[ ]      [ ]   [ ]
The Rolling Stones — Let It Bleed
Album: Let It Bleed
Avg rating:
7.4

Your rating:
Total ratings: 1203









Released: 1969
Length: 5:22
Plays (last 30 days): 1
Well we all need someone to lean on
And if you want it, well you can lean on me
Well, we all need someone we can lean on
And if you want it, well you can lean on me

She said my breasts they will always be open
Baby, you can rest your weary head on me
And there will always be a space in my parking lot
When you need a little coke and sympathy

Yeah, we all need someone we can dream on
And if you want it, well you can dream on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can cream on
And if you want to, well you can cream on me

I was dreaming of a steel guitar engagement
When you drink my health in scented jasmine tea
You knifed me in my dirty filthy basement
With that jaded faded junky nurse
Oh, what pleasant company

We all need someone we can feed on
And if you want it, well you can feed on me
Take my arm, take my leg
Oh, baby, don't you take my head

We all need someone we can bleed on
And if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
We all need someone we can bleed on
And if you want it, why don't you bleed on me

Get it on, rider
Get it on, rider
Get it on, rider
You can bleed all over me.
Comments (175)add comment
I think it's the drumming that rescues this song. Charlie Watts manages to make you feel like he's pushing the band along throughout the track.
I can't get over the phoney accent
Old, but gold!
Life Changing  (in a positive way  : )
And how many people do you know dream about a steel guitar engagement? 
 Jota wrote:
A 4, would be double that if Mick didn't put on that stupid voice.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt9q-WChfeM
 NickDanger wrote:
This. Entire. Album. Rocks!
 
Absolootlee!
This. Entire. Album. Rocks!
A 4, would be double that if Mick didn't put on that stupid voice.
7.3? To quote Kathleen Edwards, "You gotta be fucking kidding me".
Ian Stewart bangin' some mean ivories...

R.I.P., Stew.
 I must agree..this song sounds like it was put together in about 5 minutes..done in 1 take   msymmes wrote:

Oh oh.  Not these guys again?  Sucko Barfo.
 

 

I will be singing this all day... Nice.
WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
In the end jagger screams out : bleed on rider you can come all over me... 
One of the best songs of the stones i d say
 
saw "Crossfire Hurricane" the other day and it was really great:
Crossfire Hurricane is a 2012 documentary film about The Rolling Stones written and directed by Brett Morgen. The film chronicles the early years of the band through their gradual mainstream acceptance in 1981. The film is a series of interviews conducted without cameras, while showing various points of interest that the band is discussing as archival footage.

 Crossfire Hurricane.jpg
 Sweet_Virginia wrote:
Conspiracy theorists believe that unsupportable esoteric nonsense is the basis of reality. And I tend to agree...
 
Shame on you. If you actually did some research for yourself you would find the reverse is usually true. But if you are comfortable letting your government tell you what to think then I guess there is no point in me mentioning that. 

:) 
Another great album from the Stones… 8^)

Oh oh.  Not these guys again?  Sucko Barfo.
 

 

Donna the Buffalo - Let it Bleed - 1-28-2011, Greensboro, NC (at the Blind Tiger) - Video: DaBabe ("video webcast" archive quality) - audio: Joel at jamlivedotorg - dub/youtube: Rand at herd.tv.

 


{#Bananapiano}{#Bananapiano}{#Bananapiano}
 rdo wrote:

I do appreciate analytical writing, but so much of what you get from academic writers is esoteric, unsopportable nonsense.  It is a shame.  There is so much you can write about art by just taking it at face value. You don't need to resort to creepy, psuedo-Freudian banality.  I'll bet you have a masters in art?

 
Conspiracy theorists believe that unsupportable esoteric nonsense is the basis of reality. And I tend to agree...

One of the greatest stones songs ever!
 ScottN wrote:

And Gimme Shelter is best anti-war/apocalypse song ever.  And maybe the Stones' best song of all time.  Let it Bleed is very good too.

