| September 20th, 2005 11:04 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Listen,
I agree that the album sounds more Mick than Keith. But not that damn much.....90%??? No probably 60/65 to 30-35 on the sound alone.
However,
All I hear is how closely the two worked together on these songs.
Riffhard,
says to read the interviews and it is plain to see The Stones themselves say it is Largely written by Mick???
That is anything but correct. Everything I have read, including in this very thread when the Stones themselves talked about the writing process (Keith saying they "patch it up" together, Keith saying it is kinda 50-50) states that the two worked closer together in unison on this album than they have in fucking years. That is fact! Watch the interviews from Rolling Stones . com
and Keith, Ronnie, and Charlie all comment on this very subject.
Shit you guys are reading into in like mad. Go by what the hell comes out of their mouths not by what you want it to be.
And as far as being able to tell who wrote what just by listening to it is Bull.
There are plenty of stones tracks written by Mick that could be either or.
There are also alot of Keith tracks in which it would not be hard at all to imagine Jagger writing it. There is no rule.
Ian
|
| September 20th, 2005 11:22 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Shit you guys are reading into in like mad. Go by what the hell comes out of their mouths not by what you want it to be.
didja also believe the one about this being their greatest since Some Girls....or was it Exile....I get their bullshit so confused these days |
| September 20th, 2005 11:52 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Think whatever the fuck you want Ian. The FACT is that this album is a Mick album plain and fucking simple! Keith helped alot,but he has stated on more than one occasion that Mick wrote "the lion's share" of the songs that ended up on ABB! Are calling nme a liar here Ian?! Or are you saying that Keith is lying?! You are fucking insane the way you get so goddamned caught up in the minutia. It is beyond the pale! Why the fuck should I,or anyone,give two shits about what percentage of the album Keith or Mick wrote exclusivly? It's a fucking Mick record,and the only one who is not ready to come out and state that very obvious fact is you! Even Keith has said it! Yes,they worked very closly on it,but man please! That means fuckall! Keith did work very closly with Mick on the songs that Mick had already sketched out. There are certainly some very Keith things going on on some of the tracks,but if you think Keith had dick to do with SOL you are nuts. Same goes with SNC,and BM,LINC,the list goes on. It is so obvious that I'm surprized that you are even arguing this shit.
Oh,and by the way,I can infact listen to a song and know immediatly who was responsible for it most of the times! So don't pull that shit with me. I knew all the way back in 1978,within one week,after the release of Some Girls that Beast of Burden was a Keith tune! Did you know that Ian! It has alot to do with knowing the band. I do,and apparently you don't. Keith was also responsible for Angie! Mick was responsible for Winter! It's pretty goddamned easy to figure out who wrote what if you listen carefully enough. That is how I KNOW that ABB is "largly" a Mick dominated record. Deal with it! I have,and I am a huge Keith fan. Hello,my handle is Riffhard!
Riffhard
|
| September 21st, 2005 12:44 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
My answer is simple. I have read at least four seperate interviews with Keith,Mick,and even Ronnie. In every interview all members stated flatly that Mick wrote "the lion's share" of the songs. I also can hear the Mickness in most of these tunes. As an avid Stones fan for over thirty years now,I can easily distinguish between a Keith tune,and a Mick tune. It's plainly obvious. Even without Keith saying so,but he has stated that several times now. Keith did have influence on these songs. I'm not denying that obvious fact,but it is equally obvious that the "seed,or root" or most of these tunes are from Mick. I just find it beyond absurd that some people on this forum will argue over this ridiculous point. My god,how deaf must people be not hear what has been readily admitted by Keith himself?!
Just as I know beyond question that the tune Heaven on TTY was written by Mick. How do I know that? Because I have listened to it! Same goes with Tops. Some of these things are just obvious.
