Tell Me :
Talk
Very interesting insight. Keith has often referred to Brian as a 'ponce' and Mick as a 'she'. Does this stem from his resentment against those coming from more privaleged backgrounds?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-20 21:37 by neptune.
It's an expression of sad and messed up feelings via what is actually quite a simple part to play, that was one of Brain's gifts, not that many people have that ability... Most play overly complicated and wanky.
His playing on No Expectations is as good if not better than any of his other celebrated contributions. For sure the fragility and sadness of his situation is in his playing and that what you hear and feel when listening was very much the intended outcome.
A wonderful example of a transfering of feeling from the player to the listener.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-20 20:20 by His Majesty.
See, this is what seems to be lost to a lot of listener's ears. It's not the technical abilities of one Brian Jones. (Even though 'I Can't Be Satisfied' is magnificient.) It's the otherworldly feeling. Fellow Piscean Harrison had it to a lesser degree. Hendrix had it (though he had technical abilities in spades). I would say that Lennon's voice had it. There's a little catch, something emotional beyond words. And whatever permutations and styles the band passed through after Brian, they could not reach the emotional depth that Brian provided.
In the 60's personality disorders weren't known really so I can understand that some of the people who dealt with him regarded him as a bastard. For those who had that kind of issues back then it must have been hell and most of them would have been outsiders. I know I'm guessing here and I can just base it personal reasons. But it fits...
Mick and Keith sure must have been conflicted about Brian. I think that they cared about him inside but the show just had to go on. To make it easier for themselves they made him the joke of the band. Some of the things they did were plain cruel. Their constant switching between being friends and bullying him must have made him even more paranoid than he was. I think that the story between the glimmers and Brian is too tangled to blame any of them alone for what happend. Brian is often the one who takes the blame but we've only heard the glimmers side of it.
The split had to happen and IMHO it was a mutual agreement. I have never believed in the "sacking". Brian wanted out and they wanted him out. Somebody just had to make a move and it had to be the glimmers. Brian was waiting for it.
Keith could somewhat handle her - Brian was no match.
Keith could somewhat handle her - Brian was no match.[/quote]
i TOTALLY was thinking the same thing...
My thoughts too. I really dislike the NE argument as if this was Brian's best work. It's great on that track, Keith couldnt pull it off (or wouldnt pull it off) because that's another style, theres a different feel to it. I love Keiths slide work in 1969, its rocking and fits MR perfect, just perfect. Same with YGTS. NE a melodic blues which is something else. But, no I never think of that as one of the great things Brian did.
Im 100% sure of this. It doesnt mean Keith is always wrong but he's very much stuck in that backseat of the Bentley. And his views on Brian comes from what Anita told him during a bj in the backseat. Keith said himself he's a "stalker" when it comes to women and I think that applies to other relationships not only with Brian Jones and Mick Jagger. He observes and judges.
Sure but I was thinking of the real cover, the GB not the US!.jpg)
Exactly. I think that is a mark of great musician and visionary, and I think very much over-looked by many. It is incredible how some people can do with just few notes and limited technical ability miracles. That's bloody impressive! This was the feature Brian Jones was a master and a head above the rest. People tend to think musicianship in terms of technical ability ("wanking" right!), but is the 'less is more' is the mark of different kind of mastery. I think Brian's touch, just right from the beginning, was to add this x-factor to teh band, that little thing that made a huge difference, be it a harmonica, slide guitar etc. If one listens A-sides of their early UK singles (which were very profilic at the time in making the Stones an oustanding band), all of them are representations of Brian adding a significant musical contribution that stands out: the screaming slide of "I Wanna Be Your Man", harmonica of "Not Fade Away", the power chords of "It's All Over Now", teh slide guitar of "Little Red Rooster", the riff of "The Last Time"... I have also the picture that if anything Brian educated to Mick and Keith was to how to use significant sounds, and the quesion how (technically greatly) you do that does not really matter. It is the result, the effect, that solely matters. No matter how simple it is, you go away with it if it sounds good. I think especially Keith learned this philosophy from Brian, probably the riff of "Satisfaction" being the first real manifestation.
And this was all before Brian really started experiment with different instruments. To call it just "colouring" or "betraying the guitar playing duties" sounds a bit guitar fetistic. I think Brian didn't see any difference - he just continued his natural habit of experimenting with sounds. The problem is that the conservative idea we have of rock music is so guitar-driven that the greatness of Brian Jones is difficult to determine or see. He was 'not a good guitarist' or 'betrayed Keith for no wanting to play the guitar any longer' (poor Keith) I hear people say. At the time when the Holy Guitar turned to be he symbol of the whole rock genre, backed up with (a bit lesser sexy) bass and the drums, and the Guitarists were worshipped gods, Brian was already gone. Even though the Stones is probably the singular most efficient band to triumph the idea of rock band consisting solely of electric guitars, the bass and the drums, and Brian being a part of creating that originally, I think he wasn't such stuck to the idea yet.
