The Rolling Stones — Moonlight Mile
Album: Sticky Fingers Avg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 3238
Length: 5:52
Plays (last 30 days): 2
share
tweet
When the wind blows and the rain feels cold
With a head full of snow
With a head full of snow
In the window there's a face you know
Don't the nights pass slow
Don't the nights pass slow
The sound of strangers sending nothing to my mind
Just another mad mad day on the road
I am just living to be lying by your side
But I'm just about a moonlight mile on down the road
Made a rag pile of my shiny clothes
Gonna warm my bones
Gonna warm my bones
I got silence on my radio
Let the air waves flow
Let the air waves flow
Oh I'm sleeping under strange strange skies
Just another mad mad day on the road
My dreams is fading down the railway line
I'm just about a moonlight mile down the road
I'm hiding sister and I'm dreaming
I'm riding down your moonlight mile
I'm hiding baby and I'm dreaming
I'm riding down your moonlight mile
I'm riding down you moonlight mile
Let it go now, come on up babe
Yeah, let it go now
Yeah, flow now baby
Yeah move on now yeah
Yeah, I'm coming home
Cause, I'm just about a moonlight mile on down the road
Down the road, down the road
With a head full of snow
With a head full of snow
In the window there's a face you know
Don't the nights pass slow
Don't the nights pass slow
The sound of strangers sending nothing to my mind
Just another mad mad day on the road
I am just living to be lying by your side
But I'm just about a moonlight mile on down the road
Made a rag pile of my shiny clothes
Gonna warm my bones
Gonna warm my bones
I got silence on my radio
Let the air waves flow
Let the air waves flow
Oh I'm sleeping under strange strange skies
Just another mad mad day on the road
My dreams is fading down the railway line
I'm just about a moonlight mile down the road
I'm hiding sister and I'm dreaming
I'm riding down your moonlight mile
I'm hiding baby and I'm dreaming
I'm riding down your moonlight mile
I'm riding down you moonlight mile
Let it go now, come on up babe
Yeah, let it go now
Yeah, flow now baby
Yeah move on now yeah
Yeah, I'm coming home
Cause, I'm just about a moonlight mile on down the road
Down the road, down the road
Comments (382)add comment
Deep into Keith's autobiography. It's fascinating on so many levels. How the Glimmer twins created some of the greatest music known to us all. How Keith is still going strong when so many of his contemporaries have fallen off the perch from substance abuse. Highly recommend it to anyone who loves the Stones or music making in general
Only 7.8 today. Come on people, the minimum should be a 9!!!
And on this 23rd night of April the moon is full and RP plays a classic. Nicely done.
Damn...That is just..Sooooo fine
mrmagoo1955 wrote:
It beats the alternative
Here's to many more
Eighty years and going strong……just like a lot us…..holy shit I am 80
It beats the alternative
Here's to many more
one of their most perfect songs...and from one of their best releases.
so, so beautiful.
so, so beautiful.
ImaOldman wrote:
Remember when AM radio did "Instant Replay!, Instant Replay! for the current hot tune?
William, we need a repeat button so we can listen to songs like this one a second or maybe third time.
Remember when AM radio did "Instant Replay!, Instant Replay! for the current hot tune?
Eighty years and going strong……just like a lot us…..holy shit I am 80
Back in college…..head down, crossed arms in library drifting off to sleep with old school 70s Koss on the ears …. Simpler times it seems
ROCK'S GREATEST BAND
Villa Nellcote
1971
Stones at their best IMO
William, we need a repeat button so we can listen to songs like this one a second or maybe third time.
I just love this song.
unclehud wrote:
I'll bite.
Lennon/McCartney could indeed rock -- there are plenty of examples of their mastery of blues and blues/rock. They differed from the Stones in image, temperament, and their range of musical ability. The Beatles wrote songs in many genres while the Stones stuck to blues with occasional experiments in American Country and Western.
Both groups were very good at what they did; they simply did different things.
Hey, don't forget that the Stones dabbled in disco and reggae!
I'll bite.
Lennon/McCartney could indeed rock -- there are plenty of examples of their mastery of blues and blues/rock. They differed from the Stones in image, temperament, and their range of musical ability. The Beatles wrote songs in many genres while the Stones stuck to blues with occasional experiments in American Country and Western.
Both groups were very good at what they did; they simply did different things.
