Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stanlove

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
Those (the first posted lyrics in question) aren't offensive. Pish posh!

well I'm not personally offended...I just think that if you look at them as they are, they would probably be seen as being offensive.

My point is how does such a mainstream band get away with it over and over unlike most bands? (until you get to more recent hip hop/rap).

Other than the bit about black girls just want to get fuucked all night, which got some attention but shouldn't have, any offensive lyrics by the Stones remain tepid at best. I can't think of one person that was offended by the line in I Go Wild. Nobody noticed. Besides, it was rather appropriate.

Current (and last 20 years or so of) hip hop/rap lyrics aren't offensive because they're not being listened to by the pathetic people that found Under My Thumb, Stupid Girl and whatever else offensive.

List what you mean by 'most bands' that have 'offensive lyrics'. I can't think of any other than GNR's One In A Million.

Put it another way.

If U2 came out with, 'black girls just wanna get F... all night', what would the public reaction be?

The difference is they know the Stones will not bow to pressure of apologize. The PC bullies can't bully people like that so they don't like to go after them..Bono would have a press conference, cry and ask for forgivness, plus probably give some money to someone's favorite charity.

OK, so are you saying the reason the Stones get away with it, is that the public knows they won't apologize, so the choice of the public is to live with it and accept it and still embrace the band?

I want to reiterate that I don't personally have a problem with this, but I've always wondered how it is that they not only get away with it, but are revered and maybe even revered for it?

When these PC protests get started its usually started by a few opportunists who rally the clan. They bully people to take things back and say they are sorry and often give money..

If you remember Jesse Jackson tried that with the Stones in 1978 and the Stones told him to screw himself and nothing came of it..I don't believe anyone has bothered them since..


Ever notice why guys like Howard Stern can say anything anti PC things he wants and there are no big protests? Because he doesn't give in and doesn't give a crap and you won't get anything out of him.


Some people have bashed the Stones for some things they have put in their songs but there are no big movements to do anything about it because the Stones don't bow to them..I personally wish everyone was like that...

Quote
treaclefingers


How does Mick get away with it? If it's another mainstream artist, aren't they getting slammed?

How come they never sing Under My Thumb anymore? When was it last done live? maybe 20 years ago? This song is not done live anymore due to its misogynist lyrics that that there would be protests and controversy about.

So Mick cannot get away with what he used to. The stuff he got away with in the past...most of it cannot be done anymore. Brown Sugar is the notable exception but I think a lot of black women like it and take it as a compliment. The lyrics are not a putdown of black women.

Quote
triceratops

Quote
treaclefingers


How does Mick get away with it? If it's another mainstream artist, aren't they getting slammed?

How come they never sing Under My Thumb anymore? When was it last done live? maybe 20 years ago? This song is not done live anymore due to its misogynist lyrics that that there would be protests and controversy about.

So Mick cannot get away with what he used to. The stuff he got away with in the past...most of it cannot be done anymore. Brown Sugar is the notable exception but I think a lot of black women like it and take it as a compliment. The lyrics are not a putdown of black women.

UMT was last done November 22, 2006, according to setlist.fm, roughly seven years ago. The video below is them doing the track in 2006, as released on the DVD box set.




By the way-UMT (according to setlist.fm) has been performed at least once in the following years: 2006, 1998, 1997, 1982, 1981, 1969, 1967, & 1966. The only time they stopped performing it was after Altamont, since a man was stabbed to death during that song.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-13 22:04 by BeforeTheyMakeMeRun.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stanlove

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
Those (the first posted lyrics in question) aren't offensive. Pish posh!

well I'm not personally offended...I just think that if you look at them as they are, they would probably be seen as being offensive.

My point is how does such a mainstream band get away with it over and over unlike most bands? (until you get to more recent hip hop/rap).

Other than the bit about black girls just want to get fuucked all night, which got some attention but shouldn't have, any offensive lyrics by the Stones remain tepid at best. I can't think of one person that was offended by the line in I Go Wild. Nobody noticed. Besides, it was rather appropriate.

