I think there is blues in the vocals but also that moaning hippie phrasing in the verse. The refrain wounds like 80s soft metal but the its a gas gas gas and the outro is kinda psychedelic.

When JJF was recorded, psychedelic things were currently around,

JJF and Beggar's need to be put into the context of those times.

Pepper and Majesties were around, so JJF has some psychedelic overhang in the chorus.

WTF has a blues verse with the traditional struggle blues thing about it have in common with a happy verse where everything is ok.

In the verse nothing is ok, but in the chorus it is all ok.

Flower Power was everything being ok, peace love no struggle etc etc.

Blues has a much harder history.

The JJF verse/chorus and Blues/Flower Power things are contrasts, 2 sides of the coin.

The Blues and Flower Power have nothing in common and are great contrasts.

I don't know if Mick and Keith are exactly thinking this way, but they had 2 contrasting bits for JJF, the verse and the chorus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-03 18:38 by howled.

I guess I know what you guys are talking about, but freaky otherness is kinda hard to pin down as a musical genre! I thought you meant things like guitar effects, etc. (Me singing is a prime example of freaky otherness, btw, it's terrifying. But what is hippie phrasing? I was a hippie, I ought to be able to do it!)

Edit: I agree that the blues has a hard history, howled, but the context of flower power was the war and violence it was reacting against--it wasn't a case of people floating around singing happily that everything was OK, it was putting flowers down the barrels of guns.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-03 18:42 by Aquamarine.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
howled

Quote
His Majesty
"JJF has the most unpsychedelic riff that a song could have"

Nonsense.


They would have been seen as out of date had they continued with full on psych in 1967 clothing, but the freak element in music world stayed on for years after and in very creative ways.

The stones 1969 blues is different to their 1964 blues, the 1971 weirdness is different to 1967 weirdness. Moonlight Mile etc shows there was still validity in the more weirder sounds, vibes and song wiriting approaches.

Keith was found with lsd in his pocket years later, this in itself shows that the weird party in their, or atleast Keith's personal life was far from over.

Tis just a pity that they didn't allow it to come out in their music.

I've read some BS on this board but to say that the JJF BLUES riff is not an unpsychedelic riff takes the cake.

What does a earthy Blues riff have to do with psychedelica?

A psychedelic song can have a blues riff but it's done in a psychedelic context.

The JJF riff is just a direct blues riff with no psychedelic context but there is some psychedelic context in the chorus.

The JJF riff is an aggressive Blues riff spanning 2 chords and with a strong direct blues pentatonic vocal over the top of it, if that's not old style blues with a rock edge then I'll eat my hat.

I've posted quotes from Mick and Keith saying that JJF/Beggars is leaving the psychedelic thing.

The various videos they recorded for it say more than anything I post. Those videos are a visual manifestation of the freaky otherness that is within the music.

It is not just a blues riff with a pentatonic vocal on top.

Happy eatings.

I'm not saying that psychedelica just vanished completely but it diminished in the late 60s.

Glam rock took some things from the psychedelic thing, like maybe the JJF video makeup but it was shoved into a different context like the Sweet etc.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
howled

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Brian was the one who criticized Satanic and he was the one who wanted to go back to basics. In early 1968 Jagger promised Jones something, songs and/or input, to try to keep him in the band, sane and make him focus on something else than Anita. Keep him calm perhaps.
When the sessions began in 1968 Brian realized Jagger/Richards ran the show and Anita would be present at times. So he gradually lost interest, felt sorry and continued his downfall. And then came the second bust. If Brian brought a sitar to a blues session it probably says more about Keith dominating with his (fantastic) guitar.

I believe Brian Jones probably did whatever he could to stay alive and make it through the day by 1968. And gave up in 1969. Despite his faults he seems like a very sensitive person who couldn't handle what happened to him in 1967. Interesting given his very important role in Rock history 1962-1966/1967 and sadly in 1968/1969 as the first self-pitying heartbroken outlaw casualty in 1968/1969. Always paving the way.

I'm just talking about Brian's musical thing and not his personal life which often seems to get mixed in somehow.

