I am not on a slippery track. I am on exactly the track I want to be. It is easy to take a quote out of context and then pose the Q underneath it "Is this your def of a song"? when I have clearly said that IMO (!) a huge part of the process is in the recognition of the idea. And I also know what I am talking about. Believe me. I do not feel the need to prove my own knowledge by quoting my titles, nor do I feel the need to tell others here who don't agree with me to wake up and think before they talk. I actually like posts by people that do not think before they talk a lot more.
Oh, and what I agree with Mathijs with is that (as I also have said) it seems to me that he is working within the established vocabulary of what songwriting is. Established within us people who play in bands.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

What Brian did accomplish includes a brilliant decades-ahead-of-its-time (only Ginger Baker, in Lagos, was doing something remotely similar) "composition" (album, suite-like in structure) by then-unkown Master Musicians of Joujouka, who really are pretty rocking, and highly acclaimed by those who'd experienced them (composer turned novelist) Paul Bowles, Burroughs, Randy Weston, later Ornette Coleman, and the other very few Westerners able to make the trek to Joujouka. Precedes the whole "world music" thang, and B integrated some of the earlier G'naoua (sp) & Joujouka influences into the Stones' music ('We Love You,' parts of Satanic, etc)...The "lyrics" printed in Mandy Aftel's book, if they are indeed lyrics not prose-poems to a recipient, are lacking most of the qualities one expects in pop songs, including structure (unless you count Yes' "Tales From Topographic Oceans" as good songs), but Brian's innate musicality (pre '68) is undeniable, and it is there in the bios that he was working with known major brit musicians (I don't consider Korner a major musician btw) and happy during May or so '69. And who says whatever he ended up doing had he lived depended on Jones' songwriting talent for success? He was an adventurous, forward thinking musician, and many greats and visionary musicians are not great songwriters. Not to mention a different environment in which he might be working, one less inhibiting than the Stones.

>> Keith's statement that ... [Brian's] personal insecurities were so great
that he seemed unable to actually present anything for the band to work on <<

don't mean to mangle your quote, Gazza, and i'm not sure how much you mean was Keith's statement,
but Brian himself said he felt too insecure to put forward any compositions. i don't remember his exact words,
but he elaborated it by saying that he wasn't insecure "as a person", but he was about his songwriting.
Keith may have said the same thing, of course, but for the record: Brian said it too.

... and since that'll probably lead straight to a round of "well whose fault was it that he was insecure" -
i might as well say right away that i imagine it was something in his upbringing.
his young-adult associates just didn't have the patience, resources, training or time
to provide effective therapy for whatever was wobbly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-23 18:36 by with sssoul.

Wasnt aware Brian had said it too - thanks for pointing it out. Backs the 'Brian wasnt a songwriter' argument up even further, I suppose. He had his own demons to deal with, I guess.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "And beyond reasonable doubt simply means when the
> majority of scientist agree with you."
>
> - Really??

Yes. In physics and chemistry something is considered "true" when the majority of scientist involved in the field agree it is true, and it remains true until the opposite becomes "more true". Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is considered true as most scientist believe it is "not false", and all evidence we have point towards it being indeed "correct". In science, a theory like this can, by definition, never be "absolutely" true.

> Come on, Brian Jones played guitar hour after hour
> daily circa 1958 (probably earlier?) - 1969. Why
> in Heavens name shouldn't he have been writing
> songs?

I think you try to be too scientific here, and it has become a play of definitions. I really don't know if Brian never wrote a sing at home. Of course we do not know that. We also do not know whether Charlie Watts wrote a bunch of hit albums but he's just too lazy to release them. Brian and Charlie are, by definition, not song writers: they have never written a piece of music that has been released or is available by any other means. Also, not one person whom has worked with the Stones or whom knew them personally has ever stated Charlie Watts wrote a couple of songs. The same goes for Brian Jones.

Mathijs

To the smartasses here: Charlie Watts is technically a songwriter. In fact, he has written quite many songs. Every time you find a Stones song that says written by Nanker-Phelge, that's our Charlie boy there.

