Tell Me :
Talk
"We Love You"
Nice burn
It's about half a very good album...but not better than EVERYTHING after 1975.
I pretty much agree with you, neptune. The Stones in the sixties were very much on a winning streak, because of their youth (and their relevance to youth culture), their musical surroundings, and also the hunger they had to prove themselves, back in that period. They were a living and breathing musical force, who were very much at a constant within their musical recordings and output, aside from perhaps their drug trials and convictions. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' was patchy in my opinion, yet it worked incredibly well some of the time. Certainly post 'Goats Head Soup', the Stones became in part a little too musically conservative, where they began repeating themselves within their more typical rock/rock and roll influences, but without them being hugely inspired, or they were breaking new ground rather tentatively, and without much musical conviction. There was the odd musical gem up to and including 'Tattoo You' admittedly, but the sixties really was their time, i don't think there's any doubt about that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-10 09:07 by Edward Twining.
I guess it's no coincidence that the one RS who still says good things about the album is the one who's more often than not remained musically the most adventurous.
This statement is as much about music from the late 60's versus music form the '70's. The Stones have always been an exponent of the music of the day, they never where forerunners for any genre at all. If the fashion of the day is the use of classical instruments via Pet Sounds, the Stones record Aftermath. Experimentation with Eastern sounds? The Stones record Satanic. Country rock through Neil Young and The Eagles? Exile. Dance music? Hot Stuff. Disco? Miss You. Punk? Some Girls. Stones music always has been a reaction to the times. Is Some Girls more straightforward and less complex than Satanic or Beggars? Of course it is -it's a reaction to punk music, wheras Satanic is a reaction to experimentation with Eastern music.
It's much like what Jagger answered when Voodoo Lounge came out to the question'is this the new Exile?': 'No, it's not '72 anymore'.
Mathijs
Yes, you are right, but the sixties was really the Stones time. They represented the sixties in a way that's not true of the seventies, because amongst other things, a younger generation was growing up around them, and they were no longer reflections of youth culture etc. I have always believed their relevance in a social sense finished around the time of Altamont, and afterwards they were of course a damn good rock 'n' roll band etc, perhaps even peaking in the early seventies within their own particular brand of rock, but they represented little more, certainly not in terms of them carrying the social aspirations of a generation on their backs. In a sense they turned in on themselves, writing and recording music which pretty much represented their own personal lives and indulgences especially. In a sense they became detached and harder to reach, as they had grown away from their own english surroundings, and had gone global. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a great rock star, but you are perhaps unlikely to mean so much to the masses as when you were indelibly linked to a certain period. The Stones period was most definitely the sixties. The greatness of the 'Satanic Majesties' period, is they were still well in the vanguard of still being leading lights within their own generation, and as much as they may have been influenced by their musical surroundings, it was very much theirs for the taking, as all of the musical advances and influences coherently belonged to their generation. As i have often said previously, it is impossible to detach the Stones from the other leading pop stars of the day, and especially the Beatles, because they were all in the same learning process together, and would be forever be influenced by each other. Pretty much everything the Beatles and Stones were doing in the sixties was a musical first, even though in many instances it wasn't the Stones who had the original ideas. By 71, the Stones had splintered away from the centre ground in terms of profile and musical importance, and to a degree became more marginalised in the process. This was the beginning of the fragmentation of popular music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-10 19:39 by Edward Twining.
Actually I think circa 1968 was "the beginning of the fragmentation of popular music". It might seem ludicrous now, but during 1963-1966 The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Searchers, Cliff Richard & The Shadows, The Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, Gerry & The Pacemakers (etc, etc) weren't considered that far apart musically, all being "pop groups" or "beat groups". But from 1967-1968 acts were labelled "pop" or "rock", with very little space inbetween. 'Blue Turns To Grey' was a natural for Cliff Richard to record, just as 'Take It Or Leave It' was for The Searchers, but it's almost impossible to imagine them covering anything from BB / LIB / SF / EOMS. The RS were just too far away from them musically.
I agree, by the 70's there was an entirely new youth culture that didn't identify with the Stones.
