Tell Me :
Talk
I would say that it was when Mick and Keith added the lyrics and blending the lyrics in with the basic melody.
Lyrical phrases suggest how the melody might end up.
I just think Satanic Majesties was like that because of the Beatles.
Gomper (which I've only just heard) sounds like a jam with weirder instruments and a few lyrics shoved into it.
Keith has been able to write things that have nothing much to do with the Blues but are more in a Folk way.
As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
etc
even Angie is pretty Classical and Folk in some ways.
Keith didn't start writing in a Folk way just beginning with Satanic Majesties.
Keith is a mix of Folk/Blues/Pop/Rock/Country whatever.
Keith listens to a lot of styles, yes even Classical and he knows about Wes Montgomery and Barney Kessel, the great Jazz guitarists.
Keith took Bach records to France when they were doing Exile.
Keith also likes Stanley Holloway and Mother's Little Helper and Something Happened To Me Yesterday are coming from that direction and McCartney with When I'm 64 and The Small Faces and some of their stuff are similar music hall stuff.
In the 60s they could do this strange stuff because the Beatles and others brought different styles into pop/rock, but not so much in the 70s.
Keith has a wide range and pulls things from them and makes a pop/rock song and that's an art.
Keith was playing Chuck Berry and Blues at the time he wrote "As Tears Go By" a totally different Folkish English thing.
This is one of the reasons why I think Ruby Tuesday is Keith's because it's in the tradition of Keith's English Folk stuff.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 15:02 by howled.
We simply don't know.
Forgot to mention, the stiff and incomplete melody demo version of Yesterday's Papers already has the lyrics.
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
It doesn't have all the ingrediants and IF the difference is because of other people they ought to have been credited accordingly.
We don't know how long it took to write.
They are: Jagger/Richards
Mathijs
We know he didnt. We know the waltz rhythm in We can work it out was George's idea. We know Ringo came up with the title Tomorrow never knows.
Wiki:
Title
The title never actually appears in the song's lyrics. In an interview McCartney revealed that, like "A Hard Day's Night", it was taken from one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms.[12] The piece was originally titled "Mark I".[7] "The Void" is cited as another working title but according to Mark Lewisohn (and Bob Spitz) this is untrue, although the books, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of the Beatles and The Beatles A to Z both cite "The Void" as the original title.[5]
When the Beatles returned to London after their first visit to America in early 1964 they were interviewed by David Coleman of BBC Television. The interview included the following:
Interviewer: "Now, Ringo, I hear you were manhandled at the Embassy Ball. Is this right?"
Ringo: "Not really. Someone just cut a bit of my hair, you see."
Interviewer: "Let's have a look. You seem to have got plenty left."
Ringo: (turns head) "Can you see the difference? It's longer, this side."
Interviewer: "What happened exactly?"
Ringo: "I don't know. I was just talking, having an interview (exaggerated voice). Just like I am NOW!"
(John and Paul begin lifting locks of his hair, pretending to cut it)
Ringo: "I was talking away and I looked 'round, and there was about 400 people just smiling. So, you know — what can you say?"
John: "What can you say?"
Ringo: "Tomorrow never knows."
(John laughs)
Yeah, I was only being general about if someone was not there then they don't really know, which was His Majesty's point I think.
If the cleaner at the studio says something and Keith turns it into a song, should the cleaner be on the credits?
Ronnie Lane got the Root-de-doo-de-doo off some person they were working with who used to go around saying it, should that person be on the credits?
Ringo also said "Hard Day's Night" and that became the John song and the film title, but Ringo is not on the credits.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 11:36 by howled.
What did Keith add in order to receive that credit? How do you know what he added to receive that credit? Is his name credited on that song simply because of a business agreement? How do we know the others, including Jack Nitzsche didn't help modify Mick's rough melody to make it more musical?
Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this, why not about other songs too?
3 possible scenarios emerge... Mick wrote it all, Keith helped or other people helped and the credits don't mention everyone involved in the evolution of the song.
Mick claims to have had nothing to do with the writing of Ruby Tuesday, yet his name is on the credits? He also said this:
Reporter: Who is the author of your songs?
Mick: No one of us in particular, and all of us at the same time. We usually sign Jagger and Richards but Brian is the one that knows music best and, in short, one cannot be distinguished by the other. We are all necessary.
