Tell Me :
Talk
Writing a riff earns you a writing credit?
The credit probably has nothing to do with his contribution, but totally to do with their business agreement.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-08 23:22 by His Majesty.
You may be right, but what ammo did he have by then, really? Perhaps he had
"One Last Shot" ( heh ) in '66 to jockey position, but without anything other
then white teeth and a nice hairspray, what else could he bring to the table?
We know he could produce, but who was allowing that? If The Stones really thought
him the auteur then they would have let him have that chance, but he broke a number
of sacred cows that even The Stones wouldn't stomach.
From this chair, I don't think Jones had the capital to spend.
Sometimes it does, yeah. No doubt about that. Had Ronnie Wood written the Start Me Up-riff, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten his credits.
Even Charlie was talking about "the japanese thing" in interviews, so your "probably" is just fumbling in the dark on your part, imo.
However, I'm not too fond of the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards song writing team-policies either. But now we were talking about Moonlight Mile...
Let's hear it again - this time from a Taylor website. You are weird. Does Taylor pay you, or something? And don't you understand that it isn't me saying it was called "japanese thing"
<“Moonlight Mile” started out as a Richards acoustic doodle put on tape as “Japanese Thing.” Jagger and Taylor would expand it to the epic that appears on vinyl.>
[www.micktaylor.net]
Unfortunately sometimes you get a credit and sometimes not. Like Bill Wyman not credited for inventing JJF riff.
In other words, it's hypocritical crediting to suit those who've made the deals.
Keith's supposed japanese thing on the end earns him a credit, but a full blown riff/motif on The Last Time doesn't earn Brian a credit? Nonsense. Back then Keith gets credit regardless of what he contributes, same with Mick, as Ruby Tuesday, Yesterdays Papers, Jigsaw Puzzle show.
The credits are mostly business based, not contribution based.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-09 17:58 by His Majesty.
Exactly His Majesty. The other unanswered question I have is why did Jones/Wyman/Taylor not put their names on the songs they co-wrote? What is the steps for an artist to do so? Who handles the task of deciding who's name actually appears as a writer on any given song? Or were these 3 guys too scared of Jagger/Richards and Oldham and what they would do if they rocked the boat too much!
Focusing only on the 60's...
The question for me is whether they sought credit or even felt they were entitled to it? According to Bill he brought it up at some band meetings, but Brian and Charlie's support fell by the wayside.
Was this due to a lack of concern about it or a feeling bthyat it was some what pointless to even try?
In a just world if Keith can get credit for some little riff at the end of a song and Mick can get credit for writing Ruby Tuesday, Brian at the very least ought to have been given credit for his Last Time riff/motif.
But, the world of The Rolling Stones was obviously quite wonky.
No, Taylor doesn't pay me, and I'm not weird. Actually I get the idea Keith pays you. You don't have to do this. I would be delighted to hear Keith playing the riff that led to this expanded song though, really, I would love to.
I don't need jokes to talk about music, don't care what's on Taylor's site, do you quote him?
You certainly provoked my cryptisism and cynism in my post, as you know very well. And I am sorry if you cannot laugh about my post, a distorting mirror I let you look at. It must be you taking yourself way to serious again, I am afraid.
You can only guess about Keith's sketch compared to the masterpiece the Stones created without Keith . If Keith had played something significant, imo there's no reason to doubt he would have played on the released track himself. I judge muscians on their playing in this very case, unlike you, who's basically interested in emphasizing the importance of the supposedly initial creator of this song, your guitar God, Keith. Taylor's ideas didn't match with the Stones musical goals, according to Jagger. It's all about songwriting, songwriting, songwriting.. Sorry, music is not, the Stones included.
Amen.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-10 02:30 by VT22.
The technical side is very easy: before the song is getting published you just inform your publisher (and via your publisher the writers association like PRS, ASCAP, GEMA, etc.) the song has been written by you. In case someone else claims you didn't write it (or you didn't write it alone) he has to make you agree, if the going gets rough by suing you.
For the Stones Andrew and later Klein handled the publishing. Andrew was highly aware of the potential profits from publishing rights very early on and his close mates Jagger/Richards were his choice to get into the business (after all you need songs if you want to make money with songs) - that's the reason why he pushed them to compose (and not because the Stones needed Jagger/Richards compositions for getting their career started - a baseless claim usually made in all those books. Actually the Stones didn't need original songwriters in 1963 and 1964 to get higher and higher in the charts; but Andrew needed songs for his own business ambitions at the time.)
