Tell Me :
Talk
Wish I had known this a couple of days ago.
If this is in fact true then it makes him quite possibly the most seriously underrated musician of all time.
I consulted this while I listened, TFD; was very helpful to sort out some of the 'instructions.'
[www.rollingstonesnet.com]
When I'm retired, senile and sitting in a wheelchair, DP.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-15 18:40 by TheflyingDutchman.
You know, in spite of some of my snarky comments, ultimately I enjoyed them, too. There are nuggets in the midst of the tedium, for sure.
I've been reading a lot about Bach over the past year or so. What little is known about his actual method of composition is so different from what most rock bands do. Many 'classical' composers, for instance, find it a sign of limited talent to have to be chained to an instrument while you compose. You should be able to 'hear' your piece in your mind's ear as it develops and record that 'hearing' on paper the way a novelist would 'record' his or her words. Aaron Copland, for example, referred to an instrument-based method of composing as being 'chained to an instrument.'
(Because he was an unbelievable keyboard virtuoso and master of improvisation (the Hendrix of the organ in his day), Bach would apparently occasionally stop composing on paper and move over to an instrument in order to check that what he was writing was 'playable' by mere mortals.)
Many things separate rock musicians from timeless geniuses like Bach, and it's ultimately probably not terribly useful to compare them, but one thing stands out for me in the context of this discussion: the ability to invent music and carry loooooong stretches of complex music in their heads, to be able to hear very precisely what it is they want and then to transcribe that onto paper.
I'm not saying that this was an instantaneous process. I'm sure even the greatest composers labored long hours trying to come up with new ideas. But once they were on the trail, it seems they had an uncanny ability to make complicated music out of those ideas with the stroke of a pen.
I was imagining Bach and Mozart and Stravinsky and Copland hanging around during the Satanic Sessions and not really having any idea what those dudes were on about. They might have been just as likely to have imagined that the band were performing carpentry as making music! (Not making a judgement here on whether they would have liked the sounds; just commenting on how foreign the process is likely to have seemed to them.)
This. It's only Rock & Roll but I like it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-15 19:01 by TheflyingDutchman.
Thanks for posting. This of course is the Conductor approach, the score i.e the target is more or less there already. The Stones are one step down during their TSMR sessions, still searching for what to play in the first place instead of how to play - at least the sessions I heard.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-15 22:58 by TheflyingDutchman.
On the one hand, you certainly cannot argue with the fact that, however they got there, they did produce four fantastic records from 68-72. From a songwriting perspective, though, it's interesting to compare that period to, say, the two batches of RCA sessions that produced Aftermath. Those were incredibly productive, compressed dates and it's hard for me to believe that the band just wandered in and bashed away for a few days until Keith found a way to tell Jack Nitzsche what to play, or Mick corralled Brian into having a go at the marimbas for "Under My Thumb." They were on tour, pressed for time, constantly doing interviews with journalists from all over the world, and running to the next gig ... and they whipped out 5-10 good-to-great pop songs in a week.
Were they just faster then? Or maybe because they didn't have the luxury of time they just got to it? Were there fewer drugs involved? More efficient auxiliary personnel (Nitzsche, Hassinger)? Or were they more prepared as songwriters, operating in a frenzy in the first blush of their creativity?
You bring up several interesting points, as usual.
Very often I sit and imagine scenarios where Beethoven walks into a modern recording session; the mind f*ck.
But the real fascinating point you raise is " the ability to invent music and carry loooooong stretches of complex music in their heads, to be able to hear very precisely what it is they want and then to transcribe that onto paper.
I THINK in the case of Bach (and you kind of make that point yourself) is that it wasn't so much an abstract piece of art in his head, that needed to be transcribed, but more a rational set of mathematics, of theorems, that were constructed on paper; maybe as an expression of dynamics, or of balance. This particular expression was so ingenious that it was then played on a piano.
Studying Bach, the words "this is like high math" are often uttered.
So I'm saying it might be the other way around: not in his head, and then on paper, but from paper into his head.
Yeah, Bach is in a league of his own. From what I understand, your "from paper into his head" does fit his compositional style. (Allowing for periodic breaks from the paper to rush over to the keyboard and determine if something were simply too difficult to play.)
