Quote
rootsman

Quote
treaclefingers
I don't wanna walk or talk about Brian, I just wanna see his face...

[www.iorr.org]

Well...you got right to the root of it didn't you? thx rootsman!

There are lots of people here for whom Brian is just a ghost from the distant past and anything before Beggars Banquet is history far too ancient to be of any interest. But the Stones had been international superstars for several years before that, and Brian was part of the reason.

Even doing something as basic as bashing a tambourine on record or on stage, you can hear his enthusiasm - and it was his commitment that kept the group together and helped get the Stones off the ground in the days when nobody had heard of them and nobody would book or record them. He did behave and think of himself as the leader and spokesman of the group, a role that Mick gradually took over because the lead singer is always thought of as the "voice" of the band, isn't he? And Brian couldn't sing.

The Stones have always been a two-handed guitar band, and whatever you think of Brian's abilities, he was one of those hands - half of that early sound. He was the one who could get that Bo Diddley rhythm right. He was the slide player. He played rhythm but also came up with riffs and solos. He was also one of the two harmonica players in the group - and that's an instrument that was a vital part of their lineup and sound in the early 60s.

Later he became the band's "colourist" - adding those original contributions on unusual instruments that turned guitar songs into something special. These days we're used to thinking of the Stones' instruments as guitars/drums only, and anybody who plays anything else as just temporary sidemen, but once all that was a core part of the band.

It didn't hurt that Brian was a great presence on stage (whatever he became later) and attracted his fair share of teenage screams - which didn't do the band's popularity any harm.

But of course he didn't write songs, and he wasn't a virtuoso lead guitarist like He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, so he can't have been important, can he?

Green Lady, well put!

- Doxa

@Green Lady...

Very well said! I agree totally!

Green Lady, excellent post.

Green Lady, I don't think it's some sort of nature law that the singer of the band is also its 'voice' and leader. Think for instance of The Who. It had everything to do with Mick's ambitions to lead the band and to get as much attention as possible.

Second point: I don't think Mick Taylor is or was a virtuoso (lead) guitarist, but 'only' a virtuoso musician. To what extent Brian also was a virtuoso musician isn't clear to me yet, so I do like to read opinions on that matter. But it's clear to me too that Brian was an important member of the band. Like I've said before: the third man in the Stones makes the difference. As for the third third man: he was and is neither a virtuoso guitarist nor a virtuoso musician nor a "colourist of the band".

I don't think the lead-singer thing is a law of nature either - and if it is, there are certainly exceptions. But it's the way the press often thinks, simply because the vocalist is usually the most conspicuous and easily identifiable person on stage, and the one best known to the public.

You can argue forever about how technically good a guitarist Brian was. I haven't the musical qualifications to judge. He clearly had some very important skills, and he was the right guitarist for the group at that time - and he was other things, too. The trouble is that because his two successors are rated so much on their guitar ability, people tend to judge Brian in the same way, and write him off because if he wasn't an outstandingly good guitarist then for some people (not you, kleermaker) that devalues him and nothing else about him seems to matter.

Wow, such excellent responses. I think I have a new understanding of Brians importance in the band for that time. I wonder if the best thing for both band and him were for him to leave, maybe not under those circumstances though. The band obviously were changing into a standard rock band, drums, bass and guitars with piano and his fluorshes might not have fitted in.

He may have started the band and guided them early on but he became a sideman, I wonder if he was capable of doing what Taylor and Woody did.

coffeepotman, I share your over-view. Philip Norman put it in his Stones book by saying that The Stones couldn't survive the 60's without Brian, but they couln't have survived the 70's with him...

I think the Stones have been very lucky - if that is anything to do with luck - for having their "third man" behind Mick and Keith, and front of Charlie and Bill. Brian was probably one of the most talented musical visionalists - a walking musical adventury - back in the 60's when that kind of quality was most needed (and we should not forget Brian's looks and sense of fashion, etc.). Taylor was the guitar ace when having one was the mark of credible rock band. And they got 'back-to-basics' Wood to the band just before the guitar gods and other 'dinosaur' self-important musicians turned out to be unfashinable by the punk challenge (and Ronnie also didn't look like some goddamn old hippie).

