ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang World Tour 2005 - 2006
Give the world the best tour so far or leave us alone!!
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2003 ] [ FORO EN ESPAŅOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: "Politics & Policies: Stones gather critics" - UPI Return to archive
August 16th, 2005 10:50 AM
Gazza from the WP herald

(see if you can spot any additional factual errors..I've highlighted a few obvious ones...)


Politics & Policies: Stones gather critics
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published August 15, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Sir Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones, the Methuselahs of the rock 'n' roll world, who in the past have managed to remain mostly apolitical in their choice of lyrics, suddenly find themselves delving into geopolitics -- and big-time criticism -- with the release of their latest album; one which the Bush White House finds none too amusing. (1)

In the 1960s during the Vietnam War, when the Stones first got together as a group, it was all too common for popular music bands, singers and actors to speak out against the draft and the war in Southeast Asia. Now, almost half a century later, well, it's still a '60s band -- The Rolling Stones, (average age at least 65) (2)- that is speaking up against the war -- except this time it's in Iraq.


The Rolling Stones have survived nearly five decades despite multiple scandals, a temporary breakup (3) and a strict diet of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Jagger, at 63 (4), is only three years older than President Bush, and one year younger than Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Stones' new album, "A Bigger Bang," which is due to be released Sept. 6, includes a song called "My Sweet Neo Con," in which the British band chides Washington's foreign policy gurus, accusing them of getting it all wrong on Iraq. Makes you wonder that despite decades of drugs and alcohol abuse, they somehow still seem to have kept a few grey cells in good working order.

The controversial song seems to target Bush in particular,(5) as well as Cheney and the group of neo-conservative advisers and architects of the Iraq war.

But Jagger, the Stones' lead singer, denies his new song is directed at the president.

"It is not really aimed at anyone," Jagger said on a TV show. "It's not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn't be called Sweet Neo Con if it was," he added.

Indeed, the song makes no mention of Bush or Iraq, though it does mention Halliburton, the mega-million dollar, Texas-based corporation previously run by Cheney.

"How come you're so wrong? My sweet neo-con, where's the money gone, in the Pentagon," goes one line from the song.

"It's liberty for all, democracy's our style, unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial," goes another line.

"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite," Jagger rebukes members of the Bush administration in the title track to his new album. He admits his song is critical of the Bush administration, but waves it off as "so what!"

"Lots of people are critical," of the administration, Jagger said. A representative of the British rock band said the group had no further comment about the song. The Rolling Stones intend to kick off a U.S. tour in Boston Aug. 21, one that no doubt will not be without controversy.

Although throughout their 43-year career the Stones have managed to steer clear of politics most of the time, "My Sweet Neo Con" is not a first. In 1968, the Stones recorded "Street Fighting Man," (Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy; 'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy and in 1983 they came out with "Undercover," a song about Latin America; (Four-hundred thousand dispares, Lost in the jails in South America.)

Also in 1968, Jagger joined a huge demonstration against the Vietnam war in London's Grosvenor Square, in front of the U.S. Embassy.

Given the brouhaha over the Stones' latest album it remains to be seen if California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who offered seats in a luxury box to see the Rolling Stones in Boston -- on condition would-be concert-goers donate $100,000 to his campaign funds -- will still follow through.

So what is it that suddenly makes the Rolling Stones foreign policy experts? Probably the same that makes other entertainers such as Bono, Bob Geldof and Sting, celebrities in their own right, but certainly lesser known names in the music industry than the Stones, to adopt political or humanitarian causes in an effort to promote refugees' rights, defeat world hunger or eradicate deadly diseases.

If you are old enough to have been around in the 1960s you will recall how popular it was for a number of pop groups, singers and actors to protest the war in Vietnam. Jim Morrison of the Doors, Janis Joplin and Jane Fonda, just to name a few, were adamantly anti-war, and their music and actions reflected it.

Back then, maybe because of the draft, young people seemed far more concerned with a war half a world away than today's youth are about the Iraq conflict. There were hundreds of demonstrations and protests against the war. University campuses were abuzz with anti-war activists.

