[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
The Rolling Stones — She's A Rainbow
Album: Their Satanic Magesty's Request
Avg rating:
7.8

Your rating:
Total ratings: 2764









Released: 1967
Length: 4:08
Plays (last 30 days): 3
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
Comments (314)add comment
I'm here for this "Mick Jagger was wrong to be a rock star" take - wow  

 westslope wrote:

Yup.  Love some of the earlier stuff but much of the Stones output leaves me cold.

Jagger also projected this "I'm here to make money and get gloriously fucked."  vibe that always left me a tad cold.
 

 sjccroquet wrote:
Following Morphine's You Look Like Rain with She's a Rainbow... I see what you did there, Bill. 

And I'm also pretty sure that he started this set with Talk Talk's The Rainbow, too...
 
That is just so sneaky!  
 Kelvinclifford wrote:

Check out "Why don`t we sing this song all together" the same album. The only record with John and Paul plus the stones.
 

Following Morphine's You Look Like Rain with She's a Rainbow... I see what you did there, Bill. 

And I'm also pretty sure that he started this set with Talk Talk's The Rainbow, too...
 easmann wrote:
On the one hand most of the Beatles vs. Stones "rivalry" is simply overheated rhetoric by overzealous fans on both sides.
There are books to read if facts are wanted (Beatles  vs. Stones).

On the other hand artists in the sixties were paying close attention to what other artists were doing and regardless if you're more Beatles, Stones, or neutral, thinking there's no similarity between these two album covers is a stretch too far for me ("No no no, the Stones are sitting down!" - *eyeroll*). Of course that may well have had more to do with managers and marketers than the artists themselves, eh?
Released 26 May 1967

Released 8 December 1967

For myself, the idea that there is some sort of "side" to pick just seems... pointless, and juvenile, and at worst: destructive. I imagine these two groups did have some kind of artistic effect on each other but for me it's not obvious in their music.

P.S. See Who's Who On The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Album Cover. In case it’s not clear, I believe each of these albums' artworks should be judged separately from their music.

P.P.S. There’s a callout to the Stones in the Sgt. Pepper’s cover art.
 

Fun song. I wonder what Jagger and Richards think of this tune, now 53 years later?
Well the Beatles can do simple arrangements so why don’t we just copy that and pretty much the same cover as the lonely hearts club band
Definitely does it for me!
Love Nicky Hopkins - beautiful piano part.
 corvair wrote:

So good to see the petulant kickback from someone who simply cannot admit they've been bested.
 Uh.....naaaa! Don't think so sweety.
Get up and move to this - 4 awesome minutes of groove 
also awesome!
 easmann wrote:
On the one hand most of the Beatles vs. Stones "rivalry" is simply overheated rhetoric by overzealous fans on both sides.
There are books to read if facts are wanted (Beatles  vs. Stones).

On the other hand artists in the sixties were paying close attention to what other artists were doing and regardless if you're more Beatles, Stones, or neutral, thinking there's no similarity between these two album covers is a stretch too far for me ("No no no, the Stones are sitting down!" - *eyeroll*). Of course that may well have had more to do with managers and marketers than the artists themselves, eh?

Released 26 May 1967



Released 8 December 1967


For myself, the idea that there is some sort of "side" to pick just seems... pointless, and juvenile, and at worst: destructive. I imagine these two groups did have some kind of artistic effect on each other but for me it's not obvious in their music.

P.S. See Who’s Who On The Beatles’ ‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’ Album Cover. In case it’s not clear, I believe each of these albums’ artworks should be judged separately from their music. 
P.P.S. There’s a callout to the Stones in the Sgt. Pepper’s cover art. 
 

I agree this rivalry is silly, they're both great bands and there's no reason to compare except they were both part of the British invasion. But it was the Stones that consciously tried to distinguish themselves from the Beatles by being the "bad boys" to the Fab Four's squeakier image. I will say this though...the Beatles could do the Stones, but the Stones couldn't really do the Beatles. Where's the Stones' "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "I Am the Egg Man"?? I like the Stones, but I love the Beatles. 
Hey, BillG:  Spell check on the album name.  Unless there's an anachronistic ancient English spelling for Majesty ...

