Before Brian got into the exotic instruments he's more known for with the Stones, he was the Stones' lead guitarist...But I was wondering:
What exactly was his guitar style/technique like? Unlike the later records, I honestly can't tell who is playing the solos and majority of the parts on the early records when Brian was solely a guitarist. I can't tell in many of the songs if Keith is handling most of the guitar and solos, or if it's Brian, and thus I've never really been able to determine just how good he played as a guitarist or what his flavor was--Was he choppy and raw like Keith and Ronnie Wood, more melodic like Mick Taylor, or what? I know from No Expectations he seemed to be a superb slide guitar player, but that's about it.

What are some great examples of Brian's guitar talents?

Also, do you believe Brian deserved credit of some kind for his contributions to songs like Lady Jane, She's a Rainbow, Ruby Tuesday, Paint it Black, 2000 Light-Years from Home, Street Fighting Man, etc?

He may not have been a songwriter in the traditional sense or a lyricist, but I HIGHLY doubt Keith wrote the dulcimer parts in Lady Jane, or the sitar parts in Paint It, Black and Street Fighting Man or the mellotoron and strings in She's a Rainbow, etc, or even the slide guitar in No Expectations....And in all of those cases, Brian's contribution defined those songs. What would Paint it Black be without Brian's sitar? Or Lady Jane without the dulcimer?

IMO again, Brian gets the shaft by Mick and Keith for his importance in and his contributions to the Stones. He might've been a real nutcase in terms of his personality, but still talent is talent regardless and it's unfair that it's been swept under the rug and kind of ''erased'' by Mick and Keith. As much as I love them, I do find them kind of reprehensible.

Every musician who has worked with them--From Brian, to Ry Cooder, to Mick Taylor, to Ronnie Wood--gets undercut and goes without credit for whatever they contributed. It's not so much a band as it is the Mick & Keith Show, and that's wrong because Brian, Ry Cooder, Mick Taylor, Ronnie and plenty of others all put something into the Stones, all helped shape a lot of their most memorable songs. In terms of creativity and musical input, the Stones has ALWAYS been more than just Mick and Keith--especially in the band's glory days in the 60s and 70s--but they'd never humble themselves to admit it.

Would it REALLY, at this stage in the game, be that horrible to amend some of the song credits to "Jagger/Richards/Jones", "Jagger/Richards/Taylor", "Jagger/Taylor", "Jagger/Richards/Wood", etc? Do they have to carry their hubris and their self-centered obsession with every song being credited solely to "Jagger/Richards" to the grave with them?

And who knows? Maybe without Brian's hustler-like leadership of and dedication to promoting the band and his showmanship in the early days, Mick and Keith might've never made it big....

This is a very good, and thought provoking, post. :) I don't think I have the time to do it justice! But, as far as songwriting credits go, nothing will ever change. Remember the row that Macca caused when he wanted HIS songs to be shown as "McCartney/Lennon"? Yoko would have none of it.

Also, a few years ago, Matthew Fisher, organist for Procol Harum, filed suit for co-writer credit for "A Whiter Shade OF Pale". I think the case was appealed and a final decision went in his favor. But, at first, the courts basically said something to the effect that authorship of a song consisted of music and lyrics, not any instrumentaion that was added, and may even have been the keynote part of the song. I think some of Brian's musical ideas were taken by M&K and added to and they became Jagger/Richards compositions with no recognition of any contribution from Brian. I believe this happened to Mick Taylor as well.

In the early days, Brian and Keith were responsible for the "guitar weaving" sound that is so familiar to us in the early Stones sound. They would vassiliate between lead and rhythm, and it was brilliant. Brian was a smooth player--Keith more the choppy riff man. It was a perfect blend. Brian's favorite instrument was actually the harp, as I think he felt that music really came from his soul. He was proficient on the piano as well, having taken lessons as a child. And, because of his extremely musical natural abilities, he was able to pick up any instrument lying around, and quickly figure out how to get musical sounds out of it, incorporating them into those memorable mid 60's Stones songs. He loved blues music, and that led to his early use of bottleneck/slide guitar. I think that Brian tired of guitar at the end of his career---he seemed to always be looking for the "next great thing". And I think that's why, when he went to Morocco, he became so enchanted with the Master Musicians of Joujouka. That, plus his interest in the Indian sitar, began his passion and quest of World Music. He was a complicated, and I'm sure, frustrating person. But........as has been said about him, he knew exactly what was needed to make a nice song, a SPECIAL thing---and that's why these songs from the mid 60's still stand out in the world of rock music. :)

I'm afraid you are completely incorrect when you state that Brian Jones was ever for a moment the Stones' lead guitarist.  

