Quote
mr_dja
see if I can get my brain to function better for you

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Doxa

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Doxa
..."Miss You" is way to make Mick ridiculous and laughable...
- Doxa

by the way, here's a specific example of how you are trying to turn things around that Keith mentions as a positive to a negative:

---------------------------------
We didn't think much of "Miss You" when we were doing it. It was "Aah, Mick's been to the disco and has come out humming some other song." It's a result of all the nights Mick spent at Studio 54 and coming up with that beat, that four on the floor. And he said, add the melody to the beat. We just thought we'd put our oar in on Mick wanting to do some disco shit, keep the man happy. But as we got into it, it became quite an interesting beat. And we realized, maybe we've got a quintessential disco thing here. And out of it we got a huge hit.
---------------------------------

So basically he's saying he was wrong to think little of the song at first and realized it had the stuff of a hit.

I didn't speak what Keith - or "we" - thinks about the song; the point is how to see Mick's contribution in it. Keith claims that Mick just came with "that beat, that four on he floor", and asked the others - read: Keith - to "add the melody". Basically he just says that Mick had an idea of a disco song in his mind - a beat - thanks to his nights in Studio 54, and the rest - guess who? - builded up a song around Mick's wish "to keep the man happy".

Well, this is what the "disco boy" says of its origin:

I got that together with Billy Preston, actually. Yeah, Billy had shown me the four-on-the-floor bass-drum part, and I would just play the guitar. I remember playing that in the El Mocambo club when Keith was on trial in Toronto for whatever he was doing. We were supposed to be there making this live record... I was still writing it, actually. We were just in rehearsal.

- Mick Jagger, 1995

During the rehearsal of the El Mocambo gig I wrote the song Miss You. So I remember that 'cause I was waiting for everyone in the band to turn up and I was with Billy Preston, and Billy Preston was playing the kick drum and I was always playing the guitar and I wrote Miss You on that so I remember that moment very well.

- Mick Jagger, 2001

Everyone is free to make own interpretations.

- Doxa

P.S. I haven't yet discussed of the "we" anonym Keith loves to use rhetorically in the book, and on some really specific moments uses the authority of 'neutral' Charlie Watts to back up Keith's claims or opinions which I find a bit disgusting, too (maybe I will talk it some day...), but here is one quote relevant here:

A lot of those songs like Miss You on Some Girls... were heavily influenced by going to the discos. You can hear it in a lot of those four on the floor rhythms and the Philadelphia-style drumming. Mick and I used to go to discos a lot... It was a great period. I remember being in Munich and coming back from a club with Mick singing one of the Village People songs - YMCA, I think it was - and Keith went mad, but it sounded great on the dance floor.

- Charlie Watts, 2003

That says it all for me. That settles it for me. I love Keith, but some people take everything he says as the gospel truth and get pissy when people suggest maybe his memory may a bit cloudy and self-serving. The truth is, Keith (during the SG rehearsals, recording) was not exactly in much condition to be that reliable.
This song has Mick all over it....the A minor, the ooh-ooh-oohs....it sounds like something that just came together all at once, as opposed to Keith saving it.

Quote
NICOS
In % how much did Keith writes about music e.g. the making of songs and studio stories?

Quote
Squiggle
It's like a modern damnatio memoriae.

Quote
filstan
Were you there in Paris at the studio? Seems unlikely. I can be wrong, but the outtakes from this period show the band as VERY cohesive. Was Jagger directing some of the songs as they evolved? Absolutely. Keith did it with other tracks. I think Keith has the right to say what he wants about certain songs or sessions as he remembers them. Musically though to discount his contributions to the Some Girls session is ludicrous. I am at that point in the book where he speaks about Miss You and those sessions. As I see this book thus far Keith is not over the top critical about MJ as a musician/songwriter. No way. In fact, he speaks in very positive terms his respect and admiration for Mick as a song writer and lyricist, harp player, singer. Where is all the negativity people keep slamming in here. I remain amazed as a fan from back in the very early 60's that these guys were able to keep it together and make so much great music without killing each other. It says much about their dedication to the band and in the end to fact that despite all the BS, once they get around to the music that is what counts. It remains the bond. They are still friends and connect when the music matters.

