I think this early version is better than all of the live versions they ever made. It has this touch of youth and innocence and desperation. And you can feel when the singer in the band really means it. Am I right?
I agree. I have lots of live versions of Satisfaction, from all eras, and I don't find in them what made the original studio version so amazing. First of all, the fuzz guitar sound was never reproduced properly live, even though it's the signature of the song.
It's quite clear from watching this channel that Amy being a classically trained musician helps her get to the heart of what is going on in these songs very quickly, stuff that the average listener just doesn't hear.
Indeed! It's roughly 50 years since I'd have heard the song the first time and I've enjoyed it hundreds of times since. I never noticed the weaving of the lead guitar and bass lines, yet it takes Amy a single listen. Makes me feel like I'm not even worthy to enjoy rock music! 😄 Ah, but at least I had several wonderful hours of dancin' and headbangin' over the years, and I don't care that I didn't know what Keith & Bill & co were really doing.. It's a song that makes the listener want to move, and I sure did!
I’m LOVING LOVING these deep dives into artists on weekends as a means to expose you quickly to major artists that you haven’t heard even after a year. Very satisfying for us….and hopefully for you too! 😁
Amy, you said you're not the type to bang your head up and down and be satisfied with that; you're looking for interesting content that stimulates your intellect. But Rock like the Stones produce it, is primarilly a music for the body. It's music to move/dance to! If Rock does that well and really makes you want to move, that's a quality in itself. A quality that you never value in this series. By the way, how the different guitars rhythmically play around each other - they themselves call it "weaving", and it's one of the Stones' trademarks. Micha
The bass guitarist, Bill Wyman, was rarely flashy, whether in a recording studio or playing like. But like Ringo Starr on drums, Wyman knew what to do with the bass for every song the Stones ever played.
True. But the Stones most iconic songs have Keith playing bass in a more up front style. Jumping Jack Flash and Symphony fot the Devil to name a couple. Bill was a bottom player.
I think one thing people seem to fail to take into consideration about the "British Invasion" is that, in the early sixties, London and Liverpool had two very different music scenes. London had a more blues dominated scene, with John Mahal, The Yardbirds, and The Rolling Stones among many other examples, while bands like The Searchers, The Hollies, Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas, and The Roadrunners, and others had a more pop oriented and '50s American rock influenced sound. By the end of the decade the lines had blurred, as the musicians were drawn together, (as musician often are.)
Amy, it's great to see you finally listen to The Rolling Stones and look forward to when you get to "Sympathy For The Devil", "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Paint It Black". Fun Fact: The Beatles wrote their first UK hit song "I Wanna Be Your Man".
I'm so happy you finally got to the Stones, the quintessential rock and roll band. Putting out great rock for the last 6 decades. They are just about to release their 24th studio album in October, and they just released a video of the album's single "Angry" 8 days ago and it is already at 14 million views. They are number 1 on the current pre-order charts, with Ren at number 2 for his Sick Boi album which is also coming out in October. Ren said in his latest livestream that he never imagined that one day he would be number 2 following the Stones. Pretty cool that the Rolling Stones weekend should be the same weekend that you hit 100K. Another great choice for these Special Weekends.
@@splitimage137. Very excited since it is one of my favorites of theirs during their late 60s period (2nd to Gimme Shelter). I also think "Gimme Shelter" would be more musically interesting for Amy, but still thrilled she is doing Sympathy. Satisfaction is a good start due to its historical importance, although probably too simplistic and repetitive for Amy's tastes.
@@LeeKennison Satisfactions appeal has almost nothing to do with its technical musicality. It’s sound and attitude with some notes used for a little movement to get the energy going.
For me, what made this song such a hit was two things: the fuzz guitar sound which was completely new and electrifying at the time and the lyrics which expressed the frustration of an entire generation. You could dance to this song and shout the lyrics at the same time. To today's ears it's nothing truly groundbreaking, but in 1965 it was. This song really resonated with teenagers and young adults because it expressed in a simple and direct way what they themselves felt and wanted to hear.
Back at the time The Beatles image was promoted as the good, clean boys while The Rolling Stones image was promoted as the bad boys. The Beatles were in matching suits while The Stones wore street clothes. The Beatles were singing love songs while The Stones were singing street/real life/ blues-based songs. Everyone had their own voice because you now had singer/song writers as opposed to songs by writing teams being given to singers.
You may discover, as you delve deeper into the Stones' catalog, and agree with what their former band member, and later road manager/piano player, Ian Stewart fondly called them: "My three chord wonders." Tons of their songs have only a few chords -- but they created tons of classic rock songs with just those few chords.
The bass is playing the bass harmony as well. The riff is one of the most memorable in rock and roll (and one of the earliest guitar riffs featuring a fuzz tone pedal) however this music isn't meant to be analyzed but danced to.
As always, I really enjoyed your reaction. I am glad you recognized the importance of the riff in this song, with a good explanation of how the guitar and bass work together for its impact. While I thought Satisfaction would be too simplistic and repetitive for you to fully enjoy and appreciate, it is an important historical marker that really helped to establish the Stones as a major rock band. Like the early Beatles, it provides a good benchmark to compare to their later work. A good starting point to understand the Stones (the bad boys of rock, relative to the Beatles). It had a big impact at the time.
@@scottzappa9314 Thanks. Yeah, a lot of great rock is fairly simple and repetitive. If a song has a great rhythm and groove, along with some catchy riffs and hooks they can be very successful in the rock world. And as you say, a song should always be evaluated in the context of the time of their release. Some songs are timeless and hold up well over time, while others tend to sound dated. The quality of the recording tech also plays a roll.
I think it doesn't matter if the song sounds dated as long as you still love it. Beauty is in the ear. The good thing is many artists still care about sound quality and make great albums, and the best they can do on CD's. Neil Young and Tool being 2 examples.
@@scottzappa9314 Yeah, I like a lot of songs that sound dated, mostly since I grew up with them and can relate to the time. I have noticed though that younger listeners tend to relate more to those songs I consider timeless. I am a huge Neil Young fan (my all time favorite artist in fact) and have been since the late 60s when I was still a kid. For me, he is one of the greatest singer-songwriters ever, which of course depends on how well somebody personally relates to the lyrics and music. He has continued to put out great stuff over all the decades since. I am also a Tool fan, but that of course came much later.
I agree with all of that, you tend to like what you grew up with. I LOVE Tool now, especially Danny Carey since I used to try to play drums. Neil is of course Legendary, I like the other great song writers like Joni Mitchell and Billy Joel. Yes, the youngins today are digging all the great older music, my opinion is it's close to universally appealing, music experts and casual listeners alike. But it's still almost hard to believe that somebody is hearing Stairway to Heaven for the first time, LOL.
this song is a good example of how much bands rely on a steady drummer to follow. the hardest (and most important) job a drummer can do is to simply keep a steady beat. the bass and rhythm guitar can use the beat to work against, sometimes putting notes just a little before or after the beat to get the right feel. charlie watts was never a showman like neil peart or buddy rich, but he did one thing consistently and reliably every time.
That riff is Keith Richards experimentng with an early device called a fuzz box. Keith thought the song needed horns, so he recorded that melody line with the fuzz box as a guide for the horns to be put on later. They ended up liking the version with the fuzz box and never bothered with the horns. If you want to hear a version with horns, there's a cover version of the song by Otis Redding.
Stones music is much more spontaneous than when, for example, David Byrne tries to fuse Pop with Latin rhythms, or Paul Simon does it with African rhythms. Their work is good, but one cannot help but notice the "hybrid" at all times... They approached from a more academic, almost anthropological side. The Stones, on the other hand, approached the phenomenon more willing for it to invade and penetrate them. And not taking distance. They were not like Byrne: them on one side and ethnicity on the other. They made a kind of 'minestrone', in which you end up not knowing which came first. This is why Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley were very comfortable with what they did with their music and their songs. And it is the main reason why they are constantly cited in the most serious books, notes and documentaries dealing with the evolution of Blues with all its enormous and rich history, as keys and indispensable links between the ancestral roots, and the modern music charts.
Released in June 1965-the same year I graduated from High School-when i first heard it on the AM radio station I was just blown away-it spoke to every kid who graduated that year-that opening riff by Keith Richard just grabbed you. Then that drum fill in the middle of the song by Charlie Watts was dynamite. Still my all-time favorite song--Mick was telling all of us teenagers that he felt the same way as we did felt then-Can't get No Satisfaction.
