A lot of people claim a lot of things about credits. Some crazy dude even claims he and not ringo played drums on the first few Beatles albums. In the absence of any proof, the liner notes are the default. Songwriting credits IMO are different as Lennon and McCartney started the pattern of essentially having a pact to avoid competition destroying collaboration. They did not however start the practice of cheating others of credit. Perhaps led Zeppelin deserves that title.

Quote
Turner68
Songwriting credits IMO are different as Lennon and McCartney started the pattern of essentially having a pact to avoid competition destroying collaboration. They did not however start the practice of cheating others of credit. Perhaps led Zeppelin deserves that title.

I'd say that Norman Petty and Alan Freed and possibly even Elvis started it way before LZ. Not 100% sure about Elvis attaching his name to stuff (although I've heard different views). I'm sure there are plenty of other early producers/djs/promoters who got "credit" for doing things they never did. Petty & Freed are just two who jump to the top of my mind when I think of that subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones
I always liked Keith's playing Kleer, and I think together with Taylor they were about the best guitar duo in rock history.

But do you find Keith playing alone satisfying? No doubt that together with Taylor they were the best duo I know.

I for one, at least as often prefer the studio albums BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED (that is, without Mick Taylor with the few exceptions) to the live versions of songs (with Mick Taylor) as I don't.

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Turner68
Songwriting credits IMO are different as Lennon and McCartney started the pattern of essentially having a pact to avoid competition destroying collaboration. They did not however start the practice of cheating others of credit. Perhaps led Zeppelin deserves that title.

I'd say that Norman Petty and Alan Freed and possibly even Elvis started it way before LZ. Not 100% sure about Elvis attaching his name to stuff (although I've heard different views). I'm sure there are plenty of other early producers/djs/promoters who got "credit" for doing things they never did. Petty & Freed are just two who jump to the top of my mind when I think of that subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

i'm sure you're right and that the practice goes back centuries. i guess i was limiting myself to thinking about british rock bands which, of course, is silly.

Quote
Turner68
A lot of people claim a lot of things about credits. Some crazy dude even claims he and not ringo played drums on the first few Beatles albums. In the absence of any proof, the liner notes are the default. Songwriting credits IMO are different as Lennon and McCartney started the pattern of essentially having a pact to avoid competition destroying collaboration. They did not however start the practice of cheating others of credit. Perhaps led Zeppelin deserves that title.

That is not some crazy dude, that is Bobby Whitlock and his story is pretty believable to me. Mick's quote below shows even he is unsure who played keyboards on the track. Obviously not a particularly good thing for someone making the liner notes.

I Just Want to See His Face was a jam with Charlie and Mick Taylor. I don't know who's playing keyboards, maybe I am. I don't even know what album it was on. That was on Exile? I think it was just a trio originally, though other people might have been added eventually. It was a complete jam. I just made the song up there and then over the riff that Charlie and Mick were playing. That's how I remember it, anyway. I'd forgotten about that one.

- Mick Jagger, 1992


quote from timeisonourside site

peace

Quote
Witness

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones
I always liked Keith's playing Kleer, and I think together with Taylor they were about the best guitar duo in rock history.

But do you find Keith playing alone satisfying? No doubt that together with Taylor they were the best duo I know.

I for one, at least as often prefer the studio albums BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED (that is, without Mick Taylor with the few exceptions) to the live versions of songs (with Mick Taylor) as I don't.

i'm surprised to hear of people comparing live vs studio actually. to me they are two completely different forms of expression and artistry. i usually think "do i want to hear the stones, or do i want to hear live stones" before i chose what to play, rather than "do i want to hear LIB studios tracks or LIB live tracks".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-12 21:29 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Turner68
Songwriting credits IMO are different as Lennon and McCartney started the pattern of essentially having a pact to avoid competition destroying collaboration. They did not however start the practice of cheating others of credit. Perhaps led Zeppelin deserves that title.