What to believe? What ever you want and you might be right, but what ever is true shall remain so regardless of what we believe. Unfortunatley, actual conclusive proof is not available to us.
Specific examples help paint a general picture, but specific examples such as those posted over and over by howled may have nothing to do with other songs. What may have happened for, let's say, 80% of their songs may not apply to the remaining 20% etc etc blah blah blah.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 12:23 by His Majesty.
I think you're taking it way too far and make it way too complicated. Yes there's this Jagger remark that you keep posting, but there's dozens other remarks how encredibly gifted Jagger and Richards where as writers.
What I pointed out with this example is that this too me sounds like a song that is written within 15 minutes (antenna up, and there is the rough melody, simple chords and some lyric lines), and it also is an example that the credits are clear: Jagger. Richards either helped shaping the song, or added lyrics, or did nothing at all. But the foundation of the song is there, and unless somebody suggested a entirely new bridge or something the credits are a closed deal, even though they probably spent hours recording it.
There's some nice comments from Jagger, I forgot from where, but he mentioned that it was encredible in the '60's -he would sit down with keith in a hotel room on the road and together write 3, 4 or 5 tracks within one evening. The hits really came in easy.
Concerning Richards: a nice example is Sympathy. Clearly written by Jagger, but the One Plus One movie shows that Keith really was the bandleader at that time, conducting the band for hours into experiments on how to shape Jagger's song. Sympathy might have been Jagger's song, but without Richards it wouldn't be the track it has become. And that simply is the case with about all Stones music: without Jagger or Richards' involvement it just isn't a Stones track, hence the Jagger/Richards credits. But Jagger could have decided to take all credits. He wrote the melody, the chords, the lyrics.
Mathijs
The input from others, depending on what that input is, could be grounds for a co-writing credit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 14:34 by His Majesty.
Not necessarily. If they got an idea of changing the melody in the meantime, let's say, because of a hapsichord lick (not plagiarising that lick), they'd have drawn inspiration from that and created a new melody by themselves.
And you can only claim that they had contributed to the writing, if you've heard the song all the way through it's various stages - not by listening to a few versions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 14:30 by DandelionPowderman.
I said "IF", but very true and it also works both ways.
There is not one Jagger Richards credited song which we have heard all through it's various stages.
True, but IF they used something as inspiration, it wouldn't necessarily mean that others contributed to the song writing, either - like I suspect that some stuff did when they altered the melody line on YP
The 1967 Jagger quote, if he is being honest, merely tells us the group, with particular focus given to Brian by Mick, were part authors of the songs.
This in itself does not take away from "remarks about how incredibly gifted Jagger and Richards were as writers".
There are many possible variables, but we have not "heard the song all the way through it's various stages" so we do not know.
And Jimmy Miller produced Traffic and their 1967 hit Dear Mr Fantasy which is what Keith turns SFTD sound like. And then Miller suggested theyd change the song into a samba and someone obviously suggested they'd have similar solo.
At least it's not less likely than your assumption
Well-used chords, rhythm and melody way prior to Miller even thinking about his line of work in music
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:
howled
()
Date: March 21, 2013 14:50
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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.
I would say that it was when Mick and Keith added the lyrics and blending the lyrics in with the basic melody.
Lyrical phrases suggest how the melody might end up.
I just think Satanic Majesties was like that because of the Beatles.
Gomper (which I've only just heard) sounds like a jam with weirder instruments and a few lyrics shoved into it.
Keith has been able to write things that have nothing much to do with the Blues but are more in a Folk way.
As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
etc
even Angie is pretty Classical and Folk in some ways.
Keith didn't start writing in a Folk way just beginning with Satanic Majesties.
Keith is a mix of Folk/Blues/Pop/Rock/Country whatever.
Keith listens to a lot of styles, yes even Classical and he knows about Wes Montgomery and Barney Kessel, the great Jazz guitarists.
Keith took Bach records to France when they were doing Exile.
Keith also likes Stanley Holloway and Mother's Little Helper and Something Happened To Me Yesterday are coming from that direction and McCartney with When I'm 64 and The Small Faces and some of their stuff are similar music hall stuff.