I think Mick and Keith and the rest all have somehow admitted that Brian's shoes (from 1962 to 67) were never filled. Taylor was given a new but creatively a lesser role, which only covered one dimension of Brian's abilities (in which, he of course, was much 'better' technically), and of course, it was the golden age of guitar gods; they needed one to be relevant. I remember Bill Wyman once saying that as if something extra was needed to lift the song higher, Brian was there to do that, but by the beginning of the seventies they called a bunch of studio musicians to do that if needed. Keith said '71 that it was actually Bobby Keys who was Brian's follower, not Taylor,... he was joking I guess, but there is some truth in there too. Some years ago when the band was discussing of some film plan or something like that, Ronnie Wood proposed something and Keith Richards stopped him and yelled angrily at him "Who the hell you think you are?!! Brian Jones?!!". That remark tells something of Brian's position in the band, and next to Jagger and Richards, no one else ever could hold.
But to get the argument back home: what always amazes me in listening to "Under My Thumb", "Paint It Black", "the Last Time", "Ruby Tuesday", etc that how on earth one can just pick up any instrument, do something quite simple but which fits like a hell to the song and to its atmosphere and the result sounds awesome and timeless, effective even almost 50 years later! If that's "colouring", I really love living in a coloured world! That Brian guy had something magical in his musical mind. I can easily understand why the guy charmed people like Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan. Or Mick and Keith when they first time see him playing the bottleneck of "Bust My Broom" at Marquee...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-21 14:41 by Doxa.
I am not sure Brian had a disorder from the beginning on. It's actually something that you with quite a lot of famous musicians. The change of being just an unemployed musician busking the street for some pocket money to a a rock idol being screamed at by millions of people, earning loads and loads of money, with drugs and alcohol available in bucket loads -it can just twist your mind, it can really fvck you up in no time if you're not strong enough. Even to this day you still have all these Axl Rose's and Amy Winehouse's who just go absolutely bonkers within a couple of years.
Brian just couldn't cope with the fame and success, with the drugs and money, and with the competition to what would turn out one of the most succesful writing partners in history of pop music. He simply was a victim of his own success, like so many musicians who didn't survive.
Mathijs
It might be that it bugged Brian that he couldn't write 'pop' songs as Mick and Keith but I think for a couple of years (66-67) he 'answered 'to them in a creatively wonderful way: adding his musicianship and 'colourism' to those Jagger/Richard-songs or against them. A wonderful teaming up. Unfortunately that seemingly wasn't enough for Brian, or couldn't satisfy him artistically enough (or was it just the drugs and women or the life style or whatever, I don't know, that drove him down). But for some years the band - and rock music over-all - benefitted marveously of that tension between Brian's visionalism/multi-instrumenetalism and Jagger/Richard-songs.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-21 14:53 by Doxa.
Thanks to His Majesty for photo!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-11 20:53 by Redhotcarpet.
Just curious, why is it posted on this thread ?
You don't half talk a lot of shite.
I just speak my mind, like everyone else here.
That band we all love so much is such a complex and often subtle integration of Jagger, Richards, Jones, Wyman, Watts, Taylor, Wood, Hopkins, Stewart, Preston, Keys, ALO & Miller, McLagan etc - the influences, musical abilities, showmanship, personalities, style etc, it's challenging to pick to it apart, and often not possible to come to consensus.
But yes, anyone with a serious interest should be well past the point of looking to Richards as a source for Brian Jones' place in Rolling Stones history - literally decades of verbal Diarrhea from Keith, monsoons really, now flood the landscape... Jagger screwing up the band bringing in disco influences, Mick Taylor ruining the band, Billy Preston ruining the band, etc. Ronnie Wood recounts the time he brought a saxophone into the studio and Keith went into an irrational rage. It's actually gotten to such an extreme point you have to ignore half of Richards' statements. Very unfortunate, because Keith is obviously a "primary" source. Yet his credibility sinks with each passing year.
This is full of a dumbing things down/leaving out other factors approach to sell a book or article.
Just take this
How many Russian girls/women are practicing and working as hard as Maria Sharapova but we will never hear about them?
Thousands.
Because there is more to talent than just practicing and working hard and learning techniques.
Same goes for any field, sport, music, science, maths whatever.
To treat everyone as having the capability to produce things that other people will have an interest in is the great ego boost for people who just havn't got IT.
"Yeah I can be like Jagger, all he does is dance a bit and sings with a mediocre voice and writes a few tunes."
Try it and see how far you get.
Jagger has an IT.
There is an IT or X-Factor.
It is the thing that is hard to define that some people have regardless of practicing or working hard or learning techniques.