I'd say that Norman Petty and Alan Freed and possibly even Elvis started it way before LZ. Not 100% sure about Elvis attaching his name to stuff (although I've heard different views). I'm sure there are plenty of other early producers/djs/promoters who got "credit" for doing things they never did. Petty & Freed are just two who jump to the top of my mind when I think of that subject.

Peace,
Mr DJA

i'm sure you're right and that the practice goes back centuries. i guess i was limiting myself to thinking about british rock bands which, of course, is silly.

I guess if you limit the pool to just British rock bands you had a pretty accurate description of it! Silliness is good sometimes... I got a laugh from your reply so I have to thank you for that anyway!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Witness

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones
I always liked Keith's playing Kleer, and I think together with Taylor they were about the best guitar duo in rock history.

But do you find Keith playing alone satisfying? No doubt that together with Taylor they were the best duo I know.

I for one, at least as often prefer the studio albums BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED (that is, without Mick Taylor with the few exceptions) to the live versions of songs (with Mick Taylor) as I don't.

i'm surprised to hear of people comparing live vs studio actually. to me they are two completely different forms of expression and artistry. i usually think "do i want to hear the stones, or do i want to hear live stones" before i chose what to play, rather than "do i want to hear LIB studios tracks or LIB live tracks".

I have organized what I have got of the Stones (studio, live, not so many boots) plus solo albums (Jagger, Richards, one Taylor album, five from Wood, not Wyman any longer) more or less chronologically and listen from where I left off last time, often in the middle of an album. So in that respect, for years I have not chosen what to listen to, apart from continuing that arrangement. And I don't skip songs or albums. What I do then, is really to journey through their career. That is what I prefer to do.

Instead of making choices, the point of view I, with my last post, was commenting on, was the question above in bold, where what I respond to in the affirmative in that way, is not Keith isolated, but the totality, which Keith is vital, of course, in contributing to. What he over the years may have lacked in cleverness, is not for me to judge in any way , but in any case in my view would be counteracted by his taste and intensity.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-12 22:39 by Witness.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Witness

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
LuxuryStones
I always liked Keith's playing Kleer, and I think together with Taylor they were about the best guitar duo in rock history.

But do you find Keith playing alone satisfying? No doubt that together with Taylor they were the best duo I know.

I for one, at least as often prefer the studio albums BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED (that is, without Mick Taylor with the few exceptions) to the live versions of songs (with Mick Taylor) as I don't.

i'm surprised to hear of people comparing live vs studio actually. to me they are two completely different forms of expression and artistry. i usually think "do i want to hear the stones, or do i want to hear live stones" before i chose what to play, rather than "do i want to hear LIB studios tracks or LIB live tracks".

In my head, I always unfairly compare the two, even though I should know better and realize that you can't replicate studio onstage, but meh...I personally prefer studio to live... However, even I, no fan of the live recording, still know the Stones were better onstage with MT than at any other point in their career. He is totally on fire on some of those bootlegs unreleased live recordings... But I'll still stick with the studio Stones over the live Stones. Also, I think BB and LIB are great, even without MT, as much as it pains me to admit the Stones could be great without MT.

Any news on Mick Taylor's whereabouts? Is he playing? WTF - where is he?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You can belittle the quality of things if you're expressing a negative opinion of something, just as you did, kleerie.

No you can't, because the quality of things and especially art is subjective per se, because it simply depends on the people who judge it. Besides belittling has an emotional component in it, just like insulting and offending etc. (result: hurt feelings if the person in question is sensitive for it). Or do you think that things can be offended and thus have feelings? I guess not.

Expressing a negative opinion is actually critique, especially if the critique is explained, just like I did. But critique can hurt creators and fans alike, as we all know too well. Of course that is no reason to not expressing it. But if you really think that criticizing something is the same as belittling it, then that reproach hasn't any meaning at all.

