The Last Time For Brian Jones

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:36 am

For me, the "London years" were the best for the Stones. The early material was unique both instrumentally and vocally. I haven't heard their latest, but as they "progressed" I was less taken with their material, and their appearance of course.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:39 am

In my post above I did mean to say Bleed/Exile/Sticky for the record.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:47 pm

Bleed/Sticky/Exile is total classic but I don't consider that period the real 'The Rolling Stones' anymore outside of the name.

To me it's like if Lennon would have died in 1970 and Paul, George and Ringo carried on with someone else doing all of Pauls 70's solo stuff and still calling themselves 'The Beatles'. It wouldn't really have been 'The Beatles'.

I feel the same way with post NBB Byrds and post Pet Sounds Beach Boys.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:53 pm

Don't know, were the Beatles any less the Beatles without Pete or Stu, two originals, or are we only considering the time when they made their first hit record and then the band members make a difference?

winston · Post by **winston** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:18 pm

John provided raw edge and power, Paul balance and harmony, George provided colour and tapestry and Ringo backbone and push. As a foursome they were awesome. Anything less would be a travesty. IMHO

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:07 am

I feel in that trio of recording the Stones established the sound upon which modern rock is based. Before they did pop, and a variation of R&B that a lot of bands were into With this trio, IMO, they pretty much invented a sound. Many late period Beatle recordings featured less than the full band, so, as I agree they were magic as a unit, they did manage good stuff in fractions.

winston · Post by **winston** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:10 am

"There's a basic rule which runs through all kinds of music, kind of an unwritten rule. I don't know what it is. But I've got it." -Ron Wood / Rolling Stones / Faces

OK let's hear it for Ron.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:08 am

I like almost all the Stones until the late 70's early 80's and even some since. I do also think the Mick Taylor period was their pinnicle as musicians and sound and coherance of their LP's but I still like the Jones period as good if not better even though it's more uneven.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:43 am

I like your take on it, Bob. I did like the Jones' era as well but 'uneven' is a good description of those times and their sound. Some classic hits and all but something seemed to be missing.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:34 pm

With Lennon tired of The Beatles, Clapton finished with Cream and Jones feeling 'the boot', I have read where the three of them during the Rock and Roll Circus filming talked of forming a group together playing country roots R&B in the style of CCR!

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:28 pm

Yipes!.... Lennon/Clapton/Jones??? I wonder what the name of that band would have been.

Pretty amazing talent to start a band with, eh?

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:03 pm

Who's Jones? Tom?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:43 pm

Davey.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:34 pm

Oooh, oooh, I know! Brian Jones!

stubby · Post by **stubby** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:52 pm

Hard to imagine though what might have come out of that. Lennon/Clapton/Jones sounds great on paper but I think there might have been a lot of great nights logged for them but maybe not too much music? Who knows. Pretty sure we'll never find out.

On a slightly different note, I heard on a radio station recently, that at one point Clapton was trying to sign up with The Band but that, for whatever reasons, it never came about. Anybody have a more authoritative take on this?