For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His Majesty
^ Brian's guitar is near in audible aside from No Expectations though.
Sounds great anyway, imo.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Cos they are arseholes.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Hmm, why do you think they did it?
Cos they are arseholes.
LOL! What about No Expectations, then?
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?
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
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).
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.
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
True. But it still doesn't give the full picture.Quote
stonesrule
Brian was a mess!
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.
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
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.
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
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.