Riffhard
Riffhard, I don't question your knowledge of the Stones. You have been listening to them for longer than I have. My point is that I don't like saying that because something sounds like Mick, it must have been Mick, or that because something sounds like Keith, its Keith. There are just too many examples where this doesn't work. In addition to Brown Sugar and Ruby Tuesday,a few more are:
The riff to "Miss You". This is the type of thing most people would say Mick just started humming to himself, but in fact it was a blues riff Keith used to play on the guitar.
Wild Horses- Sounds like the kind of thing that Mick could have come up with, but its Keith.
Sway- sounds like Keith, but its Mick.
Back of my hand- Sounds like Keith, but its Mick.
Anyway, my point is the glimmer Twins have become very adept over the years at adopting the sounds and styles of the other when required to do so. And I think that while 60% of this album may have a Mick "feel" to it, Keith may have written a lot more of the material than we might expect. For example, who would have thought that Keith came up with the barnyard allegory for Rough Justice? It has Mick's lyrical style written all over it. Let's take what to me "sounds" the most like a Mick song on the album, Rain Fell Down. Now people may say this is clearly a Jagger song, but any takers on who came up with that crucial riff? It isn't clear to me; in the context of how the song sounds overall, some may say this must be Mick Jagger, but it there are clear traces of Keith Richard's guitar style in there as well.
I guess the theme underlying all of this is that impressions can be fleeting and deceptive, and that while we may think we can easily distinguish the artistic styles of Jagger from Richards, this belief may at least in part be an illusion, and that things are not always as they seem. |
| September 21st, 2005 07:09 AM |
|
|
| justforyou |
Here is yours I'll keep mine, black and white or shades of gray ?
What about Charlie, does he always come along after the songs are done, so he can't get any claim to songwriting ? What would some of the tracks be without his drumming ? |
| September 21st, 2005 08:37 AM |
|
|
| Neocon |
I'm willing to leave open the possibilty that Keith may have started "Dangerous Beauty," that semi dominant riff for "Look What the Cat Dragged in." Of course I don't know as much as some of these guys.
See, I don't know if Mickification is so much who came up with the song. I think "Some Girls" has much more Mick songs, but I think the "feel" Keith thinks of as Rolling Stones, or a Keith feel were present.
When you start having overtly political lyrics like "Neocon", Stylized singing on crap like the versus for "Streets of Love," and those aweful versus from "Biggest Mistake" "I was drinking in Love, gulping it down" that has no Rolling Stones feel to it. But in fairness, these guys aren't on the streets anymore, they're, in the nursing home.
In the 1970's I guess whether it was Mick's or keith's didn't really matter as much, you weren't getting that forced professionalism an self important unatural sing and verse style.
As for who did what, I think Moonlight Mile Keith just strummed the opening while Mick J and Mick T did everything, and I'm not sure if Sway was like that or not.
|
| September 21st, 2005 03:35 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Hey, Ian was right, and I was wrong...the album came out in September. But at what cost?
The problem is that it sounds(to me)rushed and unfinished. I think some of these songs could have been much better if there had been some more time to work on the arrangements. A lot of these songs just don't sound fleshed out to me. I also think that some of these song would never have seen the light of day if the Stones had had more time to write together. A lot of crap made its way onto this album because they didn't have any time to come up with anything better. This thing was a rush job to get out in time for the tour. And the album suffered for it. It is a major reason why I don't like the album very much.
Mick brought 13 songs, most of which sound left over from Goddess and Alfie, and Keith brought 3...all of which sound like stuff that he just reworked from previous songs.
Keith definately worked on some of Mick's songs. Mick worked on one of Keith's. Just because one or the other worked on a song, does not mean that they helped write it. It just means that they helped out. They tweeked. That isn't songwriting. All the songs say Jagger/Richards...doesn't mean that's the way it is. Mick came in with a bunch of songs and Keith didn't. That's it in a nutshell. Hence, this is a Mick driven album.
