RollingStones 1967 GeredMankowitz 1500 crop

between the buttons and the dandelion, we love you!

GREAT SINGLES IN 1967 by es­tab­lished artists that should have been BIG hits but weren’t were common. For ex­ample, Buf­falo Spring­field’s Mr. Soul, the Byrds’ Lady Friend, and the Hol­lies’ King Midas In Re­verse (and I could go on but that’s grist for an­other mill). But per­haps the biggest dis­ap­point­ment was the Rolling Stones second single of the year, We Love You / Dan­de­lion. These are two sides of one of the great sin­gles of 1967, which re­main under-appreciated more than forty years later. 

Now, at the time of the re­lease of We Love You / Dan­de­lion, I was 15 years old. I did not buy the record when it came out, as I loathed the Stones—es­pe­cially Mick Jag­ger’s voice. During the Christmas season of 1967, I heard the Stones’ new album, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST.

It was at Susie Cor­gan’s 16th birthday party, where I was more a wall­flower than a par­tic­i­pant in the boy/girl games that were played. (This is where those who know me now think, “No way!”)

Both my best friend Donnie Corby—also at­tending the party, also a wee bit on the shy side—and I had an epiphany of sorts upon hearing the first track on the first side’s opening lines: “Why don’t we sing this song al­to­gether, open our heads let the pic­tures come. And if we close all our eyes to­gether, then we will see where we all come from.” 

From that mo­ment on, I was con­verted! I bought the album the next day and then went after the ear­lier single, We Love You / Dan­de­lion, which I found at the local Mc­Cro­ry’s for 79¢—and it even in­cluded the great (and now rather rare) pic­ture sleeve. But be­fore the Stones’ foray into psy­che­delia, there were other ex­cur­sions …

 

RRR Stones 1967 header

Paint it black, you devil

In early 1966, the Stones com­pleted the record­ings in­tended for their fourth long-playing album (it would be their sixth in the US). Re­leased in the UK in April, AFTERMATH was a bril­liant re­al­iza­tion of black rhythm & blues melded with con­tem­po­rary white rock and pop music. The album con­tained four­teen tracks and was more than fifty-three min­utes long, an enor­mous amount of music crammed onto LP for the mid-’60s.

It was fol­lowed in April by their new single, the creme de la creme of the ses­sions, Paint It Black. The stand-alone single would top the charts in both the UK and the US and else­where in the world, be­coming on the group’s sig­na­ture songs.

In June, AFTERMATH was fi­nally re­leased in the US, but in a de­cid­edly dif­ferent format: in­stead of four­teen tracks, there were eleven. The orig­inal British ver­sion of the album opened with Moth­er’s Little Helper; on this Amer­ican ver­sion, that track was dropped and re­placed by the single, Paint It Black.

 

By 1966, the term ‘rock’ re­ferred to a more in­clu­sive, eclectic form of rock & roll.

 

Three other tracks were left off and its run­ning time was held back to just under forty-four min­utes. Still, without the British Decca album to com­pare it with, the Amer­ican London album was just fine, thank you.

Rock & roll was be­coming an al­most mean­ing­less term by 1966, with rock re­fer­ring to a more in­clu­sive, eclectic form with at the very least pre­ten­sions to­wards a music for adults with an IQ above 90. Es­pe­cially the kind of elec­tric pop/rock ex­ploding around the world.

In this case, some rel­a­tively es­o­teric in­stru­ments were worked into the arrange­ments by Brian Jones, in­cluding sitar, marimbas, and dul­cimer. Nonethe­less, AFTERMATH was rooted firmly in black Amer­ican blues id­ioms, the last Stones album for two years to make that claim.

 

AftermathDecca

The UK ver­sion of AFTERMATH on Decca had four­teen tracks that ran 53 min­utes, an ex­tra­or­di­nary length at the time! It opened with Moth­er’s Little Helper, but fea­tured no hit single. In the ’60s, few Amer­ican record-buyers knew of these facts, let alone ever saw a “British im­port,” which did not make a dent in the US market until the early ’70s, and then only in small “mom and pop” shops.

