Brian Jones

And to think I heard it all! This is just pitiful.

 

this happens in all bands and is part of the creative process, in the Beatles the two Georges would make many contributions that they were not credited for, because the song was brought in either by John or Paul. Bands take different views on this and some prefer joint writing credits for all songs but this is not the norm. If Brian had brought a song to the band, any song, he would have got a credit, maybe a sole credit, Bill Wyman did so that precedent was set. Brian it would seem never did.

 

Did he? That's interesting. Considering he never once recorded with them...and also considering that the Stones had already recorded most of Beggars Banquet by the time they first met him...exactly how did Parsons bring more to the Stones than Brian Jones?

 

I love Gram Parsons, but other than hanging out with, scoring with, and loaning guitars to Keith, Gram's influence on the Stones was negligible. Even "Exile." I know it is fun to romanticize that Gram's spirit is on "Exile," but if anybody's spirit is on Exile, it is Nicky Hopkins'.

No Brian fan should be without the November 2012 Mojo Magazine with its cover of Brian Jones and article - "The Man Who Built the Stones." An informative and even-handed account of Brian's rise and fall with a spot on analysis of his musical contributions.

 

OK-

ALL bands? How do you know it happens in ALL bands? Many bands, yes.

Declining to credit people properly for their contributions is not part of any creative process.

What two Georges in the Beatles? If you refer to George Harrison and George Martin the latter was as you know not a member of the band.

If Lennon and McCartney did it too that doesn't make it fair or just.

Just because you 'brought the song in' doesn't entitle you to deny other contributors proper credit.

Bands do indeed take different views- with Led Zeppelin, for example, songs are credited to one, two, three or four band members, presumably depending on their contribution, which seems fair and just. I suggest that this is the norm, not gatekeeping all the lucrative songwriting royalties for two band members.

It isn't in dispute that Jones wasn't a songwriter, although it seems fairly widely accepted that Ruby Tuesday was composed by Richards and Jones. And to whom was that song credited?

We don't know whether Brian brought any song(s) to the band, or what happened, or would have happened, if or when he did. There is some anecdotal evidence that he did bring songs- not many- to the band from time to time.

In his TWENTY-NINE year career with the Rolling Stones precisely TWO of Bill Wyman's songs appeared on record, one of which was only released on an outtakes collection (Metamorphosis). This is further evidence that Jagger/Richards were less than generous about other band members' songwriting contributions.

Which is where we came in.

 

You will be lucky if you ever get a response! Just total ignorance is no excuse it's total reprehensible.

 

Wow, 2 years longer than BJ lived.
Ronnie's been in the band for 40 years now.
Time flies.

 

ok if not all I will settle for many as it still makes my point, and as for the Beatles George did not complain if he came up with a line here and there nor Ringo for that matter, had their contribution been greater than the odd line or they have brought in the genesis of the song then i am certain they would have been credited. Equally it is also about amount of contribution, I presume that you are suggesting that Brian Jones actually made significant additions and changes to Stones songs for which he was denied his fair credit, personally i do not buy that one jot, he may have contributed a line or riff or the arrangement but clearly you think it was much more and Brian Jones has been robbed of his songwriting credits by Mick and Keith, in fact maybe he wrote all the songs and we don't know.... ?

 

John also helped George with a few songs, I imagine Paul did too, esp. in the studio. Ringo got a credit for 4 words on What Goes On.

 

exactly, John and Paul brought most of the songs to the table, George was I maintain at least as integral to the Beatles as Jones to the Stones but nobody would place George on the same place on the podium as John and George, same goes for Brian Jones vz Keith & Mick. Brian was a great musician and he looked the part but after 1965 its Mick & Keith. It is said that there is a hierarchy in the stones in that those two are very much the officers and the others the NCO's

 

Brian was just as important as Mick & Keith. As was Bill and Charlie they were a band there is no hierarchy. None of the songs would have been made without
Brian, Bill and Charlie period. Mick and Keith were only as good as the talent around them.
Brian was still the leader of the Rolling Stones in 1965.

 

I hear the influence of Leon Russell and Mad Dogs and Englishmen more than Gram Parsons.

 

So- where are the Lennon-McCartney-Harrison credits? None. Where are the Lennon-McCartney-Starkey credits? One. In seven years?

How, given that, can you be "certain they would have been credited."?

To take just one example- Jones's mellotron part on 2000 Light Years From Home MAKES the song. If that isn't a "significant addition" I don't know what is. To say nothing of Ruby Tuesday.

It may not have been intentional. It may for instance be due to complications that might arise when more than one publishing company is involved with a song. But the result is the same. People don't get a fair credit on the record, and they don't get a fair share of songwriting royalties.

It's a bit difficult to argue that this didn't happen when both Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor have complained that it did.

You have your view; I have mine. Difference is what makes the world go round. I respect your view. I don't agree with it.

