The Jumpin' Jack Flash verse melody and riff sure are linked together. Notes and rhythms from the riff are in the melody. So it's either a great combined piece of writing by Jagger Richards or it's a great piece of creating a melody using Bill's riffs notes and rhythms as a source for melodic ideas.

Bill claims something which I have yet to see, that there are interviews where Keith says Bill wrote the riff.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
The irony is that when Keith was more or less a folkmusician/balladier in 1965/1966, Brian was given a platform where he could write or play or colour little bits and pieces on different instruments. The other guitar wasnt needed. His last straw after Anita would have been the Beggars sessions, a return to the blues but then he was shut out and probably despised by Mick (Brian eing right about Satanic). Beggars and 1968 meant Brian would have to recreate himself as the blues pioneer but this time Mick already had guests in the studio to fill his spot. He had to compete with Clapton, Cooder, Mason and also with Mick on the harmonica. Im thinking this is when he wasnt needed anymore.

Cooder had no involvement with Beggars Banquet.

"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think people mistake "contributing" for song writing. Even ideas might not be song writing. You're looking for something that's probably not there...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

Quote
His Majesty
"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

Well maybe he could not write lyrics, but what about the music? I wonder if his music had Jagger lyrics and a group effort behind him, I bet it would sound OK to good. And after some practice, he would have improved the way Keith's music did...

Just posting relevent stuffs.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think people mistake "contributing" for song writing. Even ideas might not be song writing. You're looking for something that's probably not there...

True. I think of the songwriter as the "originator" of the idea, and the idea when presented to the band would require a beginning structure to work from, such as words, verses, and melody, even if there is no title, but something that, when finished, would not have existed if Brian himself had not created it first. Brian contributed to the sound of the idea as it was being structured, but did not seem to originate something that the rest of the band later built a song around, and an opening riff is not really enough. If you think of a song as music with words--and music without words is merely an instrumental, as opposed to a song--then for Brian to receive credit he would have had to have contributed words and/or verses that Mick and Keith did not contribute themselves. Brian was great at decorating songs that already existed, but which are nonetheless songs that would have existed anyway.

Therefore, the only song that Bill deserves credit for is In Another Land. It exists because Bill brought it into existence. Mick and Keith would never have come up with that song. Whereas even if Bill did, for the sake of argument, come up with the opening riff for Jumping Jack Flash, it would not matter because the song would have existed anyway, perhaps with another opening riff.

Bill also wrote Downtown Suzie. If Bill wrote the beginning of JJF, then he wrote part of it and is co-writer. Period! There is no other conclusion you can come to. You cannot say it would have existed anyway. How could anyone know that. Now we do know the story of Keith and Mick at Redlands and Jack walking by the window, so the words Jumping Jack Flash would exist and I don't know when the rest of the words were written, but as far as the music Bill (if true) should have some credit...

But did Mick and Keith write the song about their gardener Jack because of Bill's opening riff, or was the opening riff something Mick and Keith later co-opted into the song, after it had already been written?

My view (and I have no idea what a court of law would judge) is that does it really matter. Now this all assumes he did write alone the initial piece of music to JJF and if true then he did write some part of the music us the listeners are listening to.

We talk about the reason Keith (forget about the partnership) got credit on Moonlight Mile is he came up with the riff at the very end. Now they could just as well left that out, but they did not.


What would you say if Bill wrote the 3rd verse in bold below? Now the song would exist with out it, Mick could have come up with something else in its place.


I was born in a cross-fire hurricane And I howled at my ma in the driving rain
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right, I'm jumping Jack flash It's a gas, gas, gas

I was raised by a toothless, bearded hag I was schooled with a strap right across my back
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right, I'm jumping Jack flash It's a gas, gas, gas

I was drowned, I was washed up and left for dead I fell down to my feet and I saw they bled I frowned at the crumbs of a crust of bread I was crowned with a spike right through my head Yeah, yeah, yeah
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right, I'm jumping Jack flash It's a gas, gas, gas

Quote
His Majesty
"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

But that's not the topic.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty
"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

But that's not the topic.

