Tell Me :
Talk
I think you didn't get right the analogy I did with the examples. I didn't talk song credition at all - but what is "instrumental" to the song. All of that can go under the label "arrangement" (as I think they should go), but even there the double standards occur.
The analogy is that it is Brian's sitar in "Paint It Black", Hopkins's piano in "She's The Rainbow", Taylor' guitar in "Moonlight Mile" AND Keith's guitar in "Brown Sugar" that make each of the songs "fly" - but all of them are based on a musical idea that is someone else's brainchild. If Jagger says that it is his riff in "Brown Sugar", I believe the man. Jagger's position is no different than that of Keith's in "humming" the piano melody to Hopkins in "She's The Rainbow" (that's damn "embryo" if we listen the bootleg). I don't know how Jagger presented the main idea to Keith - it is not essential - but it is thanks to Keith's unique skills that it turned out to be wonderful music we heard in a record - as it with Nicky's case as well. My criticism towards "True Believism" is that people tend to see Richards's contribution more that of "writing" than "arranging" than it is with other people's contributions.
To me what Keith does in "Brown Sugar" - or with "Jumping Jack Flash" - is to take someone else's riff and re-shape it according to his own taste by his own touch. But it is Mick's - and Bill's - riff there. This is something many other musicians do in regards to his (Keith's) initial musical ideas in a Rolling Stones recordings as well.
I am as guilty as anyone else to True Believism, since Keith's way to play the guitar is so essential to a Rolling Stones sound/songs that the whole feel of the song is pretty much created by it. It is difficult to be "equal" or "just" here. But at least I try. And I am speaking to myself as much as I try to talk you here...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 13:24 by Doxa.
No doubt?
We don't know if the melody for PIB was fully formed or not when presented by Keith or if it stayed the same throughout it's journey to finished recording.
Regarding She's A Rainbow, It was Mick actually and it's only a snippet on the bootleg where he asks Nicky to emphasis the change in speed/phrasing. Nicky was already playing the melody before that part of the bootleg. It doesn't tell us who came up with the melody.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 13:35 by His Majesty.
Exactly. You recognize the same "problem" as I do. Especially for us who get to know teh band when they already were bigger than life (most of us), and Keith's position as a "riff master" established in rock history (as is the ideal picture of Jagger/Richard "autonomous" creativity), studying critically the actual history can be a rather rough but eliminating process, which usually consists of challenging certain traditional conceptions or even "myths".
I take one example. Me initially, as I think most of the people outside Stones fan circles, assume that it is Keith Richards who plays "The Last Time" riff, one of the most distinguished and well-known guitar riffs in rock history. Okay, it does not need much to clear that confusion out. But I still recall being surprised finding out that it is not Keith the riff master there, but that obscure dead multi-instrumentalist doing the job.
That's something for the beginners. But things still looked confusing if we look the way the "experts" discussed the riff here in IORR along the years. Even though Jones played the riff it didn't mean - it was argued - that he wrote it. Must be riff master's invention, since he wrote the song and he is good in those things (look at the catalog!). And Brian cannot even write songs.
Okay, it finally turned out to be that it was Brian's brainchild. His Majesty came up with a quote by Keith to confirm the case (funnily, when Keith says something like that, it is usually taken as an authority...)
Well, after that the novelty and originality of the riff seemed to lose some respect. It was basically - if not only damn simple - but barely a work-out of the songs basic melody/chords (well, that what riffs many times are...) - so in the end, there was still Keith's contribution to be seen there, Jones just doing some "arranging" job, etc.
I guess we are in that stage now. Let's see how the story develops.
Okay, my story is largely rhetorical and provocative, but I hope the moral of it can be seen. The myth of omnipotent, heroic Keith Richards seems to be in the very constitution of a modern Stones fan, and colors our way to view almost everything. It is usually damn hard to give up any traits of that myth.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 16:37 by Doxa.
Don't know about a Keith quote and "The Last Time" but Bill says it was Brian's idea in some post I posted a few pages back.
The JJF riff is only contested by Bill.
Brown Sugar is Mick's and backed up by Keith in Life.
Keith plays the main riffs but not always.
PIB has Brian playing the riff but Keith claims it and Bill does not contradict it.
Keith plays in a certain way and style.
Nicky Hopkins wrote the piano parts but I'm not aware of him claiming any song writing.
Charlie wrote a lot of his drum parts, but it's not songwriting.
If a group of musicians get together and don't bring songs or bits of song ideas to the studio, then it's mostly just jams that result.
The Stones did this too.
Jack has said that sometimes they jammed for hours and nothing happened and they went home, probably when no one brought song ideas into the studio.
Something might happen, but more often then not it will degenerate to Blues jams.
Mick and Keith always brought the direction of where to go in with them, or they were the ones filtering out and expanding on whatever happened in the studio.
Without Mick and Keith, there would be mostly studio jams resulting ie Jammin with Edward where Mick doesn't give much of a sxxt about the songs and Keith isn't even there.
Sticky Fingers was mostly pre written before they went into the studio and the recording was quick.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 16:06 by howled.
Sure, I was referring to Jones as a multi-instrumentalist here.
Make it fit to your viewpoint.
Could be meaning jamming trying to find ways of developing basic song ideas and/or arrangements.
Well, if someone has ever been in a band, unless someone has ideas it's back to blues jams and covers.
Very rarely has a group of musicians playing around in the studio, come up with great songs.
It's usually song ideas that are complete or bits that get joined to other bits over time that get taken in to the studio, especially when studio time is expensive but the Stones didn't worry about that much.
From multiple accounts, Keith was the one coming in with most of the riffs and sometimes completed or near completed songs and Mick mostly wrote the lyrics and later on started to come in with his own songs.
If Keith or Mick came up with the middle bit of a song during sessions where the basic song or riff was kicked around, then it's still Keith or Mick writing it.
It's pretty obvious that Mick was writing most of the lyrics.
Keith was coming in with the riffs and basic song ideas which he might alter or add to as the song got kicked around and changed arrangements.
If Jack suggests a middle chord progression and Keith and Mick finish it off with lyrics and melody, then Keith and Mick still wrote it.
They might not have written it that particular way without Jack being there at that moment, but just chord progressions or rhythm feels and altering arrangements are not songs.
Anything else are just some claims without much backup.
If Jack wrote some of the melody or lyrics to the middle of Paint It Black then he should get a credit, otherwise no, because just arranging and suggesting things is not writing the actual melody/lyrics.
There are grey areas, so nothing is set in stone, but Mick and Keith had a big influence on the songs, much more than anyone else and they continued to have the main influence over songs in the Sticky Fingers Exile period when working with different people than the Paint It Black time.
Mick and Keith are the constant Stones elements all the way through and all the rest come and go or don't contribute much at all except in adding their enhancements.
[www.spectropop.com]
"Nitzsche prefers to think of the early recording sessions as madcap exercises in music - making, where the finished tracks came together magically through sheer spontaneous energy. When they ran into trouble playing the string bass on "Ruby Tuesday," Keith Richard laid the instrument on the floor, chalked each note on the neck, and pressed the proper chalk marks while Brian (really Bill) bowed the strings.
