Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Battle of the Brians.; Brian Jones vs Brian Wilson
Topic Started: Apr 14 2006, 06:35 AM (5,953 Views)
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
Quote:
 
perhaps. but putting down brian wilson's "talents" while glorifying brian jones isn't looking at it fairly. i can go learn how to play slide guitar right now, learn how to play a hundred instruments with some practice. but there's no way i'm going to *learn* how to write an album like pet sounds.


I disagree with your point there. You probably could learn to play all those instruments with some practice, but you've grown up playing instruments. Not everyone can. Also, you can *learn* how to write a great album. I bet you the first songs Wilson wrote were probably garbage or at least not very good, and then he got better and better until he could write most of Pet Sounds. Just look at Lennon/McCartney: they went from Love Me Do to A Day In The Life. Obviously they picked up a few things.

Quote:
 
and all the brian jones-penned songs are mostly just stories as of now. no member of the stones has actually come out and said he actually *wrote* the songs. they could all be lying, but the stories could also be untrue. you never truly know. there are a lot of myths in rock history that just aren't true. he hasn't been credited for 40 years, therefore he's never actually been given credit for them, so i don't know how you can really start giving him credit now, see.


You made a few really good points in your post, but this is definitely not one of them. If everyone within The Stones circle is saying that Jones contributed to a song (even people like Marianne Faithful, Charlie Watts, and Bill Wyman) are we gonna turn a blind eye to them and believe only what it says on the back of the album? We've already established that Mick and Keith weren't exactly the nicest guys in the world after they were practically handed the reigns to the band by Oldham. And if we haven't, we should've. I mean, Mick Taylor was forced to leave one of the biggest bands in the world because they only gave him ONE credit out of all the riffs and solos he came up with and because Keef, probably out of envy or jealousy, was always putting him down ('you're great live, but fucking useless in the studio'). It's quite clear that Mick and Keef ran the Stones like mafiosos after they 'wrote' The Last Time 'alone' and established that they could write hits. With Oldham, the middleman between them and the record label, on their side, there was no way Jones and sometimes Wyman (paint it black, monkey man) were gonna get the credit they deserved (they even refused to put out In Another Land as a Rolling Stones single written by Wyman; it was simply issued as a Bill Wyman single).

Besides, Mick and Keef seem to have forgotten who Brian Jones was anyway.

Quote:
 
and if arranging if half of songwriting, doesn't brian wilson deserve even more credit, for building up an orchestra of sound and texture on his tracks? and harmonies too? that's all him.


You can't get more credit than having your name and no one elses listed as the songwriter of the song. If you're using the word 'credit' in place of 'kudos' or 'praise', than that is purely subjective. You think Paint It Black is a kids song or something right? Me and John Lennon think it's one of the greatest compositions of the 20th century (because of ALL of the Stones).

Quote:
 
and if it's true, george martin, ringo, and george deserve a lot of songwriting credits too.


I totally agree with that. You can tell by listening to And Your Bird Can Sing on the Anthology that the main guitar riff they ended up going with was based on a George Harrison guitar solo, so he should've definitely gotten credit. But The Beatles were almost as bad as The Stones when it came to songwriting credit anyway.

Here is an excellent article on arranging and its importance to songwriting (which anyone reading this who aspires to write songs should check out).

Quote:
 
brian jones started the rolling stones "band", but mick jagger was the one who knew keith richards and allowed him to come in and play. and that's where it really exploded. so i'd give mick a lot of that credit too.


That's actually not true. Brian wanted Mick in his band because he was an excellent singer and performer to him. Mick wanted to bring Keith, but at first Brian said no. Mick then told Brian that if he wanted Mick to join, he needed to let Keith in. Brian then agreed. So it was Brian who 'allowed' Keith into The Rolling Stones, and it was Brian that enlisted Bill Wyman and it was Brian that convinced Charlie to quit his day job to join the band and it was Brian that arranged all the songs (covers or originals) they performed live and on their first few albums in those days (all according to Bill Wyman, see).
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thaddeus
Member Avatar
Kiss me like a beesting
You wanna know why I stopped posting here?

Because everybody except for you admits that Wilson won the fucking poll and we aren't going to change your mind soon because you don't listen/know anything about anybody besides the Goddamn Rolling Stones.
Posted Image Go get him, Daffy!
Music 1Music 2Pictures 1Pictures 2
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
Bungalow Bill
Oct 29 2006, 04:46 PM
You wanna know why I stopped posting here?

