and Keith - with Mick - really made a huge effort those days in his delivery. And seemingly Bill and Charlie would follow them. But it is that CIRCUS show, and HYde Park as well, where we see the band in a transformation process. they are learning the new game, but have not much experience yet. The results sound unique these days. Sa raw, so groovy, and there are elements that will be be emphasized later - during 1969 American Tour where the sound of "greatest rock and roll band in the world" is finally created. But there is still elements that will disappear later. For example, the way Charlie is playing drums, and sounds almost like a hippie drummer filling teh space with his hits, and "grooving around". That was before he truely mastered his elegent minimalist approach (look for example, "Jumpin' Jack Flash"). Keith is in the middle of brain work how to deliver the new hot studio stuff, pretty much based on acoustic guitars and new experiment in tunings: how to make them work in a live surroundings.
My point was that The Stones were highly awere of the demands of the day, and in order to survive - to meet teh challange of Hendrix, The Who, Zeppelin soon, etc - they needed to develop as a live band. And they worked hard for it. Having an ace guitarist like Taylor - a guy from the new 'professional' school - made all that much easier. The Beatles never did that - to take step to became a live band again - but remained as a studio band till the end. I think Jagger was so smart that he knew that in order to continue in the game, they really needed to take the next step, and meet the challange of 'younger' acts. And they succeed marveously.
The problem with The Stones was that they once were a hot club band, but still as very young thrown to that "pop circuit" where the professionalism, by day's stage technology and all, had a secondary role. And then they apted the role of just making records, as The Beatles. I think one of their finest achievemnts ever is that of reinventing themselves again as a live band. It is almost fantastic how much the sound of the band changed if we compare GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! and GET YER YA-YA'S OUT" albums. The former has its charm (and I like that "frantic nature" like His Majesty described), but as in the latter they really sound like a professional rock band. That's creative progression!
Finally, re Brian. If we look Brian's performance in CIRCUS, it is very hard for me to imagine how could he have ever contributed to the 'next step' they were taking. Nothing he did during 1968/69 indicates that he was able to take that. (and, no, please do not use the "No Expectations" card here...).
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 13:30 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:09
I think they were great at the RRC, not sloppy.
The Hyde Park-gig is another matter
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 15:25 by DandelionPowderman.
The Hyde Park-gig is another matter
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 15:25 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:24
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:26
Quote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:27
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
It's an odd listen/viewing.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:29
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
It's an odd listen/viewing.
Yeah, even more on Parachute Woman, imo, because Brian is really active there, but unfortunately inaudible...
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:32
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
It's an odd listen/viewing.
Yeah, even more on Parachute Woman, imo, because Brian is really active there, but unfortunately inaudible...
His playing quietly gets to creep in at points, I wish they had his guitar louder. Their set is wonky without it. Having it clear for No Expectations, but not the rest adds to that wonkyness.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:36
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
It's an odd listen/viewing.
Yeah, even more on Parachute Woman, imo, because Brian is really active there, but unfortunately inaudible...
His playing quietly gets to creep in at points, I wish they had his guitar louder. Their set is wonky without it. Having it clear for No Expectations, but not the rest adds to that wonkyness.
They might have had line recordings where they checked his tracks later on, and found out they weren't good enough, but I doubt it. They probably just turned him way down when he played electric.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:38
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
It's an odd listen/viewing.
Yeah, even more on Parachute Woman, imo, because Brian is really active there, but unfortunately inaudible...
His playing quietly gets to creep in at points, I wish they had his guitar louder. Their set is wonky without it. Having it clear for No Expectations, but not the rest adds to that wonkyness.
They might have had line recordings where they checked his tracks later on, and found out they weren't good enough, but I doubt it. They probably just turned him way down when he played electric.
He's louder on the bootleg recordings and he plays fine. Basic stuff, but nothing wrong with it.
It's a post mix thing... They should maybe have applied the same mixing out to Keith's puny Sympathy soloing.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:45
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
It's an odd listen/viewing.
