Not sure why they covered this. Not that it's a bad song--just a little too obvious. I think it's about a spoiled little rich debutante whose pampered way of living crumbles when reality sets in. So, in that way it does fit in with the attitude Mick Jagger had towards these brats back in the 60s. Dylan once told Keith "I could've written 'Satisfaction' but you guys couldn't have written 'Like a Rolling Stone'. Keith's response while telling the story was "he was lucky he walked away with all of his teeth still in his head. He was right--but lucky"
I don't think they did it for "obvious" reasons (i.e. I guess you are saying that the band's name is in the song). They did it because it is a brilliant song and nobody BUT the Stones could cover this song and rival Dylan's version.
I don't think they did it for "obvious" reasons (i.e. I guess you are saying that the band's name is in the song). They did it because it is a brilliant song and nobody BUT the Stones could cover this song and rival Dylan's version.
Not sure why they covered this. Not that it's a bad song--just a little too obvious. I think it's about a spoiled little rich debutante whose pampered way of living crumbles when reality sets in. So, in that way it does fit in with the attitude Mick Jagger had towards these brats back in the 60s. Dylan once told Keith "I could've written 'Satisfaction' but you guys couldn't have written 'Like a Rolling Stone'. Keith's response while telling the story was "he was lucky he walked away with all of his teeth still in his head. He was right--but lucky"
I don't think they did it for "obvious" reasons (i.e. I guess you are saying that the band's name is in the song). They did it because it is a brilliant song and nobody BUT the Stones could cover this song and rival Dylan's version.
I don't think they did it for "obvious" reasons (i.e. I guess you are saying that the band's name is in the song). They did it because it is a brilliant song and nobody BUT the Stones could cover this song and rival Dylan's version.