Tell Me :
Talk
Or, maybe they were told to accept the Jagger/Richards rubberstamp or leave. ALO was said to be an absolute tyrant in the mid-1960's, it being his way or the highway. His treatment of the 'lesser' Stones was very heavy-handed, excluding them from important decisions and treating them like crap. Brian, Bill, and Charlie chose at that time not to rock the boat since the band was hugely successful. But look what happened. Brian would soon become estranged from the band, quitting in 1969 after several mental breakdowns. Bill would quit the band in 1992, probably his way of getting back at the Glimmer Twins after decades of mistreatment. MT would quit in his own terms in 1974. Why all this quitting? If things were so great with the band, one would think there would not have been so many changes to the line-up.
This is about the dumbest post I have seen of you so far. The percentage of bands who can't read and write notes is about 90%, still they were able to come up with some brilliant music. To write a song and record all parts of it does certainly not require note reading. And in the case you do need it (for example when you want to record a string section) you hire an arranger.
Ask The Beatles.
Mathijs
Who ever said Oldham treated the other Stones like crap? Certainly not Wyman and Watts. They were part of one of the best and most succesful bands in the world, lead by one of the best song writers. Both Charlie and Bill have earned millions and millions of dollars, and have lived luxurious lives since '65. Why on earth would they leave the Stones? Why would they demand more? Yes, I can imagine it sometimes being very hard to only play songs written by other people, wait in studio's for hours and hours doing nothing, but the rewards were big enough to stay with this band.
Wyman left in '92, being a 60 year old multi-millionair with angst to fly. Taylor left addicted and thinking he could do it all by himself -history has sproven him wrong. Brian was sacked because he was an unreliable, mentilly ill drug addict.
Concerning Bill Wyman: listen to his solo albums and see for yourself why the Stones did not record any of his songs properly. The same for Mick Taylor. Marianne Faithful has recieved credit for the one and only song she ever worked on, and Ry Cooder did indeed inspore Keith with the open G tuning, but he never ever wrote any part of Honky Tonk Women. And Ron Wood: he is a writer of some very, very good songs for the faces, his solo albums, and about a dozen for the Stones. Is there anything he can really complain about?
Mathijs
Oh man, what a load of rubbish.
Thanks for your polite remark,your pleasure.
Paul mc Cartney was the only Beatle with a decent musical background,but that might be a coincident; he was their best musician,both as a composer and as a guitar and bassplayer.(personal taste of course.)The only Beatlesongs in the "real book" are from Mc Cartney,which is quite a compliment!!
I didn't say you need to read notes to make good music,(that's your misguided interpretation on my topic),but those who can't need the help of professional arrangers & producers in order to get a decent result.And this is the case with most of all famous Pop&Rockbands,from the 6-tees till know.Producers &arrangers provide at least 80% of the end result,otherwise it mostly would end up in crap.
80%? you don`t know nothing about songwriting and producing music, i`m very sorry...When really good artist wants to show what he expects from arranger he can show it or explain it in 30 seconds using few words or few notes on piano.Cooperating skills and finding proper musicians/arrangers thats the part of bussiness AND sonwriting/producing too
Man, you can be so silly at times! You clearly have a big ol' chip on your shoulder about Brian being pissed on, despite the fact that he probably pissed on them just as much, if not more! I wonder if you'd be so protective of Brian had he kicked the sh*t out of one of your female family members? Made one of them pregnant then totally abandoned her and his son!?
I'm sure Brian and Bill were probably screwed out of a few deserved writing credits, but to keep harping on about Brian not getting credits when there isn't really any hard proof that he actually wrote anything deserving of one is getting really boring and pathetic!
Look how long the stones have been going for!? Their membership has been pretty damn solid especially when you consider that a lot of bands disintegrate after a few years.
Phantastic explanation. You want another proof? Check Out Of Time.
30 seconds?
Then why does it take half a year to record 10 songs? Without the help of other people they don't get any further than 3 chords and lyrics.I'am sorry.
I like the Stones,but please be realistic.
Pessimists might answer: They need half a year to write 10 songs.
Semi-pessimists answer: Market forces say, they don't need to release new material all the time. They can wait until they write 10 decent songs.
Semi-optimists answer: They are keen enough to come up with 10 new songs and need half a year to record it.
Optimists say: They are still able to come up with 10 new songs despite a giant vault to release a record within any half of a whatever year.
Realists say: During the next decade you must spare half a year to record all the stuff you have written or in your vaults on your own home equipment with the most expensive producer and musicians you like within the next half year.
I'm not talking about credits here. I've been simply responding to the claim by a certain Dutchman (and you know who I'm talking about) that Keith Richards IS the the Stones until 1977. That's how this whole thing got started. I simply object to that idea that ONE MAN was the Rolling Stones. I just think that's ridiculous.
Then you still really don't get it. The Stones are much more than only Keith Richards of course, but the point is that without Keith Richards there would have been no Stones. Keith is the main driver -he writes the songs, he has the ideas, he knows how to produce a song. He is the foundation on which other people can shine. Without Jagger there would have been no Stones -he's the worlds greatest performer and a fantastic rock singer.
Without Brian, Bill, Taylor and Wood we still would have had the Stones, but then with Harry, Pete, Phil and Andy. All these (fantastic) mucisians need Jagger and Richards to be able to deliver their best work. Wyman is a fantastic swinging bass player, but only with the Stones he is. Charlie is a fantastic drummer, but he would not have the same status with any other band.
And yes, I do think Brian is totally overrated. I think Andrew Oldham has been much more important for the carreer of the Stones than Brian ever was. Brian formed the Stones, was very important in '63 and '64, but at the moment fame came and Jagger and Richards started writing their own songs Brian's role was over.
