Quote
windmelody
It is interesting that, especially in the last weeks, members of the Stones comment on american political issues, but keep completely quite about the situation in England. Many Europeans do that - it is rather easy to point the finger in the american direction.

They haven’t actually commented on it though, have they? They’ve simply demanded that their music isn’t played at rallies.

I think it is very simple. The Rolling Stones don't want their music to be used in political campaigns. Not that complicated.

Bjornulf

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
Why bother? Does anyone think that the fact that "The man With The Unmentionable Name" likes The Rolling Stones and Tom Petty and therefore play their songs during his political rallies makes them "The man With The Unmentionable Name" supporters? Who would believe that? What the BMI is about is to defend copyrights and their clients economical interests. Not to stop certain people playing their music. Song writers are one of a few groups of workers who gets paid over and over for their work. A plumber only gets paid once...

I guess they bother because they have some personal values that contradict the use of their own artistic contributions in such occassions they don't feel it's alright. It could be that they are prostitutes like you think they are and since putting their art public anynone can do them as they can, but still even those artists have a right for their own opinion as far as the use of their art is concerned, no matter how legally justified their position is, or how far reaching their power in controlling it is. I understand why that kind of using one's freedom of expressing opinion is annoying you, Christian Fountain and people like that because it doesn't suit for your ideology. But they still have a right to do that, even you don't like it.

Some of us still in this world respect things that are not only valued in terms of money. Even the wealthiest of rock stars.

- Doxa

Even the wealthiest Rockstars indeed. Still if this Mr wrong hadn't used their product, very likely the Stones would not have stand up.That's the hypocrisy. Business comes first.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-28 22:36 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
SomeGuy
I'm wondering if other political campaigners don't play music at their rallies.

Most probably. But it's unlikely that the other guy's playlist is full of Ted Nugent and Kid Rock-tunes...

Quote
bv
I think it is very simple. The Rolling Stones don't want their music to be used in political campaigns. Not that complicated.

Maybe you're right, but really, I doubt that.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
Why bother? Does anyone think that the fact that "The man With The Unmentionable Name" likes The Rolling Stones and Tom Petty and therefore play their songs during his political rallies makes them "The man With The Unmentionable Name" supporters? Who would believe that? What the BMI is about is to defend copyrights and their clients economical interests. Not to stop certain people playing their music. Song writers are one of a few groups of workers who gets paid over and over for their work. A plumber only gets paid once...

I guess they bother because they have some personal values that contradict the use of their own artistic contributions in such occassions they don't feel it's alright. It could be that they are prostitutes like you think they are and since putting their art public anynone can do them as they can, but still even those artists have a right for their own opinion as far as the use of their art is concerned, no matter how legally justified their position is, or how far reaching their power in controlling it is. I understand why that kind of using one's freedom of expressing opinion is annoying you, Christian Fountain and people like that because it doesn't suit for your ideology. But they still have a right to do that, even you don't like it.

Some of us still in this world respect things that are not only valued in terms of money. Even the wealthiest of rock stars.

- Doxa

Okay, first of all. You don't have a clue which my political beliefs are. You might think you do, but you don't. In my world Mr T and Sir Michael are in the same league. They are both right wing multi millionaires, one is a neocon, the other a neolib. So I don't consider any of them a knight in shining armor. Even though one of them is knighted by the Queen. Secondly, I was just airing my personal opinion in the matter. To me it doesn't matter which music Mr T plays on his rallies. I don't even listen to them. Only the news' soundbites.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
Why bother? Does anyone think that the fact that "The man With The Unmentionable Name" likes The Rolling Stones and Tom Petty and therefore play their songs during his political rallies makes them "The man With The Unmentionable Name" supporters? Who would believe that? What the BMI is about is to defend copyrights and their clients economical interests. Not to stop certain people playing their music. Song writers are one of a few groups of workers who gets paid over and over for their work. A plumber only gets paid once...

I guess they bother because they have some personal values that contradict the use of their own artistic contributions in such occassions they don't feel it's alright. It could be that they are prostitutes like you think they are and since putting their art public anynone can do them as they can, but still even those artists have a right for their own opinion as far as the use of their art is concerned, no matter how legally justified their position is, or how far reaching their power in controlling it is. I understand why that kind of using one's freedom of expressing opinion is annoying you, Christian Fountain and people like that because it doesn't suit for your ideology. But they still have a right to do that, even you don't like it.

Some of us still in this world respect things that are not only valued in terms of money. Even the wealthiest of rock stars.

- Doxa

Even the wealthiest Rockstars indeed. Still if this Mr wrong hadn't used their product, very likely the Stones would not have stand up.That's the hypocrisy. Business comes first.