Of course, Brian's role was more like a second frontman, and Keith was the 'third man' in the early days, and Brian's role transformed very much, as did Taylor's and Wood's in the band (for example, since 1989 Ronnie's contribution has not been much more what Brian had 1968-69), but in a long run, it is fun to make generalations like this!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-19 20:27 by Doxa.

I'm one of those fans for whom Brian is a ghost. He died 4 years before I was born after all. I do agree with the whole 'cult personality' thing a bit. Further perpetuated by stuff like this...





[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
Doxa
coffeepotman, I share your over-view. Philip Norman put it in his Stones book by saying that The Stones couldn't survive the 60's without Brian, but they couln't have survived the 70's with him...

I think the Stones have been very lucky - if that is anything to do with luck - for having their "third man" behind Mick and Keith, and front of Charlie and Bill. Brian was probably one of the most talented musical visionalists - a walking musical adventury - back in the 60's when that kind of quality was most needed (and we should not forget Brian's looks and sense of fashion, etc.). Taylor was the guitar ace when having one was the mark of credible rock band. And they got 'back-to-basics' Wood to the band just before the guitar gods and other 'dinosaur' self-important musicians turned out to be unfashinable by the punk challenge (and Ronnie also didn't look like some goddamn old hippie).

Of course, Brian's role was more like a second frontman, and Keith was the 'third man' in the early days, and Brian's role transformed very much, as did Taylor's and Wood's in the band (for example, since 1989 Ronnie's contribution has not been much more what Brian had 1968-69), but in a long run, it is fun to make generalations like this!

- Doxa

Doxa, I couldn't disagree more with these statements in the first part of your post:
- "back in the 60's when that kind of quality was most needed (and we should not forget Brian's looks and sense of fashion, etc.)"
- "Taylor was the guitar ace when having one was the mark of credible rock band."
- "And they got 'back-to-basics' Wood to the band just before the guitar gods and other 'dinosaur' self-important musicians turned out to be unfashinable by the punk challenge (and Ronnie also didn't look like some goddamn old hippie)."

This is too much opportunism to tolerate. Wood cannot stand in the shadow of both Brian and Mick T. AS A MUSICIAN. That whole "back-to-basics" argument is just not true. Back-to-basics in 1975/76? With SG, following the very short trend of punk? Punk was over before it started. In 1978, when Wood played long solos on at least the songs before his time? In 1981/82, during the big stadium/pastel/circustours? Gimmie a break.

The transformations of the roles of the three third men (well, let's be broad-minded and include Wood too) are incomparably different.
Brian's role became gradually less important from the moment on the Glimmers claimed all songwriting and took over leadership, Taylor's role grew and grew (especially on stage), but he didn't get enough recognition to his taste. As for Wood, well, I don't say anything about his role anymore. Just listen to the albums and boots and see also this thread:
[www.iorr.org].

See and hear L & G and then see and hear whatever video/dvd from the so called Wood-era (whatever that era exactly may be). Do I need to say more? No.

Kleermaker, I cannot understand what you exactly disagree with me. I just captured the essential features of the those three 'third men' in the story of the Rolling Stones from the factual base that The Stones has been incredibly succesfull through the decades.

You might idolize those five years mr. Taylor spend with the band but that's only one - though important and great - chapter in a longer story (I would also agree with you that it marked the peak of them, and Taylor had a great deal to do with it). The Stones were incredibly popular before Taylor joined, and they were that after his departure.

Personally you might not like 'post-Taylor' Stones but quite many of us do. For example, I take BLACK&BLUE and SOME GIRLS to be much more interesting and better albums than IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL that is a very mediocre Stones album in Stones (70's) standards. What should we imply of that? It sounds like all Taylor could contribute to the Stones were already given in STICKY FINGERS, EXILE and GOATS HEAD SOAP. Seemingly, Taylor couldn't save The Stones going creative downhill if Mick and expecially Keith weren't "clicking", and he couldn't any longer inspire them. One could say harshly that Taylor was "used" by then (and he was not the first in that list). Seemingly too, getting out of him, and getting some new face(s) around, kicked the arses of the Twins, and they found a new gear in their creative mobile. To not have Taylor any longer around, and having new approaches and guitar sounds, makes the albums from B&B to UNDERCOVER different and I think more interesting. The same is with the tours. Ad if we look at the results: they gathered once again a new - and last - big fan generation (mine ) that was very satisfied with the band's current doings. We didn't even know - or at least care - who Mick Taylor was.

