| December 9th, 2005 06:33 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
How about that. I was watching ABB special edition's DVD and Mick said "It Won't Take Long" was a soul tune but they changed it into a Rock song eventually. Who would of ever thought.
Ian |
| December 9th, 2005 08:15 AM |
|
|
| Bruno Stone |
IWTL is a song that took long to me to apreciate, today is one of my fav from ABB, good guitars in it. |
| December 9th, 2005 12:30 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
One of the best on a great album. |
| December 9th, 2005 02:04 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I knew from the start how good it was which is unusual for me. |
| December 9th, 2005 08:19 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
It's on my top 3 of ABB right now. |
| December 9th, 2005 09:55 PM |
|
|
| the good |
Great licks by Woody on it. Love the song. |
| December 9th, 2005 10:08 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
It IS a good tune. No doubt. Another Fav of mine off of this great album.
I hate to go here again but I really think I must:
Here is another great example how just hearing a tune, does not mean you know who wrote the song and/or who wrote which parts. Songs change, the style can change, lots can be changed from the original writing or version.
Look at this one. Who on this green earth would of ever imagined "It Won't Take Long" was originally a soul tune? None of us would of ever even dreamed that. You never know where a songs roots came from as far as the writing process goes with these guys. This is totally why you can't say well listen this this song, it is totally a Keith song. Or this song is such a Mick song. It just doesn't hold water because these dudes can change a raggae tune into a Rock mega song (Start Me Up). They can turn a soul tune into raw Rock (It Won't take Long). You just never know....this is why I go by what the band and the people around them say when it comes to who wrote what and how.
Ian |
| December 9th, 2005 10:12 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
BORING! |
| December 9th, 2005 10:17 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
It IS a good tune. No doubt. Another Fav of mine off of this great album.
I hate to go here again but I really think I must:
Here is another great example how just hearing a tune, does not mean you know who wrote the song and/or who wrote which parts. Songs change, the style can change, lots can be changed from the original writing or version.
Look at this one. Who on this green earth would of ever imagined "It Won't Take Long" was originally a soul tune? None of us would of ever even dreamed that. You never know where a songs roots came from as far as the writing process goes with these guys. This is totally why you can't say well listen this this song, it is totally a Keith song. Or this song is such a Mick song. It just doesn't hold water because these dudes can change a raggae tune into a Rock mega song (Start Me Up). They can turn a soul tune into raw Rock (It Won't take Long). You just never know....this is why I go by what the band and the people around them say when it comes to who wrote what and how. Do you know how many people swore that Keith had written that song (which really doesn't mean he didn't but just saying) but now it could be either one by what Mick says. Just by how the song ran and sounded someone will say ahhh that is a Mick song.... Bullocks. Or "well this chord progression goes like this so that must be a Mick tune" .....more Bullocks. Now, nobody knows who wrote what all over again. And I was an idiot before for suggesting they both contributed alot to writing this album as they said happened. Now we see that we just don't know who what what and how, or who wrote what part. Again, Again, and AGAIN:go by what they say, not what you want it to be just because you play an instrument.
Ian
|
| December 9th, 2005 10:29 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Even more BORING! |
| December 10th, 2005 04:36 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]glencar wrote:
Even more BORING!
____________________________________________________________________________
Well hey man,
I got so much flack for thinking this way earlier on. That post was 5 pages long with folks saying I was a total ass. So I'd be being a pee-on if for once I didn't say at this point....I told you so. Otherwise I would never bring it up.
Ian |
| December 10th, 2005 02:34 PM |
|
|
| Neocon |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
[quote]glencar wrote:
Even more BORING!
____________________________________________________________________________
Well hey man,
I got so much flack for thinking this way earlier on. That post was 5 pages long with folks saying I was a total ass. So I'd be being a pee-on if for once I didn't say at this point....I told you so. Otherwise I would never bring it up.
Ian
Okay this sounds very Mick "the I told you so." Let the record speak for itself when all the info comes out. No need to feel the need to take credit being that you are self assured..... much more keith. Better to be Keith. You know what Mick wears on his nose and how small it is.... |
| December 10th, 2005 04:04 PM |
|
|
| gotdablouse |
Boring, as usual Ian, (who never forgets to add his name in the subject line for some weird reason !!!!!) trying to build up some excitement out of nothing, so yes Mick said that, great, wake us up when you find the demo version. |
| December 10th, 2005 07:29 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Neocon wrote:
Okay this sounds very Mick "the I told you so." Let the record speak for itself when all the info comes out. No need to feel the need to take credit being that you are self assured..... much more keith. Better to be Keith. You know what Mick wears on his nose and how small it is....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neocon. Good sense of humor you have. I wasn't the only one who felt that way. Just a few others said the very same thing along with me. As you already know you were one of them. Keep us posted.
