The Rolling Stones — She's A Rainbow
Album: Their Satanic Magesty's RequestAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 4000
Length: 4:11
Plays (last 30 days): 4
share
tweet
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
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 (344)add comment
I've always loved this album. It's the only Stones album I can enjoy all the way through, actually... but I gather I'm in the minority on this.
The Beatles could do the Stones (see I Wanna Be Your Man), but the Stones couldn't do the Beatles!
pete_shakey wrote:
Nicky Hopkins played piano & Brian Jones played Mellotron on this tune. Google Mellotron, it i a very cool instrument!
Wierd , after all these years listening to Stones I only just I thought,hey ,hold on ...who were the keyboard players? Silly me.
Nicky Hopkins played piano & Brian Jones played Mellotron on this tune. Google Mellotron, it i a very cool instrument!
Finnbayer wrote:
Too Funny! Thank You for sharing the story!
Jimi’s “Bold as Love” isn’t in the RP library, so I’m using this Stones’ “Rainbow Song” as a flimsy excuse to tell one of my favorite high school stories.
A friend of mine is a huge Hendrix fan. When “Bold as Love” fist came out, he was going to a Catholic high school, and was assigned by his teacher (a Nun) to write a poem. He figured that she wouldn’t have heard any Hendrix songs, and decided to submit the lyrics of “Bold as Love”. To the Nun’s credit, she gave him an A+.
Too Funny! Thank You for sharing the story!
Jimi’s “Bold as Love” isn’t in the RP library, so I’m using this Stones’ “Rainbow Song” as a flimsy excuse to tell one of my favorite high school stories.
A friend of mine is a huge Hendrix fan. When “Bold as Love” fist came out, he was going to a Catholic high school, and was assigned by his teacher (a Nun) to write a poem. He figured that she wouldn’t have heard any Hendrix songs, and decided to submit the lyrics of “Bold as Love”. To the Nun’s credit, she gave him an A+.
Wierd , after all these years listening to Stones I only just I thought,hey ,hold on ...who were the keyboard players? Silly me.
This song includes some of the most out of tune backing vocals I have ever heard! All that 'la-la-la-la' stuff is horribly painful on the ears due to being so flat. Classic tune otherwise though
"2000 Man" also covered by Kiss is a great cut off this album.
kcatalina wrote:
Same sequence a year later. Holly. Farrell. Retitzell. Rolling.
A series of artists with double LL's in their names?
Same sequence a year later. Holly. Farrell. Retitzell. Rolling.
Have you seen the Lady Pharaoh?
thewiseking wrote:
I'm glad you spelt it as majesty! I thought I was going mad. Is that an americanism or a typo?
Satanic Majesty's Request is a Masterpiece. Sure, Mick and Keef like to dismiss it, perhaps because it was mostly Brian's invention and ABKCO has all the rights to this material but the album stands alone as Towering Psychedelia. Check out the deeper tracks like Gomper. Trippy AF
I'm glad you spelt it as majesty! I thought I was going mad. Is that an americanism or a typo?
Satanic Majesty's Request is a Masterpiece. Sure, Mick and Keef like to dismiss it, perhaps because it was mostly Brian's invention and ABKCO has all the rights to this material but the album stands alone as Towering Psychedelia. Check out the deeper tracks like Gomper. Trippy AF
Is this song a bit rude?
Forever tainted by its association with advertising campaigns by Apple and Sony. Such a shame that classics are being used like this.
mjbaumann wrote:
The Grammar is correct...The Spelling is in question... Just saying....
no capital G in grammar
The Grammar is correct...The Spelling is in question... Just saying....
no capital G in grammar
belegato wrote:
Magestic, even.
I fink this is a grate song.
Magestic, even.
I fink this is a grate song.
Jim__Sheila wrote:
Looking at an original copy with the lenticular cover. Majesties is correct.
unclehud wrote:
I think you are right about that spelling check. Wikipedia has: Their Satanic Majesties Request
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
I think you are right about that spelling check. Wikipedia has: Their Satanic Majesties Request
Looking at an original copy with the lenticular cover. Majesties is correct.
