What a great photo! he certainly was a Rolling stone, (the poll answered that)  it was Andrew Oldham that thought he wouldn't fit in image wise, & that 6 members are to many to remember, going by Keith's '71 Rolling Stone interview, but this is a great picture.

A great pic, although the angle makes him look huge compared to the rest of 'em!

back then they were still very much wet behind the ears but showed occasional flashes of brilliance and glimpses of the mega-million stadium superstars that they would eventually become....

as evidenced in the musical note stage backdrop design that Mick and Charlie spent weeks creating for the show

http://rocksoff.org/h3-stones1963bydezo.JPG
Marquee Jazz Club, London – January 24, 1963
© Dezo Hoffmann

Heart Of Stone wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 10:52am:

What a great photo! he certainly was a Rolling stone, (the poll answered that)  it was Andrew Oldham that thought he wouldn't fit in image wise, & that 6 members are to many to remember, going by Keith's '71 Rolling Stone interview, but this is a great picture.

I asked Andrew Loog Oldham why he fired Stu, this was his answer word-by-word!

“Gerardo, I did not fire Stu, that was not within my power to do. I just told the Stones that I did not think the English public, because that's all we were dealing with at the time, were capable of being sold an image factor that contained six people. If the band had said, "Andrew, you can't do that" then Stu would have stayed in the band. This would have made a great difference as to what their future would have been and raises the question of whether you'd have been writing me a letter today on any issue on the Stones, had Stu stayed.

"I don't know but I was right at the time. How do I feel as a man in his mid-fifties with knowledge now about decisions that cause pain to others? Obviously different, but we were teenagers or in our early twenties, well, all except Bill, and at that age youth is invincible and does not know the meaning of hurt, except in matters of the teenage heart. It remains a good decision. If you saw a member of Supertramp or Los Lobos down on the corner I doubt you'd recognise more than one or two members. Life's got a short attention span when you work from nine to five and need to be entertained. Pop music is not a memory test, it's an escape and an entertainment. Over the years the Stones have got away with "Andrew fired Stu" - life is not as simple as they'd like that statement to be."

I think also one has to look at what the scene was like in '64 as far as groups goes, Stu wouldn't fit in with the image, he'd look like a 50's rocker with 5 long hair guys, today it wouldn't matter, but back then it mattered big time, the image was as big as the music was, the Stones bad boy image was what stood out for The Stones compared to the other groups, they got their names in the newspapers because of it, & the general public recognized them right away.
The only group, I know of back then, that had 6 members was Sounds Incorporated, they were a instrumental sax band, 5 members was the most any group had.

i always love the oldie photos.  everytime i think i've seen them all....something new pops up.  

:interestingstuffronnie