So Jagger/Richards' good personal relation to Andrew gave them an advantage to get their songs released as well as get credit for them - by the time of The Last Time it was already a well oiled procedure, and with the arrival of Klein the Nanker-Phelge partnership was stopped altogether, so indeed Jones, Wyman (not to talk of Taylor) would have had to rock some boats to get credit - when they were not the types to do so. And Jagger, Richards, Oldham and Klein were not the types willing to let it happen.
As Majesty says:
Looking at the Beatles there was never a question who the main songwriters were. But in the songwriting field there was at least a restricted place for George and even Ringo. Additionally both George and Ringo even participated (though in a small way) in the publishing of Lennon/McCartney songs, they each got a 0,8% share of Northern Songs in Feb. 1965.
The 50/50 deals, two composers, equal shares (Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards) are popular with publishers because they are easy to handle.
You can make all kind of deals, like 15% to Jones, 12.5% to Wyman, 3.5% to Watts, 20% to Jagger, rest to Richards, whatever, but it's not a lot of fun to compute the shares, especially if - for example on an album with a dozen tracks - each track is divided differently. And it doesn't end there: you have to compute the shares for all ways of using each composition over and over again, for airplay, for live shows, for covers, for new forms of releases (singles, new compilations like different album versions for foreign releases or greatest hits records), for soundtracks, whatever. You see it's way easier if the publisher knows: half of everything goes to Jagger, half of it goes to Richards.
With Nanker-Phelge songs it was handled the more complicated way, according to Bill, talking on "accounts for the year ended 30 June 1965":
"Interestingly, Mick was correctly credited with 3/12ths of all Jagger-Richards songs (i.e. half the writers' share [the other half is for the publisher, Mock Jogger's annotation]), and for Nanker-Phelge songs he received 1/10th of 'Empty Heart', 2/15ths of 'It's All Right', 1/12th of 'Little by Little', 'Now I've Got a Witness' and 'Stoned', 4/12ths of 'Play with Fire' (probably because he wrote the lyric) and 6/12ths of '2120 South Michigan Avenue', a track he didn't even sing on!"
Bill continues: "These figures were unknown to me, and possible the other Stones, at that time. [...] we asked no questions and believed that the money would come in eventually." (Stone Alone, paperback edition, p. 390)
(Of course whether someone sings on a track or not, like Mick didn't on 2120 South Michigan Avenue, has theoretically nothing to do with the writing process, but since the Nanker-Phelge compositions were probably completely results from jam sessions it seems to be Bill's not unlikely suggestion Mick hadn't anything to do with its creation.)
Yes and no. The Jagger/Richards agreement is, as far as only they are concerned (which is, as we all know too well, not always the case), a matter between them.
Brian and The Last Time: usually the definition of a composition in popular music (though there is one judgement I know of that is against it, the case of A Whiter Shade Of Pale, but it is the only one in that direction I know of) is just the words and the singing melody - usually not even the chords (because they can be changed without changing the melody), although most songwriters would consider the chords (or at least their basic sequence) as vital parts of their songs.
The case of The Last Time is a tricky one, because the chorus is a traditional. Mick and Keith actually just wrote the verses. So the fairest way would have been to share the publishing between one half Jagger/Richards and one half "trad. arr. Jagger/Jones/Richards/Watts/Wyman" - the publisher would have hated them for that, see my explanation above.
Brian's riff: since it was coming - for all we can guess - after the song was finished it is just part of the arrangement, so technically not part of the songwriting. (Though the judge from the Whiter Shade case would have taken a different approach).
For the question of who is deserving a writing credit you need to know what was vital for creating the song. That's why I go along with Brian not receiving a songwriting credit for the riff - but do not go along with Jagger/Richards claiming the complete song including the chorus as theirs. And that's why I'm strongly convinced Brian would have deserved a credit for Ruby Tuesday. It seems in this case his recorder part was the first bit that ever happened in the process and by this was the actual origin of a song that would never have existed without Brian. (The same goes for Bill and Jumping Jack Flash, and Bill, Brian and Charlie for Paint It Black, in case we follow Bill's account.)
