Quote
DragonSky

Quote
Blue
How can anyone who made "Paint It, Black" sound incredibly brilliant with the sitar, "Mona" with an outstanding Vibrato (even Bo Diddley said Brian was the best imitator of Bo's Vibrato

As we have recently learned it's technically tremolo.

Mona" with an outstanding Vibrato
how can this be since its generated by electronics?
im outstanding in many different styles then.

Quote
straycatblues73

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
Blue
How can anyone who made "Paint It, Black" sound incredibly brilliant with the sitar, "Mona" with an outstanding Vibrato (even Bo Diddley said Brian was the best imitator of Bo's Vibrato

As we have recently learned it's technically tremolo.

Mona" with an outstanding Vibrato
how can this be since its generated by electronics?
im outstanding in many different styles then.

I stand corrected! How about Brian perfected the "Bo Diddley" beat better than anyone at the time... Stated by the great Bo Diddley himself!

I think Bo was referring to the riffs and the feel, particularly that descending riff which is in a few of his tunes. They're simple riffs, but it's the feel that counts.

I think Bo was referring to the riffs and the feel, particularly that descending riff which is in a few of his tunes. They're simple riffs, but it's the feel that counts. - tomk

And Brian had that in spades.

So did Bill. That's why the two of them groovin' on marimbas and swishy bass on 'Under My Thumb' is a gas, gas, gas.

Quote
His Majesty
The word genius is used far to easily! Noone in the stones or even the pop/rock world was or is in anyway a genius.

The word genius really is archaic and borrows from references to individuals in the romantic and renaissance eras of Western Civilization.

On a more interesting note, there was a short interview somewhere in the earlier part of the last decade where I remember Jagger being asked about the idea of genius. I could swear that I remember this being a Jagger interview. I have searched for it since and havent found it. I could be wrong and might be quoting from someone else's interview. It would be nice if someone has an archive of all Jagger interviews, and finds these specific comments.

Anyway, I distinctly remember Jagger saying that that he didnt like the word genius being tossed around and followed that with this somewhat exact quote “The genius still has to practice to take an original thought and combine that thought with flexibility in their training"

To me this quote has immense meaning in the context of the Stones. Jagger wasnt referring to anyone in particular but he might as well have been referring to himself. Richards last had a semi-original thought 4 decades ago. Jagger through the years has, at at best, demonstrated that he is exceptionally clever. Jagger is also the only Stone able to translate an original thought into action through hard work, practise and flexibility in mind and body. The Richards worship on this board is kinda cute but Mick Jagger is the Rolling Stones

Below is a wonderful essay from NY TIMES Columnist David Brooks on "Genius: The Modern View"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people live in romantic ages. They tend to believe that genius is the product of a divine spark. They believe that there have been, throughout the ages, certain paragons of greatness — Dante, Mozart, Einstein — whose talents far exceeded normal comprehension, who had an other-worldly access to transcendent truth, and who are best approached with reverential awe

The foundational literary principle is decorum, which means something like the opposite of its dictionary definition: "behaviour in keeping with good taste and propriety" (i.e., submission to an ovine consensus). In literature, decorum means the concurrence of style and content – together with a third element, which I can only vaguely express as earning the right weight.