Neither are most of the posts in this thread.

"I wanna hear Brian".

On the hearing Brian part of the original thread..certainly The Last Time, I Wanna Be Your Man. Then I have always assumed it was Brian on odd bits of recorder, vibes/marimba and sitar on some songs - his 'lead guitar' moments seem really quite limited, especially compared to, say what Harrison was doing with the Beatles.

On writing, my take is that if you borrow an idea, you credit it. Otherwise you are plagiarizing. Be it words, melody, a bass line or a riff.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
According to the lack of complaints from other band members, if we see past the 5 or 6 songs (out of hundreds) in question, where Taylor and Bill claimed they had a hand in writing something...

Let's pretend you and I are in the same band and most of the songs are written by me and another member. Then suddenly you bring in a nice piece of melody that me and the other guy use as a verse and finish into a new song. Wouldn't you like to have credit for that melody? IMHO it wouldn't matter if you are the one who writes the majority of songs or not. If you write something that is used (like my example) you have every right to get credit for it!

Quote
His Majesty
"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

It sums up what I believe about Brian and song writing. Thanks for posting.
I still believe that he brought in a few melodies that were used by Mick and Keith that they turned into full songs. I can't believe that this is like opening a can of worms here. Why is it such a flame topic and why do some believe that this means I believe that Mick and Keith didn't write the majority of the songs?

Quote
buffalo7478
On writing, my take is that if you borrow an idea, you credit it. Otherwise you are plagiarizing. Be it words, melody, a bass line or a riff.

It's theft!

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
His Majesty
"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

But that's not the topic.

Neither are most of the posts in this thread.

"I wanna hear Brian".

Mine are.

I believe there are two phases in Keiths creativeness: 1. the Keith heard in Charlie is my darling, the romantic and 2. the endless jam of Beggars and Exile. The first one, the foly pop era allowed solo spots by Brian but also Bill, Jack and Mick. The second one is the muddy Jagger/Richards era with input and sometimes co writing by others.

Quote
Redhotcarpet


Mine are.

Some are.

Quote
mickschix
Slew, I didn't read your post before I wrote mine...we said similar things and I can see y ou get a bit miffed too when the Brian defenders make him out to be some kind of Saint....I did mention that the Stones COULD NOT TOUR with his drug record. That was a nail in his coffin for sure.

Please define defender and please show me where someone has made him a saint.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Redhotcarpet


Mine are.

Some are.

Argh! ><

Quote
tonterapi
Let's pretend you and I are in the same band and most of the songs are written by me and another member. Then suddenly you bring in a nice piece of melody that me and the other guy use as a verse and finish into a new song. Wouldn't you like to have credit for that melody? IMHO it wouldn't matter if you are the one who writes the majority of songs or not. If you write something that is used (like my example) you have every right to get credit for it!

I'm pretty sure that in in Stone Alone Wyman says something to the effect that there is no disputing that Jagger and Richards are the creative force of the band, but that he would have liked to have received credit for the bits he did come up with here and there.

Quote
His Majesty
"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

These comments about Brian's early attempts at songwriting are in agreement with what Phelge in his book Phelge's Stones/Nankering with... records Keith as saying at the time, that Brian's songs were merely "dirges...."

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think people mistake "contributing" for song writing. Even ideas might not be song writing. You're looking for something that's probably not there...

True. I think of the songwriter as the "originator" of the idea, and the idea when presented to the band would require a beginning structure to work from, such as words, verses, and melody, even if there is no title, but something that, when finished, would not have existed if Brian himself had not created it first. Brian contributed to the sound of the idea as it was being structured, but did not seem to originate something that the rest of the band later built a song around, and an opening riff is not really enough. If you think of a song as music with words--and music without words is merely an instrumental, as opposed to a song--then for Brian to receive credit he would have had to have contributed words and/or verses that Mick and Keith did not contribute themselves. Brian was great at decorating songs that already existed, but which are nonetheless songs that would have existed anyway.