However, the hard feelings within the band (and among other musicians joining the Stones in the studio) would never have been as hard when there would have been a general sense that in the end a missing credit would be compensated, for example by crediting tracks like Going Home Nanker-Phelge, although they were originally Jagger/Richards composed, but were turned completely into the character of a jam session. But Jagger/Richards didn't have the moral maturity needed for that. Not really a big surprise, I'd say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 8, 2013 23:17
Quote
DandelionPowderman
He didn't participate in the recording session. He wrote one of the riffs in the song, hence the credit, of course.
Writing a riff earns you a writing credit?
The credit probably has nothing to do with his contribution, but totally to do with their business agreement.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-08 23:22 by His Majesty.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
TheDailyBuzzherd
()
Date: January 8, 2013 23:20
Quote
24FPS
He had as much claim to ownership in the group as any of them. He should have fought for his place in it.
You may be right, but what ammo did he have by then, really? Perhaps he had
"One Last Shot" ( heh ) in '66 to jockey position, but without anything other
then white teeth and a nice hairspray, what else could he bring to the table?
We know he could produce, but who was allowing that? If The Stones really thought
him the auteur then they would have let him have that chance, but he broke a number
of sacred cows that even The Stones wouldn't stomach.
From this chair, I don't think Jones had the capital to spend.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 9, 2013 13:54
I think envy it the keyword here. Brian envied Mick and Keiths "ALO-deal" sharing creds, so he became a solo star within the band until Keith, Mr Envy himself, moved in with him and Anita, who he felt should be his lady, Mick had Marianne ffs, why cant Keith have Anita. That was it for Brian, he was out despite a slight return in early 1968 when promised something by Jagger. Brian is fired and Brian dies. Keith on heroin and with Anita still having the looks is cool about Brian despite Anitas little framed photo of Brian in the bedroom and despite her destroying him already in 1968 when she tried to change from Keith to Mick, making Keith a transit on her way to stardom. This is why he doesnt have to be nasty about Brian in 1971.
Later after Ushi and with Anita turning into some kind of monster and Taylor leaving after been promised some kind of credits, Keith still on heroin seems to have a pretty cynical but interesting view on Brian. Maybe he's experiencing some difficulties withing the band.
It's not until 1980 when he finally quits heroin and Anita that he's really tough and cynical and envious. On Mick of course but also on others like Brian, new musicians, Taylor etc.
Later after Ushi and with Anita turning into some kind of monster and Taylor leaving after been promised some kind of credits, Keith still on heroin seems to have a pretty cynical but interesting view on Brian. Maybe he's experiencing some difficulties withing the band.
It's not until 1980 when he finally quits heroin and Anita that he's really tough and cynical and envious. On Mick of course but also on others like Brian, new musicians, Taylor etc.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 9, 2013 14:05
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
He didn't participate in the recording session. He wrote one of the riffs in the song, hence the credit, of course.
Writing a riff earns you a writing credit?
The credit probably has nothing to do with his contribution, but totally to do with their business agreement.
Sometimes it does, yeah. No doubt about that. Had Ronnie Wood written the Start Me Up-riff, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten his credits.
Even Charlie was talking about "the japanese thing" in interviews, so your "probably" is just fumbling in the dark on your part, imo.
However, I'm not too fond of the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards song writing team-policies either. But now we were talking about Moonlight Mile...
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 9, 2013 14:14
Quote
VT22
Christ! How many times do we have to do this? He wrote the riff called "the japanese thing". He didn't have anything to do with RECORDING THE TRACK
DandelionPowderman
Relax man, or you will end up at the CCU. How many times do you have to say it ? What's this "Japanese thing" ? It's Chinese at best. And whe never heard Keith playing it in the first place...and he had a big ego. No need for you to be a parrot. Moonlight Mile is played by Jagger basically using an 'ordinary' G maj pent scale, with the help of Mick Taylor. I agree it's one of the Stones's best though.. Now if you transpose the (above) 'Japanese scales' to the key of G, Keith would have been in even more trouble at that time
-----------> -------------> DandelionPowderman
Let's hear it again - this time from a Taylor website. You are weird. Does Taylor pay you, or something? And don't you understand that it isn't me saying it was called "japanese thing"
<“Moonlight Mile” started out as a Richards acoustic doodle put on tape as “Japanese Thing.” Jagger and Taylor would expand it to the epic that appears on vinyl.>
[www.micktaylor.net]
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
Single Malt
()
Date: January 9, 2013 14:48
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
He didn't participate in the recording session. He wrote one of the riffs in the song, hence the credit, of course.
