Here you go................

We love You - The Rolling Stones.....
It took me one evening to compile the music....added the extracted voices ("Beatle?") to the song...........took me 4 weeks to find the right video ......result is ok but it can be better.......next time I try to synchronise it a little bit better.

Enjoy...........





__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 01:57 by NICOS.

Heresy to some, but I would love to hear a remix of "Satanic."

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty
TSMR is a knock-out record as far as them being psychedelic.

The Satanic Sessions box sets enriches our understanding of that period.

naah... bootlegs are for nerds... sorry experts I mean...

I want my dinner cooked properly, not just raw materials... funkydrummer is a great cook.

- Doxa

The album is the properly cooked dinner.

"The intent was to "better" the original album and to I also wanted to "de-psychedelise" the album as well..."

It fails to better it, but succeeds in taking away much of it's unique character and flow.

Well, nothing wrong with what motivates the creator (and it was "better", but not better...), but it is the final result that I care of, and 'judge'...

For me SATANIC MAJESTIES never have been a perfect meal. There are some artistic choices that my demanding and spoiled taste never can forgive. The biggest is the major sin that ruins any potential Stones album to be a masterpiece in my book. That is: failing with the opener. The opening track is the most important song to introduce the listener to the album, and make him interested, and the Stones usually are masters in starting with a bang (like they do with their live shows). For that reason, for example, GOATS HEAD SOUP with a mediocre and boring "Dancing With Mr. D", no matter how strong material there would be later found, is doomed forever as a killer album for me...

But "Sing This Altogether" is one of those very rare Stones songs that the Stones fail big time. I think the main melodic idea and its theme is okay, but the final accomplishment is just so damn artificial and out of focus that it is almost embarrassing. Produced awfully, Jagger's voice sounds stupid, the isolated, a bit out of tune horns, and a brief unsuccesful play with atonality and cacophony (intentional or not?), an insecure musical soundscape altogether... SilverDagger once said that it works well with LSD, and maybe he is right, haven't tested...

The things don't get much better when the theme is re-introduced. "See What Happens" is a funny curiosity to listen once or twice, but it is nothing but filler material with no artistic point.

So what I did very much welcome in funkydrummer's project was just to get out of those two. That easened my listening experience a lot! That little snippet of "Sing Together", just to get the melodic idea and the theme, was a perfect decision, and then we are heading to the masterpiece song of the album "2000 Light Years From Home" - that was buried into flip side in the original - that's a perfect start in my book! Whereas "Sing This Altogether" sounds too much The Stones answering to SGT. PEPPER (poorly), now we are in much more original waters, and the Stones sounding much more focused and strong, a blues band going psychedelic by their own terms.

Altogether, I think the problem with SATANIC MAJESTIES is that it lacks a proper producer. The guys were damn creative, full of wonderful ideas and great songs, but they couldn't quite transform those to the final product. The bootleg of those sessions very much confirm the idea that there was nothing wrong with the material. For me they sounded like trying too much there, and they lost the big picture, by trying to be so psychedelic per se. And even then, they weren't radical enough. They end up sounding like hey didn't quite know what they were actually doing. Some bad artistic choices in my book (alongside some brilliant ones, and there are luckily more of the latter!).

But I hope my criticism doesn't spoil your delicious meal, His Majesty! But to put the things in pespective, I do love the album, no matter that I see certain weak spots in it (I am afraid I sound too much emphasizing them here); "The Lantern" alone is better than anything they did since UNDERCOVER, and is actually musically one of the most interesting things they ever have done... (actually, thanks to funkydrummer, I am totally in awe of that song now...)

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 12:53 by Doxa.

Ok, it's your ears that need re-imagining.

The LSD experience is an uncertain experience.

The way the band themselves sequenced the album creates a journey and like the film 2001 there's an unsettling build up to a strong focal point. In the film the psychedelic sequence and bedroom scene is the arrival. On Their Satanic Majesties Request 2000 Light Years From Home is that arrival.

On the album differing scenes, emotions and atmospheres bulld up to and take us to the wonders of 2000 Light Years From Home. It is given strongest impact due to what preceeds it. Rather than being "buried in to the flip side", it's the major arrival point.

Placing 2000 Light Years From Home 2nd is a case of musical premature ejaculation before lady music has even got her bra off.

The only real similarity with Sgt Pepper is the cover.

PS:

There's games with melodic themes and shapes through the album that gets messed up by changing the sequence.

Doxa and His Majesty - both your views make perfect sense.

An important observation from the real His Majesty...

"What ever people might think about that album, I think it's very valid as a comment on The Rolling Stones as they were in 1967."

- Brian jones January 1968

Quote
His Majesty
An important observation from the real His Majesty...

