That was said to me this week by a friend - who then went on to support his case that while Brian showed great intuition in formulating the band, that his strengths were limited beyond that and that his greatest legacy was creating an environment that allowed Mick and Keith to thrive.

I vehemently disagreed - we debated - (I argued that while Brian's personality may not have been strong enough to survive the cyclonic fury of the Jagger/Richards storm, that musically, his instincts and exquisite musical flair/talents gave the Stones their original soul)

anyway - anyone care to debate?

Keith (in some magazine interview I read a while ago) dismissively said Brian "only added coloring" like the marimbas in UNDER MY THUMB. But I think often it's those subtle touches that make or break a song. (Keith did go on to say, "sometimes great coloring." )

well, isn't Brian mostly to blame for their 1965-1966 pop period?
least attractive Stones era for me...
love their early blues (1964) and Beggars Banquet though....

I've always thought Brian was hugely overrated. Undoubtedly musically very talented but he was strictly blues and then grew into the more esoteric leanings which simply didn't fit with where the Glimmers were heading. Had he remained in the group I fear we would never have seen the likes of Exile, Sticky Fingers and the rest. Of course he was in some part on Let it Bleed and Beggars, but very limited. Brian was a victim of his own talent which could not be restrained in the Stones and so had to find it's own portals. Without him, it's true we would have had no Stones but for me, the stones came into their own as he was leaving.

That's very odd. Brian was a superior musician to Keith and the others overall (at least it's been painted that way). Perhaps not being a master of one thing and being a dabbler of many things was a good thing.

Perhaps the question could be, how long could they have continued that way? Something happened when Brian was basically out and Keith took over with the most important, possibly, aspect of The Rolling Stones - the guitars. That's partially why Beggars Banquet is the first of The Big Four.

That's not a knock against Brian and what the Stones did on several albums and singles. In terms of continuity and growth there is a distinct line between the up to Between The Buttons Stones and the Beggars to Exile Stones.

Unique is what Brian was for The Rolling Stones. Under My Thumb possibly wouldn't be such a huge album track if it wasn't for what Brian Jones did on that track. Can you imagine the studio version without the marimba? It's unique and distinct. It's a great song but it's beyond that because of the marimba.

Without Brian, there where no Rolling Stones! Keep that in your mind!!!

Quote
Amused
well, isn't Brian mostly to blame for their 1965-1966 pop period?

interesting view, Amused! i like that period, and reckon it was largely to do with the band wanting to be a success -
there was no way in those days to be an independent success, you needed to be a commercial success, and pop was the route to that.
in my estimate the whole band + ALO was into achieving/maintaining the band's commercial success - not Brian in particular.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-10 21:02 by with sssoul.

"Blame" for their pop period? Their pop period was fantastic! Plus, if you really wanted to "blame" someone for going pop, it would be the songwriters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-10 20:38 by 71Tele.

"Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Agreed.

Hmm; Brian added the melodic textures to the Stones- Keith and Mick could have never written ruby tuesday-although they are credited (what a sham)
Kisten to brian's slide on little red rooster; no expectations-salt of the earth; the slide on -"It's not Easy (backing vocals as well) The opening smoothness of it's all over now- it is very easy to differentiate brian and keith's guitar sounds-keith far rougher. his piano on let's spend the night together is a superb rhythm; listen to his harmonica on Going home; the tone on get off my cloud; MANY more-they sorely miss his contributions sad they play many songs live now that he was the rhythmic texture to!
Michael

Oh the sitar on Pain it Black bil wyman also stated brian wrote the opening riff to honky tonk women; as well-his contributions are sorely missed- i must say he screwed himself by coming to rehearsals too wasted to play because he hated the way they evolved.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
"Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Agreed.

I think 'woefully' is to strong a word, but yes, some here give Brian a little more credit than he perhaps deserves. His contributions were nice, but...

Quote
DragonSky
Something happened when Brian was basically out and Keith took over with the most important, possibly, aspect of The Rolling Stones - the guitars. That's partially why Beggars Banquet is the first of The Big Four.

That's not a knock against Brian and what the Stones did on several albums and singles. In terms of continuity and growth there is a distinct line between the up to Between The Buttons Stones and the Beggars to Exile Stones.

I'm going to disagree on where the distinct line starts.


