Bittersweet Symphony

>>75081052
As if the Stones don't have enough money. They're tax-avoiding scum too. People are literally dying on the NHS because of Mick & Keith.

The best song is 20 years old.

>>75081052
Yes, and that case is a prime example of why copyright laws are bullshit.

limp bizkit cover is better

>>75081052
Mick & Keith didn't even write the part the Verve sampled. The took Andrew Oldham's string arrangements from his cover which is pretty much anconpletely different and much better goddamn song.
Rolling Stones can lick my nine

File: IMG_5208.jpg (76KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x500px

Thoughts on the original sample/album?

I didn't like Bittersweet that much.

>>75081384
>Mick & Keith didn't even write the part the Verve sampled.
This, although it was David Whitaker that wrote the part. They also okayed the use of the sample when they didn't think it would make money, and only decided to sue when the song got huge. Plus, the part The Verve sampled wasn't even the string part: it was small section of the bell part that happens once in the song, while segments of it play a few other times. Ashcroft rerecorded a melody that The Stones didn't even write, and got nothing because his song made too much money. It's pretty fucked up.

I mean it sounds basically exactly the same but as another anon said copyright/sampling laws are utter bullshit and shouldn't even exist. However, if they HAVE to even do it then as >>75081973 said David Whitaker should get the credit.

>>75081052
i feel bad for ashcroft for what happened with this song