Quote
SonicDreamer
The Rolling Stones IORR Lyrics Thread Essay 14 June 2014

Really interesting topic treaclefingers.

Society by default operates by the lowest common denominator rules with favouring of mediocrity across the board. Personally, I abhor artistic/creative censorship within the arts, providing nobody comes to direct harm.

Socially accepted standards do vary in different decades and countries depending on socio-cultural paradigm. A good deal of what happened in the 60s in the USA, UK and Europe (both from an action and verbal public comments perspective), would have resulted people being publicly condemned, ostracised and/or jailed in the 1940s.

For example, the "Swinging 60s" in the UK there was a marked change of public morals and accepted social behaviour compared to a few years earlier. In the USA there was a period in the 1980s when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority organisation and the Tipper Gore co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), held considerable sway over the wider public's media's tolerance of what music artists and other artistic performers were saying and doing. This was the social antithesis of what was happening prior to this one or two decade earlier.

I don't buy some people's explanation Mick (and Keith) were writing in persona using “characterisation". I think a good deal of the Stones lyrics reflect autobiographical experiences, which were then obfuscated under the guise of creating vignettes and stories. Similarly so the vast majority of other mainstream rock stars' oeuvres. I do think Stones lyrics and those of other male rock artists are heavily misogynistic, sexist and at times can be construed as racist.

Over the last few years in the UK, if our friends in the USA are unaware of it, there has been a massive expose of paedophile activity by prominent public figures, particularly those in the entertainment and political arenas. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that sex with minors by entertainers in the line of music, TV and Radio industries was seemingly widespread in the 60s through to the present day.

Legally and morally this was clearly wrong, but the impression engendered and represented in many lyrics (Stones and other musical performers) is the lines of socially acceptable behaviour became extremely blurred from the 1960s onwards. The Rock Stars, TV and Radio presenters of the 60s and 70s considered that anything went. They became the untouchables, "Gods", akin to the Kings and Aristocrats of yore, where if anything was offered to them experience wise, if was perfectly okay to indulge in it. I mean, who was going to say anything against them?

Anecdotal (direct and indirect) tales of fan and groupie excesses inculcates the idea that young (under 16) teenage girls and/or boys habitually threw themselves at rock stars in the 60s, 70s, etc. (probably did not stop there and they still do), in ecstatic states of “Starstruck” emotional desire in public, at hotels and backstage. Such behaviour would likely dissolve and corrupt any Rock Star’s sense of moral boundaries, which would inevitably influence their creative output. Cultivating the ideology, “everyone else around me is doing it”, so “why not?” The same could be said of Class A drug experimentation and sustained recreational use, despite it being completely illegal. I think I would be harder to find rock stars who had not done heroin, and/or cocaine than those who had, but in the majority of countries the use of Class A drugs is an illegal, imprisonable offence.

Fans, the wider public and mainstream media seem to vicariously “get off” (even from a judgemental angle) on the dubious and nefarious exploits of rock stars and celebrities. “We” expect them to behave outrageously on our collective behalves, as that is what these people are “supposed to do” and we’d sometimes love to do, but could not get off with it so remain “good citizens”.

The ubiquitous concept of relentless “partying” in the entertainment fraternity appears to be lauded and in the realm of competitive hedonism, you know who can push the limits harder, more frequently is the benchmark to be emulated. Consuming vast quantities of alcohol and/or Class A drugs is normal, whereas if the individual was an “ordinary” person they would be merely defined as an alcoholic or drug addict, who needs “help”.

Please understand I am not condoning illegal actions, merely commenting on their open acceptance as “the norm” in entertainment circles.

The old adage a poor “mad” (clinically insane) person is simply “mad” whereas a rich “mad” person is “eccentric” is an extension of this difference in acceptable socio-behavioural activity.

One thing that is an increasingly prevalent trend is rock stars and celebrities making some dubious remark in public, invariably on Twitter, then due to the ensuing media outcry issue a grovelling public retraction/explanation/apology lest it affect the efficacy of their brand presence in the entertainment market. I find this a particularly distasteful development... they don’t make rock stars like they used to, I blame Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian!

Cheers,
SonicD

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
SonicDreamer
The Rolling Stones IORR Lyrics Thread Essay 14 June 2014

Really interesting topic treaclefingers.

Society by default operates by the lowest common denominator rules with favouring of mediocrity across the board. Personally, I abhor artistic/creative censorship within the arts, providing nobody comes to direct harm.

Socially accepted standards do vary in different decades and countries depending on socio-cultural paradigm. A good deal of what happened in the 60s in the USA, UK and Europe (both from an action and verbal public comments perspective), would have resulted people being publicly condemned, ostracised and/or jailed in the 1940s.