I need to say that it is typical to older generation of fans is to the underestimate the value of 'punk' era - it was nost just Sex Pistols, Ramones or The Clash and 1977 - but the whole difference in thinking of the rock culture and I think that really affected to whole generation of teenagers of that era (that would take quite few years to the 80's), one of the last big rock main stream generations (that intentionally wanted to get rid of certain 60's/70's standards and icons, and of the whole story of how the rock had 'progressed' so far). The Stones, somehow, did surprisingly well.. their image as 'original' rebels and simple form of their raw music clicked really well at the time. Jagger understood that especially well with SOME GIRLS, and the raunchy Richards/Wood guitar axis was cooler than hell (like I said earlier, they were lucky to have Wood onboard already a couple of years before the punk challenge; they already had a good team to meet the challenge). SOME GIRS was their most important album since BEGGARS BANQUET - like BB ten years earlier that album save their future. The Stones could once again - and for the last time - reinvent themselves with convincing results. With the idea and sound of SOME GIRLS they would live the following, crucial years and not to be laughed out as old tired farts. It was still the inspired 'post-Taylor' era Jagger that made TATTOO YOU - a collection of old out-takes - remarkable release.

I think Wood was excellent guy to have in that era. I cannot think anyone else to suit to those shoes better than him in those days. That doesn't take anything out of "Taylor-era" or "Brian-era". It is just another distinguished era in its own terms and music.

What goes for the roles of the third men in band dynamics, and how they transformed through the years (and members), I already hinted in my post, and I don't go to details now. Yeah, they varied, and changed a lot.

Sorry for going OT. I hope we get back to Brian...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-19 22:55 by Doxa.

Quote
kleermaker
Doxa, I couldn't disagree more with these statements in the first part of your post:
- "back in the 60's when that kind of quality was most needed (and we should not forget Brian's looks and sense of fashion, etc.)"
- "Taylor was the guitar ace when having one was the mark of credible rock band."
- "And they got 'back-to-basics' Wood to the band just before the guitar gods and other 'dinosaur' self-important musicians turned out to be unfashinable by the punk challenge (and Ronnie also didn't look like some goddamn old hippie)."

This is too much opportunism to tolerate.

It is not opportunism. Jones was not chosen but he chose the others (excellent choices, by the way!); maybe only when they picked up Taylor, they most probably knew what they needed then - an ace guitarist to make the band credible on stage - and they got it (but I don't think they knew what an excellence choice it turned out to be!). I would call that 'good luck' to have those excellent and suitable players in a given time. A good band needs some good luck just like a good football teams does to win cups...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-19 23:32 by Doxa.

This isn't off topic, I was thinking about the name of the thread - I wanna hear Brian...

I wanna hear him on certain songs on the Rock and Roll Circus where I SEE him playing his guitar but no sound from it - Jumpin Jack Flash, You can't Always Get, even Parachute Women! Where is he???

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas
This isn't off topic, I was thinking about the name of the thread - I wanna hear Brian...

I wanna hear him on certain songs on the Rock and Roll Circus where I SEE him playing his guitar but no sound from it - Jumpin Jack Flash, You can't Always Get, even Parachute Women! Where is he???

Great question that has never been properly answered. Was he not plugged in? Was he edited out? Did he play terribly (and thus the edit job)? I guess we'll never know. Mick and Keith certainly do . . .

Quote
neptune

Quote
jamesfdouglas
This isn't off topic, I was thinking about the name of the thread - I wanna hear Brian...

I wanna hear him on certain songs on the Rock and Roll Circus where I SEE him playing his guitar but no sound from it - Jumpin Jack Flash, You can't Always Get, even Parachute Women! Where is he???

Great question that has never been properly answered. Was he not plugged in? Was he edited out? Did he play terribly (and thus the edit job)? I guess we'll never know. Mick and Keith certainly do . . .

THANK YOU!!
My cheif bandmate and I have been arguing about this since it came out in '96! He says Brians there, I say I cannpt hear him at all - the only things I can actually hear him do are the slide from No Expectations (which has a key change for some reason - maybe to fit Brian's tuning??) and the shakers on Sympathy - which is too bad in a way, but only kind of confirms that he was burnt out and unusable for the next year.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
Doxa
Kleermaker, I cannot understand what you exactly disagree with me. I just captured the essential features of the those three 'third men' in the story of the Rolling Stones from the factual base that The Stones has been incredibly succesfull through the decades.

You might idolize those five years mr. Taylor spend with the band but that's only one - though important and great - chapter in a longer story (I would also agree with you that it marked the peak of them, and Taylor had a great deal to do with it). The Stones were incredibly popular before Taylor joined, and they were that after his departure.

Personally you might not like 'post-Taylor' Stones but quite many of us do. For example, I take BLACK&BLUE and SOME GIRLS to be much more interesting and better albums than IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL that is a very mediocre Stones album in Stones (70's) standards. What should we imply of that? It sounds like all Taylor could contribute to the Stones were already given in STICKY FINGERS, EXILE and GOATS HEAD SOAP. Seemingly, Taylor couldn't save The Stones going creative downhill if Mick and expecially Keith weren't "clicking", and he couldn't any longer inspire them. One could say harshly that Taylor was "used" by then (and he was not the first in that list). Seemingly too, getting out of him, and getting some new face(s) around, kicked the arses of the Twins, and they found a new gear in their creative mobile. To not have Taylor any longer around, and having new approaches and guitar sounds, makes the albums from B&B to UNDERCOVER different and I think more interesting. The same is with the tours. Ad if we look at the results: they gathered once again a new - and last - big fan generation (mine ) that was very satisfied with the band's current doings. We didn't even know - or at least care - who Mick Taylor was.

I need to say that it is typical to older generation of fans is to the underestimate the value of 'punk' era - it was nost just Sex Pistols, Ramones or The Clash and 1977 - but the whole difference in thinking of the rock culture and I think that really affected to whole generation of teenagers of that era (that would take quite few years to the 80's), one of the last big rock main stream generations (that intentionally wanted to get rid of certain 60's/70's standards and icons, and of the whole story of how the rock had 'progressed' so far). The Stones, somehow, did surprisingly well.. their image as 'original' rebels and simple form of their raw music clicked really well at the time. Jagger understood that especially well with SOME GIRLS, and the raunchy Richards/Wood guitar axis was cooler than hell (like I said earlier, they were lucky to have Wood onboard already a couple of years before the punk challenge; they already had a good team to meet the challenge). SOME GIRS was their most important album since BEGGARS BANQUET - like BB ten years earlier that album save their future. The Stones could once again - and for the last time - reinvent themselves with convincing results. With the idea and sound of SOME GIRLS they would live the following, crucial years and not to be laughed out as old tired farts. It was still the inspired 'post-Taylor' era Jagger that made TATTOO YOU - a collection of old out-takes - remarkable release.

I think Wood was excellent guy to have in that era. I cannot think anyone else to suit to those shoes better than him in those days. That doesn't take anything out of "Taylor-era" or "Brian-era". It is just another distinguished era in its own terms and music.

What goes for the roles of the third men in band dynamics, and how they transformed through the years (and members), I already hinted in my post, and I don't go to details now. Yeah, they varied, and changed a lot.

Sorry for going OT. I hope we get back to Brian...

- Doxa

Doxa, I can follow your way of reasoning but I still disagree strongly. It's tempting to reply widely to your post but then I would risk the wrath of many members here and stray away from the topic of this thread.

<I just captured the essential features of the those three 'third men' in the story of the Rolling Stones.> I just disagree on that summary. I gave some explanation, for example as for the back-to-basics theory that I deny.

<You might idolize those five years mr. Taylor spend with the band...> Well, I don't idolize them. It's only my favourite era of the band.

