Rolling Stones Single-By-Single Thread

And that's the sad thing about the whole way that music is has been appreciated through the years.

 

19th Nervous Breakdown

Love Keef's guitar sound and Charlie's drums. The song has a nice energy, but - although I can see why some love it - I only like it.

Sad Day

Love the bass line on this - it has a nice groove and tone. One thing I'm noticing about these 60s Stones singles is that Mick and Company's talent and unique sound raise the level of even simple pop/blues songs.

 

I can see a teenager of today going back and gaining an appreciation of the blues, but not back in 1965 or 1966, where we are right now in this thread.

 

Well that's kind of funny, because you are responding here to the thread starter and I think she's 29 or 3o or so , and she loves this 1966ish Stones era.

But, because you are responding to a post regarding learning to love the Stones after the original era your post is confusing.

Are you saying teenagers now can learn to love the blues but not 65-66 Stones ,
or teenagers in 65/66 couldn't gain an appreciation of the blues?

Regardless, I don't think either of those statements can be supported.

By the way,I don't know when Shannon gained an appreciation for this Stones period but it's certainly possible she was a teenager when she did.

 

IMO "19th Nervous Breakdown" isn't just one of the Stones' greatest singles, but one of their greatest songs. Clever, witty lyrics, great music (and arrangement), even the production is pretty decent. And Bill's divebombs at the end are the extra touch that means so much.

I haven't heard "Sad Day" in years, but as I recall it's another better than average Stones B-side.

 

"Sad Day" was one of the songs that I only discovered in about 2002 or something. For ages I had been contented with the core albums. It was a pleasure to discover all those fascinating non-album tracks.

 

I have had countless "at this particular moment" favorite Stones tunes over the years but the one solid contender that never seems to suffer from the ups and downs is "19th Nervous Breakdown". I like it as much now as I did the first time I heard it, and I'll never tire of it.
"Sad Day" is also fantastic; one of the best "obscure" cuts in their catalog for sure.

Aaron

 

Yep, I'm 29. I turn 30 in May. I fell in love with the Stones (and other music of this period, such as the Who, the Beatles, etc.) when I was 14, which was in 2002. It was a combination of factors: my natural tastes and love for guitar-based music, my deep dislike for the popular music of the time, the influence of my parents, etc. It was the right time for me and I like to think I would have loved this music no matter when I was born. It's part of who I am.

There were teenagers in the '80s who went back to the sixties (lots of them on this forum). Same in the '90s and those in my generation. There are teenagers on YouTube right now who enthusiastically discuss their love for music of the "classic rock" era. I'm subscribed to a guy who I think is 19 who is a huge, huge Paul Weller fan and knows the intricacies of his entire catalog.

This is all anecdotal, of course, but this music was written by young people for young people in 1966 so why wouldn't it continue to appeal to some young people for generations after?

 

Extraordinary single gosh Decca sure put out some strange singles after the Stones left ABKCO. John thanks for posting all these picture sleeves.
Sad Day - The Rolling Stones | Song Info | AllMusic

Link showing that first album release was indeed No Stone Unturned. Good review of the song which I tend to agree with. I am glad we have it though. You really can't get enough 60s (or 70s) Stones.
19th Nervous. What a great great single and the start of the great 3 single run of 1966 to rival 1965. Those 6 (UK) singles released in 1965 and 66 are certainly worth Sir Mick's knighthood.

 

I certainly agree with that lukpac and I guess the only way a stereo version of Sad Day would apear now is if someone could go back to the tapes of the recording session and mix one. When the Stones left ABKCO did the company make any attempt to catalogue and safeguard all the session tapes which I am assuming they owned at that point? Probably an impossible question to answer. They certainly seemed to put a lot of work into the 2002 sacd/hybrid releases.

