why WOULDN"T they sue...these guys didn't even ask, and the song sounds exactly the same, and they made a bunch of money...fuck em..you win some you lose some...so bittersweet.
@dannon2010 they did ask. they got the rights. then the song became huge and some people wanted the cut of it. legal battle ensued, and the verve wrongfully lost.
It is the sad truth of this song.
oldham made something good. the verve made turned it into something unbelievably amazing.
Some misunderstanding of the legal issues here. The Verve obtained permission from Oldham to use a sample of his orchestral version of the Stones song. But they overlooked that they also needed to get permission from the copyright holders of the song; in this case originally Jagger/Richard, but assigned to Allen Klein or his company. Having used a sample, the Verve didn't have a chance of denying 'copying', even though the orchestral version is very different from the Stones original.
This is is totally the same song. So the beginning of The Verve has violins, it is the same violins that come in later on the Oldham piece. They should have paid Oldham the royalties not Klein. Both are great though.
@jperrytwigg The duh duh duuuhhh, duh duh duuuhhh, duh duh duh duh duh duh duhhhh bit was made by The Verve. But after the Stones' old company got credit for the song, they marketed that part of the song out like whores, which was wrong. Fair enough if you market the piece that you 'created'...
You can REALLY here how much they copied form the original at 5:34
And for all this time I thought the Verve was one of those brilliant one hit wonders. They really didn't come up with any of the artistic brilliance behind the song--though it's arguably the fault of Rolling Stones for not following up to make this song better and marketable.
@folkmusic1991 wow, you've completely misinterpreted everything. why would Jagger and the rest of the Stones for that matter have any interest in shooting down "anyone who writes half decent songs" ? You're just looking for someone to blame. plus, everyone knows it's ABCKO's fault. *sigh*
Heh. I've been in the music biz for nearly 50 years now and I have come across the concept of copyright once or twice in that time. You can't copyright a simple chord formation, tempo, or key, the Stones would be in dead trouble by now if that was the case. The point is the most recognisiable thing about 'Bittersweet' is the violin riff, and neither the Stones nor Andrew Oldham wrote that. Ashcroft should have got a share of the music fee for that.
@JJMMWGDuPree the arranger - david sinclair whittaker? - is the guy who should get the lions share of profit as it was his 'melody' that they stole. He probably just agreed to a one off arrangers fee - I mean who would have though 30 years hence it would be a monster? The violin riff is there in this version at around the 1.40 min mark, even though it's low in the mix it's there. It's out and out plagarism and I see Kelin's point of view. I just dont agree that cunt should have got the money.
@JJMMWGDuPree I disagree. This is way too close to the Verve's version. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add some strings and vocals to this piece. The hook is already built into the chord progression. It's fairly powerful piece of music on it's own. Personally, I think Klein was justified in suing them. A person would have to be tone deaf to not hear the striking similarities. A "sample" is using a small section of music, not the main hook, rhythm section and chord progressions
Klein is a borderline crook. It's highly likely that he planned the whole thing from the off. What I don't understand is, why didn't the band withdraw the single and re-record it themselves? If you watch the 'Later' vid of the song they seem to manage it OK.
As for Jagger/Richards, they could have refused to accept the credit for writing the song, but didn't. I suspect Keef couldn't give a toss one way or the other, but Jagger is a greedy bastard. Always was and always will be.
@JJMMWGDuPree Copyright means "the right to copy". Therefore, even if The Verve had ditched the sample & re-recorded the bell & strings using the same pitch, tempo & pattern then that would have been a copy & they would be sued for that. Recording copyright consists of music & lyric 50% each. Ashcroft is credited as the lyricist & would have received that 50% but none of the music copyright - that is what The Verve meant about losing 100% of the music copyright. The Verve's song IMO.
Come on,don't give us this shit.It's just some Greedy bastard Lawyer,screwing another hapless person.The Verve had permission to sample the orchestration,they obviously being sly Bastards,were deliberately ambiguous about it all,when the song took off,big they decided to screw them.How the fuck can they have 100% here,they didn't write the Verve lyrics? and I'm sure as hell Jagger/Richards didn't write the orchestration anyway THERE IS A SPECIAL PLACE SET ASIDE IN HELL,for these lawyers,for sure
mmm, I don't know, there's that version, known buy a bunch of people (at least nowadays, I don't know what an impact this recording had when it was released), and then there is the copied version wich became one of the greatest hits of the 90's... makes me think. Maybe these guys developed an idea better than the guys that had the original idea, and used it in it's full potential...
The Verve should've just dropped this sample out and overdubbed a similar-textured arrangement. Lesson learned. Verve's string arrangement melodies were far more interesting than this version. This original has good parts (2-3 notes of melodies here and there) and groove, but nothing unique enough that can't be rerecorded. This is derived from a stones song derived from tradition, the only copyright issue is the actual recording sampled. If recorded from scratch there'd be no (legit) case.
Yes, and your comment has prompted me to make the effort to read the comments in the intro, which explain it all. Back of the class Hengist! Again.
Thanks doubly for pointing it out to me, as it has made me listen once more. Great use of bells, imho. It's a lovely instrumental, so thanks to the poster, Stones, & Verve too!
i'd take "beast of burden", "start me up", and "waiting on a friend" over "bittersweet symphony." they wrote all those within the 20 years richard ashcroft mentioned.
sounds to me like he pretty much just took this instrumental and sang over it. i always thought it was just a small loop that he had added a lot too. this sounds like the complete song. even his vocal melody is just pretty much going along with the melody of the song.
I had heard the legend but though a Stones fan still I never had listened to the original song. I must say, wow. While Verve took it to an incredible level of realization, the whole base is there in the original. Thing is: Verve didn't try to steal. That's what bugs me. And the fact that this is really all a matter of money. Mr Klein again! :). Fair thing would have been to make 50/50. Verve brought this to life. Just think of the opposite case, "Dazed and confused" which never got any justice.
OK So I made a really cool song using the loop from bitter sweet symphony and a hole load of my own hard work... Who's gonna sue me? Mick? Verve? Both?
The sample is very sparse with a mundane structure; a good musical riff from which a great song was derived, but hardly the main theme. If that's the basis for suit than the judgement is bogus, just a victory for deep pocket greed. The Stones said they borrowed from traditional songs, so it's all derived from public domain. You're totally wrong about "just singing over it," the whole string section adds actual melodies, in addition to a whole guitar/bass arrangement with lyrics.