Glam Rock, Bowie T Rex punk etc had nothing to do with the 60's..."My brother's back home with his Beatles and his Stones, we never got off on that revolution stuff"
What? Hello, Mathijs, is anybody home? The Stones never forerunners for any genre? Does blues-based rock ring a bell? They were the fathers of the blues-rock movement in the early 60's and legions of bands would soon be copying their sound, using slide guitar, heavy guitar riffs, big bass thumping, etc. Even the Beatles began copying the Stones to some degree. The Beatles, Stones, and Dylan were the gods of the entire 60's music scene, the very core of that whole generation.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 00:06 by neptune.
Hi, HM, I'm going from memory here, but isn't COM included on the Satanic Box Set outtakes? The work sessions with keyboard?
Yes it is, but so is Jigsaw Puzzle and the tracks of ongoing sessions of those songs in the box sets date from the 1968 Beggars Banquet sessions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 03:05 by His Majesty.
Damn I hate seeing my old threads without their pics, time to get my pics back up and re-posted!
Yes, i think The Beatles, The Stones and Bob Dylan, all brought something very special to the music scene, although in a sense The Beatles and Bob Dylan influences were used much more exclusively throughout popular music in the sixties - their musical pedigrees in terms of being self sufficient in terms of writing their own songs, and the Beatles ear for melody and later musical diversity, in addition to Bob's thought provoking, and often surreal lyrics, were pretty much the building blocks to what would come as the decade progressed. The Stones blues based sound was influential to a degree, i believe, yet i feel with the Stones, their strengths was often their musical and visual energy, a raw and primitive sound and visual image which pretty much belonged to them alone, and although others have often tried to emulate them, no one has ever come close to their raw, sexy and sometimes funky, interpretation of blues and rock 'n' roll. They are perhaps more about a certain mood within their songs which has greater physicality of sound, than the more academic strengths associated with the Beatles grasp of writing and recording great melodic songs, or Bob Dylan's use of lyrical gravitas and dexterity. The Stones strengths for me were so exclusively their own, they were pretty impossible to emulate, although there have been many groups who have tried, and simply became what appeared an occasional laughable Stones parody. That's pretty down to the uniqueness of the Stones, and their incredible ability to move an audience. That takes an incredible musical chemistry. Subtelty was also a key word, as none of the group were musical virtuosos, yet together they created such a magical sound.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 08:52 by Edward Twining.
Of course not. They didn't 'invent' anything, they mereley started out as a tribute band to Chicago blues, and there where many, many more bands doing that in '63 and '64. Certainly, they where one of the best (even though many rated the Kinks and The Yardbyrds more highly in the early days) and they where exciting, but they didn't invent a new genre or whatever. And, in '64, all these 'beat groups' where riding on the coattail of the success of the Beatles, fulfilling the audience' need for young, white beat groups, representing their own generation.
It wasn't until about '65 that a watershed came -only bands that could write songs would stay in the limelight, the rest would all slowly dissapear. Until 'Satisfaction' the Stones where big, but as big as many other bands like The Kinks. With Satisfaction they became the number 2 band in the world, and where elevated to Rock Royalty.
Mathijs
There is space, death and the other side, lily's, lakes, rainbows it is very much a psychedelic record with a cool dark, lonely undertone to it.
Excellent summary. For this reason I've always considered the album & We Love You / Dandelion as the perfect antidote to the less cynical whimsy of The Beatles at the time.
Exactly, Sing this All Together is certainly not All You Need is Love or the dreaded All Together Now. There is a darkness here. It's like the maze inside the album, take a different path and end up in a dead end.
