The piano was played by Jack, Keith has said it was Jack and there doesn't seem to be any reason to disupte that.

However, after a certain point there seems to be another player playing the higher octaves.

Quote
His Majesty
The piano was played by Jack, Keith has said it was Jack and there doesn't seem to be any reason to disupte that.

However, after a certain point there seems to be another player playing the higher octaves.

That's Keith. He stated somewhere (I forgot where) that he did the higher register part, and Jack the lower part. In '82 Richards stated:

Yeah, I played piano on Let's Spend the Night Together, and then I overdubbed the guitar. To me that song was a progression from Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby. It was like Have You Seen Your Mother was a step toward Let's Spend the Night Together, because the chords and the structure of the song are very similar. And the fact that I'd wrote them both on piano, one was almost the same as the other.

- Keith Richards, 1982

He has stated in other interviews that he wrote it on bass though...

Mathijs

This song does not represent anything special musically - the usual rock 'n' roll Number. what really distinguishes this song is a revolutionary lyrics and the Jagger's attitude
It's like a new revisionist period in the Stones'history began - a feeling that they are an instrumental band that has achieved a world fame because of of their(mostly Richards, of couse) musical genius

It's a great song, and Jagger's performance makes it an absolute winner.

The song was slaughtered in the press here in Norway at the time, though. The reason: The Stones left their roots, and this song was the proof that the Stones didn't function as good as a pop group...

I know this review by heart, because the reviewer is the father of a friend of mine. Couldn't have disagreed more...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-02 15:05 by DandelionPowderman.

Just Satisfaction on piano really, nothing special until Bowie played it.

LOL! Or Muddy...

Quote
proudmary
Mick is very convincing in this song.
I'm going red and my tounge's getting tied
I'm off my head and my mouth's getting dry
It is evident that he knows what he's talking about

I always thought this passage was about Mick's lengthy oral stimulation of the lovely Marianne. "Tied" sound like "tired" to me; he's off his "head" and his mouth's getting dry. Case closed.

Also, listen to the bridge and tell me what famous recent album it reminds you of. Hint: Pet Sounds.

As noted above, two policemen's truncheons were banged together for percussion like claves on this song (full Glyn Johns interview at link) >>> [www.iorr.org]

British police truncheon:

claves:




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-02 20:51 by Title5Take1.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty
The piano was played by Jack, Keith has said it was Jack and there doesn't seem to be any reason to disupte that.

However, after a certain point there seems to be another player playing the higher octaves.

That's Keith. He stated somewhere (I forgot where) that he did the higher register part, and Jack the lower part.

I can't recall ever reading him saying that.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty
The piano was played by Jack, Keith has said it was Jack and there doesn't seem to be any reason to disupte that.

However, after a certain point there seems to be another player playing the higher octaves.

That's Keith. He stated somewhere (I forgot where) that he did the higher register part, and Jack the lower part.

I can't recall ever reading him saying that.

I am absolutely sure, and I am breaking my head now where I read it. The remark literally was that he wrote LSTNT on bass, and that he played piano with Jack, sitting next to eachother on the same stool, and that he (Richards) did the high part. I thought it was somewhere on www.timeisonourside.com, but I can't find it now.

Mathijs
Edit: wasn't the remark in the 40 licks booklet?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-03 14:39 by Mathijs.

How do you write that riff on bass?

Keith is really inaccurate sometimes...

It probably wasn't written as per how it is played by jack, just the basic thing, easy to 'write' the riff like it's a single line melody or whatever.

The piano riff is essentially just the chorus melody with frills on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-03 15:09 by His Majesty.

This has got to be one of the most happy sounding, up beat, light hearted songs the Stones have ever done. Since this thread was posted, and people have been talking about the (up)beat, and how it was written and created as a song, and I have been playing this in my head, and how it is really is a positive sounding song... and then I thought, of course it is. It is a guy "selling it"... hoping to "spend the night together", making it sound all fun and good times, not big deal, "now I need you more than ever"... lalalalala happy happy....

What if its tone was more along the lines of Boris the Spider?

God what a terrible sexually frustrated time this tune came from for this to be considered threatening to the moral fabric of the nations young people.

A bit before my time, although I think I was conceived to this tune....by the time I heard it it was like, "what a campy little pop song". I've since come to appreciate it a bit more. peace

Quote
Justin
A great studio track never matched by any live version.

I agree. I's very pop, but still has that driving energy that the Stones owned.

Quote
Justin
A great studio track never matched by any live version.

I agree, although the version from Hampton is fantastic in a different way.

The only version of LSTNT I ever liked is the Muddy Waters take on it on "Electric Mud". He added some muscles and salacity to it.

It's a nice little song to put on in the background when you bring a date home.

It's a nice little song to put on in the background when you bring a date home.

........Turkish or Californian ???



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
It's a nice little song to put on in the background when you bring a date home.

........Turkish or Californian ???

><

the bridge in this number is just freakin brilliant -
the way it builds back up to the chorus is so exciting

you know i'm smilin baby ~ i love the Rolling Stones

Keiths back-up vocal is a 6 out of 5 on this single...

2 1 2 0

I have always liked very much this tune. But never really thought why. Basically I guess it is the cheerful atmosphere. There is so much young joyful vitalness, with that specific Stones spark and bite. The song has so much drive.

Basically it is an uptempo pop tune; musically very basic, The idea mentioned here that it is '"Satisfaction" in piano' actually is a spot on description. Funnily the 'pop element' is very much brought in by piano (by whoever), and Keith's boyish, joyful and catchy background vocals. The wall of Keith's bass together with Cha's a bit odd drums (the beat very on the very first and then smashing fills) makes it train-like going steady 'march'. The sound and is a bit shakey, even sloppy, but who cares; it belongs to the picture.

But like proudmary pointed out, it is Jagger's vocals and the controversial lyrics that really make this something above an ordinary pop song, and that way Stonesy-like dangerous and threatening, and, of course, sexy. I think Jagger really leads the band on the front, and pushes them onwards. But the band gives him a perfect templete to shine and show his unique abilities.

Altogether, a perfect example of Jagger/Richard co-work in action. The Twins are really inspiring each other there, and helping each other to climb on sky. And in way, it is the last actually "innocent" song of theirs where the rebellousness and controversiality is still just 'the boys having fun'. It was also so much darker, meaner and things getting more serious in their next single "We Love You".

The mannish, guitar-driven reading of it in 1981/82 tour is also masterful in its own terms. Funnily, it is Keith (with his leading guitar and rough backing vocals) who this time makes the pop song to rock, but the whole band sound (not just the great guitars, but the groove of rhythm section of Charlie & Wyman, and Jagger's lower key growl) is so much different and so distinguishly from a different era that it gives the song a new life that stands by its own.

The peter pan versions of Vegas era do not deserve a mention here.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-07 11:27 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I have always liked very much this tune. But never really thought why. Basically I guess it is the cheerful atmosphere. There is so much young joyful vitalness, with that specific Stones spark and bite. The song has so much drive.

Basically it is an uptempo pop tune; musically very basic, The idea mentioned here that it is '"Satisfaction" in piano' actually is a spot on description. Funnily the 'pop element' is very much brought in by piano (by whoever), and Keith's boyish, joyful and catchy background vocals. The wall of Keith's bass together with Cha's a bit odd drums (the beat very on the very first and then smashing fills) makes it train-like going steady 'march'. The sound and is a bit shakey, even sloppy, but who cares; it belongs to the picture.

But like proudmary pointed out, it is Jagger's vocals and the controversial lyrics that really make this something above an ordinary pop song, and that way Stonesy-like dangerous and threatening, and, of course, sexy. I think Jagger really leads the band on the front, and pushes them onwards. But the band gives him a perfect templete to shine and show his unique abilities.

Altogether, a perfect example of Jagger/Richard co-work in action. The Twins are really inspiring each other there, and helping each other to climb on sky. And in way, it is the last actually "innocent" song of theirs where the rebellousness and controversiality is still just 'the boys having fun'. It was also so much darker, meaner and things getting more serious in their next single "We Love You".

The mannish, guitar-driven reading of it in 1981/82 tour is also masterful in its own terms. Funnily, it is Keith (with his leading guitar and rough backing vocals) who this time makes the pop song to rock, but the whole band sound (not just the great guitars, but the groove of rhythm section of Charlie & Wyman, and Jagger's lower key growl) is so much different and so distinguishly from a different era that it gives the song a new life that stands by its own.

The peter pan versions of Vegas era do not deserve a mention here.

- Doxa

I think, as withsssoul pointed out, that some of the genius in this song has to do with the bridge, and the build-up to the chorus.

Fantastic stuff, and yes, it IS something special!

I will also note that one feauture of "Le's Spend The Night Together" in teh history of their output is that it being "innocent" also holds true in the sense that it the last single teh band sounds like 'lucky happy amateurs' in studio (something surely to do with oldham?). The song sounds production and instrumentalwise, even compared to its contempories, pretty amateurish and sloppy. It is the plain joy, drive and will that bring the song home and still makes it a great listening. They dare to be so 'naive' in experiments and sounds. And they didn't mind their sloppiness or mistakes to be heard.