<Personally you might not like 'post-Taylor' Stones..> That's not totally true. Well, as for live performances for a great deal indeed, but not as for all studio work.

You use words and terms like 'popular', 'succesful', 'gathering new fans', 'meeting the [punk] challenge, 'image as rebels', 'cool' etc. But they say nothing about the music(al quality), so they mean nothing to me. I think the music(al quality) of the Stones during the Brian era was great and that Brian had a big influence on it. So we justly use the term 'Brian era', just like we justly use the term 'Taylor era'. But I don't think we can justly use the term 'Wood era'. His presence alone in the band from a certain year on isn't enough. His little influence on the band's musical 'development' doesn't justify any era with his name in it.

I'd always thought as the 'Wood era' to be roughly the 10 year stretch between Black and Blue and Dirty Work. I mean, how many songs are credited to Jagger/Richards/Wood vs the single Jagger/Richards/Taylor song? Ten (counting Dance Pt 1 & 2) - four of them on Dirty Work!

Jones Era - 62-69
Taylor Era - 69-74
Wood Era - 75-86
Vegas Era - 89-07

[thepowergoats.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-20 01:58 by jamesfdouglas.

Try :Just Cant Be Satified, Doncha Bother Me, What A Shame, Im A King Bee, Te Last TimeConfessing The Blues, Moana,Look What You've Done Or The Real Stereo Version of Satisfaction or Get Off My Cloud found on the 1980s German or Japanese pressings of the Hot Rocks CDs.


Charlie

I know that Keith plays the guitar on all the tracks on Beggars Banquet. But does Brian also play the guitar on Jumpin Jack Flash and Stray Cat Blues?

Quote
DiamondDog7
I know that Keith plays the guitar on all the tracks on Beggars Banquet. But does Brian also play the guitar on Jumpin Jack Flash and Stray Cat Blues?

Brian plays slide guitar on No Expectations and according to Bill guitar on Jumpin' Jack Flash. He also plays some great authentic sounding bluesy slide on the 1968 outtake Still A Fool/Two Trains Running.

Aside from that he most likely played:

Harmonica - Dear Doctor, Parachute Woman and Prodigal Son
Mellotron - Jigsaw Puzzle.
Sitar and Tamboura - Street Fighting Man
Soprano Saxophone - Child of the Moon

Although some of these parts are not exactly essential and nearly inaudible(Harmonica on Prodigal Son is mixed out, but heard via mic bleed), they are part of the sound and feel of Beggars Banquet and it shows he was present and contributing more than we are lead to believe.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I'm one of those fans for whom Brian is a ghost. He died 4 years before I was born after all. I do agree with the whole 'cult personality' thing a bit. Further perpetuated by stuff like this...

Stoned was a horrible attempt to tell the story of Brian Jones. It's based on a book that is built on speculations and both the director and writer are far too interested to show Brian as a "sex, drugs and rock n roll"-character than to show us who he really was. Sadly, that kind of stuff only feed the negative aspect of Brian that's been one-sidedly told for a loooong time.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I wanna hear him on certain songs on the Rock and Roll Circus where I SEE him playing his guitar but no sound from it - Jumpin Jack Flash, You can't Always Get, even Parachute Women! Where is he???

It's there, according to His Majesty (and I trust his ears), but it's very low in the mix and most of what he play is in the same register as the bass wich blur him out. If you have the 25x5 documentary Brian is more audible on the YCAGWYW take from RnR-Circus than on the official release. He is not playing bad on any of the numbers but nothing spectacular either. He does the job and it sounds good. I guess somebody (no names mentioned) took the opportunity in 1996 to lower his guitar in an attempt to diminish his role in the band even further...

Brian on great harmonica:


I Want To Be Loved (the b-side)

Stoned

Not Fade Away

Now I´ve Got a Witness

Good Times, Bad Times

Cops And Robbers

2120 South Michigan Avenue

Look What You´ve Done

The Under Assistant... /more prominent in the extended mix on the 1989 box "Singles Collection - The London Years"

High And Dry

Quote
tonterapi
He is not playing bad on any of the numbers but nothing spectacular either. He does the job and it sounds good. I guess somebody (no names mentioned) took the opportunity in 1996 to lower his guitar in an attempt to diminish his role in the band even further...

