| August 6th, 2004 11:03 AM |
|
|
| CS |
COURT REJECTS PLEA FOR BRIAN JONES STREET
Next Story | Previous Story | Back to list
10:30 - 06 August 2004
The Brian Jones Fan Club has lost its battle to have a road in Cheltenham named after the Rolling Stones legend.
Magistrates ruled that the street, which was to have been called Brian Jones Crescent, should be named after a literary figure. Residents of the new Park development in Tivoli objected to the Brian Jones Crescent address chosen by developer Bryant Homes, fearing his rock 'n' roll reputation would lower the tone.
Cheltenham Borough Council agreed and John Moore Gardens, after the founder of the Cheltenham Festival of Literature, was chosen.
Maralyn Reynolds, who runs the 200-member Brian Jones Fan Club Cheltenham with her husband David, appealed against the decision at the town's magistrates' court.
She told the bench: "People complain that Brian was a 'druggie'. He took drugs recreationally, as did many others, and many in the media spotlight still do.
"However, this did not prevent Liverpool being proud to have streets and an airport named after members of the Beatles who were also frequently in the press for drug-related problems.
"Cheltenham has already named several streets after famous poets, including Byron Road after Lord Byron. He died aged 35 from a combination of excessive drugs, excess alcohol and sexual disease."
Mrs Reynolds argued that residents would not be bothered by visiting fans as they prefer to visit places where the star lived.
She said even if they did turn up, they would be well behaved.
Speaking on behalf of the residents, three of whom were at the hearing, Tim Evans, argued they had been promised a name reflecting Cheltenham's Regency character.
He said they were not told about the Brian Jones idea until they were committed to buy.
Mr Evans said: "This is a family development.
"The residents are concerned that the association with his name runs contrary to that because of the associations of drug and alcohol abuse."
Ruling in the residents' favour, chairman of the bench Kay Holmes said: "The nature of Brian's music and lifestyle is not an issue as far as we're concerned. In fact, all of us are of Brian's era.
"Uppermost in our mind was that the residents of the houses have objected to the road being called Brian Jones Crescent and were not aware of the idea of the developer when they purchased their houses. We feel the wishes of the residents should be paramount.
"We therefore agree to the change of the name but we wish no disrespect to Brian's name."
Mrs Reynolds said after the hearing she was optimistic that one day a road would be named after the Cheltenham-born guitarist, who died in a swimming pool accident in 1969.
Disappointed fan Jackie Oliver, one of three who went to the hearing, said: "Brian was a talented young man who has many fans of all ages.
"What he got up to in the 60s is nothing compared to the youngsters of today."
|
| August 6th, 2004 11:10 AM |
|
|
| jb |
As I have said many, many , times, the Engish truly laoth the Stones....they would sooner name a street after Paul Young than a member of the Stones.... |
| August 6th, 2004 12:17 PM |
|
|
| Lambchop* |
I think they need to have a Brian Jones mental hospital and commit the Brian Jones fan club into it.
|
| August 6th, 2004 01:55 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>As I have said many, many , times, the Engish truly laoth the Stones....they would sooner name a street after Paul Young than a member of the Stones....
put the toys back into your pram, Josh. Some notoriously snobby little town is a microcosm of 60 million people. yeah, right.
You've no sense of perspective. Yeah ,it would have been nice to name a street after Brian, but they didnt. So fucking what. It's not like they are obliged to. Personally, I could list dozens of people who would be more deserving of having a street named them than a rock musician. For starters, theres millions of people who defended their country in the last war and who have never been honoured like that.
No doubt your home state of Florida has dozens of streets named after Jim Morrison, who happened to be born there. No? Didn't think so. Wonder why.
Brian's major contribution to Cheltenham was to dramatically increase the number of under age pregnancies in local girls in the early 60's.
If he was ever going to have a street (or anything) named after him, it should be elsewhere where he DID make a significant contribution in his life. Not Cheltenham. Unless it's the new maternity wing in the local hospital.
Lamby's right. |
| August 6th, 2004 02:40 PM |
|
|
| stewed & Keefed |
 |
| August 6th, 2004 03:00 PM |
|
|
| The_Worst |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>Brian's major contribution to Cheltenham was to dramatically increase the number of under age pregnancies in local girls in the early 60's.
