[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
The Rolling Stones — Lady Jane
Album: Aftermath
Avg rating:
6.9

Your rating:
Total ratings: 513









Released: 1966
Length: 3:09
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share tweet wikiwebsitesearchamg
cd
mp3
search
My sweet Lady Jane
When I see you again
Your servant am I
And will humbly remain
Just heed this plea my love
On bended knees my love
I pledge myself to Lady Jane
My dear Lady Anne
I've done what I can
I must take my leave
For promised I am
This play is run my love
Your time has come my love
I've pledged my troth to Lady Jane
Oh my sweet Marie
I wait at your ease
The sands have run out
For your lady and me
Wedlock is nigh my love
Her station's right my love
Life is secure with Lady Jane
Comments (78)add comment
 BHTMMan wrote:
A classic that is not played enough!



I Agree!  
Posted 5 months ago by joejennings    [ Reply ]
 ttburger3 wrote:
the Rolling Stones were a lot better when they were young.  where they got the concept for this song is beyond me, but I love the melody, the simple arrangement and the fact that Mick Jagger's voice actually sounds good.
 . . . . and I've never even been to a renaissance fair 

 
I've heard this song many times and was just thinking the same sort of thing: why put this out? It's supposed to hearken back to courtly songs of romance but it's fairly clunky in its rhyming. Wikipedia indicates it was Brian Jones' attempt to broaden the Stones' styles and "musical textures and the band's attempt at baroque rock. 
Posted 7 years ago by kcar    [ Reply ]
 laozilover wrote:
The weirdest thing! Just now the song stopped and restarted a few seconds back to the higher volume I don't think this is right.

 
Yes, me too. Bad file? 
Posted 8 years ago by tnt_thomas    [ Reply ]
The weirdest thing! Just now the song stopped and restarted a few seconds back to the higher volume I don't think this is right.
Posted 8 years ago by laozilover    [ Reply ]
I do like this, but it sure sounds like it's from a different lifetime.
Posted 8 years ago by treatment_bound    [ Reply ]
 msymmes wrote:
So agree...
 
Canlistener wrote:
I always thought the Stones were awful, after hearing this I am very comfortable with my decision.

 

 
You obviously have no  taste at all.....go listen to Ronnie James Dio or something.
Posted 8 years ago by dragon1952    [ Reply ]
So agree...
 
Canlistener wrote:
I always thought the Stones were awful, after hearing this I am very comfortable with my decision.

 


Posted 8 years ago by msymmes    [ Reply ]
Almost 50 freakin' years ago! Dayam!
Posted 8 years ago by ajlept    [ Reply ]
Flashbacks of college days-love the nostalgia, and still a great song and album.
Posted 8 years ago by pinem    [ Reply ]
Spinal Tap failed at this genre.
Posted 8 years ago by ajlept    [ Reply ]
so very cool
Posted 9 years ago by hayduke2    [ Reply ]
 Shimmer wrote:
POSEURS!
 
I guess they were as much "poseurs" as the guys depicted below were "tools"...
Beatles Cartoons
...then again, all rock/pop stars are poseurs or tools to some extent, anyhow.


Posted 13 years ago by Proclivities    [ Reply ]
the Rolling Stones were a lot better when they were young.  where they got the concept for this song is beyond me, but I love the melody, the simple arrangement and the fact that Mick Jagger's voice actually sounds good.
 . . . . and I've never even been to a renaissance fair 
Posted 13 years ago by ttburger3    [ Reply ]
A classic that is not played enough!
Posted 13 years ago by BHTMMan    [ Reply ]
 tommyfly wrote:

Guess what paulmack? Lay off the guy. He's just stating an opinion.
 

Indeed.  Some people take it far too personally.
Posted 13 years ago by Hannio    [ Reply ]
I always thought the Stones were awful, after hearing this I am very comfortable with my decision.
Posted 13 years ago by Canlistener    [ Reply ]
Up next - Neil Young, Borrowed Tune??
Posted 13 years ago by lemmoth    [ Reply ]
 k_trout wrote:
really hard to dance to
 
maybe try twirling around in a circle with some scarves in hand..........  {#Wink}
Posted 13 years ago by socalhol    [ Reply ]
 paulmack wrote:

Guess what? I don't agree. Being as self-centered as you, I declare myself right, therefore you are wrong. How about that? Of course, I'm not that self-centered and I don't really care whether you like the song or not, doesn't affect my enjoyment of it anyway. But I still have a healthy dislike for intolerance. There are times when such an attitude blocks progress. I also hear that it's habit-forming.

 
Guess what paulmack? Lay off the guy. He's just stating an opinion.