Pretty sad that this would purposely be done. Silencing Brian during his last video appearance with the Stones is as low as it gets.

Quote
His Majesty
Although some of these parts are not exactly essential and nearly inaudible(Harmonica on Prodigal Son is mixed out, but heard via mic bleed), they are part of the sound and feel of Beggars Banquet and it shows he was present and contributing more than we are lead to believe.

I agree with this and I often wonder how much better this album could have been if Brian had contributed more. If Jimmy Miller had had his way, there would have been more Brian in the album but Mick and Keith were not as warm to the idea I guess.

Well, I've been a fan since 64 and Brian was a big reason. How many folks have been present when a rock band is creating a song? They don't come in as complete songs. Just some chords and some lyrics. Brian role as a "colorist" is what takes the Stones songs over the top. Most rock songs are the same. What makes them different is that "color" Brian could hear what the song needed and he could add it.

I also get pissed about how the Mick and Keith treated Brian but a few years later Keith pulled his own Brian.

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

Listening to the live version of Carol from the Mike Douglas show (with lead guitar almost unaudible) cleraly proves why KR mostly played lead during the BJ years - he couldn´t play the Chuck Berryisque backing as well as BJ did.

And when MT entered, KR`s lead had deteriorated to the degree that it was natural for MT to take over. KR´s never been THE rhytmn player, despite some highlights during these 48 years.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DiamondDog7
I know that Keith plays the guitar on all the tracks on Beggars Banquet. But does Brian also play the guitar on Jumpin Jack Flash and Stray Cat Blues?

Brian plays slide guitar on No Expectations and according to Bill guitar on Jumpin' Jack Flash. He also plays some great authentic sounding bluesy slide on the 1968 outtake Still A Fool/Two Trains Running.

Aside from that he most likely played:

Harmonica - Dear Doctor, Parachute Woman and Prodigal Son
Mellotron - Jigsaw Puzzle.
Sitar and Tamboura - Street Fighting Man
Soprano Saxophone - Child of the Moon

Although some of these parts are not exactly essential and nearly inaudible(Harmonica on Prodigal Son is mixed out, but heard via mic bleed), they are part of the sound and feel of Beggars Banquet and it shows he was present and contributing more than we are lead to believe.

Thanks, His Majesty!

Sometimes I just I want to know the real facts. What did Brian play on Beggars Banquet for example? I'm done with stories that Brian was too weak to play something. I just don't believe it. He did play some things and I think he's edit away on some songs in the studio. But hey, I will never know what really happened... ;-)

Thanks for your info, His Majesty.

<Charlie and Bill didn't play a hero's role concerning Brian. Their attitude was very consequently accepting the leading role of the Glimmers and remaining passive as much as possible. They were 'sidemen', though not without responsibility. Brian surely must have been a difficult person, regarding his relationships with women, his many children at such a young age, his violent behaviour etc. But none of those things is an excuse to treat someone, a fellow bandmember notably, that badly as Jagger and Richards treated Brian.
It may not be a secret that I like the Taylor-era most (followed by the Brian-era), but I'm glad that Taylor took the consequences and resigned by surprise, leaving the Glimmers with a musical loss they never could restore. Revenge for Brian as yet.><Kleermaker>

Not so easy to judge about the relationship between Brian and the GT's..

I don't think Taylor left out of revenge for Brian,it's not in his nature..
But apart from that I whole-hearted agree on your entire post.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I'd always thought as the 'Wood era' to be roughly the 10 year stretch between Black and Blue and Dirty Work. I mean, how many songs are credited to Jagger/Richards/Wood vs the single Jagger/Richards/Taylor song? Ten (counting Dance Pt 1 & 2) - four of them on Dirty Work!

Jones Era - 62-69
Taylor Era - 69-74
Wood Era - 75-86
Vegas Era - 89-07

Musically and artistically spoken the Wood and Vegas era are closer than kissing cousins.