Sinister: Ringo and those famous lads

[Knightowl]

> Have you ever been in a band.

Well I have (not that it really matters), and if you have too, you'll
realize that there are many different ways songs can come about in a "group"
setting right? So who is to say which of you is "right".

> not what HER songs are like its her input into stuarts songs...like
everyone
> elses input into Stuarts songs.  They add flesh to the bones.

I dunno. Does anyone actually have any insight into their songwriting
process? Perhaps he dictates the whole thing? Perhaps he just brings in a
good hook. Has he ever said how he writes songs?

  Whilst were
> on the Beatles comparison thing ...their method of writing was John or
Paul
> turning up with a song and where the rest of the band would then pull it
to
> bits saying it was shit and adding their pennies worth to flesh it out.

This is incorrect. Neither George or Ringo had much input into either of
their songs. George was allowed one song on each album I think it was - and
that one was ripped to shreds by John especially. For example it was John
who insisted a "better" guitarist was required for "While My Guitar Gently
Weeps" and so they got Clapton to play George's part.

John was the main songwriting genius. He would add the most to Paul's songs.
The parts that turned them into good songs as opposed to little pop ditties.
Another example, on Getting Better, its Paul's song but John adds the chorus
of "couldn't get much worse" which transforms the song into something else
entirely.

Arrangements are obviously important, but in that regard George Martin had
far more input than Ringo ever did.

You do realize I hope that on all the early songs with Ringo they actually
used session drummers in the studio instead of him.

A better example of how one needs a good arranger for my money was always
the Waterboys (anyone remember them? ;-)) Mike Scott came off horrifically
without Karl Wallinger's input. And simultaneously World Party had a nice
wall of sound feel, but always lacked substance. Two halfs who definitely
made a whole......

> songwriter can only really claim the melody and the chord progression
unless
> their multi-instrumentalists and can write the complete score for every
> instrument implicitly.  And that is quite rare.

Not true. Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush for example write the entire thing
using computers instead of an ability to0 play many instruments. I use them
as the example because they pioneered this idea. Lots of others do similar
things now too.

> Oh its obvious is it?....How patronising can anyone get?

Oh lighten up. Its just email.

> Could it not be that these are songs that Belle and Sebastian as a group
> have rejected to go out and that Isobel would still like to be heard so
she
> puts them out as gentle waves stuff.  Because only the strongest
songs...as
> mutually agreed by the band are put out!!!

Thats always possible, but I think it more likely that she feels her other
projects give her creative control and she can do things that aren't in the
realm of what B&S are supposed to be about or sound like - whatever that is
:-)

Its no different really than Looper. Members of a band are also individuals
with their own ideas. If you have a lot of ideas, you put out solo albums if
you can. Nothing more to it than that really. Cut the gal a little slack.

> Perhaps most people not familiar to the rudiments of drumming.  Try
playing
> a set of beatles songs....Its physically tough if nothing else.  Ringo
> despite the popular misconception was a strong drummer.

No he wasn't. Hell, its not like he's got a jazz combo a la Charlie Watts,
or does prolific drum solos in his All Star Band now does he?

Ringo was a guy they knew in Hamburg with hair dressing ambitions who was
popular with the slightly older women. He increased their audience and was
cute in a Monkee sort of way.

A good drummer he was not.

> Scouse wit.....Why did they replace Pete Best then and head hunt Ringo if
he
> was such a shit drummer?

Well Pete Best went on to fame and fortune (sic) as a baker, so we can
pretty much infer how talented he was as a drummer. I refer you back to the
fact above about session drummers.

>  Why did the journalist pose the question in the
> first place...Did you think of that??

Likely because he/she thought Ringo wasn't very good and wanted to see what
Paul would say :-)

And you accused the other person of being patronising Mr. "did you think of
that??". Come on, lighten up.

> Has anyone ever said he was a good song writer??  But his choice of what
> drums to put where in the songs changed them.  He influenced greatly how
> those songs would be structured and formed.

