Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa

Quote
kleermaker
[

"The simple truth is, as Mathijs rightly pointed out, that we don't hear very much of all Brian's skills and talents on the Stones records of his time. We also don't know that much about his influence on the Stones' music either. His adding of some uncommon instruments certainly has had its effect, but I'm not tended to overrate his musical influence."

Well, doesn't my statement sound moderate to you too?

Yeah it sounds more moderate and even obvious. But I don't get the point of "don't know that much about his influence in the Stones' music". What that supposed to mean? How much more we know about the contributuon of, say, Mick Taylor to the Stones music? I don't think any much better.

There is one song where Taylor is credited in song-writing. In fact, Brian Jones is credited much more: every song there says Nanker-Phelge he is credited. Then there are some guitar and bass parts Taylor has played, but for example, if we compare the actual recordings of Mick Taylor to Brian Jones's one, he has not much more room in EXILE ON MAIN STREET than Brian Jones had in another Jagger-Richards masterpiece BEGGARS BANQUET. What Taylor he is basically doing is just icing great Jagger-Richards songs as any session player would do (and never having such a visible role and importance Brian Jones had - there is no equivalent of AFTERMATH for Taylor). Like Keith Richards, the musical heart of The Rolling Stones, says "Mick Taylor is a fine guitarist but there is no use of him in studio". Or like Mick Jagger, a head of the Rolling Stones, says "Mick Taylor is a fine guitarist, but changing few bars would not make you a composer". Listening to those albums where Taylor plays one can only but agree with Keith and Mick. Like Mathijs has described the situation nicely: take any great British blues guitar hero of the time, and all those golden era albums would sound about the same they do with Taylor. Mick Taylor was a hired gun who did his post nicely. Like they say, "Play that guitar, boy"...

To add: my provocative point of view is based solely on the factual evidence: what says in credits, and what we know who plays what on each record. All the rest is just interpreation, speculation and myths. That much is as much as we 'know' for sure.

- Doxa

I get your point, you provo. (Now you have to find out what a provo actually is or was, I'm curious if you're going to know that!).

Well, I've replied to those statements of Mathijs before, in another post. So I won't repeat it. Look at my posts and you will find it easily. It answers all the questions you've put up here.

As for Jagger's and Richards' statements about Mick T., it doesn't require much psychological insight to understand that the opposite is true. Those statements were an utterance of their understandable angryness and disappointment about Taylor's sudden departure. They both knew that his quitting was a great loss. So it's not wise to take those statements literally. I also don't value their statements about Brian dearly. They were everything but only a tiny bit objective re. both Brian and amazing Mick. I think Charly's remarks concerning those two should be valued dearly indeed, because he's not only a decent and fair guy, but also far more objective than the Glimmers. I don't know what he (or Bill) has said about Brain's musical input and influence on the Stones' music, which is a weak spot in my knowledge that someone maybe can resolve. But I surely know that Charly has stated that the band musically was at its best while Taylor were still in it, which is pretty unusual and conspicuous, because of Ron Wood's presence at that time and given Charly's tact. Let's finally not forget that the Rolling Stones not only have made studio albums but also played on stage. Listening to the boots from '69 to '73 you can hear an almost unbelievable musical development and a surprising grow of Taylor's musical influence on the band's playing. Simply by using your own ears.

As for 'the big four' (five, including YaYa's) and Taylor's influence on some of them, I'll say something in the thread about them. Besides, someone here seems to be dying to read my 'declaration' on that subject. Well, I'm a nice guy, so I won't let him down.

The good thing with Taylor and the Stones is that he was able to put icing on the already fantastic cake, and as Taylor is a very mediocre rhythm guitarist, Richards had to change from being the lead guitarist next to Brian to becoming the bands' rhythm guitarist. And this endeavor into rhythm guitar playing is what (partly) created LIB, SF and Exile.

When Richards more and more went into drugs seclusion, Taylor started to have more and more influence on the songwriting. The records Taylor had the most influence on are Goats and IORR, and we all agree these are not truly classic Stones records.

No matter how much I enjoy any guitar work by Taylor on, say, the 1972 tour, I firmly believe this tour would not have been any different with any other top tier lead guitarist.

Mathijs

Well, GHS is one of the studio albums I play the most, together with Buttons.

But your idea, Mathijs, about the convertibility of musicians at such a crucial post as Taylor had during his years with the Stones is from a musical point of view simply incomprehensible. I guess you have not any feeling with classical music, but you certainly know that conductors, orchestras, singers as well as instrumental soloists play all their notes from a strict score and that there's not much room to interpret and even not any room to improvise. But are all those musicians, who have to perform within very strict boundaries, convertible and does it make little or no difference at all which violinist for example plays Beethoven's violin concerto or which conductor conducts a Mozart opera? Well, to untrained, unmusical ears the answer will be confirming, but to me and many others the difference is huge. How big must the difference then be when there's no strict score, but only a rather 'loose' framework (the song) that can get so many forms (think for instance about Love in vain 1969 and 1972, what a huge difference, and about the studio versions of for instance YCAGWYW and SFM and the live performances of them during the 1973 tour).

It's easy for me to hear the difference between for instance Heifetz playing a piece of Mozart and another violinist playing exactly the same notes. The musical result or effect is unbelievably different. Do you deliberately and seriously maintain the thesis that it doesn't matter which so called virtuoso guitarist (MT is in the first place musician and in the second a bit of a virtuoso instrumentalist) plays whatever song of the Stones, that there hardly will be any difference, i.e. that they basically all play the same to the same effect? I just can't believe that someone involved in music 1) can say such things and 2) also does believe his own statements.

So in your opinion it doesn't matter which conductor, which orchestra, which singer, which soloist is performing whatever classical music piece, because the notes are all written down in the score by the composer with all kinds of hints too (totally otherwise than in rock, pop, blues, Stonesmusic)? Well, in reality it's matters quite a lot.

So I really can't take your opinion about the convertibility of musicians not being outstanding or good songwriters in the first place but good at their instument (but in the first place musicians) in the free style of for example the Stones music serious, when you say that it doesn't matter at all and that the musical effect will be the same or almost the same, regardless which 'virtuoso' plays what.

Songwriting in a band is something completely different from composing music by a single ('classical') composer. In a band one, two or even more people has/have an idea and then throw it into the group and everyone ads to the original idea. Therefore it's even almost impossible to say that this song is written by Jagger, that one by Richards and another one by both men. Sure, they were the main creative members re songwriting, without any doubt, but it's not al so clear and evident as for composing. That's one of the reasons why the songwriting credit problem could come into being when Taylor was in the band. Because I'm more than pretty sure that his contribution to Sway, Moonlight Mile, Can't you hear me knocking part two and the most important songs on GHS (100 years ago, Winter, Hide your love) and IORR (Time waits for no one, Short and curlies) and some on EOMS (Ventilator blues, and especially the performance of songs like Stop breaking down, Casino boogie part 2, Shine a light etc) is decisive. His contribution to IORR is doubtful (he's not playing on Luxury, IORR and marginally on others) and wasn't it you who said that his absense during the recording of IORR is conspicuous and that he only was present at the final phase of the recording process of IORR? Taylor's disappointment about particularly that album and its titelsong and his (afterwards just) estimation that the hight tide of songwriting for the Stones was over are clear indicators that his involvement in that album isn't big at all.

Of course I cannot prove the unprovable, just like you can't prove your thesis. But common sense as well as musical experience and the examples given by me support my opinion re this issue convincingly. Btw: someone with skilled musical ears can easily hear the difference between all those 'virtuoso' guitarists like a Hendrix, a Beck, a Clapton and a Taylor. Would they all have fit in the Stones like Taylor did and would they all have put the whole band on a higher level on stage like Taylor did? Of course not. The interplay between Richards, Jagger and Taylor was like a shot in the bull's eye. For that very reason the Glimmers were so disappointed about T's departure and never again reached the musical peaks they did during for instance their 1969-1973 tours. No doubt about that.