Writing a riff earns you a writing credit?
The credit probably has nothing to do with his contribution, but totally to do with their business agreement.
Sometimes it does, yeah. No doubt about that. Had Ronnie Wood written the Start Me Up-riff, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten his credits.
Even Charlie was talking about "the japanese thing" in interviews, so your "probably" is just fumbling in the dark on your part, imo.
However, I'm not too fond of the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards song writing team-policies either. But now we were talking about Moonlight Mile...
Unfortunately sometimes you get a credit and sometimes not. Like Bill Wyman not credited for inventing JJF riff.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 9, 2013 17:56
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
He didn't participate in the recording session. He wrote one of the riffs in the song, hence the credit, of course.
Writing a riff earns you a writing credit?
The credit probably has nothing to do with his contribution, but totally to do with their business agreement.
Sometimes it does, yeah. No doubt about that. Had Ronnie Wood written the Start Me Up-riff, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten his credits.
Even Charlie was talking about "the japanese thing" in interviews, so your "probably" is just fumbling in the dark on your part, imo.
However, I'm not too fond of the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards song writing team-policies either. But now we were talking about Moonlight Mile...
In other words, it's hypocritical crediting to suit those who've made the deals.
Keith's supposed japanese thing on the end earns him a credit, but a full blown riff/motif on The Last Time doesn't earn Brian a credit? Nonsense. Back then Keith gets credit regardless of what he contributes, same with Mick, as Ruby Tuesday, Yesterdays Papers, Jigsaw Puzzle show.
The credits are mostly business based, not contribution based.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-09 17:58 by His Majesty.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: January 9, 2013 18:26
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
He didn't participate in the recording session. He wrote one of the riffs in the song, hence the credit, of course.
Writing a riff earns you a writing credit?
The credit probably has nothing to do with his contribution, but totally to do with their business agreement.
Sometimes it does, yeah. No doubt about that. Had Ronnie Wood written the Start Me Up-riff, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten his credits.
Even Charlie was talking about "the japanese thing" in interviews, so your "probably" is just fumbling in the dark on your part, imo.
However, I'm not too fond of the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards song writing team-policies either. But now we were talking about Moonlight Mile...
In other words, it's hypocritical crediting to suit those who've made the deals.
Keith's supposed japanese thing on the end earns him a credit, but a full blown riff/motif on The Last Time doesn't earn Brian a credit? Nonsense. Back then Keith gets credit regardless of what he contributes, same with Mick, as Ruby Tuesday, Yesterdays Papers, Jigsaw Puzzle show.
The credits are mostly business based, not contribution based.
Exactly His Majesty. The other unanswered question I have is why did Jones/Wyman/Taylor not put their names on the songs they co-wrote? What is the steps for an artist to do so? Who handles the task of deciding who's name actually appears as a writer on any given song? Or were these 3 guys too scared of Jagger/Richards and Oldham and what they would do if they rocked the boat too much!
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 9, 2013 18:44
The song was all keith's until mick and taylor expanded it. Is it that hard to get? Even the taylor website says so
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 9, 2013 18:44
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
He didn't participate in the recording session. He wrote one of the riffs in the song, hence the credit, of course.
Writing a riff earns you a writing credit?
The credit probably has nothing to do with his contribution, but totally to do with their business agreement.
Sometimes it does, yeah. No doubt about that. Had Ronnie Wood written the Start Me Up-riff, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten his credits.
Even Charlie was talking about "the japanese thing" in interviews, so your "probably" is just fumbling in the dark on your part, imo.
However, I'm not too fond of the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards song writing team-policies either. But now we were talking about Moonlight Mile...
In other words, it's hypocritical crediting to suit those who've made the deals.
Keith's supposed japanese thing on the end earns him a credit, but a full blown riff/motif on The Last Time doesn't earn Brian a credit? Nonsense. Back then Keith gets credit regardless of what he contributes, same with Mick, as Ruby Tuesday, Yesterdays Papers, Jigsaw Puzzle show.
The credits are mostly business based, not contribution based.
