Talk:Brian Jones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial text

This article could do with a bit of an NPOVing and really sorely needs references for all this stuff. (No, that's not a {{sofixit}}) - David Gerard 20:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have written the bulk of this article, yet it seems someone tried to edit it while not maintaining NPOV. Statements like "Jones was unpleasent and difficult to get along with", "Jones never contributed to Ruby Tuesday" and "Richards plays all the slide guitars on Beggars' Banquet" are blatantly untrue and certainly not NPOV. I instead edited it again to make it NPOV, adding the two disagreeing sides to each controversy over Jones and settling the matter where I have definitive proof (since I have records of studio logs and biographies to back up my claims).

Please don't mess with the article unless you are going to use a NPOV. It read almost like Jagger and Richards wrote the damn thing before I changed it. 70.176.186.10

I've made some minor grammatical changes as well as some limited editing of wording and syntax to improve clarity and coherence. Cheers, Laszlo Panaflex 00:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Great research on Brian Jones but I just have some questions regarding the studio logs for Beggars Banquet: 1)how were they obtained and are they cross checked for accuracy and 2) do they indeed confirm the slide guitar contributions for the album on the songs 'No Expectations', 'Jigsaw Puzzle' and also 'Salt of the Earth'. It has also been suggested that Ry Cooder ended up doing the slide to 'No Expectations'. In the accompanying article on Beggars Banquet Ry is credited with playing on 'Prodigal Son'. Could this be a confusion? Many times Brian Jones is said to have hardly contributed to Beggars Banquet. Would love to have clarified. Thanks, Robert Strange.

Check out this site. http://www.keno.org/Songlistnlyrics.htm

The author claims to have retrieved all the information on Stones songs from studio logs, and through my checking of random books about the Stones, I can personally verify that many of them are indeed correct (see Bill Wyman's book 'Rolling With The Stones' for some info on who played what on a given track, also taken from studio logs). It lists Jones as playing the "Acoustic Slide Guitar" on No Expectations & Jig-Saw Puzzle, while Keith played the slide on Salt Of The Earth.

I'm re-editing the page once more, although I wrote most of it and tried to keep it as NPOV as possible, somebody keeps editorializing with things like "Unfortunately, A Degree Of Murder was a 1960s drug-induced haze of music" and the like. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia - put in a link to a review of the soundtrack if you want to get the point across.

70.162.74.229

Did he play bass on any Stones tracks?

Just trying to answer a trivia question here: Are there any Stones tracks on which Brian played bass? (If yes, this means that Charlie Watts is the only Stone never to have played bass on a Stones song.) I'm separated from my record collection at the moment... ProhibitOnions 14:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Place of death

Cotchford Farm, where Brian Jones died, is in Hartfield, Sussex, not in Essex, as the article previously stated. See headstone.

More text

For the record:

I read nothing, ever, about secret recordings, or about John Lennon visiting Jones at his house. Nor did I write such nonsense.

I suspect that if Mathijs is really reading such things, then someone else is editing this article and inserting incorrect information, and Mathijs's beef is with them, not me.

In addition, the instrumentation I credited Brian with never included any Dave Mason Shehani contribution, or "lead guitar" on JJF at the Rock 'n Roll Circus. In fact, I inserted a line which said "in the film, the effects of Brian's drug use and drinking are evident", and in the main article itself, put in more information stating that his instruments aren't switched on through most of the film, and he can barely talk during his introduction. I did, however, mention his performance on "No Expectations", playing the slide guitar, which he did.

How did I do this? Simple, I own a copy.

If Mathijs wants to attribute edits I never made to me (and ignore my many contributions which were clearly not favorable to Jones's reputation), to provide them an excuse to start an edit war, that's his/her problem. Straw man arguments must be fun to this person. Again, I am interested in facts, and nothing else. Jones was no saint; he beat up lots of girlfriends and by all accounts could be a drugged-out monster at times. He stole money from his employers and paid himself more money than the others when they started out. I have no illusions about this man and no motive for butchering this article (he was dead long before I was born).

There is also apparently issue with the "Brian planned on starting a band" section of the article. Anyone is welcome to add that he was in no shape to do so, and I would agree with that assessment. It seems that many of his friends thought he kicked drugs towards the end of his life, and maybe he did stop using some, however the fact that he died with alcohol and downers in his system contradicts that. I wrote that he PLANNED on starting a band. I said nothing beyond that, and it remains a fact, even if it wasn't likely at that point. I could plan to go to the grocery store, but it doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.

As I said, I wrote the bulk of this article, including almost all of Jones's formative years. Leaving the credits aside, that's about 70% which I single-handedly created, and nobody seems to be disputing any of that material. But that's beside the point.

I'll address you in the first person now, Mathijs, as you are starting a pointless edit war over this long-deceased musician.

I haven't read anything by Weingartner, Rawlings, Jackson or Chapman, nor do I know who they are - of the authors you mentioned, I have read only Clayson, and various others which you didn't mention, including some by the ACTUAL Rolling Stones (yes, Mick, Keith, Charlie and Bill) who were also there at the time. Nice job on that one, too. Incidentally, he (Clayson) also wrote books about the rest of the (living) Stones (not to mention various other musicians), and I didn't take any information from his books that wasn't cited.

As I said earlier, Wyman's book "Rolling With The Stones" (is that tabloid? He was, after all, the bassist) lists the studio logs on all of the band's early singles and most of their albums. I suggest you READ it. It backs up a lot of my contributions.

In addition, I have never claimed "Ruby Tuesday" was a Jones composition. Only possibly Jones/Richards. Mick Jagger himself has stated that he (Jagger) didn't have anything to do with writing it, in MANY reputable sources. Meaning the Jagger/Richards credit is already partially bunk, and it is at least a solo Keith Richards composition. I went to great lengths to make sure the paragraph in question stated that it was unknown if the Jagger/Richards writing credit was correct, which....it is.

There are many other Rolling Stones pages on Wikipedia where the Jagger/Richards writing credit is challenged, not to mention many other musical pages in general. I encourage you to look them up - supposedly Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor deserve some credits on songs in the 1970s which they never received. Should we eliminate all of this information? Just ignore it and leave all the credits as "Jagger/Richards"? What about instances where we clearly know otherwise (re: "Love in Vain", by Robert Johnson)? If it's in dispute, I thought we were supposed to provide a NPOV. Which I did.

Mathijs, you like to assume a lot of things about me. You presume to know what websites I visited (none of which I actually went to), the books I read (with only one author I've ever heard of), you assume I am filling the article with nothing but nonsensical, unprovable information, and you also assume that I'm not a musician (which I have been, since the age of 6, thank you). Do I really need to remind you of the Wikipedia guidelines, like assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks?

You say there are mistakes on here. Fine. You seem to be accusing me of just about all of them, including many I've never even heard of. Cited by books I've never read, and written by authors I've never heard of. When you aren't accusing me of someone else's erroneous contributions, you're taking issue with the things I did add, which are valid and well-documented.