For example, the "Swinging 60s" in the UK there was a marked change of public morals and accepted social behaviour compared to a few years earlier. In the USA there was a period in the 1980s when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority organisation and the Tipper Gore co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), held considerable sway over the wider public's media's tolerance of what music artists and other artistic performers were saying and doing. This was the social antithesis of what was happening prior to this one or two decade earlier.

I don't buy some people's explanation Mick (and Keith) were writing in persona using “characterisation". I think a good deal of the Stones lyrics reflect autobiographical experiences, which were then obfuscated under the guise of creating vignettes and stories. Similarly so the vast majority of other mainstream rock stars' oeuvres. I do think Stones lyrics and those of other male rock artists are heavily misogynistic, sexist and at times can be construed as racist.

Over the last few years in the UK, if our friends in the USA are unaware of it, there has been a massive expose of paedophile activity by prominent public figures, particularly those in the entertainment and political arenas. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that sex with minors by entertainers in the line of music, TV and Radio industries was seemingly widespread in the 60s through to the present day.

Legally and morally this was clearly wrong, but the impression engendered and represented in many lyrics (Stones and other musical performers) is the lines of socially acceptable behaviour became extremely blurred from the 1960s onwards. The Rock Stars, TV and Radio presenters of the 60s and 70s considered that anything went. They became the untouchables, "Gods", akin to the Kings and Aristocrats of yore, where if anything was offered to them experience wise, if was perfectly okay to indulge in it. I mean, who was going to say anything against them?

Anecdotal (direct and indirect) tales of fan and groupie excesses inculcates the idea that young (under 16) teenage girls and/or boys habitually threw themselves at rock stars in the 60s, 70s, etc. (probably did not stop there and they still do), in ecstatic states of “Starstruck” emotional desire in public, at hotels and backstage. Such behaviour would likely dissolve and corrupt any Rock Star’s sense of moral boundaries, which would inevitably influence their creative output. Cultivating the ideology, “everyone else around me is doing it”, so “why not?” The same could be said of Class A drug experimentation and sustained recreational use, despite it being completely illegal. I think I would be harder to find rock stars who had not done heroin, and/or cocaine than those who had, but in the majority of countries the use of Class A drugs is an illegal, imprisonable offence.

Fans, the wider public and mainstream media seem to vicariously “get off” (even from a judgemental angle) on the dubious and nefarious exploits of rock stars and celebrities. “We” expect them to behave outrageously on our collective behalves, as that is what these people are “supposed to do” and we’d sometimes love to do, but could not get off with it so remain “good citizens”.

The ubiquitous concept of relentless “partying” in the entertainment fraternity appears to be lauded and in the realm of competitive hedonism, you know who can push the limits harder, more frequently is the benchmark to be emulated. Consuming vast quantities of alcohol and/or Class A drugs is normal, whereas if the individual was an “ordinary” person they would be merely defined as an alcoholic or drug addict, who needs “help”.

Please understand I am not condoning illegal actions, merely commenting on their open acceptance as “the norm” in entertainment circles.

The old adage a poor “mad” (clinically insane) person is simply “mad” whereas a rich “mad” person is “eccentric” is an extension of this difference in acceptable socio-behavioural activity.

One thing that is an increasingly prevalent trend is rock stars and celebrities making some dubious remark in public, invariably on Twitter, then due to the ensuing media outcry issue a grovelling public retraction/explanation/apology lest it affect the efficacy of their brand presence in the entertainment market. I find this a particularly distasteful development... they don’t make rock stars like they used to, I blame Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian!

Cheers,
SonicD

Yes, yes and yes and bla bla. I guess there is a lot of smart, brilliant analysis in there, but I don't care. I don't even understabnd a lot of it; simply because I don't want to. And I'm not criticizing you SonicD, or maybe I am. Who cares? These thesis are not good for rock'n roll.
Under age groupies, drugs, a lot of head...immorral? I don't know. If the 70's cock rockers didn't live like that, we'd have no reason to be here chatting though.

But you are right about your last paraghraph. all the apologizing. It is the main reason I loathed Foo Fighters for many years. Some major TV award show, and FF had lit the place up righteously. Taylor and Grohl come off stage and knew they were hot and all hyped up, and look into camera and yell "Now THAT's rock'n roll!" But immediately did a 180, totally changed body stance and expression, and go "Uh well you know, we sure enjoy being here, and would like to thank the Who for allowing us this slot.."

Quote
three16
someone's twitter via one of those 12/12/12 articles posted above

"@AdamMoskowitz wrote “I don’t think he thought thru that set very well, didn’t fit the occasion & he looked like a biker chick #kanye #121212concert [sic].”

