Daily affirmations of a word mercenary
Research Day
5May2004 Filed under: RandomataBorrowing an idea from Matt, today is Research Day here at Electrolicious.
The Backstory
I’m working on an advertising campaign here at The Paper. It’s a cross-promotional sweepstakes that’s being done in partnership with a local casino. The contest needed a name. The advertising client had suggested “Slots Of Fun.” The word slots is not a good one for an advertising campaign. Sounds way too much like sluts or slits, and either way that’s not the branding tone The Paper likes to go for. These are the things a copywriter must think about.
My suggested name was “Winning Streak Sweepstakes,” but I had a concern: would this remind people of that classic Rolling Stones lyric, and I’m tryin’ to make some girl/who tells me baby better come back later next week/’cause you see I’m on losing streak”? Would this sweepstakes name make them think, “Hmm, winning streak…losing streak…menstruation!“? Again, these are the things a copywriter must think about.
I mentioned this concern to the designer on the project.
“But Dougois,” I rambled. “What if this name makes people think about menstruation?”
He was totally stumped by my (granted, somewhat obtuse) reference, so I drew it out for him. Winning streak…losing streak…satisfaction…mick jagger…menstruation!
Doug hadn’t ever heard of that lyrical interpretation, and was dubious of its validity.
Ever one to stand up to a challenge, I decided to do some research.
The Research
I tried googling for:
“losing streak” period “rolling stones”
“’cause you see I’m on losing streak” lyrics meaning
“’cause you see I’m on losing streak” meaning
“losing streak” lyric interpretations “rolling stones”
“losing streak” menstruation “rolling stones”
“losing streak” meaning “rolling stones”
“rolling stones” lyric interpretations satisfaction
…on and on and on. The only thing I found was this blog which references the lyrical interpretation, but doesn’t provide any evidence. We all know that blogs can be unreliable research sources (cough cough), so I knew that I must soldier onward!
I emailed two of my favorite researchers for help, both Matt “Research Day” Baldwin, and Jason “Berkeley Research Librarian” Strauss.
Jason emailed me back almost immediately with this bit of information:
Seems you’re right…or at least, that’s how it was taken by the censors when the song first hit the air! He included a NY Times article from November 26, 1967.
From the article:
The first great test case in the Singers’ Rights field came in 1965 with the Rolling Stones’ “Satisfaction.” The song had be lounging in the Number One Spot for weeks when someone deciphered the lyrics (lead singer Mick Jagger had made the task more difficult by cunningly omitting most of the consonants) “I’m trying to make some girl She says ‘Baby better come back next week, ’cause you see I’m on a losing streak’.” As seduction and menstruation were considered unfit topics for discussion in rock ‘n’ roll … many stations pulled the song; others cut the offending stanza, and all have scrutinized every Stones composition since.
…So there!
A special thanks to Jason for making this Research Day a screaming success, and to Matt for giving it a shot as well.
- Previous: Amrita Shooting
- Next: Before & After Shots
11 Responses to “Research Day”
Leave a reply
Hey there. I'm Ariel Meadow Stallings, a native Seattleite who's written my way up and down the Left Coast. Electrolicious is where I post daily randomata, but I also write for a living. My first book, Offbeat Bride, is in bookstores now.
You're reading a page from the archives. Check the homepage for current content.
DOUG(OIS).
May 5th, 2004 at 12:08 pm
Dubious references all. “Someone deciphered the lyrics…” c’mon. As Colin Powell would say, “This is bullshit.” These are clearly the twisted interpretatons of a dirty mind infused with too many hair chemicals.
So just what is Manfred Mann/Bruce Springsteen saying in “Blinded By The Light”?
Ariel
May 5th, 2004 at 12:36 pm
Well, we can at least agree that it is a common interpretation — as to whether it’s a correct one or not … only Mick knows for sure.
Jason
May 5th, 2004 at 4:26 pm
Yeah, research is fun!
But as a good lil’ librarian, I’m obliged to wag my finger and primly announce that posting the entire article scan goes well beyond fair use, and into copyright infringement. It was kosher for me to email the entire thing to you and, of course, ok for you to post a quote online. I’m not a fan of copyright as it stands, but if Richard Corliss finds this piece here, he might remember it - and use his influence to keep you off the cover of Time magazine some day.
Ariel
May 5th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
*GASP!*
An excellent point! I hadn’t thought of that. I’ll remove the pdf. Thanks for the heads up!
Lina
May 5th, 2004 at 6:53 pm
Oh my god! i actually know who he’s talking about in this song. Janice Dickinson, who wrote a book that I worked on called No Lifeguard on Duty was dating Jagger when he wrote this song. She was indeed menstruating when they first met, which is why she kept putting him off. I swear that’s a story she told me while we were editing the book.
Jason
May 5th, 2004 at 7:15 pm
Lina: nice story, but the song came out in 1965, and Dickinson was born in either 1953 or 55 (conflicting reports)….so their affair must’ve been later. But since you worked on the book, you probably know this already, yes?
Ariel
May 5th, 2004 at 8:21 pm
So, either Dickenson is lieing about her age…or lieing about the song being about her!
philippe
May 7th, 2004 at 2:17 am
Wow !
… and will you keep the “winning streaks” name ?
lina
May 7th, 2004 at 6:49 am
Ooo, I guess you’re right (and saltiness noted, Jason, thanks.) Maybe it was Let It Bleed (hee!). Janice isn’t exactly the most honest. She also said she coined the phrase “supermodel.”
Jason
May 7th, 2004 at 11:46 am
I meant to be pungent-witty salty. If it came across as provocative salty, sorry.
Steve Hecht
May 8th, 2004 at 9:14 pm
Speaking of slots: can it be coincidence that a slot machine’s (adjustable) propensity to pay off is called its “looseness”? Billboards that vouch for a particular casino’s having the “LOOSEST SLOTS!” ought to be considered a road hazard.