Sincerely,
the Grammar Nazi side of my personality
 Stetsonman wrote:
A wise man once told me that there is a Stones song for every occasion.
 
Said the spider to the fly....
A wise man once told me that there is a Stones song for every occasion.
 BCarn wrote:

To you too, "Baseless accusation...failure to acknowledge your
statement"? pffft. Whatever man. And your clip is only one of many
interviews on the subject. Do you think, just maybe, the answers differ
from decade to decade? Surprise! They do!

I wish could find the
interviews from Keith and Mick at different times over the years. That
is why I stated even they admitted it. That wasn't just an opinion.
Sorry to burst your bubble. (Well, not really.)

 
So good to see the petulant kickback from someone who simply cannot admit they've been bested.
The Stones Psychedelia was top notch. It was all so wildly creative and never got the respect it deserves, not even from Mick. Perhaps because it was so Brian Jones inspired. Go deeper. Listen to Gomper, 2000 Light Years from Home, Child of The Moon etc...
 scrubbrush wrote:
Love this song but i think i might like the the Bad Brains version of this song (live medley with Day Tripper) better.
 
had to look it up, was not dissapointed: bb - daytripper ->rainbow

 brian.gass77551 wrote:
Admittedly, I'm not a huge Stones fan (and pretty much dislike most of what they did after the early 70s) so my judgement is skewed, but this is by far the only Stones album that I find listenable all the way through - probably because they weren't really taking themselves too seriously and just having fun.  Wish they could've done that more.  And don't get me wrong.  They have done some great stuff undoubtedly, I just don't think the album format was their forte.  

P.S.  Screw the comparisons between the Stones and the Beatles.  They were entirely different bands with an entirely different raison d'être.  Vive la différence!
 
If you can get all the way through Satanic Majesties you have more fortitude than me.  Outside of this and 2000 Light Years to these ears it is unlistenable.
Admittedly, I'm not a huge Stones fan (and pretty much dislike most of what they did after the early 70s) so my judgement is skewed, but this is by far the only Stones album that I find listenable all the way through - probably because they weren't really taking themselves too seriously and just having fun.  Wish they could've done that more.  And don't get me wrong.  They have done some great stuff undoubtedly, I just don't think the album format was their forte.  

P.S.  Screw the comparisons between the Stones and the Beatles.  They were entirely different bands with an entirely different raison d'être.  Vive la différence!
    Can't get enough STONES!   Thank you Bill and Rebecca.
 BCarn wrote:

To you too, "Baseless accusation...failure to acknowledge your statement"? pffft. Whatever man. And your clip is only one of many interviews on the subject. Do you think, just maybe, the answers differ from decade to decade? Surprise! They do!

I wish could find the interviews from Keith and Mick at different times over the years. That is why I stated even they admitted it. That wasn't just an opinion.
Sorry to burst your bubble. (Well, not really.)
 Strange album but great music

 h8rhater wrote:

Let's let Mick himself answer this baseless accusation by failing to acknowledge your statement.

Per a Rolling Stone Mick Jagger interview in 1995:


You then did “Their Satanic Majesties Request.” What was going on here?

I probably started to take too many drugs.

Was it just you trying to be the Beatles?

I think we were just taking too much acid. We were just getting carried away,
just thinking anything you did was fun and everyone should listen to it.

The whole thing, we were on acid. We were on acid doing the cover picture. I always remember doing that. It was like being at school, you know, sticking on the bits of colored paper and things. It was really silly. But we enjoyed it. [Laughs] Also, we did it to piss Andrew off, because he was such a pain in the neck. Because he didn’t understand it. The more we wanted to unload him, we decided to go on this path to alienate him.

Just to force him out?

Yeah. Without actually doing it legally, we forced him out. I mean, he wanted out anyway. We were so out of our minds.

After it came out and it was kind of a chunk record, how did you consider it?

A phase. A passing fancy.

You followed up with “Jumpin’ Jack Flash.”

We did that one as a single, out of all the acid of Satanic Majesties.
 
