Tell Me :
Talk
No I definitely dispute this, because most of them clock in around 1min mark - and are have defined instrumental melodies which are foregrounded. The fact that 5 Part Jam is a melodic theme in five distinct parts each of about 1 min each, makes for a pretty clear case that they were going to try and thematically tie the thing together instrumentally but ended up giving up on the idea.
That was one of the things I tried to restore. In fact it was one of the main reasons for doing so, because I love the instrumentals on SS - and still can't understand why they didn't go with this approach!
My own idea is that they might have thought "looks like we are trying to hard to do a thematic concept album" (and it is reminiscent of stuff that came out at the time like Who Sell Out etc) - so they decided against it. Of course, this is just conjecture, but a solid listen to SS shows the seeds of a very different album that got waylaid somewhere...
This is true, and a nice development. I think the whole psychedelia period has been through a positive re-evaluation, and its importance to whole development of rock music has been recognized more, unlike seen it as an odd freaky side-step or 'trip' from the main road. Also in our forum, the approach towards SATANIC MAJESTIES have been turning warmer, and I also belong to that group, not that my ears are any less crap than before...
Just to think of how much poorer the Stones legacy would be without it. Actually, I would claim that the 'golden period' or Big Four had not been possible without that experiment. That was a period of 'freeing one's mind' of the boundaries of pop songs and their ordinary templates, and discovering a new artistic depthness in rock music.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 23:08 by Doxa.
A band that was loved by The Beatles, The Who - Townshend played on Mike Heron's Smiling Men With Bad Reputations, Mick and Marianne and Led Zeppelin. There can be no higher accolade.
It's child like in the way it has a wonderment and fantasy element and songs are about flowers and colours or white rabbits or kaleidescope eyes or whatever.
The context is childlike wonderment, colours, dreaming, surreal etc influenced by drug effects.
If Mick was still singing about flowers and rainbows in 1975 then the Stones would have been a cult thing.
The Psychedelic period is ok for what it was.
Gomper is a boring jam IMO used to fill up a track.
These lyrics are a child like view of Rainbow's.
They sure ain't a scientific view.
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her dressed in blue
See the sky in front of you
And her face is like a sail
Speck of white so fair and pale
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her all in gold
Like a queen in days of old
She shoots colors all around
Like a sunset going down
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 09:59 by howled.
Combs and combing, not comes or coming...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 10:17 by DandelionPowderman.
Pink Floyd are interesting because they did pursue it (with some darker things mixed in) and got a lot of followers (I'm not one) and they were not even big drug users and I think Roger Waters only tried acid once and didn't like it that much (Howard Stern interview).
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 16:37 by howled.
I am a little puzzled about what a scientific view is supposed to be in rock lyrics. It starts to remind distantly of something I do not have anything more than the weakest knowledge of, a socalled psycho-biological perspective on man.
Apart from that, I do not see "She 's a Rainbow" as dealing with rainbows as such. Instead, with the song's melody and instrumentation, it is to me a deeply felt utmost sensual praise of some woman, instead of the more typical sexual appeal women more usually are described with in frequent Stones lyrics. There are those important exceptions, though. Some instances of that introducing itself in certain Stones songs all the same, one might think fits in with a emotional turn in the band's development to some degree, which His Majesty presented some thoughts on lately.
An increased susceptibility to nature and colours etc, produced by drug effects or not, I fail to see must be thought of as childish per se. But either if it is or not, I can't see it as a bad effect as such. Such an effect might have been, even if it probably was not in this case, the result also without any use of drugs, of course.
By the way, occasionly the Stones also later sang about flowers. But later they were for instance dead roses.
You are of course entitled to your own taste and view of "Gomper". But if the band only had wanted to fill out time, they probably more easily could and would have used a more traditional kind of song. As it was, they rather seemed to seek something special by it, even if you and many others dislike that song more than most.
When I'm talking about child like, I mean a child's wonderment or fantasies or imagination or views of things.
Look at "Alice In Wonderland" which is full of those things that children like.
Children like rainbows especially seeing them for the first time and they like fantasy (maybe not all children).
Mick is singing about a woman that appears to have a rainbow like presence.
Seeing that most women don't seem to come in rainbow like multi colours, it is a child like or fantasy like view of a woman obviously inspired by acid.
Mick doesn't seem to think much of Gomper and only mentioned "She's A Rainbow" and "2,000 Light Years From Home" as the few good things on Santantic.
A scientific view of a rainbow would be
"A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that is caused by both reflection and refraction of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured arc."
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-20 14:23 by howled.
Such lyrics existed long before 1967 and long after.
No I am aware that TSMR has been re-evaluated in fact it was I think in Uncut about 10 years back when they put in Top 5 Stones albums or something like that - going from memory here...which I thought was an overcompensation for its bad reputation.
TSMR is part of Stones history - and an interesting part at that. But will remain problematic to many who cannot wade through STAT etc...Hence my little project which is nothing more than a bit of fun that I had done anyway and wanted to share. I am not trying to re-write history and nor could I.
Don't understand the level of vitriol - "crap ears" and whatnot. That is just subjective and is hardly in the spirit of debate about TSMR history.
BTW - to my mind Gold Painted Nails and Majesties Honky Tonk were also instrumentals - try singing over the top of them - it is pretty difficult.
Singing what? So many ways for vocals to work on those tracks.
They are clearly constructed songs with middle 8's and the like... just waiting for vocals.
Many people have problems with most of their albums.
The main problem with Flowers is not that it includes previously released stuff, but that it contains My Girl.
No I don't have objections, I'm just saying that "She's A Rainbow" belongs to 1967 rather than to 1978.
I would rather hear "She's A Rainbow" than hear "Miss You" but that's just my opinion.
The way that the Stones pursued Blues/Country/Rock in the late 60s and early 70s was just the way they went, rather than singing about Rainbows.
For a listener that doesn't care about the Blues much, then that late 60s and early 70s might not mean much to them, but it does to me and some others.
The Stones went a bit new wave in 1978 and I'm not a huge fan of it.
I happen to like the 60s and early 70s Stones but I basically stop around 1971 with Sticky Fingers except for a few things like Angie and IORR.
Well, it was you who started to draw in 1978, (added: as a reference for a 67-released song as She's a Rainbow" ).
You then address my post with the words: "For a listener that doesn't care about the Blues much, then that late 60s and early 70s might not mean much to them, but it does to me and some others." I care about blues. But in a Stones context it does not mean that I see the '68 - '72 studio albums as the only golden period in the band's history. Neither are those albums only blues oriented, and that period is not the only and really not the first time in the band's history that had blues in it. Most of all I myself appreciate the variety and development in the Stones' approach, as one who finds gold in may parts of the band's career.
And once again, to liken a woman and her colours with a rainbow is not to sing about rainbows. By the way, had they sung about rainbows as such, I would certainly have liked that, too. You could with a sounder basis instead have argued that they sang about dandelions (also much to my liking).
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 10:21 by Witness.
Can you remind this in need of reminding person what info is available about this We Love You album and where it comes from?
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say!
However, "We Love You" (the album) remains a bit of a mystery because the whole surviving artifact is the front cover which gives, apart from the obvious title track, no further information concerning the albums track list.
The Record Collector Magazine article suggests that it was a kind of early version TSMR, but due to various "incidents" in 1967 the completion of the album had been delayed until November when the We Love You-single was already 4 months in the past,hence their decision to not include it, and, possibly, also "Dandelion". If that's the case, this album is closely connected to the development of the final TSMR-album and various tracklist changes along the way.
But I always thought that it could "just" be an updated version of "Flowers" for their home and european markets which would make sense because a) "Flowers" was only available in the US and b) "Flowers" contained previously unreleased tracks unavailable elsewhere, which of course means outside the US ("Ride On Baby","Sitting On A Fence" and "My Girl". I recall that you've also mentioned this possibility in an earlier discussion on this site. However, if that's really the case, this album would have no connection to TSMR at all. Then it would be just a record company cash-in on the summer of 1967 with some stray tracks thrown in to cut short the waiting for the all-new TSMR album or simply because the band was in such shambles in 1967 that it had not been clear if a new album was a likely prospect at all or at least in the foreseeable future.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
funkydrummer
()
Date: May 18, 2014 22:32
Quote
His Majesty
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.
