I'll address my point differently as I did above. We have two clear cases where someone actually had a contribution to a song that without any doubt should have earned a credit: "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" and "Till the Next Time We Say Goodbye".

My rhetorical question is: why they - mostly Mick I think - decided not to credit Ron Wood and Carly Simon - a decision which sound almost absurd - and not just unjust - now? Why it was so hard to give them credit?

The instant and easy answer is: money. But I don't quite buy that (they are not that greedy, even though money surely matters). There is more involved, something to do with artistic credibility and ego. They wanted to give the impression that everything was in hands of Jagger/Richard - they were artistically independent, and didn't need any help from their friends. Were Lennon/McCartney needing such help to assist their songs? Is is perhaps odd to think the case now, but I think that - the image thing, keeping up appearances - is the only comprehensible solution I can come up with. They wanted to keep the Stones songs "pure", solely made by them. Especially a leading single of the new album. And probably they had enough experience of the practise by then, so they - cold hearted professionals - might even do it in "autopilot".

(But truth is that Ronnie was taken care of rather well: he got "inspiration" (whatever that means) credit, and "I Can Feel The Fire", and probably some other help.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 13:43 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I'll address my point differently as I did above. We have two clear cases where someone actually had a contribution to a song that without any doubt should have earned a credit: "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" and "Till the Next Time We Say Goodbye".

My rhetorical question is: why they - mostly Mick I think - decided not to credit Ron Wood and Carly Simon - a decision which sound almost absurd - and not just unjust - now? Why it was so hard to give them credit?

The instant and easy answer is: money. But I don't quite buy that (they are not that greedy, even though money surely matters). There is more involved, something to do with artistic credibility and ego. They wanted to give the impression that everything was in hands of Jagger/Richard - they were artistically independent, and didn't need any help from their friends. Were Lennon/McCartney needing such help to assist their songs? Is is perhaps odd to think the case now, but I think that - the image thing, keeping up appearances - is the only comprehensible solution I can come up with. They wanted to keep the Stones songs "pure", solely made by them. Especially a leading single of the new album. And probably they had enough experience of the practise by then, so they - cold heated professionals - might even do it in "autopilot".

(But truth is that Ronnie was taken care of rather well: he got "inspiration" (whatever that means) credit, and "I Can Feel The Fire", and probably some other help.)

- Doxa

They traded the two songs. Ronnie got credited as the sole song writer of I Can Feel The Fire. Mick and Keith got IORR.

Ronnie had the riff to Hey Negrita, and probably should have been credited. Words and music is by Mick and Keith, though.

The only unusual thing about this is the trade of songs, imo. We were not there, and don't know if Ronnie came up with enough to be credited as song writer on Hey Negrita.

Quote
howled


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'.

Marianne went in to greater detail in her first book. Her story giving the impression she was there when Brian played some melody and Keith picked up on it.

What that melody actually was we'll never know.

Was Bill present during this moment to know whether Brian had any part in writing Ruby Tuesday?

Marianne's book doesn't say Bill was there, of course this doesn't mean he wasn't.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 14:27 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They traded the two songs. Ronnie got credited as the sole song writer of I Can Feel The Fire. Mick and Keith got IORR.

Ronnie had the riff to Hey Negrita, and probably should have been credited. Words and music is by Mick and Keith, though.

The only unusual thing about this is the trade of songs, imo. We were not there, and don't know if Ronnie came up with enough to be credited as song writer on Hey Negrita.

Yeah, "trading songs"... Even though I personally think "I Can Feel The Fire" is about the only listenable original song in Ron Wood solo album catalog, trading that to a song that was going to be a leading single of a new Rolling Stones album, and thereby, still at the time, an instant rock and roll classic, wasn't the smartest move, to say it mildly... People don't seem to see how absurd the whole "trade" deal actually is. It is probably so common fact in Stones story, that people seem to be blind to its nature. That it is even "natural" way to do things. What would people think if it turned out to be that, say, "Hey Jude" was actually composed by Billy Preston and Macca just added the lyrics, and gave him all the credits to "Outta Space" in compensation. For The Stones fans the fact that the deal doesn't feel obscure at all, seems to derive from the fact that Ronnie Wood turned to be "one of the boys", which seemed nicely to hide the absurdity.