We, of course, live in a scientific age, and modern research pierces hocus-pocus. In the view that is now dominant, even Mozart’s early abilities were not the product of some innate spiritual gift. His early compositions were nothing special. They were pastiches of other people’s work. Mozart was a good musician at an early age, but he would not stand out among today’s top child-performers.
What Mozart had, we now believe, was the same thing Tiger Woods had — the ability to focus for long periods of time and a father intent on improving his skills. Mozart played a lot of piano at a very young age, so he got his 10,000 hours of practice in early and then he built from there.
The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.
The recent research has been conducted by people like K. Anders Ericsson, the late Benjamin Bloom and others. It’s been summarized in two enjoyable new books: “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle; and “Talent Is Overrated” by Geoff Colvin.
If you wanted to picture how a typical genius might develop, you’d take a girl who possessed a slightly above average verbal ability. It wouldn’t have to be a big talent, just enough so that she might gain some sense of distinction. Then you would want her to meet, say, a novelist, who coincidentally shared some similar biographical traits. Maybe the writer was from the same town, had the same ethnic background, or, shared the same birthday — anything to create a sense of affinity.
This contact would give the girl a vision of her future self. It would, Coyle emphasizes, give her a glimpse of an enchanted circle she might someday join. It would also help if one of her parents died when she was 12, infusing her with a profound sense of insecurity and fueling a desperate need for success.
Armed with this ambition, she would read novels and literary biographies without end. This would give her a core knowledge of her field. She’d be able to chunk Victorian novelists into one group, Magical Realists in another group and Renaissance poets into another. This ability to place information into patterns, or chunks, vastly improves memory skills. She’d be able to see new writing in deeper ways and quickly perceive its inner workings.
Then she would practice writing. Her practice would be slow, painstaking and error-focused. According to Colvin, Ben Franklin would take essays from The Spectator magazine and translate them into verse. Then he’d translate his verse back into prose and examine, sentence by sentence, where his essay was inferior to The Spectator’s original.
Coyle describes a tennis academy in Russia where they enact rallies without a ball. The aim is to focus meticulously on technique. (Try to slow down your golf swing so it takes 90 seconds to finish. See how many errors you detect.)
By practicing in this way, performers delay the automatizing process. The mind wants to turn deliberate, newly learned skills into unconscious, automatically performed skills. But the mind is sloppy and will settle for good enough. By practicing slowly, by breaking skills down into tiny parts and repeating, the strenuous student forces the brain to internalize a better pattern of performance.
Then our young writer would find a mentor who would provide a constant stream of feedback, viewing her performance from the outside, correcting the smallest errors, pushing her to take on tougher challenges. By now she is redoing problems — how do I get characters into a room — dozens and dozens of times. She is ingraining habits of thought she can call upon in order to understand or solve future problems.
The primary trait she possesses is not some mysterious genius. It’s the ability to develop a deliberate, strenuous and boring practice routine.
Coyle and Colvin describe dozens of experiments fleshing out this process. This research takes some of the magic out of great achievement. But it underlines a fact that is often neglected. Public discussion is smitten by genetics and what we’re “hard-wired” to do. And it’s true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior. As Coyle observes, it’s not who you are, it’s what you do

I read the book mentioned in the post above (and whose book cover is below) and it was very eye-opening and worth reading.

So glad I got your attention, TONTERAPI, but I stand by my opinion. An opinion is one persons' viewpoint and from where I'm sitting, he was not such a part of the genius that made the Stones great, ie the songs that they wrote. Lots of British bands tried to rival the Beatles but the Stones were the only ones up to the test because they wrote great songs. Brian was not a songwriter and it pissed him off to no end, and hedid try but he didn't produce anything of value. Not much you can dispute here, I'm afraid.

Quote
mickschix
So glad I got your attention, TONTERAPI, but I stand by my opinion. An opinion is one persons' viewpoint and from where I'm sitting, he was not such a part of the genius that made the Stones great, ie the songs that they wrote. Lots of British bands tried to rival the Beatles but the Stones were the only ones up to the test because they wrote great songs. Brian was not a songwriter and it pissed him off to no end, and hedid try but he didn't produce anything of value. Not much you can dispute here, I'm afraid.

No dispute on the songwriting, however, many of the songs that helped propel the Stones to the level of challenging the Beatles were because Brian Jone's musical talent. Songs like Little Red Rooster, Not Fade Away, Paint It Black, Under My Thumb, Mona, The riff on "The Last Time", Recorder on Ruby Tuesday...and so many more....would not have risen as high in the charts without Brian's input. Brian was there to initially bring the Stones to the level of challenging the Beatles. He may have helped even more as time went on, but continued HARRASSMENT from Mick, Keith, and Andrew Loog Oldham would see to it this would not happen, enough to piss anyone off to no end..not saying that the drug situation wasn't a factor as well.