As we've heard, after Taylor's departure it was not only the icing of the cake that vanished, but the whole cake changed into something much less tastful during the era after him, in the studio as well as on stage, though many hardcore Stonesfans have a hard time to admit that. But those for whom the music comes first it's obvious and a simple musical fact. Wether we like it or not.

And again it turns into a Taylor thread. Pffffffffffffffffff

Sorry His Majesty - my mistake that this thread is hijacked by a Taylor Believer. By a method of analogy I tried to point out that the same kind of factual and interpretive problems do arise with Taylor as well as with Brian. Of course I failed and turned the discussion into the same old Taylor debate.

Funny though the long post by kleermaker above is full of same kind of interpretation problems the claims about Brian Jones traditionally are. The factual base is quite thin. But I hope those will be discussed detailly more in somewhere else. Let's keep this thread focused on Brian Jones.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-24 20:06 by Doxa.

Quote
wild_horse_pete
And again it turns into a Taylor thread. Pffffffffffffffffff

I guess you better reread my post one more time, because it's about 'convertibility', musical influence, musical interpretation, improvisation, songwriting in rock/blues/pop music etc. etc. Don't mix up the essence with the examples. Though I admit it's difficult to distinct.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
wild_horse_pete
And again it turns into a Taylor thread. Pffffffffffffffffff

I guess you better reread my post one more time, because it's about 'convertibility', musical influence, musical interpretation, improvisation, songwriting in rock/blues/pop music etc. etc. Don't mix up the essence with the examples. Though I admit it's difficult to distinct.

I read it twice, and you speak again about Taylor and not about Brain, and it`s not so difficult to distinct, i think for you it`s difficult te respond without naming Taylor as a example.
It`s not only with this thread, it`s all your threads.

More funny though, this is EXACTLY the kind of argument or line of reasoning - almost word to word - I have heard from hardcore Brian Jones fans as well!!!! Just change the name Taylor to Jones!

Quote
kleermaker
As we've heard, after Taylor's departure it was not only the icing of the cake that vanished, but the whole cake changed into something much less tastful during the era after him, in the studio as well as on stage, though many hardcore Stonesfans have a hard time to admit that. But those for whom the music comes first it's obvious and a simple musical fact. Wether we like it or not.

When personal opinions and preferences turn out to be "musical facts", well... I hope I would had such an objective taste as well...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-24 20:40 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Just change the name Taylor to Jones!

- Doxa

As for me, read in my post up here 'Jones' or rather 'Smith' where I wrote 'Taylor'. The heart of my argument will remain the same, and that's what matters in this case.

But I'm afraid that the name of Taylor has been so distractive that the whole essence of my argument has been missed by at least you two. I was talking about essential principles concerning (composing) music and its performance. Maybe it was too abstract to follow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-24 22:03 by kleermaker.

Quote
Doxa
Sorry His Majesty - my mistake that this thread is hijacked by a Taylor Believer.


- Doxa

Well, I had a rather high esteem of your contributions, Doxa. This sentence of yours makes me doubt if that's just. Disappointing anyway, using a phrase like "this thread is hijacked by a Taylor Believer", meaning me.

But I leave this thread and hope you'll enjoy your discussions here with others, with 'non-hijackers' and 'non-"Taylor Believers"'.

Aah, you come to "contribute" this thread with a sarcastic remark intended to make funny of Brian Jones fans, but seemingly you have lost your sense of humour now, kleermaker?

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-24 23:55 by Doxa.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Doxa
Just change the name Taylor to Jones!

- Doxa

As for me, read in my post up here 'Jones' or rather 'Smith' where I wrote 'Taylor'. The heart of my argument will remain the same, and that's what matters in this case.

But I'm afraid that the name of Taylor has been so distractive that the whole essence of my argument has been missed by at least you two. I was talking about essential principles concerning (composing) music and its performance. Maybe it was too abstract to follow.