To you too, "Baseless accusation...failure to acknowledge your statement"? pffft. Whatever man. And your clip is only one of many interviews on the subject. Do you think, just maybe, the answers differ from decade to decade? Surprise! They do!

I wish could find the interviews from Keith and Mick at different times over the years. That is why I stated even they admitted it. That wasn't just an opinion.
Sorry to burst your bubble. (Well, not really.)
 sfyi2001 wrote:



         I would. 
      It's what was happening in 1967 London.
  Both bands were basically making the same scene, and had many of the same associates, friends, influences, women, parties, dealers,   photographers, studios . .
You'd have to elaborate on how the Stones 'tried a little too hard to copy the Beatles' if you expect credibility when suggesting they 'ripped off' anyone.
The Beatles would have done well to follow the STONES' lead on many things, including exposure (touring), instead of destroying each other in the studio (see:yoko ono). The best performance of their short career was on the roof of a building for gawds sake. 
'SHE'S A RAINBOW' had nothing at all to do with the four fab mop tops - THAT'S what Mick and Keith would acknowledge.
{#Crown}

 
I wish  could find the interviews from Keith and mick at different times over the years. That is why i stated even they admitted it. That wasn't just an opinion.
On the one hand most of the Beatles vs. Stones "rivalry" is simply overheated rhetoric by overzealous fans on both sides.
There are books to read if facts are wanted (Beatles  vs. Stones).

On the other hand artists in the sixties were paying close attention to what other artists were doing and regardless if you're more Beatles, Stones, or neutral, thinking there's no similarity between these two album covers is a stretch too far for me ("No no no, the Stones are sitting down!" - *eyeroll*). Of course that may well have had more to do with managers and marketers than the artists themselves, eh?

Released 26 May 1967

Released 8 December 1967

For myself, the idea that there is some sort of "side" to pick just seems... pointless, and juvenile, and at worst: destructive. I imagine these two groups did have some kind of artistic effect on each other but for me it's not obvious in their music.

P.S. See Who's Who On The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Album Cover. In case it’s not clear, I believe each of these albums' artworks should be judged separately from their music.

P.P.S. There’s a callout to the Stones in the Sgt. Pepper’s cover art.
 BCarn wrote:

I wouldn't. The Stones tried a little to hard to copy or emulate what the Beatles did in 67. Not a bad album, but clearly an attempted rip. Even Jagger and Richards acknowledge that.
 
Let's let Mick himself answer this baseless accusation by failing to acknowledge your statement.

Per a Rolling Stone Mick Jagger interview in 1995:


You then did “Their Satanic Majesties Request.” What was going on here?

I probably started to take too many drugs.

Was it just you trying to be the Beatles?

I think we were just taking too much acid. We were just getting carried away,
just thinking anything you did was fun and everyone should listen to it.

The whole thing, we were on acid. We were on acid doing the cover picture. I always remember doing that. It was like being at school, you know, sticking on the bits of colored paper and things. It was really silly. But we enjoyed it. [Laughs] Also, we did it to piss Andrew off, because he was such a pain in the neck. Because he didn’t understand it. The more we wanted to unload him, we decided to go on this path to alienate him.

Just to force him out?

Yeah. Without actually doing it legally, we forced him out. I mean, he wanted out anyway. We were so out of our minds.

After it came out and it was kind of a chunk record, how did you consider it?

A phase. A passing fancy.

You followed up with “Jumpin’ Jack Flash.”

We did that one as a single, out of all the acid of Satanic Majesties.
 BCarn wrote:

I wouldn't. The Stones tried a little to hard to copy or emulate what the Beatles did in 67. Not a bad album, but clearly an attempted rip. Even Jagger and Richards acknowledge that.