I agree completely. Even when the Stones attempt psychedelia, there is still an element of menace within their delivery. I love Jagger's vocals too in this period. They are perhaps lighter and a little more sensitive at this point, and a long way from his more typical 'rock' voice. I think that that style of singing is still apparent a little in places on 'Beggars Banquet' ('No Expectations' and 'Jigsaw Puzzle'), but by 'Let It Bleed' his voice was well on the way to becoming his more typical 70s 'rock' type voice. Despite being stylistically different, there are still elements that tie 'Satanic Majesties' and 'Beggars Banquet' together, if a little tenuously. 'Beggars Banquet' is so wonderful because the Stones interpetation of the blues (the delta blues) has a sensitivity, which would be forever lost once the Stones began to incorporate more of a rock influence. 'Beggars Banquet' has been long recognised as a triumph for Keith, in him taking the responsiblity for much of the guitar work, yet it's also an enormous triumph for Mick as a singer too, certainly in relation to him fully being in tune with the sentiments of each song. That of course is also true on 'Satanic Majesties'. There is an english, and almost slightly cultured influence to his singing at this point, and perhaps he is a little breathy and nasal sounding too (but not in any way comparable with his more recent nasal singing). Jagger was just so charismatic in this period. I really do miss the young Jagger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 20:46 by Edward Twining.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 10, 2011 01:39
Quote
kowalskiQuote
skipstoneQuote
kowalski
Without Satanic Majesties no Beggars Banquet.
Blahblahblah. How convenient of you to say that. NO appreciation from me for this LP really, just certain songs. Shit album, their second worse after Dirty Work.
My point is they had to go to this dead-end that is Satanic Majesties to go back to their roots and start all over again with a new cycle. Which happened with Beggars Banquet.
About the album itself, while there are some nice songs on it and while She's A Rainbow can be seen as a true Stones classic of the 60's, it can't compare to their previous efforts. At least those had an artistic direction and they were trying to write the best pop songs ever heard.
The album is, of course, still good as they are the Stones : whatever they do there is always something of some interest in their music. I like to see it as an album made of jams sessions. And it's actually great to hear such a band putting things together and see what happens. At the end it sounds like they experimented ideas but never bothered to finish them off.
By the way some of the best songs of the Satanic era are not on the album : Dandelion and Child Of The Moon.
"We Love You"
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 10, 2011 01:41
Quote
StonesTodQuote
harlito1969
There is 2 good songs on the entire album - a complete waste of an otherwise amazing and historical summer.
but...but....but, it came out in december....ok a waste of a summer if you were down-under, i spose
Nice burn
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: March 10, 2011 03:43
Satanic is a delight to listen to. Very underrated if you ask me. And, yes, I love Gomper! Satanic is 2000 light years ahead of anything from the Ron Wood era.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 10, 2011 07:03
Quote
neptune
Satanic is a delight to listen to. Very underrated if you ask me. And, yes, I love Gomper! Satanic is 2000 light years ahead of anything from the Ron Wood era.
It's about half a very good album...but not better than EVERYTHING after 1975.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: March 10, 2011 09:02
Quote
neptune
Satanic is a delight to listen to. Very underrated if you ask me. And, yes, I love Gomper! Satanic is 2000 light years ahead of anything from the Ron Wood era.
I pretty much agree with you, neptune. The Stones in the sixties were very much on a winning streak, because of their youth (and their relevance to youth culture), their musical surroundings, and also the hunger they had to prove themselves, back in that period. They were a living and breathing musical force, who were very much at a constant within their musical recordings and output, aside from perhaps their drug trials and convictions. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' was patchy in my opinion, yet it worked incredibly well some of the time. Certainly post 'Goats Head Soup', the Stones became in part a little too musically conservative, where they began repeating themselves within their more typical rock/rock and roll influences, but without them being hugely inspired, or they were breaking new ground rather tentatively, and without much musical conviction. There was the odd musical gem up to and including 'Tattoo You' admittedly, but the sixties really was their time, i don't think there's any doubt about that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-10 09:07 by Edward Twining.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: March 10, 2011 11:04
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
neptune
Satanic is a delight to listen to. Very underrated if you ask me. And, yes, I love Gomper! Satanic is 2000 light years ahead of anything from the Ron Wood era.
I pretty much agree with you, neptune. The Stones in the sixties were very much on a winning streak, because of their youth (and their relevance to youth culture), their musical surroundings, and also the hunger they had to prove themselves, back in that period. They were a living and breathing musical force, who were very much at a constant within their musical recordings and output, aside from perhaps their drug trials and convictions. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' was patchy in my opinion, yet it worked incredibly well some of the time. Certainly post 'Goats Head Soup', the Stones became in part a little too musically conservative, where they began repeating themselves within their more typical rock/rock and roll influences, but without them being hugely inspired, or they were breaking new ground rather tentatively, and without much musical conviction. There was the odd musical gem up to and including 'Tattoo You' admittedly, but the sixties really was their time, i don't think there's any doubt about that.