Posted 13 years ago by tommyfly    [ Reply ]
 lsfeder wrote:
Definitely not their best effort....
 
Guess what? I don't agree. Being as self-centered as you, I declare myself right, therefore you are wrong. How about that? Of course, I'm not that self-centered and I don't really care whether you like the song or not, doesn't affect my enjoyment of it anyway. But I still have a healthy dislike for intolerance. There are times when such an attitude blocks progress. I also hear that it's habit-forming.

Posted 13 years ago by paulmack    [ Reply ]
Definitely not their best effort....
Posted 13 years ago by lsfeder    [ Reply ]
Love this LP ! All of it.
Posted 13 years ago by HazzeSwede    [ Reply ]
Yeah, Borrowed Tune has a lot more heart and soul than this number from The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band (TM).
Posted 13 years ago by TJOpootertoot    [ Reply ]
 lemmoth wrote:
I'm singing this borrowed tune
I took from the Rolling Stones
 
Nice reference, lemmoth. I'll take Neil's tune over this misguided cheese any day.

Posted 13 years ago by On_The_Beach    [ Reply ]
POSEURS!
Posted 13 years ago by Shimmer    [ Reply ]
really hard to dance to
Posted 13 years ago by k_trout    [ Reply ]
Back when this album came out, Lady Jane, or just Jane, was slang for pot, grass, weed...... 

 spanzo wrote:
Also 'Lady Jane' was slang for female genitalia - as in one of DH Lawrence's dirty books "John Thomas and Lady Jane", which was an early version of Lady Chatterley's Lover which had been decensored a few years before this album came out
 ScopArch wrote:

Lady Jane = Jane Boleyn sister-in law-of Anne Boleyn Lady Anne = Anne Boleyn, Janes sister and Henry the VIII's 2nd of six wives Lady Mary = Mary Boleyn, Annes half sister, and Mistress of Henry VIII There's a story here somewhere.....
">(click here)
Proof once again of Jaggers penchant for English history It's good be King
 

 

Posted 14 years ago by Detlaps    [ Reply ]
Perfect tune... when you're wearing your puffy shirt.
Posted 14 years ago by Papernapkin    [ Reply ]
 Geecheeboy wrote:
Frankly a little goofy.
 
had to scroll halfway down the page to find you and i'm with you - literally laughable. glad everyone else seems to get a kick out of it
Posted 14 years ago by lophrequa    [ Reply ]
The best song on the LP for me. I used to really like the Rotary Connections version of this song. Haven't heard that one in a long while...
Posted 14 years ago by DaveInSaoMiguel    [ Reply ]
Also 'Lady Jane' was slang for female genitalia - as in one of DH Lawrence's dirty books "John Thomas and Lady Jane", which was an early version of Lady Chatterley's Lover which had been decensored a few years before this album came out
 ScopArch wrote:

Lady Jane = Jane Boleyn sister-in law-of Anne Boleyn Lady Anne = Anne Boleyn, Janes sister and Henry the VIII's 2nd of six wives Lady Mary = Mary Boleyn, Annes half sister, and Mistress of Henry VIII There's a story here somewhere.....
">(click here)
Proof once again of Jaggers penchant for English history It's good be King
 

Posted 14 years ago by spanzo    [ Reply ]
 romeotuma wrote:


This song is soooo good for the ears...
 
indeed.

Posted 14 years ago by lily34    [ Reply ]
Not the best song from that album but still pretty good.  And, it did sound quite different from most rock at the time.  Plus, it showed a softer side to the Stones.
Posted 14 years ago by bachbeet    [ Reply ]
wonderful tune.
Posted 14 years ago by slowhand    [ Reply ]
It's a shame that dulcimer-tuning technology didn't really take off until the 1970s.
Posted 15 years ago by aaoaoo    [ Reply ]

Ya know, I really hate this song, but yet I find myself singing along with it every damn time.  There must be three brain cells buried in there that enjoy this for some odd reason. 

Plus, my sister and I used to refer to each other as "Lady Jane," as in "You're not so smart, Lady Jane!"  So there's that too.


Posted 15 years ago by coffee-eyes    [ Reply ]
 Geecheeboy wrote:
Frankly a little goofy.
 