By contrast, today's young seem more pre-occupied with their Sony PlayStations, personalized ring tones on their cellular telephones and how many friends they can Instant Message at the same time.

As Bob Dylan used to sing, "The times, they are a' changing." Or are they?






1. Have the White House expressed their disapproval? If they have, its news to the rest of us...
2. 61 actually
3. Rubbish
4. 62
5. Based on what? In the next breath, they even admit the song doesnt mention him!

('Paranoia...I can read it like the back of my hand...')

[Edited by Gazza]
August 16th, 2005 11:03 AM
Mel Belli Sounds like it was written by someone for whom English is a second language. And what's with the little bits of commentary ("maybe because of the draft...")?

Shabby piece of journalism there.
August 16th, 2005 11:11 AM
the good Wow. What an unprofessional article. Full of errors. However, while the song doesn't mention Bush by name, I think its a bit disengenuous of Mick to say that it isn't aimed at the president. I mean, who do you think he is talking about with the christianity line? It would be like the white house saying they have no time for the political views of big lipped singers who lead sixties rock bands and then saying they weren't talking about Jagger...
Its cool though. Mick is still the man!!!
August 16th, 2005 11:17 AM
pdog I just got some new tattoos. I was broke so I beat up people with pool cues to pay for it. I did b/c I'm a Stones fan! My dentist is unavailable for comment!
August 16th, 2005 11:23 AM
throbby "...decades of drugs and alcohol abuse"? "They"?

Keith perhaps, but I bet he could still kick Dick Cheney's ass in a fair fight.

I'm also thinking that Mick and GWB probably gave up coke around the same time.

This article is so absurd to me. Kind of like "Would you let your daughter marry a Rolling Stone?"

I guess in the writer's mind only politicians are "foreign policy experts".

Looking at what's going on in the world I'd be hard pressed to point out any political "experts" in foreign policy.
August 16th, 2005 11:33 AM
pdog
quote:
throbby wrote:
Looking at what's going on in the world I'd be hard pressed to point out any political "experts" in foreign policy.



True dat!
August 16th, 2005 12:05 PM
sirmoonie That article is just bogus. The only thing they got correct is that part about Mick Jagger being a guy who has inspired God knows how many American criminals, those tattooed, toothless types you see lurking around places you want to just keep driving through. They all sit around saying, "Well, hell, if it's ok by Mick, I guess it's ok by me. I'll just go beat somebody's head in with a pool cue." That part is true. I've seen that with my own eyes.
August 16th, 2005 12:15 PM
pdog
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
That article is just bogus. The only thing they got correct is that part about Mick Jagger being a guy who has inspired God knows how many American criminals, those tattooed, toothless types you see lurking around places you want to just keep driving through. They all sit around saying, "Well, hell, if it's ok by Mick, I guess it's ok by me. I'll just go beat somebody's head in with a pool cue." That part is true. I've seen that with my own eyes.



Describes me perfectly!
You down for a bit of the ultra-violence?
August 16th, 2005 01:21 PM
Monkey Woman The Stones are getting noticed in places very far removed from the rock music fanbase. Strange result. And each commentator puts his/her little spin on the story... Crazy.
August 16th, 2005 08:16 PM
glencar Isn't the point of Street Fighting Man that the protagonist is just going to sing for a R&R band & not participate in what's going on out in the streets?
August 17th, 2005 04:40 AM
Gazza yes
August 17th, 2005 12:16 PM
Martha I've spotted one more.

quote:
Gazza wrote:
from the WP herald

(see if you can spot any additional factual errors..I've highlighted a few obvious ones...)


Politics & Policies: Stones gather critics
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published August 15, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Sir Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones, the Methuselahs of the rock 'n' roll world, who in the past have managed to remain mostly apolitical in their choice of lyrics, suddenly find themselves delving into geopolitics -- and big-time criticism -- with the release of their latest album; one which the Bush White House finds none too amusing. (1)

In the 1960s during the Vietnam War, when the Stones first got together as a group, it was all too common for popular music bands, singers and actors to speak out against the draft and the war in Southeast Asia. Now, almost half a century later, well, it's still a '60s band -- The Rolling Stones, (average age at least 65) (2)- that is speaking up against the war -- except this time it's in Iraq.


