Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
keefriffhard4life
why do people think the 3 big ballads from get a grip sound the same? crazy is very mellow sounding compared to crying

I've seen people claim that...makes no sense to me. All three songs are unique in sound.

They all have the same melody.

I guess, but Crylin' starts with heavy drums and electric guitar, Crazy has mandolin and harmonica, and Amazing has strings and piano. The choruses are all sung similarly, but other than that...

Cryin' has harmonica, too

Doesn't matter. A buddy and I, after that third single came out, were walking around and for whatever reason one of us started making fun of it by adding the other two songs into it. His reaction was "Jesus! They're all the same song!"

Only the first single differed somewhat in style. That was the one that didn't take off

Livin' On The Edge
Cryin'
Crazy
Amazing

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Only the first single differed somewhat in style. That was the one that didn't take off

Livin' On The Edge
Cryin'
Crazy
Amazing

Yet Livin' On The Edge gets more radio play these days. They released SEVEN singles from that album!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Only the first single differed somewhat in style. That was the one that didn't take off

Livin' On The Edge
Cryin'
Crazy
Amazing

Yet Livin' On The Edge gets more radio play these days. They released SEVEN singles from that album!

Considering 1993 was one of the more tranquil periods in U.S. history, that song didn't really ring true.

I guess everyone thinks they're living through crazy times, but the '90s was about as placid and even-keeled as it gets. Maybe the song has more resonance nowadays.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-22 18:28 by keefriff99.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
keefriffhard4life
why do people think the 3 big ballads from get a grip sound the same? crazy is very mellow sounding compared to crying

I've seen people claim that...makes no sense to me. All three songs are unique in sound.

They all have the same melody.

I guess, but Crylin' starts with heavy drums and electric guitar, Crazy has mandolin and harmonica, and Amazing has strings and piano. The choruses are all sung similarly, but other than that...

Cryin' has harmonica, too

Doesn't matter. A buddy and I, after that third single came out, were walking around and for whatever reason one of us started making fun of it by adding the other two songs into it. His reaction was "Jesus! They're all the same song!"

Only the first single differed somewhat in style. That was the one that didn't take off

Livin' On The Edge
Cryin'
Crazy
Amazing

Funnily enough, it didn't occur to me until you mentioned it that the three power ballads all have the title of the song in the chorus, all sung pretty much the same way.

I still contend that the songs aren't that similar otherwise, aside from the chorus hooks.

Just listened to both Crazy and Crying, and while they are different songs by definition, the similarities between them are pretty clear...add to the fact they're on the same album...never really noticed though (or cared) as I've never owned that album. It's all part of the homogenization process of the band - turning them in to an almost generic sounding machine spitting out similar sounds.

Heard Janies Got a Gun earlier - I always thought it was an oddball of a song, but also always liked when that guitar solo kicks in...that section alone sounds similar to some of their earlier albums.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
whats never clear is were the songwriters fixing songs aerosmith was already writing or were they giving areosmith songs pretty much already written

Paul Stanley was pretty open in his bio, about how he sat down and wrote songs together with Child.

If I should guess, I'd say that Aerosmith presented their stuff and that the hit doctors took it from there.

I think the opposite is true about Aerosmith - they utilized Tylers voice with a number of hits written for him by the doctors.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
keefriffhard4life
why do people think the 3 big ballads from get a grip sound the same? crazy is very mellow sounding compared to crying

I've seen people claim that...makes no sense to me. All three songs are unique in sound.

They all have the same melody.

I guess, but Crylin' starts with heavy drums and electric guitar, Crazy has mandolin and harmonica, and Amazing has strings and piano. The choruses are all sung similarly, but other than that...

Cryin' has harmonica, too

Doesn't matter. A buddy and I, after that third single came out, were walking around and for whatever reason one of us started making fun of it by adding the other two songs into it. His reaction was "Jesus! They're all the same song!"

Exactly. Same here.

OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja
OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Out of curiosity, how would you feel if the Stones brought in outside songwriters - to sort of homogenize their songs and sound to fit in with what's "popular" today with the main goal of making hits?
After 50 years of writing most of their own material (aside from all the covers), wouldn't it seem a bit odd to bring in an outside hitmaker to produce/manufacture them? Maybe you wouldn't care as long as the tunes sound good (?), but for me it would seem to be diluting the purity of what makes the Stones the Stones (including the good, the bad, and the ugly)- similar to how I feel about Aerosmith now vs how they once were with their first bunch of albums in the '70's.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-22 20:41 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball
Out of curiosity, how would you feel if the Stones brought in outside songwriters - to sort of homogenize their songs and sound to fit in with what's "popular" today with the main goal of making hits?
After 50 years of writing most of their own material (aside from all the coverss covers), wouldn't it seem a bit odd to bring in an outside hitmaker to produce/manufacture them? Maybe you wouldn't care as long as the tunes sound good (?), but for me it would seem to be diluting the purity of what makes the Stones the Stones (including the good, the bad, and the ugly)- similar to how I feel about Aerosmith now vs how they once were with their first bunch of albums in the '70's.

I hope you don't mind me taking your question in multiple parts as it might not end up being as you intended it... I am going to try though!

If the Stones songwriting team of Jagger/Richards were to open their "closed shop" writing policy for the intention of getting on the charts and receiving more airplay, I honestly don't think that I would hold it against them. Ultimately I think I'd still judge the song on it's merits and my enjoyment of it.

The part of your question where I think I would tend to agree with your thoughts would be regarding the concept of trying to "homogenize their songs and sound to fit in with what's "popular"". But, in some ways, to some extent, haven't they been doing that all along? Not by using outside songwriters, per se, but in studio recording and production techniques. I'm in full agreement that I want my Stones music "non-homogenized". I want to hear them play their instruments and sing with each other far more than I want to hear what some slick producer thinks they can make the tracks sound like.

Like I said in my post, I think it's admirable when a band is a closed shop but I don't consider it to be a deal-breaker if they're not. I guess in my mind, all of the steps required to bring a song to my ears are merely steps in the process. For me, if the end result is pleasing to my ears, I'm going to be pleased even if it didn't have it's origins in a room containing only Mick Jagger & Keith Richards. After all, regardless of what the liner notes may claim, I like the song, "It's Only Rock & Roll". It doesn't bother me at all that it's (really) a Jagger/Wood song as opposed to how it's been labeled over the years.

On a side note: I'm with you in that I generally prefer "old" Aerosmith to "new" Aerosmith.

Hopefully I answered your question(s) articulately and, thanks for making me think!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Hairball

Quote
mr_dja
OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Out of curiosity, how would you feel if the Stones brought in outside songwriters - to sort of homogenize their songs and sound to fit in with what's "popular" today with the main goal of making hits?
After 50 years of writing most of their own material (aside from all the covers), wouldn't it seem a bit odd to bring in an outside hitmaker to produce/manufacture them? Maybe you wouldn't care as long as the tunes sound good (?), but for me it would seem to be diluting the purity of what makes the Stones the Stones (including the good, the bad, and the ugly)- similar to how I feel about Aerosmith now vs how they once were with their first bunch of albums in the '70's.

The only difference, at least in my case, is that I'm far more passionate about the Stones as a band and as an artistic entity than I am about Aerosmith.

So if the Stones were to do that, I'd feel disgusted because I'm so invested in them as artists, in their mythology, and in them as people.

With Aerosmith...I'm just a fan of the music, so as long as they crank out some listenable tunes that worm their way into my ear, I'm good. With the Stones, it's about the entire creative process and what they do as a band.

So it's totally subjective on my part. I see a lot of die-hard Aerosmith fans that claim the band has been dead since 1984, and they stand by that assertion no matter what.

