Quote
matxil
Damn, just after my text got posted, I saw Doxa just wrote pretty much the same in his last paragraph.
Hell, maybe Bill and Keith both came up with the same riff at the same time independently and Bill's version "got posted" just a minute earlier.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

Quote
24FPS
This was originally posted in The Australian on June 15th:



It’s the week of release for the deluxe edition of Sticky Fingers, the album that in 1971 transformed the Rolling Stones from rock’n’roll outlaws into world-conquering stadium rockers. In his diner-style restaurant of the same name in Kensington, west London, Bill Wyman — bassist for the Stones from 1962 to 1993, part-time archeologist and photographer, author, metal detector enthusiast, leader of R&B band the Rhythm Kings and recently reinvigorated solo artist with a new album Back to Basics — is recalling his short-lived, ill-fated reunion with the Stones for two concerts at the O2 arena in London in 2012.

“I jammed with Charlie [Watts], Keith [Richards] and Ronnie [Wood] in a studio in Battersea nine months before the gig. Mick came on the third day,” says Wyman, in a characteristically flat tone, as he sits in one of the booths in Sticky Fingers beneath a wall decorated with Stones tour posters and concert photographs. “And they were getting over-friendly, Keith in particular. I invited Keith and Patti [Hansen, Keith Richards’ wife] to the house for dinner and he was all over me. He gave me a scarf with all these skeleton things on it and he kept hugging me, saying, ‘Man, it’s great to be back.’ And the talk was that I’d be heavily involved when they did their next thing.”


Wyman — who no longer has the cadaverous, crow-like air of a Rolling Stone but who now looks like your average 78-year-old millionaire, albeit one with hair — documents the frustrations that followed. They began when he was told he could only play two songs at the O2.


“And they wouldn’t tell me which two,” he says, managing to sound both indignant and unemotional at the same time. “It really disappointed me. I said, ‘Why don’t you let me do the last five, and then your guy [Darryl Jones, who replaced Wyman as the Stones’ bassist] can do the encore?’ No, no, no. So the day before the rehearsal I’m going through 50 Stones songs, thinking they’ll want me to do my signature ones like Miss You and Jumping Jack Flash. Then they tell me I’m doing Honky Tonk Women and It’s Only Rock’n’Roll.”


The torments didn’t stop there. “Two days later I went to the O2 for the soundcheck. I had to use his [Jones’s] amplifier and he plays completely differently from me. He plays with his fingers, hard, I play with my thumb, lightly. I didn’t have time to check out his amp settings. Then Mick says, ‘We’ve got to rehearse with Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck and this girl [Florence Welch] and there’s no time for a soundcheck — for you.’ In the end I just went on stage, plugged in and hoped for the best.”


What was the reason for such treatment at the hands of his former brothers in arms? “Maybe they were punishing me for leaving the band,” offers Wyman, to cries of protest from his personal assistant, who’s sitting at a table nearby. “They never wanted me to leave. When I came off stage and went to join my wife and daughters in the pit, the bass player started doing Miss You! He’s playing all my parts — and not as well as I thought he should. He’s playing the octaves as single notes. And then Mick starts saying what a great bass player he is, right in front of me. ‘Look at Darryl, isn’t he fantastic?’ goes Mick.”

Wyman shakes his head. “They never forgave me for leaving.”


He left the Rolling Stones in the first place after feeling that his contributions were going unheard. And Back to Basics is something of a late-career high. Conversational songs sung in a cockney baritone like What & How & If & When & Why and Stuff (Can’t Get Enough) recall the dry wit of Ian Dury, alongside that of Wyman’s own self-deprecating hit of 1981, Je Suis un Rock Star. He’s got a way with a down-to-earth tune, even if his sole contribution to one of the Stones’ original albums, the whimsical In Another Land from 1967’s psychedelic disaster Their Satanic Majesties Request, does not rank among their classics.


“It was a closed shop and there was no way in,” says Wyman on the Jagger-Richards stranglehold, established in the mid-1960s when the band’s then-manager Andrew Loog Oldham recognised the pair as the creative force within the group. “That was [Sticky Fingers-era guitarist] Mick Taylor’s frustration. He couldn’t get into the songwriting and any contribution he made wasn’t given credit, same as me. He left. I swallowed my pride and carried on.”


