Talk:Brian Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article needs a discography section, as outlined by the guidelines of WikiProject Musicians.
WikiProject Guitarists (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject The Rolling Stones (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Former good article nominee Brian Jones was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

the possessive of names ending in s[edit]

please see Mysloop's talk page and MoS Archive 107 for a discussion of Mysloop's decision to change the form used in this article from "Jones' name" to "Jones's name". Sssoul (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stones drummer in 1962[edit]

Please modify the statement that names Mick Avory as a drummer of the Rollin'(g) Stones. Please refer to the book: "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, The Ultimate Guide to the Rolling Stones, by James Karnbach & Carol Benson, ISBN 0816030359, Facts On File, Inc., New York, NY, 1997 pages 57 and 58. Avory only rehearsed with the pre-Rollin' Stones guys twice during May/June 1962 at the Bricklayers Arms pub. Bill Wyman's statements in "Rolling with the Stones" (I also modestly contributed to that book) are wrong. Bill's co-editor relied on information that had never been confirmed, but it started to live a life on it's own. I also personally spoke to Mick Avory in Utrecht, The Netherlands because of what was written in Karnbach's book and Avory confirmed that Karnbach was right! Tony Chapman was the drummer on July 12, 1962 in the Maquee Club and Charlie Watts replaced him in Januari 1963. Juilliard2005 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

okay - i've made the change and added the reference. thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Jones's death[edit]

In July of 2007 I read an article about Brian Jones’s death in the papers. The news’s name is „The Rolling Stones, A Nagy Durranás, Budapest 2007” [ „A Nagy Durranás” in English: The Big Bang] and the headline of the article is „Mi történt Micimackó házában? Brian Jones rejtélyes halála – legenda és valóság” (This is in Elnglis about the same: What happened in the house of Winnie-the-Pooh? Brian Jones’s mystic death – legend and fact”.) The journal is a special edition.

The journalist - called Sebők János - write in the article: Brian Jones was killed. The killer was some Frank Thorogood, building contractor, who confessed one's crime in the hour of death to his friend called Tom Keylock. The reason of the murder was the money. The date and scence of confession: 7 November 1993, Nord Middlesex Hospital. Thanks Ronasdudor (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Dear Administrators, but I made mistake, this issue decipherable in the article. I was mindless. Ronasdudor (talk)13:05, 14 March 2009. (UTC)

Sure I Do[edit]

I have edited out the comment "A second song, "Sure I Do", reportedly written, recorded, and sung completely by Jones in 1963, remains unreleased. A vinyl disc with a label containing the title remains in Wyman's "Sticky Fingers" restaurant; it is unclear whether the song exists or not."

To date there has been no sighting of the actual record in Wyman's Sticky Fingers restaurant by any of the contributors on www.iorr.org. [[[User:Heteren|Heteren]] (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)]

reorganizing[edit]

someone just split the section formerly entitled "death" into two parts. i see the point of that division, but calling the two sections "Demise" and "Death" doesn't make sense: the words are synonyms, so it's like having "death" and "death". my proposal - "Departure from the Rolling Stones" and "Death" - is also not that red hot: "estrangement and departure" are one subject, really. so why is the saga of Brian's unravelling interrupted with that "other contributions" section?? maybe "other contributions" section could be moved to a later point, like the "songwriting" section? Sssoul (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

update: okay, i've made "other contributions" a subsection of "songwriting credits", and i think it works all right. Sssoul (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sssoul. I'm the culprit. I'm glad you saw what I was trying to do. This article is currently a mess, but you've made some good steps to improve it. Of course, "estrangement" and "departure", which are now two section's titles, are just as synonymous as "demise" and "death". I'm not complaining, but. . . . You've done well, and I'm not in a position to help out a lot. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the reply; i'm also glad you see what tree i'm barking up. yeah, the article is still a mess, and the section headers are just icing, but: i disagree that "estrangement" and "departure" are synonyms; people can be - like Brian was - estranged from others for some time before parting ways with them; while in every dictionary i own "demise" is a plain old synonym for "death". but maybe "alienation from bandmates" and "departure from the band" would work better? Sssoul (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to the Brian Jones forum?[edit]

