Twee Stones Poll

This is possibly my favourite (or rather, second favourite, after the dischordant sitar-based psychedelic Brian Jones stuff) Stones era, so this is a very hard decision. I think their medieval affectations were quite charming, really. Jagger as bored and dissolute lord of the manner made a kind of sense within London culture of the time.

Yes, I'd love to hear more about the specifically English/London element of the sound. One relation is the Immediate Records/Oldham connection. I've tried to avoid what I'll clumsily call the "girl group" sound, so I've skipped songs like "Ride On, Baby", "Out of Time", and "I'd Much Rather Be With The Boys" that are pretty close sonically. There's another poll there, but I wanted to focus on this for now.

Voted "As Tears Go By" which to me is the perfect embodiment of this idea of their sound. Love "Yesterday's Papers" too but I'd say it's too upbeat and too sneering to fit here properly.

yeah i think i would have put 'she smiled sweetly' on this poll rather than 'yesterday's papers'?

+ i love this period also

I'm struck by the passivity of Jagger's character in these songs; or to put it another way, how reactionary he comes across (I'm aware that's a complicated term). Even in the most questionable inclusion here, "Yesterday's Papers", he sings,

"After this time I finally learned
After the pain and hurt
After all this what have I achieved
I've realized it's time to leave"

He's the one who's been hurt, who will have to leave. He's not the agent of harm (as he's putting it; certainly he's unreliable). Instead, the best he can do is acknowledge that things change and you have change with it:

"Living a life of constant change
Every day means the turn of a page
Yesterday's papers are such bad news
Same thing applies to me and you"

This is a terrifying verse: constant change! If we don't keep up with it, we're "bad news". All we can do is be flexible, change in reaction to others.

xp NV I feel you on this one, thought pretty hard about this list and it's pretty vague what should be included.

xp "She Smiled Sweetly" is a great choice and it fits in every way except rhythmically, where the drums are more prominent and driving the song, pushing against the passivity that I think is the heart of this sound.

also I'm aware I'm walking a fine line b/w truth and BS

No, it's valid to look at Jagger as dissolute fop compared to the Byronic antihero that tends to get focused on.

Or more properly, to recognise that he often uses both attitudes within the same song.

"As Tears Go By" for example could be quite tender and passive but equally there's a brooding quality to it that you could hear as sated menace.

But "As Tears Go By" was written, specifically for a woman. (Marianna Faithfull)

I do think that this side of Jagger - the dissolute, slightly effeminate fop - was actually perceived AT THE TIME as far more dangerous than it seems 40-odd years later. It's the element that often gets missed out by the hyper-masculine rockist Classic Rock brigade, yet to me, the most intriguing.

And yes, it was playing to a long line of very specifically British tradition. That identifying strongly with women and strong lashings of misogyny were not at all incompatible in this tradition. That almost hatred-love of what you want so much to be, but can never actually be. So instead one longs to desire/possess/destroy.

It's down to Play With Fire vs. Ruby Tuesday for me.

That's totally right. "I Am Waiting" is another case in point (how I love this song; it probably gets my vote here).

"I am waiting, I am waiting
Waiting for someone to come out of somewhere"

That's a terribly vague lyric: waiting for...something...from...somewhere. But then, brooding, or even menace:

"You can't hold out, you can't hold out"

and then the chorus (as I grasp the song's structure):

"See it come along
and don't know where it's from
oh yes, you will find out"

It gets somewhat clearer with the mention of winter storms and fears later on (is this about death? maybe, who knows). But the menace is dissolute, and it ends with waiting for someone to come out of somewhere.

oops xp to NV

to Masonic Boom: that's totally interesting, the danger of this side of the Stones. I want to say something about homosexuality and Jagger but all I know are those schoolboy rumors of him and Bowie; and others here are better qualified to remark on the gay aspects of this era of Jagger. But I'm trying to point to it with this talk of passivity (and yes, writing for Marianne Faithful) without knowing much of what to make of it.