 


         I would. 
      It's what was happening in 1967 London.
  Both bands were basically making the same scene, and had many of the same associates, friends, influences, women, parties, dealers,   photographers, studios . .
You'd have to elaborate on how the Stones 'tried a little too hard to copy the Beatles' if you expect credibility when suggesting they 'ripped off' anyone.
The Beatles would have done well to follow the STONES' lead on many things, including exposure (touring), instead of destroying each other in the studio (see:yoko ono). The best performance of their short career was on the roof of a building for gawds sake. 
'SHE'S A RAINBOW' had nothing at all to do with the four fab mop tops - THAT'S what Mick and Keith would acknowledge.
{#Crown}

Good song ... but overplayed on RP in my opinion !
They've done lots of other songs which deserve an airing.
 thewiseking wrote:
The psychedelic foray was short lived yet magnificent. I'd put 2000 Light Years from Home up against any Beatles psychedlia 
 
I wouldn't. The Stones tried a little to hard to copy or emulate what the Beatles did in 67. Not a bad album, but clearly an attempted rip. Even Jagger and Richards acknowledge that.
I see car commercial. And classic Stones in a phase that didn't last long. 
{#Devil_pimp}zesty still !
This is one of their weaker songs
Spent a lot of time staring at that original 3d album cover back in the day.
This is the second time I've heard this song today.
The first time was on a car commercial.
I'm Older than this song and I still love this song.
Wow! This song is as old as I am and I LOVE it.  
 sfyi2001 wrote:


'SHE'S A RAINBOW'

Recorded May 18, 1967
Released on Their Satanic Majesties Request in December of 1967

Lead Vocal: Mick Jagger 
Piano: Nicky Hopkins 
Electric Guitar: Keith Richards 
Mellotron: Brian Jones 
 Bass: Bill Wyman 
Drums: Charlie Watts 
Percussion: Brian Jones & Mick Jagger 
Background Vocals: Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, Brian Jones & Bill Wyman 
Strings: Arranged by John Paul Jones


SHE'S A RAINBOW 
(Jagger/Richards)

She comes in colors everywhere; 
She combs her hair

et cetera ....

 
Thanks, but most of that can be obtained from clicking on the album picture or the "Lyrics" button.
I read the comments below, especially focusing my attention on pointless, odious comparisons to the Beatles. I say f*ck the Beatlesl f*ck whatever addled garbage Kieth Richards mumbled about the Stones 50+ years ago. Flinging these ideas against the infinite wall of time

Time Tunnelis ...

is merely an exercise in emptiness, Grasshopppper.  Your anguished little opinions are the wellspring of desire and aversion and just make you suffer. All that matters is what is IN THE GROOVE, DUDES!  (May I call you "Dudes?"). Maybe the only way we can settle this is to climb into the Time Tunnel!  
Hey, I just got back- here's the report: The Rolling Stones "Satanic Majesties Request" LP was freakin' great, totally beloved by all. But most of the the folks back there I talked to were under the influence of some wicked good drugs! Form your own conclusions. 
Or, just click the lyrics button.


'SHE'S A RAINBOW'

Recorded May 18, 1967
Released on Their Satanic Majesties Request in December of 1967

Lead Vocal: Mick Jagger 
Piano: Nicky Hopkins 
Electric Guitar: Keith Richards 
Mellotron: Brian Jones 
 Bass: Bill Wyman 
Drums: Charlie Watts 
Percussion: Brian Jones & Mick Jagger 
Background Vocals: Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, Brian Jones & Bill Wyman 
Strings: Arranged by John Paul Jones


SHE'S A RAINBOW 
(Jagger/Richards)

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 ~

 


 westslope wrote:

Yup.  Love some of the earlier stuff but much of the Stones output leaves me cold.

Jagger also projected this "I'm here to make money and get gloriously fucked."  vibe that always left me a tad cold.

 
Yeah!, nobody really wants money and sex.  What was he thinking?
Nice segue Bill!
 Proclivities wrote:
Oh, man.  I fell for it.

aghhh

 
No worries. 'Twas an interesting read. Thanks!
 Skydog wrote:

Proclivities wrote:

No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite: 

"The Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles... I think they got carried away. Why not? If you're the Beatles in the Sixties, you just get carried away – you forget what it is you wanted to do. You're starting to do Sgt. Pepper. Some people think it's a genius album, but I think it's a mishmash of rubbish, kind of like Satanic Majesties – 'Oh, if you can make a load of shit, so can we.'"
  Keith Richards, Esquire Magazine, Aug. 5, 2015

 


yeah I know, that was an attempt at sarcasim

 
Oh, man.  I fell for it.

aghhh
 kingart wrote:
I've always been so mixed on the Stones. Certainly a seminal group — but uneven. Brilliant streaks and then — junk. Jagger couldn't sing on key or in range — but at times he was transcendent. Richards was over-rated — but at times was good as it could get. The pre-1978 Stones had more classics than anyone but the Beatles — but some of that Satanic Majesty Let It Bleed etc. filler is barely listenable. A band that sustained its name in concerts — but Love It Live was one of the worst live recordings I've ever heard. Great and trash, all in the same dudes. 

