Tell Me :
Talk
why including singles track onto lp..?no space then not good,little by little is sadly b side & lp track .
Agree, but they could have chosen other singles - cuz this album really needed a couple of great tracks more, imo.
TSMR is my second favorite album by the Stones. Only BB is superior.
I would say, leave the original alone and add We Love You and Dandelion as you suggest. Now that would be a classic.
Looking at the following lineup, I can't believe there are 4 people gone!
In Another Land
Mick Jagger - vocals
Keith Richards - 12 string acoustic guitar, vocals
Brian Jones - mellotron
Bill Wyman - bass guitar, vocals
Charlie Watts - drums
Nicky Hopkins - piano, harpsichord
Steve Marriott & Ronnie Lane - vocals
According to some in this forum, 4 and a half, if you include Keith.
Interesting point Doxa!
No brass session at all in "She's a rainbow"... mellotron. And "oscillator" is a Theremin
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
There isn't a mellotron on Gomper.
Barbarella.
Nice MileHigh, couldn't agree more
Hold on, now. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is only 'nice' melody on the Sgt. Pepper's album? Are you kidding me? What do you mean by 'nice'? (Does that mean good or bad?).
Are you saying "Getting Better," or "A Day in the Life" are not 'nice' melodies?
Come on!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
vancouver
()
Date: June 29, 2012 12:08
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I have always been a bit ambivalent to this album, but it has grown on me.
The 8,5 minute Sing This All Together (See What Happens) could easily have been skipped - although they seemingly thought it was great fun.
2000 Light Years From Home is a classic, and probably is some of the best work they've ever done, imo.
She's A Rainbow is up there as well.
I have always liked the mystery feeling of The Lantern, as well as Keith's guitar playing on it.
Gomper has grown on me, and there has been times where I have dissed this track, but really meant to talk about Sing This All Together (See What Happens).
In Another Land is underrated, imo. The melody and the atmosphere in this track is really great. Bill's goofy vocals as well.
A good album. Had they included We Love You and Dandelion, it would have been a classic
why including singles track onto lp..?no space then not good,little by little is sadly b side & lp track .
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 29, 2012 12:15
Quote
vancouverQuote
DandelionPowderman
I have always been a bit ambivalent to this album, but it has grown on me.
The 8,5 minute Sing This All Together (See What Happens) could easily have been skipped - although they seemingly thought it was great fun.
2000 Light Years From Home is a classic, and probably is some of the best work they've ever done, imo.
She's A Rainbow is up there as well.
I have always liked the mystery feeling of The Lantern, as well as Keith's guitar playing on it.
Gomper has grown on me, and there has been times where I have dissed this track, but really meant to talk about Sing This All Together (See What Happens).
In Another Land is underrated, imo. The melody and the atmosphere in this track is really great. Bill's goofy vocals as well.
A good album. Had they included We Love You and Dandelion, it would have been a classic
why including singles track onto lp..?no space then not good,little by little is sadly b side & lp track .
Agree, but they could have chosen other singles - cuz this album really needed a couple of great tracks more, imo.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
vancouver
()
Date: June 29, 2012 12:55
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
vancouverQuote
DandelionPowderman
I have always been a bit ambivalent to this album, but it has grown on me.
The 8,5 minute Sing This All Together (See What Happens) could easily have been skipped - although they seemingly thought it was great fun.
2000 Light Years From Home is a classic, and probably is some of the best work they've ever done, imo.
She's A Rainbow is up there as well.
all tracks are great !
I have always liked the mystery feeling of The Lantern, as well as Keith's guitar playing on it.
Gomper has grown on me, and there has been times where I have dissed this track, but really meant to talk about Sing This All Together (See What Happens).
In Another Land is underrated, imo. The melody and the atmosphere in this track is really great. Bill's goofy vocals as well.
A good album. Had they included We Love You and Dandelion, it would have been a classic
why including singles track onto lp..?no space then not good,little by little is sadly b side & lp track .