Because everybody except for you admits that Wilson won the fucking poll and we aren't going to change your mind soon because you don't listen/know anything about anybody besides the Goddamn Rolling Stones.

You caught me in a good mood.

Quote:
 
You wanna know why I stopped posting here?


No.

Quote:
 
Because everybody except for you admits that Wilson won the fucking poll


Actually, he did win the poll. I see it there. He won by like 7 votes.

Quote:
 
and we aren't going to change your mind soon


Change my mind about what? I've finished my math classes two years early, no one has to convince me that 19 is more than 12. Now if you're saying that the opinion of a few dozen Beatles fanatics on a forum is the absolute truth and that Brian Wilson has now been officially declared better than Brian Jones across the universe, than you're an idiot and there's nothing I can do about that.

Quote:
 
you don't listen/know anything about anybody besides the Goddamn Rolling Stones.


that's actually not true. I listen to so many different types of bands and genres that you don't even know. I actually have Pet Sounds, Sunflower, a best of I don't remember the name of, and Smile on my ipod from the Beach Boys alone. To say that the only reason I choose one band over the other is because I'm only knowledgeable on one of them is an insult and simply untrue. From Leadbelly to The Zombies to Miles Davis to Mozart to Pulp to Ravi Shankar, I personally know no one that has more eclectic music collection or taste for music than I do. And that's not bragging, it's a fact. I know people that come close: Tom has practically every album on the top 500 list and Frankie has a shit load too, but I don't know anyone else who knows the basic rules of crafting a pop song, a symphony, and a raga.

Don't become hostile and turn into some idiot posting non-sensical bullshit. This topic hasn't been kind to those kinds of posts.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yankee8156
Member Avatar
Loretta
Carpenter
Oct 29 2006, 03:19 AM
I think it says a lot that one of the biggest things you guys are using to argue how great the leader of the beach boys was is a beatles album.

It's only been used like that because I'd wager most people haven't listened to All Summer Long or Surfer Girl a whole lot lately. It's harder for the Wilson camp to make these comparisons, because practically all of the Wilson fans are very familiar with Jones' work, but Jones fans aren't as familiar with Wilson's.

I haven't given up on it, I just really don't have a response to what's been posted. If you want me to just post some random facts and videos about Wilson, I can do that. I'm just not going to waste my time if I know no one is going to pay attention and take it for what it's worth. My defense isn't going to get anywhere. The only person I'm trying to convince here is you, and it's not going to happen.
My Beatles Trading Post (Updated Regularly)

"George had just come off tour, I'd flown in specially from England, Ringo had flown in specially, too, I think, and John wouldn't show up! He wouldn't come from across the park! George got on the phone, yelled, 'Take those fucking shades off and come over here, you!' John still wouldn't come over. He had a balloon delivered with a sign saying, LISTEN TO THIS BALLOON. It was all quite far out." -Paul McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
I actually like Brian Wilson and appreciate his music (i really like pet sounds now) so I wouldn't mind videos or anything like that. You probably really won't convince me though, seeing as I'm a huge Brian Jones fan.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yankee8156
Member Avatar
Loretta
Carpenter
Oct 29 2006, 05:39 PM
I actually like Brian Wilson and appreciate his music (i really like pet sounds now) so I wouldn't mind videos or anything like that. You probably really won't convince me though, seeing as I'm a huge Brian Jones fan.

Well, I was going to post this a while ago. It's from a Leonard Bernstein special, where he said Brian Wilson was one of the few worthwhile pop artists. It's just beautiful, that's all. Unfortunately, it's cut short from the beginning and the end.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBDqRLkA8ew
My Beatles Trading Post (Updated Regularly)

"George had just come off tour, I'd flown in specially from England, Ringo had flown in specially, too, I think, and John wouldn't show up! He wouldn't come from across the park! George got on the phone, yelled, 'Take those fucking shades off and come over here, you!' John still wouldn't come over. He had a balloon delivered with a sign saying, LISTEN TO THIS BALLOON. It was all quite far out." -Paul McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
Carpenter
Oct 29 2006, 04:33 PM
I disagree with your point there. You probably could learn to play all those instruments with some practice, but you've grown up playing instruments. Not everyone can. Also, you can *learn* how to write a great album. I bet you the first songs Wilson wrote were probably garbage or at least not very good, and then he got better and better until he could write most of Pet Sounds. Just look at Lennon/McCartney: they went from Love Me Do to A Day In The Life. Obviously they picked up a few things.