I was unable to be a part of the live chat. And Vlad will probably bring this up or has brought this up. When they were coming up with a name for the band Brian Jones saw a Muddy Waters album and said Rolling Stones. It's a great name for a band but the guys did have their trepidation about it. They thought people would think it's corny or cheeky to name their band after a song. They thought they would really hear it from American audiences. When they came to the U.S. people asked them about the name. They were taken aback by the fact that the white audiences didn't know who Muddy Waters was or knew what song they were talking about. They thought if they knew these things so would every white American fan of Rock and Roll. As a result of this, three significant things happened to make Blues fully enter the realm of American commercial music. 1. The Rolling stones were asked to do an American TV show called Shindig. This was a show that young Rock and Roll fans would watch. They agreed to do the show with one stipulation. That was to feature one of their idols Howlin' Wolf. That was the first time a lot of America's youth were introduced to the Blues as well as one of the most important names in blues. If you watch it on TH-cam and I hope you do, for your own knowledge you will see the Rolling Stones sitting around the stage absorbing Howlin' Wolf's every move. It's a very important TV event in American cultural history. 2. It brought new life, recognition and fame to a lot of Blues bands and players. When the Rolling Stones hit big in the U.S. the Blues bands were experiencing a drop in popularity, and money. Especially in Britain everyone wanted to see and hear these Blues bands that were so special and influential to the groups they were listening to such as The Rolling Stones, Jeff Beck, Clapton, the Animals. Also the album oriented FM stations along with the usual Stones or Beatles or Pink Floyd songs would also play Muddy Waters or B.B. King etc. And they would promote their concerts and do interviews with them. Album oriented FM stations had a big tent back then. Muddy Waters did a concert tour in England the coveted hottest gig was to be the band to tour with him. Everyone wanted it. The band that actually received that honor was Eric Burdon and the Animals. 3. All this renewed life to the American Blues music made it easier for other Blues and riff based music to get recognition and popularity. I love the Rolling Stones I love...most of their music. But I think getting Howlin' Wolf on Shindig was their finest hour.
I'm so glad you brought this important facet of the Stones story up. It is an example of how culturally important the Stones were to their times. They absorbed the blues and brought it back to America, particularly white Americans who were unaware of the blues, since many of the radio stations refused to play them. There is a great documentary here on TH-cam called "Blues Story: A Documentary" that covers the blues from early Delta blues of the 30s through the Chicago blues of the 50s. It also covers this aspect of the story on how much of an impact the Stones had in promoting the blues and blues greats in America.
1965 was a pivotal year in rock music and this song struck a nerve. Musically it’s much like Link Wray in the fifties and the lyrics were probably inspired by Dylan. This song is kind of when rock and roll turned into rock music.
I agree, the lyrics are more Dylan like than Beatles like (at the time). Great observation on the development of rock. Chuck Berry also had a big impact (particularly on Keith). Did you ever see the concert/documentary Keith organized to honor Chuck?
@@LeeKennison yes that’s good and funny. Thanks. It’s interesting that all those guys born around 1940-45 were copying the same half dozen songs when they were starting out and then all those bands developed distinctive styles and sound. It was like an explosion.
@@Hartlor_Tayley By the way, I almost missed your post since you changed your profile image. You should take old men such as myself into consideration before such drastic actions. 😉With my old eyes it is the profile image that tends to catch my eyes rather than the smaller name print. Your old image really stood out.
Satisfaction became popular, in my opinion, as much for it’s lyrics as it was for the music. The song captured the societal angst of the era , especially the blatant commercialization of the era. The radio feeds the listeners useless information, while the guy on tv is ignored because he doesn’t smoke the same brand of cigarettes. It’s a theme that the Stones come back to with “19th Nervous Breakdown” and “Mother’s Little Helper” . It also parallels themes about society found in the poets of the Beats movement and in novels like “Invisible Man.” The Stones simply brought the same message to a broader, and younger audience.
I was listening to Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues the other day. If you listen to that and this song it's the same message. I find that kind of cool.
I’m glad you mentioned the Beats here. As Amy kept getting drawn further and further into the intricacies of Keith’s riff, I kept waiting for her to notice the alignment of Watts and Jagger. Isolate this tracks and give them o thoughtful listen, and you find yourselves either back with the Beatniks or flashing forward to suffer through the rappers’ attempts to capture that form for new generations. It’s not easy to hear what you simply have no background for, though, and I am greatly appreciating the sophistication and good will Amy brings to her rock commentaries.
Yes, yes, and yes. She totally misses the social significance of this in her bias toward analyzing the score. As in many other cases it is her greatest weakness. Perhaps it is related to her isolated upbringing that some things in lyrics go right over her head. I don't think classical music expressed or was about protest, DISSATISFACTION and lament like Blues, Folk and Rock . But I'll confess to ignorance of that genre.
One interesting intersection between the Beatles and The Rolling Stones is that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote their first hit, “I Want to Be Your Man.” It’s interesting to compare the version the Beatles recorded (from “With the Beatles”) and the version the Stones recorded. The Stones version is much glitter and more bluesy. Interestingly, it was watching Lennon and McCartney compose the song on the spot when asked that inspired Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to try their hand at songwriting. Satisfaction is an early Jagger-Richards song and, as you noted, it is rather simple. However, like all the great rock bands of this era, their songwriting improved quickly and incorporated a variety of styles. Overall, the Stones are bluesy with a strong dollop of country but they composed in many other genres too, especially in the mid-60s.
Their best song is You Can't Always Get What You Want (1969). Featuring the London Bach Choir, French horn and bongos. Charlie Watts couldn't play the drum groove, so Jimmy Miller played it.
You are most engaging host of all the reaction shows . You're loaded with personality and you talk to us like a friend imparting insight and complete openness. I'm a big fan 👍
I'm the same age as this song. It feels like my birthday song. Mick used to say that if he was still singing Satisfaction when he was 50, he would kill himself. Now he's 80.
Similarly, a young Paul McCartney said he can't imagine he'd still play Beatles songs when he's 40. He then thought he'd only have enough energy to be a Sinatra-type crooner when he's THAT OLD! Eventually we all learn that it's only the body that ever grows old. Oh, yes, let's not forget Pete Townshend and his "I hope I die before I get old"... How naive we all are/were in our youth!
The Stones are one of those absolutely monolithic bands however they kept it together and because of that they kept touring and playing good music for over 60 years.
For my Junior year sock hop, in '65, the local band learned this that afternoon, so they could play it that night. It was that immediate a hit. Now try 'Wild Horses', Angie', and 'Can't You Hear Me Knockin'.
You have captured the essence of the Stones. Basic, simple head-bobbing music. I always appreciate your analysis. Especially since I've never found the Stones to be the most exciting band in the Rock pantheon, but I do respect their place in its history.
Well Gimme Shelter HAS to be one of the songs on your deep dive. Perhaps the song in their huge catalogue that seems to blow away younger reactors these days. That and Sympathy for the Devil.
I think you have to look at 'Satisfaction' in the context of the time when it was written. In the period preceeding it the aim was to get a clean tone on the electric guitar but this song was one of the first to purposely use a distorted, or 'fuzz', tone on the guitar. To achieve this 'fuzz' effect guitar players would physically damage their speakers with razor blades although later this effect would be created via a less destructive electric circuit. Another early example of this effect being used is in The Kinks' 'You Really Got Me'. These two songs would've seemed rather exciting to young ears used to a clean and ringing guitar tone.
The Rolling Stones have a new single and album out this week, the Single is called Angry and the album is called Hackney Diamonds. I've seen the Rolling stones live 3 times and their greatest strength is their live performances.
Maybe the most typical blues move would be to use a minor third over a major harmony. This bass line is no exception. 😇 I wish you hit the 100K subscribers this weekend! Cheers!
Charles Robert Watts (2 June 1941 - 24 August 2021) was an English musician. He was the drummer of the Rolling Stones from 1963 until his death in 2021. Originally trained as a graphic artist, Watts developed an interest in jazz at a young age and joined the band Blues Incorporated. He also started playing drums in London's rhythm and blues clubs, where he met future bandmates Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Brian Jones. In January 1963, he left Blues Incorporated and joined the Rolling Stones as drummer, while doubling as designer of their record sleeves and tour stages. Watts' first public appearance as a permanent member was in February 1963; he remained with the band for 58 years until his death, at which time he, Jagger and Richards were the only members of the band to have performed on every one of their studio albums. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards both went to the same school in Dartford, Kent, England. In September 1950, Keith Richards and Jagger first met as classmates at Wentworth Primary School in Dartford, prior to the Jagger family's 1954 move to Wilmington, Kent. The same year he passed the eleven-plus examination and attended Dartford Grammar School, which now has the Mick Jagger Centre performing arts venue. Jagger and Richards lost contact with each other when they went to different schools. Jagger met Richards again on 17 October 1961 on Platform Two of Dartford railway station. Wikipedia.