Many things go by definitions and even more by conventions. We all know that everytime a song is said to be written by "Jagger-Richards" that MUST the case, that living individuals called Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and no else, is written the piece. Right? When someone, let's say Mick Taylor, says something otherwise, he is not presenting a fact, but 'whining'. Right?

What I have learned here by now is that one is a song writer if and only if one get his or her stuff released - and I suppose that needs the addition: by his own name. Only the plain facts matter, right? There aren't reality beyond it, right? Like a novelist who has released anything is not really a novelist.

Quite professional atmophere here. Nothing wrong with that. Go on.

- Doxa

Nanker-Phelge was the credit assigned from 1963 through May 1965 on Stones songs that came together in the studio as opposed to tracks Mick and Keith worked on in isolation or with session musicians before bringing to the band. Charlie earned a piece of the Nanker-Phelge royalties, but so did Andrew Oldham. Following the logic of the prior argument, Andrew Oldham has also written many Stones songs. Incidentally, at some later date (I'm not sure precisely when, but I believe it wasn't until the 1980s), Jagger and Richards were assigned the Nanker-Phelge royalties in total meaning Brian's estate, Bill, Charlie, Oldham, and the few others who sometimes received Nanker-Phelge royalties (Stu's estate, Eric Easton's estate, and Jimmy Phelge at a minimum) saw their checks for those songs dry up.

I don't think anyone doubts Brian Jones was a brilliantly talented musician who could play just about anything and a phenomenal arranger who could elevate other people's work to a level they never dreamed possible. Sadly, he was also self-destructive and died far too young to realize his full potential. The only thing that is being debated is whether Brian was preparing songs for a solo album or a new band at the end of his life. The claim has been made by many over the years (including Bill Wyman) that he did so. Many fans and collectors (including me), after decades of never hearing the results, are sceptical they exist. This in no way minimizes Brian's talents, it only throws doubt on an unsubstantiated claim. As far as I know, every single sceptical fan would also give their eye teeth to hear and acquire these recordings if they did exist. This really shouldn't turn into a war between those who love over forty years of the band and those who only love the original line-up.

>> Jimmy Phelge <<

Jimmy Phelge didn't get any royalties from Nanker Phelge numbers, any more than any Nanker did.
he was never part of the band or the organization; they simply used his name for the fun of it.

where did you hear that the Nanker Phelge royalties were re-assigned to Keith and Mick?

john r mentions Mandy Aftel and obviously the song printed there "(Thank you) For Being There?". He is right, I don't think it would work. It lacks BASICS of songwriting like keeping the number of syllables of the lines that rhyme (and he even has some non-perfect rhymes in there, too) to each other similar. What kind of melody would that have been?
Bill said in an interview that he didn't try to compete with Mick and Keith as they proofed to be unbeatable. On another thread I already mentioned that the Stones missed the chance - like the Beatles (George and songs sung by Ringo) or the Who (Entwistle) - to integrate further songwriting band members after Bill's In Another Land. Or: Mick and Keith simply didn't depend on further help - as John and Paul especially in their demise must have - as the classical period of the Stones started right then. By the way, then Brian was out of it after the Morocco incidents.
Mick Taylor (and Can't You Hear Me Knocking) is often mentioned. I think that is exactly the perfect example to indicate the difference between composing and arranging. The song started as a composed matter: riff, melody, lyrics were already fully worked out and without doubt created by Mick and Keith only. While recording the song - after the composed part - the interplay turned into a jam. That jam starts with Bobby Keys! And it is Mick T who responds to Bobby and he certainly would have played something completely else if he started or had to fill 8 bars in between. Composing means acting and not reacting. If you want to add further composers on that song, Bobby Keys is the one.
Brian knew which instrument to pick, knew which line to play but that goes with Charlie and Bill, too.
Very strange: Charlie was credited as composer along with Hopkins and Cooder on Jamming With Edward but Bill not - you might count Mick Jagger not being credited due to his humbleness... JWE was basically a jam session (something like "we just played as our guitarist didn't show up in time" as they called it) as the rest of CYHMK. But that contained a composed part without the jam wouldn't have happened.
I think everybody who ever picked up an instrument tried to "compose", to "create" something on his own. But it doesn't necessarily work even if you're well crafted by knowing about scales or rhyming or whatever well known in theory necessary.
A friend of mine plays much better guitar than I, he has a lot to tell but we tried vice and versa. I gave him some rhythmical chord changes, some preplayed melodies to put some words on it and he couldn't make something out of it.
He played something to me and I said that's neither a riff nor a singable melody.
He gave lyrical fragments and I said they lack (at least what Brian's song above lacked) essentials to turn them into a song.
But, without any advice, he sure can play a wonderful solo on songs of mine. And that's what I experienced from many other people who finally say "I have to do it alone" or "I try but can't get it together" - no matter how "good" they are.