Agree, but they could have chosen other singles - cuz this album really needed a couple of great tracks more, imo.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
Cafaro
()
Date: June 29, 2012 16:43
The only stuff I like from this disc is:
Citadel (I thought BJ played guitar on this),
The Lantern ( a forerunner of what was to be on Beggars)
Gold Painter Fingernails..........great groove
2000 Light Years...to me, sort of lame until KR and Charlie start meshing
Rainbow........silly
When you compare it with other discs of it's time and ilk, TSMR sounds dated and unfocused. Just a mess really.
I mean...........who really listens to this disc?
Citadel (I thought BJ played guitar on this),
The Lantern ( a forerunner of what was to be on Beggars)
Gold Painter Fingernails..........great groove
2000 Light Years...to me, sort of lame until KR and Charlie start meshing
Rainbow........silly
When you compare it with other discs of it's time and ilk, TSMR sounds dated and unfocused. Just a mess really.
I mean...........who really listens to this disc?
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 29, 2012 17:19
For me, this is a top 10 favourite of everything they released, up to about 1967.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
tonterapi
()
Date: June 29, 2012 18:44
To me it sounds no more dated than BTB or Aftermath actually. They belong in their contexts and 67 was a year of mess for the Stones in many ways.Quote
Cafaro
When you compare it with other discs of it's time and ilk, TSMR sounds dated and unfocused. Just a mess really.
I mean...........who really listens to this disc?
TSMR is my second favorite album by the Stones. Only BB is superior.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
Christian
()
Date: June 29, 2012 19:13
here [www.unknown.nu] you got a work from a guy named John Moores about the Brian Jones era sessions (it's from nov 2002)
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: June 29, 2012 19:48
She's A Rainbow, silly? Please. Although they weren't able to maintain it for many songs, they absolutely nailed psychedelia here. And it was a a valid music for its time. The Stones don't begin and end with rock and blues. They stretched their wings much further than those limitations.
Speck of white, so fair and pale....
Speck of white, so fair and pale....
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
scottkeef
()
Date: June 29, 2012 23:25
John Lennon once said about 'Satanic" that the stones always waited to see what the beatles did and then put out theirs. While the similarities are there and Satanic of course doesnt stand up like Peppers I always thought while there were some weak moments ( the All together jam was a waste of grooves except the classic "wheres that joint?" line!), Citadel rocks and 2000 Man while lyrically is dated as hell has some of the coolest "pickin' & grinnin" around! Plus how can 2000 Light Years NOT be a classic of the times? The entire LP is the final "freak out" that began with "Have You Seen Your Mother". There was just nowhere to go afterwards but back to the basics of "Beggars", of course thats all my opinion only..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-29 23:27 by scottkeef.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-29 23:27 by scottkeef.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
Blue
()
Date: June 30, 2012 06:52
I don't know what's wrong with me, but I like Satanic much better than Pepper, and always did. I don't hear a really nice melody on ANY song from Pepper, maybe Lucy in the Sky during the refrain but that's it...but the Stones managed to put out several, at least four anyway, Psychadelic songs with great melodies..(Rainbow, 2000 Light Years, Citadel, and 2000 Man)..no disrespect to the Beatles though, adored the Beatles up until Rubber Soul...after that, the Stones produced better druggy music than the Beatles by then IMHO.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: October 3, 2012 01:23
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I have always been a bit ambivalent to this album, but it has grown on me.
The 8,5 minute Sing This All Together (See What Happens) could easily have been skipped - although they seemingly thought it was great fun.
2000 Light Years From Home is a classic, and probably is some of the best work they've ever done, imo.
She's A Rainbow is up there as well.
I have always liked the mystery feeling of The Lantern, as well as Keith's guitar playing on it.
Gomper has grown on me, and there has been times where I have dissed this track, but really meant to talk about Sing This All Together (See What Happens).
In Another Land is underrated, imo. The melody and the atmosphere in this track is really great. Bill's goofy vocals as well.
A good album. Had they included We Love You and Dandelion, it would have been a classic
I would say, leave the original alone and add We Love You and Dandelion as you suggest. Now that would be a classic.
Looking at the following lineup, I can't believe there are 4 people gone!
