Does anyone know if there is anywhere that will tell me what songs are Keefs, what are Micks and what are done by both of them ?

Anyone know how all the songs ended up being Jagger \ Richards when i've read they usually the write the songs on their own

same reason as why Lennon/McCartney's are billed the same even though they rarely wrote together. A prior agreement. If one of them gets a credit, then they both do. So even if Keith writes a song with Woody (as was the case on most of Dirty Work) it ends up as Jagger/Richards/Wood

In the last "Guitar World" Keith said he only wrote "Rough justice", "This place is empty" and "Infamy". Mick apparently had written more songs (Keith says Mick likes to be prepared better). And that's exactly what you hear. Of course, as usual, Keith brings in some ideas into some of Micks songs while Mick brings some of his into Keith's. But if you listen to the album (and have a look at the the credits) it is very evident Mick has put much more creative effort into it than Keith. No surprise: the sessions took place in Mick's house in France. Not at Keith's.

That's why A BIGGER BANG is called "the best Mick Jagger solo album since EXILE ON MAIN ST" (by me).

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> That's why A BIGGER BANG is called "the best Mick
> Jagger solo album since EXILE ON MAIN ST" (by
> me).
>

And we all know Exile On Main St is more of a Keith Richards album.

What's the history of 'Gotta Get Away?' Isn't that the December's Children tune that, alone among all Stones songs, is listed as Richards/Jagger? Anyone know why? I think I heard it was almost completely Keith's composition, and that in those days he thought he wanted special credit for it, but I may be mistaken.

BowieStone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > That's why A BIGGER BANG is called "the best
> Mick
> > Jagger solo album since EXILE ON MAIN ST"
> (by
> > me).
> >
>
> And we all know Exile On Main St is more of a
> Keith Richards album.

It is a reply to the moronic statement saying "A BIGGER BANG is the best Rolling Stones album since EXILE ON MAIN ST". It seems every album since UNDERCOVER has got that title and most often it's Keith who says so (he's so much fun!). But none of them avctually were. Neither is A BIGGER BANG.

That's why A BIGGER BANG is called "the best Mick Jagger solo album since EXILE ON MAIN ST" (by me).

bullshit....EOMS is a keith album!! and Dangerous Beauty is the most typical keith song on ABB. Neo con is a Jagger idea and lyrics but a typical keith rythm as well.

i hear plenty of Keith collaboration on ABB.
when he says he walked into the sessions with three numbers ready,
that doesn't mean Mick walked in with the other 13.

maybe you'll find this link interesting:
[www.timeisonourside.com]


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Keith said in an interview on Boston.com that him and Mick did almost every song together with the exception of the three mentioned above, that he brought with him to the recording sessions and two or three that Mick brought. Neocon and ONNYA. This formula seemed to always be the case with their songwriting.

So let me get this straight, if Mick writes a Stones song now, it's not a Stone's song, but a Mick Jagger solo song?

Isn't Mick Jagger in the Stones? has he been writing Stones songs for 40 years?

Someone needs some help.

Markdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> So let me get this straight, if Mick writes a
> Stones song now, it's not a Stone's song, but a
> Mick Jagger solo song?

What are you talking about? Get straight.

How could Mick write a Stones song? If the song is written by Mick Jagger it is a Mick Jagger song and it stays a Mick Jagger song (even if the credits say it's Jagger/Richards). Such a song is at best a "Mick Jagger song interpreted by the Rolling Stones". And it's sad if these Rolling Stones are a 3-piece unit.

How about "Sweet Neo Con":
Vocals: Mick Jagger
Guitar: Mick Jagger, Keith Richards
Bass: Mick Jagger
Harmonica: Mick Jagger
Keyboards: Mick Jagger
Drums: Charlie Watts

Or how about "Back of my hand":
Vocals: Mick Jagger
Guitar: Keith Richards
Slide guitar: Mick Jagger
Harmonica: Mick Jagger
Percussion: Mick Jagger
Bass: Mick Jagger
Drums: Charlie Watts

Who are the Rolling Stones however? Mick Jagger the new bass player of the Rolling Stones? Didn't they start out as a two-guitar group? Have they become a trio? There sure is something wrong with the Stones if singer Mick Jagger plays guitar on 15 of 16 tracks (he only left out the stupid "She saw me coming" where he instead played the bass as he did on 4 other tracks).

