Sweet Neo Con
So Mick and the boys are back in the spotlight. Surprisingly enough, though, this time people seem to actually be talking about their music, rather than which one of them is going to be portraying a pirate, which one of them has married a teenager, or which one of them is still alive.
Specifically, the latest Stones buzz (heh) centers around a song to be featured on their upcoming album (leading exasperated music fans to cry, "Do we really need another Stones album?"). Here are some details from the Chicago Tribune:
The Rolling Stones are taking aim at elements of the American right with a new song on their upcoming album. The track, "Sweet Neo Con," boasts the line, "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of ..." Newsweek reports. "It is direct," Mick Jagger was quoted as saying, adding that bandmate Keith Richards was "a bit worried" about a backlash because the guitarist lives in the United States and Jagger does not. The song also includes the line: "It's liberty for all, democracy's our style/Unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial." "It is certainly very critical of certain policies of the [Bush] administration, but so what! Lots of people are critical," Jagger told TV's "Extra" on Wednesday. "Sweet Neo Con" is one of 16 tracks featured on the Stones' new album, "A Bigger Bang," which drops in the United States on Sept. 6.
And more from the NY Times:
Mick Jagger is giving the White House a bit of lip. Treading political terrain covered already by artists including Eminem, Green Day and Bruce Springsteen, the Rolling Stones' new album includes a song railing against well-connected contractors and the war on terrorism. In the song, "Sweet Neo Con," Mr. Jagger sings, "How come you're so wrong / My sweet neo con? / Where's the money gone / In the Pentagon?" according to lyrics provided by a band representative. The rock band, still one of the most successful touring attractions in the business, has touched on political themes before, in such classics as "Street Fighting Man." But the new song, which also references Halliburton, the energy-services company that employed Dick Cheney before he became vice president, comes at a time when the nation's sharp political divisions have left the recording industry uncertain about how to handle sensitive topics. The Rolling Stones may not find out how fans respond to "Sweet Neo Con," from their forthcoming "A Bigger Bang" album, unless they perform it on tour. Virgin Records, the Stones' label, is not promoting the song to radio stations. The N.F.L. plans to broadcast some of a taped Stones' concert in the pregame show before the New England Patriots take on the Oakland Raiders on Sept. 8, but it will not be selecting "Sweet Neo Con," said Brian McCarthy of the N.F.L. "We're not asking them to throw passes or discuss politics," Mr. McCarthy said. "We can draw from an extensive list of songs." Fran Curtis, a spokeswoman for the band, said, "People can disagree and still be friends." (JEFF LEEDS)
Now, there are a lot of interesting things going on in these "reports," not the least of which is how the music industry has seemingly joined hands with professional sports for mutual promotion (albeit of a strictly apolitical and fully-clothed nature). But that's old news, no?
What I find particularly obnoxious is that line from the Times piece about how "the nation's sharp political divisions have left the recording industry uncertain about how to handle sensitive topics." Think about that phrase "sensitive topics" for a moment. What do you suppose the recording industry regards as a "sensitive topic"?
We already know how music conglomerates like Clear Channel incorporate politics into their business. And the history of other forms of music censorship range from the laughable to the fascistic. But we've apparently now entered an age where music executives fret over what topics might be too sensitive for their audience's ears. Presumably this list includes anything political and definitely anything sexual, which pretty much takes care of a large percentage of rock music made in the last 50 years.
When one recalls the most memorable songs of the 1960's, it's difficult to think of any that weren't political in some way. But how many songs can you think of in the post 9/11 era that you've heard on the radio that are?
I'm exaggerating a bit. But the dearth of political activism in popular music in one of the most politically divisive periods in our country's history strikes me as a bit troubling. Has music lost its ability to deliver a potent message? Have people stopped turning to popular music for anything other than background comfort? Or has the music industry taken steps to "protect" its audience from possibly being offended or, gods forbid, moved by what it hears? (Elvis Costello perhaps said it best: "The radio is in the hands of such a lot of fools tryin' to anesthetize the way that you feel." That was back in the late 70s.)
The fact that news organizations are treating this new song by the Stones as something worth reporting seems to suggest that we might be surprised that a major rock group has anything interesting to say in its music. Granted, the Stones haven't really made any interesting music in the last 20 years or so. But these are also the guys who made the single most frightening war song I've ever heard on a classic rock station, so they've got some props. For his part, Jagger seems to be treating all the hype with his trademark insouciance, his ever-present smirk threatening to crack his weathered face. That's rock & roll, baby! But I can't help but think that "Sweet Neo Con" is little more than the musical equivalent of Jagger passing by Bush or Cheney in the Yacht Club and failing to slap his shoulder in greeting.
Anyway, there are some good anti-Iraq/anti-Bush songs out there, and any memorable playlist from this era should include the following (you can go find them on your own favorite music site):
Specifically, the latest Stones buzz (heh) centers around a song to be featured on their upcoming album (leading exasperated music fans to cry, "Do we really need another Stones album?"). Here are some details from the Chicago Tribune:
The Rolling Stones are taking aim at elements of the American right with a new song on their upcoming album. The track, "Sweet Neo Con," boasts the line, "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of ..." Newsweek reports. "It is direct," Mick Jagger was quoted as saying, adding that bandmate Keith Richards was "a bit worried" about a backlash because the guitarist lives in the United States and Jagger does not. The song also includes the line: "It's liberty for all, democracy's our style/Unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial." "It is certainly very critical of certain policies of the [Bush] administration, but so what! Lots of people are critical," Jagger told TV's "Extra" on Wednesday. "Sweet Neo Con" is one of 16 tracks featured on the Stones' new album, "A Bigger Bang," which drops in the United States on Sept. 6.