Jimmy Phelge says he received some songwriting royalties from Nanker-Phelge songs. I'm not implying he wrote anything. Andrew Oldham says he stopped getting his songwriting royalties apart from "As Tears Go By" and "I'd Much Rather Be With The Boys." If you notice when live versions of Nanker-Phelge songs have turned up on live albums or as CD single bonus tracks in recent years, they only credit Jagger-Richards.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I have learned here by now is that one is a
> song writer if and only if one get his or her
> stuff released - and I suppose that needs the
> addition: by his own name. Only the plain facts
> matter, right? There aren't reality beyond it,
> right? Like a novelist who has released anything
> is not really a novelist.

No need to go through the roof, Doxa. Speaking for me, I clearly stated:

"It is possible that Brian was a great songwriter. But until I hear something I have my doubts."

And I believe that reflects the point of view of quite some other posters here. I would not state that a novelist who has not released anything is not a novelist. But how can I know? So I would not confirm this person being a novelist either. If I meet one who claims he is I can either believe him or not. But until this person shows me his unreleased novels, I can never be sure. How can you be sure, Doxa? How can you be sure that there is a reality beyond the known facts? Did you know Brian personally and know something we don't know?

thanks Rocky Dijon -

>> Jimmy Phelge says he received some songwriting royalties from Nanker-Phelge songs. <<

could you direct me to where he says that, please and thank you? i remember clearly the part in his book
where they show him the Nanker Phelge credit on Stoned, but nothing about him actually receiving royalties.
what for?

>> If you notice when concert versions of Nanker-Phelge songs have turned up on live albums
or as CD single bonus tracks in recent years, they only credit Jagger-Richards. <<

i'm trying hard to recall what numbers you might mean other than the 89 concert version
of Play With Fire being the b-side to Highwire, but ... you'll have to excuse me, i have brain damage. :E

i don't own the Highwire single but i can take your word for how Play with Fire is credited on it.
on the other hand, on the 2002 ABKCO release it's still credited to Nanker Phelge.

all of that might tie in nicely with a nice speculative discussion about what the Nanker Phelge designation
actually represented - but this thread seems to be getting a bit heated, so ... maybe some other day.

I'll have to find the Phelge citation. As for the Nanker-Phelge credit going away...it's not on the live bonus track of Play with Fire in 1991 nor is it on the live version of The Spider and the Fly from 1995. Both former Nanker-Phelge credits that have been altered. I noticed ABKCO did not alter the credit from the album art in 2002. The only change I've caught is noting Robert Johnson as composer of Love in Vain. That's not necessarily indicative of anything other than failure to note the update. Sony and Virgin's CD art crediting Jagger-Richards as authors tends to bear out what I had heard regarding the royalties ceasing for the other members. If it turns out I misread the Phelge remarks, we're still left with Ian Stewart, Andrew Oldham, and Eric Easton getting royalties off of Nanker-Phelge.

retired_dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doxa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What I have learned here by now is that one is
> a
> > song writer if and only if one get his or her
> > stuff released - and I suppose that needs the
> > addition: by his own name. Only the plain facts
> > matter, right? There aren't reality beyond it,
> > right? Like a novelist who has released
> anything
> > is not really a novelist.
>
> No need to go through the roof, Doxa. Speaking for
> me, I clearly stated:
>
> "It is possible that Brian was a great songwriter.
> But until I hear something I have my doubts."
>
> And I believe that reflects the point of view of
> quite some other posters here. I would not state
> that a novelist who has not released anything is
> not a novelist. But how can I know? So I would not
> confirm this person being a novelist either. If I
> meet one who claims he is I can either believe him
> or not. But until this person shows me his
> unreleased novels, I can never be sure. How can
> you be sure, Doxa? How can you be sure that there
> is a reality beyond the known facts? Did you know
> Brian personally and know something we don't know?