I wonder,are Mick and Keith really in need for more money??They should be ashamed of themselves,which I doubt they are of course.I mean,they never once credited any other member of the Stones for anything,did they?Greedy old men,that's what they are!Sorry,I have always loved the Stones,but this is too much.The lyrics for "Bittersweet symphony",which is a beautiful song,aren't theirs,they were written by the Verve's lead singer.So,maybe a 50-50 deal would've been apropriate.It's just not fair!
You are 100pct right. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have little or nothing to say about their songs up to 1972. They do get some royalties, however. But ABKCO has the final say
Hmmm. I finally hear it. It took me a couple listens to hear that Bittersweet Symphony was the same as The Last Time, only slowed down a lot. DX I couldn't even hear it when I listened side by side the first time I listened.. Oh well, they're both awesome songs. Whatevs
I agree that the reaction to bittersweet symphony was harsh, but you can't just rip off people's music and expect to get away with it every time. sometimes you don't. it is highly derivative, and there's no getting away from that. yes, all things are derivative, but some art is so much derived from another specific thing that any claim to its being original is compromised.
that the rolling stones have done the same thing than any other artist... recycle... not steal... i hope someday the copyright laws change so ppl dont go to jail for downloading songs or gets to pay for singing a song owned by a record company in a public space... thats just stupid...
this copyright laws are good in some ways.. but in my opinion most of the times what they do is slow the music to follow its naturall course
copyrights... if you use your brain for something different than think about ways to get more money you would realize that everything you can say has already been said by some one else in the past.. the present is nothing but a remix of the past, ideas, songs, art, movies, everything.... the originality anyone can put in something will never be too much... the verbs song was a different song than the stones one, i love the stones, but go listen to howling wolf and other blues musicians and ull c
It was the Stones old manager Allen Klein that sued the Verve for using this song, the same Allen Klein who ended up to the publishing rights to the Stones earlier works...so if any anger should be directed at anyone over this matter it should be Klein.
It was the Stones old manager Allen Klein that sued the Verve for using this song, the same Allen Klein who ended up to the publishing rights to the Stones earlier works...so if any anger should be directed at anyone over this matter it should be Klein.
such bullshit that rolling stones took 100% of the money. fucking old douchebags. i'd say there should be something like an 80/20 split, where the verve keep the majority. if you can take something which was out of date and not being played on the radio anymore, and make it popular again, that takes talent
The Rolling Stones are arrogant idiots. Here's what they should have done. They should have let the Verve keep their money.
Then use it for free marketing. The baby boomer tools think that rock stars are "gods" and are afraid to question their authority out of fear of social rejection amongst their irrelevant peers.
The Stones made a boneheaded, dickheaded move no matter which way you cut it.
ABKCO Records sued the Verve - not the Rolling Stones. The Verve were sued by the company that owns the publishing rights to the Stones song The Last Time. The surviving Stones do not own the publishing rights to their catalogue from the 60s, even though they wrote the songs..
This was recorded in 1966 .... yes folks 1966. I certainly hope the Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra made a few bob on the Verve's 'sampling' of this ..... 1966 recording.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's a Verve Song. It sure as hell ain't no "Stones Song" It is one of the greatest rock n roll songs written in the last 30 years. I love The Stones but this was all bullshit. Typical Klein megalomania. The guy was a snake.
under the faulty logic of the courts, the Stones should've been sued for stealing this and for channeling Chuck Berry? I don't care about the label, I'm sure Mick has plenty of influence on that label. He's not innocent.
A rich band took 100% of the royalties from a new act? Why? To rain on their parade.
Lisa is so correct, when will you idiot learn that sampling is not creating something new. Richard Ashcroft is no differant from this asshole, K. West or P Diddy mate. And the money grabbing bastard wasn't the Stones, it was that low life snake, Allen Kline.
omg i dont know whats going on so the verve stole music from the stones and the stones stole music from the verve for revenge and that pissed the andrew oldham orchestra off so he had a affair with one of the beatles wives and then oasis came in just for laughs and sampled every ones work because some aircroft guy played a violin to close to their studio and mistakenly pick up the noise and sued him too?!?!? 0_0 lol
that was a bullshit case. The Stone's song was ripped off of an older piece. The Bittersweet Symphony sounds NOTHING like the Stone's song. If it did, it wasn't nearly enough to get 100% of the royalties. BTW, I laugh when people blame the label. Rolling Stones are so influential, i can't believe they're condoning it.
the violin riff that starts off bittersweet symphony was composed by richard ashcroft. nothing to do with this. only the fuckin bongos and bells influenced bittersweet symphony.
oh and not to mention.....even if I like this 60's jig...I can't even find it on itunes....Oldham you fuckin cunt....you don't even have your original for sale
rolling stones and beatles alike stole so much shit of others it'll make your head spin, produced major records with plagirized material simply cause black musicians couldnt sell it as well(no harm done) but don't give Verve a hard time...they are talented boys......folks wake up...get a fuckin clue please...
who cares about the money......i think ashcroft is satisfied that he put something out there and people like me and u can listen to it be and be moved by it. money runs out people, feelings stay forever.
Who was splitting what 50/50? Who then got 100% of what - profit/royalties from the song/album? Not clear from your notes.
Still I'm glad I found this - I'd heard there was a kerfuffle between the Stones (or MJ and KR anyway) and The Verve over "Bittersweet Symphony" but could never hear any Stones song in "Bittersweet..."; now I understand that part of it (but not the terms of the ultimate financial resolution).
MJ's even had to sing in court a few times to demonstrate RS copyrights.