And more from the NY Times:
Mick Jagger is giving the White House a bit of lip. Treading political terrain covered already by artists including Eminem, Green Day and Bruce Springsteen, the Rolling Stones' new album includes a song railing against well-connected contractors and the war on terrorism. In the song, "Sweet Neo Con," Mr. Jagger sings, "How come you're so wrong / My sweet neo con? / Where's the money gone / In the Pentagon?" according to lyrics provided by a band representative. The rock band, still one of the most successful touring attractions in the business, has touched on political themes before, in such classics as "Street Fighting Man." But the new song, which also references Halliburton, the energy-services company that employed Dick Cheney before he became vice president, comes at a time when the nation's sharp political divisions have left the recording industry uncertain about how to handle sensitive topics. The Rolling Stones may not find out how fans respond to "Sweet Neo Con," from their forthcoming "A Bigger Bang" album, unless they perform it on tour. Virgin Records, the Stones' label, is not promoting the song to radio stations. The N.F.L. plans to broadcast some of a taped Stones' concert in the pregame show before the New England Patriots take on the Oakland Raiders on Sept. 8, but it will not be selecting "Sweet Neo Con," said Brian McCarthy of the N.F.L. "We're not asking them to throw passes or discuss politics," Mr. McCarthy said. "We can draw from an extensive list of songs." Fran Curtis, a spokeswoman for the band, said, "People can disagree and still be friends." (JEFF LEEDS)
Now, there are a lot of interesting things going on in these "reports," not the least of which is how the music industry has seemingly joined hands with professional sports for mutual promotion (albeit of a strictly apolitical and fully-clothed nature). But that's old news, no?
What I find particularly obnoxious is that line from the Times piece about how "the nation's sharp political divisions have left the recording industry uncertain about how to handle sensitive topics." Think about that phrase "sensitive topics" for a moment. What do you suppose the recording industry regards as a "sensitive topic"?
We already know how music conglomerates like Clear Channel incorporate politics into their business. And the history of other forms of music censorship range from the laughable to the fascistic. But we've apparently now entered an age where music executives fret over what topics might be too sensitive for their audience's ears. Presumably this list includes anything political and definitely anything sexual, which pretty much takes care of a large percentage of rock music made in the last 50 years.
When one recalls the most memorable songs of the 1960's, it's difficult to think of any that weren't political in some way. But how many songs can you think of in the post 9/11 era that you've heard on the radio that are?
I'm exaggerating a bit. But the dearth of political activism in popular music in one of the most politically divisive periods in our country's history strikes me as a bit troubling. Has music lost its ability to deliver a potent message? Have people stopped turning to popular music for anything other than background comfort? Or has the music industry taken steps to "protect" its audience from possibly being offended or, gods forbid, moved by what it hears? (Elvis Costello perhaps said it best: "The radio is in the hands of such a lot of fools tryin' to anesthetize the way that you feel." That was back in the late 70s.)
The fact that news organizations are treating this new song by the Stones as something worth reporting seems to suggest that we might be surprised that a major rock group has anything interesting to say in its music. Granted, the Stones haven't really made any interesting music in the last 20 years or so. But these are also the guys who made the single most frightening war song I've ever heard on a classic rock station, so they've got some props. For his part, Jagger seems to be treating all the hype with his trademark insouciance, his ever-present smirk threatening to crack his weathered face. That's rock & roll, baby! But I can't help but think that "Sweet Neo Con" is little more than the musical equivalent of Jagger passing by Bush or Cheney in the Yacht Club and failing to slap his shoulder in greeting.
Anyway, there are some good anti-Iraq/anti-Bush songs out there, and any memorable playlist from this era should include the following (you can go find them on your own favorite music site):
- Tom Waits: "The Day After Tomorrow"
- Bruce Springsteen: "Devils and Dust"
- The Nightwatchman: "No One Left"
- Steve Earle: "The Revolution Starts Now"
- The Decemberists: "16 Military Wives"
- Sleater-Kinney: "Off with Your Head"
- Morrissey: "America Is Not the World"
- REM: "Final Straw"
This is only a partial list to be sure, but how many of these have you heard on the radio or elsewhere? Bruce got some press when his album was released, but the rest of these artists remain in perpetual radio limbo.
So let the Stones have their fun. If anyone is still looking to them for political inspiration, more power to them. Mick can remain above the fray, ensconced in his Caribbean tax shelter retreat.
And maybe, just maybe, some bold radio jockey will give their song a spin. But, more than likely, we'll just be hearing "Start Me Up" for the 22,546th time. Oh, radio.
posted by Chazzbot at 8:59 AM
1 Comments:
While it may be true that popular music has shied away from political messages, I find it interesting--coincidental though it may be--that the Stones' song comes out at a time when President Bush's approval ratings are among the lowest of his Presidency (42%), and a recent USA Today/CNN combined poll showed that 57 percent of Americans believe that the ongoing mess in Iraq has made the U.S. *more* susceptible to terrorism (only 38% of the population still approves of the way Bush is handling Iraq). I'm not trying to turn this into a Bush-bashing comment, but to say that it *is* odd that radio and sports arenas are already banning "Sweet Neo Con." According to the polls, the song might currently have a larger audience than that new Backstreet Boys song.
Here's another thought: it has long seemed to me that Bush's presidency is based in large part upon fear. Not Bush's fear, of course, but the fear other people seem to have of saying negative things about him; Bush seems to me much like the schoolyard bully who takes great pleasure in beating up those people who openly oppose his rule. Perhaps this is why radio stations refuse to play this Stones song. (And perhaps this "fear" topic would make for an excellent future blog, Chazz.)
Post a Comment
<< Home