 

AftermathLondon

The US ver­sion on London had only eleven tracks that ran a “mere” 42 min­utes. It opened with the hit single Paint It Black, while Moth­er’s Little Helper was pulled as the next Amer­ican single. De­spite this being as drastic a butchering job by London of the Stones’ in­tended album as any­thing the Bea­tles re­ceived at the hands of Capitol, it can be ar­gued that the London ver­sion of the album is more con­cise and better pro­grammed and there­fore a stronger album. Dif­ferent cover art was also used by London, again ar­guably stronger than the Decca cover.

Something happened to me yesterday

In the latter part of 1966, the Stones recorded their fifth studio LP album, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS. While there was a sense of black blues-based music in some of the tracks, by this time Jagger and Richards were heavily in­flu­enced by Bob Dylan and Ray Davies’ growing fas­ci­na­tion with the sounds of the old Eng­lish music halls. (Like, who wasn’t?) Oddly, nothing on the album shows any in­flu­ence from the Bea­tles’ REVOLVER album, re­leased just as the ear­liest BUTTONS ses­sions com­menced.

BETWEEN THE BUTTONS was damn near pure pop for the now people of then. There was nothing re­motely psy­che­delic about the album—despite the be­lief of many that Some­thing Hap­pened To Me Yes­terday may be an al­lu­sion to some­one’s first trip: the song’s arrange­ment is old-timey music hall (‘vaude­ville’ to us Yanks) and could be about any kind of first en­counter (as some have imag­ined a gay fling).

One can make an ar­gu­ment for the wet, out-of-focus cover photo for ac­knowl­edging that the times they were a-changing, but that’s about as trippy as the album gets!

Re­leased during the first weeks of 1967, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS was com­pletely un­ex­pected by fans. Due to sev­eral factors—notably the less than over­whelm­ingly fa­vor­able re­sponse that it re­ceived and that the large pressing runs made the album a staple of cut-out bins na­tion­wide. Alas, BUTTONS suf­fered for years with a ques­tion­able rep­u­ta­tion.

Oddly, for me, it was the second Stones album to cap­ture my fancy, and even then an en­tire year after its re­lease. It seemed like I went through the whole of the ’70s without anyone else rating the album among his or her fa­vorites. 1

I say “amazed” be­cause I was hardly much of a fan of EJ, then and now. If I re­member cor­rectly, 30 of his fave 50 would have been on my fave 50 list. It in­cluded a high placing for BETWEEN THE BUTTONS, which stood out at the time for being a rather daring choice for such a list.

He also ranked PET SOUNDS high, not a pop­ular se­lec­tion at the time. (I have spent more than a few min­utes on my search en­gine at­tempting to find this ar­ticle, to no avail.)

 

The al­ter­ations of the UK ver­sion of BETWEEN THE BUTTONS by London was nowhere near as se­vere this time around: of the twelve tracks on the Decca record, two were re­placed by the cur­rent hit single Ruby Tuesday / Let’s Spend The Night To­gether, again making the Amer­ican album a stronger record. The same cover art was used on both. 2

America’s most common cut-out

In 1968, vir­tu­ally every Amer­ican record com­pany ceased pro­ducing new ti­tles in both mono and stereo; mil­lions of deleted mono LPs were dumped into cut-out bins around the country. They could be had for as little as 99¢ (stereo cut-outs ap­peared later and were usu­ally $1.99). Few ti­tles were as preva­lent as a cut-out than the mono BETWEEN THE BUTTONS (al­though the Who’s HAPPY JACK was a close second).

So, aside from the many copies of BUTTONS that I bought during those first post-high school years and traded to friends who didn’t haunt re­mainder racks, I knew of no one who rated the Stones’ fifth studio LP as highly as me!

And there was a reason—during the early months of 1967, the radio and the market were for­ever changed! Shortly after the re­lease of BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and its at­ten­dant single, Let’s Spend The Night To­gether / Ruby Tuesday, the Byrds and Bea­tles sig­naled the dawning of the what some would call the Age of Aquarius with their new sin­gles, So You Want To Be A Rock ‘N’ Roll Star (Jan­uary) and Straw­berry Fields For­ever / Penny Lane (Feb­ruary), re­spec­tively.

In April, the Doors’ Light My Fire and Jef­ferson Air­plane’s Some­body To Love an­nounced their psy­che­delic pres­ence with au­thority and turned more than a few heads (and turning some lis­teners into heads). After which, it might be said that all hell broke loose!