When someone with IT practices hard and works hard and learns techniques, then they might have a good chance of other people taking an interest in what they do.
When someone doesn't have much IT and is probably boring, then no matter how much they practice, work, or learn, they will probably not get much interest from other people.
Also another thing to add,is just being in the right place at the right time with what you are offering.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-12 07:57 by howled.
Add Nick Drake to the list of musicians with that ability.
You hit the nail there. Nick Drake. Now this is the only way out from the Stones for someone like Brian I think. Not to become Nick Drake but to find a partner in songwriting and doing some kind of duo - singer songwriter - thing. Brian adding music and tunes to a Nick Drake type of songwriter. This could have been something good and lasting, still modern sounding - actually and it would have been realistic HAD he survived those first few years of Stones enormous success in the early 70s. On the other hand I dont think he would have coped with the Stones success. What, sitting in Cothchford watching the Stones tour of 1969 on TV? Just not happening.
There would have been a future for him after the Stones if he had put some effort in it as he once did with the Stones. Would he have been able to cope with the massive success of the Stones in the 70's? I'd say no if had ended up sitting on his arse at Cotchford and going back to heavy drinking doing nothing and yes if he had got his own thing going by that time. He would still have been bitter about it but he would have survived.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: July 20, 2011 17:26
Quote
Redhotcarpet
I also believe that Keiths opinions on Brian are pointless if you dont know the context. I dont think he knew Brian that well, I'm sure he observed him and Brians different goals in life just like he observed the stable Mick. Keith is working class. That mattered in London in the 60s. His only goal in life was to play guitar, have a dog and a girl and heroin to numb out memories of the pets his mum killed. Very punk if you ask me.
Very interesting insight. Keith has often referred to Brian as a 'ponce' and Mick as a 'she'. Does this stem from his resentment against those coming from more privaleged backgrounds?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-20 21:37 by neptune.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: July 20, 2011 17:40
I think this thread is going nowhere now. The only thing it does is annoying the Brian fans. What is the point with that?
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: July 20, 2011 19:37
Q&A: Marianne Faithfull On Her Critics, Her Voice, And The Rolling Stones' Brian Jones
Why did you decide to do use recordings of Brian Jones' Pan Pipes at Joujouka on "Eternity"?
That was [producer] Hal [Willner]'s idea. At first I wasn't sure, because it's not in the same key. But then I listened to a lot and decided it worked. And also, I decided that Brian Jones' presence on my record is a good thing.
What do you remember about Brian?
He was dreadful. But with time, you forget that and now I just see him as a great musician.
Do you remember when he was recording the music in Joujouka, Morocco, specifically?
Yes, I thought it was great. I love it. I'm sorry that so many people have never heard it. Rather than make all these dreadful records they do now, they should just learn something first [from that]. It's a brilliant thing.
Do you have any fond memories of Brian?
No.
No?
No! He used to beat up Anita [Pallenberg, who was one of Faithfull's best friends as well as Jones' girlfriend and later Keith Richards']. Of course I don't. No.
Why did you want to include him on your record, then?
No, listen. What I did admire about Brian was he was such a great musician. I loved his playing. And I felt very sorry for him. He was in a no-win position. Mick and Keith, they were so ambitious. They couldn't wait around for Brian. And that was all very tragic. I'm very sorry for what happened. I think they were too rude to him. Poor old Brian. He really shot himself in the foot when he came out in the beginning of the Stones and said he was the leader. Silly thing to do with those two. Dangerous. But it doesn't matter now.
[blogs.villagevoice.com]
Why did you decide to do use recordings of Brian Jones' Pan Pipes at Joujouka on "Eternity"?
That was [producer] Hal [Willner]'s idea. At first I wasn't sure, because it's not in the same key. But then I listened to a lot and decided it worked. And also, I decided that Brian Jones' presence on my record is a good thing.
What do you remember about Brian?
He was dreadful. But with time, you forget that and now I just see him as a great musician.
Do you remember when he was recording the music in Joujouka, Morocco, specifically?
Yes, I thought it was great. I love it. I'm sorry that so many people have never heard it. Rather than make all these dreadful records they do now, they should just learn something first [from that]. It's a brilliant thing.
Do you have any fond memories of Brian?
No.
No?
No! He used to beat up Anita [Pallenberg, who was one of Faithfull's best friends as well as Jones' girlfriend and later Keith Richards']. Of course I don't. No.
Why did you want to include him on your record, then?
No, listen. What I did admire about Brian was he was such a great musician. I loved his playing. And I felt very sorry for him. He was in a no-win position. Mick and Keith, they were so ambitious. They couldn't wait around for Brian. And that was all very tragic. I'm very sorry for what happened. I think they were too rude to him. Poor old Brian. He really shot himself in the foot when he came out in the beginning of the Stones and said he was the leader. Silly thing to do with those two. Dangerous. But it doesn't matter now.
