Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Quote
dcba

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Yes, that one was fantastic! Fresh, funky and no objectivication of a woman's body in any way.

The girl was ugly, though... skinny, bony, bad hair... yuck.

Come on, are you being stupid on purpose?

Uuuuh, another wokeness warrior at work...!

Quote
retired_dog
Uuuuh, another wokeness warrior at work...!

enough said

I need to add this. What are people thinking about their past sex, drugs and rock and roll credo? They built their empire on that. I guess it's all white washed now. I personally want to thank The Stones or whoever is involved with keeping it a bit raunchy and edgy. That's Rock And Roll!!! Maybe you guys need to switch over to some other genre that's more safe and like minded. Just a thought.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Quote
maumau
Criss Cross was a bit different (an a far superior output imo)





Diane Kunst director for a wider project with model Guindilla Ontanaya that was incidentally used and customized for the Stones song

Yes, that one was fantastic! Fresh, funky and no objectivication of a woman's body in any way. Showing agency and subjectivity. That's the spirit Rolling Stones, giving the finger to monetary and power structures like the one that lead to their new video, which just oozes lazyness, outdatedness and obvious marketing strategics. The thought process behind the new video was probably: "Boobs, cars, nostaglia. Okay, coffee break!"

Wasn't there a super fast clip of a naked woman in the Criss Cross video???!! That's not objectifying? I love that video btw - and the song. I think the video is the freshest thing they'd done at the time in forever! And how that classic song sat in the fault for nearly 50 years is beyond me!!! Unreal!

Well, I'm not trying to start a fight here. Glad we both love the video and the tune. The Criss Cross video just shows a woman's body. Be it naked or not, that's not objectivication to me, because it doesn't serve a purpose. A woman's body doesn't need to be more covered than a man's, doesn't need to be better shaved nor please male fantasies and conceptions of how it should look like. I'd describe the Criss Cross video as the antidote to the Angry video. And many of my female friends (I'm in my 20's) like the Criss Cross video very much and identify with the spirit that it portrays in that it doesn't care about petty morals. It's the Rolling Stones tongue logo emodied as a 21st century music video.

But, on with the show. I don't think this is the place to dive more into these topics. Happy that you also like Criss Cross as much as me and that you dig Angry so much. I'm excited for the new album and hopefully a second single! Maybe with a video showing the band (but not just studio phone footage like the Blue & Lonesome and LIAGT videos... )

No fight at all, Monkey!! I see your point. I just don't agree with it, and we are all entitled to our own opinions. I happen to have a 21yo daughter and two teenage boys, and I personally don't have a problem with this video. Sex sells, and to my point posted somewhere on this board, Angry would have made for one helluva summer anthem! Hence the driving around in a convertible for me!!! The girl in the video is no Baby Jane to be sure and not my cup o' tea, but I appreciate that many on here fancy her. Either way, it's GREAT to have the Stones back rocking n rolling in 2023!!!

Feels like some of the responses here are prudish and a tad sanctimonious. From my perspective, many women (and men) at the last couple of Stones shows I attended (Lyon and L.A. #1) still like to dress up, look sexy, and draw attention to themselves. Objectify gets tossed around like a condemnation, when it’s just reality, and been going on for as long as humans have walked the earth.

FWIW, I dig the riffs in Angry, and think it will work great live. The video is fun, and the model? Well, she was HOT

Quote
frankotero

Quote
retired_dog
Uuuuh, another wokeness warrior at work...!

enough said

Hey hey, let's keep it respectful here! We're all adults and know that nothing good ever comes from accusations like these. I personally don't buy into this media-manufactured wokeness and cancel culture debate and you'd have to pay me to take part in such over-simplification. Furthermore, you know that politics aren't allowed on here.

I'm a musician, Rolling Stones fan and a fan of good music of all genres at first. Taking artists and the people they chose to work with seriously means giving credit where credit is due and also having the right to point out what one doesn't like. Frankotero, Rock'n'Roll was from the sexual liberation at the end of the 60's on quite a different thing than what you describe. Yes, sexy and raunchy. Nobody wants to take that a way. But social commentary and standing up against rusty morality and against using bodies as profit is as an important part of that mindset.

I respect them and I respect you, retired_dog and frankotero, but doesn't mean we have to blow in the same horn. But if my views on this aren't appreciated as a contribution, I can just shut up.

