Artknocker
Underground Idol
"No bloviating--that's my job."
Posts: 320
|
Post by Artknocker on Aug 10, 2005 17:55:19 GMT -5
Of course not. You expect whoever's performing at that to talk about why they're there. I expect the same out of Pearl Jam as I've mentioned. If it was strictly a Clint Black "tour date" concert, I would say "just play the tunes"--that's all it's supposed to be about. Now, if Clint Black has political songs in his repertoire, I would expect him to have an introduction to them describing what they're about. But it stays music-related. If he's playing at a benefit for, let's say, homelessness, he's expected to keep it topical and relevant and not talk about something like AIDS in Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 10, 2005 17:58:18 GMT -5
At least your consistent in your insistance on isolating yourself from the opinions of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Aug 10, 2005 19:21:11 GMT -5
What would you have an "appropriate forum" be, Artknocker,
in which someone could and should espouse their political views, hmm?
IN JAIL WHILE THEY'RE BEING FUCKED UP THE ASS? I'll bet that'd suit you huh.
Fact is 'knocker, this whole "issue" doesn't have a thing to do with
"to what degree they are politically active", but it sure as hell does
have to do with what happens to bug you the most. And that happens to be
"Liberals" -- never mind that's just a loose term people fling around when
it suits their "passion" (as you refer to it) for politics or whatnot.
See the way I see it is you're sitting there espousing your anti-Liberal
rhetoric by listing all these rock stars who are "supposed" to be good little
rock stars and sing their songs and if they're to open up their pie holes,
let it be something in direct reference to the songs they're singing,
for crying out loud they're not politicians they're rock stars
and while you may be freaking out about can't anybody see that,
I'm afraid you're missing the point that politicians are just
fucking human which just so happens to be, I'm sorry to break
the news to ya 'knocker m'boy, exactly what rock stars are, too.
The very country you so love to defend, in your passion,
is that very nation here on earth today in the year 2005
which most upholds the very virtues you are railing against here,
in your passionate misunderstanding of what seperates the "politically active"
from the "merely artistic", as you'd have it. Now listen up art, I'm not knockin' you man,
I'm merely taking advantage of this public message forum to raise my voice so you can hear
what a fellow american thinks on the subject matter. No need to get all huffy & divisive
about this - -if you've got any particular problem with what I've said here just mention it
and I'll be glad to discuss it with you. I am only trying to reach out to see if you can
understand that people are people, so why should it be, that you and we must get along so awkwardly.
Haha, I just threw that in there man. I'll leave it at that, see what U fire back. peace |thoRnouT
p.s.
Quit goin on about what the hot damned "appropriate venue" is for freedom of fucking speech, man.
Anywhere within this liberal dose of continental You-nited States of Amerika is an appropriate venue for any hot damned tootin' American to speak his or her mind in any way they HipHopDamned Well Pleeze, fer Kriced Sakes, Art Knocker.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Aug 10, 2005 21:51:24 GMT -5
Stones take a stand
August 10, 2005 - 2:51PM
A new Rolling Stones song titled Sweet Neo Con appears to take a swipe at so-called US neo-conservatives, many of whom are well known supporters of US President George Bush.
An excerpt from the song was published by Newsweek magazine this week. The magazine describes the Stones's hard-hitting lyrics as "political".
US Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are three well-known members of Mr Bush's inner circle considered by political analysts to be leading lights of the neo-conservative movement.
"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of s---," the song says, according to Newsweek.
The Stones's frontman Sir Mick Jagger told Newsweek with a laugh: "It is direct."
Jagger also took a dig at fellow band member Keith Richards, who lives in the United States.
"Keith said, 'It's not really metaphorical.' I think he's a bit worried because he lives in the US," Jagger reportedly joked.
The song is being released on the Stones's new album A Bigger Bang which is due out in early September.
Richards told the magazine that if the Rolling Stones were a mum-and-pop operation, Jagger would be the "mum".
"Mick has to get up in the morning with a plan,'' Richards said.
"Who he's going to call, what he's going to eat, where he's going to go.
"Me, I wake up, praise the Lord, then make sure all the phones are turned off. If we were a mum-and-pop operation, then he'd be Mum.
"I could see why some people may think we're phoning it in after all this time," the 61-year-old Richards says.
"But playing the music we do, and playing it with these guys, Jumpin' Jack Flash can be a new song to me every night."
"I mean, we don't need to do it to feed our families," he said. "We don't need to do it to prove anything."