"The Stones sessions were like nothing that had ever happened before," exclaims Nitzsche. "They didn't know what they were going to do until they were in the studio. Sometimes they would come in stoned and play for 12 hours and nothing would come of it - but they didn't care. They would walk out at night laughing.""
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 17:30 by howled.
More of the same.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 17:40 by His Majesty.
Just alternate version of You Can't... with Mick playing acoustic guitar. Brian's rhthym is also more audible on that, but it's just strumming some low notes.
That's Mick Jagger playing the main melody on guitar, Taylor plays the sliding chords.
Mathijs
My very own personal opinion is that Taylor indeed is a very mediocre rhythm guitarist. I just don't like his right hand approach to rhythm, and especially in Berry songs, including Star Star, I find his rhythm playing subpar. When he plays chords, his timing and phrasing is awkward, and amateuristic to my ears.
Mathijs
Thats wrong. By that logic "you make a grown man cry" would be the main riff in Start Me Up!
And from the Last Time (Brian) we've moved to JJF (Bill) which seems to be a tough nut for many fans. Way thicker than Brown Sugar (Mick).
When Mick says he wrote the riff and people think Keith wrote all the riffs he's talking about the riff.
Taylor's strumming on this track would carry the much song more if it was higher in the mix.
It's actually very delicate, and he's throwing funky fils in between, but they get completely lost cause he's too low in the mix. It would never clash with Richards,
at the contrary: Taylor's substantial playing would flow like water trough the straight forward stubborn (Hendrix-influenced) licks played by Keith, that give this version a bit of a predictable stiffness during the verses.
Actually, DP has it right. Keith himself explained how the finishing touches of PIB came to be during his 1986 appearance on the U.S. TV show Friday Night Videos, where he was interviewed by Paul Shaffer. He said the song was written, but that there was no way The Stones were going to be able to record it the way he had the music written for it, with the intro done in the Spanish flamenco style of guitar he'd learned from his grandfather Gus Dupree and these Hungarian gypsy dance elements running through it. But Brian just happened to have his sitar and adapted the flamenco guitar melodies to sitar and Charlie chimed in with his particular treatment of the beat, after which Keith says the song "just came together in 2...no, 3 takes."
Below is a clip of the 1990 live version of PIB, where for the opening 42 seconds he is playing in that Spanish flamenco style that must have very much resembled the original intro for the song before Brian transformed it for sitar.
Yup! Personally, I like to hear & see Brian when he was really 'on!'
There is a mutual misunderstanding here, so we can't even agree to disagree...
I admit "Moonlight Mile" is not a very good example. Let's say, "Winter" would be much better, since Taylor's guitar is more prominent there, and creates a kind of musical atmosphere of its own within the song, which is very instrumental to the way the song works. But the moral of my original claim was that Taylor uses the original idea of teh song (which is Jagger's song, if not Taylor having some hand in creating it in the first place - the latter assumption is no important now) as his template, and we can very well say that he is doing "arrangement" by letting his own guitar imagination fill the space. What finally happens is that Jagger's vocals and Taylor's guitar seem to feed each other - impossible to say which comes first - making almost a duet in the final recording.
Anyway, the point was the way Taylor contributes there is not in any principle way lesser than how Keith contributes in "Brown Sugar". The issue who has more original output in the song - own ideas, creative force - is a semantical one. Also the issue if it is a "solo guitar" vs. riff/rhythm guitar is a semantical one. I would say Taylor is artistically even more contributive in quantity "Winter" than Keith in "Brown Sugar", who just works out Jagger's riffs and chords further, wheras Taylor creates counter melodies and themes of his own (not unlike Brian in "Ruby Tuesday").
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-02 10:15 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 1, 2013 13:15
Quote
DandelionPowderman
You´re misunderstanding something here.
The world isn't this black and white.
Besides, we can discuss Mick and Keith's song writing partnership, and how just it is, all day - but there is a partnership. That's why Mick is in on Ruby Tuesday and Keith gets credit on Far Away Eyes. It cannot be Compared with whether Hopkins created something on Shes A Rainbow or not.
I really think Mick is talking about writing Brown Sugar, with an embryo riff included, in that interview - and not writing the riff as it ended up on the recording, which of course is killer.
Where bad critique's due, Ill be there - mind you, be it mick or keith or anyone else.
Disappointing that you dont know that...
Your examples are not the best ones at what you´re trying to say, imo (PIB, SAR and MM). There is no doubt who wrote the two former ones. MM was written by Jagger (loosely based on a Keith-sketch), according to Taylor, who only claimed to have set up the string arrangements.
The melody on SAR was hummed to Hopkins by Keith. The PIB-riff was written by Keith, and transferred to sitar by Brian.
We don´t have the exact proofs on all the song writing by members of the Stones - in fact, we have very little. Therefore, keep in mind that calling me a true believer and a person with double standards very well could be way off here, if you were wrong. I don´t expect anyone to trust my musical instincts on these matters, however it should be evident that I´m not an airhead with a hard on for every chord Keith strums. The IORR archive would reveal that pretty clearly
I think you didn't get right the analogy I did with the examples. I didn't talk song credition at all - but what is "instrumental" to the song. All of that can go under the label "arrangement" (as I think they should go), but even there the double standards occur.
The analogy is that it is Brian's sitar in "Paint It Black", Hopkins's piano in "She's The Rainbow", Taylor' guitar in "Moonlight Mile" AND Keith's guitar in "Brown Sugar" that make each of the songs "fly" - but all of them are based on a musical idea that is someone else's brainchild. If Jagger says that it is his riff in "Brown Sugar", I believe the man. Jagger's position is no different than that of Keith's in "humming" the piano melody to Hopkins in "She's The Rainbow" (that's damn "embryo" if we listen the bootleg). I don't know how Jagger presented the main idea to Keith - it is not essential - but it is thanks to Keith's unique skills that it turned out to be wonderful music we heard in a record - as it with Nicky's case as well. My criticism towards "True Believism" is that people tend to see Richards's contribution more that of "writing" than "arranging" than it is with other people's contributions.
To me what Keith does in "Brown Sugar" - or with "Jumping Jack Flash" - is to take someone else's riff and re-shape it according to his own taste by his own touch. But it is Mick's - and Bill's - riff there. This is something many other musicians do in regards to his (Keith's) initial musical ideas in a Rolling Stones recordings as well.
I am as guilty as anyone else to True Believism, since Keith's way to play the guitar is so essential to a Rolling Stones sound/songs that the whole feel of the song is pretty much created by it. It is difficult to be "equal" or "just" here. But at least I try. And I am speaking to myself as much as I try to talk you here...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 13:24 by Doxa.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 1, 2013 13:32
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The melody on SAR was hummed to Hopkins by Keith. The PIB-riff was written by Keith, and transferred to sitar by Brian.
No doubt?
We don't know if the melody for PIB was fully formed or not when presented by Keith or if it stayed the same throughout it's journey to finished recording.
Regarding She's A Rainbow, It was Mick actually and it's only a snippet on the bootleg where he asks Nicky to emphasis the change in speed/phrasing. Nicky was already playing the melody before that part of the bootleg. It doesn't tell us who came up with the melody.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 13:35 by His Majesty.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 1, 2013 13:36
Thats exactly my point too. Keith himself always repeats how he loves to play certain riffs like JJF. The way he plays them, BS at Altamont, JJF in 1972 or 1969 is his strength, his oustanding timing, tone, phrasing, everything.
The barrier is his legacy as sole writer, creator of every riff in the Stones catalogue. And that is a myth. Thats what I meant when comparing to the Beatles where a Macca song could have a George riff or one by Lennon, Maccas solo on Taxman and his/Lennons bandloop on Tomorrow Never knows. Stones is also a group of people, plus many side kicks from the very start. Still for years I believed every note was created by Mick or Keith. I clearly remember that day when I read a qoute by Keith saying BS is all Micks. And even then I interpreted that line as the song being Micks and the riff somehow still being Keiths. I just couldnt get it.
The barrier is his legacy as sole writer, creator of every riff in the Stones catalogue. And that is a myth. Thats what I meant when comparing to the Beatles where a Macca song could have a George riff or one by Lennon, Maccas solo on Taxman and his/Lennons bandloop on Tomorrow Never knows. Stones is also a group of people, plus many side kicks from the very start. Still for years I believed every note was created by Mick or Keith. I clearly remember that day when I read a qoute by Keith saying BS is all Micks. And even then I interpreted that line as the song being Micks and the riff somehow still being Keiths. I just couldnt get it.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 1, 2013 14:38
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Thats exactly my point too. Keith himself always repeats how he loves to play certain riffs like JJF. The way he plays them, BS at Altamont, JJF in 1972 or 1969 is his strength, his oustanding timing, tone, phrasing, everything.
The barrier is his legacy as sole writer, creator of every riff in the Stones catalogue. And that is a myth. Thats what I meant when comparing to the Beatles where a Macca song could have a George riff or one by Lennon, Maccas solo on Taxman and his/Lennons bandloop on Tomorrow Never knows. Stones is also a group of people, plus many side kicks from the very start. Still for years I believed every note was created by Mick or Keith. I clearly remember that day when I read a qoute by Keith saying BS is all Micks. And even then I interpreted that line as the song being Micks and the riff somehow still being Keiths. I just couldnt get it.
Exactly. You recognize the same "problem" as I do. Especially for us who get to know teh band when they already were bigger than life (most of us), and Keith's position as a "riff master" established in rock history (as is the ideal picture of Jagger/Richard "autonomous" creativity), studying critically the actual history can be a rather rough but eliminating process, which usually consists of challenging certain traditional conceptions or even "myths".
I take one example. Me initially, as I think most of the people outside Stones fan circles, assume that it is Keith Richards who plays "The Last Time" riff, one of the most distinguished and well-known guitar riffs in rock history. Okay, it does not need much to clear that confusion out. But I still recall being surprised finding out that it is not Keith the riff master there, but that obscure dead multi-instrumentalist doing the job.
That's something for the beginners. But things still looked confusing if we look the way the "experts" discussed the riff here in IORR along the years. Even though Jones played the riff it didn't mean - it was argued - that he wrote it. Must be riff master's invention, since he wrote the song and he is good in those things (look at the catalog!). And Brian cannot even write songs.
Okay, it finally turned out to be that it was Brian's brainchild. His Majesty came up with a quote by Keith to confirm the case (funnily, when Keith says something like that, it is usually taken as an authority...)
Well, after that the novelty and originality of the riff seemed to lose some respect. It was basically - if not only damn simple - but barely a work-out of the songs basic melody/chords (well, that what riffs many times are...) - so in the end, there was still Keith's contribution to be seen there, Jones just doing some "arranging" job, etc.
I guess we are in that stage now. Let's see how the story develops.
Okay, my story is largely rhetorical and provocative, but I hope the moral of it can be seen. The myth of omnipotent, heroic Keith Richards seems to be in the very constitution of a modern Stones fan, and colors our way to view almost everything. It is usually damn hard to give up any traits of that myth.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 16:37 by Doxa.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: April 1, 2013 15:56
Quote
DoxaQuote
Redhotcarpet
Thats exactly my point too. Keith himself always repeats how he loves to play certain riffs like JJF. The way he plays them, BS at Altamont, JJF in 1972 or 1969 is his strength, his oustanding timing, tone, phrasing, everything.
The barrier is his legacy as sole writer, creator of every riff in the Stones catalogue. And that is a myth. Thats what I meant when comparing to the Beatles where a Macca song could have a George riff or one by Lennon, Maccas solo on Taxman and his/Lennons bandloop on Tomorrow Never knows. Stones is also a group of people, plus many side kicks from the very start. Still for years I believed every note was created by Mick or Keith. I clearly remember that day when I read a qoute by Keith saying BS is all Micks. And even then I interpreted that line as the song being Micks and the riff somehow still being Keiths. I just couldnt get it.
Exactly. You recognize the same "problem" as I do. Especially for us who get to know teh band when they already were bigger than life (most of us), and Keith's position as a "riff master" established in rock history (as is the ideal picture of Jagger/Richard "autonomous" creativity), studying critically the actual history can be a rather rough but eliminating process, which usually consists of challenging certain traditional conceptions or even "myths".
I take one example. Me initially, as I think most of the people outside Stones fan circles, assume that it is Keith Richards who plays "The Last Time" riff, one of the most distinguished and well-known guitar riffs in rock history. Okay, it does not need much to clear that confession out. But I still recall being surprised finding out that it is not Keith the riff master there, but that obscure dead multi-instrumentalist doing the job.
That's something for the beginners. But things still looked confusing if we look the way the "experts" discussed the riff here in IORR along the years. Even though Jones played the riff it didn't mean - it was argued - that he wrote it. Must be riff master's invention, since he wrote the song and he is good in those things (look at the catalog!). And Brian cannot even write songs.
Okay, it finally turned out to be that it was Brian's brainchild. His Majesty came up with a quote by Keith to confirm the case (funnily, when Keith says something like that, it is usually taken as an authority...)
Well, after that the novelty and originality of the riff seemed to lose some respect. It was basically - if not only damn simple - but barely a work-out of the songs basic melody/chords (well, that what riffs many times are...) - so in the end, there was still Keith's contribution to be seen there, Jones just doing some "arranging" job, etc.
I guess we are in that stage now. Let's see how the story develops.
Okay, my story is largely rhetorical and provocative, but I hope the moral of it can be seen. The myth of omnipotent, heroic Keith Richards seems to be in the very constitution of a modern Stones fan, and colors our way to view almost everything. It is usually damn hard to give up any traits of that myth.
- Doxa
Don't know about a Keith quote and "The Last Time" but Bill says it was Brian's idea in some post I posted a few pages back.