No I definitely dispute this, because most of them clock in around 1min mark - and are have defined instrumental melodies which are foregrounded. The fact that 5 Part Jam is a melodic theme in five distinct parts each of about 1 min each, makes for a pretty clear case that they were going to try and thematically tie the thing together instrumentally but ended up giving up on the idea.
That was one of the things I tried to restore. In fact it was one of the main reasons for doing so, because I love the instrumentals on SS - and still can't understand why they didn't go with this approach!
My own idea is that they might have thought "looks like we are trying to hard to do a thematic concept album" (and it is reminiscent of stuff that came out at the time like Who Sell Out etc) - so they decided against it. Of course, this is just conjecture, but a solid listen to SS shows the seeds of a very different album that got waylaid somewhere...
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
bleedingman
()
Date: May 18, 2014 22:37
funkydrummer, I quite enjoyed this. Thanks.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 18, 2014 22:38
I'm not talking about the 5 part thing or title 15, those are obviously instrumentals.
I'm meaning Gold Painted Nails, Majesties Honky Tonk etc.
I'm meaning Gold Painted Nails, Majesties Honky Tonk etc.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 18, 2014 23:07
Quote
His Majesty
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.
This is true, and a nice development. I think the whole psychedelia period has been through a positive re-evaluation, and its importance to whole development of rock music has been recognized more, unlike seen it as an odd freaky side-step or 'trip' from the main road. Also in our forum, the approach towards SATANIC MAJESTIES have been turning warmer, and I also belong to that group, not that my ears are any less crap than before...
Just to think of how much poorer the Stones legacy would be without it. Actually, I would claim that the 'golden period' or Big Four had not been possible without that experiment. That was a period of 'freeing one's mind' of the boundaries of pop songs and their ordinary templates, and discovering a new artistic depthness in rock music.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-18 23:08 by Doxa.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: May 19, 2014 01:09
Quote
His MajestyQuote
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.
A band that was loved by The Beatles, The Who - Townshend played on Mike Heron's Smiling Men With Bad Reputations, Mick and Marianne and Led Zeppelin. There can be no higher accolade.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 19, 2014 09:53
Quote
WitnessQuote
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.]
.
It's child like in the way it has a wonderment and fantasy element and songs are about flowers and colours or white rabbits or kaleidescope eyes or whatever.
The context is childlike wonderment, colours, dreaming, surreal etc influenced by drug effects.
If Mick was still singing about flowers and rainbows in 1975 then the Stones would have been a cult thing.
The Psychedelic period is ok for what it was.
Gomper is a boring jam IMO used to fill up a track.
These lyrics are a child like view of Rainbow's.
They sure ain't a scientific view.
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her dressed in blue
See the sky in front of you
And her face is like a sail
Speck of white so fair and pale
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her all in gold
Like a queen in days of old
She shoots colors all around
Like a sunset going down
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 09:59 by howled.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 19, 2014 10:15
Quote
howledQuote
WitnessQuote
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.]
.
It's child like in the way it has a wonderment and fantasy element and songs are about flowers and colours or white rabbits or kaleidescope eyes or whatever.
The context is childlike wonderment, colours, dreaming, surreal etc influenced by drug effects.
If Mick was still singing about flowers and rainbows in 1975 then the Stones would have been a cult thing.
The Psychedelic period is ok for what it was.
Gomper is a boring jam IMO used to fill up a track.
These lyrics are a child like view of Rainbow's.
They sure ain't a scientific view.
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her dressed in blue
See the sky in front of you
And her face is like a sail
Speck of white so fair and pale
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her all in gold
Like a queen in days of old
She shoots colors all around
Like a sunset going down
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Combs and combing, not comes or coming...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 10:17 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 19, 2014 15:46
Just to note that not all of that music involves childlike happy lyrics, there is a darkness. Also, two multi-million selling albums come from the well spring of experimental/psych/progressive music, those being...
Sgt Pepper and Dark Side Of The Moon.
Who knows, the stones might have eventually ended up with an equally high seller or two had they stuck with the more drug influenced side of things.
