No title available
Kiana Khansmith
No title available
Not today Justin
NASA
izzy's playlists!
No title available
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
blake kathryn
Sweet Seals For You, Always
🪼
noise dept.
Discoholic 🪩
titsay
Claire Keane
hello vonnie
almost home
AnasAbdin
ellievsbear
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Japan
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Morocco
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Brunei
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@theladysuffragettes
The Lady Suffragettes are deeply saddened by the tragic passing of L'Wren Scott. She was a icon in the fashion world and undoubtedly important to Mick. We hope she is now able to find some peace and that her loved ones can be supported as they process and heal.
wewantnothing:
Bedazzled!: WFMU’s Rock ‘n’ Soul Ichiban!: Play That Funky Kazoo, White Boy!
“Don’t recall Brian playing a lot of kazoo (unless that’s him on “Something Happened To Me Yesterday”). Maybe they told him it was a hash pipe?” (via wfmuichiban.blogspot.com)
On paper, 'Child Of The Moon' is Jagger’s polytheistic love letter to Marianne Faithfull, a mash note laced with a little elemental riddle and mystery. However, on record, it actually feels closer to pagan curse than lyric poem, a mixed-bag mojo potion invocation of a dream lover pushed to ritualistic nightmare by the hoodoo 'Rain' beat of Charlie Watts’ drums, Brian Jones’ hypnotic saxophone drone, Jagger’s own fixed-pitch chant vocals and Jimmy Miller’s deeply unsettling shouting in those murky opening moments.
'Jumpin' Jack Flash'
Released 24 May 1968 B-side 'Child of the Moon' Chart Position #1
auskultu: After a long absence—for which we profusely apologise—the Lady Suffragettes return with 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', the single that restored the glory of the Rolling Stones and, for many, marked the start of their golden age.
The standard line on the single is that it marked a return to the group's blues roots after a floundering flirtation with psychedelia and other pop trends; that is, the Stones turned their gaze from London back toward America. Readers know that we here at the Lady Suffragettes do not particularly trust the received wisdom on Jagger and company, as illustrated by our respect for their supposed nadir, Their Satanic Majesties Request.
thereisnoalgebra: That standard line is correct in the most obvious respect, of course: this is, hands down, one of their greatest tracks. One thing the band has always done better than its peer is swagger, and 'Jumpin' Jack Flash' has it in spades. It's a song that makes me want to run riot in the streets and smash things up. It is a sonic distillation of what everyone loves about the Stones.
auskultu: It reminds me of 'Yer Blues', in that it takes old blues tropes—here, a hard-scrabble background, born under a bad sign rather than depression—and exaggerates them to cartoonish proportions. I wouldn't call it a parody, but it certainly isn't a straight homage.
thereisnoalgebra: Especially with that chorus. Very much a winking attitude, a bit tongue-in-cheek. Oh, and once I read that the melody is essentially 'Satisfaction' in reverse, I can't un-hear it.
auskultu: Going back to the standard line, I don't think this is as much of a retreat as claimed. For one, there are still traces of psychedelia sprinkled throughout, particularly toward the end. But more to the point, it isn't very back-to-basics to me at all, in that it is very much a studio creation. That murky, swampy sound is integral to its success, an atmosphere that simply cannot be evoked in a live setting. I've listened to a few different live takes, from 1969 onward, and none of them approach the original. The riff always sounds wrong—due to the change in tuning, I imagine—and the song is flattened into just another rocker to be powered through with blunt force. Much like 'Street Fighting Man', it's impossible to separate its power from its technological origin—those overcharged, lo-fi guitars.
thereisnoalgebra: I had an odd experience with 'Child of the Moon'. First we put on the the 45, and I thought it was an awkward straddling of their minimal, 'classic' production and the 1967 hippie-dippy themes. An obvious leftover, plucked for a B-side. I appreciate it a bit better listening to it again—there's a nice drone to it, as though the spirit of Their Satanic Majesties Request is intact but the excess trimmed off. Then we watched the promotional film, which I found boring but, at the same time, inexplicably interesting, and it actually enhanced the track for me. It fits the meandering feel of the 'Child of the Moon'. Usually, their promos add nothing!
auskultu: The track was intended for the Satanic LP, so it is unsurprising that it bears that similarity. I agree, though, that it also signals a transition: it clearly owes more to 1967 than 1968, yet when heard alongside Beggars Banquet, one can hear clear traces of the direction the band were headed in. I found it interesting that Jones wanted 'Child of the Moon' as the A-side and 'Jumpin' Jack Flash' as the B-side. The more I listen to it, the more I like it; it reminds me of a spacier 'Rain'. I have a sneaking suspicion that this my turn up in my favorite tracks list.
auskultu: I have never noticed, until now, how close that the fuzz riff in '(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction' resembles the horns in 'Nowhere to Run'. Richards may have dreamt it up, but clearly the radio seeped into his dreams.