I'll make a counter-suggestion, Mathijs. Follow the guidelines of this site, look to see who edited various sections of this page before you accuse me of every single bad edit, and if you have a particular problem with a certain section, discuss it on the talk page first and try to come up with a consensus in some disputes. We'll avoid the edit wars then. This is getting ridiculous.

ChildOfTheMoon83 05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Again this page is rewritten by a person called "Childofthemoon83", unfortunately again with many mistakes. The main problem is that this person uses ill-informed books and websites as main reference. Books by Weingartner, Terry Rawlings, Laura Jackson, Chapman and Alan Clayson are NOT written to tell the true story about Brian, but only to cash in on the myth of a dead rock star. Much better books -by people who actually were present when it all happened. If you want to have a better, more real look on Brian and the Stones in the 60's, there's loads of -mostly older- books and interviews available -like Stanley Booth “True Adventures” and “Keith Richards: Till I Roll Over Dead”, Robert Greenfield “Stones Touring Party”, Ian McLagan “All the Rage”, Roy Carr “An Illustrated Record”, David Dalton “The First 20 Years”, Barbara Charone “Keith Richards, Life as A Rolling Stone” and Robert Palmer “The Rolling Stones” are not consulted. Great sources of information are from interviews with people who were there -Jimmy Miller, who was frequently intverviewed when working for Primal Scream in the early 90's, Alexis Korner, Glyn and Andy Johns, Dave Mason, Nicky Hopkins and Eddy Kramer.

Further, the refered website "http://www.keno.org/Songlistnlyrics.htm" is made by an amateur Stones fan who certainly isn't a musician, and contains many mistakes. Keno's site is full of erroneous information. A much better site is "http://www.timeisonourside.com" and ""http://www.nzentgraf.de", while Heart of Stone: The Definitive Rolling Stones Discography, 1962-1983 by Felix Aeppli is also a very good source.

The tabloid-like books are full with false information. For example, the claim that Lennon visited Jones often at his house sounds spectacular, but Lennon has stated various times about Jones death that "he knew Brian well, but hadn't actually seen him in private since 1966. It's sensational to write about Brian's "secret recordings" or his plans with forming a new band, but Alexis Korner and Jimmy Miller have always spoken frank about their contacts with Brian. Korner has stated many times Brian wanted to form a band, but he was in no shape to do so. It sounds great to quote Brian's father that Brian wrote the riff for Honky Tonk Women, but there's absolutely no proof his father actually has stated that. "Childofthemoon83" continues with mistake after mistake, reprinting erroneous information from badly written tabloid books.

About Brian's musical involvement: nobody wants to dispute Brian was an encredibly gifted musician, and there's many songs with Brian stamped all over. But do not attribute him with parts he never played: there simply is no mellotron in Jigsaw Puzzle, that's a Moog Synth (if you don't know what that is, look it up). There is no pedal steel guitar in Jigsaw Puzzle (that's signature Keith Richards). There is no sitar in Street Fighting Man, that's a tambura. The Shehani is played by Dave Mason, who always have recieved proper credit from the Stones for it (even on the official www.rollingstones.com). Brian never played lead guitar on Jumping Jack Flash from the R&R Circus, and in fact, these recordings have never shown up, unfortunately.

About his song writing skills: Brian simply couldn't write songs. Simple as that. If you want to attribute Ruby Tuesday to Brian because Marianne Faithfull says so, that's your problem. I personally prefer to believe Bill Wyman, Watts, Jagger, Richards, Glyn Johns and Loog Oldham. Wyman has always been Brian's main defender -if Brian had written any songs, Wyman would have said so in one of his books. Also: say Brian did write Ruby Tuesday. That's exactly one song he wrote, out of 150 songs by Jagger and Richards. What's your point?

I would like to make the suggestion to "Childofthemoon83" to first read some proper books, and try to actually listen to the music to hear what is being played before you rewrite Brian's history again. Mathijs, February 9, 2006.

You are both way off base (this refers to both Mathijs and Robert Strange). I single-handedly wrote about 75% of this article, using books in my possession (including one written by Bill Wyman) to support most of my editing. It was literally a short blurb until I rewrote the article, and it had no pictures. While I am a fan of Brian's, I am also a fan of the Stones' work without him (he died long before I was even born); I have never visited (or even heard of) the above forums you mention, and I have tried REALLY hard to maintain a NPOV here. The IPs 70.176.186.10 and 70.162.74.229 were also me, posting and editing without logging in. I am fully aware of the Jagger/Richards and Jones feuding that went on and I have endeavored to present both sides of the argument equally, as we will probably never know who was more "in the right" during those disputes. I have made the occasional small error, but in most cases I go back to correct it immediately.

In addition, the website, http://www.keno.org/Songlistnlyrics.htm is one of the sources I have used for the whole "studio logs" dispute, and I've found it so far to be reputable. The book "Rolling With The Stones" by Bill Wyman also describes who played what in the studios, and it matches the website perfectly in every song it lists. Some songs on the website list a (?) after a song Brian might have played on, and I have avoided putting anything in this article which has that question mark after it.

Brian Jones probably wrote the bulk of the song "Ruby Tuesday", and many reputable books back this claim up. Jagger himself has said that he had nothing to do with writing the song, even though a Jagger/Richards credit remains, meaning it's not exactly a dispute. I wouldn't put claims like this in here unless there was a reputable source that confirmed them, and there are - just look at some of the books listed at the bottom of the article, as I've read most of them, and they do mention that it was most likely a Jones/Richards composition in reality.

I welcome debate on Mr. Jones, however I believe that all debates and edits should be based on facts. If someone ruthlessly butchers the article to make Jones a saint, we should edit it accordingly. The same should be true if Keith Richards himself re-writes the article. If you have a problem with anything I credit him with, take it up with the authors of the books I use for my sources. ChildOfTheMoon83 06:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can understand Mathijs's frustration as most of the disinformation peddled around the net about 'Beggars Banquet' is by complete and utter non-musicians who don't understand the difference between acoustic and electic let alone the finer stylistic nuances that identify one player from another. But with 'Jigsaw Puzzle' the stylistic ambiguity in the slide playing is there: hence the debate over the slide guitar credit remains unresolved in the minds of many people. The slide on 'Jigsaw' is indeed close to Brian's sound, style and choice of notes. In all likelihood it was however Keith who ended up doing the final album version. If anyone has any solid information such as the 'studio logs', I would love to see these copies of the Olympic Studio 'Studio logs' for 'Beggars Banquet' posted so I can see for myself verification of this song's credits. If someone could provide it posted or a link where it is posted that would great. Many thanks, Robert Strange Jan 24th 06

Unfortunately, this page is constantly being rewritten by "fans" of Jones who also plague the "iorr.org", "Shidoobee" and "Rocks Off" Rolling Stones internet forums. Instead of sticking to facts, Jones is atributed with "facts" that either can't be proven, or are simply factually false. I would suggest to listen to whom played what instead of believing your own lies. For example, there is no mellotron on Jiggsaw Puzzle, so how can Jones have played it? There is no "acoustic slide" on Jigsaw Puzzle, and the electric slide is signature Keith Richards. Jimmy Miller has stated in various interviews that Jones was contacting several musicians, but all contacted knew he was in no shape to make music or even tour, so they declined his offer. These are facts that are backed up by many books and interviews, yet some "fans" have a "Brian was holier-than-thou" approach to facts. Jan 18, 2005 by Mathijs