 

I have no direct knowledge of exactly what multitracks ABKCO has, but we know they have some:

Heart of Stone - remixed for the 2002 SACDs
Satisfaction - remixed for the 2002 SACDs
The Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man - remixed for the 1989 Singles Collection
I'm Free - remixed for commercials
19th Nervous Breakdown - remixed for 2016 mono box
Paint It Black - multi used for Guitar Hero
Sympathy For The Devil - remixed to 5.1, as well as some "modern" remixes
Gimme Shelter - multi used for Rock Band

It's possible I'm forgetting a few more. Regardless, we know they have multis from various points in their '60s career. Do we know for certain they have Sad Day? No, although it seems likely.

That said, it seems ABKCO has been extremely reluctant to remix, especially in terms of mixing to stereo for the first time.

 

Next, we have another transatlantic #1 smash:

Paint It Black (1966)



Released: 5/6/66 (US); 5/13/66 (UK)
B-Side: Stupid Girl (US); Long Long While (UK)
Charts: #1 (US); #1 (UK)

The song's lyrics are, for the most part, meant to describe bleakness and depression through the use of colour-based metaphors. Initially, "Paint It Black" was written as a standard pop arrangement, humorously compared by Mick Jagger to "Songs for Jewish weddings".[8] The song describes the extreme grief suffered by one stunned by the sudden and unexpected loss of wife, lover or partner. It is often claimed that Jagger took inspiration from novelist James Joyce's 1922 book, Ulysses, taking the excerpt, "I have to turn my head until my darkness goes", referring to the novel's theme of a worldwide view of desperation and desolation.[7] The song itself came to fruition when the band's leader Brian Jones took an interest in Moroccan music. It was their first song to feature a sitar instrumental. "Paint It Black" came at a pivotal period in The Rolling Stones' recording history, a time that saw the songwriting collaboration of Jagger and Keith Richards assert itself as the principal composer of the band's original material. This is evident in the Aftermath sessions, where, for the first time, the duo penned the complete track list.[9] In addition, Brian Jones, overshadowed by Jagger and Richards, grew bored with attempting to write songs, as well as conventional guitar melodies.[10] To alleviate the boredom, Jones explored eastern instruments, more specifically the sitar, to bolster the group's musical texture and complexity. A natural multi-instrumentalist, Jones was able to develop a tune from the sitar in a short amount of time, largely due to his studies under Ravi Shankar's disciple, Harihar Rao.[11] Not long after a discussion with George Harrison, who had recently recorded sitar in "Norwegian Wood", Jones arranged basic melodies with the instrument that, over time, morphed into the one featured in "Paint It Black".[12]

Recording[edit]
The master take of "Paint It Black" was recorded on 8 March 1966, at RCA Studios in Los Angeles, with record producer Andrew Loog Oldham present throughout the process.[13] Much of the early recorded arrangements, and keys of the track were modeled after The Animals' version of "The House of the Rising Sun", but The Rolling Stones were unsatisfied with the song, and considered scrapping it. However, while twiddling with a Hammond organ, Bill Wyman searched for a heavier bass sound, while playing the part on his knees. Wyman's playing clicked with the group, and inspired the up-tempo and Eastern pentatonic melody. By all accounts, the sitar was brought into the mix when Harihar Rao happened to walk in the studio with the instrument in hand.[8]

The sitar was featured in the song. However, contrary to popular belief, the opening riff is played by Keith Richards on guitar, as seen on The Ed Sullivan show and other live performances of the time. Jones' sitar is still heard throughout the song. In his book Brian Jones: The Making of the Rolling Stones, Paul Trynka has noted that the influence of Harrison's sitar playing, and, in particular, The Beatles' song "Norwegian Wood" on the Rubber Soul album, draws parallels in "Paint It Black" - most noticeably in Jones' droning sitar melody.[14] In response to claims that he was merely imitating the Beatles, however, Jones said: "What utter rubbish!" His sitar part on the track immediately became influential in developing a whole subgenre of minor-key psychedelic music.[11] Coupled with this striking instrumental motif, it is complemented by Jagger's droning, and slight nasal vocalization.[7] In addition, "Paint It Black" was highlighted by Wyman's heavy bass, Charlie Watts's low-pitch drumming, and Richards' bolero-driven acoustic guitar outro. Soon after, Richards noted that the conclusion of the track was over-recorded, and a different guitar could have potentially improved the song.[8][11]

Personnel[edit]

• Mick Jagger – lead vocals
• Keith Richards – electric guitar, acoustic guitar, backing vocals
• Brian Jones – sitar, acoustic guitar
• Bill Wyman – bass, Hammond organ
• Charlie Watts – drums

 

Here's one of my favorite televised performances of the period. Mick has fully blossomed into Mick Jagger, Rock God. Brian looks amazing, too.

