The Rolling Stones — Little Queenie (live)
Album: Get Yer YaYas OutAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 675
Length: 4:33
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share
tweet
I got the lumps in my throat
When I saw her coming down the aisle
I gets the wiggles in my knees
When she looked at me and sweetly smiled
There she is again standing over by the record machine
Oooh, she's looking like a model on the cover of a magazine
Why she's too cute to be a minute over seventeen
Meanwhile, I was thinking
She's in the mood
No need to break it
I got the chance
I oughtta take it
She can dance
We can make it
Come on queenie
Let's shake it
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Won't ya tell me who the queen's
Standing over by the record machine
Why she's looking like a model
On the cover of a magazine
Yeah she's too cute to be a minute over seventeen
(Take off your shoes)
Meanwhile, I was still thinkin'
If it's a slow song, we'll omit it
If it's a rocker, that'll get it
If it's good, she'll admit it
Come on queenie, lets get with it
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
When I saw her coming down the aisle
I gets the wiggles in my knees
When she looked at me and sweetly smiled
There she is again standing over by the record machine
Oooh, she's looking like a model on the cover of a magazine
Why she's too cute to be a minute over seventeen
Meanwhile, I was thinking
She's in the mood
No need to break it
I got the chance
I oughtta take it
She can dance
We can make it
Come on queenie
Let's shake it
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Won't ya tell me who the queen's
Standing over by the record machine
Why she's looking like a model
On the cover of a magazine
Yeah she's too cute to be a minute over seventeen
(Take off your shoes)
Meanwhile, I was still thinkin'
If it's a slow song, we'll omit it
If it's a rocker, that'll get it
If it's good, she'll admit it
Come on queenie, lets get with it
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Go, go, go, Little Queenie
Comments (49)add comment
A good song performed poorly.
bitbanger wrote:
IMHO, the Stones were at their best with Mick Taylor. This is a great album and a good example.
Lol.
And IMHO, Mick Taylor was at his best with the Stones.
What blues/rock guitarist WOULDN'T be?!
reallylost wrote:
1 one year after the above (just now 3/27/2021) we have the Stones right after "Maybelline" again.
Little Queenie, the direct descendant of Maybelline.
1 one year after the above (just now 3/27/2021) we have the Stones right after "Maybelline" again.
Little Queenie, the direct descendant of Maybelline.
fyi REO Speedwagon does a major kick ass cover of this on their 2nd album
they went down hill after that
they went down hill after that
its real simple
great rnr is about two things: freedom and energy
BCarn wrote:
Indeed, they are two different bands. I'd liken the comparison to the
one in 20th century art: Mattisse and Picasso. Both brilliant but
different from each other. Apples and oranges.
Indeed, they are two different bands. I'd liken the comparison to the
one in 20th century art: Mattisse and Picasso. Both brilliant but
different from each other. Apples and oranges.
thewiseking wrote:
I agree!! Along with Who's Live at Leeds. ELP's Pictures at an exhibition, Yes's Yessongs, Doors..., Alman Bros.... Get Yer Yayas Out is TRULY GREAT!!!
Largely forgotten now but those who remember will tell ya Get Yer Ya Yas remains one of Rock and Roll's Greatest LIVE albums
I agree!! Along with Who's Live at Leeds. ELP's Pictures at an exhibition, Yes's Yessongs, Doors..., Alman Bros.... Get Yer Yayas Out is TRULY GREAT!!!
Great!!! Iconic!!! Thank You RP!
gottclay wrote:
Why compare any bands? I am so tired of "sounds like" comparisons in comments. Competition in music is almost never good for the end product.
VERY WELL STATED!!!
Why compare any bands? I am so tired of "sounds like" comparisons in comments. Competition in music is almost never good for the end product.
VERY WELL STATED!!!
RIP Charlie and thank you for the music.
h8rhater wrote:
Why must one attack the Stones in order to appreciate the Beatles?... OR vice-versa?
These are the two greatest bands in rock and roll history. To miss out on one in the vague belief that they hated each other or that their music is somehow incompatible, would be like cutting off your right hand to impress your left.
Why compare any bands? I am so tired of "sounds like" comparisons in comments. Competition in music is almost never good for the end product.
Why must one attack the Stones in order to appreciate the Beatles?... OR vice-versa?