I wasn't talking about "Hey Negrita", since it is bit another deal (and not so clear). But do you honestly think that Mick and Keith have such an on objective eye that Ronnie's contribution in that song was not a worth of credition, and which differs for some other later songs where he got a credition? What the hell that song is more than its central riff if it's "music" is concerned?

You seem to think, like one other high-profile poster here, that Mick and Keith cannot do wrong in their credition policy. That the creditions do correspond accurately to the actual contributions done while making the songs. I would like to hear how you explain the Carly Simon case. That she is telling lies?

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-18 14:33 by Doxa.

Yeah, but how much of IORR was Mick's.

What exactly was Ronnie's contribution to the song.

Keith has said Mick and him had the IORR title for ages but didn't know what to do with it and Keith also said that the final version is really 3 different song ideas put together.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They traded the two songs. Ronnie got credited as the sole song writer of I Can Feel The Fire. Mick and Keith got IORR.

Ronnie had the riff to Hey Negrita, and probably should have been credited. Words and music is by Mick and Keith, though.

The only unusual thing about this is the trade of songs, imo. We were not there, and don't know if Ronnie came up with enough to be credited as song writer on Hey Negrita.

Yeah, "trading songs"... Even though I personally think "I Can Feel The Fire" is about the only listenable original song in Ron Wood solo album catalog, trading that to a song that was going to be a leading single of a new Rolling Stones album, and thereby, still at the time, an instant rock and roll classic, wasn't the smartest move, to say it mildly... People don't seem to see how absurd the whole "trade" deal actually is. It is probably so common fact in Stones story, that people seem to be blind to its nature. That it is even "natural" way to do things. What would people think if it turned out to be that, say, "Hey Jude" was actually composed by Billy Preston and Macca just added the lyrics, and gave him all the credits to "Outta Space" in compensation. For The Stones fans the fact that the deal doesn't feel obscure at all, seems to derive from the fact that Ronnie Wood turned to be "one of the boys", which seemed nicely to hide the absurdity.

I wasn't talking about "Hey Negrita", since it is bit another deal (and not so clear). But do you honestly think that Mick and Keith have such an on objective eye that Ronnie's contribution in that song was not a worth of credition, and which differs for some other later songs where he got a credition? What the hell that song is more than its central riff if it's "music" is concerned?

You seem to think, like one other high-profile poster here, that Mick and Keith cannot do wrong in their credition policy. That the creditions do correspond accurately to the actual contributions done while making the songs. I would like to hear how you explain the Carly Simon case. That she is telling lies?

- Doxa

Like I've said numerous times her on the board (and you should know that very well), that Mick and Keith indeed are no angels, and there are probably (like I mentioned in my post above) a few times they should have credited other contributors.

You wrote "inspiration by" in your post, and Hey Negrita is the only song where Ronnie was "credited" with that, hence the mention of that song in my post.

The beef I have with the speculation of thievery from Mick and Keith's part, is that there haven't been noticable complaints about that - not at all. What do we got? A few songs out of many, many great songs, where Taylor said he should have earned song writing credits, a keyboard riff from Bill - and Marianne's statement about Brian and Ruby Tuesday.

I think it's a stretch by the critical posters to claim that Mick and Keith robbed fellow musicians (in the band and outside the band) song writing credits, that's all.

To THINK something as serious as that, without KNOWING is to step way over a line where I come from.

To criticize the partnership between Mick and Keith is ridiculous, imo. If Mick didn't have anything to do with Ruby Tuesday, and gets a credit - so what??? If they choose to do it that way, that's fine with me. Who criticizes Lennon and McCartney for the same thing?

Quote
howled
Yeah, but how much of IORR was Mick's.

What exactly was Ronnie's contribution to the song.

A good question. Here is what Ronnie says:

"With a song like "It's Only Rock'n'Roll", you can't really get into who wrote which note. WE were bouncing ideas to and fro. Mick had teh chorus already and it was trial and error, like most songs are. You shape them up and before you know it, you've got your chorus, your verses, your middle eight and where the solo is going to be. The song moulds itself pretty quickly and you've got the basic one down on the tape anyway...

Mick said, "I've got a deal. You can keep "I Can Feel The Fire" and I'll keep "It's Only Rock'n'Roll". I had no bargaining power, so it was OK. We were writing songs together and Mick woould take some ideas and structures which would obviously become a Jagger/Richards song. I didn't mind going through years of all that first. It was my apprenticeship."

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
howled
Yeah, but how much of IORR was Mick's.

What exactly was Ronnie's contribution to the song.

A good question. Here is what Ronnie says:

"With a song like "It's Only Rock'n'Roll", you can't really get into who wrote which note. WE were bouncing ideas to and fro. Mick had teh chorus already and it was trial and error, like most songs are. You shape them up and before you know it, you've got your chorus, your verses, your middle eight and where the solo is going to be. The song moulds itself pretty quickly and you've got the basic one down on the tape anyway...

Mick said, "I've got a deal. You can keep "I Can Feel The Fire" and I'll keep "It's Only Rock'n'Roll". I had no bargaining power, so it was OK. We were writing songs together and Mick woould take some ideas and structures which would obviously become a Jagger/Richards song. I didn't mind going through years of all that first. It was my apprenticeship."

- Doxa

I've read that before...it's just so believable. You can imagine they'd have worked that way. Ron keenly aware giving Mick the full credit for IORR wouldn't have the same impact as his 'keeping' Fire.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Like I've said numerous times her on the board (and you should know that very well), that Mick and Keith indeed are no angels, and there are probably (like I mentioned in my post above) a few times they should have credited other contributors.

You wrote "inspiration by" in your post, and Hey Negrita is the only song where Ronnie was "credited" with that, hence the mention of that song in my post.

The beef I have with the speculation of thievery from Mick and Keith's part, is that there haven't been noticable complaints about that - not at all. What do we got? A few songs out of many, many great songs, where Taylor said he should have earned song writing credits, a keyboard riff from Bill - and Marianne's statement about Brian and Ruby Tuesday.

I think it's a stretch by the critical posters to claim that Mick and Keith robbed fellow musicians (in the band and outside the band) song writing credits, that's all.

To THINK something as serious as that, without KNOWING is to step way over a line where I come from.

To criticize the partnership between Mick and Keith is ridiculous, imo. If Mick didn't have anything to do with Ruby Tuesday, and gets a credit - so what??? If they choose to do it that way, that's fine with me. Who criticizes Lennon and McCartney for the same thing?

At least in the cover of my copy of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL, it says "Inspired by Ronnie Wood".

But what goes for the rest of your post, you sound like trying to shut down a critical discussion, like the whole thing is a sort of taboo. We are not talking about the whole Jagger/Richards catalog, but some instances where some serious doubts have risen if the credition to be read in records is a correct one. You are simply wrong that there haven't been "complaints", and I think those complains are "facts" which also should be taken seriously, if one is interested these kind of matters. What especially interests me is the whole credition policy, of which I think quite many seem to have a bit naive account. I am not making accusations aginst Mick and Keith, but just trying to make sense of it. I don't even critizise Jagger and Richard's credition policy - I think most of it is in grey area and it is in their hands how to "judge" the cases. I don't even believe there is an objective truth about "right" credition. Like I have tried to argue, the credition policy is a practise, which has changed along the years.

But in the end, behind the world of official credition - which is always a matter of convention - there is a real world in which the music actually was created. At least it interésts me who actually did something or not, was it credited or not.

Seemingly, you seem to ignore the Carly Simon case. If you haven't read Spitz's Jagger book, I recommend to read it just for that chapter. I have never read so clear testimony of such matters we are here discussing. It at least opened my eyes.