In the 60s they could do this strange stuff because the Beatles and others brought different styles into pop/rock, but not so much in the 70s.
Keith has a wide range and pulls things from them and makes a pop/rock song and that's an art.
Keith was playing Chuck Berry and Blues at the time he wrote "As Tears Go By" a totally different Folkish English thing.
This is one of the reasons why I think Ruby Tuesday is Keith's because it's in the tradition of Keith's English Folk stuff.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 15:02 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 21, 2013 14:54
Byt then - re SATANIC MAJESTIES - it is not evident that it is especially a recording created in studio ot of spontaneus ideas, to be different than some other records. Bill Wyman surely at least had a finished song to record, and why would we think that Jagger and Richards' songs weren't any different either than earlier or afterwards - they just put more time to "fvck up" them in studio... And spontaneus jam like "See What Happens" basically is something they did under "Nanker Phelge" earlier...
I think the songs and ideas were just different than earlier, and they needed to put more energy in finishing them completely - as they would ever from then on. And being "different" - more ambitious, more non-traditional - was an experiment in song-making, which also resulted a year later Keith fooling with open-tunings, and making songs out of that experiment etc. They "deconstructed" the whole idea of a pop song in SATANIC MAJESTIES, and the original and mature writing style they adopted in BEGGARS BANQUET was a consequence of that.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 14:57 by Doxa.
I think the songs and ideas were just different than earlier, and they needed to put more energy in finishing them completely - as they would ever from then on. And being "different" - more ambitious, more non-traditional - was an experiment in song-making, which also resulted a year later Keith fooling with open-tunings, and making songs out of that experiment etc. They "deconstructed" the whole idea of a pop song in SATANIC MAJESTIES, and the original and mature writing style they adopted in BEGGARS BANQUET was a consequence of that.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 14:57 by Doxa.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2013 15:14
Quote
howledQuote
His MajestyQuote
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.
I would say that it was when Mick and Keith added the lyrics and blending the lyrics in with the basic melody.
We simply don't know.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: March 21, 2013 15:34
No we don't know.
But look at the Mick Ike and Tina Turner Brown Sugar video, where Mick hasn't got the verses into their recorded form and the verse lyrics are different.
Certain lyrics can tend to guide the melody in certain ways because lyrics/words/phrases tend to have an inherent rhythm/syllable thing that fits into a certain time frame in the melody and that can therefore influence the final melody.
There is a good account of this that I posted in page whatever of this thread where Lennon is trying to fit words and phrases into "With A Little Help From My Friends" and changing them around.
Lennon hooks onto a question answer thing in the lyrics, like "What would you do" question and then the answer follows and the answer melody resolves the questions melody and therefore the question answer lyrics influence the melody and how it resolves.
When Lennon and McCartney are searching for words and they can't find them, they la la their way through that bit just like Keith is doing.
McCartney la la's through a lot of Fool On The Hill because he didn't have the words to it and Lennon reminds him not to forget the song.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 16:00 by howled.
But look at the Mick Ike and Tina Turner Brown Sugar video, where Mick hasn't got the verses into their recorded form and the verse lyrics are different.
Certain lyrics can tend to guide the melody in certain ways because lyrics/words/phrases tend to have an inherent rhythm/syllable thing that fits into a certain time frame in the melody and that can therefore influence the final melody.
There is a good account of this that I posted in page whatever of this thread where Lennon is trying to fit words and phrases into "With A Little Help From My Friends" and changing them around.
Lennon hooks onto a question answer thing in the lyrics, like "What would you do" question and then the answer follows and the answer melody resolves the questions melody and therefore the question answer lyrics influence the melody and how it resolves.
When Lennon and McCartney are searching for words and they can't find them, they la la their way through that bit just like Keith is doing.
McCartney la la's through a lot of Fool On The Hill because he didn't have the words to it and Lennon reminds him not to forget the song.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-21 16:00 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2013 15:48
Quote
howled
No we don't know.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: March 21, 2013 16:02
I suppose we also don't know if Ringo had some influence on Fool On The Hill.
Highly doubtful that he did, but we don't know.
Highly doubtful that he did, but we don't know.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2013 16:05
Quote
howled
I suppose we also don't know if Ringo had some influence on Fool On The Hill.
