Tell Me :
Talk
It's not.
THAT is the part many here on this board are missing, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 15:47 by DandelionPowderman.
We are not talking about arrangement parts, but contributions to songs, as in contributions to the melodic or lyrical content of songs. Or, coming up with ideas which kick start the writing of a song and make it through to the finished piece.
* If I play a partial melodic idea and Mathijs uses it as the basis for the writing of a song the origin of that partial melody should be credited to me because it is a contribution to the writing of a song.
* If I hear an incomplete song by Mathijs and add a bridge idea and maybe some melodic editing to a verse that is also a contribution to the writing of a song.
* If there are obvious melodic differences between Mathijs's initial humming to an acoustic tape recording demo and the finished release and those differences came from other band members then that song should have a shared song writing credit.
I think you are missing that most in this thread are quite aware that we are not talking about arrangement ideas which are added to already existing complete songs. The one's who keep bringing such things up are those who seem unable to accept that other musicians possibly contributed to Jagger Richards songs.
Heard the same about Keith wiping out Ronnie's guitar. Didn't Keith say something like - "I'm the guitar player in this band"?
And I guess you could take that to the next level and assume that their thinking is - We (Mick/Keith) are the songwriters in this band!
You're taking out fragments here.
You forgot: I Can Feel The Fire (credits: Ronnie Wood)
IORR: Jagger/Richards, inspiration by Ronnie Wood.
It's an untraditional way of handling credits, sure, but please paint the whole picture
So true carpet. Some people in business don't like any idea unless they are the ones who thought it up! Or as you point out, go the extra mile and decide to rip you off of your own idea...
I'm not disagreeing with your points, but they are merely theoretical. There are thousands of examples of, let's say a rhythm in a riff, a bassline, a drum pattern, a horn motif - being used for inspiration to write a song, without nicking it.
When you're not using the particular riff for your song, but rather let yourself being inspired by it (be it the rhythm, the harmonies, the combination of instruments etc), you're in a totally different situation than you describe. That's not even a grey area. The Stones are masters of stuff like this, whether "the antenna" is deliberately or subconsciously tuned in...
The reason I mention arranging, about Taylor in particular, is that it shines evidently through that that was his forte as a musician: to add melodic touches, not to write parts of, or whole songs.
I've never said that there was no possibility of other musicians being involved in the writing. However, I'm pretty sure it would be very few songs we're talking about, if that were the case.
<I think you are missing that most in this thread are quite aware that we are not talking about arrangement ideas which are added to already existing complete songs. The one's who keep bringing such things up are those who seem unable to accept that other musicians possibly contributed to Jagger Richards songs>.
I'm not missing that. I know that YOU are talking about possible contributions from others (and I have never said that this couldn't be the case).
But when people repeatedly claim that Taylor should have gotten song writing credits for Winter, Moonlight Mile, Sway or Till The Next Goodbye, I'd say "what did he do, did he do the things you mentioned above - or did he contribute with finishing up the song with arranging"?
Yes, theoretical, possible and very few.
My view is they probably wrote 99.5% of everything and it obviously is/was the best outcome for their 50 year career. Not taking anything away from them. At the same time, I just think they could have been more fair with some of their songs that are questioned here! After all these were their bandmates and not some fly by night session musicians!
Another credit - "As Tears Go By" (Jagger/Richards/Oldham)
"I Can Feel The Fire" was only on Ronnie's solo album I've Got My Own Album To Do - right?
Some cast of players supporting Ronnie:
[en.wikipedia.org]
Does the credit "inspiration" earn any money, I wonder?
Well, that's the thing I am interested as well. And like I said, I'd like to Taylor himself clear up his contribution to some songs - what did he do he thought to should have been credited (like the way Wyman did for JJF). I have always felt that the "arranging" thing is not a strong case to ask for a credit, and I am actually surprised if that is the reason some musicians complain. Or do they really? It sounds me to odd that any musician could to point to a finished recording, and say: "look, how great I play. Give me a credit of song-writing". They can't be so stupid.
So I tend to think that the complaints concern more the actual creation of the very song, and they doing something in it they find substantial. Does that happen in studio or elsewhere it doesn't matter. The ideas they ask a credit are not in its outfront but in it's constitution. For example, Jagger has said to have "written songs" with Taylor and Preston, and both seem to be bitter for not having a credition. Was that something like Jagger did with Wood ("It's Only Rock'n'Roll") and with Carly Simon ("Till The Next Goodbye") - both of which we have good testimonies - or was their contribution smaller?
The problem is that that kind of "private" creative process - especially a collaboration of two people - is damn hard to document. It is just people's own testimony - and words against each other.
Brian is gone. Preston is gone. Jimmy Miller is gone. Charlie doesn't give a shit, and I don't expect new revelations from Mick and Keith either. Taylor's account might give us a new perspective to those creative years, and an insight to Stones dynamics. I think he, for example, was more involved in creation than for example Bill Wyman was at the time.
Write the damn book, Mick!
- Doxa
The story of the painting from Charlie is detailed in Stone Alone (page 9). Basicly the Stones were settling with Klein for $2 million, but $1 million of that was to Mick/Keith for their songwriting publishing. The other million to be split between the 4 of them plus BJ's estate.
Bill did not like that deal and as a result, Mick/Keith paid him and Charlie an additional $50,000 each. Charlie wrote Bill a letter of thanks and gave him a painting for looking after him...
I don't think they softened up. As I stated before, if you can choose between working on Honky Tonk Women or Downtown Suzie what would you choose? From '66 to '72 Jagger/Richards where, with Lennon/McCartney the best songwriting team in the world, and simply impossible to get in between for mere mortals. From '73 on, the songwriting team started to show friction and the output of lesser quality, and from '76 on disco and black dance music became popular. Jagger was into that, Richards wasn't, and Richards is less of a groove music guy than Wood is. Hence Wood's songwriting credits on groove songs like Everything is Turning and Dance, and his influence on Miss You and Emotional Resque.
I think Wood was just the right guy at the right time. I can see at least a dozen Wood solo songs being on a Stones album, whereas I don't see any Wyman or Taylor solo song on a Stones album.
Remember what Jagger said when Wood was introduced to the press in 1975: 'Wood can write songs'.
Mathijs
Are you a musician ?
We never know for sure, but I think Mick will never write that book. Too many supposed contradictions have happened in the past. His book about the Stones has basically been written on stage. And he wants it to keep it like that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 21:14 by VT22.
Nice!
... And it is onstage where we got to see and hear what the stones mean to him. He was thrilled to be onstage with them again and what he maybe couldn't say musically he said with his body language.
I agree that as long as Jagger/Richards team was working perfectly, writing classics one after other, there was no need for "helping hands". Mick and Keith were not just productive but rather independent artistically. And interestingly, most of the questionable cases I have referred here - Taylor, Preston, C. Simon, "Only Rock'n'Roll - seem to derive from the time when the team "started to show friction". I guess the fact that Jagger started to make songs with other people has something to with Keith's condition - he was looking some other sources for "inspiration", or in helping to work out his ideas.
In that sense I don't think having Wood on board didn't much change things. Taylor was as much "the right guy at the right time" as Wood was. And he contributed in Stones' music to helping go to dimensions that was needed at the time. For example, the strong blues guitar to give structure to the songs, and widen up their sound to new landscapes, a'la "Can't You Hear Me Knocking", "Moonlight Mile", "Winter", "Time Waits For No One", on which Richards was more helpless and useless than in Woodie's "groove songs" Jagger was said to be fond of later. I really don't think Jagger saw Wood in any different light as he saw Taylor in giving him what he wanted. Another "sparring partner" who was there to support him. The fact that Woodie started to get later credits for some of his contributions was new, though (but I gave my view of that above).