Oh yeah, this is getting is epistemological. That's my home ground. But no, even though I'm tempted, I won't go there. I'll stick with the definitions-stuff and in the realm of pure speculation. Me - like Baboon Bro - don't know if Brian Jones was capable of making songs or not. I don't even know why this is such a big issue in the first place: why it would be important to know if Brian Jones ever was capable to compose or not. Perhaps Brian Jones fans would prove something to conradict the old 'official truth'; the Stones fans wants to confirm their 'official truth'? But what I find funny is this "we want proofs, or else shut up" stuff; suddenly people start acting like pseudo-scientists, or to behave like we are in the court. Proofs, proofs, proof! Facts, facts, facts! Are people really so serious?

I also sticking to the things I know aided with some imagination (and heavy interpretation),and personally I don't consider Brian Jones any song-maker at all; taken the fact that there is no any song circulating credited to him, it would be crazy to claim otherwise! That's a proof that he should be not remembered as any song-maker. But the question could he - the real person Brian Jones - who died some 38 years ago compose anything at all - that is an absurd question I think that people have so strong and firm opinions about it for OR against. Sorry, but I find that ridiculous.

And by the way, where it states that those mystical Cotchford tapes should be written by Brian Jones? Their existence does not entail that they are written by him. I remember hearing (sorry my fuzzy source) once heard avout the "Anaybody Seen My Baby" that it is a old blues standard.

- Doxa

P.S. There is a reality beyond the facts but it is goddamn difficult to know what it is like.

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote: "Established within us people who
play in bands."

- I have worked with music as a singer/songwriter/stage poet since anno dazumal.
Stop looking down at people, Chelsea.

I have been writing interpretations of Jim Morrison's main material.
But Polar Music (yes, ABBAs record company) didnt want to recognize them,
among other reasons because of the f-words. Does that make me a non-writer/interpreter?

"I think you try to be too scientific here, and it has become a play of definitions. I really don't know if Brian never wrote a sing at home. Of course we do not know that. We also do not know whether Charlie Watts wrote a bunch of hit albums but he's just too lazy to release them. Brian and Charlie are, by definition, not song writers: they have never written a piece of music that has been released or is available by any other means. Also, not one person whom has worked with the Stones or whom knew them personally has ever stated Charlie Watts wrote a couple of songs. The same goes for Brian Jones." (Mathijs)

- First: So you're into nature sciences. Well, I'm into Human science.

Second: So now we know Charlie is too lazy too relase songs.

The definition of song writing is slipping more and more for every page in this thread. Just weird.

Once and for all: I dont know and I dont care about Brian's songwriting.
But please be careful with words.
No need for kickin' at Brian still in 2007.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-24 10:26 by Baboon Bro.

Doxa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Me - like Baboon Bro - don't know if Brian Jones was
> capable of making songs or not. I
> don't even know why this is such a big issue in
> the first place: why it would be important to know
> if Brian Jones ever was capable to compose or not.

This more or less echoes my question in a previous post:

"Why is it necessary for some people to see him as a great
songwriter too? In my eyes he does not need to be a great
songwriter because I respect him for what he was. Is that
what he was not enough for some people?"

> Perhaps Brian Jones fans would prove something to
> conradict the old 'official truth'; the Stones
> fans wants to confirm their 'official truth'? But
> what I find funny is this "we want proofs, or else
> shut up" stuff; suddenly people start acting like
> pseudo-scientists, or to behave like we are in the
> court. Proofs, proofs, proof! Facts, facts, facts!
> Are people really so serious?

Yes, they are...I think when it comes to Brian Jones this
is some kind of a reflex because there are actually few facts
but beliefs and theories amass instead.