Good news!
thereisnoalgebra: Auskultu and I moved in together a few days ago. What does this mean for you? NEW POSTS! FINALLY! Our next day off together will be dedicated to bringing you some updates (and buying housewares). We're super excited to listen to Beggars Banquet.
Also, we're still trying to figure out where to conclude our Rolling Stones section of this project. Any advice would be warmly welcomed.
Where should we stop?
Though we’ve only reached 1967 in the Stones discography, we at Lady Suffragette HQ are beginning to wonder where in time we’ll conclude our project. Mick and the boys have been consistently releasing albums for the last fifty or so years, but we don’t want use time we could be dedicating to other artists on music that is generally regarded as unimpressive. Dear rock n’ rollers, what should we do?
I have suggested stopping at Some Girls and then listening exclusively to the singles from there, but do you feel the whole catalogue is worth a go? Are there any particular albums or songs (album cuts or singles) you would like us to talk about?
Feel free to answer here or write us a note in our inbox.
Still looking for your suggestions!
Where should we stop?
Though we've only reached 1967 in the Stones discography, we at Lady Suffragette HQ are beginning to wonder where in time we'll conclude our project. Mick and the boys have been consistently releasing albums for the last fifty or so years, but we don't want use time we could be dedicating to other artists on music that is generally regarded as unimpressive. Dear rock n' rollers, what should we do?
I have suggested stopping at Some Girls and then listening exclusively to the singles from there, but do you feel the whole catalogue is worth a go? Are there any particular albums or songs (album cuts or singles) you would like us to talk about?
Feel free to answer here or write us a note in our inbox.
"I can remember virtually nothing of the Satanic Majesties sessions, It’s a total blank. God knows what the sounds were like. We were pretty much the way we look on the cover.”
-Keith Richards
Their Satanic Majesties Request
Released 8 December 1967 Chart Position #3
Side A 'Sing This All Together' • 'Citadel' • 'In Another Land' • '2000 Man' • 'Sing This All Together (See What Happens)' Side B 'She's a Rainbow' • 'The Lantern' • 'Gomper' • '2000 Light Years from Home' • 'On with the Show'
thereisnoalgebra: Even before we began this project, I've always defended Their Satanic Majesties Request. As I said in our discussion of 'Dandelion', it hits a number of my sweet spots when it comes to Sixties pop. Yes, it can be a bit silly, and I won't call it one of their best releases, but I think that this album fits in well with the spirit of the time. I wouldn't put it on any sort of 'desert island discs' list, but there is something adorable about it.
auskultu: It's clear by now that I am something of a Stones contrarian—that I tend to enjoy the facets of the Stones others dismiss, and don't care for what those same people celebrate. It should be no surprise, then, that I agree with your assessment.
thereisnoalgebra: I'm so happy to hear that!
auskultu: Their Satanic Majesties Request is probably, as a whole, the LP that I am most fond of, at least of what we have listened to thus far. That's not to say that there aren't problems with the album, as we'll discuss later, but when it works, it really crackles for me.
I should mention that, as with all previous releases, we listened to the mono version of the LP, rather than the widely available stereo version. I recommend that to anyone skeptical of the album: as is so often the case with Sixties albums, the mono mix packs a much harder punch, which really enhances songs like 'Citadel'. The stereo mix, by comparison, sounds desiccated and feeble.
thereisnoalgebra: 'Sing This All Together' isn't a song so much as a groove or 'feel', something common to a few of the tracks here. I like it, though the middle section could have used some trimming.
auskultu: I liked the coke bottle percussion, the attempt to branch out into other musical textures. The lyrics are hippy-dippy, which doesn't quite fit the Stones, but it works. Standard issue psychedelic wonderment. I don't care for Jagger's vocal, which sounds rather strained to me.