Brian seemed to want to do different music to the Stones, so that was that.

Trying to do world music with a commercial pop/rock song orientated band like the Stones is not going to work.

As Mick said, Brian should have been a music teacher.

I think youre taking comments by Mick to literally. He's poking him. I get your point and Mick's point to some degree but Brian was not a music teacher when he created and later shaped the bands image and/or music. But yes he sometimes seemed to take things to seriously. My point is that the idea of Brian not wanting to play rockn roll or being a pop star is BS. His personal life and situation probably meant everything every day meaning if he finally got the balls to show up in the studio he had to numb himself and not try to compete with Keith on the guitar. Hence the sitar. I get the feeling he was a guy who would have done anything to find a new place within the band, that's why it's impossible to say what he wanted to do in the studio.

What about if he thought the songs were just stupid pop songs.

Brian was a guy that probably knew how to read music and knew music theory and was into Jazz early on.

If Brian wanted to do world type instrumental music, then what has he got in common with Mick and Keith anymore?

Brian picks "Child Of The Moon" as his preferred side but then comes around to JJF, so much for Brian wanting to return to more earthy blues.

Just read one of Brian's last interviews about what he wanted to do, it's world music.

The more I hear Jumping Jack the more I realize I was wrong (to think Child of the Moon was the more commercial side). It has that same appeal as Satisfaction and now I'm really getting to love it - it really is a gas, gas, gas!
- Brian Jones, May 1968



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-03 18:52 by howled.

Quote
howled
When JJF was recorded, psychedelic things were currently around,

JJF and Beggar's need to be put into the context of those times.

Pepper and Majesties were around, so JJF has some psychedelic overhang in the chorus.

Context of the times for sure, but also it's not just in the chorus.

We are not talking flower power, but the insight of light and shade within the LSD experience amongst other things.

If the song had stopped after the intro, before the riff, it would still have been both psychedelic and freaky.

Quote
howled

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
howled

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Brian was the one who criticized Satanic and he was the one who wanted to go back to basics. In early 1968 Jagger promised Jones something, songs and/or input, to try to keep him in the band, sane and make him focus on something else than Anita. Keep him calm perhaps.
When the sessions began in 1968 Brian realized Jagger/Richards ran the show and Anita would be present at times. So he gradually lost interest, felt sorry and continued his downfall. And then came the second bust. If Brian brought a sitar to a blues session it probably says more about Keith dominating with his (fantastic) guitar.

I believe Brian Jones probably did whatever he could to stay alive and make it through the day by 1968. And gave up in 1969. Despite his faults he seems like a very sensitive person who couldn't handle what happened to him in 1967. Interesting given his very important role in Rock history 1962-1966/1967 and sadly in 1968/1969 as the first self-pitying heartbroken outlaw casualty in 1968/1969. Always paving the way.

I'm just talking about Brian's musical thing and not his personal life which often seems to get mixed in somehow.

Brian seemed to want to do different music to the Stones, so that was that.

Trying to do world music with a commercial pop/rock song orientated band like the Stones is not going to work.

As Mick said, Brian should have been a music teacher.

I think youre taking comments by Mick to literally. He's poking him. I get your point and Mick's point to some degree but Brian was not a music teacher when he created and later shaped the bands image and/or music. But yes he sometimes seemed to take things to seriously. My point is that the idea of Brian not wanting to play rockn roll or being a pop star is BS. His personal life and situation probably meant everything every day meaning if he finally got the balls to show up in the studio he had to numb himself and not try to compete with Keith on the guitar. Hence the sitar. I get the feeling he was a guy who would have done anything to find a new place within the band, that's why it's impossible to say what he wanted to do in the studio.

What about if he thought the songs were just stupid pop songs.

Brian was a guy that probably knew how to read music and knew music theory and was into Jazz early on.

If Brian wanted to do world type instrumental music, then what has he got in common with Mick and Keith anymore?

Brian picks "Child Of The Moon" as his preferred side but then comes around to JJF, so much for Brian wanting to return to more earthy blues.

Just read one of Brian's last interviews about what he wanted to do, it's world music.