Even more text

I'm just going to point out that 72.141.205.244 made large changes which seem to me to be POV, but I don't really know much about the subject, so I won't revert anything, and I'll leave the editors of this article to deal with it, if you feel it's inappropriate. --Rory096 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lies, rumors, gossip, and more lies…this page is constantly being rewritten, at least since August 2005, by so-called “fans” of Brian Jones and by the Brian Jones Fan Club. These “fans” like Miss U. and Childofthemoon83 also plague the various Stones’ dedicated websites and message boards like www.iorr.org, Shidoobie and Rocks Off. Jones’ and the Stones’ history is constantly being rewritten with gossip, lies and unproven facts, oin order to finally prove that Jones was the one and only resurrection of Jezus Chris. He was the true genius behind the Stones: he wrote ALL their songs, he played ALL the instruments, he formed a new band with John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix, he was murdered because he was a genius! I am fed up with rewriting this wikipedia page, so when this page will be rewritten again with lies and gossip, I will delete the page in its entirety. User: “heteren”, February 14, 2006.

Untitled

"Jagger and Richards grew increasingly hostile towards Jones, and Jones became alienated from the rest of the group. By many accounts Jones was often a warm, friendly and outgoing person, yet these same people - including Bill Wyman - commented that Jones could often be an extremely difficult and mean person to get along with. Tensions grew, partly due to Jones's inebriated states. Other observers, again including Bill Wyman, find some fault with Jagger and Richards, claiming they were deliberately trying to push Brian out of the group. However, Jones maintained close relationships with many others outside of the Stones camp, including Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison and Steve Marriott."

It seems to give only nominal mention to Jones' drugs and seems to be attempting to paint Jagger and Richards as bad guys out to push him out of the group. Maybe this is the case, maybe it isn't but the aforementioned quote clearly has NPOV issues as does this statement that

"Though The Stones then opened with a Johnny Winter song that was one of Brian's favorites, "I'm Yours And I'm Hers", many would say that their concert that day was the worst that they have ever given."

Who the hell is "many" any way. There are absolutely zero inline citations. There certainly are some references listed, but if anything's been used from them there's no indication in the article's text. For claims that are, judging from the comments below, contentious, more citation should be there to insure that the article "is factually accurate and verifiable.

Also, the second to last quote (a recent edit) I mentioned here has yet to be contested (though it is likely that it will be and when it does, it will probably cause article instability.

I've never reviewed one of these before but looking at this one, there are clearly some issues here that need to be addressed on the talk page to get to consensus. Good luck with that. Until then...

Also guys, sign your comments using four ~'s, like so

Jagger and Richards grew increasingly hostile towards Jones, and Jones became alienated from the rest of the group. By many accounts Jones was often a warm, friendly and outgoing person, yet these same people - including Bill Wyman - commented that Jones could often be an extremely difficult and mean person to get along with. Tensions grew, partly due to Jones's inebriated states. Other observers, again including Bill Wyman, find some fault with Jagger and Richards, claiming they were deliberately trying to push Brian out of the group. However, Jones maintained close relationships with many others outside of the Stones camp, including Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison, Steve Winwood and Steve Marriott."

It seems to give only nominal mention to Jones' drugs and seems to be attempting to paint Jagger and Richards as bad guys out to push him out of the group. Maybe this is the case, maybe it isn't but the aforementioned quote clearly has NPOV issues as does this statement that

"Though The Stones then opened with a Johnny Winter song that was one of Brian's favorites, "I'm Yours And I'm Hers", many would say that their concert that day was the worst that they have ever given." Who the hell is "many" any way. There are absolutely zero inline citations. There certainly are some references listed, but if anything's been used from them there's no indication in the article's text. For claims that are, judging from the comments below, contentious, more citation should be there to insure that the article "is factually accurate and verifiable."

Also, the second to last quote (a recent edit) I mentioned here has yet to be contested (though it is likely that it will be and when it does, it will probably cause article instability.

I've never reviewed one of these before but looking at this one, there are clearly some issues here that need to be addressed on the talk page to get to consensus. Good luck with that. Until then...

Also guys, sign your comments using four ~'s, like so

TonyJoe 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No matter what Keith Richards says: the sitar played by Jones is a tamboura. It is much like a sitar, but it has no drone strings and no frets, so you can not play a melody with it. And that's exactly what you hear: drones at the end of every chorus and at the fade out. Check the rare single version on "The Single Collections", you hear the tambouri much better here. The shehani is played by Dave Mason:

Yes there is a tamboura at the beginning (as a matter of fact) of every chorus. There is also sitar in the song; around the end of the chorus (twice: as Jagger is saying 'man' and after he says 'no') you hear a very buzzy riff. You said yourself that a tamboura cannot provide melody, only drone. The difference between the striking of the tamboura and the riff at the end of the chorus is definitely there. Another way would be to compare the riff to the tamboura in Donovan's Hurdy Gurdy Man. The shehani info provided nothing for your overall argument. To make one more point, a trained musician can make a melody out of a tamboura. Watch the movie DiG! and observe Anton Newcombe strum the tamboura using a makeshift slide out of a large bottle and listen.

It was a very strange time in France. But not only in France but also in America, because of the Vietnam War and these endless disruptions.... I wrote a lot of the melody and all the words, and Keith and I sat around and made this wonderful track, with Dave Mason playing the shehani on it live. It's a kind of Indian reed instrument a bit like a primitive clarinet. It comes in at the end of the tune. It has a very wailing, strange sound.

- Mick Jagger, 1995

About the slide guitar of Jigsaw Puzzle: To my ears it is signature Keith. The only support that I have for this, is the statements by Bill Wyman, Jimmy Miller and Mick Jagger that Brian only played harmonica, some "keyboard" and acoustic guitar on the album, but clearly no electric guitar. Also, there's about 30 takes of outtakes from the March 1968 session, and Keith is experimenting with the slide melody that shows up on the final released version. And again, it sound way too freaky to be Brian. Brian was a slide master, and I just don't see him playing such a rough slide. Someone who'se not a great slide player would play something like this: great but freaky. But nobody has proof written in stone. Also, it certainly is NOT a lap steel slide. You can hear the slide touching the strings when you listen through headphones, so it simply can't be a lap steel. Last, the whining sound is a Moog synthesizer (you can clearly hear that), and Wyman has stated various times that he was the one "playing" it. The notes are way too long to be from a recorder, you simply would choke halfway.

The slide in Stray Cat Blues: there is NO slide. Listen with good headphones, turn the volume to ten: There is no slide. So, Keith doesn't play it, Brian doesn't.

Keno's site is an amateuristic website made by a non-musician. The website is poised with mistakes. Much, much better sites are http://www.nzentgraf.de and http://www.timeisonourside.com.

By the way, I am not a Keith Richards fan, I am a Stones fan since 1983.

