Got stumped on this one that I heard on a local radio station this morning. As did a lot of other people. Here it is:
Name the Beatles song that has only 11 words to it?

Go ahead and Google away,it's not easy.

I want you
so bad
it's driving me mad
She's so heavy

mojoman wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 9:33am:

I want you so bad it's driving me mad She's so heavy

Do the rules call for 11 words, or 11 different words?

'Flying' has only one.... "Ah"

mojoman wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 9:33am:

I want you so bad it's driving me mad She's so heavy

Give that man a prize!! I swear they about 20 calls on KFOG on this and no one got it right. My guess was Her Majesty. But that's because I dialed first and was surprised to get through and that was the first thing that popped into my head. :pullanolte

I was focusing on Ringo figuring he would have had a hard time with more than 11 words.........

mojoman wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 9:33am:

I want you so bad it's driving me mad She's so heavy

The song with the least number of 'proper' words - yet also (I'm guessing) their longest 'proper' song (if you discount 'Revolution 9')

Gazza wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 10:05am:

mojoman wrote on Aug 26th, 2010 at 9:33am: I want you so bad it's driving me mad She's so heavy The song with the least number of 'proper' words - yet also (I'm guessing) their longest 'proper' song (if you discount 'Revolution 9')

Yeah it surprised the hell out of me. I always loved this song,but never stopped to think their is only 11 words.

wikapedia says 14 words?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Want_You_(She%27s_So_Heavy)

The song is an unusual Beatles composition for a variety of reasons, namely its length (nearly eight minutes), small number of lyrics (only fourteen different words are sung), three-minute descent through the same repeated guitar chords (a similar arpeggiated figure appears in another Lennon contribution to the album, "Because" as well as McCartney's "Oh! Darling"), and abrupt ending. It is also one of the last songs that the Beatles mixed as a group, on 20 August 1969.

My first though was Her Majesty as well cause the thing is only a few seconds. I never expected
it to be from their longest song!

Of course, wiki may have thrown a spanner in the works...

Speaking of the length of songs and the number of words in songs....

What is The Stones longest song? What is their shortest?


Anybody..?

*I am guessing "She Said Yeah" to be the shortest (2 min ...tops?). The longest being "Going Home" with 11 plus minutes. Am I correct? I didn't Google it. These are my two best guesses.

(Gazza ...some of us await you on this one...)


Ian

Without checking my i-tunes for easy reference - Goin' Home is their longest studio recording (11:16, according to my i-pod)

Longest track on a live record is 'Cant You Hear Me Knockin' on 'Live Licks' (10:02).

I'd need to dig out my 'Too Much Blood' 12-inch to confirm it, but wasnt one of the dance mixes of that seriously long? It took up one side of the 12-inch single.

While I have a Beatles thread going. Rolling Stone made a list of the top 100 Beatles songs. Yeah lists are generally stupid and a Beatles best of list is espicially tough. But here is the top 10 and I have to say it's a pretty good reflection imho.

1. "A Day in the Life"

2. "I Want to Hold Your Hand"

3. "Strawberry Fields Forever"

4. "Yesterday"

5. "In My Life"

6. "Something"

7. "Hey Jude"

8. "Let It Be"

9. "Come Together"

10. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"

Would Keith's "Hurricane" qualify as a legit release and the shortest Stones song?

sweetcharmedlife wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 11:01am:

While I have a Beatles thread going. Rolling Stone made a list of the top 100 Beatles songs. Yeah lists are generally stupid and a Beatles besyt of list is espicially tough. But here is the top 10 and I have to say it's a pretty good reflection imho. 1. "A Day in the Life" 2. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" 3. "Strawberry Fields Forever" 4. "Yesterday" 5. "In My Life" 6. "Something" 7. "Hey Jude" 8. "Let It Be" 9. "Come Together" 10. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"

i am the walrus
help
here comes the sun
nowhere man
all you need is love
ticket to ride
tommorow never knows
revolution  
its all to much
across the universe

I'm always amazed that George was only 26 when the Beatles split. twentyfuckinsix...that's crazy.

