HE WAS A FRIEND OF MINE

[Christopher Hall]

John,

Thanks for remembering the line in "Sympathy For The Devil." How could I forget that? Can't agree with that there's anything positive about Hells Angels, however; in my book they're one of the scourges of modern society. Even more dangerous urban gangs like the Bloods and Crips derived much of their nonsensical "code" and behavior from the Hells Angels.

Myra,

I tend to agree with you here. I once worked with a guy, some years ago, who had been a session drummer with some big names in the music industry (but worked primarily with Link Wray). He told me some great behind the scenes stories. One of them was that it was common knowledge in the industry that Mick Jagger had Brian Jones "offed" (his term) because he was basically jealous of him. I like much of the Stones' music (including "Sympathy For The Devil," which is probably my favorite song by them), but found the whole incident at Altamont unsettling. Regardless of how they acted at the time, or whether Mick kept dancing after the guy had been stabbed, they really didn't display any remorse over the loss of life afterwards. Btw, I believe that prior to hitting it big with the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger studied at the London School of Economics. At the very least, that is very interesting.

I concur that there was nothing honorable about the Hells Angels, but they were, nonetheless, a ubiquitous presence in the San Francisco bay area in the late 1960s.

One of the Angels punched Marty Balin, of the Jeffeson Airplane, which I believe caused the Grateful Dead to not perform.

Generally, I think that the Angels and the local rock scene (the Dead, the Jefferson Airplane, Pacific Gas and Electric, Janis Joplin and others which don't come to mind) peacefully co-existed.

The San Francisco scene was a strange potpourri of hippies, rockers, students, the porn scene (think Mitchell Brothers Theater), the Angels, and miscellaneous others who got along rather well in the Summer of Love (1967) and then started to crumble in 1968, when RFK and JFK were assassinated.

I believe that the Golden Gate Park, which was near Haight Ashbury and the place where everyone lived and hung out, got a fairly dangerous in the following year.

Then came the Tate-LaBianca murders in August, 1969, followed by Altamot in December, 1969.

To me, those two events helped trigger a tidal wave of negative feelings that our world was a lot less safe than most people thought.

It was an interesting time in history, to say the least, and I remember all of these major events quite well, even though I was fairly young.

Thanks for taking me back there for a moment or two.

My wife and I recently spent some time in Haight Ashbury and Golden Gate Park, but I suspect that it is now just a shell of its former state.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Christopher Hall

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra, I'm sure there is more to it than what is generally known, and I'm sure (recognise) that you do take care and seriously develop your posts and opinions, and I'm sure much of what you say is true.

Altamont came upon the heels of the remarkable Woodstock. I think a naivetee in the Stones, probably partly of who they were (compared to :John, George, Ringo and what's his name" to paraphrase Jack Cassady) there are elements in The Hells Angels that are/were honourable. There are associations and attitudes that we (many of us) are not fully aware of.

Nevertheless, whatever ones attitude to the artists and their songs, "Symapthy for the devil" is significant (IMO) not only of the words (and its remarkable rhythm and riffs, which is another story, get a copy, turn the light out and the volume right up and see yourself in a concert in 1967, or don't), but the introduction of a seldom discussed concept, that of guilt for something one did not do.

I think this touches on a power struggle in the world between those (most) who are mostly good and cappable of great good, but through inaction are somehow complicit and consequently driven to expunge a guilt of sorts, and organised evil, like those who hold the leashes on the "Dogs of War".. IMO this can be relevant as a driving force behind seeking the answer to the question "Who killed the Kennedys". Mick suggested 'you and me'. Note that 'me' here is Mick himself. That (IMO) is a degree of a responsibility that ultimately we all have in shaping the world we live in.

All of your points make perfect sense to me John. Altamont was supposed to be the Stone's Woodstock. And I'll add that in England, from what I've read, hells angels are more cuddly. Supposedly they don't have the image of an aggressive violent gang over there. So context is very significant.

A lot of my reaction is obviously emotional. And again context is a factor. A mention of Mick Jagger in any context would set me off because of his role in the murder of the extraordinary founder of the Stones (who is now almost erased from history... much like other people we discuss here) while Mick gets to strut at the Superbowl. Then put it in the context of Altamont, in which they basically lured a huge crowd to their stage and dropped a stick of dynamite on 'em, and I get pretty furious.

I think Sympathy for the Devil, in isolation, is a great song. Sympathy for the Devil, in context, is--to me--hypocritical and kinda repulsive.

Thanks for talking through this with me. I want to make sure that you know my disgust is directed at Mick and clan, not you.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Myra,

I tend to agree with you here. I once worked with a guy, some years ago, who had been a session drummer with some big names in the music industry (but worked primarily with Link Wray). He told me some great behind the scenes stories. One of them was that it was common knowledge in the industry that Mick Jagger had Brian Jones "offed" (his term) because he was basically jealous of him. I like much of the Stones' music (including "Sympathy For The Devil," which is probably my favorite song by them), but found the whole incident at Altamont unsettling. Regardless of how they acted at the time, or whether Mick kept dancing after the guy had been stabbed, they really didn't display any remorse over the loss of life afterwards. Btw, I believe that prior to hitting it big with the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger studied at the London School of Economics. At the very least, that is very interesting.

So it's common knowledge in the industry eh Don? Well that's pretty damn interesting.

Hoo boy, and Jagger became successful because of Jones. Jones hired him, Jones mentored him, Jones kept him in the band even though he was not a good singer, and couldn't even sing in time to the music, and at first he wasn't a good performer.

Jones was brilliant and terribly fragile emotionally. He wasn't perfect but he sure as hell didn't deserve the prolonged abuse and harassment Mick and Keith dumped on him. They put him through hell for years and drove him from the band. But that wasn't enough for them; they wanted him dead.