It seems to me that even a Stones neophyte could hear Jagger's fingerprints all over this album. The melodies, the lyrics...it reeks of solo Jagger. For all intent and purpose, A Bigger Bang is a Jagger solo album with the Stones playing as his backing band. Keith's role on this album was minor...a supporting player. This is another major reason why I don't like it very much. It's not Stones rock n roll, it's Jagger adult contemporary pop. Not my cup of tea.
To sum up:
Jagger 13 + Richards 3 = 1 Jagger album
There is no hairsplitting about it...it is what it is.
I'm not saying that Keith didn't contribute, or that what he contributed wasn't important. But what Keith did wasn't enough to keep A Bigger Bang from being Mick's album.
If it looks like dog poop, and it smells like dog poop...it's a pretty good bet that you don't want to step in it. |
| September 21st, 2005 08:00 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
"Hey, Ian was right, and I was wrong...the album came out in September. But at what cost?".
Are you being sarcastic because Originally I thought it would be out in June. At the press conference I realized when Mick said it was 85% finished it would be a few more months. Even then I figured some time in early August. Then they waited to release it right on par with other competition and after the initial media splurge had died down because the tour had already started a few weeks earlier by waiting a couple weeks into the tours start to release it.
***Very stupid. It made not one once of sense like this. It is like they purposely went out of their way to not take the more positive, successful path that everyone would of liked to have with this album.
Did Keith say Mick wrote "the lion's share" because I was not aware of that?
If that is what he said in direct reference to this albums song writing then there is plenty of substance to support Mick wrote the lot of this album.
Without it I still stand by my call in that although Mick may have wrote more for this one I think Keith wrote a good handfull. And a those songs Keith did write equal a crucial handfull to the album at that. I also believe that Keith wrote along and in conjunction with Mick on the more Mick based songs.
To say Keith just sat there basically useless (90% Mick only 10% Keith)for this entire album as far as writing goes is pretty silly.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| September 21st, 2005 10:07 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
You know what Ian...fine, I'm stupid. Whatever you want.
There is no point even trying to have a rational discussion with you. It would be easier to talk to a bag of rocks. At least a bag of rocks will not misinterpret every word that I say....
I'd really like to meet you someday Ian. I just gotta see if you are for real or if it is an act.
|
| September 21st, 2005 10:12 PM |
|
|
| Neocon |
Let me try to be balanced here just so no one calls me names.
Ian, nice job carrying the torch! I think Keith probably started at least 5 songs, but that's not the whole story. A guy who comes up with a chorus wrote part of the song. There is no mystical reason writing chorus doesn't count. It can be a big part of a song.
I think at least we can all agree that Mick did more on the album and we all like the album less because of that.
But maybe we shouldn't sort of take it out on Mick. If Keith said "Mick was packing for bear" well, that's a good thing. What the hell has keith been working on for 8 years? 3 songs? 5 songs? We're talking about 8 years.
With that in mind maybe we just have to accept that Keith is no longer capable. He doesn't have the muse Mick does with the whole Jerry Hall thing. Also when I look at Keith I'm thinking really hurting unit (Guitar Magazine photo). Maybe he had a stroke or something. This could be a Jan and Dean thing where on guy takes over from the other out of necessity for the sake of the band.
|
| September 21st, 2005 10:12 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
even a bag of rocks knows who's on the cover of Tattoo You |
| September 21st, 2005 10:55 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Sir Stonesalot wrote:
You know what Ian...fine, I'm stupid. Whatever you want.
There is no point even trying to have a rational discussion with you. It would be easier to talk to a bag of rocks. At least a bag of rocks will not misinterpret every word that I say....
I'd really like to meet you someday Ian. I just gotta see if you are for real or if it is an act.
____________________________________________________________________________
Sir Stones alot,
Calm down. I never said anyone was stupid, nor was my post responding to you in anyway reffering to you. It was directed at the opinion and nobody specific. And everyone does have the right to their own opinion, you know.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| September 21st, 2005 11:10 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Neocon wrote:
"Let me try to be balanced here just so no one calls me names."