Longest songs released by The Rolling Stones (according to CD timings) are :

Goin' Home  (11:16)
Cant You Hear Me Knockin' ('Live Licks')  (10:02)
Midnight Rambler ('Ya Yas') (9:16)  (its listed as 8:32 on the vinyl and is 9:04 on the deluxe reissue)
Miss You (12 inch mix) (8:36) (an edited version on 'Rarities' is 7:33)
Out Of Control ('No Security') (7:59)
Sing This All Together (see What Happens) (7:57)
Sympathy For The Devil ('Love You Live') (7:57)
Winning Ugly (London Mix) (7:55)
You Can't Always Get What You Want ('Love You Live') (7:44)
You Can't Always Get What You Want ('Let It Bleed' version) (7:29)

(would need to check one of the dance mixes of 'Too Much Blood' though)

Shortest songs - with music (ie, excluding band intros and intro music on live albums, etc)

The shortest two are actually 'hidden bonus tracks')
Cosmic Christmas (on 'Satanic Majesties') (0:29)
Piano instrumental (actually 'Key To The Highway' performed by Stu) on 'Dirty Work' (0:33)

Proper 'songs' under two minutes :

Everybody Needs Somebody To Live ('Got Live if You Want It' EP) (0:36) (altho its part of a medley)
She Said Yeah (1:39)
I Wanna Be Your Man (1:43)
Title 5 (1:47)
Twenty Flight Rock  (1:47)
Not Fade Away (1:48)
Come On (1:50)
Susie Q (1:50)
I Want To Be Loved (1:51)
Fortune Teller ('Got Live if You Want It') (1:57)
One More Try (1:59)

All covers, except 'One More Try' and 'Title 5', which is an instrumental.

The shortest 'track' listed is Charlie's intro of Marianne Faithfull on 'Rock 'n' Roll Circus' - 6 seconds.

Shortest Beatles songs (again, excluding intros and interviews etc) :

Her Majesty (0:26)
From Us To You (from 'Live at the BBC') (0:27)
Maggie Mae (0:40)
Dig It (0:50)
Wild Honey Pie (0:55)

Longest :
Revolution 9 (8:23)
I Want You (She's So Heavy) (7:47)
Hey Jude (7:20)
Its All Too Much (6:22)
A Day In The Life (5:36)

Ok...then what is the median time of the Stones catalog...and average length of the live tracks???


KIDDING!!!!!

1. "A Day in the Life"

2. "I Want to Hold Your Hand"

3. "Strawberry Fields Forever"

4. "Yesterday"

5. "In My Life"

6. "Something"

7. "Hey Jude"

8. "Let It Be"

9. "Come Together"

10. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"

Not many " Macca " songs on that list !!!

Joey wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 6:25pm:

1. "A Day in the Life" 2. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" 3. "Strawberry Fields Forever" 4. "Yesterday" 5. "In My Life" 6. "Something" 7. "Hey Jude" 8. "Let It Be" 9. "Come Together" 10. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" Not many " Macca " songs on that list !!!

There's enough Joey. :weed

Hmmmph well I knew "Goin Home" had to be it.

I do not count medley's or bonus stuff that is not really a song but are just peices of music added ( such as Stu's Piano playing at the end of Dirty Work. I mean actual songs from studio recordings.  I am not speaking of live material either. Hence in my opinion on "She Said Yeah" is pretty darn close.

Thanks and Props to Gazza. I seriously don't know how this guy does it? Do you have a data-base you can query based on certain criteria? Do you scrounge the internet? Do you have a program of some sort to assist you in always coming up with these "read outs"? Simply curious and thankful.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 11:21pm:

Hmmmph well I knew "Goin Home" had to be it. I do not count medley's or bonus stuff that is not really a song but are just peices of music added ( such as Stu's Piano playing at the end of Dirty Work. I mean actual songs from studio recordings.  I am not speaking of live material either. Hence in my opinion on "She Said Yeah" is pretty darn close. Thanks and Props to Gazza. I seriously don't know how this guy does it? Do you have a data-base you can query based on certain criteria? Do you scrounge the internet? Do you have a program of some sort to assist you in always coming up with these "read outs"? Simply curious and thankful. Ian

LOL. Nope. Much easier than that, Ian. I just switched on my i-tunes, typed in 'Rolling Stones' and arranged for the songs to be listed in length order.

Very good guess on 'She Said Yeah'. I knew it was short, but didnt realise it was THAT short.

Being also a Beatlesfan I've always realised that not everything they have done was good, to put it mildly. So a top 10 with "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and/or "All You Need Is Love" makes me VERY VERY sad! They have made so much great music. Unbelievable!!

" Being also a Beatlesfan I've always realised that not everything they have done was good, to put it mildly. So a top 10 with "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and/or "All You Need Is Love" makes me VERY VERY sad! They have made so much great music. Unbelievable !!!! "

<  --- Is " Please Please Me " a song about oral sex ?