I think the quantity of Wood's solo records don't say anything of his potentiality to be a profilic Rolling Stones writer. Any song from his is as crap as "Downtown Suzie" or any Wyman/Taylor stuff compared to "Sympathy For The Devil", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women", "Gimme Shelter", etc. I can understand some people like his easy-going "style", but there is nothing extraordinary qualitywise. Besides, as their records from the 80's on show, Mick and Keith could also write such mediocre stuff by their own, so Ronnie's contribution was not even needed any longer.
I believe that the very fact that Mick and Keith back at the day could write so easily so much great material was also the reason they get himself quite quickly to a position that they didn't feel like acknowledging other people's contributions. First they impressed the other members of the group and then anyone else co-working with them. Their body of work was simply so stunning, and not only one fan boy from Holland see them as "immortals", but also almost anyone else as well. I wouldn't wonder if the guys themselves also saw themselves above the lesser mortals, and having rules of their own. This is at least the "psychological" reason how I understand their rather harsh credition policy in the cases we have talked in this thread. Most of the people felt privileged to work with them, and were proud if their ideas were used in a Rolling Stones recording. And if it is your word against Jagger/Richards, what would you think what would happen?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 23:38 by Doxa.
Sure, although I was referring to the golden era.
Doxa got a point though. Taylor gave the Stones that boost, coming from different skills than songwriting only.
It was nice to watch him being emotional on stage - finally
Many thought the running around was too much. I liked it. His joy was contageous
Surely gave them a boost, but as far as song-writing goes, the strongest reason why I think he might have contributed also there, comes from Ronnie Wood who he sees - in quote above - his position similar to Taylor's, the only difference being that Taylor didn't have the persistance he had to get a credit. Surely Woodie wasn't there when Taylor contributed but I guess he still knew enough to talk like that.
Of course, there is a difference Mathijs mentioned in his post that Wood was already an established song writer when he joined to the band (Jagger's quote), whereas Taylor was "nobody" in that sense when he joined in. In fact, in this sense Wood differs from any one else in the band (Jones, Wyman). This also meant that probably Wood was more awere of how to deal with credits, and more competent to fight for his due. For a young, unexperienced guy like Taylor it really might have been difficult to fight for credits in those circumstances, taking the fact that he needed to face the world's second famous song writing team who most of the time he was with them, were still in the height of their powers.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 01:09 by Doxa.
I'd agree that from 1973 on, they were struggling for the "great song" more than before that and Keith and Mick seemed to go in more separate directions and then the Stones put out "Miss You" which was a new direction for them and I don't know if Keith was totally happy playing Disco and Semi Punk.
I only do the Stones up to Sticky Fingers myself and I think Exile wanders too much and after Exile I can't see much at all but I do like Angie and I think the IORR chorus is good but not so much the rest of it.
Mick said that there was a lull starting in the early/mid 70s that he thought might have been down to thinking they had done it all.
Mick doesn't think Exile and GHS etc were that great.
Maybe earning more money had an effect as well and just getting older.
If the Beatles had of continued through the 70s, then they might have gone downhill.
Can't keep it up at a high standard forever.
McCartney and his "Silly Love Songs" and other cringe like songs and Lennon gave it all up for a while and a lot of his 70s songs are less than stunning.
But, at their peak, some of the Beatles and the Stones were great and they had a pretty long run in the fickle world of pop/rock music.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 07:58 by howled.
The appendix of Stone Alone has some Klein / Stones agreements and legal papers. They had agreements then. Further, the story of Bill lobbying on behalf of the band to obtain a fair share of the songwriting royalties, makes sense in the context of a negotiation. I can't imagine that - with lawyers dealing with the matter - the result of this negotiation is not reflected in an agreement.
C
I need to say that you have a point there. I recall vaguesly that we had years and years ago a discussion of NAnker Phelge credition here, and some similar thoughts appeared. In STONE ALONE Wyman - I try to remember, don't have the book in my hands, so please correct me if I am wrong - that even behind that collective name there were different ways how to divide the royalties. The share each member get from Nanker Phelge song varied from song to song, and Wyman also noted some odd cases where Jagger could get a bigger share of some intrumental number whe contributed next to nothing (but less in some number he actually did more).
In a way this new "Jagger/Richard" deal Bill negotiated for him and Charlie might have some similar traits in it. Was it only altruistic behavior from Mick and Keith (to give 'boys' some money of the big cake), or was it their way to acknowledge the contribution the other guys do have for the tracks - even to silent Bill's (justified) criticism?
- Doxa
This is where I disagree a little. I dont think they had that cowriting songs as a duo thing for a long time, it was organized first by ALO but I guess they included the others quite heavily from the start, even if the basic song or idea was done before entering the studio. I also think Mick is the only one who brought some almost finished songs to the studio on occasion, like Brown Sugar. Sure they worked as a Jagger/Richards team in periods in the mid 60s.
I can see that, but what interests me is the actual procedure, the concrete case, not how credition should go in theory. Because it is some people doing those decisions, and it is their judgment which matters. And even if we might have ideals of what contribution is worth of credition and what it is not, it is always someone who uses his own judgment there, and makes the actual decision. In the case of The Stones, it is Mick and Keith. In some other bands, there are different policies, and like if we know in the history of the Stones, there are people who see the thing differently than Mick and Keith. Some poeple seem to think that Wyman is stupid when he cries for a credition. or Taylor, that they don't have a "right" for that, not even in the case if Wyman's JFF story is true. But what kind of authorities Mick and Keith are defining what is the "right" policy there? Like Mick and Keith know what an objective criteria is. I think that is a myth (even though we might have some ideals what that kind of criteria are, and surely Mick and Keith also have some). That¨s why I want to emphasize the very practical side of the things - not ideals. Some person(s) always decides these matters and uses power there. The fact is that Mick and Keith have a power to decide and it is totally in the hands of them how to see and rate teh contributions.
You, DandelionPowderman, probably are one of the people who decides these kind of matters in practise. It is probably your judgment you use there and, hopefully do the right thing in your crition policy, up to your best understanding, if there is a reason to give to credits to someone else, or not. Mathijs compared his position to Taylor's and was said to be disappointed that he did not get a credit for his contributions. But later he recognized - as he implied Taylor should do as well - that he was wrong. But someone made that decision for him (with which he agrreed on later). what I find intersting is that he seem to think there seems to be a "neutral" authority to decide these matters. But there is not; there are just random people using their judgment in some given situations. Always someone. For Mathijs that person - or persons - seems to be an authority who made a right decision. For many Jagger and Richards are seen to be such authority. Yeah, they are, but their decisions are based on some arbitrary judgement of their own, not to any objective "inner knowledge" from the base they can do no wrong. Some people here, I think, trust way too much to their "objectivity". That's the thing I have critizied here, or tried to show how "grey area" also that is.
So the issue is: Who is that person, the decision-maker, the power-user, and in which concrete situations those decisions are made (by whom, to whom)?
I give one striking example I am aware of Finnish rock history. The biggest band in Finland during the 70's was a band called Hurriganes. Straight-forward rock and roll (a big idol and influence of Hanoi Rocks, by the way). Anyway, the way they made songs was almost totally based on guitarist's musical ideas (the riffs, chords, etc.), and the other two - the bassist and the drummer-singer - were almost helpless in that area. They made an album called CRAZY DAYS (or HOT WHEELS I can't recall), and for a reason or other the guitarist did something the boss of the band - and the damn boss of the whole Finnsih rock scene - the drummer didn't like, and as a result of this the drummer - who boss-like decided these matters - to write him off from all the creditions in the album. Each damn song was credited to the drummer and bass-player. The guitarist, who had just joined to the most popular Finnish rock band, couldn't do anything, if he he wanted to keep his post... Surely, that's an extreme case, but it still has a moral that the "power" can be and is used, and its significance should not be under-estimated.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 13:06 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:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 19, 2013 15:41
Quote
liddasQuote
Doxa
I doubt there is any "official" agreement or contract in paper, I don't think that was not even needed, since that it was a result of certain development that has started from the Oldham days.
