| October 2nd, 2005 10:35 AM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
I've seen a lot of slagging off of the new album of late, and firstly i have to say i'm guilty of this too. But on a more positive note, i can't see why people are being so negative about Sweet Neo Con, musically not great, but at least Jagger is openly slating Bush (i know there are pro-Bush people out there) exercising freedom of speech. I am only aware of Green Day and Bruce Springsteen being as frank about there opinions as this. |
| October 2nd, 2005 10:48 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
It's an OK record and a deep breath of fresh air after 8 years. The boys just have to learn to write rock n roll songs again thats all. There's no desperation, no edge, no drive anymore. The Stones are too comfortable. I mean it's a very well written and well crafted album. It just ain't Rock n' Roll. |
| October 2nd, 2005 10:49 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I dont recall Springsteen slagging off Bush on any of his records, personally (or in concert for that matter). Maybe you mean Steve Earle!
Your approval of the song seems to be entirely based on the fact that "at least he's slating Bush"...why does that fact alone have to mean that its any good? or bad, for that matter
Just because you feel the need to address an issue that some people may approve of doesnt in itself automatically make the song good.
(Aside from all that, the song doesnt appear to be about Bush specifically, anyway...)
Theres quite a lot of Bush-haters who find the lyrics trite and embarrassing. My own opinion is that the subject of the song is irrelevant to me. I dont have a problem with the Stones shooting their mouth off about anything. I do have a problem however with lyrics that read like they're written by a 12 year old with Tourettes Syndrome...
[Edited by Gazza] |
| October 2nd, 2005 10:54 AM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I dont recall Springsteen slagging off Bush on any of his records, personally (or in concert for that matter). Maybe you mean Steve Earle!
Bruce did a fair amount of "slagging" during his "public service announcements" at the Vote for Change concerts... |
| October 2nd, 2005 10:58 AM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
I can groove to Sweet Neocon....but.....when Ihear that song start and I hear that mornfoul harmonica singing those notes of emptiness...especially if I'm driving the car late at night...it just makes me want to hear Little Ivey (was that the name of that unreleased instrumental).
My mind wants to hear a song that involves being alone late or night or slipping through a night time world. Sort of like Blue Collar by BTO. I would have rather they just explored it instrumentally. The lyrics don't match the emotion of the music for me mon Neocon.
|
| October 2nd, 2005 11:05 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Mel Belli wrote:
Bruce did a fair amount of "slagging" during his "public service announcements" at the Vote for Change concerts...
Not to my ears. Certainly not as much as a lot of people may have expected at such an event |
| October 2nd, 2005 11:46 AM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I dont recall Springsteen slagging off Bush on any of his records, personally (or in concert for that matter). Maybe you mean Steve Earle!
Your approval of the song seems to be entirely based on the fact that "at least he's slating Bush"...why does that fact alone have to mean that its any good? or bad, for that matter
Just because you feel the need to address an issue that some people may approve of doesnt in itself automatically make the song good.
(Aside from all that, the song doesnt appear to be about Bush specifically, anyway...)
Theres quite a lot of Bush-haters who find the lyrics trite and embarrassing. My own opinion is that the subject of the song is irrelevant to me. I dont have a problem with the Stones shooting their mouth off about anything. I do have a problem however with lyrics that read like they're written by a 12 year old with Tourettes Syndrome...
[Edited by Gazza]
True, that doesn't mean its a good song, all i was saying is that its good that more musicians are writing about it,i guess . I thought one of Springsteen's last records was about Iraq war? Probably not. |
| October 2nd, 2005 12:06 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
the title track of "Devils & Dust" is written from the perspective of a soldier based in Iraq but the song itself isnt overtly political at all. And it certainly doesnt slate anyone. |
| October 2nd, 2005 12:10 PM |
|
|
| JaggerLips |
Love the line about Halliburton!!!! What a swipe at Cheney et al!!!!!
|
| October 2nd, 2005 12:55 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
Actually the Clinton administartion granted/continued multiple contracts to Haliburton. Anyone is allowed to bid for those contracts. There aren't many compnaies that can deliver product and services in a war zone and even fewer apply.
|
| October 2nd, 2005 01:26 PM |
|
|
| Col |
What's wrong with Sweet Neo-Con?