Exactly His Majesty. The other unanswered question I have is why did Jones/Wyman/Taylor not put their names on the songs they co-wrote? What is the steps for an artist to do so? Who handles the task of deciding who's name actually appears as a writer on any given song? Or were these 3 guys too scared of Jagger/Richards and Oldham and what they would do if they rocked the boat too much!
Focusing only on the 60's...
The question for me is whether they sought credit or even felt they were entitled to it? According to Bill he brought it up at some band meetings, but Brian and Charlie's support fell by the wayside.
Was this due to a lack of concern about it or a feeling bthyat it was some what pointless to even try?
In a just world if Keith can get credit for some little riff at the end of a song and Mick can get credit for writing Ruby Tuesday, Brian at the very least ought to have been given credit for his Last Time riff/motif.
But, the world of The Rolling Stones was obviously quite wonky.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 9, 2013 18:45
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The song was all keith's until mick and taylor expanded it. Is it that hard to get? Even the taylor website says so
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
loog droog
()
Date: January 9, 2013 19:27
I always felt that the '71 Rolling Stone interview was the beginning of Keith's ascent as a public figure (out side of Stones fans awareness ). A few years after this, at the start of the '75 tour, Mick & Keith shared the cover of Rolling Stone, Then in '77 the Glimmers appeared together on the cover of the very mainstream People magazine, and he was on his way...
What always intrigued me (which wasn't reprinted here ) was the way the '71 interview ended. I don't have it in front of me now, and I haven't read it in over 30 years, but as I remember it was Keith talking about when Gram Parson's uncle, a farmer, was told by some mob figures that they wanted him to grow tomatoes. And then Keith says something like, "I'm ready to grow tomatoes."
What do you make of this apparent, "message to the Mafia?"
What always intrigued me (which wasn't reprinted here ) was the way the '71 interview ended. I don't have it in front of me now, and I haven't read it in over 30 years, but as I remember it was Keith talking about when Gram Parson's uncle, a farmer, was told by some mob figures that they wanted him to grow tomatoes. And then Keith says something like, "I'm ready to grow tomatoes."
What do you make of this apparent, "message to the Mafia?"
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: January 9, 2013 19:57
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
VT22
Christ! How many times do we have to do this? He wrote the riff called "the japanese thing". He didn't have anything to do with RECORDING THE TRACK
DandelionPowderman
Relax man, or you will end up at the CCU. How many times do you have to say it ? What's this "Japanese thing" ? It's Chinese at best. And whe never heard Keith playing it in the first place...and he had a big ego. No need for you to be a parrot. Moonlight Mile is played by Jagger basically using an 'ordinary' G maj pent scale, with the help of Mick Taylor. I agree it's one of the Stones's best though.. Now if you transpose the (above) 'Japanese scales' to the key of G, Keith would have been in even more trouble at that time
-----------> -------------> DandelionPowderman
Let's hear it again - this time from a Taylor website. You are weird. Does Taylor pay you, or something? And don't you understand that it isn't me saying it was called "japanese thing"
<“Moonlight Mile” started out as a Richards acoustic doodle put on tape as “Japanese Thing.” Jagger and Taylor would expand it to the epic that appears on vinyl.>
[www.micktaylor.net]
No, Taylor doesn't pay me, and I'm not weird. Actually I get the idea Keith pays you. You don't have to do this. I would be delighted to hear Keith playing the riff that led to this expanded song though, really, I would love to.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 9, 2013 21:17
Oh for god's sake. Will you quit chewing on the Moonlight Mile bone? Nobody cares about your petty squabbles.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 9, 2013 22:07
This post has been wiped by the author, because the subject, as well as the discussion itself, is nothing but boring...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-10 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-10 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: January 10, 2013 01:58
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
VT22Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
VT22
Christ! How many times do we have to do this? He wrote the riff called "the japanese thing". He didn't have anything to do with RECORDING THE TRACK
DandelionPowderman
Relax man, or you will end up at the CCU. How many times do you have to say it ? What's this "Japanese thing" ? It's Chinese at best. And whe never heard Keith playing it in the first place...and he had a big ego. No need for you to be a parrot. Moonlight Mile is played by Jagger basically using an 'ordinary' G maj pent scale, with the help of Mick Taylor. I agree it's one of the Stones's best though.. Now if you transpose the (above) 'Japanese scales' to the key of G, Keith would have been in even more trouble at that time
-----------> -------------> DandelionPowderman
Let's hear it again - this time from a Taylor website. You are weird. Does Taylor pay you, or something? And don't you understand that it isn't me saying it was called "japanese thing"
<“Moonlight Mile” started out as a Richards acoustic doodle put on tape as “Japanese Thing.” Jagger and Taylor would expand it to the epic that appears on vinyl.>
[www.micktaylor.net]
No, Taylor doesn't pay me, and I'm not weird. Actually I get the idea Keith pays you. You don't have to do this. I would be delighted to hear Keith playing the riff that led to this expanded song though, really, I would love to.
