Is there any proof, as per the Wikipedia article of this song, that "Paint It, Black" was considered to be the last "Nanker Phelge" composition rather than the usual "Jagger/Richards" composition credit it has held for years and years? We know, of course, the "Nanker Phelge" songwriting credit was discontinued during 1965 (one year before "Paint" was recorded and released), after Eric Easton quit as co-manager of the Stones in favor of ABKCO Records' Allen Klein (1931-2009).

Per the Wikipedia article, both Brian Jones and Bill Wyman had more than their fair share of involvement on this song, besides the two songwriters who ultimately were the sole performers credited.

~Ben



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-17 05:49 by BrianJones1969.

proof is the bottom line for everyone

... i think wikipedia is thinking of Play With Fire.
three-word titles that start with the same letter are notoriously easy to mix up

Wikipedia claims that it was Bill Wyman who said, according to a few of his autobiographies, "Paint" was the final "Nanker Phelge" credit, for he says it was a collective effort rather than just the common "Jagger/Richards" credit.

Bill Wyman played bass and also did the back-and-forth pumping of the organ pedals, and Brian Jones played sitar. Charlie Watts also came up with the rhythmic backing.

~Ben

Playing and coming up with rhythmic backing is not writing...

As with most of the songs back then it was arranged by all the Stones and they did get credit for it. But we will probably never know what the others provided in chords, lyrics or melodies to the songs. The songs say Jagger/Richards and that's it.

However Mick said something interesting in italian TV back in 67:

Reporter: Who is the author of your songs?

Jagger: No one of us in particular, and all of us at the same time. We usually sign Jagger and Richards but Brian is the one that knows music best and, in short, one cannot be distinguished by the other. We are all necessary.

[www.iorr.org]

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Playing and coming up with rhythmic backing is not writing...

Mozart would disagree.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Playing and coming up with rhythmic backing is not writing...

Mozart would disagree.

He handed out song writing credits to the musicians who played what he wrote?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Playing and coming up with rhythmic backing is not writing...

Mozart would disagree.

He handed out song writing credits to the musicians who played what he wrote?

No he handed out the sheet music.

Most of it was pure arrangement.

No lyrics.

Musical ideas and stuff or something.

Most of what Mozart wrote was pure arrangement?

He invented it, structured it, wrote it down, arranged it AND handed out the sheets.

I'm not sure if I get you here - you mean that the musicians who played his pieces did what, exactly, to earn credits?

No.. if someone says changes the original structure, introduce melodies and unique instrumentations in any way then they should get credit.

And I think that happened a lot in the Stones.

Quote
GravityBoy
No.. if someone says changes the original structure, introduce melodies and unique instrumentations in any way then they should get credit.

And I think that happened a lot in the Stones.

That's wrong. You may think so, but that's not how songwriting works.

Remember, you need a song to begin with, to be able to create what you're talking about here.

It is indeed a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure, though.

Introducing melodies and instrumentations is not song writing, it's song improvement.

No you're wrong.

Ask Mick Taylor.

Ask Bill Wyman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy
No.. if someone says changes the original structure, introduce melodies and unique instrumentations in any way then they should get credit.

And I think that happened a lot in the Stones.

That's wrong. You may think so, but that's not how songwriting works.

Remember, you need a song to begin with, to be able to create what you're talking about here.

It is indeed a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure, though.

Introducing melodies and instrumentations is not song writing, it's song improvement.

The backing as you call it sometimes comes first and melodies are taken from that. Rough ideas worked on in studio as a band, there's bound to be some input and/or influence on the vocal melodies from the others.

Song writing can be very black and white, I wrote this and you shall play this, but that's probably not how it was for a lot of stones music.

There's some grey areas and some clearly black and white areas. Agreed?

Quote
GravityBoy
No you're wrong.

Ask Mick Taylor.

Ask Bill Wyman.

I've been writing songs for 25 years, alone or with partner(s). What I'm saying is the general consensus with the guys I've worked with, as well as all musicians I've met during the years.

A session musician coming in late during a studio recording with a groundbreaking, melodic solo, or perhaps suggesting than "bridge B" should be omitted, would never EVER earn (or deserve) a dime on song writing, trust me.

Taylor and Wyman have had the time to prove their songwritingship, right?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy
No.. if someone says changes the original structure, introduce melodies and unique instrumentations in any way then they should get credit.

And I think that happened a lot in the Stones.

That's wrong. You may think so, but that's not how songwriting works.

Remember, you need a song to begin with, to be able to create what you're talking about here.

It is indeed a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure, though.

Introducing melodies and instrumentations is not song writing, it's song improvement.

The backing as you call it sometimes comes first and melodies are taken from that. Rough ideas worked on in studio as a band, there's bound to be some input and/or influence on the vocal melodies from the others.

Song writing can be very black and white, I wrote this and you shall play this, but that's probably not how it was for a lot of stones music.

There's some grey areas and some clearly black and white areas. Agreed?

Like I said, it's a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure. A new melodic solo or suggesting a different instrument won't deserve a credit.

You can try, but I bet the composer won't agree...

I guess if you had a loose interpetation for "Phelge" say, if it just included any band member other that Mick and Keith a staggering amount from the Taylor era would probably be that! I wonder why they are so swift to give Ron a credit (unless he's walking in with the finished product) and not Mick Taylor? just food for thought..

Quote
scottkeef
I guess if you had a loose interpetation for "Phelge" say, if it just included any band member other that Mick and Keith a staggering amount from the Taylor era would probably be that! I wonder why they are so swift to give Ron a credit (unless he's walking in with the finished product) and not Mick Taylor? just food for thought..

Ronnie walked in with songs, some of them nearly finished, as both Ron, Mick and Keith have said before...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy
No you're wrong.

Ask Mick Taylor.

Ask Bill Wyman.

I've been writing songs for 25 years, alone or with partner(s). What I'm saying is the general consensus with the guys I've worked with, as well as all musicians I've met during the years.

A session musician coming in late during a studio recording with a groundbreaking, melodic solo, or perhaps suggesting than "bridge B" should be omitted, would never EVER earn (or deserve) a dime on song writing, trust me.

Taylor and Wyman have had the time to prove their songwritingship, right?

How could they ever prove it? It's their word against Jagger/Richards.

I'd be interested to know is after an album is recorded, how to the credits (who wrote what) get from the studio to the music publishers. I mean why isn't the other members besides Jagger/Richards some how involved in their names appearing. Who over sees this? The producer?

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy
No you're wrong.

Ask Mick Taylor.

Ask Bill Wyman.

I've been writing songs for 25 years, alone or with partner(s). What I'm saying is the general consensus with the guys I've worked with, as well as all musicians I've met during the years.

A session musician coming in late during a studio recording with a groundbreaking, melodic solo, or perhaps suggesting than "bridge B" should be omitted, would never EVER earn (or deserve) a dime on song writing, trust me.

Taylor and Wyman have had the time to prove their songwritingship, right?

How could they ever prove it? It's their word against Jagger/Richards.

I'd be interested to know is after an album is recorded, how to the credits (who wrote what) get from the studio to the music publishers. I mean why isn't the other members besides Jagger/Richards some how involved in their names appearing. Who over sees this? The producer?

They've been having solo careers for decades!!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy
No you're wrong.

Ask Mick Taylor.

Ask Bill Wyman.

I've been writing songs for 25 years, alone or with partner(s). What I'm saying is the general consensus with the guys I've worked with, as well as all musicians I've met during the years.

A session musician coming in late during a studio recording with a groundbreaking, melodic solo, or perhaps suggesting than "bridge B" should be omitted, would never EVER earn (or deserve) a dime on song writing, trust me.

Taylor and Wyman have had the time to prove their songwritingship, right?

How could they ever prove it? It's their word against Jagger/Richards.

I'd be interested to know is after an album is recorded, how to the credits (who wrote what) get from the studio to the music publishers. I mean why isn't the other members besides Jagger/Richards some how involved in their names appearing. Who over sees this? The producer?

They've been having solo careers for decades!!!

Oh, sorry, when I read it first, I thought you were talking about them proving that they were part songwriters for the Stones (they have had time to prove it say in a court of law but they never challenged their claim)!

Any answer to my second statement/question?

The credit holders usually report to their association, either personally or through their company.

Exactly how the Stones do this, I don't know. As producers, I would guess that Mick and Keith provide the information for copyrights, liner notes etc., but I really don't know if the rest of the band, or their representatives proof-read this.

<It's their word against Jagger/Richards>

Yes, it is, and as far as I know there have been very few complaints from other band members. JJF, Time Waits For No One, Till The Next Goodbye and Hey Negrita are the only ones I've read about (apart from a lot of speculation here on this board). Melody (Billy Preston) was clearly lifted from his tune (don't remember the title, though).

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy
No.. if someone says changes the original structure, introduce melodies and unique instrumentations in any way then they should get credit.

And I think that happened a lot in the Stones.

That's wrong. You may think so, but that's not how songwriting works.

Remember, you need a song to begin with, to be able to create what you're talking about here.

It is indeed a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure, though.

Introducing melodies and instrumentations is not song writing, it's song improvement.

The backing as you call it sometimes comes first and melodies are taken from that. Rough ideas worked on in studio as a band, there's bound to be some input and/or influence on the vocal melodies from the others.

Song writing can be very black and white, I wrote this and you shall play this, but that's probably not how it was for a lot of stones music.

There's some grey areas and some clearly black and white areas. Agreed?

Like I said, it's a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure. A new melodic solo or suggesting a different instrument won't deserve a credit.

You can try, but I bet the composer won't agree...

Point missed, nevermind.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Playing and coming up with rhythmic backing is not writing...

Thank you.

An arrangement is not writing. Playing a solo (however good) is not writing. Playing on a track is not writing. Producing is not writing. Engineering is not writing. Bringing the musicians tea is not writing.

There are categories and compensation for all of those things. NONE of them has to do with creating a legal work called a "song". Now, writers may choose to reward musicians (or wives or disc jockeys) with a writing credit, but that's different. I can't believe after all the discussions on this board some people do not understand the difference between songwriting and these other functions.

If Mick Taylor or Bill Wyman were denied a legitimate writing credit while in the Rolling Stones (which is possible), that is a completely different matter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-26 04:02 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
I can't believe after all the discussions on this board some people do not understand the difference between songwriting and these other functions.

I understand all right.

It's not fair though if they provide the/a hook or something melodically memorable about it.

George Harrsion got sued for My Sweet Lord... he wasn't singing the words "He's so fine".

So legally it's not about lyrics.

The most memorable thing about time waits for no one is Mick Taylor's amazing solo.

No credit.

It's wrong.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
71Tele
I can't believe after all the discussions on this board some people do not understand the difference between songwriting and these other functions.

I understand all right.

It's not fair though if they provide the/a hook or something melodically memorable about it.

George Harrsion got sued for My Sweet Lord... he wasn't singing the words "He's so fine".

So legally it's not about lyrics.

The most memorable thing about time waits for no one is Mick Taylor's amazing solo.

No credit.

It's wrong.

If I'd have wiped that solo, and added a better one (which is impossible, of course) - and Mick approved it, I would still not deserve song WRITING-credits.

Please, come on now! A romantic notion of what moves YOU by a song has nothing to do with whom the writer was. Mick Jagger wrote that song, with some input from Keith. If Taylor wrote some of it, he should have gotten credits for that. He already received performing credits for his solo!

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy
No.. if someone says changes the original structure, introduce melodies and unique instrumentations in any way then they should get credit.

And I think that happened a lot in the Stones.

That's wrong. You may think so, but that's not how songwriting works.

Remember, you need a song to begin with, to be able to create what you're talking about here.

It is indeed a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure, though.

Introducing melodies and instrumentations is not song writing, it's song improvement.

The backing as you call it sometimes comes first and melodies are taken from that. Rough ideas worked on in studio as a band, there's bound to be some input and/or influence on the vocal melodies from the others.

Song writing can be very black and white, I wrote this and you shall play this, but that's probably not how it was for a lot of stones music.

There's some grey areas and some clearly black and white areas. Agreed?

Like I said, it's a matter of how much you'd change the song's structure. A new melodic solo or suggesting a different instrument won't deserve a credit.

You can try, but I bet the composer won't agree...

Point missed, nevermind.

Point not missed, but maybe not elaborated enough.

When you're in the grey areas, you'd have to consider if someone elses input alter what's written/what's about to be written - enough to become song writing, instead of merely icing on the cake/suggestions to change something.

I think the Stones reached the grey areas the most in the Brian-era. Why? Because they were in the embryo-days of their song writing, and they were breaking loose from the Nanker Phelge-deal - and there was bound to be some borderline cases back then.

In the early 70s, the Stones were experienced as song writers, and as you can hear on boots, pretty much had developed a standard way of working.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
71Tele
I can't believe after all the discussions on this board some people do not understand the difference between songwriting and these other functions.

I understand all right.

It's not fair though if they provide the/a hook or something melodically memorable about it.

George Harrsion got sued for My Sweet Lord... he wasn't singing the words "He's so fine".

So legally it's not about lyrics.

The most memorable thing about time waits for no one is Mick Taylor's amazing solo.

No credit.

It's wrong.

If I'd have wiped that solo, and added a better one (which is impossible, of course) - and Mick approved it, I would still not deserve song WRITING-credits.

Please, come on now! A romantic notion of what moves YOU by a song has nothing to do with whom the writer was. Mick Jagger wrote that song, with some input from Keith. If Taylor wrote some of it, he should have gotten credits for that. He already received performing credits for his solo!

So there was never a need for Nanker Phelge credits then?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-26 10:35 by GravityBoy.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
71Tele
I can't believe after all the discussions on this board some people do not understand the difference between songwriting and these other functions.

I understand all right.

It's not fair though if they provide the/a hook or something melodically memorable about it.

George Harrsion got sued for My Sweet Lord... he wasn't singing the words "He's so fine".

So legally it's not about lyrics.

The most memorable thing about time waits for no one is Mick Taylor's amazing solo.

No credit.

It's wrong.

If I'd have wiped that solo, and added a better one (which is impossible, of course) - and Mick approved it, I would still not deserve song WRITING-credits.

Please, come on now! A romantic notion of what moves YOU by a song has nothing to do with whom the writer was. Mick Jagger wrote that song, with some input from Keith. If Taylor wrote some of it, he should have gotten credits for that. He already received performing credits for his solo!

So there was never a need for Nanker Phelge credits then?

Read my reply to His Majesty above.

I'm not having it.

When Mick comes in with a half baked ditty that gets gloriously fleshed out by Mick Taylor (quite a few times) then I think it's a bit mean to deny a credit.