Quote
mickschix
...from where I'm sitting, he was not such a part of the genius that made the Stones great, ie the songs that they wrote.

And from where I'm sitting, IMHO, he was a big part of the genius that separated the Rolling Stones from being just another Brit Invasion Band. His influences were Jimmy Reed, Howlin' Wolf and of course, Robert Johnson. He brought that sense of danger and menace to their music that ended up being their image. There's a grown ass man sound to the band that he brought. Which makes it all the more sad/ironic/f'd up, that they finally got around to recording versions of Robert Johnson songs, and Brian had nothing to do with it.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
mickschix
...from where I'm sitting, he was not such a part of the genius that made the Stones great, ie the songs that they wrote.

And from where I'm sitting, IMHO, he was a big part of the genius that separated the Rolling Stones from being just another Brit Invasion Band. His influences were Jimmy Reed, Howlin' Wolf and of course, Robert Johnson. He brought that sense of danger and menace to their music that ended up being their image. There's a grown ass man sound to the band that he brought. Which makes it all the more sad/ironic/f'd up, that they finally got around to recording versions of Robert Johnson songs, and Brian had nothing to do with it.

Lots of "menace" in those mellotron and recorder parts! Just kidding. Of course Brian made an enormous contribution on guitar when they started out as a blues/R&B cover band, and made a magnificent transition to being a multi-instrumentalist when they became a pop-rock band that rivaled The Beatles. I don't know why we even argue about any of that. But apparently it was not enough for Brian and he self-destructed. Songwriting is the most difficult of any skill in popular music or in a band. That's why so few do it well. It's no shame that Brian couldn't write songs. His great weakness was that he could not find a way to feel secure in the group despite his great contributions. His insecurity fueled drug use, which fueled paranoia, which fueled more insecurity and more drug use. So in a way he actualized his worst fears (at the beginning only fears) by becoming so impossible and unreliable that his bandmates eventually did turn against him. Very insecure people have a way of manifesting their worst fears.

Sure, and John Lennon's contribution in The Beatles were too...

2 1 2 0

Quote
71Tele
...Of course Brian made an enormous contribution on guitar when they started out as a blues/R&B cover band, and made a magnificent transition to being a multi-instrumentalist when they became a pop-rock band that rivaled The Beatles. I don't know why we even argue about any of that. But apparently it was not enough for Brian and he self-destructed. Songwriting is the most difficult of any skill in popular music or in a band. That's why so few do it well. It's no shame that Brian couldn't write songs. His great weakness was that he could not find a way to feel secure in the group despite his great contributions. His insecurity fueled drug use, which fueled paranoia, which fueled more insecurity and more drug use. So in a way he actualized his worst fears (at the beginning only fears) by becoming so impossible and unreliable that his bandmates eventually did turn against him. Very insecure people have a way of manifesting their worst fears.

I think you´ve nailed it!

Quote
rootsman

Quote
71Tele
...Of course Brian made an enormous contribution on guitar when they started out as a blues/R&B cover band, and made a magnificent transition to being a multi-instrumentalist when they became a pop-rock band that rivaled The Beatles. I don't know why we even argue about any of that. But apparently it was not enough for Brian and he self-destructed. Songwriting is the most difficult of any skill in popular music or in a band. That's why so few do it well. It's no shame that Brian couldn't write songs. His great weakness was that he could not find a way to feel secure in the group despite his great contributions. His insecurity fueled drug use, which fueled paranoia, which fueled more insecurity and more drug use. So in a way he actualized his worst fears (at the beginning only fears) by becoming so impossible and unreliable that his bandmates eventually did turn against him. Very insecure people have a way of
manifesting their worst fears.