> I also sticking to the things I know aided with
> some imagination (and heavy interpretation),and
> personally I don't consider Brian Jones any
> song-maker at all; taken the fact that there is no
> any song circulating credited to him, it would be
> crazy to claim otherwise! That's a proof that he
> should be not remembered as any song-maker. But
> the question could he - the real person Brian
> Jones - who died some 38 years ago compose
> anything at all - that is an absurd question I
> think that people have so strong and firm opinions
> about it for OR against. Sorry, but I find that
> ridiculous.

Similar to many Brian Jones topics, for many people it
is just black or white. Anybody knows grey?

> And by the way, where it states that those
> mystical Cotchford tapes should be written by
> Brian Jones? Their existence does not entail that
> they are written by him. I remember hearing (sorry
> my fuzzy source) once heard avout the "Anaybody
> Seen My Baby" that it is a old blues standard.

Good observation. In fact, even if those demos really
exist it does not necessarily mean the songs were written
by Brian.

> P.S. There is a reality beyond the facts but it is
> goddamn difficult to know what it is like.

You nailed it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-23 23:32 by retired_dog.

>> The Spider and the Fly from 1995 <<

of course - how did i forget that one?

>> I noticed ABKCO did not alter the credit from the album art in 2002 <<

actually i now see that on the 2002 releases The Spider & the Fly and Off the Hook
are both listed as Jagger/Richards - curiouser and curiouser!
the other Nanker Phelges on those releases still seem to be Nanker Phelge.

sometime on a less heated thread it would be interesting to ponder this some more.
(not the artwork errors - i mean the history of the Nanker Phelge credit and what it's been used for.)

Good points, Doxa, Baboon Bro, John R, and Retired Dog.
Remember how Brian used to do his famous half-Nanker face?

Some references from the discography on my site; thanks to the original source of the info, MOJO [www.mojo4music.com]:

"SURE I DO (Brian Jones)* Rec: Nov. 20 or 21, 1963** Rel: Not released. There's a myth that Brian never wrote a song. That's not true. SURE I DO exists on tape and acetate. It was published by Posner music Co.,and is reportedly a slow number with Brian singing the lead vocal in his soft spoken mellifluous style speaking voice, not his raspy singing voice. The Stones appear as a unit on this tune. Brian told a ROLLING STONES MONTHLY reporter as late as '66 that he'd like to record "himself...I've got a fairly good voice for folky material";(RS Monthly #23, 4/66)- I always think his rasp would have served the band well on the occasional blues, myself. "

I WANT YOU TO KNOW (Brian Jones)* Rec: Dec. 7 or 9, 1963** Rel: Never released. Another Brian song, featuring Brian on lead vocals and harmonica. Two versions of this may exist. This is fast song, sung in the "raspy" I Wanna Be Your Man voice. *On the acetate, Brian's name was crossed out, replaced with Jagger/Richard, which was in turn replaced by Brian's name again. **The Stones recorded more publisher's demos at this session,including GIVE ME YOUR HAND (AND I'LL HOLD IT TIGHT), YOU MUST BE THE ONE and WHEN A GIRL LOVES A BOY. Some session men may appear on these tunes.

Getting back to the original post, these demos by Brian, shouldn't they be in the hands of his family instead of some collector? Whomever this collector is, must be 1) ultra rich, and 2) a huge fan holding onto it for pride/sentimental value/enjoyment in having something no one else has. But music is meant to be listened to and shared, otherwise what's the point. If not in the hands of a collector, maybe it could be in the hands of the stones themselves or their management....?

[p207.ezboard.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-24 03:48 by Miss U..

As he had already left the Stones by then, Brenda, surely theres absolutely no reason why the Stones or their management should either be in possession of it or hold any rights to it.

The fact that a collector may have them doesnt necessarily mean that they have the original master tapes. It could well be a copy, so it is quite possible that his family may indeed hold them.

I can understand someone holding on to them. Frustrating for everyone else, but its potentially a nice nest-egg for the future.

So was the rasp (like on Walking The Dog) intentional, or did he really sound like that when he sung?

