Comments, input and alterations are very welcome!
_______________________________________________________________________________

Sweet Neo Con
(Mick Jagger / Keith Richards)

La Fourchette, Pocé sur Cisse, France & St. Vincent, West Indies,
June - September 2004, La Fourchette, Pocé sur Cisse, France,
November - December 2004, March 7 - 9 & March 14 - April 2005 and
Henson Studios, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, US, June 6 - 28, 2005

Mick Jagger - vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, harmonica, keyboards
Keith Richards - electric guitar
Charlie Watts - drums

You call yourself a Christian, I think that you're a hypocrite
You say you are a patriot, I think that you're a crock of shit
And listen, I love gasoline, I drink it every day
But it's getting very pricey and who is gonna pay

How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con, yeah

It's liberty, for all, 'cause democracy's our style
Unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial
But one thing that is certain, life is good at Halliburton
If you're really so astute you should invest in Brown & Root, yeah

How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con
If you turn out right, I'll eat my hat tonight, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Life's getting very scary, yes, I'm frightened out my wits
There's bombers in my bedroom, yeah, and it's giving me the shits
We must have loads more bases to protect us from our foes
Who needs these foolish friendships, we're going it alone

How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con
Where's the money gone, in the Pentagon

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah…

Neo-con

Produced by Don Was & The Glimmer Twins

First released on:
The Rolling Stones - “A Bigger Bang” CD
(Virgin Records / EMI TOCP 66440) Japan, August 31, 2005

Back on track, Rene?

A song which is way better than its reputation, imo. A groovy, playful track, as opposed to many other latter-day funky tunes. Nice playing, and I love Mick's vocals and harp.

The politics thing? Well, we don't have to agree or disagree with Mick's lyrics in general. That goes for this one as well.

One of the best songs on ABB.

Yayy René!


- 1975 by Neal Preston

I find this track quite funny - I enjoy the nyahh-nyahh-nyahhhh quality of it.
Don't need to hear it real often, but I don't turn it off when it comes around.

A perfect example of the lacklustre, tuneless filler material that has made it onto Stones albums for the last 30 years.

I had to remind myself how poor this song actually is and played it three times in a row. Still nothing to get my foot tapping, or even vaguely a line that I’d sing along to.

It’s basically a Jagger solo track – he plays most of the instruments – and it just tells me that Keith didn’t give a shit on the final track selection. Quality control has really gone on the slide.

I can hear the embryo of a song but it clearly wasn’t finished. It just doesn’t go anywhere – no killer hooks, guitar breaks, key changes or anything to lift it above its dirge like monotony.

As the Stones have grown older the main problem in why their songwriting quality has gone downhill is that they just don’t write together from a social perspective anymore. That vital collaborative spark has been missing for years, when Mick and Keith lived in the same country and would spend time together writing proper songs instead of treating the concept of making an album as work and running the group as a business which is basically what it’s become.

Same goes for any group that don't really collaborate anymore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 12:22 by Silver Dagger.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Back on track, Rene?

A song which is way better than its reputation, imo. A groovy, playful track, as opposed to many other latter-day funky tunes. Nice playing, and I love Mick's vocals and harp.

The politics thing? Well, we don't have to agree or disagree with Mick's lyrics in general. That goes for this one as well.

One of the best songs on ABB.

Not quite, but I try to have one Track Talk ready once a week...

René

Terrible, terrible, terrible.
In the list of Really Embarrassing Stuff the Stones did, this one is very high up. I don't know if it's worse than "Back To Zero" or "On With The Show" but it's a tough call.
Nothing about it is right: the "music", the "melody", the ... nothing is right.
And even though I agree with the contents of the lyrics, it's written like an essay of a 10 year old.

There must be pretty advanced 10 year olds around nowadays, with profound knowledge about the "war hawks", investments, Brown And Root and american politics

Jokes aside, writing about politics (in this way, being so direct) is a very difficult exercise..