I don't see that as a hypocracy. If I have written a song describing a late 60's feel of one losing one's idealism while my muse doing her best on me, I might not dig someone using the song in hate-campaings against many things I might appreciate. Even though I don't think Mick Jagger would ever be such personal but more professional (knowing that what he does is talking in universal language to be interpreted anyhow), I feel that he simply doesn't want his songs to be associated with mr. Orange. That's his opinion, and also a kind of way to protect his and his band's legacy. Whatever the Stones is, is not anything do with radical right-wing American politics.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-28 22:59 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
Why bother? Does anyone think that the fact that "The man With The Unmentionable Name" likes The Rolling Stones and Tom Petty and therefore play their songs during his political rallies makes them "The man With The Unmentionable Name" supporters? Who would believe that? What the BMI is about is to defend copyrights and their clients economical interests. Not to stop certain people playing their music. Song writers are one of a few groups of workers who gets paid over and over for their work. A plumber only gets paid once...

I guess they bother because they have some personal values that contradict the use of their own artistic contributions in such occassions they don't feel it's alright. It could be that they are prostitutes like you think they are and since putting their art public anynone can do them as they can, but still even those artists have a right for their own opinion as far as the use of their art is concerned, no matter how legally justified their position is, or how far reaching their power in controlling it is. I understand why that kind of using one's freedom of expressing opinion is annoying you, Christian Fountain and people like that because it doesn't suit for your ideology. But they still have a right to do that, even you don't like it.

Some of us still in this world respect things that are not only valued in terms of money. Even the wealthiest of rock stars.

- Doxa

Even the wealthiest Rockstars indeed. Still if this Mr wrong hadn't used their product, very likely the Stones would not have stood up.That's the hypocrisy. Business comes first.

I don't see that as a hypocracy. If I have written a song describing a late 60's feel of one losing once idealism while my muse doing her best on me, I might not dig someone using the song in hate-campaings against many things I might appreciate. Even though I don't think Mick Jagger would ever be such personal but more professional (knowing that what he does is talking in universal language to be interpreted anyhow), I feel that he simply doesn't want his songs to be associated with mr. Orange. That's his opinion, and also a kind of way to protect his lecacy. Whatever the Stones is, is not anything do with radical right-wing American politics.

- Doxa

Mwah, a matter of taste. If I'm not mistaken they also play private gigs for filthy rich middle-east oil-tycoons. Correct me if I'm wrong. I agree on your last sentence of course.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-28 23:09 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Stoneage

To me it doesn't matter which music Mr T plays on his rallies. I don't even listen to them. Only the news' soundbites.

Me, me, me. My personal opinion doesn't mean a shit here actually, nor yours, but mr. Mick Jagger's does. He actually wrote the song we are discussinng here. But for you that fact doesn't mean a shit. You don't value mr. Jagger's opinion at all. Because you don't like him.

I like him. And even I wouldn't, I still would appreciate his personal opinion in this matter higher than anyone else's.

- Doxa

Quote
SomeGuy

Quote
bv
I think it is very simple. The Rolling Stones don't want their music to be used in political campaigns. Not that complicated.

Maybe you're right, but really, I doubt that.

I’m from the U.K. They never comment on any matters here. When Scotland had its independence vote in 2014, a list of famous names added their support to a statement pleading for the Scots to stay. Mick was one of them. But it’s hardly party politics. None of them publicly supports any party although Mick was a guest at 10 Downing Street last Christmas at a party thrown by the PM to celebrate his election win.

Charlie has said he detests politics and politicians so I doubt he even votes

Quote
TheflyingDutchman




Mwah, a matter of taste. If I'm not mistaken they also play private gigs for filthy rich middle-east oil-tycoons. Correct me if I'm wrong. I agree on your last sentence of course.

If one makes music for living and makes the best deals the world ever known in music business, that doesn't make one a right wing populist contradicting any liberal values, in terms of racial or sexual equality, one has always promoted. Making money is not any radical right wing speciality. Third reich wasn't that good in economics by the way.

- Doxa

The four lads who are The Rolling Stones would probably all agree that they don't want their songs played at anything to do with Mr Trump.
That's their decision..........and their music.
Just out of politeness and courtesy, he should ask them at the very least.

Just noticed tonight on BBC news that it has got wider coverage than it had on Sunday morning..

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman




Mwah, a matter of taste. If I'm not mistaken they also play private gigs for filthy rich middle-east oil-tycoons. Correct me if I'm wrong. I agree on your last sentence of course.