Therefore, the only song that Bill deserves credit for is In Another Land. It exists because Bill brought it into existence. Mick and Keith would never have come up with that song. Whereas even if Bill did, for the sake of argument, come up with the opening riff for Jumping Jack Flash, it would not matter because the song would have existed anyway, perhaps with another opening riff.

Bill also wrote Downtown Suzie. If Bill wrote the beginning of JJF, then he wrote part of it and is co-writer. Period! There is no other conclusion you can come to. You cannot say it would have existed anyway. How could anyone know that. Now we do know the story of Keith and Mick at Redlands and Jack walking by the window, so the words Jumping Jack Flash would exist and I don't know when the rest of the words were written, but as far as the music Bill (if true) should have some credit...

But did Mick and Keith write the song about their gardener Jack because of Bill's opening riff, or was the opening riff something Mick and Keith later co-opted into the song, after it had already been written?

My view (and I have no idea what a court of law would judge) is that does it really matter. Now this all assumes he did write alone the initial piece of music to JJF and if true then he did write some part of the music us the listeners are listening to.

We talk about the reason Keith (forget about the partnership) got credit on Moonlight Mile is he came up with the riff at the very end. Now they could just as well left that out, but they did not.


What would you say if Bill wrote the 3rd verse in bold below? Now the song would exist with out it, Mick could have come up with something else in its place.


I was born in a cross-fire hurricane And I howled at my ma in the driving rain
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right, I'm jumping Jack flash It's a gas, gas, gas

I was raised by a toothless, bearded hag I was schooled with a strap right across my back
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right, I'm jumping Jack flash It's a gas, gas, gas

I was drowned, I was washed up and left for dead I fell down to my feet and I saw they bled I frowned at the crumbs of a crust of bread I was crowned with a spike right through my head Yeah, yeah, yeah
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right, I'm jumping Jack flash It's a gas, gas, gas

Yes, if he had contributed lyrics that became part of the final song, then yes, he would have--or should have--been given credit.

But to my original question, that opening riff is also the main melody on which the verses hang--so it would be important to determine whether the song evolved as a direct result of what Bill is said to have played [in the jam with Stu and Charlie].

But what about Keith's view of the JJF riff. Hasn't he said that the JJF riff was just a variation of the Satisfaction riff? Rhythmically, that's what it sounds like to me.

Brian, Bill and Charlie, not Stu.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
DandelionPowderman
According to the lack of complaints from other band members, if we see past the 5 or 6 songs (out of hundreds) in question, where Taylor and Bill claimed they had a hand in writing something...

Let's pretend you and I are in the same band and most of the songs are written by me and another member. Then suddenly you bring in a nice piece of melody that me and the other guy use as a verse and finish into a new song. Wouldn't you like to have credit for that melody? IMHO it wouldn't matter if you are the one who writes the majority of songs or not. If you write something that is used (like my example) you have every right to get credit for it!

Quote
His Majesty
"According to those who heard Jones's own compositions, the material was far from suited to the Stones' style. Yet everyone gives him credit for literally transforming certain records with some old magical instrument that left Brian's own imprint firmly planted between the grooves.

'Songwriting caused a lot of bitterness,' Stewart remarks. 'But there again Brian could not write songs. He's a little bit like Bill in that respect - writing nice little songs that are all right by themselves but not in the Rolling Stones' style. Brian's attempts at writing were really awful and pretty grim.'

Although Jack Nitzsche admits Jones was a threat to Jagger visually onstage, he also contends that his material was not well suited for the band.

'I did hear some of Brian's writing and Christ it wasn't right for the Stones,' Nitzsche laughs, pullng at his scruffy beard. 'The songs were about falling leaves in the park, you know?'"

