keep it simple.

of course

Yes. He was the second Stone. Brian was the first. He hired the rest.

Simple.  :)

Is... is this a trick question? Of course Stu was a Rolling Stone... whether he liked it or not! Where would that band be without Ian Stewart?

Child of the Moon wrote on Apr 17^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:

Is... is this a trick question? ?

No.

sure he contributed some great stuff...but i am going to say no.

to me...there are only four rolling stones members and they are

mick jagger
keith richards
charlie watts
and
ron wood


:willya

this is a good poll.

wrote on Apr 17^th, 2008 at 7:19pm:

sure he contributed some great stuff...but i am going to say no. to me...there are only four rolling stones members and they are mick jagger keith richards charlie watts and ron wood :willya

Well, yeah, those are the Stones today. But you can't change history!!! There wouldn't have been any Rolling Stones if Brian hadn't brought them all together. And Stu was a Stone before anyone else BUT Brian.

End of Thread !


Sioux wrote on Apr 17^th, 2008 at 12:19pm:

Yes. He was the second Stone. Brian was the first. He hired the rest. Simple.  :)

Sioux wrote on Apr 17^th, 2008 at 10:26pm:

wrote on Apr 17th, 2008 at 7:19pm: sure he contributed some great stuff...but i am going to say no. to me...there are only four rolling stones members and they are mick jagger keith richards charlie watts and ron wood :willya Well, yeah, those are the Stones today. But you can't change history!!! There wouldn't have been any Rolling Stones if Brian hadn't brought them all together. And Stu was a Stone before anyone else BUT Brian.

Right on! it depends on what age one is, if somebody, like myself, grew up in the 60's, & was a insane Rolling Stones fan, I remember that period, but if one is like 16 Yrs. old, I imagine The Stones of this decade is your favorite time in their career.

---

Yes.

Nahhh.


Ian Billen, now that's a Rolling Stone!

wrote on Apr 17^th, 2008 at 7:19pm:

sure he contributed some great stuff...but i am going to say no. to me...there are only four rolling stones members and they are mick jagger keith richards charlie watts and ron wood :willya

Sadly, most people think like that. The last member change was Bill and he left the buildng almost 20 years ago!

I sure don't want to sound like an elitest asshole here, but I can't help myself this time. Anyone that does not consider Stu a Stone dosen't know too much about the history of the band. He was a Stone. He is a Stone. He will always be a Stone!! Period. End of story! You want to ask if Stu was a Stone?! Ask Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie, and Bill. They would laugh in your face for such a petulant question. Of course Ian Stewart is a Rolling fucking Stone! Geeesh!



Riffy

Riffhard wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 10:10pm:

I sure don't want to sound like an elitest asshole here, but I can't help myself this time. Anyone that does not consider Stu a Stone dosen't know too much about the history of the band. He was a Stone. He is a Stone. He will always be a Stone!! Period. End of story! You want to ask if Stu was a Stone?! Ask Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie, and Bill. They would laugh in your face for such a petulant question. Of course Ian Stewart is a Rolling fucking Stone! Geeesh! Riffy

If you're going to be an asshole, be the best... lol!
I agree, Stu is a Stone... I've known this I first found out who he was when I began reading books on The Stones as a young teen. It blows he died so young. I truly beleive the band would be much better today with him still around!

are you people saying he played the piano back in the early '60's when the group was just forming?
if so...that i did not know.  he did play the piano...right?

[laughs]

:keithpunky

:charliesgoodtonite

wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 10:05am:

are you people saying he played the piano back in the early '60's when the group was just forming? if so...that i did not know.  he did play the piano...right? [laughs] :keithpunky :charliesgoodtonite

http://www.rocksoff.org/ian.htm

TenThousandMotels wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 10:09am:

wrote on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:05am: are you people saying he played the piano back in the early '60's when the group was just forming? if so...that i did not know.  he did play the piano...right? [laughs] :keithpunky :charliesgoodtonite http://www.rocksoff.org/ian.htm

i had no idea.

i always just associate the stones with the familuar faces.  i would think bobby keys would be a full fledged member by now,  but he ain't....is he?

I know what you mean -- I listened to the Stones for years [but didn't read up about them] and had no clue about Stu.  It was a shock learning about him and sad to think how few outside the Stones nation know he even existed!  

zooeyglass wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 10:27am:

I know what you mean -- I listened to the Stones for years [but didn't read up about them] and had no clue about Stu.  It was a shock learning about him and sad to think how few outside the Stones nation know he even existed!

i definitly heard his name and i was pretty sure he played the piano but i did not know he was with the band at the beginning.  i saw his face in pictures when the popular 80's tour thing was going on and that is how i visualize him.
now i am wondering if i should think of him as an origional stone......