thereisnoalgebra: I am a bit worried there won't be too much to say about many of these tracks, precisely became many of them are loosely structured grooves or jam experiments rather than composed songs. I have the feeling this may be a short entry. Which is ironic, considering how much we liked it.
auskultu: 'Citadel' is one of my favorite Stones songs ever. Evil garage psychedelia! It's the best track on the LP: tinges of acid but retaining the core 'rock' of the Stones. Amazing riff, great organ, with a lurching tempo that reminds me of 'My Obsession'. It sometimes sounds a bit of a blob of sound, thanks to the muddled production, but so what!
thereisnoalgebra: That riff is genius. And the drums are lot more notable on this album.
auskultu: I even like the lyrics! Very symbolic, fairy tale-ish, as was common to British psychedelia.
thereisnoalgebra: 'In Another Land' is a nice try, it's charming, but…
auskultu: It's slagged off as a silly, stupid bit of fluff, and I can see where that comes from, with its 'Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds' lyrics, the psychedelia-by-the-numbers arrangement. I'm actually quite fond of it, though! The chorus is an all-time Stones moment for me.
thereisnoalgebra: The chorus definitely rescues the song. And maybe it wouldn't be so good if the verse weren't so slight. Is this Wyman's first attempt at a song? Not so bad. Was a US single, I think.
auskultu: It's a highlight of the album, for sure: the crashing guitars, the excellent backing vocals from Jagger: 'I opened my eye-yi-yi-yi-yis...' I can see, though, how Stones purists would consider this the absolute nadir of the band, the epitome of trend-chasing.
thereisnoalgebra: Which is so funny, as Jagger seems to have such disdain for trend-chasers.
'2000 Man' always has me humming 'Death of a Clown' over it.
auskultu: Yes, it does. I'd never realised the extent that the Kinks influenced the Stones—barring their early garage days, the Kinks seemed so much the polar opposite of the rough and wild Stones. Anyway, it's a more traditional song after the fanciful likes of 'Sing This All Together'—no odd sound effects or jamming. Another strong chorus, as well, with its chunky organ.
thereisnoalgebra: I love the line 'Though my wife still respects me, I really misuse here / I am having an affair with a random computer'. Is that not a perfect summary of any interaction between Mick Jagger and a woman?
auskultu: I should add here that the word 'computer', in its usage here, refers not to a machine but to a person. Programming used to be considered menial women's work, on par with filing, until the men in the field wanted to increase their own prestige and consequently filter women out of it. (See here.
thereisnoalgebra: I prefer to think of it as some sort of Videodrome scenario, actually, so will continue to read it as referring to a machine!
auskultu: 'Sing This All Together (See What Happens)' makes me hesitate from declaring this a truly great album. I dig the first few minutes: it establishes a nice groove. Around the four minute mark, it completely loses the plot, devolving into listless jamming. Well, not even that: jamming implies some sort of variation on a melody. This is more like children bashing on instruments, and it goes on for a further eight minutes.
It's here that the circumstances of the album's recording intrude. This period saw the Stones frequently in and out of court on various drug charges, leading to an even more haphazard and disjointed creative process than usual. Rarely did the entire band record as a unit. Apparently, as late as a month before the LP's release, there was little useable. It's easy, then, to see a track like this as the musical equivalent of papering over the holes. 'We'll stick some odd sounds here to fill out the running time.'
thereisnoalgebra: There's a cruel part where the vocals come in and you think the song is finished, only for it to go for another minute or so. The track amounts to nothing.
auskultu: 'She's a Rainbow' is probably the only song most people recall from this album, if only because of those iMac commercials. Released as a single here in America, I believe. As lovely as it is, the track is rather thin: occasionally Jagger pops in, but is mostly repeats of the introductory piano or a variation on it.
thereisnoalgebra: I love when the strings come in. We read an Esquire review that said, 'When Jagger sings, "She comes in colors", you have every right to infer a psychedelic orgasm; when Donovan sings, "…and come if you can", you know it's only for tea.' But I never read the song as sexual.
auskultu: Me neither. I'd say this is their least sexual album yet.
thereisnoalgebra: There's no erotic component, lyrically. Or even musically. It's all very sweet, to the degree that it sounds odd to hear Jagger being so nice, as it was on 'Dandelion'.
