phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> loochie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > phd Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The Stones were never anti-establishment.
> To
> > > think
> > > > they were is, frankly, naive.
> > >
> > > How can you write that ? Go back some 45 years
>
> > > and Rewind . I suppose HighWire is
> > > pro-establishment.
> > >
> >
> > how about sweet neo con ? they tactfully don't
> > play it anywhere these days, but....they did
> write
> > it pretty recently
>
>
> Sorry if I forgot about Neo-Con. Great simple
> song.

hey no problem, i wasn't trying to criticize your memory - just trying to say that i think the old boys can still get a bit anti-establishment :-)

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is anybody going to send setlist reports?


No one will know any of the song titles!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elmo Lewis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is anybody going to send setlist reports?
>
>
> No one will know any of the song titles!


ha haaaaaaaaaaa that's a good point :-)

loochie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how about sweet neo con ? they tactfully don't
> play it anywhere these days, but....they did write
> it pretty recently

there's nothing "anti-establishment" about "Sweet Neo Con." it's the sound of a nervous establishment member: "if you're right, / I'll eat my hat tonight."

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> klypp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Small shows where everyone can afford the
> ticket
> > prize? Well, they did that. Some 45 years ago.
> But
> > for some reason they had to move...
>
> er...They did it four years ago as well. Whats
> wrong with "everyone" being able to afford it
> anyway. Since when did rock n roll become elitist?
> A small show isnt going to cost them money anyway,
> considering theyve grossed about $500 million on
> this tour.

Oops...
Guess you got me wrong there...
What I meant was:
I'm sure the Stones are ready to give a low-priced or even free concert in a small theatre the moment you solve the small problem of putting a million people into that theatre...

I tried to get tickets to one of the theatre shows 4 years ago. But it was sold out faster than I could open my eyes.

A shocking experience... for a moment there I thought I might have had too many beers!?
...but then I decided it was probably too few...

Gazza - From your post on the previous page you act as if you, due your support of the band, are entitled to something beyond what you are currently receiving.

Lemme let you in on a little secret...your support plus a token will get you on the subway.

Goldsmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza - From your post on the previous page you
> act as if you, due your support of the band, are
> entitled to something beyond what you are
> currently receiving.

Absolute bollocks. And YOU act like the whole point of rock n roll has entirely passed you by for your entire life.

Not to mention your absurd and idiotic black and white "if you have a problem with this youre a communist" argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-13 00:47 by Gazza.

klypp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > klypp Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Small shows where everyone can afford the
> > ticket
> > > prize? Well, they did that. Some 45 years
> ago.
> > But
> > > for some reason they had to move...
> >
> > er...They did it four years ago as well. Whats
> > wrong with "everyone" being able to afford it
> > anyway. Since when did rock n roll become
> elitist?
> > A small show isnt going to cost them money
> anyway,
> > considering theyve grossed about $500 million
> on
> > this tour.
>
> Oops...
> Guess you got me wrong there...
> What I meant was:
> I'm sure the Stones are ready to give a low-priced
> or even free concert in a small theatre the moment
> you solve the small problem of putting a million
> people into that theatre...
>
> I tried to get tickets to one of the theatre shows
> 4 years ago. But it was sold out faster than I
> could open my eyes.
>
>

Fair enough, Klypp - but as Stones fans by now we're surely used to the problem of supply and demand.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goldsmith Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gazza - From your post on the previous page you
> > act as if you, due your support of the band,
> are
> > entitled to something beyond what you are
> > currently receiving.
>
> Absolute bollocks. And YOU act like the whole
> point of rock n roll has entirely passed you by
> for your entire life.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth the realists among us know that there is only one reason a group of sixty year old men go out on a grueling two year long tour - $$$$$. If you think there is some other reason I want to know what color's the sky in your world.

> Not to mention your absurd and idiotic black and
> white "if you have a problem with this youre a
> communist" argument.

