ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Your mouth don't move but I can hear you speak!

Remembering the Tour - show by show marathon
Estadio Universitario, Monterrey, NL (México) - 1st March 2006
© and thanks Fernando Aceves
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2007 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days

ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: WSJ article on "Best of Mick Jagger" Return to archive Page: 1 2 3
17th November 2007 08:53 AM
aladdinstory
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Did you ever notice that the best output from Mick Jagger has been when he writes with Keith or Keith has added his bit to the tunes.




I'm not quite sure what you mean by output but Mick's best work since the band reformed in '89 is found on WS, and he did that without Keith.
17th November 2007 10:27 AM
Gazza
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Did you ever notice that the best output from Mick Jagger has been when he writes with Keith or Keith has added his bit to the tunes.

There is a reason for this.





I love the way you casually dismiss the opinions of anyone who suggests they tend to write separately (even when they back it up as some have done with musically educated observations regarding keys, playing styles etc) yet you assume you know how much (if any) one contributes to the other's songs.

The breakdown of his best output is quite simple. He writes certain types of songs well and other types of songs badly.

I'd take "Evening Gown" over cack like "Sweet NeoCon" any day of the week.
[Edited by Gazza]
17th November 2007 10:30 AM
Gazza
quote:
aladdinstory wrote:


I'm not quite sure what you mean by output but Mick's best work since the band reformed in '89 is found on WS, and he did that without Keith.



Yep. Plus I'd add some of the songs on BTB (which WERE written for a solo album) and the more obviously solo ones on ABB like 'Laugh I Nearly Died' - which was actually a leftover from 'Alfie'....
17th November 2007 11:13 AM
icydanger "But I always think I have to do things with a twist. Maybe I should throw away the twist."
yes, if it's a charmed twist.
17th November 2007 02:20 PM
Poison Dart I don't know if Keith is:

1/ Capable of writing great stuff anymore from an artistic point of view.
2/ Mentally and physically able to do it.
3/ Has the desire to do it.

I think there is a good chance that the songs Jagger is writing will turn into the next Stones album, but will that Stones album sound like another Mick solo record?

For the Stones to truly make another great album Keith has to be up for it. I don't know if he has it in him anymore.

In my opinion he has become happy posing and playing the part of Keith Richards the superstar. Rather than Keith Richards the legendary heart and soul of The Rolling Stones + rock music in general.

How the tables have turned. In the late 80's Mick was seen as the guy who only cared about celebrity. While Keith was the engine of the Stones.

Today without Mick's creative influence this band would cease to exist. Jagger is the Rolling Stones these days.

Mick is fully capable of writing a very good album of fresh stuff on his own. Just look at the "Alfie" soundtrack, but without Keith being Keith I don't see the album being much better than ABB.

ABB was ok but it was not the late in the game classic that we are hoping for.

This is what a new Stones project would most likely look like.

- The record deal would surely be along the lines of what the Eagles or McCartney are doing. The Stones would go this route (which is a good idea)to get the most publicity as possible.

- It would again be a Mick centric record. As stated above I think Keith is all done as far as being a contributor to new Stones stuff in a meaningful manner.

- Results would be no better than (or about equal) to ABB.

- The Stones will bring in another yes man (or just use Don Was again)producer rather than challenge themselves with a Rick Rubin type.

- Mick even said in the WSJ article that he isn't interested in writing the type of album (personal/mature) that people and critics alike want him to write. Mick still wants to have hits on the dance floor.

- There would be yet another tour to support the album. This time the tour (while still be big) will not play as many dates + will go to markets that are less played out like S.America.

While U.S. and European dates will set records for the cost of ticket prices. There will be backlash to this and they will play to some venues that are 60% full.

- After a month they will be playing 2 new tunes from the record.

- The record enters the chart anywhere from #1 to #5 and quickly falls off the chart due to marginal quality (as far as Stones standards are concerned) and lack of air play.

Sound familiar?



The Stones need to change the business model going forward. This is what they should do.

1/ Keith needs to be Keith not some parody of himself.

2/ They need to hire a great producer who will not allow another mediocre (by their lofty standards)Rolling Stones album see the light of day.

3/ Lower the ticket cost this time around. It would create a nice buzz for them (they are seen as cold hearted business men at this point)+ guarantee that they will play to full houses.