Accually I have no idea. I found out about this on a VH1 show (something about "One Hit Wonders" I think...) and realised I have the vinyl album of this song. In posting on youtube, I did get all my 'information' from WIKIPEDIA. But I have a confession: I have NEVER heard VERVE song, even though I checked it out from the library... Also, due to legalities, ALLEN KLINE owns the rights to all these Stones songs from the 60's, not sure of the change in the story since...
i love the stones, but mick and keith were real dicks to the verve. i suppose i could understand 50% royalties (MAYBE, and that being ABSOLUTE MOST) but 100%? Thats such bullshit. mick and keith should be extremely embarrassed about themselves for this.
sometime during the 60's-thats all I know. I see on youtube it is on CD somewhere. I bought mine, during the 80's, mail order, in junior high, and my copy was an import/reissue.
had to do it like this I am a long time stones fan, have all these imports, rarities, & bootlegs, a friend of mine loved THE VERVE for the moment, then years later I saw on VH1 about this, so I had to post this on here like this, assuming not many people know about this album...now I see that it is avaliable on CD somewhere...
this was one of the most outrageous decisions on authorship. For Jagger and richards to be getting full royalties on the BSS track is clearly wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves but then again that would be asking alot.
BS! If Ashcroft was honest in the first place, he would've given rights to the stones in the first place and maybe they would've been nice to the verve or even collaborate in other songs but ashcroft wanted to cash in with another person's song. So, he payed the price he deserved for not being honest. Copyrights is serious stuff!
the verve had a prior agreement that allowed them to use a sample for the hook, they were never lying. Aschcroft created new lyrics and added his own rifts, and the main violin sound is his own creation. When the stones saw how well the record was doing they said they wanted 100% instead of 50%.
The stones shouldn't get any though seeing as their "original song" was partially based on and old gospel song, and the orchestral recording the verve used was done by oldham.
BS! Its not his own creation. The violin riff is clearly in this music. I know it was an orchestrated version of the Stones song. But is clear that it is a rip-off and Aschcrof deserved to lose the rights. When they make a song that is as good as this one, i'll be quiet. No, they will forever continue to be a one-song band.
Whatev, bittersweet only uses a liscensed sample that layers on itself. It's not the verves fault that "the last time" isn't some masterpeice and just repeats itself. I mean if I sampled hot cross buns, a song with 13 notes, 4 measures, 3 of which are the same, and sample the measure that repeats itself, of course it's going to sound like it. And the stones knew what sample the verve had selected, they knew what it would sound like. the verve should still get a percentage for writing the lyrics
You're right there, I think the Verve had a shite solicitor,The last Time wasn't even The Stones own,but it's not them that sued,but these money grabbers at ABKCO.but still,there's something as copyright,and Oldhams version is rather original, The Verve should have paid the going rate for a 15 sec.sample though.
and not one cent more.Still, they've got nothing to complain ,they rode the wave,on that one sample, had their 15 minutes of fame,and went back into obscurity./
yes it is ABKCO, owned by Allen Klein, who , at the end of the 60's, ended up owning the rights to all these rolling stones songs from that period.....but then...I just heard VERVE's song all the way through....it opened my mind and CHANGED MY MIND!!! it is just Allen Klein being a () like he allways was, like with the BEATLES. I could tell the full story, but there is not enough space.
i totally agree with you!! Richard Ashcroft made a hit out of this with his style and lyrics and rendition, and keith richards has the nerve to say "they are rippin us off" yeah right keith relax drug addict, you have enuff damn money right now as it is. cant seem to stomach a much younger and more talented person making your old stuff more modern and better huh? The Verve deserve full credit and royalities man!!!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
man dude i totally agree with you all the way. It takes new fresh minds to create a whole diff. song, and the stones didnt have that creativeness. and yes when Richard Ashcrocft did alter it, he made a classic instantly. Cheers to Mr. Ashcroft!! here here, and down with the Stones, they need to get back to their room at the old folks home and prepare for bingo the next day ha ha ha ha!! Thanx for your comment................THE VERVE!!!!!!!!
Bullshitt!! The youth today , does nothing but steal ,steal, steal , just like hip hop and rap. The youth today sample the hell out of yesterday great music. Stop this p-diddy sample shit, create your own music , the youth today are Lazy minded
ok....do the names (jimmi reed, little eva, carl perkins, lots of tamla motown selection) mean anything to you?....well....half of the albums that were written in their earlier careers were covering loads of these artists....do a little research
thank you for recognizing....I am not to blame anyone, tha's what happens over time....people take other people's music and recreate it in their own way, because they were attracted to it in the first place....that's called inspiration....it's a natural human behaviour....and then new stuff comes out
Newsflash; yes the Stones, Beattles, and numerous others did cover several artists in their early days but the difference is they gave credit where credit was due and obviously had agreements in place to do so. Also, when they did cover a song, they did NOT overstep the agreement they had for using that song like the Verve did. You do a little research!
That's not entirely true. There are several cases where the Beatles had made original compositions built upon other artists melodies and not labelled those covers. Or am I wrong on this? I really cant think of a band I have an interest in that hasnt done stuff like this whether knowingly or by accident. Radiohead / Oasis / Blur / Led Zeppelin / etc etc etc
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Irush777,
What are you talking about? Are you going to fuss because Ashcroft ripped off Mich Jagger's plump juicy pucker too?
Dude, the Verve is a group that came out in the 90's. They play live, they sing live... btw, the ones who play yesterday's music are smart enough to know it's out there.
imitation is a form of flattery, Mick of all people should know that. Chuck Berry should sue him for channeling his soul.
Come on, inspirations and influences count for something.
mate your full of shit also, were are the stones now days i dont see them with any hits on the rado ether? prolly playing bingo at the new home (old folks home) lmfao!! and who gives a shit for hip hop not talent noise anyway, not me. soon as keith the drug addict heard of improvements to this shitty version, he got all bent. yeah fuck nuttts, Richard Ashcroft genius, Cheers to him for making a shitty song one of most anthemic tunes of all tme. he proved himself he doesnt need to go on .
cool - gotta say it doesn't sound much like "The Last Time" in the first place - maybe "Bittersweet Symphont" should be credited to Andrew Oldham rather than Jagger/Richards :)
OK now I get bittersweet symphony now. The lawsuit trashed the Verve,which is unfortunate.There should have been better co- operation between the two parties.
Générique du grand entretien par François busnel du lundi au vendredi sur France Inter =)
enavantguingamp67 1 month ago
why WOULDN"T they sue...these guys didn't even ask, and the song sounds exactly the same, and they made a bunch of money...fuck em..you win some you lose some...so bittersweet.
dannon2010 2 months ago
@dannon2010 they did ask. they got the rights. then the song became huge and some people wanted the cut of it. legal battle ensued, and the verve wrongfully lost.