Hell yeah you should!  He was the first to respond to Brian's ad so he really was there from the get go and the main reason he didn't remain an official Stone was because Andrew Loog Oldham didn't think he fit the image of the Stones and 6 members were too many for fans to keep track of.  Of course, none of the other Stones protested the decision, allowing it to happen, but he still recorded with them and played in concert from the beginning.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd25/zglass/Crawdaddy%20Club/RichmondStationHotel1963.jpg

zooeyglass wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

Hell yeah you should!  He was the first to respond to Brian's ad so he really was there from the get go and the main reason he didn't remain an official Stone was because Andrew Loog Oldham didn't think he fit the image of the Stones and 6 members were too many for fans to keep track of.  Of course, none of the other Stones protested the decision, allowing it to happen, but he still recorded with them and played in concert from the beginning.

I asked ANdrew about it and he answered me the following

“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."



Andrew Loog Oldham June 2001

Sioux wrote on Apr 17^th, 2008 at 12:19pm:

Yes. He was the second Stone. Brian was the first. He hired the rest. Simple.  :)

I still stand by my statement.  :)

Thanks for posting that letter from Andrew, Voodoo. Interesting to see what his perspective was at the time---and now.

Voodoo Chile in Wonderland wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 11:00am:

zooeyglass wrote on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:39am: Hell yeah you should!  He was the first to respond to Brian's ad so he really was there from the get go and the main reason he didn't remain an official Stone was because Andrew Loog Oldham didn't think he fit the image of the Stones and 6 members were too many for fans to keep track of.  Of course, none of the other Stones protested the decision, allowing it to happen, but he still recorded with them and played in concert from the beginning. I asked ANdrew about it and he answered me the following “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." Andrew Loog Oldham June 2001

Thanks for sharing this Voodoo!  I agree -- the Stones were ultimately responsible for the Stu decision.

wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

TenThousandMotels wrote on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:09am: wrote on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:05am: are you people saying he played the piano back in the early '60's when the group was just forming? if so...that i did not know.  he did play the piano...right? [laughs] :keithpunky :charliesgoodtonite http://www.rocksoff.org/ian.htm i had no idea. i always just associate the stones with the familuar faces.  i would think bobby keys would be a full fledged member by now,  but he ain't....is he?

>:( hardly a comparison between an occasional hired hand and someone who was in the band BEFORE Mick, Keith or Charlie

hey, while we're on the subject of making someone a Stone because theyre a familar face, we may as well bring in Blondie Chaplin....

Riffhard wrote on Apr 18^th, 2008 at 10:10pm:

I sure don't want to sound like an elitest asshole here, but I can't help myself this time. Anyone that does not consider Stu a Stone dosen't know too much about the history of the band. He was a Stone. He is a Stone. He will always be a Stone!! Period. End of story! You want to ask if Stu was a Stone?! Ask Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie, and Bill. They would laugh in your face for such a petulant question. Of course Ian Stewart is a Rolling fucking Stone! Geeesh! Riffy

Exactly. Feck me, how difficult is it by now to figure out who is/was a band member and who's a hired musician?

:(

Gazza wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 1:03pm:

wrote on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:23am: TenThousandMotels wrote on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:09am: wrote on Apr 19th, 2008 at 10:05am: are you people saying he played the piano back in the early '60's when the group was just forming? if so...that i did not know.  he did play the piano...right? [laughs] :keithpunky :charliesgoodtonite http://www.rocksoff.org/ian.htm i had no idea. i always just associate the stones with the familuar faces.  i would think bobby keys would be a full fledged member by now,  but he ain't....is he? >:( hardly a comparison between an occasional hired hand and someone who was in the band BEFORE Mick, Keith or Charlie hey, while we're on the subject of making someone a Stone because theyre a familar face, we may as well bring in Blondie Chaplin....

i tell you what

that blondie guy makes no freaking difference in the band as far as i can tell.  the stones are better off bringing that 2nd back up chick singer they had during the steel wheels tour.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

:booze

Don't dis Blondie.
if the Stones didn't want him there he wouldn't be.

TenThousandMotels wrote on Apr 19^th, 2008 at 6:01pm:

Don't dis Blondie. if the Stones didn't want him there he wouldn't be.

i ain't intentionally dissing the guy but i cannot hear his contribution to the band...its just that i can't pick out his instrument/voice during a show.
i am sure he is a talanted musician in his own right.


everybody say ow

:keithpunky