- Doxa

I'm just saying there are very, very few complaints - out of hundreds of songs.

And I'm aware of Simon's case as well

From Bill's Stone Alone, he talks a bit about JJF and song writing in general. Sorry for the poor scans...

Analysis of facts says that the "Jagger/Richars" credit clearly says nothing about who did what in the songwriting process.

The fact that nobody ever formally sued the Glimmers for songwriting credits means only one thing: the "Jagger/Richars" credit is the result of a (well done) legal agreement whereby all compositions are credited to Jagger Richards by default.

I think that this regulation of the songwriting credits issue is the result of how things were set up when the Stones got rid of the Abcko agreement.

In those days, the agreement more or less reflected the reality not only of who wrote the songs, but also of who carried on the band.

All those who worked with the Stones accepted these conditions.

As a matter of facts, when I read along the lines of all the complaints over single contributions to the writing of this or that song, what I read is "OK, we have agreed that you get the songwriting royalties, fair enough, I've agreed that, BUT YOU COULD AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE MY CONTRIBUTION".

Most of the times these kind of rants emerged later or didn't emerge at all. When they did, the solution was the infamous "Inspired by" credit. This is the only explanation I can find.

Mick Taylor is a whole different issue.

I think he believed that his growing importance in studio and on stage deserved more credit (in terms of income). The agreements that seemed fair at the time he had signed then, by 1974 needed to be reworked.

Some way, I feel that if the famous agreement was not renegotiated is a sign of Jagger's loyalty towards Keith.

Until I read the papers, all these are mere speculations, of course. So don't take them seriously.


C

Quote
liddas
Analysis of facts says that the "Jagger/Richars" credit clearly says nothing about who did what in the songwriting process.

The fact that nobody ever formally sued the Glimmers for songwriting credits means only one thing: the "Jagger/Richars" credit is the result of a (well done) legal agreement whereby all compositions are credited to Jagger Richards by default.

I think that this regulation of the songwriting credits issue is the result of how things were set up when the Stones got rid of the Abcko agreement.

In those days, the agreement more or less reflected the reality not only of who wrote the songs, but also of who carried on the band.

All those who worked with the Stones accepted these conditions.

As a matter of facts, when I read along the lines of all the complaints over single contributions to the writing of this or that song, what I read is "OK, we have agreed that you get the songwriting royalties, fair enough, I've agreed that, BUT YOU COULD AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE MY CONTRIBUTION".

Most of the times these kind of rants emerged later or didn't emerge at all. When they did, the solution was the infamous "Inspired by" credit. This is the only explanation I can find.

Mick Taylor is a whole different issue.

I think he believed that his growing importance in studio and on stage deserved more credit (in terms of income). The agreements that seemed fair at the time he had signed then, by 1974 needed to be reworked.

Some way, I feel that if the famous agreement was not renegotiated is a sign of Jagger's loyalty towards Keith.

Until I read the papers, all these are mere speculations, of course. So don't take them seriously.


C

Definitely not to be taken seriously.

Great posts Doxa. This is interesting for so many reasons. Anybody whos been in a band or written or produced a song of his/her own knows about dynamics in a creative process and what happens to yourself when you realize you've written a song or a riff based or not based on some famous already existing piece - and change it enough to make it your own.

In my youth I was, like most of probably, in a band and the "leader", great guy in many ways, a friend, made some really egocentric, to say the least, decisions all of a sudden. Without going into detail, he used people. We were young and he was ambitious and all is forgiven. Did anybody say anything to him? Of course not. Had I been in a multinational boyband like the Stones Id probably shut up and not argue because of the big business. I cant imagine anybody complaining to Jagger/Richards.

I know, and probably some of you, what it feels like when you take a guitar riff or hook or even just a part of an existing song and change it a little. The feeling is great, you get away with stealing and it isnt even stealing because it doesnt sound one bit like the existing song.

I understand Keith when he used Bills riff, played it in open tuning, recorded some parts. He must have felt great. I totally understand his unwillingness to share credits or acknowledge Bill. Why would he? You'd have to put up a fight or write a book to challenge that.