Highly doubtful that he did, but we don't know.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 21, 2013 17:22
Quote
His MajestyQuote
howledQuote
His MajestyQuote
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.
I would say that it was when Mick and Keith added the lyrics and blending the lyrics in with the basic melody.
We simply don't know.
Forgot to mention, the stiff and incomplete melody demo version of Yesterday's Papers already has the lyrics.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 21, 2013 20:25
Quote
His MajestyQuote
His MajestyQuote
howledQuote
His MajestyQuote
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.
I would say that it was when Mick and Keith added the lyrics and blending the lyrics in with the basic melody.
We simply don't know.
Forgot to mention, the stiff and incomplete melody demo version of Yesterday's Papers already has the lyrics.
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 00:28
Quote
Mathijs
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
It doesn't have all the ingrediants and IF the difference is because of other people they ought to have been credited accordingly.
We don't know how long it took to write.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 22, 2013 08:55
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Mathijs
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
It doesn't have all the ingrediants and IF the difference is because of other people they ought to have been credited accordingly.
They are: Jagger/Richards
Mathijs
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 22, 2013 11:06
Quote
howled
I suppose we also don't know if Ringo had some influence on Fool On The Hill.
Highly doubtful that he did, but we don't know.
We know he didnt. We know the waltz rhythm in We can work it out was George's idea. We know Ringo came up with the title Tomorrow never knows.
Wiki:
Title
The title never actually appears in the song's lyrics. In an interview McCartney revealed that, like "A Hard Day's Night", it was taken from one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms.[12] The piece was originally titled "Mark I".[7] "The Void" is cited as another working title but according to Mark Lewisohn (and Bob Spitz) this is untrue, although the books, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of the Beatles and The Beatles A to Z both cite "The Void" as the original title.[5]
When the Beatles returned to London after their first visit to America in early 1964 they were interviewed by David Coleman of BBC Television. The interview included the following:
Interviewer: "Now, Ringo, I hear you were manhandled at the Embassy Ball. Is this right?"
Ringo: "Not really. Someone just cut a bit of my hair, you see."
Interviewer: "Let's have a look. You seem to have got plenty left."
Ringo: (turns head) "Can you see the difference? It's longer, this side."
Interviewer: "What happened exactly?"
Ringo: "I don't know. I was just talking, having an interview (exaggerated voice). Just like I am NOW!"
(John and Paul begin lifting locks of his hair, pretending to cut it)
Ringo: "I was talking away and I looked 'round, and there was about 400 people just smiling. So, you know — what can you say?"
John: "What can you say?"
Ringo: "Tomorrow never knows."
(John laughs)
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: March 22, 2013 11:29
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
howled
I suppose we also don't know if Ringo had some influence on Fool On The Hill.
Highly doubtful that he did, but we don't know.
We know he didnt. We know the waltz rhythm in We can work it out was George's idea. We know Ringo came up with the title Tomorrow never knows.
Wiki:
Title
The title never actually appears in the song's lyrics. In an interview McCartney revealed that, like "A Hard Day's Night", it was taken from one of Ringo Starr's malapropisms.[12] The piece was originally titled "Mark I".[7] "The Void" is cited as another working title but according to Mark Lewisohn (and Bob Spitz) this is untrue, although the books, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of the Beatles and The Beatles A to Z both cite "The Void" as the original title.[5]
When the Beatles returned to London after their first visit to America in early 1964 they were interviewed by David Coleman of BBC Television. The interview included the following:
Interviewer: "Now, Ringo, I hear you were manhandled at the Embassy Ball. Is this right?"
Ringo: "Not really. Someone just cut a bit of my hair, you see."
Interviewer: "Let's have a look. You seem to have got plenty left."
Ringo: (turns head) "Can you see the difference? It's longer, this side."
Interviewer: "What happened exactly?"
Ringo: "I don't know. I was just talking, having an interview (exaggerated voice). Just like I am NOW!"
(John and Paul begin lifting locks of his hair, pretending to cut it)
Ringo: "I was talking away and I looked 'round, and there was about 400 people just smiling. So, you know — what can you say?"
John: "What can you say?"
Ringo: "Tomorrow never knows."