The JJF riff is only contested by Bill.
Brown Sugar is Mick's and backed up by Keith in Life.
Keith plays the main riffs but not always.
PIB has Brian playing the riff but Keith claims it and Bill does not contradict it.
Keith plays in a certain way and style.
Nicky Hopkins wrote the piano parts but I'm not aware of him claiming any song writing.
Charlie wrote a lot of his drum parts, but it's not songwriting.
If a group of musicians get together and don't bring songs or bits of song ideas to the studio, then it's mostly just jams that result.
The Stones did this too.
Jack has said that sometimes they jammed for hours and nothing happened and they went home, probably when no one brought song ideas into the studio.
Something might happen, but more often then not it will degenerate to Blues jams.
Mick and Keith always brought the direction of where to go in with them, or they were the ones filtering out and expanding on whatever happened in the studio.
Without Mick and Keith, there would be mostly studio jams resulting ie Jammin with Edward where Mick doesn't give much of a sxxt about the songs and Keith isn't even there.
Sticky Fingers was mostly pre written before they went into the studio and the recording was quick.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 16:06 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: April 1, 2013 16:05
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
I still wonder why Keith or Jagger wiped or dubbed tracks/ideas played by Taylor, Jones, Wood or Wymann? Was it their ego, or them being afraid not to sound trademark Keith- trademark Stones, or did they really think they were the better players?
With the exception of slide playing up to Beggars Banquet I think it would be fair to say that Keith was a better more creative guitar player during 1964 - 1969.
...
Brian's guitar playing sounds damaged to me by 1967... Combination of hand injury and not playing much?
Take a listen to Brian playing acoustic guitar on early takes of The Lantern. Sounds to me like someone who doesn't play much, lots of fret buzz and not properly held down chords.
In this instance it was right for Keith to play acoustic guitar.
Sure, I was referring to Jones as a multi-instrumentalist here.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: April 1, 2013 16:41
Quote
Doxa
Double standards.
- Doxa
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 1, 2013 17:01
Quote
howled
Jack has said that sometimes they jammed for hours and nothing happened and they went home, probably when no one brought song ideas into the studio.
Make it fit to your viewpoint.
Could be meaning jamming trying to find ways of developing basic song ideas and/or arrangements.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: April 1, 2013 17:23
Quote
His MajestyQuote
howled
Jack has said that sometimes they jammed for hours and nothing happened and they went home, probably when no one brought song ideas into the studio.
Make it fit to your viewpoint.
Could be meaning jamming trying to find ways of developing basic song ideas and/or arrangements.
Well, if someone has ever been in a band, unless someone has ideas it's back to blues jams and covers.
Very rarely has a group of musicians playing around in the studio, come up with great songs.
It's usually song ideas that are complete or bits that get joined to other bits over time that get taken in to the studio, especially when studio time is expensive but the Stones didn't worry about that much.
From multiple accounts, Keith was the one coming in with most of the riffs and sometimes completed or near completed songs and Mick mostly wrote the lyrics and later on started to come in with his own songs.
If Keith or Mick came up with the middle bit of a song during sessions where the basic song or riff was kicked around, then it's still Keith or Mick writing it.
It's pretty obvious that Mick was writing most of the lyrics.
Keith was coming in with the riffs and basic song ideas which he might alter or add to as the song got kicked around and changed arrangements.
If Jack suggests a middle chord progression and Keith and Mick finish it off with lyrics and melody, then Keith and Mick still wrote it.
They might not have written it that particular way without Jack being there at that moment, but just chord progressions or rhythm feels and altering arrangements are not songs.
Anything else are just some claims without much backup.
If Jack wrote some of the melody or lyrics to the middle of Paint It Black then he should get a credit, otherwise no, because just arranging and suggesting things is not writing the actual melody/lyrics.
There are grey areas, so nothing is set in stone, but Mick and Keith had a big influence on the songs, much more than anyone else and they continued to have the main influence over songs in the Sticky Fingers Exile period when working with different people than the Paint It Black time.
Mick and Keith are the constant Stones elements all the way through and all the rest come and go or don't contribute much at all except in adding their enhancements.
[www.spectropop.com]
"Nitzsche prefers to think of the early recording sessions as madcap exercises in music - making, where the finished tracks came together magically through sheer spontaneous energy. When they ran into trouble playing the string bass on "Ruby Tuesday," Keith Richard laid the instrument on the floor, chalked each note on the neck, and pressed the proper chalk marks while Brian (really Bill) bowed the strings.
"The Stones sessions were like nothing that had ever happened before," exclaims Nitzsche. "They didn't know what they were going to do until they were in the studio. Sometimes they would come in stoned and play for 12 hours and nothing would come of it - but they didn't care. They would walk out at night laughing.""
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 17:30 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 1, 2013 17:27
More of the same.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-01 17:40 by His Majesty.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Jayce
()
Date: April 1, 2013 18:38
Love that rhythm guitar that Brian plays on the Circus version of "Parachute Woman"; why in the world would they mix him out? Sounds grungy and gritty to me -- forceful, even, which is not a word I associate with Brian's guitar playing. The way he strums always seemed somewhat limp; he does not put much arm action, but is a fingers and wrist strummer.
Do you have his guitar on the other numbers - -"JJF," "YCAGWYW"? (and any others I may have missed).
Thanks for these wonderful links!
Jayce
Do you have his guitar on the other numbers - -"JJF," "YCAGWYW"? (and any others I may have missed).
Thanks for these wonderful links!
Jayce
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 1, 2013 18:44
Quote
Jayce
Love that rhythm guitar that Brian plays on the Circus version of "Parachute Woman"; why in the world would they mix him out? Sounds grungy and gritty to me -- forceful, even, which is not a word I associate with Brian's guitar playing. The way he strums always seemed somewhat limp; he does not put much arm action, but is a fingers and wrist strummer.
Do you have his guitar on the other numbers - -"JJF," "YCAGWYW"? (and any others I may have missed).
Thanks for these wonderful links!
Jayce
Just alternate version of You Can't... with Mick playing acoustic guitar. Brian's rhthym is also more audible on that, but it's just strumming some low notes.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: April 1, 2013 19:16
Quote
Doxa
Taylor' guitar in "Moonlight Mile"
That's Mick Jagger playing the main melody on guitar, Taylor plays the sliding chords.
Mathijs
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: April 1, 2013 19:19
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
Mathijs
As for Taylor -he was never the best of rhtyhm guitarists, often clashing with Richards' rhythm playing, and I think it is a simple matter of Richards not liking Taylor's rhythm playing too much. I think Richards indeed has had the feeling he could improve a track by wiping Taylor's rhtyhm playing and adding his own.
Mathijs
Keith said Taylor wasnt a rhythm guitarist and that's just pure BS. What Keith meant was that Keith was the best rhtyhm guitarist, which is true.
My very own personal opinion is that Taylor indeed is a very mediocre rhythm guitarist. I just don't like his right hand approach to rhythm, and especially in Berry songs, including Star Star, I find his rhythm playing subpar. When he plays chords, his timing and phrasing is awkward, and amateuristic to my ears.