I'd bet that a good number of Stones fans would declare the same. Hell, we already have plenty here to claim the "true" band has been dead since the '70s, so there you go.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Hairball

Quote
mr_dja
OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Out of curiosity, how would you feel if the Stones brought in outside songwriters - to sort of homogenize their songs and sound to fit in with what's "popular" today with the main goal of making hits?
After 50 years of writing most of their own material (aside from all the covers), wouldn't it seem a bit odd to bring in an outside hitmaker to produce/manufacture them? Maybe you wouldn't care as long as the tunes sound good (?), but for me it would seem to be diluting the purity of what makes the Stones the Stones (including the good, the bad, and the ugly)- similar to how I feel about Aerosmith now vs how they once were with their first bunch of albums in the '70's.

The only difference, at least in my case, is that I'm far more passionate about the Stones as a band and as an artistic entity than I am about Aerosmith.

So if the Stones were to do that, I'd feel disgusted because I'm so invested in them as artists, in their mythology, and in them as people.

With Aerosmith...I'm just a fan of the music, so as long as they crank out some listenable tunes that worm their way into my ear, I'm good. With the Stones, it's about the entire creative process and what they do as a band.

Understandable and I suppose I feel the same regarding my fandom of Aerosmith. I was never a huge fan of theirs even back in the glory years, but my best friend was and they were his number one band. We used to have fights over it haha (Aerosmith vs. Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc.). So when they had their comeback and did whatever they had to do to make it work, have to say it didn't really phase me that much - it was what it was. Now if the Stones had done something similar.......all I can say is barf.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
mr_dja
OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

"amazing" is credited to tyler and longtime friend of the band richie supa who was writing with them in the 70's.


a

Quote
keefriff99
So it's totally subjective on my part. I see a lot of die-hard Aerosmith fans that claim the band has been dead since 1984, and they stand by that assertion no matter what.

I'd bet that a good number of Stones fans would declare the same. Hell, we already have plenty here to claim the "true" band has been dead since the '70s, so there you go.

In essence, The Rolling Stones, as we know them, anyway, ended with the release of FLASHPOINT in 1991 - the last thing Bill Wyman was on. One could argue that it was 1989 but the 2 tours that happened and he live album with the two new tracks, well, there you go.

I've always felt that as a creative force, The Rolling Stones ended with UNDERCOVER (and REWIND, to tidy things up). With a few songs here and there since then, which mounts to nothing more than pulling the best fish out of the bowl, it remains.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
mr_dja
OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

"amazing" is credited to tyler and longtime friend of the band richie supa who was writing with them in the 70's.


a

Supa also wrote Chip Away The Stone, the most Stonesy track they ever did.

Oddly enough, Supa also wrote two of Status Quo's biggest hits..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-23 08:45 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
mr_dja
OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

"amazing" is credited to tyler and longtime friend of the band richie supa who was writing with them in the 70's.


a

Supa also wrote Chip Away The Stone, the most Stonesy track they ever did.

Oddly enough, Supa also wrote two of Status Quo's biggest hits..

supa co-wrote/wrote 5 songs in aerosmiths catalog

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Hairball
Out of curiosity, how would you feel if the Stones brought in outside songwriters - to sort of homogenize their songs and sound to fit in with what's "popular" today with the main goal of making hits?
After 50 years of writing most of their own material (aside from all the coverss covers), wouldn't it seem a bit odd to bring in an outside hitmaker to produce/manufacture them? Maybe you wouldn't care as long as the tunes sound good (?), but for me it would seem to be diluting the purity of what makes the Stones the Stones (including the good, the bad, and the ugly)- similar to how I feel about Aerosmith now vs how they once were with their first bunch of albums in the '70's.

I hope you don't mind me taking your question in multiple parts as it might not end up being as you intended it... I am going to try though!

If the Stones songwriting team of Jagger/Richards were to open their "closed shop" writing policy for the intention of getting on the charts and receiving more airplay, I honestly don't think that I would hold it against them. Ultimately I think I'd still judge the song on it's merits and my enjoyment of it.