(John laughs)
Yeah, I was only being general about if someone was not there then they don't really know, which was His Majesty's point I think.
If the cleaner at the studio says something and Keith turns it into a song, should the cleaner be on the credits?
Ronnie Lane got the Root-de-doo-de-doo off some person they were working with who used to go around saying it, should that person be on the credits?
Ringo also said "Hard Day's Night" and that became the John song and the film title, but Ringo is not on the credits.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 11:36 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 12:05
Quote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
Mathijs
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
It doesn't have all the ingrediants and IF the difference is because of other people they ought to have been credited accordingly.
They are: Jagger/Richards
Mathijs
What did Keith add in order to receive that credit? How do you know what he added to receive that credit? Is his name credited on that song simply because of a business agreement? How do we know the others, including Jack Nitzsche didn't help modify Mick's rough melody to make it more musical?
Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this, why not about other songs too?
3 possible scenarios emerge... Mick wrote it all, Keith helped or other people helped and the credits don't mention everyone involved in the evolution of the song.
Mick claims to have had nothing to do with the writing of Ruby Tuesday, yet his name is on the credits? He also said this:
Reporter: Who is the author of your songs?
Mick: No one of us in particular, and all of us at the same time. We usually sign Jagger and Richards but Brian is the one that knows music best and, in short, one cannot be distinguished by the other. We are all necessary.
What to believe? What ever you want and you might be right, but what ever is true shall remain so regardless of what we believe. Unfortunatley, actual conclusive proof is not available to us.
Specific examples help paint a general picture, but specific examples such as those posted over and over by howled may have nothing to do with other songs. What may have happened for, let's say, 80% of their songs may not apply to the remaining 20% etc etc blah blah blah.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 12:23 by His Majesty.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: March 22, 2013 12:23
The Jagger/Richards and Lennon/McCartney thing doesn't need to be altered for the occasional song from either one of them if they agree, because the songs are coming from either one of them or both of them and it was more like both of them in the earlier days so why bother changing it.
McCartney tried to alter some of the credits about 10 years ago or so, like Yesterday to just McCartney which I think was more of an ego thing rather than a money royalty thing, but he didn't when the Beatles were together, probably because the songs were coming from either one or both, so just leave it as Lennon/McCartney unless they were both obsessive about every last cent they could squeeze out of individual credit royalties or their egos wanted full credit.
Taxman is credited to George Harrison, but
In 1980, Lennon recalled in an interview with Playboy magazine, "I remember the day he [Harrison] called to ask for help on 'Taxman', one of his first songs. I threw in a few one-liners to help the song along, because that's what he asked for. He came to me because he couldn't go to Paul, because Paul wouldn't have helped him at that period. I didn't want to do it... I just sort of bit my tongue and said OK. It had been John and Paul for so long, he'd been left out because he hadn't been a songwriter up until then."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 12:29 by howled.
McCartney tried to alter some of the credits about 10 years ago or so, like Yesterday to just McCartney which I think was more of an ego thing rather than a money royalty thing, but he didn't when the Beatles were together, probably because the songs were coming from either one or both, so just leave it as Lennon/McCartney unless they were both obsessive about every last cent they could squeeze out of individual credit royalties or their egos wanted full credit.
Taxman is credited to George Harrison, but
In 1980, Lennon recalled in an interview with Playboy magazine, "I remember the day he [Harrison] called to ask for help on 'Taxman', one of his first songs. I threw in a few one-liners to help the song along, because that's what he asked for. He came to me because he couldn't go to Paul, because Paul wouldn't have helped him at that period. I didn't want to do it... I just sort of bit my tongue and said OK. It had been John and Paul for so long, he'd been left out because he hadn't been a songwriter up until then."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 12:29 by howled.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 13:05
Yes, if what Lennon say's is true he ought to have received a co-song writing credit for Taxman, but it seems he didn't want to help and probably had no concern about receiving credit for his contributions. Just further shows the credits are not something to get too reliant on as sources for who actually wrote everything within specific songs.
...
The limited information available to us can be taken to mean what ever you want.
There's various pieces of information out there to paint a picture of the 1965 - 1966 Rolling Stones functioning like so... Jagger Richards works in progress songs were knocked in to shape by the whole group and Jack Niszche at RCA and Olympic Sound studios. That although the credits say Jagger Richards and they were the main source for the initial song ideas, they were essentially group efforts.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 13:09 by His Majesty.
