Happy heavenly birthday to the wonderful Brian Jones. Please share your thoughts songs and photos to remember Brian by.

We Love You, Brian.





[www.youtube.com]

Through 1964 Brian was still as much a visual focus of the band as Mick which you can clearly see in this video of their NME Pollwinners gig at Wembley. Excuse the introduction by Britain's worst ever sex offender.





And here is some great film isolating Brian's performance at one of their greatest ever triumphs - the TAMI show, also in 64.

Happy Birthday Brian Jones


video: [youtu.be]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

When I first got turned onto the Stones they were “it” and Brian was the lynchpin in our minds.. As time (and the internet) moved forward we learned more about stuff we really didn’t care to know about, but it was, and remains, the music and swagger of those earlier days

What's there left to say..?







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-02-28 18:22 by TheflyingDutchman.

Thinking of Brian on his 81st birthday.......



_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Happy Birthday!

Per Arne

That's a somber video to watch.

Today also happens to be the birthday of my mother and my dog.

Happy Birthday to the man who along with Keith , Mick , Charlie and Bill created the SOUND of the greatest rock band ever.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, creator of The Rolling Stones; Brian Jones

Really tragic. So much talent and so young.

Quote
steffialicia
Really tragic. So much talent and so young.

+1

Such a waste of talent. He peaked early. I was listening to I'm Movin' On, and Little Red Rooster live. His slide was incredible. Then, instead of getting better on the instrument, he laid down his guitar and never got better on it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-01 15:47 by Ps37.

I think Brian is best described as ethereal. His talent evoked emotions that didn't need words. George Harrison had a bit of that. (Another Pisces).

Quote
24FPS
I think Brian is best described as ethereal. His talent evoked emotions that didn't need words. George Harrison had a bit of that. (Another Pisces).

[twitter.com]

Deleted: double post. Sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-02 13:06 by Ps37.

Quote
Ps37

Quote
24FPS
I think Brian is best described as ethereal. His talent evoked emotions that didn't need words. George Harrison had a bit of that. (Another Pisces).

[twitter.com]

But there was a difference between Brian and George. Harrison worked his ass off, getting better and better on guitar. At the end of the Beatles he'd developed as a fantastic slide player on Something. And George kept chipping away at songwriting until he was up there with Lennon/McCartney. Brian seemed lazy, or bored, or god knows what his problem was. Both of them introduced us to world music. The difference is that George actually wrote or performed the music. Brian simply climbed up into the hills of Morocco and recorded someone else.

Quote
24FPS

But there was a difference between Brian and George. Harrison worked his ass off, getting better and better on guitar. At the end of the Beatles he'd developed as a fantastic slide player on Something. And George kept chipping away at songwriting until he was up there with Lennon/McCartney. Brian seemed lazy, or bored, or god knows what his problem was. Both of them introduced us to world music. The difference is that George actually wrote or performed the music. Brian simply climbed up into the hills of Morocco and recorded someone else.

I don't disagree with you. I just found it interesting that George by his own words sensed a kinship with Brian.

I don't know how the internal dynamics of their respective bands, or in fact their relationships with their own families, may have affected George or Brian but, as you noted, they clearly responded differently.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-03 00:45 by Ps37.

Quote
Ps37

Quote
24FPS

But there was a difference between Brian and George. Harrison worked his ass off, getting better and better on guitar. At the end of the Beatles he'd developed as a fantastic slide player on Something. And George kept chipping away at songwriting until he was up there with Lennon/McCartney. Brian seemed lazy, or bored, or god knows what his problem was. Both of them introduced us to world music. The difference is that George actually wrote or performed the music. Brian simply climbed up into the hills of Morocco and recorded someone else.

I don't disagree with you. I just found it interesting that George by his own words sensed a kinship with Brian.

I don't know how the internal dynamics of their respective bands, or in fact their relationships with their own families, may have affected George or Brian but, as you noted, they clearly responded differently.

For one thing Brian assumed he was the leader of the Rolling Stones since he's the one that brought them together. And he was the musical spark that set them off. But as things changed, and songwriting was called for, he faltered.