 

"Paint It Black" is pretty interesting and unlike other Stones singles. In 1985 I saw a group of traditional musicians play an instrumental version of "Paint It Black" and they introduced it by describing it as a specific type of music (I can't recall what they said) but they noted that the authors were probably not aware they had created this specific type of music. Sitar was the instrument of the moment. "Paint It Black",however, still has elements of a rock n roll smash hit. It's also a very interesting lyric - often interpreted and/or misinterpreted. I remember hearing it live in 1989 and thinking they were resurrecting a lost classic (they were) but since then, they've played it a lot and it gets played on the radio in my market more than any other pre-Beggars Banquet single with the exception of "Satisfaction".

 

Not to digress here, but the thread has touched on the interesting question whether, or more accurately the extent to which, the times in which music first comes out and whether one heard it at that time affects one's appreciation of it as one's life goes on. Classical music always comes to mind for me in providing context to such a discussion. It has for example literally been centuries since anyone was alive who first heard Bach when his music "came out". Yet many today consider him one of the top if not top composer of all time. Clearly that historical distance has not stood in the way of such assessment.

But... to be sure historical context remains significant. Part of recognizing the value of music from "the past" is understanding how it may have been creative and influential. Most in fact value hearing from those people who first came up with something. And without an awareness of that historical context something will be missing from the overall appreciation of the artist and the music. Now, that can be had by other means than literally being present at the time, of course, as all who for example know something about Bach have done.

Still, is there something left from being subjectively, literally alive and aware at the time? Probably. But the question becomes how much. And more to the point even if there is something left as it were, that should not be an impediment to those who were not present to "get into" such music later.

 

Great track.
The use of sitar, and those organ pedals, Keiths guitar intro, Micks vocals, all make this a pretty outstanding Stones track.
The pedals make that whomping sound, most obvious at tracks conclusion.

 

I had no idea the Stones were anything other than a silly Beatles knock-off, which is a myth perpetuated by idiots, until I was in my late teens (circa the Licks tour)

"Paint it Black" is one of those songs that holds the key to the mystery

Countless films about domestic social unrest in the 1960s and the international slow-motion tragedy that was unfolding in Vietnam used the song

It rings true. Whether you hear the lyric as a moody teenage meditation, a mournful requiem for a lost (dead?) lover, or the complete loss of innocence

 

I must confess after the whole string of hits leading up to 19th Nervous Breakdown being so great that by comparison I was and still am ambivalent about Paint It Black.

It's my brother's favorite Stones song ever, so I am quite familiar with how it can be and is appreciated. It's release coincides with what I consider that great period (before dissolution took over) when Brian was greatly widening the Stones' tonal palette with a variety of instruments, something he was largely doing by himself. Lady Jane was a strong example, but also in live performance, from the 66 US tour, Jones was bringing these different instruments to the fore. All to their credit, and usually to good effect.

Yet... for Paint It Black we have that melody line also played on sitar, an unvarying up and down line played as a scale. I have no doubt it was chosen since this was the limit of the level of competence that Jones could bring to the instrument. It doesn't ruin the song, but it's very much a limitation that is front and center, dictating the content of the song. Over time I feel like I have heard this melody line enough.

still the lyrics are very good, and Charlie and Bill put in great work here. An A- following a string of A+'s and A's.

