IAN STEWART WAS A FOUNDING & ESSENTIAL MEMBER OF THE STONES
Chinese Year of Felicity Huffman
named Kahoutek specifically, that denies that Ian Stewart was a
founding member and considered an essential part of the band up until
his death in 1986. These morons also deny that he played on many live
and in-studio tracks.
Help set the record straight for these uneducated morons.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Is there anything worse than knowledge without a shred of personal
modesty?
Just because you aren't hard up for a fact, doesn't mean you aren't
hard up for put down.
What a dope.
-L.I.
Bob Roman
1964 England's Newest Hit Makers The Rolling Stones Organ, Piano,
Keyboards
1964 5 X 5 The Rolling Stones Keyboards
1965 December's Children (And Everybody's) The Rolling Stones Organ,
Percussion, Piano, Marimba
1965 Out of Our Heads The Rolling Stones Organ, Piano, Harpsichord,
Keyboards
1965 Rolling Stones, Now! The Rolling Stones Organ, Piano, Keyboards
1966 Aftermath The Rolling Stones Organ, Piano, Harpsichord, Keyboards
1969 Let It Bleed The Rolling Stones Piano, Keyboards
1970 Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! The Rolling Stones Keyboards
1971 Sticky Fingers The Rolling Stones Piano, Keyboards
1972 Exile on Main St. The Rolling Stones Piano, Keyboards
1973 Goats Head Soup The Rolling Stones Piano, Keyboards
1974 It's Only Rock 'N Roll The Rolling Stones Piano, Keyboards
1977 Love You Live The Rolling Stones Piano, Keyboards
1980 Emotional Rescue The Rolling Stones Piano, Keyboards
1982 Still Life The Rolling Stones Piano
1983 Undercover The Rolling Stones Percussion, Piano
--
Bob Roman
Chinese Year of Felicity Huffman
weather...@yahoo.com
that even references the band. For a recent volume, go to "Stoned,"
penned by the band's first manager, Andrew Loog Oldham. There's also
"Nankering With the Rolling Stones," by Mick and Keith's old room mate
James Phelge. Then there's "Old Gods Almost Dead" by Stephen Davis.
All these books tell of how Stewart was ousted because he didn't look
the part, but stayed on as road manager and occasional pianist till his
death in 1985. If you wanna pay tribute to his memory, crank up the
tune "Let it Bleed," which is largely driven by his boogie
woogie-inspired piano part.
bip...@sbcglobal.net
to think of some songs I heard around 1964 by an Ian Stewart that
really liked! Can anybody help identify these songs?
weather...@yahoo.com
Jagger-Richards song,m "So Much in Love." Ian Stewart eventually
formed a boogie woogie band, Rocket 88, in the early 1980s, with
Charlie Watts sitting in on drums occasionally. They released on LP
that I know of and were written up in a few music mags at the time,
notably Trouser Press.
Kahoutek
THE STONES were ****ALL**** DEAD A LONG TIME AGO.
First of all, Ian didn't die a LONG TIME AGO - not compared to Brian,
anyway.
Second, of course Ian was there when the Stones were founded. Was he a
Founder? I don't think so. Anyone who refuses to play the keyboards
at least half the time is not foundational. Here is a quote from
Wikipedia (Go argue with them):
>>>Characteristically, Stewart refused to play on the gorgeous, classic ballad "Wild Horses" because he objected to the lilting minor key of the song.<<<<<
EVERY album, he either refused to play altogether or only played on
SOME songs - which makes him a PART TIME keyboarder - which was my
point. On MANY albums, they subbed someone else altogether, and on
many hits, someone else was playing.
Ian was definitely their road manager.
Rather than being foundational, he is generally thought to be the
REASON that Brian was kicked out of the band (and I believe being
kicked out may have contributed directly to Brian's death one month
later - way to go, Ian).
Even after that, Ian did a lot to split the band (read any book about
the Stones).