I think you´ve nailed it!

Agree with most of this assessment too, but what may be missing was the total lack of support for the insecurities that developed from his own bandmates and manager ALO, instead he was ridiculed and ignored, and abandoned, they must of known he was deteriorating emotionally, leaving him on his own, the band's original founder.

Quote
mickschix
So glad I got your attention, TONTERAPI, but I stand by my opinion. An opinion is one persons' viewpoint and from where I'm sitting, he was not such a part of the genius that made the Stones great, ie the songs that they wrote. Lots of British bands tried to rival the Beatles but the Stones were the only ones up to the test because they wrote great songs. Brian was not a songwriter and it pissed him off to no end, and hedid try but he didn't produce anything of value. Not much you can dispute here, I'm afraid.

I agree with you that every record states that Brian had a hard time to write songs - commerical pop tunes if you will. His strength in the musical department was elsewhere. I don't know if he was jealous of the the glimmers as much as frustrated of his own inability to compete with them in the song writing department.
Imagine yourself being close with two members of a band you've started and worked hard on to get going and then suddenly these two guys starts to write the material and your role as a motor is replaced with a new guy. For Brian the Rolling Stones was his baby and he must have had a hard time to accept his new degraded role as a second guitarist with no real voice about the music. He did however manageed to find a successful way to have a voice when he brought in all of his instruments.

A song can be great on it's own but to go anywhere and especially to get on the charts it will need something extra. Brian's additions often made them stand out in a time where the Stones easily could have been just one among many other bands. He put the frosting on the cake and had an amazing feel for what sound to use and how to use it. Every Stone made that band what it was and what it became. I doubt that Mick and Keith would have gone anywhere without the others and Brian was definitely a key ingredient back in the 60's.

I think it's sad that fans still have this extremly negative view of Brian. It's no secret that he was a turbulent guy with issues. But he was also one side in a struggle that consisted of three egos who just couldn't get along together after Oldham joined. It was always two against one and Brian shouldn't be blamed alone for that. It's important to remember that Brian isn't here to tell us about that or explain his side of everything that has been said.

Quote
71Tele
His great weakness was that he could not find a way to feel secure in the group despite his great contributions. His insecurity fueled drug use, which fueled paranoia, which fueled more insecurity and more drug use. So in a way he actualized his worst fears (at the beginning only fears) by becoming so impossible and unreliable that his bandmates eventually did turn against him. Very insecure people have a way of manifesting their worst fears.

I agree. My guess is that Brian's true alienation within the band really took off when he lost his spot to Oldham. Again, the band was his baby - at least in his eyes. The competition with Mick as the "leader" was one thing but suddenly he had nothing to do really but being the third man. That, a stormy private life, inner issues and the stress of constant touring turned him to drugs wich was the worst thing he could do. He held together better than they give him credit for as he showed both loyalty and ability to play even after the shit had really hit the fan in 68.

It's very true that the more Brian thought that the glimmers teamed up against him - the more they did. Jokes that weren't meant to hurt did so anyway thanks to Brian's insecurity. It's often said that the glimmers had to put up with Brian's shit for years. But in all fariness, so had he from them.
It was a weird relationship in weird times I guess.

I don't mean to imply that Brian was totally worthless; he did create some cool sounds, and his love for Elmore James and Howlin Wolf showed up in his contributions for sure. I agree with 71TELE and have said similar things about Brian and the dynamic within the band. Those Brian defenders would call him " under-rated" not over-rated, right?? There seems to have been some confusion about that.
The reason that some of us are not so complimentary regarding Brians' contibutions to the Stones, I think stem from our personal distain for the MAN, not so much for his musicianship. Speaking for myself, I've had a hard time liking much about him, after reading three bios that delve into his psychosis, and his arrogance and just plain mean personality. It's tough to appreciate his talent when one forms such a negative opinion of him.