George never claimed to be the leader of the Beatles. They even called John the leader. George created leads for songs. Brian, except for the occasional foray into slide, which seemed to have come easy to him, was content chugging along on rhythm that didn't add a lot to the songs. John's rhythm playing was very distinctive compared to Brian's.

I can see the kinship. Both were Pisces, both in a group dominated by the songwriting team. And George never had to deal with being in a group with Brian. Can you imagine George pulling the kinds of things Brian did, in the Beatles? He would have been replaced a lot earlier than Brian was.

Quote
24FPS
For one thing Brian assumed he was the leader of the Rolling Stones since he's the one that brought them together. And he was the musical spark that set them off. But as things changed, and songwriting was called for, he faltered.

George never claimed to be the leader of the Beatles. They even called John the leader. George created leads for songs. Brian, except for the occasional foray into slide, which seemed to have come easy to him, was content chugging along on rhythm that didn't add a lot to the songs. John's rhythm playing was very distinctive compared to Brian's.

I can see the kinship. Both were Pisces, both in a group dominated by the songwriting team. And George never had to deal with being in a group with Brian. Can you imagine George pulling the kinds of things Brian did, in the Beatles? He would have been replaced a lot earlier than Brian was.

Again, not disagreeing. My original response was actually an attempt to show agreement with your post that "I think Brian is best described as ethereal. His talent evoked emotions that didn't need words. George Harrison had a bit of that. (Another Pisces)."

Both George and Brian eventually wanted out of their respective bands. George even felt the need to enlist Eric Clapton to While My Guitar Gently Weeps in part because he felt John and Paul would be less likely to act dismissively toward him in Eric's presence.

Obviously George and Brian, while apparently friends who according to George himself felt a real bond between themselves, were quite different in many of the ways that mattered.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-03 13:05 by Ps37.

Interesting thoughts here in regard to Brian vs. George and their role in their bands. And I don't see any real disagreements between what Ps37 and 24FPS say. Both right.

Yeah, the dynamics within the bands vary. Some similarities, but also some important differences. I think initially Keith's role was more closely to George's. It was Brian and Mick that had a thing over leadership. They were the Big Boys. The band was Brian's baby for sure, but Mick as a singer and a natural frontman, challenged him, willingly or non-willingly, just right from the beginning. If Brian was the one who worked his ass off to get the band going, and believed in it, and Mick more like keeping an eye on what was going on (having other options in mind), letting Brian do the dirty work, but ready to take action if needed. That is, if the band actually took off and offered him like a real career opportunity. Once that took place, he was determinate and ambitious, and there probably haven't been a band decidion without his strong opinion on it.

Keith was Mick's pal, and that friendship guaranteed his membership in the band. Although, like Keith's mother has recalled, Keith was so initually so insecure that he went to rehearsals despite being sick - he was worried if he would be replaced. Keith was like George - just happy to play a guitar in the band (and like George, being the youngest).

However, Keith got friends with Brian and soon he was like the important pawn in order to claim a leadership: the band was lead by the member who was able to team up with Keith (it looks like there were never a strong bond between Mick and Brian. There always was a sort of tension, competition and ego-play between the two). Sometimes the oddman out was Mick, but, of course, in the end it was Brian. When Oldham pushed Mick and Keith to write songs, and the band's career was based on Jagger/Richards originals, Brian's fate was sealed and dreams on leadership were gone. Keith's real leadership, like his public name and profile, next to Mick's, arose by his song-writing, as he was their main song-writer.

So, if you like, by, say, 1966 Mick and Keith were like the John and Paul of the band, The Big Boys, while Brian was doomed to act the George role of the band.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-03 16:46 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Interesting thoughts here in regard to Brian vs. George and their role in their bands. And I don't see any real disagreements between what Ps37 and 24FPS say. Both right.

Yeah, the dynamics within the bands vary. Some similarities, but also some important differences. I think initially Keith's role was more closely to George's. It was Brian and Mick that had a thing over leadership. They were the Big Boys. The band was Brian's baby for sure, but Mick as a singer and a natural frontman, challenged him, willingly or non-willingly, just right from the beginning. If Brian was the one who worked his ass off to get the band going, and believed in it, and Mick more like keeping an eye on what was going on (having other options in mind), letting Brian do the dirty work, but ready to take action if needed. That is, if the band actually took off and offered him like a real career opportunity. Once that took place, he was determinate and ambitious, and there probably haven't been a band decidion without his strong opinion on it.

