Quote
elunsi

Quote
Doxa
My perception is that Keith gets way too much credit in %s of the Stones material but the fact is that Keith's ideas in riffs, melodies, chord sequences, and over-all his musical intuitions, are essential to the Stones to be what they are. He is the musical genious behind the Stones music - - Doxa

This is what I don´t believe. Keith is not more responsible for melodies and ideas than Mick. Maybe in the mid-60ies it was like that, when Mick wrote mainly the lyrics, but not from the late 60ies on to this day. I think fact is, that we don´t know who was responsible for an idea or a melody, and I think fact is, that we automatically believe Keith is. Take a song like PMS, there was a backing track, but did keith have the idea for "the song Plundered my soul"? For the melody, the lyrics? That was Mick´s. I have not read Keith´s book, but could it be, that, when he writes about the songwriting, he writes about the 60ies only? Keith was very out of it at times in the 70ies, what did Mick do in these times? I am sure he was writing songs! Maybe I am just suspicious of the word genious. I my eyes Mozart was a genious, but not Keith Richards.

Quote
liddas
Where does Keith say in the book that he is the "the main responsible for a majority of the songs"?

I think it is quite the opposite. He makes it damn clear from page 1 that Mick's role was always essential for the composing process, as was the band's contribution for the final product.

To understand his point, just listen to the boots. Before the Winos experience, Keith contributed mainly with riffs, ideas, sounds. Now, it is true that those were the ingredients that made most Rolling Stones songs what they are, but it is also true that to put together a song starting from those ideas is an entirely different task.

C

Quote
Doxa

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Doxa
My perception is that Keith gets way too much credit in %s of the Stones material but the fact is that Keith's ideas in riffs, melodies, chord sequences, and over-all his musical intuitions, are essential to the Stones to be what they are. He is the musical genious behind the Stones music - - Doxa

This is what I don´t believe. Keith is not more responsible for melodies and ideas than Mick. Maybe in the mid-60ies it was like that, when Mick wrote mainly the lyrics, but not from the late 60ies on to this day. I think fact is, that we don´t know who was responsible for an idea or a melody, and I think fact is, that we automatically believe Keith is. Take a song like PMS, there was a backing track, but did keith have the idea for "the song Plundered my soul"? For the melody, the lyrics? That was Mick´s. I have not read Keith´s book, but could it be, that, when he writes about the songwriting, he writes about the 60ies only? Keith was very out of it at times in the 70ies, what did Mick do in these times? I am sure he was writing songs! Maybe I am just suspicious of the word genious. I my eyes Mozart was a genious, but not Keith Richards.

I can see your point. I was not claiming that Keith is alone responsible for melodies and ideas but my point is that he has had the best and most important of them in heir careerwise. Those which made the difference. That is why I use the term "essential" - it is not the quantity but the quality. Jagger surely took much of the responsibilites of composing - and not just finishing Keith's ideas but writing from the scratch - from the late 60's on (songs like "Sympathy For The Devil", "You Can't Always get What You Wan", "Brown Sugar" are works of a great songwriter). But I still insist that Keith has something Mick doesn't has, or never have had. There is something I would call "genious" in Keith's understanding of music and its deep dynamics. Mick is more "technical" or "pragmatic". Keith goes so deep. A man who writes the greatest rock and roll song ever "Gimme Shelter" is nothing but a genious (if that term has any application to rock music - which is discussion I am not interested any further). I have always thought that Mick builds up to the musical foundation that is much created by the instincts and intuitions of Keith. And I also think that for this reason Jagger admires Keith very much and forgives a lot of his stupid behavior.

If one reads my posts in this thread and many others I have been really critical to Keith (especially in LIFE that belittles Mick so much) and "justified" Mick's contributution - Mick is really under-estimated, even by many Stones fans - but there is still something substantive reasons why Keith Richards is such an important and unique figure in Stones music. That cannot be denied. No matter what a spoiled jerk he reveals himself to be in LIFE.

- Doxa

Quote
Lorenz

Quote
liddas
Where does Keith say in the book that he is the "the main responsible for a majority of the songs"?

I think it is quite the opposite. He makes it damn clear from page 1 that Mick's role was always essential for the composing process, as was the band's contribution for the final product.

To understand his point, just listen to the boots. Before the Winos experience, Keith contributed mainly with riffs, ideas, sounds. Now, it is true that those were the ingredients that made most Rolling Stones songs what they are, but it is also true that to put together a song starting from those ideas is an entirely different task.

C

I guess that was quoted from my post? I got the impression from reading between the line.

Quote
Doxa

But I still insist that Keith has something Mick doesn't has, or never have had. There is something I would call "genious" in Keith's understanding of music and its deep dynamics. Mick is more "technical" or "pragmatic". Keith goes so deep.

- Doxa[/quote

I think this is problematic when we still don´t know for sure, who wrote what. We don´t even know who wrote the riff for a song. Mick said, that he wrote riffs people assumed are Keiths. Take Brown Sugar - the riff sounds like a Keith-riff, but it isn´t. I am sure there are a lot of similar occations. For that reason I think it is not fair towards Mick to say that he has not the deepness or understanding of music like Keith has. I think it is very much like TrulyMicks said - Keith talks much more about his role in songwriting than Mick. When Keith usually says "I", then Mick usually says "we".

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Doxa

But I still insist that Keith has something Mick doesn't has, or never have had. There is something I would call "genious" in Keith's understanding of music and its deep dynamics. Mick is more "technical" or "pragmatic". Keith goes so deep.

- Doxa

I think this is problematic when we still don´t know for sure, who wrote what. We don´t even know who wrote the riff for a song. Mick said, that he wrote riffs people assumed are Keiths. Take Brown Sugar - the riff sounds like a Keith-riff, but it isn´t. I am sure there are a lot of similar occations. For that reason I think it is not fair towards Mick to say that he has not the deepness or understanding of music like Keith has. I think it is very much like TrulyMicks said - Keith talks much more about his role in songwriting than Mick. When Keith usually says "I", then Mick usually says "we".

Quote
Doxa

[ Sometimes one can only rely to one's own instincts.

- Doxa

Quote
TrulyMicks
[

I guess everyone has their own opinion but to say Keith has something that Mick doesn't is befuddling. I have always had the perception that Mick feels and knows music on a different level than most and that's one of the reasons why he is so great. Also, I beg to differ about what you consider to be "quality" songs. I do agree that it may have been Keith as the leader in the 60's and those songs were essential to the popularity of the band, but I think Mick took the music to a greater and higher level in the 70's and beyond. Keith seems to have had a very small role in the songs of the last few decades imo. Unfortunately, Keith is perceived as the song writing leader because he has been spewing his propaganda for so long. Mick is a much more humble and diplomatic person and Keith has taken advantage of it. Btw, just to set the record straight, I did not purchase Keith's book, it was given to me, I would never have purchased it.

Quote
MKjan
Hate It When You Leave is a great song.

Any effort to dissect the Stones catalog is going to be filed under speculation and not science. Given the varying degrees of contribution and the numerous components to a song, this is not going to get sorted out. Some posters here are predisposed to a bias and so while certainly no fly on the wall,they leap thru hoops to proclaim that they know.....and they don't. Nice hobby I suppose.....

Quote
elunsi

Quote
Doxa

But I still insist that Keith has something Mick doesn't has, or never have had. There is something I would call "genious" in Keith's understanding of music and its deep dynamics. Mick is more "technical" or "pragmatic". Keith goes so deep.

- Doxa[/quote

I think this is problematic when we still don´t know for sure, who wrote what. We don´t even know who wrote the riff for a song. Mick said, that he wrote riffs people assumed are Keiths. Take Brown Sugar - the riff sounds like a Keith-riff, but it isn´t. I am sure there are a lot of similar occations. For that reason I think it is not fair towards Mick to say that he has not the deepness or understanding of music like Keith has. I think it is very much like TrulyMicks said - Keith talks much more about his role in songwriting than Mick. When Keith usually says "I", then Mick usually says "we".

It is a Keith-riff, but Mick wrote the chord progressions. Keith touched it up, and made THE sound. Keith also said that in his book.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
TrulyMicks
[

I guess everyone has their own opinion but to say Keith has something that Mick doesn't is befuddling. I have always had the perception that Mick feels and knows music on a different level than most and that's one of the reasons why he is so great. Also, I beg to differ about what you consider to be "quality" songs. I do agree that it may have been Keith as the leader in the 60's and those songs were essential to the popularity of the band, but I think Mick took the music to a greater and higher level in the 70's and beyond. Keith seems to have had a very small role in the songs of the last few decades imo. Unfortunately, Keith is perceived as the song writing leader because he has been spewing his propaganda for so long. Mick is a much more humble and diplomatic person and Keith has taken advantage of it. Btw, just to set the record straight, I did not purchase Keith's book, it was given to me, I would never have purchased it.