Quote
His Majesty

Definitely not to be taken seriously.

Could very well be, but I've seen many many agreements structured this way, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was the case.

Besides, I simply don't believe that the agreement between Jagger and Richards is referred to them only and the others of the group are not parties.

C

Hi everyone. I am a new member, and this is my first post. I am curious to see if anyone can post the two different mixes of the performances of "JJF" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want" from "The Rock and Roll Circus" as depicted in the "25X5" documentary and the DVD of "Rock and Roll Circus." It is my understanding that Brian is much more prominent in the "25X5" mix. He is mostly absent from the "Circus" mix. Am I correct about '25X5"?? Would love to hear what he contributed.

Additionally, does anyone know if any Stones video or audio exists from the May 12, 1968 NME Pollwinners Concert performance? It is the last public performance of Brian Jones, and a mere 9 days before he was busted.

Quote
Jayce
Hi everyone. I am a new member, and this is my first post. I am curious to see if anyone can post the two different mixes of the performances of "JJF" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want" from "The Rock and Roll Circus" as depicted in the "25X5" documentary and the DVD of "Rock and Roll Circus." It is my understanding that Brian is much more prominent in the "25X5" mix. He is mostly absent from the "Circus" mix. Am I correct about '25X5"?? Would love to hear what he contributed.

Additionally, does anyone know if any Stones video or audio exists from the May 12, 1968 NME Pollwinners Concert performance? It is the last public performance of Brian Jones, and a mere 9 days before he was busted.

I'm pretty sure the 25x5 mix of "You Can't..." has an overdubbed acoustic guitar loosely synced up with whatever Brian was playing on the video (on his Les Paul Goldtop). I don't remember "JJF" from 25x5 but it's been a while since I watched. His slide is all over "No Expectations" on the full R&R Circus VHS/DVD, though.

And no video or audio of NME '68 has surfaced - just a few photos.

The accounts from Bill and Marianne are interesting.

Bill says (above) that Keith has said Bill came up with the JJF riff in interviews and I havn't seen Keith say that or anybody else say it either.

Marianne has differing accounts on Brian and Ruby Tuesday, where in one she says Brian was playing a melody and Keith picked up on it and in the other account Brian's involvement is less emphasised.

So, who knows.

Could be that Keith ended up altering things he heard Brian or Bill play into a song, whereas what Brian and Bill actually played was similar in some ways but not quite what Keith turned them into, or maybe Keith just took ideas from Brian and Bill and used those exact ideas.

I favour the first one, because when a song is being written it is in a construction phase where things can be altered to fit in with the songs concept as it's going along, in much the same way as Ronnie talks about writing IORR with Mick above.

Maybe Ruby Tuesday was totally Keith's and the Recorder was just added in the arrangement phase as Bill has said and Marianne just remembered Brian playing around with the Recorder and just automatically associated the Recorder and Brian with the writing of Ruby Tuesday.

Maybe the riff Bill thinks that was from him was nothing like the recorded JJF riff and Keith came up with the JJF riff by himself.

I have never read anyone reaffirming Mariannes Ruby Tuesday story or Bill's JJF riff story.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 07:12 by howled.

Quote
howled

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.

I said once before Brian created a monster & it devoured him. Nobody knew the Stones would be as big as they would be. Brian looked like he had to be zoned even to be on the stage at Rock n Roll Circus...but the aggressive body language of Jagger & Richards appeared to say "we've taken over, it's our band now." Still marvel at the number of top Stones songs were of the early 60s when Brian was with them...

Quote
JuanTCB

Quote
Jayce
Hi everyone. I am a new member, and this is my first post. I am curious to see if anyone can post the two different mixes of the performances of "JJF" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want" from "The Rock and Roll Circus" as depicted in the "25X5" documentary and the DVD of "Rock and Roll Circus." It is my understanding that Brian is much more prominent in the "25X5" mix. He is mostly absent from the "Circus" mix. Am I correct about '25X5"?? Would love to hear what he contributed.

