 Santana (1969) [ larger cover art ] |
Share this song
Tweet this song
Wikipedia search
Musicbrainz DB;){kind=link}
{{Instrumental}}
| Rotterdam | Posted: May 23, 2013 - 05:53 ploba wrote: The 60's had the best music - with the exception of this horrible thing! Hmmmm. The Archies singing Sugar-Sugar was horrible. This is GREAT! |
| ploba (the other coast and hang a left) | Posted: May 09, 2013 - 09:21 The 60's had the best music - with the exception of this horrible thing! |
| dirtbagpook | Posted: May 09, 2013 - 09:21 this song has great legs and if you dance to it often enough, you'll have some lovely gams too! Wow!  |
| unclehud (now 50 feet above the planet in Boston) | Posted: May 09, 2013 - 09:20 This is FANTASTIC music. It was fantastic, it is fantastic, and it will continue to be fantastic. off topic: Somebody's comment below mentioned the Sons of Champlin, a band/LP I borrowed from the college radio station (program director's privilege) and have lost during the intervening .... years. Didn't know anybody had even heard of them except our tight circle of rabble-rousers. |
| rromulus | Posted: May 09, 2013 - 09:19 The band is awesome! However, Santana does not progress no matter who he plays with, which is a pity because plays with such great musicians. |
| rdo (DC) | Posted: Apr 23, 2013 - 19:07 philbertr wrote: You have NO IDEA what you missed. But perhaps since you don't care, it isn't such a horrible loss, at least not to those of us who did live the 60s. If it is any consolation, then the 50s were even worse...my ears like new stuff, or classical... |
| dew34 (Wisconsin-quite woodsy) | Posted: Apr 23, 2013 - 18:35 kingart wrote: You need an ear, eye, nose, throat, soul, taste, and musical awareness overhaul. Thank God I DIDN'T miss the 60s. I could not agree more. I do appreciate much of the newer music ,and some even echoes that amazing time, nothing can ever compare to the onslaught of sounds from that period. Thanks for my being there cause today's pop is not what it should be. This album, and song really bring it together. If you just tilt yiur head back, close your eyes................. |
| softjeans (Upper Ojai, CA) | Posted: Apr 09, 2013 - 21:53 WonderLizard wrote: The opening paragraph of Langdon Winner and John Morthland's review of Santana in Rolling Stone, October 18, 1969: "Maybe it's just a coincidence that Santana and speed become popular at the same time. Maybe not. At any rate their 'long awaited' album is definitely a speed freak's delight—fast, pounding, frantic music with no real content. For those of who hoped that the second generation of San Francisco bands would be an improvement over the first, this record along with those of the Sons of Champlin and It's a Beautiful Day should destroy such fantasies forever. In the post-psychedelic era all of the bands have their styles down pat. But like methedrine, which gives a high with no meaning, the dazzling rock styles offer us music with virtually no substance." Nice to reflect that in its infancy even Rolling Stone got things wrong. Instructive, also, that the "no substance" charge—so prevalent in Santana's various RP threads and with which I disagree—has dogged him from the beginning. BTW, this was the same issue that featured the notorious The Masked Marauders review. Agree...and thanks for the research. |
| helgigermany (Germany) | Posted: Apr 08, 2013 - 05:21 very, very nice! |
| shellbella (so california) | Posted: Apr 03, 2013 - 13:22 This is one Santana song I could do without.... |
| kingart (Brooklyn NY) | Posted: Apr 03, 2013 - 13:21 ckcotton wrote: NOTHING like Santana.... Before or all these years after. Just makes it all the more special. Now here is someone who knows what he/she is talking about. But ... the live Woodstock version is better. His guitar rip after Shrieve's drum solo is one of the hottest 60 seconds in music. |
| kingart (Brooklyn NY) | Posted: Apr 03, 2013 - 13:19 rdo wrote: Thank God I missed the 60s. I really dodged a bullet.  This is HORRIBLE. You need an ear, eye, nose, throat, soul, taste, and musical awareness overhaul. Thank God I DIDN'T miss the 60s. |