In his book Stone Alone, Wyman writes how he and Brian Jones came up with the iconic riff for Jumping Jack Flash, not something they received credit for. “I wasn’t given the opportunity to do my apprenticeship in the way Mick and Keith were,” he says, with stone-faced composure. “They wrote dozens of really poor songs until they started writing good ones. We’d be in Chicago or somewhere and they’d ask if I had anything. I’d run through a tune, they’d say, ‘Oh yeah, we’ll come back to you on that,’ and then go and work on one of their songs for a week until it had gone from a country ballad, as Satisfaction was, into something really commercial. It was frustrating.”


Wyman was always an odd fit. Older than the others, he rarely hung out with them and he was never interested in drink and drugs. He did, however, enjoy phenomenal success with women. He didn’t have the dangerous sensuality of Mick Jagger, nor the ragged charms of Keith Richards, yet Wyman, unhappily married to his first wife Diane from 1959 to 1969, slept with hundreds of female fans throughout his time with the band. What was his secret?


He tackles the question with sober consideration, as if being asked about the inner workings of the Bill Wyman Signature Metal Detector. “When I first went to work in 1960, as a clerk at a diesel engineer’s in Streatham Hill, a friend of mine took me back home and showed me how to develop film,” he explains. “He also said, when I told him I wasn’t getting on well with my wife: ‘I’ll tell you one lesson to take with you through life. With women, no matter who they are, no matter what they do, always treat them like a lady and you won’t go wrong.’ Since then I’ve been respectful to every girl I met. I was never rude. I never kicked them out like I heard other people did. I was always nice to them, even when they weren’t quite what I thought they might be.”


Despite such niceness, Back to Basics does feature a song called Seventeen, about a model who tries to break into acting and finds herself being described by Wyman as “a has-been” at the tender age of the title.


“That’s a rewrite of a song I did in 1980. We had a birthday party at the restaurant and this American model came along, I was introduced to her — I won’t mention names — and she wasn’t as attractive as I thought she was on screen. Seventeen is a bit cruel. It’s about moving on from being a model — I had loads of model girlfriends — to being in movies and how sometimes it’s not successful. Kelly LeBrock was one of my girlfriends and for her it was great, but most of them fail. My wife Suzanne [Accosta] was a model and she always talks about how badly they were treated by photographers. They’d go and do a shoot and be treated like a piece of shit, basically.”


Having a song on the album called Seventeen seems to be asking for trouble, considering Wyman found himself in something of a scandal when in 1989, aged 52, he married 18-year-old Mandy Smith. They were rumoured to have been together four years previously. Wyman appears to read my thoughts. “At least I called the song Seventeen,” he says, before Smith’s name has a chance to be mentioned.


The womanising days ended many years ago. Married to Accosta since 1993, living with her and their three teenage daughters in their houses in Chelsea and Suffolk, Wyman has matured into a faithful family man with age-appropriate interests, including metal detecting and archeology. Does he have any regrets about leaving the Stones?


"I’ve never regretted it,” he says, bringing an hour’s conversation to an end. “The past 20 years have been the most prolific of my life. I found two Roman sites they never knew existed. I’ve found Iron Age coins. I’ve opened events for the British Museum. I’ve opened the Castle Museum in Norwich, one in bloody Newcastle. Done photographic exhibitions around the world. Now it seems like this album might do quite well.”


Then, as if to make peace with three decades of frustration at the hands of the Rolling Stones, he concludes: “Makes it all worthwhile, doesn’t it?”
By Will Hodgkinson

With many thanks to The Australian

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

The problem is only if one looks for 100% certainty, and nothing less is rewarding. There are lots of things in Rolling Stones world we most likely will not ever be 100% sure about. But that shouldn't prevent us talking about these 'difficult' matters, finding alternative proposals, judging them against each other, arguing for or against, etc. Like I earlier said, as far as creative processes are concerned, we are mostly left with educated guesses. That's the reality we have to deal with, if we really are interested in these matters. (or to say it in other terms: if truth - what really has happened - is what interests us.)

But as far "Flash" riff goes, I really can't see that Bill Wyman is intentionally making things up, that is, systematically lying. What I did above - and I think matxil also - was a kind of way to 'explain' what 'writing the riff' might have been like; what was that what Bill actually was doing like. Turner68 has also brought some ways to explain Wyman's "perspective" - Wyman's perception might be genuine, but there could be some other alternative ones as well, which might contradict his but still be as 'genuine'.


- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

The problem is only if one looks for 100% certainty, and nothing less is rewarding. There are lots of things in Rolling Stones world we most likely will not ever be 100% sure about. But that shouldn't prevent us talking about these 'difficult' matters, finding alternative proposals, judging them against each other, arguing for or against, etc. Like I earlier said, as far as creative processes are concerned, we are mostly left with educated guesses. That's the reality we have to deal with, if we really are interested in these matters. (or to say it in other terms: if truth - what really has happened - is what interests us.)

But as far "Flash" riff goes, I really can't see that Bill Wyman is intentionally making things up, that is, systematically lying. What I did above - and I think matxil also - was a kind of way to 'explain' what 'writing the riff' might have been like; what was that what Bill actually was doing like. Turner68 has also brought some ways to explain Wyman's "perspective" - Wyman's perception might be genuine, but there could be some other alternative ones as well, which might contradict his but still be as 'genuine'.


- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

The problem is only if one looks for 100% certainty, and nothing less is rewarding. There are lots of things in Rolling Stones world we most likely will not ever be 100% sure about. But that shouldn't prevent us talking about these 'difficult' matters, finding alternative proposals, judging them against each other, arguing for or against, etc. Like I earlier said, as far as creative processes are concerned, we are mostly left with educated guesses. That's the reality we have to deal with, if we really are interested in these matters. (or to say it in other terms: if truth - what really has happened - is what interests us.)

But as far "Flash" riff goes, I really can't see that Bill Wyman is intentionally making things up, that is, systematically lying. What I did above - and I think matxil also - was a kind of way to 'explain' what 'writing the riff' might have been like; what was that what Bill actually was doing like. Turner68 has also brought some ways to explain Wyman's "perspective" - Wyman's perception might be genuine, but there could be some other alternative ones as well, which might contradict his but still be as 'genuine'.


- Doxa

Like I said, I think treating your own conclusion when you have insufficient info as an asset in a discussion makes many posters believe it's for real.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

The problem is only if one looks for 100% certainty, and nothing less is rewarding. There are lots of things in Rolling Stones world we most likely will not ever be 100% sure about. But that shouldn't prevent us talking about these 'difficult' matters, finding alternative proposals, judging them against each other, arguing for or against, etc. Like I earlier said, as far as creative processes are concerned, we are mostly left with educated guesses. That's the reality we have to deal with, if we really are interested in these matters. (or to say it in other terms: if truth - what really has happened - is what interests us.)

But as far "Flash" riff goes, I really can't see that Bill Wyman is intentionally making things up, that is, systematically lying. What I did above - and I think matxil also - was a kind of way to 'explain' what 'writing the riff' might have been like; what was that what Bill actually was doing like. Turner68 has also brought some ways to explain Wyman's "perspective" - Wyman's perception might be genuine, but there could be some other alternative ones as well, which might contradict his but still be as 'genuine'.


- Doxa

Like I said, I think treating your own conclusion when you have insufficient info as an asset in a discussion makes many posters believe it's for real.

If that is the matter, then it's their own responsibility. We are not in kindergarten here. People can choose to be critical and sceptical and think for themselves or not. We posters don't have to take account of the way 'fans' interpret our posts. Besides Doxa always explains his opinions and hypotheses very well and in a very relative way.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

The problem is only if one looks for 100% certainty, and nothing less is rewarding. There are lots of things in Rolling Stones world we most likely will not ever be 100% sure about. But that shouldn't prevent us talking about these 'difficult' matters, finding alternative proposals, judging them against each other, arguing for or against, etc. Like I earlier said, as far as creative processes are concerned, we are mostly left with educated guesses. That's the reality we have to deal with, if we really are interested in these matters. (or to say it in other terms: if truth - what really has happened - is what interests us.)

But as far "Flash" riff goes, I really can't see that Bill Wyman is intentionally making things up, that is, systematically lying. What I did above - and I think matxil also - was a kind of way to 'explain' what 'writing the riff' might have been like; what was that what Bill actually was doing like. Turner68 has also brought some ways to explain Wyman's "perspective" - Wyman's perception might be genuine, but there could be some other alternative ones as well, which might contradict his but still be as 'genuine'.


- Doxa

Like I said, I think treating your own conclusion when you have insufficient info as an asset in a discussion makes many posters believe it's for real.