Mathijs
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Jayce
()
Date: April 1, 2013 20:07
His Majesty, did Mick play guitar at the Circus? I don't remember Mick doing that. I meant YCAGWYW at the Circus. Is my memory wrong? I thought he just sang and played harmonica.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 1, 2013 20:18
He did for one or more officially unreleased takes of YCAGWYW.
There are photos of him playing the Gibson J-200 at the R&R Circus and one recording featuring him playing acoustic is available on bootlegs.
There are photos of him playing the Gibson J-200 at the R&R Circus and one recording featuring him playing acoustic is available on bootlegs.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 1, 2013 21:07
Quote
howledQuote
Redhotcarpet
The intro is the riff, its obvious that Mick is talking about the riff, the signature riff the intro. What he plays for Ike and Tina is not the riff, he's just humming a bit. It's not an instructional video by Mick Jagger.
The intro is not the main riff.
The main riff is the Acoustic doubled part (Eb, C, Ab, Bb, C) and it recurs throughout the song and Bobby Keys plays the Sax solo over it.
The intro lasts for about 15 seconds and is at the start of the song and never heard again (C, G, C, F, C, I think).
The BS intro could easily be dropped and no one would care too much, just like the Stones drop the JJF intro live.
Once again,
Main riff starts at 18 seconds and is Mick's.
Intro is the bit played up until the 18 second mark, and could possibly be Keith's add on.
Thats wrong. By that logic "you make a grown man cry" would be the main riff in Start Me Up!
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 1, 2013 21:13
Doxa, you're not getting me at all. I'm not talking about writing, here - as Keith will get credits from Mick-songs anyway. And don't mix in solo guitars in this. The important guitar in MM is Jagger's, re making that song. It's not a question of double standards. Keith's sound would be more important for the band always in that era.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: April 1, 2013 23:01
Btw, Regarding Bill and JJF riff...
In Stone Alone it's
"A few weeks later when we were in the Olympic Studio, out came my riff, the backbone for Mick's terrific lyrics... And we all worked on the music."
The claim for creating it remains the same even with the slight change in details from the interview quote.
In Stone Alone it's
"A few weeks later when we were in the Olympic Studio, out came my riff, the backbone for Mick's terrific lyrics... And we all worked on the music."
The claim for creating it remains the same even with the slight change in details from the interview quote.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 2, 2013 00:09
Quote
DoxaQuote
Redhotcarpet
Thats exactly my point too. Keith himself always repeats how he loves to play certain riffs like JJF. The way he plays them, BS at Altamont, JJF in 1972 or 1969 is his strength, his oustanding timing, tone, phrasing, everything.
The barrier is his legacy as sole writer, creator of every riff in the Stones catalogue. And that is a myth. Thats what I meant when comparing to the Beatles where a Macca song could have a George riff or one by Lennon, Maccas solo on Taxman and his/Lennons bandloop on Tomorrow Never knows. Stones is also a group of people, plus many side kicks from the very start. Still for years I believed every note was created by Mick or Keith. I clearly remember that day when I read a qoute by Keith saying BS is all Micks. And even then I interpreted that line as the song being Micks and the riff somehow still being Keiths. I just couldnt get it.
Exactly. You recognize the same "problem" as I do. Especially for us who get to know teh band when they already were bigger than life (most of us), and Keith's position as a "riff master" established in rock history (as is the ideal picture of Jagger/Richard "autonomous" creativity), studying critically the actual history can be a rather rough but eliminating process, which usually consists of challenging certain traditional conceptions or even "myths".
I take one example. Me initially, as I think most of the people outside Stones fan circles, assume that it is Keith Richards who plays "The Last Time" riff, one of the most distinguished and well-known guitar riffs in rock history. Okay, it does not need much to clear that confusion out. But I still recall being surprised finding out that it is not Keith the riff master there, but that obscure dead multi-instrumentalist doing the job.
That's something for the beginners. But things still looked confusing if we look the way the "experts" discussed the riff here in IORR along the years. Even though Jones played the riff it didn't mean - it was argued - that he wrote it. Must be riff master's invention, since he wrote the song and he is good in those things (look at the catalog!). And Brian cannot even write songs.
Okay, it finally turned out to be that it was Brian's brainchild. His Majesty came up with a quote by Keith to confirm the case (funnily, when Keith says something like that, it is usually taken as an authority...)
Well, after that the novelty and originality of the riff seemed to lose some respect. It was basically - if not only damn simple - but barely a work-out of the songs basic melody/chords (well, that what riffs many times are...) - so in the end, there was still Keith's contribution to be seen there, Jones just doing some "arranging" job, etc.
I guess we are in that stage now. Let's see how the story develops.
Okay, my story is largely rhetorical and provocative, but I hope the moral of it can be seen. The myth of omnipotent, heroic Keith Richards seems to be in the very constitution of a modern Stones fan, and colors our way to view almost everything. It is usually damn hard to give up any traits of that myth.
- Doxa
And from the Last Time (Brian) we've moved to JJF (Bill) which seems to be a tough nut for many fans. Way thicker than Brown Sugar (Mick).
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 2, 2013 00:10
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
howledQuote
Redhotcarpet
The intro is the riff, its obvious that Mick is talking about the riff, the signature riff the intro. What he plays for Ike and Tina is not the riff, he's just humming a bit. It's not an instructional video by Mick Jagger.
The intro is not the main riff.
The main riff is the Acoustic doubled part (Eb, C, Ab, Bb, C) and it recurs throughout the song and Bobby Keys plays the Sax solo over it.
The intro lasts for about 15 seconds and is at the start of the song and never heard again (C, G, C, F, C, I think).
The BS intro could easily be dropped and no one would care too much, just like the Stones drop the JJF intro live.
Once again,
Main riff starts at 18 seconds and is Mick's.
Intro is the bit played up until the 18 second mark, and could possibly be Keith's add on.
Thats wrong. By that logic "you make a grown man cry" would be the main riff in Start Me Up!
When Mick says he wrote the riff and people think Keith wrote all the riffs he's talking about the riff.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: April 2, 2013 01:00
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Had Taylor´s multi-string natural chord strumming been higher in the mix on SFTD (Ya Ya´s), it would have clashed totally with Keith´s riffing. A good example of a brilliant mix on a Stones record. When Taylor plays something substantial, he´s right up there with his great licks.
Taylor's strumming on this track would carry the much song more if it was higher in the mix.
It's actually very delicate, and he's throwing funky fils in between, but they get completely lost cause he's too low in the mix. It would never clash with Richards,
at the contrary: Taylor's substantial playing would flow like water trough the straight forward stubborn (Hendrix-influenced) licks played by Keith, that give this version a bit of a predictable stiffness during the verses.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: April 2, 2013 05:34
If some people hear Brown Sugar and can't recognize the main riff, then ok and I give up.
Bill is the only one with the JJF riff claim.
Brian was an occasional guitarist to me.