Tis true, my Lord.
Posted 15 years ago by Papernapkin    [ Reply ]
Frankly a little goofy.
Posted 15 years ago by Geecheeboy    [ Reply ]
Not Good.
Posted 15 years ago by More_Cowbell    [ Reply ]
{#Puke}
Posted 15 years ago by Ljenny    [ Reply ]
I can't listen to this without laughing.  The Stones doing Baroque chamber music.  Kinda seems cheesy like a Tenacious D song.  It was probably novel when they recorded it I imagine.
Posted 15 years ago by ick    [ Reply ]
I'm singing this borrowed tune
I took from the Rolling Stones
Posted 15 years ago by lemmoth    [ Reply ]
nigelr wrote:

Indeed.
Perhaps an early reference to Ms Faithful?
Henry VIII was a Tudor composer of some note, and a great fan and promoter of music and the arts.
He also had some rather strange ideas on matrimony...........


My father was married five times and my mother three. I think Henry's ideas on matrimony were pretty run-of-the-mill. Except for, you know, the decapitation thing.


Posted 15 years ago by nate917    [ Reply ]
 junebaby65 wrote:
Man, there is some really great Brian Jones era Stones material that is rarely played...This is one of them. Thanks!
 
Indeed.
Perhaps an early reference to Ms Faithful?
Henry VIII was a Tudor composer of some note, and a great fan and promoter of music and the arts.
He also had some rather strange ideas on matrimony........... 

Posted 15 years ago by nigelr    [ Reply ]
stewliscious wrote:
Love the Stones... but this is not only one of the wussiest Stones songs but possibly one of the most wuss-like songs of all time. Mick trying desperately to get laid by royalty.

{#Roflol}  You're right... it is the wussiest song!

Posted 15 years ago by ick    [ Reply ]
Love the Stones... but this is not only one of the wussiest Stones songs but possibly one of the most wuss-like songs of all time.  Mick trying desperately to get laid by royalty.
Posted 15 years ago by stewliscious    [ Reply ]
fredriley wrote:

That's a good starting hypothesis, but where does Marie come into this scheme? I can't remember Henry VIII marrying a Marie...



I was taking into consideration that the pronunciation of Mary's name as "Marie" was Jagger's artistic license in applying iambic pentameter.

Since I have posted this I have not been able to find corroborating evidence to this theory. Jagger allegedly said himself that : "Lady Jane is a complete sort of very weird song. I don't really know what that's all about myself. All the names are historical but it was really unconscious that they should fit together from the same period."

I give up

Great song though...


Posted 15 years ago by ScopArch    [ Reply ]
ScopArch wrote:
Lady Jane = Jane Boleyn sister-in law-of Anne Boleyn Lady Anne = Anne Boleyn, Janes sister and Henry the VIII's 2nd of six wives Lady Mary = Mary Boleyn, Annes half sister, and Mistress of Henry VIII There's a story here somewhere..... ">(click here) Proof once again of Jaggers penchant for English history It's good be King
That's a good starting hypothesis, but where does Marie come into this scheme? I can't remember Henry VIII marrying a Marie...
Posted 15 years ago by fredriley    [ Reply ]
Lady Jane = Jane Boleyn sister-in law-of Anne Boleyn Lady Anne = Anne Boleyn, Janes sister and Henry the VIII's 2nd of six wives Lady Mary = Mary Boleyn, Annes half sister, and Mistress of Henry VIII There's a story here somewhere..... ">(click here) Proof once again of Jaggers penchant for English history It's good be King
Posted 15 years ago by ScopArch    [ Reply ]
bam23 wrote:
As soon as this came on tonight I realized how really sophisticated a composition it is. For the time and what was expected of a musical group, this was unusual. Still sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Yes it does. Not sure it was THAT unusual, though. A LOT of good music came out of that time.
Posted 15 years ago by AlienRelic    [ Reply ]
RationalB wrote:
IMGoph wrote:
ok, what came first, this song, or cat stevens' lady d'arbanville....because someone ripped off someone here
RationalB: for flaming someone for not using the mighty power of the Internet, and then not being able to put said flame outside the Quote space, and not editing the offending post where such facilities exist: You fail at the Internets.
Posted 15 years ago by Ag3nt0rang3    [ Reply ]
As soon as this came on tonight I realized how really sophisticated a composition it is. For the time and what was expected of a musical group, this was unusual. Still sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Posted 16 years ago by bam23    [ Reply ]
RationalB wrote:
IMGoph wrote:
ok, what came first, this song, or cat stevens' lady d'arbanville....because someone ripped off someone here Stones 1966 Cat 1970
Posted 16 years ago by lemmoth    [ Reply ]
Okay Bill - now play Neil Young's Borrowed Tune from Tonights the Night!!!!!!!
Posted 16 years ago by lemmoth    [ Reply ]
IMGoph wrote:
ok, what came first, this song, or cat stevens' lady d'arbanville....because someone ripped off someone herePosted 16 years ago by RationalB    [ Reply ]
good ole Stones - still great after all this time.
Posted 16 years ago by rajron    [ Reply ]
Johray63 wrote:
Neil Young deliberately copies it in Borrowed Tune: I'm singin' this borrowed tune I took from the Rolling Stones, Alone in this empty room Too wasted to write my own.
Cool obscure Neil trivia.
Posted 16 years ago by On_The_Beach    [ Reply ]
Sad to say, but this is the first time I've ever heard this song (and I'm old enough to have grown up with the Stones.) Beautiful. Thanks again, RP.
Posted 16 years ago by Imkirok    [ Reply ]
My favorite Stones era
Posted 16 years ago by EssexTex    [ Reply ]
DaveInVA wrote:
Great song, haven't heard it in years. I also used to like The Rotary Connections version of this song way back when..