Hey, don't forget that the Stones dabbled in disco and reggae!
Discovering this aged 50. So comforting to think our mind is always ready to be blown away by a new song.
Proclivities wrote:
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
I'll bite.
Lennon/McCartney could indeed rock -- there are plenty of examples of their mastery of blues and blues/rock. They differed from the Stones in image, temperament, and their range of musical ability. The Beatles wrote songs in many genres while the Stones stuck to blues with occasional experiments in American Country and Western.
Both groups were very good at what they did; they simply did different things.
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
I'll bite.
Lennon/McCartney could indeed rock -- there are plenty of examples of their mastery of blues and blues/rock. They differed from the Stones in image, temperament, and their range of musical ability. The Beatles wrote songs in many genres while the Stones stuck to blues with occasional experiments in American Country and Western.
Both groups were very good at what they did; they simply did different things.
The greatest song the Stones ever wrote.
I remember when I bought this on vinyl at a Sam Goody's (long gone chain of record stores). Hand it over to the cashier who I guess had never noticed the cover. He preceded to sheepishly unzip the cover for a quick peek and zip it back up, much to my amusement.
If I recall, Andy Warhol was responsible for the cover.
If I recall, Andy Warhol was responsible for the cover.
Proclivities wrote:
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
People like to push this idea that the Beatles couldn't rock. I won't argue that they weren't re-interpreters of the blues like the Stones putting out raw, down dirty R&B/rock. But they could rock. Just look at "Revolution" or "Helter Skelter".
The comparisons are apples and oranges. Love them both.
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
People like to push this idea that the Beatles couldn't rock. I won't argue that they weren't re-interpreters of the blues like the Stones putting out raw, down dirty R&B/rock. But they could rock. Just look at "Revolution" or "Helter Skelter".
The comparisons are apples and oranges. Love them both.
My absolute favorite song by one of my all-time favorite bands. Just masterful in its ability to sum up... so much love and longing. "Let it go now..."
h8rhater wrote:
This post is obviously cast out here to instigate... but I'll bite.
Your basic contention is that Lennon and McCartney, who formed the Beatles in 1960 and released their first single written by the band in 1962, are somehow in a different "league" from The Rolling Stones who formed in 1962 and didn't write their first song until 1963. Your contention also requires believing that the Beatles were GREAT song writers in 1962, when they were just learning the trade themselves. (Love Me Do is a seminal rock and roll song, but great writing it is not).
The Beatles and the Stones had a great relationship, as is evidenced by the former's generous offering of the song in the first place. It was really only cranks who needed to contrast the two bands and invent an adversarial relationship that lead to criticisms like the one baselessly leveled here.
The song was I Wanna Be Your Man. The Rolling Stones re-arranged the song before recording it. So the case could be made that it isn't entirely the song they were handed by Lennon/McCartney. Apparently the song needed some "toughening" to make it worthy of the band.
Bill Wyman: "We kind of learned it pretty quickly 'cause there wasn't that much to learn. Then Brian got his slide out, his steel (guitar) out and dadaw ... dadaw ... and we said, 'Yeah, that's better, dirty it up a bit and bash it out', and we kind of completely turned the song around and made it much more tough, Stones- and Elmore James-like."
This post is obviously cast out here to instigate... but I'll bite.
Your basic contention is that Lennon and McCartney, who formed the Beatles in 1960 and released their first single written by the band in 1962, are somehow in a different "league" from The Rolling Stones who formed in 1962 and didn't write their first song until 1963. Your contention also requires believing that the Beatles were GREAT song writers in 1962, when they were just learning the trade themselves. (Love Me Do is a seminal rock and roll song, but great writing it is not).
The Beatles and the Stones had a great relationship, as is evidenced by the former's generous offering of the song in the first place. It was really only cranks who needed to contrast the two bands and invent an adversarial relationship that lead to criticisms like the one baselessly leveled here.
The song was I Wanna Be Your Man. The Rolling Stones re-arranged the song before recording it. So the case could be made that it isn't entirely the song they were handed by Lennon/McCartney. Apparently the song needed some "toughening" to make it worthy of the band.
Bill Wyman: "We kind of learned it pretty quickly 'cause there wasn't that much to learn. Then Brian got his slide out, his steel (guitar) out and dadaw ... dadaw ... and we said, 'Yeah, that's better, dirty it up a bit and bash it out', and we kind of completely turned the song around and made it much more tough, Stones- and Elmore James-like."