It is the sad truth of this song.
oldham made something good. the verve made turned it into something unbelievably amazing.
twdeneka 2 months ago
@dannon2010 abcko owns the rights
but the stones did sue decca
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 months ago
Some misunderstanding of the legal issues here. The Verve obtained permission from Oldham to use a sample of his orchestral version of the Stones song. But they overlooked that they also needed to get permission from the copyright holders of the song; in this case originally Jagger/Richard, but assigned to Allen Klein or his company. Having used a sample, the Verve didn't have a chance of denying 'copying', even though the orchestral version is very different from the Stones original.
DavidB5501 3 months ago
Your camera work makes my pee pee sad.
SharpTurnsNYourWords 4 months ago
@SharpTurnsNYourWords was on purpose
MichaelHansenFUN 3 months ago
the original is not from the Stones, it´s from Edward Grieg: Hall of the Mountain King, check it out…
mimi9914 4 months ago
Los Rolling Stones apestan :) y el tipo que hizo el juicio tambien lo es... esos tipos son una manga de egoistas estupidos! QUE VIVA THE VERVE
HoonScape 5 months ago 2
The Verve stole the song it is obvious....
andydufresne87 5 months ago
@andydufresne87 no they sampled it -authorized with permission
MichaelHansenFUN 5 months ago
This is is totally the same song. So the beginning of The Verve has violins, it is the same violins that come in later on the Oldham piece. They should have paid Oldham the royalties not Klein. Both are great though.
jperrytwigg 6 months ago
@jperrytwigg The duh duh duuuhhh, duh duh duuuhhh, duh duh duh duh duh duh duhhhh bit was made by The Verve. But after the Stones' old company got credit for the song, they marketed that part of the song out like whores, which was wrong. Fair enough if you market the piece that you 'created'...
TheVerve480 3 months ago
The Rolling Stones don't own any of their music from the 60's.
Allen Klein is still dead.
daniellaoalsson 6 months ago
You can REALLY here how much they copied form the original at 5:34
And for all this time I thought the Verve was one of those brilliant one hit wonders. They really didn't come up with any of the artistic brilliance behind the song--though it's arguably the fault of Rolling Stones for not following up to make this song better and marketable.
Spudst3r 7 months ago
The age of stupidification ,kids today can't compose their own music.
lrush777 7 months ago
Comment removed
shizukashiawase 7 months ago
wow how did those bastards win the case??
shizukashiawase 7 months ago
@folkmusic1991 wow, you've completely misinterpreted everything. why would Jagger and the rest of the Stones for that matter have any interest in shooting down "anyone who writes half decent songs" ? You're just looking for someone to blame. plus, everyone knows it's ABCKO's fault. *sigh*
sweetmay73 8 months ago
Heh. I've been in the music biz for nearly 50 years now and I have come across the concept of copyright once or twice in that time. You can't copyright a simple chord formation, tempo, or key, the Stones would be in dead trouble by now if that was the case. The point is the most recognisiable thing about 'Bittersweet' is the violin riff, and neither the Stones nor Andrew Oldham wrote that. Ashcroft should have got a share of the music fee for that.
Didn't know about the lyric fee though.
JJMMWGDuPree 9 months ago
@JJMMWGDuPree the arranger - david sinclair whittaker? - is the guy who should get the lions share of profit as it was his 'melody' that they stole. He probably just agreed to a one off arrangers fee - I mean who would have though 30 years hence it would be a monster? The violin riff is there in this version at around the 1.40 min mark, even though it's low in the mix it's there. It's out and out plagarism and I see Kelin's point of view. I just dont agree that cunt should have got the money.
genericgeorge 9 months ago
@JJMMWGDuPree the violin riff is played on piano here i negelected to say. Soft but' it's there
genericgeorge 9 months ago
@JJMMWGDuPree I disagree. This is way too close to the Verve's version. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add some strings and vocals to this piece. The hook is already built into the chord progression. It's fairly powerful piece of music on it's own. Personally, I think Klein was justified in suing them. A person would have to be tone deaf to not hear the striking similarities. A "sample" is using a small section of music, not the main hook, rhythm section and chord progressions
ritter89 8 months ago
Klein is a borderline crook. It's highly likely that he planned the whole thing from the off. What I don't understand is, why didn't the band withdraw the single and re-record it themselves? If you watch the 'Later' vid of the song they seem to manage it OK.
As for Jagger/Richards, they could have refused to accept the credit for writing the song, but didn't. I suspect Keef couldn't give a toss one way or the other, but Jagger is a greedy bastard. Always was and always will be.
JJMMWGDuPree 9 months ago
Comment removed
splankhna 9 months ago
@JJMMWGDuPree Copyright means "the right to copy". Therefore, even if The Verve had ditched the sample & re-recorded the bell & strings using the same pitch, tempo & pattern then that would have been a copy & they would be sued for that. Recording copyright consists of music & lyric 50% each. Ashcroft is credited as the lyricist & would have received that 50% but none of the music copyright - that is what The Verve meant about losing 100% of the music copyright. The Verve's song IMO.
splankhna 9 months ago
Come on,don't give us this shit.It's just some Greedy bastard Lawyer,screwing another hapless person.The Verve had permission to sample the orchestration,they obviously being sly Bastards,were deliberately ambiguous about it all,when the song took off,big they decided to screw them.How the fuck can they have 100% here,they didn't write the Verve lyrics? and I'm sure as hell Jagger/Richards didn't write the orchestration anyway THERE IS A SPECIAL PLACE SET ASIDE IN HELL,for these lawyers,for sure
GBPaddling 10 months ago 2
mmm, I don't know, there's that version, known buy a bunch of people (at least nowadays, I don't know what an impact this recording had when it was released), and then there is the copied version wich became one of the greatest hits of the 90's... makes me think. Maybe these guys developed an idea better than the guys that had the original idea, and used it in it's full potential...
jazztom86 11 months ago
The Verve should've just dropped this sample out and overdubbed a similar-textured arrangement. Lesson learned. Verve's string arrangement melodies were far more interesting than this version. This original has good parts (2-3 notes of melodies here and there) and groove, but nothing unique enough that can't be rerecorded. This is derived from a stones song derived from tradition, the only copyright issue is the actual recording sampled. If recorded from scratch there'd be no (legit) case.
radicalsquare 11 months ago
@folkmusic1991
You have no idea what you are talking about. ABCKO owned the rights early Stones Songs, and this cover. Not Jagger.