The part of your question where I think I would tend to agree with your thoughts would be regarding the concept of trying to "homogenize their songs and sound to fit in with what's "popular"". But, in some ways, to some extent, haven't they been doing that all along? Not by using outside songwriters, per se, but in studio recording and production techniques. I'm in full agreement that I want my Stones music "non-homogenized". I want to hear them play their instruments and sing with each other far more than I want to hear what some slick producer thinks they can make the tracks sound like.

Like I said in my post, I think it's admirable when a band is a closed shop but I don't consider it to be a deal-breaker if they're not. I guess in my mind, all of the steps required to bring a song to my ears are merely steps in the process. For me, if the end result is pleasing to my ears, I'm going to be pleased even if it didn't have it's origins in a room containing only Mick Jagger & Keith Richards. After all, regardless of what the liner notes may claim, I like the song, "It's Only Rock & Roll". It doesn't bother me at all that it's (really) a Jagger/Wood song as opposed to how it's been labeled over the years.

On a side note: I'm with you in that I generally prefer "old" Aerosmith to "new" Aerosmith.

Hopefully I answered your question(s) articulately and, thanks for making me think!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Oops missed this earlier mr_dja - I first saw keefriff99's reply and then replied to that (see above) - I wasn't ignoring this!
Yes you answered articulately. As I replied to keefriff99, if the Stones brought in outside writers, I don't think I'd be as forgiving as you...something about that just doesn't feel right to me. For me, the Stones and the Beatles are in a league of their own, and the thought of either band getting outside help is practically unfathomable and bordering on sacrilege. In Aerosmith's case though, doesn't bother me as much as it might some as I was never a massive fan to begin with (again see my reply above to keefriff99). That said, those first five albums are fantastic, and even Night in the Ruts has a certain charm.

In the meantime, I've been revisiting some old Aerosmith via youtube throughout the day, and so many of those classics bring back a flood of memories. Just listening to this one for example transports me right back to High school and smoking bongloads with my best friend Jimmy in the garage of his parents house, cranking up the tunes on his state of the art stereo. They let him convert the garage into a hangout/"clubhouse" where all sorts of mischief took place.

Aerosmith - No More No More




_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-23 10:02 by Hairball.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
mr_dja
OK... Full disclosure: I've been a fan of Aerosmith for years though I don't follow them now like I used to. This thread got me thinking so I did a quick bit of research on their singles releases... (May not be 100% accurate but is probably pretty close)

They released 24 singles prior to Permanent Vacation.

Including & since "Permanent Vacation" Album
41 Singles Released Total
3 were covers (Love Me Two Times, Helter Skelter & Baby Please Don't Go)
Of the other 38...
2 had no band members credited as writers: Amazing & Don't Want to Miss A Thing
6 had only one band member listed as a writer: Tyler every time.
4 had only band members credited as writers
The other 26 had at least 2 band members as writers. Mainly, but not exclusively, the combination of Tyler & Perry but all of the LP3 were also included.

I'll leave it to someone else to dig through the album cuts!

In my opinion, it would seem to me that they used resources available to them to build a pretty nice career and produce some music that I enjoy to this day.

I get that there are people who want bands to produce music in a "closed shop" format. While I agree that is a admirable thing to do, I don't for a moment feel that it's necessary to win my appreciation. I'd rather not limit my potential for enjoyment by setting arbitrary "criteria" for what I'll allow myself to enjoy.

Peace,
Mr DJA

"amazing" is credited to tyler and longtime friend of the band richie supa who was writing with them in the 70's.


a

Supa also wrote Chip Away The Stone, the most Stonesy track they ever did.