I guess it's no coincidence that the one RS who still says good things about the album is the one who's more often than not remained musically the most adventurous.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: March 10, 2011 11:16
That's the reason why I prefer the 66-68 era Stones. Those years doesn't just show how brilliant Mick and Keith were at writing songs in different styles but also what Brian Jones brought to their sound. Pure magic!Quote
His Majesty
I'd much rather hear them try to do something different than simply re-hash tired old riffs again and again like they have been doing since circa 1974.
They still managed to bring some of the creative chaos of Satanic to BB IMHO. The use of sitar, tanpura, shenai, tablas and mellotron show some of that. Keith using his cassette recorder as a distortion unit was also pretty unique.Quote
His Majesty
Their Satanic Majesties Request and it's outtakes are fantastic and imo it's a shame that they didn't allow more of that unique feel to carry over in to Beggars Banquet!
+1Quote
Edward Twining
I pretty much agree with you, neptune. The Stones in the sixties were very much on a winning streak, because of their youth (and their relevance to youth culture), their musical surroundings, and also the hunger they had to prove themselves, back in that period. They were a living and breathing musical force, who were very much at a constant within their musical recordings and output, aside from perhaps their drug trials and convictions. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' was patchy in my opinion, yet it worked incredibly well some of the time. Certainly post 'Goats Head Soup', the Stones became in part a little too musically conservative, where they began repeating themselves within their more typical rock/rock and roll influences, but without them being hugely inspired, or they were breaking new ground rather tentatively, and without much musical conviction. There was the odd musical gem up to and including 'Tattoo You' admittedly, but the sixties really was their time, i don't think there's any doubt about that.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 10, 2011 11:47
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
neptune
Satanic is a delight to listen to. Very underrated if you ask me. And, yes, I love Gomper! Satanic is 2000 light years ahead of anything from the Ron Wood era.
I pretty much agree with you, neptune. The Stones in the sixties were very much on a winning streak, because of their youth (and their relevance to youth culture), their musical surroundings, and also the hunger they had to prove themselves, back in that period. They were a living and breathing musical force, who were very much at a constant within their musical recordings and output, aside from perhaps their drug trials and convictions. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' was patchy in my opinion, yet it worked incredibly well some of the time. Certainly post 'Goats Head Soup', the Stones became in part a little too musically conservative, where they began repeating themselves within their more typical rock/rock and roll influences, but without them being hugely inspired, or they were breaking new ground rather tentatively, and without much musical conviction. There was the odd musical gem up to and including 'Tattoo You' admittedly, but the sixties really was their time, i don't think there's any doubt about that.
This statement is as much about music from the late 60's versus music form the '70's. The Stones have always been an exponent of the music of the day, they never where forerunners for any genre at all. If the fashion of the day is the use of classical instruments via Pet Sounds, the Stones record Aftermath. Experimentation with Eastern sounds? The Stones record Satanic. Country rock through Neil Young and The Eagles? Exile. Dance music? Hot Stuff. Disco? Miss You. Punk? Some Girls. Stones music always has been a reaction to the times. Is Some Girls more straightforward and less complex than Satanic or Beggars? Of course it is -it's a reaction to punk music, wheras Satanic is a reaction to experimentation with Eastern music.
It's much like what Jagger answered when Voodoo Lounge came out to the question'is this the new Exile?': 'No, it's not '72 anymore'.
Mathijs
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 10, 2011 13:50
Quote
tonterapi
They still managed to bring some of the creative chaos of Satanic to BB IMHO. The use of sitar, tanpura, shenai, tablas and mellotron show some of that. Keith using his cassette recorder as a distortion unit was also pretty unique.
Yes, and those things are part of the reason i love Beggars Banquet so much, but the feel is rather different.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: March 10, 2011 19:38
Quote
MathijsQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
neptune
Satanic is a delight to listen to. Very underrated if you ask me. And, yes, I love Gomper! Satanic is 2000 light years ahead of anything from the Ron Wood era.
