Mick Jagger, despite his alleged "bad boy" routine, never had any balls. After the Bush-bashing lyrics to a new Stones song, "Sweet Neo Con," were released, Mick told Extra, "It’s not really aimed at anyone." Sure thing, just like the Stones aren’t trying to gin up enthusiasm from the under 30 set in the hopes that the kids will not only attend their upcoming concerts but also purchase CDs from the band’s enormous catalog. Let’s remember that Jagger acquiesced to CBS execs back in ’67 when the Stones appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show and changed the lyrics of their hit "Let’s Spend the Night Together" to "Let’s Spend Some Time Together."
--Russ Smith, New York Press
Russ Smith got it right. For all of The Stones, specifically Mick Jagger's rebellious appeal there beats the heart of a "suit". Now, it's fine to be a "suit", meaning an establishment person who doesn't rock the boat and thinks of commerce before all else, but there is something lame about being a "suit" when you package yourself like an anti-establishment rapscallion. In Neil Peart's book, Traveling Music, he points out the differences between Jim Morrison and Mick Jagger in regards to the Ed Sullivan Show. Both singers planned on singing songs that had objectionable lyrics. In the case of The Stones, "Let's Spend the Night Together" had a title lyric was entirely too suggestive for America at that time, and the Sullivan people pressed Jagger to change it to "Let's Spend Some Time Together". The Doors, who planned on playing "Light My Fire", ran into problems with the line, "Girl we couldn't get much higher...", which clearly had a loaded drug reference in it. The Stones obliged like good little corporate suits that they are, whereas Jim Morrison actually yelped the word "high-yah!" noticeably louder, while at the same time looking into the camera to make sure everyone heard it. The net result? The Stones were asked to come back, and The Doors were banned from the Ed Sullivan Show. As Peart correctly observed, in the sweepstakes to see who the real rebels were, The Doors showed who was the genuine article and who was the fraud.
I have a real gripe against The Stones, not the least of which involves all the accolades that are showered upon them from everyone like Rolling Stone Magazine to countless baby-boomers. Sorry folks, but The Stones can't come remotely close to the stellar The Who. I also think it is disgusting that The Stones charge the exhorbitant prices that they do for their shows. I'm a believer in capitalism, but this is ridiculous.
Mick Jagger wrote his silly little "Sweet Neo Con" song as a protest piece. Fair enough. But he should have the balls to play it live now that it's out there. The Stones also have a very large contract with the NFL to play some gigs in some kind of cross-marketing scheme they cooked up to get even richer. Bully for them, but as Russ Smith said, Mick has no balls. Standing up for what you believe in means that you might lose an endorsement or two. It even means potentially losing a cross marketing gig with the National Football League. If I were a bettin' man (I'm not), I'd wager that you'll never hear that anti-Bush song anywhere on tour from The Stones. They might trot it out here and there, but they most certainly won't play it during an NFL telecast. Mick is a "suit". Principles aren't to be traded for money. Unless of course you don't have any.
"Packaged like a rebel or a hero,
to target mass appeal..."
3 comments:
Assinine and immature comparison by Peart, yeah Morrison was a great rebel. Whatever. He's been dead for going on 35 years. He was probably drunk/stoned and/or "Hi-yah" when he did that.
If you don't like the Stones that's your choice, but don't unfairly attack Mick and deify Pete when I can hardly see a tv commercial without hearing a Who tune and when he ran out on Broadway for as long as he could.
Look man they are all in this for the money one way or the other, even your boy Peart. With the possible exception of Pearl Jam, they've all done something here and there that they probably shouldn't have.
Don't rip Mick for being smart and shrewd financially. More power to him I say!
First off, asinine is spelled with one "s". Secondly, I don't think Peart's comparison about who was the faux rebel and who was the real one was off. It was on-the-money.
Secondly, Pete Townshend has always been up front about the money being a motivator for him...almost defiantly so. (Remember "The Who Sell Out"? Those commercials on that album were real, right down to the Heinz Baked Beans.) Conversely, the Stones always attempted to package themselves as the "bad boys" of rock and roll, when in fact they were anything but. (I'm focusing more on Jagger than any of the others.)
I don't begrudge the Stones their right to charge $200 for Section 400 seats in the Garden. If people are thick enough to pay for it, more power to them. I do, however, begrudge the Stones their image, packaged as it is as some kind of rebellious entity. I love Keith, but Mick is a fraud. But as I said, if the Stones, namely Mick, wants to really prove me wrong, he can play "Sweet Neo Con" (ridiculous title, exceeded in its ridiculous only by the juvenile, boilerplate lyrics contained therein)at every stop on their overpriced tour, and on Monday Night Football. At that point, I'll give him the credit as a rebel that he feels he deserves. As of right now, the only anti-establishment thing I can think of Mick Jagger being guilty of is impregnating Brazilian prostitutes.
The Stones suck. Except for Keith.
Post a Comment