Oddly enough, Supa also wrote two of Status Quo's biggest hits..

supa co-wrote/wrote 5 songs in aerosmiths catalog

He wrote this one, too:





[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Well the Stones started with an outside writer namely Lennon/McCartney and they played mainly covers. Theyve used people in the studio from the start and their producer Miller did a lot. The Beatles really wrote everything by themselves with minor input from outside the band. They suggested new ideas to their producer. The Stones never were that kind of band.

The Beatles ENDED up writing all their own stuff - much like, you know, The Stones but....

PLEASE PLEASE ME
Ten of the album's fourteen tracks were recorded in just one day - 11th February, 1963. These included a mixture of stage favourites (covers) and "Lennon-McCartney originals".

WITH THE BAETLES
With The Beatles carried on where Please Please Me had left off, melding more Lennon-McCartney originals with further highlights (covers) from their stage set

A HARD DAYS NIGHT (THIRD album)
It was also quite remarkable that for the first time on a Beatles album that all of the titles had been composed by John and Paul.

Rod

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Well the Stones started with an outside writer namely Lennon/McCartney and they played mainly covers. Theyve used people in the studio from the start and their producer Miller did a lot. The Beatles really wrote everything by themselves with minor input from outside the band. They suggested new ideas to their producer. The Stones never were that kind of band.

The Beatles ENDED up writing all their own stuff - much like, you know, The Stones but....

PLEASE PLEASE ME
Ten of the album's fourteen tracks were recorded in just one day - 11th February, 1963. These included a mixture of stage favourites (covers) and "Lennon-McCartney originals".

WITH THE BAETLES
With The Beatles carried on where Please Please Me had left off, melding more Lennon-McCartney originals with further highlights (covers) from their stage set

A HARD DAYS NIGHT (THIRD album)
It was also quite remarkable that for the first time on a Beatles album that all of the titles had been composed by John and Paul.

I think Carpet is speculating in many of the Mick and Keith-tracks also being penned by Jimmy Miller, even though he isn't credited.

But I think he's mistaking good producing with songwriting. And I suspect Mr. George Martin had a pretty similar role to that of Miller for the Beatles

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Well the Stones started with an outside writer namely Lennon/McCartney and they played mainly covers. Theyve used people in the studio from the start and their producer Miller did a lot. The Beatles really wrote everything by themselves with minor input from outside the band. They suggested new ideas to their producer. The Stones never were that kind of band.

The Beatles ENDED up writing all their own stuff - much like, you know, The Stones but....

PLEASE PLEASE ME
Ten of the album's fourteen tracks were recorded in just one day - 11th February, 1963. These included a mixture of stage favourites (covers) and "Lennon-McCartney originals".

WITH THE BAETLES
With The Beatles carried on where Please Please Me had left off, melding more Lennon-McCartney originals with further highlights (covers) from their stage set

A HARD DAYS NIGHT (THIRD album)
It was also quite remarkable that for the first time on a Beatles album that all of the titles had been composed by John and Paul.

That is incredible - 1964 and only their 3rd album.
I know they did several covers after that (Honey Don't, Act Naturally, etc.) but then everything from Rubber Soul forward were originals (except the brief Maggie Mae from Let it Be).
I might be overlooking something as it's late here and don't have time to look at the catalogue, but I think that's correct...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-23 11:01 by Hairball.

heres the thing though. the stones didn't need outside writers for 2 reasons and neither reason is that "keith and mick are the man". yes we all feel that way but the stones had mick, who adapted to the times and wasn't afraid to try new production things, whatever style of music was hip at the time, etc. so that's reason 1. reason 2 was the stones pretty actively had hits until the 90's. the never fell off a cliff as far as creating at least 1 hit from an album.


the opposite for aerosmith. by the mid 80's it had been 7-8 years since aerosmith had a hit. tyler/perry wanted to stay stuck in the 70's and they made an album in 1985 called done with mirrors that flopped and was rooted in the bands 70's sound. after that the bands label pushed for outside writers and a hot rock producer at the time to get the band in step with the current rock scene.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
heres the thing though. the stones didn't need outside writers for 2 reasons and neither reason is that "keith and mick are the man". yes we all feel that way but the stones had mick, who adapted to the times and wasn't afraid to try new production things, whatever style of music was hip at the time, etc. so that's reason 1. reason 2 was the stones pretty actively had hits until the 90's. the never fell off a cliff as far as creating at least 1 hit from an album.