[blogs.villagevoice.com]
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 20, 2011 20:16
Quote
Doxa
It is sad - it is supposed to sound sad but I think it also sounds sad for not intended reason.
- Doxa
It's an expression of sad and messed up feelings via what is actually quite a simple part to play, that was one of Brain's gifts, not that many people have that ability... Most play overly complicated and wanky.
His playing on No Expectations is as good if not better than any of his other celebrated contributions. For sure the fragility and sadness of his situation is in his playing and that what you hear and feel when listening was very much the intended outcome.
A wonderful example of a transfering of feeling from the player to the listener.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-20 20:20 by His Majesty.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: July 20, 2011 21:47
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
It is sad - it is supposed to sound sad but I think it also sounds sad for not intended reason.
- Doxa
It's an expression of sad and messed up feelings via what is actually quite a simple part to play, that was one of Brain's gifts, not that many people have that ability... Most play overly complicated and wanky.
His playing on No Expectations is as good if not better than any of his other celebrated contributions. For sure the fragility and sadness of his situation is in his playing and that what you hear and feel when listening was very much the intended outcome.
A wonderful example of a transfering of feeling from the player to the listener.
See, this is what seems to be lost to a lot of listener's ears. It's not the technical abilities of one Brian Jones. (Even though 'I Can't Be Satisfied' is magnificient.) It's the otherworldly feeling. Fellow Piscean Harrison had it to a lesser degree. Hendrix had it (though he had technical abilities in spades). I would say that Lennon's voice had it. There's a little catch, something emotional beyond words. And whatever permutations and styles the band passed through after Brian, they could not reach the emotional depth that Brian provided.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: July 20, 2011 23:24
I'm pretty convinced that Brian had some sort of a personality disorder based on what I've read about him and if I'm right (who knows?) it would explain a lot of the things he did. The inability to handle constant stress, the insecurity, the obsession with music itself and not understanding social codes with other people all fit in together. It would also had been something that would have gotten worse "untreated" and because of his loveless upbringing and the heavy amount of drugs he took.Quote
mickschix
On one hand, he was the founder of the band, the one who at first helped form their unique sound. On the other hand, he seemed to not be able to handle the fame, the women, and the limitations that he recognized in his own abilities. Yes, he was stressed but I never was able to excuse his horrible behavior. He spun out of control and I had little sympathy because he was no longer likeable as a human being. I sided with Mick and Keith who must have been confliced about how to handle the situation.
In the 60's personality disorders weren't known really so I can understand that some of the people who dealt with him regarded him as a bastard. For those who had that kind of issues back then it must have been hell and most of them would have been outsiders. I know I'm guessing here and I can just base it personal reasons. But it fits...
Mick and Keith sure must have been conflicted about Brian. I think that they cared about him inside but the show just had to go on. To make it easier for themselves they made him the joke of the band. Some of the things they did were plain cruel. Their constant switching between being friends and bullying him must have made him even more paranoid than he was. I think that the story between the glimmers and Brian is too tangled to blame any of them alone for what happend. Brian is often the one who takes the blame but we've only heard the glimmers side of it.
The split had to happen and IMHO it was a mutual agreement. I have never believed in the "sacking". Brian wanted out and they wanted him out. Somebody just had to make a move and it had to be the glimmers. Brian was waiting for it.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: July 20, 2011 23:43
It all comes down to Anita.Quote
Redhotcarpet
I also believe that Keiths opinions on Brian are pointless if you dont know the context.
We are used to it.Quote
Stoneage
I think this thread is going nowhere now. The only thing it does is annoying the Brian fans. What is the point with that?
Spot on!Quote
His Majesty
It's an expression of sad and messed up feelings via what is actually quite a simple part to play, that was one of Brain's gifts, not that many people have that ability... Most play overly complicated and wanky.
His playing on No Expectations is as good if not better than any of his other celebrated contributions. For sure the fragility and sadness of his situation is in his playing and that what you hear and feel when listening was very much the intended outcome.
A wonderful example of a transfering of feeling from the player to the listener.
Strange. Marianne is often one of those who defend Brian. Anyway, to be fair Anita used to beat up Brian too according to some sources. One time with a phone receiver! They didn't exactly have a nice relationship. It doesn't excuse Jones of course, but I don't understand why Anita often is portrayed like some helpless damsel in distress and not like the manipulative bitch she was? Maybe it's because she's still alive?Quote
proudmary
Q&A: Marianne Faithfull On Her Critics, Her Voice, And The Rolling Stones' Brian Jones
Do you have any fond memories of Brian?
No.
No?
No! He used to beat up Anita [Pallenberg, who was one of Faithfull's best friends as well as Jones' girlfriend and later Keith Richards']. Of course I don't. No.
