DandelionPowderman
The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

Now your just making up stuff as you go. Keith played leads and one could argue his rhythm was almost a lead guitar in 1969 but Taylor sure played lead guitar from the start.
They both played lead and rhythm, apart from the two songs in the set where Taylor was MIA. Jump forward to 1973 and you'll find that their roles had changed.

These are facts, not something I cooked up.

Carol
Little Queenie
Under My Thumb
SFTD
HTW
And even Brown Sugar

all featured Keith on lead guitar. So Keith being famous for being the riffmaster at that point is not quite correct. He was a lead guitarist, but in the exploration

in retrospect all Keith did was play Chuck Berry licks in his own angular way - the only real exception was SFTD and Bitch on his extended solo where he took a chuck berry solo and turned it around according to him.

Hunter and Wagner were also great, and later, de Lucia and McLauglin.
Enjoy.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker
I never heard a better guitar combo than him and Taylor.

Indeed a sweet pairing. There were others than had undeniable magic too...Duane Allman and Dickey Betts, Lowell George and Paul Barrere.....

I don't know others, except the two on Heroin live (also great, but in another way).

Peter Green and Danny Kirwan were pretty special together, albeit brief. Also the original guys from Wishbone Ash.

Open G: do you still have the first Roxy show with Carla Olson? I have been hounding you for this I'm sorry! I have no way to private message you.

Quote
OpenG
DandelionPowderman
The relegation increased with the drug use.

SFTD is not a Berry solo. And 4 out of 10 songs is not relegating. + some of the songs were in open tuning.

So, yes, by 1969 Keith was still the lead guitarist. Add You Gotta Move, Under My Thumb and Prodigal Son and that just confirms what I'm saying.

What you are describing happened later.

Now your just making up stuff as you go. Keith played leads and one could argue his rhythm was almost a lead guitar in 1969 but Taylor sure played lead guitar from the start.
They both played lead and rhythm, apart from the two songs in the set where Taylor was MIA. Jump forward to 1973 and you'll find that their roles had changed.

These are facts, not something I cooked up.

Carol
Little Queenie
Under My Thumb
SFTD
HTW
And even Brown Sugar

all featured Keith on lead guitar. So Keith being famous for being the riffmaster at that point is not quite correct. He was a lead guitarist, but in the exploration

in retrospect all Keith did was play Chuck Berry licks in his own angular way - the only real exception was SFTD and Bitch on his extended solo where he took a chuck berry solo and turned it around according to him.

That's wrong. UMT, SFTD, HTW and BS didn't have "Berry solos" in 1969. Only Carol and Little Queenie had that.

Quote
TravelinMan
Peter Green and Danny Kirwan were pretty special together, albeit brief. Also the original guys from Wishbone Ash.

Agreed. I also saw a Dave Matthews/Tim Reynolds show that was amazing. Very cool interaction between those two. I know Dave Matthews gets blasted pretty bad here but I think most guitarists would have enjoyed these two together.

DP - all I said was keith at that time played chuck berry solos or the rest of his solos were simple and have that angular style and sound. I think of a lead guitarist with more guitar chops not saying I do not enjoy keith's playing I do. I enjoy his acoustic guitar playing more then his open tuning.

Posted by: TravelinMan ()

Date: July 2, 2015 15:10


Open G: do you still have the first Roxy show with Carla Olson? I have been hounding you for this I'm sorry! I have no way to private message you.

my hard drive crashed years ago not sure if I can find my CD copy. Kleermaker has some on you tube.

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
OpenG
DP - all I said was keith at that time played chuck berry solos or the rest of his solos were simple and have that angular style and sound. I think of a lead guitarist with more guitar chops not saying I do not enjoy keith's playing I do. I enjoy his acoustic guitar playing more then his open tuning.

Still a lead guitarist, whether we think he has more chops or not, just as he was when Brian was in the band. It's really his sound that make his instrument leading in the soundscape, not the amount of chops, imo.

Is the first Roxy show the one where Taylor plays that amazing solo at the end of Rubies and Diamonds? I know I found that through Kleerie's channel but not sure if it's the performance you're talking about.

Quote
Stoneburst
Is the first Roxy show the one where Taylor plays that amazing solo at the end of Rubies and Diamonds? I know I found that through Kleerie's channel but not sure if it's the performance you're talking about.

Could be! I know they cover Rocks Off and Taylor has an outro solo. I've never heard it myself, but I want to!

Is the first Roxy show the one where Taylor plays that amazing solo at the end of Rubies and Diamonds? I know I found that through Kleerie's channel but not sure if it's the performance you're talking about.

I do not remember what show that was - anyone out there that can help with the 1st show at the Roxy - For TravelinMan and Stoneburst

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

Hey Doxa! Welcome to the breakfast show!