Belittling things is indeed possible, happens all the time. A man can stand alone in front of mona lisa and make belittling comments about it. Says to himself "that's not even close to a masterpiece". Doesn't have to have an audience or make an emotional impact on anyone. The nature of belittling involves critical and judgmental thinking. Belittling is really a type of critique, more descriptive because it infers a lack of importance in the object or person being belittled.

In any case belittling does tend to say more about the person doing it, in general, than about the object or person being belittled.

peace

Great rhetoric here Naturalust, but I think it's just nonsense. In that way critique and/or judgement and belittling are the same thing. As if one has no other option than to admire the Mona Lisa (or LIB in our case). Otherwise it says more about that person. But what does it say then? Not more or less than that that person doesn't like or admire a certain thing, for whatever reason(s).

Quote
Getondown
Any news on Mick Taylor's whereabouts? Is he playing? WTF - where is he?

lots of activity on his official Facebook page, perhaps something is coming up. i recommend tracking it if you are interested in what he's up to - one would expect it to let us know. (his web site now says to visit his Facebook page).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
This is just you resonating and guessing, kleerie

In reality expressing a negative opinion is a synonymous phrase for belittling, be it art or other subjective matters.

What you don't get is that your negative opinion of something that others cherish can be perceived as belittling.

Critique is in your opinion the same as a negative opinion. And the consequence is that when others love something that one criticizes it is belittling. Sorry, but I don't buy this nonsense. Such an attitude tends to intolerance and, worse, it is!

A negative opinion is... well... a negative opinion, no matter how you twist it.

If I love strawberry ice cream you don't necessarily come across as a constructive critique by saying it tastes like something off the trash bin.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
A negative opinion is... well... a negative opinion, no matter how you twist it.

If I love strawberry ice cream you don't necessarily come across as a constructive critique by saying it tastes like something off the trash bin.

Now you're twisting things and starts belittling me, which is a negative thing.

I'm positive that you are negative about this.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
A negative opinion is... well... a negative opinion, no matter how you twist it.

If I love strawberry ice cream you don't necessarily come across as a constructive critique by saying it tastes like something off the trash bin.

Now you're twisting things and starts belittling me, which is a negative thing.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm positive that you are negative about this.

W-w-what's happening here...?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm positive that you are negative about this.

You're twisting substantiated critique into a negative opinion and calls it then belittling and ends up with qualifying it as negative. That's not a positive thing at all, killing all unwelcome opinions and critique in one and the same time. That's what I call rhetoric and that's not a good thing in my book.

Just poking some fun HMK

I can't believe we've fallen to debating the definition of criticism... I think the heart of this debate is a disagreement in connitative definition of belittling DP comment that was taken a little too far by kleerie, only then DP get messing with him...

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You can belittle the quality of things if you're expressing a negative opinion of something, just as you did, kleerie.

No you can't, because the quality of things and especially art is subjective per se, because it simply depends on the people who judge it. Besides belittling has an emotional component in it, just like insulting and offending etc. (result: hurt feelings if the person in question is sensitive for it). Or do you think that things can be offended and thus have feelings? I guess not.

Expressing a negative opinion is actually critique, especially if the critique is explained, just like I did. But critique can hurt creators and fans alike, as we all know too well. Of course that is no reason to not expressing it. But if you really think that criticizing something is the same as belittling it, then that reproach hasn't any meaning at all.

Belittling things is indeed possible, happens all the time. A man can stand alone in front of mona lisa and make belittling comments about it. Says to himself "that's not even close to a masterpiece". Doesn't have to have an audience or make an emotional impact on anyone. The nature of belittling involves critical and judgmental thinking. Belittling is really a type of critique, more descriptive because it infers a lack of importance in the object or person being belittled.

In any case belittling does tend to say more about the person doing it, in general, than about the object or person being belittled.

peace

Great rhetoric here Naturalust, but I think it's just nonsense. In that way critique and/or judgement and belittling are the same thing. As if one has no other option than to admire the Mona Lisa (or LIB in our case). Otherwise it says more about that person. But what does it say then? Not more or less than that that person doesn't like or admire a certain thing, for whatever reason(s).

