IN THE NEWS:
Obama chooses Stones over Beatles
by John McCormick

Finally, some news (Stones vs. Beatles) from today's pool (the small group of journalists traveling with Sen. Barack Obama today in Washington.):

As we zipped along Constitution Avenue, Jennifer Psaki, an Obama spokeswoman, briefed in the van on what happened inside Obama's Senate office building. She said he met only with staff and interns. "No members of Congress stopped by," she said.
Now the news: apparently there were a few Capitol Hill reporters waiting outside his office.

He was asked by one whether he was a Rolling Stones or Beatles guy. "Stones," Obama reponded to a CQ reporter, per Psaki.

She said he also said that he would make some comments after the White House meeting about the bailout agreement

Yeah and I like mustard better than ketchup. Who cares?

Hey Sicilian did you leave your humor in Sicily?

I think its good to have someone in power who can identify with the general public. THe fact that he is into music enough to have a preference of the stones shows that. Its not so much important that he likes the stones more, but to know enough about music that he has a preference. He's not just repeating what his PR guy told him to say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 01:28 by ryanpow.

Quote
The Sicilian
Yeah and I like mustard better than ketchup. Who cares?

you're just P O'd casue the Bills and Sabres both suck.

Quote
sarahunwin

He was asked by one whether he was a Rolling Stones or Beatles guy. "Stones," Obama reponded to a CQ reporter, per Psaki.

She said he also said that he would make some comments after the White House meeting about the bailout agreement

He's going to bailout the Stones? Why, what's happened???

They need financial inspiration to bother writing new songs and recording a new record and, well, then there's Ronnie.

Quote
sarahunwin
Hey Sicilian did you leave your humor in Sicily?

I wasn't aware of the humor in the topic.

Mr. President Elect Paris or Britney?

President Elect Obama: "Why not both?!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 07:36 by deadegad.

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
sarahunwin
Hey Sicilian did you leave your humor in Sicily?

I wasn't aware of the humor in the topic.

But you are pissed off because the Bills and Sabres both SUCK...GO SHARKS

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
ryanpow
I think its good to have someone in power who can identify with the general public. THe fact that he is into music enough to have a preference of the stones shows that. Its not so much important that he likes the stones more, but to know enough about music that he has a preference. He's not just repeating what his PR guy told him to say.

I think it would be interesting if he actually is repeating what his PR guy tells him (I don't think he does, but that's not the point).

Namely, in that case it would interesting to speculate the value of this decision. Why the Stones, but not the Beatles? Namely, if one wants to please the taste of the majority one should say The Beatles - The Stones is, and have always been, a second class citizen as far as the popularity goes (in fact: the whole question gives too much weight to the Stones as if it would be the case that the bands were equals.) So, when Obama says Stones, he makes an answer that would not please the taste of the big majority (about 80/90 to 20/10% I would guess), but sounds more like a controversial decision. In that case: why would he like to give this impression? Is there some political connotion he wants to emphasize?

Let's speculate...Perhaps he would like to give the impression that he is brave enough of not being afraid of making "easy solutions" when needed. Or perhaps he wants to emphasize the ties the music of The Stones has to afro-American culture. That there is a an entity in traditional 'white' European based culture that has natural connections and relations to the black American community - The Stones truely admire and are affected by the black American culture. The Beatles instead is and represent nothing but traditional pop music. So when Obama as a representative of a black community is making a breakthrough in a traditional white men game, the politics, it is politically wise to have analogies with The Stones - and also for HIM to recognize the importance of The Stones - a band whose true audience and game, we have to remember, IS 'white' - by picking them instead of the 'easy' choice. He gives the imprssion that the black community also recognizes and respects the merits of the Stones (even though in reality that community didn't care the band at all). Okay...

No matter what were the reasons - a great choice!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 12:33 by Doxa.

Don't you think it's funny that over 30 years later the press STILL ask this question?

I have exactly the same thoughts of this,Doxa.

Quote
ablett
Don't you think it's funny that over 30 years later the press STILL ask this question?

I think it is extremely funny, but I still think that Mick and the boys smile when they still hear that question repeated, while John Lennon swears in the grave for still hearing that second-rate blues follower band compared to his genious, ground-breaking band...