If that is the matter, then it's their own responsibility. We are not in kindergarten here. People can choose to be critical and sceptical and think for themselves or not. We posters don't have to take account of the way 'fans' interpret our posts. Besides Doxa always explains his opinions and hypotheses very well and in a very relative way.

Quote
liddas
If you listen to Dickinson's interview on the Muscle Shoals session (see Swiss post no on main page) you get an idea of how thing worked in those days.

The account on Keith "writing"a Wild Horses chord chart for him is a true classic.

What I didn't know was that there actually wad some form of friction Bill and Keith.

C

Quote
Turner68

Quote
liddas
If you listen to Dickinson's interview on the Muscle Shoals session (see Swiss post no on main page) you get an idea of how thing worked in those days.

The account on Keith "writing"a Wild Horses chord chart for him is a true classic.

What I didn't know was that there actually wad some form of friction Bill and Keith.

C

I was surprised to hear that too, *however* he makes a critical error in his recounting which we need to consider. It calls into question who had issues with who:

-> he says that the stones travelled in 2 groups in 1969 because some of them couldn't stand to be with others. he says Keith, Charlie, and Bill travelled together and that Mick and Mick T travelled together. This would imply that the friction was not between Keith and Bill, since they travelled together.

-> he then says Keith and Bill had friction.

-> we must remember he spent a total of 3 days with the band and had never met them before.

I think we must conclude that someone told him there was serious friction in the band, but that it's unclear between too or how significant it was (could have just been a momentary fight after MSG).

Memories are imperfect. I believe that to take something as true - whether it's about who wrote what, or who said what, or who was fighting as who - it's best to have 2 sources to confirm.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

The problem is only if one looks for 100% certainty, and nothing less is rewarding. There are lots of things in Rolling Stones world we most likely will not ever be 100% sure about. But that shouldn't prevent us talking about these 'difficult' matters, finding alternative proposals, judging them against each other, arguing for or against, etc. Like I earlier said, as far as creative processes are concerned, we are mostly left with educated guesses. That's the reality we have to deal with, if we really are interested in these matters. (or to say it in other terms: if truth - what really has happened - is what interests us.)

But as far "Flash" riff goes, I really can't see that Bill Wyman is intentionally making things up, that is, systematically lying. What I did above - and I think matxil also - was a kind of way to 'explain' what 'writing the riff' might have been like; what was that what Bill actually was doing like. Turner68 has also brought some ways to explain Wyman's "perspective" - Wyman's perception might be genuine, but there could be some other alternative ones as well, which might contradict his but still be as 'genuine'.


- Doxa

Like I said, I think treating your own conclusion when you have insufficient info as an asset in a discussion makes many posters believe it's for real.

If that is the matter, then it's their own responsibility. We are not in kindergarten here. People can choose to be critical and sceptical and think for themselves or not. We posters don't have to take account of the way 'fans' interpret our posts. Besides Doxa always explains his opinions and hypotheses very well and in a very relative way.

Exactly.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Turner68

Quote
liddas
If you listen to Dickinson's interview on the Muscle Shoals session (see Swiss post no on main page) you get an idea of how thing worked in those days.

The account on Keith "writing"a Wild Horses chord chart for him is a true classic.

What I didn't know was that there actually wad some form of friction Bill and Keith.

C

I was surprised to hear that too, *however* he makes a critical error in his recounting which we need to consider. It calls into question who had issues with who:

-> he says that the stones travelled in 2 groups in 1969 because some of them couldn't stand to be with others. he says Keith, Charlie, and Bill travelled together and that Mick and Mick T travelled together. This would imply that the friction was not between Keith and Bill, since they travelled together.

-> he then says Keith and Bill had friction.

-> we must remember he spent a total of 3 days with the band and had never met them before.

I think we must conclude that someone told him there was serious friction in the band, but that it's unclear between too or how significant it was (could have just been a momentary fight after MSG).

Memories are imperfect. I believe that to take something as true - whether it's about who wrote what, or who said what, or who was fighting as who - it's best to have 2 sources to confirm.

Really. Can you imagine being an outsider and suddenly observing this group, that had been tethered to each other for 7 years at that point, and gone through a hell of a year, even before Altamont? And I'll bet if any outsider attacked any one of them the other 4 would turn on that outsider with bared fangs.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Turner68

Quote
liddas
If you listen to Dickinson's interview on the Muscle Shoals session (see Swiss post no on main page) you get an idea of how thing worked in those days.