What's more, how is The Verves version not direct plagiarism!?
What did they do musically, that was different? Nothing. They just added lyrics
MrCeej9999 11 months ago
It's not a small sample, is it, it's basically the whole track that The Verve just jazzed up. Did they ask first?
HengistTheGreat 1 year ago
@HengistTheGreat Yeah they got permission to use it but got sued later when it was decided they'd use 'too much of it'.
technicolorexplosion 1 year ago
@technicolorexplosion
Yes, and your comment has prompted me to make the effort to read the comments in the intro, which explain it all. Back of the class Hengist! Again.
Thanks doubly for pointing it out to me, as it has made me listen once more. Great use of bells, imho. It's a lovely instrumental, so thanks to the poster, Stones, & Verve too!
HengistTheGreat 1 year ago
i'd take "beast of burden", "start me up", and "waiting on a friend" over "bittersweet symphony." they wrote all those within the 20 years richard ashcroft mentioned.
nogoodbastid 1 year ago
sounds to me like he pretty much just took this instrumental and sang over it. i always thought it was just a small loop that he had added a lot too. this sounds like the complete song. even his vocal melody is just pretty much going along with the melody of the song.
nogoodbastid 1 year ago
That sounds so lame. The Verve made this sample an epic masterpiece.
hardware199 1 year ago 2
This is not 'The Last Time'. Jagger & Richards can't be copyright owners of Bittersweet Simphony , easy money, c'mon..
caravaggio31 1 year ago
It sounds very badd!!!!!
Let it be if from The Beatles
Satisfaction from Mick
Bitter sweet is from Verve.
Simple!!!! Yeahhhhhh!!!
atassano2001 1 year ago
mich your a thundercunt for suing the verve
robertdejong123 1 year ago
@robertdejong123 its Mick and it is not MICK's fault, it is ABCKO!!!
abcko the late allen klein owned the rights but not sure if owned the rights to this version...
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago 2
I had heard the legend but though a Stones fan still I never had listened to the original song. I must say, wow. While Verve took it to an incredible level of realization, the whole base is there in the original. Thing is: Verve didn't try to steal. That's what bugs me. And the fact that this is really all a matter of money. Mr Klein again! :). Fair thing would have been to make 50/50. Verve brought this to life. Just think of the opposite case, "Dazed and confused" which never got any justice.
charlysaenz 1 year ago
OK So I made a really cool song using the loop from bitter sweet symphony and a hole load of my own hard work... Who's gonna sue me? Mick? Verve? Both?
puntopower666 1 year ago 2
@puntopower666
ABCKO will sue
who knows who else
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
@puntopower666 Not the Verve...They don't own the copyrights so cant even sue over their own song.
deepblue69 1 year ago
@puntopower666
What did The Verve do other than sing over someone elses song?!
Come on. The song was a hit because of the tune. Which Mick Jagger wrote
MrCeej9999 11 months ago
You guys don't know what you're talking about.
The Verve got permission to use a small sample of the song. Under the guarantee that it would not be the main theme of the song.
They then proceed to use the entire song, and nothing else. They just sang lyrics over it.
So the label sued. And forced Ashcroft to acknowledge Jagger/Richards as the songwriters.
As they wrote it
MrCeej9999 11 months ago
@MrCeej9999
The sample is very sparse with a mundane structure; a good musical riff from which a great song was derived, but hardly the main theme. If that's the basis for suit than the judgement is bogus, just a victory for deep pocket greed. The Stones said they borrowed from traditional songs, so it's all derived from public domain. You're totally wrong about "just singing over it," the whole string section adds actual melodies, in addition to a whole guitar/bass arrangement with lyrics.
radicalsquare 11 months ago
@folkmusic1991 nerd
tryme451c 1 year ago
He should sues that Jason Durulo fuck too!
DarkPhoenix8101987 1 year ago
Haha! I wonder how many Verve fans got the music by stealing it from a friend or downloading it free?
53moreHP 1 year ago
bullshit the only part you could really hear this was on the extended version. fucking rolling stones
legendsoilder21 1 year ago
"You're a slave to the money,then you die"
gio73vanna 1 year ago
I wonder,are Mick and Keith really in need for more money??They should be ashamed of themselves,which I doubt they are of course.I mean,they never once credited any other member of the Stones for anything,did they?Greedy old men,that's what they are!Sorry,I have always loved the Stones,but this is too much.The lyrics for "Bittersweet symphony",which is a beautiful song,aren't theirs,they were written by the Verve's lead singer.So,maybe a 50-50 deal would've been apropriate.It's just not fair!
gio73vanna 1 year ago
@folkmusic1991
i may be wrong in this situation. but all those songs till the early 70's ended up being owned by ABCKO. not micks fault.
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago 7
@TEMPmichaelhansen
You are 100pct right. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have little or nothing to say about their songs up to 1972. They do get some royalties, however. But ABKCO has the final say
dirkilainen 1 year ago
Why does this sound different from The Verve's song ah? Can someone please explain it to me?
alyoshakaramazov8 1 year ago
@alyoshakaramazov8 speeded up or slowed down the recording...that is all i can guess...
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
Bittersweet Irony...The old version sounds totally creepy!
CastleOfButterflies 1 year ago
Hmmm. I finally hear it. It took me a couple listens to hear that Bittersweet Symphony was the same as The Last Time, only slowed down a lot. DX I couldn't even hear it when I listened side by side the first time I listened.. Oh well, they're both awesome songs. Whatevs
ooamaimomooo 1 year ago
I agree that the reaction to bittersweet symphony was harsh, but you can't just rip off people's music and expect to get away with it every time. sometimes you don't. it is highly derivative, and there's no getting away from that. yes, all things are derivative, but some art is so much derived from another specific thing that any claim to its being original is compromised.
samsallon 1 year ago
that the rolling stones have done the same thing than any other artist... recycle... not steal... i hope someday the copyright laws change so ppl dont go to jail for downloading songs or gets to pay for singing a song owned by a record company in a public space... thats just stupid...
this copyright laws are good in some ways.. but in my opinion most of the times what they do is slow the music to follow its naturall course
simpleman6942 1 year ago
@simpleman6942
well the whole 'going to jail for downloading' i only download stuff that seems to be OOP.