By June 1 and the re­lease of SGT. PEPPER, the Stones’ latest records sounded dated, like yes­ter­day’s pa­pers! (Ex­cepting the haunting, out-of-character Ruby Tuesday.) They needed a new bag—and they needed it right quickly! 

 

Breaking stones on wheels 

The first half of 1967 was a dif­fi­cult one for the Rolling Stones: Mick, Keith, and es­pe­cially Brian had been busted for pos­ses­sion of what­ever the hell Eng­land called “con­trolled sub­stances.” The charges were nonsensical—clearly an at­tempt to at­tract at­ten­tion by ar­resting celebri­ties for of­fenses that would have never at­tracted the po­lice had a normal stiff done the same deed.

The sub­se­quent court trial and ab­surd sen­tencing of Jagger and Richards—Mick re­ceived three months in prison for pos­ses­sion of four (4!) am­phet­a­mine pills he had ob­tained legally on the con­ti­nent while Keith got twelve months for al­lowing his house to be used by others for smoking cannabis!

The harsh­ness of the sen­tences so ap­palled The Times that they crit­i­cized it with an ed­i­to­rial fa­mously ti­tled “Who Breaks A But­terfly Upon A Wheel?”—served as the in­spi­ra­tion for the group’s next single, the as­tounding We Love You.

Wikipedia’s sum­ma­tion of the record leaves much to be de­sired. They state that We Love You was “an ironic, tongue in cheek slap in the faces of the po­lice ha­rassing them and the Stones’ true feel­ings about it, putting on a co­op­er­a­tive and friendly face while in­side they were seething with anger and in­dig­na­tion (as is rep­re­sented by Brian Jones’ sur­real Mel­lotron in the back­ground).”

I agree with the irony but I see nothing re­motely tongue-in-cheek about the recording. I also have never re­lated the sound of the Mel­lotron with harsh feel­ings, nor have I heard of anyone else who shares that ob­ser­va­tion. (That does not make me cor­rect and them in­cor­rect, but it would seem to make their con­clu­sion less than uni­versal.)

 

Lock the doors around we

The Wikipedians con­tinue: “We Love You is a psy­che­delic col­lage of jail sounds, Nicky Hop­kins’ fore­boding piano riff, and oth­er­worldly tape-delayed vocal ef­fects, fea­turing a vis­iting John Lennon and Paul Mc­Cartney on high har­monies.”

This ig­nores Jag­ger’s ex­tra­or­di­nary lead vocal that veers about, flirting with lewd­ness, anger, humor, and even a dose of Summer of Love-ness, all of which leaves an ironic af­ter­taste. It also ig­nores the key to the whole arrange­ment and per­for­mance: Charlie Watts ex­plo­sive pounding on his kit!

At a time when many were ac­knowl­edging the idio­syn­cratic com­plexity of Keith Moon’s drum­ming and the soon-to-be revered sim­plicity of Ginger Baker, Charlie blows every rock drummer in the world off the stage with this recording!

And Bill Wyman’s bril­liant, swooping, dive-bombing bass line was mixed up­front so that it es­sen­tially re­places the missing lead and rhythm guitar parts.

As Paul Williams first pointed out in an early issue of Craw­daddy mag­a­zine, the best rock records can de­liver an in­cred­ible intellectual/emotional mes­sage to seem­ingly count­less lis­teners. To over-intellectualize the lyrics—which, ad­mit­tedly, was all the rage in the ’60s and has not ever re­ally qui­eted down—can neuter the ef­fect of a great rock/pop’s record’s gestalt.

While the lyrics to songs such as this and the Beach Boys’ Good Vi­bra­tions are al­most void of nar­ra­tive con­tent, the im­pact (I prefer “the wallop”) of the record should be in­dis­putable to even non-fans.

 

Rolling Stones - We Love You

Accurate lyrics to We Love You

These may be the most ac­cu­rate lyrics that you can find on the Internet—at least if you use the first page of Google for your sources. Each of the sites that I checked out there got at least two major sec­tions of two lines in­cor­rect. As for the layout of the lines and the punc­tu­a­tion, that may be a matter of in­ter­pre­ta­tion.

But, if you use the lyrics as I have set them below and follow along on the record (both the mono single and stereo LP ver­sions of the record can be heard on the In­ternet), I be­lieve you will find mine ac­cu­rate.