Exactly. I must Doxa, I usually agree on your points but on this point I have to respectfully disagree. I think Keith is a musician's musician, in the sense that he's the guy who lives for the guitar...and his music. We don't see Jagger way because he doesn't project that persona. But I do believe Mick has a more intangible something when it come to music: he's got soul and though he's not a technical musician, he's got the feel, when he plays guitar, harmonica, piano etc...you see it in his rhythmic sense, his movements and - I know this sounds stupid - but the way he closes his eyes....there's a real feeling there, when its honest. You can't fake that. He's the entire package. Remember, Keith, as much as I love Talk is Cheap, needs Steve Jordan when he can't have Mick so.....

Quote
Doxa

But I think that during the 70's Keith lost his muse and afer that his stubborness and wrong kind of musical self-esteem actually started to work against keeping the band on a track. It is sad that he is not able to reflect at all his own musical and creative downhill in LIFE. All I can say that he fvcked up himself as a creative artist with his addictions. I think Mick painfully knows this better than no one else. It must have been a hell to work - or to cope - with a stubborn, egoistic junkie and alcoholic.

- Doxa

Quote
liddas
The winos is Keith's idea of how things should work. The 1988 Japan Australian solo tour is Jagger's version. Now tell me which is Vegas?

C

Quote
Doxa


Honesly Stupidguy, I do agree with you, and I agree wholeheartidly with all you say about Jagger. Mick is unique and his approach to music is much much more that of feel than it is usually portraited. He has so much in him what Keith doesn't simply possess. Mick could be even more musical guy actually. But there is something so personal and unique in that Richards guy as well that I think Mick doesn't have. I don't know what exactly it is but something in that guy's determination, stubborness, intuitivity that is so crucial to the Stones to make the musical difference. Keith might be very shy and insecure person but as far as music goes he might be toughest and strongest guy in the world who trusts 100% percent to his own judgement. Maybe it is that "musician's musician" to have that 'purity' and 'no compromises' attitude. To straight to the point without any bullshitting or gimmicks. I think his dedication to perfect his own style as guitarist and as a composer determined the musical core of The Stones. But Mick was always needed; Jagger is the guy who makes it all fly, to make it big, if you know what I mean. But the musical depthness derives from Keith. The Stones still relies to that musical foundation.

But I think that during the 70's Keith lost his muse and afer that his stubborness and wrong kind of musical self-esteem actually started to work against keeping the band on a track. It is sad that he is not able to reflect at all his own musical and creative downhill in LIFE. All I can say that he fvcked up himself as a creative artist with his addictions. I think Mick painfully knows this better than no one else. It must have been a hell to work - or to cope - with a stubborn, egoistic junkie and alcoholic.

- Doxa

Quote
Slimharpo
You can say that without Keith or Rubin, Mick is aweful. quote]

But what is Keith like alone? We don't know, not really.
I will say that Mick seems surrounds himself with whoever he believes will give him a more commercial kick - he picks people based on their latest commercial success, starting with Nile Rodgers (who did great things with Chic and Diana Ross etc..)
Whereas, Keith has formed a musical relationship with Steve Jordan through a previous collaboration. (Hail, Hail..) Keith clicked with Jordan on a musical level - it was a purely musical choice. That's a big difference. One of the more absurd things Jagger has done is to "collaborate" with the Match Box 20 guy, an obvious attempt to recreate the success Thomas had had with Carlos Santana, another older rocker. Mick wanted a piece of that. In later interviews, Thomas implied that he didn't get along with Jagger and that Jagger was aloof (that's a surprise) during the songwriting sessions. Its clear that Jagger was just using this guy's commercial pedigree to boost his own material. That's a blatantly shallow move on Jagger's part. Lenny Kravitz, the same thing, although that made it bit more sense. Keith was working with Jordan because the quality was there, period. With Keith, it was about what worked, not what he wanted to happen.
I mean, Rob Thomas? Even John Mayer, who is maligned for his "pop" sensibilites, said that working with Thomas was easy because it was so formulaic - he literally could just drop a "solo" into the song at a precise moment because it was like a template. Mick can do better than that, which goes back to what Keith said about Mick "second-guessing his own abilities." Speaking of Mayer, Jordan has done great things with him - and this might sound crazy to some of you, but Continuum got me hooked and I couldn't figure out why. Mayer was that kid who wrote pretty songs for teenage girls....I could have cared less, then I heard and loved Mayer's work with the Trio (with Jordan) and then Continuum became one of my favorite listens from the 2000s and the common denominator was Jordan. I hear the same deep grooves I had loved so much on Talk is Cheap. Point being, Keith surrounds himself with quality, not crap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-02 00:14 by stupidguy2.

Quote
kait
Life by Keith Richards -
autobiography signing at Waterstone's Piccadilly