Ian |
| December 11th, 2005 01:29 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Another post goes totally over IanBillen's melon. What a fucking surprise! |
| December 11th, 2005 04:03 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]glencar wrote:
Another post goes totally over IanBillen's melon. What a fucking surprise!
It was not my melon anything went over.
Ian |
| December 11th, 2005 05:59 AM |
|
|
| wgwalsh |
People, people...why are we fighting ?
Get off Ian's back. His expression is unique and interesting.
John Lennon would never imagine...
|
| December 11th, 2005 07:14 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Mr. Walsh,
"who's fighting and what for"?
Ahhhh rubbish.
Ian
|
| December 11th, 2005 02:32 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Ah, I just like taking the piss outta him. He's kinda dumb sometimes but he's also funny once in a while. I'd still wish him Merry Christmas when the time is appropriate. |
| December 11th, 2005 02:43 PM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
I can imagine it was a soul song, cos its got that loose feel to it. |
| December 11th, 2005 04:00 PM |
|
|
| texile |
but then again, mick calls SOL a "soul song"....
its all relative isn't it?
i can't even remember the last original real soul song they did.
beast, maybe? |
| December 11th, 2005 05:47 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
So it started out as soul song, so what
all songs start out somewhere, if a song was originally composed on a piano does that mean its got to be a piano ballad ? Or if they wrote it using an accoustic guitar does that mean it's a going to be folk song ? In front of a campfire wearing a cowboy hat, a cowboy song ?
Like someone noted, show us the early outtake of the soul version and then we'll talk, but as far as proving who wrote what and some such this "soul song" thing is an irrelevant fact, unless of coarse, you can prove who (or who didn't) originally write it
very weak Ian
[Edited by Bloozehound] |
| December 11th, 2005 07:25 PM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
quote:
texile wrote:
but then again, mick calls SOL a "soul song"....
its all relative isn't it?
i can't even remember the last original real soul song they did.
beast, maybe?
Beast, or How Can I Stop maybe |
| December 11th, 2005 09:16 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Bloozehound Wrote:
"as proving who wrote what and some such this an irrelevant fact, unless of coarse, you can prove who (or who didn't) originally write it"
very weak Ian
___________________________________________________________________________
Exactly. Isn't this the very point to my comments here lately on this thread???
You basically just recapped my exact arguement here Bloozehound. You cannot tell who changed what or who wrote what all the time in this band...if ever. Songs sometimes change entirely from their original form. Even if we knew the original form there is really now way of knowing. As said before....Go by what they, and the folks around them say as to who wrote what. Hell Keith supposeably wrote Ruby Tuesday. Does that sound like a Keith song?
Ian |
| December 11th, 2005 11:41 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Of course it (Ruby Tuesday) sounds like a Keith song. It's a ballad! |
| December 11th, 2005 11:56 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Of course it (Ruby Tuesday) sounds like a Keith song. It's a ballad!
Keith has become a master of the ballad |
| December 11th, 2005 11:56 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Master? More like a ballad addict. |
| December 12th, 2005 01:39 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
In the past 10 years Kieth has been doing mostly ballads. Pre-1980 Keith didn't really do a ballad did he? So up to that time nobody would of ever guessed Keith wrote Ruby Tuesday except for the ones who read that.
Now, it may not as seem as far of a stretch. Still Ruby Tuesday is definately not of the breed of ballads that Keith normally does. Again, you never really know.
Point being, all the assumptions, and I underline blind assumptions, about Mick writing 90% of this album that were so prevelant two months ago have vanished. The more and more information, commentary, and even footage comes out about this album it either has pointed to one of these two things:
Either:
A. Strongly suggests Keith was way more involved in writing this material
than most of us ever thought.
B. All the assumptions about who is who wrote what tracks proves totally inconclusive.
What does keep being said over, and over, and over then, and now is the glimmer twins have worked as a joint effort in writing this material more than a long, long, time. What keeps poping up is comments and footage of the two working very much hand, in hand and each of them giving comperable input on the songs that were written.
None, I repeat none of the information suggests Mick was the one heading, and writing mostly all the material.
....It never fucking had. They were all blind assumptions that have turned out to not mean a damn thing.
Ian
|
| December 12th, 2005 08:31 PM |
|
|
| gotdablouse |
Boring yet somewhat intriguing...so Ian where's that outtake? |
| December 12th, 2005 08:55 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
In the past 10 years Kieth has been doing mostly ballads. Pre-1980 Keith didn't really do a ballad did he? So up to that time nobody would of ever guessed Keith wrote Ruby Tuesday except for the ones who read that.
He wrote great part of Angie and Wild Horses + Coming Down Again + half of Memory Motel + Beast Of Burden...
Keith was always on the ballad thing. |
