Are they?

If we take a look at Neocon, the song might not appear on the cd in the USA. If so, I think the're gonna play it live.

During the Steel Wheels tour they played Undercover each night during their stay in Argentina.

Is it their way to demonstrate or just image?

no they aren't....the only thing controversial is the price of tickets. they really haven't mattered socially/politically in, oh, about 35 years....

What band has mattered politically in the past 20 years. Its just music.

sure they're controversial. :E
(what do politics have to do with it?)



"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

I think the last true, what I would call a contaversy involving the Stones was having to change the lyrics of Lets Spend The Night for Eddy. In those days things like that had a little shock effect on the public. Quickly after that the world got real jaded.

Having a song like Undercover critisized was a little old hat by that time.

I do grapple sometimes with why the Stones are not less hypocritical in the aspect of playing what they write. How many of us would love to hear Highwire live!

I have been recently amused by John Prines latest tour. He says he has kept his tougue about Bush until he was re-elected then he brushed off a classic tune "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore" (they're already full from your dirty little war). Now this was written for the Vietnam war. He's using the intro that Bush requested it, 'well not personaly but he was asking for it'. This song is so in your face anti US military it makes Stones songs look tame. He has also included some in your face, naming Bush personaly, lyrics in a new song. He says people are emailing him telling him they did not pay to be insulted, sending back teeshirts they bought...he brushes it off, he's comfortable in his art and not financialy motivated.

No

Yes, they are.

Its a provocative act by four fairly old men and a semi-kid (Darryl, 41-42 y o) to travel round the world and play rock.
They could be more provocative than that if they wanted.
But first they gotta give their money to the "Pal".

They sure are controversial here. And, the other day I was checking out a Joan Jett fansite & was astonished to see the degree of vitriol directed at the Stones for simply still existing - astonishing because Joan (thru no fault of her own, I'd guess) hasnt issued more than a couple of songs in the past decade. It all depends on what one means by 'controversial'

thats not controversial - thats being hated.

Sixty year old multi millionaires trying to be 'controversial' is a bit silly.

I agree with T&A.

Gazza Wrote:
>
> I agree with T&A.


I'm honored. Now - if this rumor that the album turns to be called "NeoCon" - I may change my vote....

cant see it myself

the album title, I mean - not the bit about you being honoured. I knew that already.

ticket prices are very controversial.

MisterD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ticket prices are very controversial.


as is the nature of their hair color (charlie excluded...)

MisterD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ticket prices are very controversial.


only to those of us who cant afford them

The general public is hardly going to be outraged as it doesnt affect hardly any of them

It affects me and I've been a fan for 30 years. But hey, what can you do?

.

I ain't stupid, I'm just guitarded.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-19 06:49 by RankOutsider.

The most controversial today are the ticket prices, right?

They know exactly when to be controversial. They do pull out if it gets to hot. Despite the old oppinion that they are the bad boys, it was only a PR gag. Speaking of bad boys you should rather check out the Fab Four.

Controversial only in that they charge extortionate amounts of money for concert tickets. Controversial for their avarice, controversial for dragging themselves yet again out on the road when they're 27 years past their prime.

On a happier note, it was 30 years ago at this moment in Seattle that the Stones were playing Midnight Ramber and yours truly was being sprayed w/sweat from Mick's face; that's how close I was!!!

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

"controversial for dragging themselves yet again out on the road when they're 27 years past their prime."

Hmm, you belong to that school of "relevant till '78". I will also include the 1981-82 tour to their prime, so the right line goes "23 years past their prime"...

But seriously, there is something contraversial in their refusal to "grow up with a grace", not to mention their endless greed.

But still is funny how controversal persons they still are seen to be in the public and in the press. That is because of their old reputation build some 30-40 years ago. (f.e. On the one hand, the mumble and doubt against Mick's knighthood made him almost look like the young and druggy rebel who once shocked the world, although the man is nowadays one of the straightest and healthiest persons in the world (with an extremely healthy libido), a good British aristocrate, in fact. But on the other, he was blamed for being a 'traitor' for accepting it! Mr. Rock and Roll himself, the millionare from Connecticut, loves to keep his old pirate image and to be "controversial" an sich, at least in the public. "You can keep the money, pal"!")

- Doxa

MisterD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It affects me and I've been a fan for 30 years.
> But hey, what can you do?


Same here. but we're not "the general public", MisterD. We're fans. Those who arent, are hardly going to care.

controversial...if ronnie's sobriety, keith knarly fingers, chuck's plinking, and mick potential hair plugs are controversy...sure they've got all that and more...

john r, why were you checking out the joan jett website?

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now - if this rumor that the album
> turns to be called "NeoCon" - I may change my
> vote....

I agree on that.

I'd like to see the Stones heavily banned in the US because of that song or any albums lyrics/contents. That would be controversial!

(Of course, I'd like them not banned here in Europe)



[There'll be no wedding today...]

stop it....................

I think they are...regarding their age!
All 60 year old people I know are fat or ill or bald or whatever.

The Stones are not fat, only sometimes ill and not bald. And they
still do marathons around the world! And I think that´s controversial->
not behaving and looking like the others of their age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-19 14:14 by TooTough.

What do you expect from blokes in their 60's? Wouldn't it look a bit desperate if they all tried to keep some 'rebel' status

Well, ablett, I´ve met people in their 60´s-70´s that are true rebels.
But those geezers are rarely millionaires.
...Btw ablett have you got any sun yet where you spend your summer, ol´ chap?

Have I got any sun yet? Fell asleep in my back garden on sunday so I now look like a stick of rock... ie : red and white!
I look after my two kids alone so its the Foxy Club in Illfracombe then a few weeks later its Bradley Bear in Burnham on Sea.... ROCK N ROLL!!

I agree with Baboon Bro. I've met people well into their 60's that are still outspoken, 'edgy', and youthful in attitude. The problem with the Stones is that they became zillionaires a long time ago. They sold out. Yesterday, I saw yet again another television commercial featuring the Stones (Verizon, some bank?, I forgot . . .). C'mon, do they REALLY have to be featured in another TV ad?? Whatever reputation the Stones have earned as rebels and trailblazers (back in the 60's, when they truly did matter) has surely been lost in the past decade.