--from "Keith Richards, author Barbara Charone

It sums up what I believe about Brian and song writing. Thanks for posting.
I still believe that he brought in a few melodies that were used by Mick and Keith that they turned into full songs. I can't believe that this is like opening a can of worms here. Why is it such a flame topic and why do some believe that this means I believe that Mick and Keith didn't write the majority of the songs?

Quote
buffalo7478
On writing, my take is that if you borrow an idea, you credit it. Otherwise you are plagiarizing. Be it words, melody, a bass line or a riff.

It's theft!

Who has claimed that he brought in a nice melody that Mick and Keith used for a song?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Who has claimed that he brought in a nice melody that Mick and Keith used for a song?

Answering a question with a question. I asked you. I wasn't talking about wether Brian, Bill or Taylor brought in a nice melody or not.

But since you are asking a question I will be polite and answer. Marianne Faithful claim Brian played a melody on his recorder that he came up with. This melody was then used by Keith for Ruby Tuesday.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 09:35 by tonterapi.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Who has claimed that he brought in a nice melody that Mick and Keith used for a song?

Answering a question with a question. I asked you. I wasn't talking about wether Brian, Bill or Taylor brought in a nice melody or not.

But since you are asking a question I will be polite and answer. Marianne Faithful claim Brian played a melody on his recorder that he came up with. This melody was then used by Keith for Ruby Tuesday.

That's interesting, because if Brian really did that (coming up with the verse melody on the recorder), it is indeed vital for the song. But then again, why didn't he play it on the finished version? The stuff he played is some nice spice for the song, especially the transitions from verse to chorus.

To answer your question more directly, of course you're entitled to a song writing credit if you're coming up with the melody that is used for the song! However, it's not always that easy. Take the theme in Winter, for instance. It is beutiful, albeit pretty standard scale playing. If the song was already there, it can be regarded a guitar solo, which wouldn't be song writing. IMO, this was often the case with Taylor's contributions. Very good contributions, yes, but it only helped improving the song that was already there...

To me it looks like it is these years, roughly from the late 60's to late 70's, when Jagger and Richards acted rather tough guys or even bullies sometimes, and they thought they could get away with almost anything - as they did. (And we have to remember also they were in the height of their creativity, and teh issue over sharing credits with some 'outsider' in some songs was a marginal thing in the big picture)). Maybe they got softer later, or probably the people around them couldn't accept the things so easily, any longer. But the credition policy wasn't so closed shop any longer. Times and people change. An example: Does k.d.lang's contribution to "Anybody Seen My Baby?" is a worth of credition whereas Billy Preston's to "Melody" is just being "inspired by"...

- Doxa[/quote]

Sure, jagger & Richards could afford to be bullies to get their way at that time. They were in the driver's seat and knew it. If Brian was in their way, they just mowed him down. They were taking direction of the band and one of 'em even had Brian's woman. Watched Rock N Roll Circus last night, Jagger & Richards looked like a force to be reckoned with running the stage and Brian seemed cowed. The last things on their minds were giving writing credit where due no matter who it was. Too bad they didn't mute Yoko Ono's mike.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's interesting, because if Brian really did that (coming up with the verse melody on the recorder), it is indeed vital for the song. But then again, why didn't he play it on the finished version? The stuff he played is some nice spice for the song, especially the transitions from verse to chorus.

To answer your question more directly, of course you're entitled to a song writing credit if you're coming up with the melody that is used for the song! However, it's not always that easy. Take the theme in Winter, for instance. It is beutiful, albeit pretty standard scale playing. If the song was already there, it can be regarded a guitar solo, which wouldn't be song writing. IMO, this was often the case with Taylor's contributions. Very good contributions, yes, but it only helped improving the song that was already there...