Keith could somewhat handle her - Brian was no match.Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
tay66
()
Date: July 21, 2011 00:26
Strange. Marianne is often one of those who defend Brian. Anyway, to be fair Anita used to beat up Brian too according to some sources. One time with a phone receiver! They didn't exactly have a nice relationship. It doesn't excuse Jones of course, but I don't understand why Anita often is portrayed like some helpless damsel in distress and not like the manipulative bitch she was? Maybe it's because she's still alive?Quote
proudmary
Q&A: Marianne Faithfull On Her Critics, Her Voice, And The Rolling Stones' Brian Jones
Do you have any fond memories of Brian?
No.
No?
No! He used to beat up Anita [Pallenberg, who was one of Faithfull's best friends as well as Jones' girlfriend and later Keith Richards']. Of course I don't. No.
Keith could somewhat handle her - Brian was no match.[/quote]i TOTALLY was thinking the same thing...
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: July 21, 2011 09:23
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, I really like No Expectations, but I like Love In Vain even more - the slide work, too. So Keith could have done NE by himself, imo.
Personally I think that the slide of "No Expectations" is praised a bit too much, i.e. is over-rated. Don't get me wrong: it is great, haunting, effective and suits perfectly to the mood of the song as Brian's best contributions always do - but since it is the last track and it is especially guitar track where Brian can be actually heard contributing efficiently people seem to read a bit too much on it. But if it didn't have that dramatical "Brain for the very last time" aura in it, I don't think it would be talked so much. It is basically a fragile, simple slide piece, nothing more, nothing less. When I listen to it, my mind goes: "is this shakey, fragile slide playing all there is left of this wonderful talent who once conquered about half of the instruments of the world and made unforgettable results?". It is sad - it is supposed to sound sad but I think it also sounds sad for not intended reason.
- Doxa
My thoughts too. I really dislike the NE argument as if this was Brian's best work. It's great on that track, Keith couldnt pull it off (or wouldnt pull it off) because that's another style, theres a different feel to it. I love Keiths slide work in 1969, its rocking and fits MR perfect, just perfect. Same with YGTS. NE a melodic blues which is something else. But, no I never think of that as one of the great things Brian did.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: July 21, 2011 09:32
Quote
neptuneQuote
Redhotcarpet
I also believe that Keiths opinions on Brian are pointless if you dont know the context. I dont think he knew Brian that well, I'm sure he observed him and Brians different goals in life just like he observed the stable Mick. Keith is working class. That mattered in London in the 60s. His only goal in life was to play guitar, have a dog and a girl and heroin to numb out memories of the pets his mum killed. Very punk if you ask me.
Very interesting insight. Keith has often referred to Brian as a 'ponce' and Mick as a 'she'. Does this stem from his resentment against those coming from more privaleged backgrounds?
Im 100% sure of this. It doesnt mean Keith is always wrong but he's very much stuck in that backseat of the Bentley. And his views on Brian comes from what Anita told him during a bj in the backseat. Keith said himself he's a "stalker" when it comes to women and I think that applies to other relationships not only with Brian Jones and Mick Jagger. He observes and judges.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: July 21, 2011 09:41
Quote
neptuneQuote
Redhotcarpet
High tide green grass is one of the best album covers ever made. you watch that one guy who stands out, who is magnetic, even for a straight guy like me or Mick, Keith or Jim Morrisson, and that is the guy with the perfect hair, clothes, that look in his eyes and the broken hand.
Why else does Brian stand out in the High Tide cover? Those loud red pants!
Sure but I was thinking of the real cover, the GB not the US!
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 21, 2011 14:06
Quote
His Majesty
It's an expression of sad and messed up feelings via what is actually quite a simple part to play, that was one of Brain's gifts, not that many people have that ability... Most play overly complicated and wanky.
Exactly. I think that is a mark of great musician and visionary, and I think very much over-looked by many. It is incredible how some people can do with just few notes and limited technical ability miracles. That's bloody impressive! This was the feature Brian Jones was a master and a head above the rest. People tend to think musicianship in terms of technical ability ("wanking" right!), but is the 'less is more' is the mark of different kind of mastery. I think Brian's touch, just right from the beginning, was to add this x-factor to teh band, that little thing that made a huge difference, be it a harmonica, slide guitar etc. If one listens A-sides of their early UK singles (which were very profilic at the time in making the Stones an oustanding band), all of them are representations of Brian adding a significant musical contribution that stands out: the screaming slide of "I Wanna Be Your Man", harmonica of "Not Fade Away", the power chords of "It's All Over Now", teh slide guitar of "Little Red Rooster", the riff of "The Last Time"... I have also the picture that if anything Brian educated to Mick and Keith was to how to use significant sounds, and the quesion how (technically greatly) you do that does not really matter. It is the result, the effect, that solely matters. No matter how simple it is, you go away with it if it sounds good. I think especially Keith learned this philosophy from Brian, probably the riff of "Satisfaction" being the first real manifestation.