P.S. VoodooLounge13, thanks for the civil exchange, I hear you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-09-07 21:32 by MonkeyMan2000.

I'm only standing up because it's going too far in what I would call the wrong direction. That side would say the opposite, and that's basically the reason we'll never have peace in my opinion. So, what to do? Just agree with whoever is on the stronger side? Yeah, I don't want to cause any trouble about the board rules, and after all this is my favorite website. But sometimes I just can't believe what I'm reading/hearing. Okay, I think I've made my point.

One more thing I would like to point out that I think is important. Maybe people caught this during the Fallon interview, Mick said they don't care what people think when they're writing songs. I really hope this is true because I don't like when fanbases have too much input on artists creations. After all they're not the artist. I'm thinking about the series Game of Thrones that got thrown off track because fans didn't like the nudity, apparently it was too adult themed. Unfortunately most of us didn't enjoy the turn of events after this and I'm not sure but I think the writers sabotaged it just because of this stuff? Anyhow, hope you get my way of thinking.

I like it !
We have the Rock n Roll,
We have the Sex,
Now all we need are the D___ !

I really miss the blatant references to hard narcotics.

Quote
Bungo
I like it !
We have the Rock n Roll,
We have the Sex,
Now all we need are the D___ !

I really miss the blatant references to hard narcotics.

Well Mick did say he's still taking the pills, soooooo....

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Quote
frankotero

Quote
retired_dog
Uuuuh, another wokeness warrior at work...!

enough said

Hey hey, let's keep it respectful here! We're all adults and know that nothing good ever comes from accusations like these. I personally don't buy into this media-manufactured wokeness and cancel culture debate and you'd have to pay me to take part in such over-simplification. Furthermore, you know that politics aren't allowed on here.

I'm a musician, Rolling Stones fan and a fan of good music of all genres at first. Taking artists and the people they chose to work with seriously means giving credit where credit is due and also having the right to point out what one doesn't like. Frankotero, Rock'n'Roll was from the sexual liberation at the end of the 60's on quite a different thing than what you describe. Yes, sexy and raunchy. Nobody wants to take that a way. But social commentary and standing up against rusty morality and against using bodies as profit is as an important part of that mindset.

I respect them and I respect you, retired_dog and frankotero, but doesn't mean we have to blow in the same horn. But if my views on this aren't appreciated as a contribution, I can just shut up.

P.S. VoodooLounge13, thanks for the civil exchange, I hear you.

Anytime, MonkeyMan2000! I miss the days of being able to discuss opinions (regardless of the topic and not just here but in life) and have a discussion without someone wanting to threaten or cause harm to the other person. I've always found it fascinating to learn how one came to the thoughts/conclusions that he/she holds, but that's just me. BTW - in regards to the Criss Cross video, I do see how you are saying it's different the nude woman. It's more of an artsy thing vs. Angry. That makes sense to me and I don't see that as objectification then in that regard either. I was just suggesting that there is still the sexualness involved in both videos, due to the nudity and all that the band/genre does exude - if that makes sense?

Quote
frankotero
One more thing I would like to point out that I think is important. Maybe people caught this during the Fallon interview, Mick said they don't care what people think when they're writing songs. I really hope this is true because I don't like when fanbases have too much input on artists creations. After all they're not the artist. I'm thinking about the series Game of Thrones that got thrown off track because fans didn't like the nudity, apparently it was too adult themed. Unfortunately most of us didn't enjoy the turn of events after this and I'm not sure but I think the writers sabotaged it just because of this stuff? Anyhow, hope you get my way of thinking.

Game of Thrones fans seemed to have gone apeshit because the story in the last season was rushed (which was true - they probably should have filmed more episodes but they had confirmed a couple of years earlier how many there would be) but mainly because (in my opinion) it didnt end in the way THEY personally wanted it to end. Or they didnt want it to end at all. Thats what happens when you invest so much in a show (or musical artist) personally. You get an enormous sense of self entitlement.

No self respecting artist should be overly focussed on 'what fans might like'. They should all be driven by their own muse. You cant imagine the likes of Dylan, Lennon or Neil Young pandering like that and I'm sure Springsteen could write another 'Born in the USA' soundalike album in his sleep but chooses not to.