Maybe you aren't, but I find your posts weird, really weird.
When micktaylor.net says that Keith wrote a sketch to a song and recorded that sketch. Add the fact that several band members have called this sketch Keith's "japanese thing". Why on earth can't you believe that this actually happened, instead of saying that Keith has a big ego? Which other song has he claimed to have written without doing so? The same goes for Mick. I'm not saying I like the song writing partnership arrangement they had, but this is a different thing, isn't it?
Maybe Mick Taylor earned some credit for this tune, who knows? Certainly not you and me. However, we know that it's saying on Taylor's web site that Keith did the sketch work for this song, and that Taylor and Jagger expanded it. You can joke your way out of it, but at least you can invent some funny jokes the next time, and avoid the almost uncomprehendable cryptisism and cynism in your posts? Just a suggestion...
I don't need jokes to talk about music, don't care what's on Taylor's site, do you quote him?
You certainly provoked my cryptisism and cynism in my post, as you know very well. And I am sorry if you cannot laugh about my post, a distorting mirror I let you look at. It must be you taking yourself way to serious again, I am afraid.
You can only guess about Keith's sketch compared to the masterpiece the Stones created without Keith . If Keith had played something significant, imo there's no reason to doubt he would have played on the released track himself. I judge muscians on their playing in this very case, unlike you, who's basically interested in emphasizing the importance of the supposedly initial creator of this song, your guitar God, Keith. Taylor's ideas didn't match with the Stones musical goals, according to Jagger. It's all about songwriting, songwriting, songwriting.. Sorry, music is not, the Stones included.
Amen.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-10 02:30 by VT22.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 10, 2013 10:41
This post has been wiped by the author, because the subject, as well as the discussion itself, is nothing but boring...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-10 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-10 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: January 10, 2013 19:31
Interesting interview.
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
Mock Jogger
()
Date: January 19, 2013 01:07
Quote
2000 LYFH
[W]hy did Jones/Wyman/Taylor not put their names on the songs they co-wrote? What is the steps for an artist to do so? Who handles the task of deciding who's name actually appears as a writer on any given song? Or were these 3 guys too scared of Jagger/Richards and Oldham and what they would do if they rocked the boat too much!
The technical side is very easy: before the song is getting published you just inform your publisher (and via your publisher the writers association like PRS, ASCAP, GEMA, etc.) the song has been written by you. In case someone else claims you didn't write it (or you didn't write it alone) he has to make you agree, if the going gets rough by suing you.
For the Stones Andrew and later Klein handled the publishing. Andrew was highly aware of the potential profits from publishing rights very early on and his close mates Jagger/Richards were his choice to get into the business (after all you need songs if you want to make money with songs) - that's the reason why he pushed them to compose (and not because the Stones needed Jagger/Richards compositions for getting their career started - a baseless claim usually made in all those books. Actually the Stones didn't need original songwriters in 1963 and 1964 to get higher and higher in the charts; but Andrew needed songs for his own business ambitions at the time.)
So Jagger/Richards' good personal relation to Andrew gave them an advantage to get their songs released as well as get credit for them - by the time of The Last Time it was already a well oiled procedure, and with the arrival of Klein the Nanker-Phelge partnership was stopped altogether, so indeed Jones, Wyman (not to talk of Taylor) would have had to rock some boats to get credit - when they were not the types to do so. And Jagger, Richards, Oldham and Klein were not the types willing to let it happen.
As Majesty says:
Quote
His Majesty
According to Bill he brought it up at some band meetings, but Brian and Charlie's support fell by the wayside.
Looking at the Beatles there was never a question who the main songwriters were. But in the songwriting field there was at least a restricted place for George and even Ringo. Additionally both George and Ringo even participated (though in a small way) in the publishing of Lennon/McCartney songs, they each got a 0,8% share of Northern Songs in Feb. 1965.