Hi Amy, The Rolling Stones channeled the dissatisfaction living among early 60s youth. In those days, there were riots everywhere they performed. For the fans coming to their shows, half of it was about the band, but the other half was about fighting with the police. The roughness of the sound, the empasis on the beat and the overall energy stimulated the early fans in spades. The girls fell in love and fainted, and the boys rioted! They broke down the venue in Scheveningen, Holland in 1964. So "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" was taken as more than a sexual innuendo. Micha
Great reaction and analysis, Amy. From what I understand, the Rolling Stones rhythm section, bass - Bill Wyman and drums - Charlie Watts, were known studio musicians before joining the Stones, for some early American Blues artists, such as Muddy Waters, and they were a little older than Keith, Mick and Brian Jones. The Sones have a very American Blues influence plus other music influences, country, disco, psychedelic...
Charlie was a jazz drummer who played with Alexis Korner. He never played with Muddy Waters before The Stones. Bill had never recorded anything before The Stones.
There’s a whole genre of classical musicians reacting to pop and rock on TH-cam (a couple of composers, a flute player, a singer and vocal coach who even got into harsh vocals), and the jarring thing is that they NEVER find anything negative or boring. This is the only one that ever says “this is very basic, not creative”. I think they’re afraid to alienate audience. The classical-reacts crowd seems to have all made a video on Camel’s “Rhayader/Rhayader goes to town” The Daily Doug even made two (one of an excellent live version and one of the entire studio album). It’s a fun track in the style of Genesis and Emerson Lake and Palmer. It also has no vocals (although other songs by the band have). You’ll certainly find things to appreciate (it has a kind of fancy ABCA structure; the flute has a way of starting from a slow intro naturally into the faster rock thing). There’s also aspects in which it’s overrated (Latimer became an amazing guitar soloist over time, but there he’s a lot more… basic… than people think.) Vlad, do keep up with the Joneses ;)
Thank you for your amazing insights! I’m a huge Stones fan and I’ve listened to this song in particular many, many times and I’ve I never caught that interplay between the base and guitar. Keith Richards often said that Bill Wyman was a great bassist and maybe this is a great illustration of that. To understand the song even more, you have to understand that, while Keith did wake up from a slumber with the riff in his head and recorded it on a cassette player he had sitting nearby, he initially intended it to be played on horns,not a guitar. Otis Redding later covered the song with horns playing the riff, if you’re ever curious to hear what that sounds like. In any case, when it came to recording the song, Keith recorded his guitar into a tape recorder again, then played the cassette through an amplifier to capture the final fuzzy sound in the riff. I was surprised that you didn’t pick up on that because that is also what gives this song it’s unique quality. To fully appreciate the impact of this song, you really have to understand the times in which it was released. Due to the untimely death of Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley being drafted into the US Army, the bebop era of rock ‘n roll came to a rather sudden end just as baby boomers were coming to the forefront, and they wanted a new sound. In swept The Beatles with their Mersey sound and gentle ballads about wanting to hold your hand and just wanting to dance with you. Meanwhile, down in London, far away from Liverpool, another group of boys formed a band with roots deeply steeped in American Blues music which always had a grittier, more rudimentary sound. By the time we get to Satisfaction, The Stones have refined their sound and image.. They’re playing into the counter-culture of the time and the kids are eating it up. Mick doesn’t want to just hold hands, he wants to meet up and get some satisfaction but the girl’s just at that time of the month where she’s on losing streak so she asks him to come back next week. This clear allusion to sex didn’t slide by the critics which is why this song was reviled and so was the band, something they would bear (but thrive in) for many decades to come as they were labelled “the bad boys of rock ‘n roll” and were instrumental in the coining of the phrase “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll”. Anyway, I’ve gone on long enough. Enjoy the weekend! Can’t wait for you to get to Gimme Shelter, Jumpin’ Jack Flash, or Sympathy for the Devil.
Did their just-released new song inspire you to take a dive into The Stones? Along with The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, and Dylan, The Rolling Stones are one of the most important rock/pop artists of the past 60 years.
Bill Wyman was a brilliant bassist - Charlie Watts, the drummer, was heavily influenced by jazz - all contributing to a differing Invasion sound compared to groups like the Beatles and the Dave Clark Five
"Lola" is a song written by Ray Davies and performed by English rock band the Kinks on their 1970 album Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One. If you want controversial lyrics listen to this song by the Kinks. The Kinks were part of the 1st British Invasion.
Yep, at the time, "Lola" took 'scandalous lyrics' to a completely new level. Among the reasons were lines like "girls will be boys and boys will be girls", whereas today it could be considered scandalous because of the line "But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man"! 😃
This song is notable for the “fuzz” sound in the main riff. 1965 is the cusp of a big change in guitar sound. The Beatles used a fuzz bass on a song from Rubber Soul (“Think for Yourself”) but the sound was still relatively new. Distorted guitars had shown up occasionally in the past but usually due to a mistake and they were still a bit of a novelty (“Rocket 88” by Ike Turner with Jackie Brenton; “Don’t Worry” by country singer Marty Robbins; “I Just Don’t Understand” by Ann-Margaret and “You Really Got Me” by the Kinks). The fuzz tone in this song was very deliberate and represented changes that were coming in guitar amp technology. The “distorted” guitar would be made mainstream by Jimi Hendrix and quickly change the sound of rock music, as you will clearly hear as you move through the Beatles’s catalog. On Rubber Soul, there is on song with fuzz guitar; on the next album (recorded only a few months later) you will hear fuzz guitars throughout. The Stones were masters of the guitar and early adopters of the distorted guitar sound. It was both the guitar sound and the guitar riff that made this song stand out in 1965. The very satirical lyrics (“he can’t be a man because he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me”) added to the charm of the song.
Always pay attention to when songs came out. A lot of the groups from the 60’s hung out together and listened to each others music and built songs more and more complex as the years went on. Just like early Beatles is simple compared to last songs by the Beatles. They grew and evolved over time and listen more i their peers. You can see some old videos of Mick Jagger hanging out with the Beatles and I think on Audio that one of the Beatles was raving about Led Zeppelin’s first album. Cheers.
As you say, a very simple song and the interest supplied by the different guitar and bass lines certainly helps avoid monotony. Its also worth noting that the fuzz guitar tone on that main riff was so revolutionary and startling at the time (at least on a mainstream record) that it was probably enough in itself to hold people’s interest and ensure the song’s place in rock history!
The bass always works as an anchor between the rhythm and melodic/harmonic Instruments. And in this case that Motown-influenced Bill Wyman's bass line did its magic maybe without even thinking about it. And yes, music doesn't have to be over complicated or virtuosic to be good. It's a matter of good taste
Keith Richards is the king of riffs, following in the footsteps of his hero, Chuck Berry. Their creations are much more subtle than the impact they seem to hit with.
I am so shocked at your clarity of description of sound. at 6 mim in your face was so animated I was trying to think what was going on inside. Were you thinking the people that like this noise are neanderthals or what. The when you describe the music you seem to explain why is it so attracting to us even in its simple sounds because of the flipped riff to bass, although maybe you want to throw us head bangers a bone. Any case you are incredible to watch, so Fun, D
Keith Richards claims that this riff came to him in the middle of the night (possibly in a dream), he got up, sang it into a tape recorder & in the morning woke up to the tape of the riff & 45 minutes of snoring. He says he always heard it as a horn riff. Oatis Reading later did a cover with horns. It's one of the 1st pop/rock songs to use a distortion box on the guitar, which inspired an entire generation of guitarists. The "I'm trying to make some girl" line was incredibly suggestive in a pop song in 1965. Possibly even more in the US than other parts of the world. Keep in mind this is a few years prior to music like Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Janis Joplin etc. In 64/65 the majority of pop music was still very clean cut, boys and girls holding hands, puppy love kind of stuff.
I remember when Satisfaction came out and I was so taken by the riff and the song. My memory is also that the Stones were the first to take singles beyond 3:00 minutes. In this video you cleared up a mystery for me! I have listened to the Stones for many years, and in spite of my tastes for prog and more complex music, I never tire of them. Their songs seem simple, and even rough, yet interesting and complex in some sort of way that I don't tire of them. I think I got a clue on how they did that from your analysis. Try out "Gimme Shelter" when you can!
I think you missed the lyrical content in your listen. This is more a comment on our society than anything else and I personally think that is what made it a hit. (aside from the musical parts you mentioned) First talking about how advertising was affecting society " telling me more and more, about some useless information supposed to drive my imagination" then "a man comes on and tells me how white my shirts should be, but he can't be a man cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me" and how that whole media thing affected courting girls in the last verse. I remember hearing this and thinking, Yeah they got that right. The other part that you mentioned was the "oboe" sound of the guitar. Many bands were beginning to experiment with sound at that time. I heard/or read, that the way they got that sound was by using a screwdriver to poke a hole in the speaker and then driving the speaker at a higher volume. This was the beginning of the use of distortion in rock at that time. From which later Heavy Metal was developed.
Please don't underestimate the importance of Charlie Watts on drums. His beat is driving the song forward. The beat is solid, and it never changes. This gives a structure for the two syncopated rhythms of the guitar and bass to play against. There is no way you could dance to it with only guitar and bass.