Personally, I think the guestion is an iconic part of cultural history nowadays - I think some day when the whole rock and roll genre is nothing but a footnote in history books of culture, I think that funny question is still repeated there. I don't understand why someone is offended by this question anymore - it is not 'real' or 'touchy' one to really to be taken literally.

But like I said before, its very existence works for The Stones - during the last decades even the members of the Stones have admitted how phenomenal and big the Beatles were in the 60's (read Jagger's 1995 Rolling Stone Interview, or listen Charlie 1993 TV interview, sorry don't remeber the name anymore -> youtube). They should be proud of that equalness, and I think they are! (I think only Keith seem to have problems with admitting the hugeness of the Beatles - for example, his story of how The Stones and The Beatles equally decided not to clash with each when releasing new singles, etc. well, in reality it seemed to be more like that The Stones - Andrew - checked when The Beatles were releasing new stuff with which The Stones tried not to clash with - the Beatles who would outsell them any case.)!

There is that little story from, I think, late 80's or early 90's told by Jagger when he was asked that does he think the Stones have achieved something culturally significant. Jagger answered by referring to one dinner he was having with Jerry when then there was a family next to their table, and the young kid asked from his father "which is better, The Beatles or The Stones?". The father recognized the presence of Jagger and said to his son that perhaps he should ask that question from him and noted to Mick. This little incident made Mick to have a feeling that perhaps he and the Stones hace achieved something remarkable or historical...

But it is a funny question, and I think that only people who love both the bands equally are not able to see the ironic and historical nature of it. It's not so damn serious! (And I think what always been its main feature is that is not the plain music it asked for but what the bands, their image and music represent - in which kind of company one one wants to accompany oneself, etc.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 13:21 by Doxa.

i find this very interesting but nor really important.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
ryanpow
I think its good to have someone in power who can identify with the general public. THe fact that he is into music enough to have a preference of the stones shows that. Its not so much important that he likes the stones more, but to know enough about music that he has a preference. He's not just repeating what his PR guy told him to say.

I think it would be interesting if he actually is repeating what his PR guy tells him (I don't think he does, but that's not the point).

Namely, in that case it would interesting to speculate the value of this decision. Why the Stones, but not the Beatles? Namely, if one wants to please the taste of the majority one should say The Beatles - The Stones is, and have always been, a second class citizen as far as the popularity goes (in fact: the whole question gives too much weight to the Stones as if it would be the case that the bands were equals.) So, when Obama says Stones, he makes an answer that would not please the taste of the big majority (about 80/90 to 20/10% I would guess), but sounds more like a controversial decision. In that case: why would he like to give this impression? Is there some political connotion he wants to emphasize?

Let's speculate...Perhaps he would like to give the impression that he is brave enough of not being afraid of making "easy solutions" when needed. Or perhaps he wants to emphasize the ties the music of The Stones has to afro-American culture. That there is a an entity in traditional 'white' European based culture that has natural connections and relations to the black American community - The Stones truely admire and are affected by the black American culture. The Beatles instead is and represent nothing but traditional pop music. So when Obama as a representative of a black community is making a breakthrough in a traditional white men game, the politics, it is politically wise to have analogies with The Stones - and also for HIM to recognize the importance of The Stones - a band whose true audience and game, we have to remember, IS 'white' - by picking them instead of the 'easy' choice. He gives the imprssion that the black community also recognizes and respects the merits of the Stones (even though in reality that community didn't care the band at all). Okay...

No matter what were the reasons - a great choice!

- Doxa

Or maybe he just prefers The Rolling Stones to The Beatles, & there was no big "plan" behind his answer.

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
sarahunwin
Hey Sicilian did you leave your humor in Sicily?

I wasn't aware of the humor in the topic.

Stop arguing both of you please ... and kindly insert a "u" in humo(u)r where one rightly belongs !! You're p***ing me off with this atrocious spelling, mutter mutter moan groan !! And as for you Ms sarahunwin, you should know better. Do you not originally hail from the land where we spell humo(u)r with a "u" ? Wos 'appened to ya out there in California ????????? Too much sun and too much colo(u)r ?????????????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 14:47 by paulywaul.

The bigger question should be Does he like Mick Taylor or Ronnie Wood? haha..

Obviously the choice of Presidents and Prime Ministers - Clinton and Blair were/are Stones fans too.

important news from obama did he resign i hope?