3/ Stop trying to complete with Timberland + Justin Timberlake and write a mature important album for their catalog. Nobody wants to hear an album from 65 year olds talking about their "cock" + "staring at your tits" Think latter day Dylan, Johnny Cash or Muddy Waters.

How could the Stones in thier 20's write songs like "Moonlight Mile" + "Salt of the Earth" yet the modern Stones write immature tunes like "Rough Justice" + "Gunface" "I'm gonna put mu gun in your face" Give me a fucking break.

I want to see the Stones truly grow this music up. Not write the same old songs + the same old themes again and again.

4/ Sign a marketing deal similar to the Eagles. This is the one thing I am sure they will do.

5/ Forget about trying to get on pop radio "Streets of Love" it's not going to happen. Just look at the memo from Clear Channel not to play the new Springsteen despite Springsteen having the #1 album in the U.S.

That is not to say they can't have a hit in other ways through hitting their demo's like Springsteen did. Getting on youtube.com like Macca did..etc

As Glenn Frey said this last month or so "what is a hit these days?" + "radio means almost nothing these days"

6/ Feature the new music in the set lists.
Springsteen, The Eagles, Dylan, McCartney all do it, why won't the Stones? If you have millions of people paying big money to see you in concert why not take advantage of that marketing tool?

7/ Tone done the big business Stones aspect of the package and become artists again They are getting a lot of negative buzz about being more of a corporation than artists.


I'm sure none of this will happen (except some type of big exclusive marketing deal) but these are the steps the Stones need to take to become musically relevant again + not seen as an oldies act just collecting millions off their past reputation.

The Stones in the right hands could still deliver a grand slam of an album.

From an outsiders perspective they are quite frustrating to watch ruin their image in search of another pop hit (that only 19 year old dance/rap artists get)and in an attempt to rape their fanbase again for another $500 million dollars with $500 tickets.

The Stones are at a crossroads.
17th November 2007 05:51 PM
mojoman
quote:
Poison Dart wrote:


The Stones are at a crossroads.



they sold their souls to the devil in 89.........
17th November 2007 05:56 PM
aladdinstory very well stated pd. alot of great points raised, but i'm going to stick up for keith. while ABB sounds very much solo mick w/ keith along for the ride, the same cannot be said for VL or B2B, on each of those releases keith contributes a great deal (though on B2B it was moreso on the obvious keith creations). granted, keith had seven years to write new material, but apparently didn't. but maybe he did, and realized they were not stones-type material, he's become more of a crooner in recent years and moved away from the three chord rocker.

another reason why keith seems less a contributor to ABB is the way the album was recorded. mick usually has songs ready even in demo format, while with keith it's usually a riff, a phrase, maybe the skeletal outline of a tune which is then jammed on incessantly and develops into a complete song, that's why there's versions of songs like slave which go on for 10+ minutes, keith likes to start at zero and see where it goes (it is also why alot of stones songs from late 70s-early 80s were edited versions of much longer pieces). ABB was not recored this way, mick hates recording this way, which if i remember was also part of what caused their rift during the B2B sessions.

keith is primarily a musician and mick primarily a songwriter. over the past 20yrs mick writes tight, concise songs which occasionally rise above solid songcraft, while keith comes up with a lick or melody and then throws it to the band to play and play until something happens, and sometimes it's great, sometimes it's shite. IMHO the only way the stones will ever record anything truly memorable or resonates is if they actually go into a studio with a few songs mick has completed and let the rest be created in the studio, with a producer who can push the band sonically working alongside an engineer who has a sharp ear and can edit things like a meandering funky blues jam, for example, into a solid 3-4 minute song, then give it to mick to add lyrics to.

they should take 12 weeks to record, a month to mix and master. get rid of was and bring someone in who will challenge and push them, but at the same time recognize how to blend the two main songwriters styles together (and voices!)to form a truly memorable stonesian experience, they should also let a ronnie written song or two on it as well, maybe with he and keith sharing lead vox on one of them.
[Edited by aladdinstory]
17th November 2007 06:39 PM
The jinn, my friend.
quote:
Gazza wrote:


Yep. Plus I'd add some of the songs on BTB (which WERE written for a solo album) and the more obviously solo ones on ABB like 'Laugh I Nearly Died' - which was actually a leftover from 'Alfie'....


