Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

I know that quote. Doesn't deny my remark. The fact that the Glimmers credit each other injustly is not only something between them. It's a policy they've had since the very beginning, excluding other members of the band, including Taylor. I remember some other quotes of Taylor on this issue as well. I guess you'll believe them too.

That's bollocks as Wood got about 20 Jagger/Richards/Wood credits.

So the only conclusion can be that Wood can write songs, and Taylor not.

Judging the solo albums of both: that conclusion is correct.

Mathijs

you don't believe MT wrote stones songs for which he wasn't given credit? wow - you really do hate yourself....

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

I know that quote. Doesn't deny my remark. The fact that the Glimmers credit each other injustly is not only something between them. It's a policy they've had since the very beginning, excluding other members of the band, including Taylor. I remember some other quotes of Taylor on this issue as well. I guess you'll believe them too.

That's bollocks as Wood got about 20 Jagger/Richards/Wood credits.

So the only conclusion can be that Wood can write songs, and Taylor not.

Judging the solo albums of both: that conclusion is correct.

Mathijs

not to insert myself into anotherwise worthy catfight, but WTF?!?
How do you call that logical? The only reason why Wood is getting any songwriting credits, is that they've 'loosened' (a bit...a tiny bit), the Jagger/Richards songwriting vice that went into the records.

How many credits did Wyman get (other than his 'solo' In Another Land)?

Quote
Mathijs
Mathijs
Ps If not being able to hear Keith on PMS is like stating Keith isn't very prominent on Honky Tonk Women.

Yes, except Mr. Jagger has been known to do a fairly credible 5-string open G Keith imitation.

Okay, Amsterdamned, I took a deep breath and re-read your post. I'm trying to think of a "more nuanced reply" like when you call me an illiterate in the last sentence of your exemplary post.

You can dress a Taylorite up, but you can't take them out.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

I know that quote. Doesn't deny my remark. The fact that the Glimmers credit each other injustly is not only something between them. It's a policy they've had since the very beginning, excluding other members of the band, including Taylor. I remember some other quotes of Taylor on this issue as well. I guess you'll believe them too.

That's bollocks as Wood got about 20 Jagger/Richards/Wood credits.

So the only conclusion can be that Wood can write songs, and Taylor not.

Judging the solo albums of both: that conclusion is correct.

Mathijs

Since 1981 until last part of Licks tour, Ronnie has / was more a clown on stage than playing guitar. That Taylor could do in his 5 years in Stones.
PS - I have been here on the board for more than 11 monhts - just under other names.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

I know that quote. Doesn't deny my remark. The fact that the Glimmers credit each other injustly is not only something between them. It's a policy they've had since the very beginning, excluding other members of the band, including Taylor. I remember some other quotes of Taylor on this issue as well. I guess you'll believe them too.

That's bollocks as Wood got about 20 Jagger/Richards/Wood credits.

So the only conclusion can be that Wood can write songs, and Taylor not.

Judging the solo albums of both: that conclusion is correct.

Mathijs

The credits Wood got, what kind of songs were they? Great ones?

The vibe of this forum has changed, not for the better.

<< And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example. >>

Much better example is "Melody". I think Preston's influence was still positive and proportional during "100 Years Ago" era but became too much circa Black & Blue.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Okay, Amsterdamned, I took a deep breath and re-read your post. I'm trying to think of a "more nuanced reply" like when you call me an illiterate in the last sentence of your exemplary post.

You can dress a Taylorite up, but you can't take them out.

Ok,I'll take the illiterate back,my sarcasm.
But your answer implies that either you misinterpret or don't understand what I'am saying or we are talking a different subject without realizing it.. But who cares?

Quote
His Majesty
The vibe of this forum has changed, not for the better.

That's always the case when there is a debate going on about the best guitar player the Stones ever had.

...am I missing the point here??...if Jagger brought Taylor in w/o Richards consent wouldn't that be cause for divorce?....I mean really...I'd withhold all future collaborative efforts if I was Keith...

Quote
Rip This
...am I missing the point here??...if Jagger brought Taylor in w/o Richards consent wouldn't that be cause for divorce?....I mean really...I'd withhold all future collaborative efforts if I was Keith...

don't fret - they'll follow wherever the money trail takes them...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker
Anyway, it's more than likely that Keith had little or nothing to do with the songwriting of 100 years ago, how 'witty' RD's fantasy might be, and that Taylor's contribution to one of the greatest Stonessongs ever was of more importance than Keith's.

According to Taylor, Jagger wrote 100 Years:

Some of the songs we used (for the album) were pretty old. 100 Years Ago was one that Mick (Jagger) had written 2 years ago and which we hadn't really got around to using before.

- Mick Taylor, 1973

And Jagger has stated he wrote it and that Billy Preston helped shaping it alot. Keith later stated when Preston left, that Preston was a fantastic musician but that he was sometimes too much for the Stones, as he would lead them away from what the Stones are. He mentioned 100 Years as an example.

The fact that Jagger credits Keith while he might not have wrotten anything is something between Mick and Keith.