George Martin.

> >History has judged that Lennon was probably the more inventive and
talented
> >songwriter of the band (Case for the prosecution: the entire Wings back
> >catalogue).
>
> Has history shown this indeed....Hmmm.  Who says?  I thought history
> couldn't separate them myself.

I think that statement was pretty accurate. Its not very difficult to tell
which songs are John's and which Paul's. What was that old Lennon line in
"How Do You Sleep" - "the only thing you done was Yesterday". Now John, that
cat could write, and there's no grey area in that assessment. Its all pretty
Ebony and Ivory as I see it. :-)

> And all Oasis drummers could be replaced by a 4/4 time drum machine! But
> someone like Chris Sharrock on drums...despite him not being the
songwriter
> would completely change the sound of Oasis.

Although I am somewhat loathe to discuss Oasis and the Beatles in the same
posting, do you really suggest anyone in Oasis would stay in Oasis did they
not do exactly what Noel told them to do? Seriously?

> Again have you ever been in a band and thrashed out a song...everyone has
an
> input???

In some bands. Not all. Some are structured along corporate lines.
Especially as they get big and successful. There's a world of difference
between how a band like Oasis functions and a bunch of lads slogging it out
in a pub somewhere. Where on the scale B&S are at this point I have no idea,
but I think it likely Stuart rules the roost. (And that is why other members
are doing "solo" things).

> Exactly my point!!  Now you're starting to make sense!

What was it you were saying about "patronising"?

And therefore you
> can't exclude Isobel...or anyone else from the overall sound of the
> band....whether its a matter of overlaying a harmony or arranging strings
or
> a drummer filling in with ghost beats it all goes to forming the overall
> sound.

Agreed, but I don't think exclusion was the issue. I certainly didn't read
it that way in any event. When all is said and done, and all the ideas are
out there, the question is does someone have a final say. I think that
probable as I said. And its not Isobel.

> I'm not talking about Isobels songs (which I think are fine too)I'm
talking
> about her overall input.  So everyone lay off her because none of us
> ....none of us...really know anything about how the songs all come
together.

Ya, thats the question isn't it.

Still though, I think one could still say they prefer Stuart's songs to
Isobel's or something like that. Its not really out of line.

Personally, I don't pay much attention to who wrote what on the albums. I
play them and I like what I like. If something sticks out like a sore thumb
I might wonder about it, but otherwise, its all B&S to me. You know what I
mean?

Like the Waterboys example, I think if the band broke up (knock on wood) and
Stuart did a B&S album with session musicians it would sound different.
Probably not as good. But maybe better.
You never know.

Two opposite examples off the top of my head. Morrissey is still Morrissey,
but without Johnny Marr, his solo stuff has never sounded as good as the
Smiths. Always just not quite there. The antithesis is Katrina and the Waves
and/or the Soft Boys. Kimberly Rew gave Hitchcock and edge he's lacked solo.
Also with the Waves, he was the songwriting talent. catchy pop ditties that
man can write. But when the other members decided they wanted to try their
hand and get a cut of those royalties the band went straight to shit.

Group dynamics are always a tricky thing.

> But I have to say in my honest opinion when isobel harmonises or when
> strings kick in, its a safe bet that its HER input into a song of Stuarts
> that has unquestionably added to it.

Is it? I dunno. There are string sections, producers, who knows who did
what? I see no credit on the CD as per "string arrangements by Isobel".
Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't.

> Long live B & S.............ALL OF THEM!!!

No argument there.

Ed



+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
    +---+  Brought to you by the undead Sinister mailing list  +---+
    To send to the list mail sinister at missprint.org. To unsubscribe
    send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to
    majordomo at missprint.org.  WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister
 +-+  "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students"  +-+
 +-+  "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list"  +-+
 +-+       "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper        +-+
 +-+   "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000   +-+
 +-+       "peculiarly deranged fanbase" "frighteningly named       +-+
 +-+           Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000           +-+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+