Additionally, does anyone know if any Stones video or audio exists from the May 12, 1968 NME Pollwinners Concert performance? It is the last public performance of Brian Jones, and a mere 9 days before he was busted.

I'm pretty sure the 25x5 mix of "You Can't..." has an overdubbed acoustic guitar loosely synced up with whatever Brian was playing on the video (on his Les Paul Goldtop). I don't remember "JJF" from 25x5 but it's been a while since I watched. His slide is all over "No Expectations" on the full R&R Circus VHS/DVD, though.

And no video or audio of NME '68 has surfaced - just a few photos.

Brian isn't more prominent in the 25x5 mix, but as noted there is an overdubbed acoustic guitar. It doesn't seem like it's been an attempt to sync up with what Brian is playing.

There is a very quiet 3rd electric guitar on the intro of YCAGWYW on the official CD/DVD release which is similar to what Brian is shown to play(not the same though), but actually harmonises and provides lower notes for what Keith is playing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 09:38 by His Majesty.

Quote
liddas
The fact that nobody ever formally sued the Glimmers for songwriting credits means only one thing: the "Jagger/Richars" credit is the result of a (well done) legal agreement whereby all compositions are credited to Jagger Richards by default.

There is no legal agreement. Jagger and Richards simply acknowledge that they need eachother, that they together are the Rolling Stones brand. Even though one or the other can wright a song 98% complete, they acknowledge they need the other for that 2%, and for the production, release and promotion of the records, not to mention to pay the studio bill (which is paid through royalties agreements).

There is one legal agreement though -if someone outside Jagger/Richards gets a credit, the publishing rights to that song goes to Jagger and Richards and Promopub. So for tracks like Everything is Turning To Gold and Black Limousine Wood handed over his publishing rights to Promopub.

But again, it is not a closed deal. Another thread mentions One More Shot. Clearly a Talk is Cheap outtake, and the melody and guitar chord structure are simple, run of the mill Keith Richards playing. Still Keith acknowledges the fact that he wrote the entire TiC album with Steve Jordan, and gives him a credit.

Mathijs

Quote
howled
The accounts from Bill and Marianne are interesting.

Bill says (above) that Keith has said Bill came up with the JJF riff in interviews and I havn't seen Keith say that or anybody else say it either.

Marianne has differing accounts on Brian and Ruby Tuesday, where in one she says Brian was playing a melody and Keith picked up on it and in the other account Brian's involvement is less emphasised.

So, who knows.

Not us!

Your default setting is that Keith did it all and even if these stories were affirmed by someone else you would still find a way to question the involvement of Bill or Brian.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
liddas
The fact that nobody ever formally sued the Glimmers for songwriting credits means only one thing: the "Jagger/Richars" credit is the result of a (well done) legal agreement whereby all compositions are credited to Jagger Richards by default.

There is no legal agreement. Jagger and Richards simply acknowledge that they need eachother, that they together are the Rolling Stones brand. Even though one or the other can wright a song 98% complete, they acknowledge they need the other for that 2%, and for the production, release and promotion of the records, not to mention to pay the studio bill (which is paid through royalties agreements).

There is one legal agreement though -if someone outside Jagger/Richards gets a credit, the publishing rights to that song goes to Jagger and Richards and Promopub. So for tracks like Everything is Turning To Gold and Black Limousine Wood handed over his publishing rights to Promopub.

But again, it is not a closed deal. Another thread mentions One More Shot. Clearly a Talk is Cheap outtake, and the melody and guitar chord structure are simple, run of the mill Keith Richards playing. Still Keith acknowledges the fact that he wrote the entire TiC album with Steve Jordan, and gives him a credit.

Mathijs

I'm not so sure about that. Keith had several sessions with Jordan the year prior to the recording of OMS...

Quote
His Majesty
Not us!

Your default setting is that Keith did it all and even if these stories were affirmed by someone else you would still find a way to question the involvement of Bill or Brian.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I'm not so sure about that. Keith had several sessions with Jordan the year prior to the recording of OMS...