He was already bored with the guitar by 1965 and preferred the harmonica according to one of his comments.
I don't think he practiced guitar much and his playing with the Stones is pretty basic.
Keith is no virtuoso on guitar either, but he has a way of playing and he didn't get bored with the guitar, maybe he got bored with standard tuning but not the guitar.
Brian started off on Clarinet I think.
Brian seemed to know how to play to a basic/intermediate level on various instruments and that also depends on practicing which I think he didn't do that much.
I think he's one of those people that has spurts on certain instruments and favours them for a while and then moves on to another one.
Like guitar to harmonica and then to dulcimer and sitar and recorder, but his guitar playing suffered because if someone doesn't practice then their technique starts disappearing and Keith had to do most of the guitar parts himself in 68 and 69 and Brian didn't play that much guitar in 67 either.
The Stones are a guitar driven band at their core, and when Keith wants Brian back on guitar instead of playing mellotrons and recorders and dulcimers etc, Brian couldn't seem to give a sxxt about the guitar.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-02 05:38 by howled.
Bill is the only one with the JJF riff claim.
Brian was an occasional guitarist to me.
He was already bored with the guitar by 1965 and preferred the harmonica according to one of his comments.
I don't think he practiced guitar much and his playing with the Stones is pretty basic.
Keith is no virtuoso on guitar either, but he has a way of playing and he didn't get bored with the guitar, maybe he got bored with standard tuning but not the guitar.
Brian started off on Clarinet I think.
Brian seemed to know how to play to a basic/intermediate level on various instruments and that also depends on practicing which I think he didn't do that much.
I think he's one of those people that has spurts on certain instruments and favours them for a while and then moves on to another one.
Like guitar to harmonica and then to dulcimer and sitar and recorder, but his guitar playing suffered because if someone doesn't practice then their technique starts disappearing and Keith had to do most of the guitar parts himself in 68 and 69 and Brian didn't play that much guitar in 67 either.
The Stones are a guitar driven band at their core, and when Keith wants Brian back on guitar instead of playing mellotrons and recorders and dulcimers etc, Brian couldn't seem to give a sxxt about the guitar.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-02 05:38 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: April 2, 2013 06:08
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
The PIB-riff was written by Keith, and transferred to sitar by Brian.
No doubt?
We don't know if the melody for PIB was fully formed or not when presented by Keith or if it stayed the same throughout it's journey to finished recording.
Actually, DP has it right. Keith himself explained how the finishing touches of PIB came to be during his 1986 appearance on the U.S. TV show Friday Night Videos, where he was interviewed by Paul Shaffer. He said the song was written, but that there was no way The Stones were going to be able to record it the way he had the music written for it, with the intro done in the Spanish flamenco style of guitar he'd learned from his grandfather Gus Dupree and these Hungarian gypsy dance elements running through it. But Brian just happened to have his sitar and adapted the flamenco guitar melodies to sitar and Charlie chimed in with his particular treatment of the beat, after which Keith says the song "just came together in 2...no, 3 takes."
Below is a clip of the 1990 live version of PIB, where for the opening 42 seconds he is playing in that Spanish flamenco style that must have very much resembled the original intro for the song before Brian transformed it for sitar.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
owlbynite
()
Date: April 2, 2013 07:07
Quote
howled
Well, it got onto Brian and what he came up with and what he didn't and that of course led to Bill and what Mick and Keith might or might not have got from others (The Ripoff Twins) etc etc.
Yup! Personally, I like to hear & see Brian when he was really 'on!'
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: April 2, 2013 09:08
Mick is mostly doing the lyrics and has to sing them and the melody is tied to the lyrics in many ways, so the melody is often coming from Mick starting from riffs/song outlines and song titles from Keith, but sometimes the melody and even lyrics are coming more from Keith and sometimes Mick has complete songs.
Keith and Mick could have used bits and pieces from jams, but most jams are not that great and lack structure especially commercial song structure and that's why they are called jams, so the amount of commercial songwriting ideas generated from jams is probably pretty low.
[www.rollingstone.com]
Let's start with "Sympathy for the Devil."
I think that was taken from an old idea of Baudelaire's, I think, but I could be wrong. Sometimes when I look at my Baudelaire books, I can't see it in there. But it was an idea I got from French writing. And I just took a couple of lines and expanded on it. I wrote it as sort of like a Bob Dylan song. And you can see it in this movie Godard shot called Sympathy for the Devil [originally titled One Plus One,] which is very fortuitous, because Godard wanted to do a film of us in the studio. I mean, it would never happen now, to get someone as interesting as Godard. And stuffy.
We just happened to be recording that song. We could have been recording "My Obsession." But it was "Sympathy for the Devil," and it became the track that we used.
You wrote that song.
Uh-huh.
So that's a wholly Mick Jagger song.
Uh-huh. I mean, Keith suggested that we do it in another rhythm, so that's how bands help you.
Who wrote "Satisfaction"?
Well, Keith wrote the lick. I think he had this lyric, "I can't get no satisfaction," which, actually, is a line in a Chuck Berry song called "30 Days."
Which is "I can't get no satisfaction "?
"I can't get no satisfaction from the judge."
Did you know that when you wrote it?
No, I didn't know it, but Keith might have heard it back then, because it's not any way an English person would express it. I'm not saying that he purposely nicked anything, but we played those records a lot.
So it just could have stuck in the back of your head.
Yeah, that was just one little line. And then I wrote the rest of it. There was no melody, really.
"As Tears Go By" was your first big, classic ballad. Who wrote that?
I wrote the lyrics, and Keith wrote the melody. But in some rock, you know, there's no melody until the singer starts to sing it. Sometimes there's a definite melody, but quite often it's your job as the singer to invent the melody. I start with one melody, and I make it another melody, over the same chord sequence.
You wrote it when you were 21. What do you think of it now?
It's a very melancholy song for a 21-year-old to write: "The evening of the day, watching children play...." It's very dumb and naive, but it's got a very sad sort of thing about it, almost like an older person might write. You know, it's like a metaphor for being old: You're watching children playing and realizing you're not a child. It's a relatively mature song considering the rest of the output at the time. And we didn't think of doing it [initially], because the Rolling Stones were a butch blues group. But Marianne Faithfull's version was already a big, proven hit song.
Why did you go and rerecord it? Because you had a particular affection for that song?
Well, it was already a hit, so, you know [laughs], and Andrew was a very simple, commercial kind of guy. A lot of this stuff is done for commercial reasons.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-02 09:27 by howled.
Keith and Mick could have used bits and pieces from jams, but most jams are not that great and lack structure especially commercial song structure and that's why they are called jams, so the amount of commercial songwriting ideas generated from jams is probably pretty low.
[www.rollingstone.com]
Let's start with "Sympathy for the Devil."
I think that was taken from an old idea of Baudelaire's, I think, but I could be wrong. Sometimes when I look at my Baudelaire books, I can't see it in there. But it was an idea I got from French writing. And I just took a couple of lines and expanded on it. I wrote it as sort of like a Bob Dylan song. And you can see it in this movie Godard shot called Sympathy for the Devil [originally titled One Plus One,] which is very fortuitous, because Godard wanted to do a film of us in the studio. I mean, it would never happen now, to get someone as interesting as Godard. And stuffy.
We just happened to be recording that song. We could have been recording "My Obsession." But it was "Sympathy for the Devil," and it became the track that we used.
You wrote that song.
Uh-huh.
So that's a wholly Mick Jagger song.
Uh-huh. I mean, Keith suggested that we do it in another rhythm, so that's how bands help you.
Who wrote "Satisfaction"?
Well, Keith wrote the lick. I think he had this lyric, "I can't get no satisfaction," which, actually, is a line in a Chuck Berry song called "30 Days."
Which is "I can't get no satisfaction "?
"I can't get no satisfaction from the judge."
Did you know that when you wrote it?
No, I didn't know it, but Keith might have heard it back then, because it's not any way an English person would express it. I'm not saying that he purposely nicked anything, but we played those records a lot.
So it just could have stuck in the back of your head.
Yeah, that was just one little line. And then I wrote the rest of it. There was no melody, really.
"As Tears Go By" was your first big, classic ballad. Who wrote that?
I wrote the lyrics, and Keith wrote the melody. But in some rock, you know, there's no melody until the singer starts to sing it. Sometimes there's a definite melody, but quite often it's your job as the singer to invent the melody. I start with one melody, and I make it another melody, over the same chord sequence.
You wrote it when you were 21. What do you think of it now?
It's a very melancholy song for a 21-year-old to write: "The evening of the day, watching children play...." It's very dumb and naive, but it's got a very sad sort of thing about it, almost like an older person might write. You know, it's like a metaphor for being old: You're watching children playing and realizing you're not a child. It's a relatively mature song considering the rest of the output at the time. And we didn't think of doing it [initially], because the Rolling Stones were a butch blues group. But Marianne Faithfull's version was already a big, proven hit song.
Why did you go and rerecord it? Because you had a particular affection for that song?
Well, it was already a hit, so, you know [laughs], and Andrew was a very simple, commercial kind of guy. A lot of this stuff is done for commercial reasons.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-02 09:27 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: April 2, 2013 09:47
Can we talk about Brian Jones for a second here?
Sure. The thing about Brian is that he was an extremely difficult person. You don't really feel like talking bad about someone that's had such a miserable time. But he did give everyone else an extremely miserable ride. Anyway, there was something very, very disturbed about him. He was very unhappy with life, very frustrated. He was very talented, but he was a very paranoid personality and not at all suited to be in show business [Laughs].
Hmm. Show business killed him?
Yeah. Well, he killed himself, but he should've been playing trad-jazz weekends and teaching in school; he probably would have been better off.
What was Brian's contribution to the band?
Well, he had a huge contribution in the early days. He was very obsessed with it, which you always need.
Obsessed with the band?
Yeah, getting it going and its personality and how it should be. He was obsessed. Too obsessed for me. There's a certain enthusiasm, and after that it becomes obsession. I go back to my thing about collecting: It's nice to collect stamps, but if it becomes obsessive, and you start stealing for your stamps, it becomes too much. He was obsessed about the image of the band, and he was very exclusionary. He saw the Stones as a blues band based on Muddy Waters, Elmore James and that tradition.
I don't think he really liked playing Chuck Berry songs. He was very purist. He was real middle class; he came from one of the most middle-class towns in England, Cheltenham, which was one of the most genteel towns in the most genteel area of England. So his whole outlook and upbringing was even worse in the gentility fashion than mine.
What started causing tensions in the group among Keith, you and him?
[Brian] was a very jealous person and didn't read the right books about leadership [Laughs] And you can't be jealous and be a leader. He was obsessed with the idea of being the leader of the band. You have to realize that everyone in a band is all more or less together, and everyone has their own niche, and some people lead in some ways, and some people lead in others. He never could understand that; he never got it, and he was kind of young. So he alienated people. And as I say, he was very narrow-minded in his view of music, and, really, Keith and I had been very catholic.
But did you take away the leadership of the band from him?
He had never had the leadership of the band to take away; if you're the singer in the band, you always get more attention than anyone else. Brian got very jealous when I got attention. And then the main jealousy was because Keith and I started writing songs, and he wasn't involved in that. To be honest, Brian had no talent for writing songs. None. I've never known a guy with less talent for songwriting.
What did he have talent for?
He was a guitar player, and he also diverted his talent on other instruments. His original instrument was the clarinet. So he played harmonica because he was familiar with wind instruments.
Did he give the band a sound?
Yes. He played the slide guitar at a time when no one really played it. He played in the style of Elmore James, and he had this very lyrical touch. He evolved into more of an experimental musician, but he lost touch with the guitar, and always as a musician you must have one thing you do well. He dabbled too much.
Does he deserve the kind of mythological status that he has among hard-core Stones fanatics?
Well, he was an integral part of the band, and he – for whatever it means – was a big part of it.
Can you describe your falling apart?
It happened gradually. He went from [being] an obsessive about the band to being rather an outsider. He'd turn up late to recording sessions, and he'd miss the odd gig every now and then. He let his health deteriorate because he drank too much and took drugs when they were new, hung out too much, stayed up too late, partied too much and didn't concentrate on what he was doing. Let his talent slide.
Did you fire him, finally?
Yeah.
How was that?
Not pleasant. It's never pleasant, firing people. But it had to be done because we felt we needed someone, and he wasn't there. He wouldn't come to the studio. He wouldn't do anything. We felt we couldn't go on. In fact, we came to a point where we couldn't play live. We couldn't hold our heads up and play because Brian was a total liability. He wasn't playing well, wasn't playing at all, couldn't hold the guitar. It was pathetic. Of course, now I suppose we would have had him admitted to rehab clinics and so on, but those things, unfortunately, in those days were not the path. He tried lots of doctors, but they just gave him more pills.
Do you feel guilty somehow about it all?
No, I don't really. I do feel that I behaved in a very childish way, but we were very young, and in some ways we picked on him. But, unfortunately, he made himself a target for it; he was very, very jealous, very difficult, very manipulative, and if you do that in this kind of a group of people, you get back as good as you give, to be honest. I wasn't understanding enough about his drug addition. No one seemed to know much about drug addiction. Things like LSD were all new. No one knew the harm. People thought cocaine was good for you.
I'm going to quote you something Charlie told me: "Brian Jones had a death wish at a young age. Brian's talent wasn't up to it. He wasn't up to leading a band. He was not a pleasant person to be around. And he was never there to help people to write a song. That's when Mick lost his patience. We carried Brian Jones."
That's straight to the point, isn't it? Whether he had a death wish or not, I don't know. He was a very sad, pitiable figure at the end. He was a talented musician, but he let it go and proved to be a rather sad precursor to a lot of other people. Why this should be, I don't know. I find it rather morbid, but it does keep happening, with people like Kurt Cobain. Why? Does this happen in accounting, too? Is this something that happens in every profession, it's just that we don't read about the accountants? I think the answer is, yes, it does happen in every profession – it's just played out in public with people like Brian and Kurt Cobain.