One of the things that's been cemented in my head by reading what you've all written in this thread is just how utterly weird writing songs with someone else really is. It's kind of bizarre when you think about it. Novelists work alone; painters work alone; dramatists work alone. I do kind of understand the classic Elton John/Bernie Taupin way of working in which there seems to be a very clear demarcation of responsibilities.
But partnerships like Jagger/Richards? Honestly, why should it take two people to write a song, when you think about it? Does it really make the song better? Is it really a case of 1 + 1 = 3? Or is it just a financial arrangement designed to help navigate the creative complexities of inventing music in a band setting?
After all this discussion I must admit that their alchemy continues to elude me. I can only conclude that very early on in their 'partnership' it was clear to both of them that both their names should appear on Stones songs. I also no longer believe that this was initially because Mick wrote lyrics and Keith wrote music. If that had really been the case, then they could have said that much more clearly, in a John-Taupin sort of way. No, they both must have realized almost with their first composition together that their responsibilities had quite a lot of overlap.
in the non-rock world it was much more traditional for partnerships to be of the "lyrics by/music by" variety. (Kander/Ebb, Rodgers/Hart, Rodgers/Hammerstein, Webber/Rice, etc.) In the rock world it was a little more even: many lyrics/music partnerships (Leiber/Stoller, John/Taupin, e.g.), many others like Jagger/Richards where both parties did both things.
Maybe this is more a reflection of the way in which rock songs were 'built from the ground up' in the studio and so it was difficult to assign credit to just one person?
When Mick talks about writing melodies he means vocal lines. That's not necessarily "the melody". For example, Start Me Up's melody is what? The riff; its vocal melody is "If you start me up"... which mostly coincides with... the riff melody.
But back to what you specifically asked: think about Time Waits For No One. One could argue it doesn't have a melody ala a defined melody like Beast Of Burden or Start Me Up. Granted, the sound the guitars make is "the melody" but it's not exactly "the melody" of the singing.
So that's what Mick meant when he said he needed to "write melodies" for the leftover tracks for EM and TY - they didn't have vocal melodies, in which it may not always stick to the music melody.
I get that, GLS, and not to belabor my point, but all those components comprise the "music" that make up a "song." Riff, chords, vocal line, harmonies--all of them are components that are provided by the songwriter. I think.
Or band members or backing vocalists.
Exactly.
So ... I'm gathering that the creation of harmonies and 'musical details' is NOT songwriting. Correct?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:07
Wish I had known this a couple of days ago.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:11
Yeah, I think it pretty much clears everything up on this question.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:15
Thanks for every song Barry. 
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:16
Quote
ryanpow
Yeah, I think it pretty much clears everything up on this question.
If this is in fact true then it makes him quite possibly the most seriously underrated musician of all time.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:19
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
I listened to a few sessions and didn't hear any verbal communication. Seems impossible to judge who instructed what to play. Sounds like "Deuce" to me.
I consulted this while I listened, TFD; was very helpful to sort out some of the 'instructions.'
[www.rollingstonesnet.com]
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:22
Quote
LongBeachArena72
--Being in the studio with those guys must have been gut-wrenchingly tedium punctuated by intermittent moments of elevation. The songs are just not that complex to begin with and the interminable "takes" required for them to bash the initial ideas into songs is mind-boggling.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:33
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
TheflyingDutchman
I listened to a few sessions and didn't hear any verbal communication. Seems impossible to judge who instructed what to play. Sounds like "Deuce" to me.
Call in sick for a few days and listen through it all
When I'm retired, senile and sitting in a wheelchair, DP.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-15 18:40 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:44
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I can understand perfectly how 'Satanic Sessions' is torturous boredom for most people. And it is not something I'd listen to for "pleasure". But I am very happy it exists, and it is fascinating to me. Sections of e.g. "The Lantern". They were writing the song as production wore on, as studio time was adding up.
But I find Lewisohn's book of Beatles sessionography spellbinding reading..
You know, in spite of some of my snarky comments, ultimately I enjoyed them, too. There are nuggets in the midst of the tedium, for sure.