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
@TEMPmichaelhansen whats u mean by OOP?
simpleman6942 1 year ago
@simpleman6942
out of print
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
@simpleman6942
compare this to "French singer Cherie samples the intro guitar riff from the Foreigner recording for her debut single "I'm Ready" (2004)."
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
copyrights... if you use your brain for something different than think about ways to get more money you would realize that everything you can say has already been said by some one else in the past.. the present is nothing but a remix of the past, ideas, songs, art, movies, everything.... the originality anyone can put in something will never be too much... the verbs song was a different song than the stones one, i love the stones, but go listen to howling wolf and other blues musicians and ull c
simpleman6942 1 year ago
@simpleman6942
compare this to "French singer Cherie samples the intro guitar riff from the Foreigner recording for her debut single "I'm Ready" (2004)."
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
thank you for this uploading! And the info.
yourkid81 1 year ago
Now that I listen to "Bittersweet Symphony" I realized that they took a sample from this song without permission.
OldMusicOnVinyl1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was the Stones old manager Allen Klein that sued the Verve for using this song, the same Allen Klein who ended up to the publishing rights to the Stones earlier works...so if any anger should be directed at anyone over this matter it should be Klein.
tracyusa38 1 year ago
It was the Stones old manager Allen Klein that sued the Verve for using this song, the same Allen Klein who ended up to the publishing rights to the Stones earlier works...so if any anger should be directed at anyone over this matter it should be Klein.
tracyusa38 1 year ago
this doesn't even sound like the original rolling stones version.
PopExpo 1 year ago
Everybody steals from everybody. Movies, music, art. Get over it.
AnthonyArago 1 year ago
Is it buyable anywhere on CD???
Dschaeikob 1 year ago
I downloaded this from somewhere. Now I have to remember where I put it.
Squarepeg 1 year ago
such bullshit that rolling stones took 100% of the money. fucking old douchebags. i'd say there should be something like an 80/20 split, where the verve keep the majority. if you can take something which was out of date and not being played on the radio anymore, and make it popular again, that takes talent
lukeee89 1 year ago 2
@lukeee89,
The Rolling Stones are arrogant idiots. Here's what they should have done. They should have let the Verve keep their money.
Then use it for free marketing. The baby boomer tools think that rock stars are "gods" and are afraid to question their authority out of fear of social rejection amongst their irrelevant peers.
The Stones made a boneheaded, dickheaded move no matter which way you cut it.
therealcaptobvious 1 year ago
@therealcaptobvious
ABKCO Records sued the Verve - not the Rolling Stones. The Verve were sued by the company that owns the publishing rights to the Stones song The Last Time. The surviving Stones do not own the publishing rights to their catalogue from the 60s, even though they wrote the songs..
elmolewis1 1 year ago
@therealcaptobvious Dude it was their manager. Look it up.
plugginmuffin 1 year ago
perfeita versão
ikky9999 1 year ago
This was recorded in 1966 .... yes folks 1966. I certainly hope the Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra made a few bob on the Verve's 'sampling' of this ..... 1966 recording.
PressPlay2Go 1 year ago
Where did you get this c.d? I love this song!!
Dafanmon2500 1 year ago
this is a vinyl record of the andrew loog oldgham orchestra-the source of the sample used by the verve
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a Verve Song. It sure as hell ain't no "Stones Song" It is one of the greatest rock n roll songs written in the last 30 years. I love The Stones but this was all bullshit. Typical Klein megalomania. The guy was a snake.
RealOmind 1 year ago
Sorry mate the tune is from 1966 ,,,,, long long before the Verve existed.
PressPlay2Go 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
btw, this is a great song - i can't stop listening. thanks for the upload!
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
you wouldnt believe the story behind this
not the VERVE but still...
i am amazed at how many watched this video
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
@therealcaptobvious how was this spam people.
Spacirelei 1 year ago
under the faulty logic of the courts, the Stones should've been sued for stealing this and for channeling Chuck Berry? I don't care about the label, I'm sure Mick has plenty of influence on that label. He's not innocent.
A rich band took 100% of the royalties from a new act? Why? To rain on their parade.
Rolling stones= no class.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lisa is so correct, when will you idiot learn that sampling is not creating something new. Richard Ashcroft is no differant from this asshole, K. West or P Diddy mate. And the money grabbing bastard wasn't the Stones, it was that low life snake, Allen Kline.
DEKMAN99 2 years ago 3
hold the camera steady and lose the "pause" moments. Shit...
bustedup 2 years ago
it was intended to be this way
"Pause" moments???
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
state of nirvanaaaaaaaaa
aizik2005 2 years ago
Yeah, I have to agree with Richard Ashcroft's statement, "Bittersweet Melody is the best song the Stones have written in 20years".
DiggingMyOwnGrave2 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
nogoodbastid 1 year ago
Far out man. Light one up for this one. It's heavy dude!
dbrowdie 2 years ago
right on
6Ott7 2 years ago
omg i dont know whats going on so the verve stole music from the stones and the stones stole music from the verve for revenge and that pissed the andrew oldham orchestra off so he had a affair with one of the beatles wives and then oasis came in just for laughs and sampled every ones work because some aircroft guy played a violin to close to their studio and mistakenly pick up the noise and sued him too?!?!? 0_0 lol
jaugernaut16 2 years ago
you aren't the only one who doesn't know what's going on regarding this matter.
Not that it is of any real significance,
But what a strange deal.
I think the Verve got robbed, actually.
DiggingMyOwnGrave2 2 years ago 3
that was a bullshit case. The Stone's song was ripped off of an older piece. The Bittersweet Symphony sounds NOTHING like the Stone's song. If it did, it wasn't nearly enough to get 100% of the royalties. BTW, I laugh when people blame the label. Rolling Stones are so influential, i can't believe they're condoning it.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bullshit...absolutely.
The Stones are the "globalist" band.
When they did an outside concert in Austin, TX in 2006, the planes came & the whole city was drenched in Chemtrails.
& they took out "who killed the Kennedys" line out of
"Sympathy for the devil".
Rather strange, don't you think?
I lost ALL respect for the Stone's that night.
