Controversy engulfs the Rolling Stones in the work-up to A Bigger Bang (buy it here), their first album of new material since 1997's Bridges to Babylon. The Stones have been on top for more than four decades, and as the buzz surrounding their new album demonstrates, this has nearly as much to do with mastering publicity as it does with mastering guitar riffs.

Last week, press chatter-boxes reported with amusement that the London police had in 1969 termed Mick Jaggar's friends the "dregs of society." In mocking this assessment these gadflies mock themselves. Mick Jaggar is the singer for the Rolling Stones, isn't he? One need only look at the four ugly dudes he shared the stage with--they weren't the Beatles, after all--to endorse the police's judgment. Brian Jones, the band's founder, never reached the age of 30 yet still managed to spawn five illegitimate children. Keith Richards's abuse of heroin, cocaine, and various other substances too numerous and obscure to name resulted in police busts and a conversational style that at times makes Ozzy Osbourne sound like Tony Blair. A fiftysomething Bill Wyman, who played bass for the Stones, married his sweetheart in 1989, five years after they started dating--when she was thirteen. Charlie Watts has never, to my knowledge, been guilty of any great public malfeasance. But his guilty face leads me to believe he's just better than his dregs-of-society bandmates at not getting caught.

This week, controversy erupted over the lyrics of the yet-to-be released Stones track, Sweet Neo Con, which targets the Bush Administration. Jaggar sings: "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot. Well, I think your are full of s---!... How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con." Unlike REM and Jackson Browne, the Stones have never been so preachy as to negate the political pronouncements they do make. They also have a much larger soapbox. The Stones have put out some political songs--Street Fighting Man, Sweet Black Angel, Highwire--but they've never been a political band. This works in their favor. When Yoko Ono talks, people wish they were deaf. When the Stones talk, people listen.

So, should the Stones just shut up and sing, or should their critics just shut up and let the Stones sing?

they're destroying their legacy. i don't have a problem with songs condemning the bush administration, but i do have a problem with arthritic jackasses pretending like they still rock. they don't. they need to retire.

No, the Stones should shut up, period. The lyrics you quoted show how hopelessly drained their creative talents are. They haven't released a decent hit since the 80's. Their attraction is largely to nostalgic baby boomers who (still) refuse to grow up. If you want a sixty year old Mick Jagger strutting around stage thirty years after his prime, singing a sone we've all heard 500 times, be my guest. I think we need to start instituting term limits for rock stars.

To the Stones: How can we miss you when you WON'T GO AWAY

The Stones are free to say what they say, and I, like everyone else, are free to ignore them. Besides, anyone who allows their opinions to be shaped by the views of musicians needs to get a life!

Sorry, that should have been "am" free to ignore them!

I'm with McKee. Let them rave on about sports, the weather, politics, et cetera. Anyone looking to the Stones for any sort of wisdom, as opposed to snappy tunes, is beyond reason.

The Stones are the best at what they do...rock, steal things, take peoples money, sell things, impregnate people, stay alive etc. I would no sooner get my political advice from them as I would from any other entertainer such as Bill O'Riely, Stuart Smalley, Jeneane Garafolo, Sean Penn, Sean Hannity. But when I want to PARTAY it is the Stones I turn too.

In the posting about the Stones new release, how are the various peccadilloes and ad hoc insults germane to the topic.
Is it necessary to recite the police blotter on anyone who dares citizens the President?
Should we now preface each reference to Limbaugh as Drug abuser, to Hannity as felon or to O’Reilly as sexual harasser?

The Stones should just shut up and retire. They represent all that went wrong with the music scene after the '60s. Altamont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont) was the Stones Human Be-In (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Be-In) and perfectly exposed their karma for what it was and has remained.
Posers and users.

Rc,
Was Sean Hannity convicted of a felony? Never heard that before.

The Stones are famous as are their peccadilloes. Their misdeeds are almost as much a part of them and their act as their music. These slips of theirs are not one-time occurrences in their youth. They are serial screw ups all their lives. This has more of a bearing upon their credibility as pundits than their celebrity, which is why anyone is paying any attention to these dirtheads in the first place. So I do think looking at their thoughts on politics through a filter of their many outrageous behaviors is reasonable and useful. For the others you mention, they seem more like slips from an otherwise fairly straight path. People do, of course, bring up even these one-time peccadilloes in attacking these folks' credibility.

The Stones are rich Rock and Roll stars. Their song comments on politics not personal behavior. If we discuss politics or their music, the personal side is not relevant. If we discuss behavior,The Stones are on the head of the list of bad boys along with the people previously mentioned.
Let's propose only those who have led lives beyond reproach be permitted to comment on politics.
The quiet would be deafening.

Check out Hannity - He admits to conviction as a youngster.

HEY! Isn't Sean Hannity a great American? How could he ever have committed a felony?

:-)

As was shown during the Kerry campaign, when artists stump for candidates, virtually nobody listens to what they have to say. I would say this works the other way as well.