The video above is the pro­mo­tional film made for the re­lease of the single in 1967. The eas­iest way to de­ter­mine the ac­cu­racy of my tran­scrip­tion below would be to open this blog in two win­dows, one with the video playing, the other with the lyrics below so that you can follow along. Need­less to say, there is no bouncing ball!

We don’t care if you only love we.
We don’t care if you only love we.
We love you. We love you.
And we hope that you will love we, too.

We love they. We love they.
And we want you to love they, too.

We don’t care if you hound we and lock the doors around we.

Love can’t get our minds off—we love you (we love you).
You will never win we—your uni­forms don’t fit we.
We forget the place we’re in
 ’cause we love you.
We love you. (Of course, we do.)

I love you. I love you.
And I hope that you will love them, too.

We love you (we do).
We love you (we do) …

We Love You has been in­ter­preted as a gen­uine at­tempt by the Stones to con­nect with the ‘flower power’ gen­er­a­tion which fails be­cause, well, Stones will be Stones and a bit of testi­ness will al­ways out in the end.

It has also been in­ter­preted as a jaded view of the whole hip­ness that was em­a­nating from San Fran­cisco out­wards and making in­roads into cities around the world, no­tably London.

Some have even in­ter­preted it as a sar­castic re­tort to the Bea­tles’ All You Need Is Love—in­cluding John Lennon.

 

Mick, Keith, Marianne, and Oscar

As the Bea­tles do, so do the Stones: fol­lowing the crit­ical and pop­ular suc­cess of the Bea­tles’ pro­mo­tional films for Straw­berry Fields For­ever and Penny Lane, the Stones had a short film made for their new single. The film in­cluded footage from the sin­gle’s recording ses­sions with seg­ments of a ‘play’ that re-enacted the 1895 trial of Oscar Wilde (for ho­mo­sex­u­ality) star­ring Jagger and Richards with Mar­i­anne Faith­full. It was con­sid­ered con­tro­ver­sial for the times and the BBC pop show Top Of The Pops re­fused to play it!

The flip-side of London 45-905 was the equally vi­able Dan­de­lion. It was first at­tempted during the BETWEEN THE BUTTONS ses­sions in June 1966, al­though the re­leased ver­sion was recorded in Au­gust and Sep­tember of 1967 along with the A-side.

Un­less one wishes to in­clude ear­lier tracks like Paint It Black and Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby (Standing In The Shadows) as psychedelic—which I do not, al­though I would cer­tainly argue them as precursors—then We Love You / Dan­de­lion qualify as the Stones’ first ex­cur­sion into psy­che­delic pop music. Like their pre­vious single, Let’s Spend The Night To­gether / Ruby Tuesday, two po­ten­tial chart-topping sides were paired as one great single.

Fi­nally, Dan­de­lion only qual­i­fies as psy­che­delic be­cause of the arrange­ment and pro­duc­tion: the lyrics deal with aging and the ten­dency people have to blow the puffy dan­de­lion seedlings into the air. And, as the dan­de­lion is a weed it hardly qual­i­fies as a nod to­wards ‘flower power,’ so one not be in­cor­rect to as­sume a cer­tain irony also per­vades this song.

 

London used dif­ferent pressing plants, each of which dressed the la­bels dif­fer­ently.

On the American charts

Also like the pre­vious single, due to is­sues that have never re­ally been ex­plained, We Love You was frowned upon by Top 40 sta­tions across the US. While it did re­ceive some air­play, it failed to crack any major survey: it peaked at #50 on Bill­board’s Hot 100 and reached a sim­i­larly dis­ap­pointing #54 on the Cash Box Top 100. 

While We Love You was recorded and re­leased as the A-side in the UK on Au­gust 18, it was im­me­di­ately con­tro­ver­sial. This no doubt af­fected the group’s US rep­re­sen­ta­tive, London. They is­sued the single as a double-A-sided record two weeks later. Both sides de­buted on Cash Box’s Top 100 on Sep­tember 9: Dan­de­lion at #51 and We Love You trailing at #66 in­di­cating that from the get-go London was pushing the Stones’ in­tended B-side over their choice of A-side.