____________________________________________________________________________
Cool. I'm not interested in posting here to get into huge heated arguements. What I am interested in is debating, or discussing till whenever.
The name calling thing I did when I was a kid.
Ian |
| September 21st, 2005 11:45 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Cool. I'm not interested in posting here to get into huge heated arguements. What I am interested in is debating, or discussing "TILL WHENEVER." <-----That about sums it up Ian.
Ian
You could have also said,"Till the cows come home",or here's another,"Till hell freezes over.",or"Till night turns to day."or,a Stones' reference here"Till a dead man cums."
Riffhard
Riffhard |
| September 22nd, 2005 12:53 AM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
OK Ian...here's what you wrote:
>>I never said anyone was stupid, nor was my post responding to you in anyway reffering to you.<<
You most certainly were reponding to me...you started your post with one of my quotes. If you do that you are responding to me. Why bother quoting me if you aren't responding to me? That isn't how it works dude. If you didn't know that, then you have no business calling anyone else stupid. And as for calling me stupid, you wrote this....
>>***Very stupid. It made not one once of sense like this. It is like they purposely went out of their way to not take the more positive, successful path that everyone would of liked to have with this album.<<
Right. So what are you doing here? Calling me very stupid, or my opinion very stupid? It doesn't matter if you are calling me stupid or my opinion stupid. It's the same thing. Which, of course, is the pot calling the kettle black.
I don't know what is so hard about this. Keith says he showed up with three(3) songs. There are 16 songs on the album. Charlie and Ronnie have no songs on the album. Do the math, if you can do simple subtraction.
OK, now on to Mr. NeoCon(See how you do that Ian?)....
>>Let me try to be balanced here just so no one calls me names.
Ian, nice job carrying the torch!<<
Yeah. Fair and balanced...just like FoxNews. Yeesh! But what else should I expect from someone with your handle? LOL!
>>A guy who comes up with a chorus wrote part of the song. There is no mystical reason writing chorus doesn't count. It can be a big part of a song.<<
So where did you see Keith claim to writing a chorus? He said that he wrote the chiming melody part for the chorus. Not the same thing at all. He wrote a part of a chorus. Keith helped Mick fine tune a chorus on one of Mick's songs. There is no mystical reason why helping to fine tune a chorus should count as writing a song.
And to my ear, that is all that Keith did on this album. He added a little color here and there. And that is an important thing...don't get me wrong. And I don't want to sweep the 3 songs that Keith did contribute under the rug. Yet, it's still only 3 songs. 3 out of 16.
>>The ones I laid on him were "Rough Justice," "Infamy," and "This Place Is Empty."<<
So there ya go. Right from Keith's mouth. I honestly don't know how you can argue it. That is about as plain as you can get. Three outta sixteen. It's clearly Mick's album. Keith says so. |
| September 22nd, 2005 01:46 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Sir Stones Alot
"Very stupid. It made not one once of sense like this. It is like they purposely went out of their way to not take the more positive, successful path that everyone would of liked to have with this album."
____________________________________________________________
Sir Stones Alot,
Now I see where you are coming from with this.
Unless you are a Virgin Marketing Representative I surely was not reffering to you in this quote. This quote is only refferring to Virgin Records for the poor job they did in not giving The Rolling Stones the best chance for a number one album and nobody other than that.
SSA,
"I don't know what is so hard about this. Keith says he showed up with three(3) songs. There are 16 songs on the album. Charlie and Ronnie have no songs on the album. Do the math, if you can do simple subtraction."
SSA,
Keith SHOWd UP with three songs. Just because he had three songs written when he got to Mick's in France in no way shape or form means that is all that made it to the album.
Sir Stones Alot. They wrote songs for this album for MONTHS together for this album. All of these writing sessions started in June of 2004 before they actually started actually recording the songs in October-November of 2004. Do you think in the three long song writing sessions of pre-production which was spread over 3-5 months that Keith could not come up with a single song or major writing contribution that would justify as being a major contribution to a single song that was album worthy???
Now that is surprising.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| September 22nd, 2005 02:17 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Ian, it's the beer talking but you're pretty dumb. I like ya anyway though. Have fun at Columbus if you're going. |
| September 22nd, 2005 02:40 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]glencar wrote:
Ian, it's the beer talking but you're pretty dumb. I like ya anyway though. Have fun at Columbus if you're going.
____________________________________________________________________________
Glencar,
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer yourself. Now to the pleasant side of things .....I don't live in Ohio as of this moment. I am in Arizona.
I am quite concerned that a stadium show for this tour is out of reach.
Ian
|
| September 22nd, 2005 02:59 AM |
|
|
| gypsy |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
[quote]glencar wrote:
Ian, it's the beer talking but you're pretty dumb. I like ya anyway though. Have fun at Columbus if you're going.
____________________________________________________________________________
Glencar,
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer yourself. Now to the pleasant side of things .....I don't live in Ohio as of this moment. I am in Arizona.
I am quite concerned that a stadium show for this tour is out of reach.
Ian
I always just assumed you were foreign - on account of you being such a flippin' tard and all. |
| September 22nd, 2005 03:46 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
gypsy wrote:
I always just assumed you were foreign - on account of you being such a flippin' tard and all.
my dear gypsy isn't that rather a prejudicial point of view
surely one's 'tardiness has little to do with one's country of origin
actually i think Ian would make a great politician - he can argue the toss til his opponents concede in a fit of frustration and mental exhaustion, interpret facts to suit any argument, contradict himself in the space of a single sentence and say in a hundred words what could be said in ten - all the while projecting a supposedly "reasonable" point of view
That's it!! - Ian Billen for President!!
take no offense please Ian - as glencar suggests your goofiness is positively endearing |
| September 22nd, 2005 04:24 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]gypsy wrote:
I always just assumed you were foreign - on account of you being such a flippin' tard and all.
____________________________________________________________________________
Gypsy,
Assuming makes an ass out of a chic. You know that.
And by the way I knew you thought of me. I bet you dream of me as well.
(wink, wink)
Ian |
| September 22nd, 2005 04:25 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
my dear gypsy isn't that rather a prejudicial point of view
surely one's 'tardiness has little to do with one's country of origin
actually i think Ian would make a great politician - he can argue the toss til his opponents concede in a fit of frustration and mental exhaustion, interpret facts to suit any argument, contradict himself in the space of a single sentence and say in a hundred words what could be said in ten - all the while projecting a supposedly "reasonable" point of view
That's it!! - Ian Billen for President!!
take no offense please Ian - as glencar suggests your goofiness is positively endearing
____________________________________________________________________________
Thanks....
Ian |
| September 22nd, 2005 08:48 AM |
|
|
| Neocon |
Yea, actually I'm not a neocon at all. The clue was there, but the truth is different.
Ian, again nice job holding the flame for Keith!
Those song writing sessions are probably where keith came up for the main riffs to "She Saw Me Coming" and "It Won't Take Long" and maybe a couple more like "Look What the Cat Dragged in." Yea, I know someone's blood just started boiling and the thread live on!
In all fairness, if this was all Mick, he's come a long way since the last solo album I bought "Primitive Cool." I think he co'wrote after that with terrible songwriters like Lenny Kravitz and Rob Thomas, so I steered clear. I guess I'd like to hear "Lonely at the Top," since it was credited to Mick and Keith, but it sounds like I hearing it on Bigger Bang as "Oh No Not You Again."
We also have to figure a few song on the album weren't started by Mick or keith. We know K.D. Lang began the horrible "Anybody Seen my Songwriting Talent," and of course it sounds like Don Was stole "Saint of me" from another act where the song was title "Yeah Yeah." Then of course Mick may have stolen "Just Another Night."