The more I hear Jumping Jack the more I realize I was wrong (to think Child of the Moon was the more commercial side). It has that same appeal as Satisfaction and now I'm really getting to love it - it really is a gas, gas, gas!
- Brian Jones, May 1968

I dont think he wanted to do anything and everything. He didnt have a plan to make world music, he lacked direction and wanted to be a Rolling Stone. He said they took his band, love and music. Of course he wouldnt admit that in public.

Salt of the Earth is not as strong of a closer as YCAGWYW

Who's to say which of the big four is best? Their all great in their own way and what a time it was to be a Rolling Stones fan! Back when they came out with these truely great and timeless masterpieces! Goats Head and It's Only were still fine records. But then came BlacknBlue and the beginning of the end, really. Some Girls and then Tattoo You were in my opinion the last two great records to come from the band and after that it's been pretty well terrible. Stripped was good but nothing new there so in essence, the Stones were great for two out of their five decade's long carreer and the rest of the time they've skated.

Quote
ryanpow
Salt of the Earth is not as strong of a closer as YCAGWYW

Perhaps not, but as they say, if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need. Salt of the Earth was what was needed.

I regard Salt Of The Earth and YCAGWYW as equally strong (and they have pretty much the same effect as album closers as well).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I regard Salt Of The Earth and YCAGWYW as equally strong (and they have pretty much the same effect as album closers as well).

Agreed.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I regard Salt Of The Earth and YCAGWYW as equally strong (and they have pretty much the same effect as album closers as well).

Salt of the Earth is a great answer to the album's opening track.

...or is it Goat's Head Soap that is ??

2 1 2 0

<..or is it Goat's Head Soap that is ??>

No!

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
howled

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
howled

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Brian was the one who criticized Satanic and he was the one who wanted to go back to basics. In early 1968 Jagger promised Jones something, songs and/or input, to try to keep him in the band, sane and make him focus on something else than Anita. Keep him calm perhaps.
When the sessions began in 1968 Brian realized Jagger/Richards ran the show and Anita would be present at times. So he gradually lost interest, felt sorry and continued his downfall. And then came the second bust. If Brian brought a sitar to a blues session it probably says more about Keith dominating with his (fantastic) guitar.

I believe Brian Jones probably did whatever he could to stay alive and make it through the day by 1968. And gave up in 1969. Despite his faults he seems like a very sensitive person who couldn't handle what happened to him in 1967. Interesting given his very important role in Rock history 1962-1966/1967 and sadly in 1968/1969 as the first self-pitying heartbroken outlaw casualty in 1968/1969. Always paving the way.

I'm just talking about Brian's musical thing and not his personal life which often seems to get mixed in somehow.

Brian seemed to want to do different music to the Stones, so that was that.

Trying to do world music with a commercial pop/rock song orientated band like the Stones is not going to work.

As Mick said, Brian should have been a music teacher.

I think youre taking comments by Mick to literally. He's poking him. I get your point and Mick's point to some degree but Brian was not a music teacher when he created and later shaped the bands image and/or music. But yes he sometimes seemed to take things to seriously. My point is that the idea of Brian not wanting to play rockn roll or being a pop star is BS. His personal life and situation probably meant everything every day meaning if he finally got the balls to show up in the studio he had to numb himself and not try to compete with Keith on the guitar. Hence the sitar. I get the feeling he was a guy who would have done anything to find a new place within the band, that's why it's impossible to say what he wanted to do in the studio.

What about if he thought the songs were just stupid pop songs.

Brian was a guy that probably knew how to read music and knew music theory and was into Jazz early on.

If Brian wanted to do world type instrumental music, then what has he got in common with Mick and Keith anymore?

Brian picks "Child Of The Moon" as his preferred side but then comes around to JJF, so much for Brian wanting to return to more earthy blues.

Just read one of Brian's last interviews about what he wanted to do, it's world music.

The more I hear Jumping Jack the more I realize I was wrong (to think Child of the Moon was the more commercial side). It has that same appeal as Satisfaction and now I'm really getting to love it - it really is a gas, gas, gas!
- Brian Jones, May 1968

I dont think he wanted to do anything and everything. He didnt have a plan to make world music, he lacked direction and wanted to be a Rolling Stone. He said they took his band, love and music. Of course he wouldnt admit that in public.