The information you exhibit is illuminating.
17th November 2007 07:15 PM
Gazza LOL..thanks (I think) - although Mick did mention that in a radio interview on Virgin (or was it the BBC) in August 2006

BTB sort of came about by accident as the intention was to make solo records and then decided to make a Stones album instead

It still worked just fine, I think, even if they didnt work that much together for it.
17th November 2007 07:48 PM
gotdablouse Hadn't heard about LIND being an Alfie outtake, certainly the best thing on ABB, nice "Tattoo You" style guitars too, reminds of "Tops". I'm not sure why "The jinn, my friend" thinks Mick won't be writing more of these ?

Excellent points by PD and aladdinstory, honestly if they can't come up with anything better than ABB they should just give up...something tells me Mick still has some good songs in him though, Too Far Gone, LIND, RFD, VOP being some recent examples. And oldkr seems to be privy to some info we're not on Keith's material ?
17th November 2007 10:39 PM
IanBillen
I seriously do NOT see why everyone keeps saying Keith did hardly any writing when it came to A Bigger Bang???

Everything Charlie, Ronnie, Don Was, and Mick said is in that Mick and Keith worked closer together writing these songs for this album than in years and years?....

They even say how it was just Mick and Keith writing together on a couch with two acoustic guitars for a long while in the albums start.

How many times, or ways can they state it? How the hell many times can I?

Sure maybe a few selections were from previous ideas but I am sure there were bugs to be worked out or changes to be made which resulted in the finished song.

I know four or five tracks that has been stated in that Keith wrote most of for the album and incidentally they were very strong tracks from the lot.

Just because it puts you to mind of Mick Jagger solo....does not mean it was just him alone writing it. What do you think Keith was doing in all those writing months at Micks....picking his butt?

All everyone said, from Chuck Levell...... to Mick himself (who were actually there by the way) is that the two wrote together and worked together more closely on this project than any in years and years.

Isn't that enough for you to realize that:

1. Yes they worked very much together in the song writing on ABB
2. The songs on ABB rock hard and possibly surpass anything the Stones have done in recent memory.


Is this enough? All this chat about Mick writing most of, or all of ABB has never had any fact to it at all. In fact the Stones themselves and Don Was and Chuck Levell said the exact opposite in that the two worked hand in hand and very much together better than in a long time.


No wonder ABB is such a strong album IMO.



Ian







18th November 2007 01:25 AM
mirfälltkeinnameein
How the tables have turned. In the late 80's Mick was seen as the guy who only cared about celebrity. While Keith was the engine of the Stones.

Today without Mick's creative influence this band would cease to exist. Jagger is the Rolling Stones these days.


sorry, i dont ha´ve much time now, so just a quick post.
i think, people very often forget or overlook, that Mick has been the engine for much longer. evn Mick Taylor said, that the Stones would have fallen apart a long time ago, if not for Mick.
the same for the songwriting: Mick wrote a lot of songs in the seventies without Keith, he sometimes does not even play on them (i think of GHS for example) so they can be seen as solo Mick songs. i think, many forget how many great songs came from Mick.
So the songs that Mick wrote in the 60s and 70s have nothing to do with the songs that he wrote in the 80s - what i mean is, that no one should just listen to his solo work of the 80s, and than say, it does not sound like the stones, so now it is clear, where the good stones songs or come from. Mick does not want to repeat himself, he wants to experiment sometimes.

oh, now i have to hurry.
18th November 2007 03:58 AM
Zack When the Stones toured Asia in 2003 I hadn't arrived yet in Sri Lanka. I am moving away from Sri Lanka at the end of the year and it looks like I am going to miss them again in 2008. Life is cruel.
18th November 2007 04:09 AM
IanBillen
quote:
Zack wrote:
When the Stones toured Asia in 2003 I hadn't arrived yet in Sri Lanka. I am moving away from Sri Lanka at the end of the year and it looks like I am going to miss them again in 2008. Life is cruel.


_________________________________________________

Yeah, really, sometimes life happens.... I actually missed them on ABB. I had no choice either really. They will forgive us.


Ian
18th November 2007 06:34 AM
gotdablouse "They even say how it was just Mick and Keith writing together on a couch with two acoustic guitars for a long while in the albums start."

Source ?
18th November 2007 10:53 AM
Gazza
quote:
IanBillen wrote:

I seriously do NOT see why everyone keeps saying Keith did hardly any writing when it came to A Bigger Bang???

Everything Charlie, Ronnie, Don Was, and Mick said is in that Mick and Keith worked closer together writing these songs for this album than in years and years?....

They even say how it was just Mick and Keith writing together on a couch with two acoustic guitars for a long while in the albums start.

How many times, or ways can they state it? How the hell many times can I?

Sure maybe a few selections were from previous ideas but I am sure there were bugs to be worked out or changes to be made which resulted in the finished song.

I know four or five tracks that has been stated in that Keith wrote most of for the album and incidentally they were very strong tracks from the lot.

Just because it puts you to mind of Mick Jagger solo....does not mean it was just him alone writing it. What do you think Keith was doing in all those writing months at Micks....picking his butt?

All everyone said, from Chuck Levell...... to Mick himself (who were actually there by the way) is that the two wrote together and worked together more closely on this project than any in years and years.

Isn't that enough for you to realize that:

1. Yes they worked very much together in the song writing on ABB
2. The songs on ABB rock hard and possibly surpass anything the Stones have done in recent memory.


Is this enough? All this chat about Mick writing most of, or all of ABB has never had any fact to it at all. In fact the Stones themselves and Don Was and Chuck Levell said the exact opposite in that the two worked hand in hand and very much together better than in a long time.


No wonder ABB is such a strong album IMO.



Ian











There's a huge difference between contributing bits to songs here and there and actually composing them from scratch as a team on something like a 50-50 basis. I'd love to hear what songs you think are actual genuine collaborations. They dont go into a studio with nothing and work from there. They each have songs, or sketches of songs ready to give them something to start with. There are songs on that album that I dont believe Keith had ANYTHING to do with, based on interviews, the personnel on the recording (eg SOL, BOMH), the origin of the song (LIND, Biggest Mistake) or the content (Neocon). If Keith mostly wrote "four or five songs" its still barely a quarter of the album (and he wasnt at Mick's house for "months" writing songs - wise up)

..and writing songs together doesnt guarantee a stronger album. If that was the case they'd do it every time. Mick wrote almost all of the songs on "Some Girls", for example. They did a fair amount of collaboration when they got together in Barbados to start work on Steel Wheels. It hardly turned out to be another Beggars Banquet, did it?

All this bollocks about what people say is meaningless if they dont actually say how much they collaborated and on what songs. Anyone who in 2007 takes every bit of spin the Stones and their lackeys come out with at face value needs certified. You're probably still waiting on those $50 theatre shows, believing they're ONLY in it because they like playing and that every new album they make is their best one since "Exile On Main Street". Of COURSE theyre not going to publicly state that Mick did the lion's share of the songwriting - doing so would simply give the message that creatively Keith was washed up and that Mick is carrying him. Keith's lack of output in any form post BTB (compared to Mick's productivity) is evidence enough that for the most part the muse is no longer there.

"The songs on ABB rock hard and possibly surpass anything the Stones have done in recent memory"

Keith hasnt written many songs in a long time that "rock" as he's confined himself to ballads or little grooves like "Infamy" and prior to ABB the Stones havent really done ANYTHING in "recent memory" apart from four substandard songs thrown together for 40 Licks.

[Edited by Gazza]
18th November 2007 10:51 PM
Soldatti Keith contributions on ABB?

1/3 of Rough Justice
1/3 of Let Me Down Slow
2/3 of This Place Is Empty
2/3 of Infamy

and what? 1/5 of the rest?

ABB is a Mick solo album with Keith on guitar, Charlie on drums and Woody ("I did all my parts in 4 days") in the same league of Chuck Leavell and Darryl Jones.
18th November 2007 10:53 PM
Mel Belli
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Keith contributions on ABB?

1/3 of Rough Justice
1/3 of Let Me Down Slow
2/3 of This Place Is Empty
2/3 of Infamy

and what? 1/5 of the rest?

ABB is a Mick solo album with Keith on guitar, Charlie on drums and Woody ("I did all my parts in 4 days") in the same league of Chuck Leavell and Darryl Jones.




And I still like it, dammit!
19th November 2007 05:02 AM
gotdablouse I don't like it much anymore, sounds bland, unlike B2B that a few standout songs but mostlybetter playing (check out Waddy's guitar on SOM and NO Chuck Leavell), better/more varied production. ABB would have been much better if it had been recorded like B2B I'm sure.
19th November 2007 06:43 PM
Poison Dart What is Keith's issue?