Mathijs
First, it doesn't take half a year. Look at studio sessions for most albums, and it's 6 to 8 weeks in the studio writing and recording about 20 songs. Than a selection of 10 songs is made, and overdubs and mixing is done in 2 to 4 weeks. Mastering takes another 2 weeks, and that's about it. Most time goes into recording that perfect take. In the days before digital editing the backing tracks must be perfect, and it would sometimes take up to 80 attempts before the backing track was recorded.
Second, except for some rare tracks with full orchestrated string or brass sections the Stones have never worked with arrangers -basically Jagger and Richards with the help of producers like Andy Johns, Jimmy Miller and Chris Kimsey have done all the arrangements. The Stones never had somebody like George Martin who did all the (classical) arrengements.
If you listen to the Satanic outtakes, you hear that all arrangements and about all melodies played on whatever instrument are 'written' by Richards. He tells Brian and Nicky what to play and where to play it. Richards has the song in his head, and he knows what he wants to hear. This the key in writing and arranging songs.
It's just plain stupid and without any factual backup to think that the Stones ever needed and used arrangers.
Mathijs
First I think you should stop calling me names..
Second: The stones need arrangers,just like U-2 (Brian Eno) without whom they were in trouble as far their recordings are concerned.
With arranging I don't think of reading notes,but in case of the Stones : chords and voicings;they get lots of advice.They interact with strings if you didn't notice this.
Third I'am not going to argue anymore with someone who hates Jazz and fast wellknown guitarplayers "who only try to play strange"(??)and describes them very unethical,to say the least.You don't need to like it ,but please if you are a nitwit on this subject please respect yourself and others a bit more.
Mathijs,you know your serials and years guitars were made,all the years amps were built,and read a lot about musical facts,but when it comes to pure musical arguments,I would advice you to visit your local music school , lesson one. For example the tabs on "hey Negrita" you posted some time ago almost made me cry,
1) Wyman left the Stones because he wanted to spend time with family and persue a new carreer and hobbies. He said he didn't want to end up like Mick and Keith who "could do nothing else but be in the Stones". Also he cited his fear of flying.
I read that he said he felt he only had 20 years left and didn't want to waste them in the Stones. But the reasons you state above certainly sound feasible.
2) Taylor left the Stones thinking he was a big star by himself and could persue a carreer much like Clapton, writing and producing material of his own. Also, he was afraid staying in the Stones would take his life. He was addicted by then, and wanted to get out of the scene.
Could you reference any article, book, etc where you heard this. I have never read n anything where Taylor has said this. It was more boredom plus (to a minor degree) unhappiness about what he described as Jagger and Richards "lazy arrogance" when it came to songwriting credits.
3) Paranoia and schizophrenia.. It doesn't matter who talks about Jones -friend or enemy-, these two words always pop up one way or another.
Mathijs[/quote]
I have read the paranoia bit though I haven't considered that a mental illness. I did read one bit where Jones told somebody that Jagger & Richards were trying to get him out of the band. That person told Jones not to be paranoid went out into the hotel corridor and sure enough Jagger Richards and Oldham were having a discussion about how to get Jones out of the band. Therefore, I guess they may have been some reason for Jones' paranoia.
Speaking of which, I seem to recall that the reason for wanting him out of the band in the end was that he couldn't get a visa for a tour to the U.S. I expect whatever Brian's flaws were, they were used to it by then. I always wondered whether Anita Pallenberg was a contributing factor.
I think you can also add that Taylor couldn't imagine that The Rolling Stones would last for more than 30 years from that point.
I think John Lennon said on his(BRIAN'S) death, that Brian wasn't "a genius or anything like that" just a nice guy who became a victim of the drugs scene.
He had a multitude of personal problems/traits which then make a pure "classification"of mental illness/personality disorder difficult.
I have a bio on Charlie Parker (Charlie Watts hero?). Now, he was a musical genius but -rather like George Best - as a human being- he was something of a disaster.
Yet, it seems to get sort of overlooked. He had no moral scruples and no amounts of drugs, booze, sex could seem to satisfy him.
Dead in his early 30's (the body of someone in old age).
Not at all cool - or a cool way of living IMHO.
Please name all arangers that have worked with the Stones.
Mathijs
ps I am not calling you any names, I just think that -with all respect- your posts on this board rank among the dumbest ones in the ten years this board exists.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-10 18:20 by Mathijs.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: November 9, 2008 17:01
Quote
His Majesty
If it bothered the others that much, then they should have done something about it, but it seems that they didn't, perhaps that's for a very good reason, the reason possibly being that they didn't really contribute all that much to the main melody and lyrics.
Or, maybe they were told to accept the Jagger/Richards rubberstamp or leave. ALO was said to be an absolute tyrant in the mid-1960's, it being his way or the highway. His treatment of the 'lesser' Stones was very heavy-handed, excluding them from important decisions and treating them like crap. Brian, Bill, and Charlie chose at that time not to rock the boat since the band was hugely successful. But look what happened. Brian would soon become estranged from the band, quitting in 1969 after several mental breakdowns. Bill would quit the band in 1992, probably his way of getting back at the Glimmer Twins after decades of mistreatment. MT would quit in his own terms in 1974. Why all this quitting? If things were so great with the band, one would think there would not have been so many changes to the line-up.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: November 9, 2008 17:20
I would also like to add that even Ronnie Wood, of all people, has poked fun at the Jagger/Richards rubberstamp in According To The Rolling Stones, indicating that the credits to most Stones songs were predetermined. It seemed like no matter what the individual members of the band contributed in creating/writing/composing a song, the credits would always end up Jagger/Richards. This is what Bill Wyman, MT, Ronnie Wood, Marianne Faithful, and Ry Cooder have mentioned themselves. What does that tell you?