Quote
His Majesty
The credits are mostly business based, not contribution based.
The 50/50 deals, two composers, equal shares (Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards) are popular with publishers because they are easy to handle.
You can make all kind of deals, like 15% to Jones, 12.5% to Wyman, 3.5% to Watts, 20% to Jagger, rest to Richards, whatever, but it's not a lot of fun to compute the shares, especially if - for example on an album with a dozen tracks - each track is divided differently. And it doesn't end there: you have to compute the shares for all ways of using each composition over and over again, for airplay, for live shows, for covers, for new forms of releases (singles, new compilations like different album versions for foreign releases or greatest hits records), for soundtracks, whatever. You see it's way easier if the publisher knows: half of everything goes to Jagger, half of it goes to Richards.
With Nanker-Phelge songs it was handled the more complicated way, according to Bill, talking on "accounts for the year ended 30 June 1965":
"Interestingly, Mick was correctly credited with 3/12ths of all Jagger-Richards songs (i.e. half the writers' share [the other half is for the publisher, Mock Jogger's annotation]), and for Nanker-Phelge songs he received 1/10th of 'Empty Heart', 2/15ths of 'It's All Right', 1/12th of 'Little by Little', 'Now I've Got a Witness' and 'Stoned', 4/12ths of 'Play with Fire' (probably because he wrote the lyric) and 6/12ths of '2120 South Michigan Avenue', a track he didn't even sing on!"
Bill continues: "These figures were unknown to me, and possible the other Stones, at that time. [...] we asked no questions and believed that the money would come in eventually." (Stone Alone, paperback edition, p. 390)
(Of course whether someone sings on a track or not, like Mick didn't on 2120 South Michigan Avenue, has theoretically nothing to do with the writing process, but since the Nanker-Phelge compositions were probably completely results from jam sessions it seems to be Bill's not unlikely suggestion Mick hadn't anything to do with its creation.)
Quote
His Majesty
In a just world if Keith can get credit for some little riff at the end of a song and Mick can get credit for writing Ruby Tuesday, Brian at the very least ought to have been given credit for his Last Time riff/motif.
Yes and no. The Jagger/Richards agreement is, as far as only they are concerned (which is, as we all know too well, not always the case), a matter between them.
Brian and The Last Time: usually the definition of a composition in popular music (though there is one judgement I know of that is against it, the case of A Whiter Shade Of Pale, but it is the only one in that direction I know of) is just the words and the singing melody - usually not even the chords (because they can be changed without changing the melody), although most songwriters would consider the chords (or at least their basic sequence) as vital parts of their songs.
The case of The Last Time is a tricky one, because the chorus is a traditional. Mick and Keith actually just wrote the verses. So the fairest way would have been to share the publishing between one half Jagger/Richards and one half "trad. arr. Jagger/Jones/Richards/Watts/Wyman" - the publisher would have hated them for that, see my explanation above.
Brian's riff: since it was coming - for all we can guess - after the song was finished it is just part of the arrangement, so technically not part of the songwriting. (Though the judge from the Whiter Shade case would have taken a different approach).
For the question of who is deserving a writing credit you need to know what was vital for creating the song. That's why I go along with Brian not receiving a songwriting credit for the riff - but do not go along with Jagger/Richards claiming the complete song including the chorus as theirs. And that's why I'm strongly convinced Brian would have deserved a credit for Ruby Tuesday. It seems in this case his recorder part was the first bit that ever happened in the process and by this was the actual origin of a song that would never have existed without Brian. (The same goes for Bill and Jumping Jack Flash, and Bill, Brian and Charlie for Paint It Black, in case we follow Bill's account.)
However, the hard feelings within the band (and among other musicians joining the Stones in the studio) would never have been as hard when there would have been a general sense that in the end a missing credit would be compensated, for example by crediting tracks like Going Home Nanker-Phelge, although they were originally Jagger/Richards composed, but were turned completely into the character of a jam session. But Jagger/Richards didn't have the moral maturity needed for that. Not really a big surprise, I'd say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
Re: Keith Richards (a lot on Brian) -Rolling Stone Magazine 1971
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 19, 2013 02:29
Thanks for you r excellent post, Mock!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
falo01 , frankotero , IsakSun , john lomax , jp.M , mike567 , novica , PaintMonkeyManBlack , sandandglue , Stoneswolf , werner67976
Guests:
1509
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10