Lastly, do you guys think Keith is able to use the bathroom and feed himslef without Mick?
|
| September 22nd, 2005 10:28 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Neocon wrote:
Yea, actually I'm not a neocon at all. The clue was there, but the truth is different.
Ian, again nice job holding the flame for Keith!
Those song writing sessions are probably where keith came up for the main riffs to "She Saw Me Coming" and "It Won't Take Long" and maybe a couple more like "Look What the Cat Dragged in." Yea, I know someone's blood just started boiling and the thread live on!
In all fairness, if this was all Mick, he's come a long way since the last solo album I bought "Primitive Cool." I think he co'wrote after that with terrible songwriters like Lenny Kravitz and Rob Thomas, so I steered clear. I guess I'd like to hear "Lonely at the Top," since it was credited to Mick and Keith, but it sounds like I hearing it on Bigger Bang as "Oh No Not You Again."
We also have to figure a few song on the album weren't started by Mick or keith. We know K.D. Lang began the horrible "Anybody Seen my Songwriting Talent," and of course it sounds like Don Was stole "Saint of me" from another act where the song was title "Yeah Yeah." Then of course Mick may have stolen "Just Another Night."
Lastly, do you guys think Keith is able to use the bathroom and feed himslef without Mick?
____________________________________________________________________________
LOL. That is exactly what I was thinking. That's funny. But you know I Thank you for the support in someone who sees the other side of things. In all seriousness I didn't want to P.O. someone or cause any sort of stir. I never have that intention. I also don't want to frustrate folks either but I know alot have had it with me on this subject.
But you know what. I can't lie and tell someone I feel the same and agree when I just don't, at all.
Ahhh well it is all in a thread huh.
Thanks again for at least having the Cahunas to say, wait as second I too feel along those lines with this subject. Kinda like putting your head on the chopping block around here huh lol
Ian
|
| September 22nd, 2005 01:50 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Who's pissed off Ian? I think there are some people who think you are nuts...but I don't think anyone is angry. I know I'm not. You can call me stupid if you want. I've been called a lot worse...most of it true.
Here's what I think happened, based on the way the Stones have shown themselves to work since before Bridges, and taking into consideration the time factor alloted to recording the album.
Keith brought three songs to the party. I say this because Keith himself said it. Mick brought...probably close to 20 songs...leftovers from Goddess & Alfie & Licks and maybe a few that he wrote since then. That is just an educated guess. 20 seems like a reasonable number considering all the projects Mick has involved himself in. Might even be on the low side.
I don't think the Stones sat down and wrote any songs together. None of these songs sound like Glimmer Twins songs...they sound like Mick songs or Keith songs. This is what my ears and guts tell me.
What I think happened is that Mick & Keith each came in with complete songs. They worked together on tweeking, fine tuning, arranging, and rehearsing. And then they laid 'em down. That is the only way this album could have been done so fast. The songs were already written, they worked together on getting them right, they recorded them.
The exception to this...IMO...is Sweet Neocon. That sounds like something Mick tossed off in about 5 minutes. In fact, to me, it still sounds like it's in demo form. I don't think they touched it much after they put down the basic tracks. And I'm pretty sure this one came from Mick during the recording sessions. It has that on the fly feel to it. My feeling is that this song was put on the album to stir controversy prior to the album coming out. Oh, and this song is definately Mick Jagger's baby.
Do I think that there was collaboration on this album?
Yes.
Do I think the Glimmers wrote songs TOGETHER?
No.