All heart and soul by Mick. Raises the hair on my neck.
never bought any Stones album but this one was one I'd pull out at someone's party and put on, for this tune especially
That's a bad spot to store your socks. They'll get stanky.
After reading FIRST(lol), I just want to post.....Never was a HUGE fan of either...they BOTH had some really enjoyable tracks.....but, I'll listen to this period of Stones, over any of their newer material. SO many artists in this time period put out unforgettable tracks!! Long live R&R and RP!!
If pressed, I would have to say this is one of my top 3 all-time favorite songs, by anyone, ever. Freakin' love this.
I was fourteen in 1979 as I began looking through my father’s vast singles collections, mostly italian music. My first musical hero was Adriano Celentano :) Later I found music from the Beatles and I was fascinated, they became my favourite group. By fifteen I found one more box, in it for the first time music from the Rolling Stones (next to John Mayall). I was blown away. Never listened much Beatles again. The Stones I play them today still.
RIP Neal Casal (look him up) this world could really use a guy like you right now, like Princeton and Joel Goodson
There is room for both; Beatles and The Stones were both great and I have no problem with that. 
Has anyone else noticed the eery "echo" between RP and SiriusXM's 'Deep Tracks'? I've lost count of how many "don't hear *this* very often" songs I've heard here and within 48 hours hear repeated on Sirius. And occasionally the reverse, which weirds me out more.
vanillagorilla wrote:
They were more Rock and less Pop than the Beatles.
Silly to compare further than that.
The Beatles had to write the Stones first single because they couldn't come up with one themselves. Love the Stones but never the same league as Lennon McCartney
The Stones were also in a league of their own .They were more Rock and less Pop than the Beatles.
Silly to compare further than that.
bking wrote:
I never get tired of hearing this song. A great way to end a great album.
Truer words were never typed!Is this their best album?
Top 2?
Top 3 for sure.
Top 2?
Top 3 for sure.
I never get tired of hearing this song. A great way to end a great album.
Only 7 to me :-(
working away.... uh, what's that song, sounds like the Stones....<checks the screen> oh, it IS the Stones. Damn, that sounds good, never heard it before. Uh, waitaminute, Sticky Fingers?.........<heads to the rack of LPs> ooooooh, uh, yeah, um, I've got that, looks in damn fine condition, not played a bunch, no wonder I didn't remember this song. <puts the dunce cap on> What a dimwit am I.
Over the years, I've truly wearied of the RS, hearing the same stuff over and over (some of it here on RP, too). Thanks, Bill, for reacquainting me. I'll be gone for a bit, off to exercise the turntable...
Proclivities wrote:
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
Absoluuuuutely
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
Absoluuuuutely
vanillagorilla wrote:
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
The Beatles had to write the Stones first single because they couldn't come up with one themselves. Love the Stones but never the same league as Lennon McCartney
Perhaps they were in different "leagues". Lennon and McCartney were never capable of writing the type of rock/R&B that Jagger and Richards did - like the stuff on this album in particular.
What an excellent driving song. 
Everything stops and this song just takes me away........
Little gritty. Little sloppy. Little grungy.
Like Rock-n-Roll should be.
I didn't appreciate them so much "back in the day" but after seeing how much they explored styles and influences, I understand a bit better I guess.
Like Rock-n-Roll should be.
I didn't appreciate them so much "back in the day" but after seeing how much they explored styles and influences, I understand a bit better I guess.
Though I grew up in my rock and roll infancy with the Rolling Stones, it was not until experiencing all types of music, did I come to appreciate what a force and influence the Stones are/were. This song is a great example.
Sublime.
vanillagorilla wrote:
This post is obviously cast out here to instigate... but I'll bite.
Your basic contention is that Lennon and McCartney, who formed the Beatles in 1960 and released their first single written by the band in 1962, are somehow in a different "league" from The Rolling Stones who formed in 1962 and didn't write their first song until 1963. Your contention also requires believing that the Beatles were GREAT song writers in 1962, when they were just learning the trade themselves. (Love Me Do is a seminal rock and roll song, but great writing it is not).
The Beatles and the Stones had a great relationship, as is evidenced by the former's generous offering of the song in the first place. It was really only cranks who needed to contrast the two bands and invent an adversarial relationship that lead to criticisms like the one baselessly leveled here.
The song was I Wanna Be Your Man. The Rolling Stones re-arranged the song before recording it. So the case could be made that it isn't entirely the song they were handed by Lennon/McCartney. Apparently the song needed some "toughening" to make it worthy of the band.
Bill Wyman: "We kind of learned it pretty quickly 'cause there wasn't that much to learn. Then Brian got his slide out, his steel (guitar) out and dadaw ... dadaw ... and we said, 'Yeah, that's better, dirty it up a bit and bash it out', and we kind of completely turned the song around and made it much more tough, Stones- and Elmore James-like."
The Beatles had to write the Stones first single because they couldn't come up with one themselves. Love the Stones but never the same league as Lennon McCartney
This post is obviously cast out here to instigate... but I'll bite.
Your basic contention is that Lennon and McCartney, who formed the Beatles in 1960 and released their first single written by the band in 1962, are somehow in a different "league" from The Rolling Stones who formed in 1962 and didn't write their first song until 1963. Your contention also requires believing that the Beatles were GREAT song writers in 1962, when they were just learning the trade themselves. (Love Me Do is a seminal rock and roll song, but great writing it is not).
The Beatles and the Stones had a great relationship, as is evidenced by the former's generous offering of the song in the first place. It was really only cranks who needed to contrast the two bands and invent an adversarial relationship that lead to criticisms like the one baselessly leveled here.
The song was I Wanna Be Your Man. The Rolling Stones re-arranged the song before recording it. So the case could be made that it isn't entirely the song they were handed by Lennon/McCartney. Apparently the song needed some "toughening" to make it worthy of the band.
Bill Wyman: "We kind of learned it pretty quickly 'cause there wasn't that much to learn. Then Brian got his slide out, his steel (guitar) out and dadaw ... dadaw ... and we said, 'Yeah, that's better, dirty it up a bit and bash it out', and we kind of completely turned the song around and made it much more tough, Stones- and Elmore James-like."
The Beatles had to write the Stones first single because they couldn't come up with one themselves. Love the Stones but never the same league as Lennon McCartney
when rock was king
dragon1952 wrote:
Along with Saint of Me
One of my favorite Stones tunes .
Along with Saint of Me
Skydog wrote:
the Beatles were no more as of 1969
the Rolling Stones were just an AM-radio hit single band until December of 1968 with the release of 'Beggar's Banquet'
the Beatles made great albums from the beginning with 'Please Please Me', released March 1963
This comment makes little to zero sense. The Beatles and Stones were both hit singles bands the first few years of their careers because the album as a concept did not really exist at that time. Both of them created 33rpm discs that were filled with great singles. The Beatles had more self written material in 63-64 (mostly because the Stones didn't come along until 64 and spent more time paying homage to their heroes in American R&B), but by 65 the Stones were turning out hits just as prolifically. Both Aftermath and Between The Buttons in '66 were a fantastic albums fully 2 years before Beggar's Banquet AND went head-to-head with Rubber Soul and Revolver that year.
I mean this as no disrespect to the Beatles whatsoever. They will always be one of my favorite bands. I make these points mostly because it's so laughable to hear people make fools of themselves with comparisons that attempt to lift one over the other.
Also: 6 of 14 songs on Please, Please Me were covers. The album was never envisioned as such and was a rush-released collection of tracks in the UK in an attempt to take advantage of the recent success of the SINGLES: Please, Please Me and Love Me Do. The "album" was not released in the United States. American fans had to wait until 1964 for Introducing The Beatles to be released with a shorter track listing.
the Beatles were no more as of 1969
the Rolling Stones were just an AM-radio hit single band until December of 1968 with the release of 'Beggar's Banquet'
the Beatles made great albums from the beginning with 'Please Please Me', released March 1963
This comment makes little to zero sense. The Beatles and Stones were both hit singles bands the first few years of their careers because the album as a concept did not really exist at that time. Both of them created 33rpm discs that were filled with great singles. The Beatles had more self written material in 63-64 (mostly because the Stones didn't come along until 64 and spent more time paying homage to their heroes in American R&B), but by 65 the Stones were turning out hits just as prolifically. Both Aftermath and Between The Buttons in '66 were a fantastic albums fully 2 years before Beggar's Banquet AND went head-to-head with Rubber Soul and Revolver that year.
