IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Name: pluto
E-Mail:
Subject: RE: RE: BJ to Beethoven
Date: Sunday, November 18, 2018
Time: 8:55:42 AM
Remote Address: 92.3.198.0
Message ID: 318722
Parent ID: 318710
Thread ID: 318661
Keno, I had no idea you had an old rating scale. Well maybe I did at one time, but I'm getting old and forgetful as well. I noticed that your rating definitions are for songs and albums, but maybe they are roughly transferable to 'musicianship'
It looks like I have just taken your question literally as it was asked, and not interpreted it as meaning rate Brian Jones as a 'rock or pop musician'. Had I done that, I may have given a higher score to Brian.
Given that when you boil it all down, whether your're Brian Jones or Chopin, Steve Jones or Hayden or whoever, composer or player, then you only have the same twelve notes to work with (In Western music anyway). In that sense it would be possible I guess, to compare musicians operating in different areas of music. It would be a case of rating what they did with those twelve notes, and/ or, at what level did they perform playing wise?
That said, I take your point, now that you have expanded on the criteria, that to compare a classical player or composer with those operating in rock or pop or whatever, is perhaps not comparing on a level playing field. I think generally speaking the levels of musicianship required in the classical field are much more exacting than in rock and pop, which is a simpler form of music. Nobody expects (or needs or wants) for example, Steve Jones, to be playing at the same level as the first violin for the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, or composing like Benjamin Britten. That said, whilst the level of musicianship might not be as exacting in rock and pop, there are other things associated with rock and pop that can be very exacting. I think since we are talking about Brian Jones, we will all have an idea of what those are.
None of the above is to say that there are not any players in rock and pop operating at a very high level of musicianship, there are. There are even some who have shown that they can move the thing away from simple rock and pop chord progressions etc etc, to something much more complex. McCartney and Zappa are perhaps good examples. They were obviously attempting to meet a need within, looking for a way to express their particular level of musical ability beyond what they might have considered the 'constraints' of rock. You (anyone) might be in favour of that, or might not be. Personally I like things to be closer to the old three chord belt it out stuff when it comes to rock/pop. The point is though, there are some great musicians in rock, and nobody needs to get snobby when considering rock and pop as opposed to any other musical form, or denigrate it even. It's as valid an art form as any other form of music imo.
In no particular order, I'll try to give my view on some of your points.
I certainly noted that it wouldn't be doing a service to Jones to underrate him, and what he could do. As far as the the number of instruments that Jones played goes, I would say that I know of no contemporary of his that used such a range on their recordings. There were musicians around like Robin Williamson and Mike Heron who played many 'exotic' instruments on their Incredible String Band recordings. However I know of no one who used as many as Jones.
I certainly think that there were musicians around in rock at the time, who if they had tried, would have been able to get something from many of the instruments that Jones played on Stones albums. I'm sure someone of say, Jeff Beck's ability, would have been able to produce something on any of the stringed instruments Jones used.
There could be any number of reasons as to why none of Jones' contemporaries attempted to use the number of instruments on their recordings that Jones did. These could include availability, and interest in doing so (Jones was certainly eclectic in his musical taste). It would be true that not too many would have Jones' ability to, even if they had the inclination. I think however that the main reason could possibly be, not too many in rock and pop had the musical imagination that Jones had. That, allied to his ability (and that of his band mates, to be fair), produced some of the best rock around at the time. Jones could see the potential of these instruments for the rock and pop of the time. That for me was his talent, he could see the possibilities, and had the playing ability, and musical ideas to raise what might have been ok pop, to great pop.
I don't think I have changed my opinion on what it takes to have 'mastery' on an instrument. I mentioned the concert pianist Peter Donohoe, and a read online of his biography will give an idea of what it takes to be able to play at the level people like him do. It is true that Jones did take piano lessons from his mum (his dad was a piano teacher as well, I believe), and at least one other teacher, so he will no doubt have learned to read the dots, and will have been given a grounding in the rudiments of music theory. What piano grade Jones reached I don't know (I've probably read it somewhere at some point), but suffice to say, the level of training he received was a long way from what I believe it takes to be considered to have achieved 'mastery' of an instrument.
I think you might be able to apply the old adage 'jack of all trades, master of none' to Jones, when it comes to the instruments he had a go on. I maintain that a first year music student, given the score to any of the pieces Jones played on the piano or recorder or whatever, would perform them without too much difficulty. The same would be true of players at the same level on instruments not normally associated with the conservatoire. A good enough player would be able to replicate by ear. None of that is saying that what Jones played wasn't good, far from it.
What is missing here, and what we're not rating, is potential. I think I have read enough about, and listened to enough by Jones to recognise that if his musical ability had been recognised, and picked up on in the way Donohoe's was, then it's entirely possible, all things being equal, that Jones perhaps could have achieved a comparable level of musicianship. It's interesting to speculate that if such a thing had come to pass, and Jones had followed a 'classical' route, then he might have gone quite far in that world. He may not have achieved the same fame (notoriety) that he did as a Rolling Stone, but he might still be alive.
When I refer to some of Jones' motifs as 'simple' (not to be confused with simple as in simple and compound time), that is relative, and in no way putting them down. The point is, that they might have been uncomplicated musically, but totally effective for the music he was involved in, as indeed was his playing.
You could say that stripped of everything else, the melodic themes of the major composers were basically simple linear sequence of notes, ascending or descending or whatever. It was, of course, the musical devices they used to support these simple melodies e.g. harmony, rhythm, tempo, counter melody or whatever, that produced pieces of complex music.
It is one thing to say 'simple melody' of course, but it's another thing entirely to come up with a memorable melody, and then put everything around it to make it a successful and memorable piece of music. I think Jones demonstrated that he was capable of that, albeit with a much smaller ensemble, and that he wasn't just limited to adding little bits of 'colour' here and there.
Just to go back to the notion of 'mastery' of a musical instrument. When I read your comments vis a vis the sitar, Jones, and the masters (pandits?) of that instrument, my first thought was that you might have been smoking that bat shit for breakfast again (lol). My actual thought is that somewhere in translation the word 'couldn't' has been mistaken for 'wouldn't'. It's very hard to imagine that the acknowledged masters of the sitar with years of study and practice at the feet of other masters, would be jealous because they couldn't play or sound like someone who had had been playing for a few months, having had a couple of lessons on the basics from a waiter in the local curry house on the corner, or whatever. I tell you what though, if what you said is the actual fact of it, then my hat is off to Mr Jones, he would be getting a ten from me across the board, as I would consider him a musical talent as prodigious as Mozart.
Anyway, that's some of my thoughts on Brian Jones, for what they're worth.
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2022 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.