Current (and last 20 years or so of) hip hop/rap lyrics aren't offensive because they're not being listened to by the pathetic people that found Under My Thumb, Stupid Girl and whatever else offensive.

List what you mean by 'most bands' that have 'offensive lyrics'. I can't think of any other than GNR's One In A Million.

Put it another way.

If U2 came out with, 'black girls just wanna get F... all night', what would the public reaction be?

The difference is they know the Stones will not bow to pressure of apologize. The PC bullies can't bully people like that so they don't like to go after them..Bono would have a press conference, cry and ask for forgivness, plus probably give some money to someone's favorite charity.

OK, so are you saying the reason the Stones get away with it, is that the public knows they won't apologize, so the choice of the public is to live with it and accept it and still embrace the band?

I want to reiterate that I don't personally have a problem with this, but I've always wondered how it is that they not only get away with it, but are revered and maybe even revered for it?

I was thinking along the lines of stanloves thinking. My thoughts also added the opinion that IF someone went after Jagger for un-PC lyrics, and he were to bother with a reply, he would most likely ridicule the person complaining and make them look foolish. Most times someone makes an issue of things they really aren't trying to call attention to offensive lyrics per se, but are trying to garner support to their cause (whatever that may be). The last thing they're going to do is go after someone with a history of being VERY quick witted who has the potential to make them look bad. Not a good PR strategy.

My brain is kinda fuzzy so I need some help, but didn't something like what I just described above in regards to Mother's Little Helper? Do I remember a story where someone complained and Jagger said something to the effect that he was inspired by an article he read in a major newspaper and made the questioner look foolish for questioning him while at the same time giving the major media a pass?

I have no doubt that I could be wrong on this specific example but I will stand by my thoughts above. The PC police seem to be very well practiced in following a policy of "don't pick a fight you can't win".

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stanlove

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
Those (the first posted lyrics in question) aren't offensive. Pish posh!

well I'm not personally offended...I just think that if you look at them as they are, they would probably be seen as being offensive.

My point is how does such a mainstream band get away with it over and over unlike most bands? (until you get to more recent hip hop/rap).

Other than the bit about black girls just want to get fuucked all night, which got some attention but shouldn't have, any offensive lyrics by the Stones remain tepid at best. I can't think of one person that was offended by the line in I Go Wild. Nobody noticed. Besides, it was rather appropriate.

Current (and last 20 years or so of) hip hop/rap lyrics aren't offensive because they're not being listened to by the pathetic people that found Under My Thumb, Stupid Girl and whatever else offensive.

List what you mean by 'most bands' that have 'offensive lyrics'. I can't think of any other than GNR's One In A Million.

Put it another way.

If U2 came out with, 'black girls just wanna get F... all night', what would the public reaction be?

The difference is they know the Stones will not bow to pressure of apologize. The PC bullies can't bully people like that so they don't like to go after them..Bono would have a press conference, cry and ask for forgivness, plus probably give some money to someone's favorite charity.

OK, so are you saying the reason the Stones get away with it, is that the public knows they won't apologize, so the choice of the public is to live with it and accept it and still embrace the band?

I want to reiterate that I don't personally have a problem with this, but I've always wondered how it is that they not only get away with it, but are revered and maybe even revered for it?

I was thinking along the lines of stanloves thinking. My thoughts also added the opinion that IF someone went after Jagger for un-PC lyrics, and he were to bother with a reply, he would most likely ridicule the person complaining and make them look foolish. Most times someone makes an issue of things they really aren't trying to call attention to offensive lyrics per se, but are trying to garner support to their cause (whatever that may be). The last thing they're going to do is go after someone with a history of being VERY quick witted who has the potential to make them look bad. Not a good PR strategy.