The "Stones" turned up when I was in the 3 rd. grade in 1961 and was an instant fan. Watching the music as it was being released gave my crew of friends the freedom of expression that had been squashed for generations.
Like the Beatles and most music of this time dancing was a big thing. This song is definitely a danceable tune...it also heralds the beginning of stoner music that was more heady with timing and tempo changes. Rock goes psychedelic...from there comes prog rock. 😊
Amy, I am looking forward to your videos of this weekend! For They, them were right Amy (who is They, it's always "they did it"), you CAN NOT claim to study modern/rock music, be in that journey and skip The Stones, can not be done, period. I am reminded of an interview with Keith Richard that I watched and the interviewer asked: Mister Richard, what is to you the pure essence of what Rock 'n Roll is? Keith Richard halted for a brief moment, maybe one second while he thought, and then answered in a thick British accent: "Me". For a moment I thought that that was quite an assumptious answer, thinks quite highly of himself but after thinking it through a bit deeper I concluded that the answer was about as good and, dare I say, accurate as any. Keith Richard and Mick Jagger were part of the unofficial, unstructured delegation, so to speak, of young British University studentS who traveled to the US, got lost in the deep south and ended up in these black entertainment shacks where black musicians played the purest forms of blues music for audiences of their own. Amazed and mesmerized were these British youngsters. They went back home, told others about their experiences and started to play this blues music in faster tempos and putting a white civilization spin on it. And British Rock was born. You're not going to get complexity from The Stones. They've done a lot musically, covered a lot of ground, but underneath is always very recognizable, the American Black folks rhythm 'n blues music. In the mid 80's they even jumped on The Disco bandwagon with the "Some Girls" album, but even it stringed on rhythm 'n blues foundations. Satisfaction contains one of the most recognizable riffs known in rock and that before riffs were a thing. If produced today it would go nowhere and you can study it musically, and, as always, I appreciate what you've done, But this song is a vibe, imagine hearing it on the radio when it was current, and while you live as a youngster, with this song on the radio you decide what cool jeans jacket you're going to buy, with the necklace that has an aluminum piece emblem, discussing with your friends what you're going to do on the weekend. Your school "day/date agenda" has photos of The Rolling Stones in it, stores sell posters of this band. You hear news flashes of what The Stones are doing this week and what troubles they're getting into. While The Beatles are relatively clean cut, not offensive in any way to any 14 year old girl, The Stones have a right image of, and here's a new rock 'n roll term for you, "Nasty" in their music/act. A Bad boy element. Today, 50-60 years later The Rolling Stones is a commodity, but not just a money value type of commodity, they are an institution, a representation of what rock 'n roll, in its purity is, a celebration of all what inspired The British rock invasion. THE ROLLING STONES ARE A STANDARD, MAYBE THE STANDARD!
I’m sure once she hears some later tracks, she’ll come to like the Stones more. Paint it black, she’s a rainbow, jumping jack flash and you can’t always get… are more complex and should satisfy her own particular taste. I hope she listens to at least one or two of those.
It was the guitar tone (fuzz guitar) that made this stand out so much when it came out in the summer of 1965. This was new to all the young music fans' ears... and took everyone by storm.
I really hope you watch a live performance of Satisfaction, Amy. I really think the Stones are best appreciated along with the visual component. I think the emotion comes through so much more clearly if you can see Mick's body and facial expression.
In terms of their public image, the Beatles were the Nice Boys and the Stones were the Bad Boys. (It's worth bearing in mind that at the time this was released, rock was considered "kiddie music".) I would like to see you react to a later Stones song. They never got prog or anything like that, but some of their stuff is a bit more complex than this.
An interesting follow up song to Satisfaction would be The Police’s ‘Every breath you take.’ Great analysis of one of the most iconic songs of the 20th century!
Interesting to see reviewers trying to understand the 60s with the now dominant view that it was all about The Beatles. At the time one question was "Beatles or Stones, who do you like/follow". They were equal competitors for fans, with possible 50 or 100 slightly lesse maybe bands. There was also no "mainstream media" other than top of the pops. Pirate Radio was the music scene and caused the starting of BBC Radio 1.
The line about ''losing streak'' is apparently a reference to menstruation. The riff was obviously a hook to get a hit single and it is a straight rock n roll dance record.
Satisfaction is very catchy and simple song with a very strong riff. The Rolling Stones is a very well successful rock and rhythm and blues band that have made many hit songs. They are the oldest rock band still living with successful. But their music is simple and basic in terms of harmonies and melody. Mick Jagger is not a good singer (there are many others better), but is a very good live performer. Charlie Watts is a great drummer and Keith Richards and the other guitars are very good and experienced. They are better as a live band and their shows are almost always well succeeded. Mick Jagger is a great manager and helped to maintain the band until now.
Great work as always! I recommend sticking with the 60´s Stones for an interesting listening experience. Paint It Black, Mother´s Little Helper, Street Fighting Man and Gimme Shelter (for instance) are so much more than just rock´n´roll.
Happy that you got to the Stones! Even though they're not my favourite band, they made some of my favourite songs ever. Mick Jagger is not a crazy technical singer, but he's a hell of a performer and his way of singing is extremely expressive (you'll find out with songs like Sympathy for the Devil and Angie).
Yeah, when The Rolling Stones went on the Ed Sullivan show, Sullivan made them change "Let's Spend the NIGHT Together" to "Let's Spend Some TIME Together". They acquiesced, but every time they got to that line, Mick dramatically did a big eye roll lol.
There's a scene that was deleted from Pulp Fiction, in which the characters Mia and Vincent have a conversation about music. She asks if he's a Beatles guy or an Elvis guy, and talks about her theory that every guy is either a Beatles guy or an Elvis guy. I've always felt that one could very easily split the difference by saying they're a Rolling Stones guy. The Stones have the pop songcraft chops of the Beatles and the swagger of Elvis.
I think Mia said that you could like both Elvis and the Rolling Stones. But you will prefer one over the other. Then she pegged Vincent as an Elvis guy. Someone once said to me you could tell the generational shift by if a person identifies with more with I Can't Get No Satisfaction or Stairway To Heaven. You wouldn't be able to just see a person and estimate and assume where they will lie due to their age because people are going to have both albums the song is on. She said that to me while watching my then boyfriend rolling a joint over Led Zeppelin IV.
I love that it's 2023 and we're seeing a professional musician, no less, listen to "Satisfaction" for the very first time.
I think this early version is better than all of the live versions they ever made. It has this touch of youth and innocence and desperation. And you can feel when the singer in the band really means it. Am I right?
Yea. Keith never got that fuzz tone sound live that he had on the record. To me, that's vital.
I agree. I have lots of live versions of Satisfaction, from all eras, and I don't find in them what made the original studio version so amazing. First of all, the fuzz guitar sound was never reproduced properly live, even though it's the signature of the song.
Still it is funny though, that she never gets the importance of the words....
@@hippydippyHe refuses too for some reason.
It's quite clear from watching this channel that Amy being a classically trained musician helps her get to the heart of what is going on in these songs very quickly, stuff that the average listener just doesn't hear.
Indeed! It's roughly 50 years since I'd have heard the song the first time and I've enjoyed it hundreds of times since. I never noticed the weaving of the lead guitar and bass lines, yet it takes Amy a single listen. Makes me feel like I'm not even worthy to enjoy rock music! 😄 Ah, but at least I had several wonderful hours of dancin' and headbangin' over the years, and I don't care that I didn't know what Keith & Bill & co were really doing.. It's a song that makes the listener want to move, and I sure did!
I’m LOVING LOVING these deep dives into artists on weekends as a means to expose you quickly to major artists that you haven’t heard even after a year. Very satisfying for us….and hopefully for you too! 😁
Amy, you said you're not the type to bang your head up and down and be satisfied with that; you're looking for interesting content that stimulates your intellect. But Rock like the Stones produce it, is primarilly a music for the body. It's music to move/dance to! If Rock does that well and really makes you want to move, that's a quality in itself. A quality that you never value in this series.
By the way, how the different guitars rhythmically play around each other - they themselves call it "weaving", and it's one of the Stones' trademarks.
Micha
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
The bass guitarist, Bill Wyman, was rarely flashy, whether in a recording studio or playing like. But like Ringo Starr on drums, Wyman knew what to do with the bass for every song the Stones ever played.
True. But the Stones most iconic songs have Keith playing bass in a more up front style. Jumping Jack Flash and Symphony fot the Devil to name a couple. Bill was a bottom player.
@@tomslick2058sympathy for the Devil is actually Keith Richards on Bass
I think one thing people seem to fail to take into consideration about the "British Invasion" is that, in the early sixties, London and Liverpool had two very different music scenes. London had a more blues dominated scene, with John Mahal, The Yardbirds, and The Rolling Stones among many other examples, while bands like The Searchers, The Hollies, Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas, and The Roadrunners, and others had a more pop oriented and '50s American rock influenced sound. By the end of the decade the lines had blurred, as the musicians were drawn together, (as musician often are.)