Yeah, even more on Parachute Woman, imo, because Brian is really active there, but unfortunately inaudible...
His playing quietly gets to creep in at points, I wish they had his guitar louder. Their set is wonky without it. Having it clear for No Expectations, but not the rest adds to that wonkyness.
They might have had line recordings where they checked his tracks later on, and found out they weren't good enough, but I doubt it. They probably just turned him way down when he played electric.
He's louder on the bootleg recordings and he plays fine. Basic stuff, but nothing wrong with it.
It's a post mix thing... They should maybe have applied the same mixing out to Keith's puny Sympathy soloing.
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:51
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Cos they are arseholes.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:53
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Cos they are arseholes.
LOL! What about No Expectations, then?
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 17, 2012 15:58
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Cos they are arseholes.
LOL! What about No Expectations, then?
That's what makes it all wonky. Why that, but not the other guitar parts!?
Must just have been a thing of only have him audible when we have to.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Denny
()
Date: September 17, 2012 17:04
That's exactly how these guys might've been thinking during the "ego years"! "Let's turn down Brian unless his part is necessary, and while we're at it, let us also replace Bill. Okay, Charlie doesn't seem to meddle too much or ask for any songwriting credits, but keep an eye on him anyway"...
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 17, 2012 18:12
Okay, my post seemed only to gather interest concerning teh quality of ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS (a kind of marginal side point in my post)...
Be so. I personally think it is a great performance. I would rate it any time over any of their performances since 1989. Easily, since the guys were young and vital, hungry and everything; still very determinated, and they had new awesome material they were proud to perform; that is to say, in the very heights of their creativity. They couldn't do much wrong those days. (I think this applies to Hyde Park as well; no matter how sloppy, out of tune, they were, they were still simply phenomenal, and have something 'magical' in their touch. It is that natural charisma in their doings that overcomes any 'technical' problems, if the living spirit and determination is there.)
But no matter how expectional the CIRCUS show is, Brian' last and everything, as a band they were rather rusty. Yeah, there might be some excellent moments, but over-all the band sounds rather amateurish by that day's standards (there were acts like Hendrix and The Cream showing the future of rock shows' professionalism). This is especially true if compared to The Who's performance. (We can only thank the 'lucky* (?) decision to choose Jethro Tull over Led Zeppelin to do the show. I mean, how the show would be remebered now if they had been there?! The Zep fans would have had a field now, I guess...) Well, I today would rate the Stones' performance over The Who, since the Stones had such a (musical) charisma The Who could only dream of. And today, we really don't need to care about their musical professionalism or rustiness. We see there the uniqueness they still had. As Pete T. commented, the Stones were going through a strange tranformation period, and whatever they did then, was rather expectional and creative. (And I personally think Jagger's performance is one of his strongest ever, having that Turner phase still on, etc.)
But I can easily understand why Jagger thoought that the performance was not strong enough to be released officially, no matter how much money they had put on it. Maybe "sloppy" is not the right word, but I think the band just don't not sound so tight and dynamical they have the possibility to sound (or like they had earlier done, and would a year later to sound again). There is that odd insecurity in their delivery. The oucome is a bit (or more) breathless. Like the band does not trust enough to their own strenghts. Not just Brian, but there is some lack of chemistry between Keith, Bill and Charlie as well. I think the term "being rusty" is the one to fit best describing that. I think they know that they can - and should - do better if they were going to remain as a strong and even as a leading voice in the business. I guess relaesing that at the time, wouldn't have hurted much Stones' status (but not maybe strenghtening it either), but I admire the self-critisism they had at the time. Shows how serious they were.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 18:17 by Doxa.
Be so. I personally think it is a great performance. I would rate it any time over any of their performances since 1989. Easily, since the guys were young and vital, hungry and everything; still very determinated, and they had new awesome material they were proud to perform; that is to say, in the very heights of their creativity. They couldn't do much wrong those days. (I think this applies to Hyde Park as well; no matter how sloppy, out of tune, they were, they were still simply phenomenal, and have something 'magical' in their touch. It is that natural charisma in their doings that overcomes any 'technical' problems, if the living spirit and determination is there.)
