Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Petronius
Is anyone seriously afraid that Jagger's song is going to change the political landscape?
My issue with the Stones is that it comes across as a naked attempt at stirring up controversy. Sure, they've always been a controversial band, but I don't think they've been this brazen. Coupled with the pervasive opinion that their music hasn't been up to par in years, if not decades, it just seems really futile.

The Stones can sing about neo-cons until their dentures fall out, for all I care. I haven't bought a Stones album since Stripped because of all the filler. This flailing attempt at controversy really isn't going to change that for me.

29 posted on 08/18/2005 11:08:31 PM PDT by jayhorn (when i hit the drum, you shake the booty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: jayhorn
Bridges To Babylon wasn't bad. (Or was that before Stripped? It features a Keith Richards reggae tune! Some of the others, though. "Filler" is being polite. Why can't they put out an album--without filler--every ten years or so?

To be fair, some of their 70s stuff wasn't completely free of filler: It's Only Rock n' Roll, Goat's Head, Black n' Blue, Emotional Rescue, even Tattoo You had more than one lame tune. The problem is that they've set an impossible benchmark with Sticky Fingers, Exile, and Some Girls.

30 posted on 08/18/2005 11:21:11 PM PDT by Petronius (Hunter S. Thompson: Shine On You Crazy Diamond!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson