The Rolling Stones Thread

JH6056 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JH6056 said:

Has the fact that the Stones are FINALLY showing a little bit of awareness about how truly horrible the premise of Brown Sugar's lyrics are is happening?

No doubt, that song has one of the most killer hooks and great music of any rock song recorded.  But it's still about - literally, lyrics are literally about - how raping slave girls is sexy and speaks to sexiness of Black women.

I feel this is overdue, and in general I love Keith Richards for being, well, fucking Keith Richards.  But COME ON Keith, it is SO BAD that you're trying to sell the idea now that the song was "always about the horrors of slavery".  The song is 50 yrs old now.  There are 48 yrs of public statements by the Stones about how the song is "a celebration of black women". So don't even try it, no, the lyrics are "Cold English blood runs hot/Lady of the house wonderin' when it's gonna stop/Sly old slaver knows he's doing alright/Hear him whip the women just around midnight.... Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good? Just like a young girl/black girl should"

No, no one except those trying to share in the denial believes you meant it as a critique or historical song.

But here's the article, and sorry if it's already been discussed, it's a lot of pages here

https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/576521-rolling-stones-self-censoring-one-of-their-most

I hate to admit that I never knew what the lyrics referred to. Had no fucking idea and I've heard that song a million times.

I grew up singing it, I knew a lot of the words, definitely the beginning of the 1st verse. Shows how when it's familiar before you really understand it, you can absorb the "yahoo" part of it so easily, I sang that song with JOY when I saw the Stones at 13 yrs old. It was 10 yrs later I actually heard the words I was singing along with on the radio and LISTENED. And realized what the song actually said in it's words, plainly, with zero mystery.

Mick once said he wanted to get all the nasty stuff out of the way in one song.  Not a very good excuse obviously.  I think that quote was from many years ago.  I don't think they should play it any longer, personally.  Same with Stray Cat Blues.  

vant0037 said:

Asking this in earnest and out of respect for a respectful conversation: what would “responsibility for real things” here mean?  

Good and fair question. 

While I thought the person who I was replying to raised some really good points, they also said what a lot of people who use the term "cancel culture" say, which is that somehow "cancel culture" is having a silencing oppressive shutting down of things, ideas, dynamics, actions that are fine and should not be shut down.

But almost every time I hear the phrase CC used, it's defending statements or actions that are actually long overdue for people to be accountable for.  Actions/policies that have long been about benefitting a small group at the harm or violating rights of others.  The people yelling "Oh, cancel culture" are usually people who are just really not used to anyone holding them accountable for anything.

This is a Rolling Stones thread, not a "big P politics" thread, so I don't say this to take this down an entirely different road but given this is a Pearl Jam board, and they're clear about where they stand on this issue, I will say that a perfect example is having a fair election that even Republicans at the time in charge of the states accused of "fraud" saying they were fair, ZERO evidence of any notable fraud, and then doing all you can between 2020 and now to literally pass laws that have the intentional impact of making it harder for certain people, in certain areas, to vote. Not everyone, just the people you think cost you the last election. Using "election fraud" that there's no evidence of as a reason to make legal voting LESS accessible to the people who voted for the person you think was the "wrong candidate". I hear the term "cancel culture" on Fox News more than all outher outlets I watch/hear combined as an accusation against people usually raising literally true, factually proven arguments against so many things, and then the hosts or guests who don't like what was said or feels it hurts what they value, they say "There's cancel culture again" but also can't present facts that the person was wrong or not speaking the truth. 

So when I say it's usually referencing overdue "responsibility for real things", I mean that whether it's #MeToo, #BLM, the 2020 election, the actions usually being defended by the term CC are either blatantly illegal (like people on viral videos threatening lives of store clerks over mask mandates - threatening bodily harm is illegal but the person threatening says "you're silencing my 1st Amendment rights, cancel culture!" but no, it is that in your area mask mandates are legal and it is NOT legal to threaten to shoot or beat up or harm a store clerk for trying to enforce it.

Does that make sense (not asking if you agree, but did I answer your question)?

JH6056 said:

mrussel1 said:

JH6056 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JH6056 said:

Has the fact that the Stones are FINALLY showing a little bit of awareness about how truly horrible the premise of Brown Sugar's lyrics are is happening?

No doubt, that song has one of the most killer hooks and great music of any rock song recorded.  But it's still about - literally, lyrics are literally about - how raping slave girls is sexy and speaks to sexiness of Black women.