I pretty much agree with you, neptune. The Stones in the sixties were very much on a winning streak, because of their youth (and their relevance to youth culture), their musical surroundings, and also the hunger they had to prove themselves, back in that period. They were a living and breathing musical force, who were very much at a constant within their musical recordings and output, aside from perhaps their drug trials and convictions. 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' was patchy in my opinion, yet it worked incredibly well some of the time. Certainly post 'Goats Head Soup', the Stones became in part a little too musically conservative, where they began repeating themselves within their more typical rock/rock and roll influences, but without them being hugely inspired, or they were breaking new ground rather tentatively, and without much musical conviction. There was the odd musical gem up to and including 'Tattoo You' admittedly, but the sixties really was their time, i don't think there's any doubt about that.
This statement is as much about music from the late 60's versus music form the '70's. The Stones have always been an exponent of the music of the day, they never where forerunners for any genre at all. If the fashion of the day is the use of classical instruments via Pet Sounds, the Stones record Aftermath. Experimentation with Eastern sounds? The Stones record Satanic. Country rock through Neil Young and The Eagles? Exile. Dance music? Hot Stuff. Disco? Miss You. Punk? Some Girls. Stones music always has been a reaction to the times. Is Some Girls more straightforward and less complex than Satanic or Beggars? Of course it is -it's a reaction to punk music, wheras Satanic is a reaction to experimentation with Eastern music.
It's much like what Jagger answered when Voodoo Lounge came out to the question'is this the new Exile?': 'No, it's not '72 anymore'.
Mathijs
Yes, you are right, but the sixties was really the Stones time. They represented the sixties in a way that's not true of the seventies, because amongst other things, a younger generation was growing up around them, and they were no longer reflections of youth culture etc. I have always believed their relevance in a social sense finished around the time of Altamont, and afterwards they were of course a damn good rock 'n' roll band etc, perhaps even peaking in the early seventies within their own particular brand of rock, but they represented little more, certainly not in terms of them carrying the social aspirations of a generation on their backs. In a sense they turned in on themselves, writing and recording music which pretty much represented their own personal lives and indulgences especially. In a sense they became detached and harder to reach, as they had grown away from their own english surroundings, and had gone global. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a great rock star, but you are perhaps unlikely to mean so much to the masses as when you were indelibly linked to a certain period. The Stones period was most definitely the sixties. The greatness of the 'Satanic Majesties' period, is they were still well in the vanguard of still being leading lights within their own generation, and as much as they may have been influenced by their musical surroundings, it was very much theirs for the taking, as all of the musical advances and influences coherently belonged to their generation. As i have often said previously, it is impossible to detach the Stones from the other leading pop stars of the day, and especially the Beatles, because they were all in the same learning process together, and would be forever be influenced by each other. Pretty much everything the Beatles and Stones were doing in the sixties was a musical first, even though in many instances it wasn't the Stones who had the original ideas. By 71, the Stones had splintered away from the centre ground in terms of profile and musical importance, and to a degree became more marginalised in the process. This was the beginning of the fragmentation of popular music.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-10 19:39 by Edward Twining.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: March 10, 2011 20:07
Quote
Edward Twining
This was the beginning of the fragmentation of popular music.
Actually I think circa 1968 was "the beginning of the fragmentation of popular music". It might seem ludicrous now, but during 1963-1966 The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Searchers, Cliff Richard & The Shadows, The Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, Gerry & The Pacemakers (etc, etc) weren't considered that far apart musically, all being "pop groups" or "beat groups". But from 1967-1968 acts were labelled "pop" or "rock", with very little space inbetween. 'Blue Turns To Grey' was a natural for Cliff Richard to record, just as 'Take It Or Leave It' was for The Searchers, but it's almost impossible to imagine them covering anything from BB / LIB / SF / EOMS. The RS were just too far away from them musically.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
coffeepotman
()
Date: March 10, 2011 21:07
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
MathijsQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
neptune
.
