Reading through all those timeisonourside.com comments, to me it looks like it is rather clear who did and what. Keith come up with the main riff and song structure with the 'shadoobie' or 'shattered' catch phrase. Jagger wrote all the rest of the lyrics (that is: all of them) plus the actual singing melody (he points out the latter in two quotes). The singing 'melody', however, is pretty much based on, or goes along with, the riff and the chord sequence, so the music is, if anything, a classical Jagger/Richards co-work. In the early days, Jagger would have 'finished up the melody', but by the late-70's, the way Richards made songs had reduced into that of being solely riff-based sketches (and creating the musical atmosphere of the song), so Jagger had a more bigger and independent role in writing melodies.

I think "Shattered" should go to a textbook as an example of Jagger/Richards team at work, how those two guys complete each other. Even though it is still clear who is in charge in song's main components (including it being "Keith's song" as Jagger says, emphasizing it being introduced and musically sketched by Keith). there is still some grey area as far as the traditional melody vs. lyrics distinction goes.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-09 11:30 by Doxa.

In Shattered, Keith and Woody put a riff down, and all we had was the word shattered. So I just made the rest up and thought it would sound better if it were half-talked.
- Mick Jagger, 1978

Maybe it's just my bad enunciation (laughs) running away with me. And it's also because I like the sound of words, the way the NOISES come out. In Shattered, where you have sha-dooby, I wanted that to be heard, because it's as much a part of the song as the words. Van Morrison and Dylan do that kind of thing. Everyone does it, actually.
- Mick Jagger, 1978, being told he "swallows up" words

Quote
Redhotcarpet
In Shattered, Keith and Woody put a riff down, and all we had was the word shattered. So I just made the rest up and thought it would sound better if it were half-talked.
- Mick Jagger, 1978

A classical case that there might have been some third hands in creation, but not credited officially....

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-09 11:40 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet
In Shattered, Keith and Woody put a riff down, and all we had was the word shattered. So I just made the rest up and thought it would sound better if it were half-talked.
- Mick Jagger, 1978

A classical case that there might have been some third hands in creation, but not credited officially....

- Doxa

I think, in this case, it means that Keith and Ronnie had worked out the guitar arrangement, as well as cut the complete track before Mick wrote the lyrics. Keith brought in the song, as Mick have mentioned several times in interviews.

But Ronnie was creative in this era...

Yeah and since he's on bass and bassdrum it feels like he's doing something similar to Hey Negrita. The rhythm and the riff sounds like Ronnie.

One thing to consider in reading all those quotes along teh years referring to the creation of songs - like now in "Shattered" - is that earlier Jagger - and probably Richards as well - seemed intentionally leave some sort of confusion there, who did and what, like not wanting to spell them out too clearly (to an extent that sometiems like giving disinformation or saying contradictions). A part of keeping the Jagger/Richards mysticism alive I guess. Nowadays - or since the 90's probably, that "Jagger remembers" ROLLING STONE interview being an early indicative - Jagger especially sounds being more frank, if he only could remember the events any longer... The only Wood-reference derives from 1978, after that he seemingly sounded having forgotten that.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I think, in this case, it means that Keith and Ronnie had worked out the guitar arrangement, as well as cut the complete track before Mick wrote the lyrics. Keith brought in the song, as Mick have mentioned several times in interviews.

But Ronnie was creative in this era...

Yeah, and they still listened him.... that was the time when the band was still looking forward, reinventive etc. Part of the third man's job was still to give something on the table. Which Ronnie no doubt did, and was partly helping the band finding new sounds.

So I'm with you thinking that Keith with Ronnie worked out what we can call as a backing track of the song based on their guitar arrangements (most likely from Keith's ideas) if isolated theoretically from the finished product. Jagger then wrote the lyrics, and along to go with them the rap/melody he sings we can hear in the finished recording.

I think in big boys vocabulary mentioning some names next to Keith (or Mick) means that they were some sort of helping hands there (the amount of help goes to speculation and probably varies), but the song in question would be "Keith's" or "Mick's" when introduced to each other.

- Doxa

[www.iorr.org]

A song I much prefer live, in fact I prefer most of the SG tracks live, they have more enenergy. The production on the album sounds quite stale to me.

Quote
Gazza
[

Fantastic song. Like 'Miss You', a track which recorded to near perfection in it's studio incarnation, but which they havent quite captured as well in a live setting (although its always been a much more welcome addition to the show than 'Miss You')

Agreed. I find this true for a lot of their songs actually. Not to say that they don't sound good live. There's just a certain magic to their best songs on the studio versions.

Quote
ryanpow

Quote
Gazza
[

Fantastic song. Like 'Miss You', a track which recorded to near perfection in it's studio incarnation, but which they havent quite captured as well in a live setting (although its always been a much more welcome addition to the show than 'Miss You')

Agreed. I find this true for a lot of their songs actually. Not to say that they don't sound good live. There's just a certain magic to their best songs on the studio versions.

The '78 versions of miss you are great, really guitar driven with a lot of weaving.

No doubt. I just think there's something special in the studio version that hasn't been rectreated live. Its a different exerience.

living in NYC when Some Girls was released is just a magic memory...great tune and they nailed it.

Man, I was so excited when I first heard this song. Youth, I guess. That stuff doesn't happen anymore.

I prefer the live versions from 1978.

They way they play it now (when they do) has no groove or anything whatsoever.
'78-'82 had a lot of attitude, and the studio version has a lot of groove (I'll only use that word twice).

Great song. Love the break - Charlie's drumming, the guitars - and I think it's perfectly suited to Jagger's "singing" circa 1978.

Never liked it live.

Quote
Turner68
Great song. Love the break - Charlie's drumming, the guitars - and I think it's perfectly suited to Jagger's "singing" circa 1978.

Never liked it live.

Not even the 1978 versions?

[www.youtube.com]

Yuk. ^

Yeah, Keith's guitar sound and Mick's voice has never done it for me on these live versions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-02 16:57 by Turner68.

Yesterday poor little me listened to a nice sounding bootleg of a Detroit78-show. Never liked the Miss-You-album very much, but what they did live to these songs is awesome. Most of the studio-versions are rather pale in comparison.

Quote
HMS
Yesterday poor little me listened to a nice sounding bootleg of a Detroit78-show. Never liked the Miss-You-album very much, but what they did live to these songs is awesome. Most of the studio-versions are rather pale in comparison.

That's the best show on the entire tour!

Great live version:

video: [www.youtube.com]

Big fan of 1981 live versions as well.

Love it. One of the big surprises of Some Girls. And a perfect spot right after Beast Of Burden, another killer on that album.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Stoneage
Stones goes punk. Not a great song, really. But it works well. A gritty groove. Nice guitars. Hasn't worked well live though since 81/82.

To me this song, in contrast to "Lies" (which I by the way do like) is not the Rolling Stones, the rock stars of the '60s, going punk, but instead a suiting song and music representation of the individual Stone once again driven out on the streets as an ordinary human being among other people there. And those streets are not a safe place for anybody. His existence in life is as exposed as that of everybody else, who in some way or the other is in trouble. He is not only cleverly performing a rock song, but here actually may speak for everyone out there.

I have never tried to describe this song musically, not even to myself, it has been beyond my ability. But I have always found it as one of the three really great songs on SOME GIRLS, and I agree that this was the most important one for the kind of band that the Stones both were and should be.

I will modify, even if not change, an earlier post of mine a short, but only a short distance in the direction of Stoneage's post:

I still hold that "Shattered" is no punk song. However, I will concede that it may be the nearest the Stones really and genuinely themselves came towards a punk attitude, meaning punk in the British sense. Making "Shattered" a key song in the development of Stones music. It represented more than any other song of SOME GIRLS doing a song not from the horizon of remote rock superstars, but from a Rolling Stone driven out into the streets of New York and its challenges. On the other hand, "Lies" is much more stylistically a nod to the punk scene and itself with the outward feeling and appearance of punk, but without anyhow springing from a punk outlook, attitude or passion. By that referring to British punk's slogan "No Future".