I mean this as no disrespect to the Beatles whatsoever. They will always be one of my favorite bands. I make these points mostly because it's so laughable to hear people make fools of themselves with comparisons that attempt to lift one over the other.
Also: 6 of 14 songs on Please, Please Me were covers. The album was never envisioned as such and was a rush-released collection of tracks in the UK in an attempt to take advantage of the recent success of the SINGLES: Please, Please Me and Love Me Do. The "album" was not released in the United States. American fans had to wait until 1964 for Introducing The Beatles to be released with a shorter track listing.
I got silence on my radio
Let the air waves flow…
Let the air waves flow…
thewiseking wrote:
not sure they're sounding healthy here
Ha ha. Nice. It looks like they're all going to outlive the lot of us ....
not sure they're sounding healthy here
Ha ha. Nice. It looks like they're all going to outlive the lot of us ....
diannemck56 wrote:
...and not the bulge?
I remember when I bought this album. It was so scandalous for my parents because of the zipper. 
...and not the bulge?
diannemck56 wrote:
46 years later, I hope they've gotten over it by now!
I remember when I bought this album. It was so scandalous for my parents because of the zipper.
46 years later, I hope they've gotten over it by now!
I remember when I bought this album. It was so scandalous for my parents because of the zipper.
DaidyBoy wrote:
If only we were all the best part of 50 years younger... I used to sound a lot healthier then, too.
Fabulous album. 10 for sure.
not sure they're sounding healthy here
If only we were all the best part of 50 years younger... I used to sound a lot healthier then, too.
Fabulous album. 10 for sure.
not sure they're sounding healthy here
Who ever thought the RS were capable of such rhythmic/melodic complexity? Ok, so maybe I wasn't paying attention.
thewiseking wrote:
If only we were all the best part of 50 years younger... I used to sound a lot healthier then, too.
Fabulous album. 10 for sure.
If only the Stones could get back that sound
If only we were all the best part of 50 years younger... I used to sound a lot healthier then, too.
Fabulous album. 10 for sure.
Jackson_Feelgood wrote:
Stones and Led Zeppelin yes. Beatles no. Beatles generally produced nursery rhymes with repeditive chorus lines.
Ah, you poor gal!
Stones and Led Zeppelin yes. Beatles no. Beatles generally produced nursery rhymes with repeditive chorus lines.
Ah, you poor gal!
If only the Stones could get back that sound
Around the time this came out I had a summer job babysitting a kid who was staying with his grandmother. She needed help burning off his energy. Everyday we would ride our bikes over to the park, climb a few trees and watch the same puppet show some college kids were putting on. He got upset if I suggested doing anything different.
Anyway, his grandmother lent me this album for a couple of weeks. I'm not a big Stones fan but, ever since, I've had a fondness for this and for cool grandmas.
Jackson_Feelgood wrote:
I think Mick might beg to differ.... https://www.believermag.com/issues/200706/?read=article_mcmillian
If any RP listener, or anybody else believes "The Beatles" even came close to the quality of music The Rolling Stones released from 1967 to 1974 they are kidding themselves or simply dont understand music.
I think Mick might beg to differ.... https://www.believermag.com/issues/200706/?read=article_mcmillian Been a long time. Thanks Bill.
Jackson_Feelgood wrote:
If any RP listener, or anybody else believes "The Beatles" even came close to the quality of music The Rolling Stones released from 1967 to 1974 they are kidding themselves or simply dont understand music.
Arrogant twat.one of my faves off this album
In the window,
There's a face you know ~
dragon1952 wrote:
Off of my favorite Stones album.
One of my favorite Stones tunes .
Off of my favorite Stones album.
One of my favorite Stones tunes .
Is it just me, or is Monday becoming "beautiful stoned groove" night?
Jackson_Feelgood wrote:
always good idea to tell people how they should think!
If any RP listener, or anybody else believes "The Beatles" even came close to the quality of music The Rolling Stones released from 1967 to 1974 they are kidding themselves or simply dont understand music.
always good idea to tell people how they should think!
I got silence on my radio
Let the air waves flow
Let the air waves flow
On_The_Beach wrote:
Both bands were great, and both had their missteps.
It's best not to embarrass yourself with laughable hyperbole.
Amen to that. Very so.
But I'll take Abbey Road, etc. over Exile on Main St., etc. almost anyday.
Both bands were great, and both had their missteps.