It is difficult to estimate. Brian Jones is regarded as the founder of the band, as a blues man, but there are no compositions, no guitar solos, no any other prolific material which is identifiable as Brian's. The most contributions are in line with what Keith said in this interview above. The live documents are sparse and there he's playing only rhyhthm without any ingenious characteristic in contrast e.g. to Ronnie's rhythm contributions.

Quote
RobertJohnson
It is difficult to estimate. Brian Jones is regarded as the founder of the band, as a blues man, but there are no compositions, no guitar solos, no any other prolific material which is identifiable as Brian's...

How about these?:

Road Runner – lead guitar, probably harmonica
I Want To Be Loved (the B-side) – harmonica
I Wanna Be Your Man – lead (slide) guitar, harmony vocals
Stoned – harmonica
Mona (I Need You Baby) – lead (tremolo) guitar
I Just Want To Make Love To You - harmonica
Not Fade Away – harmonica
Now I´ve Got A Witness – harmonica
Good Times, Bad Times – harmonica
Cops And Robbers – harmonica
It´s All Over Now – rhythm/co-lead “power chords” guitar
I Can´t Be Satisfied – slide guitar
2120 South Michigan Avenue – harmonica
Confessin´ The Blues – rhythm/co-lead guitar (early “weaving”?)
Look What You´ve Done – harmonica
Down In The Bottom – slide guitar
Little Red Rooster – slide guitar
The Last Time – lead (riff) guitar
I´m Moving On – slide guitar
I´m Alright – lead (“Bo Diddley”) guitar
The Under Assistant… (1989 Singles Collection mix) – harmonica
One More Try - harmonica
Get Off Of My Cloud – lead guitar figure
Doncha Bother Me – slide guitar
Mother´s Little Helper – lead 12-string slide guitar
High And Dry – harmonica
Under My Thumb – marimbas
Lady Jane – dulcimer
Paint It Black – sitar, acoustic guitar
Yesterday´s Papers – vibraphone
Please Go Home – lead (“Bo Diddley”) guitar (unverified)
Ruby Tuesday – recorder, probably piano
Dandelion – soprano sax, probably harpsichord
We Love You – mellotron
She´s A Rainbow – mellotron
Gomper – electric dulcimer, recorder
2000 Light Years From Home – mellotron
Child Of The Moon – soprano sax
Street Fighting Man – sitar, tamboura
Jig-Saw Puzzle – mellotron
No Expectations – acoustic slide guitar
Still A Fool – slide guitar

For those who still don´t get it - it´s your loss...

Quote
rootsman

Quote
RobertJohnson
It is difficult to estimate. Brian Jones is regarded as the founder of the band, as a blues man, but there are no compositions, no guitar solos, no any other prolific material which is identifiable as Brian's...

How about these?:

Road Runner – lead guitar, probably harmonica
I Want To Be Loved (the B-side) – harmonica
I Wanna Be Your Man – lead (slide) guitar, harmony vocals
Stoned – harmonica
Mona (I Need You Baby) – lead (tremolo) guitar



I Just Want To Make Love To You - harmonica
Not Fade Away – harmonica
Now I´ve Got A Witness – harmonica
Good Times, Bad Times – harmonica
Cops And Robbers – harmonica
It´s All Over Now – rhythm/co-lead “power chords” guitar
I Can´t Be Satisfied – slide guitar
2120 South Michigan Avenue – harmonica
Confessin´ The Blues – rhythm/co-lead guitar (early “weaving”
Look What You´ve Done – harmonica
Down In The Bottom – slide guitar
Little Red Rooster – slide guitar
The Last Time – lead (riff) guitar
I´m Moving On – slide guitar
I´m Alright – lead (“Bo Diddley”) guitar
The Under Assistant… (1989 Singles Collection mix) – harmonica
One More Try - harmonica
Get Off Of My Cloud – lead guitar figure
Doncha Bother Me – slide guitar
Mother´s Little Helper – lead 12-string slide guitar
High And Dry – harmonica
Under My Thumb – marimbas
Lady Jane – dulcimer
Paint It Black – sitar, acoustic guitar
Yesterday´s Papers – vibraphone
Please Go Home – lead (“Bo Diddley”) guitar (unverified)
Ruby Tuesday – recorder, probably piano
Dandelion – soprano sax, probably harpsichord
We Love You – mellotron
She´s A Rainbow – mellotron
Gomper – electric dulcimer, recorder
2000 Light Years From Home – mellotron
Child Of The Moon – soprano sax
Street Fighting Man – sitar, tamboura
Jig-Saw Puzzle – mellotron
No Expectations – acoustic slide guitar
Still A Fool – slide guitar
For those who still don´t get it - it´s your loss...