 

Gimme Shelter is best anti-war/apocalypse song ever  
No, just one of them.  I can list 20 tracks that are just as potent. 
 thais wrote:

On 1966 Mick sings (and complains):

...
Anyway, I think "Let it Bleed" marks the end of a circle (yes, I know it is a math/geometric nonsense, but it a metaphor) which starts on
"repression" (old ways) and ends on "liberation" (new ways).
....
 
And Gimme Shelter is best anti-war/apocalypse song ever.  And maybe the Stones' best song of all time.  Let it Bleed is very good too.

This bloody song is marvelous...  love this whole bloody album...
 

 thais wrote:

On 1966 Mick sings (and complains):

"and I'm tryin' to make some girl
who tells me a baby better come back a maybe next week
'cause you see I'm on losing streak.
I can't get no, oh no no no."

On 1969 Mick sings (and does not complain):

"Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, and if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, yeah, and if you want it, baby, why don'cha bleed on me"

Is there a "blood pact" link?
I mean: on 66 all this poor boy could get was go back to home (or pub) with "no satisfaction"; on 69 it did not matter anymore and the "river" could flow without restriction...
Gross? (well, since 50% folks would yell YES, but 50% would keep mouth shut... Well, well, it is a matter for another place and hoour, isn´t it?).
Anyway, I think "Let it Bleed" marks the end of a circle (yes, I know it is a math/geometric nonsense, but it a metaphor) which starts on
"repression" (old ways) and ends on "liberation" (new ways).
(And if those three years was a time when the world (the old world of our granparents) was "ruining, burning, being broked for these hairy and dirty boys", I think it is not a simple coincidence.)
I mean, this song is the end of "teenage years" of RS: their next albuns (Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street) is much more "adults", musical and  lyrically. 
So, before the 66 dilemma, now this poor bay decides to accept the terms for obtain his "satisfaction" (in this case, of course, Mick is among those 50% who remains in silent agreement...)

This is why I think this music is superb: it brings an answer to a very difficult question: to grow up or not to grow up.
Is this the right answer?

Hey, it is just a music...
And for music (and art) any answer is better no answer at all.



  Nah, I think it was more like this...Coolest Movie Quotes - Jackie Brown - YouTube 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wldtlQ3LfyI



rocking with my self in this sunny afternoon... and it goes from an 8 to a 10! {#Sunny}{#Dancingbanana_2}

Everybody in my church loves this bloody song...
 
 thais wrote:

On 1966 Mick sings (and complains):

"and I'm tryin' to make some girl
who tells me a baby better come back a maybe next week
'cause you see I'm on losing streak.
I can't get no, oh no no no."

On 1969 Mick sings (and does not complain):

"Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, and if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, yeah, and if you want it, baby, why don'cha bleed on me"

Is there a "blood pact" link?
I mean: on 66 all this poor boy could get was go back to home (or pub) with "no satisfaction"; on 69 it did not matter anymore and the "river" could flow without restriction...
Gross? (well, since 50% folks would yell YES, but 50% would keep mouth shut... Well, well, it is a matter for another place and hoour, isn´t it?).
Anyway, I think "Let it Bleed" marks the end of a circle (yes, I know it is a math/geometric nonsense, but it a metaphor) which starts on
"repression" (old ways) and ends on "liberation" (new ways).
(And if those three years was a time when the world (the old world of our granparents) was "ruining, burning, being broked for these hairy and dirty boys", I think it is not a simple coincidence.)
I mean, this song is the end of "teenage years" of RS: their next albuns (Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street) is much more "adults", musical and  lyrically. 
So, before the 66 dilemma, now this poor bay decides to accept the terms for obtain his "satisfaction" (in this case, of course, Mick is among those 50% who remains in silent agreement...)

This is why I think this music is superb: it brings an answer to a very difficult question: to grow up or not to grow up.
Is this the right answer?

Hey, it is just a music...
And for music (and art) any answer is better no answer at all.
 