It's best not to embarrass yourself with laughable hyperbole.
Amen to that. Very so.
But I'll take Abbey Road, etc. over Exile on Main St., etc. almost anyday.
Truly great music gets better with age.
Jackson_Feelgood wrote:
the Beatles were no more as of 1969
the Rolling Stones were just an AM-radio hit single band until December of 1968 with the release of 'Beggar's Banquet'
the Beatles made great albums from the beginning with 'Please Please Me', released March 1963
If any RP listener, or anybody else believes "The Beatles" even came close to the quality of music The Rolling Stones released from 1967 to 1974 they are kidding themselves or simply dont understand music.
the Beatles were no more as of 1969
the Rolling Stones were just an AM-radio hit single band until December of 1968 with the release of 'Beggar's Banquet'
the Beatles made great albums from the beginning with 'Please Please Me', released March 1963
Jackson_Feelgood wrote:
Both bands were great, and both had their missteps.
It's best not to embarrass yourself with laughable hyperbole.
If any RP listener, or anybody else believes "The Beatles" even came close to the quality of music The Rolling Stones released from 1967 to 1974 they are kidding themselves or simply dont understand music.
Both bands were great, and both had their missteps.
It's best not to embarrass yourself with laughable hyperbole.
Fabulous song from a magnificent album, I believe.
Proclivities wrote:
That is part of the lasting appeal of those three bands, but if you believe that all of today's artists "just play the same song structure, style, and arrangement every time", then you are probably hearing a very limited amount of today's recording artists. Anyhow, great tune.
Stones and Led Zeppelin yes. Beatles no. Beatles generally produced nursery rhymes with repeditive chorus lines.
That is part of the lasting appeal of those three bands, but if you believe that all of today's artists "just play the same song structure, style, and arrangement every time", then you are probably hearing a very limited amount of today's recording artists. Anyhow, great tune.
Stones and Led Zeppelin yes. Beatles no. Beatles generally produced nursery rhymes with repeditive chorus lines.
If any RP listener, or anybody else believes "The Beatles" even came close to the quality of music The Rolling Stones released from 1967 to 1974 they are kidding themselves or simply dont understand music.
I know these guys are so old that their concerts hardly can be called "live" music, but man do they deliver
h8rhater wrote:
can i get your password to read this article?
Jagger on Moonlight Mile:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mick-jagger-and-moonlight-mile-1432735648
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mick-jagger-and-moonlight-mile-1432735648
can i get your password to read this article?
I think I like this song a little more every time I hear it.
Jagger on Moonlight Mile:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mick-jagger-and-moonlight-mile-1432735648
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mick-jagger-and-moonlight-mile-1432735648
mistabird wrote:
oh, you said Scheibe... made me stop a second there.
großartige Scheibe
oh, you said Scheibe... made me stop a second there.
What a great night time driving tune, just perfect.
What a song for an album end!!! Just after Winter of Tori... I need a working break!
Kaw wrote:
Spambot detected
If it was up your ass, you'd know...
everybody in my alien space craft be slow-dancing buck naked and cross-eyed like Willy Shakes... we love this marvelous classic...
hope life is grand for you right this minute, Kaw...
Spambot detected
If it was up your ass, you'd know...
everybody in my alien space craft be slow-dancing buck naked and cross-eyed like Willy Shakes... we love this marvelous classic...
hope life is grand for you right this minute, Kaw...
Lazarus wrote:
Spambot detected
Everybody in my alien space craft loves this song, and this incredible album...
Spambot detected
Everybody in my alien space craft loves this song, and this incredible album...
zubeneschamli wrote:
That is part of the lasting appeal of those three bands, but if you believe that all of today's artists "just play the same song structure, style, and arrangement every time", then you are probably hearing a very limited amount of today's recording artists. Anyhow, great tune.
What sets bands like the Stones, Zep, and the Beatles apart from what I hear today is their variety. They didn't just play the same song structure, style, and arrangement every time, instead, they drew on a wide variety of musical styles. It's why after 40 years these songs are still enjoyable and keep you coming back for more.
That is part of the lasting appeal of those three bands, but if you believe that all of today's artists "just play the same song structure, style, and arrangement every time", then you are probably hearing a very limited amount of today's recording artists. Anyhow, great tune.
Rolling stone review of song: Thanks Mick taylor for another beauty.