Outstanding and thorough research Mr Rootsman....and I bet there are many more examples! Thank you for posting!

Quote
71Tele
Lots of "menace" in those mellotron and recorder parts!

There sure was!

Quote
mickschix
I don't mean to imply that Brian was totally worthless; he did create some cool sounds, and his love for Elmore James and Howlin Wolf showed up in his contributions for sure. I agree with 71TELE and have said similar things about Brian and the dynamic within the band. Those Brian defenders would call him " under-rated" not over-rated, right?? There seems to have been some confusion about that.
The reason that some of us are not so complimentary regarding Brians' contibutions to the Stones, I think stem from our personal distain for the MAN, not so much for his musicianship. Speaking for myself, I've had a hard time liking much about him, after reading three bios that delve into his psychosis, and his arrogance and just plain mean personality. It's tough to appreciate his talent when one forms such a negative opinion of him.

Your whole stance is ridiculous! ><

Here's why...

If musicians have to be nice for you to be able to appreciate them, you're a fan of the wrong band!

With the exception of Charlie and Mick Taylor(even they have had their own dubious moments), the rest of the stones are horrible, selfish people. Some of the things I've read you hating about Brian the others have done themselves.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 20:09 by His Majesty.

Quote
Blue
Outstanding and thorough research Mr Rootsman....and I bet there are many more examples! Thank you for posting!

You´re welcome!
But it´s not all my work, I´ve learnt from several sources - including IORR´s His Majesty and Mathijs!

Lots of "menace" in those mellotron and recorder parts! - 71 Tele

I find Brian's mellotron in 2000 Light Years From Home to be very dark, menacing and exotic. Even the recorder part on Ruby Tuesday is disconcerting when Mick sings, "...lose your mind".

Also, I still believe that Brian plays the lead solo on 'Time Is On My Side'. The reason I believe that is an interview with Keith during the '81 tour where he states that he now plays Brian's part on that song. Unfortunately the two video sources for this song, Ed Sullivan, and The T.A.M.I. show, both cut away to shots of Mick during the solo. The only reason this is important is because people think Brian couldn't play a straight solo. For some reason they downgrade his slide solos, though very few are any good at it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 21:05 by 24FPS.

Quote
24FPS
Lots of "menace" in those mellotron and recorder parts! - 71 Tele

I find Brian's mellotron in 2000 Light Years From Home to be very dark, menacing and exotic. Even the recorder part on Ruby Tuesday is disconcerting when Mick sings, "...lose your mind".

Also, I still believe that Brian plays the lead solo on 'Time Is On My Side'. The reason I believe that is an interview with Keith during the '81 tour where he states that he now plays Brian's part on that song. Unfortunately the two video sources for this song, Ed Sullivan, and The T.A.M.I. show, both cut away to shots of Mick during the solo. The only reason this is important is because people think Brian couldn't play a straight solo. For some reason they downgrade his slide solos, though very few are any good at it.

Have heard that he may have played the solo also on the long version of "Tell Me", does anyone know if that is for sure true? It IS a mighty fine solo IMHO in any case!