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 9, 2008 17:26
Quote
Amsterdamned
Until 1977, the Stones WERE Mick Jagger, Brian Jones, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Ronnie Wood, Ian Stewart, Nicky Hopkins, Jack Nitzsche, Bobby Keys, Billy Preston, and, of course, Keith Richards.-Neptune-
It's hard to believe Keith or Mick write a song on their own.
Maybe a rough idea,let's say 20% in the beginning.(not the lyrics)
It takes the Stones at least half a year to record 10 songs(!)
If Keith or Mick could write a complete arrangement ,which they can't cause they don't write notes and their knowledge on harmony is rather poor, the job would be done in 3 weeks.That's one of the reason's Jeff Beck ran away("he fell asleep")
This prooves that the other let's say 80% are done with the rest of the band+the arrangers and producer.An arrangement creates at least 75% of a songs character.
So the idea of Keith or Mick writing a song is rather flatterd ,based on whisfull thinking and ofcourse Keith and Mick's pocket.
The entire results are amazig,no doubt about it.
This is about the dumbest post I have seen of you so far. The percentage of bands who can't read and write notes is about 90%, still they were able to come up with some brilliant music. To write a song and record all parts of it does certainly not require note reading. And in the case you do need it (for example when you want to record a string section) you hire an arranger.
Ask The Beatles.
Mathijs
Re: The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: November 9, 2008 17:33
>> and Keith would have ended up in jail <<
LoFL! in jail for what - general scruffiness?
nothing as high-class as (for example!) a paternity suit, i'm sure :E
(i don't mean to dis Brian - but neptune you say such farfetched things sometimes!)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-09 17:50 by with sssoul.
LoFL! in jail for what - general scruffiness?
nothing as high-class as (for example!) a paternity suit, i'm sure :E
(i don't mean to dis Brian - but neptune you say such farfetched things sometimes!)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-09 17:50 by with sssoul.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 9, 2008 17:37
Quote
Or, maybe they were told to accept the Jagger/Richards rubberstamp or leave. ALO was said to be an absolute tyrant in the mid-1960's, it being his way or the highway. His treatment of the 'lesser' Stones was very heavy-handed, excluding them from important decisions and treating them like crap. Brian, Bill, and Charlie chose at that time not to rock the boat since the band was hugely successful. But look what happened. Brian would soon become estranged from the band, quitting in 1969 after several mental breakdowns. Bill would quit the band in 1992, probably his way of getting back at the Glimmer Twins after decades of mistreatment. MT would quit in his own terms in 1974. Why all this quitting? If things were so great with the band, one would think there would not have been so many changes to the line-up.
Who ever said Oldham treated the other Stones like crap? Certainly not Wyman and Watts. They were part of one of the best and most succesful bands in the world, lead by one of the best song writers. Both Charlie and Bill have earned millions and millions of dollars, and have lived luxurious lives since '65. Why on earth would they leave the Stones? Why would they demand more? Yes, I can imagine it sometimes being very hard to only play songs written by other people, wait in studio's for hours and hours doing nothing, but the rewards were big enough to stay with this band.
Wyman left in '92, being a 60 year old multi-millionair with angst to fly. Taylor left addicted and thinking he could do it all by himself -history has sproven him wrong. Brian was sacked because he was an unreliable, mentilly ill drug addict.
Concerning Bill Wyman: listen to his solo albums and see for yourself why the Stones did not record any of his songs properly. The same for Mick Taylor. Marianne Faithful has recieved credit for the one and only song she ever worked on, and Ry Cooder did indeed inspore Keith with the open G tuning, but he never ever wrote any part of Honky Tonk Women. And Ron Wood: he is a writer of some very, very good songs for the faces, his solo albums, and about a dozen for the Stones. Is there anything he can really complain about?
Mathijs
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: November 9, 2008 17:54
Quote
neptuneQuote
His Majesty
If it bothered the others that much, then they should have done something about it, but it seems that they didn't, perhaps that's for a very good reason, the reason possibly being that they didn't really contribute all that much to the main melody and lyrics.
Or, maybe they were told to accept the Jagger/Richards rubberstamp or leave. ALO was said to be an absolute tyrant in the mid-1960's, it being his way or the highway. His treatment of the 'lesser' Stones was very heavy-handed, excluding them from important decisions and treating them like crap. Brian, Bill, and Charlie chose at that time not to rock the boat since the band was hugely successful. But look what happened. Brian would soon become estranged from the band, quitting in 1969 after several mental breakdowns. Bill would quit the band in 1992, probably his way of getting back at the Glimmer Twins after decades of mistreatment. MT would quit in his own terms in 1974. Why all this quitting? If things were so great with the band, one would think there would not have been so many changes to the line-up.
Oh man, what a load of rubbish.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 9, 2008 21:32
Quote
MathijsQuote
Amsterdamned
Until 1977, the Stones WERE Mick Jagger, Brian Jones, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Ronnie Wood, Ian Stewart, Nicky Hopkins, Jack Nitzsche, Bobby Keys, Billy Preston, and, of course, Keith Richards.-Neptune-
It's hard to believe Keith or Mick write a song on their own.
Maybe a rough idea,let's say 20% in the beginning.(not the lyrics)
It takes the Stones at least half a year to record 10 songs(!)
