Tell Me :
Talk
This changed the rhythm of the vocal melody?
Bobby changed the rhythm.
Did this result in a change to the rhythm of the vocal melody? IF it did, and with business shit aside, he contributed to the writing of the song.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-09 16:05 by His Majesty.
That we don't know. And it isn't as black and white as you present it to be, either.
The melody can remain the same, even though the rhythm of it changes. The groove of the melody can be altered, but if you hum the melody it will remain as it was written, only with a new rhythm.
Check out these examples: music arrangements
No matter if the melody stays the same, a different song is the result (to my ears).
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
When the Stones played Time Is On My Side in 1981 and 1982, they played a new arrangement, not a new song.
IMO, this is semantics anyway. The difference of opinion between His Majesty and me in this matter is whether such a change should result in a songwriting credit, equal to the writer who has spent time on writing the song, or not.
I'd say it depends on the importance of the contribution. A technical thing such as changing the rhythm afterwards isn't enough in itself, imo. However, if that rhythmical change is crucial for the song – I agree. The definition of this is subjective, of course.
It's black and white IF his contribution affected the melody of the song.
Your point about melody is very wrong!
Pitch and rhythm are both vital elements of a melody... changes to the pitch and/or rhythm of the melody are changes to the melody.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-09 19:50 by His Majesty.
A new arrangement of an already published song. A very different scenario to the stones working on recording unpublished incomplete songs or apparently complete, but unpublished songs.
Especially important given that the vocals thus melody by 1966 went on after the arrangement had been worked on. Melodies often altering during the process from initial concept to being published.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-09 19:31 by His Majesty.
You edited it
Yes, the whole album is unstonesy but this cut more than the others. This is Mick sounding like the pop star he would’ve become had Keith never been born (although I’m sure Keith’s fingerprints are on YP somewhere).
Indeed. But in case you haven’t noticed we at IORR spend much of our lives engaged in trivial banter. You shouldn’t dismiss a way of life that you yourself are hopelessly addicted to, Mr. Turner.
It is completely "stonesy".
Awful opinion from an awful person.
Stop taking the brown acid. One of their best albums in their top ten
Mick. Keith joins in eventually.
Between the Buttons is better than any album they released after EOMS with the possible exception of Some Girls.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 9, 2016 15:59
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yes, it did. And he had to stand beside Charlie and visually show it to him while Charlie recorded it.
This changed the rhythm of the vocal melody?
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 9, 2016 16:02
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Yes, it did. And he had to stand beside Charlie and visually show it to him while Charlie recorded it.
This changed the rhythm of the vocal melody?
Bobby changed the rhythm.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 9, 2016 16:04
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Yes, it did. And he had to stand beside Charlie and visually show it to him while Charlie recorded it.
This changed the rhythm of the vocal melody?
Bobby changed the rhythm.
Did this result in a change to the rhythm of the vocal melody? IF it did, and with business shit aside, he contributed to the writing of the song.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-09 16:05 by His Majesty.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 9, 2016 16:15
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
Yes, it did. And he had to stand beside Charlie and visually show it to him while Charlie recorded it.
This changed the rhythm of the vocal melody?
Bobby changed the rhythm.
Did this result in a change to the rhythm of the vocal melody? IF it did, and with business shit aside, he contributed to the writing of the song.
That we don't know. And it isn't as black and white as you present it to be, either.
The melody can remain the same, even though the rhythm of it changes. The groove of the melody can be altered, but if you hum the melody it will remain as it was written, only with a new rhythm.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: June 9, 2016 16:47
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The melody can remain the same, even though the rhythm of it changes. The groove of the melody can be altered, but if you hum the melody it will remain as it was written, only with a new rhythm.
Check out these examples: music arrangements
No matter if the melody stays the same, a different song is the result (to my ears).
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 9, 2016 17:13
Quote
marcovandereijkQuote
DandelionPowderman
The melody can remain the same, even though the rhythm of it changes. The groove of the melody can be altered, but if you hum the melody it will remain as it was written, only with a new rhythm.
Check out these examples: music arrangements
No matter if the melody stays the same, a different song is the result (to my ears).
When the Stones played Time Is On My Side in 1981 and 1982, they played a new arrangement, not a new song.
IMO, this is semantics anyway. The difference of opinion between His Majesty and me in this matter is whether such a change should result in a songwriting credit, equal to the writer who has spent time on writing the song, or not.
I'd say it depends on the importance of the contribution. A technical thing such as changing the rhythm afterwards isn't enough in itself, imo. However, if that rhythmical change is crucial for the song – I agree. The definition of this is subjective, of course.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
peoplewitheyes
()
Date: June 9, 2016 17:43
who sings those great vocal back ups (´pay - puhs!´) ?
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 9, 2016 19:17
Quote
DandelionPowderman
That we don't know. And it isn't as black and white as you present it to be, either.
The melody can remain the same, even though the rhythm of it changes. The groove of the melody can be altered, but if you hum the melody it will remain as it was written, only with a new rhythm.
It's black and white IF his contribution affected the melody of the song.
Your point about melody is very wrong!
Pitch and rhythm are both vital elements of a melody... changes to the pitch and/or rhythm of the melody are changes to the melody.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-09 19:50 by His Majesty.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 9, 2016 19:27
Quote
DandelionPowderman
When the Stones played Time Is On My Side in 1981 and 1982, they played a new arrangement, not a new song.
A new arrangement of an already published song. A very different scenario to the stones working on recording unpublished incomplete songs or apparently complete, but unpublished songs.
Especially important given that the vocals thus melody by 1966 went on after the arrangement had been worked on. Melodies often altering during the process from initial concept to being published.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-09 19:31 by His Majesty.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 9, 2016 20:04
What do you do when you're NOT bowing out of a discussion? 
