by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards: 1971, “Sticky Fingers”
Childhood living is easy to do
The things you wanted I bought them for you
Graceless lady you know who I am
You know I can’t let you slide through my hands
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, couldn’t drag me away
I watched you suffer a dull aching pain
Now you decided to show me the same
No sweeping exits or offstage lines
Could make me feel bitter or treat you unkind
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, couldn’t drag me away
I know I dreamed you a sin and a lie
I have my freedom but I don’t have much time
Faith has been broken, tears must be cried
Let’s do some living after we die
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, we’ll ride them some day
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, we’ll ride them some day.
My thoughts about the feelings behind this song:
Childhood living is easy to do
“Childhood living” – a time of innocence. When love first flowers, everything flows easily. He harkens back to that time of innocence which is clearly in the past. Not so easy now, he seems to say.
The things you wanted I bought them for you
This line clarifies the power parameters in the relationship – he is richer than her.
He has more power financially than personally – whereas she holds the cards on the personal side through her ability to give or withhold love. Money can’t buy you love.
She “wanted” material things and accepted his gifts. Sharing material goods is a way of making a relationship real (“real” as in “real estate” for example). The relationship was originally grounded out in the giving and receiving of goods. “With this ring I thee wed and with all my worldly goods endow.” He used to show power by his ability to give gifts. Back then it used to yield her love, or seemed to, and he wishes it still worked. Maybe she had a history of not having enough and it felt a good bargain at the time. He put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, by buying her the things he wanted, and that cemented their relationship on both ends.
Over time, she realized the emptiness of material wealth and the power dynamic shifted away from him and towards her. This destabilized the relationship, as the songwriter wanted to be in control and one of his tools lost its effectiveness.
Graceless lady you know who I am
Hmm, why “graceless”? Perhaps he admires her authenticity, especially in England, where social graces and class distinctions are so important. Perhaps she, of another class, is more free of the burdens and obligations of the upper classes which he bears, and represents rebellion against those norms, which he yearns for himself but can’t seem to realize in his own life. I’m not hearing “graceless” as an insult, in that she had clumsy movements. It reminds me of the word “artless” which invokes innocence and lack of manipulation and is usually used admiringly.
“You know who I am” – we know each other very well. I know that you know my character.
You know I can’t let you slide through my hands
I can’t let go of that which I consider mine. (The songwriter seems to be a possessive, controlling personality type. The fact that he feels definitively rejected is really unpleasant and something in him cannot accept it.)
Now that we are apart, and I don’t have to deal with you and your drama on a daily basis, I am painting a picture of you that is sentimentalized and romanticized. Your absence now creates a quiet internal space where I can enjoy remembering and fantasizing about the beautiful moments of our early relationship. It’s much easier to feel that when you are not around.
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, couldn’t drag me away
By reference to the animal power of horses – more than one, and wild horses at that – he is using an intense metaphor invoking the strength (animal nature, lower 3 chakras) of his love (chakra 2) and/or possessiveness (chakra 3). He seems to state that he would never abuse her, leave her (or cheat on her?) again, if she would take him back. The use of this dramatic cliché to describe his unwavering intention strikes me as overblown, self-serving, and unrealistic.
If he has the capacity to love so faithfully and stubbornly now (such that multiple enormous untamed animals couldn’t budge him from her side), why did he push her away in the first place? There is a discrepancy here. Seems like forces much less potent than wild horses already dragged him away, such as resentment of her exhibitions of her own power, and his inherent need to assert his own dominance when it was challenged. What’s changed now? It is the reality that she is no longer there, and will not ever return to him, thus allowing a space where the memory of her can appear in his mind bathed in a golden glow.
I watched you suffer a dull aching pain
Now you decided to show me the same
Again he dodges responsibility for causing her pain. He watched her suffer a dull, aching pain, caused by … what unstated event? Toothache? Or his actions (seems more likely). Probably his infidelities or other transgressions against her.
Dull, aching pain implies a long, drawn-out period of negativity as opposed to a quickly-passing energetic emotional moment. This reveals a bit more of the depth of their relationship than “sweeping exits or offstage lines.” Her emotional pain went on for a lengthy process while they were still together, and he is able to acknowledge his awareness of that pain. The implication is that after this time period, she finally had enough and decided “to show me the same.”
Did she leave the relationship? Or did she stay and enact her own infidelities, specifically to hurt him as he had hurt her?” And was he aware of the dull, aching pain as it occurred or only now as he is in a reflective mood?
No sweeping exits or offstage lines
She is a drama queen, and this must have happened! Both external drama (sweeping exits) and quiet manipulation (offstage lines) were ways she expressed her pushback against his control. I admit I visualize Bianca Jagger when I read this line!
Could make me feel bitter or treat you unkind
Easy to say now! In the past, did her pushback make him feel bitter? Did he treat her unkindly in the past? Clearly he did.
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, couldn’t drag me away
On a mundane level, I would guess that this relationship was between a wealthy, powerful man (the songwriter) and a woman of at least a bit less financial or class status. They both shared an affinity for dramatic gestures and were adrenaline junkies who got off on their fights and dramatic episodes. Probably the make-up sex was great!