Someone please tell me how he looks like a biker chic? Lol. too funny

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
SonicDreamer
The Rolling Stones IORR Lyrics Thread Essay 14 June 2014

Really interesting topic treaclefingers.

Society by default operates by the lowest common denominator rules with favouring of mediocrity across the board. Personally, I abhor artistic/creative censorship within the arts, providing nobody comes to direct harm.

Socially accepted standards do vary in different decades and countries depending on socio-cultural paradigm. A good deal of what happened in the 60s in the USA, UK and Europe (both from an action and verbal public comments perspective), would have resulted people being publicly condemned, ostracised and/or jailed in the 1940s.

For example, the "Swinging 60s" in the UK there was a marked change of public morals and accepted social behaviour compared to a few years earlier. In the USA there was a period in the 1980s when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority organisation and the Tipper Gore co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), held considerable sway over the wider public's media's tolerance of what music artists and other artistic performers were saying and doing. This was the social antithesis of what was happening prior to this one or two decade earlier.

I don't buy some people's explanation Mick (and Keith) were writing in persona using “characterisation". I think a good deal of the Stones lyrics reflect autobiographical experiences, which were then obfuscated under the guise of creating vignettes and stories. Similarly so the vast majority of other mainstream rock stars' oeuvres. I do think Stones lyrics and those of other male rock artists are heavily misogynistic, sexist and at times can be construed as racist.

Over the last few years in the UK, if our friends in the USA are unaware of it, there has been a massive expose of paedophile activity by prominent public figures, particularly those in the entertainment and political arenas. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that sex with minors by entertainers in the line of music, TV and Radio industries was seemingly widespread in the 60s through to the present day.

Legally and morally this was clearly wrong, but the impression engendered and represented in many lyrics (Stones and other musical performers) is the lines of socially acceptable behaviour became extremely blurred from the 1960s onwards. The Rock Stars, TV and Radio presenters of the 60s and 70s considered that anything went. They became the untouchables, "Gods", akin to the Kings and Aristocrats of yore, where if anything was offered to them experience wise, if was perfectly okay to indulge in it. I mean, who was going to say anything against them?

Anecdotal (direct and indirect) tales of fan and groupie excesses inculcates the idea that young (under 16) teenage girls and/or boys habitually threw themselves at rock stars in the 60s, 70s, etc. (probably did not stop there and they still do), in ecstatic states of “Starstruck” emotional desire in public, at hotels and backstage. Such behaviour would likely dissolve and corrupt any Rock Star’s sense of moral boundaries, which would inevitably influence their creative output. Cultivating the ideology, “everyone else around me is doing it”, so “why not?” The same could be said of Class A drug experimentation and sustained recreational use, despite it being completely illegal. I think I would be harder to find rock stars who had not done heroin, and/or cocaine than those who had, but in the majority of countries the use of Class A drugs is an illegal, imprisonable offence.

Fans, the wider public and mainstream media seem to vicariously “get off” (even from a judgemental angle) on the dubious and nefarious exploits of rock stars and celebrities. “We” expect them to behave outrageously on our collective behalves, as that is what these people are “supposed to do” and we’d sometimes love to do, but could not get off with it so remain “good citizens”.

The ubiquitous concept of relentless “partying” in the entertainment fraternity appears to be lauded and in the realm of competitive hedonism, you know who can push the limits harder, more frequently is the benchmark to be emulated. Consuming vast quantities of alcohol and/or Class A drugs is normal, whereas if the individual was an “ordinary” person they would be merely defined as an alcoholic or drug addict, who needs “help”.

Please understand I am not condoning illegal actions, merely commenting on their open acceptance as “the norm” in entertainment circles.

The old adage a poor “mad” (clinically insane) person is simply “mad” whereas a rich “mad” person is “eccentric” is an extension of this difference in acceptable socio-behavioural activity.

One thing that is an increasingly prevalent trend is rock stars and celebrities making some dubious remark in public, invariably on Twitter, then due to the ensuing media outcry issue a grovelling public retraction/explanation/apology lest it affect the efficacy of their brand presence in the entertainment market. I find this a particularly distasteful development... they don’t make rock stars like they used to, I blame Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian!

Cheers,
SonicD

Yes, yes and yes and bla bla. I guess there is a lot of smart, brilliant analysis in there, but I don't care. I don't even understabnd a lot of it; simply because I don't want to. And I'm not criticizing you SonicD, or maybe I am. Who cares? These thesis are not good for rock'n roll.
Under age groupies, drugs, a lot of head...immorral? I don't know. If the 70's cock rockers didn't live like that, we'd have no reason to be here chatting though.

But you are right about your last paraghraph. all the apologizing. It is the main reason I loathed Foo Fighters for many years. Some major TV award show, and FF had lit the place up righteously. Taylor and Grohl come off stage and knew they were hot and all hyped up, and look into camera and yell "Now THAT's rock'n roll!" But immediately did a 180, totally changed body stance and expression, and go "Uh well you know, we sure enjoy being here, and would like to thank the Who for allowing us this slot.."

Are you saying that there is no business in 'thinking' when it comes to r'n'r?

And even if you believe that, why would your knickers get in a bunch if other people wanted to discuss their thoughts or ideas?

Quote
AussieMark
"greaseball" - Some people of particular ethnic origin could find that offensive, I guess?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
Not exactly lyrics, but don't forget the 12-12-12 Benefit for the U.S. dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, a world-wide broadcast and released concert. In between their two songs they performed, Mick had the audacity to poke some fun at the ordeal, saying,

Quote
Mick Jagger, 12/12/12
“This has got to be the largest collection of old English musicians ever assembled in Madison Square Garden. But I've got to say, if it rains in London, you've got to come and help us, OK?”

The first half isn't anything too offensive, but the bold part is the part that was probably meant to lighten the mood, but came off as offensive. That comment, let alone the two-song set list, seemed to almost be a slap in the face. I don't care if they had a PPV the following night, that comment was downright rude.

I honestly think that was a clash of cultures coming to play. I think the British are more self deprecating and he meant it as a levity thing, in an otherwise horrible situation. That joke woulda killed in London![/quote




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-18 13:10 by Spud.

Quote
Spud
It's all very much like old Blues lyrics really...just not so veiled.

I'm not sure how many kids would have been allowed to buy Bill Haley's version of Shake Rattle & Roll if parents had a clue what the words were about

Quote
crholmstrom
My personal fave: "You make a dead man come". Hahahaha

Quote
Pietro
I'm offended. You're offended. I'm more offended than you.

Being offended is the major pasttime of Americans these days. Frankly, I find it offensive.

Quote
Rockman
The Four Sounds - Mama Ubangi Bangi ...... Ran-Dee Records 1962....

Man that one always cracks me .... even the name of the record label and it all just slid past the censors ....

Quote
andrewt

Quote
Pietro
I'm offended. You're offended. I'm more offended than you.

Being offended is the major pasttime of Americans these days. Frankly, I find it offensive.

That, fine sir, is postin' on loan from Tod.

Quote
Wry Cooter
Mick got away with them cos you can't understand them half the time. The other half, well...it was what you expected from the outrageous Stones.

Quote
stonehearted
It wasn't all veiled and suggestive, and even before the Stones became more daring with the development of their original material, others were being far more explicit. For instance, this 1965 ditty by The Bangers (from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA) has one of the most risque titles of any song ever put out. fyi, the original version of this tune dates from 1954....

The Bangers, 1965 version





The Toppers (from Brooklyn, New York), 1954





Well my baby had a party the other night
The party was gettin’ dead
I spied a piano in the corner
Looked at my baby and said
Baby let me bang your box, baby let me bang your box
Baby let me play your eighty-eight
I’m gonna bang ’til the whole house rocks
When I was young, they called me Piano Bill
When I was young, they called me Piano Bill
‘Cause I played so fine, I gave everybody a thrill
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me play your eighty-eight
Gonna play ’til the whole house rocks
I’ve been bangin’ since I was a kid of four
I’ve been bangin’ since I was a kid of four
I’ve been bangin’ ’til I can’t bang no more
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me play your eighty-eight
Gonna play ’til the whole house rocks
I’ve been playin’ piano, large and small
But you got the best piano of all
I played everyone in the neighbourhood
I never played one that sounds so good
I’ve got a shuffle, a back beat, a boogie woogie too
But when I play my jelly roll you won’t know what to do
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me bang your box
Baby let me play your eighty-eight
Gonna play ’til the whole house rocks
Bang, bang, bang Mister Bill, bang, bang, bang Mister Bill
Bang, oh-oh, bang Mister Bill
Gee but you give me a thrill
(Bang, bang, bang Mister Bill)
Bang, oh-oh, bang Mister Bill
Gee but you give me a thrill
(Bang, bang, bang Mister Bill)
Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh-oh-oh

Quote
Father Ted
Lets be thankful that the Stones haven't tried to modernise their videos and started doing a bit of twerking :-)

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Father Ted
Lets be thankful that the Stones haven't tried to modernise their videos and started doing a bit of twerking :-)

At their advanced age it would look more like a myocardial infarction.

Quote
rbk
I'm not offended by Stones lyrics or indeed many things. Hence, I'm much happier than many people. I do find the terminally offended tiresome, however.

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
I know it's a cover of Bo Diddley, but 'I'm Alright' offends me; Sometimes I listen to it when I'm not feeling alright! How dare he brag on feeling alright when I'm not feeling alright!