Other than very rarely hearing the more obviously well known tracks now & again, I really haven't taken this seriously for more years that some of the fans here have been alive but I sort of stumbled on it and got engaged and let it play all the way through the full album as released, and don't throw too many bricks but I loved it all the way through; I hope I'm not having a flash back or something; trying to think back to when it was released; I got into it; I loved a few right off the bat but even in '67 it wasn't a particular favorite all thru so I was delightfully surprised; I really just loved it; felt really comfortable with all of it; a lot of stuff I had thought second rate really shone. I know it's the easy one to slag but I'm recasting it's place in my casual list of the disography rating; I think there are at least a half-dozen studio LP's I'd rate below it easily now. Maybe more. I was surprised it was engaging as a whole piece and now I'm a real fan of this whole album.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-10 01:35 by hopkins.

You can't beat the feeling of listening through the whole thing. The intros, the transitions, the order, the collection of songs and vibes.

Great album!

I did the 8 outtakes cd box set the entire way thru on a recent road trip.

TSMR is a great album!

It has some really outstanding tracks but also 15 min or so that are pure nonsense. Nevertheless I like TSMR better than highly praised Sgt Pepper which imo contains less great songs than TSMR.

I would appreciate the album more if The Stones were the pioneers...but they werent..they copied everyone else.

Great album that only gets better with age..
I mean the older I get the MORE I love the entire
album..

You do I thnk need to listen to the whole album to realy enjoy the unique atmosphere it creates.

I don't spin it too often...but it's always fun when I do.

No need to rediscover it ... I always liked it. It's not in any of my 'top' lists, but you can't go wrong w/ songs like Citadel, Sing This Altogether (regular version), 2000 Light Years ... some really good tracks, and very good b-sides!

Quote
HMS
It has some really outstanding tracks but also 15 min or so that are pure nonsense. Nevertheless I like TSMR better than highly praised Sgt Pepper which imo contains less great songs than TSMR.

It's great to see people suffer like this.

You might be interested in this:
[www.youtube.com]
I guess you could call it TSM2R...

While obviously not the best material they ever recorded, and a fairly uneven album, with a few killer tracks and some duds, nonetheless a wonderful steer off the highway if only for a few months before they got back on track.

Their catalogue and legacy are the better for this little veer off course.

In the "Track talk"-thread for that song, I wrote, wanting a correction, if there is a basis for it.

Quote
Witness
As I have said also in other threads:

I once read, I don't remember where, with all difference between them, that, allegedly, the motif for "2000 Light Years from Home" was to have been the Byrds song "CTA 102" from their third album YOUNGER THAN YESTERDAY.

I wonder if that assertion may be verified or rejected. Especially in case of verification, it would serve as one proof that the Rolling Stones took their inspiration in a highly indirect way, quite contrary to claims from some fans of the Beatles as to how and from whom the Stones were inspired.

Nobody has so far responded.

Then I read here:

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
I would appreciate the album more if The Stones were the pioneers...but they werent..they copied everyone else.

As you present what to me appears as a myth: Please tell me then, from whom did the Stones copy "2000 Light Years from Home"?
Because to copy is one thing, to be inspired by some others' creation in an indirect way is something completely different.

Quote
Witness
In the "Track talk"-thread for that song, I wrote, wanting a correction, if there is a basis for it.

Quote
Witness
As I have said also in other threads:

I once read, I don't remember where, with all difference between them, that, allegedly, the motif for "2000 Light Years from Home" was to have been the Byrds song "CTA 102" from their third album YOUNGER THAN YESTERDAY.

I wonder if that assertion may be verified or rejected. Especially in case of verification, it would serve as one proof that the Rolling Stones took their inspiration in a highly indirect way, quite contrary to claims from some fans of the Beatles as to how and from whom the Stones were inspired.

Nobody has so far responded.

Then I read here:

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
I would appreciate the album more if The Stones were the pioneers...but they werent..they copied everyone else.

As you present what to me appears as a myth: Please tell me then, from whom did the Stones copy "2000 Light Years from Home"?
Because to copy is one thing, to be inspired by some others' creation in an indirect way is something completely different.

excellent points witness...the only thing they can be accused of mimicking is the cover, which still looks ridiculous, but then I wouldn't change that either!

Quote
Witness
In the "Track talk"-thread for that song, I wrote, wanting a correction, if there is a basis for it.