In Another Land
Mick Jagger - vocals
Keith Richards - 12 string acoustic guitar, vocals
Brian Jones - mellotron
Bill Wyman - bass guitar, vocals
Charlie Watts - drums
Nicky Hopkins - piano, harpsichord
Steve Marriott & Ronnie Lane - vocals
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: October 3, 2012 02:06
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
I have always been a bit ambivalent to this album, but it has grown on me.
The 8,5 minute Sing This All Together (See What Happens) could easily have been skipped - although they seemingly thought it was great fun.
2000 Light Years From Home is a classic, and probably is some of the best work they've ever done, imo.
She's A Rainbow is up there as well.
I have always liked the mystery feeling of The Lantern, as well as Keith's guitar playing on it.
Gomper has grown on me, and there has been times where I have dissed this track, but really meant to talk about Sing This All Together (See What Happens).
In Another Land is underrated, imo. The melody and the atmosphere in this track is really great. Bill's goofy vocals as well.
A good album. Had they included We Love You and Dandelion, it would have been a classic
I would say, leave the original alone and add We Love You and Dandelion as you suggest. Now that would be a classic.
Looking at the following lineup, I can't believe there are 4 people gone!
In Another Land
Mick Jagger - vocals
Keith Richards - 12 string acoustic guitar, vocals
Brian Jones - mellotron
Bill Wyman - bass guitar, vocals
Charlie Watts - drums
Nicky Hopkins - piano, harpsichord
Steve Marriott & Ronnie Lane - vocals
According to some in this forum, 4 and a half, if you include Keith.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
RockinBud
()
Date: October 3, 2012 02:44
BOUGHT AND HAVE THE ORIGINAL lp W 3d COVER
passed on the 8 track, the casette and the cd,
dont have a mp3
never listen to it
dont miss it
but I used to groove on it on cough syrup when I didnt have any dope
2000 LYFH sounded great then, still does
RB
passed on the 8 track, the casette and the cd,
dont have a mp3
never listen to it
dont miss it
but I used to groove on it on cough syrup when I didnt have any dope
2000 LYFH sounded great then, still does
RB
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: October 3, 2012 11:59
I always liked Their Satanic Majesties Request because it capsures the experimental and psychedelic times of 1967. 2000 Light Years From Home sounds Trance -like and dark and more of this on 2000 LYFH -instrumental demo on the double vinyl Bootleg; The Beatles and The Rolling Stones Sing This all Together.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 3, 2012 14:05
SATANIC MAJESTIES is one of those (rare) albums that it is difficult to say if it is great, good, bad or disaster, but whatever it is, it is interesting. And so interesting that it needs to be good... And as the years go by, none of its odd charm doesn't fade away - it is the contrary I think.
It captures the band in an interesting process when reaching maturity as a pop group, and it is the first album they seem to think in terms of its wholeness - not even American version didn't have hit single "We Love You"/"Dandelion" included to 'destroy' the artistic argument. Okay, it probably didn't meet the high expectations the artits themselves probably were seeking for, but still is rather strong musical statement without which the whole Stones catalog would be pretty much thinner.
There are raelly fine (by Stonesian criterion) individual songs: "Gomper", "2000 Man", "She's A Rainbow" and "2000 Light Years From Home". But then there are some almost 'turds' as well. The worst is two versions of "Sing This All Together", and I think it is basically thsoe two numbers that prevents this album ever to be considered a masterpiece - they pretty much dictate the feeling of the side one, and that leaves an eternal effect in trying to enjoy the album. Also "On With The Show" might be a funny way to stop the album, but actually I have never warmed to it. Sounds just just so damn artificial and 'cheap' with its tricks. All the rest is okay material, Bill's number even surprisingly good, each number having depthness and dareness, which makes them, like I said, interesting.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-03 14:15 by Doxa.
It captures the band in an interesting process when reaching maturity as a pop group, and it is the first album they seem to think in terms of its wholeness - not even American version didn't have hit single "We Love You"/"Dandelion" included to 'destroy' the artistic argument. Okay, it probably didn't meet the high expectations the artits themselves probably were seeking for, but still is rather strong musical statement without which the whole Stones catalog would be pretty much thinner.