Its refreshing to hear Mick speak like that. They've written the book. They dont need to rewrite it. Just add a few new chapters to it.

Gazza, I like the way you think, always have. While I enjoyed Game of Thrones I would be lying to claim I know a lot about the whole story. I just remember hearing the bits I already mentioned. It started off strong in my opinion.

I was refreshed too hearing Mick speak like that about his songwriting and the band output.

I wonder, though, if there is on earth an artist that would openly confess in a PR event to write trying to guess what the majority of the audience might like

The big question for me about Angry is: where is the "unmapped territory" that Mick is willing so bad to adventure in that the 'conservative' Keith can't tolerate, to the point they need years and in studio mediators to get an album finished.

At least this is how we hear the story through the grapevine

Is there an ounce of "experiment" in Angry? question both to Mick that talks about "trying different things" and Keith that gets angry with him and "his" trendy producers.

All this time and fuss and walls hit to get an "ok/good/great" Stones tune in Hyperstones' style.

Hypestones style that has been perfectly translated in pictures in the video with the band through the eras lipsynching the song

Preordered the record and looking forward to find out more



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-09-07 23:25 by maumau.

They did exactly what they should have done which is to deliver a lead single that excited people and got their appetites whet for the album.

8.5 million YouTube streams in 31 hours. Not too bad at all...I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say this is a bit of a hit.

You have a whole album - 11 other songs to decide whether they've experimented a bit more in the next chapter. I'm glad they didn't do it on the lead single and finally delivered one that kicks *ss.

Still streaming!!! Been streaming alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll day when not in a zoom meeting! Will go all night again too!!!!

Quote
firebird
Talking only about the visuals here, not the music.

"Lazy" is what comes to my mind when i watch the video. Have the Stones done anything else on it other than to approve the concept and the final result? I have my doubts.
The only idea was to put archive footage on billboards and the car ride is only there cause something was needed to connect the different billboards somehow.

Not sure what more you expect from the Stones themselves - they're a rock and roll band, not video directors, screenwriters, or scriptwriters.
I usually don't pay attention to videos, but this was nicely down with the billboards coming to life, and the fact I'm familiar with the area having grown up somewhat near there, and living in SoCal most of my life.
As for the "controversial" model riding around in the car, not sure why anyone would have a major problem with it. Yes she's young enough to be their granddaughter, but it's a fictional video promo, and it's the Stones!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*edit: Just saw schillids excellent billboards thread here -> California billboards - good stuff!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-09-08 03:37 by Hairball.

I can’t believe how many people are scandalized by this video on a Rolling Stones fan forum The Stones are known for being overtly sexual in every way from their lyrics, to Mick’s on stage wardrobe and dance moves (to say nothing of his numerous sexual dalliances!!!), to the long line of women who have danced on stage and in their videos…everything about them is sexy! Hell, their emblem is a lascivious mouth with a lapping tongue!!

There is no nudity in the video, not even simulated sex! Just a scantily clad woman dancing by herself in a car. She looks sexy but anyone that’s ever seen Euphoria has seen a lot more of her body than is shown in this video. Sydney is a beautiful woman who is fully aware of her public image and has not only embraced it, but has become wildly popular for her provocative roles. Anyone who sees her as degraded or objectified is projecting.

Mick Taylor appear 4 times? Love it. Bill 1 or 2? Charlie?

Quote
peoplewitheyes
I think the billboards element is fantastic, albeit with a slightly sad nostalgia - especially for us superfans that can identify every year/show/video. It is so great to see just how many iconic images and eras they've had (and that's even without any early footage).

Agree with this part! It was actually amazing to see a compilation of footage from so many different tours and eras, and then I was proud of myself for being able to identify basically all of them and pinpoint down where they are from. Superfans, more like obsessed fans.

It was only a bit disappointing that there was very little Charlie featured in any of the footage. Obviously it focused on Mick, Keith, and Ronnie since they will be promoting the new album and photographed everywhere in the upcoming months, but still... we lost Charlie so recently, should have been there as a tribute.

Okay, gave it a spin. Firstly what I don't like: It takes 45 seconds before the song grows on you - that is not a good recipe for a first single if you want it to have hit potential. I don't like Jagger's aggressive singing style in the beginning of the song either. Secondly, what I like: I like the guitars, the riffs and how the song grows on you after a weak start. Mark? 3.5 out of 5. Good - but I'm not so sure of the hit potential.