Hi, I would like to ask for the ask for the link to the Brian Jones forum? Or if it does not exist anymore, when it ended? I used to be Lucifer Sam there, just realised that I left it around the time of Brian's 30th anniversary, now it's ten years ago. Great article! Sponsianus (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

can you use google to find the forum? it wouldn't be appropriate to include a link to it in the article, if that's what you mean.
and yeah, 40 years now ... Sssoul (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Instruments[edit]

So a "multi-instrumentalist ... known for his use of multiple instruments". This is genius if I understand it correctly. --IRONY-POLICE (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Were you being ironic?--LeValley 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks[edit]

There are a huge amount of redlinks in this article, especially having to do with his works/songs and other minutia. This suggests to me that much of the content of this type is (1) not notable and (2) merely piling on. I'll probably start trimming said content. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

it's worth checking to make sure they're not just red because of typos - i've just corrected a few like that. Sssoul (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Duly noted. I'm not going to rush anything. Looks like you've mostly fixed the problem of excessive redlinks anyway. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
right - there weren't that many, but it was high time someone repaired them. meanwhile, i've also eliminated some of the assertions that were wrong (or highly dubious at best), and i think the red links that remain are likely candidates for article creation (per WP:LINK#Red links) or just delinking (per WP:NNC), rather than "trimming ... content". thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: guitar & vocal contributions[edit]

Stated in Bill Wyman's book "Rolling With The Stones" P.303, that Jones played guitar on Jumpin' Jack Flash. I also read that Jones sang backing Vocals on "Ruby Tuesday" which he helped to write with Keith although he wasn't given a credit. I can't for the life of me remember which book it was in but it may have been in Marianne Faithfull's autobiography in which she also describes how Jones came by the melody for the song from an old English folk song. However, it does not sound like Keith or Bill! singing so therefore one can assume that it was Brian. Sorry for the revisions without verification. (Shelgold (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC))Shelgold.

thanks for bringing these points to the talk page instead of reinserting them in the article. Wikipedia policies require us to cite reliable sources for assertions, especially contentious ones. i think you need to recheck that statement about JJF - it doesn't say anything at all like that on page 303 of Rolling with the Stones. meanwhile, Marianne Faithfull's statements about "Ruby Tuesday" are uncorroborated by any other source, so if you did locate that quote the most you could put in the article is "Marianne Faithfull asserts that ..." - but again, a proper citation would be needed, and some editors would still eliminate it as too dubious and contentious to remain (since there's no apparent reason to consider Marianne [bless her] the decisive expert on this number). as for the backing vocals: our subjective opinions of what it sounds like aren't what matters on Wikipedia. to me it sounds like Mick and Keith, as sources like this have it.
thanks again for discussing these things on the talk page ... oh and: i've given this talk page section a more specific title, and separated it from the previous section. in future you can do that yourself; one easy way is to use the "new section" tab at the top of the page. thanks! Sssoul (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's another source that goes a way towards Jones co-writing Ruby Tuesday: Victor Bockris in his 1993 biography of Keith Richards, in which he states that Richards came up with the basis and the words of the song and that he finished it with Brian in the studio (in 1966). Bockris writes that Richards and Jones "wrote together" (while Jagger was sidelined then). Take it for what it's worth ...Zapspace (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Brian Jones. Excuse me Ssoul but it clearly states on page 303 of rolling with the stones that Jones played guitar on jjf. Please look again on the bottom left of the page next to the jjf sheet music picture. (Shelgold (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)) Shelgold 28.12.09

Sorry to jump in, but I just love to do it! I added the co-author of Rolling with the Stones, who was left off of this mess of a reference section. You two sure there's not a page number misunderstanding here, like between original hardcover version and subsequent paperback releases? I have neither, but one editor says it's there and the other says it's not, so someone (other than me) is clearly mistaken. I think more research is in order (but who am I, right?)... Doc9871 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sssoul, Re: JJF Page 303, "Rolling With The Stones" pub. Dorling and Kindersley 2002. Maybe you have a diff. copy of the book but in mine this is what it says on that page # here is the quote from the book. "...it was Keith who played the bass,Bill played organ,Brian guitar and Jimmy Miller sang backing vocals with Mick and Keith." (Shelgold (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)) Shelgold,28.12.09