The former peaked at #6 (four weeks in the Top 10) while the latter never en­tered the Top 50! On Bill­board’s Hot 100, Dan­de­lion only reached #14—which is al­most al­ways re­ferred to by 21st-century writers as the record’s peak position—while We Love You did n fact make it to #50! I heard Dan­de­lion on the radio all the time but don’t re­member hearing We Love You until I bought the record months later!

While We Love You did reach the Top 10 in England—which, given the group’s ex­pec­ta­tions of an­other #1, was quite a bring­down—Dan­de­lion was all but ig­nored in the Stones’ home­land.

 

TheirSatanic

Their satanic majesties request and require 

Fol­lowing the lack of the suc­cess ex­pected of the single, the group nonethe­less plunged com­pletely into psy­che­delia with their next album, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST, ready for the Christmas market of 1967. While this album spent years being ma­ligned by count­less critics, it was the record that turned me into a Stones fa­natic!

Like so many other al­bums, I play ed­itor and pro­grammer, making log­ical changes that would en­hance the album as a lis­tening and in­tel­lec­tual ex­pe­ri­ence. For in­stance, had they edited the ram­bling Sing This All To­gether (See What Hap­pens) down from its 8:33 of playing time, they could have easily fit in Dan­de­lion, which would have made a much stronger ending to the first side—especially if they re­tained the piece of We Love You that served as a tag-on coda for the single ver­sion of the track.

Sim­i­larly, had they re­moved the last track, the music hall or vaude­vil­lian (and mostly point­less) On With The Show and re­placed it with We Love You, the whole album would have ended on a much stronger note. It would also have made the en­tire album seem more ‘serious’—whereas On With The Show im­plied that it had all been a bit of a lark, that none of it mattered—when, in fact, it did matter.

This was a far cry in­deed from the closing of SGT. PEPPER there, A Day In The Life made ap­parent that every­thing was se­rious, every­thing mat­tered, and that every mo­ment could be the final mo­ment.

The in­clu­sion of We Love You and Dan­de­lion on THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST would have made it both a stronger record—and it might have es­caped decades of de­ri­sion from rock­writers who, ad­mit­tedly, should have known better—and a more com­mer­cial record—although the album sold phe­nom­e­nally upon re­lease, reaching #3 on Bill­board’s best-selling LP survey, a fact that the al­bum’s critics al­ways leave un­men­tioned.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_US2

The Avid Record Collector

Ac­cording to my old friend the Avid Record Col­lector, a copy of the UK record of We Love You / Dan­de­lion (Decca F-12654) or the US record (London 45-905) in NM con­di­tion is worth ap­prox­i­mately $15-20. But the US pic­ture sleeve (also London 45-905) is quite an­other story: it is one of the rarest of Stones sleeves. De­ter­mining a NM value is dif­fi­cult: without thinking, I guessed $300.

A little re­search on Pop­sike shows an array of prices paid; below are six “re­cent” ex­am­ples, listed chrono­log­i­cally: 

•   in 2007, a sleeve graded VG+ fetched $460
•   in 2008, a sleeve graded VG+ fetched $300;
•   in 2010, a sleeve graded M- but with “slight creases” (making it VG+) fetched $273;
•   in 2011, a copy graded VG+ sold for $500;
•   in 2012, a sleeve graded NM fetched $335; and
•   in 2015, a sleeve graded VG+ but looks VG sold for $276.

Using these (and without having feed­back from es­tab­lished dealers), I would not be un­com­fort­able listing them in a price guide with a sug­gested NM value of $400-500. 3

The NM value is, per­haps, a little on the high end, given the lack of re­cent sales. But the very lack of doc­u­mented sales on Pop­sike speaks clearly of the sleeve’s rarity in pre­mium con­di­tion.

 

London used dif­ferent pressing plants, each of which dressed the la­bels dif­fer­ently.

A gallery of picture sleeves

Here find a se­lec­tion of every pic­ture sleeve that I could find on the In­ternet for We Love You / Dan­de­lion. Only the front side is shown, as most back­sides are re­dun­dant or print in­for­ma­tion. Ex­cep­tions below in­clude the Italian and Japanese sleeve. As I have no standing in valuing non-US re­leases, there are no values as­signed to these sleeves; they are merely for your ed­i­fi­ca­tion. Sleeves are listed al­pha­bet­i­cally by country.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Belgium

Bel­gium used a black and white photo from the BETWEEN THE BUTTONS photo ses­sions and de­signed this ef­fec­tively haunting sleeve. In my opinion, one of the best Stones sleeves ever!