There are raelly fine (by Stonesian criterion) individual songs: "Gomper", "2000 Man", "She's A Rainbow" and "2000 Light Years From Home". But then there are some almost 'turds' as well. The worst is two versions of "Sing This All Together", and I think it is basically thsoe two numbers that prevents this album ever to be considered a masterpiece - they pretty much dictate the feeling of the side one, and that leaves an eternal effect in trying to enjoy the album. Also "On With The Show" might be a funny way to stop the album, but actually I have never warmed to it. Sounds just just so damn artificial and 'cheap' with its tricks. All the rest is okay material, Bill's number even surprisingly good, each number having depthness and dareness, which makes them, like I said, interesting.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-03 14:15 by Doxa.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 3, 2012 22:05
There is more filler on Piper at the Gates of Dawn, yet that album gets lots of praise. Their Satanic Majesties Request is a psychedelic gem. I wish they had chose to keep more of the weirdness for their follow up album than they actually did.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: October 4, 2012 01:24
The onlt wrong thing is Micks idiotic attempt with Sing this all together and On with the show. The music is not bad, the trance, delic etc tracks are good.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
UnionHall
()
Date: October 4, 2012 05:47
Satanic is the Stones album that just continues to grow on me. The ability to develop a concept album such as this and to maintain its sound of darkness, psychedelia and space is rather a fete in itself. If for no other reason, it is the Stones album that stands alone and in a category by itself. I recall that it was voted Bad Trip Album of the year by some magazine, and that Jagger once said he would like to do another album like SMR.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: October 4, 2012 09:54
Actually there is a lot to say about this exciting album - I think the term 'exciting' is even better than 'interesting'.
I take one point. That is the approach of Jagger/Richard tandem for song-writing. With this album they abandon their old 'pop song' writing style - with catchy melodies and easy-pleasing structures (chords, choruses, etc.). Like they are really 'deconstructing' the whole idae of song structure. Difficult to say how much does it arive from their own muse or how much just following 'psychedelic' trends (more the latter I quess), but that doesn't really matter. Like I think I have argued many times, that kind of 'experiment' in studying the whole idea of a song was needed in order to come up with such masterpieces as BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED later. Keith's way to write songs based on just two or three chords, and to his expriments in open tunings are logical developments of that (that of rediscovering and reiventing the simplicity of 'blues form' being part of that). Actually it would many years until Mick and Keith would do again such 'easy-listening' melodic pop songs, a'la "Ruby Tuesday", "Lady Jane", "Mothers' Little Helper", "Yesterday's Papers", etc, etc, ("Angie"?). This is to say that BEGGARS BANQUET couldn't have born from BETWEEN THE BUTTONS without the 'exercise' on song structure in SATANIC MAJESTIES.
To really grasp the difference to songwriting I talk here is to compare "Under My Thumb" to "Gimme Shelter", both being highlights of different 'eras', both even using the basic same chord sequence, but going totally different directions: the former needing much more chords and melodic ideas to make it a proper song, while the latter perfecting the 'less is more' philosophy, and really working out the possibilities of the basic chords.
Like His Majesty mentioned above that "Child of The Moon" is like a 'bridge' between SATANIC MAJESTIES and BEGGARS BANQUET, I would claim that "Dandelion" is a kind of bridge between BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and SATANIC MAJESTIES. There is still that melodic structure, but also some hints of the new style to come. The other side of the single, "We Love You", is already 'pure' SATANIC MAJESTIES number.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-04 10:15 by Doxa.
I take one point. That is the approach of Jagger/Richard tandem for song-writing. With this album they abandon their old 'pop song' writing style - with catchy melodies and easy-pleasing structures (chords, choruses, etc.). Like they are really 'deconstructing' the whole idae of song structure. Difficult to say how much does it arive from their own muse or how much just following 'psychedelic' trends (more the latter I quess), but that doesn't really matter. Like I think I have argued many times, that kind of 'experiment' in studying the whole idea of a song was needed in order to come up with such masterpieces as BEGGARS BANQUET and LET IT BLEED later. Keith's way to write songs based on just two or three chords, and to his expriments in open tunings are logical developments of that (that of rediscovering and reiventing the simplicity of 'blues form' being part of that). Actually it would many years until Mick and Keith would do again such 'easy-listening' melodic pop songs, a'la "Ruby Tuesday", "Lady Jane", "Mothers' Little Helper", "Yesterday's Papers", etc, etc, ("Angie"?). This is to say that BEGGARS BANQUET couldn't have born from BETWEEN THE BUTTONS without the 'exercise' on song structure in SATANIC MAJESTIES.