I am quoting from the first edition hardback U.K. edition book (Shelgold (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)) Shelgold,28.12.09

"Rolling With The Stones" U.K. hardback First Edition, ISBN 0-7513-4646-2 (Shelgold (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)) Shelgold 28.12.09

Do you know how to add footnotes? Looks like you've got a citable footnote... Doc9871 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No don't know how to add footnotes. (Shelgold (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC))shelgold 28.12.09

Okay... give me a minute... Doc9871 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, first. Where exactly in the article (as it is now) do you want to back up Jones playing guitar on JJF with the reference? Doc9871 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where it states that after '67 he only played 1 guitar part which was on No Expectations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelgold (talkcontribs) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelgold (talkcontribs) 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Jones played guitar on at least 2 songs in 1968 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelgold (talkcontribs) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! So now you see that the problem was with the erroneous statement (which had already been tagged) about his guitar contributions. Be bold, man! You knew it was wrong, and you've got the book to prove it! I'll still show you how to cite things, but the best way to learn (& the way I learned) is to crawl through articles and see how it was done before. Godspeed... Doc9871 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Shelgold - Try "unchecking" the box on your Preferences page that says, "Sign My Name Exactly As Shown". After then saving your preferences, in the future when you sign a comment on a talk page, type four "tildes" (~ ~ ~ ~), with no spaces in between, and you'll have signed out properly, keeping SineBot off your ass... Doc9871 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
all right, now i see "Brian guitar" - sorry for not spotting it earlier. but there is no (0) implication that it was Brian who played the opening chords, which is what the edit i removed asserted; the page also makes a point of Keith's open-E-tuned (acoustic) guitar lending the track a very distinctive sound. (by the way, page 303 is one of the book's "commentary pages" written/compiled by Richard Havers, not Bill.)
Doc9871, "delete that crap next time (providing you want to deal with the headache ;>)" doesn't sound too respectful of other editors working in good faith to bring Brian's article up to Wikipedia's standards, and i hope you'll consider striking or rephrasing that part of your post. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
ps: i was going to add the page 303 reference, but the contested assertion's been removed entirely - so be it. meanwhile, i amended some speculation about the source of Brian's grogginess in the "We Love You" promo; if you have a reliable source asserting his groggy appearance was due to Mandrax, feel free to re-add it with a citation, of course. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Doc9871 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On the very interesting datawebsite you can find the personnel on Jumping Jack Flash: see link

http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapspace (talkcontribs) 15:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Brian wasn't just "one of the founding members"[edit]

...he was "the founder of the Stones," according to Bill Wyman in Stone Alone at pp. 76, 116 and elsewhere; he quotes Keith saying the same. I see throughout the article's history his role has been renamed a number of times, but Wyman would know, wouldnt he? I changed the opening paragraph to acknowledge this.