| Toke (Bournemouth UK) | Posted: Mar 23, 2013 - 07:15 rdo wrote: Thank God I missed the 60s. I really dodged a bullet. This is HORRIBLE. Oh dear you sure must go and see a physiomusologist .. you are in a bad way... |
| Toke (Bournemouth UK) | Posted: Mar 23, 2013 - 07:13 ckcotton wrote: NOTHING like Santana.... Before or all these years after. Just makes it all the more special. well said ckcotton .. I was just about to leave home and had to drop everything and come back in ... such nostalgia ... back to my glory days |
| Gajdzin (Warsaw, Poland) | Posted: Mar 21, 2013 - 11:04 As a drummer I give any song with a drum solo at least "9". "10" if it's "In a gadda da vida"  |
| ckcotton (Adding snarky comments since 2007) | Posted: Mar 21, 2013 - 11:03 NOTHING like Santana.... Before or all these years after. Just makes it all the more special. |
| Minimally | Posted: Mar 21, 2013 - 11:03 This is before my time, but I absolutely love it. Great music stands up over time! |
| philbertr (Roch New York) | Posted: Mar 07, 2013 - 17:42 rdo wrote: Thank God I missed the 60s. I really dodged a bullet. This is HORRIBLE. You have NO IDEA what you missed. But perhaps since you don't care, it isn't such a horrible loss, at least not to those of us who did live the 60s. |
| coloradojohn (A Mile High and then some, Cherry Creek, Denver) | Posted: Jan 30, 2013 - 18:22 After all this time, a minute of this jam still brings things to a nice rolling boil — YEAH! |
| mutepoint | Posted: Jan 19, 2013 - 13:01 Umm... I think it has aged quite fine. Still a great track representative of the finer work of this band. |
| ScottN (Condo in Gaza needs remodeling. Still, I Thank TFSM I saw the divot where the landmine was placed.) | Posted: Dec 03, 2012 - 17:06 Has not aged well. |
| rdo (DC) | Posted: Nov 17, 2012 - 19:46 Thank God I missed the 60s. I really dodged a bullet. This is HORRIBLE. |
| joelbb | Posted: Oct 28, 2012 - 17:02 S-curvy wrote: I guess the Rolling Stone writers and other detractors of he whom they call "the one note wonder" have become confused by the choice between quality and quantity. I put forth that Santana put more emotive and enduring feeling into any single song than most of our current crop of popular, not "Pop," music wrings out of entire careers. I agree totally, S-curvy. That's why everyone stopped listening to R-Stone writers years ago. They're just a bunch of groupies disguising themselves as R&R hip-wannabes. Carlos was/is/and always shall be terrific. p.s., I hope you mean that Alameda Island in the Bad, Bad East Bay. |
| S-curvy (Lovely Alameda, the Isle of Style) | Posted: Oct 17, 2012 - 11:22 I guess the Rolling Stone writers and other detractors of he whom they call "the one note wonder" have become confused by the choice between quality and quantity. I put forth that Santana put more emotive and enduring feeling into any single song than most of our current crop of popular, not "Pop," music wrings out of entire careers. |
| 0rb1t (UK) | Posted: Oct 17, 2012 - 11:20 Poacher wrote: Thats a tad selfish. How about those younger than you who come here and perhaps hear this for the first time? Foot is right on most counts ... especially what he expects and gets from RP ... and contrary to him, I am glad that I can mature along with a the songs of the 1960s and 1970s that have maintained their appeal, much like a good wine. |
| emmidad (Los Gatos, CA) | Posted: Oct 17, 2012 - 11:08 One of the all time great bands of the 60's and beyond. So what if they had some commercial work, we all have to eat. For those newbees out there, take a closer look at the album cover. |
| djengs | Posted: Oct 01, 2012 - 22:57 Poacher wrote: Thats a tad selfish. How about those younger than you who come here and perhaps hear this for the first time? Excellent point. I am grateful to be introduced to so many new artists and even new-to-me songs from familiar artists. I may not like them all, but with few exceptions I appreciate them all. |