At best this album is Mick Jagger & The Rolling Stones but it sure ain't no legitimate Rolling Stones record.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-06 20:57 by F.U.C. the Captain.

I know Mick was very involved in most songs, also I think Ronnie should have been called into the studio earlier to play more guitar but.....

before I ever looked at the song credits I liked most of the songs off the album. Which is something I could not say about Mick's solo work or many songs from the Stones in the recent past.

I'm sure some of your favorite Stones songs were written by Mick.

"How could Mick write a Stones song? If the song is written by Mick Jagger it is a Mick Jagger song and it stays a Mick Jagger song (even if the credits say it's Jagger/Richards)."

So I guess Brown Sugar, Sympathy For the Devil, Miss You, and a bunch of others are not Stones songs, just Mick Jagger solo songs.

"There sure is something wrong with the Stones if singer Mick Jagger plays guitar on 15 of 16 tracks (he only left out the stupid "She saw me coming" where he instead played the bass as he did on 4 other tracks)."

Not sure if you knew but Mick plays guitar on most of the songs on Some Girls. F.U.C. the Captain, are you feeling ok, your posts are full of hatred.

J-J-Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "How could Mick write a Stones song? If the song
> is written by Mick Jagger it is a Mick Jagger song
> and it stays a Mick Jagger song (even if the
> credits say it's Jagger/Richards)."
>
> So I guess Brown Sugar, Sympathy For the Devil,
> Miss You, and a bunch of others are not Stones
> songs, just Mick Jagger solo songs.

No, you didn't get it. Neither Keith nor Mick can WRITE a Stones song, they can write Mick or Keith or Jagger/Richards songs but they only become Stones songs when they are played by the Rolling Stones. And you know as well as I that not even all Stones songs are "real Stones songs" since they somehow lack the Rolling Stones feeling, e. g. "Back to zero" or "Too much blood". I also think of all the songs by Keith ("Little tits and ass", etc) which are most often referred to as "Keith songs" not as Stones songs even if they contain nearly all the ingredients (minus Mick Jagger). Also "In another land" is more of a Bill song than a Stones song.

In this context it is absolutely legitimate to call "Sweet Neo Con" a Mick song since it is absolutely Mick who defines the sound of this song and not the Stones as a group. It will NEVER become a Stones song like "Brown sugar" or "Sympathy for the Devil" just because someone wrote the words "Rolling Stones" on the album that it was released on. There ARE differences between some songs even if your breed seems to think every Stones song is the same and they are always so superb no matter what. Holy Rolling Stones. (But in fact the Rolling Stones are a great @#$%&' group, never forget)

> "There sure is something wrong with the Stones if
> singer Mick Jagger plays guitar on 15 of 16 tracks
> (he only left out the stupid "She saw me coming"
> where he instead played the bass as he did on 4
> other tracks)."
>
> Not sure if you knew but Mick plays guitar on most
> of the songs on Some Girls. F.U.C. the Captain,
> are you feeling ok, your posts are full of hatred.

Yes Mick played guitar on 7 of 10 tracks on SOME GIRLS and there actually was something wrong with the Stones - they had to fight off punk. Keith was nearly going to jail. But they also had a second guitarist who played guitar on ALL the tracks. They had a bass player who played bass on ALL the tracks. Every single member of the 5-pieced Rolling Stones band played on EVERY TRACK on that album. Like a real band should. So there we have 10 of 10 Rolling Stones songs (even if I despise "Miss you").