...
The limited information available to us can be taken to mean what ever you want.
There's various pieces of information out there to paint a picture of the 1965 - 1966 Rolling Stones functioning like so... Jagger Richards works in progress songs were knocked in to shape by the whole group and Jack Niszche at RCA and Olympic Sound studios. That although the credits say Jagger Richards and they were the main source for the initial song ideas, they were essentially group efforts.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 13:09 by His Majesty.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 22, 2013 13:08
"Everybody was being nasty to him, the engineers everybody. Brian would play on a number and then when we played it back they wouldnt have his fader on"...he'd try different channels and nothing would work, he got paranoid, Taylor started to play with us and then Brian stopped turning up.
Bill Wyman
Bill Wyman
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 22, 2013 13:15
Quote
His MajestyQuote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
Mathijs
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
It doesn't have all the ingrediants and IF the difference is because of other people they ought to have been credited accordingly.
They are: Jagger/Richards
Mathijs
What did Keith add in order to receive that credit? How do you know what he added to receive that credit? Is his name credited on that song simply because of a business agreement? How do we know the others, including Jack Nitzsche didn't help modify Mick's rough melody to make it more musical?
Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this, why not about other songs too?
3 possible scenarios emerge... Mick wrote it all, Keith helped or other people helped and the credits don't mention everyone involved in the evolution of the song.
Mick claims to have had nothing to do with the writing of Ruby Tuesday, yet his name is on the credits? He also said this:
Reporter: Who is the author of your songs?
Mick: No one of us in particular, and all of us at the same time. We usually sign Jagger and Richards but Brian is the one that knows music best and, in short, one cannot be distinguished by the other. We are all necessary.
What to believe? What ever you want and you might be right, but what ever is true shall remain so regardless of what we believe. Unfortunatley, actual conclusive proof is not available to us.
Specific examples help paint a general picture, but specific examples such as those posted over and over by howled may have nothing to do with other songs. What may have happened for, let's say, 80% of their songs may not apply to the remaining 20% etc etc blah blah blah.
I think you're taking it way too far and make it way too complicated. Yes there's this Jagger remark that you keep posting, but there's dozens other remarks how encredibly gifted Jagger and Richards where as writers.
What I pointed out with this example is that this too me sounds like a song that is written within 15 minutes (antenna up, and there is the rough melody, simple chords and some lyric lines), and it also is an example that the credits are clear: Jagger. Richards either helped shaping the song, or added lyrics, or did nothing at all. But the foundation of the song is there, and unless somebody suggested a entirely new bridge or something the credits are a closed deal, even though they probably spent hours recording it.
There's some nice comments from Jagger, I forgot from where, but he mentioned that it was encredible in the '60's -he would sit down with keith in a hotel room on the road and together write 3, 4 or 5 tracks within one evening. The hits really came in easy.
Concerning Richards: a nice example is Sympathy. Clearly written by Jagger, but the One Plus One movie shows that Keith really was the bandleader at that time, conducting the band for hours into experiments on how to shape Jagger's song. Sympathy might have been Jagger's song, but without Richards it wouldn't be the track it has become. And that simply is the case with about all Stones music: without Jagger or Richards' involvement it just isn't a Stones track, hence the Jagger/Richards credits. But Jagger could have decided to take all credits. He wrote the melody, the chords, the lyrics.
Mathijs
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:10
No, my viewpoint is actually very simple and straightfoward.
We know very little about the true evolution of specific songs from initial idea to fully complete final version.
We know very little about the true evolution of specific songs from initial idea to fully complete final version.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:21
<Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this>
It's possible to write a song by yourself AND alter stuff on that song later - with input from others
It's possible to write a song by yourself AND alter stuff on that song later - with input from others
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:25
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this>
It's possible to write a song by yourself AND alter stuff on that song later - with input from others
The input from others, depending on what that input is, could be grounds for a co-writing credit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 14:34 by His Majesty.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:29
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
<Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this>
It's possible to write a song by yourself AND alter stuff on that song later - with input from others
The melody is quite different on the final version, if that came about due to help from others they have then also contributed to the writing of that melody.