It takes more than playing part time keyboards to make a band. Bands
have to stick together and play. If they didn't write parts that Ian
liked, Ian wouldn't play them - and Ian liked styling/arranging the
parts, not composing them. If they wouldn't play to his style, he
didn't want to do it. That led to HIM being kicked out.
Another quote:
<He took the news of his ejection without fuss or bother. He agreed to
stay on, loading the gear into the battered pink VW bus and driving
from Lowestoft to Aberystwyth in a day, for instance, or setting off
for Germany with a broken starter motor before replacing frayed guitar
strings>
In fact, he liked NOT being part of the band. The Stones of course
regarded him affectionately - and he was inducted as the sixth Stone
into the Hall of Fame - but I tell you, he was NOT crucial in the
Foundation of the Stones, and was NOT the key writer of most of their
hits. That was and is my point.
Of course he played keyboards - but not as much as some people would
like to think. Exile on Main Street is considered a landmark Stones
album, right? OR are we going to fight about that too? He played on
THREE of the songs. Mick and Keith and Charlie play/sing on ALL of
them. Does that not make a difference to you, really? Does it make a
difference that you probably haven't heard of ANY of those songs,
despite the album's huge success? Well - you actual Stones fans know
these songs, and some of you know ONE of them, but most of you couldn't
hum a single one:
They are: Shake Your Hips" and "Stop Breaking Down" and "Sweet
Virginia".
Well Chinese? Got the tunes on the tip of your tongue to any of those
great Stu-played songs? He hadn't played ANYTHING on albums for years
when he did those. What do you think? He's "foundational"?
He was a GREAT blues style keyboard player. He played on many Stones
songs (but not that many). If CHINESE knew anything about the Stones
she/he would have said, "But, hey, Kahoutek, what about AFTERMATH,
wasn't that one of the Stones' greatest albums and didn't Ian make it
great? THAT would be a good argument - that Ian really broke through
about early 1966 and changed the sound of the Stones - because he is so
responsible for the sound of Lady Jane and Paint it Black. But no, you
can't make that argument because you know so little about the Stones -
and most people describe that album as a "little phase" of the Stones -
many critics deride it as too "Beatles-like" but I like it. I like
Ian, too.
My argument remains. In summary:
the original poster stupidly claimed that the founding members of the
Stones died "a long time ago" and the Stones suck. I claim the
founding members of the Stones are still alive and do not suck. I also
think "founding member" means "establishing the style at the beginning
of the band and then staying with the band throughout," but that's just
me. Mick and Keith said he should be considered the "Sixth Stone" not
so much for his playing but because they loved him and his musical
sense so much - they played FOR him and considered him the "best
audience and critic" they could have. I'm sorry, but being the chief
audience member does NOT make a person "foundational" to a BAND. And
the one song where he might have gotten a big hit on their middle years
(you may have heard of it, but I doubt it - Tumbling Dice?) was
initially a piece written to feature Ian, but he (once again) copped
out and by the time they recorded it, Nicky was playing keyboards.
He continued to play (when he wanted) with the Stones until 1970-71,
when he backed out for two tours. He became your regular-style studio
musician at that point (Stones still exist, mind you) and played with
Zeppelin and had an unfortunate time with the Who. Then, he formed a
band (STONES STILL EXIST) and I bet I need to tell Chinese what the
name of that one was. Rocket 88. Rocket 88 didn't do so well. Of
course, being in two bands at once isn't a bad thing - and I wouldn't
say that meant he wasn't a STONE, but I would say it meant he was less
FOUNDATIONAL to the Stones - it seeming that the Stones survived
without him. And that Nicky was given ALL his parts - and NO ONE
SEEMED TO NOTICE or can recount what I just told y'all. In other
words, Ian meandered about, with and without the Stones, and hardly
anyone today can tell you where or when he played without checking
their liner notes. Can you say the same thing about Mick or Keith or
Charlie?