If Keith or Mick could write a complete arrangement ,which they can't cause they don't write notes and their knowledge on harmony is rather poor, the job would be done in 3 weeks.That's one of the reason's Jeff Beck ran away("he fell asleep")
This prooves that the other let's say 80% are done with the rest of the band+the arrangers and producer.An arrangement creates at least 75% of a songs character.
So the idea of Keith or Mick writing a song is rather flatterd ,based on whisfull thinking and ofcourse Keith and Mick's pocket.
The entire results are amazig,no doubt about it.
This is about the dumbest post I have seen of you so far. The percentage of bands who can't read and write notes is about 90%, still they were able to come up with some brilliant music. To write a song and record all parts of it does certainly not require note reading. And in the case you do need it (for example when you want to record a string section) you hire an arranger.
Ask The Beatles.
Mathijs
Thanks for your polite remark,your pleasure.
Paul mc Cartney was the only Beatle with a decent musical background,but that might be a coincident; he was their best musician,both as a composer and as a guitar and bassplayer.(personal taste of course.)The only Beatlesongs in the "real book" are from Mc Cartney,which is quite a compliment!!
I didn't say you need to read notes to make good music,(that's your misguided interpretation on my topic),but those who can't need the help of professional arrangers & producers in order to get a decent result.And this is the case with most of all famous Pop&Rockbands,from the 6-tees till know.Producers &arrangers provide at least 80% of the end result,otherwise it mostly would end up in crap.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 9, 2008 22:06
Without a strong basic idea for a song, a producer or arranger has nothing to work with.
Ok, lets look at the rough version of Dandelion(aka sometimes happy) a perfect example imo of how Keith presents ideas to the band.
Seems to me that's Keith bringing in a basic, but still quite formed idea in to the band.
Fast forward to the final released version and what we have is a well written, arranged and recorded song with many extra parts and great playing by everyone. Take note though that some of those parts by the others have direct musical links to the melody and basic guitar playing by Keith from that rough version.
But, and here is the most important matter, the melody that Keith hummed in that basic rough version is there in the final released version, add the lyrics and boom, that is the song. They could have released a version with a completely different arrangement and if the main melodic and lyrical content were the same, then the writing credit would rightfully stay the same.
Do the same thing with sympathy, Mick strums basic chords and sings his basic melodic idea, even through all the changes that track went through(the arrangements/recordings), it's still his song.
It's probably a fair argument that Keith didn't really deserve a credit for Sympathy, Yesterdays Papers or Jigsaw Puzzle, but that's M&K's agreement and although it wasn't fair on the others, that's just the way it was.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-09 22:08 by His Majesty.
Quote
Amsterdamned
In the case of the Stones I think composing,playing and intereaction with the other bandmambers and arranging are closer than kissing cousins,and very understimated.
Ok, lets look at the rough version of Dandelion(aka sometimes happy) a perfect example imo of how Keith presents ideas to the band.
Seems to me that's Keith bringing in a basic, but still quite formed idea in to the band.
Fast forward to the final released version and what we have is a well written, arranged and recorded song with many extra parts and great playing by everyone. Take note though that some of those parts by the others have direct musical links to the melody and basic guitar playing by Keith from that rough version.
But, and here is the most important matter, the melody that Keith hummed in that basic rough version is there in the final released version, add the lyrics and boom, that is the song. They could have released a version with a completely different arrangement and if the main melodic and lyrical content were the same, then the writing credit would rightfully stay the same.
Do the same thing with sympathy, Mick strums basic chords and sings his basic melodic idea, even through all the changes that track went through(the arrangements/recordings), it's still his song.
It's probably a fair argument that Keith didn't really deserve a credit for Sympathy, Yesterdays Papers or Jigsaw Puzzle, but that's M&K's agreement and although it wasn't fair on the others, that's just the way it was.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-09 22:08 by His Majesty.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
benon again
()
Date: November 9, 2008 22:30
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
MathijsQuote
Amsterdamned
Until 1977, the Stones WERE Mick Jagger, Brian Jones, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Ronnie Wood, Ian Stewart, Nicky Hopkins, Jack Nitzsche, Bobby Keys, Billy Preston, and, of course, Keith Richards.-Neptune-
It's hard to believe Keith or Mick write a song on their own.
Maybe a rough idea,let's say 20% in the beginning.(not the lyrics)
It takes the Stones at least half a year to record 10 songs(!)
If Keith or Mick could write a complete arrangement ,which they can't cause they don't write notes and their knowledge on harmony is rather poor, the job would be done in 3 weeks.That's one of the reason's Jeff Beck ran away("he fell asleep")
This prooves that the other let's say 80% are done with the rest of the band+the arrangers and producer.An arrangement creates at least 75% of a songs character.
So the idea of Keith or Mick writing a song is rather flatterd ,based on whisfull thinking and ofcourse Keith and Mick's pocket.
The entire results are amazig,no doubt about it.
This is about the dumbest post I have seen of you so far. The percentage of bands who can't read and write notes is about 90%, still they were able to come up with some brilliant music. To write a song and record all parts of it does certainly not require note reading. And in the case you do need it (for example when you want to record a string section) you hire an arranger.
Ask The Beatles.
Mathijs
Thanks for your polite remark,your pleasure.
Paul mc Cartney was the only Beatle with a decent musical background,but that might be a coincident; he was their best musician,both as a composer and as a guitar and bassplayer.(personal taste of course.)The only Beatlesongs in the "real book" are from Mc Cartney,which is quite a compliment!!
