Quote
Mathijs
I mean, they have spent months and months writing songs together, so how can we be sure who wrote what, unless it is specifically mentioned in an interview?

Technically, you're right Mathijs. Maybe Keith had a bigger part in writing these songs than has generally been accepted. There's absolutely no way of knowing how most Stones songs have been written because there's no real info to back up any sorts of claims. In the end, we have to accept the legal confirmation of "Jagger/Richards" as the only legitimate proof of who the songwriters of Rolling Stones music are. BUT, with that said, I will add that in songs like Sway and 100 Years Ago, MT's contributions are huge and fantastic, and I will leave it at that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-30 16:37 by neptune.

Quote
71Tele
Keith got credit for Sway just like Lennon got credit for "Yesterday" - they had a joint songwriting/publishing partnership, both names are on songs by either writer or both. In terms of recorders and sitars (as well as guitar solos for that matter): No matter how good a part is or what it "contributes" to the recording, it does not entitle one to songwriting (composing) credit. If someone were to record Ruby Tuesday with no recorder, it's still the same song, just a different arrangement. Arrangements and parts are completely different from composing, i.e. creating the song.

I know that. It still doesn't make it fair and right.

Quote
Reagan
Before this ends, how about a quick nod to Charlie's drumming during the "you're gonna kiss these days goodbye" part? He rocks it.

is that the lyric mick sings over the ending jam? I never figured that out.

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele
Keith got credit for Sway just like Lennon got credit for "Yesterday" - they had a joint songwriting/publishing partnership, both names are on songs by either writer or both. In terms of recorders and sitars (as well as guitar solos for that matter): No matter how good a part is or what it "contributes" to the recording, it does not entitle one to songwriting (composing) credit. If someone were to record Ruby Tuesday with no recorder, it's still the same song, just a different arrangement. Arrangements and parts are completely different from composing, i.e. creating the song.

I know that. It still doesn't make it fair and right.

It is perfectly fair and right. Why should a songwriter share credit with someone who didn't help compose the song?

Recording different instruments is not songwriting, it's playing. You get credit for playing, you get paid for playing, but you don't make money on the song because the songwriter(s) make the money for songwriting.

Don't see what's unfair and wrong about that.

This idea some people have that playing on a recording entitles one to songwriting credit is very strange. It would be like if an architect had to share proceeds for designing a building with the construction company that poured the concrete, because they did a really good job at pouring concrete.

Whether Brian really helped "write" Ruby Tuesday is another issue. Did he (or anyone) ever claim he did?

Ha ha - not according to Keith!

I have never heard about Brian claiming any songwriting credits. Anyone?

Nanker was the only one I thought.

Quote
Reagan
Before this ends, how about a quick nod to Charlie's drumming during the "you're gonna kiss these days goodbye" part? He rocks it.

Speaking of Charlie's drumming on Goats Head Soup in general, and 100 Years Ago (among others) in particular, I've always been amused by how swampy it is, both the sound and his playing. Very different from the heavy thump on Exile (Loving Cup, Rocks Off, Tumbling Dice, etc.) and Let It Bleed. The way he comes in on 100 Years Ago ... that cymbal hit at 0:21 is one of the lumpiest he's ever recorded. Star Star starts off in similar fashion, and Dancing With Mr D has arguably the coolest hihat hit ever done on a non-existant drum intro. The whole album sounds like the great drummer-turned-producer Jimmy Miller actually was busy carving swastikas in the mixing console...

Quote
71Tele

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele
Keith got credit for Sway just like Lennon got credit for "Yesterday" - they had a joint songwriting/publishing partnership, both names are on songs by either writer or both. In terms of recorders and sitars (as well as guitar solos for that matter): No matter how good a part is or what it "contributes" to the recording, it does not entitle one to songwriting (composing) credit. If someone were to record Ruby Tuesday with no recorder, it's still the same song, just a different arrangement. Arrangements and parts are completely different from composing, i.e. creating the song.

I know that. It still doesn't make it fair and right.

It is perfectly fair and right. Why should a songwriter share credit with someone who didn't help compose the song?