Does he simply not have anything left to give? If that is the case I don't think we can really complain, but if they are going to carry on as the Stones (make new studio albums) doesn't Keith owe it to himself to give a little more than some little groove song or just another ballad?

I really think Keith has bought into his own super stardom. I think after all these years Keith has become the pop star he never wanted to be.

He is being what he thinks people expect him to be. If this is the case Keith should retire.
19th November 2007 07:37 PM
gotdablouse Yes, this is indeed odd, something in him must have snapped during the 1998 tour, he'd had very productive years starting in 1992 up to 97 with his pretty good solo album, big influence over VL (including some stellar outtakes), decent songs on B2B and many outtakes we haven't heard, and then zilch, nothing, as if he'd it the wall, how can that be! We did hear about these long sessions in his basement in 2001 and on but nothing has surfaces...unless oldkr has some info on that ? ;-)
20th November 2007 02:43 AM
IanBillen
quote:
gotdablouse wrote:
"They even say how it was just Mick and Keith writing together on a couch with two acoustic guitars for a long while in the albums start."

Source ?


_________________________________________________________

Keith Richards and Mick Jagger said it was just them two for a while in this exact scenario. Mick even had actually to switch playing drums because it was only He and Keith since Charlie was still recovering and Woody was not there. There is even footage of this as Mick plays drums.


Don Was said later it was just them two, him, and an engineer in a room for a major part of The albums inception.



Ian
20th November 2007 05:24 AM
IanBillen [quote]Gazza wrote:


There's a huge difference between contributing bits to songs here and there and actually composing them from scratch as a team on something like a 50-50 basis. I'd love to hear what songs you think are actual genuine collaborations. They dont go into a studio with nothing and work from there. They each have songs, or sketches of songs ready to give them something to start with. There are songs on that album that I dont believe Keith had ANYTHING to do with, based on interviews, the personnel on the recording (eg SOL, BOMH), the origin of the song (LIND, Biggest Mistake) or the content (Neocon). If Keith mostly wrote "four or five songs" its still barely a quarter of the album (and he wasnt at Mick's house for "months" writing songs - wise up)

..and writing songs together doesnt guarantee a stronger album. If that was the case they'd do it every time. Mick wrote almost all of the songs on "Some Girls", for example. They did a fair amount of collaboration when they got together in Barbados to start work on Steel Wheels. It hardly turned out to be another Beggars Banquet, did it?

All this bollocks about what people say is meaningless if they dont actually say how much they collaborated and on what songs. Anyone who in 2007 takes every bit of spin the Stones and their lackeys come out with at face value needs certified. You're probably still waiting on those $50 theatre shows, believing they're ONLY in it because they like playing and that every new album they make is their best one since "Exile On Main Street". Of COURSE theyre not going to publicly state that Mick did the lion's share of the songwriting - doing so would simply give the message that creatively Keith was washed up and that Mick is carrying him. Keith's lack of output in any form post BTB (compared to Mick's productivity) is evidence enough that for the most part the muse is no longer there.

"The songs on ABB rock hard and possibly surpass anything the Stones have done in recent memory"

Keith hasnt written many songs in a long time that "rock" as he's confined himself to ballads or little grooves like "Infamy" and prior to ABB the Stones havent really done ANYTHING in "recent memory" apart from four substandard songs thrown together for 40 Licks.

[Edited by Gazza]
__________________________________________________________

Well sure, it would make sense they would sweep under the carpet or actually shy away from Keith's creative out-put if there was not much there.

But they PURPOSEFULLY, and intentionally made it a point to say how the two worked together very very closely this time out and were working together on these numbers better than possibly since the 70's. In a very collaborative fashion.

Why would they purposefully push that issue in regards to this album.

In fact, it was the talk of the albums creation, on how the two were really working and writing together better than in years and years.

Are you saying this was nothing but a ploy to get us to buy into the album? Are you saying everyone involved or that was there agreed to BS us on this issue and they specifically decided to come up with this story as a marketing scheme?

I kinda doubt they would all go to this legnth. Especially since they, and Virgin did so little to promote the album in any other way.

They said what went on FOR A REASON. Probably because there was a lot of truth to it.

Why not take it for what it is.

1/3 of RJ, 1/3 of that? Who is really to say you're right. But in the same right how do we know Keith is just adding bits, or a peice of the groove?