By contrast, when they started doing "We Love You" and SATANIC MAJESTIES (and got rid of ALO) their approach seemed to go much more serious and they started to pay much more attention to the way the records actually sound. I think that new drive for artistic perection (including instrumental details) was one of the reason why they had so much trouble in making SATANIC MAJESTIES. "Jumpin'Jack Flash" and BEGGARS BANQUET sound so mature, perfect in sounds and in details. There the sort of amateurish drive of, say, "Let's Spend The Night Together" is replaced by sheer (but inspirational) professionalism.

A side not: is it co-incidental or not but when the Stones were 'lucky amateurs', making albumworth of tracks within a few days (worked very quickly that it is), Brian Jones really shone in those circumstances. But when the band started to use more time in studio, and recording one song would make even several days, Jones seemed go out of the picture. Was it that Brian didn't like work that way? That he wanted to nail the thing quickly by a sudden inspiration but didn't feel to spend hours or days within the same scheme; he got bored, didn't have stamina or discipline for that or something? Of course, there were surely other reasons for Brian's fall, but could that be one of those? Just a quick thought, not much substance.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think, as withsssoul pointed out, that some of the genius in this song has to do with the bridge, and the build-up to the chorus.

Yeah, I agree. The 'drama' of the song - very much to do with the bridge - is something phemomal in his song. It is constructed very cleverly.

By the way... When I now think of it, the idea of using bridge to build up the tension that way is quite similar to "Rocks Off" that lyrically as well is a cousin to the theme of "Let's Spend The Together" that is, as argued here, a cousin to "Satisfaction" (also musically). And by the way, "Rocks Off" is surprisingly melodic for being such a strong rocker. Maybe there is more nostalgical roots in "Rocks Off" that we can hear from the outset... there is a hidden air bridge from Nellcote sessions to their 'classic' pop era....


- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think, as withsssoul pointed out, that some of the genius in this song has to do with the bridge, and the build-up to the chorus.

Yeah, I agree. The 'drama' of the song - very much to do with the bridge - is something phemomal in his song. It is constructed very cleverly.

By the way... When I now think of it, the idea of using bridge to build up the tension that way is quite similar to "Rocks Off" that lyrically as well is a cousin to the theme of "Let's Spend The Together" that is, as argued here, a cousin to "Satisfaction" (also musically). And by the way, "Rocks Off" is surprisingly melodic for being such a strong rocker. Maybe there is more nostalgical roots in "Rocks Off" that we can hear from the outset... there is a hidden air bridge from Nellcote sessions to their 'classic' pop era....


- Doxa

Definitely! Spot on with Rocks Off

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think, as withsssoul pointed out, that some of the genius in this song has to do with the bridge, and the build-up to the chorus.

Yeah, I agree. The 'drama' of the song - very much to do with the bridge - is something phemomal in his song. It is constructed very cleverly.

By the way... When I now think of it, the idea of using bridge to build up the tension that way is quite similar to "Rocks Off" that lyrically as well is a cousin to the theme of "Let's Spend The Together" that is, as argued here, a cousin to "Satisfaction" (also musically). And by the way, "Rocks Off" is surprisingly melodic for being such a strong rocker. Maybe there is more nostalgical roots in "Rocks Off" that we can hear from the outset... there is a hidden air bridge from Nellcote sessions to their 'classic' pop era....


- Doxa

Way to go Doxa! I hear it too.

Quote
Doxa
A side not: is it co-incidental or not but when the Stones were 'lucky amateurs', making albumworth of tracks within a few days (worked very quickly that it is), Brian Jones really shone in those circumstances. But when the band started to use more time in studio, and recording one song would make even several days, Jones seemed go out of the picture. Was it that Brian didn't like work that way? That he wanted to nail the thing quickly by a sudden inspiration but didn't feel to spend hours or days within the same scheme; he got bored, didn't have stamina or discipline for that or something? Of course, there were surely other reasons for Brian's fall, but could that be one of those? Just a quick thought, not much substance.

- Doxa

Very interesting idea, Doxa!

Drew

Probably spot on about Brian Jones in the studio. I dont wanna nag but I do think there's another side of the coin that got nasty later in 1967 and culminated in 1969 (?) with "What Can you play". But being restless in the studio may very well have brought the heat on Mr Jones.