Also, isnt "Hopkin-Jones" hyphenated? At page 77 Wyman hyphenates it and The Oxford Companion to Popular Music (1991) at p. 500 does, but other places don't. LaNaranja (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopkin-Jones was discussed in the archived discussion. His birth was registered without the hyphen and is indexed under "Jones". Bluewave (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh! I didnt see the Archive link. Thank you Bluewave -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hopkin was one of his middle names, not part ofhis surname.
Brian was indeed one of the founders of the band. one individual can't form a group; one person might be particularly interested in getting a group together, but by definition it takes more than one person to actually form it. i'd credit Brian and Stu as co-founders; but in that famous 1963 newsreel clip Brian himself said: "i was interested in getting a group together but nothing clicked until i met Mick and Keith."
i propose returning to the "one of the founding members" version, citing that clip as a source (it's in the documentaries 25x5 and Let It Bleed). Brian is certainly a better source than Bill about the origins of the band; Bill didn't join the band until they'd already been playing together as the Rollin['/g] Stones for several months. Sssoul (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well... maybe I can explain better what I mean, Ssoul, and thanks for giving me the oppty to try :) I understand that an individual cant form a group, but Brian was already actively creating one, and he brought on Keith and then Mick (or the other way around depending on what you read). He had already pulled together musicians whose styles fit what he wanted -- Ian Stewart, Geoff Bradford -- but Brian had ultimate say-so in who to invite to jam/rehearse and what sound/style to pursue, though he wasnt exactly authoritarian with hiring and firing -- just what worked, but what worked with his vision, not anyone else's.
I'm going with what Keith writes in his book, Life, as he's still alive and a good resource. Brian was definitely forming a band (all of its members desert or are fired after he hooks up with Keith and Mick, who have already been playing together with most of the Stones's playlist for almost a year at the time. The songs the Stones go on to do are the songs Keith and Mick worked up (because Mick had the records and record buying contacts to get access to those blues songs). Why people feel the need to single out one person as the founder of the Stones, I do not know. It's silly. Is it because Brian is dead? Or is it because (unknown to either Keith or Mick) he got one of their earlier managers (maybe that Russian dude, Giorgio, I don't remember exactly) to pay him 5 quid more per week - as leader, even though Keith clearly thought he himself was the leader, since he worked out all the recording details, and Mick too thought he was leader. What Bill Perks/Wyman thinks is irrelevant, it's the 3 core Stones who have to settle it. Since Brian is dead, and the Stones survived him, perhaps he once was the leader? Who could ever know? Since it's not knowable...leave it out of the article.--LeValley 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
So there were other musicians more or less in place, not just Brian standing around alone. But as they all played over that space of time, the different styles and tastes shook out, the chips fell where they would and Mick, Keith and Brian went on together in the same direction. I think this is the background of Brian's clip that you quote, "I was interested in getting a group together but nothing clicked until I met Mick and Keith."
If you're saying that without Mick and Keith there would have been no Rolling Stones as we know them, that's true, and the Rolling Stones took off in a pop direction away from Brian and R&B early on. But Im saying that Brian had to be recruiting for his band, and had to choose these guys to come on with him and Ian and G Bradford etc., first. So Brian was the nucleus.
It does seem to be splitting hairs in a way. Ive run across several sources that call Brian the founder, but please let me know others that say otherwise, I'm genuinely interested in knowing. I know we all just want the darn thing to be accurate. LaNaranja (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
glad you're open to discussion, LaNaranja. i don't have time to dig out all the sources right now, but stating that Brian was one of the founding members doesn't diminish Brian's role, and there's no need to diminish the others' roles either. asserting that there was any individual "founder" sounds like a solo artist hiring musicians as a back-up band or something - it just wasn't the way the Rolling Stones formed. the wording of that advert Brian put in Jazz News (nota bene: he placed that advert after he'd met Keith and Mick) indicates that more than one person was "behind" the advert, interested in getting a functioning group together. even if that advert were what anyone means by "the founding of the Rolling Stones", it wasn't one solitary individual announcing "i declare a band open, now who's going to be in it?" the Rolling Stones formed when Keith and Mick joined Brian and Stu, and Brian was one of the founding members. Sssoul (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. That's exactly how it should be written.LeValley 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Kramer reflections on Brian Jones[edit]

Eddie Kramer: on SIR BRIAN JONES;;;;;;  "Dear asthmatic, old  Brian. He was so sweet.  And was to me -- He was the Genius behind the Stones.  The guy who had the most musical knowledge".  Rolling Stones at Olympic Studios, London 1967 Source: www.kramerarchives.com

This series of photos shows the original Stones during the recording of Beggars Banquet album. I engineered these sessions, with Jimmy Miller producing. Since I had worked with them previously on Satanic Majesties, Between The Buttons, and the Flowers albums, they felt fairly relaxed about me being around them with a camera. During these recordings the famed French film maker Jean-Luc Godard was making "Sympathy for the Devil" (known as "One Plus One" in the UK) – a documentary on the Stones. The expressions on the various members of the band reflect their various moods. Note the cool vintage Pepsi bottle on the screen! http://www.kramerarchives.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.106.240 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the link – i've always wondered who took those fine photos. they aren't from the Beggars Banquet sessions, though; Beggars was made in 1968. he's right that these shots are from 1967 – the Satanic Majesties sessions. Sssoul (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus[edit]