I think some of you are confused as to the difference between songwriting and arranging. Perhaps you don't know that there is a difference between the two things. But there is a difference and it is significant. |
| September 22nd, 2005 01:52 PM |
|
|
| the good |
Ladies and Gentleman,
I have found this thread to be very entertaining. Perhaps the most entertaining aspect of it has been to see people who have absolutely NO sound way of identifying a piece of Mick's music from a piece of Keith's call people who are unwilling to call this 90%, 80%, or 60% Mick's album stupid, idiotic, and stubborn, while conferring upon themselves the undeserved titles of expert and wisemen. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and listen to Mick Jagger's new CD, A Bigger Bang. It's damn good!!! Especially his song called Rough Justice. Wait, Keith wrote that one  |
| September 22nd, 2005 01:53 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Mick and Keith despise each other and have not truly collaborated on a song since Tatoo You. |
| September 22nd, 2005 03:13 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
quote:
jb wrote:
Mick and Keith despise each other and have not truly collaborated on a song since Tatoo You.
Do you think Mick is still physically attracted to Keith? |
| September 22nd, 2005 03:23 PM |
|
|
| Neocon |
I think one thing that could help everybody here relax is to take some time just to be happy you got a Mick album with keith on it try to sing the following song.
First, you have get in your mind a really wimpy Paul McCartney voice and use the opening melody of the first TWO verses to "Got to Get You Into My Life." Make sure you use a Liverpool accent and to that melody sing
"A bigga Bang,
A Bigga Boom,
A Bigga Pop,
a Bigga Poof,
A Bigga Sing
A Bigger Song
A Bigger ding,
A bigger dong"
Just sing that over and over in that Paul voice no chorus. Then after you relax maybe come back to the debate. Think of it as a McCartney tribute to a "Bigger Bang," a show of appreciation.
|
| September 22nd, 2005 07:42 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
the good wrote:
Ladies and Gentleman,
I have found this thread to be very entertaining. Perhaps the most entertaining aspect of it has been to see people who have absolutely NO sound way of identifying a piece of Mick's music from a piece of Keith's call people who are unwilling to call this 90%, 80%, or 60% Mick's album stupid, idiotic, and stubborn, while conferring upon themselves the undeserved titles of expert and wisemen. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and listen to Mick Jagger's new CD, A Bigger Bang. It's damn good!!! Especially his song called Rough Justice. Wait, Keith wrote that one
Very good there,huh...the good. I can only surmize that you are refering to me when say,"to see people who have absolutely NO sound way of identifying a piece of Mick's music from a piece of Keith's call people .....",and if you are fine,but know this. It is very easy to tell a Mick song from a Keith song. For example,Keith would never in a hundred billion years write a line like-"the moon is yellow,I'm like jello staring down your tits" Nor would Mick ever write a line like,-"You're livin' in a nightmare babe,and I mistook it for a dream." Those are just two examples off the top of my head. ABB is loaded with Mickisims with a smattering of Keithian riffs,hooks,guitar runs,and some phrasing.
The fact that some people cannot instinctivly hear that this album is "largely" a Mick album is beyond perplexing to me. It is so fucking obvious that I can only shake my head at the sheer idiocy of this collective ignorance. That does not even take into account the fact that Keith has all but said it himself. No,that's not good enough for some stubborn people on this board.
It would appear to me that Ian,Neocon,and yourself,are just refusing to see what most people here already know to be fact. The fact that IT IS more of a Mick album is not a bad thing! I like the album alot. I only wish that some of Mick's creative juices started to flow Keith's way. Ian's MO is to argue everthing into the fucking ground! If you've been here long enough you have no doubt noticed this. It's like trying to talk to a goddamned wall. He won't EVER conceed that he is wrong. Shit it took the guy the better part of a month before he finally grudgingly admitted that he was wrong about the cover of Tattoo You!!
It's Mick's album more than Keith's,and if you guys can't see,and hear,that then your ignorant. Period. Clean out your ears for fuck's sake! By the way,I never once started throwing around percentages,but if I were to do so I'd say that Mick wrote at least 75% of the album solo. Keith added a splash here,and there. Tweaked some things,and possibly wrote a bridge or two. Then he added his own three,maybe four,tunes and called it a day.
When Keith says,"Mick wrote the lion's share of the numbers." I think what he means is that MICK WROTE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE FUCKING NUMBERS! Geeeshh!
Riffhard |
|