My brain is kinda fuzzy so I need some help, but didn't something like what I just described above in regards to Mother's Little Helper? Do I remember a story where someone complained and Jagger said something to the effect that he was inspired by an article he read in a major newspaper and made the questioner look foolish for questioning him while at the same time giving the major media a pass?

I have no doubt that I could be wrong on this specific example but I will stand by my thoughts above. The PC police seem to be very well practiced in following a policy of "don't pick a fight you can't win".

Peace,
Mr DJA

I think that's a good point.

I do recall with the 'Some Girls' there was an incident that ensued, Jesse Jackson getting involved.

Wasn't Mick's response, "too bad if you can't take a f*ckin' joke"?

My brain's fuzzy on it as well!

i'm surprised this topic is still open,

last time i insinuated the same idea of political correctness/racism it was locked in a minute.

we all know the stones are FAR from racist but yes some of their lyrics are immature and tasteless.mirroring the times i suppose

Quote
nankered
i'm surprised this topic is still open,

last time i insinuated the same idea of political correctness/racism it was locked in a minute.

we all know the stones are FAR from racist but yes some of their lyrics are immature and tasteless.mirroring the times i suppose

I don't think there's anything wrong with the topic. If there actually is, it would be ironic in that the question I'm trying to pose is how are the Stones seemingly able to say what they want in their songs, seemingly without any care to political correctness, and yet have no real visible repercussions?

Quote
treaclefingers

I think that's a good point.

I do recall with the 'Some Girls' there was an incident that ensued, Jesse Jackson getting involved.

Wasn't Mick's response, "too bad if you can't take a f*ckin' joke"?

My brain's fuzzy on it as well!

FUZZY BRAIN'S UNITE!

I think you're right though that Jesse did say some stuff about Some Girls. I don't rember Mick's reply but, assuming for a moment that you're correct, I'll bet Jesse walked away wishing he hadn't opened that can of worms, so to speak.

Peace,
Mr DJA

You! YOU! You made a dead man cum.

The best Stones visual.

Here's a 1983 interview with Mick, along with Julien Temple, obviously enjoying the offense and controversy he's created. He'd rather you weren't OK with it, offensive lyrics included....

Lets face it the entire media world seem's all to anxious to find fault in any celebrities comments and then crusify them for it. Phil Robertson for example is hauled over the coal's because he finds a womans vagina more desirable than another man's anus. Nothing too strange about that in my book. But these day's you can't say that, or anything else logical it seem's?

I almost forgot the 'unedited' Undercover video! The only difference between the song and the video is that a TV-edit was forced by MTV (Mick gave in, apparently) while there were no edits to the single, it seems. Is it true that for the Jagger/Richards shootout scene that they did this whole scene in an actual church? I think I heard that trivia from the 'Pop-Up Video'...

That whole 'Undercover' album seems like it was aimed towards attracting attention starting with the cover, not to mention 'Too Much Blood'!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-14 00:56 by BeforeTheyMakeMeRun.

Sweet Little Sixteen from Live in Texas "Tight Dresses and Tampax"... Not so much offensive as just really weird.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-14 01:11 by ryanpow.

Surprised nobody's mentioned the "ten little..... sitting on the wall" lyric from Sweet Black Angel.

Quote
nankered
i'm surprised this topic is still open,

last time i insinuated the same idea of political correctness/racism it was locked in a minute.

we all know the stones are FAR from racist but yes some of their lyrics are immature and tasteless.mirroring the times i suppose

Eventually one of the children on this board will complain because everything in their Stones world has to be rosy.

Quote
rob51
Lets face it the entire media world seem's all to anxious to find fault in any celebrities comments and then crusify them for it. Phil Robertson for example is hauled over the coal's because he finds a womans vagina more desirable than another man's anus. Nothing too strange about that in my book. But these day's you can't say that, or anything else logical it seem's?

That's not why that particular bastard was quite rightly "hauled over the coals."

