Doxa,

Vujadin Boskov, when he was the manager of Sampdoria, an Italian football team, once said "penalty is when referee whistles", meaning that no matter how clear a foul is, if the referee doesn't call it, it is not a foul.

Same for the "author" of a piece of music (or other art): the only thing that counts is if one can be considered so under the laws of a given jurisdiction. To be the "moral" author of a piece of music means nothing.

Every jurisdiction has its own laws.

In Italy the law is from 1941. It says that "author" of a collective work is who "organizes e directs the creation of the work", if the work is created with the "indiscernible and indivisible contribution of more persons" all of those who participated to the creation of the work are deemed to be considered "authors".

Similar concepts are in all the main copyright acts of the western world.

As you can imagine, in the context of a rock and roll group like the rolling stones, the distinction between the two cases can be extremely thin.

Yet the monetary consequences are extremely relevant.

This is why the people of the business are very very careful when they deal with these matters. To be able to exploit a certain work, you have to be 100% sure that no third party can raise claims with regard to that same work. And the only way to do so, is to clear out all possible issues BEFORE the work is exploited (for the obvious reason that it costs less).

Just think of the K.D. Lang credit for Baby.

So, once again, I think that the default agreement between the band members - that ought to be a professionally drafted binding agreement - surely reflected how the band "normally" functioned. On the over hand, the concerns raised here are referred to how many? 10/20 songs?

Now, I don't have any problem whatsoever in believing that in a number of cases (10/20/30?) the contribution of single band members to Mick/Keith's creative process was at least in the "indiscernible and indivisible" area.

In most of these cases, given the characters of the persons involved, I imagine that Bill or Mick Taylor didn't ask because they expected Mick and Keith to do the beau geste, and Mick and Keith couldn't give a shit because their head was in a completely different dimension.

But those who did have the nerve to ask (ron wood), received the credits.

C

Good one, liddas.

However, I think it's more to it than "having the nerve to ask". It would include overseeing the process and part-taking in it until the song was finished as well...

Well, in any group of people that works together, a pecking order usually establishes itself, read Lord Of The Flies.

If Mick and Keith were laid back then nothing much would have been done except more covers.

Keith has this image of some laid back drugged out dude but as far as music is concerned he's very motivated, or was at that time.

Mick is very motivated as well.

Brian and Bill and Charlie were more about just going along with things and they didn't produce much in the way of working on the songs, because sometimes the songwriting and arrangement and mixing etc takes a lot of work and Mick and Keith were mostly doing that and I don't think Brian or Bill or Charlie were into it that much, maybe Charlie was but not for songwriting.

Mick and Keith were committed to get hits.

It's very rare to get a hit if someone doesn't write for a hit.

Maybe bands like Pink Floyd didn't go for hits that much but Waters knew that songs drive the band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 14:21 by howled.

Thanks, Dandie. An excellent reply. Even I still see you a bit wandering in the middle of "idealism" and "realism", since I think you have very strong intuitions as a song-maker how the things should go. I am a bit skeptical to make generalations from such intuitions. But please don't take that as criticism, I just have a habit of trying to see things from a distance, and perhaps not having such clear intuitions. Just making observations, so to say...

What I really liked in your post was the way you linked the credit policy to leadership (and creativity). It is teh creativity, via song-writing, which sets the steps to leadership. And this is what exactly happened with the Stones. Mick and Keith took the leadership to their hands by giving them songs which bought them a future. They gained their "authority" (the role of ALO, of course, is important, but still in the end, it was Mick and Keith who did the creative work).

And is is that authority from the base they have lead the band ever since.

You give a good description of what you think Taylor was not a worth of credition, since his "whole songs" were not used (but of course, we wouldn't know, had they've been released, would he had a credition of them or not), and why you think Ronnie Wood's contributions are credited (which is coherent with Wood's own remarks). Probably that "wanting to do a song" is what differs Taylor from Wood, even though I find the expression a bit vague. Wood found a way to impress the bosses, by his "persistance" and "timing". Seemingly that works in a Rolling Stones world for a credition. Just stick around enough, keep enough noise and make sure your contribution is not forgotten. You are not basically credited for your ideas - even though they are needed - but taking part in the creative process, or at least following it, from the start to beginning. At least in some cases.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 16:45 by Doxa.

btw

I think Mick says Wotcha at the start of JJF, because it's a southern English thing and was used in Brighton when I was there in the early 70s.

"Watch It" just doesn't seem right.

To me, it's a bit of a joke with Mick saying Wotcha (Hello) to the listener.

Ian Hunter says Hello in Once Bitten Twice Shy as a joke as well.

Anyone got anything to say about if it's Wotcha or Watch It?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 14:18 by howled.

Yeah, great points, liddas.

