Here's one for you--arguably, Brian had the greatest musical gift of all of them. He could play damn near anything--and get good at it--but his soul wasn't up to it. He was like Kurt Cobain--he couldn't deal with his own talent. These are the guys who are truly sad, but they were doomed from day one of fame--nothing could be done to save them.

The great thing in music is that you can play 100 instruments at the speed of light, but still have no recognition or commercial succes at all. Only if you can write songs that people can relate too in whatever way, or you can convey music written by others in a terrific way (Elvis, Sinatra), then you will be succesful.

Mathijs

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> He was like Kurt Cobain

Well they had the same hair (Brian shampood it a little more often tho)

And they shared the love for mind-altering drugs, both resulting in their deaths.

Mathijs

Both were pisces! I think Brian was too sensitive for Mick and Keith. He was not a tough guy when it came to being thrown out of your own band.

Hmm, do I take it that you didn't like Brian, Mathijs? Why? Was he not a true Rolling Stone? Damn--he was the original Rolling Stone, and the one with the most raw talent.

Brian INVENTED THE DAMN STONES...He and Stu were the guts of the band..They TAUGHT MICK AND KEITH THE BLUES.

JR

No, I don't like Brian Jones. He was an average musician distrecting the Stones with all that flute-mockery (the Stones beacme out of this world good the moment Jones past out in 1968), I don't like his attitude on stage (only an eye for the camera) and -from the stories from people who knew him- I sure would have hated the guy. Mind, this is a perspective from somebody who's born five years after his death. For the first two years Brian Jones was THE face of the Stones, adored by millions. But looking from the year 2005 into the 60's: I just don't see it in him. The only good thing he did was to bring Mick, Keith, Charlie and Bill together. Oh, and he was a brilliant harmonica player.

Mathijs

oh..mathijs...your tough.. but thank god for brian.. there would have never been the rolling stones without him... no one would have even put them on tv without brian's good looks..remember they wanted to replace jagger because of his looks..
he taught keef to play guitar and mick harmonica..he pushed the stones to become bigger than they would have been if it was up to mick/keith. mick in the early years was still in college and keith didn't care. he added to the total sound of the stones. you would never get the same excitment from many of their great songs like, money, mona, honest i do,i can't be satisfied,its all over now to last time.. brian also allowed the stones to move past their basis blues songs to the gems that made the stones like, play with fire,she said yeah,mothers lil helper,paint it black, sittin on a fence, under my thumb.. or just listen to the albums, flowers, between the buttons and aftermath.. god those albums would have sucked without brian..
anyway..brian was great on stage...he gave a sort of flair the others didn't have at the time.he was a star! the girls loved him.. again i don't think the stones could have made it without him.. no one would have even looked twice at mick...sadly they say that brian was a dick.. and later a lot of people hated him. but again we wouldn't even be talking without brian being the 1st rolling stones.. plus he taught the stars of the sixties to dress, and they coined the old saying after him "sex,drugs and rock n roll"... jimmy h. j.joplan., dylan and even the beatles looked up to him..i think in many ways brian was the biggest star of the early sixties...

I like Brian & he contributed a lot to - had they broken up in 1969 - what would still be one of the 2 or 3 best bodies of work in rock & roll. By '65 they were already considered the #2 group in the world & changed the fundamental thinking about making records of old pros like Jack Nitzsche. I don't think drugs killed Brian - he clearly had psychological problems that the drugs exacerbated & magnified until he was bareful or non-fuctional - according to some he was doing much better when he left the Stones in terms of drug intake, & sense of hopefulness about the future. So I disagree that he simply 'got the RS together'. All his harpsichord/recorder/keyboard/sitar/synth/etc playing was just as integral to the band circa '65-68 as Mick Taylor's blues/rock melodicism is to the 1969 - 74 era, & as Mathijs mentioned B's harmonica was terrific & distinct from Mick's. "I like Brian" doesnt mean he wasnt a very difficult person, alternately charming & abusive, consumed by his own torment, unreliable, etc - I'm talking about his musical (& iconic) contributions, & secondarily his dandy-ism/fashion sense/gender-bender influence on the 60s & beyond - A friend of mine who's 55 & saw them in '65-66 has always mentioned how culturally 'threatening' the Stones' projected sexuality was in the 60s, & how different from the one dimensional machismo of Arrowsmith & their ilk, & Brian certainly along with Mick contributed to that.