I didn't say you need to read notes to make good music,(that's your misguided interpretation on my topic),but those who can't need the help of professional arrangers & producers in order to get a decent result.And this is the case with most of all famous Pop&Rockbands,from the 6-tees till know.Producers &arrangers provide at least 80% of the end result,otherwise it mostly would end up in crap.
80%? you don`t know nothing about songwriting and producing music, i`m very sorry...When really good artist wants to show what he expects from arranger he can show it or explain it in 30 seconds using few words or few notes on piano.Cooperating skills and finding proper musicians/arrangers thats the part of bussiness AND sonwriting/producing too
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 9, 2008 22:31
Quote
neptune
Why all this quitting? If things were so great with the band, one would think there would not have been so many changes to the line-up.
Man, you can be so silly at times! You clearly have a big ol' chip on your shoulder about Brian being pissed on, despite the fact that he probably pissed on them just as much, if not more! I wonder if you'd be so protective of Brian had he kicked the sh*t out of one of your female family members? Made one of them pregnant then totally abandoned her and his son!?
I'm sure Brian and Bill were probably screwed out of a few deserved writing credits, but to keep harping on about Brian not getting credits when there isn't really any hard proof that he actually wrote anything deserving of one is getting really boring and pathetic!
Look how long the stones have been going for!? Their membership has been pretty damn solid especially when you consider that a lot of bands disintegrate after a few years.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: November 9, 2008 22:59
Quote
His Majesty
Without a strong basic idea for a song, a producer or arranger has nothing to work with.
Ok, lets look at the rough version of Dandelion(aka sometimes happy) a perfect example imo of how Keith presents ideas to the band.
Seems to me that's Keith bringing in a basic, but still quite formed idea in to the band.
Fast forward to the final released version and what we have is a well written, arranged and recorded song with many extra parts and great playing by everyone. Take note though that some of those parts by the others have direct musical links to the melody and basic guitar playing by Keith from that rough version.
But, and here is the most important matter, the melody that Keith hummed in that basic rough version is there in the final released version, add the lyrics and boom, that is the song. They could have released a version with a completely different arrangement and if the main melodic and lyrical content were the same, then the writing credit would rightfully stay the same.
Do the same thing with sympathy, Mick strums basic chords and sings his basic melodic idea, even through all the changes that track went through(the arrangements/recordings), it's still his song.
Phantastic explanation. You want another proof? Check Out Of Time.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 9, 2008 23:11
Quote
benon againQuote
AmsterdamnedQuote
MathijsQuote
Amsterdamned
Until 1977, the Stones WERE Mick Jagger, Brian Jones, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Ronnie Wood, Ian Stewart, Nicky Hopkins, Jack Nitzsche, Bobby Keys, Billy Preston, and, of course, Keith Richards.-Neptune-
It's hard to believe Keith or Mick write a song on their own.
Maybe a rough idea,let's say 20% in the beginning.(not the lyrics)
It takes the Stones at least half a year to record 10 songs(!)
If Keith or Mick could write a complete arrangement ,which they can't cause they don't write notes and their knowledge on harmony is rather poor, the job would be done in 3 weeks.That's one of the reason's Jeff Beck ran away("he fell asleep")
This prooves that the other let's say 80% are done with the rest of the band+the arrangers and producer.An arrangement creates at least 75% of a songs character.
So the idea of Keith or Mick writing a song is rather flatterd ,based on whisfull thinking and ofcourse Keith and Mick's pocket.
The entire results are amazig,no doubt about it.
This is about the dumbest post I have seen of you so far. The percentage of bands who can't read and write notes is about 90%, still they were able to come up with some brilliant music. To write a song and record all parts of it does certainly not require note reading. And in the case you do need it (for example when you want to record a string section) you hire an arranger.
Ask The Beatles.
Mathijs
Thanks for your polite remark,your pleasure.
Paul mc Cartney was the only Beatle with a decent musical background,but that might be a coincident; he was their best musician,both as a composer and as a guitar and bassplayer.(personal taste of course.)The only Beatlesongs in the "real book" are from Mc Cartney,which is quite a compliment!!
I didn't say you need to read notes to make good music,(that's your misguided interpretation on my topic),but those who can't need the help of professional arrangers & producers in order to get a decent result.And this is the case with most of all famous Pop&Rockbands,from the 6-tees till know.Producers &arrangers provide at least 80% of the end result,otherwise it mostly would end up in crap.
80%? you don`t know nothing about songwriting and producing music, i`m very sorry...When really good artist wants to show what he expects from arranger he can show it or explain it in 30 seconds using few words or few notes on piano.Cooperating skills and finding proper musicians/arrangers thats the part of bussiness AND sonwriting/producing too
30 seconds?
Then why does it take half a year to record 10 songs? Without the help of other people they don't get any further than 3 chords and lyrics.I'am sorry.
I like the Stones,but please be realistic.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: November 9, 2008 23:19
Mick must have got involved in "composing" as late as 1968 (Sympathy mentioned, his Robert Johnson parts in Performance, writing the prototypal Keith-chord-changes of Brown Sugar already in 1969) when he became a "guitarist" (a long time ago I was suggesting that he was audible on Beggars Banquet or Dave Mason was playing more than some weird Indian instruments on that record).
This 'I can't write notes' is rubbish. If you are able to play a chord on your guitar you must the know how it was built = the notes you are playing. If not, you don't know which chord to follow or which might be able to break the standard (earliest and simpliest example: the "blue" notes of the Blues!). Before that, you need a congenial person who can translate your "humming" into harmonies - like Keith.
I am sure that Mick and Keith could arrange the London Symphonic Orchestra and could have Herbert von Karajan conduct it. Jon Lord has done it (well, it was the LSO but not HvK to be precise...), why not Mick and Keith?! Or you and me, if you know the structures!