Gazza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2010 at 9:30am:

Ian Billen wrote on Aug 28th, 2010 at 11:21pm: Hmmmph well I knew "Goin Home" had to be it. I do not count medley's or bonus stuff that is not really a song but are just peices of music added ( such as Stu's Piano playing at the end of Dirty Work. I mean actual songs from studio recordings.  I am not speaking of live material either. Hence in my opinion on "She Said Yeah" is pretty darn close. Thanks and Props to Gazza. I seriously don't know how this guy does it? Do you have a data-base you can query based on certain criteria? Do you scrounge the internet? Do you have a program of some sort to assist you in always coming up with these "read outs"? Simply curious and thankful. Ian LOL. Nope. Much easier than that, Ian. I just switched on my i-tunes, typed in 'Rolling Stones' and arranged for the songs to be listed in length order. Very good guess on 'She Said Yeah'. I knew it was short, but didnt realise it was THAT short.

_______________________

ahhh the ipod eh? well...whatever works. I didn't know SSY was quite THAT short either. It is more a minute and a half for cryin out loud than a two minute song. I was thinking say 1:56 or something.

Off topic, I saw on IORR how you stated to a poster in that ABB wasn't marketed/promoted much. I felt the same way for the most part. The poster stated that it was possibly promoted more than any Stones album since Tattoo You and the person gave some very credible points as to why it was.

The thing is ....why didn't we hear about it? I saw for Voodoo Lounge they would have a whole page advertisement on the album in Rolling Stone. This time out, I didn't see anything like that. It was almost a bit "boot-leggish" in how it was released and the look of the cover and things. It wasn't to "look" commercial at all.

Was this the whole concept of a bigger Bang? Little production and very stripped down in the studio. No pop influence at all this time out. I am thinking promoting/marketing the album went against the albums concept. It was supposed to be no fluff, no bull, and stripped down to hard core basics. However, the record company would probably care less on that aspect and just would push the album regardless in hopes to getting it sold one way or another. Still it doesn't seem as though much was put forth, regardless of the points brought up on IORR.

Maybe the concept was to have it as real to the core concept of the recording as possible. It still sold 3.5 million copies and marketing it wasn't going to drive those numbers up much anyway possibly. Possibly the record company had that notion and treated it "as is".

I certainly understand major labels don't really work like (well normally they don't that I have ever heard of) that BUT it is something to ponder. Maybe they figured they would only get 3 mill or so anyway so why waste money on marketing something that was supposed to be a non-commercial affair (not really many radio friendly tunes this time, stripped down, hardly any tricky production etc. etc.) for the most part. Maybe they knew the writing on the wall in this day and age and figured ...keep it true to it's form.

Hmmm?


Ian

I thought it got a decent amount of promotion from everyone - everyone but the band.

When a record comes out by a band as big as the Stones, obviously there's going to be a lot of media coverage, and for the first few weeks there was plenty. However, record companies will only really push a new record for a few weeks and then (naturally enough) they'll re-focus on something else.

Its really up to the band to keep the public's awareness of the record alive. Their failure to play many songs from it speaks volumes to me for how little they believed in it. I personally found it bordering on negligent the fact that when you went to a Stones concert (where people were paying as much as $500 a ticket!) you could buy every form of exorbitantly priced kitsch tenuously associated with the Stones - but you couldnt buy a note of their music, let alone the record they were supposedly touring behind.

If you include the CD with the price of a ticket (as some acts such as Prince have done in the past), then the audience really has no excuse for not being aware of the new songs (and the band shouldnt be feeling embarrassed or guilty about playing new songs anyway).

They played almost 150 shows on that tour over two years, raked in $550 million and played to something like 6 or 7 million people. The record sold, what, about 2.5 million during the lifespan of the tour? There was no one to blame for that level of underperformance but themselves. It was a good record and the songs were designed to be played live.

Unfortunately, by charging silly money for tickets, the band effectively hands over the control of the show to the audience. Never a good thing from an artistic standpoint. You attract an ageing audience which is largely made up of people with more money than taste (ie, most of them have little interest in the Stones beyond their best known songs, have no interest/knowledge of their new material and are there to see the 'legend') - and the Stones feel 'obliged' to cater for that demographic. They effectively become a corporate jukebox. So, its an easy payday to play a setlist with a higher % than ever before of warhorses. They dont get challenged to take chances with more than a couple of songs in the show, they dont feel motivated to play anything new (by the time the tour ended, they were playing about 1 ABB song per show - in some cases, none at all).  Leavell has even acknowledged how difficult it is to pitch song ideas to Jagger - he wont touch more than one ballad per show and any suggestions from the Jones era that arent warhorses are almost certain to get struck out. The greatest frontman in the world seems to be very reluctant to take the chance of losing the attention of his audience for more than three or four minutes in case he never gets it back. Amazing, isnt it?