I do appreciate analytical writing, but so much of what you get from academic writers is esoteric, unsopportable nonsense.  It is a shame.  There is so much you can write about art by just taking it at face value. You don't need to resort to creepy, psuedo-Freudian banality.  I'll bet you have a masters in art?
 gypsyman wrote:

Dog pile. WTF ARE you talking about?
 
{#Lol}
 thais wrote:

On 1966 Mick sings (and complains):

"and I'm tryin' to make some girl
who tells me a baby better come back a maybe next week
'cause you see I'm on losing streak.
I can't get no, oh no no no."

On 1969 Mick sings (and does not complain):

"Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, and if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, yeah, and if you want it, baby, why don'cha bleed on me"

Is there a "blood pact" link?
I mean: on 66 all this poor boy could get was go back to home (or pub) with "no satisfaction"; on 69 it did not matter anymore and the "river" could flow without restriction...
Gross? (well, since 50% folks would yell YES, but 50% would keep mouth shut... Well, well, it is a matter for another place and hoour, isn´t it?).
Anyway, I think "Let it Bleed" marks the end of a circle (yes, I know it is a math/geometric nonsense, but it a metaphor) which starts on
"repression" (old ways) and ends on "liberation" (new ways).
(And if those three years was a time when the world (the old world of our granparents) was "ruining, burning, being broked for these hairy and dirty boys", I think it is not a simple coincidence.)
I mean, this song is the end of "teenage years" of RS: their next albuns (Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street) is much more "adults", musical and  lyrically. 
So, before the 66 dilemma, now this poor bay decides to accept the terms for obtain his "satisfaction" (in this case, of course, Mick is among those 50% who remains in silent agreement...)

This is why I think this music is superb: it brings an answer to a very difficult question: to grow up or not to grow up.
Is this the right answer?

Hey, it is just a music...
And for music (and art) any answer is better no answer at all.
 
Dog pile. WTF ARE you talking about?
 thais wrote:

On 1966 Mick sings (and complains):

"and I'm tryin' to make some girl
who tells me a baby better come back a maybe next week
'cause you see I'm on losing streak.
I can't get no, oh no no no."

On 1969 Mick sings (and does not complain):


"Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, and if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, yeah, and if you want it, baby, why don'cha bleed on me"

Is there a "blood pact" link?

I mean: on 66 all this poor boy could get was go back to home (or pub) with "no satisfaction"; on 69 it did not matter anymore and the "river" could flow without restriction...
Gross? (well, since 50% folks would yell YES, but 50% would keep mouth shut... Well, well, it is a matter for another place and hoour, isn´t it?).
Anyway, I think "Let it Bleed" marks the end of a circle (yes, I know it is a math/geometric nonsense, but it a metaphor) which starts on
"repression" (old ways) and ends on "liberation" (new ways).
(And if those three years was a time when the world (the old world of our granparents) was "ruining, burning, being broked for these hairy and dirty boys", I think it is not a simple coincidence.)
I mean, this song is the end of "teenage years" of RS: their next albuns (Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street) is much more "adults", musical and  lyrically. 
So, before the 66 dilemma, now this poor bay decides to accept the terms for obtain his "satisfaction" (in this case, of course, Mick is among those 50% who remains in silent agreement...)

This is why I think this music is superb: it brings an answer to a very difficult question: to grow up or not to grow up.
Is this the right answer?

Hey, it is just a music...
And for music (and art) any answer is better no answer at all.
 
huh?
 Proclivities wrote:


I don't believe Taylor is playing on this tune.  He was a great addition, though.
 
huh how about that. I went snooped around and you are right. Apparently he only plays on Country Honk and Live with me. Richards get the credit for all the guitar playing. Learn something new everyday!
 thais wrote:

On 1966 Mick sings (and complains):

"and I'm tryin' to make some girl
who tells me a baby better come back a maybe next week
'cause you see I'm on losing streak.
I can't get no, oh no no no."