Jack White seems to have ripped the intro of 'Love Interruption' from 'The Lantern'.
auskultu: I can't make up my mind on 'The Lantern'. At first, I dismissed it as something of a drag, as it essentially rides the same bit for the length of the song. At the same time, that bit is quite interesting the first few times one hears it, and there's something I like about Jagger's delivery, even with the of-its-time 'Far Eastern' lyrics. One can hear the seeds of Beggars Banquet in the acoustic guitar work.
thereisnoalgebra: With the exception of 'Sing This All Together', I even enjoy the filler on this album. It may be slight, but an interesting diversion, if nothing else. It's more a shrug than boredom.
auskultu: 'Gomper' is another interesting idea marred by lack of editing. The first few minutes are the biggest deviation from the standard Stones sound that we have heard yet. Psychedelia fell hard for Eastern culture in 1967, so it was inevitable it would turn up here, especially given Brian Jones' interest in Morocco. Had it ended at the three minute mark, I would be much fonder of it; instead, it wears out its welcome with an additional two minutes of messing about.
In retrospect, though, I realize that this essentially a mash-up of 'Matilda Mother' and 'Chapter 24' from Pink Floyd's The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.
thereisnoalgebra: I'm not as forgiving as you; I think, even shorter, it would be 'psychedelia by the numbers', and exists largely because they were high as balls and having to rush something to record.
I absolutely love '2000 Light Years From Home', though. Everything you feel about 'Citadel', I feel about this one. I remember hearing it for the first time on a MySpace profile and having no idea it was the Stones, and just finding it so fascinatingly bizarre, which led me to this album.
auskultu: It is very space rock.
thereisnoalgebra: There's been quite a bit of that on this record. I think they temporarily swapped misogyny for the cosmos.
auskultu: Like so many tracks, though, I maintain it could have been trimmed down by at least a minute. Still, it is a very successful example of the type of exploration they were aiming for when going into this project.
Sadly, that brilliance is completely dumped on by 'On with the Show', an embarrassing attempt at whimsy that seems based completely on the spoken word bit of 'Magical Mystery Tour'. I had a fondness for 'Something Happened to Me Yesterday', but once is enough.
We've discussed the tracks themselves, so let's talk about the album itself, as a whole. Their Satanic Majesties Request is notoriously regarded as the worst entry in the Stones' catalogue until the Eighties, an ill-conceived attempt to capitalise on the times. We obviously have a higher opinion, but do you think its reputation is deserved? Do you think it would have been better received had a band other than the Rolling Stones released it? In other words, do you think the album is bashed because of its contents, or because a band so identified with blues and what would be known as 'classic rock' released it?
thereisnoalgebra: That is a tricky one. We both rate Their Satanic Majesties Request highly, but I don't think either of us would claim it's some unfairly maligned work of genius: as clear by our complaints about jamming and length, it's as patchy as all their other albums. So critics certainly have some ground to stand on. However, I think more abuse is heaped on it because it is antithetical to the Stones' blues rock style. Again, all their albums are patchy, so why harp on this one anymore than, say, Aftermath, which had fewer highlights?
auskultu: Perhaps the change came too suddenly. One can see the progression from Rubber Soul to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, where as the Stones seemed to careen from the relatively straight 'Let's Spend the Night Together' to 'Dandelion', hence the charges of cashing in, or of it not being genuine.
And as we noted above, this is certainly the least sexual of their albums, because British psychedelia isn't very sexual in general: I can't help but think that, for the section of fans who liked them for their bad boy aggressive sexuality, this turn seems an emasculation. Add to that the blues purists who also are alienated by the lack of any African-American influence and I can see why it would be judged harsher than it may deserve.
That's not to say criticism isn't warranted—I don't think this is a lost masterpiece. I like it quite a bit as a whole, but as discussed above, individual tracks can be quite a drag. Still, is there anyone who would rather listen to, say, Bridges to Babylon?