>>>> Stop deleting the section I've added about Brian Jones' rejuvenation at Cotchford Farm. I've supported all that with clearcut evidence: quotes from Keith Richards, Jimmy Miller and Alexis Korner, and more will be on the way. >>>

It's deleted since it is absolute bullshit, taken from dubious sources. If you don't believe statements by Miller and Korner, just check out the last known pictures of Brian from April 1969: bloated, drugged out, deep eyes.

>>> And stop deleting the information about Trevor Hobley! Go check out his fanclub and contact that man - his investigation is on the verge of a colossal breakthrough. >>>

His investigation is horrible, and nothing more than mere rubbish by some psychotic anoraks. Keep it of this board as it is not factual.

(Heteren 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Hi all, I am wondering about the electric slide guitar credit for 'Jigsaw Puzzle'. There appears to be a very divided opinion about whether it was Keith or Brian who ended up playing this part. To my ear it sounds very much in Brian's style, sound and choice of notes. Others swear it is indeed Keith who plays this part. What I would love is for someone who really knows, not just someone with wishfull thinking or an axe to grind, to present whatever evidence there is to support their opinion. 'Studio logs' have been reputed to exist for this session and if so could someone please post them somewhere on the web with a link so I can see for myself. I for one think the 'studio logs' story is bullsh*t. Secondly, many fan sites which list track credits are themselves only using guess work or repeating inaccuracies found at other sites. A Jigsaw Puzzle indeed - in good faith, Rob Strange, 15 Feb 2006

Why don't you Keith Richards and Stones fans piss off?

Go worship Richards on your own boards.

Heaven forbid that Brian Jones fans are editing information about Brian Jones. Oh no, only Keith Richards fans and Stones fans can edit information about Brian Jones, not actual Brian Jones fans.

Everything we're adding in here is supported by the facts: quotes, research and statements by people who were there with Jones in the 1960s.

Try reading some books you stupid fucks.

Why don't you fuckheads just accept that fact that Jones played a pivotal role in the Stones throughout the 1960s?

Why can't you just accept the fact that Jones was off drugs by 1968 and trying to get his life together?

Why don't you accept the fact that Jones was getting a new band together and writing songs - this is supported by Keith Richards, Jimmy Miller and Alexis Korner.

---

I am not responsible for the above text. That's someone named "CDB1", who chose to delete the entire discussion, and refused to leave his signature (not to mention reporting some inaccurate information).

So to whom it may concern...I do not support CDB1, whomever this person is. I do not frequent any Brian Jones fan clubs or discussion boards. I do not care one whit about the reputation of this man, I am only here to keep the article NPOV and put in as much verifiable information as possible.

There is an edit war going on between the hardcore Brian Jones fans and the hardcore Stones fans - both camps have inserted biased and unsupported information into this article. I have made way too many edits to this page, and while some of my fellow editors have corrected mistakes and help out, this edit war is ridiculous.

How about we question unverified sections and quotes on the discussion board, BEFORE we start butchering this thing? I have spent quite a bit of time writing most of the article from scratch, and really don't feel like having to re-edit it over and over when either a Jones or Richards fan messes with the article (especially since most of it, as far as I know, is pretty accurate). At the same time, if someone wishes to challenge something I put in, please bring it up here first. Who knows, maybe some of the information could be re-worded, even.

But let's discuss these things first, because nobody likes an edit war. Agreed?

ChildOfTheMoon83 20:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

By the by, I couldn't help but notice that a shamelessly pro-Jones editor has butchered the page yet again, putting in pictures without copyright status and some dubious information.

ChildOfTheMoon83 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cotchford Farm

Hey Child of the Moon:

Stop deleting the section I've added about Brian Jones' rejuvenation at Cotchford Farm. I've supported all that with clearcut evidence: quotes from Keith Richards, Jimmy Miller and Alexis Korner, and more will be on the way.

Dubious information? Dubious information my ass.

And stop deleting the information about Trevor Hobley! Go check out his fanclub and contact that man - his investigation is on the verge of a colossal breakthrough.

Everyone needs to go talk to Keno, who knows MORE about the Rolling Stones than any of us and he is the source of a lot of this information.

Unlike a lot of Stones fans, Keno doesn't trash the memory of Brian Jones and is a source of valuable information.

http://www.keno.org/Home.html

Oh and Child of the Moon - as Jones fans, we DO care about the repuation of this man - a man's who name has been dragged through the mud and spat on.

Picture

What happened to the picture?

nevermind. -5/24/06 5:34pm

Failed GA 2

Unfortunately, this article failed for "Good Article" status.

Some of it was my doing, so I fixed my own mistakes and cleaned up the article (most of which I wrote to begin with) immensely.

However, I couldn't help but notice that a lot of it was NPOV issues, and NOT because of something I wrote.

Part of the problem is the shameless pro-Jones camp, devoted to putting only favorable information about this man in here. Supposedly he wrote all their big hits. Oh, and they seem to have deleted that part I put in about him beating up his girlfriend Anita Pallenberg (which he did, several times). And the section on "Ruby Tuesday" I cleaned up.

However, there's the other camp to deal with, too. The worst Stones concert ever was the one in his memory? Please. I have a copy of the performance. It's way better than what they did at the Superbowl this year. Also Jones not being able to write anything, I deleted. It's clear he wrote a couple of songs, the Rice Krispies commercial and "Sure I Do" at the very least. What's not clear is how many songs he wrote, or how much he contributed to 3 or 4 more popular Stones songs.

I like Brian Jones. I also like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. I have tried, and will continue to try, to keep this as NPOV as possible. I even incorporated the viewpoints of everyone. I want the reader to make their own decisions. That's really what Wikipedia is about, isn't it?

So please, stop these ridiculous edits - they are turning an otherwise good article into fan-based hysterics. If there's something here that you feel needs changing, please discuss it here first. I want this to achieve "Good article" status and if people go mucking around with the article, putting in fake "information" and unsupported claims, then I'll just have to delete it.

Whoops, forgot to sign. The above text was me, yesterday. ChildOfTheMoon83 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed by me also. Lots of opinion masquerading as fact here. Given the controversy surrounding Brian Jones and the Stones, inline citations are essential I feel. --kingboyk 12:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (a Cheltonian)

I'm a completely uninterested party: I'd also have failed the GA nom for three reasons: emotional text (a.k.a. non-NPOV), it needs inline cites over just a bunch of refs (no context), and I'd like a few more pictures (although I'm pretty open for convincing otherwise). dewet|✉ 12:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes

An anonymous user posted the following on the entry:

"This entry is always being changed by somebody. This doesn't show much respect."

This person's IP is 84.197.13.36.

No, it doesn't show much respect, and you proved your own point by vandalizing the article. I did just edit it, yes, to add some quotes and badly-needed citations and make a couple of minor corrections. Given that I own two comprehensive books which were written by the Stones themselves (ie, the rest of the band who was there), and one of the complaints was that there aren't enough citations, I think it's safe to say that my actions improved the article.

