There's a nice balance in the band between (de-emphasized) braininess and a running away from cerebral approaches. They don't compose in an agonized, painstaking way, but rather jam things out, write things quickly, and let things flow, with a lot of cast-off ideas. The lyrics reflect a well-read sensibility and yet are very in touch with a more instictual, animal approach to life. If you have any interest in astrology, Mick and Keith are both fire signs, which are associated with intuition (as opposed to air signs, associated with thought).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 00:32 by Send It To me.

This is a horoscope reading right?

Quote
GravityBoy
This is a horoscope reading right?

It can be, but I do not tell the future, only explain the present & past.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 00:33 by Send It To me.

Commercial.

Quote
TippyToe
Commercial.

There's nothing very thinky about corporate sponsorships, it would seem. But maybe a blatent lack of idealism about your art takes a certain amount of philosphical introspection.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 01:57 by Send It To me.

Neither intellectual nor anti-intellectual. Certainly completely a-political.

Quote
windmelody
Neither intellectual nor anti-intellectual. Certainly completely a-political.

I would say not completely a-political given that they played for Clinton's birthday party.

[www.nme.com]

But mostly they are about the money I think.

I think what they are is subtle.

The politics and the philosophy are there, for the attentive. (keep it undercover)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 02:17 by Send It To me.

There's an anecdote in Bill German's book about Sean Penn discussing some third world hotspot in the 1990's - Rwanda perhaps? - and Jo Wood saying something to the effect of, in a very cultivated tone of superficiality, "Do the Stones play there? I'm not worried about it, then."

They are financial.

Quote
mitchflorida1
They are financial.

I don't think Keith really gives a rip about money, for the most part.

Quote
Send It To me
I think what they are is subtle.

The politics and the philosophy are there, for the attentive. (keep it undercover)

True. And it's why the Stones, IMO, were able to be relevant long after their 60s peers had become dated. There was nothing pretentious about the Stones and yet, the depth, intelligence was there if you were attuned.

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
mitchflorida1
They are financial.

I don't think Keith really gives a rip about money, for the most part.

Umm...7 million dollars advance to write "Life"? In which he trashed Mick?

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
mitchflorida1
They are financial.

I don't think Keith really gives a rip about money, for the most part.

Write him a letter asking for $1,000. See what sort of response you get.

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
mitchflorida1
They are financial.

I don't think Keith really gives a rip about money, for the most part.

Correct. He stopped caring after the $500 million mark.

Mathijs

Sweet Neo Con....and several other songs allude to the political. Of course they are political, it just depends at which time you look at them. Jagger is very political...Keith not as much, for him it's about the music, but if somethings interferes with that then he becomes political. YOu can't be multi millionaries and be completely non political.

They are neither. They cannot be classified into such categories. They are hard to pin down. They do what they want. That's how we like 'em.

"Sexually satisfied, finnacially disatisfied, philosphically trying."
-Mick Jagger to a reporter mid-1960's

A band that can go the ultimate distance obviously has smart players in its midst.

But, being "intelligent" or book smart is no indicator of longevity. Look at Brian Jones ...

Why not outellectual?

Yep, Brian thought hisself straight outta the band ...

They are intellectualy a-political.

I see Mick Jagger voting for the Conservative, not sure Keith gives a damn, Charlie Watts for the conservative, Ron Wood just doesn't care
Do you think I'm wrong ?

Quote
mitchflorida1
They are financial.

If they "really" were in to money - they would be much more active these late days musically, merchandising, PR etc. They have the money they need, earned from the tours 1981-2007.

Quote
rogue
"Sexually satisfied, finnacially disatisfied, philosphically trying."
-Mick Jagger to a reporter mid-1960's

1969.

Quote
jpasc95
I see Mick Jagger voting for the Conservative, not sure Keith gives a damn, Charlie Watts for the conservative, Ron Wood just doesn't care
Do you think I'm wrong ?

Mick's an Obama and Clinton (and Carter) supporter, as far as US politics go. With that in mind, I am not at all sure he would vote Tory in the UK. Nor Labour for that matter; somewhere down the middle, I guess. More or less the same goes for Charlie. Keith, I dunno about UK politics, certainly not Tory. Bur as far as the US go (he lives there), I can picture him happily with Obama rather that Bush/Santorum/Romney, if you dig!? Ronnie'd be happy anywhere.

Quote
Anderson

Quote
jpasc95
I see Mick Jagger voting for the Conservative, not sure Keith gives a damn, Charlie Watts for the conservative, Ron Wood just doesn't care
Do you think I'm wrong ?

Mick's an Obama and Clinton (and Carter) supporter, as far as US politics go. With that in mind, I am not at all sure he would vote Tory in the UK. Nor Labour for that matter; somewhere down the middle, I guess. More or less the same goes for Charlie. Keith, I dunno about UK politics, certainly not Tory. Bur as far as the US go (he lives there), I can picture him happily with Obama rather that Bush/Santorum/Romney, if you dig!? Ronnie'd be happy anywhere.

England is basically a two party state like The U.S . You either vote Labour or Tory. Mick is, most certainly, a Tory. I have never heard any of the others talking politics so I don't know about them. In the U.S. context however Mick is most probably a Democrat.

it must also depend on where they live most of the time.
I think Charlie lives in England, Mick moves a lot I suppose, Keith and Ron live in US most of the time.
It's more motivating to vote in your country when you live in all the time than when you're abroad.

I think they represent/embody pragmatism over idealism, but with some idealistic principles hidden in reserve, in a very cool way.

Sir Mick Jagger knows where his interests lie politically.

The fact he accepted a knighthood tells you all you need to know.

Mick got assimilated by the establishment borg.

Don't know about the others.