For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
steffialicia
Really tragic. So much talent and so young.
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).
Quote
Ps37Quote
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]
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.
Quote
Ps37Quote
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.
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.
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
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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_dogQuote
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.