the opposite for aerosmith. by the mid 80's it had been 7-8 years since aerosmith had a hit. tyler/perry wanted to stay stuck in the 70's and they made an album in 1985 called done with mirrors that flopped and was rooted in the bands 70's sound. after that the bands label pushed for outside writers and a hot rock producer at the time to get the band in step with the current rock scene.

If DWM was rooted in the band's 70s-sound, it would have to be late December 1979

A weird album, though, but I like the unpredictable vibe on it. The guitar sound is pretty mid 80s on many tracks, though (Sheila etc.)

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
heres the thing though. the stones didn't need outside writers for 2 reasons and neither reason is that "keith and mick are the man". yes we all feel that way but the stones had mick, who adapted to the times and wasn't afraid to try new production things, whatever style of music was hip at the time, etc. so that's reason 1. reason 2 was the stones pretty actively had hits until the 90's. the never fell off a cliff as far as creating at least 1 hit from an album.


the opposite for aerosmith. by the mid 80's it had been 7-8 years since aerosmith had a hit. tyler/perry wanted to stay stuck in the 70's and they made an album in 1985 called done with mirrors that flopped and was rooted in the bands 70's sound. after that the bands label pushed for outside writers and a hot rock producer at the time to get the band in step with the current rock scene.

If DWM was rooted in the band's 70s-sound, it would have to be late December 1979

A weird album, though, but I like the unpredictable vibe on it. The guitar sound is pretty mid 80s on many tracks, though (Sheila etc.)

to me it has the 70's vibe of aerosmith still. similar production to the bands 70's stuff. heck I think perry says 2-3 of the songs were leftover from ideas for for night in the ruts. the most famous of course being "let the music do the talking" which perry did for his first solo album



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-23 13:53 by keefriffhard4life.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
heres the thing though. the stones didn't need outside writers for 2 reasons and neither reason is that "keith and mick are the man". yes we all feel that way but the stones had mick, who adapted to the times and wasn't afraid to try new production things, whatever style of music was hip at the time, etc. so that's reason 1. reason 2 was the stones pretty actively had hits until the 90's. the never fell off a cliff as far as creating at least 1 hit from an album.


the opposite for aerosmith. by the mid 80's it had been 7-8 years since aerosmith had a hit. tyler/perry wanted to stay stuck in the 70's and they made an album in 1985 called done with mirrors that flopped and was rooted in the bands 70's sound. after that the bands label pushed for outside writers and a hot rock producer at the time to get the band in step with the current rock scene.

If DWM was rooted in the band's 70s-sound, it would have to be late December 1979

A weird album, though, but I like the unpredictable vibe on it. The guitar sound is pretty mid 80s on many tracks, though (Sheila etc.)

to me it has the 70's vive of aerosmith still. similar production to the bands 70's stuff. heck I think perry says 2-3 of the songs were leftover from ideas for for night in the ruts. the most famous of course being "let the music do the talking" which perry did for his first solo album

Yeah, I don't disagree there. I have it on vinyl here at work. Will get a spin now. It's been a long time

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life
heres the thing though. the stones didn't need outside writers for 2 reasons and neither reason is that "keith and mick are the man". yes we all feel that way but the stones had mick, who adapted to the times and wasn't afraid to try new production things, whatever style of music was hip at the time, etc. so that's reason 1. reason 2 was the stones pretty actively had hits until the 90's. the never fell off a cliff as far as creating at least 1 hit from an album.


the opposite for aerosmith. by the mid 80's it had been 7-8 years since aerosmith had a hit. tyler/perry wanted to stay stuck in the 70's and they made an album in 1985 called done with mirrors that flopped and was rooted in the bands 70's sound. after that the bands label pushed for outside writers and a hot rock producer at the time to get the band in step with the current rock scene.