SOME GIRLS and A BIGGER BANG are two completely different albums which have almost nothing in common. Just look at the chart positions and how long each album stayed there, then think about it.

My post is full of desperation, not hatred. Don't know if you know the difference.

Thank God that there are differences between the songs. What a boring band they would be if everything has to have the typical stonessound.
I love it when they release something different like Too Much Blood (which is a great track). It can still be a stones song if one person decides what it has to sound like. Certainly when that person is Mick Jagger.
Every jagger/richards on a stones album is stones song... sometimes it might sound very much jagger. But he is a Rolling Stone if he writes for the stones, so it is a stones song.

Hey BowieStone.
I'm searching far and wide for Pacific Ocean Blue, but I can't find it. Do you have any ideas as to where I could get it??? Cheap please.

JumpingKentFlash

There's amazon.com, but it's $150.
The problem is the album is out of print. Sony re-released it in 1991, but that's the one they are selling on amazon for 150$.

I bought mine on a jumble sale. 2,5 euros. I don't think you can find it in regular shops. Try second hand stores (with vinyl) or jumble sales.

well i wrote in another thread that Ronnie didn't do alot if anything for ABB

sometimes I wonder what the stones have to do with a new album to get the fans to like it. I'm sure if Let It Bleed had never been released and that was what they just put out people wouldn't like it

To me if Keith or Mick wrote it then it's a stones song.. was just trying to find out if anyone knew who which songs were Keith or Mick or both

sherer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me if Keith or Mick wrote it then it's a stones
> song..

That won't work on the album METAMORPHOSIS. Also that won't work on the songs written by Mick and Keith but never recorded by any of the Stones.

Also what about cover versions? Isn't "Not fade away" a Stones song?

To me it makes a song become a Stones song if it is interpreted by the Rolling Stones. They always had 5 members, now they have only 4. So if four of them are present they are the Rolling Stones. Mick, Keith and Charlie just ain't the Rolling Stones. Not yet.

> was just trying to find out if anyone knew
> who which songs were Keith or Mick or both

Just carefully read the upcoming interviews in all the guitar magazines etc. They usually say who wrote what. There will be light.

For the first time I am wondering how much of a "Keith" album Exile really is. It has become a Keith album mainly through the fact that it is NOT a Jagger album. But when reading the facts on the sessions and the overdubs etc. I noticed how much was done in LA later on. This really threw me.
Also I remember Andy Johs saying how terrible the songs all sounded.The keepers. AJ has stated that much of the Exile miracle came from the ODs, the mixing and especially the mastering. I can see that. When one listens to the few songs of which we have the raw recordings to, it is mindboggling that they did what they did. It also says a lot about Keith's ear that he knew where the magical take was.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> To me it makes a song become a Stones song if it
> is interpreted by the Rolling Stones. They always
> had 5 members, now they have only 4. So if four of
> them are present they are the Rolling Stones.
> Mick, Keith and Charlie just ain't the Rolling
> Stones. Not yet.

So as an example, most songs on Exile aren't stonessongs (Bill plays very little bass on that one).

There is more than enough KR in the songs. When KR states that he "wrote" a song that usually means the riff and chorus.

From what I read MJ will come in with an song entirely sketched and then everyone works on it. It's a 2 way street.

To my ears it is ver clear that the BANG songs are true collaborations: MJ &KR actaully written together. When was the last time Mick played on a KR track? at least that we know of ?(Steel Wheeels:vocals)

I would not say BANG sounds like a Jagger solo album......it does not suck.
BANG sounds like a STONES album, and a damn good album at that.

Milo,NYC
Treat me sweet and cool

BowieStone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > To me it makes a song become a Stones song if
> it
> > is interpreted by the Rolling Stones. They
> always
> > had 5 members, now they have only 4. So if
> four of
> > them are present they are the Rolling
> Stones.
> > Mick, Keith and Charlie just ain't the
> Rolling
> > Stones. Not yet.
>
> So as an example, most songs on Exile aren't
> stonessongs (Bill plays very little bass on that
> one).