It was actually this guy.   :interestingstuffronnie


Sure, Brian played some killer slide on stuff like I Wanna Be Your Man and I Can't Be Satisfied, and added exotic flourishes to later tracks (Mellotron on We Love You being a personal favorite), but Keith carried the water almost all of the time.  

Make no mistake, I love the Brian-era Stones and am sure he deserved credit in more than a handful of instances where he didn't get it, but while he had a facility for picking up an instrument and learning how to play it competently in a short period of time, Keith was actually the musical architect of the Stones from the get-go.  

One thing is for sure: Mick admits that he had nothing to do with writing "Ruby Tuesday" and yet it is still a Jagger/Richard comp. Keith wrote it mostly, with the help of Brian. And not to mention that Brian was the one to introduce the idea of using the cello and then the double bass. The recorder part, there's no way Keith wrote that. Brian has no credit to that song. That drives me crazy!!!

the soft parade wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

One thing is for sure: Mick admits that he had nothing to do with writing "Ruby Tuesday" and yet it is still a Jagger/Richard comp. Keith wrote it mostly, with the help of Brian. And not to mention that Brian was the one to introduce the idea of using the cello and then the double bass. The recorder part, there's no way Keith wrote that. Brian has no credit to that song. That drives me crazy!!!

Brian added a lot to the soundof the those Rolling Stones recordings circa 1966-67, but it those who create the lyrics and basic melody that get the writing credits: Jagger/Richards. Brian's recorder contribution was nice, but it was only added to a melody that Keith had already composed. That doesn't warrent a songwriting credit, surely?

One thing I always thought U2 were brilliant for doing was the song writing credits.  99% of their stuff says Lyrics: Bono/Music: U2
They said it was because once you are in the studio everyone contributes.

The Stones would have saved themselves some public and private heartache had they done something similar from the get go.
Because you can't tell me that Charlie, Bill, Brian, Mick T. and Ronnie haven't contributed to each and every track they have played on.
It also takes that particular fight off the table - more peace in the family.

Oh well, can't rewrite history.

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 12:57pm:

the soft parade wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 11:51am: One thing is for sure: Mick admits that he had nothing to do with writing "Ruby Tuesday" and yet it is still a Jagger/Richard comp. Keith wrote it mostly, with the help of Brian. And not to mention that Brian was the one to introduce the idea of using the cello and then the double bass. The recorder part, there's no way Keith wrote that. Brian has no credit to that song. That drives me crazy!!! Brian added a lot to the soundof the those Rolling Stones recordings circa 1966-67, but it those who create the lyrics and basic melody that get the writing credits: Jagger/Richards. Brian's recorder contribution was nice, but it was only added to a melody that Keith had already composed. That doesn't warrent a songwriting credit, surely?

I thought that I read in Life that Keith heard Brian playing the recorder section of Ruby Tuesday, and from that he then wrote the rest of the song around it. If that is the case, shouldnt Brian have gotten some credit?

Also kind of remember from reading Stone Alone that Bill and Brian came up with the basic riff for Jumping Jack Flash.

Zack wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

I'm afraid you are completely incorrect when you state that Brian Jones was ever for a moment the Stones' lead guitarist.   It was actually this guy.   :interestingstuffronnie Sure, Brian played some killer slide on stuff like I Wanna Be Your Man and I Can't Be Satisfied, and added exotic flourishes to later tracks (Mellotron on We Love You being a personal favorite), but Keith carried the water almost all of the time.   Make no mistake, I love the Brian-era Stones and am sure he deserved credit in more than a handful of instances where he didn't get it, but while he had a facility for picking up an instrument and learning how to play it competently in a short period of time, Keith was actually the musical architect of the Stones from the get-go.