I'm surprised that many of you can't hear the (imo) distinct riff, the nice use of electric and acoustic guitars, the (for once!) clever modulation and the groove?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 12:57 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There must be pretty advanced 10 year olds around nowadays, with profound knowledge about the "war hawks", investments, Brown And Root and american politics

Jokes aside, writing about politics (in this way, being so direct) is a very difficult exercise..

I'm surprised that many of you can't hear the (imo) distinct riff, the nice use of electric and acoustic guitars, the (for once!) clever modulation and the groove?

I tried. Lord I tried. But it's a mish mash of incoherentness. Nice use of guitars doesn't help make it a memorable song. As I always say, would this have made it onto any of their albums up to Undercover and the answer is a resounding 'no'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 13:08 by Silver Dagger.

A worthless, cringe-worthy Jagger solo track masquerading as a Stones song.

Drew

Thanks Rene for continue TrackTalk.

As for the song not my cup of tea......don't like the mood..........next song please.............

__________________________

Initially it sounded such a great idea. A song called "Sweet Neo-Con" by THe Rolling Stones... Is Jagger refound some of his old bite, wit and edge again?...

But when I finally heard the result by my onw ears, man, was I disppointed.... Both musically and lyrically it is just an embarrassing song.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I'm surprised that many of you can't hear the (imo) distinct riff, the nice use of electric and acoustic guitars, the (for once!) clever modulation and the groove?

I admit - I don't hear any of that. Just some way too obvious, cliche-like-choices based on simple simple and boring musical ideas. When there actually are some non-typical ideas, it is just breaking some standard expectations of musicality (going out of tune), which in a theory - and in very rare occassions - might amount greatness, but here it is just awful bad... The groove??!!! You must be joking or had a few too many drinks alraedy in the morning, Dandie.... Even Charlie adds nothing, and sounds bored and boring. It goes nowhere, it doesn't capture the moment, it doesn't have a feel.Nothing left of the classical Stones groove - the guys even running out of viagra?. But all IMO!

-----

But great to have Rene's Track Talk back in action. Wish it would've been a better song to start with again...><

- Doxa

<<I'm surprised that many of you can't hear the (imo) distinct riff, the nice use of electric and acoustic guitars, the (for once!) clever modulation and the groove?>>

Oh, I hear it, it's just that the song is so dated, which is the problem with politics. Imagine if Mick had done such a song in the sixties or seventies--would it be worth listening to and taking up the cause now?

Quote
with sssoul


I find this track quite funny - I enjoy the nyahh-nyahh-nyahhhh quality of it.
Don't need to hear it real often, but I don't turn it off when it comes around.

100% '+1'.

I find that faux drum 'slip' in the beginning (at least: that's how I hear it when the drums kick in...) hilarious.

No one gives a damn about Jagger's political opinions...

Quote
stonehearted
<<I'm surprised that many of you can't hear the (imo) distinct riff, the nice use of electric and acoustic guitars, the (for once!) clever modulation and the groove?>>

Oh, I hear it, it's just that the song is so dated, which is the problem with politics. Imagine if Mick had done such a song in the sixties or seventies--would it be worth listening to and taking up the cause now?

Will those lyrics ever be dated?

Just to be clear, this songs is far, far away from being among my favourites. I just tried to say why I think it works better than other latter-day groovy tracks like Jugular and Rain Fall Down.

There is a musical edge to it as well, that we don't get too often from the Stones. But I can see the criticism about it being a bit too "constructed".

There are (for the Stones) clever musical touches in there, like on "lifestyle" and the modulation.

I like it. Finally, Jagger is singing about something relevant other than all the pussy he lost or is looking for. It pissed people off. When was the last time a Stones song pissed people off? Some Girls? And it has a great blues shuffle and some screaming harp. Oh and it really puts the middle finger up at a lot of folks who deserved it. Good by me.

<<Will those lyrics ever be dated?>>

I understand what you're getting at, but, yes, because topical subject matter always freezes a given work in a very narrow window of time, like the Beatles name checking "Mr. Wilson" in Taxman, it means nothing to subsequent generations who were not living in that moment.