You made a few really good points in your post, but this is definitely not one of them. If everyone within The Stones circle is saying that Jones contributed to a song (even people like Marianne Faithful, Charlie Watts, and Bill Wyman) are we gonna turn a blind eye to them and believe only what it says on the back of the album? We've already established that Mick and Keith weren't exactly the nicest guys in the world after they were practically handed the reigns to the band by Oldham. And if we haven't, we should've. I mean, Mick Taylor was forced to leave one of the biggest bands in the world because they only gave him ONE credit out of all the riffs and solos he came up with and because Keef, probably out of envy or jealousy, was always putting him down ('you're great live, but fucking useless in the studio'). It's quite clear that Mick and Keef ran the Stones like mafiosos after they 'wrote' The Last Time 'alone' and established that they could write hits. With Oldham, the middleman between them and the record label, on their side, there was no way Jones and sometimes Wyman (paint it black, monkey man) were gonna get the credit they deserved (they even refused to put out In Another Land as a Rolling Stones single written by Wyman; it was simply issued as a Bill Wyman single).

Besides, Mick and Keef seem to have forgotten who Brian Jones was anyway.

You can't get more credit than having your name and no one elses listed as the songwriter of the song. If you're using the word 'credit' in place of 'kudos' or 'praise', than that is purely subjective. You think Paint It Black is a kids song or something right? Me and John Lennon think it's one of the greatest compositions of the 20th century (because of ALL of the Stones).

I totally agree with that. You can tell by listening to And Your Bird Can Sing on the Anthology that the main guitar riff they ended up going with was based on a George Harrison guitar solo, so he should've definitely gotten credit. But The Beatles were almost as bad as The Stones when it came to songwriting credit anyway.

Here is an excellent article on arranging and its importance to songwriting (which anyone reading this who aspires to write songs should check out).

That's actually not true. Brian wanted Mick in his band because he was an excellent singer and performer to him. Mick wanted to bring Keith, but at first Brian said no. Mick then told Brian that if he wanted Mick to join, he needed to let Keith in. Brian then agreed. So it was Brian who 'allowed' Keith into The Rolling Stones, and it was Brian that enlisted Bill Wyman and it was Brian that convinced Charlie to quit his day job to join the band and it was Brian that arranged all the songs (covers or originals) they performed live and on their first few albums in those days (all according to Bill Wyman, see).

but it's easier to learn to play instruments than to learn to write songs, as the career of brian jones even attests to. you can develop your songwriting talent (like lennon/mccartney, like wilson) but some parts of it you're just born with. inspiration and such. you've even told me that.

i understand the controversy surrounding keith and mick's songwriting credits, but that's just what it is: controversy. my point was you can't say anything for sure about any of it. brian jones probably did write some stuff, but exactly how much no one really knows, except the main songwriters, who are keeping his actual songwriting credits under wraps, supposedly.

i said "paint it black" was a kids' song in response to someone's post that one of the beach boys' most popular and important songs was a kids' song or something like that. i forget exactly what. only in comparison. obviously it's a brilliant track, and very important to the 60's in general. i guess i worded my point wrong: but you're right, it's all subjective. however, stating that "paint it black" is one of the most important *songs* of the 20th century because john lennon said so; you should also acknowledge that pet sounds is one of the most important *albums* of the 20th century because paul mccartney said so, and wilson arranged, produced, wrote, scored, whatever else all 13 tracks on that one.

every band with main songwriters has the arranging problem. art garfunkel had a lot of arrangement propositions for paul simon, and never got credited. etc. etc. again, i go back to the argument that wilson was working all alone, more or less.

and my point was that it was all mick's doing that got keith in the band, which you sort of pointed out (him giving brian an ultimatum), which then spurred on one of the greatest songwriting partnerships of the 20th century. without that, the stones would be much less known and influential than the beach boys, because their career would have peaked and stopped in 1964 without the songwriting that the twins brought to the band. just like i'd give paul mccartney more credit for getting george harrison in the band than john lennon. sure, he *allowed* it after all, but paul recognized the talent and made the offer.