 

Sitar is an inspired choice, but "Brian choosing to play a different instrument" is not what makes it great. It's a song ostensibly about watching your lover's funeral — the circular melody is ruminative and needed a tonal variation to relieve the doom and gloom

The song really takes off when Bill hits those bass glissandos, during the final rave-up. On the 50 & Counting shows they would lift the inflatable lips surrounding the stage away into the rafters on cue at this moment, which was pretty awesome to see

 

The lyrics are not just "very good", they are revolutionary in the pop/rock form. On par with Caravaggio's Death of the Virgin for depicting previously sacrosanct subject matter in a morbid light

Previous attempts at dealing with this topic in the form had couched death in a hopeful "Teen Angel"-type resurrection, or used death as a cheap moralistic punchline to a story of teen malafactors, whereas "Paint it Black" revels in the emotional darkness of loss

 

Paint It Black
A classic. It seems to have become one of the most popular and well-known Stones songs (being in Rock Band and lots of movies may have helped with that). It's just a really well-executed song with a great arrangement, great lyrics and an extremely confident performance from Mick. I believe that Bill Wyman said this song should have been credited to Nanker-Phelge because it was a whole band composition (and he does seem to have made important contributions) but we were getting on to the end of the existence of Nanker-Phelge. "Paint It Black you devils!"

Stupid Girl
I always liked how this song has such a jolly arrangement with that organ/electric piano combo paired with such mean lyrics, ha ha. The Stones were nothing if not honest about their circumstances. Here's what Mick said about the song in 1995:

"Yeah, it's much nastier than 'Under My Thumb'... Obviously, I was having a bit of trouble. I wasn't in a good relationship. Or I was in too many bad relationships. I had so many girlfriends at that point. None of them seemed to care they weren't pleasing me very much. I was obviously in with the wrong group."

In 1971, Keith said:

"It was all a spin-off from our environment... hotels, and too many dumb chicks. Not all dumb, not by any means, but that's how one got. When you're canned up - half the time it's impossible to go out - it was to go through a whole sort of football match."

Long Long While
I've never been a fan of this one. It's bluesy but it has neither the emotional impact nor the interesting arrangement that you find in the Stones' best blues-based songs. It's okay but kind of empty to me.

 

Paint it Black
I love this song. It’s the song that got me into The Rolling Stones in the first place, and even though I now prefer their late 60’s and early 70’s work to their psychedelic era, I still really enjoy this song and find it interesting. If I had to give one song credit for getting me into music, it would have to be this one.

Stupid Girl
This is a pretty good garage-y psychedelic rock song that is a good representation the style that would dominate most of their psychedelic era. The addition of organ to their sound makes it fairly interesting. The lyrics are a bit questionable, but I don’t want to walk that minefield here.

Long Long While
This is a pretty strange song. I had never heard it before, so I was a bit confused by what at first appeared to be a return to a more grounded soul ballad style. Then it blossomed into that big, swirling psychedelic chorus and it all made sense.

 

I said that the Stones' widening their tonal palette during this period was admirable. So there's that. You disagree??? Your comment about choosing the sitar as an inspired choice and posing that as in opposition to choosing a different instrument is simply confusing. The sitar was a different instrument here, front and center and instantly recognizable that distinguishes the song.

I did not mean say that the circular melody is without value or inappropriate to the lyrics and performance. I said it is probable that limited facility with the sitar had something to do with the melody chosen. ANd again for the most part I think the song works.

 

All true but that alone is not what makes it GREAT. It's all that, combined with the simply staggering lyric and melody, which shatters everything that had come before in terms of majestic bleakness. A weaker song with fancy instrumentation is just... well, "Gomper" springs to mind

 

My take on the lyrics are very dark. For me it is a feeling of forebode. A story of a killer aware of his darkness (sickness) ready to stalk his next prey. I don't see any sense of loss or mourning.
I see someone that is contolled by dark evil thoughts & desires.

I don't know if anyone else sees it this way.

In enjoy these single more & more the further they move away from their roots & influences & are are starting to create an individual unique identity.
This is almost the opposite to how I feel about The Beatles. With them it is their earlier beat stuff that I like wheras I much prefer the later Rolling Stones