This thread prompted me to listen to the whole A Bigger Bang album again, and it -- again -- left me sorely disappointed and bored to tears.

As for Sweet Neo Con, I find it one of the least boring tracks on the album.

Unlike some other lame songs the Stones have done this tune is lame lyrically and musically. There is nothing to save this song at all. As bad as Back To Zero is it's somewhat musically interesting, especially when compared to this tripe.

I doubt Winning Ugly is any better...

Quote
René
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

Horrible drivel with Mick trying to be "current". They should have left this of with 3 others and ABB would have been a super album instead of very good--in spite of the drivel

Quote
keefriff99

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.

Probably the mid-70s when Labour were in power.

another career low ebb.

While I appreciated the sentiment there is no subtly, no finesse, no humour, no intellectualism, no ideas, no solutions.

Probably the worst kind of crybaby political song I've ever heard...and I was very anti-Bush policies.

A very blown opportunity if he actually wanted to write a good political song.

Compare it with Dangerous Beauty, which I love and in comparison to Sweet Neo Con is pure genius.

I for one (or for a very small minority) did like that the Stones expressed some views once again on society and on politics.

The element of subtlety of the song was presented by one poster here, when I myself had not yet caught hold of the album. That consists of the lyrics not being voiced by Mick Jagger, the vocalist, apart from the refrain "How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con". Instead in this conception, the lines of the verses are the words allotted to one NeoCon, allegedly spoken by that hypothetical person.

I find that the song is perhaps more important than it is a grand song as such. On the other hand, in a way of less is more, as many Stones songs are, in my outlook, I find that the music's more or less harshness in my outlook suits the lyrics rather well. So I consider "Sweet NeoCon" as a song that contributes to define the album and be among the songs that make A BIGGER BANG verging on the semi-great. The potential objections to such a characterization, which I still can see, would in case for me be other songs that many will prefer, but to me are more derivative of earlier song material from the band,if not directly, so indirectly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 20:45 by Witness.

This track seems to engender more of the endless political bile we endure every day, rather than be judged as a music track. Yes, every word Jagger writes on Sweet Neo Con is true, and Neo Con is now an extremely discredited term from the 2000s, a really sucky decade. But yeah, the delivery is stiff. Maybe in the golden days they would have worked over this until it was more funky and the lyrics would have been less decipherable and more interesting. As it is, it sounds like a demo. It has a bit of that Love Is Strong vibe.

Quote
Witness
I for one (or for a very small minority) did like that the Stones expressed some views once again on society and on politics.

Me too loved the idea that Jagger is s doing somethng to the effect. But what I have found along the years when this cut has been discussed here at IORR is that no matter if one feels Jagger is alright with his sentiments/political views or totally wrong, that has nothing to do with how bad song it is, or how it is viewed. Its awfulness goes beyond the political 'statement'.

Makes me wonder: had Jagger one damn poor song sketch in his mind, and he decided a bit'juice it up' with 'controversial/tabloid making' lyrics/song title, or had he just this fancy topic in his mind he really wasn't so serious in the first place at all, and he felt he needed to construct as stupid song as possible to go with it. I never think he was serious. He can't have been - he simply is not so bad. A a writer, as a composer. But I really can't get the joke.

Nothing wrong with his political stance, even though it's not that obvious - whatever it is - if we listen the song properly (who actually does?)

Anyway, I admit it is one of the most 'memorable' songs of the album. Any day I think of A BIGGER BANG this one is one of the tracks that pops up. Not that I would like to listen it, but it has a certain difference... There is so many half-baked rockers in the album that I have no any any idea how they are like...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 21:17 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
I for one (or for a very small minority) did like that the Stones expressed some views once again on society and on politics.

Me too loved the idea that Jagger is s doing somethng to the effect. But what I have found along the years when this cut has been discussed here at IORR is that no matter if one feels Jagger is alright with his sentiments/political views or totally wrong, that has nothing to do with how bad song it is, or how it is viewed. Its awfulness goes beyond the political 'statement'.

Makes me wonder: had Jagger one damn poor song sketch in his mind, and he decided a bit'juice it up' with 'controversial/tabloid making' lyrics/song title, or had he just this fancy topic in his mind he really wasn't so serious in the first place at all, and he felt he needed to construct as stupid song as possible to go with it. I never think he was serious. He can't have been - he simply is not so bad. A a writer, as a composer. But I really can't get the joke.

Nothing wrong with his political stance, even though it's not that obvious - whatever it is - if we listen the song properly (who actually does?)

Anyway, I admit it is one of the most 'memorable' songs of the album. Any day I think of A BIGGER BANG this one is one of the tracks that pops up. Not that I would like to listen it, but it has a certain difference... There is so many half-baked rockers in the album that I have no any any idea how they are like...