Psych/weird/drug influnced music didn't fade away, it developed, got bigger and spread out in to jazz etc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 15:50 by His Majesty.
Sgt Pepper and Dark Side Of The Moon.
Who knows, the stones might have eventually ended up with an equally high seller or two had they stuck with the more drug influenced side of things.
Psych/weird/drug influnced music didn't fade away, it developed, got bigger and spread out in to jazz etc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 15:50 by His Majesty.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 19, 2014 16:35
Quote
His Majesty
Just to note that not all of that music involves childlike happy lyrics, there is a darkness. Also, two multi-million selling albums come from the well spring of experimental/psych/progressive music, those being...
Sgt Pepper and Dark Side Of The Moon.
Who knows, the stones might have eventually ended up with an equally high seller or two had they stuck with the more drug influenced side of things.
Psych/weird/drug influnced music didn't fade away, it developed, got bigger and spread out in to jazz etc.
Pink Floyd are interesting because they did pursue it (with some darker things mixed in) and got a lot of followers (I'm not one) and they were not even big drug users and I think Roger Waters only tried acid once and didn't like it that much (Howard Stern interview).
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-19 16:37 by howled.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: May 19, 2014 17:25
When I started buying the Stones back catalog, early in the eighties, Satanic already didn't have a great reputation so this was one of the last records in my wish list. I got it by the time the CD version appeared (remember it was the only London CD with a yellow spine, which made it some how special to me), and much to my surprise I immediately loved it (to the point that the unexpected inclusion of 2000 LYFH in the 90's set list was the highlight of the show for me)
This long preamble to say that Satanic is perfect as it is for me.
By the way, what kills your project to me is the edit (but I'd rather say, the butchering ...) of Sing this Song (See What Happens) which is my unmentionable fav track of the record.
C
This long preamble to say that Satanic is perfect as it is for me.
By the way, what kills your project to me is the edit (but I'd rather say, the butchering ...) of Sing this Song (See What Happens) which is my unmentionable fav track of the record.
C
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: May 19, 2014 21:59
Quote
howled
It's child like in the way it has a wonderment and fantasy element and songs are about flowers and colours or white rabbits or kaleidescope eyes or whatever.
The context is childlike wonderment, colours, dreaming, surreal etc influenced by drug effects.
If Mick was still singing about flowers and rainbows in 1975 then the Stones would have been a cult thing.
The Psychedelic period is ok for what it was.
Gomper is a boring jam IMO used to fill up a track.
These lyrics are a child like view of Rainbow's.
They sure ain't a scientific view.
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her dressed in blue
See the sky in front of you
And her face is like a sail
Speck of white so fair and pale
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her all in gold
Like a queen in days of old
She shoots colors all around
Like a sunset going down
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
I am a little puzzled about what a scientific view is supposed to be in rock lyrics. It starts to remind distantly of something I do not have anything more than the weakest knowledge of, a socalled psycho-biological perspective on man.
Apart from that, I do not see "She 's a Rainbow" as dealing with rainbows as such. Instead, with the song's melody and instrumentation, it is to me a deeply felt utmost sensual praise of some woman, instead of the more typical sexual appeal women more usually are described with in frequent Stones lyrics. There are those important exceptions, though. Some instances of that introducing itself in certain Stones songs all the same, one might think fits in with a emotional turn in the band's development to some degree, which His Majesty presented some thoughts on lately.
An increased susceptibility to nature and colours etc, produced by drug effects or not, I fail to see must be thought of as childish per se. But either if it is or not, I can't see it as a bad effect as such. Such an effect might have been, even if it probably was not in this case, the result also without any use of drugs, of course.
By the way, occasionly the Stones also later sang about flowers. But later they were for instance dead roses.
You are of course entitled to your own taste and view of "Gomper". But if the band only had wanted to fill out time, they probably more easily could and would have used a more traditional kind of song. As it was, they rather seemed to seek something special by it, even if you and many others dislike that song more than most.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 19, 2014 22:48
Quote
liddas
... Satanic is perfect as it is for me.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 20, 2014 14:11
Quote
WitnessQuote
howled
It's child like in the way it has a wonderment and fantasy element and songs are about flowers and colours or white rabbits or kaleidescope eyes or whatever.
The context is childlike wonderment, colours, dreaming, surreal etc influenced by drug effects.
If Mick was still singing about flowers and rainbows in 1975 then the Stones would have been a cult thing.
The Psychedelic period is ok for what it was.
Gomper is a boring jam IMO used to fill up a track.
These lyrics are a child like view of Rainbow's.
They sure ain't a scientific view.
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her dressed in blue
See the sky in front of you
And her face is like a sail
Speck of white so fair and pale
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
Have you seen her all in gold
Like a queen in days of old
She shoots colors all around
Like a sunset going down
Have you seen the lady fairer
She comes in colors everywhere;
She combs her hair
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
She's like a rainbow
Coming colors in the air
Oh, everywhere
She comes in colors
I am a little puzzled about what a scientific view is supposed to be in rock lyrics. It starts to remind distantly of something I do not have anything more than the weakest knowledge of, a socalled psycho-biological perspective on man.
Apart from that, I do not see "She 's a Rainbow" as dealing with rainbows as such. Instead, with the song's melody and instrumentation, it is to me a deeply felt utmost sensual praise of some woman, instead of the more typical sexual appeal women more usually are described with in frequent Stones lyrics. There are those important exceptions, though. Some instances of that introducing itself in certain Stones songs all the same, one might think fits in with a emotional turn in the band's development to some degree, which His Majesty presented some thoughts on lately.
An increased susceptibility to nature and colours etc, produced by drug effects or not, I fail to see must be thought of as childish per se. But either if it is or not, I can't see it as a bad effect as such. Such an effect might have been, even if it probably was not in this case, the result also without any use of drugs, of course.
By the way, occasionly the Stones also later sang about flowers. But later they were for instance dead roses.
You are of course entitled to your own taste and view of "Gomper". But if the band only had wanted to fill out time, they probably more easily could and would have used a more traditional kind of song. As it was, they rather seemed to seek something special by it, even if you and many others dislike that song more than most.
When I'm talking about child like, I mean a child's wonderment or fantasies or imagination or views of things.
Look at "Alice In Wonderland" which is full of those things that children like.
Children like rainbows especially seeing them for the first time and they like fantasy (maybe not all children).
Mick is singing about a woman that appears to have a rainbow like presence.
Seeing that most women don't seem to come in rainbow like multi colours, it is a child like or fantasy like view of a woman obviously inspired by acid.
Mick doesn't seem to think much of Gomper and only mentioned "She's A Rainbow" and "2,000 Light Years From Home" as the few good things on Santantic.
A scientific view of a rainbow would be
"A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that is caused by both reflection and refraction of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured arc."
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-20 14:23 by howled.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 20, 2014 14:22
^ @#$%&' ell, way to kill the creativity and inspiration in music.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 20, 2014 14:28
She's A Rainbow is a good song and it's just a product of that Groovy period.
Mick's lyrics are great IMO with the Rainbows and colours and combs etc but the song is what it is and belongs to that period and not to 1978.
If some people want to live in 1967 then whatever, but the Stones didn't.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-20 14:30 by howled.
Mick's lyrics are great IMO with the Rainbows and colours and combs etc but the song is what it is and belongs to that period and not to 1978.
If some people want to live in 1967 then whatever, but the Stones didn't.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-20 14:30 by howled.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 20, 2014 18:16
Quote
howled
She's A Rainbow is a good song and it's just a product of that Groovy period.
Mick's lyrics are great IMO with the Rainbows and colours and combs etc but the song is what it is and belongs to that period and not to 1978.
If some people want to live in 1967 then whatever, but the Stones didn't.