Although Brian often did repeat melodies on his instruments repeating the exact melody in RT would have sounded pretty dull thinking about the rest of the arrangement. Instead he created a nice romantic atmosphere with the recorder together with the piano and cello.

That said, I'm very open for the idea that Marianne maybe meant that he played what he played on the record to Keith who got inspired and wrote Ruby Tuesday from that. But that's not how I've understood it. According to Marianne Brian played the melody on his recorder and Keith worked out the structure with chords on piano - a collaboration.

As for getting credit. I agree that it's always clear. A solo on guitar or any other instrument is not song writing in my book either. I guess it all depends on what was there before somebody started to play. What came first - the riff or the song?

Quote
owlbynite
Sure, jagger & Richards could afford to be bullies to get their way at that time. They were in the driver's seat and knew it. If Brian was in their way, they just mowed him down. They were taking direction of the band and one of 'em even had Brian's woman. Watched Rock N Roll Circus last night, Jagger & Richards looked like a force to be reckoned with running the stage and Brian seemed cowed. The last things on their minds were giving writing credit where due no matter who it was. Too bad they didn't mute Yoko Ono's mike.

I believe part of Brian's appearance in RnRC is because he didn't feel like a part of the band anymore but was expected to act like everything was fine and also because it was late hours and they were tired as hell. I mean if you leave out his other problems. Richards doesn't look like he's having a great time either even though he tries to dance a little bit during SFTD. Mick saves the show with his energy and charisma. I think that energy was what Brian couldn't compete with. Brian had the charisma but not the energy and he was not in any way so selfsecure. An easy target to break - not only for the glimmers but also for the London police and Anita.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 11:11 by tonterapi.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
DandelionPowderman
That's interesting, because if Brian really did that (coming up with the verse melody on the recorder), it is indeed vital for the song. But then again, why didn't he play it on the finished version? The stuff he played is some nice spice for the song, especially the transitions from verse to chorus.

To answer your question more directly, of course you're entitled to a song writing credit if you're coming up with the melody that is used for the song! However, it's not always that easy. Take the theme in Winter, for instance. It is beutiful, albeit pretty standard scale playing. If the song was already there, it can be regarded a guitar solo, which wouldn't be song writing. IMO, this was often the case with Taylor's contributions. Very good contributions, yes, but it only helped improving the song that was already there...

Although Brian often did repeat melodies on his instruments repeating the exact melody in RT would have sounded pretty dull thinking about the rest of the arrangement. Instead he created a nice romantic atmosphere with the recorder together with the piano and cello.

That said, I'm very open for the idea that Marianne maybe meant that he played what he played on the record to Keith who got inspired and wrote Ruby Tuesday from that. But that's not how I've understood it. According to Marianne Brian played the melody on his recorder and Keith worked out the structure with chords on piano - a collaboration.

As for getting credit. I agree that it's always clear. A solo on guitar or any other instrument is not song writing in my book either. I guess it all depends on what was there before somebody started to play. What came first - the riff or the song?

Spot on! And with Keith, I guess the riff came first most of the time.

Quote
owlbynite
To me it looks like it is these years, roughly from the late 60's to late 70's, when Jagger and Richards acted rather tough guys or even bullies sometimes, and they thought they could get away with almost anything - as they did. (And we have to remember also they were in the height of their creativity, and teh issue over sharing credits with some 'outsider' in some songs was a marginal thing in the big picture)). Maybe they got softer later, or probably the people around them couldn't accept the things so easily, any longer. But the credition policy wasn't so closed shop any longer. Times and people change. An example: Does k.d.lang's contribution to "Anybody Seen My Baby?" is a worth of credition whereas Billy Preston's to "Melody" is just being "inspired by"...

- Doxa

Sure, jagger & Richards could afford to be bullies to get their way at that time. They were in the driver's seat and knew it. If Brian was in their way, they just mowed him down. They were taking direction of the band and one of 'em even had Brian's woman. Watched Rock N Roll Circus last night, Jagger & Richards looked like a force to be reckoned with running the stage and Brian seemed cowed. The last things on their minds were giving writing credit where due no matter who it was. Too bad they didn't mute Yoko Ono's mike.

