ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

Dirty Work Sessions - Pathé-Marconi Studios
Boulogne-Billancourt, France - Spring 1985
© Christian FIOT
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Brian's Attendance 63-66 Return to archive Page: 1 2 3
12th December 2006 01:20 AM
Taptrick Why was Brian absent so often while no one else was? I'm not a Brian expert by any means - I was just looking at the setlists over the years and it struck me as odd how often it said "Brian not in attendance." Like 11 times. I think of the problems as starting to develope in 66-67 but this no show thing goes back to 63. Any thoughts?




[Edited by Taptrick]
12th December 2006 04:29 AM
Zack It's true, but way more than 11 gigs in total. Funny thing is, Keith could play the gig and cover for Brian with no problem, but could you imagine a Stones gig with just Brian on guitar and not Keith?

I think not.

Sorry all you Brianistas, but that really says something, doesn't it?
12th December 2006 04:41 AM
Gazza
quote:
Taptrick wrote:
Why was Brian absent so often while no one else was? I'm not a Brian expert by any means - I was just looking at the setlists over the years and it struck me as odd how often it said "Brian not in attendance." Like 11 times. I think of the problems as starting to develope in 66-67 but this no show thing goes back to 63. Any thoughts?



I think there were a few no-shows due to illness, as Brian was asthmatic
12th December 2006 08:32 AM
WJ
quote:
Zack wrote:
It's true, but way more than 11 gigs in total. Funny thing is, Keith could play the gig and cover for Brian with no problem, but could you imagine a Stones gig with just Brian on guitar and not Keith?




You're stating your opinion, not a fact. Yes, I could imagine a Stones gig with just Brian and not Keith; Brian was much more popular than Keith back then and a good enough musician to cover for him.

How many gigs did Keith miss in the 70's? Yeah, he wasn't "ill" at all back then.
12th December 2006 08:42 AM
Taptrick
How many did Keith miss in the 70s? They had concerts with no Keith? I'd check set lists but off to work now. I'll look later.

12th December 2006 08:59 AM
Gazza
quote:
WJ wrote:
How many gigs did Keith miss in the 70's? Yeah, he wasn't "ill" at all back then.




None. Ever.
12th December 2006 09:18 AM
WJ
quote:
Gazza wrote:


None. Ever.



They'd have to be on the road in order for him to miss a show. How many shows did they have in the 70's versus the 60's? Everyone tries to paint Brian as this drugged up loser who let the band down. Keith was not only just as bad but was also a screwup for much longer.
If people are going to bash Brian for certain behaviour, at least admit that Keith went through the same period. Only difference I can see is that the band put up with him and didn't just throw him to the wolves.

For every quote about Brian's bad behaviour, you can find just as many about Keith's.
12th December 2006 09:44 AM
Gazza
quote:
WJ wrote:


They'd have to be on the road in order for him to miss a show.


I answered your question - but feel free to change the subject all you like because you didnt like the answer.

quote:
How many shows did they have in the 70's versus the 60's?


Nowhere near as many (of all the shows the Stones have played to date, half of them took place in the first 5 years of their career), but as is the case with their relative inactivity in the last few decades thats more to do with wealth-induced sloth and having other things to occupy them than drugged up incompetency.

Keith's heavy drug use tended to be more concentrated during periods when he WASN'T working.


quote:
Everyone tries to paint Brian as this drugged up loser who let the band down. Keith was not only just as bad but was also a screwup for much longer.
If people are going to bash Brian for certain behaviour, at least admit that Keith went through the same period. Only difference I can see is that the band put up with him and didn't just throw him to the wolves.


Keith's addictions lasted longer because he didnt succumb to them. I'm not so sure that he 'let the band down' as much as Brian. Brian unfortunately ceased to be effective as a creative musician in the last couple of years of his career. Keith may have had a heroin addiction for a decade, but in that period still managed to not only function as a live performer (without missing any shows), but wrote about half of the material for about eight albums, several of which can be rightly considered to be the high point of the band's career (as well as producing several of them as well)

If thats letting the band down, he should do it more often.

The only time he hasnt been pulling his weight creatively has been in the last decade.



[Edited by Gazza]
12th December 2006 09:58 AM
WJ
quote:
Gazza wrote:

Keith's heavy drug use tended to be more concentrated during periods when he WASN'T working.



Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Keith's herion addiction hampered the bands musical output during the 70's. Not only because it was so difficult to get him to actually come to sessions (didn't they eventually have to set up in his basement?) but touring abroad was extremely difficult due to his drug use and drug busts. For every negative quote about Brian, there's one for Keith.

Why start a thread just to trash one of the old band members? Geez, enough already.

"An ever-increasing consumption of drugs, however, was making Brian Jones less and less reliable. The ill-fated Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus was one of his last projects with the band and increasingly he was either absent from recording sessions by choice, or simply not invited to attend."