Time to address the major charge. Do you think that Their Satanic Majesties Request is merely a rip-off of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band? If so, do you think Jagger and Richards set out to consciously imitate it? Or is that just lazy, received wisdom?
thereisnoalgebra: Yes and no. I don't think they set out to copy Sgt. Pepper specifically, but did feel the need to keep up with their peers, even if they didn't particularly have a fresh angle on it. The Stones strike me as the little brothers of the scene—especially of the Beatles—where they are tagging along: witness the aping of Rubber Soul and Face to Face on Between the Buttons. That isn't necessarily a criticism, though! Plenty of bands are still influenced by, say, the Beatles—I can't imagine how much stronger that pull would be when the band was still active. It would have been odder for the Stones not to change with the times, to still be doing 'Little Red Rooster' in 1967. I think that people do a disservice to the band when proclaiming them merely blues rockers, even if they mean it as a complement. They may not have been very good at experimenting, but they at least tried, and it took those so-called 'dead ends' to reveal their actual niche.
auskultu: That's an excellent point. We've talked a fair amount of trend-hopping and fads during this project, and I recently heard a remark that gave me pause for thought. I believe it was a documentary on the history of the album, or perhaps simply albums in the Sixties. At any rate, a musician from that time said one must remember that most albums were regarded like newspapers or magazines: they reflected the here and now, and then one moved onto the next release. Not disposable, per se, but definitely of the the moment. Few bands expected that people would be poring over their albums in forty years, especially as rock itself was barely a decade old. And certainly a band as cavalier as the Stones weren't fretting over their 'canon' or how an album might fit into their body of work—rather, it was record this batch of songs, do a tour, move on, like a shark. So perhaps I should keep that in mind, if I start to judge too harshly.
thereisnoalgebra: The Beatles, of course, also the advantage of George Martin…
auskultu: Oh, certainly. Just in terms of how Sgt. Pepper sounds—its fidelity, its audio quality—it sounds quite modern, whereas Revolver has that trebly, flatter sound of 1960s recordings. The covers capture that perfectly for me: from Revolver to Sgt. Pepper seems like moving from black and white to color, even if I prefer Revolver.
Anyway, the point is that psychedelia of Their Satanic Majesties Request is hampered by the usual lack of production quality and sonic detail. When high, there are lots of details to fixate on in Sgt. Pepper, whereas the Stones' LP can be a bit of a mush.
Also, is Sgt. Pepper the most accurate comparison? I think the broad range of styles on that LP embodies the spirit of psychedelia, but it often does not sound that trippy. Yes, 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds', but the likes of 'Getting Better' are rather straight-forward. More to the point, I'd love to see the look of befuddlement on the faces of the hippies straining for cosmic wisdom and hearing 'When I'm Sixty-Four' instead!
If we must compare it to the Beatles, I'd opt for Magical Mystery Tour, but I hear a lot more of Pink Floyd's The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Compare the jamming in 'Sing This All Together (See What Happens)' to 'Interstellar Overdrive', or 'Astronomy Domine'—very similar.
thereisnoalebra: That explains the space rock. And, in a lovely bit of serendipity, let's not forget that The Piper at the Gates of Dawn were recorded at Abbey Road at the same time the boys were working on Sgt. Pepper. Didn't Paul drop in on the sessions or something?
auskultu: He did indeed.
thereisnoalgebra: I think we can both conclude that, while bearing the flaws that every Stones album seems to have, Their Satanic Majesties Request has gotten a bad rap over the years. It's definitely not the embarrassment that fans—and the band itself—make it out to be. And considering that we next examine the 'back to basics' phase of the Rolling Stones, this album is a fascinating look down a road not taken.
Merry Everything, Happy Always.
Love,
Santa Jagger (and The Lady Suffragettes)
Soup Dragons - "I'm Free"
thereisnoalgebra: I usually forget this song exists until it shows up somewhere unexpected. Half generic 90's pop and half pretty decent Stones track, it never fails to get me bopping along to it. The video is also a perfect combination of shitty psychedelic background projections and a Bill Nye segment. Everything about this is corny as hell and I love it - even the inexplicable reggae breakdown in the middle of it.