The guitar sound in the intro is that of the Boogie MK1, which he gave away in around '93.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I'm not so sure about that. Keith had several sessions with Jordan the year prior to the recording of OMS...

The guitar sound in the intro is that of the Boogie MK1, which he gave away in around '93.

Mathijs

True, but do you think his playing sounds like something he would have done in 1988?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
howled
The accounts from Bill and Marianne are interesting.

Bill says (above) that Keith has said Bill came up with the JJF riff in interviews and I havn't seen Keith say that or anybody else say it either.

Marianne has differing accounts on Brian and Ruby Tuesday, where in one she says Brian was playing a melody and Keith picked up on it and in the other account Brian's involvement is less emphasised.

So, who knows.

Not us!

Your default setting is that Keith did it all and even if these stories were affirmed by someone else you would still find a way to question the involvement of Bill or Brian.

Thanks, HM!

"Circles, my head is going round in circles..."

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
howled
The accounts from Bill and Marianne are interesting.

Bill says (above) that Keith has said Bill came up with the JJF riff in interviews and I havn't seen Keith say that or anybody else say it either.

Marianne has differing accounts on Brian and Ruby Tuesday, where in one she says Brian was playing a melody and Keith picked up on it and in the other account Brian's involvement is less emphasised.

So, who knows.

Not us!

Your default setting is that Keith did it all and even if these stories were affirmed by someone else you would still find a way to question the involvement of Bill or Brian.

My default setting would be that Keith wrote the songs and that Brian and Bill could have inspired the song in some way, but there is only Bill and Marianne saying that.

How about Charlie and Mick and anybody else hanging around the Stones at that time backing them up.

Quote
howled

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
howled
The accounts from Bill and Marianne are interesting.

Bill says (above) that Keith has said Bill came up with the JJF riff in interviews and I havn't seen Keith say that or anybody else say it either.

Marianne has differing accounts on Brian and Ruby Tuesday, where in one she says Brian was playing a melody and Keith picked up on it and in the other account Brian's involvement is less emphasised.

So, who knows.

Not us!

Your default setting is that Keith did it all and even if these stories were affirmed by someone else you would still find a way to question the involvement of Bill or Brian.

My default setting would be that Keith wrote the songs and that Brian and Bill could have inspired the song in some way, but there is only Bill and Marianne saying that.

How about Charlie and Mick and anybody else hanging around the Stones at that time backing them up.

They might not have been present, not remember, not have any need to recall and share memories of such a thing because no one has specifically asked them.

Note that Mick has said he had nothing to do with the lyrics or melody of Ruby Tuesday, but, as far as I am aware, hasn't said Keith wrote it all.

Some stuff's can be taken to mean what you want them to mean. *shrugs*



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 11:23 by His Majesty.

Quote
Mathijs
But again, it is not a closed deal. Another thread mentions One More Shot. Clearly a Talk is Cheap outtake, and the melody and guitar chord structure are simple, run of the mill Keith Richards playing. Still Keith acknowledges the fact that he wrote the entire TiC album with Steve Jordan, and gives him a credit.

Mathijs

I think you make a maistake in assuming that the credition policy and "closed shop" deal has always been the same. Like i have tried to argue above there had been changes occuring along the years. I think one of the most important ones happend during teh 80's when Mick and Keith were not just holding their own courts within teh band but were actually going separate ways with different people (and not seeing the Stones any longer as their only destiny in life). That made it not longer a "closed shop", and when they came up with material from their other projects, they acknowledged the constribution of their collaborators there. I think one cannot really compare the post solo career doings to the times when Mick and Keith both still had nothing but the Rolling Stones as their main and only concern. Idiot deal like with "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" wouldn't have happened in modern times. But I would claim Jordan having a credit for "One More Shot", or Leavell for "Back to Zero" wouldn't have happened in the old times either. And I wish something like what happened with "Next Goodbye" does not happen at all any longer.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 11:38 by Doxa.