Like DandelionPowderman, I tend to think Ronnie did more, and I think the way he describes the creative process, sounds plausible. But I would also add that also the bosses mifght have reflect something to effect, "okay, let's credit the boy for his persistence and loyalty".

But I still go to DP's description, because also there is some "grey areas" that I find problematic. Namely, how much does that actually differ from doing "arrangemnet" - I still find that "wanting to a song" a bit vague expression, and almost a semantic one. Finally, what is credited is for being active in "studio laboratory". And in many case it is many people - the whole band - which is active there (especially if believe Bill Wyman).

Another problem I have is the point Mathijs talked before, that of "antenna's out"; it is the song after all that reamains the same no matter how many alterations it goes through. So I think DP's description suits to some cases in the Stones working habits; when they start from rough sketches or even from a scratch (a riff or something), and develop the song from there. The cases I have mostly discussed in this thread are the ones that are somehow crafted before put to "laboratory test". Jagger's songs usually were/are more structured and finished before recording them in studio, and some of them he has said to be written - with varying testimony - with someone else. Of course, that co-work, in the very beginning of the creation, can be done in a studio as well. My picture is that the most criticism concerns that part in the creative process. Jagger - or Keith's - "whole songs" are not so autonomous creations sometimes.

It could be the legal matter liddas made a point that what happens in studio is more sesnsitive for legal matters than what happens outside of it. They must be more careful in that. This would explain for example, why both Jagger and Richards are willing to credit people from their other projects (Jordan, Leavell, etc.) if they use stuff from those sesssions for the Stones, since they probably have some contractual obligations of those sessions.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-20 15:00 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Yeah, great points, liddas.

Like DandelionPowderman, I tend to think Ronnie did more, and I think the way he describes the creative process, sounds plausible. But I would also add that also the bosses mifght have reflect something to effect, "okay, let's credit the boy for his persistence and loyalty".

But I still go to DP's description, because also there is some "grey areas" that I find problematic. Namely, how much does that actually differ from doing "arrangemnet" - I still find that "wanting to a song" a bit vague expression, and almost a semantic one. Finally, what is credited is for being active in "studio laboratory". And in many case it is many people - the whole band - which is active there (especially if believe Bill Wyman).

Another problem I have is the point Mathijs talked before, that of "antenna's out"; it is the song after all that reamains the same no matter how many alterations it goes through. So I think DP's description suits to some cases in the Stones working habits; when they start from rough sketches or even from a scratch (a riff or something), and develop the song from there. The cases I have mostly discussed in this thread are the ones that are somehow crafted before put to "laboratory test". Jagger's songs usually were/are more structured and finished before recording them in studio, and some of them he has said to be written - with varying testimony - with someone else. Of course, that co-work, in the very beginning of the creation, can be done in a studio as well. My picture is that the most criticism concerns that part in the creative process. Jagger - or Keith's - "whole songs" are not so autonomous creations sometimes.

It could be the legal matter liddas made a point that what happens in studio is more sesnsitive for legal matters than what happens outside of it. They must be more careful in that. This would explain for example, why both Jagger and Richards are willing to credit people from their other projects (Jordan, Leavell, etc.) if they use stuff from those sesssions for the Stones, since they probably have some contractual obligations of those sessions.

- Doxa

By "wanting" to be included in the song writing process, I mean taking on responsibility for the song being finalised - not only with the input that you created included - but also quality-wise. You're there in the process, not just as an observer, but as an important part of the process.

My guess is that Ronnie contributed with rather large parts of the songs, for instance both the lead riff, as well as bridges/middle eights + maybe some words for the choruses. The parts were probably crucial for the song, and he wanted to make sure that his parts, not only made the finalised song, but also mentioned them in conversations - discussing what they did to the song. If memory serves Black Limousine is a good example of this, even though he knicked the lick from Jimmie Reed in the first place

It could very well be that Ronnie got credits because things were so bad between Mick and Keith in the late 70s and in the 80s. If they felt they lost Taylor due to lack of credits and already had a rep. as the toughest oldest money driven pro's. With Mick following trends and open to co-work with anybody who will help him maintain his position, then maybe they/Mick had to loosen up.

Quote
howled
Well, in any group of people that works together, a pecking order usually establishes itself, read Lord Of The Flies.

If Mick and Keith were laid back then nothing much would have been done except more covers.

Keith has this image of some laid back drugged out dude but as far as music is concerned he's very motivated, or was at that time.

Mick is very motivated as well.

Brian and Bill and Charlie were more about just going along with things and they didn't produce much in the way of working on the songs, because sometimes the songwriting and arrangement and mixing etc takes a lot of work and Mick and Keith were mostly doing that and I don't think Brian or Bill or Charlie were into it that much, maybe Charlie was but not for songwriting.