On 1969 Mick sings (and does not complain):

"Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, and if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, yeah, and if you want it, baby, why don'cha bleed on me"

Is there a "blood pact" link?
I mean: on 66 all this poor boy could get was go back to home (or pub) with "no satisfaction"; on 69 it did not matter anymore and the "river" could flow without restriction...
Gross? (well, since 50% folks would yell YES, but 50% would keep mouth shut... Well, well, it is a matter for another place and hoour, isn´t it?).
Anyway, I think "Let it Bleed" marks the end of a circle (yes, I know it is a math/geometric nonsense, but it a metaphor) which starts on
"repression" (old ways) and ends on "liberation" (new ways).
(And if those three years was a time when the world (the old world of our granparents) was "ruining, burning, being broked for these hairy and dirty boys", I think it is not a simple coincidence.)
I mean, this song is the end of "teenage years" of RS: their next albuns (Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street) is much more "adults", musical and  lyrically. 
So, before the 66 dilemma, now this poor bay decides to accept the terms for obtain his "satisfaction" (in this case, of course, Mick is among those 50% who remains in silent agreement...)

This is why I think this music is superb: it brings an answer to a very difficult question: to grow up or not to grow up.
Is this the right answer?

Hey, it is just a music...
And for music (and art) any answer is better no answer at all.
 
What the...?

How dare you taint my birthday with such...well, poor spelling and grammar, for starters!  :-)

I believe you've also misquoted the lyrics somewhat, thais.
Now, I can appreciate that, apparently, English is not your first tongue. I am envious of you to have this much command of another language, if this is the case. You put me to shame on that count. However, I fail to see the point you're trying to make, friend.

On 1966 Mick sings (and complains):

"and I'm tryin' to make some girl
who tells me a baby better come back a maybe next week
'cause you see I'm on losing streak.
I can't get no, oh no no no."

On 1969 Mick sings (and does not complain):

"Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, and if you want it, baby, well you can bleed on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can bleed on
Yeah, yeah, and if you want it, baby, why don'cha bleed on me"

Is there a "blood pact" link?
I mean: on 66 all this poor boy could get was go back to home (or pub) with "no satisfaction"; on 69 it did not matter anymore and the "river" could flow without restriction...
Gross? (well, since 50% folks would yell YES, but 50% would keep mouth shut... Well, well, it is a matter for another place and hoour, isn´t it?).
Anyway, I think "Let it Bleed" marks the end of a circle (yes, I know it is a math/geometric nonsense, but it a metaphor) which starts on
"repression" (old ways) and ends on "liberation" (new ways).
(And if those three years was a time when the world (the old world of our granparents) was "ruining, burning, being broked for these hairy and dirty boys", I think it is not a simple coincidence.)
I mean, this song is the end of "teenage years" of RS: their next albuns (Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street) is much more "adults", musical and  lyrically. 
So, before the 66 dilemma, now this poor bay decides to accept the terms for obtain his "satisfaction" (in this case, of course, Mick is among those 50% who remains in silent agreement...)

This is why I think this music is superb: it brings an answer to a very difficult question: to grow up or not to grow up.
Is this the right answer?

Hey, it is just a music...
And for music (and art) any answer is better no answer at all.


 martinc wrote:
One of the band's best. Mick Taylor was a great addition.
 

I don't believe Taylor is playing on this tune.  He was a great addition, though.
Thanks for the sunshine, Bill. Should have trusted you from the start.
Yet another great song from a terrific album.  The Stones were on a roll during this period.
 Wizzuvvoz wrote:
Mick with an "American" accent makes about as much sense to me as somebody like John Fogarty singing with a British accent.
 
I understand your point, but Fogarty's "bayou" accent somehow came from growing up in El Cerrito, California.

I think it's more about your musical influences than it is where you were born. While I was born in the USA, my singing voice sounds more like a Canadian goose. 
 toterola wrote:
16 people rated this song a "1". How is this possible? {#Stupid}
 

Beats the shit outta me, this song is great man!{#Notworthy}
 toterola wrote:
16 people rated this song a "1". How is this possible? {#Stupid}
 
My guess is that they're hemophobes. Either that or creamophobes.
ALL OVER....Wooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
 
16 people rated this song a "1". How is this possible? {#Stupid}


that is some killer slide guitar
 robd708 wrote:
No more stones.  Overplayed, undertalented.
 
