Comments, input and alterations are very welcome!
________________________________________________________________________________

Complicated
(Mick Jagger / Keith Richards)

RCA Studios, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, US, August 3 - 11, 1966 and
Pye Studios & Olympic Sound Studios, London, UK, November 8 - 26, 1966

Mick Jagger - lead vocals, backing vocals, tambourine
Keith Richards - acoustic guitar, electric guitar, backing vocals
Charlie Watts - drums, percussion
Bill Wyman - bass
Brian Jones - organ
Jack Nitzsche - piano

She looks so simple in her way
Does the same thing everyday
But she's dedicated
To having her own way
She's very complicated, yeah

Women seem to fill her mind
And many men in so short time
But she's underrated
She treats me, oh so kind
She's very complicated, yeah

We talk together and discuss
What is really best for us
She's sophisticated
My head's fit to bust
‘Cause she's so complicated, right, yeah

She knows just how to please her man
Softer than a baby lamb
But she's educated
Doesn't give a damn
She's very complicated, right, yeah

She looks so simple in her way
Does the same thing everyday
But she's dedicated
To having her own way
She's very complicated, right

Right, come on baby…

Produced by Andrew Loog Oldham

First released on:
The Rolling Stones - “Between The Buttons” LP
(Decca SKL 4852) UK, January 20, 1967



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-11 17:42 by René.

Nothing?

The song pretty much sucks.

well ... it's a good example of how very frazzled they were when they made Buttons -
the lyrics really are extremely lame, aren't they. the music isn't quite that terrible



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-23 11:48 by with sssoul.

One of those songs that seems unfinshed yet sounds pretty cool. I like the organ in the background and it has a great beat from Charlie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-23 12:04 by ryanpow.

One of the best racks from Buttons. The chords are well put together. A clever song; they could have delivered more of a payload on it though; that Bass? Are you kidding? Some Saxophones..

love it. was one of the first songs thatn got me hooked (together with all sold out and yesterdays papers) that was back in 1981 and i was 9. had that on cassette...great memories.

This song would work well in concert and obviously showcase Charlie's talent. In other words, Charlie shines on this one!!

Love it. This track is among many on BTB that suffered from major production problems. Nobody seemed to know what they were doing with the new technology, and the album suffered as a result.

I always liked the way the song makes fun of the woman and admires her at the same time. Seems like a perfect way to look at women, at least sometimes ;-)

Remembers me of an ad I once saw, advertising an expensive watch:
"Nearly as complicated as a woman. But always on time."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-24 00:39 by Greenblues.

Why not:

This album steers them well away from their blues roots. I think it reflects the pop era of the day - The Kinks, pre psychadelia pop etc.

Mick and Keith were writing for a lot of other artists at this time, I wonder if some of this album was originally destined to be for someone else.

This song has as near to a Charlie Watts drum solo as you're going to get on a Stones album. (The guitars stop and Charlie pounds out a simple rhythm on the toms)

The piano is more likely to be Jack than Ian imo.

Like this song...I really like the Buttons album but it's so weird in that it sounds almost anachronistic...very English music-hall, which a lot of bands were incorporating back then, but it sounds unique for the Stones...one of their most unique albums, in all honesty...

Great song and a great album...Brian Jones makes such a nice melody on the organ for this song. Like Aftermath, TSMR and even Flowers it helped prove that the Stones could do more then the Berry rockers and muddy walters blues numbers...What a boring band the stones would be if they didn't try something new! Plus the sacd's remasters of Buttons make the album even better!

Connection is one of my favorite songs on the Buttons album...love that record!

I like how frantic this one is... but yeah, not a masterpiece. But it's better than its cousin, "Cool, Calm, Collected."

Quote
Zack
Nobody seemed to know what they were doing with the new technology, and the album suffered as a result.

what technology, specifically?

I always thought that this was Mick talking about Marianne.

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

Quote
saturn57
I always thought that this was Mick talking about Marianne.

But it's from before they got together.

love some buttons and some girls - i'm very complicated

what makes the stones what they are/were is not sticking to the one type of music.

between the buttons steered them away from traditional roots and only added to thier appeal.

its a great album with great catchy songs. the only minus point is it could have had a bit more punch and better production.