Someone had to write songs otherwise the Stones would have been washed up by 1966.

They couldn't just keep covering songs.

Hermit's Hermits used outside writers and it was ok for them, but the Stones needed their own songs like the Beatles did.

The only ones that stepped up and produced songs that might be hits were Keith and Mick.

As Keith says to an interviewer, if he didn't start writing songs then we wouldn't be talking now.

If it was left up to Brian or Bill to write songs, then the Stones were probably doomed.

The Stones got lucky in having 2 people that could generate songs and not just any average song but occasional hit singles.

It's not about being a bully, it's about band survival and what needs to be done.

Brian was "well out of it" for the Rock and Roll Circus according to Bill.

Brian and Bill and Taylor all did ok financially out of Mick and Keith's songs keeping the Stones rolling.

If Brian had of got his act together and stuck around, then he would have done even better financially and the same goes for Taylor or anyone filling in the number 2 guitar spot.

I think Ronnie has done pretty well financially just by sticking around.

If Ronnie left the Stones in 1980, then another would do the same job.

Nothing really special about Ronnie's guitar playing or songwriting, really.

Ronnie's ok but Mick and Keith could carry on with anyone they chose for the number 2 guitar spot.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 12:28 by howled.

I think thats a the common but very naive and flat analysis of the band and its dynamics. Sorry if I sound harsh.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Take the theme in Winter, for instance. It is beutiful, albeit pretty standard scale playing. If the song was already there, it can be regarded a guitar solo, which wouldn't be song writing. IMO, this was often the case with Taylor's contributions. Very good contributions, yes, but it only helped improving the song that was already there...

But how do you know that? The thing is that we don't know what happened between the two Micks when they were writing together, that is, prior the song was recorded or what we can hear in the finished tracks. What we know is that Jagger didn't felt like giving credits to Taylor, and that Taylor wasn't too happy about for not having some credits for certain songs. I don't know if Jagger felt like having Taylor - instead of Keith - as a kind of guitar assistant in helping to shape Jagger's song ideas, or what happened in those writing sessions? Seemingly Jagger had the habit of "using" people as a writing partners/assistants when he was in the process of creating. Did he saw those people only doing an "arrangement" work already on the stage of writing the song? Like I mentioned in my post there seems to be at least three different people from the 70's - Taylor, Preston and Carly Simon - who have had complaints about the result of those writing sessions. I really can't say what the colloboration with Taylor and Preston were like (how much they have creative input), but I have no any reason to doubt Carly Simon's words about making of "Till The Next Time We say Goodbye". Was the way Jagger treated her a common custom or just an expection to a rule? I really can't say. I hope Taylor would some day be more specific about the songs he felt he should have earned a credition. What really was his contribution like.

Theoretically, the "Ruby Tuesday" case belongs to same type. When Keith and Brian spend the time together, and supposedly, were - at least Keith - making songs, was it also a kind one-way deal in creation: a song writer and his assistant? Some times also Gram Parson's role is speculated - but not very convincingly I think - in regards to some Keith's songs.

This problems always arise when two creative people do something creative together "behind the curtains"; are "inpiring" each other, or "sharing ideas" etc. Seemingly, after both starting their solo careers (and, also after Ronnie fighting for his credits) Jagger and Richards have found collobators they are willing to give a credit for their collobaration. Has the colloboration with these "new" people been different than it was earlier? That they - Leavell, Stewart, Jordan, etc. - contribute more? Were Mick and Keith artistically more independent earlier? (we are now talking about songs that were not really Jagger/Richards co-work compositions, but were made by their own, or with some other people). My intuition is that both Mick and Keith have changed their habits from their old days. More altruistic today (or what they could get a way with during the old days, they couldn't any longer)...

