What was the idea behind the strange grammar?

"we don't care if you hound WE, our love is all around WE"

Was it just quirky 60s or is it some literary reference (like Oscar Wilde?).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-30 11:50 by GravityBoy.

"We love they"...

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Love, LOVE this song. What gets me - it is one of the rare over produced psychedelic tracks that could work well on stage with guitars.

Yuk, it's the piano and mellotron that make the track.

Fantastic record - the true follow up to have you seen your mother baby. In your face darkness and cacophony plus the best backing vocals on a stones 45.
It's not unlike Tomorrow never knows and that's a good thing in my book.
If they do tour again they should do this song and get Mccartney up on stage with them on backing vox.

Charlies drums are good.

Quote
ash
Fantastic record - the true follow up to have you seen your mother baby. In your face darkness and cacophony plus the best backing vocals on a stones 45.
It's not unlike Tomorrow never knows and that's a good thing in my book.
If they do tour again they should do this song and get Mccartney up on stage with them on backing vox.

John and Paul did it just as good on Dandelion, imo

Nice.. you can hear the vocals well in this one.

I loved it in 1967 and still do. I remember it was very different and even a bit odd back then. Didn't sound like anything you had listen to before.

Would really like to hear this live.
Great song.

Born in 68, but grew up with Rolled Gold, and always loved this!

C

I can still remember buying it. Loved it from the start.
But one of their greatest singles came about a year later when they very much needed a big hit again: JJ Flash, the song and the accompaning video. What a gas!!

Great track. New and refreshing in 1967.

Quote
CousinC
I can still remember buying it. Loved it from the start.
But one of their greatest singles came about a year later when they very much needed a big hit again: JJ Flash, the song and the accompaning video. What a gas!!

Summer of 68. Some great music was hitting the market that year!

The "of course we do!" is so Jagger -- a mocking, self satisfied mixed message at the height of flower power,

It's in my top5 .....so it must be a good song .............I would very disappointed if it's not on there 2012 set list..........

"WE LOVE YOU" LIVE .............as a thank you to there fans

__________________________

Quote
His Majesty
it's the piano and mellotron that make the track.

Definitely. Love Brian's "arabic" riffs at the end.

i really like "we love you" although when i first heard it in 1988 when i bought "rolled gold" i didnt take to it.

years later i saw the video on youtube and it brought the song to life.

loved this period of the stones.

so underrated.

great song!great intro on piano

Quote
microvibe
great song!great intro on piano

I was at this Furthur show when they played We Love You perhaps to thank the crowd for enduring ball--breaking security before the show.

We Love You is classic 60's. The stones doing a nice dark psychedelic trance raga. And harkening to all The Beatles haters out there, John and Paul on vocals. The Stones and Beatles coming together to bend psychedelia. One of my favorite 60's songs.

It is a strange but interesting track, and I can't decide my mind if it is a forgotten masterpiece or just a failed attempt (a bit like teh whole SATANIC MAJESTIES project). It probably didn't resonate very well at the time of its release (a question proposed is a good one here!) but in retrospect we can say it is a step to dark and sophisticated sounds the Stones would master later. It is remarkably deeper than any AFTERMATH/BETWEEEN THE BUTTONS era material, with which they had established their original pop-oriented song-writing and performing skills, but with "We Love You" they are taking the step to more ambitious direction. Even though The Stones never quite mastered the psychedelia, I think the phase was needed to really mature their sound and attitude to music. Getting rid of ALO and his quick-and-easy pop-oriented producing policy also had something to do with it.

- Doxa

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Love, LOVE this song. What gets me - it is one of the rare over produced psychedelic tracks that could work well on stage with guitars.

Yuk, it's the piano and mellotron that make the track.

Well.. obviously. But my point is this: many bands create superb tracks in studio (especially in psychedelic era) and cant find a way to deliver them on stage with a live kind of power. The advantage WLY has is that it is built on a strong riff. Which makes it possible to find a live identity.
Stones are good at doing this. Or they were.
Sympathy for the Devil - the original track is stellar; a landmark track IMO. And maybe some would have said "Oh it's the percussion, the Grand Piano, Keith fire lead, the ooh-oohs that make it". And that is true. But the guitar based version from 69-75 is just as brillant in it's own right. Very different, re-invented for stage.

That is one of the things I get a kick out of in my own band: if we do a cover if has to be a total re-invention of the song. Like coming at it from the left instead of the right.

Quote
deadegad
I was at this Furthur show when they played We Love You perhaps to thank the crowd for enduring ball--breaking security before the show.

I hope the Stones will do a better "cover"

__________________________

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Love, LOVE this song. What gets me - it is one of the rare over produced psychedelic tracks that could work well on stage with guitars.

Yuk, it's the piano and mellotron that make the track.

