I truly love that song!!!!!!!!

Rocky Dijon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The lyrics to "Blinded by Rainbows" are very much
> tied to Ireland where the album was recorded. Its
> not pro-Christian or anti-Christian, its
> anti-hypocrisy. This is a country wracked with war
> over religion, ostensibly, for decades. Jagger
> points out the hypocrisy of reverent Church-goers
> who fervently believe in their faith but have no
> problem with slaughtering innocent children and
> families. Jagger doubts whether these same people
> will find their paradise when they die as they
> believe. Whether he thinks there is an afterlife
> or that Jesus is God is irrelevant, he tackles
> their belief system on their own level and points
> out that their actions do not match their
> professed values.


Great post, and absolutely right on the money



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-24 22:27 by Gazza.

Thanks to all. I have a better understanding of the song (and like it even more).

"No Anchovies, Please"

Sometimes I think it was aimed at Bill Wyman.

Yes Elmo this is such a deep song..about pain...remember Bosnia Sebrenica when it came out....yes its very good.

I love this song.

Also, FrankM, George W. Bush's father, George Bush Sr, was president from 1988-1992, so this song could be about him, not the Bush elected in 2001.

Its not fence sitting Gazza, its just eyes wide open to the
total reality of the situation. Just because you are blind
to the finger that Jagger points at his audience, and not just
the easy target of the terrorists, doesnt mean it isnt there.

Did you ever kiss the child
Who just saw his father shot
Do you ever shed a tear
As the war drags on and on

That's for all of us, not just terrorists.

jumpinjackgreg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love this song.
>
> Also, FrankM, George W. Bush's father, George Bush
> Sr, was president from 1988-1992, so this song
> could be about him, not the Bush elected in 2001.

Well it has already been explained by people in this thread that it was an anti terrorism song and was about the conflicts in Ireland- you don't buy that? You think it was about Bush Sr.?

I guess if you are going to be that stubborn and igonore the explanation others give, you can interpret any song as being anti Bush. Maybe "You're So Vain" was really about W'S grandfather. Maybe "Winning Ugly" was a shot at Republican campaign tactics. Come on man- I know there is a lot of anti Bush sentiment but don't let your imagination get the best of you.

But since you dragged me back into this thread a couple more points. Can't understand why people are so down on the solo. Yes is has a really slow pace- kind of like an old Pink Floyd solo, but it fits the song well imo.

Also am wondering if that time period (93'/94') was a boiling point as far as the conflicts in Ireland. I mention this because in addition to this song (which I now know is about Ireland) there was also a great movie about the conflict which came out about the same time- "In The Name Of The Father" with Daniel Day Lewis. Tough subject matter but a great movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-25 07:51 by FrankM.

well it's a timeless song, (tho the specific political circumstances with the violence in northern island is the backdrop as many here suggest...)

timeless to me because there's always a warlord and always a cause and always a justification for murdering civilians if some warlord declares them 'combatants'
any decade or century or country or culture...

i see it as disgust with the kind of extreme religious fanaticism that justifies bombing kids and civilians in the name of the bigger picture of fulfilling God's prophecies...and always in the name of a godhead from whatever tradition...
...i've personally never seen it as a snide cut intended toward normal worshipping folks of faith, nor have i picked up anything anti-Christian about it...am i missing something?
...what it expresses is very much the opposite of anti-christian imo, if one were to read the sermon on the mount and some of the actual preachings, with some distance from certain of the more political players amongst the professional clergy...

we sure do a lot of sick sinning in Jesus name in this country, and i bet others as well...that is just a coarse guess, but imo the song's 'intentions' were probably closer to goijng off against violent extremism in the name of god...rather than reflecting an 'anti-christian' philosophy...again tho, never met any of the stones, never talked to any of 'em, and that's just a guess...

funny thing, i pick up one of the seatte weekly arts papers here...don't remember if it was seattle weekly or the stranger...carousing quickly thru music adverts etc...and someone is advertising for players for their "christian death metal band"////errr... oh kaaayyyyy....
....so who knows which way is even up anymore????

i'm in the minority here as i think it an extraordinarily powerful song, melody, delivery, harmony, hook etc...and liked it before i could begin to even figure out the lyrics in context...the first verse lyrics show some serious over-stretching for a rhyme that seems a tad awkward, especially for writers of that power...

it reminded me of ruby tuesday the way the chorus breaks out with such power and harmony after a verse that didn't 'tip it off'...it was a breathless and powerful way into a strong chorus...
(the verse melody in 'tuesday' being much more melodic imo however...)

i didn't hear all the sloppiness, except for some lyrical stretches in the verses, (juxtaosed by some really powerful verse imagery too)...so for any instrumental aspects being complained about...haven't listened in awhile and will listen again, ty.

jest my impression, and i don't often remember to say that i'm thankful to have this forum and be able to add to the discussions...cause i love the stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-25 08:32 by Beelyboy.