If one makes music for living and makes the best deals the world ever known in music business, that doesn't make one a right wing populist contradicting any liberal values, in terms of racial or sexual equality, one has always promoted. Making money is not any radical right wing speciality. Third reich wasn't that good in economics by the way.

- Doxa

The best deals, regardless the client that supports a certain completely wrong system? Top tennisers are also very good at it. It smells to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-28 23:37 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
crawdaddy
The four lads who are The Rolling Stones would probably all agree that they don't want their songs played at anything to do with Mr Trump.
That's their decision..........and their music.
Just out of politeness and courtesy, he should ask them at the very least.

Just noticed tonight on BBC news that it has got wider coverage than it had on Sunday morning..

Of course, that would be something any decent, adult human being would do. Such a normal procedure for any morally grown up person. Thinking a bit of someone else, and respecting their opinion... having a reflective conscience like "is the thing I do the right one, or am I hurting anyone with my conducts?". That's what the Christian virtues, or any other strong moral principles, would ask any moral person to do. Or anyone respecting the pillars of democracy, builded on such human morality and respect of other human beings, would naturally do.

But no. The issue is "I am obliged to do this, and it is my right and freedom to do so, until some bloody court prevents, after million sessions, me not to do so. Fvck everybody else and their opinions. I don't respect anyone but me. If you have something to complain, see you in court, @#$%&!".

The world 2020. Manners and morals...

It is a bit odd to think that the Rolling Stones, those old devils and bad boys, nowadays represent a stronger moral character and more decent human behavior than the president of the United States...

I guess they will see each other in the court... And the solution will be done some day in far future when about anyone even not remembers who that peculiar politician was... But people will still be singing "You Caaan't Always Git What You Waa-aaant"....


- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 00:23 by Doxa.

They should sue the campaign with the Tom
Petty estate and any others offended. Let him play Kid Rock and Ted Nugent's Cat Scratch Fever which is "deadlier" than Covid-19.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman




Mwah, a matter of taste. If I'm not mistaken they also play private gigs for filthy rich middle-east oil-tycoons. Correct me if I'm wrong. I agree on your last sentence of course.

If one makes music for living and makes the best deals the world ever known in music business, that doesn't make one a right wing populist contradicting any liberal values, in terms of racial or sexual equality, one has always promoted. Making money is not any radical right wing speciality. Third reich wasn't that good in economics by the way.

- Doxa

The best deals, regardless the client that supports a certain completely wrong system? Top tennisers are also very good at it. It smells to me.

Well, yeah, I guess there are lots of things to criticize with the Stones as far as their greediness goes, but to me that's mostly 'show business', and they are highly professional, very much experienced entertainers who get the maximal profit for what they do. A pretty harmless business, at least politically thinking. They just happen to be the biggest band in the world, and they know it. But I think it is good that sometimes they actually give a shit, like they now did. That there is a line in somewhere there which is okay and which is not. But the point is that they are not campaigning against capitalism or anything like that. They are not hypocrites in that sense.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 00:52 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
crawdaddy
The four lads who are The Rolling Stones would probably all agree that they don't want their songs played at anything to do with Mr Trump.
That's their decision..........and their music.
Just out of politeness and courtesy, he should ask them at the very least.

Just noticed tonight on BBC news that it has got wider coverage than it had on Sunday morning..

Of course, that would be something any decent, adult human being would do. Such a normal procedure for any morally grown up person. Thinking a bit of someone else, and respecting their opinion... having a reflective conscience like "is the thing I do the right one, or am I hurting anyone with my conducts?". That's what the Christian virtues, or any other strong moral principles, would ask any moral person to do. Or anyone respecting the pillars of democracy, builded on such human morality and respect of other human beings, would naturally do.

But no. The issue is "I am obliged to do this, and it is my right and freedom to do so, until some bloody court prevents, after million sessions, me not to do so. Fvck everybody else and their opinions. I don't respect anyone but me. If you have something to complain, see you in court, @#$%&!".

The world 2020. Manners and morals...

It is a bit odd to think that the Rolling Stones, those old devils and bad boys, nowadays represent a stronger moral character and more decent human behavior than the president of the United States...

I guess they will see each other in the court... And the solution will be done some day in far future when about anyone even not remembers who that peculiar politician was... But people will still be singing "You Caaan't Always Git What You Waa-aaant"....


- Doxa

Me thinks the orange one is heading for a catastrophic meltdown. I won't attend the funeral but I'll write a nice letter saying I approve of it.

---- Some Oscar Wilde here.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Stoneage

To me it doesn't matter which music Mr T plays on his rallies. I don't even listen to them. Only the news' soundbites.