Brian's slide on Little Red Rooster is magnificent.  And, Keith and Brian's dual guitars really stand out on Down The Road Apiece.  And of course Brian's guitar on Mona, superb!

uncleson wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 4:03pm:

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 12:57pm: the soft parade wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 11:51am: One thing is for sure: Mick admits that he had nothing to do with writing "Ruby Tuesday" and yet it is still a Jagger/Richard comp. Keith wrote it mostly, with the help of Brian. And not to mention that Brian was the one to introduce the idea of using the cello and then the double bass. The recorder part, there's no way Keith wrote that. Brian has no credit to that song. That drives me crazy!!! Brian added a lot to the soundof the those Rolling Stones recordings circa 1966-67, but it those who create the lyrics and basic melody that get the writing credits: Jagger/Richards. Brian's recorder contribution was nice, but it was only added to a melody that Keith had already composed. That doesn't warrent a songwriting credit, surely? I thought that I read in Life that Keith heard Brian playing the recorder section of Ruby Tuesday, and from that he then wrote the rest of the song around it. If that is the case, shouldnt Brian have gotten some credit? Also kind of remember from reading Stone Alone that Bill and Brian came up with the basic riff for Jumping Jack Flash.

Brian did add many little touches to songs during that period to perfect them (and even  I would have asked for credit for that) but the fact that Mick pretty much did NOTHING except sing on the song (which he does well) and yet the song still gets the "Jagger/Richard" credit. It's irritating. The song wouldn't have had strings in it without Brian, I'm sure. The song probably wouldn't exist without Brian, but Mick still got the cash and recognition from it. Who knows how much more Brian did to songs that Mick/Keith don't mention?

Zack wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

I'm afraid you are completely incorrect when you state that Brian Jones was ever for a moment the Stones' lead guitarist.   It was actually this guy.   :interestingstuffronnie Sure, Brian played some killer slide on stuff like I Wanna Be Your Man and I Can't Be Satisfied, and added exotic flourishes to later tracks (Mellotron on We Love You being a personal favorite), but Keith carried the water almost all of the time.   Make no mistake, I love the Brian-era Stones and am sure he deserved credit in more than a handful of instances where he didn't get it, but while he had a facility for picking up an instrument and learning how to play it competently in a short period of time, Keith was actually the musical architect of the Stones from the get-go.

So, you are saying that Brian never once played lead guitar in a Stones song? Really? And that his "guitar weaving" with Keith, which means trading off lead and rhythm guitar parts, isn't true? What of "The Last Time"? Or lead slide parts in "Little Red Rooster" or "No Expectations"? I'm not saying that Brian was the lead guitarist for any length of time, but he certainly played lead guitar on some numbers. You can see many performances on YouTube.

Sioux wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 11:46pm:

Zack wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 11:16am: I'm afraid you are completely incorrect when you state that Brian Jones was ever for a moment the Stones' lead guitarist.   It was actually this guy.   :interestingstuffronnie Sure, Brian played some killer slide on stuff like I Wanna Be Your Man and I Can't Be Satisfied, and added exotic flourishes to later tracks (Mellotron on We Love You being a personal favorite), but Keith carried the water almost all of the time.   Make no mistake, I love the Brian-era Stones and am sure he deserved credit in more than a handful of instances where he didn't get it, but while he had a facility for picking up an instrument and learning how to play it competently in a short period of time, Keith was actually the musical architect of the Stones from the get-go.   So, you are saying that Brian never once played lead guitar in a Stones song? Really? And that his "guitar weaving" with Keith, which means trading off lead and rhythm guitar parts, isn't true? What of "The Last Time"? Or lead slide parts in "Little Red Rooster" or "No Expectations"? I'm not saying that Brian was the lead guitarist for any length of time, but he certainly played lead guitar on some numbers. You can see many performances on YouTube.