Stunningly beautiful 60 second Photo-Shop
commercial set to 'She's a Rainbow' :
(159) Adobe Creative Cloud - Commute (72andSunny, 2020) - YouTube
A series of artists with double LL's in their names?
unclehud wrote:
I think you are right about that spelling check. Wikipedia has: Their Satanic Majesties Request
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
I think you are right about that spelling check. Wikipedia has: Their Satanic Majesties Request
I bet they never made Bobby Keys and Chuck Leavell play this!
This is a dirty song. I don't think I can listen to this.
unclehud wrote:
The Grammar is correct...The Spelling is in question... Just saying....
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
Sincerely,
the Grammar Nazi side of my personality
The Grammar is correct...The Spelling is in question... Just saying....
talexb wrote:
Don't forget the "support RP" dues...
This was probably the first song that I heard where I thought .. "Wait. What the hell is this?" (or whatever passed for an expletive in a nine year-old's mind).
The naked piano line, up an octave, the vibrato bit, the guitars bashing down, and then Mick Jagger's intent vocal, the drums, the strings .. wow. Takes me right back to the late 60's.
Where the hell else would I hear this but on RP? Subscriber for life, baby.
The naked piano line, up an octave, the vibrato bit, the guitars bashing down, and then Mick Jagger's intent vocal, the drums, the strings .. wow. Takes me right back to the late 60's.
Where the hell else would I hear this but on RP? Subscriber for life, baby.
Don't forget the "support RP" dues...
If you’d like to hear a fresh take of this go listen to Molly Tuttle’s. Recent version. She handles all the instrumental parts on her guitar
This was probably the first song that I heard where I thought .. "Wait. What the hell is this?" (or whatever passed for an expletive in a nine year-old's mind).
The naked piano line, up an octave, the vibrato bit, the guitars bashing down, and then Mick Jagger's intent vocal, the drums, the strings .. wow. Takes me right back to the late 60's.
Where the hell else would I hear this but on RP? Subscriber for life, baby.
The naked piano line, up an octave, the vibrato bit, the guitars bashing down, and then Mick Jagger's intent vocal, the drums, the strings .. wow. Takes me right back to the late 60's.
Where the hell else would I hear this but on RP? Subscriber for life, baby.
Check out Molly Tuttle's cover of this.
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.
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:
That is just so sneaky!
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
So good to see the petulant kickback from someone who simply cannot admit they've been bested.
Get up and move to this - 4 awesome minutes of groove 
also awesome!
easmann wrote:
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.
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.
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
Sincerely,
the Grammar Nazi side of my personality
Stetsonman wrote:
Said the spider to the fly....
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.
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:
had to look it up, was not dissapointed: bb - daytripper ->rainbow
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:
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!
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!
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
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Good song ... but overplayed on RP in my opinion !
They've done lots of other songs which deserve an airing.
They've done lots of other songs which deserve an airing.
thewiseking 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.
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.
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.
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'
Thanks, but most of that can be obtained from clicking on the album picture or 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
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
is ...
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.
is ... 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?
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:
No worries. 'Twas an interesting read. Thanks!
Oh, man. I fell for it.
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:
yeah I know, that was an attempt at sarcasim
Oh, man. I fell for it.
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.
kingart 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.
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:
Proclivities wrote:
No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite:
yeah I know, that was an attempt at sarcasim
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:
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
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!
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!
Proclivities wrote:
No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite:
I'm not surprised in the least he would say that. Sour grapes.
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:
Ditto.
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:
I love the songs on this album but I agree, this is not where their heads and hearts truly were.
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...
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:
No, I have never heard or read that, in fact, I've recently read quite the opposite:
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:
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.
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:
I understand they went on to do reasonably well.
I am 65. They have been the soundtrack to my life. I love 'em.
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?
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
"Have you seen her all in blue?
See the sky in front of you..."
See the sky in front of you..."
kingart 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
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:
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.
and I suppose everything you've ever done was a masterpiece?