Rolling Stones Single-By-Single Thread

One more point and then I'll hang me wings for the day:

One clear reason I love me early Stones is more pick less chord.
Oh sure, chords all over the place, but picking is THE reason I
enjoy country toonage. And this lineup of the band did it all the
time. By The Early '70s, everything was by the chord. That's why
to some of us "Some Girls" was refreshing: they resumed picking.

I realize this summation is a gross generalization, but there it is.

The question then becomes: Can the players still pick? To be heard.
Lordy I shore hope so.

 

Get out! That's interesting. I guess their "Sullivan" appearance inferred otherwise?

 

I was just thinking recently that the stones should do an LP with no open G tuning too. It could be a new band.

 

For me, The Last Time/Play with Fire is their first perfect single. They have several singles that I think were great pairs of songs--not just two great songs, but two great songs that compliment one another really well. There are more of those to come but for me this is the first time they completely nailed both the A-Side and the B-Side.

The Last Time
I love it. I love the riff, I love Mick's confident performance (especially towards the end when he just lets it rip), I love the Wall of Sound production, I love how it blends together so many of their influences and ends up coming out with a distinctly new "Rolling Stones" sound unique to them. I think it's just terrific.

Play with Fire
I might like this one even more! This is certainly one of my favorites of their b-sides and definitely my favorite of the songs filed under Nanker-Phelge. It's moody, mature, melodic, something totally new for the band... Their songwriting on both sides of this single is leaps and bounds better and more individualistic than the songs they wrote in '64.

They were really taking off now!

I love this. Method recording.

 

Play With Fire.

At last, GREATNESS.
For me this is the first great Stones song.
It’s simple pure beauty has been matched by few songs if ever.
Along with The Last Time the Stones have now reached the top of the modern music world.
With their next single, Satisfaction they will plant their Stone foundation at the top for all time.

 

This was the first single that revealed just how closely they were monitoring The Beatles. Particularly their B-Sides. "The Last Time" has a very similar feel to "She's A Woman" which had only been released a couple of months earlier.

There is no way that "Play With Fire" could possibly exist if "Things We Said Today" hadn't been released a few months earlier. The notes might be different from it, but the length of every note is almost identical to it. The fact that the verses are minor and the choruses are major is another similarity.

Meanwhile, 1965 turned out to be the year that the bulk of what eventually wound up on side #1 of "Metamorphoses" was initially released. This is easily the most "Northern" sounding thing that Keith ever concocted. Not surprisingly, it was recorded by a Mancunian group. Besides the lyrical revisions, the chords are a bit different. Notice that on the words "All Dressed Up To Kill," "I Don't Care Where You Are," "No Good Looking Back" and "You've Had All You're Getting From Me," the progression is IV to iv. The Stones' version just lingers on a ii chord.

 

Thank you!

"The Last Time" is classic Stones. I like it better than "Satisfaction", even. One of the coolest riffs ever IMO. "Play With Fire" is brilliant as well- I would imagine Nitzsche and Spector had a hand in the arrangement.

Hell, almost thirty years later I still find it odd that "Play With Fire" is on Hot Rocks and "The Last Time" isn't...

Or any open tunings at all. Open G is so fun to play in, though

 

Click HERE.

 

Exactly, why leave off the A-Side (#9) in favor of the B-Side (#96) which didn't chart as high. Just one of the reasons I like the U.K. Rolled Gold better than Hot Rocks.

 

And at some point in the US, the single was reissued with the guitar intro. We got the 45 probably in the late 70s and it had the guitar intro. In the mid-80s when I was really getting into the Stones and bought Hot Rocks on cassette, it must have been the post digital remastering as it had the organ intro which I had never heard before and had a total WTF? moment.

 

I love the Stones version, but to me there's no need to dump on the Beatles' version. Both are very good.

 

Ha. I just found a John Fahey song I could play in Open G, never used it before, and i can't be bothered, usually . But now I have to leave one guitar in Open G for the time being. It's like an addictive drug.

But Keith doesn't use it like that. I think it's a crutch at this point.

 

While it was on US radio, early in 64, as a fan I did not buy it, but did buy The Rolling Stones Now!, and for a long time associated that beat with the (imo excellent) Mona version of it. Both great songs, NFA being more up tempo.

 

Oh yes. Thanks to Keith Richards, more or less, I've mainly been playing guitar in open G tuning for almost twenty five years, and every now and then I can still find some new variation. Unlike Keith, I like the drone of the low D string as well.

To be fair, given the arthritic look of Keith's fingers, open G might be a necessity at this point just because of the chord shapings.