People will always come to hear their music but I think that, with few exceptions, people are thinking “shut up and sing”. So, who cares if the Stones choose to politicize their music? Either the music is good and people listen or it $ucks and people won’t.

Unfortunately, Stones music has $ucked for a while now.

Still beats me how people will pay big bucks to see these geezers. Especially since the last good album they came up with was Exile on Main Street.

Pretty sad when they sing “Start Me Up”, they have to hit Mick with the defibrillator paddles.

Whoeveer would not permit them to discuss politics? Shut up and sing is merely a strongly worded suggestion in this country, thank God. Whether I would pay attention to some irresponsible drug addled musicians' political drooling is another question. I don't have that much time on my hands. To get my attention people don't have to meet any high standard of behavior, but the Stones? C'mon! It's laughable.

I do like their work until Some Girls. I think the people paying serious money to see them now are largely geezers themselves, and I say that speaking as a geezer myself. The folks I know who want to see them seem to be revisiting the rebel heroes of their youth

Point is, they can have whatever opinions they want to have and voice those opinions either in or outside of their music. But, like you Webster, I really don't think people worry too much about what Mick and Keith have to say or have the time to care other than what Mick and Keith might demonstrate artistically.

Not saying that people are jumping up and down yelling "shut up and sing". I don't think that most people are that bothered. But I do think that when artists, musicians in particular, foist their view of the world on their fans, those fans roll their eyes, shake their heads to say “uh-huh” and wait for the next number. They would probably just rather these groups perform without all of the cheap politicking and philosophizing.

Bono is a good example. Shut up about Africa!! Why does this tool never point blame for Africa’s problems at the primitive, corrupt governments of the poor embattled countries and focus on what “We” (read: the U.S.) should be doing for them.

SHUT UP AND SING!!!

RC: "If we discuss politics or their music, the personal side is not relevant."

Sez you.

That said, you might take a notice that the Stones are being personally political. It is political, only because George Bush is a political figure. But words like "Christian", "hypocrite", "patriot", and "full of s---" are hardly common faire in the political arena.

The whole idea that there is a wall between personal and political is baggage that Clintonistas need to carry.

On the other hand music is expressive and the very bond between personal and political expressions means that politics cannot be left out. I have endured Metallica's politics as well as Queensryche's. When Hetfield screams "Freedom--with their exceptions!!", I say "damn right". That's the way we run a society; somebody's got to decide that we don't all go on red lights, and it is an exception.

In fact, I appreciate protest rock for its rawness not for its thoughfulness. It's nice to vent about something. And I guess that's why I'll always be a rocker. But when we turn the radio off and get back to work, it's not just venting. We need careful plans and cooperation. We need structure.

This, I believe, is where performers fall down. We need art for its expressiveness. But that is one side of our life. We can't live at a movie theatre or flicking lighters at a rock concert. It's fun to do, but we can't live that way.

Performers take the popularity of what they provide (because many of us need some of it) and mistake quantity for comprehension. As I thought to myself sitting beside a Nevada highway at a time when I was more obsessed, there's no rock-n-roll way to be broke down in a car. You can sit on your hood and smoke, and try to look cool--but that just accentuates how impractical that pose is. And the establishment "pigs" with the buddy bumpers may be the best friend you'll find.

The Stones, and others, might do well to remember that to some of us "It's only rock-n-roll, but I like it."

Are the Stones so spoiled in their wealth that they forgot that conservatives make up a good chunk of the people that can afford to shell out $100+ a ticket for their concerts? On a broader note, I think that any musical artist that takes such a harsh political stance publicly, even worse so in their music, is being stupid. The general public makes up their customer base. By taking political sides they are ticking off about half of their customer base. Would a salesman intentionally say things that anger half his clients? I don't think so. He'd be fired. If he owned his own business (as the Stones do), he would just be giving up a chunk of his clients for the chance to vent. I think when musicians get so politically nasty in public and in their music, it shows immaturity and/or a lack of self control.

My hat goes off to Bono. He doesn't spout his political views, he uses his celebrity to address specific issues. He doesn't tick off his fan base and he gets things done. I wish more artists would follow his example.

when they stop talking about you is when you should worry.

The lyrics in question are: "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot. Well I think you are full of sh--!..How come you are so wrong my sweet neo con."

I think these lyrics will change the opinion of absolutely no one. These lyrics contribute absolutely nothing to the political discourse. There are many things to criticize about the Bush administration. If Mick Jagger wants to contribute something meaningful to the political discourse, he would ask intellegent questions and raise intellegent points.

I assume the band probably believes this but I think it is possible that this is simply a publicity stunt. I merely dislike Bush's manyof Bush's domestic policies and, from my perspective, his foreign policies look flawed but many in the main stream media seem to have a viscereal hatred for him. It seems any celebrity with an anti-Bush message will get a large forum from the main stream media. Then Bush's supporters will rush to his defense and they will all be talking about Mick Jagger's album. I don't know if this will actually translate into more albums sold. I certainly won't buy there album but then I never would have bought it any way.