| Poacher (Brighton, UK) | Posted: Sep 27, 2012 - 05:39 Foot wrote: I was born in 1955, but every time I hear "Soul Sacrifice" I feel just sightly a bit older, but not in a good way. Great band, great song but not what I want to hear in 2012, except if I choose to play it on my own stereo. I can find that anywhere, I just want RP to keep playing stuff that's going to expand my listening experience, like it usually does. Thats a tad selfish. How about those younger than you who come here and perhaps hear this for the first time? |
| Foot (NorCal / Wine) | Posted: Sep 15, 2012 - 21:55 I was born in 1955, but every time I hear "Soul Sacrifice" I feel just sightly a bit older, but not in a good way. Great band, great song but not what I want to hear in 2012, except if I choose to play it on my own stereo. I can find that anywhere, I just want RP to keep playing stuff that's going to expand my listening experience, like it usually does. |
| sajitjacob (Christchurch NZ) | Posted: Aug 26, 2012 - 17:25 That's one scary album cover. |
| Tippster (Washington, DC) | Posted: Aug 26, 2012 - 17:22 Rolling Stone, especially Jann Wenner, has always picked winners and losers in music, regardless of actual talent. Guess that's what "critique" is - their personal impression at the time. How many reviews have they later changed, toward the positive or negative? |
| old_shep (Iowa) | Posted: Aug 26, 2012 - 17:20 Oh no, more of that wonderful Santana stuff! This tune sounds great on my Harley cruising down the one ways at night..... |
| FrankMc | Posted: Jul 26, 2012 - 07:40 Woodstock performance was life-changing. I remember a review of Santana that referred to "Carlos 'One-Note Wonder' Santana." Among the most protean of performers, endlessly inventive, eager to collaborate with any artist of virtually any genre (John McLaughlin and Willy Nelson to name a couple and suggest the range) and capable of cranking out one strong album after another interspersed with miracles. How Rolling Stone and whoever rolled out the one note wonder thing could form such bizarre opinions is incomprehensible. What a genius. His worst hackwork (okay, he did have a few less than perfect moments) is better than most artists' best moments. kingart wrote: Superb. But the live Woodstock version is off the meter. Talk about a bust-out performance for this band...or any band. That Rolling Stone review is so full of shit... |
| Stingray | Posted: Jul 26, 2012 - 07:34 Pedro1874 wrote: - is Michael still around and in the business? http://www.michaelshrieve.com |
| nagsheadlocal (North Carolina, the new New Jersey) | Posted: Jul 26, 2012 - 07:29 And still it cooks! |
| hayduke2 (Southampton, NY) | Posted: Jun 29, 2012 - 13:55 Fantastic, sublime pounding ecstasy proper comments and remembrances from you super suave geniuss' thank you all! |
| rommi (Berkeley, CA) | Posted: Jun 24, 2012 - 21:24 total stoner song :) |
| Pedro1874 (Bolton, England) | Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 09:17 I will never forget first hearing this album when it was brand new at a party in Vancouver BC. Bought it the very next day and have been a fan ever since. It is such exciting music - something I miss with most of today's bands. I also remember queuing round the block to see the movie of Woodstock when it was first released - also in Vancouver - think it must've been playing round the clock - remember the cops on the street and staff in the movie theatre very relaxed about what we were all smoking! One of the best drummers ever, what a talent and so young at the time - is Michael still around and in the business? |
| kingart (Brooklyn NY) | Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 08:56 Superb. But the live Woodstock version is off the meter. Talk about a bust-out performance for this band...or any band. That Rolling Stone review is so full of shit... |