Do you have any specific problems with my recent change? If I made a mistake or something please let me know, I try very hard to proofread and preview the article before I change it. I would like to hear any suggestions you might have. But it's not going to become a better article just by leaving it alone, and your actions are not constructive. ChildOfTheMoon83 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, a good article about Jones

Congrats to whomever rewrote large portions of the Brian Jones article on June 2, 2006. I feel this article is very accurate, open and fair. The article now should serve both camps of Jones's fans. (Heteren 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

That was me. Good to see that somebody appreciates what I'm doing. 70.162.99.43 00:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I keep forgetting to sign in. The last comment after Heteren's was mine. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Brian Jones/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason(s):

Hi. I wonder about the articles POV with statements like "(The same corrupt officers who harassed Jones would go on to harass Beatle John Lennon in 1969.)" "Jones was visited by Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts and was told the group he formed would continue without him." In addition to this, the article doesn't go far enough in citing claims, notable examples being the lead up to Jones leaving the stones. Concerning Jones' death while his girlfriends book is cited, it's probably a good idea to reference the book in ann official inline citation (though not required). A Final problem I see is in the "Writing credits" section; there are no citations there and is at times unencyclopedic in its tone and reads more like an essay. While you're clearly going great lengths to remain neutral in your presentation of the facts (though in its uncited assertions I can argue that it is NPOV), the prose needs some work here. "To conclude" is especially jarring. TonyJoe 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

C-Quotes

Hey, isn't this article a little heavy on the block quotes? It makes the entire thing a bit hard to read. 67.40.202.100

Hopkin-Jones?

The article gives his birth surname as Hopkin-Jones. The english birth registration index for March Quarter 1942 gives "Jones, Lewis B.H.". In other words, the Hopkin is not hyphenated with the Jones but is just another middle name. Bluewave 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that his name was formally registered as Jones, not Hopkin-Jones (I checked both options in the index), I shall remove the hyphen. Bluewave 07:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jones' vocals

It is mentioned various times that Jones did some (back-up) vocals on Stones records. Factually he did sing back-up on the very first two albums, and live until early 1965, as did Keith Richards and Bill Wyman. By 1965, Jones ceased singing back-up, while Wyman moved to Richards' side of the stage. Wyman ceased singing live in early 1966. From 1966 onwards, Keith Richards was the only one to sing back-up to Jagger, until 1973 when Billy Preston started to sing back-up. In the studio, Jones voice can only be heard on the first two records. After 1965, his voice can not be heard on any records, including Ruby Tuesday and We Love You. About Sympathy: in the "Sympathy for the Devil" movie there's a large group set around one microphone, but if you look closely, most of the group (Jones, Wyman, Watts, Faitfull and Pallenberg) is not singing. On the cue sheets of the released version, only Jagger, Richards and Jimmy Miller are noted as doing vocals. (Heteren 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Prove it. ChildOfTheMoon83 04:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's true, except Wyman was doing live back-ups until the Spring of 1967. I always credit everybody round that mike on "Sympathy" with a little backing vocals, just to be sure, and the other Stones [amongst others] are almost certainly on "Sing This All Together", but otherwise, Wyman and Jones do not sing on any released studio record after mid-1964.

John M. 17:34, 26 December 2006

Even on Ruby Tuesday? There are clearly three voices in the chorus. If the third one isn't Jones, then who is it? Jimmy Miller? And where can one find the cue sheets?

By the way, technically Jones did sing on a 1965 release, "The Rolling Stones, Now!". For example, he can be clearly heard on "Everybody Needs Somebody To Love". I know, I know...it was recorded in 1964, but it should be noted.

ChildOfTheMoon83 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruby Tuesday: The third voice is almost always another Jagger, the vocal chorus usually [to 1968, at least] being Richard and two Jaggers. I've got a number of bootlegged tracks wherein Jagger and Richard recorded the backing vocals first, then Jagger overdubbed the lead.

Jones is not on Everybody Needs Somebody To Love - not to my ears. Jones DOES sing on a 1965 release - "I'm Alright" from Got Live If You Want It EP / Out Of Our Heads. He backs up Richard's "Come on, come on, come on" at about the 1:30 mark. Here's my list of songs you can hear Jones' voice on, leaving aside the Sympathy question:

Come On [backing up Jagger in the chorus] Poison Ivy [Versons 1 and 2][Wyman on harmony, Jones is the third voice; mostly "aahs"] Fortune Teller [Ditto] Bye Bye Johnny [Back-ups on the chorus] Money [Back-ups on the chorus] You Better Move On [Harmonies with Wyman] I Wanna Be Your Man [Unison throughout the song, starting from the last line of the first verse, deviates a little at the end] Can I Get A Witness? [perhaps; along with Wyman? Richard? Allan Clarke? Graham Nash?] You Can Make It If You Try [probably; along with Richard and Wyman?] Walking the Dog [choruses] It's All Over Now [technically, it seems like he might've been on this, but this is probably the famous instance of Oldham "turning down his mike". He certainly made an effort to sing/lip-synch the choruses in performance. But then again, you can't hear him as far as I can see. But in the interest of completism, I'm mentioning it.] Time Is On My Side [Organ version] Empty Heart ["A-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah", sung quite loudly into his harmonica mike] It's Alright [live- as noted above; Jones had a much bigger vocal role in this song at NME Poll Winners Party in April 1964] Salty Dog [from the Charlie is My Darling soundtrack, with Richard and Jagger, and Watts making silly "proto-Python" noises.] Sing This All Together.

If there's anymore, I'd love it, but that's it as far as I've researched, and I've done personnel listings that went down to counting handclaps.;-) I was always disappointed that Jones didn't have a more "Harrisonesque" role vocally, but the truth is that seems to be it, until we hear "Sure I Do" and [perhaps] "I Want You To Know". The truth is also obscured by people STILL claiming stuff like "It's Not Easy" and the like. John M. 5 March 2007

Actually Jones is clearly heard on the 1965 song "Everybody Needs Somebody To Love". He delivers the background vocal line "all the time" just before the "I need you" chorus. ChildOfTheMoon83 (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the section at around the 3:00 mark on the UK version, that's an overdubbed Jagger to my ears. It sounds a lot like him and less like the voice singing the choruses of Walking The Dog. I did go over the vocal credits with a fine toothcomb for years, specifically detecting Jones, so I'm confident the list above stands. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think I am. John M. 14:46, 25 Feburary 2008

  Brian Does not sing on Ruby Tuesday because he is playing the flute. Silly Stone August 
  2007

That was recorded in the studio (and means nothing, as one can multi-track), and on the Ed Sullivan Show performance in 1967 (the same one with "Let's Spend Some Time Together" - I have it on VHS) he is clearly seen and heard singing during the chorus. ChildOfTheMoon83 (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly heard" I feel is stretching it. He's singing along into Keith's live mike, but it's not like he's amazing clear. There's a quiet, undefined second voice singing along with Keith, that's all; even on DVD you can't pick him up that well. John M. 14:48, 25 February 2008