And this was all before Brian really started experiment with different instruments. To call it just "colouring" or "betraying the guitar playing duties" sounds a bit guitar fetistic. I think Brian didn't see any difference - he just continued his natural habit of experimenting with sounds. The problem is that the conservative idea we have of rock music is so guitar-driven that the greatness of Brian Jones is difficult to determine or see. He was 'not a good guitarist' or 'betrayed Keith for no wanting to play the guitar any longer' (poor Keith) I hear people say. At the time when the Holy Guitar turned to be he symbol of the whole rock genre, backed up with (a bit lesser sexy) bass and the drums, and the Guitarists were worshipped gods, Brian was already gone. Even though the Stones is probably the singular most efficient band to triumph the idea of rock band consisting solely of electric guitars, the bass and the drums, and Brian being a part of creating that originally, I think he wasn't such stuck to the idea yet.
I think Mick and Keith and the rest all have somehow admitted that Brian's shoes (from 1962 to 67) were never filled. Taylor was given a new but creatively a lesser role, which only covered one dimension of Brian's abilities (in which, he of course, was much 'better' technically), and of course, it was the golden age of guitar gods; they needed one to be relevant. I remember Bill Wyman once saying that as if something extra was needed to lift the song higher, Brian was there to do that, but by the beginning of the seventies they called a bunch of studio musicians to do that if needed. Keith said '71 that it was actually Bobby Keys who was Brian's follower, not Taylor,... he was joking I guess, but there is some truth in there too. Some years ago when the band was discussing of some film plan or something like that, Ronnie Wood proposed something and Keith Richards stopped him and yelled angrily at him "Who the hell you think you are?!! Brian Jones?!!". That remark tells something of Brian's position in the band, and next to Jagger and Richards, no one else ever could hold.
But to get the argument back home: what always amazes me in listening to "Under My Thumb", "Paint It Black", "the Last Time", "Ruby Tuesday", etc that how on earth one can just pick up any instrument, do something quite simple but which fits like a hell to the song and to its atmosphere and the result sounds awesome and timeless, effective even almost 50 years later! If that's "colouring", I really love living in a coloured world! That Brian guy had something magical in his musical mind. I can easily understand why the guy charmed people like Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan. Or Mick and Keith when they first time see him playing the bottleneck of "Bust My Broom" at Marquee...
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-21 14:41 by Doxa.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: July 21, 2011 14:25
Quote
tonterapi
I'm pretty convinced that Brian had some sort of a personality disorder based on what I've read about him and if I'm right (who knows?) it would explain a lot of the things he did.
I am not sure Brian had a disorder from the beginning on. It's actually something that you with quite a lot of famous musicians. The change of being just an unemployed musician busking the street for some pocket money to a a rock idol being screamed at by millions of people, earning loads and loads of money, with drugs and alcohol available in bucket loads -it can just twist your mind, it can really fvck you up in no time if you're not strong enough. Even to this day you still have all these Axl Rose's and Amy Winehouse's who just go absolutely bonkers within a couple of years.
Brian just couldn't cope with the fame and success, with the drugs and money, and with the competition to what would turn out one of the most succesful writing partners in history of pop music. He simply was a victim of his own success, like so many musicians who didn't survive.
Mathijs
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 21, 2011 14:51
Quote
Mathijs
Brian just couldn't cope with the fame and success, with the drugs and money, and with the competition to what would turn out one of the most succesful writing partners in history of pop music. He simply was a victim of his own success, like so many musicians who didn't survive.
Mathijs
It might be that it bugged Brian that he couldn't write 'pop' songs as Mick and Keith but I think for a couple of years (66-67) he 'answered 'to them in a creatively wonderful way: adding his musicianship and 'colourism' to those Jagger/Richard-songs or against them. A wonderful teaming up. Unfortunately that seemingly wasn't enough for Brian, or couldn't satisfy him artistically enough (or was it just the drugs and women or the life style or whatever, I don't know, that drove him down). But for some years the band - and rock music over-all - benefitted marveously of that tension between Brian's visionalism/multi-instrumenetalism and Jagger/Richard-songs.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-21 14:53 by Doxa.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: June 11, 2012 20:52
Thanks to His Majesty for photo!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-11 20:53 by Redhotcarpet.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: June 11, 2012 20:55
The scan has an interesting comment about Keiths image, thats why I posted it.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: June 11, 2012 21:00
Quote
Redhotcarpet
The scan has an interesting comment about Keiths image, thats why I posted it.
Just curious, why is it posted on this thread ?
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: June 11, 2012 21:06
I dont know I wanted to put in somewhere in a thread about Keiths image, how he evolved, how he sort of became the Brian of the band in the 70s. Couldnt find a good thread.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: June 11, 2012 22:12
If you couldn't find a thread, you should start a new one. I don't think Keith EVER became the Brian of the band. Did he beat women on a regular basis and cry while great bands performed at Rock'nRoll Circus..? Oh wait, that was Brian Jones.