Yes you're right, it's a problem. I did already think maybe it's enough to have four of five members playing on the song to make it a Rolling Stones song. But isn't there some Ronnie Wood song with Mick, Keith and Charlie on GIMME SOME NECK? Also it seems to be more important if Mick and Keith are in the song than say Bill to make a song become a "Stones song".

But if there are only left 3 of them can they still be the Rolling Stones?

Does this mean if Mick and Keith would carry on without Charlie and Ronnie it's still the Rolling Stones?

Does it mean if Mick is the sole survivor one day he will bill himself as The Rolling Stone?

Does it even mean that a band of James Jagger and Marlon Richards will be the Rolling Stones?

What is "the Rolling Stones"? Very profound question.

Yes it is kind of sad that when you look at who played what on ABB you see that it's basically a two people record plus Charlie added (thank god-Mick said he played a lot of drums but he left it out off the record).It doesn't have that band feeling which is a shame 'cause Ronnie is great-he was well known and appreciated before he joined the Stones.And he wrote some great songs in the past-Stay with me,Maggie May et.-is it possible that he totally dried up or are Mick and Keith just holding him back.
Yes i must admitt that Mick playing a bass is annoying!!

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every single member of the 5-pieced
> Rolling Stones band played on EVERY TRACK on that
> album.

So what about Happy? Is that a Stones song? With Keith and Jimmy Miller?

Sounds like a Stones song to me.

The Rolling Stones is whatever Mick and Keith decides. A Rolling Stones song is a song Mick and/or Keith wants on a stones album. So every song (besides covers) on a stones album is a stones song.
We just have to go along with it.

If one day Charlie quits and Mick and Keith decides to keep the band rolling than the stones will be a three piece.

camper88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Every single member of the 5-pieced
> > Rolling Stones band played on EVERY TRACK on
> that
> > album.
>
> So what about Happy? Is that a Stones song? With
> Keith and Jimmy Miller?
>
> Sounds like a Stones song to me.

It definitely is on a Rolling Stones album, no doubt, and both Mick and Keith are on it. And it sounds very stonesy. Though most often "Happy" is simply called a "Keith song"... however, on stage the song is played by most of the Rolling Stones and thus a Stones song (in the early times even Mick joined in on backing vocals, but those times are over).


BowieStone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If one day Charlie quits and Mick and Keith
> decides to keep the band rolling than the stones
> will be a three piece.

Ok, I see your point. At least you're one of those who recognize Ronnie as a full member of the Stones.

So if Keith and/or Mick quit it's the end of the Rolling Stones. No Stones without Mick and/or Keith. Even Charlie and Ronnie can be replaced.

F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So if Keith and/or Mick quit it's the end of the
> Rolling Stones. No Stones without Mick and/or
> Keith. Even Charlie and Ronnie can be replaced.


I think that's the way Mick and Keith are seeing it.

PS Ofcourse Ronnie is a full member. But songs can be recorded without him and still be rolling stones songs. Same thing goes for Charlie (YCAGWYW,...) and even Mick (All About You,...) and Keith (100 years ago,...).

BowieStone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that's the way Mick and Keith are seeing
> it.
>
> PS Ofcourse Ronnie is a full member. But songs can
> be recorded without him and still be rolling
> stones songs. Same thing goes for Charlie
> (YCAGWYW,...) and even Mick (All About You,...)
> and Keith (100 years ago,...).

You're leaning out the window very far... How about the songs on METAMORPHOSIS? Can you tell me which of these are Rolling Stones songs?

Metamorphosis is a different case. It wasn't even released with the stones' permission. Half of the album are Andrew Oldham Orchestra Recordings with Micks vocal on it.

But there are some stones songs : Don't Lie To Me, I don't know why, If you let me, Jiving Sister Fanny, Downtown Suzie, Family, Memo From Turner, I'm going down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-10-07 18:01 by BowieStone.