To really grasp the difference to songwriting I talk here is to compare "Under My Thumb" to "Gimme Shelter", both being highlights of different 'eras', both even using the basic same chord sequence, but going totally different directions: the former needing much more chords and melodic ideas to make it a proper song, while the latter perfecting the 'less is more' philosophy, and really working out the possibilities of the basic chords.
Like His Majesty mentioned above that "Child of The Moon" is like a 'bridge' between SATANIC MAJESTIES and BEGGARS BANQUET, I would claim that "Dandelion" is a kind of bridge between BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and SATANIC MAJESTIES. There is still that melodic structure, but also some hints of the new style to come. The other side of the single, "We Love You", is already 'pure' SATANIC MAJESTIES number.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-04 10:15 by Doxa.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 4, 2012 09:56
Dandelion does indeed sound and feel like a bridge between those albums.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
RobberBride
()
Date: October 4, 2012 12:25
Quote
Doxa
Like His Majesty mentioned above that "Child of The Moon" is like a 'bridge' between SATANIC MAJESTIES and BEGGARS BANQUET, I would claim that "Dandelion" is a kind of bridge between BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and SATANIC MAJESTIES.
- Doxa
Interesting point Doxa!
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
dandelion1967
()
Date: October 4, 2012 15:11
Quote
His Majesty
February - October 1967 recording session instrument credits...
She's A Rainbow
Mick Jagger - vocals, percussion
Keith Richards - acoustic guitar, vocals
Brian Jones - mellotron
Bill Wyman - bass guitar
Charlie Watts - drums
Nicky Hopkins - piano
John Paul Jones - string and brass section arrangement
(Uncredited musicians)??? - string and brass section
2000 Light Years from Home
Mick Jagger - vocals, percussion
Keith Richards - electric guitar, vocals
Brian Jones - mellotron
Bill Wyman - bass guitar
Charlie Watts - drums
Nicky Hopkins - piano
(Brian Jones, Bill Wyman)??? - oscillator
No brass session at all in "She's a rainbow"... mellotron. And "oscillator" is a Theremin
--------------------------------------------
"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"
--------------------------------------------
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: October 4, 2012 15:26
Well spotted regarding no brass section in She's A Rainbow, I did cover the mellotron part, just a lil error creeping in. 
It is indeed an oscillator, not a theremin on 2000 Light Years From Home.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-04 15:30 by His Majesty.
It is indeed an oscillator, not a theremin on 2000 Light Years From Home.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-04 15:30 by His Majesty.
Concert harp & Harpsichord with damper
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 5, 2013 19:56
Perhaps this was obvious to others, but I've long thought that in addition to playing Mellotron on On With The Show, Brian also played a concert harp during the weird breaks. Upon further listening I've since realised that what I had thought was a concert harp is in fact a harpsichord with a dampers engaged, this has the effect of giving the harpsichord a cluncky and muted sound.
This harpsichord part mirrors note for note the piano part so I think it's safe to assume that both the piano and harpsichord were played by Nicky Hopkins. Nicky also used the harpsichord with dampers engaged during sessions for Bill's In Another Land.
Listen here:
Brian does play the concert harp on Acid In The Grass from the Bell Sound Acetate bootleg.
Listen here:
This harpsichord part mirrors note for note the piano part so I think it's safe to assume that both the piano and harpsichord were played by Nicky Hopkins. Nicky also used the harpsichord with dampers engaged during sessions for Bill's In Another Land.
Listen here:
Brian does play the concert harp on Acid In The Grass from the Bell Sound Acetate bootleg.
Listen here:
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
Mock Jogger
()
Date: March 28, 2013 02:32
This album has been called a failure often enough. But it contains a lot of interesting musical material that could have been compiled in a way that would have improved its impact.