The Stones themselves have never offended me lyrically--again, context is everything in terms of the times, the circumstances, the song's POV--but this thread has developed into one of the most unpleasant I think I've read here. Too bad, because it's an interesting topic.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
rob51
Lets face it the entire media world seem's all to anxious to find fault in any celebrities comments and then crusify them for it. Phil Robertson for example is hauled over the coal's because he finds a womans vagina more desirable than another man's anus. Nothing too strange about that in my book. But these day's you can't say that, or anything else logical it seem's?

That's not why that particular bastard was quite rightly "hauled over the coals."

The Stones themselves have never offended me lyrically--again, context is everything in terms of the times, the circumstances, the song's POV--but this thread has developed into one of the most unpleasant I think I've read here. Too bad, because it's an interesting topic.

How's it become unpleasant Aquamarine?

Quote
Come On

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Come On
Jaggers lyrics must be childrens fairytales compared to every rapper/hip hopper...

That's an incredibly fair point.

To Jagger's lyrics?

what's his worst one?

jagger's lyrics are kiddie bedtime stories compared to the rude crude crass tasteless crap out there now......

Greek Goddess of Wisdom, Skill...& War

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
rob51
Lets face it the entire media world seem's all to anxious to find fault in any celebrities comments and then crusify them for it. Phil Robertson for example is hauled over the coal's because he finds a womans vagina more desirable than another man's anus. Nothing too strange about that in my book. But these day's you can't say that, or anything else logical it seem's?

That's not why that particular bastard was quite rightly "hauled over the coals."

The Stones themselves have never offended me lyrically--again, context is everything in terms of the times, the circumstances, the song's POV--but this thread has developed into one of the most unpleasant I think I've read here. Too bad, because it's an interesting topic.

How's it become unpleasant Aquamarine?

Because it's become an opportunity to decry political correctness and to then use that as an excuse to express certain opinions, supposedly to demonstrate fearless outspokenness etc. What such expressions really are, I won't characterize, not wishing to add to the unpleasantness. (But see the Clapton/racist thread for more of the same.)

But to repeat, it IS an interesting topic, influenced I think by three factors: changing times, ALO who positioned the Stones as bad boys who might say ANYTHING, and the fact that this image eclipsed the fact that many other bands were in fact saying very similar things. But for me the point is that I often wouldn't want to hear the 2014 Jagger say, as himself, things that he had a character in a song say in 1969 (back when it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, even if it should have).

An interesting question is, how outrageous were RS lyrics compared to others written at the same time? Were they ahead of the pack?

Think of Satisfaction, the first pop song to discuss menstruation, written in 1965

I'm tryin' to make some girl who tells me,
"Baby, better come back, maybe next week"
Cause you see I'm on a losin' streak
I can't get no...

But perhaps they were just following in the tradition of their idols, the Blues singers whose songs had explicit sexual references from the 1920s onward.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-14 13:52 by Bliss.

Quote
Bliss
An interesting question is, how outrageous were RS lyrics compared to others written at the same time? Were they ahead of the pack?

Think of Satisfaction, the first song to discuss menstruation, written in 1965

I'm tryin' to make some girl who tells me,
"Baby, better come back, maybe next week"
Cause you see I'm on a losin' streak
I can't get no...

I'll be honest, I didn't even realize this was what that verse was about until a couple of years later I read an article where Jagger said "but it's about what really does happen to girls," and I thought "Ohhhhhh . . . "

Enough with this PC crap. It's a Stones forum. Is no place free from this curse?


I just hate that Jagger himself has given in, and changed many of his own words.