I think there may have been a reason for the stones to hold onto those songs, in 1969, a big reason. According to Rawlings book, Les Perrin (stones PR) 's wife was the last known to have them, then they were lost.
For this collector to have the songs, he/she must be very rich to have gotten them, or else has connections. So if this person is rich I doubt they would have these songs for monetary return reasons, and if so likely would have sold it by now.

[p207.ezboard.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-24 03:55 by Miss U..

Wikipedia Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------
> A second song, "Sure I Do", was written, recorded and
> sung completely by Jones in 1963, but the only known
> copy of it remains in Bill Wyman's "Sticky Fingers"
> restaurant. It remains unreleased and to date no one
> is known to have listened to it.



Is this true? This seems very farfetched.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-24 04:00 by it's_all_wrong.

maybe, but then again you can hold onto songs AND still make money on them by bootlegging or auctioning them.

Even easier to do if, as I would imagine, they werent copyrighted.

Baboon Bro, I'm not really talking to you. you keep answering...
I don't come here to antagonize. I really don't. You seem like a nice enough guy. Just quit being rude to me. I can't even understand how that sentence could offend you.
There is nobody on my end kicking at Brian. We got into a pretty intersting discussion about what songwriting means. At least that is what I thought.
As far as Brian is concerned somewhere up in this thread is a small sentence hidden that JohnR wrote "He was an adveturous forward thinking musician,a nd many greats and visionary musicnas are not songwriters.
For me that sums it up well as far as Brian is concerned in the topic.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

ChelseaDrugstore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Baboon Bro, I'm not really talking to you. you
> keep answering...
> There is nobody on my end kicking at Brian.


Your posts repeatedly attempt to diminish Brian and his role in the band.

Check out this website....Brian song writer or not ? Very interesting informations there....


[earcandymag.com]

I don't suppose that I'll find out the answers in this flick, but I couldn't resist picking it up at the local Blockbuster to watch this weekend.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-24 08:39 by schillid.

Ok, Chelsea... My hand...
Sorry if I was a little too eager, had a tough day, divorce & all.

Hope we can leave this discussion behind us.

Bro, I am sorry to hear about you having a rough time with that divorce. It sucks...I just remember the only thing I learned is that there is no such thing as a civil divorce. They all hurt. Hang tough.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe, but then again you can hold onto songs AND
> still make money on them by bootlegging or
> auctioning them.
>
> Even easier to do if, as I would imagine, they
> werent copyrighted.

Contrary to popular ideas: owning any Stones related music will NOT make you rich. Owning the music means nothing, owning THE RIGHTS to release the music will make you "rich" (it will earn you some money is a better sentence). Over the years quite some Stones music has been auctioned one way or the other (for example the Jimmy Miller tapes back in '96), but there's nothing you can do with them then to release them on bootleg. And releasing music on bootleg will earn you a thousand dollars, maybe $1500 (and this amount was in the old days. I guess nowadays with all the downloading it won't earn you anything anymore).

So if someone has the Brian Jones demos: good luck to him or her, it won't make you rich. The rights of this music are with ABKCO and the Brian Jones estate. There's nothing you can do with it, except release on bootleg.

About Andrew Loog Oldham: to this day he is one of the holders of the publishing rights to Stones music recorded between 1963 and 1967. He had arranged this in a deal with Allen Klein. So, of all money earned a part goes to ABKCO, to Loog Olhan and to Jagger/Richards.

About WHY it is so interesting whether Brian wrote music: it isn't. I really don't care who wrote Paint it Black. If Brian wrote it: god bless him. But what I find truly repulsive is all these psychotic Brian Jones fans twisting the truth and rewriting history to make Brian a bigger legend than he is, and to put down Jagger and Richards whose fault it all is what happened to Brian. I hate it how everything is turned into one big grand scheme by the Stones to get rid of Brian, and all the lies like that Brian's death is ordered by the Stones and whatever. I can't stand people rewriting history in Brian's name, claiming brian wrote all the big hits but was denied credits. In the end, these so called fans do not make brian a better person, it doens't do the legacy well.

Mathijs