Well it's certainly a semantic discussion. But, like I said, I think belittling is a form of critique, certainly a form of judgement, just a more narrow form of it. Not all critique and judgement is belittling but almost all belittling is judgmental and/or critical.

The man looking at the Mona Lisa obviously has many choices depending on how he feels and chooses to react. He may choose to admire it or may be repulsed by it and not admire it at all. In both cases he may make belittling comments about it for example, "I love and admire it but it doesn't belong in the Louvre next to these truly important pieces of art", or "This is total crap and should never have been painted".

What belittling tells about the person doing it is what they think is valued or important or what isn't, or what is little or "reduced" in their opinion.

I accept your LIB comments as what they were, your opinion, and I value it for many reasons, even if I don't completely agree. What they show about you is that you value and expect good guitar work on songs you like, that it's important to you in a song. Whether you were belittling Keith, the song, neither or both is something I trust only you might be able to explain convincingly. My intention wasn't to spread rhetoric, just explain the nature and definition of belittle.

Back on subject:





peace

I have great respect for Taylor, he is a great guitar player, but I think Aftermath and Beggars Banquet or Stripped and Some Girls are masterpieces like Sticky Fingers and Exile.
I apologize for my English.

That video reminded me of why I don't like to hear the Stones live... the slide was certainly better there than on the record, but without all the acoustics and Jagger's less sharp singing, it didn't strike me as emotively as the LIB version. I don't mean to belittle their performance, but just to critique that if Jagger sang better onstage, it might've struck a chord with me a little more... but that's just me.

Quote
HearMeKnockin
That video reminded me of why I don't like to hear the Stones live... the slide was certainly better there than on the record, but without all the acoustics and Jagger's less sharp singing, it didn't strike me as emotively as the LIB version. I don't mean to belittle their performance, but just to critique that if Jagger sang better onstage, it might've struck a chord with me a little more... but that's just me.

Totally agree the vocals on the record are almost always superior to the live stuff. For one thing Jagger doubling and harmonizing with himself is usually very good. I also generally prefer the studio versions of their best tunes to the live stuff. It's not hard to understand why considering how much time and effort they dedicated to each song. They worked till they were perfect, something they obviously can't do live.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
That video reminded me of why I don't like to hear the Stones live... the slide was certainly better there than on the record, but without all the acoustics and Jagger's less sharp singing, it didn't strike me as emotively as the LIB version. I don't mean to belittle their performance, but just to critique that if Jagger sang better onstage, it might've struck a chord with me a little more... but that's just me.

Totally agree the vocals on the record are almost always superior to the live stuff. For one thing Jagger doubling and harmonizing with himself is usually very good. I also generally prefer the studio versions of their best tunes to the live stuff. It's not hard to understand why considering how much time and effort they dedicated to each song. They worked till they were perfect, something they obviously can't do live.

peace

Glad to see someone else who prefers studio Stones to live Stones.

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
That video reminded me of why I don't like to hear the Stones live... the slide was certainly better there than on the record, but without all the acoustics and Jagger's less sharp singing, it didn't strike me as emotively as the LIB version. I don't mean to belittle their performance, but just to critique that if Jagger sang better onstage, it might've struck a chord with me a little more... but that's just me.

Totally agree the vocals on the record are almost always superior to the live stuff. For one thing Jagger doubling and harmonizing with himself is usually very good. I also generally prefer the studio versions of their best tunes to the live stuff. It's not hard to understand why considering how much time and effort they dedicated to each song. They worked till they were perfect, something they obviously can't do live.

peace

Glad to see someone else who prefers studio Stones to live Stones.

I'd still rather see a live Stones show than put on a record though!

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
That video reminded me of why I don't like to hear the Stones live... the slide was certainly better there than on the record, but without all the acoustics and Jagger's less sharp singing, it didn't strike me as emotively as the LIB version. I don't mean to belittle their performance, but just to critique that if Jagger sang better onstage, it might've struck a chord with me a little more... but that's just me.