Reasons why the Stones get away with lyrics some may fine offensive (imho):

- Look at the context of time: some lyrics, words, expressions might look offensive in 2014 (and would be considered politically incorrect), but weren't at the time of the writing.
- Provocation: Even if you don't mean it (the Stones are, after all, a rock'n roll band, and they produce art, and are not politicians) you can mirror, mock and critize society in hefty words. There are numerous examples of artists (music, painting, theaters) that make us look to social problems by offensive-looking expression.
- (Sometimes cynical) jokes about us (fans, girls and boys) and them; if I really believed that they were dead serious about the contents of their lyrics terms of, e.g., mistreating women, I would not be a fan anymore; but I think they have proven in many situations that they do not act and think in the way of their lyrics.
- "If you can't take a f**ing joke..", yes, times have changed, and a joke of the 1970s might be considered unappropriate today; still, should they change their lyrics? I'd say no, they produce music, and not national anthems which have been rightfully changed (e.g., the Austrian anthem now mentiones "daughters and sons" (and not only "sons"...). It even might be that MJ/KR would not write lyrics like they did nowaydays, and express themselves with other words.
- What I find really offensive is lyrics of some rapers, or of some white racist punk bands.

The Rolling Stones IORR Lyrics Thread Essay 14 June 2014

Really interesting topic treaclefingers.

Society by default operates by the lowest common denominator rules with favouring of mediocrity across the board. Personally, I abhor artistic/creative censorship within the arts, providing nobody comes to direct harm.

Socially accepted standards do vary in different decades and countries depending on socio-cultural paradigm. A good deal of what happened in the 60s in the USA, UK and Europe (both from an action and verbal public comments perspective), would have resulted people being publicly condemned, ostracised and/or jailed in the 1940s.

For example, the "Swinging 60s" in the UK there was a marked change of public morals and accepted social behaviour compared to a few years earlier. In the USA there was a period in the 1980s when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority organisation and the Tipper Gore co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), held considerable sway over the wider public's media's tolerance of what music artists and other artistic performers were saying and doing. This was the social antithesis of what was happening prior to this one or two decade earlier.

I don't buy some people's explanation Mick (and Keith) were writing in persona using “characterisation". I think a good deal of the Stones lyrics reflect autobiographical experiences, which were then obfuscated under the guise of creating vignettes and stories. Similarly so the vast majority of other mainstream rock stars' oeuvres. I do think Stones lyrics and those of other male rock artists are heavily misogynistic, sexist and at times can be construed as racist.

Over the last few years in the UK, if our friends in the USA are unaware of it, there has been a massive expose of paedophile activity by prominent public figures, particularly those in the entertainment and political arenas. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that sex with minors by entertainers in the line of music, TV and Radio industries was seemingly widespread in the 60s through to the present day.

Legally and morally this was clearly wrong, but the impression engendered and represented in many lyrics (Stones and other musical performers) is the lines of socially acceptable behaviour became extremely blurred from the 1960s onwards. The Rock Stars, TV and Radio presenters of the 60s and 70s considered that anything went. They became the untouchables, "Gods", akin to the Kings and Aristocrats of yore, where if anything was offered to them experience wise, if was perfectly okay to indulge in it. I mean, who was going to say anything against them?

Anecdotal (direct and indirect) tales of fan and groupie excesses inculcates the idea that young (under 16) teenage girls and/or boys habitually threw themselves at rock stars in the 60s, 70s, etc. (probably did not stop there and they still do), in ecstatic states of “Starstruck” emotional desire in public, at hotels and backstage. Such behaviour would likely dissolve and corrupt any Rock Star’s sense of moral boundaries, which would inevitably influence their creative output. Cultivating the ideology, “everyone else around me is doing it”, so “why not?” The same could be said of Class A drug experimentation and sustained recreational use, despite it being completely illegal. I think I would be harder to find rock stars who had not done heroin, and/or cocaine than those who had, but in the majority of countries the use of Class A drugs is an illegal, imprisonable offence.

Fans, the wider public and mainstream media seem to vicariously “get off” (even from a judgemental angle) on the dubious and nefarious exploits of rock stars and celebrities. “We” expect them to behave outrageously on our collective behalves, as that is what these people are “supposed to do” and we’d sometimes love to do, but could not get off with it so remain “good citizens”.