That is speculation. In fact , if you really look at it, be it an educated guess or what, it is only a guess, and is basically speculation that Keith did little in writing on this album.

What is factual however is how they consistantly spoke of their collaboration effort joining forces better than in a long long time in writing the stuff.

They and those who were there specifically point this out.

If they off-handidly mentioned that or referenced this then I can see your arguement. But they didn't. They came right out and emphasized it time and time again.

Why not take it for what it is?


Ian
20th November 2007 05:33 AM
Shmoey good morning young Ian

i had know idea.....i repeat, no friggin' idea
Heather was a hooker!!! did you's??

JR Shmoeyin' stuff
20th November 2007 08:27 AM
Gazza
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Well sure, it would make sense they would sweep under the carpet or actually shy away from Keith's creative out-put if there was not much there.

But they PURPOSEFULLY, and intentionally made it a point to say how the two worked together very very closely this time out and were working together on these numbers better than possibly since the 70's. In a very collaborative fashion.

Why would they purposefully push that issue in regards to this album.


You've answered that with your first paragraph


quote:
IanBillen wrote:

In fact, it was the talk of the albums creation, on how the two were really working and writing together better than in years and years.



that wouldnt be difficult considering they hadnt really done ANYTHING together for the best part of a decade. They say this schtick every time. They're hardly going to say "we did it all separately" or "Mick did most of it".


quote:
IanBillen wrote:

Are you saying this was nothing but a ploy to get us to buy into the album? Are you saying everyone involved or that was there agreed to BS us on this issue and they specifically decided to come up with this story as a marketing scheme?


I'm unaware of anyone who would buy a record based on HOW the people involved wrote the album. Most sensible people choose to buy a record based on whether they think it'll be any good...but there's always a lot of hype and publicity with every new Stones release which is basically grounded in an angle which has them making a connection of sorts with how things USED to be.


quote:
IanBillen wrote:

I kinda doubt they would all go to this legnth. Especially since they, and Virgin did so little to promote the album in any other way.


Why wouldnt they? What is there to be gained from admitting that only one of the band's two songwriters are firing on all cylinders. Its not the first time that a Stones album has seen one of the main songwriters do a minor share. "Some Girls" is almost all Mick. "Dirty Work" was mostly Keith and Woody. Creative artists all go through periods of lack of inspiration and output.


quote:
IanBillen wrote:

They said what went on FOR A REASON. Probably because there was a lot of truth to it.

Why not take it for what it is.



because it's absolute bollocks and the Stones and their organisation are notorious for a level of 'spin' which makes it easy to be cynical.

quote:
IanBillen wrote:
1/3 of RJ, 1/3 of that? Who is really to say you're right. But in the same right how do we know Keith is just adding bits, or a peice of the groove?


I didnt say that. Soldatti did. However, the lyrical content of several songs, the style they're played in, plus the personnel of some songs are pretty much a good indication of who is the main creative force behind them.

It's all relative. Mick and Keith traditionally write separately because they havent lived or worked at close quarters for decades. When they flesh out some songs together, its certainly 'collaborating' but it doesnt necessarily mean the same as sitting down at a table and writing a song from scratch in the way they were doing in 1963 when Andrew Oldham locked them in a room and told them to create a song.

quote:
IanBillen wrote:
That is speculation. In fact , if you really look at it, be it an educated guess or what, it is only a guess, and is basically speculation that Keith did little in writing on this album.


Again. Show us which songs YOU think he wrote. I'd be interested especially to see which of the songs on ABB you think feature Keith's lyrics.

quote:
IanBillen wrote:
What is factual however is how they consistantly spoke of their collaboration effort joining forces better than in a long long time in writing the stuff.


Speaking of it may be 'factual' but that doesnt mean thats how it was.

They CERTAINLY collaborated more than possibly ever before MUSICALLY (ie, Mick playing on more instruments etc) - down to necessity, more than anything as Charlie was sick and Ronnie had his own problems, but I personally cant believe this notion that Mick Jagger is going to break the habit of a lifetime and come to the table with next to no songs ready to go and expect Keith to write with him from scratch. He doesnt record like that.

[Edited by Gazza]
20th November 2007 03:22 PM
Soldatti
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
1/3 of RJ, 1/3 of that? Who is really to say you're right. But in the same right how do we know Keith is just adding bits, or a peice of the groove?