What's absurd and idiotic about it? Only the lazy and the stupid complain when somebody else is making money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-13 01:02 by Goldsmith.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Stones were never anti-establishment. To
> think
> > they were is, frankly, naive.
>
> Really? Its commonly accepted (even from
> 'establishment' figures) in this country that in
> 1967 there was a government/establishment campaign
> to remove them from society by fair means or
> foul.
>
> I'd call that pretty ant-establishment, whether
> they themselves intended to be that way or not.

That is not really proven; rather it's become part of the Stones' myth. Every generation has similar examples of tension between themselves and another - particularly where artistic/creativity is concerned.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Stones were never anti-establishment. To
> think
> > they were is, frankly, naive.
> 'Anti-establishment'
> > was/is a ‘brand’ in itself - another way to
> sell
> > one's self. But the Stones were without a doubt
> a
> > great rock and roll band - and, arguably, still
> > are.
> >
> >
>
> No offence, but to call yourself "rock'n'roller"
> and yet be oblivious to the fact that the whole
> culture of rock'n'roll (as well as the band who
> are it's most consistently successful and
> notorious exponent) was anti-establishment and
> rebellious to begin with, is sadly very ironic.


I'm not oblivious to that claim, rather I'm merely saying that your sense of romaticism should be tempered with reality. They were in the 'biz' from the start - and nothing wrong with that.

KingBee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Stones were never anti-establishment. To
> > think
> > > they were is, frankly, naive.
> >
> > Really? Its commonly accepted (even from
> > 'establishment' figures) in this country that
> in
> > 1967 there was a government/establishment
> campaign
> > to remove them from society by fair means or
> > foul.
> >
> > I'd call that pretty ant-establishment, whether
> > they themselves intended to be that way or not.
>
>
>
>
> Right, Gazza!
> Some people tend to forget where it all comes
> from. All the great music..
>
> It hasn´t always been that sloppy and
> pro-establishment as it seems nowadays!!


Not all the great music comes from youthful rebellion.

I'd say its as good as proven, actually.

To give an example. When the Stones were touring the UK in 2003, there was a good documentary on them which included an interview with the English actor Nigel Havers, who was reminiscing about the '67 drug busts and the negative attitude towards the Stones of his father, Sir Michael Havers, who was a leading barrister at the time and who was later Attorney-General under Margaret Thatcher.

He mentions how he reacted to being told his new brief was to defend the Stones and how his attitude to them changed entirely when, on examining the case deeper, he was shocked at the extent to which the government and judicial system really were out to bring them down.

Read any history of the band around that time and it's quite obvious that at the time there was a campaign to remove them from society because of what they were perceived as representing. When the editor of The Times writes an editorial, risking contempt of court, stating just that, then thats not something to be taken lightly.

Goldsmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Goldsmith Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gazza - From your post on the previous page
> you
> > > act as if you, due your support of the band,
> > are
> > > entitled to something beyond what you are
> > > currently receiving.
> >
> > Absolute bollocks. And YOU act like the whole
> > point of rock n roll has entirely passed you by
> > for your entire life.
>
> Meanwhile, back on planet earth the realists among
> us know that there is only one reason a group of
> sixty year old men go out on a grueling two year
> long tour - $$$$$. If you think there is some
> other reason I want to know what color's the sky
> in your world.
>
> > Not to mention your absurd and idiotic black
> and
> > white "if you have a problem with this youre a
> > communist" argument.
>
> What's absurd and idiotic about it? Only the lazy
> and the stupid complain when somebody else is
> making money.


The reason a group of sixty year old men go out on a grueling two year long tour probably isn't just for the money but because they can't stop being the Stones. It's a big position to abdicate - they know the weight they carry in this respect (no pun intended Keith!).

>Meanwhile, back on planet earth the realists among us know that there is only one reason a group of sixty year old men go out on a grueling two year long tour - $$$$$. If you think there is some other reason I want to know what color's the sky in your world.

"Gruelling", my arse. Theres loads of artists with less money of a similar vintage who could charge higher prices but who choose not to. Which debunks your theory for starters. To say its the 'only' reason is retarded. You seriously believe that the Stones get NO pleasure whatsoever from performing? As they'll never spend the money in ten lifetimes why would they tour if it was ONLY for the money?