Mathijs
Yes, you are right, but the sixties was really the Stones time. They represented the sixties in a way that's not true of the seventies, because amongst other things, a younger generation was growing up around them, and they were no longer reflections of youth culture etc. I have always believed their relevance in a social sense finished around the time of Altamont, and afterwards they were of course a damn good rock 'n' roll band etc, perhaps even peaking in the early seventies within their own particular brand of rock, but they represented little more, certainly not in terms of them carrying the social aspirations of a generation on their backs. In a sense they turned in on themselves, writing and recording music which pretty much represented their own personal lives and indulgences especially. In a sense they became detached and harder to reach, as they had grown away from their own english surroundings, and had gone global. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a great rock star, but you are perhaps unlikely to mean so much to the masses as when you were indelibly linked to a certain period. The Stones period was most definitely the sixties. The greatness of the 'Satanic Majesties' period, is they were still well in the vanguard of still being leading lights within their own generation, and as much as they may have been influenced by their musical surroundings, it was very much theirs for the taking, as all of the musical advances and influences coherently belonged to their generation. As i have often said previously, it is impossible to detach the Stones from the other leading pop stars of the day, and especially the Beatles, because they were all in the same learning process together, and would be forever be influenced by each other. Pretty much everything the Beatles and Stones were doing in the sixties was a musical first, even though in many instances it wasn't the Stones who had the original ideas. By 71, the Stones had splintered away from the centre ground in terms of profile and musical importance, and to a degree became more marginalised in the process. This was the beginning of the fragmentation of popular music.
I agree, by the 70's there was an entirely new youth culture that didn't identify with the Stones.
Glam Rock, Bowie T Rex punk etc had nothing to do with the 60's..."My brother's back home with his Beatles and his Stones, we never got off on that revolution stuff"
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: March 10, 2011 23:53
Quote
Mathijs
The Stones have always been an exponent of the music of the day, they never where forerunners for any genre at all.
What? Hello, Mathijs, is anybody home? The Stones never forerunners for any genre? Does blues-based rock ring a bell? They were the fathers of the blues-rock movement in the early 60's and legions of bands would soon be copying their sound, using slide guitar, heavy guitar riffs, big bass thumping, etc. Even the Beatles began copying the Stones to some degree. The Beatles, Stones, and Dylan were the gods of the entire 60's music scene, the very core of that whole generation.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 00:06 by neptune.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: March 11, 2011 00:03
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
"For the last time" ?. Hey. we're just conversing here. I might have to talk about "Child of the Moon" and Satanic once again at a later date; not sure yet. LOL
But since the entire premise of my post is hypothetical anyway, and COM
s genesis is from the Satanic sessions - I feel like it makes perfect sense to include it in a wishlist of possibilities.
It's only rock'n rollTwas not directed at you specifically, it always pops up when the album is discussed.
Thing is we don't know whether it was attempted during TSMR or not, all we have is some dubious info that it may have been, no actual recordings etc.
Including Child of The Moon makes as much timescale sense as including Jigsaw Puzzle etc, they most likely could not have been included on Their Satanic Majesties Request because they probably didn't even exist as songs in 1967.
Hi, HM, I'm going from memory here, but isn't COM included on the Satanic Box Set outtakes? The work sessions with keyboard?
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 11, 2011 00:28
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Hi, HM, I'm going from memory here, but isn't COM included on the Satanic Box Set outtakes? The work sessions with keyboard?
Yes it is, but so is Jigsaw Puzzle and the tracks of ongoing sessions of those songs in the box sets date from the 1968 Beggars Banquet sessions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 03:05 by His Majesty.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 11, 2011 03:00
Damn I hate seeing my old threads without their pics, time to get my pics back up and re-posted!
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: March 11, 2011 08:49
Quote
neptuneQuote
Mathijs
The Stones have always been an exponent of the music of the day, they never where forerunners for any genre at all.
What? Hello, Mathijs, is anybody home? The Stones never forerunners for any genre? Does blues-based rock ring a bell? They were the fathers of the blues-rock movement in the early 60's and legions of bands would soon be copying their sound, using slide guitar, heavy guitar riffs, big bass thumping, etc. Even the Beatles began copying the Stones to some degree. The Beatles, Stones, and Dylan were the gods of the entire 60's music scene, the very core of that whole generation.