- Doxa

NO, I think you're wrong, he actually IS that bad.

Let me clarify what I mean. All artists write bad songs. Somewhere in the mid-80s Mick lost his ability to select the good songs from the bad songs. That's why you have songs like "Let's Work" or "Winning Ugly" get recorded and released (AS SINGLES?!).

On that basis it's not a shock that Sweet Neocon is selected for the album (look at the credits, he plays almost all the instruments). I think he wanted to make a political statement, but on this one really didn't deliver anything worth recording.

Contrast this with Dangerous Beauty which is obviously also his number. Here's he's used some humour, great lyrics, and a groovy/bassy instrumental.

With her rubber gloves on she's a favourite with the Chiefs of Staff indeed!

Back in the 1960s, Jagger was an excellent lyricist when it came to ironic social critique (Satisfaction, Mother's Little Helper)... But Sweet Neo Con is an awful song.

This reminds me of the difference between these songs:

1986
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS3UMjNUqFM

2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oAyMhFheo



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 22:05 by RomanCandle.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
I for one (or for a very small minority) did like that the Stones expressed some views once again on society and on politics.

Me too loved the idea that Jagger is s doing somethng to the effect. But what I have found along the years when this cut has been discussed here at IORR is that no matter if one feels Jagger is alright with his sentiments/political views or totally wrong, that has nothing to do with how bad song it is, or how it is viewed. Its awfulness goes beyond the political 'statement'.

Makes me wonder: had Jagger one damn poor song sketch in his mind, and he decided a bit'juice it up' with 'controversial/tabloid making' lyrics/song title, or had he just this fancy topic in his mind he really wasn't so serious in the first place at all, and he felt he needed to construct as stupid song as possible to go with it. I never think he was serious. He can't have been - he simply is not so bad. A a writer, as a composer. But I really can't get the joke.

Nothing wrong with his political stance, even though it's not that obvious - whatever it is - if we listen the song properly (who actually does?)

Anyway, I admit it is one of the most 'memorable' songs of the album. Any day I think of A BIGGER BANG this one is one of the tracks that pops up. Not that I would like to listen it, but it has a certain difference... There is so many half-baked rockers in the album that I have no any any idea how they are like...

- Doxa

NO, I think you're wrong, he actually IS that bad.

Let me clarify what I mean. All artists write bad songs. Somewhere in the mid-80s Mick lost his ability to select the good songs from the bad songs. That's why you have songs like "Let's Work" or "Winning Ugly" get recorded and released (AS SINGLES?!).

On that basis it's not a shock that Sweet Neocon is selected for the album (look at the credits, he plays almost all the instruments). I think he wanted to make a political statement, but on this one really didn't deliver anything worth recording.

Contrast this with Dangerous Beauty which is obviously also his number. Here's he's used some humour, great lyrics, and a groovy/bassy instrumental.

With her rubber gloves on she's a favourite with the Chiefs of Staff indeed!

I am afraid you are right here and I'm wrong. Especially about the ability during the mid-80's to select good from the bad ones - or to do right choices over-all. Which I take mean to a bigger 'crisis' in Jagger's talent to cope with the times or even with his own past - or to make some kind of a tasty mix of the both (like he had done so successfully for years before that). I also was thinking of "Let's Work" when I started writing to this thread - the song which probably marks more than any song ever Mick 'losing it'. Not that its political stance might have been an opposition to "Sweet NeoCon" - which didn't make it any more loved among pro-conservative fans, who find "Sweet NeoCon" annoying for that very reason - the song just didn't 'work' at all. And even now, compared to the song of this thread, it as a song is even a brief masterpiece. I actually mean that - so awful "Sweet Neocon" musically is.

I don't what happened to Jagger back then. "Let's Work" sounds with its (now updated) but then hottest as possible production and choice of instruments so damn calculated and artificial, even though one can hear Jagger trying damn hard. He sings still from his heart there, doing the best he can. But to my ears now, in "sweet NeoCon" is not doing any better, quite the opposite. For example, Jagger's decision to play 'traditional' rock instruments, among his (nowadays) trademark and always beloved harmonica, etc. that sounds as calculated and artificial, not honest, as it was still somehow with "Let's Work" back then. To me it sounds like "okay, I juice thing up with some trad blues harp solo and things like because I know the people who are going to buy Rolling Stones records like that". I don't hear there any inspiration or actual artistic need to do that. Just certain cheapness, an easy and safe route. To an extent, it could be that the Jagger doing "Let's Work" was much more real and honest, even ambitious. Unfortunately.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-16 22:43 by Doxa.

An atrocity of a song.

"There's bombers in my bedroom, yeah, and it's giving me the shits" ?!

Come on get real.

I love the album, but Sweet Neo Con, Dangerous Beauty, and Look What the Cat Drag all could have been left off. That would have made it a much better album.