One problem with hindsight is looking at the past through today's lens. Ever since the late 60's when THE ALBUM became the big deal that everything focused on, people tend to discount the art of The Single.

Which is a shame, because rock n' roll was built on The Single.

And even when Albums became the Big Thing, great, epic, IMPORTANT Singles continued to be released. Everybody agrees today that Pet Sounds was a major achievement (even though it was the worst selling BB album at the time ), but let us not underestimate the brilliance of "Good Vibrations," the hit 45 that followed it up.

My point in that the term "Big Four" totally overlooks the non-LP singles that defined the Golden Era. Instead of "Beggars to Exile," the period you speak of actually begins with "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Also, by defining this era strictly by album work, the term "Big Four" also excludes "Honky Tonk Women."

Great writing exists in short stories as well as novels.


But Brian being overrated? Hardly.

Brian's musical contributions have already been mentioned above so I won't pile on further to that aspect of the discussion. I really don't have a dog in that hunt since musically, I enjoy the music no matter the guitarist opposite Keith.

That said, I believe Brian's contributions extended further than solely along musical lines. In fact, I think the argument could be made quite strongly that without Brian's unique personality, Mick and Keith would never have evolved into what they ultimately became. It's quite interesting to look back at the very early Stones television performances and see how apparently innocent looking both Keith and Mick appeared in those days. By contrast, Brian already had a bit of an evil gleam in his eye, and this is likely where the nasty side of the Stones originated. Often I've thought that both Mick and Keith absorbed many parts of Brian's personality into their own. In the process, what we think of today as the Stones swagger was created. It's dismissive, it's a touch of arrogance, it's about fashion, it's about getting out of your head with the help of whatever chemicals are available, it's about sex. This is what Brian Jones was all about - even from the very beginning. So, if you're able to buy into that thought process, then the answer would be no, his contributions were not woefully overrated.

Quote
steffiestones
Without Brian, there where no Rolling Stones! Keep that in your mind!!!

There would have been something
Mick Jagger would not have remained an unknown...and Keith...well I don't know

Brian's contributions are rated about right. That is, he is given proper credit for his role in the formation of the band, and for his later adoption of unusual (for a rock combo) instruments during a very fruitful period of chart success. AND he is rightfully cited for being a pain in the neck and a near non-entity when the group was entering its creative zenith around the time of Beggars Banquet. So I wouldn't say "overrated". The only people who overrate him are the ones who feel MJ & KR "stole" "his" band from him, and somehow conspired to deny him the opportunity of contributing his wonderful songs, songs that have eluded us to this day. So, the only people who "overrate" Brian, in my opinion, are what I call the Brian Conspiracy Theorists.

A very nice girl in Atlanta in the early 70s lent me her early Stones albums so I could catch up on the group's musical past I wasn't familiar with. 'King Bee', "Honest I Do', 'Time Is On My Side', 'Look What You've Done', of course 'Little Red Rooster', were songs that caught my ear. It was Brian's guitar contribution that gave these songs some menace, and, adult credibility. Maybe Keith was nicking every Chuck Berry lick, but Brian was seizing, and improving upon, the blues masters. Brian's early contributions separated the Stones sound from the teenybop Beatles. When Brian played the blues it sounded like dark, menacing men playing the blues.

Check out Brian's guitar on 'I Can't Be Satisfied' and tell me he's overrated.

Just posted on another Jones Topic..........Keith in his shadow back then





__________________________

Well, to start with there's not that much certainty about what he did and did not play so any analysis of what he played is Kinda flawed, thus any comments regarding being overrated etc don't really mean much.

Based on what we know was actually him, well, I happen to think, for example, his Mellotron playing on 2000 Light Years From Home is as good, if not better, than anything any musician played on any Rolling Stones recording or live gig.

Is that overrating him? I don't fukking care because his musicianship continues to inspire me lots and that is all that really matters. ><

Brian had a special ear, feel and touch for music, it's just a shame that other things got in the way of him displaying it more often.

Anyway, here's what Mick Jagger had to say about Brian in 1970. It's interesting for me because it's in the midst of the supposed golden period with Mick melody Taylor...

"He was fantastically important. He was with Keith and me from the beginning and he really got the band together. He was as influential as anyone in contributing to the overall sound... He was very stimulating and I miss that."