Look, I don't mean to slag Brian.  He was a true rock and roll hero without whom the early Stones would have lost a lot of their magic.  But apart from his slide work (and I have a deep, deep love for Little Red Rooster that I forgot to mention), and his minimal lead lines in songs like Get Off My Cloud and The Last Time, there is very little of what we would term lead guitar from him.  Major Stones freaks who are serious musicians and much more adept at divining who played what, down to with what guitar and amp, like Mathijs from IORR for example, say this.

Please do share any youtube links that show Brian as a lead guitarist.  I'm all eyes (and ears) and will be happy to stand corrected if the evidence suggests so.

Ok, well, like I said, I never proposed that Brian was called "lead guitarist" for any length of time. Brian was not really ever interested in being a guitar "completist".  Or an aficionado". His intial interest was in sounding as much like a black blues musician as a pale white Welsh boy could! :) And his natural musical abilities led him to be able to pick up that random instrument and "make something good and applicable come out of it".

Now, what Keith did, and does, for the Stones is perfect for the Stones. Riff man. Choppy Chuck Berry licks. But, seriously, as a guitar master, he certainly doesn't compare to a Hendrix or a Beck...or a Phil Keaggy. I guess I'm saying that the Stones "sound" is based more on the overall sound---not especially individuals who are excellent instrumentalists, with the possible exception of Charlie. I loved Bill's bass work. Don't get me wrong. :) They were, and are, ALL perfect for this particular band. And, their differences, musically, are what MAKE this band what it is.  8-)

Sioux wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 8:48am:

Ok, well, like I said, I never proposed that Brian was called "lead guitarist" for any length of time. Brian was not really ever interested in being a guitar "completist".  Or an aficionado". His intial interest was in sounding as much like a black blues musician as a pale white Welsh boy could! :) And his natural musical abilities led him to be able to pick up that random instrument and "make something good and applicable come out of it". Now, what Keith did, and does, for the Stones is perfect for the Stones. Riff man. Choppy Chuck Berry licks. But, seriously, as a guitar master, he certainly doesn't compare to a Hendrix or a Beck...or a Phil Keaggy. I guess I'm saying that the Stones "sound" is based more on the overall sound---not especially individuals who are excellent instrumentalists, with the possible exception of Charlie. I loved Bill's bass work. Don't get me wrong. :) They were, and are, ALL perfect for this particular band. And, their differences, musically, are what MAKE this band what it is.  8-)

Well said.  And Brian deserves recognition as a harp player too.  I was just reading where his harmonica on Going Home inspired Mick's three years later, on Midnight Rambler.
There would not be a Rolling Stones had it not been for Brian. He deserves credit and recognition.

I agree, Brian does deserve some recognition.  I still am unsure of Jumping Jack Flash though.  I remember hearing or reading that Brian and Bill were playing what would become Flash and Keith wanted them to play it again.  If that were the case, they should have gotten credit as well, much like in the days of "Nanker Phelge."  Just sayin. :nanker

Focusing solely on guitar playing...

I think we should keep in mind what was considered rhythm and what was considered lead guitar in early 60's. Strict rhythm guitar was played by the likes of Bruce Welch from The Shadows, you know he strums rhythms whilst playing chords, Hank Marvin handled the lead guitar, riffs and motifs. There's a clear and distinct difference between the two forms of playing in that band.

The stones sound is a combination of lead and rhythm a lot of the time, ie both Brian and Keith would play chords, little single string runs, fills and riffs etc within the same song. Not always of course, but as a generalization it's valid. The IBC track Bright Lights, Big City is a perfect example of this approach.

Within this merged approach Brian played slide guitar solo's and Keith played non slide solo's.

Brian's liking for playing other instruments even early on meant Keith had to play parts that were more involved than when Brian was also playing guitar because Keith tried to maintain some form of this merged approach with one guitar. This is the real making of Keith as a guitar player, it's the reason I think they could play without Brian during the few gigs he missed etc. Keith already had experience playing as the only guitarist in the band right from the beginning.  

Had Brian focused solely on playing guitar the need for what became Keith's signature sound, a unique merging of both lead and rhythm, simply wouldn't have had to be worked on by Keith, he probably would have been a very different player even in 60's.