In this article there is presently the statement "Jagger was unhappy with the band's performance compared to others in the film, such as Jethro Tull, The Who, and Taj Mahal" without citation. In the DVD release of the film a reason stated for the delay in release was Brian Jone's death soon after filming and the fact that it was too painful to watch the footage of him. Interviewees state how Brian looked pale during the recording and was withdrawn and alienated from the other members of the Stones. This information (with proper citations verified) would be more appropriate for the section mentioning the Rock and Roll Circus. Pklala (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'll try and find the documentary section and cite it (we have the DVD, but I want to quote the documentary part properly.)LeValley 20:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

beatles template[edit]

Why is there a beatles template at the bottom of the article? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It's history now. Ericoides (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What Keith says in Life[edit]

Now that Keith has written his own book, in which he contradicts some things written in one of the main sources for this article (such as how the name Rollin Stones was chosen...it was collaborative and silly and no one person came up with it), that Mick was an expert in certain kinds of moves that still mark his style today - because there was so little space to move in. He says everyone else had to hold pretty still. Unfortunately, as I'm reading it on Kindle I don't have regular page numbers, but the chapter citations and Kindle section numbers are available.LeValley 21:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself by saying (without real citations) that Brian was the leader, then having Oldham say he was always an outsider (and of course Keith's new book says it came as a surprise to him and Mick that Brian was the "leader"). Needs clean-up.LeValley 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As to Brian's cruelty, Keith has just one main anecdote to illustrate what Brian did to friends, and then, Keith also discusses Brian's tendency to beat up women. Seems like both should probably be mentioned here.--LeValley 22:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can the article say a bit more about the music?[edit]

One can amass citations, but one set of citations should be the music. The reader should be invited to listen to Brian's music (in context). Just saying he played the marimba isn't enough. One needs to know how he played, and why it made such a difference on the album/song/set order that he played in. There's so much to say from observation, which is a valid form of citation as well. At least I hope so, as Wikipedia needs to realize all encyclopedias start from observation (not citations).--LeValley 01:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Long Before Morrison"?[edit]

Someone added this to the intro:

The trajectory of his short life has become archetypal in rock and roll, as he ascends rapidly to stardom with the Rolling Stones, is the band's sometimes-disputed leader, becomes marginal within the band, leaves the band and dies a drug-related death, before Hendrix, before Joplin, long before Morrison.

Morrison is presumably Jim Morrison of The Doors. Morrison's death was exactly two years after Jones's: so, Jones did not die particularly "long before Morrison." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Death section needs cleanup[edit]

Whenever there's controversy and conspiracy theories about a celebrity's death there's going to be at least some mention made in their article, even if the controversy has been essentially settled by all reliable sources... however, the number of "citation needed" tags in that section here is telling. If any of the conspiracy theorists are convinced they can reveal the "truth" to us, then they should know how to give reliable citations. Otherwise, I propose that everything after the first paragraph in that section be replaced with some generic "there is controversy blah blah blah" paragraph, and keep the unconfirmed theories to the blogs. - harutake | talk 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Guitar Player From Mehlville, "stunned"[edit]