Okay, I change it:

kleermaker's argument re-formed:

"As we've heard, after Smith's departure it was not only the icing of the cake that vanished, but the whole cake changed into something much less tastful during the era after him, in the studio as well as on stage, though many hardcore Stonesfans have a hard time to admit that. But those for whom the music comes first it's obvious and a simple musical fact. Wether we like it or not."

Now, that's an interesting one...><

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

- Doxa

Quote
kleermaker

So I really can't take your opinion about the convertibility of musicians not being outstanding or good songwriters in the first place but good at their instument (but in the first place musicians) in the free style of for example the Stones music serious, when you say that it doesn't matter at all and that the musical effect will be the same or almost the same, regardless which 'virtuoso' plays what.

Songwriting in a band is something completely different from composing music by a single ('classical') composer. In a band one, two or even more people has/have an idea and then throw it into the group and everyone ads to the original idea. Therefore it's even almost impossible to say that this song is written by Jagger, that one by Richards and another one by both men. Sure, they were the main creative members re songwriting, without any doubt, but it's not al so clear and evident as for composing. That's one of the reasons why the songwriting credit problem could come into being when Taylor was in the band. Because I'm more than pretty sure that his contribution to Sway, Moonlight Mile, Can't you hear me knocking part two and the most important songs on GHS (100 years ago, Winter, Hide your love) and IORR (Time waits for no one, Short and curlies) and some on EOMS (Ventilator blues, and especially the performance of songs like Stop breaking down, Casino boogie part 2, Shine a light etc) is decisive. His contribution to IORR is doubtful (he's not playing on Luxury, IORR and marginally on others) and wasn't it you who said that his absense during the recording of IORR is conspicuous and that he only was present at the final phase of the recording process of IORR? Taylor's disappointment about particularly that album and its titelsong and his (afterwards just) estimation that the hight tide of songwriting for the Stones was over are clear indicators that his involvement in that album isn't big at all.

My first advice is is to stop writing essay's of 12 pages as no one is going to read what you say. My second advice is to stop acting like you are a master musician with trained classical ears and you know it all. In Stones-land, with people whom can fart Taylor's second solo on YCAGWY from Dallas 1972, you are a beginner. Your post is just just completely presumptuous, and unfortunately presumptuous with the same old tired presumptions.

To date the only tracks that Taylor has ever claimed to have contributed to (so not written) on the song writing is Till The Next Goodbye and Time Waits. He has never claimed to have written any other Stones song -all songs supposedly written by him have been addressed as such by Taylor fans.

If there's one thing true for the Stones it’s the fact that's its quite easy to establish whom wrote it. Most songs can be easily divided Jagger or Richards songs. Your explanation on songwriting is just utter bollocks.

To describe Taylor's part on Casino Boogie as "decisive" is ludicrous, and actually not worth debating at all.

I find Kasper Winding's tambourine on Waiting on a Friend decisive. Please discus.

Mathijs

Sticky Fingers is my favourite Stones album, and they were never better live than in 1972-73. Mick Taylor absolutely lifted the band to higher highs.

BUT, I thought this thread was about Brian Jones´ creativity around the time of Between the Buttons...

Quote
Mathijs


To describe Taylor's part on Casino Boogie as "decisive" is ludicrous


Mathijs

I didn't describe Taylor's part on CB as "decisive", though I think that without it the song wouldn't be that great as it is.

I wrote: "(...) his contribution to (...) and some on EOMS (Ventilator blues, and especially the performance of songs like Stop breaking down, Casino boogie part 2 [i.e. the jamming/solo part], Shine a light etc) is decisive.

Firstly: reading accurately, secondly: commenting properly. That's my advice to you, Mathijs.

PS: No one obliges you to read my posts, whatever their length is. You can easily skip and ignore them. They're "presumptuous" and "utter bollocks" aren't they?

You may consider me as a beginner in Stonesland, but I'm not. Anyway, Stonesland is (a smal) part of the world of music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-25 01:17 by kleermaker.

Quote
Doxa
Sorry His Majesty - my mistake that this thread is hijacked by a Taylor Believer.