Me, me, me. My personal opinion doesn't mean a shit here actually, nor yours, but mr. Mick Jagger's does. He actually wrote the song we are discussinng here. But for you that fact doesn't mean a shit. You don't value mr. Jagger's opinion at all. Because you don't like him.

I like him. And even I wouldn't, I still would appreciate his personal opinion in this matter higher than anyone else's.

- Doxa

Which other perspective would I put forward but my own? Sir Michael's? Which is his position by the way? Has he made a public appearance on this?
You seem to like to put words in people's mouths. "You do not like Jagger": Have I ever said that? You're the guy with all the answers here? You're Mr Right?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman




Mwah, a matter of taste. If I'm not mistaken they also play private gigs for filthy rich middle-east oil-tycoons. Correct me if I'm wrong. I agree on your last sentence of course.

If one makes music for living and makes the best deals the world ever known in music business, that doesn't make one a right wing populist contradicting any liberal values, in terms of racial or sexual equality, one has always promoted. Making money is not any radical right wing speciality. Third reich wasn't that good in economics by the way.

- Doxa

The best deals, regardless the client that supports a certain completely wrong system? Top tennisers are also very good at it. It smells to me.

Well, yeah, I guess there are lots of things to criticize with the Stones as far as their greediness goes, but to me that's mostly 'show business', and they are entertainers who get the maximal profit for what they do. A pretty harmless business, at least politically thinking. They just happen to be the biggest band in the world, and they know it. But I think it is good that sometimes they actually give a shit, like they now did. That there is a line in somewhere there which is okay and which is not. But the point is that they are not campaigning against capitalism or anything like that. They are not hypocrites in that sense.

- Doxa

With this kind of reasoning even Donald T is an entertainer, if you get my point.I smell double standards among certain Stones fans, almost naive.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 01:10 by TheflyingDutchman.

Quote
Stoneage


Which other perspective would I put forward but my own? Sir Michael's? Which is his position by the way? Has he made a public appearance on this?

Well, The Stones are the agents in this latest procedure. You think Sir Michael has nothing to do with that? The guy who wrote the song? Just Keith, Ronnie and Charlie?

Actually some of the news reporting the case named Mick and Keith the ones behind it.

So is it really rockect science to figure out what Sir Mick's opinion is?

How stupid we need to be?

- Doxa

Quote
Stoneage
I wonder too, Some Guy. Which music does "The Other Guy Whose Name Also Can't Be Mentioned" play on his rallies? And are rallies even feasible in times of the virus?

He doesn't, he's not holding rallies. Because, y'know, coronavirus.

Quote
TheflyingDutchman



With this kind of reasoning even Donald T is an entertainer, if you get my point.I smell double standards among certain Stones fans, almost naive.

Well, anyone is entitled to their feelings, even terms of smells.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 01:43 by Doxa.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 01:54 by Stoneage.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
TheflyingDutchman



With this kind of reasoning even Donald T is an entertainer, if you get my point.I smell double standards among certain Stones fans, almost naive.

Well, anyone is entitled to their feelings, even terms of smells.

- Doxa

Surely I'm the old hippy here

Gimme Shelter 1972

Erased, as Stoneage wished for.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 12:17 by Doxa.

Okay, I'll answer you quickly and would you then please erase my original post. Because I did. It didn't come out the way I wanted - so I erased it. My point was: If the whole establishment turns against a phenomena
(Mr T, or anything else) and brands everyone not sharing their view; their propaganda can become counterproductive. If they then shout even louder it won't change anything.

The example I told from Sweden is an example of that. To make you understand: To criticize Mr B for the war in Iraq was brave. To criticize Mr T for whatever he does is kicking in open doors.
Do you understand anything of what I'm trying to address?

Okay, to answer the actual question. No, they shouldn't accept whatever happens. They should do whatever they'll find suitable to do. Of course.

This isn't new news. It's well known that Trump's been using their music and the music of others that don't agree with him politically at his rallies for years, and there's nothing that the Stones or anyone else can do about it except make their displeasure publicly known.

If there truly was some legal remedy, it would have been taken by now. All the Stones can do is threaten and get headlines so people know that they aren't actively authorizing Trump's use of their music or endorsing Trump. But they can't stop him.

It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Well, technically they could drop a new album in October with a big anti-Trump single leading it off, but what's the chance of that happening?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 02:47 by jahisnotdead.

Quote
bv
I think it is very simple. The Rolling Stones don't want their music to be used in political campaigns. Not that complicated.

Without over-analyzing and/or over-thinking this, I agree with your assessment..It's pretty straightforward.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 03:38 by Sighunt.