--Guitar Player From Mehlville (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The things I read about about the events leading to Brian's death, events surrounding it and paperwork which supported Francis Thorogood and the Rolling Stones, is unbelievable and has been an apparent white wash from the beginning by the police. First and foremost i have read negative comments about Brian an can no longer sit still. The worst of all I think is he was as dumb as a tree. In 1962 after being formed, managed and successfully booked, the Rolling Stones, from Brian's management skills played their first gig, next withing a few short years rose to be the second largest group in the world, the first being the Beatles, Brian did that through his genius marketing and PR skills. If the person who made the tree comment does not understand what PR means, it means, "PUBLIC RELATIONS." The people in the spotlight and most successful people in this world are public relations experts such as Bill Clinton. Not necessarily a good President, but great PR and everyone still loves him. Brian was a marketing expert and more over was owned all the rights to the Rolling Stones including controlling "HIRING & FIRING." You see Brian was a business manager with insight and an owner who knew how to protect his business interest. As he started partying Mick Jagger started gaining control of the group and writing and performing without Brian, but guess what, Brian was paid nor matter what. None of the Stones had control of that, Jagger was vicious to him and had Keith Richards appeared to be backing him up. I keep reading all these stories that appear to put the police and media in a maze leading them away from the truth that they apparently wanted to be led from. On one hand, you had a huge financial machine working for England. 50 percent of everything went to the Crown. If you were a police office investigating an explosive case that could shut down a group like the Stones and end the financial cornucopia and if all it would take was the right spin on the truth, then murder would be permitted as an economic amendment to the structure of England's well being. Brian had an entirely separate program, and you can believe he was about to fire Mick Jagger. There was only one leader of the Stones and it was not going to be Mick. The Thorogood guy coupled with the rest of the liars or conspirators had some benefit for wanting Brian dead, they were all on the fringes being let go. Thorogood was had been fired the day Brian died and was at the scene. The police only wanted the whole thing to go away. They called it death by misadventure. Next you had Thorogood telling the police Brian had been taking the bombers which were actually big black encapsulates, don't know what was in them, but Brian had stopped taking them over a month before his death, but was carrying them in a neckerchief rolled up like a deflated balloon. Thorogood was lying about that and they were not in his sytem to prove that point. He had been drinking beer and smoking some weed and slowing down on that, he was getting clean he wanted his life back on track and the police fed whatever story would close out the investigation. You better believe other people were around in the background, but who could come forward with the police closing their eyes to the possibility of murder right from the very start. I don't think they really cared as long as the Rolling Stones brought in millions of dollars annually.

All of this needs referencing by reliable sources. Otherwise it is original research that cannot be included. Doc talk 03:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dust My Broom's writer[edit]

While in the Forming the Rolling Stones section it is said that "...he and Paul Jones were playing Elmore James' "Dust My Broom" with Korner's band at The Ealing Club" meaning Elmore James wrote Dust My Broom, in the Elmore James article article it is said that "There is a dispute as to whether Robert Johnson or Elmore wrote James's trademark song, 'Dust My Broom'". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.185.210 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be interpreted that they were playing Elmore James' arrangement. The copy doesn't specifically state that James was the author. But since the song itself is linked I guess the attribution could be removed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Vincent "Vicente" Rodriguez?[edit]

Does anyone want to make a case for leaving Vincent "Vicente" Rodriguez's statements in the intro? Maybe I am ignorant, but I never heard of the guy, and he is the "former pop music critic" for a relatively little known daily newspaper which is not particularly noted for its arts coverage. I have no idea why his opinion is supposed to be of such great importance. His quotes merely seem to make the intro longer. Timothy Horrigan (talk)

I wanted ahead and deleted the Rodriguez quotes. Aside from being irrelevant, they were wrong. Mick Taylor was a better musician (although he had less stage presence and charisma) than Jones, and the period just after Jones died was in fact the time when the band did its best and most innovative work. These quotes were put in by a user named ChenteTX who does nothing but add quotes by Vincent "Vicente" Rodriguez to random articles about 1960s rock and roll. Timothy Horrigan (talk)

Mysterious solo album[edit]

I was just going through an old issue of Sounds and found a little blurb announcing that a solo album by Brian Jones titled "Joy Joyka" had its release date pushed back from September 3, 1971 to October 8. I thought this bit of info might be worth adding to Wikipedia. However, not only is there no article on "Joy Joyka", and no mention of it in this article, I've found that an internet search for "Joy Joyka" produces virtually no results. This has me baffled - even if the album was never released, surely there should be some mention of it out there just by virtue of the famous musician who recorded it? Could this Sounds blurb possibly be a flat-out hoax? Anybody have any idea?--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here it is: Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka, it's not a solo album he just produced it and compiled it. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll go add that info to the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Musical Contributions Section[edit]

I really don't like this. As it implies this is all he did............maybe purposefully. Jones really was playing guitar on most songs, in the studio, up until 1968 AS WELL as the contributions you highlight.

Jumping Jack Flash for example, he played the main riff on the record. And considerably more guitar than Keith on that recording.

It really was only AFTER Beggars Banquet, that he drifted away musically. I'm not a fan of this revisionism, claiming Keith did everything guitar wise. It's just not true.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Epilepsy?[edit]