Keith was Mick's pal, and that friendship guaranteed his membership in the band. Although, like Keith's mother has recalled, Keith was so initually so insecure that he went to rehearsals despite being sick - he was worried if he would be replaced. Keith was like George - just happy to play a guitar in the band (and like George, being the youngest).

However, Keith got friends with Brian and soon he was like the important pawn in order to claim a leadership: the band was lead by the member who was able to team up with Keith (it looks like there were never a strong bond between Mick and Brian. There always was a sort of tension, competition and ego-play between the two). Sometimes the oddman out was Mick, but, of course, in the end it was Brian. When Oldham pushed Mick and Keith to write songs, and the band's career was based on Jagger/Richards originals, Brian's fate was sealed and dreams on leadership were gone. Keith's real leadership, like his public name and profile, next to Mick's, arose by his song-writing, as he was their main song-writer.

So, if you like, by, say, 1966 Mick and Keith were like the John and Paul of the band, The Big Boys, while Brian was doomed to act the George role of the band.

- Doxa

By 1966? No. Not in the eye of the public. Even in 1969, a large portion of the fanbase doubted that they could carry on without Brian. A situation comparable only to 1977 when Keith's future as a Stone was very doubtful. Brian's decay between 1967 to his death in 1969 wasn't very visible at the time. There were (almost) no live shows, at NME 1968 Brian still looked (and reportedly sounded) great, and Rock'n'Roll Circus was kept in the can until 1996. Brian was huge amongst fans until the very end.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Doxa
Interesting thoughts here in regard to Brian vs. George and their role in their bands. And I don't see any real disagreements between what Ps37 and 24FPS say. Both right.

Yeah, the dynamics within the bands vary. Some similarities, but also some important differences. I think initially Keith's role was more closely to George's. It was Brian and Mick that had a thing over leadership. They were the Big Boys. The band was Brian's baby for sure, but Mick as a singer and a natural frontman, challenged him, willingly or non-willingly, just right from the beginning. If Brian was the one who worked his ass off to get the band going, and believed in it, and Mick more like keeping an eye on what was going on (having other options in mind), letting Brian do the dirty work, but ready to take action if needed. That is, if the band actually took off and offered him like a real career opportunity. Once that took place, he was determinate and ambitious, and there probably haven't been a band decidion without his strong opinion on it.

Keith was Mick's pal, and that friendship guaranteed his membership in the band. Although, like Keith's mother has recalled, Keith was so initually so insecure that he went to rehearsals despite being sick - he was worried if he would be replaced. Keith was like George - just happy to play a guitar in the band (and like George, being the youngest).

However, Keith got friends with Brian and soon he was like the important pawn in order to claim a leadership: the band was lead by the member who was able to team up with Keith (it looks like there were never a strong bond between Mick and Brian. There always was a sort of tension, competition and ego-play between the two). Sometimes the oddman out was Mick, but, of course, in the end it was Brian. When Oldham pushed Mick and Keith to write songs, and the band's career was based on Jagger/Richards originals, Brian's fate was sealed and dreams on leadership were gone. Keith's real leadership, like his public name and profile, next to Mick's, arose by his song-writing, as he was their main song-writer.

So, if you like, by, say, 1966 Mick and Keith were like the John and Paul of the band, The Big Boys, while Brian was doomed to act the George role of the band.

- Doxa

By 1966? No. Not in the eye of the public. Even in 1969, a large portion of the fanbase doubted that they could carry on without Brian. A situation comparable only to 1977 when Keith's future as a Stone was very doubtful. Brian's decay between 1967 to his death in 1969 wasn't very visible at the time. There were (almost) no live shows, at NME 1968 Brian still looked (and reportedly sounded) great, and Rock'n'Roll Circus was kept in the can until 1996. Brian was huge amongst fans until the very end.