Yes, i think The Beatles, The Stones and Bob Dylan, all brought something very special to the music scene, although in a sense The Beatles and Bob Dylan influences were used much more exclusively throughout popular music in the sixties - their musical pedigrees in terms of being self sufficient in terms of writing their own songs, and the Beatles ear for melody and later musical diversity, in addition to Bob's thought provoking, and often surreal lyrics, were pretty much the building blocks to what would come as the decade progressed. The Stones blues based sound was influential to a degree, i believe, yet i feel with the Stones, their strengths was often their musical and visual energy, a raw and primitive sound and visual image which pretty much belonged to them alone, and although others have often tried to emulate them, no one has ever come close to their raw, sexy and sometimes funky, interpretation of blues and rock 'n' roll. They are perhaps more about a certain mood within their songs which has greater physicality of sound, than the more academic strengths associated with the Beatles grasp of writing and recording great melodic songs, or Bob Dylan's use of lyrical gravitas and dexterity. The Stones strengths for me were so exclusively their own, they were pretty impossible to emulate, although there have been many groups who have tried, and simply became what appeared an occasional laughable Stones parody. That's pretty down to the uniqueness of the Stones, and their incredible ability to move an audience. That takes an incredible musical chemistry. Subtelty was also a key word, as none of the group were musical virtuosos, yet together they created such a magical sound.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 08:52 by Edward Twining.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: March 11, 2011 09:11
It's a great record. I never really thought of it as a psychedelic record, English psychedelia I mean. Piper summed that up. There's nothing about gnomes, childhood memories, eiderdowns, etc. Maybe if it had come out at the same time as the We Love You single (August), the critical response would have been different. Back then, a few months was like 3 years today. By December 1967, psychedelia (or people's perception of it) was getting passe (rather fast, too).
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
deadegad
()
Date: March 11, 2011 09:15
I saw Furthur's (Grateful Dead) opening show tonight 3/15/11 in New York City and they played an outstanding version of We Love You which emerged from Help On The Way.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 11, 2011 12:32
Quote
neptuneQuote
Mathijs
The Stones have always been an exponent of the music of the day, they never where forerunners for any genre at all.
What? Hello, Mathijs, is anybody home? The Stones never forerunners for any genre? Does blues-based rock ring a bell? They were the fathers of the blues-rock movement in the early 60's and legions of bands would soon be copying their sound, using slide guitar, heavy guitar riffs, big bass thumping, etc. Even the Beatles began copying the Stones to some degree. The Beatles, Stones, and Dylan were the gods of the entire 60's music scene, the very core of that whole generation.
Of course not. They didn't 'invent' anything, they mereley started out as a tribute band to Chicago blues, and there where many, many more bands doing that in '63 and '64. Certainly, they where one of the best (even though many rated the Kinks and The Yardbyrds more highly in the early days) and they where exciting, but they didn't invent a new genre or whatever. And, in '64, all these 'beat groups' where riding on the coattail of the success of the Beatles, fulfilling the audience' need for young, white beat groups, representing their own generation.
It wasn't until about '65 that a watershed came -only bands that could write songs would stay in the limelight, the rest would all slowly dissapear. Until 'Satisfaction' the Stones where big, but as big as many other bands like The Kinks. With Satisfaction they became the number 2 band in the world, and where elevated to Rock Royalty.
Mathijs
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 11, 2011 14:35
Quote
tomk
It's a great record. I never really thought of it as a psychedelic record, English psychedelia I mean. Piper summed that up. There's nothing about gnomes, childhood memories, eiderdowns, etc. Maybe if it had come out at the same time as the We Love You single (August), the critical response would have been different. Back then, a few months was like 3 years today. By December 1967, psychedelia (or people's perception of it) was getting passe (rather fast, too).
There is space, death and the other side, lily's, lakes, rainbows it is very much a psychedelic record with a cool dark, lonely undertone to it.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: March 11, 2011 14:44
Quote
His MajestyQuote
tomk
It's a great record. I never really thought of it as a psychedelic record, English psychedelia I mean. Piper summed that up. There's nothing about gnomes, childhood memories, eiderdowns, etc. Maybe if it had come out at the same time as the We Love You single (August), the critical response would have been different. Back then, a few months was like 3 years today. By December 1967, psychedelia (or people's perception of it) was getting passe (rather fast, too).