I like this period of the stones, also. But I have to say, "Ruby Tuesday" is streets ahead.

Well, I tend to go on what Marianne Faithfull said about the rampant bisexuality of the time, which was that it was as much about narcissism as anything else. The desire was always to have people in love with you - it didn't matter if you were desired by men or women, so long as you were desired.

Sorry, I'm kind of obsessed with the mid 60s period of the Stones, because it was a weird period in class history, the transition between the old hereditary aristocracy and the new aristocracy of money and public image. There was something very much like a medieval court about it. And I don't think all that medieval imagery in this period was accidental at all. Interesting that they just copied the old paradigms rather than making any kind of new ones.

"Play with fire" is somewhat laughable thesedays, they are soooo 18agers, with their "Get you, and yr la-di-dah ways, Miss living-in-St-John's-Wood etcet.."

Thesedays, they'd be slumming it by being there...

I find that aspect really interesting, the changes in the psychogeography of wealthy London. When "slumming it" meant living in Chelsea rather than Hoxton. "Now you get your kicks in Stepney not in Knightsbridge any more" would have a totally different meaning these days.

And don't forget that by this point, Jagger was living with the penniless daughter of a Baroness, so it's not all teenage angst.

Top foppy Jagger moment is the reading of Adonais for Brian Jones at Hyde Park.

It's just a shame that after Jones died the fop quotient just dropped way off, and they stopped being interesting to me in any way, musically or sociologically or otherwise. :-(

Yeah, the butterflies he released flew away with all the fop magic.

The foppery maybe disappeared, but not the camp or the loucheness.

Or it could have just been heroin replacing LSD as drug of choice for the whole set.

Was gonna say, really you might as well just say that the 60s became the 70s.

Yeah, plus, you know, *actual* women and blacks demanding their rights and their own voices instead of just camp English middle class boys affecting the same...

Regarding the drugs, I thought about including Satanic Majesty's Request songs or "Dandelion", and while they're twee in a sense, they're also less acute lyrically ("your cloak it is a spirit shroud", uggh). I think the change maybe has more to do with getting very rich than it does with changing drugs. And fwiw, I find the Stones consistently interesting, but I've a special interest in this period because as NV said, it's somewhat contrary to their typical, post-Beggars' Banquet-image.

I always thought that when Brian Jones left, it was 'over' albeit coincidental.

Thesedays, I'm more inclined to think it was when Mick Taylor left.

The thing is, the first burst of becoming *very* rich was initially very creatively heightening to the Stones because it increased their social and cultural exposure in a way that they'd never had access to before. I think that a lot of the influences on this period are as much down to the people they were mixing with (and I think it's Marianne Faithfull and Anita Pallenberg* that are to thank for that as much as anyone) and reacting off.

*on closer examination, it's ironic how much of the occult (big o and little o) influences that people, especially of the wyrd or psychedelic kind like to attribute to Brian Jones were actually down to Pallenberg. Find her a much more interesting figure than any of the Stones, really.

But perhaps that is the most interesting period of any artist - where they still manage to keep their links to the periphery, and yet expand their resources and access to culture. Once an artist gets too successful, it's almost like the doors below them are closed, and they become trapped in their own rarified isolation. A very talented artist will find inspiration in even this, but it's a rare one. (blah blah, conventional wisdom etc. etc.)

I don't think the drop in quality in Satanic Majesty's Request is down to wealth or drugs or anything like that - I think it's down to the fact that the three major players in the band's creative drive were in and out of jail, court etc. for the majority of the recording. It's a wonder anything got recorded at all. I still think it's an amazing (albeit patchy) album - would rather listen to that than the entirety of their 70s output.

i think 'play w/ fire' is my favorite here

cool poll btw

i love a lot of these, but "ruby tuesday" is one of my favorite stones songs period, so that. (special mention tho to "backstreet girl" -- which lets jagger cut loose with one of his nastiest lyrics, under the guise of social commentary.)

lousy tape, but good performance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zspvx89jE-E

as tears go by, but the Stones had much better moments than all of this songs.

xp to Masonic Boom: I think you're right re. Faithfull and Pallenberg---I have this great book of photos called The Early Stones and they're both included in nearly every batch of photos, very much at the center of what's going on.