 

I've got that particular issue of Mojo (the Jones article is the reason I got it) and still give it a read from time to time. I'm trying to remember without going to look for it, but...was Paul Trynka the writer of that article?

 

For Christ sake, how much credit do you want people to give to Brian Jones?!?!

He did not write those songs! He contributed to them and got very ankowledged for his contributions, even back then.

No matter how much people will want to argue, he didn't write them and therefore he could and should not be credited as such.

He was part of a band and he was an enormous creative force and had a big hand in the way they sounded. Why can't people just leave it at that?

It's like you will have to give Jones credit for something he did not do or wasn't even cable of.

And as I have said before: If Wyman and Taylor each had made great solo albums or if Jones had made songs outside the Stones, which rivaled the things the Stones did, I would surely begin to wonder if Mick and Keith did the right thing to not let the others come through. Both Taylor and Wyman hasn't made ANYTHING of the same quality as the Stones did. Now they have had over 40 years to prove it, and still nothing has emerged!

Oldham even put, at Jones' own suggestion, Jones together with Gene Pitney, so that he could finish of his ideas. Nothing came of it.

Why not just accept that Jones was not talented enough to write? His force lied elsewhere. Leave it at that and enjoy the records!

 

what can i say to that statement, without Mick & Keith's songs the Stones would not have been able to evolve from an R&B covers band and the stones would have not likely lasted past 66 without them so Brian was just as important then was he ? only before 1965 it was the songwriting talent of Jagger/Richard gave them life beyond this.....its the original songs that could make the stones stand out from the pack...

 

so your view is that Brian probably co wrote many of the songs but never once got credited, sadly i just can't buy that even though i am certain he contributed to many of them but am equally certain as i can be that he could never have brought an original song to the table or he would have got a credit, they came from either mick or keith. Songwriting takes an artist to a new level. Its the different between the Beatles and Westlife.

 

thank you for articulating this point better than i have been able !!

 

I'm not going to jump in to the debate as to whether Brian deserved the occasional co-writing credit, as I've already done that, way back there earlier in the thread. (For what it's worth, I think that he did, others don't...that's cool).

I'm more interested in all the things that Brian did for the Stones that helped make them unique. Like, his slide guitar work, which was something unheard of in England at the time. Or his harmonica playing, which has rarely been matched since. If at all.

However, in my opinion, Brian Jones' greatest achievements came when Jagger and Richards really came into their own as songwriters. Jones' remarkable ability of adding exactly the right instrument, to the right song, without allowing it to become overblown (except on parts of Satanic Majesties), was a unique and essential aspect of the Stones sound that - after Jones' demise - they never really got back.

As much as I love the early Stones (and I do) and Brian's guitar and harp playing during that period, it's what he did from late '65 through to the Beggars Banquet sessions that really showcase his immense musical ability.

In my opinion.

 

Yes.

In that Mojo article, Paul Trynka points out that Brian had the vision and audacity to believe that this neglected old blues music could be popular. Let's face it, Korner and his mates were not exactly photogenic and were quite the insular blues cult/tribe. Brian saw beyond just a bunch of "trad" dudes in small, sweaty clubs, belting out the tunes. Brian brought young girls and boys to the scene.

 

When I bought the recent Paul Trynka book on Brian, I thought of that Mojo issue and wondered then if that was by him too. He was probably writing, or at the very least, researching the book at the time.

Have you read it?

 

i actually do not disagree with anything u said in the above, Brians musicianship is beyond question, I just do not think he is up there with Jagger/Richard in the Stones as they were the prime songwriters, just in the same way I do not have George on quite the same pedestal as John & Paul, and George did write some great songs and not just make uncredited contributions....

 

Exactly!

Brian Jones did not write any of the songs. However, it was his contributions, IMO, that made many of those Jagger/Richards compositions what they are! I mean what's Paint it Black without the Sitar? How good is Lady Jane without the Dulcimer? What about 2000 Light Years without the Mellotron? How about Ruby Tuesday without the recorder? I could go on and on. I think a lot of fans just want to see him get his fair due, and not get erased from the band's history.

 

Hey hold on to yourself! I'm not talking about writing for For Christ sake! I'm saying it took all of them to make those songs what the heck is
wrong with you don't you understand? I agree with post #393 that was the point I was making it had nothing to do with Brian writing songs.
But it did have his unique musical touches added to all the songs he did with The Rolling Stones. You think you can grasp my statement.
And don't ever take that tone with me ever you understand?

 

It's interesting that the songwriters aren't always the best musicians in the band. Pete Townshend, for example, is a great musician, but he's not as good as John Entwistle. Similarly, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, were great songwriters, but Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and probably Ron Wood, are the better musicians.

I could probably name a few more but I'm fighting to stay awake (while also trying to watch the replay of tonight's Brisbane v Richmond AFL match) and will have to wait 'til tomorrow!