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

Hey Doxa! Welcome to the breakfast show!

i don't find this accurate at all regarding the current threads. everyone involved acknowledges the huge impact of taylor, wyman, jones, watts... i even said the stones should have quit when wyman left the band! i believe their greatest period was with taylor. what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

Quote
Turner68
what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

Fans don't want facts, man. Music stars are the last vestige of the potent combination of fantasy and idolatry. Probably one of the reasons early tragic death so often increases the worship factor. The image and fantasy remain intact with nothing but hearsay and imagination to embellish the truth.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

Fans don't want facts, man. Music stars are the last vestige of the potent combination of fantasy and idolatry. Probably one of the reasons early tragic death so often increases the worship factor. The image and fantasy remain intact with nothing but hearsay and imagination to embellish the truth.

heh heh... that might be your best post yet Naturalist.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

Fans don't want facts, man. Music stars are the last vestige of the potent combination of fantasy and idolatry. Probably one of the reasons early tragic death so often increases the worship factor. The image and fantasy remain intact with nothing but hearsay and imagination to embellish the truth.

heh heh... that might be your best post yet Naturalist.

Oh no Turner I assure you I had some good ones before I was banned the first time.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

Fans don't want facts, man. Music stars are the last vestige of the potent combination of fantasy and idolatry. Probably one of the reasons early tragic death so often increases the worship factor. The image and fantasy remain intact with nothing but hearsay and imagination to embellish the truth.

heh heh... that might be your best post yet Naturalist.

Oh no Turner I assure you I had some good ones before I was banned the first time.

Are you planning on IORR "suicide by cop" Naturalust?

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

Fans don't want facts, man. Music stars are the last vestige of the potent combination of fantasy and idolatry. Probably one of the reasons early tragic death so often increases the worship factor. The image and fantasy remain intact with nothing but hearsay and imagination to embellish the truth.

heh heh... that might be your best post yet Naturalist.

Oh no Turner I assure you I had some good ones before I was banned the first time.

Are you planning on IORR "suicide by cop" Naturalust?

Naw Knockin' I've been reincarnated enough to appreciate the quality of life here but the fantasy has crossed my mind.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

Hey Doxa! Welcome to the breakfast show!

i don't find this accurate at all regarding the current threads. everyone involved acknowledges the huge impact of taylor, wyman, jones, watts... i even said the stones should have quit when wyman left the band! i believe their greatest period was with taylor. what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

I expected this kind of comment. My description wasn't directed at the current discussions, but just reflecting what I've seen during, say, 15 years here. But that said, now when I checked, for example, Bill Wyman thread, it fits damn well to my scheme, and the arguments and stances thrown there, were more or less same ones I've seen along the years here. Nothing new under the sun. The thing is that in theory 'everyone acknowldges every one's significance blah blah', but when it goes to some particular instance, say, Wyman inventing the famous "Flash" riff, the division I described above takes place. The tension is there. For some folks it is pretty hard to accept the idea that it was Wyman, no matter how hard he insists that, who might come up with that Richards signature riff. I don't see there any 'facts' supporting this (anti-Wyman) stance, but just a kind of conviction 'no way it is that possible - it needs to be Keith's riff, because he is the 'riff master', and has written all those similar riffs, while Wyman did "Je Suis Un Rock Star" and "In Another Land", hahahahhaha, etc. etc.'. For me it looks like that Bill's claim just doesn't fit to a typical picture people have of The Rolling Stones, and further, taking the claim seriously would be like - to use a typical IORRean vocabulary - "bashing Keith Richards" (a kind of reduktio ad absurdum argument used rather much here lately, but which in my mind, even though I understand the sentiments it derives from, is just a cheap means to kill an interesting discussion).

Anyway, I probably move to Wyman thread to talk about more about this matter.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-03 09:58 by Doxa.

Turner68:

'taylor was hired for his blues chops and soloing. in 1969 and 70 he fit in well. in 72 and 73 he got a little carried away - but i don't blame him it was the trend at the time - and noodled all over the solid rock and roll keith, charlie, and bill were laying down...

i'm a huge lou reed fan although i prefer VU in the studio to RNR animal - it's a little too self indulgent with the solos and noodling, like much of rock in the 1970s,including the stones in 1973...'


Stoneburst:

'I positively tremble with excitement thinking about the as yet unheard outtakes of CYHMK featuring Keith's fiery flamenco solos in place of Taylor's aimless noodling (presumably to be remastered by a cryogenically frozen Mick and Keith in fifty years' time for the Sticky Fingers Super Super Awesome Deluxe edition).'

---

I've been reading and pondering this thread for weeks and I've found the answer to a troubling question...

Finally!

I've got it!

It all makes sense!


I'd been wondering why I've been craving noodles since joining iorr.org.