Not to worry, these things tend to take on a life of their own and can lead to other interesting discussions. *Pass the popcorn!*

Your point about Nanker - Phelge credits and Brian being part of them is very true, interesting how that crediting stopped when Allen Klein came on the scene.

...

I am being criticized elsewhere(Hello keno and friends!) for changing my mind with regards to the credit about Brian playing piano on Ruby Tuesday. I'm acknowledging that i've been influenced by negative quotes over the years hence my doubts about the claim, but regardless one cannot deny the sheer beauty and back up to that credit the italian footage brings.

Further reply to keno and his friends...

Regarding Keith playing mellotron on TSMR, there is footage of him playing it, but more than that there is also a few minutes of someone struggling to play the Sing this altogether intro on mellotron, the person who talks inbetween the crap playing is Keith, thus it's quite likely that he played that little part, unless you wanna credit Brian with really crap playing!? This does not equate to a claim Keith played mellotron on everything else as those people seem to take it as.

Credits in books are fine enough, but when you have audio or footage strongly suggesting someone played something it's pretty stupid to ignore it, even if it goes against who you've long believed to be the player behind the part. The Italian footage is proof enough Brian played piano on RT, the audio on the sing this altogether satanic sessions bootleg is proof enough that Keith played the intro to Sing this altogether.

Also, keno's Gomper crediting is thrown out the window by the ongoing Gomper recording session contained on that bootleg box set(along with some others). The audio on those 2 box sets covering a whole number of tracks is very telling and revealing, but they choose to ignore it, Why!?

Also, I am not 4 or 5 people, I am just me, that is - His Majesty/Philip.

As you were...



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-25 03:53 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
Sorry His Majesty - my mistake that this thread is hijacked by a Taylor Believer.

Not to worry, these things tend to take on a life of their own and can lead to other interesting discussions. *Pass the popcorn!*

Your point about Nanker - Phelge credits and Brian being part of them is very true, interesting how that crediting stopped when Allen Klein came on the scene.

...

I am being criticized elsewhere(Hello keno and friends!) for changing my mind with regards to the credit about Brian playing piano on Ruby Tuesday. I'm acknowledging that i've been influenced by negative quotes over the years hence my doubts about the claim, but regardless one cannot deny the sheer beauty and back up to that credit the italian footage brings.

Further reply to keno and his friends...

Regarding Keith playing mellotron on TSMR, there is photos of him playing it, but more than that there is also a few minutes of someone struggling to play the Sing this altogether intro on mellotron, the person who talks inbetween the crap playing is Keith, thus it's quite likely that he played that little part. This does not equate to a claim he played mellotron on everything else as those people seem to take it as.

Claims on paper are fine enough, but when you have audio or footage strongly suggesting someone played something it's pretty stupid to ignore it, even if it goes against who you've long believed to be the player behind the part. The Italian footage is proof enough Brian played piano on RT, the audio on the sing this altogether satanic sessions bootleg is proof enough that Keith played the intro to Sing this altogether.

Also, keno's Gomper crediting is thrown out the window by the ongoing Gomper recording session contained on that bootleg box set(along with some others). The audio on those 2 box sets covering a whole number of tracks is very telling and revealing, but they choose to ignore it, Why!?

As you were...

But...who cares about Keno?

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs


But...who cares about Keno?

Mathijs

If folks want to have a go, I'm going to reply.

Quote
Mathijs
But I fully agree with Majesty that the find of this film just really sheds a different light on this matter, and that it indeed is very posible that Jones played piano on Ruby Tuesday. And if he did, it opens the possibility for piano parts on more songs, like LSTNT.

Is there a full solar eclipse taking place now? A rare comet nearing the earth? I'm going to rub my eyes now and read this quote by Mathijs again.

Mick Taylor did not write Can't You Hear Me Knocking or Time Waits For No One. Writing a guitar solo does not equal writing a song. For example, George Harrison played, and most likely composed, the guitar solo on All You Need Is Love, but the song was written by John Lennon. Complimenting a song with a lead line is not co-writing it.