"The other members of the band ended up paying for the fines and legal bills resulting from Richards' convictions, which also led to the entire band being denied entry to certain countries and meant missed out income for all. Taylor spent his time helping Jagger composing and recording songs in the studio while Richards was often "a.w.o.l."."
12th December 2006 10:01 AM
WJ
quote:
Gazza wrote:

The only time he hasnt been pulling his weight creatively has been in the last decade.




That's only because they should have retired ten years ago.
12th December 2006 10:03 AM
dkmonroe I'm a Brian fan, but no one can deny that Keith has always been more committed to live performance than Brian. Personally, I believe that Brian's absences are sometimes serious illness, sometimes druggy misbehavior, and sometimes just attempts to manipulate the band. I think that Brian actually expected the Stones to cancel the show if he called in sick, at least in the early years. Later on, it might have had an aspect of resignation. "Oh, what the hell, they don't want me anyway." This is all speculation on my part, however.

I don't know if I've ever heard of Keith cancelling a gig, or of a gig being cancelled by Keith's non-participation, even at the heighth of his addiction problems. Then again, Keith didn't have asthma or any other chronic health problem on top of his drug abuse. And as aforementioned, his commitment to music and performing is absolute. I don't believe the same could have been said of Brian.
12th December 2006 10:10 AM
Gazza
quote:
WJ wrote:


Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Keith's herion addiction hampered the bands musical output during the 70's. Not only because it was so difficult to get him to actually come to sessions (didn't they eventually have to set up in his basement?) but touring abroad was extremely difficult due to his drug use and drug busts. For every negative quote about Brian, there's one for Keith.


They never failed to get a visa due to Keith's 'problems'. The only time they were turned down for a visa was when they tried to tour Japan in 1973 - and that was because of Mick's 'record'. Nice try, though. And so what if they had to record in his basement? Did it do any harm? Yeah, 'Exile' (an album he had more a hand in creating than any other Stones album, despite his addictions) was a real stinker.

quote:
Why start a thread just to trash one of the old band members? Geez, enough already.


Actually, I didnt and neither (if you read the friggin first post) did the guy who started the thread with an innocent question. Methinks thou dost protest too much, Miss Doe.

I think the only person who needs to let go of shit that went on 40 years ago is yourself. No one else seems to be that annoyed about it.


[Edited by Gazza]
12th December 2006 10:30 AM
WJ
quote:
Gazza wrote:


Actually, I didn’t and neither (if you read the friggin first post) did the guy who started the thread with an innocent question. Methinks thou dost protest too much, Miss Doe.



I do not think it was an innocent question. As far as protesting too much; I was simply expressing my opinion. You seem to be doing quite a bit of protesting yourself.


quote:
I think the only person who needs to let go of shit that went on 40 years ago is yourself. No one else seems to be that annoyed about it.



I do find the Brian bashing occasionally tiresome; seems those who do so are the ones who need to let it go. While I do think it can be annoying, you seem to be the one who's pissed off.

I thought we were having a discussion but now it seems like it’s turned into some nasty fight.


*waves the white flag*

Happy Holidays!


[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
[Edited by WJ]
12th December 2006 10:32 AM
Gazza
quote:
WJ wrote:


That's only because they should have retired ten years ago.



A reasonable argument, although I wouldnt agree, personally.

Whilst he's somewhat burned out creatively as a composer and its quite obvious that the main driving force in the band in that time has been Mick, he's spent a considerable amount of shows in that time (particularly 1997-99) covering Ronnie's ass on stage - despite his own increasing physical limitations.
12th December 2006 10:40 AM
Gazza
quote:
WJ wrote:


I do not think it was an innocent question. As far as protesting too much; I was simply expressing my opinion. You seem to be doing quite a bit of protesting yourself.




I do find the Brian bashing occasionally tiresome; seems those who do so are the ones who need to let it go. While I do think it can be annoying, you seem to be the one who's pissed off.

I thought we were having a discussion but now it seems like it’s turned into some nasty fight.


*waves the white flag*

Happy Holidays!




"oh youre finished? Well - allow me to retort!"

You're wrong - and its not a 'nasty fight' either.

The original question had no malice at all. Neither had my own response, which stated that the guy had health problems which caused him to miss a few shows. My first 2 responses were purely factual - I didnt even care to express an opinion one way or the other. You just got all pissy because your argument didnt add up - hence the inevitable disagreement

I've never 'bashed' or underestimated Brian's contributions to the band in this thread or anywhere. Show me where I have. I'm not some fucking idiot who thinks the Stones didnt exist prior to 1969, so please spare me the lecture - but if youre going to shoot your mouth off with nonsense about Keith 'missing' shows and then decide to sidestep the response when someone corrects you on it, then thats your problem. If thats your definition of me 'protesting' , then youve obviously mistaken me for someone who GIVES a fuck.