DiggingMyOwnGrave2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DiggingMyOwnGrave2,
these monkeys are assholes, I'll give you that. However, ABKCO kind of stole my tin foil hat.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
@therealcaptobvious
His name is NOT Mich!!!!
IT`S MICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where u from?????
i thought Everybody knew that!!
imaRoLLingStonzFan 1 year ago 34
@imaRoLLingStonzFan everyone does know this ... this guy musta been drunk lol
Mastas999 1 year ago
3:36 lol!
jaugernaut16 2 years ago 3
-OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this amazing
TheBestSideOfEvil 2 years ago
thanks for posting, makes things a lot clearer
zurich1935 2 years ago
good thing the verve pipe song was the one I heard because this isnt nearly as strong feeling of a song even without the vocals.
TruthFamineFloater 2 years ago
lol
SuperhelterYNWA 2 years ago
How on Earth did this song derive from The Last Time!? It sounds nothing like it!
AdamShanklyUK 2 years ago
think of the tune, and sing the words to the last time but on a slower scale.
evertonio 2 years ago
yeh it does
koolmini5 2 years ago
it is a classical re arrangement/pop orchestra version. things like this happened a lot in the 60's
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
the violin riff that starts off bittersweet symphony was composed by richard ashcroft. nothing to do with this. only the fuckin bongos and bells influenced bittersweet symphony.
Rabo14 2 years ago
likely story, shcrft blateltly took inpiration from the violin stupid!
skint0n0minted 2 years ago
this is cool the verve really did rip off the riff
beefheart67 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the Stones ripped it first.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
this the best version... 60's is full of the great music inventors...
donletmedon 2 years ago
Actually, for me this is the best version! love the bell!
sysFail81 2 years ago
oh and not to mention.....even if I like this 60's jig...I can't even find it on itunes....Oldham you fuckin cunt....you don't even have your original for sale
art72 2 years ago
try blaming Allen Klein
i think this is on import cd...
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
rolling stones and beatles alike stole so much shit of others it'll make your head spin, produced major records with plagirized material simply cause black musicians couldnt sell it as well(no harm done) but don't give Verve a hard time...they are talented boys......folks wake up...get a fuckin clue please...
art72 2 years ago 6
was it because of 50s-60s racism? or it was lack of interest in marketing?
sysFail81 2 years ago
Fuck the Verve . This is all the great Rolling Stones.
lupeluv66 2 years ago
accually it is the great "Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra"
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
Andrew''s a low life. He ruined Brian Jones.
lisatina69 2 years ago
Checkout the opening riff of the Stones song
"The last time" and the opening of Elvis Costello's
"you belong to me".
dogs1905 2 years ago
the stones version sux ass!! The Verve is the best!!!!!!!!!!
journeylive 2 years ago
Looks in mint condition....,Never Played,
understandable....that whole album's no big deal,it sold shite,now for that hype,it's suddenly worth a few bob.
PAULLONDEN 2 years ago
who cares about the money......i think ashcroft is satisfied that he put something out there and people like me and u can listen to it be and be moved by it. money runs out people, feelings stay forever.
redtailari 3 years ago 4
now I heard bittersweet symphony!
gundiilikebrown 3 years ago
Who was splitting what 50/50? Who then got 100% of what - profit/royalties from the song/album? Not clear from your notes.
Still I'm glad I found this - I'd heard there was a kerfuffle between the Stones (or MJ and KR anyway) and The Verve over "Bittersweet Symphony" but could never hear any Stones song in "Bittersweet..."; now I understand that part of it (but not the terms of the ultimate financial resolution).
MJ's even had to sing in court a few times to demonstrate RS copyrights.
Icky1961 3 years ago
Accually I have no idea. I found out about this on a VH1 show (something about "One Hit Wonders" I think...) and realised I have the vinyl album of this song. In posting on youtube, I did get all my 'information' from WIKIPEDIA. But I have a confession: I have NEVER heard VERVE song, even though I checked it out from the library... Also, due to legalities, ALLEN KLINE owns the rights to all these Stones songs from the 60's, not sure of the change in the story since...
TEMPmichaelhansen 3 years ago
accually it is Allen Klein
TEMPmichaelhansen 3 years ago
The Stones are slaves to money and then they will die. Hey, they are going to copy the lyrics of the Verves song. They should pay royalties for that.
Iamajanitor01 3 years ago 2
just for the record:
"due to copyright restrictions this version is no longer available commercially."
I found 2 ciopies at the library. One the " Cruel Intentions " sound track and the other the full length album.
TEMPmichaelhansen 3 years ago
accually i think the rights for this go to Allen Klein
he gets the money
TEMPmichaelhansen 3 years ago
i love the stones, but mick and keith were real dicks to the verve. i suppose i could understand 50% royalties (MAYBE, and that being ABSOLUTE MOST) but 100%? Thats such bullshit. mick and keith should be extremely embarrassed about themselves for this.
redsoxbsball3338 3 years ago 4
which year this album released?
limunan 3 years ago
sometime during the 60's-thats all I know. I see on youtube it is on CD somewhere. I bought mine, during the 80's, mail order, in junior high, and my copy was an import/reissue.
TEMPmichaelhansen 3 years ago
but the camera is really annoying^^ But, thanks for putting this vid online^^
Ireneexd 3 years ago
had to do it like this I am a long time stones fan, have all these imports, rarities, & bootlegs, a friend of mine loved THE VERVE for the moment, then years later I saw on VH1 about this, so I had to post this on here like this, assuming not many people know about this album...now I see that it is avaliable on CD somewhere...
TEMPmichaelhansen 3 years ago
this was one of the most outrageous decisions on authorship. For Jagger and richards to be getting full royalties on the BSS track is clearly wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves but then again that would be asking alot.
exocet2000 3 years ago
BS! If Ashcroft was honest in the first place, he would've given rights to the stones in the first place and maybe they would've been nice to the verve or even collaborate in other songs but ashcroft wanted to cash in with another person's song. So, he payed the price he deserved for not being honest. Copyrights is serious stuff!
uaala 3 years ago
the verve had a prior agreement that allowed them to use a sample for the hook, they were never lying. Aschcroft created new lyrics and added his own rifts, and the main violin sound is his own creation. When the stones saw how well the record was doing they said they wanted 100% instead of 50%.