I feel this is overdue, and in general I love Keith Richards for being, well, fucking Keith Richards.  But COME ON Keith, it is SO BAD that you're trying to sell the idea now that the song was "always about the horrors of slavery".  The song is 50 yrs old now.  There are 48 yrs of public statements by the Stones about how the song is "a celebration of black women". So don't even try it, no, the lyrics are "Cold English blood runs hot/Lady of the house wonderin' when it's gonna stop/Sly old slaver knows he's doing alright/Hear him whip the women just around midnight.... Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good? Just like a young girl/black girl should"

No, no one except those trying to share in the denial believes you meant it as a critique or historical song.

But here's the article, and sorry if it's already been discussed, it's a lot of pages here

https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/576521-rolling-stones-self-censoring-one-of-their-most

I hate to admit that I never knew what the lyrics referred to. Had no fucking idea and I've heard that song a million times.

I grew up singing it, I knew a lot of the words, definitely the beginning of the 1st verse. Shows how when it's familiar before you really understand it, you can absorb the "yahoo" part of it so easily, I sang that song with JOY when I saw the Stones at 13 yrs old. It was 10 yrs later I actually heard the words I was singing along with on the radio and LISTENED. And realized what the song actually said in it's words, plainly, with zero mystery.

Mick once said he wanted to get all the nasty stuff out of the way in one song.  Not a very good excuse obviously.  I think that quote was from many years ago.  I don't think they should play it any longer, personally.  Same with Stray Cat Blues.  

I didn't know the words to Stray Cat Blues and just looked them up... Ho. Ly. S***!!  That is AWFUL!  Does that still get radio airplay and do they do that live still?  Whoa!

Anyone know what the Stones have said over the years in trying to "explain" that song? I'm sure "it was fictional" but still... how do they defend it if they do?

I'm 100% sure Stray Cat is not fictional.  But hey.. it's no capital crime...

I don't know that it ever got airplay.  I don't recall if it was a single, but that was 1968 so what do I know.  I listen to Beggar's all the time, so it gets air play in my house.  It's pretty bad, but a great groove. 

vant0037 said:

JH6056 said:

vant0037 said:

Asking this in earnest and out of respect for a respectful conversation: what would “responsibility for real things” here mean?  

Good and fair question. 

While I thought the person who I was replying to raised some really good points, they also said what a lot of people who use the term "cancel culture" say, which is that somehow "cancel culture" is having a silencing oppressive shutting down of things, ideas, dynamics, actions that are fine and should not be shut down.

But almost every time I hear the phrase CC used, it's defending statements or actions that are actually long overdue for people to be accountable for.  Actions/policies that have long been about benefitting a small group at the harm or violating rights of others.  The people yelling "Oh, cancel culture" are usually people who are just really not used to anyone holding them accountable for anything.

This is a Rolling Stones thread, not a "big P politics" thread, so I don't say this to take this down an entirely different road but given this is a Pearl Jam board, and they're clear about where they stand on this issue, I will say that a perfect example is having a fair election that even Republicans at the time in charge of the states accused of "fraud" saying they were fair, ZERO evidence of any notable fraud, and then doing all you can between 2020 and now to literally pass laws that have the intentional impact of making it harder for certain people, in certain areas, to vote. Not everyone, just the people you think cost you the last election. Using "election fraud" that there's no evidence of as a reason to make legal voting LESS accessible to the people who voted for the person you think was the "wrong candidate". I hear the term "cancel culture" on Fox News more than all outher outlets I watch/hear combined as an accusation against people usually raising literally true, factually proven arguments against so many things, and then the hosts or guests who don't like what was said or feels it hurts what they value, they say "There's cancel culture again" but also can't present facts that the person was wrong or not speaking the truth. 

So when I say it's usually referencing overdue "responsibility for real things", I mean that whether it's #MeToo, #BLM, the 2020 election, the actions usually being defended by the term CC are either blatantly illegal (like people on viral videos threatening lives of store clerks over mask mandates - threatening bodily harm is illegal but the person threatening says "you're silencing my 1st Amendment rights, cancel culture!" but no, it is that in your area mask mandates are legal and it is NOT legal to threaten to shoot or beat up or harm a store clerk for trying to enforce it.

Does that make sense (not asking if you agree, but did I answer your question)?

I was the person who raised "cancel culture."  As a proud leftist who supports BLM/MeToo etc, I have absolutely NO issue with how so-called "cancel culture" works.  Republicans and conservatives love the free market, except when its turned on them and their values.