"What ever people might think about that album, I think it's very valid as a comment on The Rolling Stones as they were in 1967."

- Brian jones January 1968

I always thought that Brian hated the album. Glad to know he dug it.

Quote
Silver Dagger


I always thought that Brian hated the album. Glad to know he dug it.

Forward to 3:15 to hear his thoughts on the album in January 1968.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
His Majesty
An important observation from the real His Majesty...

"What ever people might think about that album, I think it's very valid as a comment on The Rolling Stones as they were in 1967."

- Brian jones January 1968

I always thought that Brian hated the album. Glad to know he dug it.

But that comment doesn't reveal his own opinion of its artistic merit. By contrary, that sounds very diplomatic... that that they were like, be that good or not... (But true, it says that they succeeded in what they were up to).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 15:05 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa


But that comment doesn't reveal his own opinion of its artistic merit. By contrary, that sounds very diplomatic... that that they were like, be that good or not...

- Doxa

You misunderstand...

"What ever people might think about that album,"

... regardless of peoples opinions...

"I think it's very valid as a comment on The Rolling Stones as they were in 1967."

It is artistically succsesful and true in that it represents the artists as they were at the time of creating the art.

Funkydrummer you did a terrific job-- I thoroughly enjoyed it !

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa


But that comment doesn't reveal his own opinion of its artistic merit. By contrary, that sounds very diplomatic... that that they were like, be that good or not...

- Doxa

You misunderstand...

"What ever people might think about that album,"

... regardless of peoples opinions...

"I think it's very valid as a comment on The Rolling Stones as they were in 1967."

It is artistically succsesful and true in that it represents the artists as they were at the time of creating the art.

I protest here!

It could be interpreted as a diplomatic way to say: "that is what Mick and Keith wanted to do (what was crap like many people have noticed), but we managed to create exactly what they wanted"...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 15:30 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

I protest here!

It could be interpreted as a diplomatic way to say: "that is what Mick and Keith wanted to do (what was crap like many people have said), but we managed to create exactly what they wanted"...

- Doxa

For that to be believed one would have to ignore his liking for musical experimentation and his fairly heavy involvement in the album. You would also have to find actual quotes from the boy himself saying he thought the album was a load of crap.

Even if that were the case, intentionally or not, they did create a piece of true art.

Good or bad is frivolous opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 15:40 by His Majesty.

But let me repeat that I don't claim that Brian didn't like the album - I just can't see that positive interpretation from the base of that comment as His Majesty and SilverDagger does. To my ears he just sounds diplomatic, and besides, he was a loyal member of the band still at the time, and didn't say things to hurt their image, etc. in public.

But one interseting info about Brian's attitude is that he seemingly initially preferred more "Child of The Moon" to "Flash", and that song has a foot more in SATANIC MAJESTIES as "Flash" does, as it argued here.

Besides, I don't know from where Brian's claimed negative feelings towards SATANIC MAJESTIES come from. I have read of those in literature as long as I remember, but what is the original source, and how reliable it is, well... That that is challenged, I welcome the idea!

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
But let me repeat that I don't claim that Brian didn't like the album - I just can't see that positive interpretation from the base of that comment as His Majesty and SilverDagger does. To my ears he just sounds diplomatic, and besides, he was a loyal member of the band still at the time, and didn't say things to hurt their image, etc. in public.

But one interseting info about Brian's attitude is that he seemingly initially preferred more "Child of The Moon" to "Flash", and that song has a foot more in SATANIC MAJESTIES as "Flash" does, as it argued here.

Besides, I don't know from where Brian's claimed negative feelings towards SATANIC MAJESTIES come from. I have read of those in literature as long as I remember, but what is the original source, and how reliable it is, well... That that is challenged, I welcome the idea!

- Doxa

The positives are that he clearly liked experimenting, he was fairly involved in the album (it would lack so much had he not been) and there he is in January 1968 giving a considered overview of the album and who they were at the time.


He said he wasn't sure about It's All Over Now back in 1964.

You could have used his comment that "It's a sort of a non album", as a negative, but he qualifies his initial comment on the album by saying "The album represents a sort of progress along a tangent". This is true also of their lives at the time.

The main problem for most seems to be the jams, but such chaotic things are part of the LSD experience and also quite reflective of the chaos of their lives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 15:57 by His Majesty.

As Mick said, there are only a few things on it that are ok, She's A Rainbow and 2,000 Light Years From Home, and all of the rest is filler and Gomper is just filler crap IMO.

If the Stones were only capable of things like Gomper (and some bands were), then the Stones would have been over by 1968.

Mick said they took too much acid and that JJF was getting out of the acid things.

The Stones just jumped on the acid trend for a while as a lot of other bands did.