- Doxa
It is simply impossible that there is no agreement in writing.
C
It's not.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 19, 2013 15:43
Quote
MathijsQuote
DandelionPowderman
As for song write credits I have first-hand experience on how tough that world is, as well as how it REALLY works. I've tried to explain that on this board many times, but seemingly some guys here don't want to know, the assuming is way too fun.
Me too. I've spent hours and hours in rehearsal rooms and studios adding riffs, licks and solo's to songs that ended up without my name to it. I wasn't happy at that time, but now I understand better. When I listen to the very first demo of those songs, which are just a strumming guitar a a guy humming, the song was already there, no matter how many parts I add to it.
I guess there is some truth in Keith's 'antenna' story. A person able to write songs almost literally 'gives birth' to a song by picking it up with an antenna. You can dress the baby any way you want to, it will remain the same baby.
Mathijs
THAT is the part many here on this board are missing, imo.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 15:47 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 19, 2013 16:08
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Mathijs
Me too. I've spent hours and hours in rehearsal rooms and studios adding riffs, licks and solo's to songs that ended up without my name to it. I wasn't happy at that time, but now I understand better. When I listen to the very first demo of those songs, which are just a strumming guitar a a guy humming, the song was already there, no matter how many parts I add to it.
I guess there is some truth in Keith's 'antenna' story. A person able to write songs almost literally 'gives birth' to a song by picking it up with an antenna. You can dress the baby any way you want to, it will remain the same baby.
Mathijs
THAT is the part many here on this board are missing, imo.
We are not talking about arrangement parts, but contributions to songs, as in contributions to the melodic or lyrical content of songs. Or, coming up with ideas which kick start the writing of a song and make it through to the finished piece.
* If I play a partial melodic idea and Mathijs uses it as the basis for the writing of a song the origin of that partial melody should be credited to me because it is a contribution to the writing of a song.
* If I hear an incomplete song by Mathijs and add a bridge idea and maybe some melodic editing to a verse that is also a contribution to the writing of a song.
* If there are obvious melodic differences between Mathijs's initial humming to an acoustic tape recording demo and the finished release and those differences came from other band members then that song should have a shared song writing credit.
I think you are missing that most in this thread are quite aware that we are not talking about arrangement ideas which are added to already existing complete songs. The one's who keep bringing such things up are those who seem unable to accept that other musicians possibly contributed to Jagger Richards songs.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 19, 2013 16:12
Quote
DandelionPowderman
- Keith wiped Ronnie's electric guitar, and played a new lead guitar.
- They kept Ronnie's acoustic.
- Willie Weeks on bass
- Kenney Jones on drums
- Rumours say Bowie is singing, but I can't hear him in there.
- Taylor doesn't play on it.
Heard the same about Keith wiping out Ronnie's guitar. Didn't Keith say something like - "I'm the guitar player in this band"?
And I guess you could take that to the next level and assume that their thinking is - We (Mick/Keith) are the songwriters in this band!
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 19, 2013 16:15
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
- Keith wiped Ronnie's electric guitar, and played a new lead guitar.
- They kept Ronnie's acoustic.
- Willie Weeks on bass
- Kenney Jones on drums
- Rumours say Bowie is singing, but I can't hear him in there.
- Taylor doesn't play on it.
Heard the same about Keith wiping out Ronnie's guitar. Didn't Keith say something like - "I'm the guitar player in this band"?
And I guess you could take that to the next level and assume that their thinking is - We (Mick/Keith) are the songwriters in this band!
You're taking out fragments here.
You forgot: I Can Feel The Fire (credits: Ronnie Wood)
IORR: Jagger/Richards, inspiration by Ronnie Wood.
It's an untraditional way of handling credits, sure, but please paint the whole picture
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 19, 2013 16:18
Quote
Redhotcarpet
OK another (sorry for TMI) story from the carpet. I came up with a pretty good name for a small business in my field of work. A collegue loved it and told everybody about it. At a meeting two days later he told everybody about his great idea. Then a third collegue told me about what a great idea this guy had.
It's not easy to swallow your pride or find a diplomatic way to get recognition when you know youll sound like a moaning envious little man. That's what I read in Bills story about Mick and JJF.
So true carpet. Some people in business don't like any idea unless they are the ones who thought it up! Or as you point out, go the extra mile and decide to rip you off of your own idea...
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 19, 2013 16:37
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Mathijs
Me too. I've spent hours and hours in rehearsal rooms and studios adding riffs, licks and solo's to songs that ended up without my name to it. I wasn't happy at that time, but now I understand better. When I listen to the very first demo of those songs, which are just a strumming guitar a a guy humming, the song was already there, no matter how many parts I add to it.
I guess there is some truth in Keith's 'antenna' story. A person able to write songs almost literally 'gives birth' to a song by picking it up with an antenna. You can dress the baby any way you want to, it will remain the same baby.
Mathijs
THAT is the part many here on this board are missing, imo.
We are not talking about arrangement parts, but contributions to songs, as in contributions to the melodic or lyrical content of songs. Or, coming up with ideas which kick start the writing of a song and make it through to the finished piece.
* If I play a partial melodic idea and Mathijs uses it as the basis for the writing of a song the origin of that partial melody should be credited to me because it is a contribution to the writing of a song.
* If I hear an incomplete song by Mathijs and add a bridge idea and maybe some melodic editing to a verse that is also a contribution to the writing of a song.
* If there are obvious melodic differences between Mathijs's initial humming to an acoustic tape recording demo and the finished release and those differences came from other band members then that song should have a shared song writing credit.
I think you are missing that most in this thread are quite aware that we are not talking about arrangement ideas which are added to already existing complete songs. The one's who keep bringing such things up are those who seem unable to accept that other musicians possibly contributed to Jagger Richards songs.
I'm not disagreeing with your points, but they are merely theoretical. There are thousands of examples of, let's say a rhythm in a riff, a bassline, a drum pattern, a horn motif - being used for inspiration to write a song, without nicking it.
When you're not using the particular riff for your song, but rather let yourself being inspired by it (be it the rhythm, the harmonies, the combination of instruments etc), you're in a totally different situation than you describe. That's not even a grey area. The Stones are masters of stuff like this, whether "the antenna" is deliberately or subconsciously tuned in...
The reason I mention arranging, about Taylor in particular, is that it shines evidently through that that was his forte as a musician: to add melodic touches, not to write parts of, or whole songs.
I've never said that there was no possibility of other musicians being involved in the writing. However, I'm pretty sure it would be very few songs we're talking about, if that were the case.
<I think you are missing that most in this thread are quite aware that we are not talking about arrangement ideas which are added to already existing complete songs. The one's who keep bringing such things up are those who seem unable to accept that other musicians possibly contributed to Jagger Richards songs>.
I'm not missing that. I know that YOU are talking about possible contributions from others (and I have never said that this couldn't be the case).
But when people repeatedly claim that Taylor should have gotten song writing credits for Winter, Moonlight Mile, Sway or Till The Next Goodbye, I'd say "what did he do, did he do the things you mentioned above - or did he contribute with finishing up the song with arranging"?
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 19, 2013 16:49
Yes, theoretical, possible and very few.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 19, 2013 17:38
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
- Keith wiped Ronnie's electric guitar, and played a new lead guitar.
- They kept Ronnie's acoustic.
- Willie Weeks on bass
- Kenney Jones on drums
- Rumours say Bowie is singing, but I can't hear him in there.
- Taylor doesn't play on it.
Heard the same about Keith wiping out Ronnie's guitar. Didn't Keith say something like - "I'm the guitar player in this band"?
And I guess you could take that to the next level and assume that their thinking is - We (Mick/Keith) are the songwriters in this band!
You're taking out fragments here.