These are the two greatest bands in rock and roll history. To miss out on one in the vague belief that they hated each other or that their music is somehow incompatible, would be like cutting off your right hand to impress your left.
Why compare any bands? I am so tired of "sounds like" comparisons in comments. Competition in music is almost never good for the end product.
hkrimm wrote:
Agree, we should never forget that Rolling Stones initially performed mostly covers of American blues and R&B songs. Many listeners in Europe had no idea about that.
Nice to hear the Stones doing Chuck Berry right after "Maybelline."
Agree, we should never forget that Rolling Stones initially performed mostly covers of American blues and R&B songs. Many listeners in Europe had no idea about that.
hkrimm wrote:
1 one year after the above (just now 3/27/2021) we have the Stones right after "Maybelline" again.
Nice to hear the Stones doing Chuck Berry right after "Maybelline."
1 one year after the above (just now 3/27/2021) we have the Stones right after "Maybelline" again.
I once played T Rex' Get it On at 45 and it became Chuck Berry's Little Queenie.
Largely forgotten now but those who remember will tell ya Get Yer Ya Yas remains one of Rock and Roll's Greatest LIVE albums
This is my favourite cover of The Georgia Satellites' 'Keep Your Hands To Yourself'.
maboleth wrote:
I always think it odd to compare the Beatles against the Stones. They really did do different music. Their, the Beatles, goals were different though they weren't consciously doing the "goals" thing as we know that term today. They just wanted to get to the "toppermost". And they had the backing and the individual charms to get them there. The Stones, although very strong in their own right, didn't have the backing that their opponents (if you will) did. And by virtue of not going along the same path of the Beatles, getting discovered at the right time by the right person then getting exploited as such, could never measure up. At least for the majority. That isn't to say they weren't as good, just different. And not as marketable. The Beatles were polished. They had two strong singer/songwriters and a third blossomed. Hard to compete with. They took the sound of the day and made it better. They made it their own. They were rightfully the "Four kings of EMI".
Pretentious? I don't buy that. Macca certainly had his ego for sure. Lennon as a "father of hipsters" ? No way. And I do believe that in spite of his wealth, his message, his activism was very real. The Bono's and Stings could only try to emulate the rawness that Lennon achieved. (With a lot of help from his wife I might add).
Anyway, I could babble on forever. I like the Stones. I like the Beatles more.
Never been a fan of Rolling Stones before. Beatles seemed always so much better.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
I always think it odd to compare the Beatles against the Stones. They really did do different music. Their, the Beatles, goals were different though they weren't consciously doing the "goals" thing as we know that term today. They just wanted to get to the "toppermost". And they had the backing and the individual charms to get them there. The Stones, although very strong in their own right, didn't have the backing that their opponents (if you will) did. And by virtue of not going along the same path of the Beatles, getting discovered at the right time by the right person then getting exploited as such, could never measure up. At least for the majority. That isn't to say they weren't as good, just different. And not as marketable. The Beatles were polished. They had two strong singer/songwriters and a third blossomed. Hard to compete with. They took the sound of the day and made it better. They made it their own. They were rightfully the "Four kings of EMI".
Pretentious? I don't buy that. Macca certainly had his ego for sure. Lennon as a "father of hipsters" ? No way. And I do believe that in spite of his wealth, his message, his activism was very real. The Bono's and Stings could only try to emulate the rawness that Lennon achieved. (With a lot of help from his wife I might add).
Anyway, I could babble on forever. I like the Stones. I like the Beatles more.
Nice to hear the Stones doing Chuck Berry right after "Maybelline."
bitbanger wrote:
Although it is undoubtedly Keith Richards playing lead on this live number. Mick does lay down some fine rhythm, though.
IMHO, the Stones were at their best with Mick Taylor. This is a great album and a good example.
Although it is undoubtedly Keith Richards playing lead on this live number. Mick does lay down some fine rhythm, though.
Love the stones. Not this song. It drags along. 
Meanwhile....I'm still thinking.
Where are my ya yas?
Where are my ya yas?
My musician ex-boyfriend's seduction song
Biggest cheater of all time!
Biggest cheater of all time!'Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!' : The Rolling Stones in Concert
A live album released 4 September 1970 on Decca Records in the UK, and on London Records in the US.
Recorded at Madison Square Garden in NYC, and Baltimore, Maryland in November 1969, just before the release of 'LET IT BLEED'
Reported to have been issued in response to the high quality bootleg Live'r Than You'll Ever Be, recorded in Oakland, California.