I've been reading a lot about Bach over the past year or so. What little is known about his actual method of composition is so different from what most rock bands do. Many 'classical' composers, for instance, find it a sign of limited talent to have to be chained to an instrument while you compose. You should be able to 'hear' your piece in your mind's ear as it develops and record that 'hearing' on paper the way a novelist would 'record' his or her words. Aaron Copland, for example, referred to an instrument-based method of composing as being 'chained to an instrument.'
(Because he was an unbelievable keyboard virtuoso and master of improvisation (the Hendrix of the organ in his day), Bach would apparently occasionally stop composing on paper and move over to an instrument in order to check that what he was writing was 'playable' by mere mortals.)
Many things separate rock musicians from timeless geniuses like Bach, and it's ultimately probably not terribly useful to compare them, but one thing stands out for me in the context of this discussion: the ability to invent music and carry loooooong stretches of complex music in their heads, to be able to hear very precisely what it is they want and then to transcribe that onto paper.
I'm not saying that this was an instantaneous process. I'm sure even the greatest composers labored long hours trying to come up with new ideas. But once they were on the trail, it seems they had an uncanny ability to make complicated music out of those ideas with the stroke of a pen.
I was imagining Bach and Mozart and Stravinsky and Copland hanging around during the Satanic Sessions and not really having any idea what those dudes were on about. They might have been just as likely to have imagined that the band were performing carpentry as making music! (Not making a judgement here on whether they would have liked the sounds; just commenting on how foreign the process is likely to have seemed to them.)
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:52
The stones are essentially amateur level musicians taking their interests and trying to make something of their own from them.
Satanic Sessions is interesting, but it is also comical how many takes they need to get things right. The Beatles are just as bad.
Winging it.
Satanic Sessions is interesting, but it is also comical how many takes they need to get things right. The Beatles are just as bad.
Winging it.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 15, 2017 18:58
Quote
His Majesty
The stones are essentially amateur level musicians taking their interests and trying to make something of their own from them.
This. It's only Rock & Roll but I like it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-15 19:01 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
peoplewitheyes
()
Date: July 15, 2017 19:30
If you want to observe (well, with your ears) a pop musician with a head full of melodies and the ability to convey them to his musicians, you should check out many of the studio recording sessions of Brian Wilson. A great example (among many) being the Pet Sounds stuff.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 15, 2017 22:58
Quote
peoplewitheyes
If you want to observe (well, with your ears) a pop musician with a head full of melodies and the ability to convey them to his musicians, you should check out many of the studio recording sessions of Brian Wilson. A great example (among many) being the Pet Sounds stuff.
Thanks for posting. This of course is the Conductor approach, the score i.e the target is more or less there already. The Stones are one step down during their TSMR sessions, still searching for what to play in the first place instead of how to play - at least the sessions I heard.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-15 22:58 by TheflyingDutchman.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: July 15, 2017 23:26
- Agree Brian Wilson is a musician who saw the song in his head and then told the players and singers what do do.
-- Agree the Stones can be described as gifted amateurs who had the time and space to create something out of their experimentations.
-- The melody for the chorus of Satisfaction comes from the riff, or what you'd hum. The melody doesn't always come from the riff, though. We don't really talk about the Stones and their melodies.
-- Agree the Stones can be described as gifted amateurs who had the time and space to create something out of their experimentations.
-- The melody for the chorus of Satisfaction comes from the riff, or what you'd hum. The melody doesn't always come from the riff, though. We don't really talk about the Stones and their melodies.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 15, 2017 23:54
That Pet Sounds stuff is amazing--thx for posting, pwe.
As you listen to him directing the session musicians on "God Only Knows," you just know he has already heard the multi-part vocals that will be eventually laid on top of those immaculate tracks.
Having grown up in SoCal, I was always into the BBoys, but with every passing year that one record grows on me more. It's now a Top-5 Pop Album for me, along with Ziggy Stardust, The Belle Album, the NY Dolls' debut, and the first Stooges record. Brian Wilson ca 1963-66 was perhaps the most talented, visionary musician ever in rock'n'roll.
As you listen to him directing the session musicians on "God Only Knows," you just know he has already heard the multi-part vocals that will be eventually laid on top of those immaculate tracks.
Having grown up in SoCal, I was always into the BBoys, but with every passing year that one record grows on me more. It's now a Top-5 Pop Album for me, along with Ziggy Stardust, The Belle Album, the NY Dolls' debut, and the first Stooges record. Brian Wilson ca 1963-66 was perhaps the most talented, visionary musician ever in rock'n'roll.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 16, 2017 00:05
Quote
His Majesty
The stones are essentially amateur level musicians taking their interests and trying to make something of their own from them.
Satanic Sessions is interesting, but it is also comical how many takes they need to get things right. The Beatles are just as bad.
Winging it.
On the one hand, you certainly cannot argue with the fact that, however they got there, they did produce four fantastic records from 68-72. From a songwriting perspective, though, it's interesting to compare that period to, say, the two batches of RCA sessions that produced Aftermath. Those were incredibly productive, compressed dates and it's hard for me to believe that the band just wandered in and bashed away for a few days until Keith found a way to tell Jack Nitzsche what to play, or Mick corralled Brian into having a go at the marimbas for "Under My Thumb." They were on tour, pressed for time, constantly doing interviews with journalists from all over the world, and running to the next gig ... and they whipped out 5-10 good-to-great pop songs in a week.
Were they just faster then? Or maybe because they didn't have the luxury of time they just got to it? Were there fewer drugs involved? More efficient auxiliary personnel (Nitzsche, Hassinger)? Or were they more prepared as songwriters, operating in a frenzy in the first blush of their creativity?
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: July 16, 2017 00:26
I'm not sure about takes. I think the very best have taken lots and lots of them. I think cats like the big E took very very many takes. They are not Bob Dylan who is only going to try it a few times as long as it's not boring him or distracting his connection; he's on some other level; but mere mortals like the best of 'em; I think it's fair to say that commonly they would take it DOZENS of times; they had to get everything straight too; EVERYTHING; every hand-clap, drum hit, guitar strum or note and etc...every tight harmony, breath, implication....
...this has led me to some great, great times with alt. takes. I have some from Dion's Laurie sessions; and those session guys were incredible. That drummer is legendary; hippest rhythm rockin' genius black rhythm section along with this young Italian doo-wopper, already very experience touring and hit artist for a couple of years and just approaching 21.
(Like Buddy, who he was on tour with: very young; very wise old soul; and already a very real career doing very hard steady, and dangerous as it turned out to be, work...)
Well there were a whole mess of complete takes of Runaround Sue and The Wanderer that were perfect; some of those could easily have been THE hit.
Elvis is sort of infamous for really sort of producing himself, uncredited, and since the start too. Sure he let that movie-album stuff breeze by him, as if he could give much of a shit, and did not; but when he was cutting his LPs, both before and after that...I mean you can find a lot of this stuff...you listen to the engineer and it's all like "Ok take 38, rolling" and shit...
you get that from some of the Beach Boys outtake stuff you can find with those most excellent, duly worshipped house of session-cats that were on EVERYTHING; including the MOnkees stuff; which outsold EVERYbbody elsE in the 60s...i thihnk they outsold the Stones and Beatles combined in '67... !!!
HO HO we've got the thread about jimi and pepper; i'm always hollerin' about Sam and Dave and some other soul greats REALLY a HUGE part of the summer of love...but who is outselling everyone and their grandma? including to their grandma watchig tv?
Those guys all over the radio ;hal blaine; all those great, great cats...and they are WORKING. A LOT of takes and very respectful about it with Brian and etc...
,...they are doing a million takes. i don't kid myself aqbout that; you got to shoot a lot of angles, and over and over; to the point you have to walk away, you're so inside of it you can not even actually 'hear' it anymore with any obectivity or perspective..etc...so I can only get 'so far' as to trying to judge the Stones process on any given song; tho it's faszcinating stuff; i'm enjoying everyone on the thread a lot...
i think it's probably very common for artists on the level of The Rolling Stones, to take very very many tries. A little different w each of them; for wahtever personal dynamics..but thats a general obersvation...
...this has led me to some great, great times with alt. takes. I have some from Dion's Laurie sessions; and those session guys were incredible. That drummer is legendary; hippest rhythm rockin' genius black rhythm section along with this young Italian doo-wopper, already very experience touring and hit artist for a couple of years and just approaching 21.