I'd like to understand the role of Keith Richards in the band better---I've read a fair bit about the Stones but still find Richards an enigma. "Satisfaction", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", these substantiate his image as a riff god, with skull ring and a voracious appetite for hard drugs. But he's a cowriter on "I Am Waiting" too. Did he lose his interest in that side of the band, and is that why Beggars' Banquet drips so heavily into country and blues? Well, the first four albums are pretty heavily blues-based: was Richards more dominant then, and did Jagger only pick up later? Well, there's Brian Jones' role too; did he just avoid songwriting credits? The dulcimer and harpsichord on "Lady Jane" are presumably Jones', but did he write those parts? They make the song what it is. Why doesn't he have songwriting credits? It's all so murky.

I think the first four were dominated by Brian Jones' direction, along with ALOldham.

Right, but what does "dominated" mean? The songs (that aren't covers) are Jagger-Richards credits.

Also, this came into focus while constructing this poll: the "twee" songs don't predominate on record until 1966-1967. But they're writing these much earlier ("As Tears Go By" is 1964; I remember the story of Oldham locking Jagger and Richards in a room until they wrote a song). Ah yes, looking at the net I'm reminded of Oldham's injunction to the pair: "I want a song with brick walls all around it, high windows and no sex." I should read Stoned.

The more you read about early Stones, the more interesting it is, the way that there really was a 3-way power struggle for much of the early history, which is what made their music so interesting. In the very early days, Jones was clear leader - to the point where he was paid more than the other members on early tours, a sore point for a long time!

But he never wrote - he was a paranoiac who would destroy most of his output in fits of insecurity before it ever saw the light of day. His talents within the Stones seemed to lie mostly in arrangement and his voracious ability to master any instrument he could pick up. He was apparently the kind of musician who could pick up anything - recorder, saxophone, cello, sitar, pan pipes of Joujoaka - and be able to include them on a recording session the next day. Yes, he arranged and wrote all the parts he played. Would Ruby Tuesday be so great without that recorder riff? That riff *is* Jones.

As Jones slipped into drugs and mental illness, Richards stole his girlfriend and then stole his band. Though, oddly enough, apparently he was anti the pop direction they took in the mid 60s and wanted to guide the band back to the more roots influenced path that they reverted to in the 70s. (pre-disco Stones that is)

It's weird, I know. I'm utterly obsessed with the Stones through this whole period, and my interest utterly disappears after Beggars Banquet. Don't own a single album after that.

Trying to think of the good books to read about this period - Up And Down With The Rolling Stones, of course. Marianne Faithfull's own autobiography. I've read way too many bios of Jones and Jagger and can no longer tell which one was which. Faithfull and Pallenberg were just *so* important during this period - I think I eventually became way more obsessed with them than I was with the men, because they were so fascinating and such intriguing characters - Faithfull, especially, because of her post-60s musical career. But I tend to think about both of them "if it hadn't been the 60s, if they'd been allowed to grow and develop as artists in their own rights, and not just as girlfriends/muses, what would these amazing women have done?"

It's very easy to say "oh, they weren't involved in the writing process, they didn't affect the music" (except for the fact that Faithfull actually *was* and *did*) - but the thing is, that the cultural phenomenon of the Stones at that point was about SO MUCH MORE than the music. The way they dressed, the way they cut their hair, the books they read and incorporated in the lyrical imagery, the philosophy and politics they espoused, the other artists they mixed with and were influenced by, the places they travelled to, the houses they bought <- all of this stuff was just as important as the music in the cultural Phenomenon of The Stones, and huge slabs of that are directly down to Faithfull and Pallenberg.