Well.. obviously. But my point is this: many bands create superb tracks in studio (especially in psychedelic era) and cant find a way to deliver them on stage with a live kind of power. The advantage WLY has is that it is built on a strong riff. Which makes it possible to find a live identity.
Stones are good at doing this. Or they were.
Sympathy for the Devil - the original track is stellar; a landmark track IMO. And maybe some would have said "Oh it's the percussion, the Grand Piano, Keith fire lead, the ooh-oohs that make it". And that is true. But the guitar based version from 69-75 is just as brillant in it's own right. Very different, re-invented for stage.

That is one of the things I get a kick out of in my own band: if we do a cover if has to be a total re-invention of the song. Like coming at it from the left instead of the right.

This is an intersting point - the riff is a strong one and the band especially in their guitar-driven Taylor years might have reinterpreted it altogether differently (if they had had any interest to their pre-JJF stuff). I think the biggest problem had been the vocals. It is such a strange slow-moving melody that I think Jagger might have struggled in trying to make anything sensible out of it alone. During 'Vegas' days they could have made some kind of replica of the original but only god knows how horrible it had been - thinking of Chuck playing the riff with his keyboards and Lisa & co providing the backing vocals... aargh...!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-02 13:14 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Love, LOVE this song. What gets me - it is one of the rare over produced psychedelic tracks that could work well on stage with guitars.

Yuk, it's the piano and mellotron that make the track.

Well.. obviously. But my point is this: many bands create superb tracks in studio (especially in psychedelic era) and cant find a way to deliver them on stage with a live kind of power. The advantage WLY has is that it is built on a strong riff. Which makes it possible to find a live identity.
Stones are good at doing this. Or they were.
Sympathy for the Devil - the original track is stellar; a landmark track IMO. And maybe some would have said "Oh it's the percussion, the Grand Piano, Keith fire lead, the ooh-oohs that make it". And that is true. But the guitar based version from 69-75 is just as brillant in it's own right. Very different, re-invented for stage.

That is one of the things I get a kick out of in my own band: if we do a cover if has to be a total re-invention of the song. Like coming at it from the left instead of the right.

This is an intersting point - the riff is a strong one and the band especially in their guitar-driven Taylor years might have reinterpreted it altogether differently (if they had had any interest to their pre-JJF stuff). I think the biggest problem had been the vocals. It is such a strange slow-moving melody that I think Jagger might have struggled in trying to make anything sensible out of it alone. During 'Vegas' days they could have made some kind of replica of the original but only god knows how horrible it had been - thinking of Chuck playing the riff with his keyboards and Lisa & co providing the backing vocals... aargh...!

- Doxa

This "strange slow-moving melody" is the main problem for pulling it off live. Furthur's live cover actually transforms the instrumental part of the song quite well into a live setting, and one would think that the Taylor-era Stones would have done it in a similar vain. But the vocals with all the backings filling out the sound done by Jagger alone - boy, that's a difficult task.

The Vegas Stones would have tried to copy the original arrangement - just think of She's A Rainbow - not a bad attempt, but it does not really hold together because everytime they played it, it sounded unrehearsed, shaky and tentative, not truly convincing. Then again, 2000 Light Years worked surprisingly well.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Love, LOVE this song. What gets me - it is one of the rare over produced psychedelic tracks that could work well on stage with guitars.

Yuk, it's the piano and mellotron that make the track.

Well.. obviously. But my point is this: many bands create superb tracks in studio (especially in psychedelic era) and cant find a way to deliver them on stage with a live kind of power. The advantage WLY has is that it is built on a strong riff. Which makes it possible to find a live identity.
Stones are good at doing this. Or they were.
Sympathy for the Devil - the original track is stellar; a landmark track IMO. And maybe some would have said "Oh it's the percussion, the Grand Piano, Keith fire lead, the ooh-oohs that make it". And that is true. But the guitar based version from 69-75 is just as brillant in it's own right. Very different, re-invented for stage.

That is one of the things I get a kick out of in my own band: if we do a cover if has to be a total re-invention of the song. Like coming at it from the left instead of the right.

This is an intersting point - the riff is a strong one and the band especially in their guitar-driven Taylor years might have reinterpreted it altogether differently (if they had had any interest to their pre-JJF stuff). I think the biggest problem had been the vocals. It is such a strange slow-moving melody that I think Jagger might have struggled in trying to make anything sensible out of it alone. During 'Vegas' days they could have made some kind of replica of the original but only god knows how horrible it had been - thinking of Chuck playing the riff with his keyboards and Lisa & co providing the backing vocals... aargh...!

- Doxa

This "strange slow-moving melody" is the main problem for pulling it off live. Furthur's live cover actually transforms the instrumental part of the song quite well into a live setting, and one would think that the Taylor-era Stones would have done it in a similar vain. But the vocals with all the backings filling out the sound done by Jagger alone - boy, that's a difficult task.