FrankM Wrote:
> Also am wondering if that time period (93'/94')
> was a boiling point as far as the conflicts in
> Ireland.

well, the first ceasefires took place in August 1994, but 1993 was no more a 'boiling point' than at any other time in the 25 years that preceded it. If there was a 'boiling point', it would have been in the early 70's.


I mention this because in addition to
> this song (which I now know is about Ireland)
> there was also a great movie about the conflict
> which came out about the same time- "In The Name
> Of The Father" with Daniel Day Lewis. Tough
> subject matter but a great movie for anyone who
> hasn't seen it yet.

Like most movies on the subject, it takes serious factual liberties. The events in it took place in the 70's though. I doubt that a songwriter who lives in the UK or Ireland would need to be inspired by a film when the reality is on their doorstep, if thats what youre saying.

twenny revlights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not fence sitting Gazza, its just eyes wide
> open to the
> total reality of the situation. Just because you
> are blind
> to the finger that Jagger points at his audience,
> and not just
> the easy target of the terrorists, doesnt mean it
> isnt there.

I'm blind? Sorry - do you know me or anything about me? Interesting to see you regard terrorists as an "easy target". Quite disturbing, in fact. If youve got a problem with the reality of Jagger denouncing the slaughter of people whilst not simultanously jumping on some absurd 'trendy' bandwagon where he has to blame everyone else for their actions in equal measure, then take it up with him.
>
> Did you ever kiss the child
> Who just saw his father shot
> Do you ever shed a tear
> As the war drags on and on
>
> That's for all of us, not just terrorists.

Speak for yourself. And you're wrong - the use of the word 'war' is the giveaway. The only people involved in that conflict who define it as a 'war' are terrorists. The rest of us actually don't.

And dont insult my intelligence by telling me that it's 'for all of us'. I've never killed anyone.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-25 14:08 by Gazza.

I dont know, I used to see Gazza "kill" Steven in prose around these parts . . .

Steven and I used toy guns, and despite a few disagreements on some musical 'issues' he's a top bloke.

you want a clue, G, here's one:

"Do you put down paradise as lost?"

That is one thing terrorists do NOT do. They are
messianic utopians, who no matter how misguided,
fight to establish their vision of paradise.

It is those who are comfortable with the status quo,
and its brutal injustices, that regard paradise on
earth as lost.

Nice of you to speak for all of us!

Its a sweeping generalisation to assume that all people in either 'group' think the same way



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-25 15:05 by Gazza.

the singer not the bong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As much as it truly pains me to agree with with
> Kent, he leaves me no choice. Right on, brotha.
> Moon is Up and Almost Hear You Sigh are the best
> stones' stones of the post-undercover era!


Lol. It pains you to agree with me?

JumpingKentFlash

and so i repeat, the song condemns two kinds of religious hypocrisy:

the first somehow justifies the random bombing of innocents.

the second somehow justifies the SYSTEMatic brutalization of innocents.

note: the second kind kills far more children than the first, if you were
to be honest about it.

Mark Twain: "There were two reigns of terror if we would but remember it...
one wrought murder in passion, one in cold blood...one inflicted death
upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million...what is the
horror of swift death compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold
insult, and cruelty."

<Moon is Up and Almost Hear You Sigh are the best
stones' stones of the post-undercover era!>

What is Stones' stones?

IMO the best tracks of the post-undercover era are How Can I Stop and One Hit (To The Body) or Love Is Strong. Dirty Work is also a contender.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the singer not the bong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As much as it truly pains me to agree with with
> > Kent, he leaves me no choice. Right on, brotha.
> > Moon is Up and Almost Hear You Sigh are the
> best
> > stones' stones of the post-undercover era!
>
>
> Lol. It pains you to agree with me?


yeah, awwww it hurts!

last thought on this subject:

i missed the most obvious clue of all, the title. the phrase
"blinded by rainbows" is most commonly used to describe a
person of privelege, who chooses not to see the suffering
of the many because their own life is filled with so much
beauty and luxury.

yes, i think the phrase can be stretched to cover a fanatic
who is blinded by his vision of a "better" world, no matter
what the cost to innocent lives, but that is not how the
phrase is usually used.

so ask yourself, why would jagger use THAT particular phrase,
with its "refusing to see the suffering of the poor" implications,
if all he wanted to do was condemn terrorists? the answer is
of course, he wouldnt.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-26 10:15 by twenny revlights.