Some might like all of those child like state songs that try to put some of the acid things in them and it was a new trend for a while but it didn't last that long as a major trend, maybe 2 years or so.

The acid songs are like child things or mystical floating things that make no sense and acid blues is just self indulgent floating crap and lacks the down to earth element and emotional content of "The Blues".

All of those acid bands were ok but rock just can't stay in that place very long because it's child like and floating.

Trance and all of that are another take at that sort of thing with the focus on dance though.








Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 16:53 by howled.

He also said he'd like to do something like that again.

Quote
howled
.. rock just can't stay in that place very long because it's child like and floating.

That's why rock is mostly a load of boring shit. ><

A majestic bow to those that, to varying degrees, kept the freaky flags flying.







Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 19:24 by His Majesty.

All that White Rabbit and Lucy In The Sky stuff is ok but it gets old pretty quick and that's why there is a psychedelic peak around 1967 and then it starts to dissipate but bits of it remain in some rock and some even continue with it in a sort of cult way.

At the time it was great and it led to some new mixes of Folk and Rock etc but it's not really Chuck Berry or the Blues.

Surrealistic Pillow.

One of Grace Slick's earliest songs, written during either late 1965 or early 1966, uses imagery found in the fantasy works of Lewis Carroll: 1865's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and its 1871 sequel Through the Looking-Glass, such as changing size after taking pills or drinking an unknown liquid.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 18:28 by howled.

Quote
His Majesty
It fails to better it, but succeeds in taking away much of it's unique character and flow.

Is it possible that you're just so used to the orginal sequence that your psyche treats any change at all -better or worse- as simply unacceptable?

However, I agree with Doxa that the album was never a perfect meal for me. I always liked almost all of the songs but somehow could rarely play the whole album through in one go.

Thank you Funkydrummer!

They'll never replace my love for the original album, and it's sequencing. However, I do like when others rearrange, re-EQ, add/subtract songs, etc to Stones albums. A neat "what if?" or different dimension type deal.

Quote
howled

... it's not really Chuck Berry or the Blues.

That's a positive thing.

Quote
howled
As Mick said, there are only a few things on it that are ok, She's A Rainbow and 2,000 Light Years From Home, and all of the rest is filler and Gomper is just filler crap IMO.

If the Stones were only capable of things like Gomper (and some bands were), then the Stones would have been over by 1968.

.......

To you it is a relief that "Gomper" was not the only thing that the Stones were capable of. To me the vital distinction is that the Stones were capable not only, but also "of things like " "Gomper" and that as a great asset. That fact in my view rather than detracts from, adds to the richness of the band's music. That capability gave rise to tracks like "Moonlight Mile" and "Continental Drift" in other contexts. One "down to earth" strictly blues or Chuck Berry only approach would have led the Stones to be a more sterile band. Do not read that as coming from one who dislikes the blues. ( Actually I have sometimes thought that there were too many Berry covers in setlists in distant years, there you might have me. My preference was a fraction less Berry rock covers, a fraction more R&B. In hindsight I feel the same.)

Myself I belong to the minority that holds that "Gomper" even has got a special attraction. And in a discreet contrast to its mood, "2000 Light Years From Home" may go out in another direction.

I am pleased that rock went through its more or less acid period. Due to the musical output that came out of that period. And I would have liked that period to have lasted longer.

Why that music is to be considered as that childlike, I do not understand. In case, I don't feel embarassed by it. I am in no need to be more adult.

[An OT parenthis: By the way, the only album in rock and pop that I have thought of as having childlike ingredients, as an added positive strength, is Pink Floyd's PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN. Of course, in the distant past there were irritating pop that you might name childish, such as a single or two by a group called Herman Hermits, I think it was. But the Monkees phenomenom had some lasting commercial pop charm. Years after, I even bought a compilation from them.]

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 21:37 by Witness.

Quote
scottkeef
8.We Love You - vocal isolation with Lennon/McCartney vocals.

7 and 8 of the bonus tracks are really a hoot! as I said, not for everybody but I listen to it quite a bit. The only other LP Mickboy took this many liberties on the tracking is "Black & Blue" (another one I listen to a lot) and the result is quite enjoyable.

I didn't realise that I had been beaten to the punch on this...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 22:22 by funkydrummer.

Doxa

I couldn't have put it better myself...and your comments align exactly with my approach! Thanks!

Quote
Doxa
There are some critical voices in regards to the project. Especially Wittness seems to be a tough one...