Such lyrics existed long before 1967 and long after.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: May 20, 2014 23:50
Written on a mobile more than the time of a football match ago. So I don't what has happened in the thread since.
howled, one of your objections is that "She's A Rainbow" dates from 1967 and not in 1978. As if 1978 is supposed to be a more authentic Stones year than 1967. For a band with its origin in the early 60s that could hardly be. I don't say this as one who dislikes for instance the song "Lies", quite the contrary. I do like it. However, you can hardly say that 1978 more than 1967 contributes what makes the Stones the band it has been. If there is one truth about the Stones, it would be that in the years when they released studio albums, they most of all stood for change. If anything, you ought to have mentionned the years before 1966 as more authentic in case.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-20 23:53 by Witness.
howled, one of your objections is that "She's A Rainbow" dates from 1967 and not in 1978. As if 1978 is supposed to be a more authentic Stones year than 1967. For a band with its origin in the early 60s that could hardly be. I don't say this as one who dislikes for instance the song "Lies", quite the contrary. I do like it. However, you can hardly say that 1978 more than 1967 contributes what makes the Stones the band it has been. If there is one truth about the Stones, it would be that in the years when they released studio albums, they most of all stood for change. If anything, you ought to have mentionned the years before 1966 as more authentic in case.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-20 23:53 by Witness.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
funkydrummer
()
Date: May 21, 2014 00:50
Quote
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.
No I am aware that TSMR has been re-evaluated in fact it was I think in Uncut about 10 years back when they put in Top 5 Stones albums or something like that - going from memory here...which I thought was an overcompensation for its bad reputation.
TSMR is part of Stones history - and an interesting part at that. But will remain problematic to many who cannot wade through STAT etc...Hence my little project which is nothing more than a bit of fun that I had done anyway and wanted to share. I am not trying to re-write history and nor could I.
Don't understand the level of vitriol - "crap ears" and whatnot. That is just subjective and is hardly in the spirit of debate about TSMR history.
BTW - to my mind Gold Painted Nails and Majesties Honky Tonk were also instrumentals - try singing over the top of them - it is pretty difficult.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 21, 2014 01:05
Quote
funkydrummer
BTW - to my mind Gold Painted Nails and Majesties Honky Tonk were also instrumentals - try singing over the top of them - it is pretty difficult.
Singing what? So many ways for vocals to work on those tracks.
They are clearly constructed songs with middle 8's and the like... just waiting for vocals.
Many people have problems with most of their albums.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 21, 2014 01:14
Quote
Doxa
If Oldham would still had been producing them (and the Beatles not having released SGT. PEPPER as a cohesive artistic statement), most likely the American version of SATANIC MAJESTIES had been like that.
Actually, what bothers me is that they were so hurry to release FLOWERS to milk out the summer of love. If they had waited two months and included the new single "We Love You"/"Dandelion" on it - and removed already album-used "Ruby Tuesday"/"Let's Spend The Night Together" - the whole album would have looked and dated much better, and not being just an artificial collection, as it is seen today.
- Doxa
The main problem with Flowers is not that it includes previously released stuff, but that it contains My Girl.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: May 21, 2014 05:36
Speaking of "Flowers", "We Love You" and "Dandelion" - I still wonder what the planned tracklist for the cancelled "We Love You"-album looked like. Maybe a worked-up "Flowers"-like compilation for the home and european markets, including the We Love You single tracks and some other leftovers like "I Can See It"?
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 21, 2014 08:40
Quote
Witness
Written on a mobile more than the time of a football match ago. So I don't what has happened in the thread since.
howled, one of your objections is that "She's A Rainbow" dates from 1967 and not in 1978. As if 1978 is supposed to be a more authentic Stones year than 1967. For a band with its origin in the early 60s that could hardly be. I don't say this as one who dislikes for instance the song "Lies", quite the contrary. I do like it. However, you can hardly say that 1978 more than 1967 contributes what makes the Stones the band it has been. If there is one truth about the Stones, it would be that in the years when they released studio albums, they most of all stood for change. If anything, you ought to have mentionned the years before 1966 as more authentic in case.
No I don't have objections, I'm just saying that "She's A Rainbow" belongs to 1967 rather than to 1978.
I would rather hear "She's A Rainbow" than hear "Miss You" but that's just my opinion.
The way that the Stones pursued Blues/Country/Rock in the late 60s and early 70s was just the way they went, rather than singing about Rainbows.
For a listener that doesn't care about the Blues much, then that late 60s and early 70s might not mean much to them, but it does to me and some others.
The Stones went a bit new wave in 1978 and I'm not a huge fan of it.