 
Yup.  Love some of the earlier stuff but much of the Stones output leaves me cold.

Jagger also projected this "I'm here to make money and get gloriously fucked."  vibe that always left me a tad cold.
 Skydog wrote:
Did you hear that Keith Richard said that "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by The Beatles was his all time favorite album.

 
Proclivities wrote:

No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite: 

"The Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles... I think they got carried away. Why not? If you're the Beatles in the Sixties, you just get carried away – you forget what it is you wanted to do. You're starting to do Sgt. Pepper. Some people think it's a genius album, but I think it's a mishmash of rubbish, kind of like Satanic Majesties – 'Oh, if you can make a load of shit, so can we.'"
  Keith Richards, Esquire Magazine, Aug. 5, 2015

 


yeah I know, that was an attempt at sarcasim
 thewiseking wrote:
The psychedelic foray was short lived yet magnificent. I'd put 2000 Light Years from Home up against any Beatles psychedlia 

 
It was not a contest, just different ways of expressing an utterly amazing experience. 
The psychedelic foray was short lived yet magnificent. I'd put 2000 Light Years from Home up against any Beatles psychedlia 
 Hannio wrote:


I'm not surprised in the least he would say that.  Sour grapes.

 
Yeah I don't think Keef was being entirely candid about that whole thing. Haha.

Let's face it, he knows damned well the Stones couldn't match Sgt. Pepper's at that particular moment in '67 - psychedelic just wasn't really the Stones' bag anyway. A few later Stones albums could be argued as being as good or better than Pepper's once they got back to their bluesy, harder rock roots. I say that as a big fan of both Stones and Beatles.

Keef would be better off having said something like, "Hey...you know...it's what we did then. Well...Pepper's sort of hit everyone sideways so Majesty's we just threw out there but we didn't have a clue. It was a fucking disaster actually...(laughs)"...in his Keef-like way while waving a cigarette around.

Gotta love em!

{#Cool}
 Proclivities wrote:

No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite: 

"The Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles... I think they got carried away. Why not? If you're the Beatles in the Sixties, you just get carried away – you forget what it is you wanted to do. You're starting to do Sgt. Pepper. Some people think it's a genius album, but I think it's a mishmash of rubbish, kind of like Satanic Majesties – 'Oh, if you can make a load of shit, so can we.'"
  Keith Richards, Esquire Magazine, Aug. 5, 2015



 

I'm not surprised in the least he would say that.  Sour grapes.
Some people don't like rolling stones because the name of this album. God causes harm in the brain of people. See comments in "chocolate Jesus". 
 On_The_Beach wrote:
It's hard not to like this grooovy tune.

 
Ditto.
It's hard not to like this grooovy tune.
 Proclivities wrote:

No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite: 

"The Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles... I think they got carried away. Why not? If you're the Beatles in the Sixties, you just get carried away – you forget what it is you wanted to do. You're starting to do Sgt. Pepper. Some people think it's a genius album, but I think it's a mishmash of rubbish, kind of like Satanic Majesties – 'Oh, if you can make a load of shit, so can we.'"
  Keith Richards, Esquire Magazine, Aug. 5, 2015


I love the songs on this album but I agree, this is not where their heads and hearts truly were. 
 
 


 TerryS wrote:

Me so horny...  this song comes in colors...  love it...  

Lucky you.......horny in church. Maybe I should investigate this happy juxtaposition further.   

 
Everybody in my galactic presidential campaigns loves this horny song...  we love sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll...  hope you are getting it good these days, TerryS...
 Skydog wrote:
Did you hear that Keith Richard said that "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by The Beatles was his all time favorite album.
 