Goldsmith Wrote:
> What's absurd and idiotic about it? Only the lazy
> and the stupid complain when somebody else is
> making money.


Maybe comprehension isnt high on your list of personal skills. I'm not 'complaining' about them doing so - as Ive said theyve every right to play private shows and make money. I dont see too many others having a problem with that. The issue is the exclusivity of these shows and the artistic redundance in performing for people who couldnt care less about them

Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> The reason a group of sixty year old men go out on
> a grueling two year long tour probably isn't just
> for the money but because they can't stop being
> the Stones. It's a big position to abdicate - they
> know the weight they carry in this respect (no pun
> intended Keith!).


Thats a good point.

Gazza, I would deeply love to believe that the Stones ever posed a threat to the 'establishment' but I don't and I really think that to think otherwise is to willfully ignore certain realities. Rock and roll hasn't really ever properly been about challenging social structures. If it was it would never have been as tolerated as it has been. But I can still realise that they had/have a quite unique talent and a style, appearance etc. that has defined the medium - and which is just right for it - and love the Stones regardless.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-13 01:28 by Rock'n'roller.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rock'n'roller Wrote:
> > The reason a group of sixty year old men go out
> on
> > a grueling two year long tour probably isn't
> just
> > for the money but because they can't stop being
> > the Stones. It's a big position to abdicate -
> they
> > know the weight they carry in this respect (no
> pun
> > intended Keith!).
>
>
> Thats a good point.

which also shows a sort of end-rationality in the stones' greediness. it's not about being "realistic" as Goldbug would have it--they have almost inconceivable amounts of money already. it's about maintaining their prestige and "success." the question is whether that narrow idea of success is to be their main "legacy."

Rock'n'roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza, I would deeply love to believe that the
> Stones ever posed a threat to the 'establishment'
> but I don't and I really think that to think
> otherwise is to willfully ignore certain
> realities. Rock and roll hasn't really ever
> properly been about challenging social structures.
> If it was it would never have been as tolerated as
> it has been. But I can still realise that they
> had/have a quite unique talent and a style,
> appearance etc. that has defined what we expect -
> and which is just right for the mediumt and love
> the Stones regardless.

to call rock music's anti-establishmentism "mythical" is deeply revisionist of a history that is barely past us. the musicians' own views were of course not on par with their fans, millions of whom were much more serious about the messages on offer, but the band had to realize the symbolism they were trafficking in.

Rock'n'roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza, I would deeply love to believe that the
> Stones ever posed a threat to the 'establishment'
> but I don't and I really think that to think
> otherwise is to willfully ignore certain
> realities. Rock and roll hasn't really ever
> properly been about challenging social structures.
> If it was it would never have been as tolerated as
> it has been. But I can still realise that they
> had/have a quite unique talent and a style,
> appearance etc. that has defined the medium - and
> which is just right for it - and love the Stones
> regardless.


I dont believe they posed a 'threat' either, mate. They're only a rock 'n' roll band for goodness sake. The issue, though, is how they were 'perceived' by an establishment and a generation who didnt understand them. I dont think they ever really CONSCIOUSLY tried to be anything overly grandiose like that. They were basically a very high profile product of the era which spawned them and, whether they liked it or not, became something of a figurehead for the rebellious, anti-establishment outlook associated with it. I would say that for a lot of the time around then, they (well, Mick, Keith & Brian anyway) paid some kind of lip service to it..

As cc says above - they had to be "realise the symbolism they were trafficking in".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-13 01:42 by Gazza.