In the case of Ruby Tuesday and 100 Years Ago, it can be argued that Brian and MT's contributions were so large that the respective songs could not have existed without them. Let's be real here. Would RT have been a huge hit without Brian's recorder and piano? No. Would 100 Years Ago be the song most of us love without the driving force that is MT's guitar? No. Therefore, in a fair world, both Brian and MT should have received the MUSICAL part of the songwriters' royalties. They had a huge role in composing the music, orchestrating the tempo, beat, and vibe of those songs.

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele

Quote
neptune

Quote
71Tele
Keith got credit for Sway just like Lennon got credit for "Yesterday" - they had a joint songwriting/publishing partnership, both names are on songs by either writer or both. In terms of recorders and sitars (as well as guitar solos for that matter): No matter how good a part is or what it "contributes" to the recording, it does not entitle one to songwriting (composing) credit. If someone were to record Ruby Tuesday with no recorder, it's still the same song, just a different arrangement. Arrangements and parts are completely different from composing, i.e. creating the song.

I know that. It still doesn't make it fair and right.

It is perfectly fair and right. Why should a songwriter share credit with someone who didn't help compose the song?

In the case of Ruby Tuesday and 100 Years Ago, it can be argued that Brian and MT's contributions were so large that the respective songs could not have existed without them. Let's be real here. Would RT have been a huge hit without Brian's recorder and piano? No. Would 100 Years Ago be the song most of us love without the driving force that is MT's guitar? No. Therefore, in a fair world, both Brian and MT should have received the MUSICAL part of the songwriters' royalties. They had a huge role in composing the music, orchestrating the tempo, beat, and vibe of those songs.

No, they should have gotten recognition for their fine playing, which they did. There are no "musical" parts of songwriting credits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-30 19:39 by 71Tele.

Some of these sitar, lead line parts etc which many assume were done after the song was written may have been created before the song even existed. These parts may even have been a main inspiration for what became a song.

Also, it's easy for people to pitch in ideas for the lead vocal melody and words(the two main areas of song writing) etc without them ever being credited.

Were it nor for business deals and mutual agreements between certain members circa 1965 for sure a number of stones songs would have fallen under the nanker - phelge credit. There must have been some kind of willing or reluctant acceptance of this by the others simply because the band kept going and kept creating great music.

Anyway, it's best not to get too hung up on what the credit says as it doesn't really tell us much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-30 19:46 by His Majesty.

<Would RT have been a huge hit without Brian's recorder and piano? No. Would 100 Years Ago be the song most of us love without the driving force that is MT's guitar? No.>

Satisfaction, Gimme Shelter, Jumpin´Jack Flash and SFTD did without recorders and extravagant solo guitar playing. Can´t you see that a huge part of RT being a hit has to do with the brilliant chorus, even though Brian´s contributions were fantastic?

IMO, you´re missing the point here. And brilliantly playing, though lifting the songs, is NOT composing. They get credit for playing, not for composing, because they already had a song to shine on when they figured out their parts...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Would RT have been a huge hit without Brian's recorder and piano? No. Would 100 Years Ago be the song most of us love without the driving force that is MT's guitar? No.>

Satisfaction, Gimme Shelter, Jumpin´Jack Flash and SFTD did without recorders and extravagant solo guitar playing. Can´t you see that a huge part of RT being a hit has to do with the brilliant chorus, even though Brian´s contributions were fantastic?

IMO, you´re missing the point here. And brilliantly playing, though lifting the songs, is NOT composing. They get credit for playing, not for composing, because they already had a song to shine on when they figured out their parts...

Very good point, this last. It is just as possible the great composition inspired the recorder or other parts as is the opposite possibility, that the parts helped somehow to create the song.

Quote
71Tele
It is just as possible the great composition inspired the recorder or other parts as is the opposite possibility, that the parts helped somehow to create the song.

Exactly! This is the kind of things we are mot privy too. Also I think it's a bit naive to believe that the others never suggested anything in relation to words and main melody.

People listen to Ruby Tuesday and do not say, WOW BRIAN JONES MADE THAT SONG! That's not how it works. Most people say, 'I love that Rolling Stones song Ruby Tuesday' and then hum or sing the chorus, not the recorder part. The recorder part is a recorder part - it could have been steel drums or a flute for all anyone knows. Or a guitar. It's band. Some people do more things than others in a band. Brian Jones (and Ronnie Wood) is one of those people. He helped the sound of The Rolling Stones but in the end it comes down to the songs, the songwriting.