But let's go back to "Jagger/Richard(s)" credition deal, and discuss it more generally. Everybody seems to take as kind of "normal" business deal to share the credits, like Lennon/McCartney-deal. (Does anyone, by the way, know when this deal was sealed?) But I think that deal alone speaks quite a lot of specific nature of how credition policy can be arranged in Rolling Stones recordings. The deal simply says: it doesn't matter who actually did something or did anything at all. The credition does not correspond to "facts"": who actually write something. I think even that little point should ring soem bells that everything is not like it is said to be, but based on convention.

I suppose originally it did correspiond to facts: all of their early songs were true colloborations, and both of them contributed to them (mostly Keith on music and Mick on lyrics). But then, they started to do songs by individually (as far as I know BETWEEN THE BUTTONS having songs that were "solo" doings). Still a kind of Lennon/Mcartney route they followed.

But in the following decade or something, roughly, from BEGGARS BANQUET to SOME GIRLS, the label "Jagger/Richard" started to have a meaning that has not an equavalent in Beatles world: it equals to any new original music presented in a Rolling Stones record. A kind of "Nanker Phelge" re-introduced by transformed to Jagger/Richards. This does not mean that most of the music was not really written by them (it surely was), but they decide to take all the creditions whatever happened in a studio (or prior that) if the result to be found in a released Rolling Stones recording (besides that one EXILE cut oddity). And they had muscles to do that. I think they kind of credited their own leadership and supervision (in deciding what kind of stuff to be released, etc.)

In a way IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL might be the tip of iceberg in that policy. Damn, even the title song - the very single hit - is based on awkward deal with Ronnie Wood so that is credited solely to Jagger/Richards. It is from this record we have the Carly Simon case I told about, and it is after this recording Taylor called it quits, and was said to be bitter about not having credits. Well, the things didn't get much better in BLACK&BLUE, but I leave that out.

My theory is that the use of Jagger/Richard label turned out to be a kind of trademark of original Rolling Stones music. And as long as Mick was totally involved in leading the band and saw it as his main concern, he made sure that everything was Jagger/RIchards, and couldn't be anything else. It was an image thing as much as a business concern. But once he lost the interest - and probably see his dealings with Keith too difficult - that wasn't so important for him any longer, and there was no need to keeping the shop so closed either. I think SHE's THE BOSS, along many other things, was also a way to get rid of "Jagger/Richards" label, that probably had turned out to be a burden to him. Also Keith, after the shock, didn't see any problems to get rid of that and even share credits with other colloborators.

Yeah, a lot of speculation, but, you know, it is fun...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 13:10 by Doxa.

Just say Mick and Keith were like Brian and Bill, any Stones songs would be totally forgotten.

Bill could only manage average songs at the best and not that many and Brian was even worse.

As for Brian, Bill says that Brian used to seduce the girl Bill was with while Bill was out.

Brian was no angel and neither were the others, except maybe Charlie.

Keith doesn't just steal Anita, it's a 2 way street.

Anita has some say in whether she goes with Keith.

We all know, the Brian domestic violence sagas with Anita.


Here is what Marianne says about Brian and Ruby Tuesday.

Quite frankly she wasn't there when they recorded it, so I think it's just speculation as to what input Brian actually had on the song.

Bill says Brian was involved with just the arrangement of the song.

"I think in Brian's state writing a song probably wasn't possible. He could only do it through another medium, through Keith. I guess the closest he came to it was 'Ruby Tuesday', where his melancholy recorder wistfully carries that sense of irretrievable loss. 'Ruby Tuesday' was a collaboration between Keith and Brian. it's one of the few cases where Mick had nothing to do with a Stones song, neither with the lyrics nor the melody - but he and Keith got the writing credit. Without Brian, there wouldn't be a 'Ruby Tuesday'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 12:49 by howled.