Though the song still referenced drugs and the road life of a pop-music celebrity, it really is a rare example of Jagger letting go of his public persona, offering a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the weariness that accompanies the pressures of keeping up appearances as a sex-drugs-and-rock & roll star." Rock critic Robert Christgau said the song, "re-created all the paradoxical distances inherent in erotic love with a power worthy of Yeats, yet could also be interpreted as a cocaine song." This is a reference to the first stanza, which reads, "When the wind blows and the rain feels cold, With a head full of snow..." . It was meant to be about coming down from a cocaine high.
Though the song still referenced drugs and the road life of a pop-music celebrity, it really is a rare example of Jagger letting go of his public persona, offering a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the weariness that accompanies the pressures of keeping up appearances as a sex-drugs-and-rock & roll star." Rock critic Robert Christgau said the song, "re-created all the paradoxical distances inherent in erotic love with a power worthy of Yeats, yet could also be interpreted as a cocaine song." This is a reference to the first stanza, which reads, "When the wind blows and the rain feels cold, With a head full of snow..." . It was meant to be about coming down from a cocaine high.
Rally wish you would hear more of this on the radio. It's a whole other side to the Stones that few people hear.
One of their best.
one of their real beauties
großartige Scheibe
Sweet relief! What heaven is this?
Best Stones album - bar none! But that cover (zipper and all) and title was a cocky choice (pun intended)!
I spent many happy hours as a young man listening, dreaming, exhilirating to this album, Exile, Beggar's Banquet, and some of the others. So much to be grateful for ... and Moonlight Mile sounds just as beautiful, heavenly now as it did then.
Please, please, please can we have an 11 option!
(But it still wouldn't be enough!)
(But it still wouldn't be enough!)
h8rhater wrote:
Actually... from 1963 to 2014 (and counting).
You are such a stooge.
Actually... from 1963 to 2014 (and counting).
You are such a stooge.
zubeneschamli wrote:
<rant>
Actually, it's generally what sets the bands that last apart from all the other bands. There was lots of music before, during and after the era you speak of that was boring, uninspired and written for money not art. There are countless one hit wonders from every decade.
But comparing the bands you mention in contrast to what you "hear today" only shows you're not casting your net wide enough. Maybe what you hear in the malls or on commercial radio fits your description. But there are loads of bands from the '80s, '90s and today that are just as interesting as the Stones, Zep and the Beatles. They may not be as ground-breaking as there aren't as many boundaries to cross and we are more jaded, thus creating a credible new sound is increasingly difficult. Music today is just as rich as it was in the 60s and 70s. A short list of interesting bands:
Radiohead
The Decemberists
Neko case
The New Pornographers
Destroyer
Beck
Wilco
Blur
Damon Albarn
The Hives
Arcade Fire
Saint Vincent
Talking Heads / David Byrne
Bjork
There are loads more, many I haven't heard of, as a listener of this radio station you should recognise that. Whether you like them or not is not the point. For instance, I don't really like Bjork's music, but I recognise its significance.
I get very tired of people looking back at the "golden age". It's too easy.
</rant>
What sets bands like the Stones, Zep, and the Beatles apart from what I hear today is their variety. They didn't just play the same song structure, style, and arrangement every time, instead, they drew on a wide variety of musical styles. It's why after 40 years these songs are still enjoyable and keep you coming back for more.
<rant>
Actually, it's generally what sets the bands that last apart from all the other bands. There was lots of music before, during and after the era you speak of that was boring, uninspired and written for money not art. There are countless one hit wonders from every decade.
But comparing the bands you mention in contrast to what you "hear today" only shows you're not casting your net wide enough. Maybe what you hear in the malls or on commercial radio fits your description. But there are loads of bands from the '80s, '90s and today that are just as interesting as the Stones, Zep and the Beatles. They may not be as ground-breaking as there aren't as many boundaries to cross and we are more jaded, thus creating a credible new sound is increasingly difficult. Music today is just as rich as it was in the 60s and 70s. A short list of interesting bands:
Radiohead
The Decemberists
Neko case
The New Pornographers
Destroyer
Beck
Wilco
Blur
Damon Albarn
The Hives
Arcade Fire
Saint Vincent
Talking Heads / David Byrne
Bjork
There are loads more, many I haven't heard of, as a listener of this radio station you should recognise that. Whether you like them or not is not the point. For instance, I don't really like Bjork's music, but I recognise its significance.