 

The Last Time is one of my very favorite Stones songs from the early era of the band. It has a great riff and I'm always happy when they break it out. They should play it more often. The Last Time was the overwhelming choice in my poll about the best track omitted from Hot Rocks. Poll: Vote for the Biggest Omission from The Rolling Stones' Hot Rocks compilation

Play With Fire is also a good slower track and it was a nice surprise when they played it during the Steel Wheels tour. If I recall correctly, this was originally titled Mess With Fire. Play With Fire did not chart in the U.K. and was omitted from the U.K. version of Big Hits.

Both sides are quality tracks and make this one of the better 2 sided singles from this period.

 

I don't think I dumped on the Beatles' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man." I said it's an empty piece of songwriting, which I stand behind. I said in a different post that their version rocks along nicely. I think the lyrics are vacuous in both versions and it is very repetitive song. That's okay. Pop music can be vacuous and repetitive sometimes. But I do prefer the Stones' version. I think it's a better recording and a better performance. Just my opinion.

 

Wholeheartedly Agree!

“The Last Time” roars out of the box with another trademark riff, which is repeated incessantly throughout the whole song, but somehow never gets weary. It’s a big hook, which betrays it’s Country-stylish Twang, to good effect. That combined with Mick’s developing vocals, echoing a faint occasional drawl, delivers the unique Rolling Stones sound.

“Play With Fire” is another slow torch (no pun intended) of a song. Perhaps viewed through the eyes of one who once had a heart of stone..., and now embittered?

I’ve always consider both tracks as “A” list Stones tunes. Near double A sided, too.

I always thought it was bold and highly distinctive for all the very specific British locales to be named (Saint John’s Wood, Stepney, Knightsbridge), which obviously has little relevance States-side. Although that lends a unique flavour, it limits some relate-ability for the casual American listener.

However, I always liked those little lyrical details. Travelogue, anyone?

 

Yeah, I always thought the song “I Wanna Be Your Man” was a nice toss-off, a good rocker, but nothing earthshaking.

The best and most significant aspect of the song is, is The Beatles/The Rolling Stones link. It’s as if Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo collaborated together. A historic Meeting Of the Minds. Supreme Talents crossed paths - right Here.

 

I usually don't like other people covering Sones songs but this Play With Fire by the Pretty Things from 2000 is just great.

 

To be clear I said "to me" by which I meant that although different I find both versions of roughly equal value. Beatles and Stones are my two favorite groups all time, and I think there are a lot of us out there. But not all, and it's always something I take particular notice of when odious comparisons are drawn between them, whether favoring one or the other. It's just me.

 

Hey, I'm a Beatles fan too. I'm a bigger fan of the Stones, but I've got the Beatles' entire discography and it's tattooed on my brain just like most people here. I don't see anything "odious" about comparing their respective versions of the exact same song. In fact, I'd say that is a very interesting exercise! "I Wanna Be Your Man" is a unique anomaly.

I agree that any "war" between the two bands is absolutely silly. They are both terrific and wonderful, and they were all buds with each other.

 

On The Last Time...

This was and remained until Jumping Jack Flash my favorite Stones song, even more than Satisfaction or anything else. But to me although they were very different songs I felt at the time the confidence they built doing an original like Heart of Stone was significant. Their only single A side I think before Stone that was an original was Tell Me. Which unlike some here I liked very much. But going from Tell Me to Last Time? I think they needed Stone in there, adding to their experience.

It's easy, imo too easy, to argue the contrary. Tell Me was 4/4, Stone 3/4, Last 4/4. For example. But all were different than the blues tunes they came from, and to me that's the point. I love their early blues tunes, but by the time Heart of Stone came out they were well on their way to a more diverse sound. An original like Pain in My Heart, a kind of soulful blues, was being done at the same time roughly as a deep album cut like We Got a Good Thing Going, not an original but to my ears the kind of up tempo song that led into The Last Time. The point here being that Heart of Stone was a strong example of them branching out further with a hit single that was an original. It is not merely the correlation in time that led to Last Time being next - I think there was an element of causation as well.

By Heart of Stone they in their first year in the US had developed a diverse sound recognizably different from everyone, including of course The Beatles. 65 then became their real breakout year, but the arc they were on in 64 was what led up to it.

 

I agree with almost all of what you said here, the difference merely being I did not mean your comparison was odious, but instead meant in the sense that a comparison that asserts one is lesser than the other is by definition saying that the lesser comparator is, well, lesser and the "odious" one of the two. Sorry I was not more clear. So in effect we both do agree.