Keith's playing deteriorated quickly over the past decade, but he still plays beautiful music.
Ronnie is by far the single most underrated guitarist in rocknroll history. My favorite part of Brown Sugar is the last 2 minutes where Ronnie plays that beautiful 'plinking'.
And let me be VERY clear about this... IF RONNIE WERE TURNED UP IN THE HOUSE SOUND MIXES WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DEBATE.
Ronnie has ALWAYS been put at 50-60% the volume of Keith, especially from the 80s on. My thought is that Keith doesn't want to be shown up. They need to be at the same level and we'd see/hear a much more powerful band!
Keith's playing deteriorated quickly over the past decade, but he still plays beautiful music.
Ronnie is by far the single most underrated guitarist in rocknroll history. My favorite part of Brown Sugar is the last 2 minutes where Ronnie plays that beautiful 'plinking'.
And let me be VERY clear about this... IF RONNIE WERE TURNED UP IN THE HOUSE SOUND MIXES WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DEBATE.
Ronnie has ALWAYS been put at 50-60% the volume of Keith, especially from the 80s on. My thought is that Keith doesn't want to be shown up. They need to be at the same level and we'd see/hear a much more powerful band!
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: June 11, 2012 22:23
Ronnie has ALWAYS been put at 50-60% the volume of Keith, especially from the 80s on. My thought is that Keith doesn't want to be shown up. They need to be at the same level and we'd see/hear a much more powerful band!
Keith didn't want to play in the shadow for the second time in his career.
__________________________
Keith didn't want to play in the shadow for the second time in his career.
__________________________
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 11, 2012 22:53
Quote
flacnvinyl
If you couldn't find a thread, you should start a new one. I don't think Keith EVER became the Brian of the band. Did he beat women on a regular basis and cry while great bands performed at Rock'nRoll Circus..? Oh wait, that was Brian Jones.
Keith's playing deteriorated quickly over the past decade, but he still plays beautiful music.
Ronnie is by far the single most underrated guitarist in rocknroll history. My favorite part of Brown Sugar is the last 2 minutes where Ronnie plays that beautiful 'plinking'.
And let me be VERY clear about this... IF RONNIE WERE TURNED UP IN THE HOUSE SOUND MIXES WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DEBATE.
Ronnie has ALWAYS been put at 50-60% the volume of Keith, especially from the 80s on. My thought is that Keith doesn't want to be shown up. They need to be at the same level and we'd see/hear a much more powerful band!
You don't half talk a lot of shite.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: June 12, 2012 02:18
Quote
His Majesty
You don't half talk a lot of shite.
I just speak my mind, like everyone else here.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Honestman
()
Date: June 12, 2012 02:39
Everything & everyone is overrated one day underrated the other day, just a question of time, fashion, mood...
HMN
HMN
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: June 12, 2012 02:51
its not even possible for brian to be "overrated" because nothing you could possibly say could be good enough to pay tribute to the great brian jones.
brian jones invented the band that is the basis for this website.
no matter what that whining little bitch keith richards says about what a "mean guy" he was or how "difficult" he was the fact remains-
brian jones created the rolling stones
next question.
brian jones invented the band that is the basis for this website.
no matter what that whining little bitch keith richards says about what a "mean guy" he was or how "difficult" he was the fact remains-
brian jones created the rolling stones
next question.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: June 12, 2012 06:03
Quote
lem motlow
its not even possible for brian to be "overrated" because nothing you could possibly say could be good enough to pay tribute to the great brian jones.
brian jones invented the band that is the basis for this website.
no matter what that whining little bitch keith richards says about what a "mean guy" he was or how "difficult" he was the fact remains-
brian jones created the rolling stones
next question.
That band we all love so much is such a complex and often subtle integration of Jagger, Richards, Jones, Wyman, Watts, Taylor, Wood, Hopkins, Stewart, Preston, Keys, ALO & Miller, McLagan etc - the influences, musical abilities, showmanship, personalities, style etc, it's challenging to pick to it apart, and often not possible to come to consensus.
But yes, anyone with a serious interest should be well past the point of looking to Richards as a source for Brian Jones' place in Rolling Stones history - literally decades of verbal Diarrhea from Keith, monsoons really, now flood the landscape... Jagger screwing up the band bringing in disco influences, Mick Taylor ruining the band, Billy Preston ruining the band, etc. Ronnie Wood recounts the time he brought a saxophone into the studio and Keith went into an irrational rage. It's actually gotten to such an extreme point you have to ignore half of Richards' statements. Very unfortunate, because Keith is obviously a "primary" source. Yet his credibility sinks with each passing year.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: June 12, 2012 07:48
Quote
Title5Take1
I read the book mentioned in the post above (and whose book cover is below) and it was very eye-opening and worth reading.