I get very tired of people looking back at the "golden age". It's too easy.
</rant>
The lads were on a roll at this point in time......
h8rhater wrote:
Actually... from 1963 to 2014 (and counting).
Lol! .......no
Actually... from 1963 to 2014 (and counting).
Lol! .......no
What sets bands like the Stones, Zep, and the Beatles apart from what I hear today is their variety. They didn't just play the same song structure, style, and arrangement every time, instead, they drew on a wide variety of musical styles. It's why after 40 years these songs are still enjoyable and keep you coming back for more.
Stones definitively 
(Beatles or...)
I realized the other day that these guys have really good lyrics!
(Beatles or...)I realized the other day that these guys have really good lyrics!
A "9"?? What was I thinking? A 10 all the way. Please forgive me.
sirdroseph wrote:
I completely agree. From 1963 or so to 1981 they were golden.
Actually... from 1963 to 2014 (and counting).
I completely agree. From 1963 or so to 1981 they were golden.
Actually... from 1963 to 2014 (and counting).
I think it's funny, when "satisfaction" was the biggest hit on two contententsI l iked the "B" side 100%more you know the one about the fiberglass dress that sent the boys to sunday mass.............now THAT was a tune. however that single shows how different stones tunes can be.
bubink wrote:
I'm sorry. I don't get this band. They have like 3 good tunes, but this isn't one of them.
gosh, I guess the 40 million records they have sold were to other folks. bubink wrote:
the older you get, the younger you'll think
I'm sorry. I don't get this band. They have like 3 good tunes, but this isn't one of them.
the older you get, the younger you'll think
I become unable to speak or move when this plays.
I must be in heaven. 3 songs with great drums
Not a huge Stones fan, but Sticky Fingers was a truly epic album. I really dig this song.
On_The_Beach wrote:
I completely agree. From 1963 or so to 1981 they were golden.
Anyone who says the Stones songs all sound the same has never actually listened to the Stones. This is yet another shining example of their diversity. An incredible and completely unique song. 9 knocking on 10's door.
I completely agree. From 1963 or so to 1981 they were golden.
Wow
the soundtrack of a dream that one is
the soundtrack of a dream that one is
bubink wrote:
You can be sorry all you want. You are not forgiven.
I'm sorry. I don't get this band. They have like 3 good tunes, but this isn't one of them.
You can be sorry all you want. You are not forgiven.
Anyone who says the Stones songs all sound the same has never actually listened to the Stones. This is yet another shining example of their diversity. An incredible and completely unique song. 9 knocking on 10's door.
I'm sorry. I don't get this band. They have like 3 good tunes, but this isn't one of them.
Hannio :wrote : "I was watching the Stones on Ed Sullivan some time in the mid-sixties. I think they were playing Under My Thumb."
The first song the Stones did on Sullivan,s show was "Satisfaction" Ed was shaken when Jagger sang the lyric "girlie action."
Bono considered "Satisfaction" the "perfect" rock song (on recent interview with C.Rose on public broadcasting)..
"Moonlight Mile" is also "The perfect Rock Song" 10 + .... It wasn't 15 min. after the first time I heard this song that I
could play it on the guitar. Is such 'Perfection" alive today ? I think not.... where are
songs like "Stairway to Heaven " "Suite to Judy Blue Eyes " "Purple Haze" "Hotel California" "Cowgirl in the Sand." and so many other "Perfect Songs." Not saying ya had to be there, but it helped... "
The first song the Stones did on Sullivan,s show was "Satisfaction" Ed was shaken when Jagger sang the lyric "girlie action."
Bono considered "Satisfaction" the "perfect" rock song (on recent interview with C.Rose on public broadcasting)..
"Moonlight Mile" is also "The perfect Rock Song" 10 + .... It wasn't 15 min. after the first time I heard this song that I
could play it on the guitar. Is such 'Perfection" alive today ? I think not.... where are
songs like "Stairway to Heaven " "Suite to Judy Blue Eyes " "Purple Haze" "Hotel California" "Cowgirl in the Sand." and so many other "Perfect Songs." Not saying ya had to be there, but it helped... "
See them at Glastonbury last night? I had mixed emotions - the twitter comments were very polarised and amusing! Just love this album, still have mine and the zip still works! 
Just love this album, still have mine and the zip still works!