So, I didn't raise it as a weapon, to say that "oh boo hoo, the Stones are just another victim of Cancel Culture!"  Rather, I did raise it because I have a lingering concern that "cancel culture" - meaning, when someone in a position of power does something that offends our collective values BUT is repentant (arguably) - we don't allow for it.  Once cancelled, always cancelled, and I raised it in this context to wonder what should happen with the Stones.  In other words, if they've done something wrong, how should we treat them?

More precisely, in the context of writing and performing "Brown Sugar," what should happen now that they've stopped playing it live?

Also, for those keeping score at home, "Stray Cat Blues" hasn't been played since 2003.  That doesn't excuse anything, but just maybe worth noting.

Yes, I think of the progressive left (in regards to CC) as the new Puritans.  You might as well put a scarlet "A" on people, because that is the effective result.  We have forgotten the concepts of forgiveness and redemption.  What's worse, we hold people accountable for things they may have said years and years ago, when the social norms were different.  

vant0037 said:

JH6056 said:

vant0037 said:

Asking this in earnest and out of respect for a respectful conversation: what would “responsibility for real things” here mean?  

Good and fair question. 

While I thought the person who I was replying to raised some really good points, they also said what a lot of people who use the term "cancel culture" say, which is that somehow "cancel culture" is having a silencing oppressive shutting down of things, ideas, dynamics, actions that are fine and should not be shut down.

But almost every time I hear the phrase CC used, it's defending statements or actions that are actually long overdue for people to be accountable for.  Actions/policies that have long been about benefitting a small group at the harm or violating rights of others.  The people yelling "Oh, cancel culture" are usually people who are just really not used to anyone holding them accountable for anything.

This is a Rolling Stones thread, not a "big P politics" thread, so I don't say this to take this down an entirely different road but given this is a Pearl Jam board, and they're clear about where they stand on this issue, I will say that a perfect example is having a fair election that even Republicans at the time in charge of the states accused of "fraud" saying they were fair, ZERO evidence of any notable fraud, and then doing all you can between 2020 and now to literally pass laws that have the intentional impact of making it harder for certain people, in certain areas, to vote. Not everyone, just the people you think cost you the last election. Using "election fraud" that there's no evidence of as a reason to make legal voting LESS accessible to the people who voted for the person you think was the "wrong candidate". I hear the term "cancel culture" on Fox News more than all outher outlets I watch/hear combined as an accusation against people usually raising literally true, factually proven arguments against so many things, and then the hosts or guests who don't like what was said or feels it hurts what they value, they say "There's cancel culture again" but also can't present facts that the person was wrong or not speaking the truth. 

So when I say it's usually referencing overdue "responsibility for real things", I mean that whether it's #MeToo, #BLM, the 2020 election, the actions usually being defended by the term CC are either blatantly illegal (like people on viral videos threatening lives of store clerks over mask mandates - threatening bodily harm is illegal but the person threatening says "you're silencing my 1st Amendment rights, cancel culture!" but no, it is that in your area mask mandates are legal and it is NOT legal to threaten to shoot or beat up or harm a store clerk for trying to enforce it.

Does that make sense (not asking if you agree, but did I answer your question)?

I was the person who raised "cancel culture."  As a proud leftist who supports BLM/MeToo etc, I have absolutely NO issue with how so-called "cancel culture" works.  Republicans and conservatives love the free market, except when its turned on them and their values.

So, I didn't raise it as a weapon, to say that "oh boo hoo, the Stones are just another victim of Cancel Culture!"  Rather, I did raise it because I have a lingering concern that "cancel culture" - meaning, when someone in a position of power does something that offends our collective values BUT is repentant (arguably) - we don't allow for it.  Once cancelled, always cancelled, and I raised it in this context to wonder what should happen with the Stones.  In other words, if they've done something wrong, how should we treat them?

More precisely, in the context of writing and performing "Brown Sugar," what should happen now that they've stopped playing it live?

Also, for those keeping score at home, "Stray Cat Blues" hasn't been played since 2003.  That doesn't excuse anything, but just maybe worth noting.

Interesting, so Stray Cat Blues did get played over the years, just not since 2003? When was Bill Wyman finally outed for keeping a 13 yr old closed off in his hotel rooms, was it then? Serious question, I'm not sure.

Agree with all of your points above except I can't think of examples of "Once cancelled, always cancelled/cancelled for everything" that wasn't a very reasonable fallout from their prior actions.  I'm not saying it's not possible, but very interested in what you see as an example of "Too much cancel/over the top cancel"?  And I appreciate the conversation!