Remember, in terms of songwriting, especially back in the 60s, the publishing (money and credit) goes to the inventor of lyrics and melody. The credits on the records are just about that. Lyrics and melody.

Jones' genius, seeing as it lay in arrangement - just didn't get credited. But the harpsichord, the dulcimer, the recorder, the marimba on songs like Out Of Touch and Under My Thumb - all those riffs were written and performed by Jones.

"I Am Waiting," thanks to the great scene in Rushmore where Max sits by the window and turns away from Margaret Chang. "Backstreet Girl" isn't far behind.

There was a recent Bob Dylan interview where he talked about Brian Jones as one of the two or three most talented musicians he ever met.

"Don't play with me cause you're playing with fire" seems a bit too menacing to qualify as "twee." Telling all the boys and girls to go outside and blow dandelions into the wind seems a better fit. But I'm a sad little man who enjoys quibbling at online music polls, and this is well-selected with a lot of thought behind it.

I Am Waiting, narrowly over Ruby Tuesday.

And "Ruby Tuesday" third, because my friend Pat had a hippie girl named Heather boarding with his family circa 1972, and she had Ruby Tuesday painted on the wall of her tiny room, surrounded by lots of rainbowy, flowery designs.

Taking this as an excuse to rip and d/l my ideal 60s Stones comp right now before I decide. :-)

Off topic, but have you read the Suze Rotolo book? She occupies a similar place to MFaith and APall, inasmuch as providing a universe for the 'artist' to exist in and be inspired by.

Suze, naturally for an intelligent girl, chose to separate from Bob rather than be a 'rockchick' accessory (she reminds me a lot of my wife in some respects), but for all that the book describes the whole greenwich village scene as it was then, it's not full of "Bob and I" and all the better for it...

Does "Some Things Just Stick in Your Mind" fit in with this group?

Well, again, written for a girl (Vashti Bun, check Youtube for video)

I made a playlist of about 30 candidates and whittled it down to the list polled here. This one plays very well, but I'd love to see others. The term "twee" isn't great, I know. I thought about "baroque" instead. I'm fascinated by the way the arrangements and melodies interact with the psychosexuality of the performances. The menace is part of it. And there are other 60s acts who mix the baroque with menace: that's what I love about a lot of mid to late 60s music, for instance Love. But the Stones are more sexually explicit (cue some cliche about we're talking about love vs. fucking rolling like a stone). Masonic Boom's points about narcissism and about the centrality of artistic women in the Stones' circle are insightful.

I haven't, but mainly because I can't stand Dylan or great chunks of that Greenwich Village scene. I probably should if it focuses more on her and her choices.

Relistening, it's still down to Ruby Tuesday vs. Lady Jane though the instrumentation on Play With Fire is just spine-tingling.

re. "Some Things Just Stick In Your Mind", I considered it but decided it's too country for what I was going for. Great song though.

Ruby Tuesday loses points every time I listen to it for the way Jagger's voice cracks as he reaches for the low note on "from". It's cringe-worthy - as are the slightly wooden rock bits on the choruses. If the whole thing had just been left as vocals over piano, recorder and cello it would be untouchable.

Great observation on the "from" thing. It gets at something that irritates me occasionally about Jagger's vocals: lack of respect for the material, or alternately, camp without the commitment. Of course "ain't life unkind" is absurd: that's why this is deadly serious! You get this in "Dead Flowers" too: like, is this just a joke? Or in "Country Honk". Watching the "Lady Jane" tipsy linked too above, you see it too, Jagger almost laughing a few times.

I probably should if it focuses more on her and her choices.

That's exactly what it's about. (in some cases, lack of choices and how she overcame them, etc)

It helped as I ended up taking it to NY: Plenty of context.

(Old tale: I once showed "The Freewheeling" to the kids and said "That's me and mum in NY". They looked at it quizzically, and said "That's mum alright, but that's not you!")