Honky Tonk Women

It is impossible that Jones' guitar can be heard on the released version of Honky Tonk Women. When recording Country Honk in early 1969 (Jones does not appear on Country Honk by the way) the Stones also attempted to record an electric version of the song. It is possible, but not likely (as Jones hardly contributed anything at this stage), that Jones contributed to one of the very early takes of this electric version. After Jones had left the band, Mick Taylor was asked to do overdubs on the acoustic Country Honk, and his country riffs and bends inspired the electric Honky Tonk Women (and inspired Keith to use one of Ry Cooder's riffs as an intro). The track was then recorded live in the studio, with Taylor and Richards playing guitar, and Richards adding numerous overdubs at a later stage. Therefore it is impossible that Jones plays on the released electric version of Honky Tonk Women: he was sacked before the song was recorded. Source of this information is interviews with all Stones members and Jimmy Miller, who produced the track and plays the cow-bell in the intro. (Heteren 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

YouTube links

Info icon

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka and Joujouka

This talk page is designated for discussions about improving the Brian Jones article. Please go to the Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka and Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka pages to learn about or work on those articles. A user has had previously an interest in this although he and I came to a resolution on this subject today at the talk page, but still other people can help edit to improve articles. They must be kept NPOV and Tuathal has told me he will try to help in that regard. The article histories and talk page histories have relevant info but there's basically a name spelling change that a band underwent in 1972 that created some confusion and thus he and I decided to have two articles to solve a simple dispute. Emerman 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jones state in late 68/69

Again someone edited the text with remarks how splendid Jones looked at the last stage of his live, and how wonderful he was. FACT: Jones looks terrible at the R&R Circus, and Jones looks terrible on the last known pictures of him. On the making of Sympathy: Brian is slouched in a stool, to wasted to play anything decent. He's is neglected by his bandmates, only Keith Richards throws him a cigarette (but refuses to give him his lighter). (Heteren 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

The question of whether the chicken or the egg came first comes to mind. Did the Stones neglect Jones because he was too zoned out on drugs, or did Jones get into drugs because he felt neglect from his bandmates?

I wouldn't call "Jones looks terrible" a fact, I'd call that an opinion...if you want to be specific, like "his eyes were glassy and he could barely speak", which is essentially what I put in the article, then it seems more NPOV.

ChildOfTheMoon83 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you have seen the DVD and the interveiw with Pete Townshend, Pete says Brian was an emotional wreck, and was in tears most of the time. Silly Stone August 2007

I have (I own it, thank you very much) and it still doesn't answer my question. ChildOfTheMoon83 (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gomper

I edited out the claim that he co-wrote Gomper as Brian only plays electric dulcimer (with a slide) in the verses, while adding flutes and organ in the instrumental jam. Writing credits for a jam don't exist as such. Keith Richards plays electric six- and twelve-string guitar, Watts and Jagger play percussion, Nicky Hopkins keyboards. (Heteren 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Watched Brian Jones on the filmed SFTD sessions and he looks fine (ON Youtube they have the whole session for any to view). As for the Rock N Roll Circus, the whole group had a problem just staying up during the marathon event. Notwithstanding reports of Jones crying, he plays well on most of the gig. You kind of sense that they all know it's his last gig with the band. Brian played exceptionally well on "NO EXPECTATION. " He was a great slide player. GJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.40.190 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jones not brass

Jones played neither trumpet nor trombone on "Something Happened To Me Yesterday", nor accordion on "Backstreet Girl"; these instruments are performed by hired session musicans. The brass on 'Citadel' is a mellotron.

Also, although Jones reportedly was able to play clarinet and piano, there are no known Stones recordings with Jones playing either. Jones reportedly was able to read music, but there is no proof of this. (Heteren 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I'd like some proof of that. (User:John M. 7 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.21 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All tracks with piano have the player specifically credited (mainly to Ian Stewart, Jack Nitzsche, or Nicky Hopkins). There's not even a Stones track where Brian is 'reported' to have played the piano. The brass instruments and accordion are session musicians, as can be found in the log sheets of Bill Wyman (and the session musicians hired to play at Olympic were also hired by The Small Faces, as attested by Ian McLagan). The brass on Citadel is a mellotron; the 8-second tapes with brass sounds of the Mellotron MkII are also used by the Beatles and Family. The sounds are exactly the same. (Heteren 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Interesting. Where do I find these log sheets? I'd be interested in any personnel listings you have, especially during the AFTERMATH/ BETWEEN THE BUTTONS era. (User: John M.) 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.21 (talk)

It doesn't seem like Heteren has any log sheets. He/she is content to vandalize and rationalize. I await some evidence. ChildOfTheMoon83 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

songs written about Jones upon his death

In addition to the two already cited, isn't Donovan's "Local Boy Chops Wood" about Jones? I notice it has the "Satisfaction" guitar riff at the end of the song. Jayspears 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)jayspears

You're absolutely right. I have no real proof, but I saw Donovan in concert late 2005 in Manhattan, NY at the Concert Hall for Ethical Culture (look it up, I'm not sure that's the exact name) and in introducing this song, he specifically stated that it was about Brian Jones. --137.238.146.17 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Trained piano player

Jones reportedly was a trained piano player, but is there any proof of this? Fact is that Jones does not appear on any recording playing the piano, and to my knowledge not one musician or producer ever has cited Jones' skills on the piano. (Heteren 07:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

POV / Personal opinion

Moved from the section "Writing credits", as POV / Personal opinion / Weasel: "Many Stones fans feel Jones contributed a great deal to Stones songs and deserved credit which he never received for several earlier compositions. Other fans feel that Jones' contributions were important for the sound and music but that he lacked the talent to deserve songwriting credits." Please provide good cite(s) before replacing. -- 201.19.235.220 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA

I'm surprised this is up for a GAR, because there are far too many paragraphs that are not referenced.--andreasegde 10:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA 3

I have failed this article because of the lack of in-line citations. Someone has obviously worked hard on this article, but the lack of book page numbers and other internet references leaves me no alternative - this is what is required by Wikipedia. I actually know a lot of info in the article is true, but that's just my word against anyone else's.

Don't be despondent; all you have to do is dig out the books and put page number in-line references in, search for more references on the internet/newspapers/magazines, etc., and you will have a good article, with a little bit of work. --andreasegde 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S., Please don't put this article back on the nominations list until the work has been done, because it will only be failed again, and takes up reviewers time by doing so. --andreasegde 15:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

mando-guitar

The Vox mando-guitar wasn't custom-made for Jones. It was a product that was actually on the market. It wasn't even a mandolin, either; it was a short scale 12-string. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.31.212 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Again horrible editing

Childofthemoon83 has totally vandalized the article on Jones with horrible gossip and false information. All information on abortions and whatever are all gossip and heresay, and totally irrelevant for this article. Also, naming the exact 23 songs on which he played slide is redicullous: just name the one or two most important tracks. Please keep this article short and strict, with only proven facts. (Heteren 11:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Exactly how is this vandalism? The abortion information is well-sourced and I have books to prove it, which I properly sourced before you deleted the references. Beats me why you are resorting to wanton deletion of well-sourced information.

Also, even if the 23 songs are "redicullous" as you say, this is an article about his life. Shouldn't the readers be entitled to all the relevant information? ChildOfTheMoon83 (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a small sentence change

Just felt like I should note this...