At the 5:19 mark in the clip below, Brian talks about his musical education and Mick and Keith send it up.

As Brian says, he took on Piano and Clarinet and then lost interest with the Clarinet as he felt like he was getting too involved in musical studies, so he picked up the Guitar.

Fast forward to 1967 and Brian has lost interest in the Guitar.

I think Brian went along with the pop aspect of the Stones for the fame and money and chicks but basically he was a bit of a musical snob IMO, as he already had musical training and a Jazz background (son's name is named after who?).

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with being a bit of a musical snob btw.

Mick said that Brian would have been better off as a music teacher and that the pop star side of Brian is something that he had trouble with, because Mick knew Brian had a musical theory background.

So, Brian and Bill were trying to score with anything that looked female (Bill's interviews), while Mick and Keith were often trying to knock out a song.

That just shows Brian's and even Bill's dedication to the pop part, practically non existent except for rolling up and playing and maybe adding a tiny bit onto what Mick and Keith were doing.

As I said before, Brian cared so much for the songs that he wanted to leave the Stones around 1966 after having a fun time with the pop world benefits, fame, chicks, money etc.

Brian thought the songs were basically pop crap (He might have thought some of it was ok), and he went along with it but it increasingly became something that bored him and he was going off into some drug haze and was bored with Guitar etc etc and he wanted to go into world music at the end (John Mayall described it as Mediterranean Blues).

Brian could pick up an instrument and get it's fingering worked out and then fool around with it and could apply his musical theory training to it and play something on it, not in a virtuoso way but good enough for a Stones record.

That's how I sort of see it.








Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-30 13:41 by howled.

<Brian was a guy that probably knew how to read music and knew music theory and was into Jazz early on.>

Absolutely not!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Brian was a guy that probably knew how to read music and knew music theory and was into Jazz early on.>

Absolutely not!

Well, have you seen Brian explain it in the clip above and do you know that Brian named his son Julian after Julian Edwin "Cannonball" Adderley?

Do you know that Stu said that Brian was playing Django like guitar when they first met?

Django like stuff is not going to get on a Stones record btw.

It was an interesting time back in the early 60s with the Jazz and Blues thing side by side and Charlie Watts coming out of the Jazz side and Ginger Baker and quite a few others, because Blues is not that hard to get a grip on in some way playing wise and there were Blues and R&B playing opportunities opening up.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-30 13:50 by howled.

Look, Brian was a tremendous musical talent, but when it comes to reading music and extensive music theory he was at the child level, like the rest of us.

When you master reading music, you can play the notes straight off the sheets. Brian wasn't even near that level.

Colouring a musical soundscape, however, he mastered - because of his musicality. A big difference.

This reminds me of the famous Django Reinhardt-quote, when guesting at a Duke Ellington-gig.

Duke said to Django that the song was in G. Django answered, without joking: "What's G?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-30 13:49 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Look, Brian was a tremendous musical talent, but when it comes to reading music and extensive music theory he was at the child level, like the rest of us.

We don't know what level his site reading and knowledge of theory was at and it isn't necessarily linked to his level of playing.

We do know he could read music and had knowledge of music theory to some degree though.

According to Keith he was the only one in the band that was able to site read.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-30 14:15 by His Majesty.

In any thread about Brian I dont think it is valid to say "I am just talking about Brian's musical thing, and not his personal life.."; because IMO this is what had a huge hand in his downfall. That he was not able to keep these two separate.
So t show up at a Blues session with a sitar e.g. wasn't a musical statement, it was a symptom of his confusion, of his being lost. I am not a major Brian fan, although I think very highly of him when he was on. He kick-started the Stones. (not 'stated; only KICK started), and his contributions to albums through 66/67 was invaluable, and truly revolutionary.
But maybe it was guilt, maybe it was low self esteem - he was bad with women, he was bad with 60's drugs , and the all his music fell apart.
I think until the very end it shows what great musical force lay dormant inside him. It was he who saw the power in the Moroccan tribal music. Brian was a victim of the 60's, not so much of Mick and Keith and Anita.
Nowadays there are rehabs, people would not be doing those cement blocks of Barbiturates either; his searching would be labelled "World Music leanings"; and basically they would say about him "he needs a good strong producer". I can see him out there with Peter Gabriel.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

So t show up at a Blues session with a sitar e.g. wasn't a musical statement, it was a symptom of his confusion, of his being lost.