Mathijs

I know that quote. Doesn't deny my remark. The fact that the Glimmers credit each other injustly is not only something between them. It's a policy they've had since the very beginning, excluding other members of the band, including Taylor. I remember some other quotes of Taylor on this issue as well. I guess you'll believe them too.

That's bollocks as Wood got about 20 Jagger/Richards/Wood credits.

So the only conclusion can be that Wood can write songs, and Taylor not.

Judging the solo albums of both: that conclusion is correct.

Mathijs

you don't believe MT wrote stones songs for which he wasn't given credit? wow - you really do hate yourself....

Mathijs, are you gonna say now that StonesTod is on IORR for only 5 years? Do you daresay, like you said to me and like Ket said to me, that he hijacks every thread? Because he writes quite some posts here in all kinds of threads (I'm glad he does, because I like them all, even if I don't always (100%) agree with him).

Kleermaker, this is a tough one, I know. My opinion, your opinion, Mathijs' opinion of great songs is subjective. Ket thinking "100 Years Ago" is crap doesn't make him/her wrong any more than you thinking it is one of their finest moments makes you right. Same deal with whether Ronnie has written great songs with Mick and Keith.

And if "100 Years Ago" is your benchmark of a Great Stones Song, a Classic For the Ages that they ripped your god off by not crediting his songwriting, why wasn't it a single, why isn't it played live, why isn't it played live by Taylor?

Me? I like the song a lot. I think its a highlight of the album, but its only my opinion. Does any of this sound remotely like the real world to you?

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
His Majesty
The vibe of this forum has changed, not for the better.

That's always the case when there is a debate going on about the best guitar player the Stones ever had.

There's more going on here than just that.

You're right, His Majesty. And I'm sorry if I helped pull it down. I'll bow out now. Not gracefully, perhaps. But I'll bow out just the same.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
His Majesty
The vibe of this forum has changed, not for the better.

That's always the case when there is a debate going on about the best guitar player the Stones ever had.

There's more going on here than just that.

That's an interesting one..tell me more?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
His Majesty
The vibe of this forum has changed, not for the better.

That's always the case when there is a debate going on about the best guitar player the Stones ever had.

There's more going on here than just that.

Maybe it's useful if you tell what that is, HM? Maybe that could solve the problem. Btw: No irony or sarcasm intended.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
His Majesty
The vibe of this forum has changed, not for the better.

That's always the case when there is a debate going on about the best guitar player the Stones ever had.

There's more going on here than just that.

Maybe it's useful if you tell what that is, HM? Maybe that could solve the problem. Btw: No irony or sarcasm intended.

i want in on that too. the forum seems the same to me. maybe the drapes?

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Kleermaker, this is a tough one, I know. My opinion, your opinion, Mathijs' opinion of great songs is subjective. Ket thinking "100 Years Ago" is crap doesn't make him/her wrong any more than you thinking it is one of their finest moments makes you right. Same deal with whether Ronnie has written great songs with Mick and Keith.

And if "100 Years Ago" is your benchmark of a Great Stones Song, a Classic For the Ages that they ripped your god off by not crediting his songwriting, why wasn't it a single, why isn't it played live, why isn't it played live by Taylor?

Me? I like the song a lot. I think its a highlight of the album, but its only my opinion. Does any of this sound remotely like the real world to you?

I disagree RD, though I can follow your reasoning. But. For example, I absolutely don't like Bach's music, but I can acknowledge that it's really great music. Reread those Ket posts and you probably will understand what I mean. It's just a bad argument, followed by an insult. Doesn't that say enough to you?

no like bach??? sigh....

Bach doesn't rock.

Quote
StonesTod
no like bach??? sigh....

J.S. Bach, to be precise. Because there are about 50 of them.

Quote
copsnrobbers
Bach doesn't rock.

neither does bach-a-rach - but i like him, too

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod
no like bach??? sigh....

J.S. Bach, to be precise. Because there are about 50 of them.

i don't mind me nor anyone else dissing our beloved stones, but i'll be damned if i'll tolerate any snide remarks about johann!!!!

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
copsnrobbers
Bach doesn't rock.

neither does bach-a-rach - but i like him, too

But J.S. Bach's double concerto is undeniably heavenly music.

copsnrobbers, so many Stones songs don't rock either. If that's the only criterion ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-07 00:46 by kleermaker.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
copsnrobbers
Bach doesn't rock.

neither does bach-a-rach - but i like him, too

But J.S. Bach's double concerto is undeniable heavenly music.

copsnrobbers, so many Stones songs don't rock either. If that's the only criterion ...

cnr's just outta sorts cos rs.com is down

Well, I guess no one wants to tell me when MT played in Northampton, Ma ...I GOOGLED it and StonesDoug's Shidoobee page came up with a load of awesome pictures from his April 29th gig...LAST THURSDAY! This must have been a last minute thing because the last I knew, he'd taken ill AGAIN, and had cancelled a ton of U.S gigs. I know he cancelled the NYC gig...right?

At some point later on, could somebody either post the Guitar World interview with Keith here or provide a link to an online version of the interview if one exists? Thank you.