(Like Buddy, who he was on tour with: very young; very wise old soul; and already a very real career doing very hard steady, and dangerous as it turned out to be, work...)
Well there were a whole mess of complete takes of Runaround Sue and The Wanderer that were perfect; some of those could easily have been THE hit.
Elvis is sort of infamous for really sort of producing himself, uncredited, and since the start too. Sure he let that movie-album stuff breeze by him, as if he could give much of a shit, and did not; but when he was cutting his LPs, both before and after that...I mean you can find a lot of this stuff...you listen to the engineer and it's all like "Ok take 38, rolling" and shit...
you get that from some of the Beach Boys outtake stuff you can find with those most excellent, duly worshipped house of session-cats that were on EVERYTHING; including the MOnkees stuff; which outsold EVERYbbody elsE in the 60s...i thihnk they outsold the Stones and Beatles combined in '67... !!!
HO HO we've got the thread about jimi and pepper; i'm always hollerin' about Sam and Dave and some other soul greats REALLY a HUGE part of the summer of love...but who is outselling everyone and their grandma? including to their grandma watchig tv?
Those guys all over the radio ;hal blaine; all those great, great cats...and they are WORKING. A LOT of takes and very respectful about it with Brian and etc...
,...they are doing a million takes. i don't kid myself aqbout that; you got to shoot a lot of angles, and over and over; to the point you have to walk away, you're so inside of it you can not even actually 'hear' it anymore with any obectivity or perspective..etc...so I can only get 'so far' as to trying to judge the Stones process on any given song; tho it's faszcinating stuff; i'm enjoying everyone on the thread a lot...
i think it's probably very common for artists on the level of The Rolling Stones, to take very very many tries. A little different w each of them; for wahtever personal dynamics..but thats a general obersvation...
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 16, 2017 00:41
Good shit, hopkins-san.
I wonder if some different vocab might serve us better here. When you say "take" above, and based on your examples, I think of a group of musicians being directed to find that one last perfect something that's going to make an already defined track just a little better. Whereas, in the case of some of the music-making on The Satanic Sessions, the band really had no firm idea where they wanted a song to go; they were in the process of finding that out.
Is that a different activity than a 'take,' as you described in your post? It seems like it should be ...
I wonder if some different vocab might serve us better here. When you say "take" above, and based on your examples, I think of a group of musicians being directed to find that one last perfect something that's going to make an already defined track just a little better. Whereas, in the case of some of the music-making on The Satanic Sessions, the band really had no firm idea where they wanted a song to go; they were in the process of finding that out.
Is that a different activity than a 'take,' as you described in your post? It seems like it should be ...
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: July 16, 2017 05:19
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I can understand perfectly how 'Satanic Sessions' is torturous boredom for most people. And it is not something I'd listen to for "pleasure". But I am very happy it exists, and it is fascinating to me. Sections of e.g. "The Lantern". They were writing the song as production wore on, as studio time was adding up.
But I find Lewisohn's book of Beatles sessionography spellbinding reading..
You know, in spite of some of my snarky comments, ultimately I enjoyed them, too. There are nuggets in the midst of the tedium, for sure.
I've been reading a lot about Bach over the past year or so. What little is known about his actual method of composition is so different from what most rock bands do. Many 'classical' composers, for instance, find it a sign of limited talent to have to be chained to an instrument while you compose. You should be able to 'hear' your piece in your mind's ear as it develops and record that 'hearing' on paper the way a novelist would 'record' his or her words. Aaron Copland, for example, referred to an instrument-based method of composing as being 'chained to an instrument.'
(Because he was an unbelievable keyboard virtuoso and master of improvisation (the Hendrix of the organ in his day), Bach would apparently occasionally stop composing on paper and move over to an instrument in order to check that what he was writing was 'playable' by mere mortals.)
Many things separate rock musicians from timeless geniuses like Bach, and it's ultimately probably not terribly useful to compare them, but one thing stands out for me in the context of this discussion: the ability to invent music and carry loooooong stretches of complex music in their heads, to be able to hear very precisely what it is they want and then to transcribe that onto paper.
I'm not saying that this was an instantaneous process. I'm sure even the greatest composers labored long hours trying to come up with new ideas. But once they were on the trail, it seems they had an uncanny ability to make complicated music out of those ideas with the stroke of a pen.