The issue of songwriting gets more tangled as the band went into the seventies and eighties. "Yesterday's Papers" is the first song Jagger wrote on his own, and the list grows from that point ("Brown Sugar," "Fingerprint File," "Fool to Cry," half of Some Girls, etc). Richards, meanwhile, wrote most of the lyrics to "Wild Horses" and "Beast of Burden."

My point is that, as with most songwriting, it's not so simple a matter as 'X wrote the lyrics' and "Y wrote the tunes."

But he never wrote - he was a paranoiac who would destroy most of his output in fits of insecurity before it ever saw the light of day. His talents within the Stones seemed to lie mostly in arrangement and his voracious ability to master any instrument he could pick up. He was apparently the kind of musician who could pick up anything - recorder, saxophone, cello, sitar, pan pipes of Joujoaka - and be able to include them on a recording session the next day. Yes, he arranged and wrote all the parts he played. Would Ruby Tuesday be so great without that recorder riff? That riff *is* Jones.

Jagger makes exactly these points in his long Jann Wenner interview for RS in 1995; he would, of course, have political reasons for making them.

I'm not talking about songwriting as a process, I'm talking about the assignment of credit for publishing.

Which, as any fule know, is related to, but by no means the same thing as actual songwriting.

Dammit - although Lady Jane is not actually as good a song as Ruby Tuesday, it is *flawless* or rather *faultless* in a way that Ruby Tuesday is not, so it might get my vote, even though I will concede that Ruby Tuesday is the better song.

There are many songs credited to (for example) Lennon/McCartney, that have assignments to others, e.g. to Mal Evans for suggesting the "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" reprise, etcet.

.. but they don't always get their names on the credits.

"Don't play with me cause you're playing with fire" seems a bit too menacing to qualify as "twee."

Yeah really, that song is pretty much definitely not twee! Next Under My Thumb will be twee!

Although didn't we have a thread about hidden misogyny in twee music? We must have.

But "Under My Thumb" is confident in ways "Play With Fire" isn't. For one thing, there's the rhythm: "Under My Thumb" struts. And the lyric, of course, reinforces this: he's got her under control. The change has already come. Whereas in "Play With Fire", the threat is left vague, and besides, how scary is it to play with fire? He's just a toy. And the song's focus on the woman makes this yet more clear: focused on her mother and her diamonds.

voted Cups and Cakes

Voting "Backstreet Girl" just cuz that's such an underrated song.

"Backstreet Girl" is my second choice. The arrangement is gorgeous---is that a tambourine, or maracas? And then castanets? I love how Jagger's voice is miked; it's really intimate, esp. when the other sounds drop out. The singer seems like he's in control at first, but then you realize: he's asking her, please do this, please do that. What if it doesn't please her? What's she going to do about it? And yet he's telling her she's coarse, and asking to stay just a backstreet girl. What's in it for her? It's a great story.

The lyrics of "Backstreet Girl" are anything but twee!

I agree; let's not get hung up on the word "twee". If there's a better one-word description here, I'm all ears.

"Sweet Black Angel" seems like its coming from the same place as these songs, I feel like that is worth mentioning. But it is ambiguous in different ways and isn't strictly about sex (although it is certainly concerned with it). It seems really sweet and inviting at first but then it just seems condescending and racist. Troubling song, but pretty.

No "In Another Land," no Twee Stones cred

if we're taking "twee" as the marker then I agree, Roger. I left it out because it doesn't really have the vibe I'm looking for---it's too rhythmically propulsive in the chorus, and doesn't come from the same place lyrically. I figured we could run another poll on Satanic Majesty's, or maybe we already did.

On "Sweet Black Angel", well, maybe. I left out everything after 1967 b/c I think after that, the "medieval" sounds I'm singling out here (to use Masonic Boom's apt terminology) (which brings to mind the awesome Beggars' Banquet sleeve pic) are minimized.

partial to "backstreet girl", but "ruby teusday" is pretty hard to contend with

I understand why Sweet Black Angel isn't on this poll, but I thought it deserved mention since it shares similarities with the stuff on the poll.