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Denmark2

Den­mark also gave us a black and white sleeve, this time from the AFTERMATH era. Nice sleeve, in line with the tasteful im­ages that many of their record graphics pre­sented at the same time their per­sonas of wild boys were being played upon by man­age­ment and media.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_France

France used a more re­cent color photo but in a de­cid­edly mun­dane manner. Un­ex­cep­tional sleeve.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_German

Ger­many (West Ger­many) used a color photo of the flower-powered boys against an odd choice of bright blue and dull green fields.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Iran

Iran gave their record buyers a WE LOVE YOU extended-play album with a couple of older tracks that were out of place next to the psy­che­delia of the newer record­ings. The sleeve is a nice black and white ver­sion of that found on the HIGH TIDE & GREEN GRASS but with a light sepia-like tint.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_ItalyAA

Italy lifted the cover art for the US com­pi­la­tion album FLOWERS but with a garish (not psy­che­delic) or­ange back­ground. The back cover has a black and white photo for the Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby pe­riod.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Japan2

Japan used a BUTTONS photo on the front cover and an ear­lier 1965 photo for the back. Both in color, both sides as el­e­gant as one ex­pects from Japanese record com­pa­nies of this time.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Netherlands

The Nether­lands opted to boldly go where no other record com­pany had gone be­fore in 1967 and gave us an Op Art pic­ture sleeve! A standout in the Stones cat­alog, re­gard­less of one’s taste in art.

 

Norway used a color photo of the group on tele­vi­sion from ’64. These graphics were also used for Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing In The Shadows and She’s A Rainbow.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Portugal

Por­tugal pre­sented one of the least in­ter­esting of the sleeves as­so­ci­ated with this record, using a black and white BUTTONS photo too heavily cropped for my taste with a boring border at the top.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_SAfrica

South Africa, hardly noted for its pro­gres­sivism, went with this very con­ser­v­a­tive red-on-white title sleeve. But it works.

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Spain

Spain also gave us the London FLOWERS album as a front cover, and as I have al­ways liked that cover—even back in early ’67 when I pos­i­tively loathed any­thing and every­thing Rolling Stones—and I like it here!

 

WeLoveYou_PS_Sweden

Sweden is­sued a sleeve that bor­ders on the ab­surd: a 1964 photo with hand­written ti­tles that give the sleeve a bootleg look. But it is in­ter­esting.

As we play the dandelion game

Sev­eral years later, at an­other show, Lloyd ap­proached me and of­fered his hand. I asked why we were shaking and he told me how pissed he had been at me for get­ting the $55 out of him. But, since then, he has not seen or heard of a copy for sale re­motely as nice as the one he claimed as his!

All of the other pic­ture sleeve col­lec­tors he knew en­vied him the sleeve and of­fered him far more than $55 to sell it.

By this time, I had pub­lished my first book, the Rock & Roll Record Al­bums Price Guide (O’ Sul­livan Wood­side, 1985). So, I had a little spending money and I of­fered to buy the sleeve back from him at what­ever rea­son­able price he asked—I was thinking $220.

Need­less to say, he re­fused to sell his We Love You / Dan­de­lion for four times what he paid for it!

So, Lloyd, if you ever read this, two things: first, Hi! Hullo! How are you? (Well, I hope you’re doing fine.)

Second, I hope that you still have the We Love You / Dan­de­lion that I sold you and that you NEVER sell it to anyone—except to me, and only when and if you ab­solutely have to.

 

Alas, do not hold your breath waiting for your local oldies radio show to play ei­ther We Love You or Dan­de­lion. Most such sta­tions have a playlist of 5-10 Stones records, and these two are NEVER among them. If you don’t have We Love You / Dan­de­lion or THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST, give them a listen and maybe add them to your col­lec­tion. And that means buy the vinyl, not the dig­ital crap found on so many CD reis­sues or down­loads!!!

Ger­many is­sued a new sleeve (above, and tech­ni­cally a ‘title sleeve’ in record col­lector nomen­cla­ture) in the mid-’70s with Dan­de­lion as the fea­tured hit side. Italy’s new sleeve (below, and is­sued around the same time) fo­cused on the in­dis­putable star of the group and fo­cused on We Love You.