Brian didn't "teach Mick and Keith the blues." They pretty much had the Stones template in place with Little Boy Blue & the Blue Boys before they even met Brian.

hi t, if you remember mick/keef wern't going anywhere with that till they met brian. b.j. was far smarter (street smarts) than mick/keef. he took them to the next level,the rolling stones. yes mick/keef loved the blues but brian taught mick to play the harp and helped keith become a much better guitar player. mick was still in school and was only doing it on the side whereas brian was trying to do it full time. he was in fact their 1st manager...

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stones without him... no one would have even put
> them on tv without brian's good looks..
> he taught keef to play guitar and mick
> harmonica..
> you would never get the
> same excitment from many of their great songs
> like, money, mona, honest i do,i can't be
> satisfied,its all over now to last time..

Agree completely, he was a key factor from 1963 until early 1965, but then things went wrong. But even in the period he was a key factor, I just don't see WHY. It's hard fro me to look at Brian now and imagine him as one of the biggest idols of his time. It's a bit the same as I don't undertand why any girl would start screaming when she sees Paul McCartney in 1963...

> also allowed the stones to move past their basis
> blues songs to the gems that made the stones like,
> play with fire,she said yeah,mothers lil
> helper,paint it black, sittin on a fence, under my
> thumb..

Here I completely disagree: all these songs are shear examples of the Stones moving away from Brian, and especially Mick and Keith finding there own way. Play with Fire and MLH are true Jager songs, where he is making his first attempts to write Dylan like poetry. Sitting on a Fence is a true Keith song, where he starts to play outside of the blues idiom, namely country/bluegrass. Under My Thumb saw Jagger as the sex symbol, and not Brian anymore. The fact that Mick and Keith could write these kind of songs and Brian couldn't meant the start of the end of Brian as a Stone.

Mathijs

or just listen to the albums, flowers,
> between the buttons and aftermath.. god those
> albums would have sucked without brian..
> anyway..brian was great on stage...he gave a sort
> of flair the others didn't have at the time.he was
> a star! the girls loved him.. again i don't think
> the stones could have made it without him.. no one
> would have even looked twice at mick...sadly they
> say that brian was a dick.. and later a lot of
> people hated him. but again we wouldn't even be
> talking without brian being the 1st rolling
> stones.. plus he taught the stars of the sixties
> to dress, and they coined the old saying after him
> "sex,drugs and rock n roll"... jimmy h. j.joplan.,
> dylan and even the beatles looked up to him..i
> think in many ways brian was the biggest star of
> the early sixties...

hi big m.
i can't agree on the songs...
without brian's sitar mlh and paint it black would be just good tunes.
without brian on mellotron, sittin on a fence would just be ok. or under my thumb or lady jane would be cute little tunes that would have been foregotton in a year. brian added to the total sound that made the rolling stones the best band of all time. yes he didn't write the above songs. but without his musical genius with every instrument he played, the harmonica,sitar, flute, bongo's,piano, bass guitar, mellotron,organ,trombone, sax,marimba, dulcimer, harpsichord and even the kazoo & banjo.without them the songs would be just cute little pop tunes. he helped make them into what they are today.. in fact i truely believe that if it wasn't for brian the rolling stones would be still playing in small clubs in england like john mayall, mick taylor, etc.
brian made them. made them equals of any other band including the beatles of their time. he also kept mick and keef to their blues roots with the release of beggars, which was done in 1968.. sadly the stones wouldn't have continued as a band if mick and keith weren't smart enough to get rid of brian. brian made the rolling stones but the rest learned and moved ahead and became even better. that's what i love about the band.. they weren't stuck in the sixties and they could still involve into different music but still staying close to their roots!

hot stuff Wrote:
> without brian's sitar mlh

That's no sitar, that's an electric 12-string played with a slide.

> without brian on mellotron, sittin on a fence
> would just be ok.

Mellotron? I hear 2 acoustic guitars and a harpsichord.

>or under my thumb or lady jane
> would be cute little tunes that would have been
> foregotton in a year. brian added to the total
> sound that made the rolling stones the best band
> of all time. yes he didn't write the above songs.
> but without his musical genius with every
> instrument he played, the harmonica,sitar, flute,
> bongo's,piano, bass guitar,
> mellotron,organ,trombone, sax,marimba, dulcimer,
> harpsichord and even the kazoo & banjo.