Repeated for a 100th time on this board: If you're discussing who wrote what, listen to Can't You Hear Me Knocking. It is Mick Taylor simply responding to what Bobby Keys had set first! And Bobby Keys was simply responding to a fully structured (melody and harmnies and lyrics included) song set by Mick and Keith first...
This 'I can't write notes' is rubbish. If you are able to play a chord on your guitar you must the know how it was built = the notes you are playing. If not, you don't know which chord to follow or which might be able to break the standard (earliest and simpliest example: the "blue" notes of the Blues!). Before that, you need a congenial person who can translate your "humming" into harmonies - like Keith.
I am sure that Mick and Keith could arrange the London Symphonic Orchestra and could have Herbert von Karajan conduct it. Jon Lord has done it (well, it was the LSO but not HvK to be precise...), why not Mick and Keith?! Or you and me, if you know the structures!
Repeated for a 100th time on this board: If you're discussing who wrote what, listen to Can't You Hear Me Knocking. It is Mick Taylor simply responding to what Bobby Keys had set first! And Bobby Keys was simply responding to a fully structured (melody and harmnies and lyrics included) song set by Mick and Keith first...
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
JJHMick
()
Date: November 9, 2008 23:33
Quote
Amsterdamned
Then why does it take half a year to record 10 songs? Without the help of other people they don't get any further than 3 chords and lyrics.
Pessimists might answer: They need half a year to write 10 songs.
Semi-pessimists answer: Market forces say, they don't need to release new material all the time. They can wait until they write 10 decent songs.
Semi-optimists answer: They are keen enough to come up with 10 new songs and need half a year to record it.
Optimists say: They are still able to come up with 10 new songs despite a giant vault to release a record within any half of a whatever year.
Realists say: During the next decade you must spare half a year to record all the stuff you have written or in your vaults on your own home equipment with the most expensive producer and musicians you like within the next half year.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Thommie
()
Date: November 9, 2008 23:55
Quote
Amsterdamned
Paul mc Cartney was the only Beatle with a decent musical background,but that might be a coincident; he was their best musician,both as a composer and as a guitar and bassplayer.(personal taste of course.)The only Beatlesongs in the "real book" are from Mc Cartney,which is quite a compliment!!Quote
John Lennon avoided to learn reading notes though he was afraid it would limit him in his songwriting. Still, he was superior (personal taste of course) McCartney in writing songs. For not mention singing them.
Lennon and McCartney didn't write much together except for in the beginning of their career. You can assume that the one (of John and Paul) who sings also has written the song.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
benon again
()
Date: November 10, 2008 00:11
OMG! amsterdamned ! (btw nice name) They are lazy ....they aren`t oblidged to do anything.Thats` why they record 10 songs in five years - not because they cannot
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: November 10, 2008 00:40
Wanted him to R.I.P
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 10, 2008 01:31
Quote
ThommieQuote
Amsterdamned
Paul mc Cartney was the only Beatle with a decent musical background,but that might be a coincident; he was their best musician,both as a composer and as a guitar and bassplayer.(personal taste of course.)The only Beatlesongs in the "real book" are from Mc Cartney,which is quite a compliment!!Quote
John Lennon avoided to learn reading notes though he was afraid it would limit him in his songwriting. Still, he was superior (personal taste of course) McCartney in writing songs. For not mention singing them.
Lennon and McCartney didn't write much together except for in the beginning of their career. You can assume that the one (of John and Paul) who sings also has written the song.
Being afraid reading notes is limiting your songwriting capability is a very narrowminded attitude.. It's the other way around. I cannot imagine Lennon said this.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: November 10, 2008 02:49
Quote
His Majesty
I'm sure Brian and Bill were probably screwed out of a few deserved writing credits, but to keep harping on about Brian not getting credits when there isn't really any hard proof that he actually wrote anything deserving of one is getting really boring and pathetic!
Look how long the stones have been going for!? Their membership has been pretty damn solid especially when you consider that a lot of bands disintegrate after a few years.
I'm not talking about credits here. I've been simply responding to the claim by a certain Dutchman (and you know who I'm talking about) that Keith Richards IS the the Stones until 1977. That's how this whole thing got started. I simply object to that idea that ONE MAN was the Rolling Stones. I just think that's ridiculous.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 10, 2008 04:42
Quote
I'm not talking about credits here. I've been simply responding to the claim by a certain Dutchman (and you know who I'm talking about) that Keith Richards IS the the Stones until 1977. That's how this whole thing got started. I simply object to that idea that ONE MAN was the Rolling Stones. I just think that's ridiculous.
Then you still really don't get it. The Stones are much more than only Keith Richards of course, but the point is that without Keith Richards there would have been no Stones. Keith is the main driver -he writes the songs, he has the ideas, he knows how to produce a song. He is the foundation on which other people can shine. Without Jagger there would have been no Stones -he's the worlds greatest performer and a fantastic rock singer.
Without Brian, Bill, Taylor and Wood we still would have had the Stones, but then with Harry, Pete, Phil and Andy. All these (fantastic) mucisians need Jagger and Richards to be able to deliver their best work. Wyman is a fantastic swinging bass player, but only with the Stones he is. Charlie is a fantastic drummer, but he would not have the same status with any other band.
And yes, I do think Brian is totally overrated. I think Andrew Oldham has been much more important for the carreer of the Stones than Brian ever was. Brian formed the Stones, was very important in '63 and '64, but at the moment fame came and Jagger and Richards started writing their own songs Brian's role was over.