Not necessarily. If they got an idea of changing the melody in the meantime, let's say, because of a hapsichord lick (not plagiarising that lick), they'd have drawn inspiration from that and created a new melody by themselves.
And you can only claim that they had contributed to the writing, if you've heard the song all the way through it's various stages - not by listening to a few versions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-03-22 14:30 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:43
Quote
DandelionPowderman
And you can only claim that they had contributed to the writing, if you've heard the song all the way through it's various stages - not by listening to a few versions.
I said "IF", but very true and it also works both ways.
There is not one Jagger Richards credited song which we have heard all through it's various stages.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:47
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
And you can only claim that they had contributed to the writing, if you've heard the song all the way through it's various stages - not by listening to a few versions.
I said "IF", but very true and it also works both ways.
There is not one Jagger Richards credited song which we have heard all through it's various stages.
True, but IF they used something as inspiration, it wouldn't necessarily mean that others contributed to the song writing, either - like I suspect that some stuff did when they altered the melody line on YP
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:50
Quote
Mathijs
I think you're taking it way too far and make it way too complicated. Yes there's this Jagger remark that you keep posting, but there's dozens other remarks how encredibly gifted Jagger and Richards where as writers.
The 1967 Jagger quote, if he is being honest, merely tells us the group, with particular focus given to Brian by Mick, were part authors of the songs.
This in itself does not take away from "remarks about how incredibly gifted Jagger and Richards were as writers".
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:54
Quote
DandelionPowderman
True, but IF they used something as inspiration, it wouldn't necessarily mean that others contributed to the song writing, either - like I suspect that some stuff did when they altered the melody line on YP
There are many possible variables, but we have not "heard the song all the way through it's various stages" so we do not know.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:55
Quote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
Mathijs
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
It doesn't have all the ingrediants and IF the difference is because of other people they ought to have been credited accordingly.
They are: Jagger/Richards
Mathijs
What did Keith add in order to receive that credit? How do you know what he added to receive that credit? Is his name credited on that song simply because of a business agreement? How do we know the others, including Jack Nitzsche didn't help modify Mick's rough melody to make it more musical?
Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this, why not about other songs too?
3 possible scenarios emerge... Mick wrote it all, Keith helped or other people helped and the credits don't mention everyone involved in the evolution of the song.
Mick claims to have had nothing to do with the writing of Ruby Tuesday, yet his name is on the credits? He also said this:
Reporter: Who is the author of your songs?
Mick: No one of us in particular, and all of us at the same time. We usually sign Jagger and Richards but Brian is the one that knows music best and, in short, one cannot be distinguished by the other. We are all necessary.
What to believe? What ever you want and you might be right, but what ever is true shall remain so regardless of what we believe. Unfortunatley, actual conclusive proof is not available to us.
Specific examples help paint a general picture, but specific examples such as those posted over and over by howled may have nothing to do with other songs. What may have happened for, let's say, 80% of their songs may not apply to the remaining 20% etc etc blah blah blah.
I think you're taking it way too far and make it way too complicated. Yes there's this Jagger remark that you keep posting, but there's dozens other remarks how encredibly gifted Jagger and Richards where as writers.
What I pointed out with this example is that this too me sounds like a song that is written within 15 minutes (antenna up, and there is the rough melody, simple chords and some lyric lines), and it also is an example that the credits are clear: Jagger. Richards either helped shaping the song, or added lyrics, or did nothing at all. But the foundation of the song is there, and unless somebody suggested a entirely new bridge or something the credits are a closed deal, even though they probably spent hours recording it.
There's some nice comments from Jagger, I forgot from where, but he mentioned that it was encredible in the '60's -he would sit down with keith in a hotel room on the road and together write 3, 4 or 5 tracks within one evening. The hits really came in easy.
Concerning Richards: a nice example is Sympathy. Clearly written by Jagger, but the One Plus One movie shows that Keith really was the bandleader at that time, conducting the band for hours into experiments on how to shape Jagger's song. Sympathy might have been Jagger's song, but without Richards it wouldn't be the track it has become. And that simply is the case with about all Stones music: without Jagger or Richards' involvement it just isn't a Stones track, hence the Jagger/Richards credits. But Jagger could have decided to take all credits. He wrote the melody, the chords, the lyrics.