Come on Ian, a Stones' album is 50% music and 50% lyrics, Mick wrote the lyrics of 14 songs and about half of the music or more.
20th November 2007 11:15 PM
IanBillen
My opinion, based on what I hear with an un-objective, open, honest ear. I am taking into consideration the chord structure, song arrangements, as well as the songs progession through time. I am not taking into consideration guitar tuning (although that is usually left up to the guitarist for the most part, or Producer any-way) or the "key" the song is played in (that is more-less the singers/producers forte).


The songs I think Keith had a major hand (at least 50%) in are as follows:

Rough Justice: Keith as I understand it wrote the music for the most part and Mick did the lyrics.

It won't take long: Mick wrote it as a "soul tune"- Keith turned the it into the rock tune that it is. It was stated.

Back of My Hand-50/50

She saw me coming=50/50 (just my opinion)

Biggest Mistake=I think I read Keith wrote the better part of it (suprisingly).

Keiths two songs.

Look What the cat dragged in: 50/50

Driving Too Fast-wrote the rythm guitar which is really "funk" based. You can unmistakingly hear Don Was's influence all over this one (ala Iggy Pop's "Corruption"). Mick writes the lyrics and other stuff.

=9 songs. And a good 50% of these nine.

I beleive he probably contributed to the other tunes but not nearly as much based what I hear and the criteria I am judging by. I am suspecting he just was adding bits here and there or altering the groove such as in: LMDS (60% Mick), RFD (80%-90% Mick), SOL (90% Mick. Hardly any input by Keith at all), ONNYA (not much, 80% Mick here), Sweet Neocon (hardly anything at all by Keith if anything at all), LIND (60% Mick).

So all in all in my judgement I am suspecting = at least 50% of nine songs.

And bits and groove adjustments on the other seven.

A Major and crucial part of the writing process here. This is what I always heard. Why is this so out of reach here? Why is nobody eles hearing it?


Ian





20th November 2007 11:29 PM
IanBillen
quote:
Soldatti wrote:


Come on Ian, a Stones' album is 50% music and 50% lyrics, Mick wrote the lyrics of 14 songs and about half of the music or more.


___________________________________________________________

I will agree Mick wrote almost all of the lyrics to the album except for Keith's tunes and a bit here or there.

I think he only wrote 1/2 the music though.

So that is basically the way you feel....where is the arguement really?


Ian
21st November 2007 07:12 AM
Gazza
quote:
IanBillen wrote:

___________________________________________________________

I will agree Mick wrote almost all of the lyrics to the album except for Keith's tunes and a bit here or there.

I think he only wrote 1/2 the music though.

So that is basically the way you feel....where is the arguement really?


Ian



that basically works out at about a 70-30 split
21st November 2007 07:25 AM
Gazza
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
The songs I think Keith had a major hand (at least 50%) in are as follows:

Back of My Hand-50/50

She saw me coming=50/50 (just my opinion)

Biggest Mistake=I think I read Keith wrote the better part of it (suprisingly).
RFD (80%-90% Mick), SOL (90% Mick. Hardly any input by Keith at all), ONNYA (not much, 80% Mick here), Sweet Neocon (hardly anything at all by Keith if anything at all), LIND (60% Mick).



You dont seriously think it took TWO people to write 'Back of My Hand' ? Mick probably threw that together in about ten minutes and the slide guitar is all his work. I cant imagine it took much to write She Saw me Coming either.

Laugh I nearly Died is unquestionably all Mick. Its a leftover from 'Alfie'. 'Biggest Mistake' is either from the same era or else is one of the most autobiographical songs Mick has ever written. No way is that a song of Keith's, although if you can find a quote that says it is, I'll gladly stand corrected. Keith had nothing to do with Streets of Love. Its all Mick, with some input from Matt Clifford and almost certainly predates the ABB sessions as he plays on the song. neoCon is all Mick - Keith even admitted in interviews and said that he doubted Mick's wisdom in touching the subject matter. Rain Fall Down sounds pretty much all Mick to me.

I doubt that Keith had much or any input into the lyrics apart from the two songs that he sings on. They're not his style. A 'lick' or a 'groove' here and there is not a songwriting collaboration. Most bands (and the Stones are no exception) work in a way which allow the musicians some degree of input into adding bits to a song when theyre recording it. It doesnt mean they get a songwriting credit out of it, as Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood will testify.

[Edited by Gazza]
Page: 1 2 3

Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)