I'm changing this sentence:

"Wohlin claimed in 1999 that he had been murdered by a builder who had been renovating the house the couple shared."

This sentence, which is in the Death section, uses a misplaced modifier. It implies that Wohlin claimed that he himself was murdered. I'll change "he" to "Jones".

Sorry about the insignificance.

There's actually quite a few grammatical errors, in addition to the occasional shift from British English and American. E.g.,

Oldham's arrival marked the beginning of Jones' slow estrangement, his prominent role diminished as Oldham shifted the Stones's centre from Jones to Jagger and Richards. Oldham recognised the advantages of writing their own songs, as exemplified by Lennon/McCartney, as well as that playing covers won't keep a band in the limelight for long....

Suggested rewrite: "... Jones' role diminished as Oldham shifted the Stone's [s' or s's?] [center or centre?]... Oldham recogniz[s]ed the advantages of [having the Stones'?] write[no "ing"] their own songs, as Lennon and McCartney did in the Beatles. Oldham also recognized that playing covers would not keep the Stones in the limelight for long...."

Quite a few problems, in other words, and probably several ways to rewrite. In any case, the article might benefit from having a dispassionate editor go over it. C d h (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Backing vocals and bass guitar

Jones voice can not be heard on "Let's Spend The Night Together", "All Sold Out", "She's A Rainbow" and the 1968 recording "Sympathy For The Devil". Put on the headphones, Jones is NOT on any of these recordings. The Whoo-whoo's of Sympathy were rerecorded in LA with Jagger, Richards and Jimmy Miller. (Heteren (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Oh why are people still adding information like this? There's a list of songs above with his vocal contributions listed. It might not be 100%, but it's a damn sight closer than mentioning stuff like "She's A Rainbow". Ridiculous.

Piano

On the DVD "The Making of Electric Ladyland" Eddie Kramer tells about Jones adding piano on 'All Along the Watchtower', and lowers the faders on all but Jones' piano. What is heard is clearly an untrained, amateur piano player. Hence, Jones is not a 'trained piano player' as is stated in this article. Also, Kramer and Mitch Mitchel (in his autobiography "Inside the Experience") states that Jones never added anything to any jam -not sitar, not percussion. (Heteren (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Opinion, based on one video likely recorded in his later years of heavy drug and alcohol abuse. It's irrelevant.

And I have evidence that your later statement is incorrect - Jones and Hendrix did record songs (with Mitch Mitchell, no less) at the Olympic Sound Studios Sessions in England, with Jones audibly on sitar. You can find the recordings labeled "My Little One" here.

http://www.rocksoff.org/jimi.htm

ChildOfTheMoon83 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Heteren edits a bit strange

This user deletes a lot of sourced and referenced info while changing syntax slightly. I wonder about the agenda? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the edit regarding his mother teaching him the piano? Stan weller (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the word supposedly should ever occur in an encyclopedic article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well more the deletions here that as well see here [1] Lot of info pulled by him/her. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Most are minor changes. He pulls the alternate source of the band name from Bill Wyman's book. Somehow I trust Jagger over Wyman. Other changes are specific song credits, removing harmonica on "Little Red Rooster", guitar on "All Sold Out", organ on "Backstreet Girl", mellotron on "In Another Land", lead guitar "Tell Me (You're Coming Back)", mellotron and harpsichord on "Citadel", while adding mellotron on "Jigsaw Puzzle". Also removed is the phrase Jones played percussion on an unreleased Jimi Hendrix version of Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" together with a handful of unreleased jams with Hendrix and Dave Mason of Traffic in early 1968 There are no citations for any of the song credits in the article and It seems to me the editor is well informed so I intend to believe his edits are probably accurate. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The "piano" sentence included the word "supposedly," a no-no on wikipedia. If something is wrong with syntax feel free to fix it. Stan weller (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

>> I (Heteren (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)) edited the text due to following reasons:

1) "He pulls the alternate source of the band name from Bill Wyman's book". First, I don't think a chapter on the naming of the band belongs to this Jones' article. Second, the version as told by Richards has been told by many other people who were around. I don't see the need to write down every other theory claimed by people who are unknown in Stones history. 2) "removing harmonica on "Little Red Rooster": I don't see the need to name EVERY song Jones played harp on. The list gets just way too long. Just name most instruments he ever played on record and name a song as example. Don't overdo it in my opinion. 3) "guitar on "All Sold Out": listen to the track, and you'll hear all guitars are played by Richards. In fact, Jones' only guitar contribution on all Stoens albums starting with 'Between the Buttons' is slide guitar on 'No Expectations'. 4) "organ on "Backstreet Girl": the organ is played by Jack Nitsche. 5) "mellotron on "In Another Land": according to Bill Wyman, Nicky Hopkins played the mellotron. In the various outtakes of the song, Hopkins indeed is on mellotron, Jones is not present at the sessions. 6) "lead guitar "Tell Me (You're Coming Back)": lead guitar is not an instrument or technique. 7) "Also removed is the phrase Jones played percussion on an unreleased Jimi Hendrix version of Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower"....etc: According to Eddie Kramer and Mitch Mitchel as stated above, Jones never added anything other than amateuristic piano.

About the "supposedly piano": Several books claim Jones was a trained piano player, but to date he does not play piano on any recorded track, and his endeavours on other keyboard instruments (organ, mellotron etc) certainly fit the music, but do not sound 'trained' in any way. Also, no one around the Stones has ever claimed Brian could play piano to any degree. Last, Eddie Kramer dismisses Brian's piano on the outtake of 'Watchtower' as "second degree level" playing. In my opinion, there is no proof Jones was a trained pianist. I have deleted any reference to this several times, but people keep reverting these edits. That's why I added the word "supposedly". (Heteren (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Heteren, I'm a trained piano player, started when I was six and took private lessons for 20 years, classical piano, Schubert, Chopin etc. I'm pretty good. When I play rock/pop riffs on piano it suddenly sounds horrible. I heard that piano part on All Along the watchtower, it's not terribly bad but misplaced, and Brian was not at his prime in 1968. That comment by Kramer is totally pointless. Brian took piano lessons and I read an interview where he talks about theory, he was probably just a little too "serious" and "trained". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.108.112 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Again Jigsaw Puzzle

On the 8 CD set by Midnight Beat "Satanic Sessions" Volume One and Volume Two, disc 8 has eleven outtakes of Jigsaw Puzzle. It is totally clear from these recordings that Keith Richards plays the electric slide, and that Brian Jones was not present at the sessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heteren (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Author's opinion not needed

The last paragraph of the first section has the following: "Despite the fact that he had fathered two children at a young age, both with women to whom he was not married, Jones showed no sign of changing his lifestyle."