That's the deal.

Some songs stand on their own terms without much in terms of musical flamboyance etc. and others rely on musicianship to attain a level of distinction, especially if the song itself isn't conventionally strong. I love all the elements of 100 Years Ago, from the slightly folky opening to the funky Billy Preston contributions and the Mick Taylor wah wah guitar - it has a very strong 1973 contemporary feel, which much of Exile On Main Street didn't particuarly have, but it is the fabulously distinctive musicianship that holds it altogether, because as a song on paper it is very fragmentary, where all the elements don't seem especially related. That's perhaps the reason the song isn't highly regarded in its own right, but actually that's not necessarily a criticism, because it is songs like this that truly allows the Stones versitility with regards to musicianship to really come to the fore. I really do love it (and the rest of Goats Head Soup). It was the first album since Their Satanic Majesties Request to ditch the country elements to the Stones sound which was unfortunate perhaps at the time, but it was always refreshing to hear the Stones trying something new.

Quote
Edward Twining
Some songs stand on their own terms without much in terms of musical flamboyance etc. and others rely on musicianship to attain a level of distinction, especially if the song itself isn't conventionally strong. I love all the elements of 100 Years Ago, from the slightly folky opening to the funky Billy Preston contributions and the Mick Taylor wah wah guitar - it has a very strong 1973 contemporary feel, which much of Exile On Main Street didn't particuarly have, but it is the fabulously distinctive musicianship that holds it altogether, because as a song on paper it is very fragmentary, where all the elements don't seem especially related. That's perhaps the reason the song isn't highly regarded in its own right, but actually that's not necessarily a criticism, because it is songs like this that truly allows the Stones versitility with regards to musicianship to really come to the fore. I really do love it (and the rest of Goats Head Soup). It was the first album since Their Satanic Majesties Request to ditch the country elements to the Stones sound which was unfortunate perhaps at the time, but it was always refreshing to hear the Stones trying something new.

Well said. Though there was a little country influence on "Through The Lonely Nights", recorded during the GHS sessions. Sort of Gram Parsons-meets-wha-wah-pedal.

Quote
skipstone
People listen to Ruby Tuesday and do not say, WOW BRIAN JONES MADE THAT SONG! That's not how it works. Most people say, 'I love that Rolling Stones song Ruby Tuesday' and then hum or sing the chorus, not the recorder part. The recorder part is a recorder part - it could have been steel drums or a flute for all anyone knows. Or a guitar. It's band. Some people do more things than others in a band. Brian Jones (and Ronnie Wood) is one of those people. He helped the sound of The Rolling Stones but in the end it comes down to the songs, the songwriting.

That's the deal.

Actually a lot of people enjoy musical arrangements as much if not more than the words and lead vocal. Take something like Purple Haze for example, the vocal melody is quite weak, but the arrangement is great.

Brian's piano and recorder parts on Ruby Tuesday could have influenced the vocal melody. None of us really know for sure who came up with the vocal melody for all of the songs and given how bands work it seems unlikely that the others had zero influence on them.

A simple suggestion by Bill, Brian etc could have transformed a vocal melody, but it would go uncredited due to the deal Mick and Keith had.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-01 02:22 by His Majesty.

Ah, true, to a degree, but it's the same dude and he's singing through his guitar. And he's the one doing both. Although you play Voodoo Chile and even that vocal is killer, especially the opening line.

Quote
skipstone
Ah, true, to a degree, but it's the same dude and he's singing through his guitar. And he's the one doing both. Although you play Voodoo Chile and even that vocal is killer, especially the opening line.

Doesn't matter who's playing/singing.

Loads of Led Zeppelin tracks rely heavily on the riffs and arrangement and it would be ridiculous although legally right to only credit the person who came up with the vocal melody and lyrics for those songs.

Another great song not really known outside of the Stones fan base. With songs like this how can anyone say that GHS is a weak album. 100 Years Ago along with some of the other songs on the album are fantastic a true hidden gem in the Stones cannon!