AFP, AP
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 10, 2005 22:04:49 GMT -5
Why do the Rolling Stones hate America?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 10, 2005 22:14:41 GMT -5
I know, it's like, shut up and play your hits, right?  Mick-Hey Keef, Bush is very uncool, man. Right? Keef- Yeah, man gshdojoekejhjff Charlie- Why don't both of you fuck off Ron- Wha? Who said we're on? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Aug 10, 2005 22:16:52 GMT -5
If the "World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band" isn't with us, it is against us.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 10, 2005 22:19:18 GMT -5
Maybe we should rename the Castaways board the Pinko board.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 10, 2005 22:43:01 GMT -5
Of course Mick Jagger hates America. I mean, "Sir" Mick Jagger? Oh well excuse me, Mr. Royalty! Better than the rest of us working class American patriots, no doubt! The seething contempt for those of us who put in an honest day's work is terrifying.
First Bruce Springsteen, now the Stones. Who's next, on the Blame America First train, Bono? Bob Dylan? Britney Spears? Robert Goulet?? Barney the Purple Dinosaur?!
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 1:10:32 GMT -5
I don't deny they're politically active beyond what I've described. But could you call them a political band like you could, say, U2? U2 is not a political band. U2 is, and have always been, a SPIRITUAL band. I thought everyone knew that. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 1:14:26 GMT -5
And did you know American Idiot is actually about, well, "red staters" (or at least the mentality thereof) and not the President, and that it has sold over 3 million copies nationally, has spawned 3 huge rock radio hits, and is selling just fine in those very same red states, because there are more than enough disenfranchised teenagers within those red states who quite frankly connect with what Green Day is saying? I think they just like the punk rock...  Green Day would sell in the mega-millions if they were campaigning for Ken Starr. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 1:19:09 GMT -5
Excellent points about PJ and Green Day, shin. It's funny that U2 are continually dragged out as the archetypal "political band" when actually there's very little overtly political in their catalog. Sunday Bloody Sunday is certainly an issue song, but its politics are pretty much of the "stop the killing" variety -- a position which U2 have pretty consistently stuck with throughout their career. Bullet the Blue Sky in its original incarnation was very much a critique of American imperialism, but even there the verses are so abstract as to be relevant to almost any use of violence ("you plant a demon seed you raise a flower of fire"). Come to think of it, U2 have probably averaged less than a single overtly political song per record over their entire career. And almost all of their most political work has been about "the troubles" in their own country, something which they certainly have the legitimacy to address, as does any Irish citizen. But the vast majority of U2's output (all of Boy and October, and virtually all of The Unforgettable Fire, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Pop and All That You Can't Leave Behind) is concerned with the personal and spiritual (there are a lot more U2 songs about God than about any political subject) rather than the obviously political. If U2 are among the most political bands, then that really says something about how apolitical we like our artists. Bono has never been shy about taking a stand in interviews or other forums, but U2 are hardly a "political" rock and roll band. See? What did I tell you? I posted my "U2 is a SPIRITUAL band" mini-manifesto before I even got to this post. And from Holzman, no less. Nice to once again be validated... Thanks, Ken. We're right, you know... |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 1:32:16 GMT -5
Of course Mick Jagger hates America. I mean, "Sir" Mick Jagger? Oh well excuse me, Mr. Royalty! Better than the rest of us working class American patriots, no doubt! The seething contempt for those of us who put in an honest day's work is terrifying. First Bruce Springsteen, now the Stones. Who's next, on the Blame America First train, Bono? Bob Dylan? Britney Spears? Robert Goulet?? Barney the Purple Dinosaur?! The Stones are only doing what they do best...jumping on a potentially finance-reaping bandwagon. Not saying they haven't put out some of the greatest albums and songs in the history of music, but nevertheless, they always rode on the Beatles' coat-tails, taking their cue from them ( Her Satanic Majesty's Request anyone?), and only when the Beatles had broken up did they make their best music, then after a couple of dud records they jumped on the disco bandwagon ("Miss You") and the punk bandwagon (much of Some Girls was hailed by critics as being quite "punk-influenced")...they put out some serious duds the last couple of records they did, and so they jumped on the "Unplugged" bandwagon, offering up an acoustic live album of the tried and true hits ( Stripped)... So Mick has figured it might just appeal to the closet radical in all us old hippies who might remember when they were relevant to bash the conservative element, and you can bet it has more to do with the "ka-ching" of pocket change it might generate than any honest dissatisfaction with America's political right-wingers. I guess it beats writing about how inconvenient it is when you have to change your Depends undergarments in the middle of a smokin' recording session. God, I hope they retire soon. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 1:36:11 GMT -5