I was imagining Bach and Mozart and Stravinsky and Copland hanging around during the Satanic Sessions and not really having any idea what those dudes were on about. They might have been just as likely to have imagined that the band were performing carpentry as making music! (Not making a judgement here on whether they would have liked the sounds; just commenting on how foreign the process is likely to have seemed to them.)
You bring up several interesting points, as usual.
Very often I sit and imagine scenarios where Beethoven walks into a modern recording session; the mind f*ck.
But the real fascinating point you raise is " the ability to invent music and carry loooooong stretches of complex music in their heads, to be able to hear very precisely what it is they want and then to transcribe that onto paper.
I THINK in the case of Bach (and you kind of make that point yourself) is that it wasn't so much an abstract piece of art in his head, that needed to be transcribed, but more a rational set of mathematics, of theorems, that were constructed on paper; maybe as an expression of dynamics, or of balance. This particular expression was so ingenious that it was then played on a piano.
Studying Bach, the words "this is like high math" are often uttered.
So I'm saying it might be the other way around: not in his head, and then on paper, but from paper into his head.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: July 16, 2017 06:18
brian wilson is a totally different scenario. he heard it in his head as others said because he was a genius but also not all there. same with jim morrison. not a genius like brian but he heard verse, lyrics, melodies in his head and would hum structures of stuff to ray or robby or john. densmore talks about it in his book. seems people who might who maybe were a bit off work differently
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 16, 2017 07:30
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I can understand perfectly how 'Satanic Sessions' is torturous boredom for most people. And it is not something I'd listen to for "pleasure". But I am very happy it exists, and it is fascinating to me. Sections of e.g. "The Lantern". They were writing the song as production wore on, as studio time was adding up.
But I find Lewisohn's book of Beatles sessionography spellbinding reading..
You know, in spite of some of my snarky comments, ultimately I enjoyed them, too. There are nuggets in the midst of the tedium, for sure.
I've been reading a lot about Bach over the past year or so. What little is known about his actual method of composition is so different from what most rock bands do. Many 'classical' composers, for instance, find it a sign of limited talent to have to be chained to an instrument while you compose. You should be able to 'hear' your piece in your mind's ear as it develops and record that 'hearing' on paper the way a novelist would 'record' his or her words. Aaron Copland, for example, referred to an instrument-based method of composing as being 'chained to an instrument.'
(Because he was an unbelievable keyboard virtuoso and master of improvisation (the Hendrix of the organ in his day), Bach would apparently occasionally stop composing on paper and move over to an instrument in order to check that what he was writing was 'playable' by mere mortals.)
Many things separate rock musicians from timeless geniuses like Bach, and it's ultimately probably not terribly useful to compare them, but one thing stands out for me in the context of this discussion: the ability to invent music and carry loooooong stretches of complex music in their heads, to be able to hear very precisely what it is they want and then to transcribe that onto paper.
I'm not saying that this was an instantaneous process. I'm sure even the greatest composers labored long hours trying to come up with new ideas. But once they were on the trail, it seems they had an uncanny ability to make complicated music out of those ideas with the stroke of a pen.
I was imagining Bach and Mozart and Stravinsky and Copland hanging around during the Satanic Sessions and not really having any idea what those dudes were on about. They might have been just as likely to have imagined that the band were performing carpentry as making music! (Not making a judgement here on whether they would have liked the sounds; just commenting on how foreign the process is likely to have seemed to them.)
You bring up several interesting points, as usual.
Very often I sit and imagine scenarios where Beethoven walks into a modern recording session; the mind f*ck.
But the real fascinating point you raise is " the ability to invent music and carry loooooong stretches of complex music in their heads, to be able to hear very precisely what it is they want and then to transcribe that onto paper.
I THINK in the case of Bach (and you kind of make that point yourself) is that it wasn't so much an abstract piece of art in his head, that needed to be transcribed, but more a rational set of mathematics, of theorems, that were constructed on paper; maybe as an expression of dynamics, or of balance. This particular expression was so ingenious that it was then played on a piano.
Studying Bach, the words "this is like high math" are often uttered.
So I'm saying it might be the other way around: not in his head, and then on paper, but from paper into his head.