The reputation of Satanic has certainly suffered from the wide-spread perception of it as a Sergeant Pepper rip-off. The Stones using the same photographer in a poor attempt to outdo the bombastic Beatles artwork didn't help. Actually, Pepper owes a lot more to the Byrds' criminally underrated Younger Than Yesterday (released on 6 Feb. 1967) than Satanic to Pepper. But get this in the head of some Beatles fans believing the Beatles invented psychedelic music (if not pop music altogether).
However, talking about improving Satanic:
- Cover:
On the cover shot only Brian and Keith keep their dignity. Especially Mick looks embarrassingly ridiculous. Still, the cover would have been much better if it had come without that blue margin. (And even better if they'd used one of the much better shots of the same photo session. The Stones definitely had the charisma to illustrate the indeed brilliant album title Their Satanic Majesties Request.)
- Music:
There are good genuine album moments there, apart from the general accepted tracks She's A Rainbow and 2000 Light Years From Home. To name a few: at the end of Sing This All Together the horn sound going into the solid album track Citadel; the beginning of Gomper, the first few instrumental bars, is truly unprecedented musical magic (until the singing and with it an only half inspired song sets in); the way the Mellotron sounds on Gomper foreshadow the eerie atmosphere of 2000 Light Years is another brilliant part.
So instead of going the easy way - the cynical 60s American record industry way - to improve Satanic by including the two tracks of the previous single (this would have done the Stones no good in a year when a new approach to albums being taken seriously as art form was vital for bands that mattered), my tracklisting would have been as follows:
Side 1
1. On With The Show (3:39)
2. Citadel (2:53) including the horn sounds of Sing This All Together from 3:45 to 3:47 as intro
3. In Another Land (3:13)
4. She's A Rainbow (4:11) without the talking intro from 0:00 to 0:24
5. Sing This All Together (See What Happens), pt. 1 (7:00) as new intro instead of the original dabbling/party talk intro from 0:00 to 0:23 I'd use the talking intro of She's A Rainbow until the guitar riff comes in at 0:23; at the end I'd cut the track off at - originally - 6:59, just before the piano notes that introduce the vocals
(Total timing of side 1: 20:56)
Side 2
1. Sing This All Together (See What Happens), pt. 2 (1:34) the part that originally is from 6:59 to the end of the track at 8:33
2. The Lantern (4:22)
3. Gomper, pt. 1 (2:15) slow fade out from 2:05 to 2:15
4. 2000 Man (3:07)
5. Gomper, pt. 2 (2:49) directly in at 2:19 whith the thrilling recorder as intro
6. 2000 Light Years From Home (4:44)
(Total timing of side 2: 18:51)
Total timing of complete album: 39:47
Sing This All Together would be relegated to the B-side of a single (where it belongs), apart from its only truly worthwhile part, the last 2 seconds.
I'm aware it would still be not everyone's most favorite album. Most controversial probably that my version still includes Sing This All Together (See What Happens).
Actually I think it is not the strongest track ever, but still with some interesting moments - more than Sing This All Together. Other great albums of the time include experimental tracks testing the patience of the impatient listener (look at the Beatles: Revolution No. 9, Within You, Without You). The patience of the listeners of the original Satanic is basically tested too much because the most experimental track comes not just in one, but in two - large - parts coming too shortly after each other and divided not by the best but by the middle of the road tracks of the album.
By erasing the unnecessary first part, by putting the greatest pop tune of the album, She's A Rainbow on side 1, before the difficult experimental track and by seperating the still left part of the difficult experimental track in two, getting its new two parts on different sides of the album (as well as later seperating the experimental part of Gomper from the straighter song part) I think the experimental character of Satanic is still there, but presented with more space between and thus more entertaining.
Two other comments:
- 2000 Light Years is not only a brilliant track (the most brilliant track that was released in 1967, in my opinion), it is a perfect closing number. Closing with a very good number is always a good option to make an album better.