The Vegas Stones would have tried to copy the original arrangement - just think of She's A Rainbow - not a bad attempt, but it does not really hold together because everytime they played it, it sounded unrehearsed, shaky and tentative, not truly convincing. Then again, 2000 Light Years worked surprisingly well.

Very true about everything you say alimente. Re. "Rainbow" - it sounded tentative, but they were getting better. Almost in spite of themselves, in spite of those Vegas Stones, they still were doing it better each time. In the older days they would have pulled it together sooner and more radically. I wish they'd had a chance to play it more often.
I was at the show where they premiered "Sway" and it was such a letdown. I almost wish it had been really lousy; that they had gone down in flames, but at least with some fire. But no - "Sway" came off like an obligatory run-through with Jagger barely putting any effort into the vocal so to save himself for 2 more hours of huff-puff. Yet - later boots show that it got better.
"Streets of Love" the hated SOL, proved to be the highlight of the few shows it was played at.
Re. "We Love You", and this is total speculation, but in "Jumping Jack Flash" chorus there are long drawn out notes, and harmonies; same goes for "Honky Tonk Woman"; these are not the trickier stacked vocal pads like WLY, but still...Jagger does away with them and uses shorter phrases in repetition to deliver the chorus in a new manner.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
alimente

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Love, LOVE this song. What gets me - it is one of the rare over produced psychedelic tracks that could work well on stage with guitars.

Yuk, it's the piano and mellotron that make the track.

Well.. obviously. But my point is this: many bands create superb tracks in studio (especially in psychedelic era) and cant find a way to deliver them on stage with a live kind of power. The advantage WLY has is that it is built on a strong riff. Which makes it possible to find a live identity.
Stones are good at doing this. Or they were.
Sympathy for the Devil - the original track is stellar; a landmark track IMO. And maybe some would have said "Oh it's the percussion, the Grand Piano, Keith fire lead, the ooh-oohs that make it". And that is true. But the guitar based version from 69-75 is just as brillant in it's own right. Very different, re-invented for stage.

That is one of the things I get a kick out of in my own band: if we do a cover if has to be a total re-invention of the song. Like coming at it from the left instead of the right.

This is an intersting point - the riff is a strong one and the band especially in their guitar-driven Taylor years might have reinterpreted it altogether differently (if they had had any interest to their pre-JJF stuff). I think the biggest problem had been the vocals. It is such a strange slow-moving melody that I think Jagger might have struggled in trying to make anything sensible out of it alone. During 'Vegas' days they could have made some kind of replica of the original but only god knows how horrible it had been - thinking of Chuck playing the riff with his keyboards and Lisa & co providing the backing vocals... aargh...!

- Doxa

This "strange slow-moving melody" is the main problem for pulling it off live. Furthur's live cover actually transforms the instrumental part of the song quite well into a live setting, and one would think that the Taylor-era Stones would have done it in a similar vain. But the vocals with all the backings filling out the sound done by Jagger alone - boy, that's a difficult task.

The Vegas Stones would have tried to copy the original arrangement - just think of She's A Rainbow - not a bad attempt, but it does not really hold together because everytime they played it, it sounded unrehearsed, shaky and tentative, not truly convincing. Then again, 2000 Light Years worked surprisingly well.

Very true about everything you say alimente. Re. "Rainbow" - it sounded tentative, but they were getting better. Almost in spite of themselves, in spite of those Vegas Stones, they still were doing it better each time. In the older days they would have pulled it together sooner and more radically. I wish they'd had a chance to play it more often.
I was at the show where they premiered "Sway" and it was such a letdown. I almost wish it had been really lousy; that they had gone down in flames, but at least with some fire. But no - "Sway" came off like an obligatory run-through with Jagger barely putting any effort into the vocal so to save himself for 2 more hours of huff-puff. Yet - later boots show that it got better.
"Streets of Love" the hated SOL, proved to be the highlight of the few shows it was played at.
Re. "We Love You", and this is total speculation, but in "Jumping Jack Flash" chorus there are long drawn out notes, and harmonies; same goes for "Honky Tonk Woman"; these are not the trickier stacked vocal pads like WLY, but still...Jagger does away with them and uses shorter phrases in repetition to deliver the chorus in a new manner.

Funnily, I got also those very examples you guys mention here - Vegas versions of "2000 Light Years From Home" and "She's A Rainbow", and Jagger's way to sing the choruses of "Jumpin' Jack" and "Honky Tonk" in 1969 onwards - when I tried to imagine how "We Love You" might have turned to sound like if tried. But I think of the 'psychedelia numbers' it would be harder one to deliver Vegas-style than those two others, and the 'shorter phrases' tactics would have been more challenging than with those two numbers. It is so damn sloooooowwww.... and teh songs starts with thaaaaaatttt....

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-02 15:25 by Doxa.