The stones shouldn't get any though seeing as their "original song" was partially based on and old gospel song, and the orchestral recording the verve used was done by oldham.
Ara0liver 3 years ago 4
BS! Its not his own creation. The violin riff is clearly in this music. I know it was an orchestrated version of the Stones song. But is clear that it is a rip-off and Aschcrof deserved to lose the rights. When they make a song that is as good as this one, i'll be quiet. No, they will forever continue to be a one-song band.
uaala 3 years ago
Whatev, bittersweet only uses a liscensed sample that layers on itself. It's not the verves fault that "the last time" isn't some masterpeice and just repeats itself. I mean if I sampled hot cross buns, a song with 13 notes, 4 measures, 3 of which are the same, and sample the measure that repeats itself, of course it's going to sound like it. And the stones knew what sample the verve had selected, they knew what it would sound like. the verve should still get a percentage for writing the lyrics
Ara0liver 2 years ago 3
You're right there, I think the Verve had a shite solicitor,The last Time wasn't even The Stones own,but it's not them that sued,but these money grabbers at ABKCO.but still,there's something as copyright,and Oldhams version is rather original, The Verve should have paid the going rate for a 15 sec.sample though.
and not one cent more.Still, they've got nothing to complain ,they rode the wave,on that one sample, had their 15 minutes of fame,and went back into obscurity./
PAULLONDEN 2 years ago
yes it is ABKCO, owned by Allen Klein, who , at the end of the 60's, ended up owning the rights to all these rolling stones songs from that period.....but then...I just heard VERVE's song all the way through....it opened my mind and CHANGED MY MIND!!! it is just Allen Klein being a () like he allways was, like with the BEATLES. I could tell the full story, but there is not enough space.
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
i totally agree with you!! Richard Ashcroft made a hit out of this with his style and lyrics and rendition, and keith richards has the nerve to say "they are rippin us off" yeah right keith relax drug addict, you have enuff damn money right now as it is. cant seem to stomach a much younger and more talented person making your old stuff more modern and better huh? The Verve deserve full credit and royalities man!!!!!
journeylive 2 years ago 2
BULLL SHIT !! This younger generation is fuck, they got nothing. I hate this Puff Daddy ,sampling shit. Fuck the Verve.
lupeluv66 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck you?
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
Yeah!! Richard -p-diddy Asholecroft.
DEEP177 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
man dude i totally agree with you all the way. It takes new fresh minds to create a whole diff. song, and the stones didnt have that creativeness. and yes when Richard Ashcrocft did alter it, he made a classic instantly. Cheers to Mr. Ashcroft!! here here, and down with the Stones, they need to get back to their room at the old folks home and prepare for bingo the next day ha ha ha ha!! Thanx for your comment................THE VERVE!!!!!!!!
journeylive 2 years ago
Bullshitt!! The youth today , does nothing but steal ,steal, steal , just like hip hop and rap. The youth today sample the hell out of yesterday great music. Stop this p-diddy sample shit, create your own music , the youth today are Lazy minded
lrush777 2 years ago 3
whatever....beatles and stones and many others stole so much shit it's not even funny....get a clue
art72 2 years ago 3
What did the Beattle's and the Stones steal?? Please enlighten me
RedCoalCarpet 2 years ago
ok....do the names (jimmi reed, little eva, carl perkins, lots of tamla motown selection) mean anything to you?....well....half of the albums that were written in their earlier careers were covering loads of these artists....do a little research
art72 2 years ago 2
yes true
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
thank you for recognizing....I am not to blame anyone, tha's what happens over time....people take other people's music and recreate it in their own way, because they were attracted to it in the first place....that's called inspiration....it's a natural human behaviour....and then new stuff comes out
art72 2 years ago 3
Newsflash; yes the Stones, Beattles, and numerous others did cover several artists in their early days but the difference is they gave credit where credit was due and obviously had agreements in place to do so. Also, when they did cover a song, they did NOT overstep the agreement they had for using that song like the Verve did. You do a little research!
RedCoalCarpet 2 years ago
Fair enough.
art72 2 years ago
That's not entirely true. There are several cases where the Beatles had made original compositions built upon other artists melodies and not labelled those covers. Or am I wrong on this? I really cant think of a band I have an interest in that hasnt done stuff like this whether knowingly or by accident. Radiohead / Oasis / Blur / Led Zeppelin / etc etc etc
Cuoin 2 years ago
do you research the stones sone is a complete rip off of the classic folk song "this may be the last time" youtube the staple singer version.
CrankDhatAlex 2 years ago 2
a better question is what didn't they steal
oldbag222 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this song. Hello! Mick and the gang didn't come up with it.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Irush777,
What are you talking about? Are you going to fuss because Ashcroft ripped off Mich Jagger's plump juicy pucker too?
Dude, the Verve is a group that came out in the 90's. They play live, they sing live... btw, the ones who play yesterday's music are smart enough to know it's out there.
imitation is a form of flattery, Mick of all people should know that. Chuck Berry should sue him for channeling his soul.
Come on, inspirations and influences count for something.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
Mate you're full of shit. Where is the little vernvys now? CAN'T FIND NO OTHER MUSIC TO SAMPLE AND STEAL.??
DEKMAN99 2 years ago 4
mate your full of shit also, were are the stones now days i dont see them with any hits on the rado ether? prolly playing bingo at the new home (old folks home) lmfao!! and who gives a shit for hip hop not talent noise anyway, not me. soon as keith the drug addict heard of improvements to this shitty version, he got all bent. yeah fuck nuttts, Richard Ashcroft genius, Cheers to him for making a shitty song one of most anthemic tunes of all tme. he proved himself he doesnt need to go on .
journeylive 2 years ago
one of these days I will put up another video and explaine the other side of the story.....................
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
i have heard the Verve, it was 2 different riffs and that is all....but there is too much more to put here.
TEMPmichaelhansen 2 years ago
cool - gotta say it doesn't sound much like "The Last Time" in the first place - maybe "Bittersweet Symphont" should be credited to Andrew Oldham rather than Jagger/Richards :)
squarecut 3 years ago
it berly sounds like the verves version the verves version better
ntfc2008 3 years ago 2
OK now I get bittersweet symphony now. The lawsuit trashed the Verve,which is unfortunate.There should have been better co- operation between the two parties.
2degucitas 3 years ago