For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
According to what Johnnie wrote in his book (or told his co-author), he was on salary through 1973. After that he was just paid like any sideman or session musician. However, the recording artist and credited songwriter on all those records was Chuck Berry, there were no royalties to receive just because you play on someone's sessions or gigs. I don't believe he ever played with Chuck again once he sued him in 1991.
It's a tough situation. Chuck took those piano runs and converted them to guitar and created a unique sound, but it's not like Johnnie had a bunch of completed compositions and Chuck stole them. Did he deserve credit for at least some songs as a co-writer? Probably, but moral arguments are not a matter of breaking the law. Even if it hadn't been over thirty years after the fact when Johnnie finally sued, I doubt very much Chuck broke the law in calling himself the songwriter. Sadly, an opportunistic lawyer likely saw a chance to take advantage of the situation and Johnnie went along with it after getting advice from his handlers.
I look at it like by the time is was all said and done, Keith deserved that black eye from Chuck or, perhaps more accurately, had Chuck never punched Keith; he probably would have kept working on and off with Johnnie for the rest of his life as he had done. As for the question of did he really drive a bus, I imagine he did. Chuck wasn't selling out stadiums or arenas and the hits had long since dried up. I doubt Johnnie was getting rich working as an occasional sideman for Chuck in the seventies and eighties.
Quote
georgie48Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
georgie48
The thing with Johnny Johnson is that he actually delivered essential musical parts to the songs, allowing Chuck to add (great!) lyrics. Lyrics as such don't neccesarily result into great (musical) songs. So Johnson/Berry (or Berry/Johnson) credits would have been nice (and decent) in cases.
It's a difficult one, Georgie. No doubt Chuck let himself be inspired of licks from Johnnie, Louis Jordan etc. However, what he did with it was to create a template for his songs, musically. And none of these guys had the patent on 12 bar boogie. Those 12 bars (with THAT lick) became a vehicle for adding melodies and lyrics.
I don't know what would be right: Crediting Johnnie on every song, or simply some of the first songs?
Like I said, it's difficult
It's difficult indeed, DP.
I try to look at it this way. Selfishness is a common thing among people (and animals alike ...). Many felt that Brian should have been credited for Ruby Tuesday. Based on how the song developed (Keith's own words) he should have been. With Johnnie Johnson I think it is similar. Berry was clearly inspired, as was Keith. When a contribution has a clearly recognisable impact on a song that contribution should be credited.
Mick and Keith learned from their mistake(s). Pierre de Beauport was credited!
Quote
georgie48Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
georgie48
The thing with Johnny Johnson is that he actually delivered essential musical parts to the songs, allowing Chuck to add (great!) lyrics. Lyrics as such don't neccesarily result into great (musical) songs. So Johnson/Berry (or Berry/Johnson) credits would have been nice (and decent) in cases.
It's a difficult one, Georgie. No doubt Chuck let himself be inspired of licks from Johnnie, Louis Jordan etc. However, what he did with it was to create a template for his songs, musically. And none of these guys had the patent on 12 bar boogie. Those 12 bars (with THAT lick) became a vehicle for adding melodies and lyrics.
I don't know what would be right: Crediting Johnnie on every song, or simply some of the first songs?
Like I said, it's difficult
It's difficult indeed, DP.
I try to look at it this way. Selfishness is a common thing among people (and animals alike ...). Many felt that Brian should have been credited for Ruby Tuesday. Based on how the song developed (Keith's own words) he should have been. With Johnnie Johnson I think it is similar. Berry was clearly inspired, as was Keith. When a contribution has a clearly recognisable impact on a song that contribution should be credited.
Mick and Keith learned from their mistake(s). Pierre de Beauport was credited!
Quote
So everything Jagger say is scripted?Some more nonsens from a fanatic Keithfan again.You always find something negative with Mick Jagger.And believing every words from Keith?Getting Worse and worse
Cheers georgie48! Those are some nice words Keith said about Chuck in the above excerpts. However, I'm left divided on Mick's comments. Seems a little scripted, maybe I'm wrong. Anyhow, thanks to influences like Chuck we have been able to enjoy The Stones for a very long time. There's several chapters to them, not all great but somehow it ties in together perfectly. Maybe there's something for Chuck down the road apiece?[/quote
Quote
Mathijs
It's actually nonsense that Berry stole it all from Johnson. If there is one guy whom Berry 'stole' stuff from it is T-Bone walker. Many of the Berry leads and double stops Walker already did 10 years earlier.