Perhaps this song relates to the belief that Jesus did not retaliate against those who persecuted him but rather suffered on the cross, thereby, setting an example to "love thy enemy" and to "turn the other cheek". His teachings instructed Christians to not fight evil for evil but to overcome evil with love. It is better to suffer violence than committ violence. This clearly contradicts the act of war. Obviously, "W" believes, as stated in his state of the union address before the US invaded Afganistan and now Iraq, that our enemies are evil (he used the term "axis of evil" to describe an alleged union of N. Korea, Iran and Iraq whose purpose was to join forces and create weapons of mass destruction to destroy America) and "need to feel a strong hand". Isn't it ironic he used the theological term "evil"?
I think "Blinded by Rainbows" supports the Pacifist belief. "How can we kill those that Jesus loves and died for? Can you sleep at night under the weight of such less than conscienceable acts? If you are blinded by an agenda that does not incorporate Christian love than I doubt you will see the face of Christ".
Wars and bombings have occurred since the beginning of time. The song may or may not relate to any particular Presidency but the timing does coincide with the US invasion of Iraq the first time when George, Sr was in office.
I say fight poverty. Provide funding for research on global warming. Promote the work of scientists in areas of US security such as bomb detection. And take care of those and their families who are suffering because of this "war on terror". I do not wish to be part of a country whose wealth may one day be attributed to foreign oil, body bags, prosthetic limbs and armored vehicles!

I never dreamed this topic wopuld get this kinda response when I posted it. The song must be somewhat of a mystery to lots of us.

Several good theories out there. Lots of passionate and intelligent thought - often missing on here.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Whats also funny and deep is the fact...Jagger sang...'''''''Did ya ever feel the night'''....Yes the darknesss and stayin up all night...thinkin...right!!And drinking!!

...I've never listened to the song Elmo......but now I will........and I am thrilled, seriously, to see that someone has apperared on this site with the name of one of my favorite songs....you know who you are Mary Gauthier...

Well Luke....go listen to this song all night long...feel the night!!

Lukester your not the only one who's never heard this song. I never even heard of it....But the lyrics sound pretty heavy for a Stones song.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-26 20:09 by sweetcharmedlife.

In the end we all are Sweethearts Together! What about that one dug up for a 'sunshine' summer gig.

Drag Queens & Limousines Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>The song may or may not relate to any particular Presidency but the timing does
>coincide with the US invasion of Iraq the first time when George, Sr was in
>office.

The first Iraq war was over by early 1991 and the song probably wasn't rewritten with the new lyrics until late 93' or early 94', so how do the two coincide?

>I do not wish to be part of a country whose wealth may one day be attributed >to foreign oil, body bags, prosthetic limbs and armored vehicles!

And again with the oil thing. During Memorial day weekend you accuse the soldiers of fighting in Iraq for oil? You ought to be hung by your feet at the nearest flagpole. Then maybe by the end of the weekend enough blood will rush to your head and you can think more clearly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-26 23:26 by FrankM.

Drag Queens & Limousines Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps this song relates to the belief that Jesus
> did not retaliate against those who persecuted him
> but rather suffered on the cross, thereby, setting
> an example to "love thy enemy" and to "turn the
> other cheek". His teachings instructed Christians
> to not fight evil for evil but to overcome evil
> with love. It is better to suffer violence than
> committ violence. This clearly contradicts the
> act of war. Obviously, "W" believes, as stated in
> his state of the union address before the US
> invaded Afganistan and now Iraq, that our enemies
> are evil (he used the term "axis of evil" to
> describe an alleged union of N. Korea, Iran and
> Iraq whose purpose was to join forces and create
> weapons of mass destruction to destroy America)
> and "need to feel a strong hand". Isn't it ironic
> he used the theological term "evil"?
> I think "Blinded by Rainbows" supports the
> Pacifist belief. "How can we kill those that
> Jesus loves and died for? Can you sleep at night
> under the weight of such less than conscienceable
> acts? If you are blinded by an agenda that does
> not incorporate Christian love than I doubt you
> will see the face of Christ".
> Wars and bombings have occurred since the
> beginning of time. The song may or may not relate
> to any particular Presidency but the timing does
> coincide with the US invasion of Iraq the first
> time when George, Sr was in office.
> I say fight poverty. Provide funding for research
> on global warming. Promote the work of scientists
> in areas of US security such as bomb detection.
> And take care of those and their families who are
> suffering because of this "war on terror". I do
> not wish to be part of a country whose wealth may
> one day be attributed to foreign oil, body bags,
> prosthetic limbs and armored vehicles!


As noble as it is to "love thy enemy", this is the real world. If we did it your way, we would all be dead. The terrorists really do want to see the destruction of America, and we can't just sit there and do nothing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-27 02:14 by it's_all_wrong.

Ok, I didn't realize the song had been rewritten. When was it first written?
Coincide was a poor choice of words. I meant shortly after. And it's just a theory. It's my belief that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in government that is pro life, conservative and supported by the church (at least where I live) that chooses to harm others as a means of retaliation or protection or exactly what I don't know. Afterall, Iraq did not bomb the twin towers. Now that I think about it, this conversation is not even relevant to the fight evil with evil concept.

This is a great country to live in. I think about the soldiers daily. It's painful. I am a free thinker that questions authority, believes in love thy neighbor and finds accountability necessary. Our leaders are getting fat from this war they created leaving the soldiers to implement it with little means. I'll not even touch on the topic of the death of tens of thousands of civilians. Enjoy your holiday. I'm going to get a drink and play some music. Thread is dead....