But no matter how expectional the CIRCUS show is, Brian' last and everything, as a band they were rather rusty. Yeah, there might be some excellent moments, but over-all the band sounds rather amateurish by that day's standards (there were acts like Hendrix and The Cream showing the future of rock shows' professionalism). This is especially true if compared to The Who's performance. (We can only thank the 'lucky* (?) decision to choose Jethro Tull over Led Zeppelin to do the show. I mean, how the show would be remebered now if they had been there?! The Zep fans would have had a field now, I guess...) Well, I today would rate the Stones' performance over The Who, since the Stones had such a (musical) charisma The Who could only dream of. And today, we really don't need to care about their musical professionalism or rustiness. We see there the uniqueness they still had. As Pete T. commented, the Stones were going through a strange tranformation period, and whatever they did then, was rather expectional and creative. (And I personally think Jagger's performance is one of his strongest ever, having that Turner phase still on, etc.)
But I can easily understand why Jagger thoought that the performance was not strong enough to be released officially, no matter how much money they had put on it. Maybe "sloppy" is not the right word, but I think the band just don't not sound so tight and dynamical they have the possibility to sound (or like they had earlier done, and would a year later to sound again). There is that odd insecurity in their delivery. The oucome is a bit (or more) breathless. Like the band does not trust enough to their own strenghts. Not just Brian, but there is some lack of chemistry between Keith, Bill and Charlie as well. I think the term "being rusty" is the one to fit best describing that. I think they know that they can - and should - do better if they were going to remain as a strong and even as a leading voice in the business. I guess relaesing that at the time, wouldn't have hurted much Stones' status (but not maybe strenghtening it either), but I admire the self-critisism they had at the time. Shows how serious they were.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 18:17 by Doxa.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
BJPortugal
()
Date: September 17, 2012 19:29
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
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.
I'm curious. What interview you guys talking about?
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 17, 2012 19:57
Quote
BJPortugalQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
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.
I'm curious. What interview you guys talking about?
Well, NEWS OF THE WORLD had this article where they "revealed" the bad habits of pop stars. They had their people in one club where they happened to meet Brian Jones, who, along taking some drug (some pills and hash), talked a bit too carelessly of his drug experiences (perhaps not knowing to whom). I guess that was bad enough, but the things got really ugly when the paper released the article, and (purposively or not) misidentified the pop star they were talking to, as Mick Jagger...
Surprsingly, Jagger wasn't so pleased and decided to sue NEWS OT THE WORLD. The paper reacted, and I think it has been rather well proved that they were highly involved in setting up the Redlands bust...
Actually I have never seen the original article (so all of its content comes from secondary literature). It would be interesting to it read now.
- Doxa
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: September 17, 2012 20:49
To be fair the boys had been awake for a very long time when they finally went up on stage. I think it's pretty amazing that they sounded as good as they did. Mick is the reason why it works. Man, to show that energy, when the rest of the band look half alive/half dead, is out of this world.Quote
Doxa
But no matter how expectional the CIRCUS show is, Brian' last and everything, as a band they were rather rusty. Yeah, there might be some excellent moments, but over-all the band sounds rather amateurish by that day's standards (there were acts like Hendrix and The Cream showing the future of rock shows' professionalism).
For your other post - I agree. It's no wonder why Brian lost interest. Some people say that Brian had an ego problem and that's what made him act like he did. But that's denying Brian his feelings and version over what happend. I don't think Brian felt ok with being marginalized to a session man with no or very little chances to experiment with musical instruments other than the guitar. He knew that he had lost the band at that point but to not being able to have any musical input anymore (unlike before) must have sucked out loud. The final nail in the coffin.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-17 20:50 by tonterapi.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 17, 2012 21:36
Brevity is the soul of posting.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 17, 2012 22:43
Quote
tonterapi
For your other post - I agree. It's no wonder why Brian lost interest. Some people say that Brian had an ego problem and that's what made him act like he did. But that's denying Brian his feelings and version over what happend. I don't think Brian felt ok with being marginalized to a session man with no or very little chances to experiment with musical instruments other than the guitar. He knew that he had lost the band at that point but to not being able to have any musical input anymore (unlike before) must have sucked out loud. The final nail in the coffin.
