IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Name: pluto
E-Mail:
Subject: RE: RE: Several replies in one!
Date: Thursday, August 06, 2015
Time: 1:48:47 PM
Remote Address: 92.28.21.49
Message ID: 296656
Parent ID: 296651
Thread ID: 296626
Mute! Did I say mute?.....you're right, I did!....I of course meant 'moot'....my apologies...I've said it before, and I'll repeat it.... sometimes when I look over what I have written I am appalled at the grammar and spelling etc, the way I randomly sprinkle commas with complete gay abandon horrifies me....personally I blame internet message boards, texting, and americanos for this sad state of affairs....anyway, but yes, much of it is up for debate...for example in this recent article we all started talking about, Richards says that Wyman wasn't there at the formation( btw, I don't think in any way is Richards putting Wyman down in that article). Technically and in a pedantic way Richards may be correct because by the time Wyman turned up for his audition with his big amp, Jones had already given a name to the band, so you could say that at that point the band were formed, that seems to be Richards' position. I would argue however that the band were not formed at that point, not fully, because if they were they wouldn't be holding auditions for a bass player, or if I remember correctly, a drummer also. From my point of view the band was only fully formed when all of whom I would class as original members were in place. Up until that point it was a band being put together. So I am not in agreement with Richards over this, it's arguable.
For me, what I have written above raises another moot point. Many would hold that Jones formed the Rolling Stones, and in this thread DA has pointed to an ad he placed in a jazz mag looking for musicians. I wouldn't dispute that Jones did place that ad, and possibly Stewart or somebody replied to it, and I certainly wouldn't dispute that Jones gave the band under construction a name, albeit that over a period of time it changed slightly. However, the way I look at it is; (check out the semi colon)....Jones had ideas for a band, and was actively looking to put one together. Jagger, Richards and Stewart had similar ambitions, and had been,along with some others, making a noise in the Jagger's sitting room. These guys (Jones and the rest) all had the same idea, and were hanging about the same scene in pursuit of that. Given what I said above about the band only being in the process of being put together at the time of Wyman's audition, it seems to me that regardless of who placed an ad or who gave name to the emerging band, Jagger, Richards and Stewart were every bit as involved and important in the founding of the Rolling Stones as Jones.I have often wondered what would have become of the band if Jones' number one choice for a singer i.e. Paul Jones(Pond)had joined?
So for me, the Rolling Stones were only formed when Jones, Richards, Wyman, Jagger and Watts were in place, they are the founding members along with Stewart. Stewart's position is again debatable in a number of ways, as are Richard's latest utterances. I think semantics may be the key to interpreting that one. I would like to think that it was a Scot who founded the Rolling Stones, and it's almost believable because as you know, it was Scots who gave to the World anything that is worthwhile or useful ( What, you don't believe me? Ask LYL, he knows).
Almost every aspect of Jones' time with the Stones and beyond is moot, even the circumstances of his death.
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2022 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.