.....

Olly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 21:07 by Olly.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

Hey Doxa! Welcome to the breakfast show!

i don't find this accurate at all regarding the current threads. everyone involved acknowledges the huge impact of taylor, wyman, jones, watts... i even said the stones should have quit when wyman left the band! i believe their greatest period was with taylor. what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

I expected this kind of comment. My description wasn't directed at the current discussions, but just reflecting what I've seen during, say, 15 years here. But that said, now when I checked, for example, Bill Wyman thread, it fits damn well to my scheme, and the arguments and stances thrown there, were more or less same ones I've seen along the years here. Nothing new under the sun. The thing is that in theory 'everyone acknowldges every one's significance blah blah', but when it goes to some particular instance, say, Wyman inventing the famous "Flash" riff, the division I described above takes place. The tension is there. For some folks it is pretty hard to accept the idea that it was Wyman, no matter how hard he insists that, who might come up with that Richards signature riff. I don't see there any 'facts' supporting this (anti-Wyman) stance, but just a kind of conviction 'no way it is that possible - it needs to be Keith's riff, because he is the 'riff master', and has written all those similar riffs, while Wyman did "Je Suis Un Rock Star" and "In Another Land", hahahahhaha, etc. etc.'. For me it looks like that Bill's claim just doesn't fit to a typical picture people have of The Rolling Stones, and further, taking the claim seriously would be like - to use a typical IORRean vocabulary - "bashing Keith Richards" (a kind of reduktio ad absurdum argument used rather much here lately, but which in my mind, even though I understand the sentiments it derives from, is just a cheap means to kill an interesting discussion).

Anyway, I probably move to Wyman thread to talk about more about this matter.

- Doxa

I think his claim should be taken seriously, but not accepted blindly. However, when you say "no matter how hard he insists that" i think you're forgetting that wyman has not insisted very hard at all that he wrote the riff. he mentioned it in 82 and 89, in 89 in his book. (imagine exaggerating something to sell a book - unheard of right?). to my knowledge the claim has not been raised again for 26 years. nor was it mentioned once for 14 years after the song was written.

there has been no law suit, no threat of law suit, no refusal to play with the stones until his contribution is recognized, not even a claim made on video, much less one where he shows what he played... in the universe of people claiming credit for songs they wrote but didn't get credit for, he has not asserted his claim very much at a all, certainly not to the extent that one can say "no matter how hard he insists" he is not listened to; indeed, he is bill wyman, a great bass player, *the* rolling stones bass player, and we are in fact listening to him. i read stone alone cover to cover when it came out, 20 years before I'd heard of IORR, and have ever since thought it was likely that he played a part in the riff.

i think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-04 21:18 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68
I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.

I'm so sick of the Bill JJF subject I'm ready to agree with any stance just to try to get some closure. Praying this one has burned itself out.

As far as the Keith fast Spanish licks go though, I'm pretty convinced after hearing him do some at the end of Sister Morphine on the Fonda release. A bit slower than what we've heard in the past but the same notes are there, coming from Keith for anybody who cares to listen.

Quote
Naturalust

As far as the Keith fast Spanish licks go though, I'm pretty convinced after hearing him do some at the end of Sister Morphine on the Fonda release. A bit slower than what we've heard in the past but the same notes are there, coming from Keith for anybody who cares to listen.

The best part of the performance of this song. A pity it's overshadowed by the brutal power guitar playing by Wood.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

As far as the Keith fast Spanish licks go though, I'm pretty convinced after hearing him do some at the end of Sister Morphine on the Fonda release. A bit slower than what we've heard in the past but the same notes are there, coming from Keith for anybody who cares to listen.

The best part of the performance of this song. A pity it's overshadowed by the brutal power guitar playing by Wood.

Ha! Sorry you feel that way. I would have expected you would have liked the entire first verse where he is sitting out. I think Ronnie is particularly good leading into and during the second verse, maybe gets a bit noisy toward the end, but overall a good interpretation of the dark (brutal) emotion of the song.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

As far as the Keith fast Spanish licks go though, I'm pretty convinced after hearing him do some at the end of Sister Morphine on the Fonda release. A bit slower than what we've heard in the past but the same notes are there, coming from Keith for anybody who cares to listen.

The best part of the performance of this song. A pity it's overshadowed by the brutal power guitar playing by Wood.

Ha! Sorry you feel that way. I would have expected you would have liked the entire first verse where he is sitting out. I think Ronnie is particularly good leading into and during the second verse, maybe gets a bit noisy toward the end, but overall a good interpretation of the dark (brutal) emotion of the song.

at least he's listened to it... we're making progress... ;-)

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Naturalust

As far as the Keith fast Spanish licks go though, I'm pretty convinced after hearing him do some at the end of Sister Morphine on the Fonda release. A bit slower than what we've heard in the past but the same notes are there, coming from Keith for anybody who cares to listen.

