I like it......

....hey ya gotta remember De Niro once did Raging Bull...and and and then later on Fockers



ROCKMAN

Six pages so far... "Indian Girl" seems to be one of the most discussed songs the Stones ever have done... That alone says enough of its significance in their legacy!

- Doxa

Worst ever

Challenged by the opposition to this song, I want to say a little more.

In the context of its album, "Indian Girl" makes a remarkable contrast and adds more significantly with its Latin-American flavour than many seemingly "greater" songs would have done. The song is also remarkable as a sincere song, without either the typical Rolling Stones myths or (often wellplaced and needed) irony. The subjectmatter from Nicaragua and the dilemmas of the Sandinista revolution can carry itself without, even in the Rolling Stones repertoire, such as it has been made. A magnificent song, apparently, to my surprise, for many either to hate or strongly dislike, but for at least some others to take to their heart and maybe even love. Among the latter group of people, I do. A song within the Stones catalogue with deep character.

And the album, to which "Indian Girl" belongs, to me on many occasions stands as the second best album post the '68 - '72 studio albums. Also because of "Indian Girl". Only UNDERCOVER to me remains somewhat better than EMOTIONAL RESCUE. Both albums contribute to complete a sequence of albums started by SOME GIRLS as the 4th golden period of the band's career. ( I leave out my usual reservation on that score.)

I don't think Mick sounds serious on ID. At times, he sounds toungue in cheek and borderline mocking - while addressing serious subject(s).

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think Mick sounds serious on ID. At times, he sounds toungue in cheek and borderline mocking - while addressing serious subject(s).

You may be right, but only to some extent. In case, that is surface. Below there is strong empathy. Empathy with realism involved.

Possibly that essence strikes me so effectively that I miss the surface. (One other song when a split between the surface and the essence below is plainly visible even to me, is "Faraway Eyes".)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-06 20:49 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think Mick sounds serious on ID. At times, he sounds toungue in cheek and borderline mocking - while addressing serious subject(s).

You may be right, but only to some extent. In case, that is surface. Below there is strong empathy. Empathy with realism involved.

Possibly that essence strikes me so effectively that I miss the surface. (One other song when a split between the surface and the essence below is plainly visible even to me, is "Faraway Eyes".)

There is a deeper message indeed, but the lyrics are so erratic that it's hard for the listener to take them seriously, imo.

"Fighting for Mr. Castro in the streets of Angola..."

"La la la da, la la la da"...

Mixed with Mick's attitude the (supposed) seriousness falls to the ground, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-06 22:15 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think Mick sounds serious on ID. At times, he sounds toungue in cheek and borderline mocking - while addressing serious subject(s).

You may be right, but only to some extent. In case, that is surface. Below there is strong empathy. Empathy with realism involved.

Possibly that essence strikes me so effectively that I miss the surface. (One other song when a split between the surface and the essence below is plainly visible even to me, is "Faraway Eyes".)

There is a deeper message indeed, but the lyrics are so erratic that it's hard for the listener to take them seriously, imo.

"Fighting for Mr. Castro in the streets of Angola..."

"La la la da, la la la da"...

Mixed with Mick's attitude the (supposed) seriousness falls to the ground, imo.

That's my favorite line ... That delivery has a sharpness to it... Like he's sneering at the prospect.. sneering at the revolutionaries predictable trajectory. You're assuming Mick Jagger doesn't care about something because that's the mythology. But often it's the perfect ruse and he pulls the wool over eyes.
I find his voice poignant, almost hesitant during the verses, like he's trying to commit but also trying to appear detached. That's Jagger's MO: detract from all appearances of sincerity to keep your cards close. Jagger visited Nicaragua, at the time the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, was married to a woman who was born there. The poverty, violence, misery and urgency was real - he's human, a fact he often tries to mask by putting on a veil , an affectation. Maybe the song is too real, but he realizes that for some fans, It's Only Rock and Roll, and they wouldn't care or see the deeper meanings in the song or maybe he's uncomfortable with the realness when it's easier to sing in strictly sexual contexts, So he affects a safe distance. That's what makes Jagger such a great, and elusive artist... He wants you to wonder what he's really thinking or feeling.
But the lyrics speak for themselves, and it remains his sharpest political song. Anybody who read about Central America in those days will tell you they song has meaning, many meanings. I wish all fans recognized what a prescient message this was in 1980.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-07 09:40 by stupidguy2.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think Mick sounds serious on ID. At times, he sounds toungue in cheek and borderline mocking - while addressing serious subject(s).

You may be right, but only to some extent. In case, that is surface. Below there is strong empathy. Empathy with realism involved.

Possibly that essence strikes me so effectively that I miss the surface. (One other song when a split between the surface and the essence below is plainly visible even to me, is "Faraway Eyes".)

There is a deeper message indeed, but the lyrics are so erratic that it's hard for the listener to take them seriously, imo.

"Fighting for Mr. Castro in the streets of Angola..."

"La la la da, la la la da"...

Mixed with Mick's attitude the (supposed) seriousness falls to the ground, imo.

Written early last night. Due to a posting problem, I have taken scarce time now to copy word for word a post, written on my mobile, on my PC at work, where I have returned after five days spent to, in or from Stockholm.

There are two open issues here and possibly a hidden one (perhaps not, though).I guess that you not especially like this song. That is the latter.

Then one other of your points seems to deal with what in other threads have been termed mannerisms in Mick Jagger's deliverance of his lyrics. In fact, I do myself especially very often like the nuances, which those socalled mannerisms may give his use of his voice as an instrument. In this case, where I did not and do not detect it, as far as it concerns the direction for it that you are dwelling upon, it might in case be a way for him to distance himself from his own rather distinct humanistic commiseration with those who, out of different sources, suffered during the Sandinista revolution. Why? To avoid, what many posters apparently do not think he succeded in, even if some do. That is, to commiserate without ending up as pathetic.

Finally, this is not a forum for discussions of politics. As to this song, however, there seems to be involved some aspects of Mick Jagger's political outlook at that moment. We or I (or possibly Mick Jagger now) do not necessarily share his outlook from then. Mick Jagger seems to have had in mind that there were Cubans involved both in fighting in an internationalized civil war in Angola and in instruction of the armed forces of the Sandinistas. Saw some dilemmas about that. Whatever, I do not doubt the sincererity or the seriousness of his humanistic feelings with those who suffered under what was going on. Really, he never here ridicules those individuals. Like the little Indian girl he evokes.

If you are referring to such a ridicule or scorn, directed against somebody, you'd better reflect on the lyrics of "Blinded by Rainbows".

Edit: I very much like to acknowledge the post preceding mine.
A later edit: Addition of a letter that irritatingly had fallen out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-07 13:12 by Witness.

Still better than ANYTHING released by the cabaret band imposters masquerading as the Rolling Stones since 1989.

I respect your (and stupidguy2's) take on these lyrics, as well as Mick's performance.

What stupidguy2 says about the distance is interesting. That's where Mick doesn't succeed, imo. For me it doesn't sound like he is sneering of the horrendous crimes. Nor does it sound like he is shocked by the M16s.

I just don't think it's cool to address serious political issues this way, but I respect that others think otherwise.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I don't think Mick sounds serious on ID. At times, he sounds toungue in cheek and borderline mocking - while addressing serious subject(s).

You may be right, but only to some extent. In case, that is surface. Below there is strong empathy. Empathy with realism involved.

Possibly that essence strikes me so effectively that I miss the surface. (One other song when a split between the surface and the essence below is plainly visible even to me, is "Faraway Eyes".)

There is a deeper message indeed, but the lyrics are so erratic that it's hard for the listener to take them seriously, imo.

"Fighting for Mr. Castro in the streets of Angola..."

"La la la da, la la la da"...

Mixed with Mick's attitude the (supposed) seriousness falls to the ground, imo.

That's my favorite line ... That delivery has a sharpness to it... Like he's sneering at the prospect.. sneering at the revolutionaries predictable trajectory. You're assuming Mick Jagger doesn't care about something because that's the mythology. But often it's the perfect ruse and he pulls the wool over eyes.
I find his voice poignant, almost hesitant during the verses, like he's trying to commit but also trying to appear detached. That's Jagger's MO: detract from all appearances of sincerity to keep your cards close. Jagger visited Nicaragua, at the time the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, was married to a woman who was born there. The poverty, violence, misery and urgency was real - he's human, a fact he often tries to mask by putting on a veil , an affectation. Maybe the song is too real, but he realizes that for some fans, It's Only Rock and Roll, and they wouldn't care or see the deeper meanings in the song or maybe he's uncomfortable with the realness when it's easier to sing in strictly sexual contexts, So he affects a safe distance. That's what makes Jagger such a great, and elusive artist... He wants you to wonder what he's really thinking or feeling.
But the lyrics speak for themselves, and it remains his sharpest political song. Anybody who read about Central America in those days will tell you they song has meaning, many meanings. I wish all fans recognized what a prescient message this was in 1980.

stupidguy2 - your post is one of the great posts here regarding Jagger.

Imagine a rock musician singing a song in 4 minutes about weighty maters with sincerity and seriousness - he would be named Sting or Bono or even Lenn.. or Dyl.. These are the unconscious shades of Jagger that inform you that he is counter-cliche. That deeply educated Stones fans would not comprehend this essential ingredient of the Stones identity mix is somehow befuddling

I think that is the easy way out, wanderingspirit. It sounds like Mick's general campy and arrogant attitude from this era is being defended at all costs.

There is no sneer, "laughing-attitude" or "la la la das" in Highwire, Sweet Neocon or Sweet Black Angel - just a message, a situation report or worrying about a serious issue.

I see your point about the danger of becoming a parody, when the song is performed with sincerity, though. There is always a fine line when singing about politics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-07 18:38 by DandelionPowderman.

But DandelionP.
That's your take on how a 'serious subject' should be delivered. Jagger created a persona of not giving a f*#%. Even in his most 'political' song until that point, Street Fighting Man, he plays the role of outsider-looking-in. Songs like Sympathy, or Salt of the earth are steeped in historical references, like he just read a great book and framed a song around it. He was always at a safe distance.
Luxury is an underrated political song, most just taking the 'luxury' theme at face value. But to me, that song is a first glimpse of how his visit to third world poverty affected or moved him. The song is about disproportionate economics and social equality in the world, a world divided by the haves and have-nots. He's playing the role of the poor man with a family and trying to keep them from poverty. But it's cloaked in a rich man's persona...'working so hard to keep you in luxury..'
Even Heartbreaker, with its narrative of the wrongly identified boy shot by police..
We all now know that Bianca had a very political outlook on the world, and maybe she somehow sparked a more aware Mick. So he goes to Nicaragua and the reality moves him. Maybe there was an emotional investment.. But you're Mick Jagger and not supposed to give a f*%#.
But you do give a %#*, so how do write a song about it that doesn't turn you into something you don't want to be, ie,, Lennon or whoever.
Jagger would later occasionally speak with a certain authority about Central America in interviews, which suggests that he was paying close attention.
Why is it so hard to believe that Jagger could actually give a ^*%# about a situation he witnessed first hand? Indian Girl was the first time he acknowledged that experience..
People seem to forget he's human, and that he is a student of history and watcher of the world. He too often masks that with sarcasm and cynicism. But every once in a while, those attributes reveal themselves...And people just say he's faking it because of the way he drags out a certain vowel.
That's the perfect conundrum isn't it?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-07 19:07 by stupidguy2.

I'm with you, Stupidguy2. And you're right, it is my take on it.

I'm not saying that he didn't give a fvck, either. The thing I have a beef with is playing cool while you're singing a mediocre to poor (my opinion again) tex mex-ballad about something you may have witnessed several years ago - to address something you care about to the listener.

I know he cared, it is merely the artistic form I'm criticising.

He is taking on a different accent on SBA and Luxury, but his point and the lyrics come across like he really cares.

I think you have many good points in your post, though.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm with you, Stupidguy2. And you're right, it is my take on it.

I'm not saying that he didn't give a fvck, either. The thing I have a beef with is playing cool while you're singing a mediocre to poor (my opinion again) tex mex-ballad about something you may have witnessed several years ago - to address something you care about to the listener.

I know he cared, it is merely the artistic form I'm criticising.

He is taking on a different accent on SBA and Luxury, but his point and the lyrics come across like he really cares.

I think you have many good points in your post, though.

Yes, he does take on an accent, like in Sweet Black Angel...
I guess Mick feels more comfortable speaking from another perspective, or at least that's the intent.
Indian Girl is trickier because its a trickier subject matter, and I actually hear him imitating Bianca's accent in the long demo version.
Jagger has always affected voices, syntax, like singing Fool to Cry or any number of other songs with the vernacular of an American black man.
Its a common thing with artists. After all, Bruce S. doesn't really talk like a downtrodden union worker from North Carolina or Kentucky wherever, but he makes his message work. Perhaps Mick is too Mick Jagger to get away with it as easily.
Nevertheless, Indian Girl continues to incite conversation.
When ER was released, I read Lisa Robinson in Cream asking Keith what Indian Girl was about, and Keith responded, 'I don't know, that's Mick's song. I asked him about it and he didn't say anything..'
I'm paraphrasing slightly, but that was the gist of it.

I remember reading an interview with Mick from the time he was promoting Wandering Spirit, in Musician or one of those mags from that time. It was one of those great interviews that cover all kinds of topics. The interviewer brought up Central American politics and Indian Girl, and his own interpretation of the song, and Jagger was like 'Exactly!' and continued to talk about the subject at length. Mick seemed genuinely surprised and thrilled that somone 'got' the song's meanings.
It's a fascinating little song.
The Stones, and Mick in particlular were always considered decadent and aloof about the world around them, and as a Stones fan, I always loved the fact that before Jackson Browne, Bono, Peter Gabriel and even the Clash and countless other Artists With A Conscious.. in the next decade or so, Our guy, that sneering Mick Jagger, Rock Star Personified, was on it. first and definitively..and without the naivety and gullibility.
He was on point and saw the writing on the wall before alot of people, which, I believe, is a tribute to his questioning and doubting nature.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-08 01:13 by stupidguy2.

Their worst song

Quote
michaelsavage
Worst ever

No...that would be Too Much Blood.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
michaelsavage
Worst ever

No...that would be Too Much Blood.

You two should give Gunface and Congratulations a few spins...

All of you have forgotten Anyway You Look At It.

Quote
stupidguy2
All of you have forgotten Anyway You Look At It.

I love AYLAI!

Great song

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
michaelsavage
Worst ever

No...that would be Too Much Blood.

You two should give Gunface and Congratulations a few spins...

I love Congratulations! Gunface, however, is the bottom of the barrel.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
michaelsavage
Worst ever

No...that would be Too Much Blood.

You two should give Gunface and Congratulations a few spins...

I love Congratulations! Gunface, however, is the bottom of the barrel.

La la la la, la la la, ok

Quote
Mathijs
Without a shadow of a doubt the most appalling song the Stones have ever recorded.

Mathijs

Agreed!

Quote
Rockman
....hey ya gotta remember De Niro once did Raging Bull...and and and then later on Fockers

Excellent point ;-)

Was that a mariachi band coming in the background sometimes? WTF?
J/K (sort of)
Problem I have with this tune is a I love the guitars, the sway of it is very, very pretty to me, but,
the lyrics do kinda wreck it for me. Not politically, just, could've been a whole different story to match the music. That's it, the story doesn't match the guitars/ beauty of the music (minus the mariachis, or whatever it's called! Completely out of place)
I said before I've never, ever critiqued Jagger's accents, he is a truly brilliant/ funny orator all over the world, blah blah blah,
but his Spanish bit here: No.

I love this song!

everything's turning to gold

Lyrics are questionable.
The track is fantastic in my
opinion.