Quote
MKjan
As for god-unknown infractions, well, based on many accounts about Brian by others, easy to believe it.

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?

If I can remember the part in the book correctly...

Keith was talking about the use of a "Pedal Tone". I think he referred to it as a pedal rather than a "suspension".

As it's been 20 years since I finished my last "official" music theory class in college, I went to wikipedia and found what I think to be a pretty good explination. You can click this link: [en.wikipedia.org]

Though they describe it as a pedal point, I believe this is what Keith was talking about. Not quite a "drone" (like a bag-pipe) but a note from an original chord that is held under multiple chords for (typically) an extended period of time is a pedal tone (or point).

A suspension is typically a note being held from a previous chord into a second chord where the note doesn't typically played. Generally, when a third chord is played, that suspended note is realeased.

I'm wishing I could think of an example but I'm struggling to do so right now. The signature riff (although made up of multiple notes as opposed to just one note) from "Peter Gunn Theme" is sort of an example of the technique. The bass part holds the same riff for the entire song while the horn parts play the song.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Rolling Hansie
BTW, in the same chapter Keith is talking about the 5 chord open tuning. He speaks about Mozart and Vivaldi using the same technique in some sort of way. Now I am not a guitarplayer myself and I am only a very little bit into classical music. Anyone here to Shine A Light on that ?

If I can remember the part in the book correctly...

Keith was talking about the use of a "Pedal Tone". I think he referred to it as a pedal rather than a "suspension".

As it's been 20 years since I finished my last "official" music theory class in college, I went to wikipedia and found what I think to be a pretty good explination. You can click this link: [en.wikipedia.org]

Though they describe it as a pedal point, I believe this is what Keith was talking about. Not quite a "drone" (like a bag-pipe) but a note from an original chord that is held under multiple chords for (typically) an extended period of time is a pedal tone (or point).

A suspension is typically a note being held from a previous chord into a second chord where the note doesn't typically played. Generally, when a third chord is played, that suspended note is realeased.

I'm wishing I could think of an example but I'm struggling to do so right now. The signature riff (although made up of multiple notes as opposed to just one note) from "Peter Gunn Theme" is sort of an example of the technique. The bass part holds the same riff for the entire song while the horn parts play the song.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Stones music has as much to do with Mozart as punk movement with Persian folk.

Mathijs

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
MKjan
As for god-unknown infractions, well, based on many accounts about Brian by others, easy to believe it.

Keith has also shown, although rare, a more reflective side when talking about Brian during the same time he has been bashing him - he has even described Brian as "great". The official verdicts from the Stones on Brian are generally very one-sided where the negative aspects on his persona always tend to be in the spotlight. Bill has at least tried to give a more fair view on Brian.

To those who only have been fed with the negative aspects of him I suggest that you pick up Laura Jacksons book on Brian. She defends him too much but it's filled with quotes from people who knew him and worked with him - it contains both good and bad. It's a gem.

Quote
Edward Twining
Keith actually speaks extremely highly of Mick Taylor's musicianship, saying Mick knew where Keith was going in his guitar playing, before Keith knew himself. The style of songs Keith wrote subconsciously changed too, because Mick Taylor offered up wider options. I think the Stones did offer a wonderful framework, for Mick Taylor to show off his musical virtuoso. They complimented each other wonderfully.

Quote
Edward Twining
Keith actually speaks extremely highly of Mick Taylor's musicianship, saying Mick knew where Keith was going in his guitar playing, before Keith knew himself. The style of songs Keith wrote subconsciously changed too, because Mick Taylor offered up wider options. I think the Stones did offer a wonderful framework, for Mick Taylor to show off his musical virtuoso. They complimented each other wonderfully.