To me, the Stones are, or should be, better than that.  Its a nonsense to believe that an audience cant enjoy a show where they hear a few songs they're unfamiliar with. Didnt seem to be a problem in the past and this revisionism towards their back catalogue seems to have only kicked in from 2002 onwards when they finally accepted their status as a nostalgia act. The Stones have a lot of great, great songs beyond what is on 40 Licks.

Gazza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2010 at 8:18am:

I thought it got a decent amount of promotion from everyone - everyone but the band. When a record comes out by a band as big as the Stones, obviously there's going to be a lot of media coverage, and for the first few weeks there was plenty. However, record companies will only really push a new record for a few weeks and then (naturally enough) they'll re-focus on something else. Its really up to the band to keep the public's awareness of the record alive. Their failure to play many songs from it speaks volumes to me for how little they believed in it. I personally found it bordering on negligent the fact that when you went to a Stones concert (where people were paying as much as $500 a ticket!) you could buy every form of exorbitantly priced kitsch tenuously associated with the Stones - but you couldnt buy a note of their music, let alone the record they were supposedly touring behind. If you include the CD with the price of a ticket (as some acts such as Prince have done in the past), then the audience really has no excuse for not being aware of the new songs (and the band shouldnt be feeling embarrassed or guilty about playing new songs anyway). They played almost 150 shows on that tour over two years, raked in $550 million and played to something like 6 or 7 million people. The record sold, what, about 2.5 million during the lifespan of the tour? There was no one to blame for that level of underperformance but themselves. It was a good record and the songs were designed to be played live. Unfortunately, by charging silly money for tickets, the band effectively hands over the control of the show to the audience. Never a good thing from an artistic standpoint. You attract an ageing audience which is largely made up of people with more money than taste (ie, most of them have little interest in the Stones beyond their best known songs, have no interest/knowledge of their new material and are there to see the 'legend') - and the Stones feel 'obliged' to cater for that demographic. They effectively become a corporate jukebox. So, its an easy payday to play a setlist with a higher % than ever before of warhorses. They dont get challenged to take chances with more than a couple of songs in the show, they dont feel motivated to play anything new (by the time the tour ended, they were playing about 1 ABB song per show - in some cases, none at all).  Leavell has even acknowledged how difficult it is to pitch song ideas to Jagger - he wont touch more than one ballad per show and any suggestions from the Jones era that arent warhorses are almost certain to get struck out. The greatest frontman in the world seems to be very reluctant to take the chance of losing the attention of his audience for more than three or four minutes in case he never gets it back. Amazing, isnt it? To me, the Stones are, or should be, better than that.  Its a nonsense to believe that an audience cant enjoy a show where they hear a few songs they're unfamiliar with. Didnt seem to be a problem in the past and this revisionism towards their back catalogue seems to have only kicked in from 2002 onwards when they finally accepted their status as a nostalgia act. The Stones have a lot of great, great songs beyond what is on 40 Licks.

________________________________

Nice read. I remember hearing and I am still suprised that they were not playing anything from ABB at some shows by tours end. That is a first for them. IT was a very, very good record and packed a punch. I was expecting them to do a number ( a good 4) of those tunes live ...but it never got to that. 3 then 1 then 0?

As an album A Bigger Bang has a question mark on it in areas (besides it's content which was darn good).

Ian

They played nothing from ABB at the two Beacon shows that were filmed by Scorsese.

They also played nothing from it at the show in Madrid that Gottorollme and I attended in June '07. That said, it was a bit of a weird setlist that night. Sometimes they made changes if Mick was having voice issues (they did that at one of the Twickenham shows in 2006). Maybe in this case it was something to do with them cancelling a show at the same venue in 2006 - the setlist included stuff like 'Night Time' which had been pretty much dropped since 2006 in favour of 'I'll Go Crazy')

Still a very enjoyable show, nonetheless even if Keith had a few 'moments', but it felt a bit odd coming out of an ABb stadium show without a single song being played off the album they were touring behind. I attended the final four shows of the tour (Slane plus the three gigs at the 02) and 'Rough Justice' (played at all four shows) was the only song played off ABB.  

They actually were playing 4 songs a night from ABB on the early part of the tour. It went down to about three mostly but by the time the Euro 2006 tour finally got under way, they'd brought 'Streets of Love' into the set and were featuring a few from it. On one night in Vienna (the 2nd European show in July '06) they actually played five ABB songs for the only time on the whole tour - Oh No, Not You Again ; Rain Fall Down ; Streets of Love ; This Place Is Empty : Rough Justice. They did 21 songs that night, which was quite long for Europe. By 2007, they were playing 18-19 songs - and when they start trimming the setlists, its never the warhorses that get axed.