RE: Rebellion vs. Hedonism

Ummm...Don't look now, Strother, but you just made exactly the same point Beston did in his article. A few examples:

" While they were cultural rebels of a sort in the 1960s, the more enduring focus of the Rolling Stones' career has been riding the latest trends, whether in fashion, politics, or even music, and dressing it up as rebellion."

The rebellious image is what they are all about, but it's just that: image. From the outset, they discovered rebellion sells well. No surprise there, James Dean and Elvis Presley had that figured out ten years earlier. The Stones were never into the actual act of rebellion, as you and Beston both point out. However, it is not accurate to say that they were never about rebellion because their entire public persona is built around it, even if they are too lazy and self-absorbed to actually engage in it.

"Bush bashing offers its practitioners renegade status at virtually no cost. It's a wonder the Stones didn't invent it."

Once again, renegade status is all they're after. Beston even calls their attempt at a poke in Bush's eye trite, "...like something Limp Bizkit might have written after hanging out with the Dixie Chicks..."

And Beston wraps it up in a bow with this:

"After all, the Stones, notwithstanding the title of one of their most famous tunes, have always been dedicated to giving people what they want, not what they need. Such has been the career of rock's greatest, uh, rebels."

You can call it hedonism if you want, but that's just a component of it. The real truth is that it is a combination of good old capitalist exploitation and highly experienced marketing. It's also just as phony as everything else Mick Jagger has done for the last 40 years. And that's the point we nasty old conservatives have been making from the start. Glad to see you agree with us.