Do note that Jimmy Miller wasn't talking of an actual incident there, just an impression of how things were. There were tensions and he'd turn up when he felt like it armed with instruments which may not have fitted with the track they were working on.

He used tamboura effectively on SFM and as far as blues jams goes, well, there's the ace Still A Fool on which he plays slide guitar.



PS: His biggest issue was with alcohol.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-30 14:29 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Look, Brian was a tremendous musical talent, but when it comes to reading music and extensive music theory he was at the child level, like the rest of us.

We don't know what level his site reading and knowledge of theory was at and it isn't necessarily linked to his level of playing.

We do know he could read music and had knowledge of music theory to some degree though.

According to Keith he was the only one in the band that was able to site read.

The answer was given in the context of how Howled put it.

Let's put it this way, nothing indicates that Brian, as a guitar player, was an accomplished site-reading jazz musician.

I don't doubt that he could spot a C on the sheet, or know the difference between Allegro and Allegretto. Probably also knew how different types of notes worked in lengths and tempos - but I doubt he was keeping his site-reading skills up, and he certainly never played written notes while playing in the Stones. If that happened (or could have happened), I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though.

For Keith, being able to site read could mean spotting a C

Quote
DandelionPowderman


The answer was given in the context of how Howled put it.

His interest in and playing of jazz doesn't have to relate to his site reading and music theory. I hear nothing to suggest he was anything other than at about the same level at jazz as he was at any other kind of music.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Brian was a guy that probably knew how to read music and knew music theory and was into Jazz early on.>

Absolutely not!

Breaking howled's comment down.

Brian could site read to some degree and also had knowledge of music theory. There is no "probably" about that. To what level he was at we do not know. A rough guess could be made from 7 years of piano lessons and related site reading and theory.

He also became interested and played (to some degree) jazz.

It is clear he got ribbed by the other stones about his musical education and playing of clarinet etc. That's kinda interesting in itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-30 14:55 by His Majesty.

Not necessarily, but most likely...

Or else he would be a "music theorist" who couldn't, or chose not to, express himself through these abilities - always.

I'm not saying anything about his interest in playing jazz, I'm talking about the likeliness for him to be able to site read jazz music.

Now, you tell me why it's more likely that he could do this, than not.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I'm talking about the likeliness for him to be able to site read jazz music.

Now, you tell me why it's more likely that he could do this, than not.

No I don't, I'm saying he could easily have played some jazz without site reading.

There need not be any link between them and jazz music, make that any music can of course be really simple and easy to site read.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I'm talking about the likeliness for him to be able to site read jazz music.

Now, you tell me why it's more likely that he could do this, than not.

No I don't, I'm saying he could easily have played some jazz without site reading.

There need not be any link between them and jazz music, make that any music can of course be really simple and easy to site read.

I'm with you there

However, things need to be put into perspective, as Brian probably wasn't a site-reading jazz musician scholar, teaching music theory in school - like some like to believe

Quote
DandelionPowderman

However, things need to be put into perspective, as Brian probably wasn't a site-reading jazz musician scholar, teaching music theory in school - like some like to believe

He was probably around the same level anyone would be after 7 years of music education. Maybe a bit more because he was a brainy lil kid and achieved top grades at school when he could be arsed... A recurring theme.

His knowledge of music theory and site reading could have far exceeded his ability to actually play the music.

I'm quite sure he would have ended up dead via a dad's hands or in jail had he become a teacher. Too many fresh, horny female teens around.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-30 15:31 by His Majesty.

PS: I know first hand how crappy your site reading and theoretical skills can be, with seven years of music education...