The Stones continue to switch about with keyboard players - which was
my point. NOT that keyboards are UNIMPORTANT to the Stones, but that
STABILITY OF KEYBOARD PLAYERS IS NOT KEY TO THE STONES. Too many
people have played keyboards (check the liners, people).
Ian was still working with the Stones when he died, and had just played
keyboards, again, on a song of his choosing when he had his heart
attack. When Keith says, "Stu started it," at the induction ceremony,
read the sentence before. "SOME of the things, Stu started," says
Keith. "Stu started it, and I'll finish it." Keith is referring to
the fact that he takes the blues very seriously - so does Mick. If
you've listened to their recent work, you'd see that from a blues point
of view Keith and Mick have progressed immensely in their musicality.
Stu would have been proud. Would Stu have been as good? I don't know.
Chuck is pretty damn good, Stu might have bowed out, knowing it was
best for the Stones.
Keith's talking about the blues influence, anyway. Central to the
Stones - I agree. He doesn't mean the whole shebang.
And as to Let it Bleed - Weatherman chose the one song on that album
that does get driven by Stu. But on the same album, Nicky plays on
Gimmie Shelter, there ARE NO KEYBOARDS on Love in Vain, Country Honk,
Midnight Rambler, or You can't Always Get What you Want. The amazing
Leon Russell is brought in to play alongside NICKY on Live With Me,
Nicky plays solo keyboards on most of the rest - except that the very
specific style of Al Kooper (on piano and organ both) really makes You
Can't Always Get What You Want what it is.
And if YCAGWYW isn't a classic Stones tune, I don't know what is.
So yeah, Stu played on Let It Bleed - one song on that album. If that
means foundational to you - fine with me.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
supplied the keyboard instrument player's roles in their shows and
tours too. People get a mis-impression that he wasn't part of the
group because he wasn't on the album covers or Ed Sullivan's stage, and
the like for TV, etc. But musically speaking, it would be hard to
argue he wasn't part of the group in any music-making sense, and
ultimately, that's the only thing that counts.
-L.I.
weather...@yahoo.com
when they told him he would have to leave the band. Also, I could have
chosen other Stewart songs, but Let it Bleed was a good example of his
keyboard playing. Also, when you talk about foudning members - wasn't
Dick Taylor the original drummer, picked by Brian? I forget and don't
have the books handy,
Chinese Year of Felicity Huffman
again, fuckface, Stephen Davis's book, OLD GODS ALMOST DEAD pg 26.
If you're going to dispute a best selling rock biographer, then you're
just hopelessly clueless.
> ARE NO KEYBOARDS You can't Always Get What you Want.
not only can't you read, but you can't hear, either
Chinese Year of Felicity Huffman
"The fact that Ian Stewart was a founding Stones member is in every
book
that even references the band. For a recent volume, go to "Stoned,"
penned by the band's first manager, Andrew Loog Oldham. There's also
"Nankering With the Rolling Stones," by Mick and Keith's old room mate
James Phelge. Then there's "Old Gods Almost Dead" by Stephen Davis. "
note that no one is citing 'wikipedia' a poor excuse for source
material
Chinese Year of Felicity Huffman
Jinx...@aol.com
I managed the Buddy Guy & Junior Wells Band who opened a lengthy
European tour for the Stones in 1970. I stayed in touch with Stu (and
several others) over the years and visited backstage with them when
they toured in the States.
Ian (actually everyone called him "Stew") loved the driving up-tempo
songs and came on stage to join the band on those numbers.
He was never 'kicked out' of the band at any point.
Now here's something you might not know:
His true passion was golf and he kept his hair cut short and he always
dressed neatly because he prized his membership in a number of
exclusive private golf clubs where he never would have been voted into
membership if he had looked like other members of the band.
He was a lovely man and it upsets me after all these years to see this
group just savage someone that they never knew.
Dick Waterman
Oxford, MS
www.dickwaterman.com
Stephen X. Carter
>He was a lovely man and it upsets me after all these years to see this
>group just savage someone that they never knew.
Spot on.
Thanks.