He had to assert his dominance over her through the masculine need for sheer lower-chakra territoriality. He showed her who was boss, and in the process hurt her so much it wouldn’t be possible to walk that back. He didn’t know, or couldn’t control his own power. She left him for good. But, those dramatic adrenaline rushes are pretty addictive, and the songwriter is missing those heady days.
I know I dreamed you a sin and a lie
I have my freedom but I don’t have much time
This line is hard to parse … I have trouble extracting the meaning. “I know I dreamed you” – does he realize he is projecting a fantasy version of his lover? “A sin and a lie” – is he saying he has projected sin and lying onto her … and he regrets it? Anyway, something about dreaming, sinning and lying! Or … the way I fantasize about you is sinful and a lie? Unclear …
Second line much simpler: the songwriter feels he is getting older and is reflecting on his past with a sense of remorse and regret. Freedom was the thing he always fought for, above all else, including love. He has that freedom but now finds that it is not totally fulfilling – there is something else he needs to feel satisfied.
Faith has been broken, tears must be cried
Let’s do some living after we die
Notice that by using the passive voice (“faith has been broken”), he doesn’t take responsibility on his side for breaking faith, implying by omission that faith was broken on both sides. Or, perhaps he is implying that faith was broken by an outside force, like fate?
He continues with the passive voice in this second phrase. “Tears must be cried.” Perhaps he hopes that, if we (him, her, somebody?) cries their tears, the grief will be processed and done, and then it will be all fine again.
To his credit, the songwriter acknowledges that faith has been broken. This almost-courage to recognize the truth is then followed by a wish that the damage could be repaired. This wish now takes the active voice as a proposal to action – “Let’s do some living after we die.”
I wanted to transcribe this as “Let’s do some living after we’ve died” suggesting that the death he mentions has occurred and is in the past; but I listened to the original and he clearly says, “after we die.” The use of the present tense could be saying: let’s do some living (together) after we die (whenever that might be, at some point in the future).
There are Christian implications of rising from the dead as Christ did after cruxification. More mundanely, proposing renewed life for the relationship after it has died may be more a function of wishful thinking than realistic appraisal of couple dynamics. Because once “faith has been broken” it’s virtually impossible for the wronged party to relax and trust the other again.
These two lines feel to me to be the emotional core of this song. He admits that faith has been broken (obviously by him although he can’t quite bring himself to say that directly) and he has caused her pain and grief. The potency of the confession is somewhat blunted by his incapacity to take responsibility directly for hurting her. His ego is still squirming to maintain its righteousness, even as another part of him reaches out to say he wishes the damage (done by him, her, both of them, or fate itself?) could be repaired, magically, somehow.
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, we’ll ride them some day
For long-term relationship stability, two adrenaline junkies would not be a good fit. Usually, one dramatic and sparkling partner and one more passive and supporting, appreciative partner create a better dynamic for longtime stability, as each has an important quality the other lacks. Neither of them were well-suited to play the supporting role to the other which would have been required for a stable, long-term relationship. To ride the wild horses of both of their respective energetic emotional natures would be an advanced tantric accomplishment indeed! But as the British say, “Not bloody likely.”
Wild horses couldn’t drag me away
Wild, wild horses, we’ll ride them some day
Now that his former lover is thoroughly disenchanted with him, and will never get back together with him, it’s safe to lean into that end of the spectrum of his feelings about his lover – perhaps the early days when sexual ecstasy was at its height, power struggles and their mutual tendency to drama and posturing hadn’t yet become the dominant element of their interaction. He no longer needs to protect his own freedom and power from the reality of her intensity and pushback. So now, he can feel the subtler feelings of love and respect that rise to the surface in his newly opened field of emotion.
On the other end of that spectrum, when they were together, he was impacted negatively by her dramatic gestures and demanding nature. His own need to control and rebel led him to infidelities and other acts that proved his dominance. He triumphed in that endeavor, and thus drove her away.
“We’ll ride them someday” – speaking of these multiple wild horses and their physical, uncontrolled power – he projects a possible future where the animal spirits that drove each of them to fight against each other’s control so strongly in the past, can be controlled, perhaps by the wisdom learned from time. This is like the Buddhist idea of “riding the tiger.” This is a highly advanced practice that very few human beings have mastered. The songwriter realizes this is probably unlikely so he modifies his statement with a vague and wistful “someday.” Perhaps this will occur “after we die?”
I think this is a beautiful and profound love song, although I’ve just seemed to skewer the songwriter for hypocrisy and self-serving emotions. Well, aren’t we all like that?
The melody is haunting, and Mick Jagger’s slightly hoarse, quavering delivery is slow and deliberative, like he is purposefully taking an unrushed space to be with his conflicting feelings. His vocals express vulnerability to me in a more palpable way than the lyrics do. The songwriter exposes his own imperfections, projections, and flaws, thus painting a very human canvas of confession, denial and sorrow where most of us see can ourselves and explore our own landscapes of memory and regret.