Yeah, Bach is in a league of his own. From what I understand, your "from paper into his head" does fit his compositional style. (Allowing for periodic breaks from the paper to rush over to the keyboard and determine if something were simply too difficult to play.)
One of the things that's been cemented in my head by reading what you've all written in this thread is just how utterly weird writing songs with someone else really is. It's kind of bizarre when you think about it. Novelists work alone; painters work alone; dramatists work alone. I do kind of understand the classic Elton John/Bernie Taupin way of working in which there seems to be a very clear demarcation of responsibilities.
But partnerships like Jagger/Richards? Honestly, why should it take two people to write a song, when you think about it? Does it really make the song better? Is it really a case of 1 + 1 = 3? Or is it just a financial arrangement designed to help navigate the creative complexities of inventing music in a band setting?
After all this discussion I must admit that their alchemy continues to elude me. I can only conclude that very early on in their 'partnership' it was clear to both of them that both their names should appear on Stones songs. I also no longer believe that this was initially because Mick wrote lyrics and Keith wrote music. If that had really been the case, then they could have said that much more clearly, in a John-Taupin sort of way. No, they both must have realized almost with their first composition together that their responsibilities had quite a lot of overlap.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: July 16, 2017 08:45
well those are fascinating questions and I don't have any answers.but this really informs my perspective and inspires me.
I was also thinking that very very many of the great composers of the 20th century were teams.
...the brill building foundationally created rock and roll as much as any other source of material. Leiber Stoller Etc. even all the great guys that Dylan is covering, and that Sinatra covered, will many times be teams of writers.
Even if it was bitter parody, Lennon and McCartney were always working off of each other, even after they went solo.
They were writing songs about each other and to each other.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-16 12:34 by hopkins.
I was also thinking that very very many of the great composers of the 20th century were teams.
...the brill building foundationally created rock and roll as much as any other source of material. Leiber Stoller Etc. even all the great guys that Dylan is covering, and that Sinatra covered, will many times be teams of writers.
Even if it was bitter parody, Lennon and McCartney were always working off of each other, even after they went solo.
They were writing songs about each other and to each other.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-16 12:34 by hopkins.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: July 16, 2017 08:50
s.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-16 12:34 by hopkins.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-07-16 12:34 by hopkins.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 16, 2017 17:21
Quote
hopkins
well those are fascinating questions and I don't have any answers.but this really informs my perspective and inspires me.
I was also thinking that very very many of the great composers of the 20th century were teams.
...the brill building foundationally created rock and roll as much as any other source of material. Leiber Stoller Etc. even all the great guys that Dylan is covering, and that Sinatra covered, will many times be teams of writers.
Even if it was bitter parody, Lennon and McCartney were always working off of each other, even after they went solo.
They were writing songs about each other and to each other.
in the non-rock world it was much more traditional for partnerships to be of the "lyrics by/music by" variety. (Kander/Ebb, Rodgers/Hart, Rodgers/Hammerstein, Webber/Rice, etc.) In the rock world it was a little more even: many lyrics/music partnerships (Leiber/Stoller, John/Taupin, e.g.), many others like Jagger/Richards where both parties did both things.
Maybe this is more a reflection of the way in which rock songs were 'built from the ground up' in the studio and so it was difficult to assign credit to just one person?
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 16, 2017 19:21
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
GasLightStreet
Listen to bootlegs of unfinished songs and you'll hear Mick (usually) going off on some kind of vocalling that doesn't necessarily have words but has a melody. Hell, you can hear that on released songs.
The melody is not strictly the writing of the song. Brown Sugar is a great example. The melody, as we know it, is how the lyric runs and up and down and then the chorus - but the music dictates. Then there are songs where the music melody (the chime that you would sing or hum in the shower) is the melody - Beast Of Burden is a perfect example.
I'm not sure I understand this. How is the creation of the melody not part of the songwriting process? There's an instrumental component, which can be transcribed/notated, and then there's the vocal line. Sometimes these overlap and even, as you indicate, in some cases are the same. But when they are not the same, the melody is 'invented' as surely as the initial chords which form the instrumental basis of the song, no? Or is it somehow a 'lesser' musical achievement to create a vocal melody to accompany an instrumental passage?