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Nil
news:1139353169.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> He was a lovely man and it upsets me after all these years to see
> this group just savage someone that they never knew.
Please keep in mind that there is no "this group". The original message
was cross-posted to at least 3 different ones. I expect the really
nasty comments are coming from alt.gossip.celebrities.
Lech Tiezdayen!
trying to deny the true history of the Rolling Stones by diminishing
Stu's role in the band from 1962-1986. I took it upon myself to set the
record straight by enlisting the aid of real Stones aficianados.
Kris Baker
"Nil" <rednoi...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9763C716...@216.196.97.136...
Nastier than yours?
Kris
Nil
news:hqbGf.8838$tb3....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:
> Nastier than yours?
Yes, far nastier.
Everybody knows that nasty comments are the stock and trade of
alt.gossip.celebrities, it's reason for being.
Sjoerd Bakker
<gm...@angelfire.com> wrote:
The Stones still rock with three of them around on Bigger Bang, so
Stewart is not essential. Founding doesn't really count, and I don't
think that he was a founding member.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
Stephen X. Carter
wrote:
>On 7 Feb 2006 07:21:27 -0800, "Chinese Year of Felicity Huffman"
><gm...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey Stones aficianados--there are some morons on the gossip group, one
>>named Kahoutek specifically, that denies that Ian Stewart was a
>>founding member and considered an essential part of the band up until
>>his death in 1986. These morons also deny that he played on many live
>>and in-studio tracks.
>>
>>Help set the record straight for these uneducated morons.
>
>The Stones still rock with three of them around on Bigger Bang, so
>Stewart is not essential.
That's opinion, and you are entiteled to it.
> Founding doesn't really count,
Ditto.
>and I don't think that he was a founding member.
It's impossible to express sufficiently how wrong you are. He responded
to Brian's advert before either Mick or Keith, and (obviously) long
before Charlie and Bill.
Sjoerd Bakker
As I remember what I have read, I can't recall Stewart being mentioned
as a core member in the beginning. I don't think he was. Responding to
an ad says nothing.
wickedgravity
news:1139335189....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Second, of course Ian was there when the Stones were founded. Was he a
> Founder? I don't think so.
Actually Keith has been quoted as saying that the Stones were originally
Stu's band.
Stephen X. Carter
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:11:05 GMT, steve@[127.0.0.1] (Stephen X.
>Carter) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:02:15 +0100, Sjoerd Bakker <sba...@home.nl>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>and I don't think that he was a founding member.
>>
>>It's impossible to express sufficiently how wrong you are. He responded
>>to Brian's advert before either Mick or Keith, and (obviously) long
>>before Charlie and Bill.
>
>As I remember what I have read, I can't recall Stewart being mentioned
>as a core member in the beginning. I don't think he was. Responding to
>an ad says nothing.
You are obviously not very well read on this subject!
Go off and read several - starting with "Stone Alone" (Bill's book), and
then come back here and acknowlege that my version of events is correct.
Sjoerd Bakker
Carter) wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:40:19 +0100, Sjoerd Bakker <sba...@home.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:11:05 GMT, steve@[127.0.0.1] (Stephen X.
>>Carter) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:02:15 +0100, Sjoerd Bakker <sba...@home.nl>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>and I don't think that he was a founding member.
>>>
>>>It's impossible to express sufficiently how wrong you are. He responded
>>>to Brian's advert before either Mick or Keith, and (obviously) long
>>>before Charlie and Bill.
>>
>>As I remember what I have read, I can't recall Stewart being mentioned
>>as a core member in the beginning. I don't think he was. Responding to
>>an ad says nothing.
>
>You are obviously not very well read on this subject!
Reasonably.
>
>Go off and read several - starting with "Stone Alone" (Bill's book), and
>then come back here and acknowlege that my version of events is correct.
I own it and have read it many years ago, and I don't recall Stewart
being portrayed as a core member. The book is not about things like
that anyway, but focuses on trivia.