There's a name I haven't heard for a while. I was beginning to think maybe I was the only one left alive who remembers Rotary Connection.

Mick's voice really doesn't fit this song, but I still like it.  Some.

Posted 16 years ago by Hannio    [ Reply ]
Great song, haven't heard it in years. I also used to like The Rotary Connections version of this song way back when..
Posted 16 years ago by DaveInSaoMiguel    [ Reply ]
Tops in my book!
Posted 16 years ago by Shesdifferent    [ Reply ]
It doesn't get any sweeter than this.
Posted 16 years ago by toker    [ Reply ]
Neil Young deliberately copies it in Borrowed Tune: I'm singin' this borrowed tune I took from the Rolling Stones, Alone in this empty room Too wasted to write my own. The Stones' most experimental and maybe creative period was probably when Brian was still in charge.
Posted 16 years ago by Johray63    [ Reply ]
IMGoph wrote:
ok, what came first, this song, or cat stevens' lady d'arbanville....because someone ripped off someone here
So this is where Dylan got the idea for Lay, Lady, Lay. ...Or not.
Posted 16 years ago by mattt    [ Reply ]
tapatia wrote:
My dad told me that back when this album first came out, "Lady Jane" was a reference to gay sex - an indulgence for which Mick Jagger was known, at least in later years. If that's true, then I doubt that this song had any direct connection to the one by Cat Stevens.
More likely to be a reference to Jane Asher, or Jane Seymour (not Henry V's) than queer.
Posted 16 years ago by TerryS    [ Reply ]
Not my fave song by them (and man, they had some bad album covers). If I'm not mistaken this is the tune Neil Young "borrowed" when wrote "Borrowed Tune."
Posted 16 years ago by TJOpootertoot    [ Reply ]
junebaby65 wrote:
Man, there is some really great Brian Jones era Stones material that is rarely played...This is one of them. Thanks!
Very true.
Posted 16 years ago by Hannio    [ Reply ]
That's just silly. If both lyrics didn't contain "Lady" you would never connect them. Two totally different melodies. Probably 99% of the song comparisons here on RP are this sort of nonsense dreck. IMGoph wrote:
ok, what came first, this song, or cat stevens' lady d'arbanville....because someone ripped off someone here
Posted 16 years ago by xkolibuul    [ Reply ]
Wow! What a nostalgy! It immediately changed my mood positively...
Posted 17 years ago by edelweiss    [ Reply ]
well, certainly there isn't a match as far as song content goes. i was referring to the music. they just sound the same. tapatia wrote:
My dad told me that back when this album first came out, "Lady Jane" was a reference to gay sex - an indulgence for which Mick Jagger was well-known, at least in later years. If that's true, then I doubt that this song had any direct connection to the one by Cat Stevens.
Posted 17 years ago by IMGoph    [ Reply ]
bronorb wrote:
Good observation. The two songs are very similar. I would guess that Lady Jane was first.
My dad told me that back when this album first came out, "Lady Jane" was a reference to gay sex - an indulgence for which Mick Jagger was known, at least in later years. If that's true, then I doubt that this song had any direct connection to the one by Cat Stevens.
Posted 17 years ago by tapatia    [ Reply ]
IMGoph wrote:
ok, what came first, this song, or cat stevens' lady d'arbanville....because someone ripped off someone here
Good observation. The two songs are very similar. I would guess that Lady Jane was first.
Posted 17 years ago by bronorb    [ Reply ]
Good song. Back in the days when the Stones brought something new to the table.
Posted 17 years ago by bronorb    [ Reply ]
ok, what came first, this song, or cat stevens' lady d'arbanville....because someone ripped off someone here
Posted 17 years ago by IMGoph    [ Reply ]
Man, there is some really great Brian Jones era Stones material that is rarely played...This is one of them. Thanks!
Posted 17 years ago by junebaby65    [ Reply ]