Tell Me :
Talk
The problem with saying that we shouldn't mix music and politics is
that the Stones have recorded political songs and have in the past
cultivated an image of being radical and anti-authoritarian. The band
which sang of the importance of "sparing a thought for the common foot
soldier" should take heed of their own advice and not charge so much
for tickets to their concerts.
For me though what really got up my nose was when Jagger did that song
"Let's Work". I have done dead end jobs all of my life and have never
had much money but nonetheless have spent a considerable proportion of
the little money I have had on Stones records and merchandise.
So then for a bloke who has never had a proper job in his life and is
a multimillionaire who has lived a very privileged life (thanks to
people like me buying the records) to then lecture me to "get off my
butt" because "the world doesn't owe me" made me sick.
That song clearly illustrates that these guys - as much as I love
their music - are out of touch with ordinary folk.
Take for instance the way Jagger sings that we all need to go to work
in order to "be free".
Mick must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Going to work is the
opposite of being free. Technically you are free not to go to work
but if you don't go you starve, so, in reality, you do not have the
freedom to choose (unless you are rich like Mick). So what you have
to do is to go follow orders every single day of your life from people
who aren't elected in a totally undemocratic hierarchy. You don't
have any meaningful say in the decision making process or any real
control over the work - you just have to follow orders or else - it is
not freedom - it is wage slavery.
Jagger also sings about how going to work can "kill poverty" - how
naive can you get?
I, like millions of others, earn less than the living wage, which
means that we are officially in poverty eventhough we are working.
Also the dreadful lines about "don't waste your energies making
enemies" basically translates as don't protest or fight for a better,
fairer world... just put up with the status quo - a far cry from
"Street fighting man". I shudder to think what kind of world we would
be living in if it had not been for the likes of Nelson Mandela, the
Suffragettes and the Civil Rights activists "wasting their energies".
In Factory Girl, Mick sings that "we get buses everywhere" - no he
doesn't - he gets chauffeur driven limos everywhere - he probably
wrote that song sitting in the back of one thinking "this lyric should
go down well with the riff raff who buy the records".
Bailouts began during the tail end of the Bush administration.
Don't give Obama all the credit.
Go back to Fox Fantasy News, mickscarey. There was recently an election. You lost. Again.
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
tele started it
Whaaaat???
I will go out on a limb here and make two predictions:
1. Tattoo removal will become a huge growth industry in 5-10 years.
2. The hairy muff will make a big comeback.
Perfect innocent inflection but try tilting your head and drop one ear when you say that...
This one's all yours. I ain't playing.
Sorry but you already are... once your in... there is no going back.
OK OK.. on 2nd thought I aint playing here either....
so lets make like Nirvana and.... nevermind.
Great record!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
paulm
()
Date: October 16, 2012 18:39
Mick and co. have every right, in a free enterprise, capitalist system (which since I last checked the UK and US still are, thankfully) to charge as much money for ticket prices, merchandise, etc. as demand allows. And they do. Some of you are angry about this or feel cheated as lifelong fans. However, understand that the Stones' paradigm is no longer what it used to be, financially or artistically. Their financial behemoth (Keith: "mom and pop shop" corporation) reality doesn't gel with the edgy rockers of days of yore. But that's beside the point...they have the right to fleece the fans, because it's a supply and demand system.
What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of 1) Mick's attending our incumbant US prez fundraiser, with its associated anti-capitalist message 2) Keith's take on the money--he's not as removed as he tries to portray--it's an act.
I would respect the Stones of 2012 a lot more if their message reflected the reality of how they live. But, much like the political arena, they do the opposite, and I find the hypocrisy ridiculous and tiresome.
People change, and somewhere along the line the Stones changed too; we should be so fortunate. However, their artistry has not caught up with, nor reflected the change, and in that way, as you Brits say, they are lost at sea. Mick and Keith have failed to relate artistically what their new world is like, instead trying to hang on to the bogus notion of counterculture Everyman.
But many of us see through it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-16 18:42 by paulm.
What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of 1) Mick's attending our incumbant US prez fundraiser, with its associated anti-capitalist message 2) Keith's take on the money--he's not as removed as he tries to portray--it's an act.
I would respect the Stones of 2012 a lot more if their message reflected the reality of how they live. But, much like the political arena, they do the opposite, and I find the hypocrisy ridiculous and tiresome.
People change, and somewhere along the line the Stones changed too; we should be so fortunate. However, their artistry has not caught up with, nor reflected the change, and in that way, as you Brits say, they are lost at sea. Mick and Keith have failed to relate artistically what their new world is like, instead trying to hang on to the bogus notion of counterculture Everyman.
But many of us see through it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-16 18:42 by paulm.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
TheDailyBuzzherd
()
Date: October 16, 2012 18:41
10 ... 9 ... 8 ...
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Wry Cooter
()
Date: October 16, 2012 21:07
Ah the lefty bogeyman Obama -- socialist, anti-capitalist...who bailed out the country's biggest businesses and banks. Laugh a minute these days.
As for Mick, I understand he likes money and always did!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-17 08:16 by Wry Cooter.
As for Mick, I understand he likes money and always did!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-17 08:16 by Wry Cooter.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: October 17, 2012 04:32
To me the Stones are, among other things, simply masters of craftsmanship. They've never really let me down in that regard, and they soldier on because they can - I imagine they must like it a bit, and certainly the money is there to whatever extent they might not.
Yes, it was more than craftsmanship at one time. They were lucky in their timing, and lucky to be together collectively, and greater than the sum of their parts.
Certainly they were at the center of the counter culture for a bit, and relevant in pop music terms for much longer. But they were just good craftsmen as well - listening to the Stones it wasn't like listening to many American singer songwriters/bands where, for a time at least, some of those songs seemed a bit more sincere or overtly autobiographical.
So, I am not sure they ever really "sold out" (exactly), even if it comes to light later that Keith appears to be a rank hypocrite. (Didn't he once tell Bill Wyman not be "greedy"? With record companies no less...
) But we can't fault them for getting older. Of course they've changed.
And I don't see why they should've packed it in at whatever point it became clear they were no longer flavor of the month or artistically/socially quite as important any more. They are creative performers after all, and still able to refine their craft years after their peak influence. No reason to quit if they didn't want to.
It's a bit disappointing to realize the band needs Chuck Leavell and company these days, but I imagine Jagger put this in place, precisely because they aren't a cutting edge Rock and Roll band by any stretch now, nor in their prime in any sense either, and living off their reputation, the (mostly well known) songs need to be easily recognizable to the casual audience. That matter can't be left to Keith and Ronnie stumbling around the stage.
As for the price of tickets? Yes, its what the market will bear. For these four (is it?) shows, I suppose they got it right. It remains to be seen what they can expect from additional shows. Somewhat less I imagine, but I guess we'll see.
Yes, it was more than craftsmanship at one time. They were lucky in their timing, and lucky to be together collectively, and greater than the sum of their parts.
Certainly they were at the center of the counter culture for a bit, and relevant in pop music terms for much longer. But they were just good craftsmen as well - listening to the Stones it wasn't like listening to many American singer songwriters/bands where, for a time at least, some of those songs seemed a bit more sincere or overtly autobiographical.
So, I am not sure they ever really "sold out" (exactly), even if it comes to light later that Keith appears to be a rank hypocrite. (Didn't he once tell Bill Wyman not be "greedy"? With record companies no less...
) But we can't fault them for getting older. Of course they've changed.And I don't see why they should've packed it in at whatever point it became clear they were no longer flavor of the month or artistically/socially quite as important any more. They are creative performers after all, and still able to refine their craft years after their peak influence. No reason to quit if they didn't want to.
It's a bit disappointing to realize the band needs Chuck Leavell and company these days, but I imagine Jagger put this in place, precisely because they aren't a cutting edge Rock and Roll band by any stretch now, nor in their prime in any sense either, and living off their reputation, the (mostly well known) songs need to be easily recognizable to the casual audience. That matter can't be left to Keith and Ronnie stumbling around the stage.
As for the price of tickets? Yes, its what the market will bear. For these four (is it?) shows, I suppose they got it right. It remains to be seen what they can expect from additional shows. Somewhat less I imagine, but I guess we'll see.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
GrandToad
()
Date: October 17, 2012 04:40
Argh!
I don't mix my music and my politics. That mixture can kill you.
I don't mix my music and my politics. That mixture can kill you.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
paulm
()
Date: October 17, 2012 20:09
I'm only drawing attention to it due to the blatant hypocrisy of a band that used to ring true culturally.
By contrast, U2's politics have been center stage from the get go: it's part of their image, and they have cultivated that in their art along the way. Some hypocrisy associated with them as well, but again, it's more integrated in who they are.
With the Stones, there has been a disconnect, and their art and cultural message no longer mirrors what they are in reality. Perhaps such reinvention is not possible.
By contrast, U2's politics have been center stage from the get go: it's part of their image, and they have cultivated that in their art along the way. Some hypocrisy associated with them as well, but again, it's more integrated in who they are.
With the Stones, there has been a disconnect, and their art and cultural message no longer mirrors what they are in reality. Perhaps such reinvention is not possible.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: October 17, 2012 20:13
Sweet Thing, you expressed it well.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
salty
()
Date: November 26, 2012 23:30
Quote
GrandToad
Argh!
I don't mix my music and my politics. That mixture can kill you.
The problem with saying that we shouldn't mix music and politics is
that the Stones have recorded political songs and have in the past
cultivated an image of being radical and anti-authoritarian. The band
which sang of the importance of "sparing a thought for the common foot
soldier" should take heed of their own advice and not charge so much
for tickets to their concerts.
For me though what really got up my nose was when Jagger did that song
"Let's Work". I have done dead end jobs all of my life and have never
had much money but nonetheless have spent a considerable proportion of
the little money I have had on Stones records and merchandise.
So then for a bloke who has never had a proper job in his life and is
a multimillionaire who has lived a very privileged life (thanks to
people like me buying the records) to then lecture me to "get off my
butt" because "the world doesn't owe me" made me sick.
That song clearly illustrates that these guys - as much as I love
their music - are out of touch with ordinary folk.
Take for instance the way Jagger sings that we all need to go to work
in order to "be free".
Mick must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Going to work is the
opposite of being free. Technically you are free not to go to work
but if you don't go you starve, so, in reality, you do not have the
freedom to choose (unless you are rich like Mick). So what you have
to do is to go follow orders every single day of your life from people
who aren't elected in a totally undemocratic hierarchy. You don't
have any meaningful say in the decision making process or any real
control over the work - you just have to follow orders or else - it is
not freedom - it is wage slavery.
Jagger also sings about how going to work can "kill poverty" - how
naive can you get?
I, like millions of others, earn less than the living wage, which
means that we are officially in poverty eventhough we are working.
Also the dreadful lines about "don't waste your energies making
enemies" basically translates as don't protest or fight for a better,
fairer world... just put up with the status quo - a far cry from
"Street fighting man". I shudder to think what kind of world we would
be living in if it had not been for the likes of Nelson Mandela, the
Suffragettes and the Civil Rights activists "wasting their energies".
In Factory Girl, Mick sings that "we get buses everywhere" - no he
doesn't - he gets chauffeur driven limos everywhere - he probably
wrote that song sitting in the back of one thinking "this lyric should
go down well with the riff raff who buy the records".
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: November 26, 2012 23:31
@#$%& art, let's dance.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Send It To me
()
Date: November 26, 2012 23:37
there is no socialst party that holds any elected office in the united states -please stfu
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: November 26, 2012 23:42
HAHAH. Only the current "president" and his whole staff. HAHAHAHHAH
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: November 26, 2012 23:46
So, you don't think the fact that they CAN charge LESS and instead charge WAY MORE should not piss off fans? I beg to differ. I may really want to go, and I still may find seats I can deal with, but I have every right o feel let down by the hypocricy of it all.
And WRY, yup, OBAMA did save the banks and all of our collective butts at the same time!
And WRY, yup, OBAMA did save the banks and all of our collective butts at the same time!
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: November 27, 2012 00:03
Quote
mickschix
And WRY, yup, OBAMA did save the banks and all of our collective butts at the same time!
Bailouts began during the tail end of the Bush administration.
Don't give Obama all the credit.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 27, 2012 00:10
Quote
mickscarey
HAHAH. Only the current "president" and his whole staff. HAHAHAHHAH
Go back to Fox Fantasy News, mickscarey. There was recently an election. You lost. Again.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: November 27, 2012 00:13
How about that Ted Nugent?!
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: November 27, 2012 00:15
Jesus, the Stones don't play one night and all the political banter starts again. Bring on that sodding tour.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: November 27, 2012 00:17
This topic:
De-volution...
Inevitable.
~"Love is Strong"~
De-volution...
Inevitable.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: November 27, 2012 00:18
R WE NOT MEN?
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: November 27, 2012 00:44
1989 FORBES cover:
Excerpt from article:
"All this loot finances a lavish lifestyle: Jagger has homes in the Caribbean and the south of France. It also fosters a sharp awareness about taxes. `In an international thing like this, everyone wants a piece, and we don't always think each government should get a piece,' Jagger says. `I don't mind having to pay a fair amount of tax, but if they all got it, there wouldn't be anything left.' Jagger gives Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher credit for reducing taxes sufficiently that many expatriates have returned to Britain. `Given that,' says Jagger, `everyone in England—begrudgingly, some of them—has a lot of admiration for her.' Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts, for one, has moved back. But Jagger and Richards themselves prefer to avoid British taxes to the extent possible. `It's the reason I don't live in England anymore,' admits Richards. `My citizenship is British, but I am a resident of nowhere.'"
Full article here >>> [www.forbes.com]
(Obama did have Mick sing at the White House. Mick seemed to like that. So it might, in fact, have been Mick's elitism that prompted him to attend that Obama fundraiser. Or maybe not.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-27 00:53 by Title5Take1.
Excerpt from article:
"All this loot finances a lavish lifestyle: Jagger has homes in the Caribbean and the south of France. It also fosters a sharp awareness about taxes. `In an international thing like this, everyone wants a piece, and we don't always think each government should get a piece,' Jagger says. `I don't mind having to pay a fair amount of tax, but if they all got it, there wouldn't be anything left.' Jagger gives Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher credit for reducing taxes sufficiently that many expatriates have returned to Britain. `Given that,' says Jagger, `everyone in England—begrudgingly, some of them—has a lot of admiration for her.' Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts, for one, has moved back. But Jagger and Richards themselves prefer to avoid British taxes to the extent possible. `It's the reason I don't live in England anymore,' admits Richards. `My citizenship is British, but I am a resident of nowhere.'"
Full article here >>> [www.forbes.com]
(Obama did have Mick sing at the White House. Mick seemed to like that. So it might, in fact, have been Mick's elitism that prompted him to attend that Obama fundraiser. Or maybe not.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-27 00:53 by Title5Take1.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
lunar!!!
()
Date: November 27, 2012 03:40
Quote
Max'sKansasCity
How about that Ted Nugent?!
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: November 27, 2012 03:44
Quote
lunar!!!Quote
Max'sKansasCity
How about that Ted Nugent?!
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
tele started it
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: November 27, 2012 03:53
I believe in Universal Health Care for everyone, no tatoos on women, and the return of the hairy muff.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 27, 2012 04:07
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
lunar!!!Quote
Max'sKansasCity
How about that Ted Nugent?!
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
tele started it
Whaaaat???
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 27, 2012 04:08
Quote
The Sicilian
I believe in Universal Health Care for everyone, no tatoos on women, and the return of the hairy muff.
I will go out on a limb here and make two predictions:
1. Tattoo removal will become a huge growth industry in 5-10 years.
2. The hairy muff will make a big comeback.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: November 27, 2012 04:11
Quote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
lunar!!!Quote
Max'sKansasCity
How about that Ted Nugent?!
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
tele started it
Whaaaat???
Perfect innocent inflection but try tilting your head and drop one ear when you say that...
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: November 27, 2012 06:28
OMG - Can we just enjoy a show without pokitics?!
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 27, 2012 06:41
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
lunar!!!Quote
Max'sKansasCity
How about that Ted Nugent?!
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
tele started it
Whaaaat???
Perfect innocent inflection but try tilting your head and drop one ear when you say that...
This one's all yours. I ain't playing.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: November 27, 2012 06:45
Quote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
lunar!!!Quote
Max'sKansasCity
How about that Ted Nugent?!
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
tele started it
Whaaaat???
Perfect innocent inflection but try tilting your head and drop one ear when you say that...
This one's all yours. I ain't playing.
Sorry but you already are... once your in... there is no going back.
OK OK.. on 2nd thought I aint playing here either....
so lets make like Nirvana and.... nevermind.
Re: Reflections on Stones' Hypocrisy of Social Agendas V. Capitalism
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 27, 2012 06:48
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71TeleQuote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
lunar!!!Quote
Max'sKansasCity
How about that Ted Nugent?!
ah yea!..time for THAT thread again!!!....
tele started it
Whaaaat???
Perfect innocent inflection but try tilting your head and drop one ear when you say that...
This one's all yours. I ain't playing.
Sorry but you already are... once your in... there is no going back.
OK OK.. on 2nd thought I aint playing here either....
so lets make like Nirvana and.... nevermind.
Great record!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
5strings , BeastyBurdeny , bv , CaptainAcid , dimtim , GeirGG , hot stuff , Irix , JohnnySnapps , jshidoob , jumpingjflash , Justjon , MichaelLassen , mickv , philrock90 , RollingFreak , spunky , Stilllife09 , Stoneswolf , syrel , ttutone , z , ziggenpuss
Guests:
1290
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10