Amy, it's great to see you finally listen to The Rolling Stones and look forward to when you get to "Sympathy For The Devil", "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Paint It Black".
Fun Fact: The Beatles wrote their first UK hit song "I Wanna Be Your Man".
"Sympathy" is in my opinion not a good choice. "Gimme Shelter" is musically far more interesting.
@stefan_becker over time, I have become convinced Gimme Shelter is their greatest song.
I would add either Angie or Wild Horses to get a different side to their music...
@@heartoftherosewithout a doubt, and I've of the greatest rock songs of all be time.
During the creation of the Stones they covered American blues classics. That was a key to their sound and success for decades.
I'm so happy you finally got to the Stones, the quintessential rock and roll band. Putting out great rock for the last 6 decades. They are just about to release their 24th studio album in October, and they just released a video of the album's single "Angry" 8 days ago and it is already at 14 million views. They are number 1 on the current pre-order charts, with Ren at number 2 for his Sick Boi album which is also coming out in October. Ren said in his latest livestream that he never imagined that one day he would be number 2 following the Stones. Pretty cool that the Rolling Stones weekend should be the same weekend that you hit 100K. Another great choice for these Special Weekends.
Lee, if you're this excited for Satisfaction, how are you gonna handle Sympathy For The Devil and Angie - soon to follow?
@@splitimage137. Very excited since it is one of my favorites of theirs during their late 60s period (2nd to Gimme Shelter). I also think "Gimme Shelter" would be more musically interesting for Amy, but still thrilled she is doing Sympathy. Satisfaction is a good start due to its historical importance, although probably too simplistic and repetitive for Amy's tastes.
@@LeeKennison Satisfactions appeal has almost nothing to do with its technical musicality. It’s sound and attitude with some notes used for a little movement to get the energy going.
@@LeeKennison To me, Gimme Shelter is probably their best song. (Good enough to name a movie after ;)
@@Hartlor_Tayley Agreed. Well said. Your statement can apply to a lot of great rock songs, but it particularly applies to Satisfaction.
For me, what made this song such a hit was two things: the fuzz guitar sound which was completely new and electrifying at the time and the lyrics which expressed the frustration of an entire generation. You could dance to this song and shout the lyrics at the same time. To today's ears it's nothing truly groundbreaking, but in 1965 it was. This song really resonated with teenagers and young adults because it expressed in a simple and direct way what they themselves felt and wanted to hear.
Back at the time The Beatles image was promoted as the good, clean boys while The Rolling Stones image was promoted as the bad boys. The Beatles were in matching suits while The Stones wore street clothes. The Beatles were singing love songs while The Stones were singing street/real life/ blues-based songs. Everyone had their own voice because you now had singer/song writers as opposed to songs by writing teams being given to singers.
You may discover, as you delve deeper into the Stones' catalog, and agree with what their former band member, and later road manager/piano player, Ian Stewart fondly called them: "My three chord wonders." Tons of their songs have only a few chords -- but they created tons of classic rock songs with just those few chords.
Lou Reed once said, “One chord is fine, two chords is pushing it, three chords and you're into jazz”
The bass is playing the bass harmony as well. The riff is one of the most memorable in rock and roll (and one of the earliest guitar riffs featuring a fuzz tone pedal) however this music isn't meant to be analyzed but danced to.
Amazing analysis. I’ve never understood why with such a simple riff the song is addictive rather than monotonous - this is explains it!!
Bill would love this. He always said songs need a bottom. But I will argue Woods bass on Shattered is fantastic. Played more like a lead guitar.
This was a staple of local cover bands at high school/college dances at the time.
Complexity does not imply quality, and simplicity is often a virtue.
As always, I really enjoyed your reaction. I am glad you recognized the importance of the riff in this song, with a good explanation of how the guitar and bass work together for its impact. While I thought Satisfaction would be too simplistic and repetitive for you to fully enjoy and appreciate, it is an important historical marker that really helped to establish the Stones as a major rock band. Like the early Beatles, it provides a good benchmark to compare to their later work. A good starting point to understand the Stones (the bad boys of rock, relative to the Beatles). It had a big impact at the time.
Good description, it's not overly complex. It also should be taken in the context of the time it found itself in.
@@scottzappa9314 Thanks. Yeah, a lot of great rock is fairly simple and repetitive. If a song has a great rhythm and groove, along with some catchy riffs and hooks they can be very successful in the rock world. And as you say, a song should always be evaluated in the context of the time of their release. Some songs are timeless and hold up well over time, while others tend to sound dated. The quality of the recording tech also plays a roll.
I think it doesn't matter if the song sounds dated as long as you still love it. Beauty is in the ear. The good thing is many artists still care about sound quality and make great albums, and the best they can do on CD's. Neil Young and Tool being 2 examples.
@@scottzappa9314 Yeah, I like a lot of songs that sound dated, mostly since I grew up with them and can relate to the time. I have noticed though that younger listeners tend to relate more to those songs I consider timeless. I am a huge Neil Young fan (my all time favorite artist in fact) and have been since the late 60s when I was still a kid. For me, he is one of the greatest singer-songwriters ever, which of course depends on how well somebody personally relates to the lyrics and music. He has continued to put out great stuff over all the decades since. I am also a Tool fan, but that of course came much later.
I agree with all of that, you tend to like what you grew up with. I LOVE Tool now, especially Danny Carey since I used to try to play drums. Neil is of course Legendary, I like the other great song writers like Joni Mitchell and Billy Joel. Yes, the youngins today are digging all the great older music, my opinion is it's close to universally appealing, music experts and casual listeners alike. But it's still almost hard to believe that somebody is hearing Stairway to Heaven for the first time, LOL.
this song is a good example of how much bands rely on a steady drummer to follow.
the hardest (and most important) job a drummer can do is to simply keep a steady beat. the bass and rhythm guitar can use the beat to work against, sometimes putting notes just a little before or after the beat to get the right feel.
charlie watts was never a showman like neil peart or buddy rich, but he did one thing consistently and reliably every time.
When Charlie died Keith did an interview where he talked about the band and how Charlie followed Keith. He said it gave the Sones music a wobble.
I really enjoy listening to her interpretations of rock songs. She truly has a gift of hearing the sounds.
The number one song ever etched into vinyl in my humble opinion..:)
One riff only, still pure greatness. The music term is Complex Simplicity.
You've nailed it, bravo !
At last, I've found a musician who explains how the music works. Thanks.
That riff is Keith Richards experimentng with an early device called a fuzz box. Keith thought the song needed horns, so he recorded that melody line with the fuzz box as a guide for the horns to be put on later. They ended up liking the version with the fuzz box and never bothered with the horns. If you want to hear a version with horns, there's a cover version of the song by Otis Redding.
Stones music is much more spontaneous than when, for example, David Byrne tries to fuse Pop with Latin rhythms, or Paul Simon does it with African rhythms. Their work is good, but one cannot help but notice the "hybrid" at all times... They approached from a more academic, almost anthropological side. The Stones, on the other hand, approached the phenomenon more willing for it to invade and penetrate them. And not taking distance.
They were not like Byrne: them on one side and ethnicity on the other. They made a kind of 'minestrone', in which you end up not knowing which came first. This is why Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley were very comfortable with what they did with their music and their songs. And it is the main reason why they are constantly cited in the most serious books, notes and documentaries dealing with the evolution of Blues with all its enormous and rich history, as keys and indispensable links between the ancestral roots, and the modern music charts.
I love watching Amy.
Released in June 1965-the same year I graduated from High School-when i first heard it on the AM radio station I was just blown away-it spoke to every kid who graduated that year-that opening riff by Keith Richard just grabbed you. Then that drum fill in the middle of the song by Charlie Watts was dynamite. Still my all-time favorite song--Mick was telling all of us teenagers that he felt the same way as we did felt then-Can't get No Satisfaction.
I was unable to be a part of the live chat. And Vlad will probably bring this up or has brought this up.
When they were coming up with a name for the band Brian Jones saw a Muddy Waters album and said Rolling Stones. It's a great name for a band but the guys did have their trepidation about it. They thought people would think it's corny or cheeky to name their band after a song. They thought they would really hear it from American audiences.
When they came to the U.S. people asked them about the name. They were taken aback by the fact that the white audiences didn't know who Muddy Waters was or knew what song they were talking about. They thought if they knew these things so would every white American fan of Rock and Roll.
As a result of this, three significant things happened to make Blues fully enter the realm of American commercial music.
1. The Rolling stones were asked to do an American TV show called Shindig. This was a show that young Rock and Roll fans would watch. They agreed to do the show with one stipulation. That was to feature one of their idols Howlin' Wolf. That was the first time a lot of America's youth were introduced to the Blues as well as one of the most important names in blues. If you watch it on TH-cam and I hope you do, for your own knowledge you will see the Rolling Stones sitting around the stage absorbing Howlin' Wolf's every move. It's a very important TV event in American cultural history.
