VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:27:00 04/18/03 Fri
Author: Robert Weingartner
Subject: Re: Brian Movie
In reply to: me 's message, "Brian Movie" on 21:05:15 04/13/03 Sun

Supposedly Brian was cleaning up his act when he died but now he is a cocaine and heroin addict. Another things I want to point out. This guy Steve Wooley is claiming that when the movie comes out it will force the Police to re-open the case based on the ‘evidence’, which he has uncovered. Why doesn't he bring this 'evidence' to the Police now rather than wait for the movie to come out? Let me speculate for a moment. Maybe because if he brings it to the Police now and they don't find anything the movie will be laughed at when it’s released. By waiting for the movie to come out it will draw more attention to the film and people will want to see it to find out why the Police are currently looking into it.

About the £100,000 payment Brian was supposedly getting. Has this ever been confirmed by a reliable source as being true? It seems to me that writers are just copying each other. Bill Wyman who kept meticulous records in his book Stone Alone doesn’t mention anything about this money but yet he constantly mentions money throughout his whole book. How much their contracts were for; how much Mick and Marianne spent on a chandelier; but no £100,000 payment to Brian. Bill also mentions in his book that by 1968, the band was already starting to feel the financial pinch from Klein. They were constantly sending wires to Klein’s office in New York demanding money to pay bills. If this is true than where the hell were they supposed to be getting £100,000? I just think it is an interesting point. The point I am trying to make is, maybe this figure isn't true to begin with. No one knows if this alleged agreement between Brian and the Stones was a verbal or written. The conspiracy theorists will just say Bill doesn’t mention the payment to Brian in his book because he is trying to hide it so no one will figure out he was rubbed out for this.

Like you said Diane, the only reason why Mick and Keith get all the blame is because what started as Brian’s band eventually became their band when they progressed into songwriters. Most of the time, the songwriters are the ones who are the focus of attention in a band. Who are the two most famous Beatles? John and Paul, or should I say Lennon/McCartney. And if it isn’t the songwriters it is the lead singer, which Mick happened to be a part of both. Stealing the band? What people see as ‘stealing’ I see as a natural progression of how the Stones were evolving as a group. Unfortunately, Brian didn’t seem to have the natural gift for writing pop songs the way Mick and Keith did; his talent was more in music.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.