Quote
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
This is full of a dumbing things down/leaving out other factors approach to sell a book or article.
Just take this
Quote
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.
How many Russian girls/women are practicing and working as hard as Maria Sharapova but we will never hear about them?
Thousands.
Because there is more to talent than just practicing and working hard and learning techniques.
Same goes for any field, sport, music, science, maths whatever.
To treat everyone as having the capability to produce things that other people will have an interest in is the great ego boost for people who just havn't got IT.
"Yeah I can be like Jagger, all he does is dance a bit and sings with a mediocre voice and writes a few tunes."
Try it and see how far you get.
Jagger has an IT.
There is an IT or X-Factor.
It is the thing that is hard to define that some people have regardless of practicing or working hard or learning techniques.
When someone with IT practices hard and works hard and learns techniques, then they might have a good chance of other people taking an interest in what they do.
When someone doesn't have much IT and is probably boring, then no matter how much they practice, work, or learn, they will probably not get much interest from other people.
Also another thing to add,is just being in the right place at the right time with what you are offering.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-12 07:57 by howled.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: June 12, 2012 13:12
Quote
SweetThing
But yes, anyone with a serious interest should be well past the point of looking to Richards as a source for Brian Jones' place in Rolling Stones history - literally decades of verbal Diarrhea from Keith, monsoons really, now flood the landscape... Jagger screwing up the band bringing in disco influences, Mick Taylor ruining the band, Billy Preston ruining the band, etc. Ronnie Wood recounts the time he brought a saxophone into the studio and Keith went into an irrational rage. It's actually gotten to such an extreme point you have to ignore half of Richards' statements. Very unfortunate, because Keith is obviously a "primary" source. Yet his credibility sinks with each passing year.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 12, 2012 13:20
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
It is sad - it is supposed to sound sad but I think it also sounds sad for not intended reason.
- Doxa
It's an expression of sad and messed up feelings via what is actually quite a simple part to play, that was one of Brain's gifts, not that many people have that ability... Most play overly complicated and wanky.
His playing on No Expectations is as good if not better than any of his other celebrated contributions. For sure the fragility and sadness of his situation is in his playing and that what you hear and feel when listening was very much the intended outcome.
A wonderful example of a transfering of feeling from the player to the listener.
Add Nick Drake to the list of musicians with that ability.Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: June 12, 2012 14:50
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
It is sad - it is supposed to sound sad but I think it also sounds sad for not intended reason.
- Doxa
It's an expression of sad and messed up feelings via what is actually quite a simple part to play, that was one of Brain's gifts, not that many people have that ability... Most play overly complicated and wanky.
His playing on No Expectations is as good if not better than any of his other celebrated contributions. For sure the fragility and sadness of his situation is in his playing and that what you hear and feel when listening was very much the intended outcome.
A wonderful example of a transfering of feeling from the player to the listener.
You hit the nail there. Nick Drake. Now this is the only way out from the Stones for someone like Brian I think. Not to become Nick Drake but to find a partner in songwriting and doing some kind of duo - singer songwriter - thing. Brian adding music and tunes to a Nick Drake type of songwriter. This could have been something good and lasting, still modern sounding - actually and it would have been realistic HAD he survived those first few years of Stones enormous success in the early 70s. On the other hand I dont think he would have coped with the Stones success. What, sitting in Cothchford watching the Stones tour of 1969 on TV? Just not happening.
Re: "Brian's contributions are woefully overrated"
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: June 12, 2012 17:01
Although Brian is said to have been on his way to get a new band together after his departure I believe that he would have ended up as a producer. You say it nice: "Brian adding music and tunes to a Nick Drake type of songwriter" - a producer more than an artist himself. I also think he would have liked to do more with the Jajouka musicians and probably making a new recording with the Gnaoua.Quote
Redhotcarpet
You hit the nail there. Nick Drake. Now this is the only way out from the Stones for someone like Brian I think. Not to become Nick Drake but to find a partner in songwriting and doing some kind of duo - singer songwriter - thing. Brian adding music and tunes to a Nick Drake type of songwriter. This could have been something good and lasting, still modern sounding - actually and it would have been realistic HAD he survived those first few years of Stones enormous success in the early 70s. On the other hand I dont think he would have coped with the Stones success. What, sitting in Cothchford watching the Stones tour of 1969 on TV? Just not happening.
There would have been a future for him after the Stones if he had put some effort in it as he once did with the Stones. Would he have been able to cope with the massive success of the Stones in the 70's? I'd say no if had ended up sitting on his arse at Cotchford and going back to heavy drinking doing nothing and yes if he had got his own thing going by that time. He would still have been bitter about it but he would have survived.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2156
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10