- On With The Show as opener: this could be seen as a parody of the Beatles: when they start with orchestral noises the Stones start with nightclub blabbing. At the same time musically On With The Show is loose and open, not as definitive as the original opener (and not as dumb) and therefore quite fitting for the whole album. At the same time it still leaves room (a lot of room, indeed), for the following, stronger titles like Citadel and In Another Land, making the start of the album a promising sequence reaching a first climax with the fourth track of my version, She's A Rainbow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
The reputation of Satanic has certainly suffered from the wide-spread perception of it as a Sergeant Pepper rip-off. The Stones using the same photographer in a poor attempt to outdo the bombastic Beatles artwork didn't help. Actually, Pepper owes a lot more to the Byrds' criminally underrated Younger Than Yesterday (released on 6 Feb. 1967) than Satanic to Pepper. But get this in the head of some Beatles fans believing the Beatles invented psychedelic music (if not pop music altogether).
However, talking about improving Satanic:
- Cover:
On the cover shot only Brian and Keith keep their dignity. Especially Mick looks embarrassingly ridiculous. Still, the cover would have been much better if it had come without that blue margin. (And even better if they'd used one of the much better shots of the same photo session. The Stones definitely had the charisma to illustrate the indeed brilliant album title Their Satanic Majesties Request.)
- Music:
There are good genuine album moments there, apart from the general accepted tracks She's A Rainbow and 2000 Light Years From Home. To name a few: at the end of Sing This All Together the horn sound going into the solid album track Citadel; the beginning of Gomper, the first few instrumental bars, is truly unprecedented musical magic (until the singing and with it an only half inspired song sets in); the way the Mellotron sounds on Gomper foreshadow the eerie atmosphere of 2000 Light Years is another brilliant part.
So instead of going the easy way - the cynical 60s American record industry way - to improve Satanic by including the two tracks of the previous single (this would have done the Stones no good in a year when a new approach to albums being taken seriously as art form was vital for bands that mattered), my tracklisting would have been as follows:
Side 1
1. On With The Show (3:39)
2. Citadel (2:53) including the horn sounds of Sing This All Together from 3:45 to 3:47 as intro
3. In Another Land (3:13)
4. She's A Rainbow (4:11) without the talking intro from 0:00 to 0:24
5. Sing This All Together (See What Happens), pt. 1 (7:00) as new intro instead of the original dabbling/party talk intro from 0:00 to 0:23 I'd use the talking intro of She's A Rainbow until the guitar riff comes in at 0:23; at the end I'd cut the track off at - originally - 6:59, just before the piano notes that introduce the vocals
(Total timing of side 1: 20:56)
Side 2
1. Sing This All Together (See What Happens), pt. 2 (1:34) the part that originally is from 6:59 to the end of the track at 8:33
2. The Lantern (4:22)
3. Gomper, pt. 1 (2:15) slow fade out from 2:05 to 2:15
4. 2000 Man (3:07)
5. Gomper, pt. 2 (2:49) directly in at 2:19 whith the thrilling recorder as intro
6. 2000 Light Years From Home (4:44)
(Total timing of side 2: 18:51)
Total timing of complete album: 39:47
Sing This All Together would be relegated to the B-side of a single (where it belongs), apart from its only truly worthwhile part, the last 2 seconds.
I'm aware it would still be not everyone's most favorite album. Most controversial probably that my version still includes Sing This All Together (See What Happens).
Actually I think it is not the strongest track ever, but still with some interesting moments - more than Sing This All Together. Other great albums of the time include experimental tracks testing the patience of the impatient listener (look at the Beatles: Revolution No. 9, Within You, Without You). The patience of the listeners of the original Satanic is basically tested too much because the most experimental track comes not just in one, but in two - large - parts coming too shortly after each other and divided not by the best but by the middle of the road tracks of the album.
By erasing the unnecessary first part, by putting the greatest pop tune of the album, She's A Rainbow on side 1, before the difficult experimental track and by seperating the still left part of the difficult experimental track in two, getting its new two parts on different sides of the album (as well as later seperating the experimental part of Gomper from the straighter song part) I think the experimental character of Satanic is still there, but presented with more space between and thus more entertaining.
Two other comments:
- 2000 Light Years is not only a brilliant track (the most brilliant track that was released in 1967, in my opinion), it is a perfect closing number. Closing with a very good number is always a good option to make an album better.