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-10 23:30 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty
Anyway, here's what Mick Jagger had to say about Brian in 1970. It's interesting for me because it's in the midst of the supposed golden period with Mick melody Taylor...

I think his middle name is vibrato.

Quote
His Majesty

Anyway, here's what Mick Jagger had to say about Brian in 1970.
"He was fantastically important. He was with Keith and me from the beginning and he really got the band together. He was as influential as anyone in contributing to the overall sound... He was very stimulating and I miss that."

It is interesting because it's closer to the bone in real time, before they spent year denigrating him. 'As influential as anyone in contributing to the overall sound'. Yes, he may not have been physically there, but his influence winds its way through everything they do. 'He was very stimulating and I miss that'. True to this day. Maybe that's why the Super Heavy project is appealing to Mick now. Mick has so few stimulating partners in the Stones now.

That strange, ethereal feeling that Brian brought to recordings was lost with his death. It was reflected in later songs like 'Heaven' and 'Continental Drift'. The Stones, due to Brian, are much more than just a guitar band.

NO !!!!

All the Best!

No, Brian's contributions (the ones we know of) are not woefully overrated. Silly thing to say IMHO. I wrote this in the other thread about the boy.

Brian had an amazing understanding for instruments, sounds and how to use them. A lot of the songs show that and his addings made them stand out from other bands in a time when the public wasn't used to "exotic" sounds. He was a very good slide player and also knew how to handle the harmonica. He also used the dulcimer and mellotron in ways nobody had done before.
Brian was a musicians soul but never set out to be anything other than a musical swiss army knife. Just being the rhythm guitarist in the Stones wasn't enough fo him and his work outside of the Stones show that. He could have been a very good producer.

Quote
His Majesty
I don't fukking care because his musicianship continues to inspire me lots and that is all that really matters. ><

Brian had a special ear, feel and touch for music, it's just a shame that other things got in the way of him displaying it more often.

Anyway, here's what Mick Jagger had to say about Brian in 1970. It's interesting for me because it's in the midst of the supposed golden period with Mick melody Taylor...

"He was fantastically important. He was with Keith and me from the beginning and he really got the band together. He was as influential as anyone in contributing to the overall sound... He was very stimulating and I miss that."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-11 00:46 by tonterapi.

Quote
hbwriter
"Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
That was said to me this week by a friend......

Disagree with your friend.

Brian founded the band. That's a pretty large contribution in itself.

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
hbwriter
"Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
That was said to me this week by a friend......

Disagree with your friend.

Brian founded the band. That's a pretty large contribution in itself.

Amen. And he named them, helped define their sound with Keith and the "guitar weaving", was miles ahead of almost everyone in terms of style. He was before Keith did it, the prototype of the modern rock star in many ways. His downfall was really the drugs, and his inability to write pop songs. We know he could write songs for soundtracks etc. but somehow he couldn't do that 3 minutes or under catchy tunes. And the drugs exacerbated whatever mental/emotional issues he had (I've recently been hearing he was bipolar, which would explain a great deal).

This was a man who could learn an instrument in less than a day, well enough to be recorded, he also had an "ear" for major talent. He didn't discover Hendrix but he certainly was one of his champions, and his going to record the "Pipes of Pan" also shows major foresight.

History is written by the winners, and Mick and Keith won so their version of events is more accepted but since we have the insights of others, and even their earlier comments, not to mention the performances themselves we can see what Brian did contribute. I guess over rated or under rated depends on your perspective.

Who are you LillithFlair?

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
Who are you LillithFlair?

Um, not sure what you mean. I introduced myself on another thread, am new hear though I lurked a bit before.

Quote
71Tele
Brian's contributions are rated about right. That is, he is given proper credit for his role in the formation of the band, and for his later adoption of unusual (for a rock combo) instruments during a very fruitful period of chart success. AND he is rightfully cited for being a pain in the neck and a near non-entity when the group was entering its creative zenith around the time of Beggars Banquet. So I wouldn't say "overrated". The only people who overrate him are the ones who feel MJ & KR "stole" "his" band from him, and somehow conspired to deny him the opportunity of contributing his wonderful songs, songs that have eluded us to this day. So, the only people who "overrate" Brian, in my opinion, are what I call the Brian Conspiracy Theorists.

Very well said, 71Tele, couldn't agree more

No, he was wrong about the creative zenith bit.