The song came out during the miserable depths of the Bush-Cheney years. I appreciated the song. My favorite rock singer couldn't resist taking a swipe at those morons. I needed that. It helped me through those dark times.

I hadn't thought about the song in some time, and seeing the words "Sweet Neo Con" today made me sick all over again.

Quote
Pietro
The song came out during the miserable depths of the Bush-Cheney years. I appreciated the song. My favorite rock singer couldn't resist taking a swipe at those morons. I needed that. It helped me through those dark times.

I hadn't thought about the song in some time, and seeing the words "Sweet Neo Con" today made me sick all over again.

And another Bush on the horizon... Good grief.

epic....simple to the point of sounding like a nursery rhyme...yet poignantly capturing the essence of the fools it mocks.

Quote
24FPS
the 2000s, a really sucky decade.

Agreed, it sure was!! But is our current decade proving to be any better, really?

Drew

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
24FPS
the 2000s, a really sucky decade.

Agreed, it sure was!! But is our current decade proving to be any better, really?

Drew

To me, and this is only my personal outlook, it's being made bad by the very people who brought us the shitty 2000s. If President Obama farts, they bitch. If he speaks, they whine. He could do something they'd normally agree with but because it's him, they're against it. Yeah, it's a difficult decade, but at least I don't have to look at Bush and his Chicken Hawk henchman Dick Cheney every day. And as for the Stones in the 20-Teens? Doom & Gloom says it all.

The problem isn't that it's a political song, or which political opinion it espouses.

The problem is that it's a bad song.

Quote
71Tele
The problem isn't that it's a political song, or which political opinion it espouses.

The problem is that it's a bad song.

Yes, it's unformed.

If I possibly did not say it distinctly enough in my post above, and as there seem to be very, very few who share the attitude, I want to add: Even if this song is not among their best songs, and not even on A BIGGER BANG, nonetheless I do like and enjoy "Sweet Neo Con". And I appreciate the role it has on the album.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
I for one (or for a very small minority) did like that the Stones expressed some views once again on society and on politics.

Me too loved the idea that Jagger is s doing somethng to the effect. But what I have found along the years when this cut has been discussed here at IORR is that no matter if one feels Jagger is alright with his sentiments/political views or totally wrong, that has nothing to do with how bad song it is, or how it is viewed. Its awfulness goes beyond the political 'statement'.

Makes me wonder: had Jagger one damn poor song sketch in his mind, and he decided a bit'juice it up' with 'controversial/tabloid making' lyrics/song title, or had he just this fancy topic in his mind he really wasn't so serious in the first place at all, and he felt he needed to construct as stupid song as possible to go with it. I never think he was serious. He can't have been - he simply is not so bad. A a writer, as a composer. But I really can't get the joke.

Nothing wrong with his political stance, even though it's not that obvious - whatever it is - if we listen the song properly (who actually does?)

Anyway, I admit it is one of the most 'memorable' songs of the album. Any day I think of A BIGGER BANG this one is one of the tracks that pops up. Not that I would like to listen it, but it has a certain difference... There is so many half-baked rockers in the album that I have no any any idea how they are like...

- Doxa

NO, I think you're wrong, he actually IS that bad.

Let me clarify what I mean. All artists write bad songs. Somewhere in the mid-80s Mick lost his ability to select the good songs from the bad songs. That's why you have songs like "Let's Work" or "Winning Ugly" get recorded and released (AS SINGLES?!).

On that basis it's not a shock that Sweet Neocon is selected for the album (look at the credits, he plays almost all the instruments). I think he wanted to make a political statement, but on this one really didn't deliver anything worth recording.

Contrast this with Dangerous Beauty which is obviously also his number. Here's he's used some humour, great lyrics, and a groovy/bassy instrumental.

With her rubber gloves on she's a favourite with the Chiefs of Staff indeed!

I am afraid you are right here and I'm wrong. Especially about the ability during the mid-80's to select good from the bad ones - or to do right choices over-all. Which I take mean to a bigger 'crisis' in Jagger's talent to cope with the times or even with his own past - or to make some kind of a tasty mix of the both (like he had done so successfully for years before that). I also was thinking of "Let's Work" when I started writing to this thread - the song which probably marks more than any song ever Mick 'losing it'. Not that its political stance might have been an opposition to "Sweet NeoCon" - which didn't make it any more loved among pro-conservative fans, who find "Sweet NeoCon" annoying for that very reason - the song just didn't 'work' at all. And even now, compared to the song of this thread, it as a song is even a brief masterpiece. I actually mean that - so awful "Sweet Neocon" musically is.