I happen to like the 60s and early 70s Stones but I basically stop around 1971 with Sticky Fingers except for a few things like Angie and IORR.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: May 21, 2014 08:53
Just listened to the original TSMR tonight for the first time in a while and had forgotten how much I liked most of it. Also forgotten: how prescient 2000 Man was (the idea that in the year 2000 the guy would be having an affair with a computer--even though in 1967 I'm not sure I knew what a computer was), and what a solid trip Gomper is. I love it, I lit a joss stick in homage. Took me right back (in spirit) to the day. Some wonderful musicianship on that, which nobody ever seems to mention.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: May 21, 2014 10:02
Quote
howledQuote
Witness
Written on a mobile more than the time of a football match ago. So I don't what has happened in the thread since.
howled, one of your objections is that "She's A Rainbow" dates from 1967 and not in 1978. As if 1978 is supposed to be a more authentic Stones year than 1967. For a band with its origin in the early 60s that could hardly be. I don't say this as one who dislikes for instance the song "Lies", quite the contrary. I do like it. However, you can hardly say that 1978 more than 1967 contributes what makes the Stones the band it has been. If there is one truth about the Stones, it would be that in the years when they released studio albums, they most of all stood for change. If anything, you ought to have mentionned the years before 1966 as more authentic in case.
No I don't have objections, I'm just saying that "She's A Rainbow" belongs to 1967 rather than to 1978.
I would rather hear "She's A Rainbow" than hear "Miss You" but that's just my opinion.
The way that the Stones pursued Blues/Country/Rock in the late 60s and early 70s was just the way they went, rather than singing about Rainbows.
For a listener that doesn't care about the Blues much, then that late 60s and early 70s might not mean much to them, but it does to me and some others.
The Stones went a bit new wave in 1978 and I'm not a huge fan of it.
I happen to like the 60s and early 70s Stones but I basically stop around 1971 with Sticky Fingers except for a few things like Angie and IORR.
Well, it was you who started to draw in 1978, (added: as a reference for a 67-released song as She's a Rainbow" ).
You then address my post with the words: "For a listener that doesn't care about the Blues much, then that late 60s and early 70s might not mean much to them, but it does to me and some others." I care about blues. But in a Stones context it does not mean that I see the '68 - '72 studio albums as the only golden period in the band's history. Neither are those albums only blues oriented, and that period is not the only and really not the first time in the band's history that had blues in it. Most of all I myself appreciate the variety and development in the Stones' approach, as one who finds gold in may parts of the band's career.
And once again, to liken a woman and her colours with a rainbow is not to sing about rainbows. By the way, had they sung about rainbows as such, I would certainly have liked that, too. You could with a sounder basis instead have argued that they sang about dandelions (also much to my liking).
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 10:21 by Witness.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: May 21, 2014 10:24
I'm just saying that in the 60s and 70s there were lots of trends coming and going and Psychedelica was one of them and "She's A Rainbow" and "Satanaic Majesties" belongs to Psychedelica but by 1978 it's Punk/New Wave/Disco and "Miss You" and "Some Girls" belong to that period.
There is not much of a chance that Mick is going to equate a woman to a Rainbow on "Some Girls" and it's more about whips and taking the mickey out of a woman and it's more aggressive except for that "Faraway Eyes" Country joke thing and "Beast Of Burden" which is the best thing on it IMO.
The Rainbow is used as a psychedelic imagery thing for the song where Mick is equating a woman to a Rainbow and it suits 1967 but not so much 1978.
The Stones adapted to trends in the 60s and 70s and Psychedelica was one of them and "Satanic Majesties" is the Stones Psychedelic album and 2 years later Mick was writing "Brown Sugar".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 10:30 by howled.
There is not much of a chance that Mick is going to equate a woman to a Rainbow on "Some Girls" and it's more about whips and taking the mickey out of a woman and it's more aggressive except for that "Faraway Eyes" Country joke thing and "Beast Of Burden" which is the best thing on it IMO.
The Rainbow is used as a psychedelic imagery thing for the song where Mick is equating a woman to a Rainbow and it suits 1967 but not so much 1978.