Quote
MKjan
swiss,
Keith has used harsh words about Brian going back many years, even with a harsher tone than what he writes in his book. Memory would be redirected if he suddenly painted a rosy picture, that would be a departure. As for god-unknown infractions, well, based on many accounts about Brian by others, easy to believe it.

Quote
neptune

Quote
MKjan
swiss,
Keith has used harsh words about Brian going back many years, even with a harsher tone than what he writes in his book. Memory would be redirected if he suddenly painted a rosy picture, that would be a departure. As for god-unknown infractions, well, based on many accounts about Brian by others, easy to believe it.

Well, many other rock star contemporaries have said nice things about Brian, including George Harrison, Pete Townshend, Eric Burdon, Jimmy Page, Paul McCartney, and of course Bill Wyman. Jimi Hendrix dedicated a song to Brian a couple nights after his death during a performance on the Dick Cavett Show in 1969. It seems that, just like many human beings, Brian had several sides to his personality. Unfortunately, many here on this site are choosing to emphasize Brian's 'bad' side. I've never understood why so many Stones fans villify Brian, him being such an important member of the band. Yes he was probably a jerk, but he was a ROLLING STONE. He was a rock star. What do people expect? In many ways, Keith was no different than Brian, yet so many put Keith on a huge pedestal, yet flame Brian. I don't get it.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Edward Twining
Keith actually speaks extremely highly of Mick Taylor's musicianship, saying Mick knew where Keith was going in his guitar playing, before Keith knew himself. The style of songs Keith wrote subconsciously changed too, because Mick Taylor offered up wider options. I think the Stones did offer a wonderful framework, for Mick Taylor to show off his musical virtuoso. They complimented each other wonderfully.

Agree. But Keith is just as two-faced about Taylor as he is about Brian, saying many glowing things about his musicianship, but mocking his personality and his lack of achievements after leaving the band (well deserved on that count, in my opinion). He has said Taylor is a "lovely guy" but also that he was too shy, among other things.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Edward Twining
Keith actually speaks extremely highly of Mick Taylor's musicianship, saying Mick knew where Keith was going in his guitar playing, before Keith knew himself. The style of songs Keith wrote subconsciously changed too, because Mick Taylor offered up wider options. I think the Stones did offer a wonderful framework, for Mick Taylor to show off his musical virtuoso. They complimented each other wonderfully.

Agree. But Keith is just as two-faced about Taylor as he is about Brian, saying many glowing things about his musicianship, but mocking his personality and his lack of achievements after leaving the band (well deserved on that count, in my opinion). He has said Taylor is a "lovely guy" but also that he was too shy, among other things.

He was even so shy that he dared to take the initiative to play almost all solos on stage, some even rather lengthy. It begun when he was 20 years old, during the 69 Tour, on Sympathy For The Devil, and it ended during the 73 Tour, where he played lead and solos like we all know from the Brussels and London boots. Boy, he must have been incredibly shy.

Taylor himself has stated that he wasn't shy at all in the band, that they also had big fights. We all know that he during one of his first interviews as a member of The Rolling Stones said that he liked the Beatles more than the Stones. I mean, maybe Taylor was shy as a person (just like Keith himself), but he wasn't as a musician. Some have called him plainly arrogant and very self-confident when he entered the Stones.

BTW: Taylor playing with Dylan for a couple of years and with countless other famous musicians doesn't make me say that he had "a lack of achievements after leaving the band", let alone to say "well deserved on that count". Though I agree that Taylor had his best years with the Stones. But it's also the other way around. Keith knows that as well but I guess he hasn't written that down. I understand why. We all know that Keith couldn't stand Taylor and Wyman leaving the band. Well, actually I have that in common with Keith, so I understand him very well on that point. But I suppose that Keith has described many people one dimensionally. Not very strange, because that's mostly the way we see other people. Finally: I remember Keith having said that he couldn't understand the enigmatic personality of Taylor but that he felt he connected with him as a person (which is not the same as 'as a musician') during the Exile period in Southern France.