Mathijs
And Jimmy Miller produced Traffic and their 1967 hit Dear Mr Fantasy which is what Keith turns SFTD sound like. And then Miller suggested theyd change the song into a samba and someone obviously suggested they'd have similar solo.
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 22, 2013 14:58
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
True, but IF they used something as inspiration, it wouldn't necessarily mean that others contributed to the song writing, either - like I suspect that some stuff did when they altered the melody line on YP
There are many possible variables, but we have not "heard the song all the way through it's various stages" so we do not know.
At least it's not less likely than your assumption
Re: I wanna hear Brian
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 22, 2013 15:02
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
MathijsQuote
His MajestyQuote
Mathijs
As stiff and incomplete as it is, it has all the ingredients already of the final take. In my opinion a fine example of a song written in 10 minutes and just a closed deal as far as song writing credits go.
Mathijs
It doesn't have all the ingrediants and IF the difference is because of other people they ought to have been credited accordingly.
They are: Jagger/Richards
Mathijs
What did Keith add in order to receive that credit? How do you know what he added to receive that credit? Is his name credited on that song simply because of a business agreement? How do we know the others, including Jack Nitzsche didn't help modify Mick's rough melody to make it more musical?
Mick has said Yesterday's Papers was the first song he wrote by himself for The Rolling Stones. Yet according to the credits and you, Keith helped also. Why is Mick lying then? If he can lie about this, why not about other songs too?
3 possible scenarios emerge... Mick wrote it all, Keith helped or other people helped and the credits don't mention everyone involved in the evolution of the song.
Mick claims to have had nothing to do with the writing of Ruby Tuesday, yet his name is on the credits? He also said this:
Reporter: Who is the author of your songs?
Mick: No one of us in particular, and all of us at the same time. We usually sign Jagger and Richards but Brian is the one that knows music best and, in short, one cannot be distinguished by the other. We are all necessary.
What to believe? What ever you want and you might be right, but what ever is true shall remain so regardless of what we believe. Unfortunatley, actual conclusive proof is not available to us.
Specific examples help paint a general picture, but specific examples such as those posted over and over by howled may have nothing to do with other songs. What may have happened for, let's say, 80% of their songs may not apply to the remaining 20% etc etc blah blah blah.
I think you're taking it way too far and make it way too complicated. Yes there's this Jagger remark that you keep posting, but there's dozens other remarks how encredibly gifted Jagger and Richards where as writers.
What I pointed out with this example is that this too me sounds like a song that is written within 15 minutes (antenna up, and there is the rough melody, simple chords and some lyric lines), and it also is an example that the credits are clear: Jagger. Richards either helped shaping the song, or added lyrics, or did nothing at all. But the foundation of the song is there, and unless somebody suggested a entirely new bridge or something the credits are a closed deal, even though they probably spent hours recording it.
There's some nice comments from Jagger, I forgot from where, but he mentioned that it was encredible in the '60's -he would sit down with keith in a hotel room on the road and together write 3, 4 or 5 tracks within one evening. The hits really came in easy.
Concerning Richards: a nice example is Sympathy. Clearly written by Jagger, but the One Plus One movie shows that Keith really was the bandleader at that time, conducting the band for hours into experiments on how to shape Jagger's song. Sympathy might have been Jagger's song, but without Richards it wouldn't be the track it has become. And that simply is the case with about all Stones music: without Jagger or Richards' involvement it just isn't a Stones track, hence the Jagger/Richards credits. But Jagger could have decided to take all credits. He wrote the melody, the chords, the lyrics.
Mathijs
And Jimmy Miller produced Traffic and their 1967 hit Dear Mr Fantasy which is what Keith turns SFTD sound like. And then Miller suggested theyd change the song into a samba and someone obviously suggested they'd have similar solo.
Well-used chords, rhythm and melody way prior to Miller even thinking about his line of work in music
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bandk4011 , bitusa2012 , blusuede , chevysales , Domonkos , eibert , FloresMuertas , hj3009 , hockenheim95 , Irix , johnnythunders , Kevinstones78 , Mr Jimmy , One92 , perkmo , Putty , rolling1us , StonedRambler , wiredallnight
Guests:
2314
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10