It is the Brian's side of things - his perspective - that I find like a missing piece in Stones' history. And unfortunately whenever that is tried to reconstruct, it is pretty much based on strong Brian fanship, which unfortunately means rather often open hostility towards Mick and Keith. I guess the 'true fans' feel like it their duty to balance the things that way, since Brian and his legacy is rather harshly treated by Mick and Keith (which is not the case always, though).
What I tried above was to understand Brian's behavior just from the artistic point of view - that of him being foremost a musician, who gets his real kicks out of playing.
There are some other explanations - him just being such a mental case - or a druggie (or such a.shole an sich) - which seem to offer a satisfying picture of his "disloyalty", "dysfunctioning", no matter how much he have tried to be a functional member. Or some other personal issues - such as losing Anita, or whatever tension he had with Mick/Keith - but somehow I don't find them good enough. (It is the issue over cause and effect, which is a puzzling one.)
Anyway, I have tried to use Bill Wyman's books as a guideline how Brian would think too. Bill was there to wittness quite a lot what Brian did also. And reading how Bill felt when Mick and Keith took over the leadership, and especially how that was finally completed to their total control during BEGGARS BANQUET sessions (in compared to their earlier, more 'democratic' way to work, I can only imagine how Brian would have felt. Namely, what he (Brian) 'lost', and what kind of ambitions he used to have, is something Wyman, with all the respect to him, can only dream of. My conclusion is that while Wyman passively agreed on (and surely made a wise decision careerwise), Brian lost his interest totally.
- Doxa
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: September 18, 2012 00:54
Quote
Doxa
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
A lot of good points Doxa. I think with the departure of Andrew and with TSMR behind them, that 1968 is the year that Brian along with Bill should have taken the band back from the Mick/Keith show. They were 2/5th's of the band just like Mick/Keith were 2/5th's of the band. Of course if they had no material ready to record, then its a moot point, but certainly Brian and Bill could have come up with a couple of songs. Of course with hindsight, we know that the Glimmer's came up with a masterpiece, but in late 67 and early 68 nothing was known except the commercial failure of TSMR. A missed opportunity if you ask me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 03:56 by 2000 LYFH.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: September 18, 2012 03:35
You are judging them AS IF it was a storybook -- not the way it actually was in 1968-69.
Brian was a mess! I saw it with my own eyes. And certainly Bill and Charlie did on a regular basis.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 06:27 by stonesrule.
Brian was a mess! I saw it with my own eyes. And certainly Bill and Charlie did on a regular basis.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 06:27 by stonesrule.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: September 18, 2012 09:16
True. But it still doesn't give the full picture.Quote
stonesrule
Brian was a mess!
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 18, 2012 09:41
@ Doxa: I think the big change, also quality-wise, can be heard on the RARC-show.
Cream and Hendrix? I don't think the Stones even thought of heading in that direction. The Stones forte has always been their sound and swing. You can't obtain that just by having ten hands or the fastest fingers in the world. This is really evident here, imo.
Listen to the late 1967-shows, and then this show, You'll find that the biggest change is that of Keith's guitar playing, hence the band's sound. It's a pity that Brian is turned way down in the mix, but in a weird way I think Keith makes up for it.
The Parachute Woman-version is way heavier than any blues they'd done live prior to this show - and more advanced guitar-wise, too.
Cream and Hendrix? I don't think the Stones even thought of heading in that direction. The Stones forte has always been their sound and swing. You can't obtain that just by having ten hands or the fastest fingers in the world. This is really evident here, imo.
Listen to the late 1967-shows, and then this show, You'll find that the biggest change is that of Keith's guitar playing, hence the band's sound. It's a pity that Brian is turned way down in the mix, but in a weird way I think Keith makes up for it.