The Rolling Stones have survived nearly five decades despite multiple scandals, a temporary breakup (3) and a strict diet of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Jagger, at 63 (4), is only three years older than President Bush, and one year younger than Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Stones' new album, "A Bigger Bang," which is due to be released Sept. 6, includes a song called "My Sweet Neo Con," in which the British band chides Washington's foreign policy gurus, accusing them of getting it all wrong on Iraq. Makes you wonder that despite decades of drugs and alcohol abuse, they somehow still seem to have kept a few grey cells in good working order.

The controversial song seems to target Bush in particular,(5) as well as Cheney and the group of neo-conservative advisers and architects of the Iraq war.

But Jagger, the Stones' lead singer, denies his new song is directed at the president.

"It is not really aimed at anyone," Jagger said on a TV show. "It's not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn't be called Sweet Neo Con if it was," he added.

Indeed, the song makes no mention of Bush or Iraq, though it does mention Halliburton, the mega-million dollar, Texas-based corporation previously run by Cheney.

"How come you're so wrong? My sweet neo-con, where's the money gone, in the Pentagon," goes one line from the song.

"It's liberty for all, democracy's our style, unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial," goes another line.

"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite," Jagger rebukes members of the Bush administration in the title track to his new album. He admits his song is critical of the Bush administration, but waves it off as "so what!"

"Lots of people are critical," of the administration, Jagger said. A representative of the British rock band said the group had no further comment about the song. The Rolling Stones intend to kick off a U.S. tour in Boston Aug. 21, one that no doubt will not be without controversy.

Although throughout their 43-year career the Stones have managed to steer clear of politics most of the time, "My Sweet Neo Con" is not a first. In 1968, the Stones recorded "Street Fighting Man," (Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy; 'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy and in 1983 they came out with "Undercover," a song about Latin America; (Four-hundred thousand dispares, Lost in the jails in South America.)

Also in 1968, Jagger joined a huge demonstration against the Vietnam war in London's Grosvenor Square, in front of the U.S. Embassy.

Given the brouhaha over the Stones' latest album it remains to be seen if California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who offered seats in a luxury box to see the Rolling Stones in Boston -- on condition would-be concert-goers donate $100,000 to his campaign funds -- will still follow through.

So what is it that suddenly makes the Rolling Stones foreign policy experts? Probably the same that makes other entertainers such as Bono, Bob Geldof and Sting, celebrities in their own right, but certainly lesser known names in the music industry than the Stones, to adopt political or humanitarian causes in an effort to promote refugees' rights, defeat world hunger or eradicate deadly diseases.

If you are old enough to have been around in the 1960s you will recall how popular it was for a number of pop groups, singers and actors to protest the war in Vietnam. Jim Morrison of the Doors, Janis Joplin and Jane Fonda, just to name a few, were adamantly anti-war, and their music and actions reflected it.

Back then, maybe because of the draft, young people seemed far more concerned with a war half a world away than today's youth are about the Iraq conflict. There were hundreds of demonstrations and protests against the war. University campuses were abuzz with anti-war activists.

By contrast, today's young seem more pre-occupied with their Sony PlayStations, personalized ring tones on their cellular telephones and how many friends they can Instant Message at the same time.

As Bob Dylan used (6) to sing, "The times, they are a' changing." Or are they?








1. Have the White House expressed their disapproval? If they have, its news to the rest of us...
2. 61 actually
3. Rubbish
4. 62
5. Based on what? In the next breath, they even admit the song doesnt mention him!

('Paranoia...I can read it like the back of my hand...')

[Edited by Gazza]



6. Bob STILL sings this song and many others. STILL!

7. In most muble opinion we are DOOMED.

Long live the ROLLING STONES!

Rape, MURDER......it's just a shout away.

Fuck yup!
August 17th, 2005 12:17 PM
Martha muble

ROTFLOL! I meant to type ( I cannot type) HUMBLE.

xxxxooo.,
Mathra!


LOL
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)