When Mick talks about writing melodies he means vocal lines. That's not necessarily "the melody". For example, Start Me Up's melody is what? The riff; its vocal melody is "If you start me up"... which mostly coincides with... the riff melody.
But back to what you specifically asked: think about Time Waits For No One. One could argue it doesn't have a melody ala a defined melody like Beast Of Burden or Start Me Up. Granted, the sound the guitars make is "the melody" but it's not exactly "the melody" of the singing.
So that's what Mick meant when he said he needed to "write melodies" for the leftover tracks for EM and TY - they didn't have vocal melodies, in which it may not always stick to the music melody.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 16, 2017 19:50
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
GasLightStreet
Listen to bootlegs of unfinished songs and you'll hear Mick (usually) going off on some kind of vocalling that doesn't necessarily have words but has a melody. Hell, you can hear that on released songs.
The melody is not strictly the writing of the song. Brown Sugar is a great example. The melody, as we know it, is how the lyric runs and up and down and then the chorus - but the music dictates. Then there are songs where the music melody (the chime that you would sing or hum in the shower) is the melody - Beast Of Burden is a perfect example.
I'm not sure I understand this. How is the creation of the melody not part of the songwriting process? There's an instrumental component, which can be transcribed/notated, and then there's the vocal line. Sometimes these overlap and even, as you indicate, in some cases are the same. But when they are not the same, the melody is 'invented' as surely as the initial chords which form the instrumental basis of the song, no? Or is it somehow a 'lesser' musical achievement to create a vocal melody to accompany an instrumental passage?
When Mick talks about writing melodies he means vocal lines. That's not necessarily "the melody". For example, Start Me Up's melody is what? The riff; its vocal melody is "If you start me up"... which mostly coincides with... the riff melody.
But back to what you specifically asked: think about Time Waits For No One. One could argue it doesn't have a melody ala a defined melody like Beast Of Burden or Start Me Up. Granted, the sound the guitars make is "the melody" but it's not exactly "the melody" of the singing.
So that's what Mick meant when he said he needed to "write melodies" for the leftover tracks for EM and TY - they didn't have vocal melodies, in which it may not always stick to the music melody.
I get that, GLS, and not to belabor my point, but all those components comprise the "music" that make up a "song." Riff, chords, vocal line, harmonies--all of them are components that are provided by the songwriter. I think.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 16, 2017 20:05
Harmonies and musical details might be provided or suggested by the producer.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: July 16, 2017 20:22
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Harmonies and musical details might be provided or suggested by the producer.
Or band members or backing vocalists.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 16, 2017 20:35
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DandelionPowderman
Harmonies and musical details might be provided or suggested by the producer.
Or band members or backing vocalists.
Exactly.
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 16, 2017 22:36
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
DandelionPowderman
Harmonies and musical details might be provided or suggested by the producer.
Or band members or backing vocalists.
Exactly.
So ... I'm gathering that the creation of harmonies and 'musical details' is NOT songwriting. Correct?
Re: Who writes the music?
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: July 16, 2017 22:40
Musical harmony is what the Stones do best, imo. Their best songs sound as if all the players -- guitars, bass, drums, singer, piano -- are listing to each other and playing off the other guy.
Keith's backup vocals on something like Exile are also an example of this. I think his backup singing has always influenced Mick's lead singing.
My criticism of Mick's solo stuff and some of their later songs is that it sounds like the guitar player did his thing, then somebody else came in and did their bit, then another player did his bit and the producer put them all together. That can work (Steely Dan did that and it sounds mostly seamless) but it's not the same as the players all working together, imo.
Keith's backup vocals on something like Exile are also an example of this. I think his backup singing has always influenced Mick's lead singing.
My criticism of Mick's solo stuff and some of their later songs is that it sounds like the guitar player did his thing, then somebody else came in and did their bit, then another player did his bit and the producer put them all together. That can work (Steely Dan did that and it sounds mostly seamless) but it's not the same as the players all working together, imo.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
dishevelmentblues , gagiwh , Heart for Stones , keef62 , kkhoranstoned , NICOS , Quique-stone , snoopy2 , spunky , stargroover , StonedRambler , swaff , tiffanyblu , TW2019 , waterrats , Witness
Guests:
1995
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10