The account on Keith "writing"a Wild Horses chord chart for him is a true classic.

What I didn't know was that there actually wad some form of friction Bill and Keith.

C

I was surprised to hear that too, *however* he makes a critical error in his recounting which we need to consider. It calls into question who had issues with who:

-> he says that the stones travelled in 2 groups in 1969 because some of them couldn't stand to be with others. he says Keith, Charlie, and Bill travelled together and that Mick and Mick T travelled together. This would imply that the friction was not between Keith and Bill, since they travelled together.

-> he then says Keith and Bill had friction.

-> we must remember he spent a total of 3 days with the band and had never met them before.

I think we must conclude that someone told him there was serious friction in the band, but that it's unclear between too or how significant it was (could have just been a momentary fight after MSG).

Memories are imperfect. I believe that to take something as true - whether it's about who wrote what, or who said what, or who was fighting as who - it's best to have 2 sources to confirm.

Really. Can you imagine being an outsider and suddenly observing this group, that had been tethered to each other for 7 years at that point, and gone through a hell of a year, even before Altamont? And I'll bet if any outsider attacked any one of them the other 4 would turn on that outsider with bared fangs.

It's hard to tell what you're referring to but I think you are agreeing with me that we can't assume the outsider (Dickinson) understood the dynamics ?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good sum up by Doxa, but it really misses what the debate is all about, imo.

We just don't have sufficient info, hence it is foolish to say that Bill or Keith wrote the riff, with certainty. We only have their versions, and Bill's is so far the only version we know has some mis-rememberings.

It's the "Bill wrote it", "Mick wanted to fire Bill in 1969"-tone I think is misleading. Many fans may confuse our educated guesses for real facts. That's where it gets too far, imo.

The problem is only if one looks for 100% certainty, and nothing less is rewarding. There are lots of things in Rolling Stones world we most likely will not ever be 100% sure about. But that shouldn't prevent us talking about these 'difficult' matters, finding alternative proposals, judging them against each other, arguing for or against, etc. Like I earlier said, as far as creative processes are concerned, we are mostly left with educated guesses. That's the reality we have to deal with, if we really are interested in these matters. (or to say it in other terms: if truth - what really has happened - is what interests us.)

But as far "Flash" riff goes, I really can't see that Bill Wyman is intentionally making things up, that is, systematically lying. What I did above - and I think matxil also - was a kind of way to 'explain' what 'writing the riff' might have been like; what was that what Bill actually was doing like. Turner68 has also brought some ways to explain Wyman's "perspective" - Wyman's perception might be genuine, but there could be some other alternative ones as well, which might contradict his but still be as 'genuine'.


- Doxa

Like I said, I think treating your own conclusion when you have insufficient info as an asset in a discussion makes many posters believe it's for real.

If that is the matter, then it's their own responsibility. We are not in kindergarten here. People can choose to be critical and sceptical and think for themselves or not. We posters don't have to take account of the way 'fans' interpret our posts. Besides Doxa always explains his opinions and hypotheses very well and in a very relative way.

Exactly.

So why don't you present your theories and conclusions as theories and conclusions? I agree with kleerie here. We have never heard Mick saying that he wanted to sack Bill. As a long-time poster, you can make new members of this forum believe this is a true story. You have a responsibility.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Facts established by who? There are a trillion thruths about the stones out there. When those are challenged its a good thing. Lets not turn a forum into a corp presentation by fans.

Quote
Naturalust
LOL You guys are taking yourselves a bit too seriously to be suggesting that people reading the forum, new member or not, can't think for themselves when it comes to believing what they read. There are so many conflicting opinions on this thread alone anyone with a brain is going to figure out pretty quickly that no one knows what the hell they are talking about.

Quote
lem motlow
no-keith didnt get addicted again in the 1990's.he had a quick little dance and it was over.it's not like he revisited the 70's again.

the songwriting thing is a little tricky because none of us were there and it gets a little blurred with time anyway.

some of the stuff was probably worked out with the band but credited to jagger/richards but who know's? bill was probably just telling the story for the sake of it anyway, not because it was some earth shattering moment in his life.

as for ry cooder,well i've seen more than one person suddenly become a musical genuis when they're around mick and keith.then suddenly when mick and keith are gone the person becomes very average-funny how that works.