2. It brought new life, recognition and fame to a lot of Blues bands and players. When the Rolling Stones hit big in the U.S. the Blues bands were experiencing a drop in popularity, and money. Especially in Britain everyone wanted to see and hear these Blues bands that were so special and influential to the groups they were listening to such as The Rolling Stones, Jeff Beck, Clapton, the Animals.
Also the album oriented FM stations along with the usual Stones or Beatles or Pink Floyd songs would also play Muddy Waters or B.B. King etc. And they would promote their concerts and do interviews with them. Album oriented FM stations had a big tent back then.
Muddy Waters did a concert tour in England the coveted hottest gig was to be the band to tour with him. Everyone wanted it. The band that actually received that honor was Eric Burdon and the Animals.
3. All this renewed life to the American Blues music made it easier for other Blues and riff based music to get recognition and popularity.
I love the Rolling Stones I love...most of their music. But I think getting Howlin' Wolf on Shindig was their finest hour.
I'm so glad you brought this important facet of the Stones story up. It is an example of how culturally important the Stones were to their times. They absorbed the blues and brought it back to America, particularly white Americans who were unaware of the blues, since many of the radio stations refused to play them. There is a great documentary here on TH-cam called "Blues Story: A Documentary" that covers the blues from early Delta blues of the 30s through the Chicago blues of the 50s. It also covers this aspect of the story on how much of an impact the Stones had in promoting the blues and blues greats in America.
1965 was a pivotal year in rock music and this song struck a nerve. Musically it’s much like Link Wray in the fifties and the lyrics were probably inspired by Dylan. This song is kind of when rock and roll turned into rock music.
" rock and roll turned into rock music"
That's an excellent point.
I agree, the lyrics are more Dylan like than Beatles like (at the time). Great observation on the development of rock. Chuck Berry also had a big impact (particularly on Keith). Did you ever see the concert/documentary Keith organized to honor Chuck?
@@LeeKennison yes that’s good and funny. Thanks. It’s interesting that all those guys born around 1940-45 were copying the same half dozen songs when they were starting out and then all those bands developed distinctive styles and sound. It was like an explosion.
@@kylben thank you. You got what I meant. That’s well satisfying.
@@Hartlor_Tayley By the way, I almost missed your post since you changed your profile image. You should take old men such as myself into consideration before such drastic actions. 😉With my old eyes it is the profile image that tends to catch my eyes rather than the smaller name print. Your old image really stood out.
As a music enthousiast who doesn't read a note of music, this was cool to watch !
The Rolling Stones is a band that has truly lived up to their name. Still rolling!
I remember when this first came on the radio. My 14 year old self was incredibly impressed!
This is The song of a disaffected generation of the 1960’s. Some are still looking for that Satisfaction.
Satisfaction became popular, in my opinion, as much for it’s lyrics as it was for the music. The song captured the societal angst of the era , especially the blatant commercialization of the era. The radio feeds the listeners useless information, while the guy on tv is ignored because he doesn’t smoke the same brand of cigarettes. It’s a theme that the Stones come back to with “19th Nervous Breakdown” and “Mother’s Little Helper” . It also parallels themes about society found in the poets of the Beats movement and in novels like “Invisible Man.” The Stones simply brought the same message to a broader, and younger audience.
I was listening to Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues the other day. If you listen to that and this song it's the same message. I find that kind of cool.
And in the movie, The Graduate, just the beginnings of the social angst that grew into the protest era that followed
I’m glad you mentioned the Beats here. As Amy kept getting drawn further and further into the intricacies of Keith’s riff, I kept waiting for her to notice the alignment of Watts and Jagger. Isolate this tracks and give them o thoughtful listen, and you find yourselves either back with the Beatniks or flashing forward to suffer through the rappers’ attempts to capture that form for new generations. It’s not easy to hear what you simply have no background for, though, and I am greatly appreciating the sophistication and good will Amy brings to her rock commentaries.
Yes, yes, and yes. She totally misses the social significance of this in her bias toward analyzing the score. As in many other cases it is her greatest weakness. Perhaps it is related to her isolated upbringing that some things in lyrics go right over her head. I don't think classical music expressed or was about protest, DISSATISFACTION and lament like Blues, Folk and Rock . But I'll confess to ignorance of that genre.
It's funny I still dig this song after all these years, just something about the Stones. Nostalgia too.
One interesting intersection between the Beatles and The Rolling Stones is that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote their first hit, “I Want to Be Your Man.” It’s interesting to compare the version the Beatles recorded (from “With the Beatles”) and the version the Stones recorded. The Stones version is much glitter and more bluesy. Interestingly, it was watching Lennon and McCartney compose the song on the spot when asked that inspired Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to try their hand at songwriting. Satisfaction is an early Jagger-Richards song and, as you noted, it is rather simple. However, like all the great rock bands of this era, their songwriting improved quickly and incorporated a variety of styles. Overall, the Stones are bluesy with a strong dollop of country but they composed in many other genres too, especially in the mid-60s.
Their best song is You Can't Always Get What You Want (1969). Featuring the London Bach Choir, French horn and bongos. Charlie Watts couldn't play the drum groove, so Jimmy Miller played it.
You know that is one of their songs I just can't stand. I don't know why.
@@nellgwenn We are all individuals.
You are most engaging host of all the reaction shows . You're loaded with personality and you talk to us like a friend imparting insight and complete openness. I'm a big fan 👍
I'm the same age as this song. It feels like my birthday song.
Mick used to say that if he was still singing Satisfaction when he was 50, he would kill himself. Now he's 80.
Similarly, a young Paul McCartney said he can't imagine he'd still play Beatles songs when he's 40. He then thought he'd only have enough energy to be a Sinatra-type crooner when he's THAT OLD! Eventually we all learn that it's only the body that ever grows old. Oh, yes, let's not forget Pete Townshend and his "I hope I die before I get old"... How naive we all are/were in our youth!
I read once an article that called the opening guitar riff to this song the "Beethoven's 5th of rock music." I can't argue with that assessment.
The Stones are one of those absolutely monolithic bands however they kept it together and because of that they kept touring and playing good music for over 60 years.
For my Junior year sock hop, in '65, the local band learned this that afternoon, so they could play it that night. It was that immediate a hit. Now try 'Wild Horses', Angie', and 'Can't You Hear Me Knockin'.
You have captured the essence of the Stones. Basic, simple head-bobbing music. I always appreciate your analysis. Especially since I've never found the Stones to be the most exciting band in the Rock pantheon, but I do respect their place in its history.
They are a great live performance band!! Dance till you drop (18 year old self talking) 😅
Well Gimme Shelter HAS to be one of the songs on your deep dive. Perhaps the song in their huge catalogue that seems to blow away younger reactors these days. That and Sympathy for the Devil.
I think you have to look at 'Satisfaction' in the context of the time when it was written. In the period preceeding it the aim was to get a clean tone on the electric guitar but this song was one of the first to purposely use a distorted, or 'fuzz', tone on the guitar. To achieve this 'fuzz' effect guitar players would physically damage their speakers with razor blades although later this effect would be created via a less destructive electric circuit. Another early example of this effect being used is in The Kinks' 'You Really Got Me'. These two songs would've seemed rather exciting to young ears used to a clean and ringing guitar tone.
The Rolling Stones have a new single and album out this week, the Single is called Angry and the album is called Hackney Diamonds. I've seen the Rolling stones live 3 times and their greatest strength is their live performances.
Maybe the most typical blues move would be to use a minor third over a major harmony. This bass line is no exception. 😇
I wish you hit the 100K subscribers this weekend! Cheers!
Charles Robert Watts (2 June 1941 - 24 August 2021) was an English musician. He was the drummer of the Rolling Stones from 1963 until his death in 2021.
Originally trained as a graphic artist, Watts developed an interest in jazz at a young age and joined the band Blues Incorporated. He also started playing drums in London's rhythm and blues clubs, where he met future bandmates Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Brian Jones. In January 1963, he left Blues Incorporated and joined the Rolling Stones as drummer, while doubling as designer of their record sleeves and tour stages. Watts' first public appearance as a permanent member was in February 1963; he remained with the band for 58 years until his death, at which time he, Jagger and Richards were the only members of the band to have performed on every one of their studio albums.
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards both went to the same school in Dartford, Kent, England.
In September 1950, Keith Richards and Jagger first met as classmates at Wentworth Primary School in Dartford, prior to the Jagger family's 1954 move to Wilmington, Kent. The same year he passed the eleven-plus examination and attended Dartford Grammar School, which now has the Mick Jagger Centre performing arts venue. Jagger and Richards lost contact with each other when they went to different schools. Jagger met Richards again on 17 October 1961 on Platform Two of Dartford railway station. Wikipedia.