The Parachute Woman-version is way heavier than any blues they'd done live prior to this show - and more advanced guitar-wise, too.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: September 18, 2012 10:35
Quote
DandelionPowderman
@ Doxa: I think the big change, also quality-wise, can be heard on the RARC-show.
Cream and Hendrix? I don't think the Stones even thought of heading in that direction. The Stones forte has always been their sound and swing. You can't obtain that just by having ten hands or the fastest fingers in the world. This is really evident here, imo.
Listen to the late 1967-shows, and then this show, You'll find that the biggest change is that of Keith's guitar playing, hence the band's sound. It's a pity that Brian is turned way down in the mix, but in a weird way I think Keith makes up for it.
The Parachute Woman-version is way heavier than any blues they'd done live prior to this show - and more advanced guitar-wise, too.
Keith's guitar playing is pretty much the same in 1967 European tour. Check out the live versions of Going Home for example.
The biggest change is the change in pace, the frantic nature of their approach to live playing during their pop years is radically toned down.
The mos
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 18, 2012 10:37
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
@ Doxa: I think the big change, also quality-wise, can be heard on the RARC-show.
Cream and Hendrix? I don't think the Stones even thought of heading in that direction. The Stones forte has always been their sound and swing. You can't obtain that just by having ten hands or the fastest fingers in the world. This is really evident here, imo.
Listen to the late 1967-shows, and then this show, You'll find that the biggest change is that of Keith's guitar playing, hence the band's sound. It's a pity that Brian is turned way down in the mix, but in a weird way I think Keith makes up for it.
The Parachute Woman-version is way heavier than any blues they'd done live prior to this show - and more advanced guitar-wise, too.
Keith's guitar playing is pretty much the same in 1967 European tour. Check out the live versions of Going Home for example.
The biggest change is the change in pace, the frantic nature of their approach to live playing during their pop years is radically toned down.
The mos
I find it both more accomplished and more heavy in 1968, just like it is on BB compared to Buttons which was the album they toured behind at the time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 10:38 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: September 18, 2012 10:42
Quote
DandelionPowderman
@ Doxa: I think the big change, also quality-wise, can be heard on the RARC-show.
Cream and Hendrix? I don't think the Stones even thought of heading in that direction. The Stones forte has always been their sound and swing. You can't obtain that just by having ten hands or the fastest fingers in the world. This is really evident here, imo.
Listen to the late 1967-shows, and then this show, You'll find that the biggest change is that of Keith's guitar playing, hence the band's sound. It's a pity that Brian is turned way down in the mix, but in a weird way I think Keith makes up for it.
The Parachute Woman-version is way heavier than any blues they'd done live prior to this show - and more advanced guitar-wise, too.
Interesting discussion, again. They needed a heavier up to date sound. This, combined with Micks obvious Morrison/Performance/JaggeractingBrianandKeith image speaks volumes about the band at this time. I think Mick reestablished himself (first time the change is total and not a smooth transition like in the 70s - second time being in 1989) and Keith was the other one who had to reestablish himself - now as a lead/riff guitarist (which he also did again in 1989). This is the first time the Glimmers take the stage and the rest of the band is not important. They invent the Glimmer Twins and the sound is heavy. This makes it into one of the best shows they ever did. It's naked and raw. And fogive me for saying this but yes Bruce Botnick was hired around this time because of his part in creating the Doors albums. Bring some of the Rothchild teams tricks to Gimme Shelter and Rambler, give it the monumental doomy feel. A prime example of how Mick and Keith made use of what was current and made into their own act. Also what sometimes if not often meant they used people, session musicians and others in this process and the credits will always be the solid Jagger/Richards.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: September 18, 2012 10:56
Quote
Doxa
Anyway, I have tried to use Bill Wyman's books as a guideline how Brian would think too. Bill was there to wittness quite a lot what Brian did also. And reading how Bill felt when Mick and Keith took over the leadership, and especially how that was finally completed to their total control during BEGGARS BANQUET sessions (in compared to their earlier, more 'democratic' way to work, I can only imagine how Brian would have felt. Namely, what he (Brian) 'lost', and what kind of ambitions he used to have, is something Wyman, with all the respect to him, can only dream of. My conclusion is that while Wyman passively agreed on (and surely made a wise decision careerwise), Brian lost his interest totally.
