Rebellion vs. Hedonism
Steve, I think you missed my main point here, but I'll try to clarify my ancillary point about the Stones not being rebellious as much as just plain rock and roll hedonists.
Steve said: Strother, you have got to stop believing that popular culture began shortly after you started paying attention. Starting in 1964, all the way up through the early 1970's, the Rolling Stones were ALL about rebellion. That was what set them apart from their compatriots, The Beatles. While John, Paul, George, and Ringo were dispensing their sticky-sweet pop jingles, Mick and the boys were cultivating their rebellious, bad-boy image with songs like Let's Spend the Night Together, and Jumping Jack Flash. While the Beatles wore their sport jackets, ties, and polished dress boots, the Stones wore leather jackets, T-shirts, and scuffed-up motorcycle boots. All the pretty kids in school were Beatles fans, all the geeks and trouble-makers were Stones fans.
Yeah, I'm with you on the facts about the Stones, but the definition of rebellion that I know is quite different. It has little to do with musical style, clothes, or looks. That's rebellion measured by the yardsticks of aesthetics and fandom. True rebellion — the definition of rebellion that Beston heavily leaned on in this thesis — is a much broader concept, and usually involves specific resistance to government and established conventions, not surface/outwardly apparent things such as style and presentation. But most of all, to rebel means that you must care, and the Stones never really striked me and a band that cared too much about such details as politics and the establishment, ala the San Francisco scene and even the Beatles later in their run. To me, the Stones have always been about rock and roll-loving hedonism. If the establishment allowed them to rock — and most of the time they did — they never seemed to have much a problem with it.
It's only when things got so bad — like with Vietnam, and now, the Iraq War debate — that Jagger ever thought to comment on politics rather than more sex, drugs, and rock and roll. So, they're not rebels, they're hedonists. It just goes to show that when politics become as important to hedonists as the pursuit of happiness, things must be getting pretty screwed up.
Steve said: Strother, you have got to stop believing that popular culture began shortly after you started paying attention. Starting in 1964, all the way up through the early 1970's, the Rolling Stones were ALL about rebellion. That was what set them apart from their compatriots, The Beatles. While John, Paul, George, and Ringo were dispensing their sticky-sweet pop jingles, Mick and the boys were cultivating their rebellious, bad-boy image with songs like Let's Spend the Night Together, and Jumping Jack Flash. While the Beatles wore their sport jackets, ties, and polished dress boots, the Stones wore leather jackets, T-shirts, and scuffed-up motorcycle boots. All the pretty kids in school were Beatles fans, all the geeks and trouble-makers were Stones fans.
Yeah, I'm with you on the facts about the Stones, but the definition of rebellion that I know is quite different. It has little to do with musical style, clothes, or looks. That's rebellion measured by the yardsticks of aesthetics and fandom. True rebellion — the definition of rebellion that Beston heavily leaned on in this thesis — is a much broader concept, and usually involves specific resistance to government and established conventions, not surface/outwardly apparent things such as style and presentation. But most of all, to rebel means that you must care, and the Stones never really striked me and a band that cared too much about such details as politics and the establishment, ala the San Francisco scene and even the Beatles later in their run. To me, the Stones have always been about rock and roll-loving hedonism. If the establishment allowed them to rock — and most of the time they did — they never seemed to have much a problem with it.
It's only when things got so bad — like with Vietnam, and now, the Iraq War debate — that Jagger ever thought to comment on politics rather than more sex, drugs, and rock and roll. So, they're not rebels, they're hedonists. It just goes to show that when politics become as important to hedonists as the pursuit of happiness, things must be getting pretty screwed up.
posted by Strother | 9:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home