Hi Amy,
The Rolling Stones channeled the dissatisfaction living among early 60s youth. In those days, there were riots everywhere they performed. For the fans coming to their shows, half of it was about the band, but the other half was about fighting with the police. The roughness of the sound, the empasis on the beat and the overall energy stimulated the early fans in spades. The girls fell in love and fainted, and the boys rioted! They broke down the venue in Scheveningen, Holland in 1964.
So "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" was taken as more than a sexual innuendo.
Micha
Great reaction and analysis, Amy. From what I understand, the Rolling Stones rhythm section, bass - Bill Wyman and drums - Charlie Watts, were known studio musicians before joining the Stones, for some early American Blues artists, such as Muddy Waters, and they were a little older than Keith, Mick and Brian Jones. The Sones have a very American Blues influence plus other music influences, country, disco, psychedelic...
Charlie was a jazz drummer who played with Alexis Korner. He never played with Muddy Waters before The Stones. Bill had never recorded anything before The Stones.
@@BigSky1my bad. I Should've checked my info. They played with various Blues artists but while they were with Stones.
@@williammcdonald3922 Yes.
There’s a whole genre of classical musicians reacting to pop and rock on TH-cam (a couple of composers, a flute player, a singer and vocal coach who even got into harsh vocals), and the jarring thing is that they NEVER find anything negative or boring. This is the only one that ever says “this is very basic, not creative”. I think they’re afraid to alienate audience.
The classical-reacts crowd seems to have all made a video on Camel’s “Rhayader/Rhayader goes to town” The Daily Doug even made two (one of an excellent live version and one of the entire studio album). It’s a fun track in the style of Genesis and Emerson Lake and Palmer. It also has no vocals (although other songs by the band have). You’ll certainly find things to appreciate (it has a kind of fancy ABCA structure; the flute has a way of starting from a slow intro naturally into the faster rock thing). There’s also aspects in which it’s overrated (Latimer became an amazing guitar soloist over time, but there he’s a lot more… basic… than people think.)
Vlad, do keep up with the Joneses ;)
Thank you for your amazing insights! I’m a huge Stones fan and I’ve listened to this song in particular many, many times and I’ve I never caught that interplay between the base and guitar. Keith Richards often said that Bill Wyman was a great bassist and maybe this is a great illustration of that. To understand the song even more, you have to understand that, while Keith did wake up from a slumber with the riff in his head and recorded it on a cassette player he had sitting nearby, he initially intended it to be played on horns,not a guitar. Otis Redding later covered the song with horns playing the riff, if you’re ever curious to hear what that sounds like. In any case, when it came to recording the song, Keith recorded his guitar into a tape recorder again, then played the cassette through an amplifier to capture the final fuzzy sound in the riff. I was surprised that you didn’t pick up on that because that is also what gives this song it’s unique quality. To fully appreciate the impact of this song, you really have to understand the times in which it was released. Due to the untimely death of Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley being drafted into the US Army, the bebop era of rock ‘n roll came to a rather sudden end just as baby boomers were coming to the forefront, and they wanted a new sound. In swept The Beatles with their Mersey sound and gentle ballads about wanting to hold your hand and just wanting to dance with you. Meanwhile, down in London, far away from Liverpool, another group of boys formed a band with roots deeply steeped in American Blues music which always had a grittier, more rudimentary sound. By the time we get to Satisfaction, The Stones have refined their sound and image.. They’re playing into the counter-culture of the time and the kids are eating it up. Mick doesn’t want to just hold hands, he wants to meet up and get some satisfaction but the girl’s just at that time of the month where she’s on losing streak so she asks him to come back next week. This clear allusion to sex didn’t slide by the critics which is why this song was reviled and so was the band, something they would bear (but thrive in) for many decades to come as they were labelled “the bad boys of rock ‘n roll” and were instrumental in the coining of the phrase “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll”. Anyway, I’ve gone on long enough. Enjoy the weekend! Can’t wait for you to get to Gimme Shelter, Jumpin’ Jack Flash, or Sympathy for the Devil.
Another fun fact: this song made the fuzz pedal Tone Bender popular
Also The Yardbirds Heart Full Of Soul.
Did their just-released new song inspire you to take a dive into The Stones? Along with The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, and Dylan, The Rolling Stones are one of the most important rock/pop artists of the past 60 years.
Bill Wyman was a brilliant bassist - Charlie Watts, the drummer, was heavily influenced by jazz - all contributing to a differing Invasion sound compared to groups like the Beatles and the Dave Clark Five
"Lola" is a song written by Ray Davies and performed by English rock band the Kinks on their 1970 album Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One. If you want controversial lyrics listen to this song by the Kinks. The Kinks were part of the 1st British Invasion.
Yep, at the time, "Lola" took 'scandalous lyrics' to a completely new level. Among the reasons were lines like "girls will be boys and boys will be girls", whereas today it could be considered scandalous because of the line "But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man"! 😃
This song changed how I listened to music.
This song is notable for the “fuzz” sound in the main riff. 1965 is the cusp of a big change in guitar sound. The Beatles used a fuzz bass on a song from Rubber Soul (“Think for Yourself”) but the sound was still relatively new. Distorted guitars had shown up occasionally in the past but usually due to a mistake and they were still a bit of a novelty (“Rocket 88” by Ike Turner with Jackie Brenton; “Don’t Worry” by country singer Marty Robbins; “I Just Don’t Understand” by Ann-Margaret and “You Really Got Me” by the Kinks). The fuzz tone in this song was very deliberate and represented changes that were coming in guitar amp technology. The “distorted” guitar would be made mainstream by Jimi Hendrix and quickly change the sound of rock music, as you will clearly hear as you move through the Beatles’s catalog. On Rubber Soul, there is on song with fuzz guitar; on the next album (recorded only a few months later) you will hear fuzz guitars throughout. The Stones were masters of the guitar and early adopters of the distorted guitar sound. It was both the guitar sound and the guitar riff that made this song stand out in 1965. The very satirical lyrics (“he can’t be a man because he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me”) added to the charm of the song.
I have always believed, and will always claim that "Sympathy For the Devil" is the greatest rock song ever recorded - even with the minimal guitar
So for you the greatest rock song is a samba 😁
Always pay attention to when songs came out. A lot of the groups from the 60’s hung out together and listened to each others music and built songs more and more complex as the years went on. Just like early Beatles is simple compared to last songs by the Beatles. They grew and evolved over time and listen more i their peers. You can see some old videos of Mick Jagger hanging out with the Beatles and I think on Audio that one of the Beatles was raving about Led Zeppelin’s first album. Cheers.
As you say, a very simple song and the interest supplied by the different guitar and bass lines certainly helps avoid monotony. Its also worth noting that the fuzz guitar tone on that main riff was so revolutionary and startling at the time (at least on a mainstream record) that it was probably enough in itself to hold people’s interest and ensure the song’s place in rock history!
The bass always works as an anchor between the rhythm and melodic/harmonic Instruments. And in this case that Motown-influenced Bill Wyman's bass line did its magic maybe without even thinking about it.
And yes, music doesn't have to be over complicated or virtuosic to be good. It's a matter of good taste
Keith Richards is the king of riffs, following in the footsteps of his hero, Chuck Berry. Their creations are much more subtle than the impact they seem to hit with.
And Chuck's hero was Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
I am so shocked at your clarity of description of sound. at 6 mim in your face was so animated I was trying to think what was going on inside. Were you thinking the people that like this noise are neanderthals or what. The when you describe the music you seem to explain why is it so attracting to us even in its simple sounds because of the flipped riff to bass, although maybe you want to throw us head bangers a bone. Any case you are incredible to watch, so Fun, D
Keith Richards claims that this riff came to him in the middle of the night (possibly in a dream), he got up, sang it into a tape recorder & in the morning woke up to the tape of the riff & 45 minutes of snoring.
He says he always heard it as a horn riff. Oatis Reading later did a cover with horns.
It's one of the 1st pop/rock songs to use a distortion box on the guitar, which inspired an entire generation of guitarists.
The "I'm trying to make some girl" line was incredibly suggestive in a pop song in 1965. Possibly even more in the US than other parts of the world. Keep in mind this is a few years prior to music like Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Janis Joplin etc. In 64/65 the majority of pop music was still very clean cut, boys and girls holding hands, puppy love kind of stuff.
I remember when Satisfaction came out and I was so taken by the riff and the song. My memory is also that the Stones were the first to take singles beyond 3:00 minutes. In this video you cleared up a mystery for me! I have listened to the Stones for many years, and in spite of my tastes for prog and more complex music, I never tire of them. Their songs seem simple, and even rough, yet interesting and complex in some sort of way that I don't tire of them. I think I got a clue on how they did that from your analysis. Try out "Gimme Shelter" when you can!