- Doxa
Yup. That s what I meant with the personal loss being a complete nightmare (Anita) but he still might have been talked into continuing and maybe felt important in early 1968 until he saw the others in the studio and relized he was out in the cold. I think this is what others who were there meant about Brian being treated like shit and thus not turing up. I understand why he didnt want to go to the studio anymore. It's passive aggression over not being one of the boys. He was stupid - and smart to do that in 1965 when he was on fire, it worked out, he was a star on his own and had some power. But in 1968 the real state of affairs and the possible appearance of Anita in the studio made it impossible. I mean think about it. He started a band and now he's just some bloke whos told what to play. He shouldnt have numbed himself out totally and felt sorry for himself. The only thing he could have done was to "grow up" and face Keith and Mick. Work it out.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 18, 2012 13:13
Quote
DandelionPowderman
@ Doxa: I think the big change, also quality-wise, can be heard on the RARC-show.
Cream and Hendrix? I don't think the Stones even thought of heading in that direction. The Stones forte has always been their sound and swing. You can't obtain that just by having ten hands or the fastest fingers in the world. This is really evident here, imo.
Listen to the late 1967-shows, and then this show, You'll find that the biggest change is that of Keith's guitar playing, hence the band's sound. It's a pity that Brian is turned way down in the mix, but in a weird way I think Keith makes up for it.
The Parachute Woman-version is way heavier than any blues they'd done live prior to this show - and more advanced guitar-wise, too.
Good points, but I think you didn't quite catch my point.The examples I gave just gives a hint of the direction the whole rock scene leading to at the time. It wasn't just "fastest gun under the sun", but the whole approach how to deliver rock shows. It all went rather serious in playingwise compared to the times when The Stones last time doing live shows. It wasn't "pop shows" and screaming chicks anymore, but now people really payed attention to the way they play. The things and expectations were changing rather quickly those days. I think The Stones were highly awere of that, since they were a hot contemporary name still, and really payed attention to the demands of the game they were at. They knew that what they did in 1965 wasn't anymore accurate in 1968. The Stones seemingly had no any wish to remain where they once were, but stay contemporary. The move to replace Brian - who seemingly was not able to take the next step - with Mick Taylor was careerwise a brilliant, and perhaps necessary move. Like Charlie Watts once put it, Taylor gave them "professionalsim". Namely, that was the thing they needed at the time to remain as a hot contemporary rock group, not any more a "pop band".
The points you make - I put them in bold - were signals of the new 'serious' attitude, and Keith - with Mick - really made a huge effort those days in his delivery. And seemingly Bill and Charlie would follow them. But it is that CIRCUS show, and HYde Park as well, where we see the band in a transformation process. they are learning the new game, but have not much experience yet. The results sound unique these days. Sa raw, so groovy, and there are elements that will be be emphasized later - during 1969 American Tour where the sound of "greatest rock and roll band in the world" is finally created. But there is still elements that will disappear later. For example, the way Charlie is playing drums, and sounds almost like a hippie drummer filling teh space with his hits, and "grooving around". That was before he truely mastered his elegent minimalist approach (look for example, "Jumpin' Jack Flash"). Keith is in the middle of brain work how to deliver the new hot studio stuff, pretty much based on acoustic guitars and new experiment in tunings: how to make them work in a live surroundings.
My point was that The Stones were highly awere of the demands of the day, and in order to survive - to meet teh challange of Hendrix, The Who, Zeppelin soon, etc - they needed to develop as a live band. And they worked hard for it. Having an ace guitarist like Taylor - a guy from the new 'professional' school - made all that much easier. The Beatles never did that - to take step to became a live band again - but remained as a studio band till the end. I think Jagger was so smart that he knew that in order to continue in the game, they really needed to take the next step, and meet the challange of 'younger' acts. And they succeed marveously.