Mathijs
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 10, 2008 04:52
Quote
30 seconds?
Then why does it take half a year to record 10 songs? Without the help of other people they don't get any further than 3 chords and lyrics.I'am sorry.
I like the Stones,but please be realistic.
First, it doesn't take half a year. Look at studio sessions for most albums, and it's 6 to 8 weeks in the studio writing and recording about 20 songs. Than a selection of 10 songs is made, and overdubs and mixing is done in 2 to 4 weeks. Mastering takes another 2 weeks, and that's about it. Most time goes into recording that perfect take. In the days before digital editing the backing tracks must be perfect, and it would sometimes take up to 80 attempts before the backing track was recorded.
Second, except for some rare tracks with full orchestrated string or brass sections the Stones have never worked with arrangers -basically Jagger and Richards with the help of producers like Andy Johns, Jimmy Miller and Chris Kimsey have done all the arrangements. The Stones never had somebody like George Martin who did all the (classical) arrengements.
If you listen to the Satanic outtakes, you hear that all arrangements and about all melodies played on whatever instrument are 'written' by Richards. He tells Brian and Nicky what to play and where to play it. Richards has the song in his head, and he knows what he wants to hear. This the key in writing and arranging songs.
It's just plain stupid and without any factual backup to think that the Stones ever needed and used arrangers.
Mathijs
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: November 10, 2008 05:09
Well -- Brian as gifted Saint, Brian as the devil incarnate -- is it possible both are true either at the same time or at different times??
Was he the type of person you either loved or hated?
As a historian, I suspect he was neither saint nor devil but like most people (us, and everyone else), he was somewhere in between. This is also true of most of the "greatest heroes" and the "worst villains" in history.
Study people, study the past, study the present. I think you would find that today, for example, that neither Bush nor Obama are at the extremes that one side or another would paint them.
plexiglass
Was he the type of person you either loved or hated?
As a historian, I suspect he was neither saint nor devil but like most people (us, and everyone else), he was somewhere in between. This is also true of most of the "greatest heroes" and the "worst villains" in history.
Study people, study the past, study the present. I think you would find that today, for example, that neither Bush nor Obama are at the extremes that one side or another would paint them.
plexiglass
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
oldkr
()
Date: November 10, 2008 05:11
Keith was the engine - lots of other people were the other thousands of parts of the automobile around him.
simple as that.
OLDKR
simple as that.
OLDKR
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: November 10, 2008 11:10
Quote
MathijsQuote
Wyman left in '92, being a 60 year old multi-millionair with angst to fly.
I think he said he left was because he thought he had only 20 more years to live (if he was lucky) and didn't want to waste them playing the same songs to screaming teenagers.
Taylor left addicted and thinking he could do it all by himself -history has sproven him wrong.
Well if that is the case why was the first thing he did was to join Jace Bruce? I think it was closer to Bill's reason, he was bored playing the same songs over and over. I never read anywhere where MT said he left the Stones because he thought he could be financially successful on his own. Maybe it was in the back of his mind but who knows. I'd like to know the source of this claim. I'm not sure of the accuracy or relevance of the 'addicted' comment as to why he left. I think all of the Stones bar Bill has faced the same demons.
Brian was sacked because he was an unreliable, mentilly ill drug addict.
Drug addict? I have read that he was pretty much cleaned up by the end of his life.
Mentally ill? What mental illness did he suffer from Mathijs?
Mathijs
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 10, 2008 11:23
Quote
terraplaneQuote
MathijsQuote
Wyman left in '92, being a 60 year old multi-millionair with angst to fly.
I think he said he left was because he thought he had only 20 more years to live (if he was lucky) and didn't want to waste them playing the same songs to screaming teenagers.
Taylor left addicted and thinking he could do it all by himself -history has sproven him wrong.
Well if that is the case why was the first thing he did was to join Jace Bruce? I think it was closer to Bill's reason, he was bored playing the same songs over and over. I never read anywhere where MT said he left the Stones because he thought he could be financially successful on his own. Maybe it was in the back of his mind but who knows. I'd like to know the source of this claim. I'm not sure of the accuracy or relevance of the 'addicted' comment as to why he left. I think all of the Stones bar Bill has faced the same demons.
Brian was sacked because he was an unreliable, mentilly ill drug addict.
Drug addict? I have read that he was pretty much cleaned up by the end of his life.
Mentally ill? What mental illness did he suffer from Mathijs?
Mathijs
1) Wyman left the Stones because he wanted to spend time with family and persue a new carreer and hobbies. He said he didn't want to end up like Mick and Keith who "could do nothing else but be in the Stones". Also he cited his fear of flying.
2) Taylor left the Stones thinking he was a big star by himself and could persue a carreer much like Clapton, writing and producing material of his own. Also, he was afraid staying in the Stones would take his life. He was addicted by then, and wanted to get out of the scene.
3) Paranoia and schizophrenia.. It doesn't matter who talks about Jones -friend or enemy-, these two words always pop up one way or another.
Mathijs
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-10 11:31 by Mathijs.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: November 10, 2008 11:30
Quote
MathijsQuote
30 seconds?
Then why does it take half a year to record 10 songs? Without the help of other people they don't get any further than 3 chords and lyrics.I'am sorry.
I like the Stones,but please be realistic.
First, it doesn't take half a year. Look at studio sessions for most albums, and it's 6 to 8 weeks in the studio writing and recording about 20 songs. Than a selection of 10 songs is made, and overdubs and mixing is done in 2 to 4 weeks. Mastering takes another 2 weeks, and that's about it. Most time goes into recording that perfect take. In the days before digital editing the backing tracks must be perfect, and it would sometimes take up to 80 attempts before the backing track was recorded.