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 9, 2016 20:26
Quote
DandelionPowderman
What do you do when you're NOT bowing out of a discussion?
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 9, 2016 20:59
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
What do you do when you're NOT bowing out of a discussion?
You edited it
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: June 10, 2016 06:25
I always liked this song.
However it's not an important enough song in their catalog to get hung up on who wrote what IMO.
Solid mid-60s Stones. Much better than mid-70s stones ;-)
However it's not an important enough song in their catalog to get hung up on who wrote what IMO.
Solid mid-60s Stones. Much better than mid-70s stones ;-)
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
Swayed1967
()
Date: June 10, 2016 07:55
Quote
Hairball
Not very Stonesy sounding and a bit awkward songwriting, but the backing track/instrumentation and backup vocals are somewhat interesting considering the period in time.
I imagine Hermans Hermits reworking it with a string section and having a minor hit with this.
Or Tom Jones rocking it up and belting it out in his over the top style...
Yes, the whole album is unstonesy but this cut more than the others. This is Mick sounding like the pop star he would’ve become had Keith never been born (although I’m sure Keith’s fingerprints are on YP somewhere).
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
Swayed1967
()
Date: June 10, 2016 07:57
Quote
Turner68
I always liked this song.
However it's not an important enough song in their catalog to get hung up on who wrote what IMO.
;-)
Indeed. But in case you haven’t noticed we at IORR spend much of our lives engaged in trivial banter. You shouldn’t dismiss a way of life that you yourself are hopelessly addicted to, Mr. Turner.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: June 10, 2016 08:38
Some of BTB sounds like when they were writing songs for other people like some of the songs on Metamorphosis.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 10, 2016 17:00
Quote
Swayed1967
Yes, the whole album is unstonesy but this cut more than the others. This is Mick sounding like the pop star he would’ve become had Keith never been born (although I’m sure Keith’s fingerprints are on YP somewhere).
It is completely "stonesy".
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
peoplewitheyes
()
Date: June 10, 2016 17:12
who sings those great vocal back ups (´pay - puhs!´) ?
er, no one knows? Is it so obviously Keith? (Doesnt sound at all like him to my not-that-au-fait-with-mid-60s-Stones ears)
er, no one knows? Is it so obviously Keith? (Doesnt sound at all like him to my not-that-au-fait-with-mid-60s-Stones ears)
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
stanlove
()
Date: June 10, 2016 17:13
Awful song from an awful album.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 10, 2016 17:20
Quote
stanlove
Awful song from an awful album.
Awful opinion from an awful person.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
pt99
()
Date: June 10, 2016 21:56
Quote
Monsoon Ragoon
BTB maybe the worst album. But YP is great, especially version I.
Stop taking the brown acid. One of their best albums in their top ten
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 10, 2016 22:16
Quote
peoplewitheyes
who sings those great vocal back ups (´pay - puhs!´) ?
er, no one knows? Is it so obviously Keith? (Doesnt sound at all like him to my not-that-au-fait-with-mid-60s-Stones ears)
Mick. Keith joins in eventually.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: June 11, 2016 00:36
Who want yesterdays papers, who wants yesterdays news, nobody in this worldhuhuhuuurld....
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
doctorjimmy
()
Date: June 11, 2016 01:40
Wonderful song off a wonderful album. Why the majority of this site is so cold towards the 66-67 stuff? The Stones were not only a rock'n'roll (although this is what they did best). For me, the group was/still is the finest rock'n'roll band to grace this planet of ours, but I also regard them as one of the finest pop acts of all time.
The Stones were not only a rock'n'roll (although this is what they did best). For me, the group was/still is the finest rock'n'roll band to grace this planet of ours, but I also regard them as one of the finest pop acts of all time.Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: June 11, 2016 02:27
Love the track. Love that entire album. Don't know why it's denigrated. Song list and performances and writing all of it really satisfying. Miss Amanda Jones, My Obsession, All Sold Out, Connection, Ruby Tuesday, Back Street Girl, Let's Spend The Night Together etc...fine fine songs. I'm only familiar with the U.S. release. I had loved Aftermath which came right before this and when BTB came out it was, and remains, inspiring and welcome. I rate the entire album very high and very much love it to this day. I'm well aware it's mostly just something that people are derisive and dismissive about on IORR; matters not. I like every song. Nitzsche on keys!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-11 02:36 by hopkins.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-06-11 02:36 by hopkins.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: June 11, 2016 06:11
Quote
hopkins
Love the track. Love that entire album. Don't know why it's denigrated. Song list and performances and writing all of it really satisfying. Miss Amanda Jones, My Obsession, All Sold Out, Connection, Ruby Tuesday, Back Street Girl, Let's Spend The Night Together etc...fine fine songs. I'm only familiar with the U.S. release. I had loved Aftermath which came right before this and when BTB came out it was, and remains, inspiring and welcome. I rate the entire album very high and very much love it to this day. I'm well aware it's mostly just something that people are derisive and dismissive about on IORR; matters not. I like every song. Nitzsche on keys!
Between the Buttons is better than any album they released after EOMS with the possible exception of Some Girls.
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: June 11, 2016 18:48
Between the Buttons is better than any album they released after EOMS with the possible exception of Some Girls.
Even except no exceptions...
Even except no exceptions...
Re: Track Talk: Yesterday’s Papers (New)
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: June 11, 2016 18:57
I love this track and for sure listened to the complete Vinyl
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Benjiboy13 , buffalo7478 , cyclist , drwatts , ghs73 , guytout59 , Halup , harjen , keefmick , madrid82 , oscarlueje , rastakeith , Testify , ttutone , TW2019 , usetobesampeg
Guests:
1786
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10