What would you have an "appropriate forum" be, Artknocker, in which someone could and should espouse their political views, hmm? IN JAIL WHILE THEY'RE BEING FUCKED UP THE ASS? I'll bet that'd suit you huh. Fact is 'knocker, this whole "issue" doesn't have a thing to do with "to what degree they are politically active", but it sure as hell does have to do with what happens to bug you the most. And that happens to be "Liberals" -- never mind that's just a loose term people fling around when it suits their "passion" (as you refer to it) for politics or whatnot. See the way I see it is you're sitting there espousing your anti-Liberal rhetoric by listing all these rock stars who are "supposed" to be good little rock stars and sing their songs and if they're to open up their pie holes, let it be something in direct reference to the songs they're singing, for crying out loud they're not politicians they're rock stars and while you may be freaking out about can't anybody see that, I'm afraid you're missing the point that politicians are just fucking human which just so happens to be, I'm sorry to break the news to ya 'knocker m'boy, exactly what rock stars are, too. The very country you so love to defend, in your passion, is that very nation here on earth today in the year 2005 which most upholds the very virtues you are railing against here, in your passionate misunderstanding of what seperates the "politically active" from the "merely artistic", as you'd have it. Now listen up art, I'm not knockin' you man, I'm merely taking advantage of this public message forum to raise my voice so you can hear what a fellow american thinks on the subject matter. No need to get all huffy & divisive about this - -if you've got any particular problem with what I've said here just mention it and I'll be glad to discuss it with you. I am only trying to reach out to see if you can understand that people are people, so why should it be, that you and we must get along so awkwardly. Haha, I just threw that in there man. I'll leave it at that, see what U fire back. peace |thoRnouT p.s. Quit goin on about what the hot damned "appropriate venue" is for freedom of fucking speech, man. Anywhere within this liberal dose of continental You-nited States of Amerika is an appropriate venue for any hot damned tootin' American to speak his or her mind in any way they HipHopDamned Well Pleeze, fer Kriced Sakes, Art Knocker. BRAVO, Thorny! With the exception of the unforgivable Depeche Mode quote, I applaud the effectiveness with which you have communicated in this post! As a moderate conservative, allow me to say I agree with most of it... I get the feeling that Art is just frightened that too many lemmings (ie. concert-goers) will swallow their heroe's viewpoints and turn to the dark side. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 11, 2005 7:56:33 GMT -5
Of course Mick Jagger hates America. I mean, "Sir" Mick Jagger? Oh well excuse me, Mr. Royalty! Better than the rest of us working class American patriots, no doubt! The seething contempt for those of us who put in an honest day's work is terrifying. First Bruce Springsteen, now the Stones. Who's next, on the Blame America First train, Bono? Bob Dylan? Britney Spears? Robert Goulet?? Barney the Purple Dinosaur?! The Stones are only doing what they do best...jumping on a potentially finance-reaping bandwagon. Not saying they haven't put out some of the greatest albums and songs in the history of music, but nevertheless, they always rode on the Beatles' coat-tails, taking their cue from them ( Her Satanic Majesty's Request anyone?), and only when the Beatles had broken up did they make their best music, then after a couple of dud records they jumped on the disco bandwagon ("Miss You") and the punk bandwagon (much of Some Girls was hailed by critics as being quite "punk-influenced")...they put out some serious duds the last couple of records they did, and so they jumped on the "Unplugged" bandwagon, offering up an acoustic live album of the tried and true hits ( Stripped)... So Mick has figured it might just appeal to the closet radical in all us old hippies who might remember when they were relevant to bash the conservative element, and you can bet it has more to do with the "ka-ching" of pocket change it might generate than any honest dissatisfaction with America's political right-wingers. I guess it beats writing about how inconvenient it is when you have to change your Depends undergarments in the middle of a smokin' recording session. God, I hope they retire soon. This is crazy talk. You might not like the political stance that the Stones have recently taken up, but to claim that they were just some Beatles rip-off band in the beginning of their careers is a ridiculous assertion, especially considering that many of the British rock groups of that time were clearly using each other as influence, is downright insanity. Here's some of what the Stones put out, pre 1970: England's Newest Hit Makers 12 X 5 The Rolling Stones, Now! December's Children (And Everybody's) Aftermath Their Satanic Majesty's Request Beggar's Banquet Let It Bleed ..not to mention Flowers, which if you judge only on the music, is a fantastic collection of songs. Come on, JAC. How can you accuse the Stones of being disingenuine? |
|