Quote
wanderingspirit66
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people live in romantic ages. They tend to believe that genius is the product of a divine spark. They believe that there have been, throughout the ages, certain paragons of greatness — Dante, Mozart, Einstein — whose talents far exceeded normal comprehension, who had an other-worldly access to transcendent truth, and who are best approached with reverential awe

The foundational literary principle is decorum, which means something like the opposite of its dictionary definition: "behaviour in keeping with good taste and propriety" (i.e., submission to an ovine consensus). In literature, decorum means the concurrence of style and content – together with a third element, which I can only vaguely express as earning the right weight.

We, of course, live in a scientific age, and modern research pierces hocus-pocus. In the view that is now dominant, even Mozart’s early abilities were not the product of some innate spiritual gift. His early compositions were nothing special. They were pastiches of other people’s work. Mozart was a good musician at an early age, but he would not stand out among today’s top child-performers.
What Mozart had, we now believe, was the same thing Tiger Woods had — the ability to focus for long periods of time and a father intent on improving his skills. Mozart played a lot of piano at a very young age, so he got his 10,000 hours of practice in early and then he built from there.
The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.
The recent research has been conducted by people like K. Anders Ericsson, the late Benjamin Bloom and others. It’s been summarized in two enjoyable new books: “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle; and “Talent Is Overrated” by Geoff Colvin.
If you wanted to picture how a typical genius might develop, you’d take a girl who possessed a slightly above average verbal ability. It wouldn’t have to be a big talent, just enough so that she might gain some sense of distinction. Then you would want her to meet, say, a novelist, who coincidentally shared some similar biographical traits. Maybe the writer was from the same town, had the same ethnic background, or, shared the same birthday — anything to create a sense of affinity.
This contact would give the girl a vision of her future self. It would, Coyle emphasizes, give her a glimpse of an enchanted circle she might someday join. It would also help if one of her parents died when she was 12, infusing her with a profound sense of insecurity and fueling a desperate need for success.
Armed with this ambition, she would read novels and literary biographies without end. This would give her a core knowledge of her field. She’d be able to chunk Victorian novelists into one group, Magical Realists in another group and Renaissance poets into another. This ability to place information into patterns, or chunks, vastly improves memory skills. She’d be able to see new writing in deeper ways and quickly perceive its inner workings.
Then she would practice writing. Her practice would be slow, painstaking and error-focused. According to Colvin, Ben Franklin would take essays from The Spectator magazine and translate them into verse. Then he’d translate his verse back into prose and examine, sentence by sentence, where his essay was inferior to The Spectator’s original.
Coyle describes a tennis academy in Russia where they enact rallies without a ball. The aim is to focus meticulously on technique. (Try to slow down your golf swing so it takes 90 seconds to finish. See how many errors you detect.)
By practicing in this way, performers delay the automatizing process. The mind wants to turn deliberate, newly learned skills into unconscious, automatically performed skills. But the mind is sloppy and will settle for good enough. By practicing slowly, by breaking skills down into tiny parts and repeating, the strenuous student forces the brain to internalize a better pattern of performance.
Then our young writer would find a mentor who would provide a constant stream of feedback, viewing her performance from the outside, correcting the smallest errors, pushing her to take on tougher challenges. By now she is redoing problems — how do I get characters into a room — dozens and dozens of times. She is ingraining habits of thought she can call upon in order to understand or solve future problems.
The primary trait she possesses is not some mysterious genius. It’s the ability to develop a deliberate, strenuous and boring practice routine.
Coyle and Colvin describe dozens of experiments fleshing out this process. This research takes some of the magic out of great achievement. But it underlines a fact that is often neglected. Public discussion is smitten by genetics and what we’re “hard-wired” to do. And it’s true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior. As Coyle observes, it’s not who you are, it’s what you do

Great, and really accurate. Thanks for posting.