Pick up Bang, put on CD, skip to track 13 and you'll find out.
Apart from the line,
"There's bombers in my bedroom
And it's giving me the shits"
Poetic beauty! |
| October 2nd, 2005 01:28 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
This subject has been flogged to death. . .can we all move along? |
| October 2nd, 2005 01:42 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Taptrick wrote:
Actually the Clinton administartion granted/continued multiple contracts to Haliburton. Anyone is allowed to bid for those contracts. There aren't many compnaies that can deliver product and services in a war zone and even fewer apply.
Yes indeed Clinton gave Halliburton mulitple contracts. In fact Clinton allowed Halliburton to make a whopping 7% increased profit margin in Kosovo. Bush limited Halliburton's profit margin to 3.5%. Yet,for some reason,the "media" never tells you that little FACT. Halliburton is one of exactly two companies that do what they do. The other company is called Betchtle(sp?) they are based in France. No way in hell wrere they going to get the contract,nor should they have. The French goverment was very involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Another glaring example of the "media" trying to hang Bush out to dry by intentionally misleading the public about the facts. Bring down Bush at all costs! Facts be damned! Talk about a "culture of corruption"! It gets no more corrupt than that. Fucking filthy liars! Dan "Memogate" Rather,and the whole lot of them are blatantly bullshitting the American people,and the idiots that don't get the real facts slurp their lies right up.
As for Sweet Neo Con the song just sucks with teeth period. I have no problem with the bullshit subject matter. I would think that if Mick was going to rip on Bush he would at least put more thought into the lyrics. Which are,by all accounts,juvinile tripe,and not worthy of inclusion on ABB at all. I suspect that they threw it on the record just for the publicity it would generate. God knows the lying liberal media will run with anything that slams Bush. Just look at that fucking kook Cindy Sheehan! They have been carrying her water for how many weeks now?
Riffhard |
| October 2nd, 2005 01:57 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
The other company is called Betchtle(sp?) they are based in France. No way in hell wrere they going to get the contract,nor should they have. The French goverment was very involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
Riffhard
Riffy I hate to counter your facts again but Bechtel is a privately held, US owned and based here in dear old San Francisco. George Schultz has been on the board of directors for years. They have been awarded numerous contracts for the last 5 years. You are convoluting your facts with your hatred of the French. |
| October 2nd, 2005 02:10 PM |
|
|
| tumbling dice |
Sweet Neocon, got a bad chorus and along with Streets of love is the worst thing in the album. |
| October 2nd, 2005 02:17 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
Riffy I hate to counter your facts again but Bechtel is a privately held, US owned and based here in dear old San Francisco. George Schultz has been on the board of directors for years. They have been awarded numerous contracts for the last 5 years. You are convoluting your facts with your hatred of the French.
No,no,no I did screw up the name of the company. I will have to google the French company that had tried to get contracts inside Iraq. I am forgetting the name because this story is three years old. I have no hate for the French people at all. I do know that the goverment of France is full of corruption though. Plus they,for some reason,coddle Islamists,and have seen an ever increasing problem with anti Semitism inside France as direct result. Not to mention France has become the "Mecca of Europe" as far as radical Islam concerned. Add the whole Oil-for-Food(oil contracts) scandal,and anyone would be foolish not to see the real reason that France was so against the war tro begin with. To date it has cost France hundreds of millions of dollars. Moral high ground? Yeah,right!
Read this link,and you'll see what I'm saying about France's self made Islam problem. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/435tebxi.asp
I have absolutly no problem with France per se,and I have met many cool posters on this very site from France. So please do not assume that I hate France. That is wholeheartedly not true. |
| October 2nd, 2005 02:23 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
My apologies for making the assumption about your feelings for French people!
I am very aware of the hole the French have dug themselves into with the immigaration policies. They do have quite the large festering pot of radical Islamist's living on the outskirts of Paris. Their attempted ban on head scarfs for women in public schools was a bizarre way to start to address it. |
| October 2nd, 2005 02:47 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
Their attempted ban on head scarfs for women in public schools was a bizarre way to start to address it.
