Tell Me :
Talk
Yes please, we do not need racism here!
Just in case something were to be lost in translation..............
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 00:57 by EddieByword.
I would feel just the same about it as I do now if it was released whenever. It's one giant shined turd of a title and cover. When it's released has no relevance to me but it is very strange that this is the 50th anniversary celebratory release. From maize to suggesting bananas. Awesome. Way to go Mick.
Forty Licks was a gazillion times better title and cover wise.
The only good thing about this one is at least it's only 2 new songs and not 4. But until the track list is revealed I'm hoping that it's 50 actual past songs and then 2 new ones and not 48 past songs.
Perhaps you missed some of the comments but it's evident, based on MightyTrollin's remarks, that he has. And that pervades, no - dominates the fantasy land he lives in.
It makes the Dirty Work cover equiavalent to Gimme Shelter...
I understand. However, I think it's the character of it, er, the person, all of that that seems so "insider"ish and smarmy. And the resemblances of some others. The over-the-top cheerleader that you'd never want to let answer the phone.
Sexism has been part of what the Stones are about for a very long time. As a female fan, I'm entitled to dislike that (and I do) but it's undoubtedly on-topic. Deliberate racism, however, has never been part of their mind-set, so I'm glad to see the back of ThePenguin's Some Girls cover, whether the intention was racist or political or both - or just accidental. I'm also glad that the earlier, harmless and funny, ones are still here. Maybe we shouldn't have pushed for the series to be continued after the good ideas ran out.
........hysteria is too often hallmarked imo by a lack of observation of context...........
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 16:33 by EddieByword.
lol...that may yet end up as a suitable epitaph for the band.........
...........hope not of course.........
er....so by marrying a person who happens to be a certain color YOU feel qualified to 'assure' us how that entire group feels about something??....hmmm...i married a mexican woman but idon't pretend to know how the entire group feels about immigration....many different opinions i would imagine....six billion people on earth----and not too many still have a sense of humour....or common sense...
"Black girls just wanna get...."
I don't think some of the more lucid observations come close to bordering on 'hysteria'. On the other hand, if you don't have the mental faculty to be able to understand the context and subcontext of the offending image, then perhaps you should do a little more research eddie.
It wouldn't hurt you one bit, promise.
+ 1. Shouldn't be hard to get. It's impossible to define what others shouldn't be offended by.
quite true
My pick would still be Sucking In The 70's for cover and title.
Talk about opening yourself up for ridicule!
And the "new song" was Dance Pt.2.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: September 11, 2012 20:19
GRRR! should be called Sad Sad Sad
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 03:47 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 03:47 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
django
()
Date: September 11, 2012 21:01
Quote
Send It To me
That is VERY offensive. BV, please take it down.
Yes please, we do not need racism here!
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: September 11, 2012 21:16
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-13 01:18 by schillid.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-13 01:18 by schillid.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: September 11, 2012 21:24
GRRRRR! should be called Sad Sad Sad
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 03:46 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 03:46 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: September 11, 2012 23:03
It's a little sad that whoever did it actually thinks he's funny and clever. Clearly, the guy should stick to his day job.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: September 11, 2012 23:07
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 11:36 by stonesnow.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 11:36 by stonesnow.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: September 11, 2012 23:40
GRRRRR! should be called Sad Sad Sad
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 03:45 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 03:45 by pinkfloydthebarber.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: September 12, 2012 00:11
wow,i see everyone has their talking points all lined up.too bad you're arguing about who's got a better plan to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic.
heres the answer-they're all crooks who are owned by large corporations who play both sides and in the end do whats better for the bottom line.whoever wins owes millions if not billions in favors at the end.
if you think one of these guys is any different from the other you probably also think christian bale dresses up in a batman suit and fights crime.
its all a show.in a few years romney and obama will be playing golf together somewhere and laughing about it.meanwhile,we're screwed.
heres the answer-they're all crooks who are owned by large corporations who play both sides and in the end do whats better for the bottom line.whoever wins owes millions if not billions in favors at the end.
if you think one of these guys is any different from the other you probably also think christian bale dresses up in a batman suit and fights crime.
its all a show.in a few years romney and obama will be playing golf together somewhere and laughing about it.meanwhile,we're screwed.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: September 12, 2012 00:30
Just in case something were to be lost in translation..............
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 00:57 by EddieByword.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: September 12, 2012 00:34
Some Girls' sexism was part of the Stones' own musical message and characterizations and packaging...
More importantly, the sexism was partially mitigated by the Stones inserting their own likenesses into the women's faces.
More importantly, the sexism was partially mitigated by the Stones inserting their own likenesses into the women's faces.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: September 12, 2012 01:14
all of my posts are just observations on pop culture and society in general.i hate politicians far too much to ever be political.
i find it more than a little ironic that the entire thread could be summed up with one word...GRRR
i find it more than a little ironic that the entire thread could be summed up with one word...GRRR
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 12, 2012 01:30
Quote
Doxa
I wonder if the anticipation has gotten so huge, and had all this 50th Anniversary hype made people so sensitive (and serious), that one cover and title (of greatest hits package) makes people over-react. I think back in the past, the whole thing would have just made people laugh, if they have payed any attention at all. What there such a hullabaloo over the covers of JUMP BACK or NO SECURITY? What about EMOTIONAL RESCUE? And so on.
I would feel just the same about it as I do now if it was released whenever. It's one giant shined turd of a title and cover. When it's released has no relevance to me but it is very strange that this is the 50th anniversary celebratory release. From maize to suggesting bananas. Awesome. Way to go Mick.
Forty Licks was a gazillion times better title and cover wise.
The only good thing about this one is at least it's only 2 new songs and not 4. But until the track list is revealed I'm hoping that it's 50 actual past songs and then 2 new ones and not 48 past songs.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 12, 2012 01:41
Quote
KRiffhard
Do you have already heard the new song?! Do you have information from reliable sources about the quality of 'Gloom and Doom'/'One last shot'?!
Perhaps you missed some of the comments but it's evident, based on MightyTrollin's remarks, that he has. And that pervades, no - dominates the fantasy land he lives in.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 12, 2012 01:52
Quote
schillid
...the cover is their worst ever. And that is saying something, considering that they've had some really bad covers. GRRR is the worst by far.
It makes the Dirty Work cover equiavalent to Gimme Shelter...
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: September 12, 2012 01:53
To my old friend, We Love To Sing The Blues and the question of whether anyone here has heard the new songs yet, I believe one could succinctly put it that the individual in question's posts were "speculative enthusiasm." I don't believe he ever stated he actually listened to the songs (or pre-listened, if you prefer). When pressed, he expressed frustration with the "insider" label. He is a devoted fan trying to keep things positive. Lately there has been much paranoia over whether or not one or two individuals are corporate plants. We've had one regular here, now absent, who had an association with marketing Keith's book. She was still a fan and was very up-front about it. I don't think the Long-Titled One or the Irrepressible Walter Mitty character on here are one and the same as has been suggested nor do I believe either to be corporate shills. They're just Stones fans who take it all a little too seriously like any of us who visit daily.
And incidentally, Lem Motlow, you make very good sense in all of your well-reasoned posts today. If my time here is in any way limited, I wanted you to know that. As Mr. Zimmerman once said, goodbye is too good a word so I'll just say fare thee well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 01:55 by Rocky Dijon.
And incidentally, Lem Motlow, you make very good sense in all of your well-reasoned posts today. If my time here is in any way limited, I wanted you to know that. As Mr. Zimmerman once said, goodbye is too good a word so I'll just say fare thee well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 01:55 by Rocky Dijon.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: September 12, 2012 02:03
Quote
Rocky Dijon
To my old friend, We Love To Sing The Blues and the question of whether anyone here has heard the new songs yet, I believe one could succinctly put it that the individual in question's posts were "speculative enthusiasm." I don't believe he ever stated he actually listened to the songs (or pre-listened, if you prefer). When pressed, he expressed frustration with the "insider" label. He is a devoted fan trying to keep things positive. Lately there has been much paranoia over whether or not one or two individuals are corporate plants. We've had one regular here, now absent, who had an association with marketing Keith's book. She was still a fan and was very up-front about it. I don't think the Long-Titled One or the Irrepressible Walter Mitty character on here are one and the same as has been suggested nor do I believe either to be corporate shills. They're just Stones fans who take it all a little too seriously like any of us who visit daily.
And incidentally, Lem Motlow, you make very good sense in all of your well-reasoned posts today. If my time here is in any way limited, I wanted you to know that. As Mr. Zimmerman once said, goodbye is too good a word so I'll just say fare thee well.
I understand. However, I think it's the character of it, er, the person, all of that that seems so "insider"ish and smarmy. And the resemblances of some others. The over-the-top cheerleader that you'd never want to let answer the phone.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
kish_stoned
()
Date: September 12, 2012 02:07
hey little rooster will be eaten away by the monkey
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: September 12, 2012 02:55
Quote
schillid
Some Girls' sexism was part of the Stones' own musical message and characterizations and packaging...
More importantly, the sexism was partially mitigated by the Stones inserting their own likenesses into the women's faces.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 12, 2012 04:31
Quote
Big Al
I am appalled by some of the posts here. If BV bans political posts, then I hoPE he can make a stand and do something about the racists are are sadly infesting this wonderful board. I've read comments like 'half-cast' and 'who gives a shit' Well, I do.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: September 12, 2012 06:24
Quote
schillid
Some Girls' sexism was part of the Stones' own musical message and characterizations and packaging...
More importantly, the sexism was partially mitigated by the Stones inserting their own likenesses into the women's faces.
Sexism has been part of what the Stones are about for a very long time. As a female fan, I'm entitled to dislike that (and I do) but it's undoubtedly on-topic. Deliberate racism, however, has never been part of their mind-set, so I'm glad to see the back of ThePenguin's Some Girls cover, whether the intention was racist or political or both - or just accidental. I'm also glad that the earlier, harmless and funny, ones are still here. Maybe we shouldn't have pushed for the series to be continued after the good ideas ran out.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: September 12, 2012 12:24
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Big Al
I am appalled by some of the posts here. If BV bans political posts, then I hoPE he can make a stand and do something about the racists are are sadly infesting this wonderful board. I've read comments like 'half-cast' and 'who gives a shit' Well, I do.
........hysteria is too often hallmarked imo by a lack of observation of context...........Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-12 16:33 by EddieByword.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: September 12, 2012 14:28
Quote
Green LadyQuote
schillid
Some Girls' sexism was part of the Stones' own musical message and characterizations and packaging...
More importantly, the sexism was partially mitigated by the Stones inserting their own likenesses into the women's faces.
Sexism has been part of what the Stones are about for a very long time. As a female fan, I'm entitled to dislike that (and I do) but it's undoubtedly on-topic. Deliberate racism, however, has never been part of their mind-set, so I'm glad to see the back of ThePenguin's Some Girls cover, whether the intention was racist or political or both - or just accidental. I'm also glad that the earlier, harmless and funny, ones are still here. Maybe we shouldn't have pushed for the series to be continued after the good ideas ran out.
lol...that may yet end up as a suitable epitaph for the band.........
...........hope not of course.........Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
lunar!!!
()
Date: September 12, 2012 16:20
Quote
Big Al
Uhh... I've just viewed Penguins cover and I fail to see how it isn't anything g other than totally racist. As someone who'll soon be marrying a black South African, I can assure you that any black person would be deeply offended. Yes, the Stones can be accused of coming up with some racially risqué lyrics - Sweet Black Angel, Some Girls, etc - but the songs are of their time and the boys certainly know better now. A joke is all well and good, but...
er....so by marrying a person who happens to be a certain color YOU feel qualified to 'assure' us how that entire group feels about something??....hmmm...i married a mexican woman but idon't pretend to know how the entire group feels about immigration....many different opinions i would imagine....six billion people on earth----and not too many still have a sense of humour....or common sense...
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: September 12, 2012 16:29
This thread is very sticky.
Grrrr!
Grrrr!
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: September 12, 2012 16:31
It's a bit like at work where your intent doesn't matter, just the other person's reaction. I tried to discuss it and then thought why bother? If people are genuinely offended by something, they are and discussing it only angers them that you don't agree.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
R
()
Date: September 12, 2012 16:32
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Big Al
I am appalled by some of the posts here. If BV bans political posts, then I hoPE he can make a stand and do something about the racists are are sadly infesting this wonderful board. I've read comments like 'half-cast' and 'who gives a shit' Well, I do.
"Black girls just wanna get...."
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 12, 2012 16:53
Quote
EddieBywordQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Big Al
I am appalled by some of the posts here. If BV bans political posts, then I hoPE he can make a stand and do something about the racists are are sadly infesting this wonderful board. I've read comments like 'half-cast' and 'who gives a shit' Well, I do.
I don't think some of the more lucid observations come close to bordering on 'hysteria'. On the other hand, if you don't have the mental faculty to be able to understand the context and subcontext of the offending image, then perhaps you should do a little more research eddie.
It wouldn't hurt you one bit, promise.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 12, 2012 16:56
Quote
Rocky Dijon
It's a bit like at work where your intent doesn't matter, just the other person's reaction. I tried to discuss it and then thought why bother? If people are genuinely offended by something, they are and discussing it only angers them that you don't agree.
+ 1. Shouldn't be hard to get. It's impossible to define what others shouldn't be offended by.
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
lunar!!!
()
Date: September 12, 2012 17:05
Quote
Rocky Dijon
It's a bit like at work where your intent doesn't matter, just the other person's reaction. I tried to discuss it and then thought why bother? If people are genuinely offended by something, they are and discussing it only angers them that you don't agree.
quite true
Re: GRRR! The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: September 12, 2012 17:32
Quote
schillid
...the cover is their worst ever. And that is saying something, considering that they've had some really bad covers. GRRR is the worst by far.
My pick would still be Sucking In The 70's for cover and title.
Talk about opening yourself up for ridicule!
And the "new song" was Dance Pt.2.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
austrianstones , falo01 , fredricA , Irix , IsakSun , jstones , mikey C , NathanLaze , no stone unturned , philrock90 , Rambler62 , rcfoxy , RobertJohnson , vinckske , yorkshirestone
Guests:
1428
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10