Politics itself is base and inferior as a concept, it brings out the worst in people and panders to the least mature, most animalistic instincts, and is not even worthy subject matter for creative forms of expression like rock and roll.

Besides, you'll never solve the world's problems with 3 minutes of "modulation and grooving".

Mick forgot what he'd written previously: "But what can a poor boy do/except to sing in a rock and roll band...."

Love this track

Quote
stonehearted
<<Will those lyrics ever be dated?>>

I understand what you're getting at, but, yes, because topical subject matter always freezes a given work in a very narrow window of time, like the Beatles name checking "Mr. Wilson" in Taxman, it means nothing to subsequent generations who were not living in that moment.

Politics itself is base and inferior as a concept, it brings out the worst in people and panders to the least mature, most animalistic instincts, and is not even worthy subject matter for creative forms of expression like rock and roll.

Besides, you'll never solve the world's problems with 3 minutes of "modulation and grooving".

Mick forgot what he'd written previously: "But what can a poor boy do/except to sing in a rock and roll band...."

Even rock'n'rollers can make pretty good wake up-calls, when it's done the right way. The problem is that the right way today may be the wrong way tomorrow

And if they're shooting off the marks, the song will always be there as a document of the times, and the cause for worrying, for instance.

I resolutely disagree about politics and rock n' roll. Rock n' roll is the purest form of politics. A rage against the status quo and a big wake up call that led to massive change in the way youths were listened to, discovered as an economic power, and forces a mirror to glimpse with worst blemishes of humanity. Rock and roll and politics are one in the same. Now that is not to say all good rock in roll can make a good protest song. Or political statement. But when it does meet it packs a powerful punch. That speaks for peace. Dissent. Anger. And righteousness.

<<Rock and roll and politics are one in the same.>>

Especially with Mick cozying up at lame White House functions.

Actually, rock and roll, and music in general, is a liberation from politics, or at least it should be.

Politics divides people, whereas music unites people.

Whereas the language of politics is narrow, the language of music, at its best, is universal.

The song didn't make people mad, it was just a terrible song. In the same way that Mother ruined Synchronicity (The Police), I always skip this one and Look What The Cat Dragged In. Both are complete filler. Sweet Neo Con happens to be boring filler.

Jagger has written PLENTY of offensive lyrics but that does not affect my ability to enjoy a track. This is one track where he comes off whiney. The lyrics are clever, in the same way that rap lyrics can be clever. It is pure sophism.

SNC = POS

Quote
rbk
SNC = POS

Precious Over-earthly Super-song?

Never trust a multi-millionaire socialist. Jagger himself admitted the dichotomy of his personal philosophy many years ago....'my money is Conservative but my heart is Labour'.

Quote
RomanCandle
No one gives a damn about Jagger's political opinions...

In other words: you DISAGREE with Jagger's political opinions.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Never trust a multi-millionaire socialist. Jagger himself admitted the dichotomy of his personal philosophy many years ago....'my money is Conservative but my heart is Labour'.

How many years ago was that?

It's pretty obvious Jagger has always been a Conservative. Maybe he didn't like the Iraq war, but he would have loved Bush/Cheney's tax cuts if he lived here.

The worst part of this song is its complete absence of dynamics. And it is a pity, because I otherwise tend to agree with DP here (even if "one of the best on ABB" is somehow exaggerated ...).

Lyrics, what's so bad about them?

C

Glad to see you back Rene, thanks for hanging in there.

As much as I like the idea of the song and Jagger's attempt to say something meaningful, I just can't get past the mediocre music and the terrible vocal delivery. As others have said, this sounds like a 100% Mick song and it's hard to believe Keith approved. Even Micks usually great harmonica playing can't save this one.

I'm going to blame Don Was for this one. I can just hear him in the studio ..."it's great Mick, give it to 'em, man, love it". Jimmy Miller would never have allowed this crap on the record, I can just hear him in the studio..."Where is the groove?, hey let's work on that other great tune of yours, will someone please go wake Keith up..." peace