There is space, death and the other side, lily's, lakes, rainbows it is very much a psychedelic record with a cool dark, lonely undertone to it.
Excellent summary. For this reason I've always considered the album & We Love You / Dandelion as the perfect antidote to the less cynical whimsy of The Beatles at the time.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: March 11, 2011 15:39
"Matilda Mother"...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
coffeepotman
()
Date: March 11, 2011 16:53
Quote
Sleepy CityQuote
His MajestyQuote
tomk
It's a great record. I never really thought of it as a psychedelic record, English psychedelia I mean. Piper summed that up. There's nothing about gnomes, childhood memories, eiderdowns, etc. Maybe if it had come out at the same time as the We Love You single (August), the critical response would have been different. Back then, a few months was like 3 years today. By December 1967, psychedelia (or people's perception of it) was getting passe (rather fast, too).
There is space, death and the other side, lily's, lakes, rainbows it is very much a psychedelic record with a cool dark, lonely undertone to it.
Excellent summary. For this reason I've always considered the album & We Love You / Dandelion as the perfect antidote to the less cynical whimsy of The Beatles at the time.
Exactly, Sing this All Together is certainly not All You Need is Love or the dreaded All Together Now. There is a darkness here. It's like the maze inside the album, take a different path and end up in a dead end.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
ghostryder13
()
Date: March 11, 2011 17:09
personally i feel that the mono version of the album is alot better. there far too much separation of instruments in the stereo mix plus i never cared much for mixes that had vocals only in one stereo channel
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 11, 2011 18:22
It's more powerful in mono, but I think the amount of instruments at times makes it kind of muddy. Some interesting little details are buried in the mono mix.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 18:22 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 18:22 by His Majesty.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: March 11, 2011 20:45
Quote
coffeepotman
Exactly, Sing this All Together is certainly not All You Need is Love or the dreaded All Together Now. There is a darkness here. It's like the maze inside the album, take a different path and end up in a dead end.
I agree completely. Even when the Stones attempt psychedelia, there is still an element of menace within their delivery. I love Jagger's vocals too in this period. They are perhaps lighter and a little more sensitive at this point, and a long way from his more typical 'rock' voice. I think that that style of singing is still apparent a little in places on 'Beggars Banquet' ('No Expectations' and 'Jigsaw Puzzle'), but by 'Let It Bleed' his voice was well on the way to becoming his more typical 70s 'rock' type voice. Despite being stylistically different, there are still elements that tie 'Satanic Majesties' and 'Beggars Banquet' together, if a little tenuously. 'Beggars Banquet' is so wonderful because the Stones interpetation of the blues (the delta blues) has a sensitivity, which would be forever lost once the Stones began to incorporate more of a rock influence. 'Beggars Banquet' has been long recognised as a triumph for Keith, in him taking the responsiblity for much of the guitar work, yet it's also an enormous triumph for Mick as a singer too, certainly in relation to him fully being in tune with the sentiments of each song. That of course is also true on 'Satanic Majesties'. There is an english, and almost slightly cultured influence to his singing at this point, and perhaps he is a little breathy and nasal sounding too (but not in any way comparable with his more recent nasal singing). Jagger was just so charismatic in this period. I really do miss the young Jagger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-11 20:46 by Edward Twining.
Re: Satanic Majesties appreciation thread
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: March 12, 2011 12:34
Please do! I miss them.Quote
His Majesty
Damn I hate seeing my old threads without their pics, time to get my pics back up and re-posted!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BeastyBurdeny , ChrisMahavishnu , colonial , DiegoGlimmerStones , EddieByword , gaizoku , jmd , Kevinstones78 , kid killowatt , makustone , Marhsall , mariano , Martin90 , mmarloe , Olive , perkmo , rastakeith , rebelhipi , SirMuddy , soundboard , TooTight , TW2019 , Whale
Guests:
1975
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10