Totally agree the vocals on the record are almost always superior to the live stuff. For one thing Jagger doubling and harmonizing with himself is usually very good. I also generally prefer the studio versions of their best tunes to the live stuff. It's not hard to understand why considering how much time and effort they dedicated to each song. They worked till they were perfect, something they obviously can't do live.

peace

Glad to see someone else who prefers studio Stones to live Stones.

I'd still rather see a live Stones show than put on a record though!

peace

And the discussion is BACK, because we now have a disagreement! Because I would certainly put on any Stones album than shell out a bunch of money to listen to Mick's shot voice try to belt out songs I've heard a million times, and that I may or may not (in the case of TD ) want to listen to anyway. Of course, I've never actually attended a Stones show so maybe I'm totally off-base, but based on the theory, that's my position.

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
That video reminded me of why I don't like to hear the Stones live... the slide was certainly better there than on the record, but without all the acoustics and Jagger's less sharp singing, it didn't strike me as emotively as the LIB version. I don't mean to belittle their performance, but just to critique that if Jagger sang better onstage, it might've struck a chord with me a little more... but that's just me.

Totally agree the vocals on the record are almost always superior to the live stuff. For one thing Jagger doubling and harmonizing with himself is usually very good. I also generally prefer the studio versions of their best tunes to the live stuff. It's not hard to understand why considering how much time and effort they dedicated to each song. They worked till they were perfect, something they obviously can't do live.

peace

Glad to see someone else who prefers studio Stones to live Stones.

I'd still rather see a live Stones show than put on a record though!

peace

And the discussion is BACK, because we now have a disagreement! Because I would certainly put on any Stones album than shell out a bunch of money to listen to Mick's shot voice try to belt out songs I've heard a million times, and that I may or may not (in the case of TD ) want to listen to anyway. Of course, I've never actually attended a Stones show so maybe I'm totally off-base, but based on the theory, that's my position.

Well TD is playing as I type this, sounds pretty good actually. I assure you a Stones show is much more than the sum of it's parts. Hard to explain actually but there is some magic juju involved. I dislike the idea of seeing the same show or worse a poor performance but it always turns out quite delightful. Hope you will get a chance to see one this tour.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
HearMeKnockin
That video reminded me of why I don't like to hear the Stones live... the slide was certainly better there than on the record, but without all the acoustics and Jagger's less sharp singing, it didn't strike me as emotively as the LIB version. I don't mean to belittle their performance, but just to critique that if Jagger sang better onstage, it might've struck a chord with me a little more... but that's just me.

Totally agree the vocals on the record are almost always superior to the live stuff. For one thing Jagger doubling and harmonizing with himself is usually very good. I also generally prefer the studio versions of their best tunes to the live stuff. It's not hard to understand why considering how much time and effort they dedicated to each song. They worked till they were perfect, something they obviously can't do live.

peace

Glad to see someone else who prefers studio Stones to live Stones.

I'd still rather see a live Stones show than put on a record though!

peace

And the discussion is BACK, because we now have a disagreement! Because I would certainly put on any Stones album than shell out a bunch of money to listen to Mick's shot voice try to belt out songs I've heard a million times, and that I may or may not (in the case of TD ) want to listen to anyway. Of course, I've never actually attended a Stones show so maybe I'm totally off-base, but based on the theory, that's my position.

Well TD is playing as I type this, sounds pretty good actually. I assure you a Stones show is much more than the sum of it's parts. Hard to explain actually but there is some magic juju involved. I dislike the idea of seeing the same show or worse a poor performance but it always turns out quite delightful. Hope you will get a chance to see one this tour.

peace

Well, I don't have the money to get to a Stones show, so I think I'd have to see one of theirs at a later date. Maybe I'll get the chance some time so I can discover what all the fuss is about...

Get a lucky dip ticket. It's worth it.