No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite: 

"The Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles... I think they got carried away. Why not? If you're the Beatles in the Sixties, you just get carried away – you forget what it is you wanted to do. You're starting to do Sgt. Pepper. Some people think it's a genius album, but I think it's a mishmash of rubbish, kind of like Satanic Majesties – 'Oh, if you can make a load of shit, so can we.'"
  Keith Richards, Esquire Magazine, Aug. 5, 2015


Under-rated, IMHO
Did you hear that Keith Richard said that "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by The Beatles was his all time favorite album.
one of the first tunes I learned on piano.    its not exactly easy either, but I was determined..
Just makes me smile and dance in a "La-laa-laa" fashion, and think of when I was a kid. Don't know why, but thanks to RP I can have that feeling from time to time. Worth 10 USD from time to time to B&R!!
I wish I had appreciated them back in the '70's as much as I do now. Better late than never, I suppose.
 QuestionMark wrote:
       Beatles want-to-be music...found their own way later !

 
Without suggesting that they were slaves to fashion, they were not shy about riding the occasional wave (psychedelia, this and Flowers, or disco, Tattoo You). Still, each rose above mere imitation--they are a great band. 
2 soundtracks of my youth, Elton John's "Caribou" and The Stones ,"Through the Past Darkly", both on 8 track.  This song brings back memories of using that Panasonic 8 track pump gizmo!
 QuestionMark wrote:
       Beatles want-to-be music...found their own way later !
 
I understand they went on to do reasonably well. 
I am 65. They have been the soundtrack to my life.  I love 'em.
Quick - run out and buy an iMac ;-)
Right here, on our stage tonight, The Rolling Stones!
       Beatles want-to-be music...found their own way later !
 Lazarus wrote:

Everybody in my church loves this song...
 

 

Got nothing better to do, eh?
This would be better if it was the "Reading Rainbow": https://vimeo.com/42437780
Love this song but i think i might like the the Bad Brains version of this song (live medley with Day Tripper) better.
when the Stones had stones{#Bananapiano}
 Lazarus wrote:

Everybody in my church loves this song...
 

 
Me so horny...  this song comes in colors...  love it...  



Lucky you.......horny in church. Maybe I should investigate this happy juxtaposition further.   
I take this song deep into my heart. Teresa Devore was my rainbow when I got this and played this song over and over and over. (The ancient version of "repeat track": Lift the arm and set the needle back into the dark stripe on the vinyl.)
 kingart wrote:

Pearls before swine? Were those pearls costume jewelry?

 
It's not about the pearls.  It's about the swine.

Me so horny...  this song comes in colors...  love it...
 
 kingart wrote:
Oooh. Greatest what — muddy sound with Muddy Waters? Guys singing and playing off key greatly? Perhaps they were too intoxistoned to sound as great as they coulda shoulda. I had that album for half a day, listened twice, and took it back to the record store for an exchange and the store manager agreed with me. Pearls before swine? Were those pearls costume jewelry?
 
The Stones are generally a great live band but I'd agree that Love You Live was not their best effort (and certainly not "one of the greatest live albums of all time"). As for this song, it's not really rock & roll, but I like it.
Love Nicky Hopkins! (RIP = rest in piano)
Oh my...loved this from being 16 and that was a long long time ago{#Shhh}
From a underrated great album. 

Everybody in my church loves this song...
 
 h8rhater wrote:

I'm-a let you finish BUT   ... the album that you denigrate, was Love You Live which, incidentally, contains an incredible cover of Mannish Boy with blues legend Muddy Waters sitting in at the El Mocambo club in Toronto.  One of the greatest live albums of all time.

Pearls before swine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYO2oxDv_ZU
 
Oooh. Greatest what — muddy sound with Muddy Waters? Guys singing and playing off key greatly? Perhaps they were too intoxistoned to sound as great as they coulda shoulda. I had that album for half a day, listened twice, and took it back to the record store for an exchange and the store manager agreed with me. Pearls before swine? Were those pearls costume jewelry?
 ick wrote:

and I suppose everything you've ever done was a masterpiece?
 