The problem with The Stones was that they once were a hot club band, but still as very young thrown to that "pop circuit" where the professionalism, by day's stage technology and all, had a secondary role. And then they apted the role of just making records, as The Beatles. I think one of their finest achievemnts ever is that of reinventing themselves again as a live band. It is almost fantastic how much the sound of the band changed if we compare GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! and GET YER YA-YA'S OUT" albums. The former has its charm (and I like that "frantic nature" like His Majesty described), but as in the latter they really sound like a professional rock band. That's creative progression!
Finally, re Brian. If we look Brian's performance in CIRCUS, it is very hard for me to imagine how could he have ever contributed to the 'next step' they were taking. Nothing he did during 1968/69 indicates that he was able to take that. (and, no, please do not use the "No Expectations" card here...).
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 13:30 by Doxa.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 18, 2012 13:24
I think they had found their sound by then. Getting a great guitar player to ice the cake didn't alter the change of the foundation.
Of course, it made them more up to date with what was going on in the rock world at the time, but the band that did the RARC-gig sounded more professional than the band that finished the 1967-tour, imo.
My theory is that the Stones developed that brilliance by making Satanic and BB. Ironically, Brian's detoriation made Keith take on more responsibility for the sound - not only in the studio, but live as well.
Mick Taylor contributed later on with more fuzz guitar and more impressive leads, but my point is that the sound was already there, he came to a served table and did a great job spicing the courses
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 13:24 by DandelionPowderman.
Of course, it made them more up to date with what was going on in the rock world at the time, but the band that did the RARC-gig sounded more professional than the band that finished the 1967-tour, imo.
My theory is that the Stones developed that brilliance by making Satanic and BB. Ironically, Brian's detoriation made Keith take on more responsibility for the sound - not only in the studio, but live as well.
Mick Taylor contributed later on with more fuzz guitar and more impressive leads, but my point is that the sound was already there, he came to a served table and did a great job spicing the courses
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-18 13:24 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Brian Jones and the Stones' office
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 18, 2012 13:54
Dandie, maybe this is semantics, but for me BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED with their massive singles, offered the material that would define their musical vocabulary from then on. But they were studio efforts and experiments (as yeah, SATANIC MAJESTIES alraedy as well, but not really getting 'there') made by a studio band. But it took another effort to bring those (perfect) studio experiments into live surroundings, and there the new 'professionalism' was needed. I think the modern Rolling Stones was created when that material was brought to concerts. The whole band made a huge effort, and Taylor surely helped them in that. I tend to think that Taylor actually sparred the others as live players. He helped them to take the 'next step'. That's what I understand by Charlie's comment of Taylor giving them "professionalism". So I think Taylor contributed more than "icing the cake". His example pushed the others work harder. I think teh dynamics of a great rock and roll band cannot be seen just as a sum of its parts. They all affected to each other, and I think Taylor's contribution should be recognized here.
So CIRCUS is the beginning of that "let's take the new hot material out", a process that would take some time. But yeah, the raw model of the modern live Stones is surely there, but some iomportant changes and sophistications needed to be done in order the band being as wonderful live act, as they were in their records.
Anyway, at least Jagger seemed to think so...
- Doxa
So CIRCUS is the beginning of that "let's take the new hot material out", a process that would take some time. But yeah, the raw model of the modern live Stones is surely there, but some iomportant changes and sophistications needed to be done in order the band being as wonderful live act, as they were in their records.
Anyway, at least Jagger seemed to think so...
- Doxa
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adamw3405 , bobo , ChrisMahavishnu , DandelionPowderman , Domonkos , EJM , frankotero , goingmad , KeithNacho , martinw , Rocknroll1969 , rubyeveryday , switchblade1975 , Torsten
Guests:
1256
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10