This sentence, seemingly offered from the perspective of late 20th/early 21st century moralism, is the author's opinion and should be deleted. I don't think the author was passing moral judgement on Jones;he was merely stating the truth when he said "Jones showed no sign of changing his lifestyle" as Brian continued to casually produce children out of wedlock with diverse women.As the mothers of these children were all abandoned and paid-off to stay quiet,one doesn't have to be a moralist to disapprove of that type of alley-cat behaviour.This does not detract from his musical ability or charismatic image, by the way. Talent and personal morality arejeanne (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC) not mutually inclusive. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogmath (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

In the article, under early life, it state's:

"In the spring of 1959, Jones's 14-year-old girlfriend, a Cheltenham schoolgirl named Valerie Corbett, became pregnant. She later married one of Jones' friends, Graham Ride, an author. She was four months younger than Jones, who encouraged her to have an abortion."

If it was the spring of 1959, Jones would have been 17 years old, since he was born in 1942. It says his girlfriend was 14 years old, so how can she four months younger than him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twohlrab3 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is so incoherent I cannot even tell what it is trying to say: "Until the group played blues covers or instrumentals credited to "Nanker Phelge", which showed a Jagger/Jones/Richards/Watts/Wyman composition. Through a publishing construction Oldham also benefitted from the Nanker/Phelge moniker." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Read this article: [2]. It disproves the claim that Brian Jones couldn't get a visa to go to the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.73.116 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer surly rock star

What is the author trying to say here? How is deliberately encouraging female fans to chase him indicative of surliness on the part of Brian Jones? I would call it teasing playfulness.

jeanne (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When did Mo(rris) pass away?

The page currently reads: "Another builder present, called Mo(rris) passed away a couple of years ago."

The phrase "a couple of years ago" should be changed to the actual year. (I don't know what year. "A couple of years ago" in relation to when?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl gregory jones (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Death section

I propose everything in this section above "There is uncertainty as to the mental and physical state..." should be removed, or at least moved outside this section. As it is, before you get to any fact regarding his death, you must read through a very long-winded prelude. CapnZapp (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruby Tuesday

I added several comments by Andrew Loog Oldham from his book "Stoned", and took out the section on Ruby Tuesday, as there simply isn't any controversy at all on the author of the song. (Heteren (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

There is quite a bit of controversy. See Marianne Faithfull's opinion. Also see the way in which Marianne Faithfull was removed from the credits of 'Sister Morphine'. 41.241.33.51 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Keith Richards had the basis of the song 'Ruby Tuesday' which was finished by Jones to a large extent. He deserves a co-credit for his contribution. It's very clear! (User: zapspace) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.235.173 (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

if you have a source for these statements, please state the title, author, publication year, publisher, page number and ISBN.

or provide a link to a website that isn't a fan-forum, blog or other self-published work. see WP:RS for what is considered a citeable source. thanks. Sssoul (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is so much evidence that Keith Richards wrote Ruby Tuesday (including the statement "I wrote Ruby Tuesday" by Keith Richards) that there is no controversy at all. Any involvement of Brian is just wishful thinking. (Heteren (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Even he really came up with the riff for "The Last Time" and if he really helped writing "Ruby Tuesday" (than just playing recorder), it will remain almost impossible to prove this, more than 40 years after date.

All involved during recording (including all members of the Stones, the producer and the engineer) name Richards as the writer, and Jones' only contribution to the song is to play the main vocal melody on a recorder. Further, Richards -as the writer- is entitled to grant anyone he wishes a co-auther credit, and he and Jagger have agreed to always credit each other. (Heteren (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Rolling Stones drummer in 1962

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)

the possessive of names ending in s

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)

Brian Jones's death

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

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

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?

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)

Redlinks

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)

Eddie Kramer reflections on Brian Jones

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)

Instruments

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)

Brian wasn't just "one of the founding members"

...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)

What Keith says in Life

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?

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"?

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)

Re: guitar & vocal contributions

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 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Correct. Jones played guitar on at least 2 songs in 1968 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelgold (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Death section needs cleanup

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)

Dust My Broom's writer

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)

beatles template

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)

Vincent "Vicente" Rodriguez?

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) — Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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) — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious solo album

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)

Epilepsy?

Closing discussion started by sockpuppet of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shouldn't the article mention that Jones may have had epilepsy, as Bill Wyman claimed in his book? (92.11.197.112 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

Assuming this is in this book, why should we take that claim seriously enough to put it in the article. How is Bill Wyman qualified to make that assessment? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

He met one of Brian's daughters who is an epileptic and realised that Brian's behaviour and frequent illnesses were exactly the same as a typical epileptic. Jones probably used the alcohol and drugs as a form of self-medication. (92.11.197.112 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

Well, that just sounds like uninformed speculation. Wyman isn't qualified to observe or speculate on epileptic behavior. I wouldn't favor including that in the article unless there was some credible medical opinion that he may have been epileptic. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Documentary

Has anyone watched The Psychic Detective episode where an hour long session exploring the murder claim is examined with a Brian Jones official and the mother of his two children? Watch parts 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 5/5. Investigation

Ddperk80 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Ddperk80

Birth name

I have a pretty reliable book source, The Rolling Stones: Street Fighting Years by Stephen Barnard, stating that his birth name was Lewis Brian Hopkin-Jones as opposed to Hopkins Jones. Could we please get this sorted out? - Hoops gza (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, well since there has been no response, I will amend the article to this for now and create appropriate redirects. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"the Rolling Stones" vs. "The Rolling Stones"

I reverted the recent edit by Erik the Evil where he changed "the Rolling Stones" to "The Rolling Stones". As stated at WP:THECAPS, the Wikipedia style is to use "the" in lower case in mid-sentence. I'm adding this note here because I fumbled the revision comment; apparently I hit the return key too soon. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Shine a Light

Shine a Light is NOT about Jones, according to Jagger. He picked up the idea from listening to gospel tunes, and the song was written a year before Jones's death. (Heteren (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus

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)

Actually, at the time, the rock music mags reported that Jagger was unhappy with HIS performance . . . 50.111.31.62 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Guitar Player From Mehlville, "stunned"

--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)

In additon to Doc's comment, people who love Bill Clinton love him - many, many, many, many others most assuredly do not 50.111.31.62 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Musical Contributions Section

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)

Jones appears on one track of Beggar's Banquet - slide guitar on "No Expectations." Other uncredited guest guitarists include Dave Mason. 50.111.31.62 (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Birth date

Was Brian Jones Born in ‘42 or ‘43 ?, it’s appearing randomly ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosbydavid1941 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, Jones was born in 1942, and this is confirmed by the rollingstone.com article referenced in footnote 1. It seems unlikely that Jones could have been born in 1943 because he had a sister who was born that year. What sources say that Jones was born in 1943? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

On this link, a newspaper article says that he was 26 when he died. http://wwwcrazymama.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-day-like-today-45-years-ago-3-7-1969.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDaveClarkFiverDenis (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And on this link, George Harrison said that Jones was born on February 28, 1943. https://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/john-lennon/brian-jones-and-the-beatles/

Interesting. Unfortunately, photographs of newspaper clippings can't be considered reliable sources because we don't know what newspapers they're from. I think we should stick with 1942 unless better evidence turns up for 1943. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

His biography Golden Stone: The Untold Life and Tragic Death of Brian Jones by Laura Jackson says he was born in 1942. I've added a footnote and also added a comment requesting that editors not change the birth year to 1943 without obtaining consensus here first. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)