YA-YA'S is the first live album to reach number 1 in the UK. The Record was a critical and commercial success, and is cited as the greatest live album of all time.
Back cover of album:
I change from 7 to 8 - Most Excellent
Y'don't want m'trousers to fall down, do ya? Mick was and is the best.
Not that well known nowadays but this is perhaps the best live Rock and Roll album of all time. The version of Stray Cat Blues on here is just the most badazz thing ever.
WOOOO-HOOO SHAKE DAT YA YA!!! : P
great early live stones mick taylor is the man thewiseking wrote:
This is a great live album but I like Love You Live better. Ronnie's solo on Can't Always Get What You Want is killer, and Side 3 is pretty cool as well.
And...Andy Warhol!
This album is the best live album the Stones ever did.
This is a great live album but I like Love You Live better. Ronnie's solo on Can't Always Get What You Want is killer, and Side 3 is pretty cool as well.
And...Andy Warhol!
maboleth wrote:
Why must one attack the Stones in order to appreciate the Beatles?... OR vice-versa?
These are the two greatest bands in rock and roll history. To miss out on one in the vague belief that they hated each other or that their music is somehow incompatible, would be like cutting off your right hand to impress your left.
Never been a fan of Rolling Stones before. Beatles seemed always so much better.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
Why must one attack the Stones in order to appreciate the Beatles?... OR vice-versa?
These are the two greatest bands in rock and roll history. To miss out on one in the vague belief that they hated each other or that their music is somehow incompatible, would be like cutting off your right hand to impress your left.
IMHO, the Stones were at their best with Mick Taylor. This is a great album and a good example.
Nice little Chuck Berry run going here!
maboleth wrote:
I've done pretty thorough genealogy on the English line of my family, working class Liverpudlians. Gives one a whole new definition of 'poor." I don't begrudge the lads any material indulgences they might have committed. Look what they gave us in return.
Never been a fan of Rolling Stones before. Beatles seemed always so much better.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
I've done pretty thorough genealogy on the English line of my family, working class Liverpudlians. Gives one a whole new definition of 'poor." I don't begrudge the lads any material indulgences they might have committed. Look what they gave us in return.
You're not playing it loud enough!
Never been a fan of Rolling Stones before. Beatles seemed always so much better.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
But not anymore. The older I am, the more I like Rolling Stones and dislike many of the Beatles & Lennon stuff. Simply put, RS seem unpretentious and rock'n'rolling, while Beatles, well... let's say that in many ways Lennon, while much more pure, was the father of all hipsters and Bono-save-the-world-but-maintain-your-ego-and-wallet personalities. Singing about the working class while residing in the Manhattan villa was never a good thing deserving praise.
and a happy Sunday afternoon to you too Bill
This album is the best live album the Stones ever did.
Wait, I'll go beyond that.
This is one of the best LIVE ROCK AND ROLL albums ever! Right up there with Live at Leeds and Live at the Fillmore.
The Stray Cat Blues on this is badazzz
Wait, I'll go beyond that.
This is one of the best LIVE ROCK AND ROLL albums ever! Right up there with Live at Leeds and Live at the Fillmore.
The Stray Cat Blues on this is badazzz
Where's my BEER?! 
hayduke2 wrote:
Thanks DJ, I think it's great to hear some real rockers (fuck-n good poundin' Chaw-lee)!!!
Charlie is a major reasons for the Stones' success, at least musically.Thanks DJ, I think it's great to hear some real rockers (fuck-n good poundin' Chaw-lee)!!!
yesss,great album
we played this at every high school dance and were heroes...ah, those were the daze
Theotis wrote:
or at least let it go throught the next track ("Honky Tonk Women").
It seemed weird not having the end bleed into... "Chaw-lees good tonight, idn't ee"?
Bill, just put play the whole album and take a break...
or at least let it go throught the next track ("Honky Tonk Women").
It seemed weird not having the end bleed into... "Chaw-lees good tonight, idn't ee"?
Theotis wrote:
I second that emotion.
Bill, just put play the whole album and take a break...
I second that emotion.
I always thought the mix on the original LP was off. Anyone?
nice nod to mr. berry.
Excellent album from the early days. Like Creedence the Stones are at their best live. Go Keef Go...
Bill, just put play the whole album and take a break...