The best part of the performance of this song. A pity it's overshadowed by the brutal power guitar playing by Wood.

Ha! Sorry you feel that way. I would have expected you would have liked the entire first verse where he is sitting out. I think Ronnie is particularly good leading into and during the second verse, maybe gets a bit noisy toward the end, but overall a good interpretation of the dark (brutal) emotion of the song.

at least he's listened to it... we're making progress... ;-)

Now if we can only get him to a show.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
OpenG
I am so glad Taylor got carried away in the studio as he and jagger collaborated on sway,mm,winter,twfno,till the next goodbye,hide your love, and I guess he got over carried away on his solo on cyhmk as the tape get rolling on. Oh and yes we are left with his over indulegence on 69, 71,72-73 live recordings. No Taylor was a great musician during that period and everyone knew that at the time and contributed so much to the continued success of the stones.

+1. What's extraordinary is both how many people on this board claim otherwise, and the sheer effort they put into denying MT's contributions and talent (the Bill Wyman/JFF thread is also a great example of this). It's quite sad that a number of posters here seem to think one can't acknowledge others' fine musicianship and extensive contributions to the band's golden era without somehow diminishing Mick and Keith's accomplishments. It's tedious and tendentious.

Well, yeah. The impression I've got along the years is that in almost any discussion considering "who contributed and what and to what extent, etc." the division between Stones fans seem to go between those saying that it is basically just Mick and Keith (and within those two, Keith's role usually emphasized), and then those who think that besides those two there are also some other people that have an essential role to the creative output, legacy and story of the Stones once in a while. Be the case that of Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, song-writing (and credition) business, etc. For the first-mentioned it seems to be a hard task to give a credit to the 'underdog' section of the band, while the latter ones might sometimes try a bit too hard to give them that.

- Doxa

Hey Doxa! Welcome to the breakfast show!

i don't find this accurate at all regarding the current threads. everyone involved acknowledges the huge impact of taylor, wyman, jones, watts... i even said the stones should have quit when wyman left the band! i believe their greatest period was with taylor. what riles me, and i think others, up is when lies and accusations are hurled with no evidence or facts.

I expected this kind of comment. My description wasn't directed at the current discussions, but just reflecting what I've seen during, say, 15 years here. But that said, now when I checked, for example, Bill Wyman thread, it fits damn well to my scheme, and the arguments and stances thrown there, were more or less same ones I've seen along the years here. Nothing new under the sun. The thing is that in theory 'everyone acknowldges every one's significance blah blah', but when it goes to some particular instance, say, Wyman inventing the famous "Flash" riff, the division I described above takes place. The tension is there. For some folks it is pretty hard to accept the idea that it was Wyman, no matter how hard he insists that, who might come up with that Richards signature riff. I don't see there any 'facts' supporting this (anti-Wyman) stance, but just a kind of conviction 'no way it is that possible - it needs to be Keith's riff, because he is the 'riff master', and has written all those similar riffs, while Wyman did "Je Suis Un Rock Star" and "In Another Land", hahahahhaha, etc. etc.'. For me it looks like that Bill's claim just doesn't fit to a typical picture people have of The Rolling Stones, and further, taking the claim seriously would be like - to use a typical IORRean vocabulary - "bashing Keith Richards" (a kind of reduktio ad absurdum argument used rather much here lately, but which in my mind, even though I understand the sentiments it derives from, is just a cheap means to kill an interesting discussion).

Anyway, I probably move to Wyman thread to talk about more about this matter.

- Doxa

I think his claim should be taken seriously, but not accepted blindly. However, when you say "no matter how hard he insists that" i think you're forgetting that wyman has not insisted very hard at all that he wrote the riff. he mentioned it in 82 and 89, in 89 in his book. (imagine exaggerating something to sell a book - unheard of right?). to my knowledge the claim has not been raised again for 26 years. nor was it mentioned once for 14 years after the song was written.

there has been no law suit, no threat of law suit, no refusal to play with the stones until his contribution is recognized, not even a claim made on video, much less one where he shows what he played... in the universe of people claiming credit for songs they wrote but didn't get credit for, he has not asserted his claim very much at a all, certainly not to the extent that one can say "no matter how hard he insists" he is not listened to; indeed, he is bill wyman, a great bass player, *the* rolling stones bass player, and we are in fact listening to him. i read stone alone cover to cover when it came out, 20 years before I'd heard of IORR, and have ever since thought it was likely that he played a part in the riff.

i think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.

And i think you're making a mountain out of his silence on the matter. Bill not suing etc makes perfect sense. Why the heck would he. They'd fire him in a sec. if he even tried to get credits.

you should read his book, redhotcarpet.