Quote
Witness
As I have said also in other threads:

I once read, I don't remember where, with all difference between them, that, allegedly, the motif for "2000 Light Years from Home" was to have been the Byrds song "CTA 102" from their third album YOUNGER THAN YESTERDAY.

I wonder if that assertion may be verified or rejected. Especially in case of verification, it would serve as one proof that the Rolling Stones took their inspiration in a highly indirect way, quite contrary to claims from some fans of the Beatles as to how and from whom the Stones were inspired.

Nobody has so far responded.

Perhaps the reason no one has responded is because I can't hear anything remotely influential in that Byrds track, similar to how musically there's nothing remotely influential from PET SOUNDS for SGT PEPPERS.

Other than the noise, anyway.

I never heard of that CTA102 song, and just listened to it, but I don't hear any resemblence with 2000 LYFH.

But as Picasso alledgedly once said, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal".

I can't hear it either, Witness. The only common ground is within the use of effects, I guess?

The Byrds song is about an abduction in a space ship by creatures from outer space. That and only that, may constitute an inspiration for the Stones song, if what I once read somewhere, is correct.

It's possible that one could say the "copying The Beatles" bit about TSMR is that the songs on TSMR, other than 2000 Light Years, 2000 Man, Citadel and She's A Rainbow (might as well include We Love You) are not inventively good and were whacked out in a way of wanting to be like The Beatles.

On With The Show reeks of imitating McCartney's old timey kind of songs, like When I'm Sixty Four, which of course is on PEPPERS.

Whether there's any truth to that can only be based on what the Stones have said about TSMR, and if the comparisons are accurate as stated by the Stones, well, there you go.

Which hasn't been the case that I've ever seen. Mick said in 1995 There's two good songs on it: She's A Rainbow, which we didn't do on the last tour, although we almost did, and 2000 Light Years from Home, which we did do. The rest of them are nonsense... I think we were just taking too much acid. We were just getting carried away, just thinking anything you did was fun and everyone should listen to it.


So I don't believe that is the case, the imitating The Beatles thing - it's most likely people that are stuck in the stupid modality of The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones or are incapable of admitting that not everything the Stones did was good but bad or really bad (DIRTY WORK, various songs on STEEL WHEELS-A BIGGER BANG) or inventive (DIRTY WORK and BRIDGES TO BABYLON especially).



Mick: Satanic Majesties had interesting things on it, but I don't think any of the songs are very good. It's a bit like Between The Buttons. It's a sound experience, really, rather than a song experience. There's 2 good songs on it: She's A Rainbow, and 2000 Light Years from Home. The rest of them are nonsense... I think we were just taking too much acid. We were just getting carried away, just thinking anything you did was fun and everyone should listen to it. The whole thing we were on acid...

Satanic Majesties was the mood of the time. You can't play or write outside the mood of the times, unless you live on a mountain... In those times it was flowers, beads and stars on your face, that's what it was. In fact, I'm rather fond of that album, and I wouldn't mind doing something like that again... (W)e were just obviously out to lunch. I'm saying this because I just heard it recently and realized how much I liked it. What surprised me was the comedic feeling and all the jokes and things we'd never dream of doing now.

Keith: It's so unbelievable. It was so weird to make an album and not be on the road that it was totally UNLIKE recording. I liked a few songs, like 2000 Light Years, Citadel and She's a Rainbow, but basically I thought the album was a load of crap. That album was made under the pressure of the court cases and the whole scene that was going on in London at that time.

[timeisonourside.com]

About the album cover:
We were just loony, and after the Beatles had done Sgt. Pepper, it was like, Let's get even more ridiculous.
- Keith Richards, 2003

Mick hints that recording the album started out on a good note but it quickly went into the toilet:

The first thing we did was She's a Rainbow, then 2000 Light Years from Home, then Citadel and it just got freakier as we went along.
Mick Jagger, 1968


I liked a few songs, like 2000 Light Years, Citadel and She's a Rainbow, but basically I thought the album was a load of crap. That album was made under the pressure of the court cases and the whole scene that was going on in London at that time.
- Keith Richards, 1979


It's a fractured album. There are some good bits, and it's weird, and there's some real crap on it as well.
- Keith Richards, 1981



[timeisonourside.com]

Now, as I leave work, only to say that my ideas of what is great, good, adequate or not so adequate, are sometimes different from yours, in certain instance directly opposite . And I have got something of that fan boy approach, even if I don't claim that all is great or good.