Rock N "roller, you're not entirely correct in thinking that rock music wasn't perceived as a real threat to the establishment. John lennon was indeed followed by the FBI here in the USA, and at first John thought that he was just being paranoid but it became so obvious that he was being followed, wire-tapped etc . The editorial written about the Stones, " Who Breaks A Butterfly on a Wheel", is what Gazza was referring to I believe. Check it out, Stones 60's history is full of examples of the persecution that they experienced, from the coppers following and busting Brian so many times that it drove him mad to the bust at Redlands. The cops must have not had alot of legitimate crimes to solve in those days! Gazza is correct, I think in saying it was a perceived threat, and they took that and capitolized on it, thus " Street Fighting Man". I do think that in the USA, some rock music was instrumental in organizing the youth, for example the Crosby, Stills and Nash tune, " Ohio", written about the Kent State campus killings. The FBI was very busy here during the 60's and 70's watching " those hippy freaks!". Our youth, of which I was a part, exerted alot of influence on the government to stop the Vietnam War, my opinion but not just mine! The peace rallies and demonstrations were a constant thing,we stayed in the faces of the politicians. I digress, but I guess it wasn't that off topic.

I haven't given up on this thread - it's very interesting, but simply had to go to sleep.

More later today.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-13 10:43 by Rock'n'roller.

> > > The Stones were never anti-establishment. To
> > think
> > > they were is, frankly, naive.

Mick became a part of the establishment from the early 70'ies and further on.

They were the anti-establishment until then.... after forget it....

Keith "plays the anti-establishment" once in a while - but that's just somehow posing for the public.... to maintain his myth about being the "only true rock guy"

i suppose there's a difference between the Stones being "anti-Establishment" and the Establishment being anti-Stones.
the latter was certainly true in the 60s/70s; if "Rock'n'roller" is trying to say that's a myth he/she's simply wrong.
if what she/he's saying is that the Stones, who have certainly never been shy about making money,
capitalized on an exaggeratedly rebellious image to do that, maybe there's something to discuss.

whether or how much that rebellious image was exaggerated ... hm, i don't think it's all that clearcut either way,
if only because we're talking about eight different individuals. but ...
right, when the Stones started, being into r&b was certainly not a mainstream/conformist deal;
and when the authorities started harrassing them they sure didn't say eek and become all docile.
but they weren't clearly committed to any of the various counterculture movements that their audience got into.
they are/were professional musicians and entertainers who feel like living their private lives the way they please,
whether that's "anti-Establishment" or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-13 12:04 by with sssoul.

Good points sssoul.

I was trying to say that the Stones weren't anti establishment in the sense that many people seem to think they were. But yes, there's no doubt that the 'establishment' were anti-Stones.

Rock'n'roller (Mr).

hmmm, "anti-establishment"...i don't think the stones were (or are now) really A-E in such a direct, political sense - they never really wore it on their sleeve so to speak, like CSNY and Lennon lots of others the 60s and 70s. But they were definitely all a product of the mood at the time, for those of us old enough to remember. i can't really believe that the stones were "faking" a rebellious attitude, just to capitalize on the mood as a sort of business opportunity (uh, alright, maybe a little teeny bit ;-)
Plus, as with sssoul astutely points out, we're talking about individual human being stones, so saying "they" did this and "they" thought that is basically a figure of speech. I sure believe that the "establishment" was against "them" though ...

oops sorry! double post ... move along please, folks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-13 13:15 by with sssoul.

>> I was trying to say that the Stones weren't anti establishment
in the sense that many people seem to think they were. <<

smile: not being quite sure which sense of what "many people seem to think" you mean,
i can understand your statement as something i can agree with. :E
i don't, however, feel it's right to imply that the Stones were simply "putting on" a rebellious image;
what they were doing professionally was *not* widely accepted for quite a long time;
they've challenged quite a lot of boundaries - musical and social ones - and have persevered in that,
and in their intention to live as they please, with beautiful tenacity despite quite a lot of opposition,
serious hassles, threats to their personal liberty, etc.

none of which means any of the Stones were ever committed left-wing radicals or flower children.
it's really interesting how so many totally different "movements" have been able to
project their views onto the Stones and feel sure that the band is/was/used to be "one of us".

Mick's a Labour-man. (said that in an interview just before he received his knighthood) That's pretty much establishment and absolutely not left wing - despite what many Americans seem to believe.

gstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick's a Labour-man. (said that in an interview
> just before he received his knighthood) That's
> pretty much establishment and absolutely not left
> wing

eh?