Quote
Ferret
Mick Taylor did not write Can't You Hear Me Knocking or Time Waits For No One. Writing a guitar solo does not equal writing a song. For example, George Harrison played, and most likely composed, the guitar solo on All You Need Is Love, but the song was written by John Lennon. Complimenting a song with a lead line is not co-writing it.

The only songs Taylor ever claimed to have a hand in writing where Till The Next Goodbye and Time Waits. In an October 1974 interview with Nick Kent Taylor stated he wrote these songs and recieved credit, and then Kent showed him the album sleeve with only Jagger/Richards credits.

All othere songs the fans claim where written by Taylor have never been claimed as such by Taylor himself. It's just of late, since a couple of years, that Taylor starts to repeat his fans and mentions Moonlight Mile and other songs.

Strangest thing is that the only song he recieved credit for, Ventilator Blues, was based on a riff by Bobby Keys, according to Charlie Watts. Go figure.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
Strangest thing is that the only song he recieved credit for, Ventilator Blues, was based on a riff by Bobby Keys, according to Charlie Watts.
Mathijs

Also strange would be to credit Can't You Hear Me Knocking on Mick Taylor as his solo is a response to Bobby Keys' solo - which actually is a response to a fully written and composed song by Mick Jagger and Keith.

Quote
Doxa
The March edition of PLAYBOY has a large story of Brian Jones by Robert Greenfield titled "The Rise and Fall of First Rock Star".

For those of you who don't buy PLAYBOY, here is the article in its entirety.

[members7.boardhost.com]

Drew

>> here is the article in its entirety. <<

thank you for the link - the glaring factual errors start in the fourth sentence
(if we count the first three as poetic license) ... pretty standard for Greenfiel

love & light to Brian ... thanks & praises, love & light

Keith Alham visiting Brian´s home: (NME October 21, 1966)

Brian played me some of the experiments in sound he has been conducting in the privacy of his home,
but impressed on me that they were purely personal attempts and that the mixing and dubbing effects were far from perfect.
He seemed enthusiastic, but embarrassed about his efforts.

"This is Keith and I on two guitars and percussion put on later with that Berber drum."
He indicated a tom-tom drum in a corner of the room.

One tape was astoundingly effective, with a weird, psalm-like chant going on in the background,
which gave a sensational effect, like an electrified Black Mass.

Some further electronic experiment sounded like the Who after a few drinks!

Altham is one of the few(?) to actually have heard some of Brian´s unreleased recordings from this period.
Obviously Anita is another... (I´ll dig up some qoute from her later)

David Dalton interviewing Anita Pallenberg: ("The First Twenty Years", 1981)

Q: Did Brian ever sit down and play a song for you that he had written?
A: Yeah, he´d do all the parts himself.
Q: He did the music for Mort Und Totschlag...
A: Him and Jimmy Page. // All that psychedelic stuff in England then, honestly, it was disgusting. //
Q: This is a hard idea for my mind to absorb...but wasn´t Brian really into electronic music?
A: Of course he was, but it was not Sgt Pepper. Find out who has the tapes and you can hear it for yourself.
Q: But I would have thought Brian would have been more into the psychedelic thing, like in Satanic Majesties, //
A: That´s a misprint by Mick´s paranoia who always blames it on somebody else. That´s why I like to clear that up.

I think writing film music on a visual basis can be a totally different handicraft from writing music (= acoustic basis) that creates a visual phantasy in your head (or just a good time).

Ive heard Brian play the piano on Hendrix's All Along The Watchtower.

Charlie

<<Ventilator Blues was based on a riff by Bobby Keys>>

If this is the CW statement you're referring to, then Keys did not come up with the 'riff' but with the 'rhythm part'.

"Bobby Keys wrote the rhythm part, which is the clever part of the song. Bobby said, Why don't you do this? and I said, I can't play that, so Bobby stood next to clapping the thing and I just followed his timing. In the world of Take Five, it's nothing, but it threw me completely and Bobby just stood there and clapped while we were doing the track - and we've never quite got it together as well as that."

(Charlie Watts, 2003; [www.timeisonourside.com])