The drummer never has a solo. Solid to the core. One of the best country/blues groups ever.
Seriously, though, this is a superb analysis!
I think you missed the lyrical content in your listen. This is more a comment on our society than anything else and I personally think that is what made it a hit. (aside from the musical parts you mentioned) First talking about how advertising was affecting society " telling me more and more, about some useless information supposed to drive my imagination" then "a man comes on and tells me how white my shirts should be, but he can't be a man cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me" and how that whole media thing affected courting girls in the last verse. I remember hearing this and thinking, Yeah they got that right. The other part that you mentioned was the "oboe" sound of the guitar. Many bands were beginning to experiment with sound at that time. I heard/or read, that the way they got that sound was by using a screwdriver to poke a hole in the speaker and then driving the speaker at a higher volume. This was the beginning of the use of distortion in rock at that time. From which later Heavy Metal was developed.
Please don't underestimate the importance of Charlie Watts on drums. His beat is driving the song forward. The beat is solid, and it never changes. This gives a structure for the two syncopated rhythms of the guitar and bass to play against. There is no way you could dance to it with only guitar and bass.
The "Stones" turned up when I was in the 3 rd. grade in 1961 and was an instant fan. Watching the music as it was being released gave my crew of friends the freedom of expression that had been squashed for generations.
Like the Beatles and most music of this time dancing was a big thing. This song is definitely a danceable tune...it also heralds the beginning of stoner music that was more heady with timing and tempo changes. Rock goes psychedelic...from there comes prog rock. 😊
Amy,
I am looking forward to your videos of this weekend! For They, them were right Amy (who is They, it's always "they did it"), you CAN NOT claim to study modern/rock music, be in that journey and skip The Stones, can not be done, period.
I am reminded of an interview with Keith Richard that I watched and the interviewer asked: Mister Richard, what is to you the pure essence of what Rock 'n Roll is? Keith Richard halted for a brief moment, maybe one second while he thought, and then answered in a thick British accent: "Me". For a moment I thought that that was quite an assumptious answer, thinks quite highly of himself but after thinking it through a bit deeper I concluded that the answer was about as good and, dare I say, accurate as any.
Keith Richard and Mick Jagger were part of the unofficial, unstructured delegation, so to speak, of young British University studentS who traveled to the US, got lost in the deep south and ended up in these black entertainment shacks where black musicians played the purest forms of blues music for audiences of their own. Amazed and mesmerized were these British youngsters. They went back home, told others about their experiences and started to play this blues music in faster tempos and putting a white civilization spin on it. And British Rock was born.
You're not going to get complexity from The Stones. They've done a lot musically, covered a lot of ground, but underneath is always very recognizable, the American Black folks rhythm 'n blues music. In the mid 80's they even jumped on The Disco bandwagon with the "Some Girls" album, but even it stringed on rhythm 'n blues foundations.
Satisfaction contains one of the most recognizable riffs known in rock and that before riffs were a thing. If produced today it would go nowhere and you can study it musically, and, as always, I appreciate what you've done, But this song is a vibe, imagine hearing it on the radio when it was current, and while you live as a youngster, with this song on the radio you decide what cool jeans jacket you're going to buy, with the necklace that has an aluminum piece emblem, discussing with your friends what you're going to do on the weekend. Your school "day/date agenda" has photos of The Rolling Stones in it, stores sell posters of this band. You hear news flashes of what The Stones are doing this week and what troubles they're getting into. While The Beatles are relatively clean cut, not offensive in any way to any 14 year old girl, The Stones have a right image of, and here's a new rock 'n roll term for you, "Nasty" in their music/act. A Bad boy element.
Today, 50-60 years later The Rolling Stones is a commodity, but not just a money value type of commodity, they are an institution, a representation of what rock 'n roll, in its purity is, a celebration of all what inspired The British rock invasion.
THE ROLLING STONES ARE A STANDARD, MAYBE THE STANDARD!
Amy, , I say it again you are most engaging, insightful and entertaining host of these channels
I’m sure once she hears some later tracks, she’ll come to like the Stones more. Paint it black, she’s a rainbow, jumping jack flash and you can’t always get… are more complex and should satisfy her own particular taste.
I hope she listens to at least one or two of those.
Perhaps Sympathy for the Devil as well?
@@beautifulhand1011 I just noticed that’s the next reaction!
@@beatmet2355 Can't wait:-)
Best yet.
It’s so ashtonishing how still one person on this earth don’t know Satisfaction. But I’m enjoying your video’s very much. Thanx!
If she has or she hasn’t, I have never considered the role of the bass chasing the guitar and am more informed for having audited this video.
It was the guitar tone (fuzz guitar) that made this stand out so much when it came out in the summer of 1965. This was new to all the young music fans' ears... and took everyone by storm.
I really hope you watch a live performance of Satisfaction, Amy. I really think the Stones are best appreciated along with the visual component. I think the emotion comes through so much more clearly if you can see Mick's body and facial expression.
There’s a Swift Boat scene in Apocalypse Now, American troops water skiing behind their boat, this song the perfect soundtrack background.
Wow that was such a scene 😮😮😮
Don't forget the early and unforgetable use of the Fuzz Tone pedal on Keith's guitar!
As Keith Richards said - Guitar solos come and go, but a good riff lasts forever! So true.
🤘😎
World's greatest rock band !
The common catalyst was the blues
Cool that you picked up immediately on bass x guitar counterpoint! It's crucial, as you say!
In terms of their public image, the Beatles were the Nice Boys and the Stones were the Bad Boys. (It's worth bearing in mind that at the time this was released, rock was considered "kiddie music".)
I would like to see you react to a later Stones song. They never got prog or anything like that, but some of their stuff is a bit more complex than this.
An interesting follow up song to Satisfaction would be The Police’s ‘Every breath you take.’ Great analysis of one of the most iconic songs of the 20th century!
She is amazing…A little chicken walk Jaggers moves would be icing for cake.
Wonder what she would do with AC/DC THUNDER STRUCK!
Interesting to see reviewers trying to understand the 60s with the now dominant view that it was all about The Beatles. At the time one question was "Beatles or Stones, who do you like/follow". They were equal competitors for fans, with possible 50 or 100 slightly lesse maybe bands. There was also no "mainstream media" other than top of the pops. Pirate Radio was the music scene and caused the starting of BBC Radio 1.
The line about ''losing streak'' is apparently a reference to menstruation. The riff was obviously a hook to get a hit single and it is a straight rock n roll dance record.
Would be great a reaction to a whole RS album. Personal suggestion: Aftermath, Exile on main St, Sticky Fingers
Keith's guitar sounds like a saxophone in this... perfect 😊
I m the same ago group as the Stones. They have been a stalwart of my life
Satisfaction is very catchy and simple song with a very strong riff. The Rolling Stones is a very well successful rock and rhythm and blues band that have made many hit songs. They are the oldest rock band still living with successful. But their music is simple and basic in terms of harmonies and melody. Mick Jagger is not a good singer (there are many others better), but is a very good live performer. Charlie Watts is a great drummer and Keith Richards and the other guitars are very good and experienced. They are better as a live band and their shows are almost always well succeeded. Mick Jagger is a great manager and helped to maintain the band until now.
The riff came to Keith in his sleep. He woke up played it into a tape recorder and fell back asleep...
Great work as always! I recommend sticking with the 60´s Stones for an interesting listening experience. Paint It Black, Mother´s Little Helper, Street Fighting Man and Gimme Shelter (for instance) are so much more than just rock´n´roll.
Happy that you got to the Stones! Even though they're not my favourite band, they made some of my favourite songs ever. Mick Jagger is not a crazy technical singer, but he's a hell of a performer and his way of singing is extremely expressive (you'll find out with songs like Sympathy for the Devil and Angie).
Kieth Richards, one of my all time fav guitars.
Yeah, when The Rolling Stones went on the Ed Sullivan show, Sullivan made them change "Let's Spend the NIGHT Together" to "Let's Spend Some TIME Together". They acquiesced, but every time they got to that line, Mick dramatically did a big eye roll lol.
There's a scene that was deleted from Pulp Fiction, in which the characters Mia and Vincent have a conversation about music. She asks if he's a Beatles guy or an Elvis guy, and talks about her theory that every guy is either a Beatles guy or an Elvis guy. I've always felt that one could very easily split the difference by saying they're a Rolling Stones guy. The Stones have the pop songcraft chops of the Beatles and the swagger of Elvis.
I think Mia said that you could like both Elvis and the Rolling Stones. But you will prefer one over the other. Then she pegged Vincent as an Elvis guy.
Someone once said to me you could tell the generational shift by if a person identifies with more with I Can't Get No Satisfaction or Stairway To Heaven.
You wouldn't be able to just see a person and estimate and assume where they will lie due to their age because people are going to have both albums the song is on.
She said that to me while watching my then boyfriend rolling a joint over Led Zeppelin IV.