From today's "Independent," an English newspaper:

Satanism and The Rolling Stones: 50 Years of ‘Sympathy for the Devil’

From the article, these morsels of drivel:

"For pop, it laid a new path for some of the biggest bands ever, but for the Rolling Stones it led to a vicious murder at an infamous concert exactly a year from the song’s release, and an abiding reputation for evil."

"And over this insistent, primal rhythm he (Jagger) personified Satan in an extraordinarily uncompromising, gloating way..."

Bwaaa haw haw. That’s why I love the Stones. Evil.

HBK

Did they dabble? Sure. Have they downplayed their association with it over the past 30 years? Definitely. Are they servants of Satan? Only if you believe all hedonists are whether they know it or not (see Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody"). Anita and Marianne had or have far more to say about it, but were likewise smart enough to downplay it in later years.

That said, Keith does still have odd fixations with voodoo and the like and I don't mean because of his cat. I suppose for Keith it's just part of loving the blues. I wouldn't necessarily label that "a trifle too Satanic," though. It makes good copy because saying Meredith Hunter was sacrificed to Satan during "Under My Thumb" just doesn't play as well.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-06 06:30 by Rocky Dijon.

"paint it black you devils....paint it black"

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Did they dabble? Sure. Have they downplayed their association with it over the past 30 years? Definitely. Are they servants of Satan? Only if you believe all hedonists are whether they know it or not (see Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody"). Anita and Marianne had or have far more to say about it, but were likewise smart enough to downplay it in later years.

That said, Keith does still have odd fixations with voodoo and the like and I don't mean because of his cat. I suppose for Keith it's just part of loving the blues. I wouldn't necessarily label that "a trifle too Satanic," though. It makes good copy because saying Meredith Hunter was sacrificed to Satan during "Under My Thumb" just doesn't play as well.

Spanish Tony revealed that Keith and Anita were into the Magic, Anita to a larger degree if Tony is to be believed.
Only Keith himself knows just how into it he was, it's not like he is going to tell us, and Tony died a long time ago.
When i finished reading Tony's book i came away with the impression that the Stones were sort of unreal, and now today when we see them onstage as very old men doing their thing, it's almost even more unreal, maybe we are all under their spell

I think some of their best music has been drawn or channeled from a dark place, it's telling that they kind of lost something creative, some sort of force when they left all that behind and went Disco and Punk etc.
Now though you could say they are still drawing on something, i don't really go for all this Illuminati crap but if someone told me 40 years ago that the Stones
would be touring and filling out Stadiums better than any other act and earning more money than ever before at 75 years of age and that Mick Jagger is still moving better than a teenager i would have said that there is something supernatural going on



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-06 15:08 by keithsman.

Not half as much, allegedly, as Jimmy Page.

People like to read esoteric things, whether it be Apuleius' Golden Ass, or The Golden Dawn, or theosophy.

Musicians, more so than most, tend to embrace the esoteric side of things, whether it be Pete Townshend's Meher Baba guru, Santana & Mclaughlin's embrace of Sri Chimnoy, Dylan's embrace of tarot on Desire / Street Legal and then Christianity on Slow Train Coming: The Beatles and the Maharishi: Chick Corea and Scientology, and Keith Jarrett and Gurdjieff.

The Stones, like other artists, followed whatever they wished to follow.

There is only one way to solve this: Look under Sir Michael's hairpiece. If you find three sixes there he's the one.

An intersting read, thanks Pietro!

No matter how much Mick, Keith, Anita and Marianne in private were flirting with satanism, I think "Sympathy For The Devil" has nothing to do with it. It is a way too clever song to label as such. Does anyone think that Master and Margharita is a Satanistic book or worshipping Devil, huh?

I guess the Devil metaphorism, so intellectually discussed as it is presented in Bulgakov's book, goes very well with the way it is used in the musical tradition Jagger knows very well: the blues. Actually the stance and role of Devil Jagger portrays in "Sympathy For The Devil" is exactly the same as Robert Johnson does in "Me and The Devil Blues" - it is that Satan comes to visit him one night and makes him do some evil things. But the horrible line of "I'm gonna beat my woman until I get satisfied" reveals the whole point of Satan metaphor and that it is used nothing but an excuse to explain or even justify his terrible and criminal behavior. In "Sympathy" Jagger takes the stance of Devil himself - it is Him who causes people to do all these terrible, violant actions, although as one little line prevails the true Nietzchean nature of the game: "when after all, it was you and me". I don't think it is any co-incidence that we hear Jagger playing "Me and The Devil Blues" in that scene in PERFORMANCE.

Altgether, for me "Sympathy For The Devil" is simply "Me and The Devil BLues" meeting Master and Margharita. Probably Jagger's greatest hour as a lyricist. Pure genius.

Anyway, aside what "Sympathy For The Devil" really is all about, it is true, like the article says, that it is its reception and image that counts (its title alone is provocative) - people started taking it rather literally and probably even Jagger & co starting for a while play with this Devil Image. At the time of 80's heavy metal bands, flirting with satanism started to be a childish cliche (or should have been). But that's another story (the article captures that rather nicely).

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-06 15:06 by Doxa.

No doubt they have sold their soul to the devil but after the '81-'82 tour Mick realized he finally had enough money to buy it back. A second meeting on the crossroads was arranged at some point during that decade and the deal was made. Behind Keith's back.

Quote
z
No doubt they have sold their soul to the devil but after the '81-'82 tour Mick realized he finally had enough money to buy it back. A second meeting on the crossroads was arranged at some point during that decade and the deal was made. Behind Keith's back.

- Doxa

Quote
z
No doubt they have sold their soul to the devil but after the '81-'82 tour Mick realized he finally had enough money to buy it back. A second meeting on the crossroads was arranged at some point during that decade and the deal was made. Behind Keith's back.

>< that's gotta be the best line ever written on the pages of iorr

There was a Keith interview some years back
where he said that he always carries on him
a small vial of sand from a Delta crossroad …………………………..



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
There was a Keith interview some years back
where he said that he always carries on him
a small vial of sand from a Delta crossroad …………………………..

mmmmm such a vital statement from Himself.... i wonder what interview it was.... google finds nothing

Another venerable English rag weighs in. From the Daily Mail:

The Rolling Stones' darkest hit Sympathy for the Devil turns 50 after five decades of being blamed for a murder, a studio on fire and a whole host of other macabre events

The Daily Mail takes a sanguine approach:

"The Stones had always been happy to be considered devilish in a cosmetic way, to stimulate record sales."

Meanwhile, in Illinois:

Festive Satanic statue added to Illinois statehouse

Satanism is catching!

I always find it hilarious that a lot of articles say they stopped playing SFTD after Altamont, which, of course, is not true. Especially considering that they included it on GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! and it was played on the 1970 tour and supposedly on their 1971 tour.

Along with, uh, they continued to release new LPs and had more songs to play. They continued to play other evil songs like Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler, JJF and SFM.

Seeing the Stones up on stage, closer to 80 than 70 and richer and more popular than ever, sometimes I wonder if Mick and Keith didn't make a similar deal with the devil as Robert Johnson did at the crossroads.

But you know...when you sign a deal with the devil, the deal stays signed.

I always thought it's just their trademark.

But when I saw Mick fold his hands as he was praying to "his friend" ...... ,in a concert back in 1999 (Groningen Holland) I felt a bit uncomfortable.

__________________________

And I always thought this looked satanic - the Stones in hell for eternity.



_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Anita wanted her and Keith to marry in a Black Mass. She got Keith to go with her and meet with a priest from a Satanic church who explained the ceremony to them. It freaked Keith out and they never went back.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-10 08:04 by TheBadRabbit.

If the Stones sold their soul to the Devil, Mick must have been leading the negotiations because it seems they came out way ahead of others...

Exhibit one: Robert Johnston.

English is not my language so I hope I can convey my point of view..

At the present time I only care the Stones as a band. Their music. Live and recordings.

Their personal lives....I couldn't care less.

I do not care if they are communists, vegetarians, philatelists or if they like men, women, martians...

BUT...

Come on....

denying the obvious is just a bit....erroneus...(to say the least)


This topic make some people uncomfortable (and make a lot of people laugh, and I undestand it). In the end is nobody's business.
On the other hand , imho adressing this question would require other context than this forum.

But deny some facets/sides...is surprising



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-10 22:39 by emotionalbarbecue.

Your right emotionalbarbecue ..........I love them for their music and nothing else......although I feel uncomfortable when listing to Lies.

__________________________

Quote
tomcasagranda
Not half as much, allegedly, as Jimmy Page.

People like to read esoteric things, whether it be Apuleius' Golden Ass, or The Golden Dawn, or theosophy.

Musicians, more so than most, tend to embrace the esoteric side of things, whether it be Pete Townshend's Meher Baba guru, Santana & Mclaughlin's embrace of Sri Chimnoy, Dylan's embrace of tarot on Desire / Street Legal and then Christianity on Slow Train Coming: The Beatles and the Maharishi: Chick Corea and Scientology, and Keith Jarrett and Gurdjieff.

The Stones, like other artists, followed whatever they wished to follow.

Quite true. And to be fair in the majority of cases their 'interest' wasn't sustained...Dylan and Lennon in particular seemed to shift their views more often than the seasons change.
George Harrison certainly had a long term interest in Indian religions...but very much on his own(western/materialistic) terms.
The Stones, quite wisely generally kept their own counsel on such matters.

For me, I would honestly say there's no way of knowing what is in someone's head 100% of the time and it's arrogant to attach labels. It's interesting to speculate, certainly. They had some sort of history with dabbling in the occult, but clearly they've likewise dabbled with Christianity, Rastafarianism, Eastern faiths such as Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation, even Kaballah to an extent. At the end of the day, that means they are interested in faith and philosophy as much as atheism. They explore. They take part in some cultural rites and then move on to others. They have no faith some times, they have a degree of faith other times. It transitions based on their own interests or partners or friendships. Perhaps their interest is only ever intellectual in as much as it is possible inspiration for music. Perhaps it is more. I dislike labels and don't think you can easily affix them on any of the Stones just like many other people. To do so is to limit your understanding and appreciation of a person.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote
GasLightStreet
I always find it hilarious that a lot of articles say they stopped playing SFTD after Altamont, which, of course, is not true. Especially considering that they included it on GET YER YA-YA'S OUT! and it was played on the 1970 tour and supposedly on their 1971 tour.

Along with, uh, they continued to release new LPs and had more songs to play. They continued to play other evil songs like Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler, JJF and SFM.

Dancin with Mr D...

anyway, any creative process including music bears its particular ideas and goals... you see, their songs have lyrics, too... and there are much more than one or two subjects per an album that are concerning magick & occult. there are such themes as death (JJF, YCAGWY, PIB per instance) or devil himself etc...well.. they are not singing songs about "polka dot bikinis". think this is a matter of some Stones ideology that contains a strong occult note in it... imo

[/quote]

This calls for another Mount Rushmore!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-11 13:22 by Chris Fountain.

It's all part of the bad boy legend. Carefully constructed and never confirmed or denied. Great PR and we're talking about it today. Believe it if you like or take it with a pinch of salt and just enjoy the great music.

They were never anywhere near as infatuated with the occult as Jimmy Page, who actually bought Boleskine House, the home of satanist Aleister Crowley.

Marianne and Anita exacerbated the legend.

In Tony Sanchez's book Anita said that one morning she woke at Redlands while 60s Crowley follower and Hollywood bad boy film-maker/author Kenneth Anger was staying, to find several doors off their hinges. They had been painted gold - the colour of Satan's aura, according to magick teachings - in an overnight deed that could not have been done without waking the house up. They believed it was magick and promptly kicked Anger out.

Seriously , really !

This topic arises an interesting question. To which extent the work of art is separable from the artist?
Some say that we must embrace/know/understand the artist in order to really value/understand his work. Some say the work becomes independent from the artist as soon as it is made. In this latter case who were the stones at the time they created something would not be relevant...




(Charlie and Keith collaborated in this Mingus tribute record).