Just how many kids does Brian have? Does anyone have any pictures of them? I always wondered what they would look like... |
| August 6th, 2004 03:40 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Gazza, you know I respect you and value your friendship, but lets agree that England has been less than generous as far as giving the Stones their due....the are attacked unmercifully in the press, their album sales are dreadful, they did not even make it in the top ten all time favorite English rock band poll, and while last tour the concert attendance was good, by in large, they are truly hated by most of the English public.... |
| August 6th, 2004 07:24 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Gazza, you know I respect you and value your friendship,
I love you too Josh and I want to have your babies
>but lets agree that England has been less than generous as far as giving the Stones their due....
yep
>the are attacked unmercifully in the press,
no. The tabloids are obsessed with Mick's private life, which he brings on himself somewhat by sticking his dick into anything with a pulse. When they tour however, the reviews are universally positive. Check the Rocks Off archives. The music magazines in the last couple of years have given them lots of coverage - much more than in the US - and without exception, enthusiastic. I think your observations show a serious case of selective amnesia.
I read the UK press daily. You don't. Tony Blair and his government, Sven Goran Eriksson (the England football team manager) and Posh and Becks get "attacked in the press". I can't recall the last time I read such an article on the Stones. They're not exactly big news on a daily basis.
> their album sales are dreadful,
40 licks reached no. 2 in the UK album charts and sold as well here as it did anywhere else. The Stones did a 35 date tour of America two months after "No Security" and that album ended up being the worst selling record of their career. Whats America's excuse? Not enough exposure?
>they did not even make it in the top ten all time favorite English rock band poll,
what poll? theres a poll every week here. each is as meaningless as the next one.
>and while last tour the concert attendance was good, by in large, they are truly hated by most of the English public....
and you have no doubt polled every single one of them to come to that brilliant conclusion. An amazing argument. Do you actually WIN many cases with that sense of logic? Your entire last statement is completely contradictory.
Josh - reading your recent bitching about the Stones, I think you seem to hate them more than most people. Maybe youre English. LOL
[Edited by Gazza] |
| August 6th, 2004 08:13 PM |
|
|
| stewed & Keefed |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Josh - reading your recent bitching about the Stones, I think you seem to hate them more than most people. Maybe youre English. LOL
[Edited by Gazza]
Josh keeps talking about "we" when it comes to the English football team. lol. |
| August 7th, 2004 09:12 AM |
|
|
| Hannalee |
Didn't Josh say once that he was born in/near Nottingham? I remember hoping that he was kidding because I was born not far away.
|
| August 7th, 2004 12:35 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
I thought josh was born in Israel? |
| August 7th, 2004 07:47 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Just how many kids does Brian have?
Six that are known of
> Does anyone have any pictures of them? I always wondered what they would look like...
check the page we have for Brian on the top of this page and you'll find a page devoted to Brian's son Julian (by Linda Lawrence)who has been a good friend of Rocks Off for some years.
http://www.rocksoff.org/julian1.htm
there's some pics there of Julian with his own son (Brian's grandson) Joolz who looks uncannily like a certain Stones guitarist did in that famous childhood photo.
Julian also has his own site :
http://indigo.ie/~mango/Index.htm |
| August 17th, 2004 08:09 PM |
|
|
| CotchfordCat |
My wife and I are regular visitors to Cheltenham. We were there, alongside many other fans, in July 1994, to mark the 25th anniversary of Brian's passing, at Prestbury Cemetery in the company of Brian's ex, Ms Pat Andrews. The next day, we attended a church service in the church Brian had attended as a boy, and special mention was made of Brian by the pastor, who asked that we remember both he and "all of the young people of Hatherley (district of Cheltenham) who had been taken to the lord so early".
Obviously, his congregation being swollen to 3 times it's normal size (nice, Jones-esque analogy there, I thought) by Stones T-shirted dope-smokers MAY have influenced the content of his sermon, but there was also a fairly big, very well attended 'memorial concert' that evening at Cheltenham Racecourse, headed by The Artwoods, Ronnie's brother Arthur's band. (Is the commemorative T-shirt of the event I procured that night with Brian on the front and the quotes from 'Adonais' read at Hyde Park on the back THE rarest Stones Tee? You'll no doubt tell me.)
There's no doubt at all that Cheltenham was happy to honour it's famous son that weekend, but that probably is about the giddy limit. It's possibly a little naive to expect any kind of permanent memorial. Brian, after all, made no secret of his loathing of his hometown's conservatism and desire to leave as soon as possible!
You should also read, if you can, "Electric Gypsy", Harry Shapiro & Caesar Glebbeek's definitive biography of Jimi Hendrix, which details the ultimately fruitless struggle of Jimi's fans to establish a permanent memorial in Seattle; Which was met by objections well nigh identical to those raised by the 'unco guid' of Cheltenham. |
| August 17th, 2004 08:24 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Good post. It's obvious to see that it's a two way thing between Brian and Cheltenham and it's not as clear cut an issue as some naive people who think the earth should revolve around the Stones would think (I wonder how Brian would feel about the subject himself!!) and not just confined to Brian Jones and the UK |
| August 17th, 2004 08:35 PM |
|
|
| CotchfordCat |
Thanks, Gazza. (For saying "Good Post", I mean!)
I just came back to RO, my old PC packed in and it's taken me till now to get a new one. I was on, very briefly, before as Noonan McKane.
You do a fine job here. Can I ask; Are you in the UK? |
| August 17th, 2004 08:37 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
yes - Belfast!
not THAT far from you on the Seacat, I see!
[Edited by Gazza] |
| August 17th, 2004 08:42 PM |
|
|
| CotchfordCat |
I suppose so! From Troon, yeah.
Did you start this site? Or you and VoodooChileIn....and Jaxx or what?
Also, how come I have to keep re-entering my username every time I go to post?? |
| August 17th, 2004 10:04 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
The problem with the Stones and England started on 1971 with the tax exile. From then many people hate the band, their records sold well but they didn't get a #1 single since 1969.
The two more popular bands on England are The Beatles and Queen, two dead bands. The Stones are sill alive for example.
Before Mercury's death on 1991, Queen was No. 11 on the UK all time best sellers, now they are No. 5.
The Stones?
No. 12
not words... |
| August 17th, 2004 10:11 PM |
|
|
| Steel Wheels |
Brian Jones Street is such a bad idea. It makes me yawn. The street sign would be stolen prompty, no doubt. I should hope bull dozers take care of the rest. |
| August 18th, 2004 07:10 AM |
|
|
| CotchfordCat |
The last Rolling Stones number one single was "Miss You", in 1978.
People don't specifically dislike The Stones in 'England'. (I suspect you may mean 'Britain' by this popular misnomer for the UK) In England, like anywhere else, people who are fans of the band like them; people who are not, do not.
|
| August 18th, 2004 07:32 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I suppose so! From Troon, yeah.
Did you start this site? Or you and VoodooChileIn....and Jaxx or what?
yep..the 3 of us
>Also, how come I have to keep re-entering my username every time I go to post??
So do I. But the password is saved.
|
| August 18th, 2004 07:36 AM |
|
|
| Hannalee |
I don't need to enter mine - is this a question of relative respectability? 
|
| August 18th, 2004 07:59 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>The problem with the Stones and England started on 1971 with the tax exile. From then many people hate the band, their records sold well but they didn't get a #1 single since 1969.
sorry but thats crap and a stupid way of generalising someone's popularity. Anyone who reaches the top in the UK puts themselves up to be shot at. That's the way the media works here and it's the same for everyone, whether its the Rolling Stones, David Beckham or Tony bloody Blair. The media is not the general public. People 'hate' the band in every country and there's also people in every country who love them. Like every country, you'll find the vast majority of people simply don't care one way or the other as is the case with any act.
I don't even think the media in the UK dislikes the Stones anyway. They get plenty of press coverage despite their musical invisibility, so at least they keep them in the public eye one way or another. Two national newspapers at the weekend actually had get well messages for Charlie in their EDITORIALS. Almost unheard of. Some of the showbiz writers tend to be ageist, but I see that elsewhere too, and no one with an age or IQ over the age of 30 takes that shit seriously anyway.
Also, your reading Josh's ill-informed shit-stirring crap so much your starting to sound like him at times here. No. 1 singles is hardly a barometer of national popularity. The average age of the singles buyer in the UK is around 14-15. Its completely geared towards that market and for promoting singles that will get to number 1 in their first week of release and then which will be out of the chart a few weks later in time for the next piece of disposable garbage (In 2000, there were FORTY different number 1 singles in the UK) Those people are hardly the Stones target audience. Most Stones albums in the 70's only produced one single released in the UK anyway. To suggest theyve been hated since 1971 because they moved abroad is ridiculous(I'd imagine most people dont even KNOW that or CARE about it)
Incidentally, Jagger had a number 1 single in the UK as recently as 1985.
If you want to measure their popularity, try their ticket sales. In 1976 one MILLION people applied for tickets to see them at Earls Court. The six outdoor shows in Britain and Ireland on their next tour ('82) were seen by 420,000 people and every show sold out within hours. The 10 Urban Jungle shows attracted over half a million people. Not many other bands I can think of could pull crowds like that back then or now here or anywhere (and those who can do so can usually only do it for a very short period of time until they implode as a band or the public loses interest in them. That's never happened with the Stones)
>The two more popular bands on England are The Beatles and Queen, two dead bands. The Stones are sill alive for example.
The Beatles are more popular than anyone in EVERY country!
>Before Mercury's death on 1991, Queen was No. 11 on the UK all time best sellers, now they are No. 5.
Well....death is a good career move. It didnt do Elvis any harm either. Fortunately, the Stones havent got to that level yet, although at times they may as well be dead in the eyes of the public as they release so few records. By that standard, they still do pretty well. The Stones arent even in the top 10 sellers in the US either, coming behind such legendary acts as Garth Brooks and Aerosmith. I think if you look at any country worldwide, you'll struggle to find the Stones in the top 10 all time sellers anywhere. Theyve NEVER been a band whose albums would sell like The Beatles or Michael Jackson for example. Thats the same worldwide.
>The Stones?No. 12
not words...
Theres many ways of gauging someone's popularity. Singles, album sales, concert ticket sales etc and anyone can use whatever method they choose to make their own argument to suit their own agenda. If someone is spending �150 on a concert ticket, for me thats more a barometer of how enthusiastic they are for an act than by spending �15 on a CD or �3 on a single.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| August 18th, 2004 08:01 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I don't need to enter mine - is this a question of relative respectability?
Probably! LOL.
Maybe Gerardo knows the answer! |
| August 18th, 2004 08:12 AM |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I don't need to enter mine - is this a question of relative respectability?
Probably! LOL.
Maybe Gerardo knows the answer!
The answer is in the cookies -- the ones on your computer! Not fortune cookies, LOL! 
Check your browser preferences and your board profile. |
| August 18th, 2004 10:56 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
The problem with the Stones and England started on 1971 with the tax exile. From then many people hate the band, their records sold well but they didn't get a #1 single since 1969.
People started hating the band for objecting to being tax raped????? I don't think so. I mean there might have been a few people that were angry about that. I doubt it was a factor in the "hits" department. I mean I will admit that alot of Britons love to pay high taxes but I doubt they held that move against the Stones. |
| August 18th, 2004 11:34 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I mean I will admit that alot of Britons love to pay high taxes but I doubt they held that move against the Stones
LOL..I'd love to meet someone who loves being highly taxed, TTM! That would be an interesting conversation! Fortunately, for about the last 25 years or so, income tax rates have become sensible again.
Back in the early 70's, the government imposed a 98% tax "super tax" on high earners (not on all of their income of course - just on what they earned over a certain threshold. Oddly enough it was a Conservative government, who tend to be more lenient when taxing the middle classes as it's their core electoral base. The Labour government would be traditionally more likely to tax the rich). This led to a lot of actors and singers becoming tax exiles (The Stones, Michael Caine, Rod Stewart etc) although - as a lot of people forget - the Stones in most cases DID maintain a home in the England even though their primary country of residence was France.
As you correctly say, to suggest that any more than a few people held that against them is ludicrous. Most people wouldn't even be aware of it anyway, let alone give a flying fuck. The obvious question is why WOULDNT anyone leave with taxation at THAT level? |
| August 18th, 2004 11:42 AM |
|
|
| Lambchop* |
The UK is a lovely place to live - except fruit juice is too fucking expensive.
|
| August 18th, 2004 12:17 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Lambchop* wrote:
except fruit juice is too fucking expensive.
TAXES!!!!! |
| August 18th, 2004 12:29 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
LOL..I'd love to meet someone who loves being highly taxed, TTM! That would be an interesting conversation!
Well there's plenty of them on this side of the pond nowadays. They call themselves "democrats". |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]