I really wonder what your definition of talented is {#Eh}
{#Skull} ziakut wrote:
Not anymore...the songs over. :)  {#Lol} sirdroseph wrote:


That's your problem! Great song!!{#Bananajam}
 
 


 robd708 wrote:
No more stones.  Overplayed, undertalented.
 
Glad others are enjoying it, but I am with you. This song has always irritated me.
No more stones.  Overplayed, undertalented.
Not anymore...the songs over. :)  {#Lol} sirdroseph wrote:


That's your problem! Great song!!{#Bananajam}
 


From an 8 > 9.  Will probably become a 10 the next time this rolls around.
GREAT...GREAT...GREAT
 ziakut wrote:
Thumbs down to the most over rated band on the planet. Right place, right time...is a good phrase for these guys. Sure...a few tunes I kinda like by them...but sloppiness and mediocrity just doesn't appeal to me and never has.
 

That's your problem! Great song!!{#Bananajam}
Thumbs down to the most over rated band on the planet. Right place, right time...is a good phrase for these guys. Sure...a few tunes I kinda like by them...but sloppiness and mediocrity just doesn't appeal to me and never has.
 ick wrote:
These guys suck, they'll never make it big.
 
That's some funny shit, yo!
Almost spit my coffee onto the keyboard. 
Am I wrong, but this is the edited version, isn't it?  Somewhere in the beginning, there's a line with a 2 syllable (sp?) word, chopped and replaced with "coke"...
These guys suck, they'll never make it big.
 Misterfixit wrote:
He sings: " ... if you want to, you can cream on me ..." a polite rendition of Bukkake, I suppose. Ewwww, TMI
 
Hey, I learned a new word today! Thanks, Misterfixit!

A great song but bad medical advice.
One of the band's best. Mick Taylor was a great addition.
This song always makes me want to listen to something off of the Faces' Long Player.  It's got that same laid-back feel to it.
That's some segue!  What are we to think?  Is Bill's response to the negativity about Dengue Fever (the band) to just 'Let It Bleed'?
{#Ask}