I don't what happened to Jagger back then. "Let's Work" sounds with its (now updated) but then hottest as possible production and choice of instruments so damn calculated and artificial, even though one can hear Jagger trying damn hard. He sings still from his heart there, doing the best he can. But to my ears now, in "sweet NeoCon" is not doing any better, quite the opposite. For example, Jagger's decision to play 'traditional' rock instruments, among his (nowadays) trademark and always beloved harmonica, etc. that sounds as calculated and artificial, not honest, as it was still somehow with "Let's Work" back then. To me it sounds like "okay, I juice thing up with some trad blues harp solo and things like because I know the people who are going to buy Rolling Stones records like that". I don't hear there any inspiration or actual artistic need to do that. Just certain cheapness, an easy and safe route. To an extent, it could be that the Jagger doing "Let's Work" was much more real and honest, even ambitious. Unfortunately.

- Doxa

Good point about Let's Work. Mick was lucky not to have been lynched in the UK for daring to take up the Tory notion that the working class/jobless should 'get on a bike to find a job' in the UK.

Actually he took the piss out of the working class again on Hang Fire, albeit somewhat tongue in cheek.

In the sweet old country
Where I come from
Nobody ever works
Nothing ever gets done
We hang fire, we hang fire

You know marrying
Money is a full time job
I don't need the aggravation
I'm a lazy slob, I hang fire


Anyway, here's Let's Work.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
I for one (or for a very small minority) did like that the Stones expressed some views once again on society and on politics.

Me too loved the idea that Jagger is s doing somethng to the effect. But what I have found along the years when this cut has been discussed here at IORR is that no matter if one feels Jagger is alright with his sentiments/political views or totally wrong, that has nothing to do with how bad song it is, or how it is viewed. Its awfulness goes beyond the political 'statement'.

Makes me wonder: had Jagger one damn poor song sketch in his mind, and he decided a bit'juice it up' with 'controversial/tabloid making' lyrics/song title, or had he just this fancy topic in his mind he really wasn't so serious in the first place at all, and he felt he needed to construct as stupid song as possible to go with it. I never think he was serious. He can't have been - he simply is not so bad. A a writer, as a composer. But I really can't get the joke.

Nothing wrong with his political stance, even though it's not that obvious - whatever it is - if we listen the song properly (who actually does?)

Anyway, I admit it is one of the most 'memorable' songs of the album. Any day I think of A BIGGER BANG this one is one of the tracks that pops up. Not that I would like to listen it, but it has a certain difference... There is so many half-baked rockers in the album that I have no any any idea how they are like...

- Doxa

NO, I think you're wrong, he actually IS that bad.

Let me clarify what I mean. All artists write bad songs. Somewhere in the mid-80s Mick lost his ability to select the good songs from the bad songs. That's why you have songs like "Let's Work" or "Winning Ugly" get recorded and released (AS SINGLES?!).

On that basis it's not a shock that Sweet Neocon is selected for the album (look at the credits, he plays almost all the instruments). I think he wanted to make a political statement, but on this one really didn't deliver anything worth recording.

Contrast this with Dangerous Beauty which is obviously also his number. Here's he's used some humour, great lyrics, and a groovy/bassy instrumental.

With her rubber gloves on she's a favourite with the Chiefs of Staff indeed!

No wonder, as Mick and Keith did the pre-production themselves for this album. Sometimes Keith would play the bass, and on this track it was Mick.

i never liked it. After track n°12 a bigger bang was a very good album, from song N°13 to the end it was .....not so good (to be diplomatic) in my opinion

Quote
andrea66
i never liked it. After track n°12 a bigger bang was a very good album, from song N°13 to the end it was .....not so good (to be diplomatic) in my opinion

How is that possible?

wonder how andrea feels about the track sequencing of Metal Machine Music ...



ROCKMAN

..or Harrisons Electronic Sound...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Silver Dagger

Actually he took the piss out of the working class again on Hang Fire, albeit somewhat tongue in cheek.

And then - a long ago - there is the odes to hard working people in "Salt of the Earth" and "Factory Girl" - as far as "Luxury" goes, I never have figured out if it is a honest praisal or some pervert parody of a working class - Jetsetter Jagger's touch to actual social reality of people like that started to be rather distant at the time... Anyway, the subject in that song is actually doing what he asks in "Let's Work"... (but probably he is an American...)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-17 11:30 by Doxa.

Nice post Doxa!

You know, like I said. I like it. It is fun. And fun to get the venom from the song toward such morally vacuous specimens calling themselves human. Again, you take a chance by using a song to preach and stake a position. Its been a long time since Sir Mick had the bollocks to do that. So for me that is half the fun of the song.

i was saying that sweet neo con, look what the cat dragged in, driving too fast and infamy are not good songs for me. what metal machine music has to do with this? they are the worst songs of the album, together with Dangerous beauty. this is my opinion, or should I read more carefully some opinion makers first and say that sweet neo con is a great tune?