The ubiquitous concept of relentless “partying” in the entertainment fraternity appears to be lauded and in the realm of competitive hedonism, you know who can push the limits harder, more frequently is the benchmark to be emulated. Consuming vast quantities of alcohol and/or Class A drugs is normal, whereas if the individual was an “ordinary” person they would be merely defined as an alcoholic or drug addict, who needs “help”.

Please understand I am not condoning illegal actions, merely commenting on their open acceptance as “the norm” in entertainment circles.

The old adage a poor “mad” (clinically insane) person is simply “mad” whereas a rich “mad” person is “eccentric” is an extension of this difference in acceptable socio-behavioural activity.

One thing that is an increasingly prevalent trend is rock stars and celebrities making some dubious remark in public, invariably on Twitter, then due to the ensuing media outcry issue a grovelling public retraction/explanation/apology lest it affect the efficacy of their brand presence in the entertainment market. I find this a particularly distasteful development... they don’t make rock stars like they used to, I blame Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian!

Cheers,
SonicD



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-14 15:46 by SonicDreamer.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Enough with this PC crap. It's a Stones forum. Is no place free from this curse?


I just hate that Jagger himself has given in, and changed many of his own words.

Don't freak out dude...no one is saying they should be more PC. The question is how do they get away with it when most cannot?

It's not a value judgement, it's questioning what goes into making this possible when everyone (well almost everyone) else HAS been so PC.

That was great SonicDreamer.

I may not agree with everything you've observed, but you raise a lot of good points.

Particularly by suggesting that the songs are probably more autobiographical than we allow for, by linking drug references in songs, to actual drug use.

With the underage sex thing there is probably some truth to that too, although that certainly makes one more squeamish than suggesting its just some sort of old blues bravado.

Well written though and thank you for that.

Quote
treaclefingers
I'm wondering whether we can have a reasonable discussion on something I've wondered about for some time? The ability for the stones to put out what most might consider offensive lyrics, that really don't seem to have a negative impact on them at all. Mick's lyrics seem Teflon.


How does Mick get away with it? If it's another mainstream artist, aren't they getting slammed?

The very very simple answer is that for the common people in most countries none of the Stones' lyrics are "incredibly offensive", or even "offensive".

Might be vulgar or gross at times, inappropriate in certain contexts too, but "offensive"?

C

The Stones have grown up of the decades. The last times I heard Some Girls live Mick jagger did not use the offensive line, nor does he sing "like a black girl should" in Brown Sugar any longer. Maybe Lisa pointed it out to him. His first child was black. I would think during younger drink and drug hazed days they did not find these songs offensive. Sort of like obnoxious schoolboys thinking tasteless jokes were funny. They are older and wiser now.

Quote
PhillyFAN
The Stones have grown up of the decades. The last times I heard Some Girls live Mick jagger did not use the offensive line, nor does he sing "like a black girl should" in Brown Sugar any longer. Maybe Lisa pointed it out to him. His first child was black. I would think during younger drink and drug hazed days they did not find these songs offensive. Sort of like obnoxious schoolboys thinking tasteless jokes were funny. They are older and wiser now.

He doesn't sing "hear him whip the women" either...in fact, I think he rarely sings that line after '72 or so.

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers
I'm wondering whether we can have a reasonable discussion on something I've wondered about for some time? The ability for the stones to put out what most might consider offensive lyrics, that really don't seem to have a negative impact on them at all. Mick's lyrics seem Teflon.


How does Mick get away with it? If it's another mainstream artist, aren't they getting slammed?

The very very simple answer is that for the common people in most countries none of the Stones' lyrics are "incredibly offensive", or even "offensive".

Might be vulgar or gross at times, inappropriate in certain contexts too, but "offensive"?

C

So you you're saying 'vulgar, gross and inappropriate' might be fine, but offensive is 'out'.

Thanks for the ground rules liddas, it helps everyone out a lot. Next time I'll just come to you first.