physicsgenius wrote:
Next time you feel compelled to listen to a song by the Rolling Stones, listen to silence for the same length of time instead. At the end, notice how much happier you are with your new choice.
I'm going to try a variation on this suggestion. Next time, instead of reading a comment by physicsgenius, I'm just going to stare off in to space for a minute or so. And I'll bet I will be happier with that choice.
This album is consistently good from start to finish. A true classic.
Many Stones songs I feel are just overplayed. However, this song is great always!
When they sing these songs live now it's just sleazy...and I hear they all bathe in brine.
Still a good tune!
Mick and Keith were naughty boys then .... and still are occasionally these days even. That explains the lyrics - while the Beatles were asking to hold your hand, the Stones were just asking for your hand .... and don't ask what they wanted it for. :taped-shut:
Nobody is seriously rocking out to the Stones. They are remembering all the great times they had smoking joints or hanging out in pool halls or marching in protests or whatever Stones fans did 40 years ago.
Thanks for letting me know what I was thinking .... what a fool I've been! :liar:
once again I find myself interested in something more than the stones... oooo! Rugby 101! bye!
Mick with an "American" accent makes about as much sense to me as somebody like John Fogarty singing with a British accent.
And i like it, like it, like it... :-) Mick... from France !
When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it bleed
go_ski_mully wrote:
What does Mick mean when he says "...and if you want to honey, you can cream on me"?
Hmmm, check out the lyrics to Liz Phair's "HWC". Some variation of that, I'm guessing.
go_ski_mully wrote:
What does Mick mean when he says "...and if you want to honey, you can cream on me"?
He sings: " ... if you want to, you can cream on me ..." a polite rendition of Bukkake, I suppose. Ewwww, TMI
I was not alive when this song came out but when I hear it I TURN. IT. UP.
Not my favourite Stones' song, I'm afraid. Only a 5 from me.
eastcoast wrote:
I like Hendrix and I was not alive then...
I guess this argument is wasted on me...I was alive to hear this music the first time around...and yes, still love it.
Almo80 wrote:
I like the Stones....but all their songs sound the same!
Take the earplugs out.
Thats the funniest thing I have ever heard. :bounce: :cheesygrin: Almo80 wrote:
I like the Stones....but all their songs sound the same!
ODDS ARE AGAINST PG being in th ethereal 2%. I personally think he/she/it may be a seriously lonely and pathetic person (gee-wonder why?!?!?!?) who is in dire straits for some compassion, unconditional love & tolerance. PG - if you want, you can lean on me brutha. LIKE THE SONG SAYS. Or am I NOT permitted to proffer that since it is nolonger the 60's/70's ?!?
I like Hendrix and I was not alive then...does this mean hendrix is crap? Just curious. physicsgenius wrote:
I can understand why someone in the 60s (or even 70s) might think the Stones were good--there wasn't all that much else to compare them with. But it is now time to Let. It. Go. Next time you feel compelled to listen to a song by the Rolling Stones, listen to silence for the same length of time instead. At the end, notice how much happier you are with your new choice.
11. definitely!
Johnny Winter does an absolutely amazing version of this song that just flat out cooks. I uploaded it to RP but it was turned down.. Too bad, it would have made an excellent addition to the playlist in the vein of say SRV or Hendrix..
I like the Stones....but all their songs sound the same!
Outstanding...Stones at the Height of their carreer which fortunately lasted for quite a few albums.
physicsgenius wrote:
Yes, exactly my point. If you have to have been alive at the time it came out to appreciate something, it is crap. It has no lasting power. It is nostalgia rock only. Nobody is seriously rocking out to the Stones. They are remembering all the great times they had smoking joints or hanging out in pool halls or marching in protests or whatever Stones fans did 40 years ago.
I can see your point that the inherent "greatness" of a song is limited if the only way to for anyone to appreciate is to associate it with contemporary memories. But you've taken a good way for an individual to do an internal inventory for him/herself and tried to make it an automatic rule to disqualify the Stones completely as a band worth listening to today. People do still "seriously rock" out to the Stones music of the 60s and 70s. Maybe you and I and have different ideas as to what "seriously rock" means, but I know people of all ages who still enjoy their music from this period. "I can understand why someone in the 60s (or even 70s) might think the Stones were good--there wasn't all that much else to compare them with. But it is now time to Let. It. Go." Such crap. The band released a lot of mediocre songs to fill out albums, but with their best stuff they stand the test of time. Should we trash The Who as well? Remember that two hit TV shows in the US use Who songs in the opening credits. I would dearly love to see what you "seriously rock out" to. I'm sure some of it dates back to the 60s and 70s and would qualify in the minds of many younger listeners as only nostalgia rock. But if it grabs you, who cares, even if it is only nostalgia rock? If the Stones from the 60s and 70s still thrills people, who cares? Who made you God to determine how and why music should move people?