The Stones adapted to trends in the 60s and 70s and Psychedelica was one of them and "Satanic Majesties" is the Stones Psychedelic album and 2 years later Mick was writing "Brown Sugar".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 10:30 by howled.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 21, 2014 10:55
Quote
alimente
Speaking of "Flowers", "We Love You" and "Dandelion" - I still wonder what the planned tracklist for the cancelled "We Love You"-album looked like. Maybe a worked-up "Flowers"-like compilation for the home and european markets, including the We Love You single tracks and some other leftovers like "I Can See It"?
Can you remind this in need of reminding person what info is available about this We Love You album and where it comes from?
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: May 21, 2014 18:00
Quote
His MajestyQuote
alimente
Speaking of "Flowers", "We Love You" and "Dandelion" - I still wonder what the planned tracklist for the cancelled "We Love You"-album looked like. Maybe a worked-up "Flowers"-like compilation for the home and european markets, including the We Love You single tracks and some other leftovers like "I Can See It"?
Can you remind this in need of reminding person what info is available about this We Love You album and where it comes from?
Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say!
However, "We Love You" (the album) remains a bit of a mystery because the whole surviving artifact is the front cover which gives, apart from the obvious title track, no further information concerning the albums track list.
The Record Collector Magazine article suggests that it was a kind of early version TSMR, but due to various "incidents" in 1967 the completion of the album had been delayed until November when the We Love You-single was already 4 months in the past,hence their decision to not include it, and, possibly, also "Dandelion". If that's the case, this album is closely connected to the development of the final TSMR-album and various tracklist changes along the way.
But I always thought that it could "just" be an updated version of "Flowers" for their home and european markets which would make sense because a) "Flowers" was only available in the US and b) "Flowers" contained previously unreleased tracks unavailable elsewhere, which of course means outside the US ("Ride On Baby","Sitting On A Fence" and "My Girl". I recall that you've also mentioned this possibility in an earlier discussion on this site. However, if that's really the case, this album would have no connection to TSMR at all. Then it would be just a record company cash-in on the summer of 1967 with some stray tracks thrown in to cut short the waiting for the all-new TSMR album or simply because the band was in such shambles in 1967 that it had not been clear if a new album was a likely prospect at all or at least in the foreseeable future.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 21, 2014 21:21
I was asking what info is available about the We Love You album and where this info came from.
You gave those answers.
However, nothing from the stones seems to suggest they had any kind of album planned or ready for any time earlier than when TSMR was actually released.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 21:25 by His Majesty.
You gave those answers.
However, nothing from the stones seems to suggest they had any kind of album planned or ready for any time earlier than when TSMR was actually released.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 21:25 by His Majesty.
Re: Satanic Majesties Reimagined
Posted by:
Single Malt
()
Date: May 23, 2014 17:24
Well, I had to do my own reimagined album. I also stepped out of the comfort zone and ripped "Sing this all together" and "Citadel" apart.
My version (so far until I change the running order - again):
Side 1:
1) intro (the beginning of Sing this all together - See what happens)
2) Sing This All Together
3) Dandelion
4) Gold Painted Nails (edit)
5) She's A Rainbow
6) Citadel
7) Title 15 (edit)
8) We Love You
9) Sing This All Together - See What Happens (finale)
Side 2:
1) Soul Blues 3 (or whatever the name of that studio jam is)
2) On With The Show
3) 2000 Man
4) The Lantern
5) In Another Land
6) Cosmic Christmas (a.k.a. the last unnamed short track at side 1)
7) Gomper
8) 2000 Light Years From Home
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-27 10:33 by Single Malt.
My version (so far until I change the running order - again):
Side 1:
1) intro (the beginning of Sing this all together - See what happens)
2) Sing This All Together
3) Dandelion
4) Gold Painted Nails (edit)
5) She's A Rainbow
6) Citadel
7) Title 15 (edit)
8) We Love You
9) Sing This All Together - See What Happens (finale)
Side 2:
1) Soul Blues 3 (or whatever the name of that studio jam is)
2) On With The Show
3) 2000 Man
4) The Lantern
5) In Another Land
6) Cosmic Christmas (a.k.a. the last unnamed short track at side 1)
7) Gomper
8) 2000 Light Years From Home
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-27 10:33 by Single Malt.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1390
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10