'We Love You'
Released 18 August 1967 B-side 'Dandelion' Chart Position #8
auskultu: We just listened to 'We Love You' b/w 'Dandelion', the single preceding Their Satanic Majesties Request. Despite appearing on the track as an uncredited background vocalist—along with McCartney—Lennon had this to say about the single:
I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every fuckin' album. Every fuckin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same—he imitates us. And I would like one of you fuckin' underground people to point it out. You know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper; 'We Love You', it's the most fuckin' bullshit, that's 'All You Need Is Love'. I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and that the Beatles weren't.
thereisnoalgebra: I am surprised that Lennon thought this track to be a rip-off of 'All You Need is Love', as I hear stronger resemblances to other Beatles' tracks. Maybe it is just the title? It reminds me more of 'Tomorrow Never Knows' or a bit of 'Blue Jay Way'. On the whole, there are a lot of ideas happening, yet it isn't too stuffed. The lyrics are placeholders, and the vocal recording is also terrible, but I like the overall sound.
auskultu: For a song called 'We Love You', it doesn't sound very welcoming. I like the booming, menacing quality; it reminds me of 'Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?' but pushed to even further extremes. And the electronic bits, like that rhythmic pulsing that sounds like a printer spitting out paper. It does seem an odd choice for a single, though—it is about a minute of intro, and most of the song is chorus with the occasional rush of verse. Yet the music rarely changes, and if I listened to only the backing track, I would be hard-pressed to locate the sections. It would be much stronger if the B- and A-side were flipped.
I don't know that it is an accurate trailer for the LP, either. I tend to think of American and British psychedelia as being quite different. American psychedelia more closely fits the tag of 'acid rock': it tends to be heavier, darker and more classic rock. British psychedelia strikes me as more whimsical, more twee, more pop: all those songs about fairy tales, romance and childhood. 'We Love You' is in the American vein; 'Dandelion' is definitely the latter, as is most of Their Satanic Majesties Request.
thereisnoalgebra: We watched the promo film as well, and I cannot imagine what the point of making it was. It's so boring, just a slapped together reel of studio sessions and… who knows? I read it was meant to somehow convey Oscar Wilde's trial, though that it is not at all apparent from the film itself.
auskultu: The promo changed the experience of listening to the single for me. 'We Loved You' seemed so much longer when paired with the video, to its detriment—very aimless, leaving me quite bored.
Apparently, the American market felt the same way we did, as 'We Love You' performed dismally in the charts, whilst 'Dandelion' did quite well. I understand you are a fan?
thereisnoalgebra: I've always really liked it. It hits that perfect blend of Summer of Love pop, which I live for. And yes, it perfectly embodies the qualities you ascribed to British psychedelia. I am not generally a fan of their lyrics, but here the silliness is exactly what is needed.
auskultu: If there was anyone else on vocals, I would not know this was a Stones song.
thereisnoalgebra: I could see it as a Monkees track, or the Turtles. Or, if an American band, 'We Love You'. What did they release before this?
auskultu: 'Let's Spend the Night Together'.
thereisnoalgebra: It's a huge leap, then. I pity the casual listener who picked this up expecting something along those lines—it must have caused massive confusion. Perhaps that is why I adore this section of the Stones' discography, for the complete absence of the usual Stones signifiers. It's very of its time.
auskultu: 'Dandelion' reminds me of the Dukes of Stratosphear, i.e., an attempt to distil all of 1967 into a single track. Even the picture sleeve is very of its time: I can definitely see the Revolver influence.
thereisnoalgebra: While visiting in St.Louis, Auskultu and I stopped at the Missouri History Museum for their visiting 1968 exhibit, which was basically custom built for a couple of nerds like us. If the exhibit stops in your city, we highly recommend checking it out. The music section had a 'make an LP cover' section and we couldn't resist, especially because you could choose the border of the Their Satanic Majesties Request to be part of your design. Behold! The Lady Suffragettes in all their glory!
Speaking of Their Satanic Majesties - our transcript should be up soon. We've been seriously neglecting the project because of the holidays, but will resume with some again with more regularity soon.
The Who - "Under My Thumb"
thereisnoalgebra: The Who released this cover of "Under My Thumb" while the Stones were in the middle of the Redlands scandal in 1967, hoping to raise money for their bail. How a couple of millionaires couldn't afford bail is beyond me, but hey - a little solidarity can't hurt, right? On its own, I think this is a pretty solid track. Well, minus that shitty, junior-high- talent-show-act harmony. Compared to the original, I think it barely stands a chance. I miss Brian's marimbas and the overall slinkiness of the track. A for effort, guys...but I'm not really into it.
28 June 1967 Source Luis Futre (facebook)