LOL - excellent comment. The Stones classics you couldn't even fit on a double-album.
 Sorry but its Magical...and so was 1967  imho
Sorry. It's just stupid...
 Byronape wrote:
I think this is my highest rated Stones song...  and it's a 5.
 

{#Lol}
"Have you seen her all in blue?
  See the sky in front of you..." 
 kingart wrote:
I've always been so mixed on the Stones. Certainly a seminal group — but uneven. Brilliant streaks and then — junk. Jagger couldn't sing on key or in range — but at times he was transcendent. Richards was over-rated — but at times was good as it could get. The pre-1978 Stones had more classics than anyone but the Beatles — but some of that Satanic Majesty Let It Bleed etc. filler is barely listenable. A band that sustained its name in concerts — but Love It Live was one of the worst live recordings I've ever heard. Great and trash, all in the same dudes. 
 
I'm-a let you finish BUT   ... the album that you denigrate, was Love You Live which, incidentally, contains an incredible cover of Mannish Boy with blues legend Muddy Waters sitting in at the El Mocambo club in Toronto.  One of the greatest live albums of all time.

Pearls before swine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYO2oxDv_ZU
einfach genial die jung`s
 kingart wrote:
I've always been so mixed on the Stones. Certainly a seminal group — but uneven. Brilliant streaks and then — junk. Jagger couldn't sing on key or in range — but at times he was transcendent. Richards was over-rated — but at times was good as it could get. The pre-1978 Stones had more classics than anyone but the Beatles — but some of that Satanic Majesty Let It Bleed etc. filler is barely listenable. A band that sustained its name in concerts — but Love It Live was one of the worst live recordings I've ever heard. Great and trash, all in the same dudes. 
 
and I suppose everything you've ever done was a masterpiece?
I've always been so mixed on the Stones. Certainly a seminal group — but uneven. Brilliant streaks and then — junk. Jagger couldn't sing on key or in range — but at times he was transcendent. Richards was over-rated — but at times was good as it could get. The pre-1978 Stones had more classics than anyone but the Beatles — but some of that Satanic Majesty Let It Bleed etc. filler is barely listenable. A band that sustained its name in concerts — but Love It Live was one of the worst live recordings I've ever heard. Great and trash, all in the same dudes. 
Thank you God, for the many rainbows I have in my life!! {#Meditate}

rainbow


 h8rhater wrote:

Sez you Hannio... When I begin my long decline, I hope I do it with sold out tours worldwide over a period of nearly 40 years.  A Bigger Bang was a fantastic CD and the tour was incredible.  Can't wait for the next one which, I hear, is coming soon.

 
May it be unto you according to your heart's desire.  But just because they have entered mainstream popularity and maintained it for so long (while impressive in its own right) doesn't change the fact that there was a time when their creative energies peaked, just like every other band that has ever existed. Exactly when is certainly subject to debate, but IMHO it was a long time ago.
fitting as this song follows Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony
as the royalties from that hit became a lil pot o gold for the Stones 


Yes, this is a great song from a great album...

 
RIP Nicky Hopkins (and Brian, of course)


 apd wrote:
The cover photo is hilarious - have you ever seen anyone more uncomfortable?
 
Yes, I have.  I guess you haven't had the need for a job interview lately. They do look pretty goofy on that cover, though. Great tune!
 On_The_Beach wrote:

It's tough to say who looks the silliest, although Mick's giant dunce cap makes him a prime candidate.
Ever notice the "hidden Beatles"? . . .

their satanic majesties request - beatles


 

Great hint - thanks a lot. Must admit I have never seen (or heard about) it before!
 romeotuma wrote:


Yes, this is a great song from a great album...
 
Either you are a super-fan or dunno much about music!

Musically it was CERTAINLY and MOST DEFINITELY
their weakest work - totally under the influence of
LUCY IN THE SKY with tons of DIAMONDS.

Nevertheless - I kinda liked the album too
(under the influence especially).

But a good (!) album sounds very different!

Yes!  Dressed in blue....