ANYWAY, the real main point of my post was that i was being biased in my arguments, and so the debate wasn't really fair to brian jones because i wasn't crediting him with all he should be credited with. so you were right with all that rebuttal stuff anyway.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
Yankee8156
Oct 29 2006, 05:42 PM
Carpenter
Oct 29 2006, 05:39 PM
I actually like Brian Wilson and appreciate his music (i really like pet sounds now) so I wouldn't mind videos or anything like that. You probably really won't convince me though, seeing as I'm a huge Brian Jones fan.

Well, I was going to post this a while ago. It's from a Leonard Bernstein special, where he said Brian Wilson was one of the few worthwhile pop artists. It's just beautiful, that's all. Unfortunately, it's cut short from the beginning and the end.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBDqRLkA8ew

yeah that was actually pretty nice seeing him play the song at the piano like that. you can tell he really feels it. like what he's singing about means something to him.

too bad the original smile sessions ended up the way they did.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
the bridge in "caroline no" is one of the most beautiful things ever.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
lol
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
Carpenter
 
By the way, I can totally hear the Pet Sounds influence on songs like When I'm Sixty Four, but fuck me if Sgt. Pepper (intro and reprise), Lucy In The Sky, Getting Better, Within You Without You, Good Morning, Mr. Kite, and A Day In The Life have any Beach Boys influence. Besides, Paul was writing melodic bass lines way before (All My Loving and Michelle) and those comments, I believe, are merely to plug a favorite album of his that didn't do too well outside of the UK. As much as any one wants to say otherwise, Pepper does NOT sound like Pet Sounds. I believe that Paul was influenced a little musically and inspired a lot to make a great album (because he probably saw Pet Sounds as better than their previous stuff) but Lennon and Harrison apparently couldn't have given a shit, and it shows.


I still stand by that today.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
Carpenter
Oct 30 2006, 05:39 PM
As much as any one wants to say otherwise, Pepper does NOT sound like Pet Sounds.

i wouldn't say sgt. pepper sounds a lot like pet sounds; it would just be called a rip-off. but if paul mccartney and george martin keep on saying that it was a huge influence, i'm not one to deny that from them. they were mainly the ones conducting everything. it didn't really matter if harrison cared much about it, he didn't do much on the record. lennon wasn't bringing many new and different *ideas* to the table either, he hastily scrapped together 4 songs for the LP. without the invaluable input of mccartney and martin (whom the pet sounds influence mainly comes from), those songs aren't close to the monsters they become. and you could see the examples: paul's organ opening and bassline (wilson-inspired) to "lucy"; calliope, tape loops, the whole atmosphere of "mr. kite" belongs to george martin (bass harmonicas come from pet sounds); brass in "good morning good morning" is all martin (the main creative idea brought to the song by john was the animal sound effects, which were also in "caroline no"); and john needed mccartney to finish "a day in the life" for him. obviously it's all relative, but paul was the main creative force behind the album, i think. and he states that wilson's album was the main influence, so that's where that comes from.
the massive influence wasn't just on the beatles - countless bands took cues from pet sounds and you could hear it even then, from odessey and oracle to forever changes to the byrds to just about anyone. without it, the whole idea of concept albums or the idea of an album as one single piece of art, the most important thing to happen to rock music in the late 60's, is pushed back for who knows how long. and that's why it's marked so indelibly in everyone's blood.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
why don't you write one of those little essays on what music would be like without the rolling stones?
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
St. Thomas
Member Avatar
i love katie
Carpenter
Oct 30 2006, 09:42 PM
why don't you write one of those little essays on what music would be like without the rolling stones?

no one's refuting their importance on the rock world. i'm just playing devil's advocate. i disagreed with some of your points on the influence of pet sounds. had brian jones been almost solely responsible for the rolling stones' material up to 1969, i would have voted for him, no doubt. if someone puts his accomplishments down, i'll be glad to defend the guy.
-thomas

last.fm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carpenter
Member Avatar
Avatar
he's responsible, at least in part, for their achievements up to 2006.

They would not have existed without him, as according to bill wyman who was there.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fear of Music · Next Topic »
Add Reply