Yeah, that totally makes sense RD, from the public's perspective. But that doesn't mean the dynamic within the band itself didn't follow the path Doxa outlines. Clearly Brian was the initial leader, but drugs and his own insecurities coupled with the Jagger/Richards songwriting partnership doomed him from leadership. No big deal if your personality is Charlie or Bill, wonderful support players but if you have bigger designs in mind for yourself probably very destructive. Consider Brian being the instigator of the band in the first place, that must have been hard to overcome (and well he really didn't overcome it).

Sort of. Brian was doomed to be a sideman, if you can call being a sideman in such a popular group doomed. I don't think the general public, at the time, thought of Brian as just a sideman, probably because of his striking looks. And he did contribute a lot more in the early days on stage, harmonica, leads on slide guitar, singing and dancing about. (Although I think some of that singing and dancing was from seeing what attention Mick was getting.)

George seemed to understand he got enough heat, enough fame, enough everything, from just standing there next to Paul playing lead and adding harmony. Behind the scenes he quietly built a solo George. Brian didn't appear to have much of a plan. Things changed and he didn't. They simply evolved into something beyond a blues cover band. (The best ever).

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Doxa
Interesting thoughts here in regard to Brian vs. George and their role in their bands. And I don't see any real disagreements between what Ps37 and 24FPS say. Both right.

Yeah, the dynamics within the bands vary. Some similarities, but also some important differences. I think initially Keith's role was more closely to George's. It was Brian and Mick that had a thing over leadership. They were the Big Boys. The band was Brian's baby for sure, but Mick as a singer and a natural frontman, challenged him, willingly or non-willingly, just right from the beginning. If Brian was the one who worked his ass off to get the band going, and believed in it, and Mick more like keeping an eye on what was going on (having other options in mind), letting Brian do the dirty work, but ready to take action if needed. That is, if the band actually took off and offered him like a real career opportunity. Once that took place, he was determinate and ambitious, and there probably haven't been a band decidion without his strong opinion on it.

Keith was Mick's pal, and that friendship guaranteed his membership in the band. Although, like Keith's mother has recalled, Keith was so initually so insecure that he went to rehearsals despite being sick - he was worried if he would be replaced. Keith was like George - just happy to play a guitar in the band (and like George, being the youngest).

However, Keith got friends with Brian and soon he was like the important pawn in order to claim a leadership: the band was lead by the member who was able to team up with Keith (it looks like there were never a strong bond between Mick and Brian. There always was a sort of tension, competition and ego-play between the two). Sometimes the oddman out was Mick, but, of course, in the end it was Brian. When Oldham pushed Mick and Keith to write songs, and the band's career was based on Jagger/Richards originals, Brian's fate was sealed and dreams on leadership were gone. Keith's real leadership, like his public name and profile, next to Mick's, arose by his song-writing, as he was their main song-writer.

So, if you like, by, say, 1966 Mick and Keith were like the John and Paul of the band, The Big Boys, while Brian was doomed to act the George role of the band.

- Doxa

By 1966? No. Not in the eye of the public. Even in 1969, a large portion of the fanbase doubted that they could carry on without Brian. A situation comparable only to 1977 when Keith's future as a Stone was very doubtful. Brian's decay between 1967 to his death in 1969 wasn't very visible at the time. There were (almost) no live shows, at NME 1968 Brian still looked (and reportedly sounded) great, and Rock'n'Roll Circus was kept in the can until 1996. Brian was huge amongst fans until the very end.

Very true. What I meant by that year is that supposedly Keith had by then achieved with Mick a kind of de facto leadership in the band, since the band was so much relying on his song-writers skills. But the public eye surely didn't see that yet then. It took years for Keith to achieve that kind of public status (for his role) Brian had probably all the way until his departure and death. That's why in the eye of public Brian never was a real 'George' in his band. I mean, with The Beatles John and Paul were straight from the beginning recognized as the most important members of the band, and George with Ringo as seconds fiddle players. Brian was not, but the most famous and distinguished member in the band after Mick. That of seeing him 'George' is something we can say afterwards (since it was true, I think, behind the curtains). In a public eye, Brian was the 'Keith' of the sixties, a real Rolling Stone, a wonderful musician, a soul of the band, and an idol the fans associated themselves with.

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2023-03-03 22:09 by Doxa.