Mathijs
Quote
MKjan
Ok, so if Johnnie J was driving a bus and his CB income(and other shows) was minimal, maybe it is more than a just a story about Keith helping him. I think Keith got him a record deal and played on a couple songs. A few performances too? I think Johnnie gave him grand thanks.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
georgie48Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
georgie48
The thing with Johnny Johnson is that he actually delivered essential musical parts to the songs, allowing Chuck to add (great!) lyrics. Lyrics as such don't neccesarily result into great (musical) songs. So Johnson/Berry (or Berry/Johnson) credits would have been nice (and decent) in cases.
It's a difficult one, Georgie. No doubt Chuck let himself be inspired of licks from Johnnie, Louis Jordan etc. However, what he did with it was to create a template for his songs, musically. And none of these guys had the patent on 12 bar boogie. Those 12 bars (with THAT lick) became a vehicle for adding melodies and lyrics.
I don't know what would be right: Crediting Johnnie on every song, or simply some of the first songs?
Like I said, it's difficult
It's difficult indeed, DP.
I try to look at it this way. Selfishness is a common thing among people (and animals alike ...). Many felt that Brian should have been credited for Ruby Tuesday. Based on how the song developed (Keith's own words) he should have been. With Johnnie Johnson I think it is similar. Berry was clearly inspired, as was Keith. When a contribution has a clearly recognisable impact on a song that contribution should be credited.
Mick and Keith learned from their mistake(s). Pierre de Beauport was credited!
Has Keith said anything about Brian writing either lyrics, melody or any passages in Ruby Tuesday? I must have missed that.
Adding instruments that embellish or complement to the song is not writing, though, it's simply a musician's job. Had they started out with Brian's recorder-theme, and Keith based the song around that, it would have been songwriting, though.
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
MKjan
Ok, so if Johnnie J was driving a bus and his CB income(and other shows) was minimal, maybe it is more than a just a story about Keith helping him. I think Keith got him a record deal and played on a couple songs. A few performances too? I think Johnnie gave him grand thanks.
I never denied Keith helped him. Johnnie did an album of his own before he worked with Keith on JOHNNIE B. BAD in 1991, but yes, I believe Keith helped get him the Elektra deal. If nothing else HAIL HAIL gave him a profile he had never previously enjoyed. Keith played a couple shows with Johnnie about 10 years after they cut "Key to the Highway" and "Tanqueray." Johnnie was a great piano player and I love hearing him with the Winos and (all too briefly) with the Stones. Johnnie or Ben Waters are the only people I've heard that bring to the table what Stu did for the Stones. Chuck acquit himself nicely on "Fancy Man Blues" but it's rare he plays a real piano.
Quote
MathijsQuote
georgie48Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
georgie48
The thing with Johnny Johnson is that he actually delivered essential musical parts to the songs, allowing Chuck to add (great!) lyrics. Lyrics as such don't neccesarily result into great (musical) songs. So Johnson/Berry (or Berry/Johnson) credits would have been nice (and decent) in cases.
It's a difficult one, Georgie. No doubt Chuck let himself be inspired of licks from Johnnie, Louis Jordan etc. However, what he did with it was to create a template for his songs, musically. And none of these guys had the patent on 12 bar boogie. Those 12 bars (with THAT lick) became a vehicle for adding melodies and lyrics.
I don't know what would be right: Crediting Johnnie on every song, or simply some of the first songs?
Like I said, it's difficult
It's difficult indeed, DP.
I try to look at it this way. Selfishness is a common thing among people (and animals alike ...). Many felt that Brian should have been credited for Ruby Tuesday. Based on how the song developed (Keith's own words) he should have been. With Johnnie Johnson I think it is similar. Berry was clearly inspired, as was Keith. When a contribution has a clearly recognisable impact on a song that contribution should be credited.
Mick and Keith learned from their mistake(s). Pierre de Beauport was credited!
It's actually nonsense that Berry stole it all from Johnson. If there is one guy whom Berry 'stole' stuff from it is T-Bone walker. Many of the Berry leads and double stops Walker already did 10 years earlier.
And many people still do not fully understand how writing credits work. The author is the guy who creates something that wasn't there before. So if I hum a very basic melody I will get the credits. You can add bagpipes or the London Bach Choir to the melody, but the author will remain me. Now if you add a middle 8 to my melody you will be entitled to a part of the writing credits.
Mathijs
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you have that quote, Georgie?
If true, it's sensational. It really sounds like it was written the other way around - regarding the verses, the melody, the chorus etc. The outro, though, could have worked that way. But nothing is impossible for our boys.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
According to what Johnnie wrote in his book (or told his co-author), he was on salary through 1973. After that he was just paid like any sideman or session musician. However, the recording artist and credited songwriter on all those records was Chuck Berry, there were no royalties to receive just because you play on someone's sessions or gigs. I don't believe he ever played with Chuck again once he sued him in 1991.