| Boy_Wonder (Bath, back in the UK) | Posted: May 14, 2012 - 12:45 Michael Shrieve (born July 6, 1949, in San Francisco) is an American drummer, percussionist, and later, an electronic musiccomposer. He is best known as the drummer in Carlos Santana's eponymous band, playing on their first eight albums from 1969 through 1974.<1> His performance at the 1969 Woodstock festival, when he was just 20 years old, made him one of the youngest musicians to perform at the festival. Shrieve's drum solo during an extended version of "Soul Sacrifice" in the Woodstock film has been described as "electrifying".<2> Slight understatement at the end.... |
| creekgirl | Posted: Apr 22, 2012 - 07:57 My go-to song for a powerful wallop of wild joy, passion and exhileration! Check out the Woodstock version on YouTube......when the tidal wave of syncopating congas roll in, if the hair doesn't stand up on your arms, if you don't have to get up and dance, if it doesn't awaken your true pagan spirit........well, I feel sorry for you. Civilization must have beaten the life force out of you. Did you know the white kid on the drum kit was only about 21 when he performed that drum solo? Imagine.......playing a drum solo with Santana. At Woodstock. At 21 years old. Look at his face......he knows this moment is incomparable, he is confident he can master it, he's riding the sheer ecstasy of primal sensory immersion. Wow. I'd give this song about a 12, the Woodstock version a 15! |
| WonderLizard (2,755.46 mi. due east of Paradise) | Posted: Mar 26, 2012 - 05:52 The opening paragraph of Langdon Winner and John Morthland's review of Santana in Rolling Stone, October 18, 1969: "Maybe it's just a coincidence that Santana and speed become popular at the same time. Maybe not. At any rate their 'long awaited' album is definitely a speed freak's delight—fast, pounding, frantic music with no real content. For those of who hoped that the second generation of San Francisco bands would be an improvement over the first, this record along with those of the Sons of Champlin and It's a Beautiful Day should destroy such fantasies forever. In the post-psychedelic era all of the bands have their styles down pat. But like methedrine, which gives a high with no meaning, the dazzling rock styles offer us music with virtually no substance." Nice to reflect that in its infancy even Rolling Stone got things wrong. Instructive, also, that the "no substance" charge—so prevalent in Santana's various RP threads and with which I disagree—has dogged him from the beginning. BTW, this was the same issue that featured the notorious The Masked Marauders review. |
| vanmas (Leiden, Netherlands) | Posted: Mar 26, 2012 - 05:21 Song? There is no singing... Only the nervous and always the same Santana sound... |
| hippiechick (topsy turvy land) | Posted: Mar 26, 2012 - 05:18 This song should get a 12. |
| d-don (Oregon) | Posted: Mar 21, 2012 - 15:04 This song is one of the highlights of the Woodstock footage. |
| HazzeSwede (Vinyl Land) | Posted: Feb 23, 2012 - 13:00 HazzeSwede wrote: So..what can be seen on that cover,,any one ?  Dave_Mack wrote: All sorts of stuff! And I'm ashamed to admit, I never noticed anything other than the lion until today! Amazing how you can look but not see for so long. Jaa....we used to use it for a drinking game...  |
| clickfaster | Posted: Feb 07, 2012 - 11:56 rahkinrah wrote: How can this NOT be a10 !??? I loved SANTANA in HIGH school, but the latinos beat me up anyway! Got an 11+? In college, I befriended a transplanted Puerto Rican - Pete F. One night while cruising around, I plopped in a Santana cassette (Abraxas) - sure to impress him. After about 30 minutes, Pete asked, "Can we listen to some American music? I hate these Salsa sheet!"  |
| seven7 (Glass City Ohio) | Posted: Feb 07, 2012 - 11:52 Love that Leslie! |
| kestrel (On a wire ...in Raleigh, NC) | Posted: Feb 07, 2012 - 11:52 sending this down the hallways of the high school I teach at......hope the admin don't mind (its after school;-)  |
| kingart (Brooklyn NY) | Posted: Feb 07, 2012 - 11:52 Michael Shrieve at the time of this record was like, 18 YEARS OLD! And their stoned-out higher-than-Jupiter rendition of this at Woodstock was better than this studio classic! |