You forgot: I Can Feel The Fire (credits: Ronnie Wood)
IORR: Jagger/Richards, inspiration by Ronnie Wood.
It's an untraditional way of handling credits, sure, but please paint the whole picture
My view is they probably wrote 99.5% of everything and it obviously is/was the best outcome for their 50 year career. Not taking anything away from them. At the same time, I just think they could have been more fair with some of their songs that are questioned here! After all these were their bandmates and not some fly by night session musicians!
Another credit - "As Tears Go By" (Jagger/Richards/Oldham)
"I Can Feel The Fire" was only on Ronnie's solo album I've Got My Own Album To Do - right?
Some cast of players supporting Ronnie:
[en.wikipedia.org]
Does the credit "inspiration" earn any money, I wonder?
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 19, 2013 17:44
Quote
DandelionPowderman
But when people repeatedly claim that Taylor should have gotten song writing credits for Winter, Moonlight Mile, Sway or Till The Next Goodbye, I'd say "what did he do, did he do the things you mentioned above - or did he contribute with finishing up the song with arranging"?
Well, that's the thing I am interested as well. And like I said, I'd like to Taylor himself clear up his contribution to some songs - what did he do he thought to should have been credited (like the way Wyman did for JJF). I have always felt that the "arranging" thing is not a strong case to ask for a credit, and I am actually surprised if that is the reason some musicians complain. Or do they really? It sounds me to odd that any musician could to point to a finished recording, and say: "look, how great I play. Give me a credit of song-writing". They can't be so stupid.
So I tend to think that the complaints concern more the actual creation of the very song, and they doing something in it they find substantial. Does that happen in studio or elsewhere it doesn't matter. The ideas they ask a credit are not in its outfront but in it's constitution. For example, Jagger has said to have "written songs" with Taylor and Preston, and both seem to be bitter for not having a credition. Was that something like Jagger did with Wood ("It's Only Rock'n'Roll") and with Carly Simon ("Till The Next Goodbye") - both of which we have good testimonies - or was their contribution smaller?
The problem is that that kind of "private" creative process - especially a collaboration of two people - is damn hard to document. It is just people's own testimony - and words against each other.
Brian is gone. Preston is gone. Jimmy Miller is gone. Charlie doesn't give a shit, and I don't expect new revelations from Mick and Keith either. Taylor's account might give us a new perspective to those creative years, and an insight to Stones dynamics. I think he, for example, was more involved in creation than for example Bill Wyman was at the time.
Write the damn book, Mick!
- Doxa
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 19, 2013 18:02
Can anyone find where Bill references him negotiating with Mick and Keith to get 5% each for Bill and Charlie of their songwriting? Isn't this the reason Charlie gave Bill a nice painting? If this is true, I think it makes up monetarily for not being given credit on one or two songs. Unless it's about ego.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 19, 2013 19:00
Quote
24FPS
Can anyone find where Bill references him negotiating with Mick and Keith to get 5% each for Bill and Charlie of their songwriting? Isn't this the reason Charlie gave Bill a nice painting? If this is true, I think it makes up monetarily for not being given credit on one or two songs. Unless it's about ego.
The story of the painting from Charlie is detailed in Stone Alone (page 9). Basicly the Stones were settling with Klein for $2 million, but $1 million of that was to Mick/Keith for their songwriting publishing. The other million to be split between the 4 of them plus BJ's estate.
Bill did not like that deal and as a result, Mick/Keith paid him and Charlie an additional $50,000 each. Charlie wrote Bill a letter of thanks and gave him a painting for looking after him...
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 19, 2013 19:03
Quote
Doxa
I tend to see Ronnie's getting such a recognition not just due his "persistance", but also Mick and Keith "softening up", and thereby opening the shop a bit. Like I said above Ronnie "gained" of Mick and Keith's relationship getting worse and worse, and him being a middle man who could get on in both "courts". He changed sides, and was making songs with both of them.
- Doxa
I don't think they softened up. As I stated before, if you can choose between working on Honky Tonk Women or Downtown Suzie what would you choose? From '66 to '72 Jagger/Richards where, with Lennon/McCartney the best songwriting team in the world, and simply impossible to get in between for mere mortals. From '73 on, the songwriting team started to show friction and the output of lesser quality, and from '76 on disco and black dance music became popular. Jagger was into that, Richards wasn't, and Richards is less of a groove music guy than Wood is. Hence Wood's songwriting credits on groove songs like Everything is Turning and Dance, and his influence on Miss You and Emotional Resque.
I think Wood was just the right guy at the right time. I can see at least a dozen Wood solo songs being on a Stones album, whereas I don't see any Wyman or Taylor solo song on a Stones album.
Remember what Jagger said when Wood was introduced to the press in 1975: 'Wood can write songs'.
Mathijs
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: March 19, 2013 21:11
Quote
Doxa
Brian is gone. Preston is gone. Jimmy Miller is gone. Charlie doesn't give a shit, and I don't expect new revelations from Mick and Keith either. Taylor's account might give us a new perspective to those creative years, and an insight to Stones dynamics. I think he, for example, was more involved in creation than for example Bill Wyman was at the time.
Write the damn book, Mick!
- Doxa
Are you a musician ?
We never know for sure, but I think Mick will never write that book. Too many supposed contradictions have happened in the past. His book about the Stones has basically been written on stage. And he wants it to keep it like that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 21:14 by VT22.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 19, 2013 21:26
Quote
VT22
Are you a musician ?
We never know for sure, but I think Mick will never write that book. Too many supposed contradictions have happened in the past. His book about the Stones has basically been written on stage. And he wants it to keep it like that.
Nice!
... And it is onstage where we got to see and hear what the stones mean to him. He was thrilled to be onstage with them again and what he maybe couldn't say musically he said with his body language.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 19, 2013 23:15
Quote
MathijsQuote
Doxa
I tend to see Ronnie's getting such a recognition not just due his "persistance", but also Mick and Keith "softening up", and thereby opening the shop a bit. Like I said above Ronnie "gained" of Mick and Keith's relationship getting worse and worse, and him being a middle man who could get on in both "courts". He changed sides, and was making songs with both of them.
- Doxa
I don't think they softened up. As I stated before, if you can choose between working on Honky Tonk Women or Downtown Suzie what would you choose? From '66 to '72 Jagger/Richards where, with Lennon/McCartney the best songwriting team in the world, and simply impossible to get in between for mere mortals. From '73 on, the songwriting team started to show friction and the output of lesser quality, and from '76 on disco and black dance music became popular. Jagger was into that, Richards wasn't, and Richards is less of a groove music guy than Wood is. Hence Wood's songwriting credits on groove songs like Everything is Turning and Dance, and his influence on Miss You and Emotional Resque.
I think Wood was just the right guy at the right time. I can see at least a dozen Wood solo songs being on a Stones album, whereas I don't see any Wyman or Taylor solo song on a Stones album.
Remember what Jagger said when Wood was introduced to the press in 1975: 'Wood can write songs'.
Mathijs
I agree that as long as Jagger/Richards team was working perfectly, writing classics one after other, there was no need for "helping hands". Mick and Keith were not just productive but rather independent artistically. And interestingly, most of the questionable cases I have referred here - Taylor, Preston, C. Simon, "Only Rock'n'Roll - seem to derive from the time when the team "started to show friction". I guess the fact that Jagger started to make songs with other people has something to with Keith's condition - he was looking some other sources for "inspiration", or in helping to work out his ideas.
In that sense I don't think having Wood on board didn't much change things. Taylor was as much "the right guy at the right time" as Wood was. And he contributed in Stones' music to helping go to dimensions that was needed at the time. For example, the strong blues guitar to give structure to the songs, and widen up their sound to new landscapes, a'la "Can't You Hear Me Knocking", "Moonlight Mile", "Winter", "Time Waits For No One", on which Richards was more helpless and useless than in Woodie's "groove songs" Jagger was said to be fond of later. I really don't think Jagger saw Wood in any different light as he saw Taylor in giving him what he wanted. Another "sparring partner" who was there to support him. The fact that Woodie started to get later credits for some of his contributions was new, though (but I gave my view of that above).
I think the quantity of Wood's solo records don't say anything of his potentiality to be a profilic Rolling Stones writer. Any song from his is as crap as "Downtown Suzie" or any Wyman/Taylor stuff compared to "Sympathy For The Devil", "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women", "Gimme Shelter", etc. I can understand some people like his easy-going "style", but there is nothing extraordinary qualitywise. Besides, as their records from the 80's on show, Mick and Keith could also write such mediocre stuff by their own, so Ronnie's contribution was not even needed any longer.
I believe that the very fact that Mick and Keith back at the day could write so easily so much great material was also the reason they get himself quite quickly to a position that they didn't feel like acknowledging other people's contributions. First they impressed the other members of the group and then anyone else co-working with them. Their body of work was simply so stunning, and not only one fan boy from Holland see them as "immortals", but also almost anyone else as well. I wouldn't wonder if the guys themselves also saw themselves above the lesser mortals, and having rules of their own. This is at least the "psychological" reason how I understand their rather harsh credition policy in the cases we have talked in this thread. Most of the people felt privileged to work with them, and were proud if their ideas were used in a Rolling Stones recording. And if it is your word against Jagger/Richards, what would you think what would happen?
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-19 23:38 by Doxa.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: March 19, 2013 23:21
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
Are you a musician ?
We never know for sure, but I think Mick will never write that book. Too many supposed contradictions have happened in the past. His book about the Stones has basically been written on stage. And he wants it to keep it like that.
Nice!
... And it is onstage where we got to see and hear what the stones mean to him. He was thrilled to be onstage with them again and what he maybe couldn't say musically he said with his body language.
Sure, although I was referring to the golden era.
Doxa got a point though. Taylor gave the Stones that boost, coming from different skills than songwriting only.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 19, 2013 23:57
Quote
His MajestyQuote
VT22
Are you a musician ?
We never know for sure, but I think Mick will never write that book. Too many supposed contradictions have happened in the past. His book about the Stones has basically been written on stage. And he wants it to keep it like that.
Nice!
... And it is onstage where we got to see and hear what the stones mean to him. He was thrilled to be onstage with them again and what he maybe couldn't say musically he said with his body language.
It was nice to watch him being emotional on stage - finally
Many thought the running around was too much. I liked it. His joy was contageous
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 20, 2013 01:07
Quote
VT22
Doxa got a point though. Taylor gave the Stones that boost, coming from different skills than songwriting only.
Surely gave them a boost, but as far as song-writing goes, the strongest reason why I think he might have contributed also there, comes from Ronnie Wood who he sees - in quote above - his position similar to Taylor's, the only difference being that Taylor didn't have the persistance he had to get a credit. Surely Woodie wasn't there when Taylor contributed but I guess he still knew enough to talk like that.
Of course, there is a difference Mathijs mentioned in his post that Wood was already an established song writer when he joined to the band (Jagger's quote), whereas Taylor was "nobody" in that sense when he joined in. In fact, in this sense Wood differs from any one else in the band (Jones, Wyman). This also meant that probably Wood was more awere of how to deal with credits, and more competent to fight for his due. For a young, unexperienced guy like Taylor it really might have been difficult to fight for credits in those circumstances, taking the fact that he needed to face the world's second famous song writing team who most of the time he was with them, were still in the height of their powers.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 01:09 by Doxa.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: March 20, 2013 03:56
All of these (at the end of the post) don't credit the so called "inspiration" (or rip off in some cases).
It goes on all the time, and it goes on now.
Ideas and riffs taken from other songs, really need to be altered in some way otherwise someone might sue.
If Keith hears Bill play a riff and then alters it a bit, where does that leave the credits.
It's all a grey area.
There is really nothing new in songwriting and the same ideas that work in songs get repeated over and over again with some alterations.
A songwriter needs to disguise their sources a bit.
There are songs that just come into someones head like Yesterday, but that's based a lot on hearing previous songs as well, and the song just comes with the variation all at once.
One of the main problems when writing a song is not actually writing a song but trying to make the song a bit different and distinct from all of the other songs the songwriter knows.
I hear so many derivative songs around now and I can just about predict and name the chords and what the melody is going to do and what other song bits it was derived from.
At least in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was harder to hook on the song's derivation for quite a few songs especially with the combining of different styles ie Rock and Baroque, Rock and Folk etc but now it is very derivative IMO because there are only so many things a song can be until the songs start repeating.
"I Feel Fine" The Beatles, inspired by "Watch Your Step" Bobby Parker.
"Hotel California" The Eagles, inspired by "We Used To Know" Jethro Tull.
"Let's Go" The Cars, inspired by "Let's Go" The Routers.
"Black Night" Deep Purple, inspired by "Summertime" Ricky Nelson.
"Satisfaction" The Rolling Stones, inspired by "Nowhere To Run" Martha and the Vandellas.
"Creep" Radiohead, inspired by "The Air That I Breathe" Albert Hammond.
Albert Hammond took Radiohead to court and won.
I haven't even got around to Led Zep and there are loads of others.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 04:19 by howled.
It goes on all the time, and it goes on now.
Ideas and riffs taken from other songs, really need to be altered in some way otherwise someone might sue.
If Keith hears Bill play a riff and then alters it a bit, where does that leave the credits.
It's all a grey area.
There is really nothing new in songwriting and the same ideas that work in songs get repeated over and over again with some alterations.
A songwriter needs to disguise their sources a bit.
There are songs that just come into someones head like Yesterday, but that's based a lot on hearing previous songs as well, and the song just comes with the variation all at once.
One of the main problems when writing a song is not actually writing a song but trying to make the song a bit different and distinct from all of the other songs the songwriter knows.
I hear so many derivative songs around now and I can just about predict and name the chords and what the melody is going to do and what other song bits it was derived from.
At least in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was harder to hook on the song's derivation for quite a few songs especially with the combining of different styles ie Rock and Baroque, Rock and Folk etc but now it is very derivative IMO because there are only so many things a song can be until the songs start repeating.
"I Feel Fine" The Beatles, inspired by "Watch Your Step" Bobby Parker.
"Hotel California" The Eagles, inspired by "We Used To Know" Jethro Tull.
"Let's Go" The Cars, inspired by "Let's Go" The Routers.
"Black Night" Deep Purple, inspired by "Summertime" Ricky Nelson.
"Satisfaction" The Rolling Stones, inspired by "Nowhere To Run" Martha and the Vandellas.
"Creep" Radiohead, inspired by "The Air That I Breathe" Albert Hammond.
Albert Hammond took Radiohead to court and won.
I haven't even got around to Led Zep and there are loads of others.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 04:19 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: March 20, 2013 04:27
Quote
MathijsQuote
Doxa
I tend to see Ronnie's getting such a recognition not just due his "persistance", but also Mick and Keith "softening up", and thereby opening the shop a bit. Like I said above Ronnie "gained" of Mick and Keith's relationship getting worse and worse, and him being a middle man who could get on in both "courts". He changed sides, and was making songs with both of them.
- Doxa
I don't think they softened up. As I stated before, if you can choose between working on Honky Tonk Women or Downtown Suzie what would you choose? From '66 to '72 Jagger/Richards where, with Lennon/McCartney the best songwriting team in the world, and simply impossible to get in between for mere mortals. From '73 on, the songwriting team started to show friction and the output of lesser quality, and from '76 on disco and black dance music became popular. Jagger was into that, Richards wasn't, and Richards is less of a groove music guy than Wood is. Hence Wood's songwriting credits on groove songs like Everything is Turning and Dance, and his influence on Miss You and Emotional Resque.
I think Wood was just the right guy at the right time. I can see at least a dozen Wood solo songs being on a Stones album, whereas I don't see any Wyman or Taylor solo song on a Stones album.
Remember what Jagger said when Wood was introduced to the press in 1975: 'Wood can write songs'.
Mathijs
I'd agree that from 1973 on, they were struggling for the "great song" more than before that and Keith and Mick seemed to go in more separate directions and then the Stones put out "Miss You" which was a new direction for them and I don't know if Keith was totally happy playing Disco and Semi Punk.
I only do the Stones up to Sticky Fingers myself and I think Exile wanders too much and after Exile I can't see much at all but I do like Angie and I think the IORR chorus is good but not so much the rest of it.
Mick said that there was a lull starting in the early/mid 70s that he thought might have been down to thinking they had done it all.
Mick doesn't think Exile and GHS etc were that great.
Maybe earning more money had an effect as well and just getting older.
If the Beatles had of continued through the 70s, then they might have gone downhill.
Can't keep it up at a high standard forever.
McCartney and his "Silly Love Songs" and other cringe like songs and Lennon gave it all up for a while and a lot of his 70s songs are less than stunning.
But, at their peak, some of the Beatles and the Stones were great and they had a pretty long run in the fickle world of pop/rock music.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 07:58 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 20, 2013 11:04
Quote
His MajestyQuote
liddasQuote
Doxa
I doubt there is any "official" agreement or contract in paper, I don't think that was not even needed, since that it was a result of certain development that has started from the Oldham days.
- Doxa
It is simply impossible that there is no agreement in writing.
C
It's not.
The appendix of Stone Alone has some Klein / Stones agreements and legal papers. They had agreements then. Further, the story of Bill lobbying on behalf of the band to obtain a fair share of the songwriting royalties, makes sense in the context of a negotiation. I can't imagine that - with lawyers dealing with the matter - the result of this negotiation is not reflected in an agreement.
C
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 20, 2013 11:08
Still trying to make sense of "harsh" credition policy...
Like in many areas of life is a question of practises, and practises are based on habits of action. What I learned of teh way the Stones work, they rather little discuss things, but work rather "silently" - each does own thing, and the co-work goes with instinct. Keith Richards especially is a kind of guy who works intuitively, and there are reports of the other's trying to interpret his "body language" or face expressions to know how well it goes, etc. This is teh impression I have had from many books, especially of Wyman's. Wyman in STONE ALONE is vocal about not having even discussed with Keith for ages (in the context of Toronto bust I recall). The Stones no way are a "democratic" band where an open discussion reveals. Quite contrary. Wyman especially complains that many decisions, starting from ALO days, concerning the Stones came aout of blue for him. And as the years go by, and Jagger and Richards taking the total dominance and leadership via their songs, I guess less "open" the atmosphere turned out to be.
So I suggest that the credition policy also belongs to this habitual silence culture, and it is all up to Mick and Keith how to "decide" these matters. The rest can just hope for the best, or try to intervene in a "right" moment, as Wood tells us. It's not easy.
But if we think the situatiuon from the point of view the Glimmer Twins, who are laeding the ship, making a Rolling Stones recording is a helluva process, especially as the sessions turned out to be longer and longer. Lots of ideas and suggestions were offered and changed, but in the end it is the final product that is totally done in guidance of Mick and Keith. They, one could say, are responsible for it to be a Rolling Stones recording. It is their taste, intuition and sense of direction, and no one else's, how does that sound like. Taking the fact that the bulk of the ideas, riffs, song sketches, sometimes full songs, do derive from them and each application of any idea, played by any one is confirmed by them (including producer's suggestions - Miller and anyone else is also "working for them" and offering suggestions), it is easy to understand why they think it is "all theirs", and they want a credition of that. A Rolling Stones recording is their brain child.
I don't know how the credition practise actually goes. When that kind of decision is practically done, but I suggest that in the very last stages in finishing the recording, sometime prior its release. The Stones are not very pedantic even to document the studio sessions - who played and what - so I don't think making notes while making songs of who suggested something, is not the priority in their list. Especially under the circumstances of sites like Nellcote. (Besides, they as recording stuff, they really were true artists still at the time; it was the result that what interest them, not who made and what. The "business" side of things belonged to the other world. Like Wyman noted in the copy above, he didn't want to disturb the creative process by his credition remarks)
So if the actual moment to put the credits on paper is after the sessions are done, and the whole recording ready, it is up to Mick and Keith to "remember" the origins of the songs - or to put in more practical way: to remember if there was anyone else in the process that should earn a credit. I would say it is rather "human" to forget something in those circumstances, taken that still each song is practically their brain child, and in any case almost completely written by them.
It is from this base, we might understand some of their decisions. This is the way I interpret the odd case of "Ventilator Blues". It is a track from Nellcote sessions, right? A child of many of those jam sessions. Taylor wonders why on earth he deserved a credit for that (and I guess for not some other track). My suggestion is that Mick and Keith acknowledged that Taylor was contributive in those sessions, probably offering riffs, suggestions or whatever, and rather randomly decided to give him a credit for that one. Probably could have some other track as well, but the important is that they acknowledged Taylor's role and wanted to credit him for his contribution in those sessions. (That turned out to be the only time in Taylor's Stones career, and it could be that it gave him a wrong signal that he will be also in future more acknowledged in song credition, and he felt later disappointed.)
I could even also somehow understand Jagger's decision not to credit Carly Simon for "Till The Next Goodbye" from this base. It is within human imagination that he actually forget where the song came from. A human mistake. Of course another option, perhaps more plausible, is that Jagger used his status harshly and thought - as Carly would do - that he had helped her enough with "You're So Vain", and who knows in whatever nice things, that he had a right to "own" that song. Rock god taking something "back". A kind of similar deal, but not explicit, he had with Ron Wood during teh same (IORR). More psychological reasons: I suppose Jagger by that time was so full of himself that he actully might have thought that he had a right to do things like that - to use other people's ideas and make own songs out of them, or by help of them. He was Mick Jagger, for god sake, after all...
Anyway, I hope I made my point clear. Trying to see the whole credition policy from a "human" point of view, and emphassizing the practical side of matters. The truth is that I don't know the actual process - how they "make" creditions - but I tried to see as a kind of normal human practise.
Actually, I'd like to hear from people - Mathijs, DandelionPowderman - something of their experiences in "credition policy". How the process practically is done.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 11:25 by Doxa.
Like in many areas of life is a question of practises, and practises are based on habits of action. What I learned of teh way the Stones work, they rather little discuss things, but work rather "silently" - each does own thing, and the co-work goes with instinct. Keith Richards especially is a kind of guy who works intuitively, and there are reports of the other's trying to interpret his "body language" or face expressions to know how well it goes, etc. This is teh impression I have had from many books, especially of Wyman's. Wyman in STONE ALONE is vocal about not having even discussed with Keith for ages (in the context of Toronto bust I recall). The Stones no way are a "democratic" band where an open discussion reveals. Quite contrary. Wyman especially complains that many decisions, starting from ALO days, concerning the Stones came aout of blue for him. And as the years go by, and Jagger and Richards taking the total dominance and leadership via their songs, I guess less "open" the atmosphere turned out to be.
So I suggest that the credition policy also belongs to this habitual silence culture, and it is all up to Mick and Keith how to "decide" these matters. The rest can just hope for the best, or try to intervene in a "right" moment, as Wood tells us. It's not easy.
But if we think the situatiuon from the point of view the Glimmer Twins, who are laeding the ship, making a Rolling Stones recording is a helluva process, especially as the sessions turned out to be longer and longer. Lots of ideas and suggestions were offered and changed, but in the end it is the final product that is totally done in guidance of Mick and Keith. They, one could say, are responsible for it to be a Rolling Stones recording. It is their taste, intuition and sense of direction, and no one else's, how does that sound like. Taking the fact that the bulk of the ideas, riffs, song sketches, sometimes full songs, do derive from them and each application of any idea, played by any one is confirmed by them (including producer's suggestions - Miller and anyone else is also "working for them" and offering suggestions), it is easy to understand why they think it is "all theirs", and they want a credition of that. A Rolling Stones recording is their brain child.
I don't know how the credition practise actually goes. When that kind of decision is practically done, but I suggest that in the very last stages in finishing the recording, sometime prior its release. The Stones are not very pedantic even to document the studio sessions - who played and what - so I don't think making notes while making songs of who suggested something, is not the priority in their list. Especially under the circumstances of sites like Nellcote. (Besides, they as recording stuff, they really were true artists still at the time; it was the result that what interest them, not who made and what. The "business" side of things belonged to the other world. Like Wyman noted in the copy above, he didn't want to disturb the creative process by his credition remarks)
So if the actual moment to put the credits on paper is after the sessions are done, and the whole recording ready, it is up to Mick and Keith to "remember" the origins of the songs - or to put in more practical way: to remember if there was anyone else in the process that should earn a credit. I would say it is rather "human" to forget something in those circumstances, taken that still each song is practically their brain child, and in any case almost completely written by them.
It is from this base, we might understand some of their decisions. This is the way I interpret the odd case of "Ventilator Blues". It is a track from Nellcote sessions, right? A child of many of those jam sessions. Taylor wonders why on earth he deserved a credit for that (and I guess for not some other track). My suggestion is that Mick and Keith acknowledged that Taylor was contributive in those sessions, probably offering riffs, suggestions or whatever, and rather randomly decided to give him a credit for that one. Probably could have some other track as well, but the important is that they acknowledged Taylor's role and wanted to credit him for his contribution in those sessions. (That turned out to be the only time in Taylor's Stones career, and it could be that it gave him a wrong signal that he will be also in future more acknowledged in song credition, and he felt later disappointed.)
I could even also somehow understand Jagger's decision not to credit Carly Simon for "Till The Next Goodbye" from this base. It is within human imagination that he actually forget where the song came from. A human mistake. Of course another option, perhaps more plausible, is that Jagger used his status harshly and thought - as Carly would do - that he had helped her enough with "You're So Vain", and who knows in whatever nice things, that he had a right to "own" that song. Rock god taking something "back". A kind of similar deal, but not explicit, he had with Ron Wood during teh same (IORR). More psychological reasons: I suppose Jagger by that time was so full of himself that he actully might have thought that he had a right to do things like that - to use other people's ideas and make own songs out of them, or by help of them. He was Mick Jagger, for god sake, after all...
Anyway, I hope I made my point clear. Trying to see the whole credition policy from a "human" point of view, and emphassizing the practical side of matters. The truth is that I don't know the actual process - how they "make" creditions - but I tried to see as a kind of normal human practise.
Actually, I'd like to hear from people - Mathijs, DandelionPowderman - something of their experiences in "credition policy". How the process practically is done.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 11:25 by Doxa.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 20, 2013 11:47
The origins might not be of the importance you suggest - or at least not in that way, Doxa.
Of course, an inspiration would be crucial to a creative direction, but after that kick in the butt something happens. You're moving in your own direction, as well as creating your own stuff. A symptom of a process like this is typically that the idea that inspired you to start this creative process just isn't there anymore - it's gone, inaudible, and in cases it would be out of place - as weirdly as it seems...
The example above is given to shed light on how other people's ideas not necessarily is writing what the song turned out to be - and it is indeed different than stealing people's riffs, ideas, melodies or rhythm patterns - because the initial idea is still there - in a way unused.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 11:48 by DandelionPowderman.
Of course, an inspiration would be crucial to a creative direction, but after that kick in the butt something happens. You're moving in your own direction, as well as creating your own stuff. A symptom of a process like this is typically that the idea that inspired you to start this creative process just isn't there anymore - it's gone, inaudible, and in cases it would be out of place - as weirdly as it seems...
The example above is given to shed light on how other people's ideas not necessarily is writing what the song turned out to be - and it is indeed different than stealing people's riffs, ideas, melodies or rhythm patterns - because the initial idea is still there - in a way unused.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 11:48 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 20, 2013 11:57
Quote
liddasQuote
His MajestyQuote
liddasQuote
Doxa
I doubt there is any "official" agreement or contract in paper, I don't think that was not even needed, since that it was a result of certain development that has started from the Oldham days.
- Doxa
It is simply impossible that there is no agreement in writing.
C
It's not.
The appendix of Stone Alone has some Klein / Stones agreements and legal papers. They had agreements then. Further, the story of Bill lobbying on behalf of the band to obtain a fair share of the songwriting royalties, makes sense in the context of a negotiation. I can't imagine that - with lawyers dealing with the matter - the result of this negotiation is not reflected in an agreement.
C
I need to say that you have a point there. I recall vaguesly that we had years and years ago a discussion of NAnker Phelge credition here, and some similar thoughts appeared. In STONE ALONE Wyman - I try to remember, don't have the book in my hands, so please correct me if I am wrong - that even behind that collective name there were different ways how to divide the royalties. The share each member get from Nanker Phelge song varied from song to song, and Wyman also noted some odd cases where Jagger could get a bigger share of some intrumental number whe contributed next to nothing (but less in some number he actually did more).
In a way this new "Jagger/Richard" deal Bill negotiated for him and Charlie might have some similar traits in it. Was it only altruistic behavior from Mick and Keith (to give 'boys' some money of the big cake), or was it their way to acknowledge the contribution the other guys do have for the tracks - even to silent Bill's (justified) criticism?
- Doxa
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 20, 2013 12:32
Quote
Doxa
I agree that as long as Jagger/Richards team was working perfectly, writing classics one after other, there was no need for "helping hands". Mick and Keith were not just productive but rather independent artistically.
- Doxa
This is where I disagree a little. I dont think they had that cowriting songs as a duo thing for a long time, it was organized first by ALO but I guess they included the others quite heavily from the start, even if the basic song or idea was done before entering the studio. I also think Mick is the only one who brought some almost finished songs to the studio on occasion, like Brown Sugar. Sure they worked as a Jagger/Richards team in periods in the mid 60s.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 20, 2013 12:40
Mostly in the 60s it was Keith that wrote the melodies. They've all said that.
IMO, they would have to work as a team, to get the results they did. And that probably means that Mick worked alone, or with Keith, on the lyrics. I haven't seen any indications of Brian, Bill or Charlie coming up with lyrics to any songs...
IMO, they would have to work as a team, to get the results they did. And that probably means that Mick worked alone, or with Keith, on the lyrics. I haven't seen any indications of Brian, Bill or Charlie coming up with lyrics to any songs...
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: March 20, 2013 12:48
I think Gimme Shelter and Street Fighting Man and Angie and Ruby Tuesday (according to Keith) are mostly Keith songs and others are too.
Keith says he started to use Jumping Jack and Mick added Flash, so they just used anything they could think of for ideas and to finish things off.
If Bill came up with the JJF riff, then it might well have been forgotten after the jam as Bill wasn't going to turn it into JJF, was he?
Keith and Mick realized they had a job to do and that was to get original songs for the Stones to do.
Bill was trying to nail anything in a dress and Brian was off in his own world and Charlie would rather be playing Jazz.
It woke Mick up. He said, 'What's that?' I said, 'Oh, that's Jack. That's jumping Jack.' I started to work around the phrase on the guitar, which was in open tuning, singing the phrase 'Jumping Jack.' Mick said, 'Flash,' and suddenly we had this phrase with a great rhythm and ring to it."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 12:52 by howled.
Keith says he started to use Jumping Jack and Mick added Flash, so they just used anything they could think of for ideas and to finish things off.
If Bill came up with the JJF riff, then it might well have been forgotten after the jam as Bill wasn't going to turn it into JJF, was he?
Keith and Mick realized they had a job to do and that was to get original songs for the Stones to do.
Bill was trying to nail anything in a dress and Brian was off in his own world and Charlie would rather be playing Jazz.
It woke Mick up. He said, 'What's that?' I said, 'Oh, that's Jack. That's jumping Jack.' I started to work around the phrase on the guitar, which was in open tuning, singing the phrase 'Jumping Jack.' Mick said, 'Flash,' and suddenly we had this phrase with a great rhythm and ring to it."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 12:52 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 20, 2013 13:00
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The origins might not be of the importance you suggest - or at least not in that way, Doxa.
Of course, an inspiration would be crucial to a creative direction, but after that kick in the butt something happens. You're moving in your own direction, as well as creating your own stuff. A symptom of a process like this is typically that the idea that inspired you to start this creative process just isn't there anymore - it's gone, inaudible, and in cases it would be out of place - as weirdly as it seems...
The example above is given to shed light on how other people's ideas not necessarily is writing what the song turned out to be - and it is indeed different than stealing people's riffs, ideas, melodies or rhythm patterns - because the initial idea is still there - in a way unused.
I can see that, but what interests me is the actual procedure, the concrete case, not how credition should go in theory. Because it is some people doing those decisions, and it is their judgment which matters. And even if we might have ideals of what contribution is worth of credition and what it is not, it is always someone who uses his own judgment there, and makes the actual decision. In the case of The Stones, it is Mick and Keith. In some other bands, there are different policies, and like if we know in the history of the Stones, there are people who see the thing differently than Mick and Keith. Some poeple seem to think that Wyman is stupid when he cries for a credition. or Taylor, that they don't have a "right" for that, not even in the case if Wyman's JFF story is true. But what kind of authorities Mick and Keith are defining what is the "right" policy there? Like Mick and Keith know what an objective criteria is. I think that is a myth (even though we might have some ideals what that kind of criteria are, and surely Mick and Keith also have some). That¨s why I want to emphasize the very practical side of the things - not ideals. Some person(s) always decides these matters and uses power there. The fact is that Mick and Keith have a power to decide and it is totally in the hands of them how to see and rate teh contributions.
You, DandelionPowderman, probably are one of the people who decides these kind of matters in practise. It is probably your judgment you use there and, hopefully do the right thing in your crition policy, up to your best understanding, if there is a reason to give to credits to someone else, or not. Mathijs compared his position to Taylor's and was said to be disappointed that he did not get a credit for his contributions. But later he recognized - as he implied Taylor should do as well - that he was wrong. But someone made that decision for him (with which he agrreed on later). what I find intersting is that he seem to think there seems to be a "neutral" authority to decide these matters. But there is not; there are just random people using their judgment in some given situations. Always someone. For Mathijs that person - or persons - seems to be an authority who made a right decision. For many Jagger and Richards are seen to be such authority. Yeah, they are, but their decisions are based on some arbitrary judgement of their own, not to any objective "inner knowledge" from the base they can do no wrong. Some people here, I think, trust way too much to their "objectivity". That's the thing I have critizied here, or tried to show how "grey area" also that is.
So the issue is: Who is that person, the decision-maker, the power-user, and in which concrete situations those decisions are made (by whom, to whom)?
I give one striking example I am aware of Finnish rock history. The biggest band in Finland during the 70's was a band called Hurriganes. Straight-forward rock and roll (a big idol and influence of Hanoi Rocks, by the way). Anyway, the way they made songs was almost totally based on guitarist's musical ideas (the riffs, chords, etc.), and the other two - the bassist and the drummer-singer - were almost helpless in that area. They made an album called CRAZY DAYS (or HOT WHEELS I can't recall), and for a reason or other the guitarist did something the boss of the band - and the damn boss of the whole Finnsih rock scene - the drummer didn't like, and as a result of this the drummer - who boss-like decided these matters - to write him off from all the creditions in the album. Each damn song was credited to the drummer and bass-player. The guitarist, who had just joined to the most popular Finnish rock band, couldn't do anything, if he he wanted to keep his post... Surely, that's an extreme case, but it still has a moral that the "power" can be and is used, and its significance should not be under-estimated.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 13:06 by Doxa.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 20, 2013 13:27
For me there are two keywords here: Leadership and creativity.
- Why do a person become a leader, and how does he or she obtain his skills at that?
- What makes a person artistic or creative, and how does he or she utilise the skills?
I think the reason for someone to take the initiative to becoming a band's song writer lays somwhere in between these points. Once you've become a leader, you get authority and respect from the other members of the group. By now there is already a boundary for how to behave or what to expect when coming up with suggestions or ideas.
Let's say Taylor came up with lots of ideas to songs in his "soft blues"/prog-music style in the 70s. He would know by then how the band's sound was, and how his ideas would be welcomed.
Instead, he probably wanted to influence the band's sound more to his liking. His creative/leadership skills then would be to get his licks/melodic themes into the songs in another way - by using the spaces he got to influence the Stones's rock'n'roll with his stamp.
We've heard Leather Jacket from the boot-series "Ultra rare tracks", so we know that he wrote whole songs, that he got the band to play in the studio, but that wasn't released - probably due to the style of music wasn't compatible with the band's sound at the time.
Some people like to have their hands on the wheel. Very often, those persons are either the self-appointed or the appointed creative force of the band. They became that because of the initiative they took on.
Of course it boils down to judgement in the end. But before that, a pile of symbolics, power balance and initiative are involved.
Most important of all, WANTING to write a song, not just tossing an idea in - and taking it for granted that it will be used - is crucial, in addition to following the process from start to finish. If other people don't let you do that, you'll have to fight for becoming a equal part of the process. My guess is that there were people in the Stones who didn't want/didn't have the time to do that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 13:29 by DandelionPowderman.
- Why do a person become a leader, and how does he or she obtain his skills at that?
- What makes a person artistic or creative, and how does he or she utilise the skills?
I think the reason for someone to take the initiative to becoming a band's song writer lays somwhere in between these points. Once you've become a leader, you get authority and respect from the other members of the group. By now there is already a boundary for how to behave or what to expect when coming up with suggestions or ideas.
Let's say Taylor came up with lots of ideas to songs in his "soft blues"/prog-music style in the 70s. He would know by then how the band's sound was, and how his ideas would be welcomed.
Instead, he probably wanted to influence the band's sound more to his liking. His creative/leadership skills then would be to get his licks/melodic themes into the songs in another way - by using the spaces he got to influence the Stones's rock'n'roll with his stamp.
We've heard Leather Jacket from the boot-series "Ultra rare tracks", so we know that he wrote whole songs, that he got the band to play in the studio, but that wasn't released - probably due to the style of music wasn't compatible with the band's sound at the time.
Some people like to have their hands on the wheel. Very often, those persons are either the self-appointed or the appointed creative force of the band. They became that because of the initiative they took on.
Of course it boils down to judgement in the end. But before that, a pile of symbolics, power balance and initiative are involved.
Most important of all, WANTING to write a song, not just tossing an idea in - and taking it for granted that it will be used - is crucial, in addition to following the process from start to finish. If other people don't let you do that, you'll have to fight for becoming a equal part of the process. My guess is that there were people in the Stones who didn't want/didn't have the time to do that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 13:29 by DandelionPowderman.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , ab , Broesel2404 , cwalters , EJM , georgelicks , gibbi , hot stuff , josepi , liddas , LSTNT , Mabru , MJAGGER123 , perkmo , Peterdv , riffhard1860 , Roll73 , RollstoDRSC , roryg , snarf2014 , snorton , spidey39 , Stilllife09 , stonemac , Tumlin73 , TW2019 , UGK56 , wachterc , wiredallnight
Guests:
2221
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10