Well, here I totally disagree. All these instruments just distracted the Stones for 3 years until Brian was kicked out of the band and Mick and Keith could work on Beggars (Jones was hardly involved in that album). The genius of the Stones music is the songs written by Mick and Keith, nothing more and nothing less. All these exotic instruments are certainly sometimes the pie's cherry, but in average it's just a complete distraction. Even with Taylor: he is a great guitar player, but truly ANY lead guitar player would have achieved legendary status if you play with Jagger and Richards, backed by Watts and Wyman in 1972. Taylor didn't make the Stones in 1972, the Stones let Taylor shine.

Mathijs

Mathijs,
The last part of what you wrote is great, I wouldn't expect that coming from you and some of the things you have written.

HI BIG M.,
this is fun.. the book the rolling stones by martin elliott, said that brian plays
on mlh, "exploring different musical sounds and this track featured his current favourite instrument, the indian sitar." and on sittin on a fence, (i love this track) he says " the prominent instruments are a classical sounding guitar and the background sound of brian jones mellotron."
again, they would never have been hits without brian,. just look at the songs of the same time.. they all copied brian...the beatles wanted him for their band as well! plus a lot of people claim that brian should have been given credit for much of the early stones work.. like, ruby tuesday, etc.. brian did more than just add a note or 2 on a flute.. look at 2000 light years, gly johns stated that brian playing on the mellotron and strings saved the track from anonymity.
look at the rest of tsmr. on gomper, he is that song... elliott says, "brian jones had reached a difficult phase. having escalated the stones to the current pitch by his contribution on various instruments and also unintentionally furthering the far-out public image by his acid trips with jimi hendrix and company, he now felt enough was enough. he did not like the move away from the blues." with brian's talents he elevated mick and keef songs to another level..
thats a fact! with brian in the early years he also elevated the stones image as the bad boys of rock ...mick and brian were the face of the rolling stones from 1962 to 1968... that is a fact.. if that wasn't true why then did they offer brian such a nice settlement to leave the rolling stones?and the money is said to still being paid to brian's estate.
the fact is this, many of the early stones hits would have been lost to anonymity with out brian... and the stones themselves would have been lost to anonymity without brian..god just look at the bands 1st name..without brian, the embarrassing band name of little boy blue and the blue boy.. wow that would have given mick and keef a great bad boy image...ha! anyway i think the stones are great because of mick, keef, brian, charlie and bill.. they needed each other to become the stones!

Brian plays harpshichord on Fence - I always thought MLH (& read it too) had B on sitar, - if not, as Mathijs says, what he does add gives the song a sense of menace & foreboding. I disagree these contributions are merely decorative, & they certainly contradict the assumption B was some sort of blues purist. I think it's important to try to find a way into other historical contexts to understand why someone's important, etc. Another musical example is Louis Armstrong's Hot 5s & 7s - without reading a lot about early jazz, hearing other music of that era (1925-27) you just cant tell how revolutionary they are. Brian also added that mid-eastern/north african influence to "We Love You" (mellotron) which is very powerful. I recommend Robert Palmer's book on the Stones' music (esp Brian's contributions) - it was acc to RP rushed to deadline, & has some errors & it feels rushed during the last 40 pages or so, but he was a musicologist/musician/writer & that's (the music) his emphasis.

hot stuff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> look at 2000 light years, gly johns
> stated that brian playing on the mellotron and
> strings saved the track from anonymity.
> look at the rest of tsmr. on gomper, he is that
> song... elliott says, "brian jones had reached a

Well, this is what I like to piont out: Between the Buttons and Their Satanic are mediocre albums, far and far away of any of the great Stones albums. If the Stones released one more mediocre album after Their Satanic they would have disapeared just like 100's of other 60's bands. Instead, they did shed off all the ballast, and returned to form with Beggars. I will again say, until 1965 Brian was a force behind the Stones, but then he lost it, mainly due to the stress and drugs. Yes, he still did some great things on some numbers: flute on Ruby Tuesday, marimba on Under My Thumb etc., but that's icing on the cake. These songs, written by Mick and Keith would have been great no matter how they finally ended up on the album.


> i think the
> stones are great because of mick, keef, brian,
> charlie and bill..

well, in my book you need Charlie, Keith, Bill and Mick (in that order) to be the greatest band in the world. Take one out, and the magic is gone. Jones, Taylor and Wood are all replaceble.