blueyedmerle wrote:
Somebody answer the poor soul. :tongue:
Young man, we're not talking about Ginger Baker or Eric Clapton here...
Waybo wrote:
Love this song. Probably my favorite Stones album.
One of the Stones' worst renditions of a song so overplayed that I cannot tell which level of poor I would place it in.
Love this song. Probably my favorite Stones album.
go_ski_mully wrote:
What does Mick mean when he says "...and if you want to honey, you can cream on me"?
Somebody answer the poor soul. :tongue:
Normally I give classic rock a "ho hum" rating, but this one is just too good ... 8.
:cowboy: 8ight
QualityPie wrote:
( Of course, pg could be a "she" . . . or could he? Consider. )
Naw. Lab experiment mutation.
Best of the best period.
go_ski_mully wrote:
What does Mick mean when he says "...and if you want to honey, you can cream on me"?
What indeed? :twisted:
What does Mick mean when he says "...and if you want to honey, you can cream on me"?
Yes, there's a nostalgia factor that comes into play for a lot of Stones fans, but for straight up rock 'n roll music, is there any band that does/did it this well? I think that the idea of "rating" music is kind of an absurd undertaking, but if I had to, this would be at least a 9, and I wasn't even born when this came out.
physicsgenius wrote:
If you have to have been alive at the time it came out to appreciate something, it is crap. It has no lasting power. It is nostalgia rock only. Nobody is seriously rocking out to the Stones. They are remembering all the great times they had smoking joints or hanging out in pool halls or marching in protests or whatever Stones fans did 40 years ago.
Dammit. I just had my "Uh-oh: I agree with physicsgenius this time" moment. I've seen it happen to others here, but I never thought it'd happen to ME! But, yeah . . . what he said. ( Of course, pg could be a "she" . . . or could he? Consider.)
This is one of my two favorite Stones albums -- the other being Exile on Main Street. "Exile" is great as an overall piece -- I like the individual songs, but the magic comes from the flow of the entire album. On "Let It Bleed," most of the songs stand on their own as radio-friendly singles, and they effin' rock. The "nostalgia" argument about the Stones may be true to some extent, as it's the only reason I can think of why anyone would listen to their newer stuff. But I remember listening to this song when I was in high school in the 80s, and it just hit me that this was the greatest song ever written. I still think it's a 10.
Ain't that the truth!
And there will always be a space in my parking lot When you need a little coke and sympathy Well we all need someone we can lean on Why do people whine about songs like this, whats wrong with singing about being compassionate to your friends or lovers? This is a 10
physicsgenius wrote:
I can understand why someone in the 60s (or even 70s) might think the Stones were good--there wasn't all that much else to compare them with. But it is now time to Let. It. Go. Next time you feel compelled to listen to a song by the Rolling Stones, listen to silence for the same length of time instead. At the end, notice how much happier you are with your new choice.
I hate to add to the noise on this, but I don't think anybody has commented on the funniest part of this post, specifically the implication that there wasn't much good music around in the 60s and 70s. Not "all that much" indeed.
Damn good song! What's with this criticism here and elsewhere on RP of the Stones playing into their '60's? 1) They play very, very well and put on great show! 2) People love to see 'em...and pay big bucks to do it. Why? See #1 3) They still put out the occasional decent new song. 4) They're Musicians for crissakes! It's great to see groups in their prime. But one of the best performances I ever saw was Muddy Waters in the '70's, very late in his career. He played Mannish Boy sitting down; a song he wrote about twenty years earlier. Should he have been retired? The crowd gave him a standing ovation--he played it wonderfully and deserved it. I say let's be grateful we have some artists who have grown in their craft, with their fans, and can still do it. The Rolling Stones are musicians. Playing music is what they do. Is there mandatory retirement at age 65? Well then, still time for one more tour! BTW, Physicsgenius, I like your new "90%..." Remember it applies to your words too. Physicsgenius wrote:
I can understand why someone in the 60s (or even 70s) might think the Stones were good--there wasn't all that much else to compare them with. But it is now time to Let. It. Go. Next time you feel compelled to listen to a song by the Rolling Stones, listen to silence for the same length of time instead. At the end, notice how much happier you are with your new choice.
Johnny_Wave wrote:
Agreed. Man, I love the Stones, but they've been coasting for, what, a couple of decades. True story: back in 1989 (or so) a buddy of mine was talking to his friend at work about whether or not he should pony up the cash for the tix to the Steel Wheels tour. He questioned if he really wanted to pay to watch such old dudes strut about on stage. One of the secretaries overheard him, and commented "hell, I saw them in '72 and I thought they were old *then*" Heh.
physicsgenius wrote:
Yes, exactly my point. If you have to have been alive at the time it came out to appreciate something, it is crap. It has no lasting power. It is nostalgia rock only. Nobody is seriously rocking out to the Stones. They are remembering all the great times they had smoking joints or hanging out in pool halls or marching in protests or whatever Stones fans did 40 years ago.
Agreed. Man, I love the Stones, but they've been coasting for, what, a couple of decades. True story: back in 1989 (or so) a buddy of mine was talking to his friend at work about whether or not he should pony up the cash for the tix to the Steel Wheels tour. He questioned if he really wanted to pay to watch such old dudes strut about on stage. One of the secretaries overheard him, and commented "hell, I saw them in '72 and I thought they were old *then*" Heh.
I'm not a fan of the Rolling Stones. Songs like this won't make me change my mind. I can dig Chuck Leavell (sp?) in the background, but that about it.
I love their old stuff!!! :bananapiano: There will always be a space in my parking lot... Dream on me...... ..... boogie, woogie bad boy..
Gregorama wrote:
What?? There were all kinds of music and musicians to compare them to in the 60s and 70s, yet they still compare favorably. If you were alive then, you must have been either too young to hear it or maybe you were just too sheltered. Otherwise you would know the folly of that comment.
Yes, exactly my point. If you have to have been alive at the time it came out to appreciate something, it is crap. It has no lasting power. It is nostalgia rock only. Nobody is seriously rocking out to the Stones. They are remembering all the great times they had smoking joints or hanging out in pool halls or marching in protests or whatever Stones fans did 40 years ago.
NutsyUK wrote:
Did he just say "You can cream on me!" ?? Or are my ears messing with me?
Lol, that just caught me too!
physicsgenius wrote:
I can understand why someone in the 60s (or even 70s) might think the Stones were good--there wasn't all that much else to compare them with. But it is now time to Let. It. Go. Next time you feel compelled to listen to a song by the Rolling Stones, listen to silence for the same length of time instead. At the end, notice how much happier you are with your new choice.
The same guy who says that Pink Floyds' music is for junkies, and Mark Knopfler is a bad guitarist! Our self-proclaimed genius never ceases to entertain us.
This song has a high average rating. I've noticed that most songs have ratings in the mid to high 6's. How hard do you think it would be for radio paradise to provide a percentile ranking for the mean rating of each song? That way listeners could directly compare songs. Or is this a silly idea? They added histograms, so I thought they might add percentiles.
How is it that i don't own this yet...? Dropped the ball on this one for sure... :stupid:
NutsyUK wrote:
Did he just say "You can cream on me!" ?? Or are my ears messing with me?
There's some messing going on, but it's not in your ears ... hopefully.
physicsgenius wrote:
I can understand why someone in the 60s (or even 70s) might think the Stones were good--there wasn't all that much else to compare them with. But it is now time to Let. It. Go. Next time you feel compelled to listen to a song by the Rolling Stones, listen to silence for the same length of time instead. At the end, notice how much happier you are with your new choice.
E=mc.....DAY-OH!!
Gregorama wrote:
What?? There were all kinds of music and musicians to compare them to in the 60s and 70s, yet they still compare favorably. If you were alive then, you must have been either too young to hear it or maybe you were just too sheltered. Otherwise you would know the folly of that comment.
Go, Gregorama! I've posted stuff like that too.... This IMHO is one of the Stones' best albums.....
Did he just say "You can cream on me!" ?? Or are my ears messing with me?
physicsgenius wrote:
I can understand why someone in the 60s (or even 70s) might think the Stones were good--there wasn't all that much else to compare them with.
What?? There were all kinds of music and musicians to compare them to in the 60s and 70s, yet they still compare favorably. If you were alive then, you must have been either too young to hear it or maybe you were just too sheltered. Otherwise you would know the folly of that comment.
It's one of the first songs I heard in my Life, when I was a little boy. I still love it! :guitarist:
kazuma wrote:
Raunchy!
Kinky!
steeler wrote:
For my money, the best Rolling Stones' album.
I'd have to rate Beggars Banquet as my favourite but this would run a very close second. Then again, favourites can change over time can't they?
kazuma wrote:
Raunchy!
Indeed. Makes me think of things that are definitely not appropriate for readers of all ages...
Raunchy!