|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 11, 2005 8:56:57 GMT -5
I don't get this whole Stones thing. They write a song that takes jabs at the Bush admin. Fine. They get some publicity and buzz for their new album over it. Fine. Along with that buzz comes criticism from people who disagree with their take on the administration, and all the sudden, Mick is saying it's not about Bush, and anything seen as being such is merely coincedental. Whatever Mick ... have the balls to stand behind what you believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 11, 2005 9:24:59 GMT -5
JAC I completely disagree with you about Stones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 11, 2005 9:28:01 GMT -5
I don't get this whole Stones thing. They write a song that takes jabs at the Bush admin. Fine. They get some publicity and buzz for their new album over it. Fine. Along with that buzz comes criticism from people who disagree with their take on the administration, and all the sudden, Mick is saying it's not about Bush, and anything seen as being such is merely coincedental. Whatever Mick ... have the balls to stand behind what you believe. I think Mick just said it wasn't specifically about Bush, it's more the about the whole "red state" phenomenon. Yeah I know that's kinda of splitting hairs... |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 11, 2005 9:34:31 GMT -5
It's like Mick wants to have it both ways. He wants the people who hate Bush to say "Yeah! Go Mick! I'm buying the album". And he wants the people who support Bush to say "Oh, I misunderstood, so that's okay. I'll buy the album I guess". To me, it seems like a marketing push rather than a political statement, and that's rather pathetic. Mick should just go back to women, since it's what he does best.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 9:51:27 GMT -5
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? You assume that my rant about the Stones being bandwagon jumpers is a result of my disagreeing with "the political stance they've recently taken up". I assure you, it is not. I was merely stating my opinion that this "political stance" was likely a marketing ploy and little more. I think I pointed out at least 3 or 4 instances of the Stones being "disingenuine", just as I also said that they had made some of the greatest music of all time. I do not need a run-down of what the Stones put out "pre-1970", seeing as how I own everything the Stones have EVER put out, pre- or post-1970, and having been a fan of theirs for the last 33 years I think I am somewhat qualified to make the statement I made that you refer to as "crazy talk". I never called the Stones a "Beatles rip-off band"...that would imply that they copped their musical style from them. I said they rode on their coat-tails, taking their cue from them. The Beatles opened the door to widespread success in America for a lot of bands...the Stones being the best of the lot. They capitalized on the perceived image that they were the Beatles harder-edged doppelganger (that's certainly how they were marketed). The Jagger-Richards writing team very likely would never have materialized were it not for the success of the Lennon-McCartney pairing (the Stones were more than content to cover old blues songs). Of course the main example is the horrendous Her Satanic Majesty's Request, in which the Stones attempted to pull off their own version of Sgt. Pepper. Anyhoo, the point I'd like to make is that I could care less about this new "political" song of theirs. It doesn't change the respect level I have for their greatest work. As for my over-all respect level for the band...it doesn't diminish it one bit...their last couple of shitty albums did that. I hope they put out one more masterpiece and then call it a day. Seriously. And I hope they never tour again. This is out of concern for their health and has nothing to do with disagreeable politics. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 10:03:13 GMT -5
By the way, you forgot Between The Buttons and Out of Our Heads in your pre-70's Stones list, nor did you mention the two pre-70's live albums, Got Live If You Want It (one of the worst live recordings of all time) and Get Yer Ya-Yas Out (one of the best live recordings of all time).
That's okay, though, I guess, since I've been referring to Their Satanic Majesty's Request as Her Satanic Majesty's Request...Oh well, it's not as if that's one I pull out and listen to regularly...
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 11, 2005 10:05:10 GMT -5
JAC I completely disagree with you about Stones. What? You don't think they're responsible for some of the greatest music of all time? |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Aug 11, 2005 10:20:43 GMT -5
I actually quite like "Their Satanic Majesty's Request" because if you look, it was WAY more than just copping to some Sgt. Pepper sound. They were totally in tap with men like Kenneth Anger, Robert De Grimston and a few other weirdos in the American underground of the later 60s and was much darker than the Beatles would ever hope to be. You see, in my opinoin the Beatles have always been a gateway band, just this very great artistic kind of nice guy band. Whereas the Stones were dirty, raw, angry, scary.
Beatles=Pot
Stones=straight up abcessed sore from too much Heroin and when you run out of that you shoot the whisky in between your toes.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 11, 2005 10:25:42 GMT -5
Just weighing in on the Stones thing...
First, I've been a Stones fan for decades. I don't have everything they ever put out, but I have a lot.
I agree with JAC. I do believe the Stones are responsible for some of the greatest music of all time. My cynical mind also tells me that this latest song and brouhaha is just a marketing ploy. The Stones are certainly experts at that.
Occasional political song or not, the Stones have never been particularly political in my opinion. In fact, through the course of their career, I think they've gone out of their way to be apolitical. It's my opinion that Jagger and Richards are completely ambivalent about politics. This is just a jump on the bandwagon, let's make some money exercise...
And yes, I hope that they can pull one more masterpiece from the depths, then call it a day. Please. No need to tour anymore either!
|
|
|
|
Post by superg on Aug 11, 2005 10:42:59 GMT -5
This is just a jump on the bandwagon, let's make some money exercise...
why alienate the majority of Americans if you're just trying to make money? that doesn't make very good business sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 11, 2005 10:44:36 GMT -5
Wait, wait, let's stay on topic. Artknocker is insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 11, 2005 10:45:04 GMT -5
What majority are you calculating there?
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 11, 2005 10:47:43 GMT -5
The Stones can do whatever they want. They are the Stones. For all we know, that song will be fucking great. Stay on topic, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by superg on Aug 11, 2005 10:48:20 GMT -5
didn't the majority of Americans vote for Bush?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 11, 2005 10:58:43 GMT -5
The majority of Americans who voted voted for Bush. But I think it's a huge leap to assume that all those who voted would consider buying a Stones album anyway. You take out all of the country music fans who voted for Bush, old people who consider their music to be rubbish, etc, and all the sudden, they're really not alienating all that many potential record buyers. Hell - I voted for Bush, I spend a lot of money on CDs, and I can't say that with or without this song, going out to buy a new Stones CD would be a priority for me.
|
|