But we agree to disagree I guess on this subject, which is o.k. I am just not a big fan of Brian Jones!

mathijs
Mathijs

Off-topic Mathijs, but while you are here....

please remind me of your website's address.

Woof.

Brian's use of exotic instruments was just a distraction? Mick and Keith were the only geniuses in the Stones? Mathijs, that is so far from the truth! Brian's sense of curiosity and experimentation helped the Stones change with the times during the mid-60's and keep up with their arch-rivals, the Beatles. The Stones were allowed to remain in the rock vanguard because of Brian's unique abilities as a musician. As other posters have said on this thread, the Stones' pop hits during that time would have only been middling numbers without BJ's involvement. I also disagree with your assertion that Mick and Keith were the true geniuses behind the music. Both Brian and MT were as important as them and should have also been credited as songwriters for a majority of the songs. Under My thumb, Ruby Tuesday without Brian? Sway, Moonlight Mile without MT? Inconcievable! What have the geniuses Mick and Keith done since MT's departure in 1974? The derivative Some Girls, Tatoo You, etc. are certainly not considered IMPORTANT in the annals of rock history. Thus, I would say that history itself DISPROVES your theory that Mick and Keith were lone geniuses of the Stones . . .

neptune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> songs. Under My thumb, Ruby Tuesday without
> Brian? Sway, Moonlight Mile without MT?
> Inconcievable! What have the geniuses Mick and

I will say it again: you can play whatever beautiful and genius part on a song, as long as YOU don't come up with the melody your not an integral part of the band and of the writing team, hence not THAT important. Take Ruby Tuesday: it is generally regarded as a song written by Keith. I am absolutely sure that Keith came up with the entire melodoy and structure of the song. Brian plays some nice (though amateuristic) flute on it, but he is playing a melody written by Keith. Another example: there's a great trombone solo in The Long and Winding Road by the Beatles. Is the trombone player a genius? No, he plays a part written by McCartney on the piano, and there's some great footage of Mccartney singing the solo for the trombone player, who then reproduces it.

I would have to say that Taylor's contribution to the Stones is greater than Brian's: at least Taylor co-wrote some songs, like Moonlight Mile.

Mathijs

Mathijs, your sureness amazes me. But I'd like to know where do you base the following claim:

"it is generally regarded as a song written by Keith"


Where? Which source? Who? or does "Generally regarded" a shorthand for "my humble opinion that I think should be true". Because what I've READ there are people out there who claim that the melody really was Brian's achievement (or both his and Keith's) and that he was really hurt when he saw the actual credition in the disc for "Jagger/Richards".

Why all this this matter? Because truth matters, sic. For years I thought exactly like Mathijs for the importance and role of Brian, but what I've discovered in the last few years has made me to reconsider and also appreciate his contribution to the Stones. Most of what I earlier thought of Brian is based on the opinions and remarks of him from his old band mates (maybe we should need some Freud to explain why to insult and mock a person that has been dead for 35 years and can not defend himself. Yes, mr. Richards, I mean you)

I also sense a kind of hypocricy among the Stones FANS in regards to Brian. When we are discussing about Brian, his problems with drugs, with his ego, his violent behavior,etc. are always put in the agenda and talked in terms of negativity - all that works against him, and are the reason he is disliked. But jeezus christ, all this moralizing in the context of a band that has gave the definitive meaning to the phrase "sex, drugs, and rock and roll". Sometimes it looks like that he was too much "Rolling Stone" - and it wolud take a decade or two for the others to reach his level; and the guy who was a junkie for a decade and lost his creative spark in the process is consired a hero.

Finally, why truth really matters, is that I feel that is an act of justice to recognize the importance of the guy who (and whose contributions) has been systematically neglected for decades. Or otherwise do we really like to live in a fantasy world created by stories from authorative books like "According to the Rolling Stones" - a nice book of historical revisonism. Sure it might be difficult to "see" - as Mathijs nicely puts it - why some Brian Jones or Paul McCartney were so loved figures for teenage girls (aren't their opinion next to nothing?) some forty years (sooo loong) ago, but fact is that they really were huge idols then, does Mathijs understand that or not.. I also think that it is sometimes very instructive, or at least funny. to think the history of the Rolling Stones not only as a story of two creative geniouses. Well, that sort of revionism has started among us hardcore Stones fans in the form of Mick Taylor. Perhaps there will be the time to reconsider the importance of Brian and the nature of Stones before 1969.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-22 15:23 by Rorty.

Rorty,

Ruby Tuesday is written by Keith. He first called it Title 8 (working title). He got the inspiration from a girl on the cover of some magazine (I think it was town & country). He thought she looked so said and pretty at the same time. It's well documented in some books.

sad and pretty

Good post Rorty! I agree 100%. Mathijs, according to my sources and what I have heard and read, it is 'generally regarded' that Keith wrote the words and Brian the music for RT (thus it should have been credited to Richards/Jones). I guess we must be reading different books! For you to also compare a side musician who plays a small part in a Beatles track with Brian's contributions to Stones music is terribly misleading. Unlike the session players used by the Beatles (aside from tracks like 'Yesterday' or 'Got To Get You Into My Life'), the parts played by Brian usually MADE the song. Session musicians usually lack the most important quality which Brian certainly possesed in crafting a song: FEEL. Brian made those songs his own, making hits like Paint It, Black, Lady Jane, The Last Time, 2000 Light Years, No Expectations etc. all the more charming and special. I also don't believe that Mick and Keith wrote those parts for Brian. That's nonsense! Brian created those melodies. Let's not forget that BJ was a trained musician who could READ music, something the Glimmer Twins could not do. Let's also not forget that Jones formed the band and guided it in the beginning, serving both as manager and producer (which requires a huge amount of imagination). It was his idea that the Stones should blend blues and rock to create an entirely new sound (ie. his blistering rendition of the Beatles 'I Wanna Be Your Man' with an electrifying slide solo serves as the perfect example). He was the one who arranged the music in the early sessions, subsequently teaching Mick how to better play harmonica and Keith blues guitar. Mick and Keith have wanted the world to believe that Brian was just some side bloke who didn't have a creative bone in his body, and it's a shame so many Stones fans still believe that . . .

Mathijs Wrote:

> I will say it again: you can play whatever
> beautiful and genius part on a song, as long as
> YOU don't come up with the melody your not an
> integral part of the band and of the writing team,
> hence not THAT important.


So Charlie is unimportant?




- Koen.

Koen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs Wrote:
>
> > I will say it again: you can play whatever
> > beautiful and genius part on a song, as long
> as
> > YOU don't come up with the melody your not
> an
> > integral part of the band and of the writing
> team,
> > hence not THAT important.
>
>
> So Charlie is unimportant?
>
>
>
>
> - Koen.

Charlie is very important for two reasons: the team Watts/Wyman has this encredible, undefinable swing and groove, they are the true heart of the Stones. Second, a drummer like Charlie Watts makes it possible for Keith to write half the songs he wrote. It's the type of drummer sitting there for 16 hours, just playing allong with whatever idea you throw at him.

The Stones are the summ of four parts, all equally important: the Jagger/Richards song writing skills, the Watts/Wyman engine, Mick Jagger as frontman, and Keith Richards the rythm guitarist. take any of these away, and you don't have no Stones no more. All the rest is nice, but not important. Bobby Keys' sax solo on Brown Sugar is great, but it is not the key factor of the song. If he didn't play this solo, any other saxofonist would have come up with something. Mick Taylor is a great guitarist, but his name is easily exchangeble with any other great blues guitar player of the early 70's (we would have asked ourselves why on earth did Wayne perkins leave in 1974...). Again: Brian is a key player from 1961 until 1965. He formed the band, and he was one of the true fashion icons of the early London 60's, no doubt about that. But as a musician, from 1965 on his role is just of a mere session player.

About Ruby Tuesday: it's one of the songs that Bill Wyman keeps talking about, as he truly is proud on his part of the bowed chello he did with Keith. Wyman writes in both his books that it the song was completely written by Keith. Jagger said in an 1989 interview that he really likes the song and lyrics, "neither which I wrote, it's Keith's song".

Mathijs

Sorry but everbody can hear that Brian made those song, Thumb etc, he out something else into them besides the melody on Paint it black. It was Brian who hated Satanic and wanted to do a real back to basis album. Mick blaims their failures on Brian but that's Mick.

Mathijs Wrote:

> Charlie is very important for two reasons: the
> team Watts/Wyman has this encredible, undefinable
> swing and groove, they are the true heart of the
> Stones. Second, a drummer like Charlie Watts makes
> it possible for Keith to write half the songs he
> wrote. It's the type of drummer sitting there for
> 16 hours, just playing allong with whatever idea
> you throw at him.


Absolutely. No Charlie, no Stones.

- Koen.