9.8 million views in 32 hours Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a major hit on our hands, whatever the Stones did, no matter what your opinion, its still Rock & Roll and the Stones are delivering the goods once again.
Cheers to everyone, now come on Mick & Keith let's back this up with one more tour, go out with a bang and not a whimper.

9.8 million YouTube views in less than two days. Pretty impressive. Seemingly trending even #3 here in Finland (despite the major media had not noticing its release).

So at least the video is a hit.

EDIT: slow.. Seemingly keefriffhards already made the same observation

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023-09-08 11:13 by Doxa.

Quote
frankotero
I need to add this. What are people thinking about their past sex, drugs and rock and roll credo? They built their empire on that. I guess it's all white washed now. I personally want to thank The Stones or whoever is involved with keeping it a bit raunchy and edgy. That's Rock And Roll!!! Maybe you guys need to switch over to some other genre that's more safe and like minded. Just a thought.

I'd say that dirty old man leering over 20 year olds is pretty much the opposite of rock n roll.

I like the live footage of the Stones in the billboards though. And the song is much better than I had expected. The riff is weak but the chorus is nice and catchy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-09-08 11:01 by matxil.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000

Hey hey, let's keep it respectful here! We're all adults and know that nothing good ever comes from accusations like these. I personally don't buy into this media-manufactured wokeness and cancel culture debate and you'd have to pay me to take part in such over-simplification. Furthermore, you know that politics aren't allowed on here.

Quote
MonkeyMan2000
I'm a musician, Rolling Stones fan and a fan of good music of all genres at first. Taking artists and the people they chose to work with seriously means giving credit where credit is due and also having the right to point out what one doesn't like. Frankotero, Rock'n'Roll was from the sexual liberation at the end of the 60's on quite a different thing than what you describe. Yes, sexy and raunchy. Nobody wants to take that a way. But social commentary and standing up against rusty morality and against using bodies as profit is as an important part of that mindset.

Quote
maumau
I was refreshed too hearing Mick speak like that about his songwriting and the band output.

I wonder, though, if there is on earth an artist that would openly confess in a PR event to write trying to guess what the majority of the audience might like

The big question for me about Angry is: where is the "unmapped territory" that Mick is willing so bad to adventure in that the 'conservative' Keith can't tolerate, to the point they need years and in studio mediators to get an album finished.

At least this is how we hear the story through the grapevine

Is there an ounce of "experiment" in Angry? question both to Mick that talks about "trying different things" and Keith that gets angry with him and "his" trendy producers.

All this time and fuss and walls hit to get an "ok/good/great" Stones tune in Hyperstones' style.

Hypestones style that has been perfectly translated in pictures in the video with the band through the eras lipsynching the song

Preordered the record and looking forward to find out more

The sound and the chorus of Angry have a modern ring to it. The riff and the verses are more old-school Stones. Maybe that's the sort of compromise you're hinting at?

I love the billboards but wouldve gone the opposite direction with the sexy girl. Perhaps an ”everyday” girl/woman driving a car and seemingly mumbling the lyrics.

And not for any political reasons. Maybe even let an angry wokeish girl drive a Prius and lash out at the horrible billboards with a ”Hey Negrita” - Mick answering. Maybe ad a few clips from Bills wedding reception.

Mick in his youth wouldve portrayed the girl in a video.

Quote
SomeGuy

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
steenhorst
the only good things are the video clips from 1972 and 1973

What's wrong with the clips from 1974 to 2023?

That must have been ironically meant, right?

I know a Stones fan who doesn't like anything they did after 1963

Not ironic... after MT .....

Quote
Doxa
9.8 million YouTube views in less than two days. Pretty impressive. Seemingly trending even #3 here in Finland (despite the major media had not noticing its release).

So at least the video is a hit.

EDIT: slow.. Seemingly keefriffhards already made the same observation

- Doxa

Ha, you know what people say Doxa, great minds think alike.

Chin chin

Quote
steenhorst

Quote
SomeGuy

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
steenhorst
the only good things are the video clips from 1972 and 1973

What's wrong with the clips from 1974 to 2023?

That must have been ironically meant, right?

I know a Stones fan who doesn't like anything they did after 1963

Not ironic... after MT .....

But I was ironic