Mick and Keith were committed to get hits.

It's very rare to get a hit if someone doesn't write for a hit.

Maybe bands like Pink Floyd didn't go for hits that much but Waters knew that songs drive the band.

True! Mick and Keith not only did the majority of the writing they also arranged, mixed and produced the music to varying degrees as well.

I think Brian's vision of the band was musically achieved as early as the IBC demos and success wise(spreading the R&B word) when they got to No.1 with Little Red Rooster.

Anything more than that was essentially song writing of Mick and Keith with the unique arrangements by the whole band and associated key session players. It speaks volumes that gradually it ended up just being Mick and Keith along with ALO, later Jimmy Miller etc that bothered to turn up for mixing sessions etc.

They were all in it together arrangement wise, but even there it's only really Mick and Keith who saw the songs through from beginning to end, even Bill's In Another Land as he didn't, as far as I am aware, attend final mixing in New York in late 1967.

...

We have probably spent more time talking about these possible ideas by the other stones than the other stones spent on writing and putting across these possible ideas.

<We have probably spent more time talking about these possible ideas by the other stones than the other stones spent on writing and putting across these possible ideas>

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<We have probably spent more time talking about these possible ideas by the other stones than the other stones spent on writing and putting across these possible ideas>

But at least we don't need to face Jagger/Richards to get a credit...

(Thanks, Dandie, for the explication in your last post. Makes sense.)

- Doxa

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<We have probably spent more time talking about these possible ideas by the other stones than the other stones spent on writing and putting across these possible ideas>

But at least we don't need to face Jagger/Richards to get a credit...

(Thanks, Dandie, for the explication in your last post. Makes sense.)

- Doxa

- Doxa

I would gladly accept having a few of my little ideas go uncredited whilst the two main characters take the majority of the work load in order to keep being in The Rolling Stones of the 1960's.

Being great at arranging music, which Jones and Taylor were, is a creative ability/craft in itself, many make very a satisfying career out of it.

I suppose the grass is always greener.

They sure were. Then again, did they really complain that much?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They sure were. Then again, did they really complain that much?

LOL - We're complaining more than they were....

Quote
His Majesty

We have probably spent more time talking about these possible ideas by the other stones than the other stones spent on writing and putting across these possible ideas.

I am sure about it. I think that especially in the 60's it took them 15 minutes to write the singles and the albums, and that there simply was no possibility or time to add something by Jones and Wyman.

Mathijs

There would have been a window of oppurtunity during their usual marathon 12 hour recording sessions RCA and Olympic Studios.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty

We have probably spent more time talking about these possible ideas by the other stones than the other stones spent on writing and putting across these possible ideas.

I am sure about it. I think that especially in the 60's it took them 15 minutes to write the singles and the albums, and that there simply was no possibility or time to add something by Jones and Wyman.

Mathijs

The Satanic recordings were probably somewhat different...

Journalist Keith Altham visited these sessions. Here are some interesting excerpts from his observations: (NME, September 16, 1967)

He (=Mick) played me one of their new compositions, She Comes In Colours, which is augmented by strings, for inclusion on the next album,
and a 15-minute backing track where guitars, piano, tambourine, tom-toms, bass and drums are trown together to provide what Brian calls "India with a touch of the Arabian Nights!"
As Brian left the control room, sound engineer Glyn Johns extolled the Stones musicianship.
"Brian´s incredible," he said, "did you hear that harp on the last track - he played that - just picked it up in the studio."
A backing track was laid down and the Stones set about making music with Brian isolated in one portion of the studio playing tom-toms.
A great deal of their music is produced spontaneously in the studio as they improvise on a theme or idea that one or the other has created.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 12:36 by rootsman.

It probably was, on Satanic in particular.

Quote
His Majesty
There would have been a window of oppurtunity during their usual marathon 12 hour recording sessions RCA and Olympic Studios.

What I meant was that for most tracks the basic melody and chord structure was written in 15 minutes. Take Dandelion -there's this famous take with Richards singing and playing it as 'Sometimes Happy Sometimes Blue'. I bet he wrote that in 10 minutes, and all that makes the song is already there. Melody, chords, bridge, everything. I also bet they they then used marathon sessions to get the final take.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty
There would have been a window of oppurtunity during their usual marathon 12 hour recording sessions RCA and Olympic Studios.

What I meant was that for most tracks the basic melody and chord structure was written in 15 minutes. Take Dandelion -there's this famous take with Richards singing and playing it as 'Sometimes Happy Sometimes Blue'. I bet he wrote that in 10 minutes, and all that makes the song is already there. Melody, chords, bridge, everything. I also bet they they then used marathon sessions to get the final take.