How do you think Brian died? There's been a lot of speculation.
Drowned in a pool. That other stuff is people trying to make money.
Sure. The thing about Brian is that he was an extremely difficult person. You don't really feel like talking bad about someone that's had such a miserable time. But he did give everyone else an extremely miserable ride. Anyway, there was something very, very disturbed about him. He was very unhappy with life, very frustrated. He was very talented, but he was a very paranoid personality and not at all suited to be in show business [Laughs].
Hmm. Show business killed him?
Yeah. Well, he killed himself, but he should've been playing trad-jazz weekends and teaching in school; he probably would have been better off.
What was Brian's contribution to the band?
Well, he had a huge contribution in the early days. He was very obsessed with it, which you always need.
Obsessed with the band?
Yeah, getting it going and its personality and how it should be. He was obsessed. Too obsessed for me. There's a certain enthusiasm, and after that it becomes obsession. I go back to my thing about collecting: It's nice to collect stamps, but if it becomes obsessive, and you start stealing for your stamps, it becomes too much. He was obsessed about the image of the band, and he was very exclusionary. He saw the Stones as a blues band based on Muddy Waters, Elmore James and that tradition.
I don't think he really liked playing Chuck Berry songs. He was very purist. He was real middle class; he came from one of the most middle-class towns in England, Cheltenham, which was one of the most genteel towns in the most genteel area of England. So his whole outlook and upbringing was even worse in the gentility fashion than mine.
What started causing tensions in the group among Keith, you and him?
[Brian] was a very jealous person and didn't read the right books about leadership [Laughs] And you can't be jealous and be a leader. He was obsessed with the idea of being the leader of the band. You have to realize that everyone in a band is all more or less together, and everyone has their own niche, and some people lead in some ways, and some people lead in others. He never could understand that; he never got it, and he was kind of young. So he alienated people. And as I say, he was very narrow-minded in his view of music, and, really, Keith and I had been very catholic.
But did you take away the leadership of the band from him?
He had never had the leadership of the band to take away; if you're the singer in the band, you always get more attention than anyone else. Brian got very jealous when I got attention. And then the main jealousy was because Keith and I started writing songs, and he wasn't involved in that. To be honest, Brian had no talent for writing songs. None. I've never known a guy with less talent for songwriting.
What did he have talent for?
He was a guitar player, and he also diverted his talent on other instruments. His original instrument was the clarinet. So he played harmonica because he was familiar with wind instruments.
Did he give the band a sound?
Yes. He played the slide guitar at a time when no one really played it. He played in the style of Elmore James, and he had this very lyrical touch. He evolved into more of an experimental musician, but he lost touch with the guitar, and always as a musician you must have one thing you do well. He dabbled too much.
Does he deserve the kind of mythological status that he has among hard-core Stones fanatics?
Well, he was an integral part of the band, and he – for whatever it means – was a big part of it.
Can you describe your falling apart?
It happened gradually. He went from [being] an obsessive about the band to being rather an outsider. He'd turn up late to recording sessions, and he'd miss the odd gig every now and then. He let his health deteriorate because he drank too much and took drugs when they were new, hung out too much, stayed up too late, partied too much and didn't concentrate on what he was doing. Let his talent slide.
Did you fire him, finally?
Yeah.
How was that?
Not pleasant. It's never pleasant, firing people. But it had to be done because we felt we needed someone, and he wasn't there. He wouldn't come to the studio. He wouldn't do anything. We felt we couldn't go on. In fact, we came to a point where we couldn't play live. We couldn't hold our heads up and play because Brian was a total liability. He wasn't playing well, wasn't playing at all, couldn't hold the guitar. It was pathetic. Of course, now I suppose we would have had him admitted to rehab clinics and so on, but those things, unfortunately, in those days were not the path. He tried lots of doctors, but they just gave him more pills.
Do you feel guilty somehow about it all?
No, I don't really. I do feel that I behaved in a very childish way, but we were very young, and in some ways we picked on him. But, unfortunately, he made himself a target for it; he was very, very jealous, very difficult, very manipulative, and if you do that in this kind of a group of people, you get back as good as you give, to be honest. I wasn't understanding enough about his drug addition. No one seemed to know much about drug addiction. Things like LSD were all new. No one knew the harm. People thought cocaine was good for you.
I'm going to quote you something Charlie told me: "Brian Jones had a death wish at a young age. Brian's talent wasn't up to it. He wasn't up to leading a band. He was not a pleasant person to be around. And he was never there to help people to write a song. That's when Mick lost his patience. We carried Brian Jones."
That's straight to the point, isn't it? Whether he had a death wish or not, I don't know. He was a very sad, pitiable figure at the end. He was a talented musician, but he let it go and proved to be a rather sad precursor to a lot of other people. Why this should be, I don't know. I find it rather morbid, but it does keep happening, with people like Kurt Cobain. Why? Does this happen in accounting, too? Is this something that happens in every profession, it's just that we don't read about the accountants? I think the answer is, yes, it does happen in every profession – it's just played out in public with people like Brian and Kurt Cobain.
How do you think Brian died? There's been a lot of speculation.
Drowned in a pool. That other stuff is people trying to make money.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: April 2, 2013 10:03
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Doxa, you're not getting me at all. I'm not talking about writing, here - as Keith will get credits from Mick-songs anyway. And don't mix in solo guitars in this. The important guitar in MM is Jagger's, re making that song. It's not a question of double standards. Keith's sound would be more important for the band always in that era.
There is a mutual misunderstanding here, so we can't even agree to disagree...
I admit "Moonlight Mile" is not a very good example. Let's say, "Winter" would be much better, since Taylor's guitar is more prominent there, and creates a kind of musical atmosphere of its own within the song, which is very instrumental to the way the song works. But the moral of my original claim was that Taylor uses the original idea of teh song (which is Jagger's song, if not Taylor having some hand in creating it in the first place - the latter assumption is no important now) as his template, and we can very well say that he is doing "arrangement" by letting his own guitar imagination fill the space. What finally happens is that Jagger's vocals and Taylor's guitar seem to feed each other - impossible to say which comes first - making almost a duet in the final recording.
Anyway, the point was the way Taylor contributes there is not in any principle way lesser than how Keith contributes in "Brown Sugar". The issue who has more original output in the song - own ideas, creative force - is a semantical one. Also the issue if it is a "solo guitar" vs. riff/rhythm guitar is a semantical one. I would say Taylor is artistically even more contributive in quantity "Winter" than Keith in "Brown Sugar", who just works out Jagger's riffs and chords further, wheras Taylor creates counter melodies and themes of his own (not unlike Brian in "Ruby Tuesday").
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-04-02 10:15 by Doxa.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AllAboutYours , Dan , daniel t , gtx8834 , letitloose6 , Mr Jimmy , NICOS , Quique-stone , RollingStonesFan , soundboard , spidey39 , syrel
Guests:
1581
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10