It's a tough situation. Chuck took those piano runs and converted them to guitar and created a unique sound, but it's not like Johnnie had a bunch of completed compositions and Chuck stole them. Did he deserve credit for at least some songs as a co-writer? Probably, but moral arguments are not a matter of breaking the law. Even if it hadn't been over thirty years after the fact when Johnnie finally sued, I doubt very much Chuck broke the law in calling himself the songwriter. Sadly, an opportunistic lawyer likely saw a chance to take advantage of the situation and Johnnie went along with it after getting advice from his handlers.
I look at it like by the time is was all said and done, Keith deserved that black eye from Chuck or, perhaps more accurately, had Chuck never punched Keith; he probably êwould have kept working on and off with Johnnie for the rest of his life as he had done. As for the question of did he really drive a bus, I imagine he did. Chuck wasn't selling out stadiums or arenas and the hits had long since dried up. I doubt Johnnie was getting rich working as an occasional sideman for Chuck in the seventies and eighties.
Quote
MathijsQuote
georgie48Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
georgie48
The thing with Johnny Johnson is that he actually delivered essential musical parts to the songs, allowing Chuck to add (great!) lyrics. Lyrics as such don't neccesarily result into great (musical) songs. So Johnson/Berry (or Berry/Johnson) credits would have been nice (and decent) in cases.
It's a difficult one, Georgie. No doubt Chuck let himself be inspired of licks from Johnnie, Louis Jordan etc. However, what he did with it was to create a template for his songs, musically. And none of these guys had the patent on 12 bar boogie. Those 12 bars (with THAT lick) became a vehicle for adding melodies and lyrics.
I don't know what would be right: Crediting Johnnie on every song, or simply some of the first songs?
Like I said, it's difficult
It's difficult indeed, DP.
I try to look at it this way. Selfishness is a common thing among people (and animals alike ...). Many felt that Brian should have been credited for Ruby Tuesday. Based on how the song developed (Keith's own words) he should have been. With Johnnie Johnson I think it is similar. Berry was clearly inspired, as was Keith. When a contribution has a clearly recognisable impact on a song that contribution should be credited.
Mick and Keith learned from their mistake(s). Pierre de Beauport was credited!
It's actually nonsense that Berry stole it all from Johnson. If there is one guy whom Berry 'stole' stuff from it is T-Bone walker. Many of the Berry leads and double stops Walker already did 10 years earlier.
And many people still do not fully understand how writing credits work. The author is the guy who creates something that wasn't there before. So if I hum a very basic melody I will get the credits. You can add bagpipes or the London Bach Choir to the melody, but the author will remain me. Now if you add a middle 8 to my melody you will be entitled to a part of the writing credits.
Mathijs
Quote
Rockman
Louis Jordan …. musta been an
influence on Chuck lyric and performance wise
Quote
CBII
As to where my father got his style from ...
Quote
Nikkei
Re: Tribute to Chuck Berry? /// It seems a glaring omission the more I think about it.
Quote
Nikkei
That's an over the top statement
Quote
Nikkei
Well that was the point of my question: They used to play his songs throughout their career, but not since his passing away. In my mind that is odd, seeing how they played Ray Charles and James Brown songs in 2006/07.
Quote
LeonidPQuote
Nikkei
That's an over the top statement
And similar to what Keith has stated himself, more than once.
And I'd have to go thru their catalog to check, but I am guessing they've covered CB songs at least 10 times, likely more. How can one even imply they haven't paid tribute to him.
Quote
boogaloojefQuote
LeonidPQuote
Nikkei
That's an over the top statement
And similar to what Keith has stated himself, more than once.
And I'd have to go thru their catalog to check, but I am guessing they've covered CB songs at least 10 times, likely more. How can one even imply they haven't paid tribute to him.
I burned this cdr of Chuck Berry associated songs which the Stones covered and I play it frequently.
Come On
Bye Bye Johnny
Memphis Tennessee BBC
Roll Over Beethoven BBC
Route 66
Carol
Beautiful Delilah BBC
Don't Lie To Me
Reelin' And Rockin' (outtake)
Confessin' The Blues
Around And Around
Talkin' About You
Down The Road Apiece
You Can't Catch Me
Little Queenie - Live 1969
Let It Rock - Live 1971
Back In The U.S.A. (outtake)
Sweet Little Sixteen - Live 1978
Sweet Little Rock 'N' Roller - bonus track - New Barbarians live 1979
Run Rudolph Run - bonus track rare Keith Richards single