Too true! They stepped into it with that one! LOL! Although I must say that I can almost see where they were coming from. Do you remember the case down in Florida where the muslims were trying to sue the state for the right to allow women to wear their headscarves and full facial veils on their drivers licences?! LOL! That is beyond ridiculous. I think that the French ban on headscarves was more about not allowing any overt religious symbolism. Which to me is absurd. I can see it for security purposes ala driver's licence,airline ticket,etc.,but to try and strip away a religious identity is just asking for trouble. I mean you can't wear a crucifix,or yarmulka in school either. Wierd.
Riffhard
|
| October 2nd, 2005 03:25 PM |
|
|
| FPM C10 |
The problem I have with Halliburton is the obvious conflict of interest our illustrious Vice President denies. Stuff like that didn't used to be an integral part of the Executive branch. But I don't wanna get into a pissing match with ya, my brother!
Problem with "Sweet Neocon" - they released the first few lines and I immediately heard it in my head - and it sounded like The Clash playing "Masters of War". Not a half-baked little sing-song-y nursery rhyme. Mick's not nearly mad enough in it, but then he's not an American, so he doesn't need to be.
I wanted to love it, but it's only surpassed in suckiness by "Streets of Love". |
| October 2nd, 2005 03:28 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
"conflict of interest"???
What's that? |
| October 2nd, 2005 03:49 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
I think that the French ban on headscarves was more about not allowing any overt religious symbolism.
I think what they were trying to do was empower the muslim women that wanted to wear western clothes in school (so that they didn't have to change out of their Muslim garb when they got to school). These Muslim communities outside of Paris have groups of men that take it upon themselves to beat and rape (and in some cases kill)women that they don't know for being seen coming home from school wearing western clothes on the street or walking with a male that is not a family member or a husband. I saw a very sad documentary about these women that are trapped in this strict Islamic community while being steps away from western freedom. The head scarf ban seems to be a passive aggressive method of giving some of these women some freedom. |
| October 2nd, 2005 03:57 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
The head scarf ban seems to be a passive aggressive method of giving some of these women some freedom.
Well, actually in the beginning I think it was. Most major religions had in built protection for women. Or what they thought was protection. In fact theoretically the clitoral circumcision was meant to a be protection .... you know protection against "lust" and all that. The hindus dealt with it about the same way. These kids were always rebellious you know.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| October 2nd, 2005 04:12 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Well, actually in the beginning I think it was. Most major religions had in built protection for women. Or what they thought was protection. In fact theoretically the clitoral circumcision was meant to a be protection .... you know protection against "lust" and all that. The hindus dealt with it about the same way. These kids were always rebellious you know.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels]
????????????????????????????????????
I don't understand your point!?!?!?!? |
| October 2nd, 2005 04:36 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
As for Sweet Neo Con the song just sucks with teeth period. I have no problem with the bullshit subject matter. I would think that if Mick was going to rip on Bush he would at least put more thought into the lyrics. Which are,by all accounts,juvinile tripe,and not worthy of inclusion on ABB at all. I suspect that they threw it on the record just for the publicity it would generate. God knows the lying liberal media will run with anything that slams Bush. Just look at that fucking kook Cindy Sheehan! They have been carrying her water for how many weeks now?
Riffhard
Your shit is so fucking tired. Why must you persist in being such a one trick pony poster? Have you not figured out that everyone is sick of it? |
| October 2nd, 2005 06:43 PM |
|
|
| texile |
i can't listen to it....it's trite without any bite or real anger - i was exited when i heard ABOUT it and at least jagger is writing about something beside his dick here - but its lame - something a political song should NOT be...
dangerous beauty is better.... |
| October 2nd, 2005 07:35 PM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
quote:
texile wrote:
i can't listen to it....it's trite without any bite or real anger - i was exited when i heard ABOUT it and at least jagger is writing about something beside his dick here - but its lame - something a political song should NOT be...
dangerous beauty is better....
I agree, on both points. I retract my opening statement. |
| October 2nd, 2005 07:47 PM |
|
|
| T&A |
Very good song on a very mediocre album. |
| October 2nd, 2005 11:05 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Sweet Neocon: Good idea, bad developing. |
| October 2nd, 2005 11:19 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
it chugs...rather than rocks....one good verse, great harp....C+ song....needed more development |
| October 2nd, 2005 11:21 PM |
|
|
| poor immigrant |
It has to be a good song before the message even matters. Too many crappy songwriters have learned this the hard way, especially in the sixties. |