Mathijs

Ps there's the same kind of outtake of Who Wants Yesterdays Papers. All is already there, in what possibly is one of the first run-throughs.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

What a joy to listen. The melody sounds so fresh and natural. One can almost hear how damn innovative Keith was at the time - how easily the ideas and melodies derive from his head. Just switch the antenna on, and here we go... What is striking in those early days is how musical it was in traditional sense. It was really a chords and melody - the times to make songs out of riffs or guitar experiments - and probaly have more 'focus' in stylewise was still in future. Especially in 1966//early 67 Keith's musical imagination did not have boundaries. I suppose Keith's central position he took in the band was based on that natural song-writing ability. It is impressive. I don't anyone of them ever could make songs as naturally as he did at the time. Jagger learned to make songs but I never hear that "natural", "unforced" touch what Keith had in the early days.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

What a joy to listen. The melody sounds so fresh and natural. One can almost hear how damn innovative Keith was at the time - how easily the ideas and melodies derive from his head. Just switch the antenna on, and here we go... What is striking in those early days is how musical it was in traditional sense. It was really a chords and melody - the times to make songs out of riffs or guitar experiments - and probaly have more 'focus' in stylewise was still in future. Especially in 1966//early 67 Keith's musical imagination did not have boundaries. I suppose Keith's central position he took in the band was based on that natural song-writing ability. It is impressive. I don't anyone of them ever could make songs as naturally as he did at the time. Jagger learned to make songs but I never hear that "natural", "unforced" touch what Keith had in the early days.

- Doxa

I agree, totally! Too bad lots of people tend to "forget" this

However, in a way, this is also riffing. The difference is that it's more melodic, and very, very suitable as the main melody

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It probably was, on Satanic in particular.

Yeah, but SATANIC MAJESTIES sessions became a model to record from then on. The material was different but the experimmental - laboratory-like - way to work was the forte they constructed the following masterpieces. I tend to think that SATANIC MAJESTIES was also a kind of rehearsal of the 'new method', which was developed a bit. In many ways I see more conitunuity between BEGGARS and SATANIC MAJESTIES than with SATANIC MAJESTIES and BETWEEN THE BUTTONS.

In a way Bill's description of the origin of JJF riff can be located to the SATANIC MAJESTIES-kind of atmosphere they were then used to.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

However, in a way, this is also riffing. The difference is that it's more melodic, and very, very suitable as the main melody

Yeah, he is getting there... a work in process..

- Doxa

Well, I think there is a difference between the long, psychedelic jams - where people seemingly were allowed to try anything (instruments etc) - and the Pathe Marconi-stuff, where the band played a groove for 10 minutes (Whip, Miss You, Gold etc.).

On the latter, the chords and the structure were more simpler - it was more about getting the right three minutes on tape, and get Mick to write the lyrics. If memory serves, Chris Kimsey said a lot about these sessions, and how they worked, in interviews...

For the IORR-session, for instance, the approach was different. The songs were often ready, but had to be repeatedly played, until Keith was happy with the take.

So I guess they're going a little back and forth, developing their working routines along the way...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I meant another outtake, with just guitar and drums and Jagger singing the song to the band, quite off-key at times. It's on Time Trip 4.

Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Well, I think there is a difference between the long, psychedelic jams - where people seemingly were allowed to try anything (instruments etc) - and the Pathe Marconi-stuff, where the band played a groove for 10 minutes (Whip, Miss You, Gold etc.).

On the latter, the chords and the structure were more simpler - it was more about getting the right three minutes on tape, and get Mick to write the lyrics. If memory serves, Chris Kimsey said a lot about these sessions, and how they worked, in interviews...

For the IORR-session, for instance, the approach was different. The songs were often ready, but had to be repeatedly played, until Keith was happy with the take.

So I guess they're going a little back and forth, developing their working routines along the way...

Surely there was differences, but I see SATANIC MAJESTIES as a necessary experiment, which they over-did. They really were "free-going", and found later more focused, and probably more traditional ways to record (as their songs would sound as well). Of course, having a proper producer helped to have some discipline. They were learning all the time, but even though they rejected something of it, I think SATANIC MAJESTIES set a template for the following records, and for example, Keith Richards took that opportunity of how to create a song, sometimes even from a scratch, no matter how much it takes, to his heart. In the long run, I suppose the result was Keith had the habit of having rather unstructured, minimal ideas with which he would enter the studio, whereas earlier his songs were more complete. But like you pointed out, his songs also started to be more simpler structure-wise, and more energy was used to get them "right".

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 14:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Mathijs


Ps there's the same kind of outtake of Who Wants Yesterdays Papers. All is already there, in what possibly is one of the first run-throughs.

The melody is far more stiff and incomplete on that run through version, it gets changed for the final released take.

We do not know how that change came about which brings us back to the circular debate about the possibility of the others contributing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 14:32 by His Majesty.