Their careers are going down the toilet so they figure they can jump on the liberal elite bandwagon and maybe squeeze a few more bucks out of the stupid american crowds who pay big bucks to see them through binoculars at a distance.

Exactly James.

James said expressed my sentiments much more eloquently than I managed to express them. This appears to be just a publicity stunt and it seems to be working. Now whether it will translate into more CDs being sold I don't know.

Apparently, they still have a market out there for their stuff. People are still going to their concerts and paying big $$$ and some are even buying their music.

Wasn't it P.T. Barnum that said "a sucker is born every minute"? Sadder still are the boomers who are stepping right along with the Stones and won't allow the 60's and 70's to quietly pass.

On a similar note, went to see Coldplay last weekend. Pretty darn good.

So, you can pay $1000.00 to hear Mick and the boys play "Start Me Up" for the umteenth time or pay $100.00 to see a fresh and more current star act.

W IS A WAR CRIMINAL... JAIL HIM!

I totally agree. only 36% of Americans think he is doing a good job with the war... It is obvious that he is clueless. The stones are simply pointing out what the rest of the world already knows... the shrub is a disgrace to this country.......

A few points to be made from this ardent stones fan:

1. Enough with the age jokes about the Stones already! So they're in their sixties! Big $#@!in deal! all of us should be so lucky to live to that age and still be doing something we love! And for those who think they should just "shut up and retire", you obviously haven't seen them live in the last twenty years. They are still a great live band and they are very good at what they do. And they attract a following because they not only play the old warhorses like brown sugar and jumpin jack flash, which appeal to average joe, but also deep cuts that appeal to the die hard fans. heck, they played "neighbors" on the 40 licks tour fer chrissakes! in addition, they add in a few covers (rumor has it they're rehearsing otis redding's 'mr pitiful' for the upcoming tour). its variety - a different set list every night. hardly any bands do that nowadays. not even paul mccartney!

2. does mick jagger not have the right to express his opinion? should he not express his opinions because he isn't a politician? puh-leese! and who cares if its not eloquent? is brown sugar eloquent? it's about having sex with black women! that's not eloquent! stones lyrics are stones lyrics, not shakespeare.

3. this album hasn't even come out yet, which means that none of you have ever even heard it. how can you pass judgement on something that you haven't even spun in your CD player yet?

4. the stones haven't put out a good album since 1978? does tatoo you not count? have you not heard "you got me rocking" or "love is strong"? get a clue! listen to the music before you spout such crapola! sure, they may not on par with "beggars" and "exile" but that doesn't mean they're bad!

5. its my guess that none of the people that have made comments know that much about the band beyond what you have heard on commercial radio. get yourselves a copy of exile on main street and a bottle of jack daniels and make an evening of it.

6. PMA & CB: you guys need to get laid.

W IS A WAR CRIMINAL... JAIL HIM!
Posted by BUSH IS A F##KING IDIOT at August 12, 2005 11:56 AM

Thanks for that insightful commentary.

Moving on, Mick Jagger can sing whatever he wants, but if he was smart he would just retire.

The Stones should shut up and sing. Or do concerts in Baghdad and Basra and Mosul. Or donate profits of their latest to humanitarian efforts in Iraq.

The Wyman episode with the underage girl is shocking but then again not surprising. When I was a teenager, there was the father of one (female) friend of mine who, in addition to having been a sound engineer on one of The Who's albums, also seduced and slept with another (female) friend of mine. All of us were legally underage. Well, this second friend later confided to me about the experience, that she felt "like s*it" about the whole thing and her friendship was compromised, etc. btw, This may help explain why the first time I commented on this blog, it was by tearing into the Beatles (and Dan felt like he had to step in).

So before anyone cracks some lines like, "Oh, cool!" think about some of the consequences of the rock-star lifestyle. As far as I'm concerned, The Who were right when they sang, c. 1970, "Rock is dead!" Entertainment it may be, but it ain't gospel or, for that matter, foreign policy.

That said, "Exile on Main Street" and "Some Girls" are two of the best ... f*cking ... albums ... e-v-e-r.

I saw this news at the start of one of Justin Raimondo's most recent columns. I think it's pretty funny... It seems that the trend, regarding the increased public awareness of the existence of the neocons, is continuing... and has now even found its way into contemporary popular music.

The public is increasingly aware, unfortunatley, not of Neoconservatism, but of the pile of twisted, mauled strawmen that it's adversaries have created.

Aside, but related: Ex Pink Floydian Roger Waters recently presented material he will release in a new 'rock opera' he's composing about the French Revolution. It's called "Ca Ira". Anyone know anything about it? Could these be the wishful ruminations of an aging 60s rocker who's still crazy after all these years? Or possibly a sober reappraisal of history from someone who's still standing? Is he still pinko (if no longer Floydian)?