Quote
24FPS
Lots of "menace" in those mellotron and recorder parts! - 71 Tele

I find Brian's mellotron in 2000 Light Years From Home to be very dark, menacing and exotic. Even the recorder part on Ruby Tuesday is disconcerting when Mick sings, "...lose your mind".

Also, I still believe that Brian plays the lead solo on 'Time Is On My Side'. The reason I believe that is an interview with Keith during the '81 tour where he states that he now plays Brian's part on that song. Unfortunately the two video sources for this song, Ed Sullivan, and The T.A.M.I. show, both cut away to shots of Mick during the solo. The only reason this is important is because people think Brian couldn't play a straight solo. For some reason they downgrade his slide solos, though very few are any good at it.

Keith was just mis remembering like he has done many times.

in those clips Brian keeps playing his tremolo picking guitar part whilst keith's stops strumming and gets down to some soloing. Ignore Keith's comment and focus on what is heard. Their respective live guitars sounds make it easy to say who plays what, at the tami show Brian engages the tremolo effect before they start the song, that effect and his picking part is heard throughout the whole song, there is no part where it isn't heard simply because he doesn't stop playing it in order to solo.

Keith's chordal strumming does stop when the solo comes round simply because he's the one playing the solo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 22:28 by His Majesty.

Quote
mickschix
Speaking for myself, I've had a hard time liking much about him, after reading three bios that delve into his psychosis, and his arrogance and just plain mean personality. It's tough to appreciate his talent when one forms such a negative opinion of him.

Wih three bios did you read?

I don't buy the "plain mean personality". I think it's mean to judge a person that hard when he hasn't had any chance to defend himself. Charlie Watts once compared Brian's "cruel" side with the one of John Lennon and I think that's fair. Mick and Keith has got some of that nasty side too and the arrogance...well, both the Stones (except Charlie) and the Beatles (except Ringo) were full of that. If that's not enough look at the big heads on Dylan and Jim Morrison. It's a common thing among "stars". Brian was indeed a flawed person, but many people still liked him a lot despite his paranoid and insecure character.

Quote
His Majesty
If musicians have to be nice for you to be able to appreciate them, you're a fan of the wrong band!

With the exception of Charlie and Mick Taylor(even they have had their own dubious moments), the rest of the stones are horrible, selfish people. Some of the things I've read you hating about Brian the others have done themselves.

+1

I didn't mean to leave the impression I was minimizing Brian's mellotron and recorder parts - far from it.

that was a great post wanderingspirit66 and i totally disagree with every word of it..

the author focuses on the "10,000 hours of practise,the mentors, the work ethic and ends with "we construct ourselves through our behavior,its not who you are,its what you do"

the author is not seeing the forest for the trees.for those who possess the ability to create something truly trancendant the hard work,the hours,the practice is all just part of the process. its a given,an afterthought.

some people are gifted and its better to just admit it..hard work is great and putting your time is admirable if you want to be a great carpenter,however i would not be uncomfortable in saying that if you gave myself or anyone on this board 20 years to work hard,gave us all the time,money and help we could get the end result would not be ruby tuesday or paint it black.

"the author is not seeing the forest for the trees.for those who possess the ability to create something truly trancendant the hard work,the hours,the practice is all just part of the process. its a given,an afterthought."

Not at all, an afterthought? It is the hard work, the hours and the practice that makes "genius", people don't just suddenly wake up and become masters of their craft. Never happened.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
mickschix
...from where I'm sitting, he was not such a part of the genius that made the Stones great, ie the songs that they wrote.

And from where I'm sitting, IMHO, he was a big part of the genius that separated the Rolling Stones from being just another Brit Invasion Band. His influences were Jimmy Reed, Howlin' Wolf and of course, Robert Johnson. He brought that sense of danger and menace to their music that ended up being their image. There's a grown ass man sound to the band that he brought. Which makes it all the more sad/ironic/f'd up, that they finally got around to recording versions of Robert Johnson songs, and Brian had nothing to do with it.

Amen, brother.