Second, except for some rare tracks with full orchestrated string or brass sections the Stones have never worked with arrangers -basically Jagger and Richards with the help of producers like Andy Johns, Jimmy Miller and Chris Kimsey have done all the arrangements. The Stones never had somebody like George Martin who did all the (classical) arrengements.
If you listen to the Satanic outtakes, you hear that all arrangements and about all melodies played on whatever instrument are 'written' by Richards. He tells Brian and Nicky what to play and where to play it. Richards has the song in his head, and he knows what he wants to hear. This the key in writing and arranging songs.
It's just plain stupid and without any factual backup to think that the Stones ever needed and used arrangers.
Mathijs
First I think you should stop calling me names..
Second: The stones need arrangers,just like U-2 (Brian Eno) without whom they were in trouble as far their recordings are concerned.
With arranging I don't think of reading notes,but in case of the Stones : chords and voicings;they get lots of advice.They interact with strings if you didn't notice this.
Third I'am not going to argue anymore with someone who hates Jazz and fast wellknown guitarplayers "who only try to play strange"(??)and describes them very unethical,to say the least.You don't need to like it ,but please if you are a nitwit on this subject please respect yourself and others a bit more.
Mathijs,you know your serials and years guitars were made,all the years amps were built,and read a lot about musical facts,but when it comes to pure musical arguments,I would advice you to visit your local music school , lesson one. For example the tabs on "hey Negrita" you posted some time ago almost made me cry,
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: November 10, 2008 12:26
[/quote]Quote
Mathijs
Mathijs
1) Wyman left the Stones because he wanted to spend time with family and persue a new carreer and hobbies. He said he didn't want to end up like Mick and Keith who "could do nothing else but be in the Stones". Also he cited his fear of flying.
I read that he said he felt he only had 20 years left and didn't want to waste them in the Stones. But the reasons you state above certainly sound feasible.
2) Taylor left the Stones thinking he was a big star by himself and could persue a carreer much like Clapton, writing and producing material of his own. Also, he was afraid staying in the Stones would take his life. He was addicted by then, and wanted to get out of the scene.
Could you reference any article, book, etc where you heard this. I have never read n anything where Taylor has said this. It was more boredom plus (to a minor degree) unhappiness about what he described as Jagger and Richards "lazy arrogance" when it came to songwriting credits.
3) Paranoia and schizophrenia.. It doesn't matter who talks about Jones -friend or enemy-, these two words always pop up one way or another.
Mathijs[/quote]
I have read the paranoia bit though I haven't considered that a mental illness. I did read one bit where Jones told somebody that Jagger & Richards were trying to get him out of the band. That person told Jones not to be paranoid went out into the hotel corridor and sure enough Jagger Richards and Oldham were having a discussion about how to get Jones out of the band. Therefore, I guess they may have been some reason for Jones' paranoia.
Speaking of which, I seem to recall that the reason for wanting him out of the band in the end was that he couldn't get a visa for a tour to the U.S. I expect whatever Brian's flaws were, they were used to it by then. I always wondered whether Anita Pallenberg was a contributing factor.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Thommie
()
Date: November 10, 2008 12:28
Quote
Mathijs
2) Taylor left the Stones thinking he was a big star by himself and could persue a carreer much like Clapton, writing and producing material of his own. Also, he was afraid staying in the Stones would take his life. He was addicted by then, and wanted to get out of the scene.
Mathijs
I think you can also add that Taylor couldn't imagine that The Rolling Stones would last for more than 30 years from that point.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: November 10, 2008 16:46
Quote
timbernardis
Well -- Brian as gifted Saint, Brian as the devil incarnate -- is it possible both are true either at the same time or at different times??
Was he the type of person you either loved or hated?
As a historian, I suspect he was neither saint nor devil but like most people (us, and everyone else), he was somewhere in between. This is also true of most of the "greatest heroes" and the "worst villains" in history.
Study people, study the past, study the present. I think you would find that today, for example, that neither Bush nor Obama are at the extremes that one side or another would paint them.
plexiglass
I think John Lennon said on his(BRIAN'S) death, that Brian wasn't "a genius or anything like that" just a nice guy who became a victim of the drugs scene.
He had a multitude of personal problems/traits which then make a pure "classification"of mental illness/personality disorder difficult.
I have a bio on Charlie Parker (Charlie Watts hero?). Now, he was a musical genius but -rather like George Best - as a human being- he was something of a disaster.
Yet, it seems to get sort of overlooked. He had no moral scruples and no amounts of drugs, booze, sex could seem to satisfy him.
Dead in his early 30's (the body of someone in old age).
Not at all cool - or a cool way of living IMHO.
Re: Why did'nt Keith attend Brians funeral?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: November 10, 2008 18:16
Quote
The stones need arrangers,just like U-2 (Brian Eno) without whom they were in trouble as far their recordings are concerned.
With arranging I don't think of reading notes,but in case of the Stones : chords and voicings;they get lots of advice.They interact with strings if you didn't notice this.
Please name all arangers that have worked with the Stones.
Mathijs
ps I am not calling you any names, I just think that -with all respect- your posts on this board rank among the dumbest ones in the ten years this board exists.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-10 18:20 by Mathijs.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , Bastion , damerefugio , DandelionPowderman , Doxa , EddieByword , jp.M , keefriffhards , letitloose6 , MartinStone87 , maumau , Musicwinn , nbutton , rastakeith , rootsman , shawnriffhard1 , zubbid
Guests:
1732
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10