I am not aware of any other sleeves for this record; should you know of one that I have missed—even a bootleg—please con­tact me and let’s get it up here!

 

Relocating from the east coast to the west

In 1978, I drove from Penn­syl­vania to northern Cal­i­fornia and the Bay Area, where I re­mained into 1982. During that time, I was a reg­ular at­ten­dant at many of the reg­ular record swaps throughout the state—almost al­ways as a dealer with at least one table for my in­ven­tory.

This in­cluded the oh-so ca­sual monthly get-together at the Castro Valley Boys Club and the Capitol swap in Los An­geles. Both were held out­doors in parking lots—but, of course, you could do that year-round in Cal­i­fornia.

The big one in the northern part of Cal­i­fornia was the in­door event at the Hol­iday Inn in Emeryville, just off of In­ter­state 80. For a va­riety of reasons—including con­fu­sion caused by com­peting shows—southern Cal­i­fornia had a dif­fi­cult go of making an in­door event gel in the wake of the col­lapse of the Capitol swap. 

(And if no one has ever written an ar­ticle on the leg­endary Capitol swap—from its ori­gins in the Capitol Tower parking lot to its demise under the abu­sive hand of the fas­cist, fe­male cop-wannabe who ran it into the ground years later—someone should!)

At one of the Emeryville shows, both Lloyd Davis and I had ta­bles as dealers. Lloyd was well known, first as a pre­mier pic­ture sleeve col­lector, and also as the au­thor of the Col­lec­tors Price Guide To 45 RPM Pic­ture Sleeves, pub­lished in 1977 and the first of its kind.

At the show, I was sep­a­rating my­self from my per­sonal col­lec­tion to have more spend­able cash to buy more records to sell at the shows. One item that I grudg­ingly dis­played was the closest to mint (M) copy of the We Love You / Dan­de­lion pic­ture sleeve that I had ever seen. 

My asking price—from which I had NO in­ten­tion of budging (un­less to raise it)—was $55. And that was al­most three times what Lloyd had in his book!

Need­less to say, Lloyd had a copy of the sleeve in his col­lec­tion but, like most copies of We Love You / Dan­de­lion, it was in merely very-good (VG) con­di­tion. He wanted mine—but not at that price. I sug­gested that he think it over and come back be­fore someone else bought it.

While I had a lot of gawkers and question-askers about the Stones sleeve, no one was in­ter­ested in giving me my price. Fi­nally, Lloyd came over later in the day and, having sold enough at his table, re­luc­tantly parted with the $55 and walked away with the mint-minus (M-) We Love You / Dan­de­lion sleeve.

I have re­gretted selling that beauty ever since! 4

 

RollingStones 1967 GeredMankowitz 1000

FEATURED IMAGE The photo at the top of this page is “an out­take from the Be­tween the But­tons sleeve shoot taken very early one morning after an all-night recording ses­sion” ac­cording to the pho­tog­ra­pher by Gered Mankowitz.

 


FOOTNOTES:

1   The mono London press­ings were dumped on the market in 1968, selling for as little as 99¢ in the few dis­count sec­tions in stores in Wyoming Valley, Penn­syl­vania. Along with an­other per­sonal fave from the time, the Who’s HAPPY JACK, it was a staple of those bar­gain bins for years, helping to es­tab­lish the cut-out market so preva­lent in the ’70s and ’80s in the States.

2   I found a like-minded critic in the queerest of places: in the early ’70s, Elton John was still on the as­cent and in mag­a­zine con­tributed an ar­ticle to a mag­a­zine on his record col­lec­tion. It in­cluded a list of his top 100 fa­vorite al­bums and I was amazed to see how much it re­sem­bled my list (if I had ever made such a list).

3   A truly mint sleeve sold by well es­tab­lished dealers with a rep­u­ta­tion for ac­cu­rate grading could sell for a lot more …

4  This ar­ticle (“be­tween but­tons and dan­de­lions, we love you!”) is a reprint of “from but­tons to dan­de­lions – the rolling stones em­brace dylan and davies and then turn on tune in and drop out” that was orig­i­nally posted on No­vember 19, 2013. I have made minor ed­i­to­rial cor­rec­tions but added all of the im­ages, thereby changing the ar­ticle sig­nif­i­cantly.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
Rate this article:
Please rate this article with your comment.
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments