Well yeah, it was all part of the game back then. I can fully appreciate Christine Sixteen by KISS in retrospect but if a band released it now I would be calling the cops. We seem to haved moved on as a society and mistakes of the past are there to learn from, not be censored.
That is something to appreciate—the late 60s and early 70s were a period where a whole lot of taboos were exploded and explored openly. Some of the results were generally good—e.g., sexual freedom, cross-racial relationships, more openness towards homosexuals, recreational drug use—but some shit was nasty—e.g., sexual predators (especially on minors), religious cults, crippling drug addiction. So with the idea of no boundaries as the only rule, you can understand how a song like that could emerge. We don't have to excuse it or perpetuate it, but historical context does matter. But it does suggest the essential white male privilege at the bottom of rock culture.
I can get behind that. What I don't like is airbrushing of history. Maybe when we hear Brown Sugar in 20 years time they will have changed the lyrics with some amazing new technology.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
Well yeah, it was all part of the game back then. I can fully appreciate Christine Sixteen by KISS in retrospect but if a band released it now I would be calling the cops. We seem to haved moved on as a society and mistakes of the past are there to learn from, not be censored.
That is something to appreciate—the late 60s and early 70s were a period where a whole lot of taboos were exploded and explored openly. Some of the results were generally good—e.g., sexual freedom, cross-racial relationships, more openness towards homosexuals, recreational drug use—but some shit was nasty—e.g., sexual predators (especially on minors), religious cults, crippling drug addiction. So with the idea of no boundaries as the only rule, you can understand how a song like that could emerge. We don't have to excuse it or perpetuate it, but historical context does matter. But it does suggest the essential white male privilege at the bottom of rock culture.
I can get behind that. What I don't like is airbrushing of history. Maybe when we hear Brown Sugar in 20 years time they will have changed the lyrics with some amazing new technology.
I hope not. It exists we've all heard it and sang along. Understand the lyrical content or not it exists and that's it for me.
I agree with Dr. M and the significance of historical/social/political reference.
You're point of learning from the past is extremely valid. Some of the rap groups didn't take note. There will always be risque lyrics and simply plain wrong lyrics as well as tracks like SLF's "White Noise" that tackle issues head on and are completely misunderstood.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
Well yeah, it was all part of the game back then. I can fully appreciate Christine Sixteen by KISS in retrospect but if a band released it now I would be calling the cops. We seem to haved moved on as a society and mistakes of the past are there to learn from, not be censored.
That is something to appreciate—the late 60s and early 70s were a period where a whole lot of taboos were exploded and explored openly. Some of the results were generally good—e.g., sexual freedom, cross-racial relationships, more openness towards homosexuals, recreational drug use—but some shit was nasty—e.g., sexual predators (especially on minors), religious cults, crippling drug addiction. So with the idea of no boundaries as the only rule, you can understand how a song like that could emerge. We don't have to excuse it or perpetuate it, but historical context does matter. But it does suggest the essential white male privilege at the bottom of rock culture.
I can get behind that. What I don't like is airbrushing of history. Maybe when we hear Brown Sugar in 20 years time they will have changed the lyrics with some amazing new technology.
All history is airbrushed in one way or another because all history is constructed to serve present needs. History is never about objective truth; it's an argument. One historian referred to the unpredictable past, because we can never know how it'll be regarded in the future. So, yeah, "Brown Sugar" goes from edgy pop song to classic rock to something that makes people wince. That's all about people owning history and declaring that it should be constantly interrogated, rather than revered. Who knows how it'll be regarded in another generation.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
Jack Hamilton's Just After Midnight, about race in 1960s rock music (really, how black people were squeezed out as rock n roll became rock), has a chapter about the Stones and, in part, "Brown Sugar." My notes on that section (make of it what you will):
“Brown Sugar” seized on white-on-black rape in antebellum years, with stereotypes of black female sexuality. Its flippancy can be seen as racially offensive, but it can also be interpreted as a sincere exploration of racial imagination, of how the boundaries of race in present music were born centuries earlier. In covering desire, lust, exploitation, violence, and race, it is a song about rock n roll itself and its antecedents. Where Hendrix critiqued violence against a utopian future where racial category would be surpassed in favour of individual creativity, the RS approached it by plunging deep into the history of black music as central to rock n roll. In a way, the RS were conservative and JH progressive, but each sought a means of neutralizing the perniciousness of race in music. However, the RS never properly freed themselves from fetishized fantasies, the ones that encouraged transgression and violence, especially as they were turned into white hypermasculine fantasies. Successive bands would champion the violence as white male authenticity, with no greater purpose than that.
I'm not buying it. No amount of clever words can detract from the fact it is grossly offensive and treads very dodgy ground. But if it comes on I sing along as I'm kind of inured to it now.
Certainly not saying I agree with the argument either, but he also argues that part of it, too, was the Stones' cultivated image as the anti-Beatles. They were dangerous and taboo. So they were also playing a role. Which, okay, sure, but I don't see persona as a better defense than sincerity.
I recently read an article that talked about when the Stones first came to the US in 1964. They had not had a hit, yet, and were largely ignored by most of America. The author of the article cited, however, that most of their positive press came from African-American newspapers. Press from mainstream white papers was not nearly as positive and was in fact quite hostile. The idea being presented is that white America saw a threat in the Stones because they represented, with their love of Chicago blues, a race mixing gateway drug for white teens.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
I recently read an article that talked about when the Stones first came to the US in 1964. They had not had a hit, yet, and were largely ignored by most of America. The author of the article cited, however, that most of their positive press came from African-American newspapers. Press from mainstream white papers was not nearly as positive and was in fact quite hostile. The idea being presented is that white America saw a threat in the Stones because they represented, with their love of Chicago blues, a race mixing gateway drug for white teens.
I've come across similar statements about how they were received. The Beatles were presented as fun white boys who played fun rock n roll (despite being huge Motown and Chuck Berry fans) whereas the Stones were blues, which was unambiguously black. That certainly aided their claim to being bad boys—violent, sexualized, just like white fears of black men.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
I recently read an article that talked about when the Stones first came to the US in 1964. They had not had a hit, yet, and were largely ignored by most of America. The author of the article cited, however, that most of their positive press came from African-American newspapers. Press from mainstream white papers was not nearly as positive and was in fact quite hostile. The idea being presented is that white America saw a threat in the Stones because they represented, with their love of Chicago blues, a race mixing gateway drug for white teens.
I've come across similar statements about how they were received. The Beatles were presented as fun white boys who played fun rock n roll (despite being huge Motown and Chuck Berry fans) whereas the Stones were blues, which was unambiguously black. That certainly aided their claim to being bad boys—violent, sexualized, just like white fears of black men.
Lest we forget also that "The Blues" was really the first social political music which covered a multitude of taboo subjects.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
I recently read an article that talked about when the Stones first came to the US in 1964. They had not had a hit, yet, and were largely ignored by most of America. The author of the article cited, however, that most of their positive press came from African-American newspapers. Press from mainstream white papers was not nearly as positive and was in fact quite hostile. The idea being presented is that white America saw a threat in the Stones because they represented, with their love of Chicago blues, a race mixing gateway drug for white teens.
I've come across similar statements about how they were received. The Beatles were presented as fun white boys who played fun rock n roll (despite being huge Motown and Chuck Berry fans) whereas the Stones were blues, which was unambiguously black. That certainly aided their claim to being bad boys—violent, sexualized, just like white fears of black men.
Lest we forget also that "The Blues" was really the first social political music which covered a multitude of taboo subjects.
The hilarious thing about the blues is that pretty much all lyrics are metaphors for sex. Songs that mention food? Yeah, those are about fucking. Songs about cars or trains? Fucking. Going to jail or getting or getting out of jail? Boning.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
I always find this shit fun, no matter how many times I see it. Charlie Watts is 78. 78 years before he was born was 1863, and Robert E Lee was most likely going to win against the Union.
I find his long hair period off putting:
Like he's trying to not look 78 but failing miserably.
I didnt know he'd fathered Adam Driver.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
I've got you down as being more like a little red rooster.
All down the line, mate.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
Posted: 20 May 2020, 8:27pm
by tepista
I heard this a few months ago an Chris Carter's show and I meant to post but I forgot, but then he played it again and now I remembered.
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
Posted: 09 Jul 2020, 7:41pm
by tepista
I dunno what the deal is with the vid, loaded with one naked chick, but the song is a throwaway from Goats head Soup. Some parts remind me of "She Was Hot" from Undercover
Re: The Rolling Stones song you're thinking about right now thread
I dunno what the deal is with the vid, loaded with one naked chick, but the song is a throwaway from Goats head Soup. Some parts remind me of "She Was Hot" from Undercover
Not a bad song but it goes on like a minute and a half too long. Most throw away song like this are too long and incomplete at the same time.
The video made me miss New York sorely. I wanna spend all my money on booze and dope with that woman in the city.