- On With The Show as opener: this could be seen as a parody of the Beatles: when they start with orchestral noises the Stones start with nightclub blabbing. At the same time musically On With The Show is loose and open, not as definitive as the original opener (and not as dumb) and therefore quite fitting for the whole album. At the same time it still leaves room (a lot of room, indeed), for the following, stronger titles like Citadel and In Another Land, making the start of the album a promising sequence reaching a first climax with the fourth track of my version, She's A Rainbow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pushing you in puddles/In the dead of night/Beware of ABKCO"
George Harrison, early Beware Of Darkness version (1970)
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
MileHigh
()
Date: March 28, 2013 05:32
2000 LYFH is the Rolling Stones doing "Science Fiction Rock" and is heavily influenced by the sci fi movies of the late 50s and 60s. It's great. Think Forbidden Planet.
She's a Rainbow is a psychedelic explosion and is up to par with anything on Sgt. Pepper. It's ecstatic.
2000 Man is a "rush" song and it explodes.
The album is a reflecion of the new possibilities and new new newness that was felt in 1967. 1967 was a great year in many ways. Look up "Expo67" for fun. The somewhat naive sense of limitless possibilitoes abounded everywhere. That's what you can feel in TSMR.
She's a Rainbow is a psychedelic explosion and is up to par with anything on Sgt. Pepper. It's ecstatic.
2000 Man is a "rush" song and it explodes.
The album is a reflecion of the new possibilities and new new newness that was felt in 1967. 1967 was a great year in many ways. Look up "Expo67" for fun. The somewhat naive sense of limitless possibilitoes abounded everywhere. That's what you can feel in TSMR.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 28, 2013 12:01
Quote
Mock Jogger
the beginning of Gomper, the first few instrumental bars, is truly unprecedented musical magic (until the singing and with it an only half inspired song sets in); the way the Mellotron sounds on Gomper foreshadow the eerie atmosphere of 2000 Light Years is another brilliant part.
There isn't a mellotron on Gomper.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: March 28, 2013 12:12
Nah.Quote
MileHigh
2000 LYFH is the Rolling Stones doing "Science Fiction Rock" and is heavily influenced by the sci fi movies of the late 50s and 60s. It's great. Think Forbidden Planet.
Barbarella.
A great song... I think it's innuendo as well although I've never seen that idea mentioned before.Quote
She's a Rainbow is a psychedelic explosion and is up to par with anything on Sgt. Pepper. It's ecstatic.
Another great song.Quote
2000 Man is a "rush" song and it explodes.
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 28, 2013 15:32
Quote
MileHigh
2000 LYFH is the Rolling Stones doing "Science Fiction Rock" and is heavily influenced by the sci fi movies of the late 50s and 60s. It's great. Think Forbidden Planet.
She's a Rainbow is a psychedelic explosion and is up to par with anything on Sgt. Pepper. It's ecstatic.
2000 Man is a "rush" song and it explodes.
The album is a reflecion of the new possibilities and new new newness that was felt in 1967. 1967 was a great year in many ways. Look up "Expo67" for fun. The somewhat naive sense of limitless possibilitoes abounded everywhere. That's what you can feel in TSMR.
Nice MileHigh, couldn't agree more
Re: * 50 years of The Rolling Stones - 1967 - Their Satanic Majesties Request *
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: March 28, 2013 23:20
Quote
Blue
I don't know what's wrong with me, but I like Satanic much better than Pepper, and always did. I don't hear a really nice melody on ANY song from Pepper, maybe Lucy in the Sky during the refrain but that's it...but the Stones managed to put out several, at least four anyway, Psychadelic songs with great melodies..(Rainbow, 2000 Light Years, Citadel, and 2000 Man)..no disrespect to the Beatles though, adored the Beatles up until Rubber Soul...after that, the Stones produced better druggy music than the Beatles by then IMHO.
Hold on, now. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is only 'nice' melody on the Sgt. Pepper's album? Are you kidding me? What do you mean by 'nice'? (Does that mean good or bad?).
Are you saying "Getting Better," or "A Day in the Life" are not 'nice' melodies?
Come on!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bashlets , BeastyBurdeny , damerefugio , Dan , Eleanor Rigby , gaizoku , Happy Jack , hot stuff , HotStuff92 , jmd , Milan , spikenyc
Guests:
1624
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10