I also think that the original release is the one and only artistic statement there is, and that should not be touched. But that said, I don't think any harm is done here. For me funkydrummer just offers an alternative possible world to SATANIC MAJESTIES, and actually a means to hear some nuances in those recording sessions that can't be heard in the actual record. This new perspective or point of view also highlights some songs in the record that at least for me is refreshing, and makes me appreciate them more. That's why I think his version just enrichens our understanding of that interesting period in their history. So for me this is not a question of being 'better' record or anything, or that the original record is somehow challanged. At least I don't feel that way.

But I also think that if this kind of alternative version can be done, SATANIC MAJESTIES is about the only record that its sounds sensible. For example, I don't think EXILE or BEGGARS BANQUET or SOME GIRLS could be treated similar way, since those records are knock-out arguments artistically. There's nothing left to be said. But then some 'lesser' records, like GOATS HEAD SOUP, DIRTY WORK or STEEL WHEELS, in which we can hear their focus might not be quite spot on, and we know there are material on the vaults that might enrich their artistic statement, why not...

I hope I make some sense...

- Doxa

Quote
Witness


To you it is a relief that "Gomper" was not the only thing that the Stones were capable of. To me the vital distinction is that the Stones were capable not only, but also "of things like " "Gomper" and that as a great asset. That fact in my view rather than detracts from, adds to the richness of the band's music. That capability gave rise to tracks like "Moonlight Mile" and "Continental Drift" in other contexts. One "down to earth" strictly blues or Chuck Berry only approach would have led the Stones to be a more sterile band. Do not read that as coming from one who dislikes the blues. ( Actually I have sometimes thought that there were too many Berry covers in setlists in distant years, there you might have me. My preference was a fraction less Berry rock covers, a fraction more R&B. In hindsight I feel the same.)


Myself I belong to the minority that holds that "Gomper" even has got a special attraction. And in a discreet contrast to its mood, "2000 Light Years From Home" may go out in another direction.

I am pleased that rock went through its more or less acid period. Due to the musical output that came out of that period. And I would have liked that period to have lasted longer.

Why that music is to be considered as that childlike, I do not understand. In case, I don't feel embarassed by it. I am in no need to be more adult.

[An OT parenthis: By the way, the only album in rock and pop that I have thought of as having childlike ingredients, as an added positive strength, is Pink Floyd's PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN. Of course, in the distant past there were irritating pop that you might name childish, such as a single or two by a group called Herman Hermits, I think it was. But the Monkees phenomenom had some lasting commercial pop charm. Years after, I even bought a compilation from them.]

.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 22:09 by His Majesty.

Me too!

Quote
Jayce
Heresy to some, but I would love to hear a remix of "Satanic."

There is a reason why this album has been so lamented over the years, and one of the reasons is because many listeners find it difficult to listen to all the way through as-is. I am one of the them.

In some respects my little compilation project was based on the fact that if I was to play the LP for a younger person as-is - they would not think "LSD classic" but respond like countless audiences over the years (mainly to STAT indulgences) - "what is this sh*t"?

If anything I am just trying to liberate a fertile period of musical creativity, which history has resigned to "bad experiment" - and that is why I de-psyched the thing somewhat, so that it might get a fairer hearing.

I still want to know why the Stones junked all of the excellent instrumentals and 5 Part Jam "bridge pieces"...with all of the classic Nicky Hopkins keyboards which I dig, dig, dig!

As Doxa has said, it is one of the few moments of Stones history which can be reorganised, because there was so much great material to do so...which most listeners have never heard.

I didn't think that it would inspire such debate - but I have learned a lot from this thread - so like any debate - at least it is productive!

Quote
His Majesty
Ok, it's your ears that need re-imagining.

The LSD experience is an uncertain experience.

The way the band themselves sequenced the album creates a journey and like the film 2001 there's an unsettling build up to a strong focal point. In the film the psychedelic sequence and bedroom scene is the arrival. On Their Satanic Majesties Request 2000 Light Years From Home is that arrival.

On the album differing scenes, emotions and atmospheres bulld up to and take us to the wonders of 2000 Light Years From Home. It is given strongest impact due to what preceeds it. Rather than being "buried in to the flip side", it's the major arrival point.

Placing 2000 Light Years From Home 2nd is a case of musical premature ejaculation before lady music has even got her bra off.

The only real similarity with Sgt Pepper is the cover.

Most of those instrumentals are probably songs waiting for lyrics, but given that the Satanic Sessions is mostly just the ongoing recordings of basic tracks there are no overdubs, vocal melodies or lyrics.

If I remember right the last take of Citadel and Title 15 are the only tracks to feature overdubs on the box sets.

The album gets slagged by some because it is a Rolling Stones album and that comes with expectations. What you state as a fact regarding listening test is not a fact at all. Also, the album has undergone quite a re-evaluation in music mags etc in recent years, the "bad experiement" tag is for people with crap ears.

It is far more liked than you seem to realise.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 22:32 by His Majesty.