 On_The_Beach wrote:

It's tough to say who looks the silliest, although Mick's giant dunce cap makes him a prime candidate.
Ever notice the "hidden Beatles"? . . .

their satanic majesties request - beatles


 
Wow!  I had never noticed the Fabs in this cover, even though the whole thing was such a blatant rip-off of Sgt. Pepper's that The Stones should be forever embarrassed (in both musical content and packaging).  Thanks for pointing that out.  I still NEVER play this album, but I've still got it (for some reason) sitting in a crate of old LP's.

I guess in their defense, Mick & Keef were fighting a slew of legal charges in '67 while everybody else was just enjoying all the fancy colors.  I'd be curious to know the whole story behind this cover and just how much input Mick & The Boys had vs. their record company in throwing this P.O.S. together... 

 apd wrote:
The cover photo is hilarious - have you ever seen anyone more uncomfortable?
 
It's tough to say who looks the silliest, although Mick's giant dunce cap makes him a prime candidate.
Ever notice the "hidden Beatles"? . . .

their satanic majesties request - beatles


The cover photo is hilarious - have you ever seen anyone more uncomfortable?
Stones right after Bitter Sweet Symphony?

Oh. I see what you did there.
 WonderLizard wrote:
It is a testament to their musical sensibilities that they could make psychedelic pop as good as this, when their metier was R&B, which Beggars Banquet not quite a year later confirmed. Then again a little bit later they absorbed disco (Some Girls) uncomfortably, but well. For all their fits and starts over the last decade or so, they're still a pretty good rock'n'roll band.
 
Really, the only tune on Some Girls which could be called "disco" was "Miss You".

 Byronape wrote:
I think this is my highest rated Stones song...  and it's a 5.
 

mine too..9 for me.
Great song from a terrific album!{#Cheers}
I think this is my highest rated Stones song...  and it's a 5.
It is a testament to their musical sensibilities that they could make psychedelic pop as good as this, when their metier was R&B, which Beggars Banquet not quite a year later confirmed. Then again a little bit later they absorbed disco (Some Girls) uncomfortably, but well. For all their fits and starts over the last decade or so, they're still a pretty good rock'n'roll band.
 lsfeder wrote:
I have tried countless times to find the so called "stolen" hook in this song that the verve sampled.  I really don't hear it at all.
I dont know why the verve settled. 
 
 
It's nowhere near that simple.  For one thing it has nothing to do with this song. 

Man, I love this song. It's the epitome of the psychedelic chamber-pop sound that I like the Stones for most.
 peter_james_bond wrote:

{#Eh} But Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street came out after 1970. {#Think}
 
Don't forget Some Girls, Get Yer Ya Ya's Out, and wasn't most of Tattoo You recorded throughout the 70's?

 mvanderford60 wrote:
Big nod on this — after 1970 they are insufferable.
 
{#Eh} But Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street came out after 1970. {#Think}
 FluorideFreeMN wrote:
Easily my favorite Stone's album...not overplayed (like so many other cuts of theirs) and it stands the test of time.
 
Big nod on this — after 1970 they are insufferable.
Easily my favorite Stone's album...not overplayed (like so many other cuts of theirs) and it stands the test of time.
 bachbeet wrote:
I like this song but not as much as others here.  Don't think it deserves an average rating of 7.8.
 
I like lots of Stones songs, but they don't usually get played here.  Of the ones that do get played, I like this one the best; it's a 6 for me.  Whatever.

I like this song but not as much as others here.  Don't think it deserves an average rating of 7.8.
Wow, I had this on 8 track!
 Proclivities wrote:

I believe that "hook" was from The Andrew Loog Oldham's orchestral version of "The Last Time", not this song, which ABCKO - aka - Allen B. Klein - sued The Verve over.
 

Ccorrect. If you find a copy of "The Last Time" by Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra, "the hook" is unmistakable; the whole song is 'the hook' repeated over and over. Verve definitely stole it... made a wonderful song from it, but stole it nonetheless
 lsfeder wrote:
I have tried countless times to find the so called "stolen" hook in this song that the verve sampled.  I really don't hear it at all.
I dont know why the verve settled. 
 
 
I believe that "hook" was from The Andrew Loog Oldham's orchestral version of "The Last Time", not this song, which ABCKO - aka - Allen B. Klein - sued The Verve over.