... in case it sounded otherwise: there are many many things i love about Between the Buttons.
and this track fits right in on the album, which is what it's for.

plus which, the music of it *is* better than the lyrics - laying them out there all naked like that isn't really kind. :E

His Majesty: Thought about Jack Nitzsche too, but couldn't really figure out whether it was Ian or Jack. As Nico Zentgraf lists Ian on his Complete Works website, I choose Ian, although it doesn't really sound like Ian's boogie woogie style of playing. So it could be Jack indeed.....

Quote
cc

Quote
Zack
Nobody seemed to know what they were doing with the new technology, and the album suffered as a result.

what technology, specifically?

Keith has said they tried to do more bouncing of tracks from one to another to make room for more overdubs, giving the finished product a muddy sound as a result. Maybe it was trying to do more with the same technology rather than new technology like, say, going from four track to eight track. At this point ALO was losing interest and Mick and Keith were teaching themselves the ropes as producers and the album suffers for it. That's what I mean.

Quote
Zack

Quote
cc

Quote
Zack
Nobody seemed to know what they were doing with the new technology, and the album suffered as a result.

what technology, specifically?

Keith has said they tried to do more bouncing of tracks from one to another to make room for more overdubs, giving the finished product a muddy sound as a result. Maybe it was trying to do more with the same technology rather than new technology like, say, going from four track to eight track. At this point ALO was losing interest and Mick and Keith were teaching themselves the ropes as producers and the album suffers for it. That's what I mean.

I've been listening to Complicated, trying to work out why I find it less than inspiring, and I think it's what Zack said - it's a busy busy track and there's a lot going on with Keith's guitar snarling away in the background, Brian on organ, whoever-it-is on piano and so on, but to hear all that clearly you have to turn the volume up until Mick's vocals in the foreground are too loud - and the lyrics are the least attractive part of the track. A remix might have done this one the world of good, but with the technology they were working with then, I guess it wasn't possible.

The first time I listen to BTButtons (think it was'69 or'70) I thought what the heck is this!!!! ROLLING STONES!!!!!!!!

I didn't liked it at all, ok I loved Back street Girl but that was that.

And now.... I love most of the songs...... but this must be of sentimental reason

Micks voice is great though as is Charlies drumming

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-25 00:44 by NICOS.

Quote
Zack

Quote
cc

Quote
Zack
Nobody seemed to know what they were doing with the new technology, and the album suffered as a result.

what technology, specifically?

Keith has said they tried to do more bouncing of tracks from one to another to make room for more overdubs, giving the finished product a muddy sound as a result. Maybe it was trying to do more with the same technology rather than new technology like, say, going from four track to eight track. At this point ALO was losing interest and Mick and Keith were teaching themselves the ropes as producers and the album suffers for it. That's what I mean.

I think you're right. Compare Aftermath, done in LA with Ron Hassinger to this, their first at Olympic, I believe, but without the same expertise or quality equipment. It may not be the technology so much as crappier versions of the same type of tape machines, or maybe poorer mics, etc.

Quote
cc

Quote
Zack

Quote
cc

Quote
Zack
Nobody seemed to know what they were doing with the new technology, and the album suffered as a result.

what technology, specifically?

Keith has said they tried to do more bouncing of tracks from one to another to make room for more overdubs, giving the finished product a muddy sound as a result. Maybe it was trying to do more with the same technology rather than new technology like, say, going from four track to eight track. At this point ALO was losing interest and Mick and Keith were teaching themselves the ropes as producers and the album suffers for it. That's what I mean.

I think you're right. Compare Aftermath, done in LA with Ron Hassinger to this, their first at Olympic, I believe, but without the same expertise or quality equipment. It may not be the technology so much as crappier versions of the same type of tape machines, or maybe poorer mics, etc.

Well, RCA and Olympic are two of the major studios of the 60s.
THe Helios desk that was at Olympic is world-famous, so I don't think it's the qual;ity of the stuidos used.
Buttons is,I think, their first album since their debut record and word-wide fame to be recorded and mixed mostly in the UK, hence maybe its "Britishness."
As Oldham said there was something great about stepping out in the sunshine
of Sunset Blvd as compared to the pouring rain in West Hampstead.
As much as I love Butttons, I do think it's their most odd-sounding album.
The UK version flows better, too. Is it better in mono?

As I've written elsewhere, this ain't the Stones I know and love. English music-hall, mid-60's pop just ain't my bag, and this song doesn't hold any appeal for me. I appreciate their efforts to try different things, but this doesn't click. Sorry.

Drew