"Sweet Black Angel" is awesome and makes the good point that the Stones didn't fully abandon the twee-or-whatever neighborhood in 1967. I think the case could be made that "Moonlight Mile" is a distant relative of this era, at least in its stateliness.

jagger revisited this sound on one track on wandering spirit, didn't he?

oh yeah, "angel in my heart." it's just ok.

"Sweet Black Angel" is "twee"? wtf?

If that's twee, then so is Wandering Spirit's "Evening Gown."

I think that it's already been established that "twee" isn't exactly the right word to describe what the common characteristic of these songs. I didn't call Sweet Black Angel twee, anyway.

"Lady Jane". But where is "In Another Land"?

Yeah, I think there are family resemblances between songs of this type and later Stones songs, but I think the songs capturing this type's essence are the ones polled here. It's no shock that some elements of this sound would continue in a band's songs; what's more surprising to me is how abruptly the Stones moved beyond this style.

And of more interest still, to me at least, is how this "twee" style is related to Jagger/Richards' "standpoint" in these songs.

But wasn't the majority of "Between The Buttons" about this kind of style too, really?

Not really. I listened to it pretty carefully and while the songs are related to this style, they're on the whole harder-driving rhythmically, Kink-y rather than "twee" or "baroque".

partial to "backstreet girl", but "ruby tuesday" is pretty hard to contend with

my sentiments precisely

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Any last thoughts on this poll? "If You Let Me" is an Aftermath outtake that deserves to be an outtake, at least lyrically. But it's a gentle performance, vocally, and the acoustic guitar in particular sounds great, with fuzz bass to counteract the guitar's sweetness. And "it's a brand new thing for me, loving you so physically" is a kinda great line. I don't reckon it'll get a vote but it's worth attention.

i am waiting ftw

the win will be along shortly.

No, they ain't twee, and they're all great. Went with "I Am Waiting," trailed closely by "Sittin' on a Fence."

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

hey, kinda off topic, but seems like a good place to ask....
"let's spend the night together", "have you seen your mother baby", two of my favourite stones songs, but i always wonder, what is that sound? it's not rocknroll like chuck berry, it's got kind of a circus? vibe. are there other songs like that? other bands doing similar songs?
anyway, thought that was a good job identifying their baroquelouchetwee sound, maybe someone has some insight on this other side....

^Toytown Pop maybe..

http://www.marmalade-skies.co.uk/toytown1.htm

although I could kind of hear Chuck Berry doing "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby"

Missed this but would have voted "As Tears Go By" or "Play with Fire".

"I Am Waiting" pulls out a nice shared win. "Backstreet Girl" scored pretty low but I bet it would have come out much higher had we been able to vote on #2, #3, etc.

The horn parts on "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby..." remind me of Tom Jones, but that sound must be part of a wider movement too (something like Vegas pop). I get the circus point, though (Circus Circus?), because the sound on the song is cavernous, and the vocals sound very far away in the mix. Another song with a similar sound on Flowers is "Please Go Home", with a Bo Diddley beat and some psychedelic production tricks.

"Let's Spend The Night Together" isn't the same production-wise. Both songs are have a little of what I called the "girl-group Stones" sound. When putting this poll together I listened to most of the Stones' songs up through 1967, and initially I confused the girl-group Stones with what I unfortunately called the Twee Stones. I might come back and poll the girl-group Stones but I need to get clearer on what belongs to that cluster. But these two are candidates; see also "Try A Little Harder", "Sad Day", "Stupid Girl".