For the record, I find the Brian-bashing tiresome too - but its equally tiresome to read some of the absurd counter-arguments by some who think the sun shone out of his behind. The same applies (IMO) to the entire band, whether good or bad. No one's perfect or all-bad.

Season's greetings


[Edited by Gazza]
12th December 2006 12:12 PM
GhostofBrianJones I have been wanting to know something about this for many years. Can
anyone tell me when Brian was not in attendance during 1966 during their
North American tour? Like on July 12, 1966? I don't know anything about
what dates he actually DID miss during that time. If anyone can help please
tell me. Thanks.
12th December 2006 12:23 PM
Saint Sway
quote:
Taptrick wrote:
Why was Brian absent so often while no one else was? I'm not a Brian expert by any means - I was just looking at the setlists over the years and it struck me as odd how often it said "Brian not in attendance." Like 11 times. I think of the problems as starting to develope in 66-67 but this no show thing goes back to 63.

Any thoughts?




I say we dig him up and perform an autopsy to figure out why he missed those shows
12th December 2006 12:29 PM
Gazza
quote:
GhostofBrianJones wrote:
I have been wanting to know something about this for many years. Can
anyone tell me when Brian was not in attendance during 1966 during their
North American tour? Like on July 12, 1966? I don't know anything about
what dates he actually DID miss during that time. If anyone can help please
tell me. Thanks.



see the setlists page link at the top of this page. Beside the lists of dates for each year, theres a note if theres anyone missing.

I'm unaware of any shows missed by Brian in 1966 however. Theres a few from 1964 - see here : http://rocksoff.org/1964.htm

If you know of any gaps, all help is greatly appreciated and will be acknowledged. Thanks
12th December 2006 05:10 PM
Brian Jones Girl
quote:

For the record, I find the Brian-bashing tiresome too - but its equally tiresome to read some of the absurd counter-arguments by some who think the sun shone out of his behind.
No one's perfect or all-bad.



...but brian was both...

quote:
I say we dig him up and perform an autopsy to figure out why he missed those shows


oh no, let's not get into this again!
12th December 2006 05:17 PM
GhostofBrianJones I am not trying to start trouble I just wanted to know if anyone knew about
the reasons he may have not shown up in the Mid-West in the year 1966.
This has NOTHING to do with bashing the Stones. This is getting way off
track. I thought some one might know.
12th December 2006 05:24 PM
Saint Sway
quote:
GhostofBrianJones wrote:
I am not trying to start trouble I just wanted to know if anyone knew about
the reasons he may have not shown up in the Mid-West in the year 1966.
This has NOTHING to do with bashing the Stones. This is getting way off
track. I thought some one might know.



why not just dig him up and find out for yourself?
12th December 2006 05:37 PM
nanatod
quote:
GhostofBrianJones wrote:
I am not trying to start trouble I just wanted to know if anyone knew about
the reasons he may have not shown up in the Mid-West in the year 1966.
This has NOTHING to do with bashing the Stones. This is getting way off
track. I thought some one might know.



It may have something to do with the (U.S.) Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA was originally created in 1952, and had very "rigid" guidelines about visas, and entry into the US, etc.

The INA was basically unchanged until the late 1980's during the Reagan administration, when in effect, the act was "softened."
12th December 2006 05:39 PM
Brian Jones Girl
quote:
Saint Sway wrote:
why not just dig him up and find out for yourself?



why not just shut up saint sway?
12th December 2006 05:58 PM
Gazza
quote:
nanatod wrote:


It may have something to do with the (U.S.) Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA was originally created in 1952, and had very "rigid" guidelines about visas, and entry into the US, etc.

The INA was basically unchanged until the late 1980's during the Reagan administration, when in effect, the act was "softened."



No..the shows were he didnt play took place DURING a tour. He was never refused entry to the US to tour (Brian's first drugs conviction took place a year AFTER his final US show with the Stones)
12th December 2006 06:18 PM
nanatod I kind of figured that Gazza. I just threw the INA out there, hoping it would stop the questions [and the thread].
12th December 2006 06:22 PM
Fiji Joe The Stones would have better off with Davey Jones
12th December 2006 06:37 PM
TampabayStone
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
The Stones would have better off with Davey Jones



?
12th December 2006 06:42 PM
TampabayStone
quote:
Gazza wrote:

"oh youre finished? Well - allow me to retort!"





12th December 2006 06:44 PM
Stratus Brian Jones missed some 1964 shows in the Midwest because he was lying in a Chicago hospital, suffering from a high fever.

quote:
GhostofBrianJones wrote:
I am not trying to start trouble I just wanted to know if anyone knew about
the reasons he may have not shown up in the Mid-West in the year 1966.
This has NOTHING to do with bashing the Stones. This is getting way off
track. I thought some one might know.

12th December 2006 06:44 PM
TampabayStone
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
The Stones would have better off with Davey Jones



??
Page: 1 2 3
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)