On the Stones, I'm not calling for a boycott of their shows or anything further.  If I crossed paths with Mick or especially Keith in an elevator, you can best believe I'd say, respectfully and after talking about how much I've loved them for years, then I'd say (and I've said similar straight direct stuff to super famous people before so, yes, I'd do this!) I'd say "But Keith, really? Brown Sugar as always meant as a historic documentation of the horrors of slavery? You know [straight to the point language I'm not going to write here] is what you all or at least Mick were thinking/feeling. Why ruin the overdue action of removing it by spouting rubbish about why?"

I'd just love someone to have that conversation with them publicly, highlighting the positive but maybe giving them a chance to really say how they got here.  Unless they were just tired of the criticism but don't see the song any differently, in which case we'd get more BS.

But no, I don't want them in "rock and roll prison" or have their albums with these songs taken out of circulation, I never even asked for that for Brown Sugar. Just wanted honest dialogue and for those interviewing them about lyrics and songs to ask honestly about it and not let them just talk about the "melody" or "the hook" of that song.

vant0037 said:

Agreed.  Great, reasonable conversation.

I would offer up Al Franken as an example of "cancel culture" (or #MeToo, if you want to be specific) not allowing for nuance or apology.  If you dig into the actual allegations against him, there are a lot of questions about what happened, whether they happened, why the allegations were being made, and who was making them.  I'm not saying nothing happened, but I have a lot of questions about it.  At the time they were raised, #MeToo was in full throttle and there was little room for nuance, and so he resigned.  The loss of a solid Democratic voice in a divided Congress and Senate at the time was enormous.

My point in bringing him up is not to rehash his case, but rather to suggest that the sometimes reflexive nature of so-called "Cancel Culture" can have some unintended consequences, especially if we don't allow for growth, repentance, or nuance.

I not only agree with you, I'd go further to say I think there was a strategic effort to frame what happened as #MeToo when I think there are real questions about - just as you said - what happened was really the way it was made to look. Especially given the politics of the alleged victim. Also agree on the impact it had. And I think it was all by design of the opposition & dems were forced to either walk our talk or risk invalidating everything else by not acting.

That said though, I guess I don't see it as cancel culture going too far because while I think democrats did what they had to do and "practice what they preach" at a highly sensitive time and act clearly and quickly, I don't feel like I know anyone who thinks Al Franken should be canceled from all his work.  So many other actual egregious proven predators got to keep doing what they do (isn't Harvey Weinstein still not in jail and still in the movie industry? No idea if he's blacklisted but I never heard he lost his business, did he?) then I see Franken as more of an unfortunate victim of timing because at any other time I think a look into the accusations against him would have largely been dismissed, but there WAS some bad judgement or poor taste shown by him and he paid dearly for it.  But I don't feel like any of the strong #MeToo proponents I know (me included) would call for him to be boycotted if he showed back up on t.v. shows or other types of projects he used to do.  I can't say I'd pay to see him, because I never paid to see him before this all happened, but I wouldn't call for boycotts of him or anything.  And Politics is just... tricky. If your constituents (yourself and me included, based on how you identified yourself) feel that politicians actions should match their words and facts matter, then it'll be way harder for him to ever make a political comeback. Whereas republicans have largely shown they can have someone do somethign on video, say something on video one day, and then turn around and clearly deny they ever said that exact thing, even though there's footage everywhere and there was a live audience.  Facts hardly matter, so politicians can be caught doing just about anything (except voting for protecting democracy) and as long as they tow the party line, they're good in office.

Well, my Rolling Stones trip to Minneapolis just got canceled. My friends daughters just got diagnosed with covid. They both are doing fine with mild symptoms. THANK GOODNESS.
But now my friend is of course doing the quarantine thing, as he should. I thought of traveling to the show solo, but thats not happening. The wife has to work, so she cant go. 

SUCKS BEING ME!!!!!
 

vant0037 said:

Minneapolis song vote:

Shattered (#23 all time played)
She’s So Cold (#39 all time played)
Monkey Man (#41 all time played)
Neighbours (#63 all time played)

Fun choices!  I’ve never seen any of them, so good for me.  I think at this point Monkey Man would translate best to Mick’s voice these days.  Neighbours lends itself to backing vocals though.  Tough call for sure.

Stones fans and Trump wackos have one thing in common: they both think elections are rigged, so I’m guessing “Neighbours” will be played in honor of TY reissue. LOL

Best choices of the tour so far! I've gotten all but Neighbours at previous shows, so I would love if they played that, but I voted for Monkey Man. I'm taking my youngest son to his first Stones show and that's one of his favorite songs by them. I would honestly be ok with any of them, though.