Re: Sweet Hanger-On
Beston is a fairly skilled writer, but he’s really missing something here.
The Stones have never been about rebellion. I doubt they would honestly say that they were. Maybe their fans — and many of their critics — read that bit into their music, but that’s not really the case. They’re really just about hedonism and rock and roll. I think that’s pretty clear to most observant people and those who appreciate the Stones for what they are. Beston probably knows that too, but in order to write an article about the Stones for the American Spectator, I assume that he had to come up with something politically provocative and slanted to the right.
And of course the Stones have really never been into politics. They’re professional rock musicians. They don’t have time for that stuff. Rocking is a full-time job when you’re paid handsomely for it. When you’re rocking full-time, there’s not much time left for anything else except rocking; when you’re off the clock, the rocking must continue. Staying up on the news’ ‘top stories’ is not rocking, let me assure you.
But here’s the interesting part about the existence of ‘Sweet Neo Con’: the Stones weighing in on American politics just goes to show the extent of how negatively the Bush Administration is viewed by the rest of the world, even by international rock stars who have no time to pay close attention to such things. Previously, the only things that have riled up Jagger and Richards enough to write about something else besides sex, drugs, and love (well, and rock and roll itself) are topics like the Vietnam War, also viewed very negatively in the eyes of the world.
Obviously, the animosity must be strong enough for Jagger — a master entertainment industry marketer — to take a chance in alienating a sizable portion of the Stones’ lucrative American audience. And if Mick Jagger knows anything, it’s his audience. His target audiences aren’t rebellious kids anymore; they’re older and comparatively conservative adults. So for that, I respect him for having the guts to speak his conscience, even when doing so could affect his income. Maybe that's rebellious and maybe it's not, but I doubt he really cares. It's just what makes him feel good.
The Stones have never been about rebellion. I doubt they would honestly say that they were. Maybe their fans — and many of their critics — read that bit into their music, but that’s not really the case. They’re really just about hedonism and rock and roll. I think that’s pretty clear to most observant people and those who appreciate the Stones for what they are. Beston probably knows that too, but in order to write an article about the Stones for the American Spectator, I assume that he had to come up with something politically provocative and slanted to the right.
And of course the Stones have really never been into politics. They’re professional rock musicians. They don’t have time for that stuff. Rocking is a full-time job when you’re paid handsomely for it. When you’re rocking full-time, there’s not much time left for anything else except rocking; when you’re off the clock, the rocking must continue. Staying up on the news’ ‘top stories’ is not rocking, let me assure you.
But here’s the interesting part about the existence of ‘Sweet Neo Con’: the Stones weighing in on American politics just goes to show the extent of how negatively the Bush Administration is viewed by the rest of the world, even by international rock stars who have no time to pay close attention to such things. Previously, the only things that have riled up Jagger and Richards enough to write about something else besides sex, drugs, and love (well, and rock and roll itself) are topics like the Vietnam War, also viewed very negatively in the eyes of the world.
Obviously, the animosity must be strong enough for Jagger — a master entertainment industry marketer — to take a chance in alienating a sizable portion of the Stones’ lucrative American audience. And if Mick Jagger knows anything, it’s his audience. His target audiences aren’t rebellious kids anymore; they’re older and comparatively conservative adults. So for that, I respect him for having the guts to speak his conscience, even when doing so could affect his income. Maybe that's rebellious and maybe it's not, but I doubt he really cares. It's just what makes him feel good.
posted by Strother | 3:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home