Only a couple of examples. "Always Suffering". Or related to this thread: "The Lantern" and "Gomper". The latter song to me is a very gem. Besides, I love "In Another Land" and "On with the Show". And as a whole, I don't want to take away anything from this album. It is a totality.

Edit: A word had been used twice in a sentence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-04 13:31 by Witness.

Like you say, it's a good album taken as a whole. It's better than the sum of its parts.
It has a good, fun vibe.
The idea they were copying the Beatles is silly, imo. All those acts were being influenced by similar things going on in the world. They were all roughly the same age, same background same influences. The Beatles were great copyists, too.

Open Memo to Mr.HMS, Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, were due to be on Pepper, but to EMI pressure needing a single, they went as a double "A" side single so I would beg to differ on you about TSMR being a stronger better release...

I loved TSMR when it was released. The album was a reflection of the times and what the band was going through. It is a unique album because it provided extra enjoyment for those experimenting with psychedelics. I can say through hands on experience long ago that TSMR had a special and unique Stones vibe to it when tripping. Sure it sounds good if you are straight, but....

Just say'n.

Quote
wonderboy
Like you say, it's a good album taken as a whole. It's better than the sum of its parts.
It has a good, fun vibe.
The idea they were copying the Beatles is silly, imo. All those acts were being influenced by similar things going on in the world. They were all roughly the same age, same background same influences. The Beatles were great copyists, too.

I think the only thing really the Stones 'copied' was the idea to stretch themselves beyond the blues and pop and to get really creative.

For the most part, the experiment didn't work, but it was a great departure and resulted in a few gems.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

discovered some outtakes from the album recently which show the real strength of depth the stones had at that time, TSMR is a great album, yes its a bit uneven but the atmosphere and energy of most songs are great. the album adds to the stones mystery.

Always loved this album. Had some great TRIPS with this one playing

Underrated album, and as already mentioned, as a whole its not bad. On with the show (one more try at Kinks worst songs) is not good but somehow even the opened and closer on side one fits the experience. Experience it is. And there is no logic at all in the hate for Gomper and sometimes the Lantern. The Lantern is the best song on the album. Im not kidding. I like 2000 years and citadel but Shes a rainbow is very overrated. The Lantern is the albums deepest and most significant track and one of their most underrated songs ever. Gomper is a filler but it fits the album. It has to be there.

The "psychedelic album" holds a different title in the Beatles catalog vs. the Stones'. "Pepper" reigns supreme; is considered one of their best albums, and actually one of the greatest albums ever recorded. "Satanic" is usually seen as one of the Stones' low points.
This is interesting because it shows the difference in what the two bands were pursuing; and also what the public's expectations were. How would it have been received if the Stones had done 'Sgt Pepper"?
IMO 'Satanic" is a great album. Every band should have a 'Satanic" in their catalog. An album where they took a lot of dope, and ventured far out of their boundaries. (Self imposed boundaries). It doesn't matter all that much if some perceive it as failure. It can't fail, because it's the action that counts. You could say that "Metal Machine Music" is Lou Reed's 'Satanic".
And there is a lot of work in those tracks. There are really only 2 songs that are sloppy. "See What Happens", and maybe the second half of "Gomper". But even they have purpose.
"See what happens" is psychedlic answer to "Sing this all together"; where a stoner finds "Patterns!" .
And "Gomper" first off is a beautiful song; great lyrics and music. The jam is a bit much, but it's '67, and it is good to let Brian rip. IMO if there is a fault in that second part it's the percussion.
All the other songs are good. When delving into the 8 CD set of the outtakes I found "The Lantern" fascinating. Loved how Keith was working on that lead guitar line with Nicky, and Brian, I believe.
Had the Stones included "We Love You", "Dandelion" and "Child of the Moon". Maybe even worked up the bluesy "Gold Painted Fingernails" - and left off a couple , who knows?

Dreadful album with only a couple of redeeming songs, 2000, RAINBOW. BUT PRODUCTION WISE? It's just so... Thin and tinny.

Rod

The mono release is awesome I love it even more...

Quote
treaclefingers
While obviously not the best material they ever recorded, and a fairly uneven album, with a few killer tracks and some duds, nonetheless a wonderful steer off the highway if only for a few months before they got back on track.

Their catalogue and legacy are the better for this little veer off course.

I agree, BUT--I wonder if I'd enjoy it so much if they'd never gotten back on course.