If DWM was rooted in the band's 70s-sound, it would have to be late December 1979

A weird album, though, but I like the unpredictable vibe on it. The guitar sound is pretty mid 80s on many tracks, though (Sheila etc.)

to me it has the 70's vibe of aerosmith still. similar production to the bands 70's stuff. heck I think perry says 2-3 of the songs were leftover from ideas for for night in the ruts. the most famous of course being "let the music do the talking" which perry did for his first solo album

Funny story...

My friend Jimmy (the diehard Aerosmith fan) and I had tickets to see the Joe Perry Project during that tour (1980 I think) at the Santa Monica Civic which is literally a stones throw from Santa Monica High school where we both attended. Upon entering the venue, they were doing minor security screening of everyone, and some big idiot bouncer pulled out my pack of Marlboros from my shirt pocket. BUT...instead of finding cigarettes, he found about five joints instead. Long story short, the bastard wouldn't let me in!!! lol...kind of stung at the time, but I brushed it off, licked my wounds, and was happy Jimmy was able to see his hero. That was the only concert I've ever been refused entrance, and I learned my lesson...to be much more discreet and careful with any joints I want to bring in.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Well the Stones started with an outside writer namely Lennon/McCartney and they played mainly covers. Theyve used people in the studio from the start and their producer Miller did a lot. The Beatles really wrote everything by themselves with minor input from outside the band. They suggested new ideas to their producer. The Stones never were that kind of band.

The Beatles ENDED up writing all their own stuff - much like, you know, The Stones but....

PLEASE PLEASE ME
Ten of the album's fourteen tracks were recorded in just one day - 11th February, 1963. These included a mixture of stage favourites (covers) and "Lennon-McCartney originals".

WITH THE BAETLES
With The Beatles carried on where Please Please Me had left off, melding more Lennon-McCartney originals with further highlights (covers) from their stage set

A HARD DAYS NIGHT (THIRD album)
It was also quite remarkable that for the first time on a Beatles album that all of the titles had been composed by John and Paul.

I think Carpet is speculating in many of the Mick and Keith-tracks also being penned by Jimmy Miller, even though he isn't credited.

But I think he's mistaking good producing with songwriting. And I suspect Mr. George Martin had a pretty similar role to that of Miller for the Beatles

No i suspect Miller presented them with crucial suggestions rather than they as in Abbey Road: Lennon and McCartney asking their producer to play, conduct, even write (the piano on In my life). The Stones clearly used outsiders in the studio (like Ry, Jack, Billy) and were very open to Millers ideas and earlier productions. Paul and John formed a partnership in the 50s. Nobody locked them in a room or pushed the other in front of the cameras (and sacrificing the founder).

How often did they use Ry and Billy - or their ideas - in the studio, compared to all the genius songs they wrote?

And where was Jack on some of the best songs they ever wrote, like 19th Nervous Breakdown, Under My Thumb, Gimmie Shelter and others?

Utilising great competence to achieve great results is part of being great, btw. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
How often did they use Ry and Billy - or their ideas - in the studio, compared to all the genius songs they wrote?

And where was Jack on some of the best songs they ever wrote, like 19th Nervous Breakdown, Under My Thumb, Gimmie Shelter and others?

Utilising great competence to achieve great results is part of being great, btw. Nothing wrong with that.

Keith recorded Ry and practiced and used it in songs and his guitar playing. Incorporated it. No theres nothing wrong in that but there is almost a pattern when people like Ry, Taylor, Hopkins and possibly others were critical afterwards. Like Ive said before, they wrote songs but a lot was done in the studio with and without outside session musicians. The producers were Miller and Jagger and Richards and later on I guess Jagger alone (in the 70s, after Exile?).