And I agree about their lack of remorse after the Altamont murder. The Gimme Shelter filmmaker showed Keith and Mick the murder footage, in slow motion, on camera, and they basically shrugged. I guess at that point they were desensitized to murder. I hear it gets easier with practice.

Oh, and yes Mick did attend the London School of Economics. He was a proper bloke. Jones was never a proper bloke. He was the kind that just won't shape himself to his environment. Instead he was a creative force who molded a musical environment in which he finally felt at ease. Briefly. Then he became the victim of a coup. And his murderers went on to gain fabulous wealth and status. And it's all pretty revolting.

My favorite Stones songs are the ones in which Jones played the sitar and the flute and many other unusual instruments, and gave the music an ethereal sound. The man could play any instrument he picked up, seemingly within minutes.

[John Dolva]

Myra, I recognise you choose to discuss the subject, not the person you talk with. Being emotional about stuff is a part of me too so all up all's good, as we say in OZ : no worries.

With regards to the Angels. as you allude to there are different chapters, in different countries, and in all of them different individuals. I think the Stones being who they were simply made a stupid choice born of a naivetee (quite possibly drug/booze addled as well) and an unfamiliarity of what they were getting themselves in to.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Anyone seen "Stones in the park" a doc about the Stones 1969 Hyde park gig, just days after Brians death? It stands as a testiment to Jaggers massive ego, clad in what appears to be a girls party frock, Mick reads a poem by Shelly(Adonias I believe) in tribute to his dead "friend" at the end 100,000 butterflies were realised to represent Brians soul, unfortunately, and with more than a touch of pathios, nobody had thought to provide airholes in the boxes which contained the butterflies, and with temperatures reaching 80d, those which had not already expired, could only manage a listless flight, before falling dead to the stage.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Stephen Turner

[Peter McGuire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noswW9LtXGU...ted&search=

Who says the protests were ( only ) against the Vietnam War?

That Ford was not elected because of Watergate?

"As I said , I am sure they will censor it, they can't afford to have things like that on the air"

Words to ponder.

"although I never met him"

"he was friend of mine"

Question: Would the tumultuous 60's ever happend if Kennedy had not been killed?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noswW9LtXGU...ted&search=

"

Question: Would the tumultuous 60's ever happend if Kennedy had not been killed?

Peter, I believe much that was to constitute the "sixties" was well in the brew prior to JFKs assassination. Vietnam was already becoming an unpopular war, with the young in particular(I wonder what a popular war would look like ) The Beatles, and Stones were already hugh in most of Europe, and by the next spring the British invasion would begin in earnest. Bob Dylan was nearly two years into his protest era, along with Biaz, Seeger etc. LSD was already being freely used by Musicians, poets, writers, and even Presidents if you believe some stories. Of course 67, and 68 were still a long way off, but those upheavals were already being predicted by many social comentators....Steve.

[Myra Bronstein]

Anyone seen "Stones in the park" a doc about the Stones 1969 Hyde park gig, just days after Brians death? It stands as a testiment to Jaggers massive ego, clad in what appears to be a girls party frock, Mick reads a poem by Shelly(Adonias I believe) in tribute to his dead "friend" at the end 100,000 butterflies were realised to represent Brians soul, unfortunately, and with more than a touch of pathios, nobody had thought to provide airholes in the boxes which contained the butterflies, and with temperatures reaching 80d, those which had not already expired, could only manage a listless flight, before falling dead to the stage.

I'm familiar with the infamous Hyde park episode Stephen; I didn't know there was a documentary about it though. Thanks. That would be worth seeing. And, yeah, the symbolism was perfect.

Now that I think about it though I'm surprised that Jagger didn't have Stones employee Thoroughgood drown the butterflies instead of suffocating them. Hell, they had that down to a formula. Then Stones employee Keylock could again handle the cover-up and throw acid in the eyes of pesky witnesses to permanently blind and intimidate them so that no one would ever have to know the unsavory truth about the insect massacre.

And I didn't recall that Jagger had on a nancy girl kinda frock. I wonder if he started dressing more flamboyantly after Brian's murder or before? Do you know?

I may have to get those old Ed Sullivan tapes from the library again to check. In every performance I've seen with Jones present, it's obvious that he--not Jagger--was the focal point. Jagger could flounce about and pucker his lips all he wanted but people were looking at the blond bombshell in the purple suit and plumed hat blissfully playing an instrument most people had never seen or heard before. Sitting or standing or whatever, Brian was the star and his mastery of sitar, dulcimer, mellotron, harmonica, flute, guitar... was what gave songs like Dressed in Black and Ruby Tuesday their other-worldly beauty.

It was a classic case of idealism vs commerce. Jones cared mainly about the purity of the music and about innovating. The other Stones just wanted to crank out increasingly mundane and crass music and rake in money as fast as possible. Jones would go to any length and distance--from the US R&B community to the remote mountains of Morocco--to create a fresh sound. Jagger and Richards wanted the fast pound and would go to any lengths for fabulous wealth.

Between the jealousy over Jones' natural star quality (which Dan pointed out) and Jones' objection to the increasing bastardization of his group's music, they were intent on getting rid of him. The misery they put him through, from outright refusal to talk to him to setting him up with planted drugs and drug busts to leaving him stranded and alone in the middle of nowhere while Keith Richards ran off with his girlfriend, was a huge part of Jones' emotional problems and led him to increasingly turn to drugs. Of course that was the excuse the Stones used to dump him--according to them his legal problems meant they couldn't rake in more money by touring. Bullxxxx. Jagger and Richards' legal problems over drugs were just as bad.

So Jagger steals Jones' life, look, and legacy. Much like Lyndon Johnson did with Kennedy. Jagger and Johnson. Does crime pay or what?