Girl group Stones: "What to Do," "Off the Hook"

i think there's a careful dividing line between the twee songs and the soul songs. in the latter
column is where i'd put "she smiled sweetly" and "out of time", as i think there's a pretty blatant
sam cooke influence on those. even "sad day", aside from the chorus, is a soul song. strange to think
of a huge mainstream band who had made their name with bluesy, nasty rock n roll songs deciding to
write this kind of twee, baroque material on a follow-up album. i can't think of any current act who
would do it.

on a related note, that acoustic guitar figure in "backstreet girl", minus the surrounding foppery,
would be right at home on "Beggars" and is to my memory the earliest example of that country blues
playing that keith would get into post-"Magesties".

strange to think of a huge mainstream band who had made their name with bluesy, nasty rock n roll songs deciding to write this kind of twee, baroque material on a follow-up album

The Who also did this.

Here are a couple of answers as to why it's not so strange.

answer 1: the Stones were just playing with identities and the blues shredder identity was just one face in the early days under consideration. They later tried on other faces too.

answer 2: the psychosexuality of the songs in this thread is the other side of the psychosexuality of the nasty Stones.

In any case it's a good point to raise. Also the point about "Backstreet Girl" is good too; "No Expectations" is pretty languid and hence related to the songs of this thread in its line of descent, if not in its explicit sound.

you make a good point in your second answer about the twee being the other side of the nasty coin. i'd never thought of the stones' (we may as well say jagger) psychosexuality being so bipolar. can you think of any instances where the stones were squarely in the middle? i wanted to throw some examples out there, but i honestly can't think of any. not too many of their songs are, for lack of a better term, "well-adjusted".

That's a great question! I'm loathe to think too far past 1967 on this, because the band changes so much then. But from a little later there's "You Got The Silver", which has struck me for years as being as close as the (Abcko) Stones come to a declaration of relationship bliss. (It is, notably, a Richards lyric.) They occasionally come close to being well-adjusted; I was thinking of "Good Times, Bad Times" as a candidate, but there's the last line about how there's gonna be war. So scratch that one!

Odd that noone has mentioned "She's Like a Rainbow" yet!

I see 'girl group' mentioned alot upthread, which reminds me greatly of Chris Farlowe's take on "Out of Time"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNyAzuB1-rE

The Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra record that starts out with "Da Doo Run Run" with Mick Jagger singing is one of my favorite covers of anything ever.

Odd that noone has mentioned "She's Like a Rainbow" yet!

― Adam Bruneau, Saturday, 25 July 2009 19:08 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I was thinking of She's A Rainbow but Euler stated early on that he'd excluded everything from Their Satanic Majesties Request onwards. I put together a spotify playlist of the songs in this poll then added She's A Rainbow to it as it seemed to fit naturally with the others.

(may as well post the links here if anyone wants a listen)

http://open.spotify.com/user/onimo/playlist/260vZoSVGPNfG4UJt0LMJi

spotify:user:onimo:playlist:260vZoSVGPNfG4UJt0LMJi

More foppish Mick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwHDEAl1n1s

I don't know if you Britishes people are aware, but there is a U.S. chain restaurant called Ruby Tuesday that caters in highly overpriced hamburgers. Unfortunately, this has spoiled the song for me.

wow @ the Ned Kelly song. I like it! It sounds like Mick's been listening to the Incredible String Band.

"I Am Waiting" 14, tied for first: good on us! This is an excellent song: the riff in the opening is eerie, as is the harmonizing. It's Brian Jones on dulcimer, but is he singing too? I hear Keith but there's another voice I think, deeper, more ominous: you can hear it in the second time they sing the title, just at the opening. It could just be Mick double tracked too (in addition to Keith). Whoever, it's effective. We agreed "twee" was a misnomer in this thread & that's especially true here: this is Mick in seer mode: whatever it is, "you'll find out", and "slow or fast" it is coming, there is nothing you can do. The Stones as passive, waiting: they are exploring again the feminine as they understand it. Whatever is coming, it's not clear how bad it is: there is dread but anyway we are waiting for it, we are not running away from it, coming years, escalation fears, but we will find out.

i don't think i've ever heard any chris farlowe before, but the chorus in his "out of time" in the video above sounds remarkably like bruce springsteen.